Tweet
Believe it or not, there is nothing inherently "middle" about middle America. If middle America voted for Bush in 2004, it could vote for Obama in 2008. And even if Obama lost, the race would be a hell of a lot better than if Clinton gets the nod.
-
"Remember, there's good stuff in American culture, too. It's just that by "good stuff" we mean "attacking the French," and Germany's been doing that for ages now, so, well, where does that leave us?" - Elok -
Obama's strength as compared to other Dem hopefuls is that he appears to be alive and to have a human soul of some description. Also he's genuinely comfortable talking about religion and blah blah blah, but mostly it's just that he doesn't seem like a mannequin, I think.Comment
-
People chided Bush for being a lightweight, but Obama is the lightest of the lightweights. Being a well-spoken, telegenic black Senator from Chicago who was a state Senator not so long ago does not a President make. He's a liberal vessel that everyone in the party wants to pour their ambitions into.If you look around and think everyone else is an *******, you're the *******.Comment
-
He's tied with McCain at the moment, and all anyone remembers about him is his 9/11 moment, which is where his being a paranoid, psychotic control freak was really useful.Originally posted by Ramo
If Guilliani gets the nomination (fat chance),Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
That can be a strength so long as he can maintain that fragil state and not disapoit anyone. Its a bit like the state Powel was in very early on when he was still not firmly seen as a republican or democrat, he could have sailed into office but made the mistake of actualy stating his opinions on policies.He's a liberal vessel that everyone in the party wants to pour their ambitions into.
I think the article is correct that IF Obama were to get in the race he likly would have an excelent chance of beating Hilary.
The article fails to adress Obamas own long term thinking, strategy, and patience. He is a young man who will have several chances to run for president over the next 20 years before he gets too old. We could be having this Obama debate every 4 years for some time. I could easily see Obama having a fruitfull term or two in the senate followed by seeking the Govenorship of Illinois which is a much stronger platform fromwhich to seek the presidency.Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks - those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. - Thus spoke Zarathustra, Fredrick NietzscheComment
-
I still think it will be McCain/Giuliani for Republicans.Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ BraindeadComment
-
So in other words you're pinning all your hopes for Obama less on his potential popularity than on the right's certain fragmentation by single-issue third parties? To call that optimistic would be quite an understatement.Originally posted by Ramo
Honestly, it's hard to see the Republicans win at this point. If McCain gets the nomination, there's probably going to be a significant Tancredist third party denouncing him for supporting "amnesty." If Guilliani gets the nomination (fat chance), ditto for civil unions and abortion
Do you really think issues like immigration and abortion are as salient now as desegregation was in '48 and '68?Last edited by Darius871; December 6, 2006, 00:00.Comment
-
We'll see in two years. One of them could have a macaca moment.Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
-
No, I was speaking of Democratic chances generally. I think that Obama has a decent shot at beating either McCain or Giulliani without a strong third party. Obama's favorables are better than McCain's right now, and Giulliani's favorables are bound to fall precipitously.So in other words you're pinning all your hopes for Obama on single-issue third parties?
There hasn't been a single negative ad thrown at him yet. And we're still two years out, so the polls mean very little (Lieberman had a commanding position in the polls at this point last cycle).He's tied with McCain at the moment, and all anyone remembers about him is his 9/11 moment, which is where his being a paranoid, psychotic control freak was really useful."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Why should favorable scores have more predictive power than 1 on 1 matchups (in which Obama trails by 9%)? Obviously people vote against candidates they find "favorable" all the time.Originally posted by Ramo
No, I was speaking of Democratic chances generally. I think that Obama has a decent shot at beating either McCain or Giulliani without a strong third party. Obama's favorables are better than McCain's right now, and Giulliani's favorables are bound to fall precipitously.Comment
-
Name recognition. This far before the election, one-on-one matchups mean next to nothing, particularly between a well-known candidate (i.e. McCain, Giulliani, Hillary, and Edwards) and an unknown candidate (basically, everyone else)"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Neither measure is accurate this early on, but IMO matchups are the only ones able to grasp the ballot box's 'lesser evil' logic weighing numerous policy issues.
Whether or not I find someone "favorable" means absolutely nothing about my future vote without taking his/her opponent into account. It's that simple. How many people found Cobb most favorable but begrudgingly voted for Kerry?Last edited by Darius871; December 6, 2006, 00:34.Comment
-
Neither measure is very accurate, but the ballot question is pretty meaningless. When 40% of the respondents haven't heard of one of the candidates, the result of the poll is totally worthless (except as a comparison with other candidates that have similar unknowns or for trends in time). Favorability/Unfavorability numbers are really all that matter at this point."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Your own logic could be used to contend that neither method matters at this point, but I'll just agree to disagree. Let's just say no poll prior to summer 2008 can possibly make me share your pie-eyed optimism.Comment
Comment