US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - The Fifth Installment

[deep]

Originally posted by maycocksean


Will we see Democrats in the "states that matter" voting for McCain rather than Obama? Or is it simply that given a choice they'd rather have Clinton than Obama but would still vote Democratic in November?

That is the question

it just seems that with all the media saying Hillary can't win
and that Obama will be the nominee

that the Democratic primary voters would fall in line


that is what happened with the GOP and McCain

[deep]

Originally posted by maycocksean

If that is the argument you've been making, then I guess I've never been convinced of that. The Republicans certainly aren't convinced of it. Just look at how 2861U2 cackles and rubs his hands together at the thought of a Clinton vs. McCain match up. They clearly think they have a better shot against Clinton than against McCain.

Again, I believe Obama will be the nominee

I also believe the GOP do not want to run against the Clintons at all. They lost twice to them and could not beat them down in the polls even with Bill's dirty deeds.

You may recall Gingrich and Limbaugh were saying Hillary would be the next president last fall, they had already conceded to her.

Everyone says Rove is/was a genius, he barely won each time.

The Clintons figured out how to win and governed with 60+% approvals.

And now they are out spent 2-3 to 1 and written off and they still win most all of the battle ground states. All the while having to cede 90% of a block of their base to Obama.

The Clintons have received 90% of the Black and Gay vote in previous elections for one reason only. Because in those elections the Clintons were the candidates that would and did best represent those groups in a fair and decent way, especailly compared to the GOP alternative.

I don't fault the 90% of Black voters that choose Obama over Hillary. A vote for a qualified Black role model is tempting, but for me it is not the main factor.

I just don't think it is fair to label the Clintons as Klansmen or even in the likes of politicians that have not supported voting rights, civil rights laws, affirmative action, equal rights, etc. They have a legitimate legacy and record.

[MrsSpringsteen]

politico.com

A measure of racism: 15 percent?
By: Roger Simon
April 22, 2008 07:45 AM EST

I was talking the other day to a prominent Republican who asked me what I thought John McCain’s strongest issues would be in the general election.

Lower taxes and the argument he will be better able to protect America from its enemies, I said.

Republicans have a pretty good track record with those two.

The Republican shook his head. “You’re missing the most important one,” he said. “Race. McCain runs against Barack Obama and the race vote is worth maybe 15 percent to McCain.”

The man I was talking to is not a racist; he was just stating what he believes to be a fact: There is a percentage of the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black person no matter what his qualities or qualifications.

How big is that percentage? An AP-Yahoo poll conducted April 2-14 found that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.”

I don’t know if 8 percent sounds high or low to you, but I was amazed that 8 percent of respondents were willing to admit this to a pollster. And I figure that the true figure is much higher.

The same poll, by the way, found that 15 percent of voters think Obama is a Muslim. He is, in fact, a Christian. But thinking a person is a Muslim probably does not encourage you to vote for him in America today.

And consider this little nugget from Monday’s Washington Post, in a story by Kevin Merida and Jose Antonio Vargas datelined Scranton, Pa.:


“Barack Obama’s campaign opened a downtown office here on March 15, just in time for the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade. It was not a glorious day for Team Obama. Some of the green signs the campaign had trucked in by the thousands were burned during the parade, and campaign volunteers — white volunteers — were greeted with racial slurs.”

Signs burned? Racial slurs shouted out loud? In this day and age? Maybe that 15 percent estimate is low.

I am not suggesting for a second that McCain would exploit race in a campaign against Obama. He would not. But the real question is whether the racial issue has to be “exploited” at all. It is pretty powerful just sitting there on its own.

Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign in 1980 by giving a speech at a county fair in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers — James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman — had been murdered in 1964.

Reagan made no mention of the murders or civil rights in that speech but did say, “I believe in states’ rights.” “States’ rights” was common code in those days for letting states discriminate against black people.

A few months ago, David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times, defended Reagan, claiming it is a “distortion” to say Reagan opened his campaign “with an appeal to racism.”

But Brooks also wrote: “Reagan could have done something wonderful if he’d mentioned civil rights at the fair. He didn’t. And it’s obviously true that race played a role in the GOP’s ascent.”

In 2005, then-Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman gave a speech to a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People convention in Milwaukee denouncing the use of race as a wedge issue.
“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” Mehlman said. “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

On Monday, McCain went to Selma, Ala., where on March 7, 1965, more than 500 civil rights marchers were beaten and clubbed by state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as the rest of America watched on television.

“They watched and were ashamed of their country,” McCain said. “And they knew that the people who had tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge weren’t a mob; they weren’t a threat; they weren’t revolutionaries. They were people who believed in America — in the promise of America. And they believed in a better America. They were patriots — the best kind of patriots.”

The Associated Press noted that McCain drew a crowd Monday of about 100 people that “was mostly white, although, as the campaign noted, Selma’s population is 70 percent black.”

“I am aware the African-American vote has been very small in favor of the Republican Party; I am aware of the challenges, and I am aware of the fact that there will be many people who will not vote for me,” McCain said. “But I’m going to be the president of all the people.”

Which was an intriguing point: Sure, there are voters who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, but McCain was saying there are also voters who will not vote for him under any circumstances.

But which group, if either one, will hold the balance of power in November?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep
[B]You may recall Gingrich and Limbaugh were saying Hillary would be the next president last fall, they had already conceded to her.

you're twisting their words -- they had conceded the democratic nomination to her, not the presidency, and Rush has said he'd prefer to run against her than against anyone else.




[q]The Clintons have received 90% of the Black and Gay vote in previous elections for one reason only. Because in those elections the Clintons were the candidates that would and did best represent those groups in a fair and decent way, especailly compared to the GOP alternative.[/q]


compared to the GOP, yes, but it was the Clintons who ushered in DADT and the original DOMA. the Clintons use gay money, and give nothing back, and never have, and would toss us out under the bus -- as Clinton encouraged Kerry to do in 2004 -- without blinking.

[hiphop]

Originally posted by Irvine511

the Clintons use gay money

Money can be gay? I didn´t know. Does G.Washington agree?

[2861U2]

Operation Chaos is not necessarily trying to get Hillary the nomination. The goal is just to create chaos, and to try to get the thing to go to the convention.

As far as who I'd rather face, I'm kind of split. As I said, Hillary puts Ohio and Florida and play, where I think McCain would win those handily against Obama. Obama hasn't had a good 10 days or so. As of right now, I'd probably prefer to face Obama, but by a hair. That could easily change.

[deep]

Originally posted by Irvine511


you're twisting their words -- they had conceded the democratic nomination to her, not the presidency, and Rush has said he'd prefer to run against her than against anyone else.

I am not twisting their words one bit.

Those two among other conservatives did say Hillary would win in Nov and their hope was to have her out in 4 years.

Originally posted by Irvine511

[q]The Clintons have received 90% of the Black and Gay vote in previous elections for one reason only. Because in those elections the Clintons were the candidates that would and did best represent those groups in a fair and decent way, especailly compared to the GOP alternative.[/q]


compared to the GOP, yes, but it was the Clintons who ushered in DADT and the original DOMA. the Clintons use gay money, and give nothing back, and never have, and would toss us out under the bus -- as Clinton encouraged Kerry to do in 2004 -- without blinking.

I have seen you spin DADT this way before. It is amazing how uninformed you are about these things. As someone that was there you get this all wrong and completely misrepresent it.

[deep]

Originally posted by 2861U2
Operation Chaos is not necessarily trying to get Hillary the nomination. The goal is just to create chaos, and to try to get the thing to go to the convention.

Operation Chaos makes about as much sense as a Rooster thinking he is responsible for the sun rising, just because he crows at dawn.

or believing throwing virgins into a volcano prevents it from erupting



the success of Limbaugh is that some Obama supporters are playing into his hands and allowing him to mold their thinking

some have been doing this from day one, saying things like Hillary is too polarizing, my (bigoted) friend and all the people (bigots) around here would never vote her.

[phanan]

I have a question, because I'm not sure the answer...

What happens if the superdelegates end up splitting 50-50 between Obama and Clinton. Would either one be able to secure the nomination?

I guess I could go try and find the answer, but I'm a bit lazy at the moment.

[2861U2]

Originally posted by phanan
I have a question, because I'm not sure the answer...

What happens if the superdelegates end up splitting 50-50 between Obama and Clinton. Would either one be able to secure the nomination?

I guess I could go try and find the answer, but I'm a bit lazy at the moment.

They were talking a little about this last night on one of the news channels. I think they said that if Obama and Hillary split the remaining primary delegates 50-50, and if the remaining undecided superdelegates went 50-50, Obama would be over 2025.

[deep]

If you believe America has 50 states
Hillary has the popular vote lead.

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 14,993,348 47.4% 15,116,076 47.8% Clinton +122,728 +0.4%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 15,327,432 47.5% 15,339,938 47.5% Clinton +12,506 +0.04%



*(Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the “official” contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)

**(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.)

[Diemen]

Seeing that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, I would hope she could gain a majority with that state included.

[deep]

Obama chose not to have his name on the ballot in Michigan

Hillary chose not to campaign in Illinois and Idaho

so perhaps we should not count Illinois and Idaho for Obama?

[U2democrat]

She was still an option on the ballot in those states, that comparison doesn't work

[phanan]

Not an accurate comparison.

[deep]

Originally posted by U2democrat
She was still an option on the ballot in those states, that comparison doesn't work

Obama was the same exact option in Florida as Hillary.


as for Michigan he chose to not have his name on the ballot, his free choice

Hillary chose to not compete in Illinois, her free choice


but, back to Florida and Michigan, Obama and his people chose a second time not to support any re-vote in those states,

even when a new vote would have most likely improved the votes for him because his numbers were up from earlier when the first votes occurred.
(they just knew he would not win and therefore they would rather disenfranchise two states)

So again Obama wants to ascend to the nomination with only 48 states,
Is change taking us back to the 50s?

[anitram]

Originally posted by deep


So again Obama wants to ascend to the nomination with only 48 states,

Yes, well that's about 45 or so states more than Hillary is interested in ascending.

[deep]

Which states have the Hillary Clinton campaign advocated not including?

[anitram]

She just thinks that all the states that have caucuses, lots of black people, latte-sipping activists, and so on are irrelevant.

I'd sure love to vote for her living in one of those states in the fall.

[Earnie Shavers]

Excellent: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...selections2008