All Things Pro-Obama

[BigSqwert]

That's right. But let's look at the reality of this country and how people think.

 

People don't like change. Barack and Hillary are the biggest change that anyone in this country has ever seen running for president. For all the "CHANGE" talk that BOTH campaigns discuss, it's not the change of IDEAS that people will balk at, it's the CHANGE of the gender/color that people will balk at.

 

Again, PERSONALLY, I think it's deplorable, but it's America, and why it will be difficult for either Hillary or Obama to win THIS election. Next time, not so much.

I think you greatly underestimate how awful GWB has been and how closely many of McCain's ideas mirror his.

[JorgeFabregas]

Based on the numbers I have (may not be 100% up-to-date), but they are pretty close....

Minus MI and FL: Obama leads 15,812,947 - 15,000,441 (Obama +812,506)

With MI and FL: Obama leads 16,389,161 - 16,199,736 (Obama +189,425)

With FL ONLY: Obama leads 16,389,161 - 15,871,427 (Obama +517,734)

 

The following are the remaining primaries: WV, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana, SOuth Dakota.

Obama is favored to do well in SD OR, and MT. Clinton needs huge numbers out of WV and Kentucky to get close.

Remember, PR is a caucus and according to her those dont count, but PR is favored for her. Interesting to see how she spins that one.

PR is primary, now. I believe. Should be huge turnout.

[kapkomet]

I think it will hurt him in the south, but that is about it. I remember I saw one poll a while back that was for either Kentucky or WV, I dont remember which. It had Cllnton +10 vs McCain, but McCain +20 vs Obama. My jaw hit the floor. But in northern states and out west it wont hurt him. He actually as good support out west in NV, CO, NM and Iowa.

And if Obama loses the south, he's done for.

 

In addition, if you look at California, it's in play, which speaks VOLUMES about the volitility of this election. The fact that it's even in play is news in and of itself. I don't think McCain wins CA, but if it's in play, it spells trouble for Obama in the greater part of the country.

[kapkomet]

I think you greatly underestimate how awful GWB has been and how closely many of McCain's ideas mirror his.

I think you greatly underestimate the ignorance of America in general... and that will trump the "awful GWB". Remember, people generally think McCain is a "maverick".

[HuskyCaucasian]

PR is primary, now. I believe. Should be huge turnout.

thanks for the correction. I had not noticed that.

[BigSqwert]

In addition, if you look at California, it's in play, which speaks VOLUMES about the volitility of this election.

I think it's safe to say that California won't be in play anymore once the MSM starts reporting McCain's views on supreme court replacements.

[lostfan]

And if Obama loses the south, he's done for.

 

In addition, if you look at California, it's in play, which speaks VOLUMES about the volitility of this election. The fact that it's even in play is news in and of itself. I don't think McCain wins CA, but if it's in play, it spells trouble for Obama in the greater part of the country.

Seeing the polls, if California is in play, so is Texas (neither will be come the general election). That's why polls at this point really don't mean that much of anything.

[Balta1701]

And if Obama loses the south, he's done for.

 

In addition, if you look at California, it's in play, which speaks VOLUMES about the volitility of this election. The fact that it's even in play is news in and of itself. I don't think McCain wins CA, but if it's in play, it spells trouble for Obama in the greater part of the country.

I think you're simply wrong on pretty much ALL of that. California isn't going to be even close to in play. Obama's currently outpolling Clinton out here. And the Dems have come within a few votes of winning the election each of the last 2 presidential races basically without winning a single southern state at all.

 

John McCain couldn't rise over 45-48 % against either of his opponents when they spent 3 months thrashing each other and he was able to do whatever he wanted. Now that this thing is wrapping up, you're probably going to see a rise in Obama's numbers simply because he won't have Hillary going after him and he'll actually have a chance to get the whole party behind him and use his money for good rather than evil, and I think we'll rapidly see him building a lead in every national poll that he won't even come close to giving back.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Seeing the polls, if California is in play, so is Texas (neither will be come the general election). That's why polls at this point really don't mean that much of anything.

exactly. I'll start paying attention to polls in July, maybe august

[Balta1701]

I think you greatly underestimate the ignorance of America in general... and that will trump the "awful GWB". Remember, people the news media generally think McCain is a "maverick".

Fixed that for you.l

[kapkomet]

Fixed that for you.l

That's fair.

 

And regarding everyone's comments about CA, that's also fair.

 

I still think, though, that there's a lot of people in this country ignorant to vote against Obama PURELY because of race to where he ends up losing. We'll see.

[Balta1701]

That's fair.

 

And regarding everyone's comments about CA, that's also fair.

 

I still think, though, that there's a lot of people in this country ignorant to vote against Obama PURELY because of race to where he ends up losing. We'll see.

Here's my counterpoint...same thing I think it was David Axelrod saying....While there is certainly a chunk of America who will refuse to vote for Obama based on his race...how many of them would have voted for the party favoring things like legalized abortion, affirmative action, welfare, and so on anyway? Who did the people who wouldn't vote for Obama based on his race vote for in 1996, 2000, 2004? I doubt your answer is going to be Clinton, Gore, Kerry.

[kapkomet]

Here's my counterpoint...same thing I think it was David Axelrod saying....While there is certainly a chunk of America who will refuse to vote for Obama based on his race...how many of them would have voted for the party favoring things like legalized abortion, affirmative action, welfare, and so on anyway? Who did the people who wouldn't vote for Obama based on his race vote for in 1996, 2000, 2004? I doubt your answer is going to be Clinton, Gore, Kerry.

I think everyone is greatly underestimating the DEMOCRATIC base who feels that race is an issue. Again, not that I personally buy it, but I think it will come into play. Even if it's 3 percentage points - ... it could sway things.

[bmags]

That's fair.

 

And regarding everyone's comments about CA, that's also fair.

 

I still think, though, that there's a lot of people in this country ignorant to vote against Obama PURELY because of race to where he ends up losing. We'll see.

 

I agree with you kapkomet, I still think that he can overcome this, but the story in the WaPo today confirms some ugly realities.

[mr_genius]

I think it's safe to say that California won't be in play anymore once the MSM starts campaigning for Obama.

 

 

fixed it for you

[southsider2k5]

That's fair.

 

And regarding everyone's comments about CA, that's also fair.

 

I still think, though, that there's a lot of people in this country ignorant to vote against Obama PURELY because of race to where he ends up losing. We'll see.

 

I mentioned it in another thread, but why is it ignorance when WV votes for Clinton because of Obama's race, but not ignorance when 90% of blacks vote for Obama because of his race? Racism is racism. Why is it "worse" one way than the other. If you ask me, its why we never get past race in this country, because we have different standards for different people.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I mentioned it in another thread, but why is it ignorance when WV votes for Clinton because of Obama's race, but not ignorance when 90% of blacks vote for Obama because of his race? Racism is racism. Why is it "worse" one way than the other. If you ask me, its why we never get past race in this country, because we have different standards for different people.

Racism is doing something against another because of their race. Black people are not voting against Hillary because she is white. However, 1 in 4 West Virginians who voted fro Clinon voted for her based on race. BIG difference.

[lostfan]

I mentioned it in another thread, but why is it ignorance when WV votes for Clinton because of Obama's race, but not ignorance when 90% of blacks vote for Obama because of his race? Racism is racism. Why is it "worse" one way than the other. If you ask me, its why we never get past race in this country, because we have different standards for different people.

Every time I hear this question it makes me want to punch a wall. It really isn't that simple. And (most) black people do not vote for Obama just because he's black. If that was the case then every black person who's ever run for president would've had overwhelming support.

[HuskyCaucasian]

If that was the case then every black person who's ever run for president would've had overwhelming support.

 

Iowa legitimized Obama to the black community. when a state of 97% white people vote for a black guy, that means something.. if nothing more than symbolically.

Edited May 14, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

Every time I hear this question it makes me want to punch a wall. It really isn't that simple. And (most) black people do not vote for Obama just because he's black. If that was the case then every black person who's ever run for president would've had overwhelming support.

 

Has anyone actually asked this question? Seriously I would like to know. No one seems to question that more whites are willing to vote for a black man, than blacks are willing to vote for a white woman. I am curious why in that case as well. Heck, could that be sexism at play as well?

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is right that people won't vote for Obama because he is black. In this day and age it pisses me off. We should be past that as a nation, but we aren't. But in my eyes, it is no different that people vote FOR someone because of their race.

 

Nationally why aren't we having this discussion. I swear if we could honestly ask things like this, without being labeled as a racist, maybe we would get past some of the igornant sterotypes that reinforce racism here in the first place. The more lines we draw as a nation, the more divided we stay.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Has anyone actually asked this question? Seriously I would like to know. No one seems to question that more whites are willing to vote for a black man, than blacks are willing to vote for a white woman. I am curious why in that case as well. Heck, could that be sexism at play as well?

Before Obama won Iowa, Clinton was polling 60-40 in the black vote nation wide. SC changed it then Buba tried to make Obama the black candidate.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is right that people won't vote for Obama because he is black. In this day and age it pisses me off. We should be past that as a nation, but we aren't.

[lostfan]

Has anyone actually asked this question? Seriously I would like to know. No one seems to question that more whites are willing to vote for a black man, than blacks are willing to vote for a white woman. I am curious why in that case as well. Heck, could that be sexism at play as well?

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is right that people won't vote for Obama because he is black. In this day and age it pisses me off. We should be past that as a nation, but we aren't. But in my eyes, it is no different that people vote FOR someone because of their race.

 

Nationally why aren't we having this discussion. I swear if we could honestly ask things like this, without being labeled as a racist, maybe we would get past some of the igornant sterotypes that reinforce racism here in the first place. The more lines we draw as a nation, the more divided we stay.

Here? On this board? I don't know. Probably not. I only started posting here recently. But elsewhere? Oh yes. All the time. I keep seeing the question and it makes me want to throw things. In so many words the question makes the assumption that I'm a racist if I support Obama which in my mind borders on mildly retarded, and it honestly makes me mad. In order to find out the root of things the completely wrong approach is to label the historically disadvantaged group as "racist" for whatever reason (see my earlier conversations with Drunk Bomber that probably played a big part in the rules here being changed). That's one of the reasons I can't listen to conservative talk radio.

 

I started to answer the question in the other thread though so I won't repeat it here so I can try and keep the discussion in the same place.

 

BTW I'm not calling you a racist.

[southsider2k5]

 

In all seriousness, it is one of the big reasons I turned down job offers in the area where I went to college. I couldn't stand the ignorance directed towards people who weren't lilly white. I don't care who you are on the outside. I care who you are on the inside. If Barack Obama were echoing my values, I'd vote for the guy. Hell I spearheaded trying to get a black woman elected to our local City Council because I believed she would do the best job.

 

(I don't know if I needed to say any of that, but I didn't want to come off wrong... Sometimes it is hard to see a persons intentions in an arguement on the internet.)

[lostfan]

In all seriousness, it is one of the big reasons I turned down job offers in the area where I went to college. I couldn't stand the ignorance directed towards people who weren't lilly white. I don't care who you are on the outside. I care who you are on the inside. If Barack Obama were echoing my values, I'd vote for the guy. Hell I spearheaded trying to get a black woman elected to our local City Council because I believed she would do the best job.

 

(I don't know if I needed to say any of that, but I didn't want to come off wrong... Sometimes it is hard to see a persons intentions in an arguement on the internet.)

No, I'm with you. I'm still in the process of trying to find common ground though.