I think it is safe to say that this election hinges on minority turn-out and the youth vote turn-out. Neither have been reliable over the years, but if there is a change from the past we could be looking at a landslide rather than a tight election. Also, I am not so certain that the Palin pick will cause moderate repubs to go out and vote. The religous crazies will probably still show up, but not so sure about the fiscal conservatives.

I should say Goldwater conservatives not fiscal.

Find a way for Obama to get Hillary's supporters and he's got a good chance at winning. Absent her supporters he's sunk.

#3 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-09-23 05:50 PM

That would only occur if Biden gets ill (hits his head like he forgot to have a V8) to drop him from the ticket and Obama gets a do over and puts Hillary on the ticket.

I don't know Oorah,

McCain has a millstone around his neck named Bush. With 93% of America disagreeing with this heavyhanded bailout of irresponsible lenders the longer this bailout and all of the ins and outs of it stay in the news the worse it will be for McCain.

Now the same institutions that want to dump their shitty loans on the taxpayer are lining up to have the taxpayers pay them for managing the shit portfolio.

That's more than republicans who actually support Mcsame.

Most Republicans would vote for a hubcap if it was elephant endorsed. See 2000 and 2004 as examples. If Obama loses, it'll be because of skin color. And if he loses, the religious right will have ownership of the GOP for the next generation.

I am hoping the bailout does not go thru--

It is BS--Paulson is bizarre--who the hell does he think he is to demand the congress give a check for 700 billion to him with no oversight, no accountability.

We can agree that this mess is because of NO oversight or accountability.

Why solve the problem with more of the same that caused it in the first place?

Murph-I agree. Thank God the GOP lost in 2006 or the check would already have been handed to him.
Let's just hope the Dems grow a pair. Looks like both parties are getting an earful. Maybe it'll stick.

Speaking of support for McSame-saint sarah spoke to Floridians yesterday. RCP has a 7 point Florida swing in support to Obama today.

"No oversight, no accountability...."

Forgive me, but hasn't that defined what the Bush Administration wanted for itself, attempted to acquire? I don't know why you're surprised.

"Paulson is so bizarre...."

Who does Paulson work for? Who hired him? Again, why are you surprised?

This administration has kept oversight and accountability at arm's length since they took office.

If Obama loses it's definitely because of skin color? How do you think he's getting so many black votes already? Stop throwing the race card when you have no problem accepting the benefits of Obama's skin color.

What percent of intelligent Conservatives from the George Will mold, support Obama?

But, listening to old Jewish women in Florida retirment homes does not bode well for Obama. Stodgy, stingy, racists, bores, who ALWAYS vote.

But, Obama's biggest problem is has backed off from the issues that moved him to the front of the line. He is paying his dues to Wall Street moguls and abandoned his youth base, who traditionally forget to vote.

i'm with you, murphy. no bailout!

And you've got to remember that with this poll and along with the poll saying Obama could lose 6% on election day because of his race are probably off by a good margin because nobody likes to admit being a little racist even if it is anonymous...

Obama is in trouble.

I don't share many of the values that are espoused
by Barack Obama, and because of this, he will not
earn my vote.

but in (your)reality...

I won't vote for Barack Obama because of the color
of his skin, and because of this, he will lose.

Stick the race-card up your ass - loser!

Most Republicans would vote for a hubcap if it was elephant endorsed. See 2000 and 2004 as examples.

#6 | Posted by northguy3 at 2008-09-23 09:34 PM | Reply

2000 -- Algore was a tree stump
2004 -- Kerry was a fire hydrant

That's why people elected a hubcap

2000 -- Vernon was a moron

2004 -- Vernon was a moron

2008 -- Take a guess

Dean Buvia

What values don't you share with Obama?

Take a guess

OK. WWII - 2008. buffalo bob is a moron

What do I win?

You win nothing.

damn

Strange, Obama gets 90% of the black vote, but that's not racism.

Strange, Obama gets 90% of the black vote, but that's not racism.

It is racism, but racism is OK for some people, but not for others. You know, like George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' where all animals are equal, but some animals (it was the pigs) are more equal than others?

Same thing.

Following these Rasmussen Reports is like "Watching a tree grow".

I'm a white male Democrat and I'm voting for Obama just because he's black. I voted for Hillary just because she's a woman.

White males have been in charge forever and keep screwing things up. I'd like to vote them all out of office on every level and replace them with minorities of all stripes.

Don't voters realize caribou barbie took the UN Building tour?:

More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support. The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

In the past white presidential candidates have gotten 100% of the the black vote. By your logic 10% of the black vote is racist.

Just as we deserved Bush x 2; we will deserve the leadership we elect.

"Most Republicans would vote for a hubcap if it was elephant endorsed. See 2000 and 2004 as examples. If Obama loses, it'll be because of skin color. And if he loses, the religious right will have ownership of the GOP for the next generation."

#6 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3

If republicans would vote for a hubcap if it was elephant endorsed, how does it become racist if he looses. Obviously if he looses it is not because of skin color, but because he is not elephant endorsed.

Unfortunatately these 17% are institutionalized people with alzheimers or other brain altering diseases.

No, these 17% are those who think they are at the top of the economic wealth system.

These sort of polls always end with around 17% for this exact reason.

Do you think adding extra, unneeded words to a sentence makes you look like a fucking idiot or a fucking retard?

I don't know, why don't you tell us.

Only people speaking the language of known conflict have now become the entire housing military.

Only people speaking the language of known conflict have now become the entire housing military.

For some reason that comment angered Boyd.

For some reason that comment angered Boyd.

#37 | Posted by jeffj at 2008-09-24 09:56 AM | Reply

Boyd pretends to be angered by everything. Once that starts Alex and Nulli can't help themselves from being angered also. It's as if their "cycles" are synced up or something.

***"If Obama loses, it'll be because of skin color"*** NG3

Same can probably be said if he wins, but this is an old and boring arguement. His policies suck, but then again, I can't tell the difference between Repub and Dem policies anymore, so they all suck as far as I'm concerned

"Strange, Obama gets 90% of the black vote, but that's not racism."

I think it could be considered racism if in twenty years a black candidate commands 90% of the black vote. I do not think it can be when it is the first black major party nominee for president. Black people have good reason to celebrate the long awaited inclusion of their race into the highest levels of the power structure because they were excluded for so long.

Danni,

That is called a "rationalization".

Whatever Jeff, after your ancestors and family members within memory were prevented from even voting for centuries then you will have the perspective to judge the black community's desire to elect Barack Obama.

More rationalization.

Whatever Jeff, after your ancestors and family members within memory were prevented from even voting for centuries then you will have the perspective to judge the black community's desire to elect Barack Obama.

what an idiot.

So in 20 years they will bury all of that and it will be all good???

You just said this...

I think it could be considered racism if in twenty years a black candidate commands 90% of the black vote.

"So in 20 years they will bury all of that and it will be all good???"

No, but in twenty years the interests of individual black people will not necessarily be synonymous with the interests of the overall black community.
Right now I think the vast majority of black people want to just get their first president elected, after that it will lose its significance and they will vote, more and more over time, for policies instead of race. Or, you could just figure they will forever vote as a monolithic voting block irregardless of policy, but then that would be stupid to think that.

Whatever Jeff, after your ancestors and family members within memory were prevented from even voting for centuries . . .

* * *

Umm, wasn't everybody's? When did the Japanese finally win the right to vote? Or the Irish? Chinese? Jews? Gotta give the professional lefty grievance lobby a lot of credit, in that it seems like American blacks enjoy a monopoly on suffering. How did that happen? And what kind of effect would it have on one's psyche, to believe that it was your race--and only yours--that features a legacy of persecution and discrimination?

If an argument to vote for Joe Lieberman as VP was that American Jews would finally have their voices heard after centuries--milennia, in fact--of horrible persecution, that argument would rightly be criticized. But when the Obamites throw it around, we're supposed to just nod, approvingly. Not me.

Umm, wasn't everybody's? When did the Japanese finally win the right to vote? Or the Irish? Chinese? Jews? Gotta give the professional lefty grievance lobby a lot of credit, in that it seems like American blacks enjoy a monopoly on suffering. How did that happen? And what kind of effect would it have on one's psyche, to believe that it was your race--and only yours--that features a legacy of persecution and discrimination?

Blacks are the only group of people who were actively shipped to the United States and held as slaves for centuries. Indeed, blacks are one of two groups whose oppression and destitution can be traced directly to actions of the United States Government. (The other is Native Americans.) This doesn't mean that others weren't wronged. However, slavery in America didn't include the Irish or the Jews. Your persecution argument about Jews is not relevant because such persecution occurred elsewhere. Jews are perfectly welcome to sue Egypt for reparations for the work they were forced to do as slaves in 4,000 BC.

Thats ok 97% of Black Dems vote for Obama!

Whatever Jeff, after your ancestors and family members within memory were prevented from even voting for centuries then you will have the perspective to judge the black community's desire to elect Barack Obama

So, 2 wrongs make a right?

A clearly racist vote now is justifiable because of what happened over 100 years ago?

A color-blind society isn't the goal, but a vindication society is instead?

Check your premises - you are advocating exactly what you decry and your justification for your advocacies is along the lines of the advocacies of the racists assholes who persecuted blacks in the first place. The irony is almost ear-shattering.

Or, you could just figure they will forever vote as a monolithic voting block irregardless of policy, but then that would be stupid to think that.

not forever but I think for the next 20 years they will remain just that. Especially if they folks like you to remind everyone this....

Whatever Jeff, after your ancestors and family members within memory were prevented from even voting for centuries then you will have the perspective to judge the black community's desire to elect Barack Obama.

You can shout that for years and years and years if you wamt to.

White people hate black people. As the dominant demographic group in the United States, they won't stand for a black president. Let's face it -- white people like black people... in theory. However, white people most comfortable with black people when blacks are serving their meals, washing their cars, and doing their yard work. Most white people don't have black friends and don't want any.

Speak for yourself!

Black people have good reason to celebrate the long awaited inclusion of their race into the highest levels of the power structure because they were excluded for so long.

I guess Thurgood Marshall doesn't count as the highest level of power structure.

Thats ok 97% of Black Dems vote for Obama!

#48 | Posted by Monstman

But that doesn't have anything to do with race. Don't you know it only applies to whitie?

They would all vote for McCain if they knew the truth about Obama.

The most outrageous part of this thread is that the ugly supporters of the status quo are not just proud of their racism but revel in it.

"They would all vote for McCain if they knew the truth about Obama" is the kind of garbage you hear with never an explanation. The truth, Badeye, is that Barack has several times the qualifications of John, but YOU will mark Bush 2 because of the skin tones.

It looks today as if an American majority won't go that way. herm

Herm,

If I understand you correctly, any vote not for Obama is bourne out of racism?

"If I understand you correctly, any vote not for Obama is bourne out of racism?"

Jeffy, give me ONE other reason that really washes. herm

Herm,

I can give you several.

It's a matter of a fundamental disagreement when it comes to worldview - which has nothing to do with racism. Republicans were enthused about Colin Powell as Sec of State and they've been reluctant to criticize Rice, although she's admittedly been an empty pant-suit.

In short, Obama's policy advocacies were very similar to Clinton's and Edwards'. If one of those 2 won the Dem nod, what would you accuse the opposition of (aside from the fact that people who disagree with you are idiots ;-)?

Personally, of the 3, I think Obama was the Dem's weakest choice.

"I can give you several."

Jeffy, I'm still waiting. I know about O'Bama's world views. Tell me which one you don't like. I repeat: Give me a reason that a vote against O'Bama is not a vote for racism. herm

Tell me which one you don't like.

He displayed a sense of utter naivete regarding foreign policy when he advocated discussions without pre-conditions....or when he said he'd take nukes off the table - on policy it's not necessarily bad, but you NEVER announce such a policy to people who, if nothing else, respect the projection of raw power...To 'announcing' that he'd give Pakistan the finger, if he got a lead on Bin Laden. Again, not bad policy, but NEVER emberass a tenuous ally like that by announcing it.

On the domestic front he's proposed between 500 billion and 1 Trillion in new government spending, including the socialization of health care - which I am diametrically opposed to.

He proposes 'windfall profit taxes' on one industry - as if it's up to the government to determine what margin constitutes a windfall, and why only 1 industry? Further, he proposes big give-aways to green technologies that simply can't compete on their own, without a huge subsidy of tax-payer dollars.

I can go on, but hopefully you get my point.