art [email] said at 10:23 AM 03-27-2008: If I'm right, then you have to vote Republican in 2012
hahahaha
Obama doesn't stand a chance. If Hillary is not the nominee than those Independents and Centrists that were going to vote for her are going to go over to McCain. Not many Centrists are going to vote for a way left candidate over a center-right candidate
milky [email] said at 10:29 AM 03-27-2008: Hard currency, Art. Hard currency.
$250.
Kiche gets to call the odds go we get a fair payout.
I know you'd like this prediction to be your reality but I have $250 that says you're wrong.
Just like my parents blew off Obama for months in the horserace, they're having to accept the fact that they're wrong...and the youth will decide this race.
art [email] said at 10:40 AM 03-27-2008: As for this being my reality, you are mistaken. I want Hillary to be the nominee, and if it is her, I will vote for her in the general election. But if it is Obama, then I am voting for McCain. And I think there are a lot of people that feel the way I do.
The Youth make good organizers, but rarely show up for the general election in force. Obama has too many negatives to win.
Betting a lot of money doesn't affect the outcome. I don't bet big money against people I know
milky [email] said at 10:44 AM 03-27-2008: You're dumb enough to vote for McCain, and you'll get exactly what you voted for and you can write that down.
You'll be miserable, man. You'll write your miserable ticket for retirement.
Think McCain will ADD something to this country or just fuck it up more?
art [email] said at 12:16 PM 03-27-2008: I am not going to vote for someone with zero foreign policy experience, an extremely sparse voting record (when we decides to show up) and who doesn't seem to be particularly proud to be an American.
Granted, his gift for rhetoric and inspiring talk makes me feel good (and is something the other candidates sorely lack). But he has yet to prove to me that there is experience and pragmatism behind those lofty words.
milky [email] said at 3:16 PM 03-27-2008: I'd rather someone with zero foreign policy experience to the two others: 1 who still calls Vietnamese people "Gooks" and the other who lies through her teeth about her "experience."
Just calling it from where I'm at. It's unlikely McCain will physically live through a tough presidency anyway. He's not as monied or relaxed as Cheney.
rick [email] said at 2:22 AM 04-01-2008: McCain was and still is the Iraq War's biggest booster. He has threatened Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. He was one of the few Republican supporters of the forays into the Balkans in the Nineties. In short, he makes Dubyuh look gun-shy. I would like to see how you can feel uneasy about Obama's foreign policy and still be open to voting for a candidate with such a record.
I won't vote for Obama but if you told me I had to choose between him and McCain or else undergo waterboarding with bodily-fluid-warm Schaefer's substituted for water, I would choose that 'bama in a heartbeat.
josh [email] said at 3:19 PM 03-27-2008: these numbers are also from now, when obama and hilary are in fierce competition. once there is a winner, the democratic machine will be working to woo these people and get a coaltition going. hard to say what these numbers will look like then.
milky [email] said at 3:35 PM 03-27-2008: I just don't buy it. McCain is the best guy they could find? There wasn't a mayor or an alderman somewhere, something?
rick [email] said at 12:45 AM 04-01-2008: McCain was facing weak opponents who tore each other apart while his campaign had been left for dead. Add to that his popularity among independent voters and his front-runner status is no longer so ridiculous.
josh [email] said at 5:35 PM 03-27-2008: now they have to take lumps over the economy, which the average person cares like 100x times as much than the war, which is retarded but true...
i just cant see mccain winning. his own party is barely behind him, and he would be replacing the least popular president of my lifetime, with the support of a republican party that is the weakest it has been in, what, the last 20 years?
i guess it's possible, i just think mccain will shoot himself in the foot before game time.
brandon [email] said at 11:06 AM 03-27-2008: Hey Art, I made this bet with Rick a few months back for beer.
My stance is, If Obama, then McCain will win, and big.
If Clinton, then McCain, thought it won't be quite the landslide.
I'm willing to throw in a lessening of the Democratic majority, actual flip-back to a Republican Congress for extra wagering.
I forget what I wagered with Rick. It wasn't trivial. But beer never is.
brandon [email] said at 12:50 PM 03-27-2008: The polls I keep reading have McCain and Hillary at a statistical dead heat, and McCain over Obama. This is playing out very much like the 2004 election: Lukewarm Dems having ferocious rhetorical battles over trifling differences, while a passable Repub waits on the sidelines for his election shoo-in cue.
I also think the Democratic congress has been lukewarm enough that they are blinded to the fact that a serious amount of blame is about to be laid at their feet regarding the economy and the war.
And yeah, I think we're pretty much in harmony with this one, Art. Being one who generally votes Dem, I wish it weren't so, but, on the other hand, would a Clinton or Obama presidency really look much different than a McCain one? I'm have serious doubts that either one of these candidates would be willing to make the really crucial decisions needed to end this war, restructure runaway costs in executive agencies, and make the painful cuts that are going to be required to renew our energy policies and maintain our critical welfare programs.
rick [email] said at 1:09 AM 04-01-2008: There are differences though.
John Kerry was an unlikable politician (I once linked to Killoggs a poll that found him among the most unlikable politicians in the country) who had helped enable Bushco in what is most likely their greatest blunder. Moreover, the fiasco in Iraq had not really begun to manifest itself as a quagmire. This is to say nothing of the fact that he was a feckless campaigner who picked John Edwards of all persons to be his running mate.
Katrina had not yet happened.
The Economy had yet to turn South. By the time, the election is held, the US may be in a recession (some say the US is already in a recession).
George Bush is, whatever you may feel about him, a skilled and disciplined campaigner who is likable among large segments of the population. Furthermore, many of the social conservatives who had given tepid support to Bushco in 2000, enthusiastically backed him in 2004. Jeremiah Wright is in no way as weighty as the audacity of sodomites besmirching the immaculate institution of marriage.
Barack Obama is charismatic.
Barack Obama has shown his abilities as a campaigner (I honestly thought he would lose to the Clinton Machine).
John McCain is not a good campaigner nor is he particularly likable (he does have the advantage of a fawning following among the mainstream media).
The Republican Party is undergoing Discord unlike I have ever seen.
The Democrats are enthusiastic and hungry after being humiliated for years on end (they have still yet to regain their backbone or their principles). Witness how they easily outmatched the Republican turn-out is virtually every primary.
I could go on but it seems pointless. I have said all of this before. John McCain is competitive, true (especially if Clinton gets the nod from the Donkeys) but not more than that.
brandon [email] said at 2:21 AM 04-01-2008: Barack will push the white vote to the Republicans. He's already been successfully branded a crypto-Muslim and now, in the wake of this preacher thing that's not going away, someone who actively hates America.
Clinton has proved herself an inept campaigner. She's awful on her feet. And lacks, well, hell, she suffers from lecturer voice. She she's sayind smart things. You don't want to listen though, because he voice is a drill bit. If she gets the nomination, McCain can just show up for the inauguration, he's in.
The economy had indeed turned south after the dotcom bubble, which Bush inherited. Then there was his bumbling apology to the Chinese over that midair collision, and all kinds of Clintonesque allegaitions of impropriety swarmed until 9/11 saved his career.
The War is no longer a Republican War. The Democrats have had over a years now to defund it. Instead, they've concentrated on getting Gonzales out of office and arguing about whether or not waterboarding is torture. When the chicken's come home to roost, they will bring chicken pox upon both the houses, perhaps the Democrats moreso for blowing their mandate so badly. And why not, most of their current leadership voted for it, and continues to vote for it.
Hillary and Obama's big money schemes are scaring the hell out of the middle class, who got bumped on SCHIP, and now are beginning to feel the squeeze from all over: fed rate cuts are awful for retirement and investments plans.
The people that were destroyed by Katrina weren't voting for Bush anyway. The people in Florida and Alabama who were, enjoyed and are enjoying robust and relatively easy compensation and rebuilding aid, fuel prices and scarcity are driving all commodities up (my brand of bread is up 0.50) Inflation is starting to register in places like tuition, new cars, even home prices, though coming down, are leveling off at a place that is expensive compared to what similar amounts used to buy.
The thing is, blame for the economy is kind of nebulously tagged by the public not on Republicans or Democrats, but on those sons of bitches in the middle east. This isn't the Great Depression, yet, if Obama and Hillary come in with tax raises a-blazing, single-payer universal care, the markets are going to infarcate and the middle class is going to ignore them, and they're going to have the mess hung on their necks.
It's going to be McCain and it's going to suck. And I will probably never, ever vote Democrat in a national election again, in my life, after they've so thoroughly mismanaged three, crucial presidential elections in a row.
rick [email] said at 2:40 AM 04-01-2008: well as the bards known as Journey sang, don't stop believin'. it will just make my triumph that much more delicious
rick [email] said at 10:45 AM 04-01-2008: . . . and now, in the wake of this preacher thing that's not going away, someone who actively hates America.
And you do not believe the slings of Hagee, against the single biggest denomination in the US, will have any effect? Remember, Catholic voters, in particular, the North, are an important swing vote. McCain has the dilemma in that he has to have a good turnout by social conservatives who are the most important part of the Republican base but if he goes on with these kinds of overtures to them, he risks alienating the majority.
She she's sayind smart things. You don't want to listen though, because he voice is a drill bit.
No, she's not, despite what Krugman may argue. And her flat Chicago suburb accent is the least of her unlikable traits.
The economy had indeed turned south after the dotcom bubble, which Bush inherited. Then there was his bumbling apology to the Chinese over that midair collision, and all kinds of Clintonesque allegaitions of impropriety swarmed until 9/11 saved his career.
Every politician makes mistakes (Clinton had his healthcare proposal and Lewinsky, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Bush had the "read-my-lips" moment, Ford pardoned Nixon) but what I am impressed with regarding Bush is how he continually manages to get most, if not all of, what he proposes. Off the top of my head, I can think of very few major defeats for him (Social Security and immigration are the only two, most of the rest are really minor when one looks at them).
The War is no longer a Republican War. The Democrats have had over a years now to defund it. Instead, they've concentrated on getting Gonzales out of office and arguing about whether or not waterboarding is torture. When the chicken's come home to roost, they will bring chicken pox upon both the houses, perhaps the Democrats moreso for blowing their mandate so badly. And why not, most of their current leadership voted for it, and continues to vote for it.
It was never a Republican war; in reality, it was the culmination of official US policy that began under Clinton and the Iraq Liberation Act. Nonetheless, the architects and major boosters (Lieberman notwithstanding) have been Republican. Besides Ron Paul and a couple of Republicans in the House, no major Republican will even make essential criticisms of the war.
Hillary and Obama's big money schemes are scaring the hell out of the middle class, who got bumped on SCHIP, and now are beginning to feel the squeeze from all over: fed rate cuts are awful for retirement and investments plans.
Regardless of how much Harm the Federal Reserve does, I doubt the vast majority of voters have strong feelings about it or even know much about it.
The people that were destroyed by Katrina weren't voting for Bush anyway. The people in Florida and Alabama who were, enjoyed and are enjoying robust and relatively easy compensation and rebuilding aid, fuel prices and scarcity are driving all commodities up (my brand of bread is up 0.50) Inflation is starting to register in places like tuition, new cars, even home prices, though coming down, are leveling off at a place that is expensive compared to what similar amounts used to buy.
That is not what makes Katrina significant; what makes it significant is it gave lie to the claim that Bush had any efficacy on matters of public safety. Or for that matter, competent governance.
The thing is, blame for the economy is kind of nebulously tagged by the public not on Republicans or Democrats, but on those sons of bitches in the middle east. This isn't the Great Depression, yet, if Obama and Hillary come in with tax raises a-blazing, single-payer universal care, the markets are going to infarcate and the middle class is going to ignore them, and they're going to have the mess hung on their necks.
Once they are in there, it will be too late. I am not discussing whether or not the Democrats would be good in the White House (I don't believe they will be); I am saying that this is not a strong enough rationale for most voters to switch to McCain. I would say is likely akin to the Federal Reserve with regards to most voters.
And I will probably never, ever vote Democrat in a national election again, in my life, after they've so thoroughly mismanaged three, crucial presidential elections in a row.
Join the club; you will feel better once you liberate yourself from the samsara of major party presidential politics.
Gobo from Fraggle Rock, there's a president.
Once Waldorf and Stadler can agree upon who will be President and who will be Vice-President, I believe they could be the greatest presidents in US history.
brandon [email] said at 12:11 PM 04-01-2008: Gobo was wise. Gobo knew how to delegate power. Gobo knew when he was out of his depth and ought to seek counsel. Gobo protected his friends and stood up for the weak, the oppressed and the soon-to-be-eaten by the Gorgs. And he only took from the Doozers what he needed to survive. He was a natural leader, not without his faults, but not blinded to them, either.
brandon [email] said at 12:44 PM 04-01-2008: Join the club; you will feel better once you liberate yourself from the samsara of major party presidential politics.
craig [email] said at 11:56 AM 03-27-2008: McCain is going to win. The people who really run the country want a war with Iran and McCain is the candidate most likely to give it to them.
josh [email] said at 12:26 PM 03-27-2008: Question: Is Obama even polling down, as much as Fox is trying to spin this pastor thing? I thought his numbers were basically the same?
Also, does anyone think McCain can really win? I really doubt that the guy whose own party didn't and still does not want him, who is bad at campaigning, and is old as the hills, can make it to november 4th without a misstep.
anthony [email] said at 12:34 PM 03-27-2008: I actually believe there is a possibility McCain could win. While he's not as conservative as many in his party would like, he's still the conservative choice. In that same line of reasoning, because he's not overly conservative, he would be an attractive candidate for "swing" voters or moderates.
art [email] said at 12:35 PM 03-27-2008: I look at it this way: Centrists and Moderates are split between Clinton and McCain (what the split is, I don't know).
If Clinton does not get the nod, most of the Independents/Centrists will swing over to McCain. I can't see them swinging over to Obama, given his way liberal stances. So, McCain wins if Hillary loses. More than Obama wins.
Elements of McCain party (right-wingers) don't want him, that is true. But Moderate Republicans do. And there are at least as many of them as right-wingers - they have just been quieted for the last few years
anthony [email] said at 1:15 PM 03-27-2008: But I think there is a distinct possibility of young and minority voters coming out in greater numbers this election as precedented by the primaries.
This is just my perception and there are no solid numbers behind this.
josh [email] said at 2:12 PM 03-27-2008: the thing is, can McCain bring people to the polls? Republicans have been winning mainly because the evangelical christians come out in force. if those people don't feel energized to vote and just stay home... what happens?
same with the moderates of whatever group - its not a question, in my mind, of will they vote for the other guy... it's a question of who can motivate them to actually vote instead of just staying home and saying "ahhh, what's the point".
josh [email] said at 3:17 PM 03-27-2008: i feel like history has proven that people don't come out in anywhere near the same numbers when they are voting AGAINST someone rather than voting FOR someone. this is why kerry didn't beat bush, for example. saying "cmon, i'm not bush" does not rally people.
art [email] said at 3:28 PM 03-27-2008: agreed. I don't expect all of them to come out to vote against C/O but I don't expect they will all stay home, either. I expect a majority of them to vote
milky [email] said at 3:34 PM 03-27-2008: Art, the last election I actually saw where people elected to beat someone, really got out there, was Edwin Edwards and David Duke.
rick [email] said at 1:19 AM 04-01-2008: This is true. And if Memory serves, there were open calls to people to do so if only to prove to the rest of the US that Louisiana was not Naziland.
myriam [email] said at 9:20 AM 03-28-2008: See, I keep thinking that people will come out to vote against Clinton more than they will come out to vote against Obama; leading me to believe that Clinton would have a tougher fight against McCain than Obama. Reasoning being: a) she brings out the fight in people, b) she has a lot of history and baggage that REALLY rile conservatives, and c) she's personally grating.
Obama seems much less offensive to conservatives than Clinton does, to me.
Also: I'm curious, Art--why do you see Obama as such a leftist? When I read through their positions I was surprised to see that they seemed virtually identical to each other. (Clinton v. Obama). Can you explain?
art [email] said at 10:45 AM 03-28-2008: Hello lady!
The arbiter of such things - the nonpartisan Congressional Quarterly - reported him as the 'most liberal' based on his voting record (sparse as it is)
He voted the party line 97% of the time, more than any other member of congress. This brings into serious question whether or not he can unite across party lines (as he repeatedly claims he wants to) If he hasn't yet, he isn't likely to in the future.
But beyond that - the mere fact that he has been labeled as such by the CQ (whether or not it is deserved) gives a huge amount of ammo to the republican side come the general election. They will be able to point to his voting record and hammer him on his supposed 'unifying' stance. They will say it appears to be another case where his rhetoric does not support the facts
rick [email] said at 1:23 AM 04-01-2008: People say that every election; I remember John Kerry being called the most liberal senator in Congress.
He voted the party line 97% of the time, more than any other member of congress. This brings into serious question whether or not he can unite across party lines (as he repeatedly claims he wants to) If he hasn't yet, he isn't likely to in the future.
Just because someone votes along Democratic Party lines does not mean they are particularly liberal.
John McCain has cast an overwhelming number of his votes along Republican lines (he did stray a bit in 2001-2002 and it has been suggested that this was from residual anger over the South Carolina campaign) but no one accuses him of being Mr. Conservative.
myriam [email] said at 9:07 AM 04-01-2008: "Just because someone votes along Democratic Party lines does not mean they are particularly liberal."
Thanks, Rick, I was going to say the same exact thing.
Also, I don't think "uniting across party lines" is hampered by voting your party line -- think of it this way, if you're uniting across party lines that means you are working to make the two parties view an issue similarly. You would still be voting with your party at this point, and it would still be registered that way... but who's to say what both of the two partys' stances were on the issue at hand?
I feel like this is an empty statistic, as it doesn't tell us these kinds of things. Now, if you were to look at what the Republicans were voting for at the same time, AND take into account the placement of the position on an objective left-right continuum, then I'd find it useful.
josh [email] said at 5:36 PM 04-14-2008: i dont think anyone wants bipartisanship. the dems should run on "fuck the republicans they made the economy crappy, remember how much money we all had when bill was the president?"
if they manage to leverage that, no matter who the dem candidate is, they will win, because everyone is bummed at the economy.
the economy trumps all. wars, liberals, whatever. if you can say "we will make the economy better than the other guy" and people believe you, you win.
josh [email] said at 12:01 PM 04-02-2008: the mere fact that he has been labeled as such by the CQ (whether or not it is deserved) gives a huge amount of ammo to the republican side come the general election.
hahaha WHAT. you think even 5% of the nation knows what CQ is? hell, probably only like 1% knows what it is.
kiche [email] said at 5:50 PM 04-02-2008: i seriously doubt that even 1% of americans know what cq is. it's a rather specialized publication.
also, this is not good proof of obama's ultra-liberalism. i read somewhere that mccain voted very often with his party since 2000. i think it was somewhere around 90%. does this make mccain to far right to be president?
art [email] said at 4:57 PM 04-14-2008: It doesn't matter if 0.00001 percent heard of the source - the fact is the label has been thrown on him and that was picked up by every major news outlet NY Times on it. Google it.
The fact is the Republicans will use the label as a club come the general election. Do you disagree with that? Do you not think you won't be hearing that Obama is 'the most liberal' during TV ads?
art [email] said at 7:34 PM 04-14-2008: he was a pretty centrist president. He embraced all the major Republican initiatives - free trade, welfare reform, etc
rick [email] said at 1:18 AM 04-01-2008: If Clinton does not get the nod, most of the Independents/Centrists will swing over to McCain. I can't see them swinging over to Obama, given his way liberal stances. So, McCain wins if Hillary loses. More than Obama wins.
I have seen some polls that suggest this but what you must realize is that most people have likely given little thought to how they will vote. Remember, at one point, Dukakis led Bush the Elder by double-digits. All it takes is a few good smears and/or gaffes (Poland is not dominated by Soviet Union, anyone) and/or weariness over whichever group is in the White House (remember "Clinton fatigue?")
Another thing to bear in mind is that social conservatives dislike McCain; in fact, had it not been for the independent vote he would have never gotten the nomination because the social conservatives who are the single most important component of the Republican base all voted for someone else. Huckabee and Romney and, to some extent, Fred Thompson, went after this demographic and likely split it; thus, McCain was able to slide by.
brandonA [email] said at 1:57 PM 03-27-2008: Obama can 'energize the base' - McCain cannot and will not.
I agree that the moderate/centrist vote might eventually lead to a mccain win (although I scoff at any assessment that Obama is 'way liberal'), but given the above, it's anybody's game.
art [email] said at 1:59 PM 03-27-2008: Obama was named as the most liberal member of Congress by the Congressional Quarterly based on his voting record. Whether or not that is 'way liberal' depends on the eye of the beholder, I guess
brandonA [email] said at 2:11 PM 03-27-2008: 'Way liberal' people are pretty much demonized in this country and can't near Congress. The big money folks don't want anything to do with them.
josh [email] said at 2:14 PM 03-27-2008: i am really skeptical that any republican candidate can beat any democratic candidate, though there is still a long time before the election.
the fact is, the economy sucks and most people, right or wrong, will assume that is the fault of the president. if the economy still sucks in november, the average man on the street will probably be pretty cool on the republicans...
art [email] said at 4:33 PM 03-27-2008: well, since you insist...
Both Congress and the President have equally shitty approval ratings, so I don't think either one gets off without the scorn of the public. There is a lot of disillusionment over the Democrats since they took majorities and haven't done anything meaningful with them.
And Clinton is currently in power - so the question becomes: What has she done/is she doing about the economy now? and the answer is 'not much'
I think nobody speaks much about 'the good old times' since Bill C also is in the shitter as far as approval ratings. He is an albatross around her neck.
josh [email] said at 5:32 PM 03-27-2008: i dont think most people even realize that the democrats are in majority... most people in the US are clueless morons.
brandon [email] said at 4:51 PM 03-27-2008: I think it all depends on how well the executive manages to pin the blame for the economy on congress. The kind of entitlement programs Clinton and Obama keep harping about could end up scaring the shit out of middle-class dems, who may look at a the prospect of a Democratic free-spending President, who's soft on the war and iffy on abortion linked with a Democratic, do-nothing House, swallow their idealism and vote across the aisle in droves. But that's less likely then voter depression taking hold, like you mentioned above, Democrats staying home, and the Republicans walking away with the election as they arguably have more to lose in the presidency, than the Democrats do in not recovering it. And that makes me a sad panda.
josh [email] said at 4:16 PM 03-27-2008: though i agree that the biggest benefactor of this would be hilary, because she has that unspoken (or maybe spoken!) "remember how good the economy was last time a clinton was in the white house" thing going for her.
myriam [email] said at 9:26 AM 03-28-2008: I guess I'm the only one thinking this, but I keep getting this itchy feeling that Republicans are spending all their free time right now hording up their piles of dirt on Clinton--man, they've had YEARS to gather crap on her and have DONE so. If she wins the candidacy, we can expect mud to be all over her. And we've seen from the last 2 elections that Republican mud really stinks a candidate up... Meanwhile, what can they possibly get on Obama? That he doesn't have much experience? That's paltry compared to the things they can distort on Clinton's record. So I keep thinking that McCain / Obama is a better fight than McCain / Clinton.
I also am one of those people who doubts that McCain can energize his base, but I chalk that one up mostly to living in a Dem state and thus really never coming in contact with Republicans. So, I don't really know what the mood is toward McCain in the red state area. Brandon et al, what's the mood toward him as a candidate -- opponents aside -- down in LA?
brandon [email] said at 10:56 AM 03-28-2008: I wrote a response to this over coffee this morning, but forgot to post it. I'll post it this afternoon, once I return home.
kiche [email] said at 12:30 PM 03-28-2008: you're half right.
the republicans have a psychotic hatred of hillary clinton (mostly because she's a woman who won't stay in the kitchen) and they've saved up tons of dirt on her. also, and this is the kicker here, she is terrible at rebutting these attacks.
obama. now i support obama 100% - BUT it annoys me whenever anyone brings up the delusion that the republicans will run a clean race against him. flush that straight out of your mind. in fact, the republicans may run a far uglier race against him. you may not have noticed this; but obama is black. and there is still a lot of racism against blacks in america.
the republicans will run a campaign that is pretty much a coded version of them sceaming racial epithets. they've already geared this up. note the stories about obama having been schooled in a radical muslim madrassa and now being a member of a black supremacist church. i've gotten a few emails from various people that advance way crazier conspiracy theories - muslim sleeper agent is the one you hear about on the news; but the ones i get try to paint him as either the antichrist or a black separatist.
this alone will motivate republicans and even peel off some older white democrats. in my home state of mississippi a whole bnch of republicans voted in the democratic primary; and they overwhelmingly voted for hillary. most national pundits think this is because rush limbaugh has been telling his listners to go out and vote for hillary. having grown up in mississippi, i can tell you that i think rush limbaugh's effect was minimal. a serious run by a black man for president scares the shit out of southern white conservatives. in fact, the main motivating factor of the conservative movement in mississippi is keeping blacks in their place. obama will motivate conservatives.
i think this is going to be a close election whether the democrats pick hillary or obama. the thing is, the entire demographics of the race change whether it's hillary or obama. as in, their path to victory entails winning different states. i actually have more faith in obama winning because he seems more competent in carrying out his campaign. hillary has actually been a total disaster. she had a whole machine behind her; and has gotten taken down by some one who came out of nowhere.
i think obama will win in november - but it will be *close*.
art [email] said at 12:32 PM 03-28-2008: the republicans have a psychotic hatred of hillary clinton (mostly because she's a woman who won't stay in the kitchen)
brandon [email] said at 10:23 PM 03-28-2008: People that I've always thought of as moderate repubs think that, obviously, Clinton is the antichrist, or a clown, or both. Surprisingly, a lot of them feel the same about Obama - before the racist brew-ha-ha - chaulk it up forwarded emails about his Wahabist Muslim youth or whatever. It's kind of hard to hash some of them out, a lot of these people voted for Bush and now regret him - but they see McCain through war heroish tinted glasses. And they're convinced that a disruption of our presence in Iraq will cause a series of improbable events that will compromise our oil supply. Shit that sounds ludicrous on its face, unless you listen to what the conservative pundits are saying everyday. No one talks about stupid social issues, abortion, gay marriage, whatever anymore. They're worried about their ARMs resetting. And they're worried about mandated health-care costs through a socialized health-care plan eating up what reset mortgage APRs won't. Most of these people have health insurance already, so, their empathy for the uninsured is limited. I hear people talking about great antipathy toward increased government spending bolstered by tax increases (they don't seem to give a shit about deficit spending). This election is going to be driven by people's somewhat hysterical/ somewhat real fears about their property, about their pocket books. Welfare Republicans (middle class people up to their eyeballs in debt) are looking for a bailout that'll give them a clear-conscience, that is, not a direct handout, but permanently enshrined tax cuts for the middle to wealthy, a lower overall tax bill. They've been sold the idea that the Democrats want to spend them out of their homes and SUVs. It's the exact opposite. But that's what's going to bring these people in line behind McCain, at least among those who I spoken with.
President John McCain will have the wisdom to see us through.
President John McCain a President for the People.
(this post paid for by people with money riding on John McCain winning the election)
kiche [email] said at 8:44 AM 03-29-2008: Welfare Republicans (middle class people up to their eyeballs in debt) are looking for a bailout that'll give them a clear-conscience, that is, not a direct handout, but permanently enshrined tax cuts for the middle to wealthy, a lower overall tax bill.
i've never understood this group of people. they're the equivalent of jewish neo-nazis.
i really think racism is not being focused on enough here. i mean, if obama is the nominee an entire demographic abandons the democratic party. a demographic noted for racism within it's ranks.
