Obama '08?

nimh, I believe there's some truism to your thesis about "keeping close tabs on the campaign" and "favor Obama." I think I see this where the younger college crowd seems to favor Obama over Hillary.

It's just a gut feeling for now with nothing to back it up; only my biased observations.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lola wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I've been actively recruiting my Republican family to vote Obama next week. There's an easy and effective pitch:

Quote:
Do you want to go to your grave, knowing that you could have voted against Hillary Clinton - and didn't?

At first they laugh. Then they say, 'hmm.' I think many of them are going to vote Obama.

Cycloptichorn

I've been doing the same only I've encouraged them to vote for the candidate they think will be the easiest to defeat.........for my Republican family members that's Hillary. They think Obama may be the anti-Christ which makes them feel excited. If he is, and he's elected even though they didn't vote for him, that means they will soon meet Jesus in the air and there will be a clap and a cymbal and a gong and the head angel will have something to do as well. The dead will rise first and they'll all be accompanied by Jesus into Heaven to watch the 1000 year reign of the anti-Christ during the tribulation. It will seem to them to be proof that their beliefs are well founded.

But I didn't have to tell them to vote for Hillary. They've already thought of that themselves as have many of their friends. They want to vote for Huckabee or Ron Paul, but instead they tell me they're voting for Hillary. Who knows what they'll really do. I do know they are very worked up and motivated.

But whatever........whoever wins will win and it does little good, actually I think it does harm for Obama's or Clinton's cause to ridicule the other side. It only increases their determination. I've just sent another contribution to Hillary, as will many others like me in response to her request. I'm motivated to do so because I think she's the best person for the job. However, my motivation is greatly enhanced by unnecessarily rude remarks from avid Obama supporters. Not all Obama supporters have jumped in with both feet to ridicule their former friends. And for that I'm very grateful. Times like these are when you learn who your real friends are. I've been very surprised by the results.

As for voting for Obama.....I've already said I will do that. But in a way, if Obama wins the nomination, it will be good news for me too. I won't have to send any more money. I will become part of the audience who watches. Those who have already raked the bottom of their pockets for Obama can continue to do so. But it won't be up to me to finance it or work for his election. He doesn't need me and my fellow Hillary supporters. That's clear. And it's a relief because I've already spent as much as I can afford during the nomination process.

Well, my family lives in Texas; and are that rare breed of non-religious Republican. So I don't think they are too worried about the anti-christ

The average Obama contributor has given around 109 dollars. My guess is that there's a lot, lot more stretch left in the pockets of the million who have given to him. I know that I sure have a lot left to go.

As I've said before - if Obama wasn't in the election this year, I would be a Hillary supporter.

Cycloptichorn

It's a good thing you have a lot left. It looks like you're going to need it.

Non religious Republicans, as you say are a rare breed in Texas. They may not be talking anti-Christ, but their neighbors are. Oh well. I thankfully live in Oregon.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
sozobe wrote:
It's been shown that the more informed voters are, the more they favor Obama -- I can get you that info if you'd like (nimh posted it recently on his "polls" thread).

How is "informed" defined? Certainly Obama is attracting the highest percentage of Democrats with college degrees, but having a college degree certainly doesn't qualify one as "informed" or for that matter "educated" except in a census sort of way.

Polls usually suggest that the closer attention people pay to the campaign, the more they favour Obama, or at least that's been my impression. Some polls ask this directly (variations of "How close attention are you paying to the election campaign?," but then grammatically correct); others ask things like, how many ads have you seen, or they ask about how much direct interaction theyve had with the campaigns (eg, read a leaflet, been called, answered a poll, been canvassed, etc); exit polls will ask things like how important the TV debates have been in the voter's decision, etc. On those counts, Obama tends to do better the more attention the voter paid to the campaign, debates etc.

Of course these kind of indices tend to overlap with the education question; higher educated people tend, overall, to also be high-information voters. But it's not entirely a 1:1 relationship, and the "increased information = increased support for Obama" theory would explain how he's almost always benefited from a surge in support when the campaign intensified as the election got closer. More specifically, it would explain how Obama's numbers have consistently shown an education gap, but one that, especially in the later primaries, has tended to narrow towards the end as the campaign heats up. Eg, a month in advance he already does well among higher-education voters, who on average tend to follow the news more closely, but does badly among low-education voters; but as the election comes closer and the campaign heats up, the extra support he picks up comes more and more from lower-education voters as well.

To be sure the education gap has usually shown up right up into the exit polls, but it does seem to often narrow as the campaign heats up and reaches low-education voters too; and the later we are in the campaign season, the smaller the "education gap" in his support in the actual vote appears to be getting.

Again, these are just my impressions - I've jotted down numbers from individual polls and especially exit polls now and again in the Polls etc thread, but you'd need to do a fully-blown systematic research of the polls and exit polls results to verify them of course. Regarding indications that the education gap in Obama's support seems to become smaller the later in the election season it is, however, I did have a more comprehensive overview up in the Polls thread after the Potomac Primary.

Since it is pretty clear that Obama does better than Hillary as respects support from the "better educated," it's reasonable to assume that there is some sort of trend herein, but I think it's a mistake to assume that the trend is "smart and knowledgable people," overwhelmingly, support Obama.

I certainly can understand why Obama supporters might wish to believe that they are members of a truly elite group, but this is really a silly notion since anyone who has had experience with a wide swath of college educated people understands that, for at least, the last thirty years or so, a college degree is not much of a badge of intellect.

I would venture to say that most of us who participate on A2K know at least one, and probably more, person(s) who does not have a degree, but is highly "informed," and "(self) educated," and easily more so than our degreed associates.

Clearly though there is a common set of characteristics among people with college degrees if they, as a bloc, support Obama. I would argue, however, that these characteristics do not necessarily include intelligence and knowledge.

And this is all besides the irony that the party of the proletariat might actually be run by elitists who find simple workers as uneducated clods.

Of course this has long been a hugely ironic factor barely hidden within The Left. For the Left, the notion of a Noble Peasantry has always been inspiring as long as it doesn't venture towards consideration of the individuals who make up this group.

This is a common failing of The Left whether it manifest itself in the early 20th century or the early 21st century. The Left has always adored the smelly, uneducated masses as long as they contained themselves within an easily manipulated metaphor. Let them think on their own, as individuals, and watch the Left come down upon them --- reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, uneducated proles.

I've posted in this forum long enough to understand that there is very little reason to believe that I will get an honest answer to this question, but let's try it anyway:

Obama Supporters: Who are these people that steadfastly support Hillary?

Blue collared liberals (Greasy handed Union members) who secretly have a problem with a black candidate?

Let's face it, there is a component of the Liberal coalition that is unseemly to those who consider themselves the elite component (most of you lefties on A2K). Obviously there is also a component of the Conservative coalition that is unseemly to those who consider themselves the elite, and so this is not another attempt at arguing Left is Evil and Right is Good.

The fundamental difference though is that the conservative elite finds much more common ground with the common man that does the liberal elite, simply because for conservatives, the individual is more sacrosanct than for liberals.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Sounds to me like Republicans are just being pissy because they are used to having a monopoly on leveraging religious emotions.

Cry me a river.

T
K
O

Well, that's one idioitic way to consider it.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Reagan, however, ran on three issues and it was on those three issues coupled with a can do message that made Americans proud to be Americans that he prevailed - cut taxes to revitalize the economy, rebuild the military, and oppose Communism. There was little message there that the government would fix all our problems; the message was that the government would get out of the way so we could fix our own problems.

Obama has the same kind of 'feel good/can do' message that makes him so appealing. He, however, strongly suggests that it will be the government who will fix the problems. It remains to be seen if that will play as well in the general election.

Reagan won 44 states in his first term campaign; 49 states in the second with substantial popular vote margins across the board.

It will be interesting to see how Obama compares.

Obama has a stronger and more truthful message.

Government, of the people, by the people and for the people.

I could never figure how there are enough stupid voters to elect someone who doesn't believe in government.

Who is it out there who has been elected or sought election who "didn't believe in government"???? Just what do you mean by the phrase?

For example, I don't think the government should operate our airlines - for fear that inefficiency, even worse indifference to the needs of customers, degraded service and higher cost would result. Does that mean I "don't believe in government"?

I suppose you think it a cute phrase, but your post was just a meaningless assemblage of cliches.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
sozobe wrote:
It's been shown that the more informed voters are, the more they favor Obama -- I can get you that info if you'd like (nimh posted it recently on his "polls" thread).

How is "informed" defined? Certainly Obama is attracting the highest percentage of Democrats with college degrees, but having a college degree certainly doesn't qualify one as "informed" or for that matter "educated" except in a census sort of way.

blasphemer...

Actually yes. I blaspheme the 21st Century Liberal orthodoxy.

I reside within the "Private Sector" (Big Surprise!) and I have interviewed hundreds (and possibly thousands) of applicants. I'm here to tell you that all a college degree signifies is the ability of someone to take their education seriously.

Now this is quite an attractive trait. All things being equal, I will hire the person with the college degree simply because they have demonstrated an ability to prioritize.

The problem is that it's pretty clear that college life is simply an extension of family life. The folks who aced college probably aced high school. There is, however, a great mass of over-achievers who once placed in an environment where screwing up counts do exceedingly well. In college they, typically, flunk out.

Now, to my incredible credit, I am a rarity among corporate deciders. Most of my colleagues will go with the degree because it gives them cover when the degreed fails.

"Hey the SOB had a MBA from Harvard...how was I to know he was a knucklehead?"

Having been on the battlefield for more than 30 years, I know that degrees are but one small component for consideration. I have had quite a few proteges and not all of of them have had a exemplary educational CV. In fact, I prefer a subordinate who, like me, has seen the hard assed aspects of Life. Drive a truck, work an assembly line, lay bricks...Get blisters on your hands as well as your brain, and come to know the masses----all of them:

The young African-American laborer who read Lionel Jefferies and tried to convince us during our lunch breaks that White People were Ice People.

The Shipping Manager who believed that Muslims were counting on Mohammed being reborn of a Man and therefore they were all required to wear baggy pants so that when he popped out of their rectums he might be caught.

The Receiving Clerk who caught bugs in a jar to "study their fighting habits," and then amazed us all by kung-fu ass kicking a jackass who outweighed him by about 50 pounds.

The retired sailor who was most happy when he was brawling in a bar, but who was a voracious reader of Alan Watts.

The German teen immigrant who, after watching Clockwork Orange went on a violent tirade within our town, but who could quote Nietzsche.

The stereotypical Jew who could make money off the level of nitrogen in your exhalation, but who once a year went to India to live in an ashram and purge himself of all materialism.

The black junkie foreman who eventually got fired for shooting up in the bathroom but who, when he wasn't nodding, could argue that WEB Dubois was more the representative of his race that Booker T Washington.

The quintessential blue collar worker who just happened to have hair down to his ass and was quite fond of reds and yellow jackets.

Who knows who these strange people might support in the election of 2008, but I can assure you that any measurement based upon tertiary education will miss them all.

Guess what...I bet they all are with me, and if they do not, I still respect them more that all of the high falutin ass wipes we find on this forum every day and who lay claim to a "higher education."

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Reagan, however, ran on three issues and it was on those three issues coupled with a can do message that made Americans proud to be Americans that he prevailed - cut taxes to revitalize the economy, rebuild the military, and oppose Communism. There was little message there that the government would fix all our problems; the message was that the government would get out of the way so we could fix our own problems.

Obama has the same kind of 'feel good/can do' message that makes him so appealing. He, however, strongly suggests that it will be the government who will fix the problems. It remains to be seen if that will play as well in the general election.

Reagan won 44 states in his first term campaign; 49 states in the second with substantial popular vote margins across the board.

It will be interesting to see how Obama compares.

Obama has a stronger and more truthful message.

Government, of the people, by the people and for the people.

I could never figure how there are enough stupid voters to elect someone who doesn't believe in government.

Who is it out there who has been elected or sought election who "didn't believe in government"???? Just what do you mean by the phrase?

For example, I don't think the government should operate our airlines - for fear that inefficiency, even worse indifference to the needs of customers, degraded service and higher cost would result. Does that mean I "don't believe in government"?

I suppose you think it a cute phrase, but your post was just a meaningless assemblage of cliches.

I love you george but countering Roxy is like taking a swing at a fat mouthed quadriplegic.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm so tired of hearing about Reagan. He was an interesting fellow sure, but American are most concerned about economic right now and do I need to say it?

You need to research where the American economy was when Reagan inherited the mess from Jimmy, as well as what he did to fix it.

You're probably not old enough to remember living through it as many of us did.

Barack 'Present' Obama is not the type of person to make the tough choices a President must make.

Can you picture 'Present' Obama pushing tax cuts through Congress that lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 29% (and resulted in a DOUBLING of income to the US Treasury) ? No, you can't.

Can you picture 'Present' Obama proposing that we should be building back up a decimated US military during a time of recession? No, you can't.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I love you george but countering Roxy is like taking a swing at a fat mouthed quadriplegic.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Sounds to me like Republicans are just being pissy because they are used to having a monopoly on leveraging religious emotions.

Cry me a river.

T
K
O

Well, that's one idioitic way to consider it.

*gives Finn a box of Keenex tissues*

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Sounds to me like Republicans are just being pissy because they are used to having a monopoly on leveraging religious emotions.

Cry me a river.

T
K
O

Well, that's one idiotic way to consider it.

*gives Finn a box of Keenex tissues*

T
K
O

Wow, what the hell does "*" mean? Is that some chat room symbol I'm not familiar with?

The ever-changing avatar for "TKO" suggests, at best, he is a young lad, and therefore perhaps he has a young person's appreciation for cyber-symbols that fly over my head.

Young or old, let's take a break and consider the poster that insists upon "signing" his posts with "TKO."

If young TKO were a conservative I would, merely, be embarrassed. Since he is obviously a leftist, I feel entirely vindicated in considering him a young dick.

Are we supposed to consider this affectation (TKO) particularly cool?

OK, Sonny wants to distinguish himself from the other angry young men by the usage of a "clever" acronym.

TKO

Wow, every one of his brilliant retorts is a technical knock out of his rhetorical opponents. Did you get it? TKO! Man that's cool.

Of course he has to retain this idiotic moniker because to discard it is to admit defeat before Finn, and how can young TKO do so? He is all about a personal sense that he has shoved it up the aged orifice of his decrepit opponents.

Stay with us TKO. This is good experience for you, and maybe in a year or two we might take you seriously.

0 Replies

Finn - I'm happy with both my age and experience. I'm further content with the diversity I have in my mentors.

Speaking of time spent. I realized as I read your post that this is my 2 year anniversary on A2K this month. In the last 2 years, I certainly have learned something. The republicans I talk to in real life are more intellegent than the ones I chat with online. In two years, I'm sure I'll be further cultivated in my experiences. Such is the nature of things. However, in two years, you'll still be a scumbag.

As for your aged orfaces, be it your mouth or anus, **** comes out of both. Don't forget to wipe and wash your hands. Brush your teeth too, precious.

You know little of my politics, but you pretend to know everything. I plan to vote for Obama. This does not mean I dislike McCain. My number one issue with this election is Gitmo and torture. If there was a a republican that appeals to me as an independant, it's McCain for that reason. I don't agree with everything McCain is for nor do I agree with everything Obama is for. Party line politics annoy me. These days I feel more in line with the democratic agenda only because the republican agenda has abandoned the principals of small government.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

In two years, I'm sure I'll be further cultivated in my experiences. Such is the nature of things. However, in two years, you'll still be a scumbag.

Author! Author!

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Quote:
In two years, I'm sure I'll be further cultivated in my experiences. Such is the nature of things. However, in two years, you'll still be a scumbag.

Author! Author!

Ditto! Ditto!

0 Replies

Overhead on the San Francisco Muni yeserday.

An older black man beaming with pride. "I am sixty-eight years old and I never thought I would live to see a black man even have a (remote) chance to become President...to think that he might get in there..."

At Safeway,

"I don't care (Hillary or Obama) it's all good after George Bush."

0 Replies

I gotta tell ya,
I'm not one to go around talking about how the Clinton camp is "desperate" or words like that - I think that's unwise and arrogant. Clinton is still a very real threat, IMO.

BUT, I am really baffled at one line of spin I'm hearing lately from them.

Get this - they are saying that if, after March 4 the tally of the last fifteen primaries is 14-1 for Obama, that will indicate "buyer's remorse" from the Obama supporters. If he wins Texas, Ohio and Vermont but NOT Rhode Island, that's an ominous sign for Obama. So according to this line of spin, the only way for Obama to really be considered as doing well here is is he completely sweeps her, fifeeen-and-oh.

Unbelievable.

0 Replies

Re: my "informed" comment, I was thinking of things like this:

Quote:

Mmm... Latte

My TRB column in this issue is about the class split between Clinton and Obama supporters. One of the side points I made (which others have made as well) is that the split is an artifact of the split between high- and low-education voters, rather than a function of economic class per se:

there's no particular reason to think her working-class support has anything to do with policy. Clinton's economic positions are no more populist than Obama's. Her downscale support long preceded her populist rhetorical turn and seems to be an artifact of downscale voters spending less time consuming political news, and therefore gravitating toward the more familiar candidate. Obama has done better with working-class voters in states where he has had time to campaign extensively. His worst loss (aside from Arkansas) came in Florida, where no campaigning took place. In Iowa, where the candidates achieved total saturation, he defeated Clinton among low-income voters.
I bring this up because today CNN has a new Texas poll which shows, among other things, that voters who watched the last debate are dramatcallty more pro-Obama:

"Among the one-third of Texas Democratic primary voters who watched all or most of the debate, Obama leads Clinton by 20 points," said CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider. "Among the 42 percent who followed news about the debate, Clinton and Obama are neck and neck. And among the one-quarter of Texas Democrats who paid no attention to the debate, Clinton leads Obama by nearly 20 points. "[b]Is this because Obama appeals to better-educated Democrats and they were more likely to watch the debate? No. Even among college-educated Democrats, the more attention you paid to the debate, the better Obama does."[/b]
This is certainly more evidence that high-education voters favor Obama not because there's something effete and latte-ish about his campaign, but because voters who pay more attention to the campaign tend to favor him, because he's just a better politician.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:49 PM

(Originally posted by nimh on the "polls" thread; emphasis mine.)

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Overhead on the San Francisco Muni yeserday.

An older black man beaming with pride. "I am sixty-eight years old and I never thought I would live to see a black man even have a (remote) chance to become President...to think that he might get in there..."

At Safeway,

"I don't care (Hillary or Obama) it's all good after George Bush."

Well, if it was said at Safeway, it's got to be right.

I'll have to re-evaluate my objection to Barack 'Present' Obama.

I thought that we should choose a candidate with the spine to stand up and be counted for what he believes.

I could be wrong about that though.

Maybe all we need is a 'rockstar' and 'Present' Obama would fill the bill nicely.

I'll consider it. Thanks.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Overhead on the San Francisco Muni yeserday.

An older black man beaming with pride. "I am sixty-eight years old and I never thought I would live to see a black man even have a (remote) chance to become President...to think that he might get in there..."

At Safeway,

"I don't care (Hillary or Obama) it's all good after George Bush."

Well, if it was said at Safeway, it's got to be right.

I'll have to re-evaluate my objection to Barack 'Present' Obama.

I thought that we should choose a candidate with the spine to stand up and be counted for what he believes.

I could be wrong about that though.

Maybe all we need is a 'rockstar' and 'Present' Obama would fill the bill nicely.

I'll consider it. Thanks.

Well, if you were in line to vote for George Bush and stand by that "decision", then I'm not sure why anyone should care what you you think about how or why "we should choose a candidate", since he was as bumbling as he seemed to be, and his core of support neither sees, nor cares about that.

You're showing about as much level-headedness with all your prejorative nicknaming and endless snottiness as someone scrawling nasty graffitti in a urinal, and you get about as much respect.

0 Replies

Two or three days ago, Hannity was pushing this smear on H and C and he promoted three or perhaps four upcoming Fox shows that would address it. As Greg Sargant advises, get ready because these bastards will keep at this non-stop through the election and beyond.

Quote:

Fox News Falsely Claims That Weatherman Bill Ayers Was Obama's "Mentor"
February 28, 2008 -- 11:20 AM EST
One thing to keep a lookout for when watching the emerging wingnut-slime-machine assault on Barack Obama is efforts to build a superstructure of lies on top of a foundation of a few inconsequential facts.

This sort of stuff has the potential to be effective, because once people accept the germ of truth within the assault, they're at risk of believing the grotesque falsehoods that sprouted from it. The wingers are very good at doing this, as we've seen again and again.

Here, for instance, is a "report" on Fox News, by radio host John Batchelor, on Obama's alleged ties to Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground who has been unrepentant about the bombs set by the group. The germ of the story -- that Obama has some sort of relationship with him -- is true. But look at how creatively Batchelor embellishes the whole tale...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV_h-XwchkY&eurl=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/

You see, in Fox's telling, now Ayers is Obama's "mentor" and he and fellow Weather Underground member Bernadine Dohrn were "principals" on his first campaign for state senate. Also note how Batchelor slyly slips in the reference to September 11th, an obvious effort to connect the bombing by Obama's "mentor" to the terrorism that brought down the towers.

Now, far be it from me to question Batchelor's reporting abilities. But none of this additional info is sourced in any way. And it hasn't been reported anywhere, either. This has been looked into pretty exhaustively, and what's been reported thus far is that Obama met with Ayers and Dohrn in 1995; Obama served with Ayers on the board of an anti-poverty group; Ayers donated $200 to Obama's 2001 state senate campaign; and the two men are " friendly."

If Ayers were really Obama's "mentor" someone would have attested to this by now. And if Ayers and Dohrn had been "principals" on his campaign you'd think there would be a record of it somewhere. This is fiction, pure and simple. But it's the kind of fiction that has the potential to get folks saying, hey, didja hear Obama's tight with some America-hating dude who blew up a bunch of stuff? The guy was Obama's mentor, or something...

At any rate, get ready for eight months of this sort of garbage. It's going to get a lot uglier than this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV_h-XwchkY&eurl=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know