Election 2008: So is Barrack Obama finished?
Comments
-
Boygabriel wrote: Well, I include the terrible economy, wages and earning power among his failed policies.
Which some will, and some won't. But it probably won't be terribly difficult for McCain to get a little distance on those.Boygabriel wrote: At any rate, his ratings were in the toilet 2-3 years ago, long before the economy crept to the top of the list of voter issues.
I don't agree that 2-3 years ago was long before the economy crept to the top of the list of voter issues. It might not have been at THE top, but it was still in the top concerns. Even all the way back to *gasp* John Kerry is 2004, I remember debate about the economy and jobs.
-
daver wrote: Which some will, and some won't. But it probably won't be terribly difficult for McCain to get a little distance on those.
We disagree. I don't think it's going to be 'easy' for McCain do any kind of distancing, as reality is that his policies and proposals mimic Bush's up and down the board.daver wrote: I don't agree that 2-3 years ago was long before the economy crept to the top of the list of voter issues. It might not have been at THE top, but it was still in the top concerns. Even all the way back to *gasp* John Kerry is 2004, I remember debate about the economy and jobs.
I'm a little lost as to what we're debating here. My comment was that Bush's ratings are in the toilet, largely due to his policies, namely the Iraq war. Has the economy played a role? For sure. If the economy was doing better, would he no longer be the least popular in president in U.S. history? Personally, I don't think so. -
Boygabriel wrote: If the economy was doing better, would he no longer be the least popular in president in U.S. history? Personally, I don't think so.
OK, fair enough, not sure if I agree with that. You are saying that it was only the "luck"' of 9/11 that made him the most popular president in US history, but it had nothing to do with luck and was all his own doing that is his alos the least popular president in US history. *shrug*
When I read your posts, you make it sound like Obama is on a cakewalk into the White House, and I just don't buy that at all. I don't think it will take much in the way of bumps to upset his apple cart, and I think you are underestimating and marginalizing McCain based on a few isolated incidents. Just as others are doing to Obama, for what it is worth. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=daver]I don't agree that 2-3 years ago was long before the economy crept to the top of the list of voter issues. It might not have been at THE top, but it was still in the top concerns. Even all the way back to *gasp* John Kerry is 2004, I remember debate about the economy and jobs.
I'm a little lost as to what we're debating here. My comment was that Bush's ratings are in the toilet, largely due to his policies, namely the Iraq war. Has the economy played a role? For sure. If the economy was doing better, would he no longer be the least popular in president in U.S. history? Personally, I don't think so.
actually, I think the economy, gas prices, home foreclosures, health care cost, etc are playing a bigger role than you're giving them credit for. after the troop surge "worked" according to the administration, most polls showed economic concerns shifting to the top of the concerns of most americans. and the war, while often first, always had the economy as a close competitor for the top spot.
also, just think about how the shit economy and oil prices affect blue collar workers - most people don't live somewhere with a stable, $2 ride to work each day so they have to drive. most people work in industries that depend on someone else's relative wealth to continue to function - home building and car manufacturing, for instance, so they're going to be a little worried when the spending on those sorts of items drastically decreases. most people live paycheck to paycheck. if money is what causes the most divorces in this country, why don't you think money would cause people to choose one presidential candidate over another? -
I don't disagree. Pretty much everything you stated falls under the point I made above, which daver may or may not agree with:
Bush is the most unpopular president in history. This is largely due to his policies. McCain has similar policies to Bush, domestically and internationally. -
daver wrote: You are saying that it was only the "luck"' of 9/11 that made him the most popular president in US history, but it had nothing to do with luck and was all his own doing that is his alos the least popular president in US history. *shrug*
I think you're applying logic without context. 9/11 wasn't a policy choice. Iraq, mortgage rates, economic agendas, and almost everything else that's making Bush wildly unpopular, is.daver wrote: When I read your posts, you make it sound like Obama is on a cakewalk into the White House, and I just don't buy that at all.
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I don't mean to say a cakewalk in any way. Trust me, as a Democrat, I'm used to losing elections. However I do believe Obama is going to win. It's simply a prediction. And at the same time, in my posts, I am trying to combat generic cynicism about Democrats.daver wrote: I don't think it will take much in the way of bumps to upset his apple cart, and I think you are underestimating and marginalizing McCain based on a few isolated incidents. Just as others are doing to Obama, for what it is worth.
Which incidents are that? I feel very strongly about McCain's flaws and I am happy to discuss them in detail. And I say that honestly, not confrontationally. -
Boygabriel wrote: I don't disagree. Pretty much everything you stated falls under the point I made above, which daver may or may not agree with:
You are convinced that the "economy, gas prices, home foreclosures, health care cost, etc" problems are largely due to his policies, others will not be so easily convinced, and you can bet that McCain won't accept responsibility for those things. Further, you can bet that if it is to his advantage to have similar policies to Bush, then McCain will say that, and that if it isn't, then he is a whole new man. And rightyl or wrongly, many will buy it. I know you won't, but your mind is already made up.
Bush is the most unpopular president in history. This is largely due to his policies. McCain has similar policies to Bush, domestically and internationally. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=daver]You are saying that it was only the "luck"' of 9/11 that made him the most popular president in US history, but it had nothing to do with luck and was all his own doing that is his alos the least popular president in US history. *shrug*
I think you're applying logic without context. 9/11 wasn't a policy choice. Iraq, mortgage rates, economic agendas, and almost everything else that's making Bush wildly unpopular, is.
So say you. But mind you that the Republicans have already spent eight years convincing everyone that the booming times during Clinton's reign had nothing to due with his leadership, how much of a stretch is it really to say that these new things have nothing to do with Bush's leadership? That they would have been *worse* without it?
Mind you that I don't believe that, just saying what you'll be hearing, and doubtless some will be buying. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=daver]I don't think it will take much in the way of bumps to upset his apple cart, and I think you are underestimating and marginalizing McCain based on a few isolated incidents. Just as others are doing to Obama, for what it is worth.
Which incidents are that? I feel very strongly about McCain's flaws and I am happy to discuss them in detail. And I say that honestly, not confrontationally.
I'm just saying that I don't think McCain is as weak or easily beaten as you are making him out to be. And that is from someone who up until two years ago lived in AZ and has a long history with McCain. He is a lot sharper, cagier, and more slippery than you seem to be giving him credit for. He knows how to capitalize on events. A good break in Iraq? He'll surf it. -
daver wrote: So say you. But mind you that the Republicans have already spent eight years convincing everyone that the booming times during Clinton's reign had nothing to due with his leadership, how much of a stretch is it really to say that these new things have nothing to do with Bush's leadership? That they would have been *worse* without it?
For sure. But as far as Obama and the Dems are concerned, Bush's ratings are in the toilet, for whatever reason it is that voters feel that way.
Mind you that I don't believe that, just saying what you'll be hearing, and doubtless some will be buying.
And according to Krugman and some historians, this is a positive sign for the challenging party, not the incumbent party.
=happy Gabe -
Boygabriel wrote: For sure. But as far as Obama and the Dems are concerned, Bush's ratings are in the toilet, for whatever reason it is that voters feel that way.
I'm starting to feel a bit cautiously optimistic myself.
And according to Krugman and some historians, this is a positive sign for the challenging party, not the incumbent party.
=happy Gabe
Which is always a bad sign.
-
daver wrote: I'm just saying that I don't think McCain is as weak or easily beaten as you are making him out to be. And that is from someone who up until two years ago lived in AZ and has a long history with McCain. He is a lot sharper, cagier, and more slippery than you seem to be giving him credit for. He knows how to capitalize on events. A good break in Iraq? He'll surf it.
That's a good point. I'm probably going overboard with my McCain hate (or lack of respect). I just feel that his political machine isn't nearly as formidable as George Bush's was. Combined with that is that Congressional Republicans may continue to be on the defensive, as they were in 2006, unlike they were from the 1990's until 2004.
How do you compare McCain's machine with Bush/Rove/Cheney's? -
daver wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]For sure. But as far as Obama and the Dems are concerned, Bush's ratings are in the toilet, for whatever reason it is that voters feel that way.
I'm starting to feel a bit cautiously optimistic myself.
And according to Krugman and some historians, this is a positive sign for the challenging party, not the incumbent party.
=happy Gabe
Which is always a bad sign.
you said it man. -
Boygabriel wrote: I just feel that his political machine isn't nearly as formidable as George Bush's was. Combined with that is that Congressional Republicans may continue to be on the defensive, as they were in 2006, unlike they were from the 1990's until 2004.
Totally different. I don't think that it necessarily means that it isn't formidable. His campaign has proved agile, responsive, and strong as needed thus far. There were comments before about Obama being innovative, well McCain is doing things different as well. I don't think we have seen enough to be able to make a judgment yet, but my gut feeling is that he will have to scrap a lot of it and fall back to something more normal. *shrug* Obama has this world built on little people, which is really working. McCain has none. He will definitely need to move in that direction in the coming months. I think it is just a wait and see thing until the Democrats shake themselves out, but McCain should be busting ass right now to take advantage of their mess. Which I don't really think he is. Maybe that will end up paying off for him though.
How do you compare McCain's machine with Bush/Rove/Cheney's?
Er, that was all over the place. I need bullets. -
Also please do not forget the power of racism (both overt and subsconscious) in this country. This will have a strong but not necessarily measurable effect on an Obama vs. McCain election.
-
arock75 wrote: Also please do not forget the power of racism (both overt and subsconscious) in this country. This will have a strong but not necessarily measurable effect on an Obama vs. McCain election.
How do you think the effect will be different than Obama vs. Clinton? Or, how do you think is _has_ effected Obama vs. Clinton?Hillary Clinton wrote: "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said. -
For one I don't think people take primary elections as seriously as they do general elections. Also it was a white woman vs. a black man and most racists are likely to be sexists too so they probably had to choose the lesser of two evils in their view. When it comes down to it the prejudiced and racist people (varying by degree of prejudice) will probably make their decision based on skin color. Sad but true. This country has come a long way but it still has a very long way to go. The fact that is an issue and something that people think and talk about is daming enough as it is.
-
^True.
But Obama has A LOT of work to do if he wants to win the presidency.
Democrats cannot take this one for granted. Obama has some weaknesses that he must conquer.
At this stage, The only sure-fire guarantee of Victory in November is Hillary as VP.
I'm NOT saying its the ONLY way, I'm saying that is the only SURE bet. If Hillary is smart - and if she wants it, she should negotiate her "withdrawal" with the Dems. to include a VP spot.
Never say never. -
Livetotravel wrote: Shelby Steele is once again doing white man's work. I mean where's the credibility of someone who works with the Hoover Institute, and has never reconciled his own mix-raced existence. Couldn't be a more conservative voice - one I might add that's stuck somewhere in the 80's re race relations.
Hmm, a lot of his predictions from the book are turning out to be correct and true. Obama is having those 80s problems right here in 2008.
He does openly discuss his mixed raced heritage and experiences in a number of books and appearances for years.
What difference does it make which institute he works for?
Either it is true or not true.
Obama went to Harvard (90% white), works in the Senate (95% white) and wants to be president of the united states of America (75% white) in a job that has been held previously only by white men (100% white).
Is he also doing white man's work? -
alafairnadia wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]If she were not married to Bill Clinton, would she be where she is today?
yes. look at her career. not bill's - hers. she was working DC before she ever hooked up with him. who knows what would have happened if she'd never married bill, but yes, she would DEFINITELY be in the public eye ... in a good way, no less.
Definitely Possibly.
Now to give her the same treatment as Obama in the "what if":
If she were a white man would she be where she is today...or would she simply be, say, John Edwards? (otherwise educated, intelligent, experienced, but uninspiring and unable to get votes)
I argue that she would NOT be where she is - not in the same way.
The symbolism of her gender pulls her forward along with her qualifications. How much, I can't say for sure, but I would give it a solid 25-35% of her success and recognition comes from the fact that she is a woman (remember the "cry-gate" earlier this year and how that got played - and how it played with women, specifically).
The 51% of the population that is female finally have a representative, viable and strong candidate - who has shown she can win.
African-Americans, mixed race people with funny names, underdogs and younger people finally have one too.
And of course, white republicans have their candidate.
I'm just not sure why Obama is the only one being asked the "what if" question. -
SevenOneEighty wrote: [quote=alafairnadia][quote=SevenOneEighty]If she were not married to Bill Clinton, would she be where she is today?
yes. look at her career. not bill's - hers. she was working DC before she ever hooked up with him. who knows what would have happened if she'd never married bill, but yes, she would DEFINITELY be in the public eye ... in a good way, no less.
Definitely Possibly.
Now to give her the same treatment as Obama in the "what if":
If she were a white man would she be where she is today...or would she simply be, say, John Edwards? (otherwise educated, intelligent, experienced, but uninspiring and unable to get votes)
I argue that she would NOT be where she is - not in the same way.
The symbolism of her gender pulls her forward along with her qualifications. How much, I can't say for sure, but I would give it a solid 25-35% of her success and recognition comes from the fact that she is a woman (remember the "cry-gate" earlier this year and how that got played - and how it played with women, specifically).
The 51% of the population that is female finally have a representative, viable and strong candidate - who has shown she can win.
African-Americans, mixed race people with funny names, underdogs and younger people finally have one too.
And of course, white republicans have their candidate.
I'm just not sure why Obama is the only one being asked the "what if" question.
good points. but. she wouldn't have been a PI lawyer, that's for damn sure. so ... not john edwards. -
one could add that mccain is only in the position he is in because he was a prisoner of war.
-
witch-king wrote: one could add that mccain is only in the position he is in because he was a prisoner of war.
and in congress since the last ice age. -
alafairnadia wrote: [quote=witch-king]one could add that mccain is only in the position he is in because he was a prisoner of war.
and in congress since the last ice age.
And left his first wife for an heiress to a beer fortune that entirely funded his first run for Congress. Without her money, he'd be nowhere. -
Speaking of McCain, Bush, and the American public:
Voters still more concerned with Bush than Jeremiah Wright
original blog post here.
Posted May 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Two weeks ago, an NBC/WSJ poll found an interesting trend in American public opinion: after hearing about Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons in a constant loop for months, voters were more concerned with John McCain’s association with Bush than Obama’s association with his former pastor. (Specifically, 43% of respondents were worried about McCain and Bush; 32% about Obama and Wright.)
Today, a new Gallup poll points to a similar public sentiment.George W. Bush may do as much damage to John McCain’s chances of being elected as Jeremiah Wright does to Barack Obama’s, according to results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
A strong majority of Americans (64%), including a near majority of Republicans (47%) said the Wright issue will not have any effect on their vote.
The May 1-3 poll finds 38% of likely voters saying McCain’s association with Bush makes them less likely to vote for McCain, while 33% say Obama’s association with Wright diminishes their likelihood of voting for Obama. -
Subject: Sweetiegate?
Lol."Hold on one second, sweetie. We're going to do - we'll do a press avail," Obama told inquisitive WXYZ reporter Peggy Agar.
Sweetiegate on NY Daily
Agar ended her segment with the news that "This sweetie never got an answer to that question," and footage of Obama walking away. -
ugh. another manufactured sound bite controversy. maybe this can be the new topic the MSM discusses instead of Iraq, the economy, or the housing crisis.
-
Subject: Re: Sweetiegate?
daver wrote: Lol.
Funny, but the only people I know who use that term (and there are several of them that I work with) are women, and they tend to use it with both women and men."Hold on one second, sweetie. We're going to do - we'll do a press avail," Obama told inquisitive WXYZ reporter Peggy Agar.
Sweetiegate on NY Daily
Agar ended her segment with the news that "This sweetie never got an answer to that question," and footage of Obama walking away.
This is more bullshit "gotcha" politics, except for the fact that he didn't answer her question. -
It appears that Obama has a chronic and persistent Sweetie problem... haha. What an issue!
From April 4th, 2008:While flirting with female factory workers in Allentown, he called one "sweetie," a paternalistic way to address a woman if there ever was one. It might have worked had he been trying to do his best imitation of Lily Tomlin's Ernestine, the telephone operator, but this was no spoof. This was Obama trying to relate to working-class women in a way that went directly south.
He did it again, last night, while watching CNN News he responded to a womans comment in a crowd, by calling her sweetie. What is with him? This is disturbing. I was just turning my sentiments toward him, when he does this.......
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/4/4/obamas-sweetie-problem.html -
Are we still talking about this?
Isn't there a war happening?
What's McCain's plan for Sadr City?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds