0
   

Obama's electability

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 11:09 am
Good catch, FreeDuck, I only saw the "financially broke" aspect of it. Of course, since George is a proud product of Jesuit education, it's only appropriate that his typos can be interpreted on multiple levels.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 11:43 am
You guys do know "bust" also means failure or flop, right?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 12:13 pm
It did occur to me. And did strike me as yet another accurate label.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 04:50 pm
sozobe wrote:
Not all polls are equally accurate, Finn.

The 2004 and 2000 NBC-Wall Street Journal polls -- which was what my post was about -- showed Bush steadily in the lead. Kerry never led in 2004 and apparently Gore never led in 2000 (from what references I found).

In that specific poll.

That specific poll is showing a lead for Obama.

<shrug>

Not a huge deal, and I didn't make any grand claims about it, just thought it was interesting.

Showing that some OTHER poll had Kerry in the lead in 2004 doesn't have a whole lot to do with my post. The point was that this particular poll seemed to keep eventual winners in the lead throughout the contest in 2000 and 2004 -- and that this particular poll currently has Obama in the lead.
The biggest difference here is; the more people were exposed to John Kerry, the less they liked him. Not so, Obama.



Maybe "Bust Administration" because right or wrong, Bush set out to do something. Don't just stand there, bust a move!
In the city, girls look pretty,
guys tell jokes so they can seem witty,
tell a funny joke just to get some play,
then you try to make a move and she says no way,
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 08:28 pm
rabel22 wrote:
The rich should pay at least 95% of what they make during the years we are at war. After all Bush and his neocons wanted a war. The big business people have been making money from the war. So why shouldn't they pay for it. Ill be willing to pay for roads and infistructure if they will pay for this so called war against terror. However the 95% figure will be whittled down by a do nothing congress. Something like one has to pay taxes after a 200 million deduction. The tax laws are made for the rich. I have to pay on every dime I make because im not a millionaire.

The war was a result of a duly elected Congress and president. You do not make all the decisions, rabel. Contact your congressman if you aren't happy. We live in a representative republic, with a huge bureaucracy working for us. WMD in Iraq, maybe you need to blame the CIA, just one example.

Also, just a tip, if you taxed rich people at 95%, tax revenues would plummet. And who do you classify as rich? Anybody making more than you, or is it 50 grand per year, 75, 100, etc.? Or is it based on wealth, not income? As Foxfyre pointed out, the bottom 50% earners in this country pay precious little portion of the income tax in this country already.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 08:30 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The biggest difference here is; the more people were exposed to John Kerry, the less they liked him. Not so, Obama.

You sure about that? How come Clinton won most of the last primaries, including a few landslides? And face it, Clinton is not even likable, so he was beaten badly in some states by a candidate not likable, a fellow Democrat at that, so how does that look for his likability index?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 08:37 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I don't think anyone should be questioning either of the nominees patriotism. They are both good men who believe in this country and what it stands for. They both seem to actually want to change America for the what they consider the better. It's their methods of change that we should be discussing.

McGentrix, lots of people are questioning Obama's patriotism, and not for imaginary reasons.

My view is he is attached to the country in a manner, but has an axe to grind, he thinks he can make it into a decent country, and perhaps he doesn't think it passes muster now. I don't know about whether to call it a lack of patriotism, but he just doesn't love, or even like this country in a very deep way, the way it is now or in the recent past as he has grown up. I think there is ample reason to think he is not a typical American, in terms of how he feels about the country. Thats what all his change mantra is about, not about marginal changes and adjustments, but I get the impression he has visions of something much bigger, and something he isn't giving much details about now.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 10:05 pm
okie wrote:
I think there is ample reason to think he is not a typical American, in terms of how he feels about the country.

So, how does a typical American feel about the country?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 10:06 pm
okie wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The biggest difference here is; the more people were exposed to John Kerry, the less they liked him. Not so, Obama.

You sure about that? How come Clinton won most of the last primaries, including a few landslides? And face it, Clinton is not even likable, so he was beaten badly in some states by a candidate not likable, a fellow Democrat at that, so how does that look for his likability index?
Yes, Okie, I'm pretty sure. Does Gallup work okay for you?

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2343/favoron8.jpg
12 points up since last February.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 09:40 am
InfraBlue wrote:
okie wrote:
I think there is ample reason to think he is not a typical American, in terms of how he feels about the country.

So, how does a typical American feel about the country?

I can only judge by my extended family, which numbers in the dozens or even hundreds that I have been around, friends and acquaintances, which are also a goodly number, the response I see when attending events that elicit patriotic emotions, and by following the news, perhaps in that order. I think most people are deeply patriotic, and love this country very deeply, and don't like to hear it trashed, as some of Obama's friends have done. If I had heard anything like that from anybody, I would tend not to hang around them very much. And I don't hear very many of the people I know wanting to change the country drastically.

So yes, I do not see Obama as typical, no way, I think he instead represents alot of idealistic young people that are fairly clueless, hippies from yesteryear that have gotten old, and just alot of people that are fairly unhappy with their lifes lot, and they think the government can solve their problems, which will never happen of course. But this is not unusual for opportunistic politicians. This is what they do. They prey on the unhappy and people with axes to grind, and they feed them slogans and visions of grandeur. I think most all politicians offer improvements to current policies, but with Obama, there is an implication of something much bigger than improvements of policies, but sweeping changes that are ill defined.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 11:07 am
Quote:
The issue adds to his family values credentials and lets voters see him delivering a stern message to black voters.


CNN - Obama's Father's Day Speech

His "Sista Souljah" moment?

Incredibly cynical if so.

"...and lets (white) voters see him delivering a stern message to black voters."

An outrageous line, unless it's right on point in terms of Obama campaign strategy.

Is this really what white voters want to see? Is this what the Obama campaign thinks white voters want to see?

If I were a black voter I would be offended by the article or Obama's speech.

The general point made in his speech is well taken, but it obviously doesn't apply to all black men, (I don't suggest Obama believes it does either).

The matter of fact way that the article describes the "virtues" of the speech to include such a racist assumption is amazing.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 11:08 am
Quote:

If I were a black voter I would be offended by the article or Obama's speech.


Laughing

But you would still vote for him.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 11:20 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

If I were a black voter I would be offended by the article or Obama's speech.


Laughing

But you would still vote for him.

Cycloptichorn


That's a fairly bigoted statement in itself.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 11:20 am
I merely rely upon current voting patterns to make my assertion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 11:32 am
I find it hilarious when racist white folk try to tell black folk how to think.

And even more hilarious when the same people who are enraged by the Reverend Wrights of the world pretend to be offended when Obama speaks truth to problems within the black comunity as if he now is some kind of Tom.

Finn wrote:
ncredibly cynical if so.

"...and lets (white) voters see him delivering a stern message to black voters."


So contact CNN. WTF does this have to do with Barack Obama?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 11:56 am
It doesn't offend me. He is exactly right, but his solutions are off the mark of course. He made the statements for political purposes, not for the intent of addressing the problem in my opinion. He has stated a problem, but has no corresponding solution as far as I can tell.

It is also a problem with whites and other races to various extent, which he should have also said. He should have included everyone.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 12:46 pm
okie wrote:
It doesn't offend me. He is exactly right, but his solutions are off the mark of course. He made the statements for political purposes, not for the intent of addressing the problem in my opinion. He has stated a problem, but has no corresponding solution as far as I can tell.

It is also a problem with whites and other races to various extent, which he should have also said. He should have included everyone.

Did you see, hear or read the speech?

Obviously not based on your comments about it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 01:49 pm
No I didn't, but I read the news accounts, but didn't he propose more of the same, more government subsidies?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 01:50 pm
okie wrote:
No I didn't, but I read the news accounts, but didn't he propose more of the same, more government subsidies?


Why don't you listen to or read the speech, and then tell us?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 01:58 pm
All the usual "just one poll" caveats:

Quote:
Poll: Obama Holds Big Lead In Ohio
By Eric Kleefeld - June 17, 2008, 11:16AM

Barack Obama seems to have a very good start in Ohio as the general election season beings, a new survey from Public Policy Polling (D) suggests. The numbers: Obama 50%, McCain 39%, beyond the ±3.6% margin of error.

Back in early March, when Obama was on the verge of a bruising defeat in the state's primary, McCain led 49%-41% in PPP's reporting. If Obama can successfully unite Dem voters and not lose too many Hillary voters -- and this poll indicates he can -- then life could become very difficult for McCain.

Also worth noting: PPP's final pre-primary survey of Ohio got Hillary's primary margin almost exactly right.


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/poll_obama_holds_big_lead_in_o.php
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 02:40:47