Obama's electability

sozobe wrote:

That seems to indicate that Nader gets more McCain leaners than Obama leaners. Cool. (Within the margin of error though and probably can't actually read much into that.)

Not necessarily. It means that there are enough of us squarely on the fence that Nadar becomes a viable alternative vote. I have never voted for Nader but I gladly signed a petition this weekend to get him on the IL ballot. I'd consider voting for him this time depending on who the running-mates are in both parties. There absolutely has to be an alternative (even spoiler) vote to Obama/Clinton vs McCain/Huckabee. I'm not nearly confident enough that those won't be the match-ups to not try to get an additional name on the ballot.

0 Replies

Well, main point is that Nader doesn't seem to hurt Obama more than McCain. Which is good (though the disclaimers about margin of error apply).

0 Replies

...and of course it's only one poll.

But if Nader doesn't hurt Obama more than McCain, and if Barr hurts McCain more than Obama -- cool.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

sozobe wrote:
That seems to indicate that Nader gets more McCain leaners than Obama leaners. Cool. (Within the margin of error though and probably can't actually read much into that.)

Not necessarily. It means that there are enough of us squarely on the fence that Nadar becomes a viable alternative vote. I have never voted for Nader but I gladly signed a petition this weekend to get him on the IL ballot. I'd consider voting for him this time depending on who the running-mates are in both parties. There absolutely has to be an alternative (even spoiler) vote to Obama/Clinton vs McCain/Huckabee. I'm not nearly confident enough that those won't be the match-ups to not try to get an additional name on the ballot.

Put your mind at ease. Obama is now nearly a 2 to 1 favorite (probably 20 to 1 in Illinois) and the odds are still better than 3 to 1 against Hillary joining the ticket. I can only assume her consession this weekend provided the final bump in her chances. Hillary's toast, and unless you come up and vote in Wisconsin; I don't think you'll be swaying the election. Now if you come for a visit in November; I am utterly certain our Democrat-designed system will allow you to vote. No pre-registration or ID necessary. :wink:

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

sozobe wrote:
That seems to indicate that Nader gets more McCain leaners than Obama leaners. Cool. (Within the margin of error though and probably can't actually read much into that.)

Not necessarily. It means that there are enough of us squarely on the fence that Nadar becomes a viable alternative vote. I have never voted for Nader but I gladly signed a petition this weekend to get him on the IL ballot. I'd consider voting for him this time depending on who the running-mates are in both parties. There absolutely has to be an alternative (even spoiler) vote to Obama/Clinton vs McCain/Huckabee. I'm not nearly confident enough that those won't be the match-ups to not try to get an additional name on the ballot.

Who could Obama choose as a running mate that would persuade you to vote for Obama?

Who could McCain choose as a running mate that would persuade you to vote for McCain?

What can Nader offer that Obama and/or McCain cannot? And does Nader's Veep pick matter?

0 Replies

gotta be quick -- duty calls...

I'll see you in November Bill.

Fox -- I'm currently leaning slightly Obama, so anyone other than Hillary would not change that lean. Huckabee would neutralize whatever I learned about the ultimate Dem running mate that would give me qualms on the Dem ticket (she says now without knowing who that is or what he/she brings to the ticket). I reserve the right to recant that later.

Nader would only be a consideration if I had to choose between Hillary and Huckabee. I'd have from August to November to research any potential incendiary devices brought in by Nader's VP choice and would probably only do so in the event of my worst nightmare matchups coming true.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Note tense.

Why does Woiyo think it is currently being withheld?

It's not.

As far as I can tell, "oooh it's being withheld" to "whatever, here ya go" took a month or so.

At any rate, there isn't anything for Woiyo to look forward to (as in the original quote that I responded to), since it's already available.

Woiyo wrote:
Then there is the issue of Mrs. Obama and her secret thesis.

That should be fun!!!

Having fun yet?

(I agree about innocuousness, Foxfyre.)

The story: Barack Obama tells Tennessee Republicans to "lay off" his wife after they run a commercial that includes Michelle Obama's comment, made while campaigning in Wisconsin in February, that "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country."
Your take: Many variations of the "Can't stand the heat" argument. "Welcome to the real world, Barack," says Kenny C., who made the comment atop this column.
Jim P. says Michelle Obama is "political" and is "fair game." Michael L. calls her an "American hater." "She left herself wide open and will never live this down," Tela B. says. And Rick M. wonders why Barack Obama's middle name (it's Hussein) is "off limits."
Tela B. is among several readers who brought up Michelle Obama's 1985 Princeton University senior sociology thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," in which she wrote that her college experience "made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' " and that "I will always be Black first and a student second." In Tela's view, comments such as these prove she's "completely subversive."
Want to read the entire thesis? You can order a copy, for about $6, from Princeton. But on the Princeton Web site, it says that the thesis' release is "restricted" until Nov. 5 - the day after Election Day. ..

She will be a liability.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Clearly Rezko and Wright will be issues the Republicans will jump on. Then there is the issue of Mrs. Obama and her secret thesis.

That should be fun!!!

These only become issues when looking to the swing voter. Republicans will light matches, Dems will throw water on the fires and vice versa. All of these things only matter if it changes the mind of someone who would otherwise have voted for that candidate. None of this crap (regardless of which side has a boogie-man minister to drag out of the closet, a wife who wrote a paper, a wife who DIDN'T write a paper but has the wrong hair color, a business deal that is investigated until the moon is a new kind of cheese) will influence a voter who didn't have his/her mind made up two years ago.

Both "sides" have always trotted out this kind of crap and both "sides" have always trounced on the crap as if they were a big deal to those who might change their minds in how they vote. Newsflash --- this stuff simply isn't important enough to be the deciding factor in which way the swing voter will swing.

0 Replies

Depends on the swing voter. There are many sub-categories.

I don't think the petty stuff would sway you much, JPB. But there are people who get swayed by those things, and I think it's important to stamp out the false stuff when it comes up. Might not actually change anything, but if I have a few minutes I prefer to refute false stories instead of just passing them by.

Woiyo, again, the thesis is available. I have it on my screen now. I gave the link last page.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Depends on the swing voter. There are many sub-categories.

I don't think the petty stuff would sway you much, JPB. But there are people who get swayed by those things, and I think it's important to stamp out the false stuff when it comes up. Might not actually change anything, but if I have a few minutes I prefer to refute false stories instead of just passing them by.

Woiyo, again, the thesis is available. I have it on my screen now. I gave the link last page.

Yea, thanks. Originally posted in February. Thanks.

Now I see why Princeton is holding back on releasing it directly.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

gotta be quick -- duty calls...

I'll see you in November Bill.

Fox -- I'm currently leaning slightly Obama, so anyone other than Hillary would not change that lean. Huckabee would neutralize whatever I learned about the ultimate Dem running mate that would give me qualms on the Dem ticket (she says now without knowing who that is or what he/she brings to the ticket). I reserve the right to recant that later.

Nader would only be a consideration if I had to choose between Hillary and Huckabee. I'd have from August to November to research any potential incendiary devices brought in by Nader's VP choice and would probably only do so in the event of my worst nightmare matchups coming true.

Fair enough. I'll put you down as one who chooses 'none of the above' if you could have a different choice. (That's where a lot of us are). I would prefer somebody other than Huckabee too--I'm not thinking he is even the likely choice though because he does bring so many negatives that McCain doesn't need--but that would not be a deal breaker for me as the critical issues for me are the economy, national security, and court appointments and I trust McCain more than Obama on all three.

0 Replies

10

It's his to lose.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Depends on the swing voter. There are many sub-categories.

I don't think the petty stuff would sway you much, JPB. But there are people who get swayed by those things, and I think it's important to stamp out the false stuff when it comes up. Might not actually change anything, but if I have a few minutes I prefer to refute false stories instead of just passing them by.

Meant to get back to this earlier, soz. I agree completely and it's folks deeply entrenched in one camp or the other with the passion and energy required to stamp out each other's false stuff that allow folks like me to spend 30 seconds on the false stories and move on to the real stuff.

I didn't mean that the efforts were meaningless as indicating they were a waste of your time. They're extremely valuable on both sides in a checks-and-balances dimension. If the presentation of information and opinion was only one-sided then it would be a private club patting itself on it's collective back, which is truly not helpful in a meaningful way.

The number of times I see "liberals" over-generalize about "conservatives" and then see similar over-generalizations going back the other way makes my eyes glaze over. By and large, the folks on these threads will determine who they will vote for in an upcoming election months, if not years, before the event. It could be a particular candidate, or party affiliation, or litmus test issue that drives that decision, but there is very little convincing of one person or another to switch affiliations based on the discussions here.

What is frustrating at times is the amount of gasoline thrown on the same fire over-and-over again as if that particular fire was going to make a difference in the outcome of someone determining who to vote for. Or to switch metaphors -- a giant snowball fight where the teams randomly heave snowballs at each other hoping one might actually hit something.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Depends on the swing voter. There are many sub-categories.

I don't think the petty stuff would sway you much, JPB. But there are people who get swayed by those things, and I think it's important to stamp out the false stuff when it comes up. Might not actually change anything, but if I have a few minutes I prefer to refute false stories instead of just passing them by.

Meant to get back to this earlier, soz. I agree completely and it's folks deeply entrenched in one camp or the other with the passion and energy required to stamp out each other's false stuff that allow folks like me to spend 30 seconds on the false stories and move on to the real stuff.

I didn't mean that the efforts were meaningless as indicating they were a waste of your time. They're extremely valuable on both sides in a checks-and-balances dimension. If the presentation of information and opinion was only one-sided then it would be a private club patting itself on it's collective back, which is truly not helpful in a meaningful way.

The number of times I see "liberals" over-generalize about "conservatives" and then see similar over-generalizations going back the other way makes my eyes glaze over. By and large, the folks on these threads will determine who they will vote for in an upcoming election months, if not years, before the event. It could be a particular candidate, or party affiliation, or litmus test issue that drives that decision, but there is very little convincing of one person or another to switch affiliations based on the discussions here.

What is frustrating at times is the amount of gasoline thrown on the same fire over-and-over again as if that particular fire was going to make a difference in the outcome of someone determining who to vote for. Or to switch metaphors -- a giant snowball fight where the teams randomly heave snowballs at each other hoping one might actually hit something.

While what you say is true, there is another element that you might be overlooking.

Here we all have a voice, can articulate an argument, can express observations, concerns, anger, frustration, and what we want to happen. It is here and on talk radio that average moms and dads of America can say what they think and be heard--it is a forum that we have never had before in history. And we are making a different.

You can be sure that elected leaders and campaign staffs are reading and listening. And the sound sometimes also reaches those who don't listen or read so much. By the sheer force of our numbers we can expose biased and intentionally dishonest news reporting, can force the media to deal with issues they would normally hide in a closet, and can force politicians to admit their true agenda. It was sharp bloggers on message boards that spotted the Reuter's photoshopped images intended to distort the facts and generate sympathy for the Palestinians in the last full scale Hezbollah/Israel skirmish and Reuters was forced to admit this and apologize. It was bloggers who exposed the false document Dan Rather used in an attempt to hurt President Bush. Whichever side distorts the facts, they will be called on it. And sometimes all that gasoline is necessary to make a fire big enough to become important.

As messy and stupid and immature and disorganized as it sometimes is, real debate is happening here. And though, individually, most of us are just reinforcing our own opinions here, we are making a difference.

0 Replies

Then there is the non-whine whine in the NBC News debate, in which he said that Hillary Clinton "has consistently sent out negative attacks on us, email, robo-calls, flyers, television ads, radio calls, and we haven't whined about it."

Michelle Obama whines about the burdens of paying for piano lessons and summer camp for the kids, and the paying off the student loans for her two Ivy League degrees. "The salaries don't keep up with the cost of paying off the debt," she complained when they Obama's cleared half a million a year, "so you're in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids." America is "just downright mean," she whines and then tells an audience recently in Charlotte, N.C. that "they" (whoever that might be) were constantly changing the rules for the contest and that "they" are constantly trying to undermine her husband. "They raise the bar. Raise the bar. Shift it to the side. Keep it just out of reach." Gee, isn't this about the delegate count?

But the Obamas' penchant for whining didn't begin with the presidential campaign. Michelle Obama, in her Princeton undergraduate thesis titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community", complains of "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant." Never mind that she just graduated from a prestigious Ivy League school. Barack Obama complains throughout his book Dreams From My Father about the slights, insults, and injustices he suffered. Not that there is anything dramatic. There were those two white friends who came to an all-black party and kept "smiling a lot" because they were uncomfortable. When they told him after "I can see how it must be tough for you and at sometimes being the only black guys and all." This offends Obama, who writes, "A part of me wanted to punch him right there." Obama complains about "white man's rules," and how unjust things are, but can't really offer any difficulty or act of outright bigotry that happened to him. "People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves." Alas, the harsh light of oppression.As Michael Crowley openly admits on Slate: "What does define and unify the [Democratic] party is a sense of victimhood."

A wide body of research shows that modern liberals are much more likely to complain about things in their lives. Barack Obama understands the language of victimhood and uses it effectively. And victimhood has become a central tenant of modern liberalism. As Kenneth Minogue argues in his classic book The Liberal Mind, modern liberalism is completely wrapped up in "suffering situations."

So as the campaign continues, get used to more acts of whining and complaining. It's part of modern liberalism. Wendy Kaminer understood this perfectly when she wrote in The Atlantic Monthly:

It makes sense that contented people would be conservatives and discontented people would be liberals.

A question though is whether conservatives are content only because they are so "well off" or because they tend to look inwards rather than outwards for the means to their success?

And are liberals so discontented because they are so oppressed or because they fixate on what is their right, what is owed them, and tend to be quicker to cast blame than accept responsibility?

0 Replies

Michelle Obama talks about the difficulty of finding money to pay for her kids' piano lessons and summer camp fees and how hard it was to pay off the college loans incurred while she earned her Ivy League degrees. Can you imagine the bruhaha if Laura Bush or Cindy McCain said something like that?

0 Replies

Shush or we will be forced to endure more whining about how Michelle is "off limits". Laughing

0 Replies

Cindy McCain's net worth is somewhere around 20+ times that of the Obama's. I think her complaining about being able to afford anything is a little bit of a laugh.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Three out of five American voters (61%) say their perception of a presidential candidate's wife is at least somewhat important to how they vote (see video).

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 22% of voters say it is very important. Only 11% say it is not at all important.

First Ladies are often in the media spotlight, but seldom, with the notable exception of Hillary Rodham Clinton, have their activities been viewed through a political lens. So it is unclear how these findings will play out in November.

The current First Lady, Laura Bush, is regarded favorably by 75% of the nation's voters, with only 21% rating her unfavorably.

By contrast, Michelle Obama, whose husband cinched the Democratic presidential nomination last week, is rated favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 42% of voters. That latter figure includes a startling 25% who have Very Unfavorable opinion of the potential First Lady. A statistically comparable 24% view her Very Favorably. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.

Cindy McCain, the wife of the Republican hopeful, earns favorable reviews from 49% while 29% offer an unfavorable assessment. She is viewed Very Unfavorably by only 10% of voters while 17% have a Very Favorable opinion of Mrs. McCain. In her case, 22% remain undecided.

RASMUSSEN LINK

Now considering that almost no media focus has been directed at Cindy McCain or anything that she has been saying, where does the 49% to 29% ratio come from? Based on what criteria?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Cindy McCain's net worth is somewhere around 20+ times that of the Obama's. I think her complaining about being able to afford anything is a little bit of a laugh.

Cycloptichorn

But unless you can show us otherwise, Cindy McCain is not complaining about being able to afford anything, while Millionaire Michele is.

0 Replies

Obama's electability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know