PDA

View Full Version : Elections Why doesn't Obama have a bigger lead?


Direckshun
08-02-2008, 05:45 PM
Ardent Obama supporters, McCain supporters, and the media alike all tend to agree on three things:

(a.) The country is ready to turn Democratic right now.
(b.) Obama is running an incredibly effective campaign.
(c.) McCain is running an incredibly dreadful campaign.

...So why isn't Obama drowning this fool by 20+ points?

I know it confuses me. Financial Times has the same question.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6a42365c-5ffa-11dd-805e-000077b07658.html

Democrats anxious for Obama to widen lead
By Edward Luce in Washington
Published: August 1 2008 20:08 | Last updated: August 1 2008 20:08

In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked voters whether they felt better off than four years earlier. He went on to defeat Jimmy Carter a few weeks later. On Friday Barack Obama raised the same question: “Do you think that you are better off now than you were four years ago or eight years ago?” he asked voters in Florida. “And if you don’t . . . do you think you can afford another four years of the same failed economic policies that we’ve had under George W. Bush?”

With unemployment on Friday jumping by 51,000 to take this year’s job losses to almost half a million, Mr Obama is mining a potentially rich seam. But a number of Democrats, including advisers to the Obama campaign, are worried that the Democratic party’s overall electoral advantage this year has not yet translated into comfortable leads for Mr Obama. On Friday Gallup showed Mr Obama just one point ahead of John McCain – a significant tightening in the past two weeks.

Mr McCain’s improving fortunes have coincided with a strikingly negative turn in his campaign’s tactics, with the launch last weekend of an advertisement criticising Mr Obama for failing to visit wounded soldiers when he was in Germany because the Pentagon refused to permit the media to accompany him. That allegation has since been debunked.

But the signs are that Mr McCain’s continuing attacks – most recently in a commercial that portrayed Mr Obama as a vapid celebrity against images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears – may be striking a chord with the white working class voters who shunned Mr Obama so emphatically in many of his primary contests with Hillary Clinton.

With just one month to go before Labour Day – the traditional beginning of the general election – and only three weeks before the Democratic convention, many Democrats fear that time is running out for Mr Obama to overcome the suspicions of this key swing vote.

mccain v obama 01aug08“We have got to move away from these beautifully choreographed speeches which appeal to groups of voters who are unassailably in the Obama camp already,” said a non-staff adviser to Mr Obama. “What plays well with the educated liberal voter sometimes grates with the blue-collar folk, whom we need on our side if we are going to win.”

The numbers back up the concern. Although Mr Obama has a good shot at winning traditional Republican states such as Colorado, Virginia and even North Carolina, he cannot capture the White House if he loses more than one of Pennsylvania, Ohio or Michigan – the more traditional, blue-collar swing states, which Mrs Clinton won by huge margins in the primary contests. Polls suggest these states are too close to call.

At this stage in the 1988 presidential race, Michael Dukakis, the Democratic candidate, had a 17 percentage point lead over George H.W. Bush, who went on to win the election. John Kerry emerged from the 2004 Democratic convention with a strong lead over George W. Bush only to lose the election as well. In 2008, conventional wisdom says Mr McCain is running a much less effective campaign than either of the Bushes.

That only reinforces disquiet about Mr Obama’s inability so far to take a decisive lead. “Even on his worst day, Bill Clinton was able to signal that he understood voters’ concerns and that he felt their pain,” said Douglas Schoen, a Democratic consultant. “Obama has no trouble with the campaign stagecraft. But this isn’t Harvard, it’s the beer hall. He has to talk in language that people understand.”

Conventional wisdom also suggests Mr McCain’s campaign overstepped the mark by moving on to direct negative attacks on Mr Obama’s character. But Mr Obama has also kept up a stream of material for them to exploit. At a meeting with Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday, he said he represented the world’s hopes for America. “This is the moment the world is waiting for,” he said when asked about his overseas trip. “I have become a symbol of restoring America to its best traditions.”

The Obama campaign says the remarks were taken out of context. But reports such as this can still play badly in communities that pay little attention to foreign policy and are looking for empathy with their economic situation, say analysts. “Look, Obama has pulled off a good tour of Europe and it was probably necessary,” says a Democratic consultant who backed Mr Obama against Mrs Clinton. “What we need now is campaign events in hospital emergency rooms and in unemployment offices and small town diners. These people have a vote.”

Given the McCain campaign’s barely concealed contempt for Mr Obama and Mr Obama’s occasional tendency to present his candidacy in soaring, epochal terms, many believe the pattern of negative attacks is now here to stay.

“Obama obviously thinks very highly of himself,” says Juleanna Glover, an adviser to Mr McCain.

“Not everybody shares that view.

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 06:09 PM
Obama lacks McCain's ability to get people who think he sucks to support him. Obama doesn't have people voting for him just because they view him as the lesser of two evils. The people voting for him are the people who like him.

On the flip side, I remember seeing a recent poll that said 43% of McCain's support were people voting for him because they viewed him as "the lesser of two evils". That's a large chunk of his support that's essentially immovable, at least to Obama's side. If the CCWs of the Democratic party were going to vote/support based on the actual issues, like the CCWs of the Republican party are doing, I think we would see a 15% lead or so.

I think there's also a decent portion of the Democratic party that would never support the Republican candidate in a Presidential election that are doing so this year because of Barack's race. McCain doesn't have a superficial issue causing him the same problem, at least to that degree. And voters swinging from one side to the other like that can have a dramatic effect on polls.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:15 PM
I think there's also a decent portion of the Democratic party that would never support the Republican candidate in a Presidential election that are doing so this year because of Barack's race.


ROFL

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 06:17 PM
ROFL

Would you like to meet most of my close relatives over the age of 50?

penchief
08-02-2008, 06:18 PM
The corporate media's subsidization of the McCain campaign.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:19 PM
I think there's also a decent portion of the Democratic party that would never support the Republican candidate in a Presidential election that are doing so this year because of Barack's race.

Now it can be told: The Democrat party is RACIST!!!

ROFL

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 06:21 PM
Now it can be told: The Democrat party is RACIST!!!

ROFL

A portion of the party certainly is.

I think it's ultimately a age/generational issue, which would apply to both parties.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 06:22 PM
Obama lacks McCain's ability to get people who think he sucks to support him. Obama doesn't have people voting for him just because they view him as the lesser of two evils. The people voting for him are the people who like him.

On the flip side, I remember seeing a recent poll that said 43% of McCain's support were people voting for him because they viewed him as "the lesser of two evils". That's a large chunk of his support that's essentially immovable, at least to Obama's side. If the CCWs of the Democratic party were going to vote/support based on the actual issues, like the CCWs of the Republican party are doing, I think we would see a 15% lead or so.

I think there's also a decent portion of the Democratic party that would never support the Republican candidate in a Presidential election that are doing so this year because of Barack's race. McCain doesn't have a superficial issue causing him the same problem, at least to that degree. And voters swinging from one side to the other like that can have a dramatic effect on polls.
Interesting that his Dem constituency erodes over personality, identity and racial issues, while McCain's constituency doesn't because they believe in their party platform.
Come McCain or Obama, getting the government out of or wallets and our bedrooms will be coming back strong by the next presidential cycle. If it's McCain, it'll be when the Dems wonder if they can EVER win with social engineering driving the fiscal agenda. If it's Obama, it'll be when the libertarian wing shed the overly ambitious religious staters.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 06:23 PM
A portion of the party certainly is.

I think it's ultimately a age/generational issue, which would apply to both parties.

Old people don't care about black people

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:23 PM
A portion of the party certainly is.

I think it's ultimately a age/generational issue, which would apply to both parties.


So nobody under 50 is a bigot?

ROFL

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:25 PM
Old people don't care about black people

ROFL

This thread is priceless!!!

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 06:25 PM
Interesting that his Dem constituency erodes over personality, identity and racial issues, while McCain's constituency doesn't because they believe in their party platform.

I think the Republicans have a stronger, more loyal party, but that might just be because the Democrats are unbelievably weak in comparison. I don't think they're so much unified for McCain's platform as they are united against Obama.

MTG#10
08-02-2008, 06:27 PM
I think there's also a decent portion of the Democratic party that would never support the Republican candidate in a Presidential election that are doing so this year because of Barack's race.

WOO HOO! Three times in one day!!


http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g234/Andrightlyso/racecard.jpg

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 06:27 PM
So nobody under 50 is a bigot?

ROFL

:spock: You astound me with the depths of your stupidity.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:27 PM
If it's Obama, it'll be when the libertarian wing shed the overly ambitious religious staters.

Here, here. :clap:

I seen all I want to see from the "Christian right" after what they did to Mitt Romney.

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 06:28 PM
WOO HOO! Three times in one day!!


http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g234/Andrightlyso/racecard.jpg

LOL I MAKE JOKES WHEN I DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS REALITY

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:28 PM
:spock: You astound me with the depths of your stupidity.


Uh... yeah. OK.

:drool:

penchief
08-02-2008, 06:29 PM
Interesting that his Dem constituency erodes over personality, identity and racial issues, while McCain's constituency doesn't because they believe in their party platform.
Come McCain or Obama, getting the government out of or wallets and our bedrooms will be coming back strong by the next presidential cycle. If it's McCain, it'll be when the Dems wonder if they can EVER win with social engineering driving the fiscal agenda. If it's Obama, it'll be when the libertarian wing shed the overly ambitious religious staters.

If you want the government out of your bedroom the republican party is hardly the choice. I can't believe you would even suggest that. That's just a plain silly to make a comment like that considering their stance on bedroom issues and domestic spying. They're all about imposing their morality and their will.

As far as spending goes, All the way back to Carter the republicans have been the bigger spenders. Reagan was a bigger spender than anyone before him. He started the idea that deficits don't matter.

The real difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats believe they should spend your money on the public welfare while republicans believe they should spend your money on corporate welfare.

Which is exactly why our country is going to hell in a handbasket and corporate America is making a killing.

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 06:30 PM
I think the Republican party's base is generally stronger because it's far more homogenous, as opposed to the far more diverse Democratic base.

The Dems' diversity is their greatest asset, but it's also amongst their greatest liability, as splinters within the base are far more frequent here than they are in the GOP.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:30 PM
LOL I MAKE JOKES WHEN I DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS REALITY

:crybaby:

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:32 PM
If you want the government out of your bedroom the republican party is hardly the choice. I can't believe you would even suggest that. That's just a plain silly to make a comment like that considering their stance on bedroom issues and domestic spying.

This thread just gets better and better!!!

:BLVD:

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 06:33 PM
This thread just gets better and better!!!

:BLVD:
I don't think many folks could disagree with that particular part of penchief's post.

penchief
08-02-2008, 06:34 PM
This thread just gets better and better!!!

:BLVD:

Explain to me how it isn't so. Republicans have made a living out of trying to tell us what we can and can't do in the bedroom. And they sure as hell don't respect our privacy. The last eight years is proof of that.

Give me something to counter that argument if you're going to act like it's not true.

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:34 PM
I don't think many folks could disagree with that particular part of penchief's post.

You caught Karl Rove peeking in your window while you were jerking off?

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:36 PM
Explain to me how it isn't so. Republicans have made a living out of trying to tell us what we can and can't do in the bedroom. And they sure as hell don't respect our privacy. The last eight years is proof of that.

Give me something to counter that argument if you're going to act like it's not true.


I do what ever I want to do in my bedroom. 42 years, and no Republican has stopped me yet.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 06:36 PM
I think the Republican party's base is generally stronger because it's far more homogenous, as opposed to the far more diverse Democratic base.

The Dems' diversity is their greatest asset, but it's also amongst their greatest liability, as splinters within the base are far more frequent here than they are in the GOP.

I can see that, kind of Democrats want all kinds of different things done for them by the government. All Repubs want are the laws enforced and to keep their wages.

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 06:36 PM
You caught Karl Rove peeking in your window while you were jerking off?
You make your intentions clearer after every post.

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 06:37 PM
That noise was the sound of penchief's argument whizzing right over SHITSPRAYER's head.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 06:38 PM
If you want the government out of your bedroom the republican party is hardly the choice. I can't believe you would even suggest that. That's just a plain silly to make a comment like that considering their stance on bedroom issues and domestic spying. They're all about imposing their morality and their will.

As far as spending goes, All the way back to Carter the republicans have been the bigger spenders. Reagan was a bigger spender than anyone before him. He started the idea that deficits don't matter.

The real difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats believe they should spend your money on the public welfare while republicans believe they should spend your money on corporate welfare.

Which is exactly why our country is going to hell in a handbasket and corporate America is making a killing.
Maybe you missed where I advocated the Repubs shedding the anchor of Christian statists.
When you think of me, think more South Park and less 500 Club. :thumb:

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:38 PM
That noise was the sound of penchief's argument whizzing right over SHITSPRAYER's head.


Fair enough. Why don't you sound it out for me?

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 06:39 PM
I can see that, kind of Democrats want all kinds of different things done for them by the government. All Repubs want are the laws enforced and to keep their wages.
Let's not simplify things too much. There are a lot of social factors that creep into that equation as well, as women, African Americans, homosexuals, and now Latinos have retreated to the Dems because the DNP has a stronger track record fighting for their rights.

But yeah, as a result I see a base that is comprised of so many different types of people that it is inherently weaker and easier to divide than the more homogenous Republican base.

penchief
08-02-2008, 06:41 PM
You caught Karl Rove peeking in your window while you were jerking off?

Sometimes I think that you just enjoy being partisan because too often it seems like you say things that make it sound like you honestly don't know what you're talking about.

And I don't mean that as an insult. It's just that for you to make a response like that shows a real lack of understanding as to what has transpired in this country over the past few years.

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 06:41 PM
500 Club. :thumb:
700 club?

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 06:42 PM
All Repubs want are the laws enforced and to keep their wages.

awh they're harmless!

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 06:42 PM
700 club?

Guess my stupidity ironically kind of reinforces my point, eh? :D

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:42 PM
Sometimes I think that you just enjoy being partisan because too often it seems like you say things that make it sound like you honestly don't know what you're talking about.

And I don't mean that as an insult. It's just that for you to make a response like that shows a real lack of understanding as to what has transpired in this country over the past few years.

Fair enough. I plead ignorance!

What has transpired?

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 06:43 PM
Guess my stupidity ironically kind of reinforces my point, eh? :D
Just making sure I was catching the right reference.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 06:44 PM
Fair enough. I plead ignorance!

What has transpired?

Wholesale raping of our common interests and enrichment of the power quo. Capiche??

***SPRAYER
08-02-2008, 06:46 PM
Penchief and HolmZz, it's ok to pull up your pants now. I'm leaving, but I'll be back tomorrow for another juicy ride!

:hump:

penchief
08-02-2008, 06:54 PM
I can see that, kind of Democrats want all kinds of different things done for them by the government. All Repubs want are the laws enforced and to keep their wages.

If repubs want the laws enforced why are they so opposed to this administration being held accountable? Why do they think its okay for the White House to hide behind "executive privelege" every time there is an appearance of misconduct?

The administration's total contempt for open government combined with their many attempts to push the legal envelope would lead a lot of people to believe that they have broken the law on multiple occasions. But every time something happens that is highly dubious, republicans race to cut off an investigation.

If the mottos that "nobody is above the law" and "the buck stops with the president" are true, then it is clear that the republican party is not even willing to apply their legal standard to the one entity that is supposed to lead by example.

Considering that, I'm not convinced that republicans want the law enforced at all. It seems more like they want to use the law as a tool to facilitate their political agenda when and where it suits them.

penchief
08-02-2008, 06:55 PM
Penchief and HolmZz, it's ok to pull up your pants now. I'm leaving, but I'll be back tomorrow for another juicy ride!

:hump:

You gonna run away before you answer the question that you know you can't answer without ceding the point?

penchief
08-02-2008, 06:58 PM
Maybe you missed where I advocated the Repubs shedding the anchor of Christian statists.
When you think of me, think more South Park and less 500 Club. :thumb:

Cool.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 07:05 PM
If repubs want the laws enforced why are they so opposed to this administration being held accountable? Why do they think its okay for the White House to hide behind "executive privelege" every time there is an appearance of misconduct?

The administration's total contempt for open government combined with their many attempts to push the legal envelope would lead a lot of people to believe that they have broken the law on multiple occasions. But every time something happens that is highly dubious, republicans race to cut off an investigation.

If the mottos that "nobody is above the law" and "the buck stops with the president" are true, then it is clear that the republican party is not even willing to apply their legal standard to the one entity that is supposed to lead by example.

Considering that, I'm not convinced that republicans want the law enforced at all. It seems more like the want to use the law as a tool to facilitate their political agenda when and where it suits them.

We couldn't talk past each other more if we tried, well, maybe you are trying. ;)
When I say stay out of our wallet and enforce the laws, I'm talking about government doing what it does well and nothing more. Military defense, health and safety, roads and infrastructure, law and order. I'm not talking about capitulating to penchief's here and now view of what the separation of powers means in the every gritty corner. Both sides seek to maximize their realm of power for whatever portion of government they presently control, whether it's FDR packing the court, the nuclear option on SC appointments, Cheney's claims of privilege or the Clintons doing the same thing with the Health Care committee and later with the independent investigation.

MTG#10
08-02-2008, 07:08 PM
Republicans have made a living out of trying to tell us what we can and can't do in the bedroom.
As opposed to the democrats trying to tell us what we can and cant do with our money.

penchief
08-02-2008, 07:10 PM
We couldn't talk past each other more if we tried, well, maybe you are trying. ;)
When I say stay out of our wallet and enforce the laws, I'm talking about government doing what it does well and nothing more. Military defense, health and safety, roads and infrastructure, law and order. I'm not talking about capitulating to penchief's here and now view of what the separation of powers means in the every gritty corner. Both sides seek to maximize their realm of power for whatever portion of government they presently control, whether it's FDR packing the court, the nuclear option on SC appointments, Cheney's claims of privilege or the Clintons doing the same thing with the Health Care committee and later with the independent investigation.

Okay. I guess we are talking past each other. But you know how republicans are always saying they are the law-and-order party and democrats are the pro-criminal party. I was probably responding to that, instead.

That said, even the examples you give regarding the Health Care Committee and the independent investigation are good examples of a double standard being applied by republicans when it comes to the application of oversight and legal accountability of the executive.

Just saying.

Donger
08-02-2008, 07:10 PM
Why doesn't Obama have a bigger lead?

The Democrats chose to nominate a very liberal, half-black, very inexperienced senator as their candidate.

That's why.

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 07:12 PM
Why doesn't Obama have a bigger lead?

The Democrats chose to nominate a very liberal, half-black, very inexperienced senator as their candidate.

That's why.

So why does he have a lead at all?

Donger
08-02-2008, 07:13 PM
So why does he have a lead at all?

People haven't voted yet. Polls mean nothing.

penchief
08-02-2008, 07:13 PM
As opposed to the democrats trying to tell us what we can and cant do with our money.

You gotta have money before democrats can tell you what to do with it. The way republicans are going you won't have to worry about that much longer.

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 07:14 PM
People haven't voted yet. Polls mean nothing.
So you're calling it right now? McCain by a landslide?

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 07:15 PM
People haven't voted yet. Polls mean nothing.

You just attempted to rationalize the polls. :spock:

Donger
08-02-2008, 07:16 PM
So you're calling it right now? McCain by a landslide?

Landslide? No. But I do think McCain will win, yes.

Donger
08-02-2008, 07:16 PM
You just attempted to rationalize the polls. :spock:

Huh?

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 07:16 PM
That said, even the examples you give regarding the Health Care Committee and the independent investigation are good examples of a double standard being applied by republicans when it comes to the application of oversight and legal accountability of the executive.
You caught me, that totally cost Clinton his third term.

I dunno, maybe it's an emotion/reason thing, but it seems while Conservatives will oppose something and explain why they oppose it, Liberals go the extra mile to proclaim the end of civilization for everything they disagree with.

penchief
08-02-2008, 07:17 PM
Landslide? No. But I do think McCain will win, yes.

The way the corporate media is subsidizing McCain's campaign, I might have to agree with you.

Donger
08-02-2008, 07:17 PM
The way the corporate media is subsidizing McCain's campaign, I might have to agree with you.

ROFL

Direckshun
08-02-2008, 07:20 PM
You just attempted to rationalize the polls. :spock:
ROFL

Oh man, I totally missed that. Well in.

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 07:20 PM
Liberals go the extra mile to proclaim the end of civilization for everything they disagree with.

:spock: That's undeniably true of the nuts on both sides.

penchief
08-02-2008, 07:20 PM
You caught me, that totally cost Clinton his third term.

I dunno, maybe it's an emotion/reason thing, but it seems while Conservatives will oppose something and explain why they oppose it, Liberals go the extra mile to proclaim the end of civilization for everything they disagree with.

I'm not sure that's true. I think I have gone into great detail explaining why I think the end of civilization is near. And I think my explanations have been well-reasoned and supported by current events.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 07:22 PM
I'm not sure that's true. I think I have gone into great detail explaining why I think the end of civilization is near. And I think my explanations have been well-reasoned and supported by current events.

penchief Whitman - Do I contradict myself? Very well I contradict myself.

penchief
08-02-2008, 07:23 PM
penchief Whitman - Do I contradict myself? Very well I contradict myself.

Are you missing something?

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 07:29 PM
Are you missing something?

I said liberals make their disagreements catacalysmic, and you said you disagree, you have good reason to think your disagreements will bring on the apacolypse.

penchief
08-02-2008, 07:34 PM
I said liberals make their disagreements catacalysmic, and you said you disagree, you have good reason to think your disagreements will bring on the apacolypse.

You missed my attempt at self-depricating humor. But I probably just suck at it.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 07:36 PM
You missed my attempt at self-depricating humor. But I probably just suck at it.

Ahh so, more like instead of "I don't think that's true" it was "yeah its true, but I'm also right, it's the end of the world."

Well played

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 07:38 PM
I said liberals make their disagreements catacalysmic.

The same stuff gets done by conservatives. There are nuts on here who pretend civilization will cease to be if gay people are allowed to adopt.

penchief
08-02-2008, 07:39 PM
Ahh so, more like instead of "I don't think that's true" it was "yeah its true, but I'm also right, it's the end of the world."

Well played

Naw, more like, "I don't think that's true," but I'll poke fun at myself like it is true. Besides, I've never thought the end of the world was coming, just the end of America as we know it.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 07:40 PM
The same stuff gets done by conservatives. There are nuts on here who pretend civilization will cease to be if gay people are allowed to adopt.

Again, I'm a social libertarian, so there you need to argue with those people, not me.

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 07:41 PM
Again, I'm a social libertarian, so there you need to argue with those people, not me.

You made the claim that it's just liberals that act like that, so I'm taking it up with you.

penchief
08-02-2008, 07:42 PM
You made the claim that only liberals act like that, so I'm taking it up with you.

That's what I disagreed with, too.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 07:43 PM
You made the claim that it's just liberals act like that, so I'm taking it up with you.

I don't think a social engineer is conservative. They're conservative in their value system, but not in their sense of the role of the government in our lives.

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 07:44 PM
I don't think a social engineer is conservative. They're conservative in their value system, but not in their sense of the role of the government in our lives.

So being for and against gay adoption are both liberal positions? :spock:

I can name you a ton of other instances, so I'm not sure why you're fighting it. BIG DADDY has been on here proclaiming our military will turn against Obama and not recognize him as CiC if he gets elected.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-02-2008, 08:38 PM
So being for and against gay adoption are both liberal positions? :spock:

I can name you a ton of other instances, so I'm not sure why you're fighting it. BIG DADDY has been on here proclaiming our military will turn against Obama and not recognize him as CiC if he gets elected.

Re: Cataclysms and liberals--

I seem to remember a certain vice prez saying about 6 years ago that if we didn't go into Iraq that it would end with a mushroom cloud hanging over our heads.

I also enjoy the common Evangelical tome of Sodom and Gomorrah every time that a gay-related issue is brought up.

The thought that the right wing isn't inured to the rhetoric of jeremiads is completely out of touch with reality.

whoman69
08-02-2008, 11:09 PM
The common result of negative campaigning is that it can convince a certain portion of the electorate that it isn't worth their while to vote. McCain has done a good job of convincing those who would normally vote for Obama that perhaps they shouldn't really care enough to support him at all. Usually a candidate will try to pick up those voters who are dissatisfied with their opponent. McCain has not been able to convince those voters to come over to his side partly through his own ineptness and partly because the message on the Iraq war is so far apart. McCain is also lacking a coherent message as to why people should vote for him, not just why they shouldn't vote for his opponent.
There were record number of people voting in the Democratic nomination process. That enthusiasm has worn out in part because of the length of that fight as another circumstance that works against Obama. Would things have been different had Hillary been nominated? I think so. The Republican base which hates her so much would be much more energized. She would also have a tough time earning independent votes. Her area of strength in the primaries are areas that are normally Republican strongholds, rural and more lightly populated cities.
People are not energized on either candidate. In order to lengthen his current tenuous lead, he needs to reengergize those people who are tired of the lack of results from Washington.

Smed1065
08-03-2008, 06:07 AM
Now it can be told: The Democrat party is RACIST!!!

ROFL

I would love to see an African American, gay or non-caucasian on the republican ticket.

To see the number that would remain loyal based on party alone.
:doh!:

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:13 AM
Let's not simplify things too much. There are a lot of social factors that creep into that equation as well, as women, African Americans, homosexuals, and now Latinos have retreated to the Dems because the DNP has a stronger track record fighting for their rights.



You mean they have rights above and beyond what everybody else in America has?

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:39 AM
I would love to see an African American, gay or non-caucasian on the republican ticket.

Why not a woman? You misogynist!

http://tammybruce.com/2008/07/obama_bemoans.php

Direckshun
08-03-2008, 08:21 AM
Again, I'm a social libertarian, so there you need to argue with those people, not me.
"I'm allowed to tie you to the wackos in your party but you're not allowed to tie me to the wackos in mine."

VAChief
08-03-2008, 08:27 AM
I would love to see an African American, OPENLY gay or non-caucasian on the republican ticket.

To see the number that would remain loyal based on party alone.
:doh!:

fyp

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 09:43 AM
fyp


Why are lib's so obsessed with the color of a person's skin or whether or not they enjoy playing dingle dangle dingle with another man's penis?

Baby Lee
08-03-2008, 10:12 AM
"I'm allowed to tie you to the wackos in your party but you're not allowed to tie me to the wackos in mine."

My point is that the cataclysmic verbiage seeps past the wackos into the run of the mill liberal individual and mainstream politician with greater frequency.
Who knows maybe I have a filter where if a conservative whacko talks cataclysm, I say "well, that's a stone whacko" and if a liberal wacko talks cataclysm "well, that's a stone liberal whacko." But my sense is that there's something there.