Should Hillary Hang It Up?

[djnemo65]

Let's not forget that Obama only needs to carry Kerry's states plus Ohio to win. For all the talk of Dean's 50 state strategy at the end of the day the dems will know where to campaign.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

My point is how can he be losing to her by 20 points anywhere when everyone knows he's going to win. It's like betting on the loser of the game after you know the score. It speaks to a deep-seated dissatisfaction with Obama as the candidate in many circles. This can be exploited by Republicans very easily. There are entire demographics where he has almost no support and those are voters the Dermocrats need to reach out to. People keep talking about all the new people Obama is bringing in but his supporters (blacks, college professors, homosexuals, labor unions, vegans, pot devotees, the tattoos and piercings set, single white guys trying to impress this girl they like who is really into politics, etc) are all people who vote Democratic all the time anyway. He may have made these people more enthusiastic and they are not embarrased by him the way they were of say, Dukakis, but it's the same old people.

And, any Democrat should be trouncing any Republican this year, yet the polls are quite close, and I have not seen one that shows Obama's support at greater than 50%.

I was also interested to see that BHO has thrown all the people that defended his choice not to wear an American Flag lapel pin under the bus, by choosing to wear an American Flag lapel pin. Of course, throwing people under the bus is like taking out the garbage for this guy. He does it every Tuesday.

You really need to stop hanging out with John Rocker.

[dmek25]

70, do you rally believe that stuff? or are you just trying to liven things up? right now, there are republicans that would vote for H. R. Puffin-stuff, if he were their nominee. maybe once in a while you should try thinking outside the box. is this country really in better shape after 8 years of Bush? because i would be willing to bet you voted for him twice. whoever wins this general election has one helluva of a mess to clean up. do we really need someone who agrees with what has been going on in this country for the last 30 years, or someone who seems to want to try something new? that is pretty much how this election boils down

[saden1]

Republicans got murdered in 3 recent special elections in heavily republican districts the GOP held for decades. The GOP is going to get clobbered come November and anyone that doesn't think so is delusional. The jig is up!

[onlydarksets]

Sorry, saden, but thinking that anything in politics is a sure thing is delusional. I hope you are right, though, and I will happily eat crow on this one.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Sorry, saden, but thinking that anything in politics is a sure thing is delusional. I hope you are right, though, and I will happily eat crow on this one.

Nothing is one hundred percent certain but somethings are more certain than others specially when backed by trends and facts. All indications are similar to what happened in '94 to democrats and in '06 to the republicans.

The dipshit in Mississippi ran on the following platform and got clobbered by 8 points. I love it.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by dmek25

70, do you rally believe that stuff? or are you just trying to liven things up? right now, there are republicans that would vote for H. R. Puffin-stuff, if he were their nominee. maybe once in a while you should try thinking outside the box. is this country really in better shape after 8 years of Bush? because i would be willing to bet you voted for him twice. whoever wins this general election has one helluva of a mess to clean up. do we really need someone who agrees with what has been going on in this country for the last 30 years, or someone who seems to want to try something new? that is pretty much how this election boils down

Dmek you're such a tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving left-wing freak show. Hold on, I have to go watch Sean Hannity. (Hopefully the sarcasm here is evident, but you never know).

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

There are entire demographics where he has almost no support and those are voters the Dermocrats need to reach out to. People keep talking about all the new people Obama is bringing in but his supporters (blacks, college professors, homosexuals, labor unions, vegans, pot devotees, the tattoos and piercings set, single white guys trying to impress this girl they like who is really into politics, etc) are all people who vote Democratic all the time anyway. He may have made these people more enthusiastic and they are not embarrased by him the way they were of say, Dukakis, but it's the same old people.

You can't honestly believe that Obama is comparable to Dukakis and that his appeal is limited to the fringes. I've looked at the polls and, yes, Obama has not found broad support among lower income people, the less educated, and the elderly. But I think you would be mistaken to think that Obama is just a fringe Dem. Obama is quite popular among independents like myself. I think when the general election rolls around you will be quite surprised with just how popular Obama is.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by dmek25

someone who agrees with what has been going on in this country for the last 30 years, or someone who seems to want to try something new?

Is this really a legitimate classification of everyone in the United States?

1) People who agree with the last 30 years

2) People who want to try something new.

Can't we be somewhere in between (like, say, McCain)? What is the world coming to?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

So people who don't vote for Obama are racist. I'm sure we'll all get a bellyful of this logic between now and November.

Also, it wasn't the Clintons that declared Bill Clinton to be the first black president, it was Toni Morrison. If Black America has a problem with him now, they only have themselves to blame. They were the backbone of his support and if not for them he would have surely been driven from office in disgrace and we would all have been rid of him.

Completely agreed. Those accusations are asinine.

IF someone votes for or against Obama simply because he's black, that's not racist, it's just ignorant and stupid.

IF someone votes for or against Clinton simply because she's a woman, that's not sexist, it's just ignorant and stupid.

IF someone votes for or against McCain simply because he's an older man, that's not *create new PC term*-ist, it's just ignorant and stupid.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Buster

Completely agreed. Those accusations are asinine.

IF someone votes for or against Obama simply because he's black, that's not racist, it's just ignorant and stupid.

IF someone votes for or against Clinton simply because she's a woman, that's not sexist, it's just ignorant and stupid.

IF someone votes for or against McCain simply because he's an older man, that's not *create new PC term*-ist, it's just ignorant and stupid.

OMG, you can't possibly be serious. Ignorant and stupid? I think you might want to actually check the definition of what racism is. Unless I am not aware of my own ignorants I do believe not voting for someone because they are black rather than on the merits of their character and position IS racist (it falls under "discrimination or prejudice based on race" definition).

p.s. Same principle applies in sexism and ageism which is NOT a new PC term.

[MTK]

To me racism and sexism stems from stupidity and ignorance.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

To me racism and sexism stems from stupidity and ignorance.

Exactly, to be racist is to be ignorant and stupid. Let's not however redefine racism to it's simpler form because it's really more nefarious than ignorance and stupidity. When someone says I'm never voting for a black man what rational could there possibly be for their position? He's less capable? His presidency would be detrimental to white people?

[dmek25]

good post SC skins fan. and gtripp, show me where McCain stands in between an issue?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

It's the first presidential race since 1948 where there wasn't an incumbent of some sort running. That alone has made it more interesting.

Truman was the sitting President in 1948. In 1952 with Eisenhower vs. Stevenson, neither was an incumbent. Also 1928, Hoover vs. Al Smith. Hoover was Secretary of Commerce and Smith was the Catholic Governor of New York. 1908 Taft vs. W.J. Bryan. Taft had been Secretary of War and Bryan was the oft-defeated populist Democrat. 1896 McKinley vs. Bryan. McKInley was Governor of Ohio, I believe. Also there could be an interesting discussion about wether or not Grover Cleveland should be considered an incumbent in 1892. He was the non-consecutive President. I guess he should NOT be considered an incumbent as the stink of office had surely faded somewhat. Perhaps someone else can pick up the trail from here. Some of you could stand doing a little research.