[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The 10% recognize that Obama is too dumb to win.
Obama may be elitist, condescending and liberal, but he is certainly not dumb…
Did you listen to his recent Missouri speech? His was a brain looking for a cogent thought.
Yeah, he may have been tired. Tough to be at the top of your game all the time.
[/quote]
I lived in Illinois when Obama was elected and I got to watch his hilarious debates with Keyes. Obama destroyed Keyes, obviously, and demonstrated that he is pretty darn smart.
[quote]JonP wrote:
DK 14 wrote:
The 10% of blacks not voting for Barry Obama are made up of people like Herman Cane, Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas. They understand how liberal he is. They know his policies are un-America because they are Marxist in nature. The 10% not voting for Barry Obama know voting should never be based on someones race. The Democrats do a great job of playing identity politics. They distract voters from seeing the true policies behind a politician by building up an image or catchy slogan. I would say the 10% not voting for Barack are well-informed, good Americans who do not fall for identity politics.
So all the blacks voting for Obama are uninformed idiots who’s ignorance will destroy America and all the blacks voting for Clinton are holy warriors doing god’s work. Gotcha[/quote]
if they are voting based upon race then yes. by the way i’m talking about blacks not voting with the democrat party. i would know . . .
You guys see the train coming down the track and are desperately trying to convince yourselves it won’t get here.[/quote]
Don’t be obtuse. Everyone knows this election is going to be a fight, and that McCain as the Republican candidate is starting out behind the 8 ball. No one is trying to convince himself otherwise - what they are trying to do is start the fight.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No, it’s because he’s currently winning the Democratic primary, and it would be great to make that go on through their convention… [/quote]
And you obviously don’t like the odds of McCain facing Obama. This is why you continuously slander the latter.
[quote]Those polls are interesting, but fairly useless:
It’s way too early; and [/quote]
Seeing how John has way more baggage than Barack, I’m fairly certain that the trend won’t be reversed.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Don’t be obtuse. Everyone knows this election is going to be a fight, and that McCain as the Republican candidate is starting out behind the 8 ball. No one is trying to convince himself otherwise - what they are trying to do is start the fight.[/quote]
He’s already lost.
I could package up a dog turd from the back yard, call it anything but republican, and successfully run it against McCain.
And, I intend no insult towards McCain with that statement.
The only hope is swift-boating and other tried and true ridiculous negative tactics… but I believe the populace is going to be able to see through them this time around.
However, I will admit that my estimation of the wisdom of the populace may be overly optimistic.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
No, it’s because he’s currently winning the Democratic primary, and it would be great to make that go on through their convention…
lixy wrote:
And you obviously don’t like the odds of McCain facing Obama. This is why you continuously slander the latter.[/quote]
It’s not slander if it’s true…
And as far as odds go, McCain has the best odds of any candidate that ran for the Republican nomination this year - and the party pretty much lucked into having him as the nominee. Not a good year to run as a Republican - but McCain can do it if he runs against Bush and against Congress.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Those polls are interesting, but fairly useless:
It’s way too early; and
lixy wrote:
Seeing how John has way more baggage than Barack, I’m fairly certain that the trend won’t be reversed.[/quote]
McCain has more known baggage - Obama is still getting vetted, as all of this stuff has shown. Obama’s got plenty of baggage. He’s from Chicago for God’s sake…
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
2) A general poll doesn’t reflect the electoral college realities of the presidential election.
lixy wrote:
True. And it’s a shame if you ask me![/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Don’t be obtuse. Everyone knows this election is going to be a fight, and that McCain as the Republican candidate is starting out behind the 8 ball. No one is trying to convince himself otherwise - what they are trying to do is start the fight.
He’s already lost.
I could package up a dog turd from the back yard, call it anything but republican, and successfully run it against McCain.
And, I intend no insult towards McCain with that statement.
The only hope is swift-boating and other tried and true ridiculous negative tactics… but I believe the populace is going to be able to see through them this time around.
However, I will admit that my estimation of the wisdom of the populace may be overly optimistic.[/quote]
I think you’re counting their chickens pretty far ahead of their hatching. I’m not guaranteeing a McCain victory by any means, but Obama’s hardly wrapped anything up - and it wouldn’t take any “swift-boating” for McCain to win. He is the one Republican who everyone knows was separate from Bush, and he has a very good standing among Independents - if the Dems keep fracturing, and Obama has a hard time holding on to or motivating the Dem base, it’s going to be a dog fight.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think you’re counting their chickens pretty far ahead of their hatching. I’m not guaranteeing a McCain victory by any means, but Obama’s hardly wrapped anything up - and it wouldn’t take any “swift-boating” for McCain to win. He is the one Republican who everyone knows was separate from Bush, and he has a very good standing among Independents - if the Dems keep fracturing, and Obama has a hard time holding on to or motivating the Dem base, it’s going to be a dog fight.
[/quote]
True, but I don’t need to attach names to the candidates to know that republicans are slightly less than popular.
The fact that faithful republicans are thrilled with the republican nominee means nothing.
Getting into names, I don’t think McCain has the panache to overcome his republican nameplate… whether he is facing Obama or Clinton – even if she does resemble the backyard doggy gift.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think you’re counting their chickens pretty far ahead of their hatching. I’m not guaranteeing a McCain victory by any means, but Obama’s hardly wrapped anything up - and it wouldn’t take any “swift-boating” for McCain to win. He is the one Republican who everyone knows was separate from Bush, and he has a very good standing among Independents - if the Dems keep fracturing, and Obama has a hard time holding on to or motivating the Dem base, it’s going to be a dog fight.
vroom wrote:
True, but I don’t need to attach names to the candidates to know that republicans are slightly less than popular.
The fact that faithful republicans are thrilled with the republican nominee means nothing.
Getting into names, I don’t think McCain has the panache to overcome his republican nameplate… whether he is facing Obama or Clinton – even if she does resemble the backyard doggy gift.[/quote]
Actually, you’re quite mistaken - most “faithful Republicans” aren’t too pleased with McCain as nominee. Most have significant misgivings actually - but he’s better than the alternative. Which is one reason why he’s so popular with Independents - he sells himself as, and he in fact has been, a centrist. And if he keeps getting gifts like CA Supreme Court decisions to motivate social conservatives who are otherwise displeased with him, alls the better for the fall…
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
No, it’s because he’s currently winning the Democratic primary, and it would be great to make that go on through their convention…
And you obviously don’t like the odds of McCain facing Obama. This is why you continuously slander the latter.
Those polls are interesting, but fairly useless:
It’s way too early; and
Seeing how John has way more baggage than Barack, I’m fairly certain that the trend won’t be reversed.
[b]2) A general poll doesn’t reflect the electoral college realities of the presidential election.
True. And it’s a shame if you ask me![/b][/quote]
The Electoral College is simply a mechanism to help ensure that every area of the country gets a say in the Presidential election.
If the EC did not exist, Presidential elections would consist of nothing but naked pandering to New York and California. As it is now, the more populous areas rightly possess more influence, but not all of the influence.
If anything, I think the EC results in an election that better represents the will of the nation than a straight popular vote.
The U.S. is not a nation like Sweden: a small, relatively homogenous nation in which simple referendums would suffice.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Perhaps it depends on which meaning of faithful you choose.
Party faithful are happy to jump behind any republican.[/quote]
So you think - and you may be correct about that, given you’re making your own definition. But I think you’d be surprised at how few people actually fit it…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So you think - and you may be correct about that, given you’re making your own definition. But I think you’d be surprised at how few people actually fit it…[/quote]
I think you protest too much.
It’s very rare that the republican guard in these parts will substantially disagree with republican leadership. Sure from time to time an inconsequential nit is picked, but it doesn’t make anyone as independent as they generally like to claim.
You know, when democrats are akin to the anti-christ, it doesn’t matter how many nits you pick, you are republican.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
So you think - and you may be correct about that, given you’re making your own definition. But I think you’d be surprised at how few people actually fit it…
vroom wrote:
I think you protest too much.
It’s very rare that the republican guard in these parts will substantially disagree with republican leadership. Sure from time to time an inconsequential nit is picked, but it doesn’t make anyone as independent as they generally like to claim.
You know, when democrats are akin to the anti-christ, it doesn’t matter how many nits you pick, you are republican.[/quote]
So you’re saying you can only be independent if you are a centrist? And by “centrist” I mean approximately at the median of American political opinion.