New Election 2008 thread

[jakobnicholas]

Buchanan made multiple points, which justifies multiple rebuttals. If such careful reading and response is "typical" and "predictable," then we should all be grateful. Besides, wouldn't it be more constructive to actually respond to the rebuttals rather than avoid them by resorting to vague distractions about liberal panties and their bunches?

 

 

 

The panties and their bunches adds flavor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, your condescending tone has a rather Obama-esque tone to it. (Another problem for Obama to overcome.)

[ih8music]

C'mon. You can't be serious. All these political boards turn into this crap, where we parcel every little phrase.

I think you mean parse.

 

[caliber66]

I think you mean parse.

 

Way to parcel that dude's rebuttal, bro.

[John Smith]

Reardless of how close the democratic race was, the one thing that the pundits, especially conservatives (like Buchannan for example0 don't point out is just how high the turnout was for these primaries. The shear numbers that turned out for the democratic primaries should frighten the republican candidate. Like i have said more than once, this is a pissed off riled up constituancy like I have never seen before in my life, and they are pissed off because of the actions of one party and one president. If voter turnout is high like this in November watch out in the house and senate as well as in the White House.

[MattZ]

By the way, your condescending tone has a rather Obama-esque tone to it. (Another problem for Obama to overcome.)

 

And your kneejerk reaction to criticize debate instead of engaging in it has a rather Republican-esque tone to it. Bravo.

 

Why don't you rebut the rebuttal, as Beltmann suggests?

[John Smith]

And your kneejerk reaction to criticize debate instead of engaging in it has a rather Republican-esque tone to it. Bravo.

 

Why don't you rebut the rebuttal, as Beltmann suggests?

 

It would be more republicanesque if he called you a traitor who wanted the US to lose, then told you to leave the country and find a place mroe suited to your blame america first views.

[JUDE]

I

[uncle wilco]

By November we should be able to reach a whole new level of douchebaggery on this board.

that's a scary thought.

[JUDE]

that's a scary thought.

 

As a Republican, fear mongering is my M.O.

[MattZ]

I

[jakobnicholas]

Except that Obama is destroying John McCain among Hispanic voters in a recent Wall Street Journal poll. Check it out, yo:

 

 

 

From Dallas Morning News:

 

Mr. Obama needs to do \"extensive outreach\" to Hispanics, particularly Hispanic legislators, a key group the senator – like John Kerry in 2004 – has largely ignored.

 

Compared with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama was an unknown quantity among Hispanics. There\'s a history of black-brown tension, still very much on the minds of older Hispanic voters. Part of it is his own relatively light experience and contacts with Latinos.

 

Mr. Obama had never even seen the Texas-Mexico border until a few days before the primary.

 

\"I\'ve been in Mexico when I was in college and was going to school in Southern California. I can\'t entirely talk about it,\" he joked after surveying the border at Brownsville.

 

John McCain may not attract the 40 percent to 45 percent President Bush got. But he won hearts over the years with his politically risky push for comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He distanced himself from that moderate image this year, assuring GOP hardliners that he\'ll tighten border security before seeking immigration reform again.

 

 

From bloomberg.com

 

Even with Bush\'s approval rating at record lows, Obama will struggle to secure a decisive majority of the Hispanic vote, political analysts said.

 

One obstacle will be enduring racial tensions. More than 60 percent of Hispanics who said race was important voted for Clinton during the Super Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, an independent research organization in Washington.

 

Obama also will face a strong rival in McCain, 71, a Vietnam War hero and Arizona senator who has campaigned for his state\'s large Hispanic vote since he won a House seat in 1982.

 

``Republicans nominated the very best possible candidate in the field to try to capture a large share of the Hispanic vote,\'\' said Adam Segal, director of the Hipanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University in Washington.

 

 

 

Obama will win Pennsylvania. He may lose Michigan, but I don\'t think that\'s as critical as many are making it out to be because of his gains elsewhere (such as Virginia where he\'s doing very well).

 

 

From Andrew Romano (Newsweek):

 

I think in four years Virginia is going to kind of a solid blue state, because it\'s becoming more northern. So while Virginia is a good opportunity for Obama, whether it gets there right away, I don\'t know.

[fatheadfred]

* I took this verbatim from the RNC list of message board talking points.

 

...speaking of which, I am glad to say I was 'removed' from the Hannity message board during the 04 election.

[fatheadfred]

We'll see, my friend, we'll see.

 

You talk like McCain, my friend.

 

(My friends) and I always make fun of how he says that. Maybe we should make a drinking game out of...before he vetoes earmarks on beer anyway.

[uncle wilco]

... and we are still waiting for someone on the right side of the aisle to engage in level-headed debate instead of changing the subject. Can someone respond substantively to MrRain?

it's McLame. please get the name right.

[MrRain422]

From Dallas Morning News:

 

Mr. Obama needs to do \"extensive outreach\" to Hispanics, particularly Hispanic legislators, a key group the senator

[MrRain422]

Yeah, you\'re right. Screw the dumbshits in West Virginia.

 

I certainly didn't say that.

 

 

Resistance from the Democrats. After Obama jumped out to a huge lead, Hillary was neck and neck. And at the end, she kicked his ass. If Obama\'s so great, why did she garner almost the same popular votes as Obama. Some argue that, if including Florida and Michigan votes, Hillary might have more Democrat votes in the primaries than Obama. I\'d say that\'s showing a little reluctance from the Democratic voters.

 

But she didn't kick his ass. That's just false. She did win more of the later states than he did, but barely. Also, again, if you look at which states she won, most are states that neither of them would win in the general election. Also, a lot of that was due to strategy as well -- the states where that he focused most of his campaign on happened to fall earlier.

 

Also, Hillary's popularity is not necessarily an indication that Obama has a big problem with Democrats. A lot of polling showed that Democrats in general were happy with the slate of candidates offered in this years primaries, regardless of which Democrat they were supporting. So just because a large number of people preferred Clinton does not mean that they dislike Obama.

 

I know his far left views and voting record make you all tingly with excitement, but that won\'t be the case for all independent voters....of course, Obama will now try to spin his past to more moderate.

 

Much like Republicans will try to spin it to look like he's far more liberal than he actually is. Also, how many will spin McCain's record to hide his neoconservative transformation over the last few years? Will independent voters go for that?

 

Obama\'s relationship with Wright I think really made some voters question who Obama really is.

 

Mostly people who were looking for something not to like about him.

 

His quotes about sitting down with the Iranian leader worried some.

 

Again, really only people who were looking for something to attack. Seriously, what is there to be worried about by merely talking to someone? Meeting with someone is not the same as making some sort of agreement with them. What kind of person actually thinks its best to not even talk to the other side and just bomb them instead?

 

 

C\'mon, he doesn\'t have any foreign affairs experience. With the war going on, that\'s going to make some voters think twice. Yeah, we ALL want change....but what does that change mean when we\'re in the midst of a war and questions arising about other world leader crazies?

 

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. had foreign policy experience coming out of their ears but still made the worst strategic blunder in the history of our nation. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with that question, but if you can clarify I'd be happy to address it.

 

OK. This is just stupid. First, Hillary was a huge favorite? What?!!! The Democrats started having an orgasm about Obama before the primaries started. He was clearly the candidate the Democrats wanted and loved.....being young, attractive, smart and a leftist whack-job.

 

There were certainly some party activists who have been very excited about him since 2004, but among voters in general, Clinton was the early favorite by pretty much every measure -- she had more money, she had a lot more name recognition, and the polls were in her favor. Very early on in primary campaigns name recognition counts for just about everything, so that's the main reason why, but Obama was certainly not the favorite early on in the primary campaigning season, and although he had gained a lot of ground by the time the Iowa caucus came around, he was still a long way from having it wrapped up. I think our disconnect here though is mainly that we're talking from different starting points -- I was referring to early on, when they first started campaigning, still several months before any voting had started. I will concede that he had made up most if not all of that ground by the time Iowa rolled around.

[jakobnicholas]

I certainly didn't say that.

 

 

 

 

But she didn't kick his ass. That's just false. She did win more of the later states than he did, but barely. Also, again, if you look at which states she won, most are states that neither of them would win in the general election. Also, a lot of that was due to strategy as well -- the states where that he focused most of his campaign on happened to fall earlier.

 

Also, Hillary's popularity is not necessarily an indication that Obama has a big problem with Democrats. A lot of polling showed that Democrats in general were happy with the slate of candidates offered in this years primaries, regardless of which Democrat they were supporting. So just because a large number of people preferred Clinton does not mean that they dislike Obama.

 

 

 

Much like Republicans will try to spin it to look like he's far more liberal than he actually is. Also, how many will spin McCain's record to hide his neoconservative transformation over the last few years? Will independent voters go for that?

 

 

 

Mostly people who were looking for something not to like about him.

 

 

 

Again, really only people who were looking for something to attack. Seriously, what is there to be worried about by merely talking to someone? Meeting with someone is not the same as making some sort of agreement with them. What kind of person actually thinks its best to not even talk to the other side and just bomb them instead?

 

 

 

 

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. had foreign policy experience coming out of their ears but still made the worst strategic blunder in the history of our nation. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with that question, but if you can clarify I'd be happy to address it.

 

 

 

There were certainly some party activists who have been very excited about him since 2004, but among voters in general, Clinton was the early favorite by pretty much every measure -- she had more money, she had a lot more name recognition, and the polls were in her favor. Very early on in primary campaigns name recognition counts for just about everything, so that's the main reason why, but Obama was certainly not the favorite early on in the primary campaigning season, and although he had gained a lot of ground by the time the Iowa caucus came around, he was still a long way from having it wrapped up. I think our disconnect here though is mainly that we're talking from different starting points -- I was referring to early on, when they first started campaigning, still several months before any voting had started. I will concede that he had made up most if not all of that ground by the time Iowa rolled around.

 

 

 

I don't have time for this shit.

 

 

 

 

You win dude.

 

 

Obama rules.

He's gonna win by a landside.

He's Jesus Christ walking on earth.

He can do no wrong.

If elected, the United States will be Eden....gas prices will be 50 cents a gallon and we'll all be holding hands naked, smiling with each other.

 

 

And Conservatives all are dumb fucks who don't know shit.

 

But you do. You know all. You rock!

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

The straw man can.

[MrRain422]

I don't have time for this shit.

 

 

 

 

You win dude.

 

 

Obama rules.

He's gonna win by a landside.

He's Jesus Christ walking on earth.

He can do no wrong.

If elected, the United States will be Eden....gas prices will be 50 cents a gallon and we'll all be holding hands naked, smiling with each other.

 

 

And Conservatives all are dumb fucks who don't know shit.

 

But you do. You know all. You rock!

 

I'm not trying to win anything, just trying to debate some points.

 

If you hadn't quoted my post, I wouldn't have even been able to tell you were responding to me.

[Garp]

some folks' outright condemnation for other people rather than their thoughts and ideas is only less impressive than their borderline inability to do so with the English language. This comment is made to no one in particular, just an impression from some of the election thread posts I've suffered through.

[jakobnicholas]

some folks' outright condemnation for other people rather than their thoughts and ideas is only less impressive than their borderline inability to do so with the English language. This comment is made to no one in particular, just an impression from some of the election thread posts I've suffered through.

 

Hmm.....I wonder if you're talking about me...? Hmmm...

 

 

 

 

Some folks don't have the time or desire to want to go on and on about arguing something that is mostly subjective.

 

 

I'd rather listen to music and watch baseball games. Politics is interesting, but rather bores me to tears after about 10 minutes of discussion.

 

 

I'll check back on the polictical threads in November.

[Garp]

Hmm.....I wonder if you're talking about me...? Hmmm...

 

This comment is made to no one in particular, just an impression from some of the election thread posts I've suffered through.

[mountain bed]

We've been through 2 or 3 of these campaign threads so far and things have remained remarkably civil. I've been impressed. I hope this continues.

[sweetheart-mine]

I don't have time for this shit.

You win dude.

Obama rules.

He's gonna win by a landside.

He's Jesus Christ walking on earth.

He can do no wrong.

If elected, the United States will be Eden....gas prices will be 50 cents a gallon and we'll all be holding hands naked, smiling with each other.

And Conservatives all are dumb fucks who don't know shit.

But you do. You know all. You rock!

it's not easy to understand why you're so upset about this, my friend, and i'm mostly a fairly innocent bystander so far, reading from some distance.

 

no one said that stuff about obama ("gonna win by a landslide," "he's Jesus Christ walking on earth," and so on). it's hard to see where you got that. maybe it's just fear? i don't know.

 

neocons, not general and genuine conservatives, have been driving this country, and certain parts of the world, into the dirt for at least the past 7+ years. john mccain will continue 95% of the policies that led to this, so . . . ? logical conclusion?

 

for me, and many others i've talked to, the choice comes down to who has spent the LEAST time in what can be only be described by now as a profoundly disillusioning washington (including congress), who is intelligent and made something of himself against all odds on top of that, who used his intelligence and education not to make a fortune for himself but instead in public service, and who has enough basic common sense in addition to the smarts to make good decisions based on it, not to mention the willingness and wisdom to make honest attempts to engage in discussion with anyone in this complicated world -- because if we don't, my friend, as we always ultimately have before, there is zero possibility of understandings or liveable compromises being reached.

 

think about it in terms of a family or a neighborhood. people get pissed off, and what happens if they skip over trying to reach agreements and instead do the "eye for an eye" bit with that oh so tempting but oh so dangerous tunnel vision? yep, everyone's endlessly blind.

 

i actually don't know what barack obama will do if elected president. that's one of his greatest pluses -- the possibility, instead of the knowledge of what any other candidate would inevitably resort to.

[Mr. Kinsley]

I don't have time for this shit.

 

 

 

 

You win dude.

 

 

Obama rules.

He's gonna win by a landside.

He's Jesus Christ walking on earth.

He can do no wrong.

If elected, the United States will be Eden....gas prices will be 50 cents a gallon and we'll all be holding hands naked, smiling with each other.

 

 

And Conservatives all are dumb fucks who don't know shit.

 

But you do. You know all. You rock!

Wow.

Y'know, we actually do have a few conservatives around here who are quite articulate and willing to engage in a civilized discussion on the issues, without throwing a hissy-fit when confronted by a well-reasoned, politely-stated rebuttal. Feel free to join their ranks at any time.