bjl
New Member
That's because obama's more of a milk chocolate then a dark chocolate, and lilies only vote for milk.
Now, lets see who get's called the racist here.
|
|
|
U.S. Elections 2008
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
That's because obama's more of a milk chocolate then a dark chocolate, and lilies only vote for milk.
Now, lets see who get's called the racist here.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Primary elections and caucus meetings are radically different from the general election. Obama isn't just going to win because he converts Republicans, he will win if Democratic turnout is big and Republicans stay home. That's about it.
With McCain running, its entirely possible. The religious right isn't inspired by McCain because he's been anti-religious right in the past (at least in rhetoric).
If you want to see what is disturbing about Obama right now, if the primary elections can tell us anything, its that Obama didn't concisely win Missouri. Missouri may be a run-of-the-mill American state with nothing special to talk about, but its a bellweather state that has voted with the Presidential winner for many generations. They voted Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc... Go back for 100 years.
Its a KEY battleground state that must be won.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrmaps/county_map.asp?party=dem
That's the 2008 Democratic Primary official results. Obama didn't win any counties outside the urban areas of St Louis, Kansas City, the college town and capitol city of Columbia and Jefferson City in the central part of the state, as well as one small county in the northwest of the state.
Obama won the core urban vote and absolutely nothing else. THESE AREAS WILL ALREADY VOTE DEMOCRAT regardless who is running, and Hillary stands a better chance at winning overall in a GENERAL ELECTION when millions more voters will be coming to the polls.
This is horrible news for Obama and a horrible sign for the general election. If he can't inspire more than the bare Democratic base to vote for him in a primary, how does this bode for a general election? Remember, most people voting in the primary are party activists, and Obama only won the urban vote which is going to be voting Democrat anyway come fall. Leaves a lot to think about.
A lot of these states where Obama is winning 60% of the vote, like South Carolina or Nebraska or Idaho, are so strongly Republican in a general election we already know he can't win there. His wins are highly misleading because these are primary voters where mainly Democratic party members are a part of.
While he has plenty of time throughout the rest of the year to build a coalition, I fear Obama isn't as electable as current national polls suggest. Its why I've been a Hillary supporter.
But if he's the nominee, I hope he wins and I hope he pulls off a convincing victory. The nation can't stand another Republican administration right now, doesn't matter how "moderate" McCain says he is or the fact that he has a few moderate leanings in the past. He's still more of the same: pro-war, pro-wealthy class. He's not into programs to help the middle class at all, in fact he's a traditional conservative more-so than Bush on domestic programs, and he's just as pro-war as Bush is.
Its a dangerous mix. McCain is simply bad, bad, BAD.
With McCain running, its entirely possible. The religious right isn't inspired by McCain because he's been anti-religious right in the past (at least in rhetoric).
If you want to see what is disturbing about Obama right now, if the primary elections can tell us anything, its that Obama didn't concisely win Missouri. Missouri may be a run-of-the-mill American state with nothing special to talk about, but its a bellweather state that has voted with the Presidential winner for many generations. They voted Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc... Go back for 100 years.
Its a KEY battleground state that must be won.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrmaps/county_map.asp?party=dem
That's the 2008 Democratic Primary official results. Obama didn't win any counties outside the urban areas of St Louis, Kansas City, the college town and capitol city of Columbia and Jefferson City in the central part of the state, as well as one small county in the northwest of the state.
Obama won the core urban vote and absolutely nothing else. THESE AREAS WILL ALREADY VOTE DEMOCRAT regardless who is running, and Hillary stands a better chance at winning overall in a GENERAL ELECTION when millions more voters will be coming to the polls.
This is horrible news for Obama and a horrible sign for the general election. If he can't inspire more than the bare Democratic base to vote for him in a primary, how does this bode for a general election? Remember, most people voting in the primary are party activists, and Obama only won the urban vote which is going to be voting Democrat anyway come fall. Leaves a lot to think about.
A lot of these states where Obama is winning 60% of the vote, like South Carolina or Nebraska or Idaho, are so strongly Republican in a general election we already know he can't win there. His wins are highly misleading because these are primary voters where mainly Democratic party members are a part of.
While he has plenty of time throughout the rest of the year to build a coalition, I fear Obama isn't as electable as current national polls suggest. Its why I've been a Hillary supporter.
But if he's the nominee, I hope he wins and I hope he pulls off a convincing victory. The nation can't stand another Republican administration right now, doesn't matter how "moderate" McCain says he is or the fact that he has a few moderate leanings in the past. He's still more of the same: pro-war, pro-wealthy class. He's not into programs to help the middle class at all, in fact he's a traditional conservative more-so than Bush on domestic programs, and he's just as pro-war as Bush is.
Its a dangerous mix. McCain is simply bad, bad, BAD.
Brandon716
Senior Member
I agree to a point. This primary and caucus season has caused even seasoned political pundits to lose their mind. They forget a party primary where most voters are party members (even if independents or republicans participate, even in open primaries over 80% of the voters are still democratic party members) do not represent a general election at all. AT ALL. The general election is a different ballgame with millions and millions more voters.
Every candidate, whether good or bad, wins the primary. Michael Dukakis won the primaries/caucuses, and he lost in a landslide. George McGovern in the 1970's won the primaries/caucuses, and he lost the general election in a landslide. John Kerry won the 2004 primary by sweeping the nation and went on to lose by 1%.
The pundits on TV and in the media completely forget the facts in favor of emotion. They go on and on about the flavor of the week and then move onto a different topic. Right now Obama is that flavor.
I just hope that when Obama gets the full force of a media not in his favor later this year, along with a Republican machine that might be hurt but still operational, if he'll actually succeed victorious. I hope he does.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Its not toast yet, this primary and caucus season is now entirely dependent upon Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Those three states are three of the largest states with more delegates than all of those other 10 states combined.
If you want to compare, its like one candidate winning the delegation from Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Sasketchewan then calling it a win, just to have Ontario and Quebec's votes in a convention not yet to be counted... The vote is still out and Hillary CAN still win this thing. But she has to win the big 3.
But, you're right, she's lost momentum in this losing streak and the Texas-Ohio-Pennsylvania trio are a must win. If she loses Texas significantly, her campaign is over. If she is near 50% or wins, she's still in.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
In terms of aspiring to be a theocracy, it's always fascinating to observe how this charge tends to be stuck to Republicans and not Democrats. Hillary Clinton made her religious allegiances well known; and when Al Gore ran he made sure no one forgot he was a major league Bible thumper.
As for the charge of possessing a "free-market Christian Zionist agenda," the "free-market" of ideas certainly has reduced any successful efforts at censorship or hegemony. The Bush administration has been one of the most criticized in recent memory. No doubt this critique will continue long after he (finally) leaves office.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Be it Christian, Zionist, Muslim or Secularism, they're all dogmas with positives and negatives.
Brandon716
Senior Member
I consider myself a secular humanist, but does that mean it requires a dogma of sorts?
Dogma is a loose word, so I suppose it could be a dogma to be a secular person, but its just the non-belief of a God. Its not a central authority or book of morals that we all are supposed to abide by. That would certainly be more than dogma.
CityPlaceN1
Senior Member
heckles what happens to delegates that committed to candidates that dropped out? For example what happens to Edward's delegates?
theowne
Active Member
Besides, I don't get why people keep spouting this idea of Obama being all flash, just a "dreamer" and no substance. Check out this comparison of the records of Obama and Clinton:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
I'm also confused as to the comment about MLK Jr. Even here living in Toronto, I think his work has had a great effect.
DENTROBATE54
Banned
Delegates of dropped-out candiadates usually vote for whomever remains in the race. John Edwards has already defended Obama against the Clinton's smear campaign. His running mate from '04, John Kerry, also vocally supported Obama so it's highly unlikely those votes wouldn't go towards Obama.
Brandon716
Senior Member
They will still vote Edwards at the convention technically, even though he cannot win, unless he endorses a candidate and sends his delegates into their camp. Most likely he will endorse a candidate, or whoever becomes the clear frontrunner might get the votes.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Of course secular humanist is a dogma. It's wiki, but for what that's worth see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Brandon716
Senior Member
It still goes without saying that for non-religious secularists we don't have the same "dogma" of a religious group.
But, there is a new thread I created in devotion to this topic:
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?p=160093
Back to Barack v. Hillary!
cacruden
Senior Member
She does not have to just win those three BUT she must also win the overall delegate count for those states by a ratio exceeding 60/40. Winning all three will be difficult, especially with the polls closing in those states .... but there is no way she will win by the percentage needed (unless Obama explodes).