PDA

View Full Version : Do You Ladies And Gentlemen Entertain The Nation That McCain Might Lose?



everyman68
06-05-2008, 03:23 PM
I see some of the same overconfidence here that I see at the DUmp. They think that Obama can't lose and they might be right. Every available metric favors the Democrat this year.Perception is more important than reality and the perception is the war is bad, the economy is bad, and George Bush is a failed president. You might agree or disagree with that assessment but that is what Senator McCain is up against.He is also up against a charismatic candidate who has the press in his back pocket.

The political environment in 2008 is as bad for the Republicans as it was for the Democrats in 1980 and we all saw what happened. Ronald Reagan won 489 Electoral College Votes and the Republicans won control of the Senate for the first time in twenty five years.

The one thing that can stave off defeat is John McCain has a great resume and Obama's color and his loopy friends like Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayres and Tony Rezko might make him too risky a proposition.

I don't see how either side can be overconfident.

linda22003
06-05-2008, 03:31 PM
I don't think for a minute that either side has it locked up. There's no such thing as "can't lose".

everyman68
06-05-2008, 03:37 PM
I don't think for a minute that either side has it locked up. There's no such thing as "can't lose".


This is an interesting election...There are times when one knows in June who will win in November. Think 32, 36, 40, 44, 52, 56, 64, 76*, 80, 84,96...


This election reminds me of 1976. It was in the wake of Viet Nam and Watergate. Jimmy Carter should have won in a landslide. He blew a 33 point post convention lead and won by less than two percent. In fact if 30,000 votes in Hawaii and Ohio went the other way he would have lost the Electoral College. This election will most likely be like 76.

But can McCain pull off the upset or come close enough to disappoint.

I will vote for Obama but I can honestly say I would not feel bad if he lost.He brought it on himself with his messianic followers and his past associations

linda22003
06-05-2008, 03:39 PM
I will vote for Obama but I can honestly say I would not feel bad if he lost.He brought it on himself with his messianic followers and his past associations

So why vote for him? What's the appeal, for you?

Perilloux
06-05-2008, 03:40 PM
I certainly think it's possible McCain could lose.

LogansPapa
06-05-2008, 03:40 PM
Don’t think so. It could happen - but one heck of a lot of Republicans would have to stay home and not vote or get swept up in this ‘Revolution In The Air’ (ala Dylan) 1960’s flashback crap and vote for Obama. It think there’s a better chance that Obama self destructs and allows Hillary to stay on - in his champaign in some face saving capacity. Universal health care is her last rock to hold on to and that subject will be her party’s demise once the Republican bean counters get their calculators out and expose the tax realities.

JB
06-05-2008, 03:43 PM
There's no such thing as "can't lose".pffft. You should see me at the track on Saturday. :D

Of course he can lose. It's an election. He'll have at least two votes though. Mine and his.

Goldwater
06-05-2008, 03:44 PM
Look, Dukakis had like a 15 point lead over Bush when he came out of the convention, it's not over until one of them is in the oval office.

Elspeth
06-05-2008, 03:48 PM
Don’t think so. It could happen - but one heck of a lot of Republicans would have to stay home and not vote or get swept up in this ‘Revolution In The Air’ (ala Dylan) 1960’s flashback crap and vote for Obama. It think there’s a better chance that Obama self destructs and allows Hillary to stay on - in his champaign in some face saving capacity. Universal health care is her last rock to hold on to and that subject will be her party’s demise once the Republican bean counters get their calculators out and expose the tax realities.

I don't see Obama tanking before the convention. The GOP strategists are too smart for that. They'll save the big stuff for the GE.

Obama does not really have the support of many traditionally liberal groups: working class ("uneducated whites," as Eyelids calls them), women, gays (who are still mad about his anti-gay preacher ties), and Hispanics (who will probably vote for McCain). At best, he will get lukewarm support from these groups, and if the GOP has any dirt (especially anti-white or criminal), those groups will not vote for him in the numbers he needs. Obama basically has well-heeled liberal males and college students and he make keep those, that is, if midterms occur before the first week in November and not during. :)

everyman68
06-05-2008, 03:52 PM
So why vote for him? What's the appeal, for you?


It's a fair question.I am socially liberal.Economically moderate.And on foreign policy I am a nationalist/realist.
That makes me closer to Obama on two of the three big issues...

Plus I have African American friends who would literally lay down their life for me. I don't want to be the one to rain on their parade. I'm kind of sad because I see Obama as an clever opportunist who is an imperfect vessel for their wishes.

I respect McCain's service and would never attack him personally...I am concerned about his age and mental agility. I respect older people...Konrad Adenauer ran post war Germany at 87 but McCain seems old and the presidency is a hard job.

Also, I am in Florida. Obama is all wrong for this state. Democrats that do well here are centrist, defense minded Democrats. Liberal Democrats get smashed. Therefore there are little consequences to my vote.

If I was the ultimate decider I don't know what I would do.

everyman68
06-05-2008, 03:57 PM
Don’t think so. It could happen - but one heck of a lot of Republicans would have to stay home and not vote or get swept up in this ‘Revolution In The Air’ (ala Dylan) 1960’s flashback crap and vote for Obama. It think there’s a better chance that Obama self destructs and allows Hillary to stay on - in his champaign in some face saving capacity. Universal health care is her last rock to hold on to and that subject will be her party’s demise once the Republican bean counters get their calculators out and expose the tax realities.


If Obama loses it won't be because of his economic policies. It will be because he was successfuly portrayed as an out of touch elitist who won't stand up to the terrorists. That, imho, is the Republican's only chance.

IMHO, Hillary Clinton would have run to the left of McCain on social and economic policies and met him in the center or right on foreign policy/defense issues.That is the winning ticket as Bill Clinton showed in 92 and 96.

BHO has to prove he can keep America safe. In the heirachy of needs , safety is one of the greatest needs of all...

Constitutionally Speaking
06-05-2008, 03:58 PM
I see some of the same overconfidence here that I see at the DUmp. They think that Obama can't lose and they might be right. Every available metric favors the Democrat this year.Perception is more important than reality and the perception is the war is bad, the economy is bad, and George Bush is a failed president. You might agree or disagree with that assessment but that is what Senator McCain is up against.He is also up against a charismatic candidate who has the press in his back pocket.

The political environment in 2008 is as bad for the Republicans as it was for the Democrats in 1980 and we all saw what happened. Ronald Reagan won 489 Electoral College Votes and the Republicans won control of the Senate for the first time in twenty five years.

The one thing that can stave off defeat is John McCain has a great resume and Obama's color and his loopy friends like Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayres and Tony Rezko might make him too risky a proposition.

I don't see how either side can be overconfident.

I am not overconfident by any means. I live in fear that we might be dumb enough to allow Jimmy Carter II (Obama) in office. The only difference is that this time, is the consequences will be far worse.

If you look at Obama's policies, they are IDENTICAL to those of Jimmy Carter - both foreign policy- wise and domestically.

I have no desire to return to 18% interest rates for 30 year mortgages. There is not one bone in my body that aches for inflation rates of 13.5% and an unemployement rate of nearly 10% does not exactly make me jump for joy.

Those are what Jimmy Carters policies brought us economically.


As for his foriegn policy, (again nearly identical to Obama's) we had the Soviet Union marching unchecked throughout Europe, Africa and South America.

Nearly ALL of the problems we have today are a result of Jimmy Carters (and others) policy of non-confrontation with the Soviet Union and his absolute refusal to back friendly nations under siege. He is responsible almost single-handedly for most of the problems we face today. That includes Iran, North Korea and the rise of radical Islam.


If people want a REAL depression and REAL domination by tyrants and fascists, by all means vote for Obama - or stay home and don't vote at all.

As for me, I will hold my nose and vote for McCain knowing that he is not ideal, but is infinitely preferable to the extreme radical with disastrous policies that Dems have nominated.

Defiant1
06-05-2008, 03:59 PM
This is an interesting election...There are times when one knows in June who will win in November. Think 32, 36, 40, 44, 52, 56, 64, 76*, 80, 84,96...


This election reminds me of 1976. It was in the wake of Viet Nam and Watergate. Jimmy Carter should have won in a landslide. He blew a 33 point post convention lead and won by less than two percent. In fact if 30,000 votes in Hawaii and Ohio went the other way he would have lost the Electoral College. This election will most likely be like 76.

But can McCain pull off the upset or come close enough to disappoint.

I will vote for Obama but I can honestly say I would not feel bad if he lost.He brought it on himself with his messianic followers and his past associations

Who would Obama have to kill to make you not vote for him?

everyman68
06-05-2008, 04:04 PM
Who would Obama have to kill to make you not vote for him?


Anybody except OBL.

If you go back in the thread I lay out my reasons why. I am socially liberal, economically moderate, and centrist on defense foreign policy issues...That puts me closer to Obama...I would have been much more enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton...

At least I won't agonize the next five months.

LogansPapa
06-05-2008, 04:06 PM
BHO has to prove he can keep America safe. In the heirachy of needs , safety is one of the greatest needs of all...

I think the safety of the country is over-blown. If any candidate just let’s the military and regional police do their jobs - which means funding them to the hilt, safety will be a background issue. If McCain attempts to lean on ‘The Big Bad Wolf’ routine too hard he’ll sound exactly like his predecessor - and many citizens have grown quite weary of that constant pushing of the ‘Fear Button’.

Jobs, Inflation and Gasoline prices are going to be the hard nut to crack: It’s The Economy, Stupid 2.0


:cool:

everyman68
06-05-2008, 04:12 PM
I think the safety of the country is over-blown. If any candidate just let’s the military and regional police do their jobs - which means funding them to the hilt, safety will be a background issue. If McCain attempts to lean on ‘The Big Bad Wolf’ routine too hard he’ll sound exactly like his predecessor - and many citizens have grown quite weary of that constant pushing of the ‘Fear Button’.

Jobs, Inflation and Gasoline prices are going to be the hard nut to crack: It’s The Economy, Stupid 2.0


:cool:


Yes, but there was a wolf in the parable.

I don't how much the price of a barrel of oil is influenced by increased consumption and how much of it is influenced by regional instability... I have read if the area was stable the price of a barrel of oil would be around $75.00.

LogansPapa
06-05-2008, 04:18 PM
Yes, but there was a wolf in the parable.

I don't how much the price of a barrel of oil is influenced by increased consumption and how much of it is influenced by regional instability... I have read if the area was stable the price of a barrel of oil would be around $75.00.

Then we need to go to Venezuela, over-throw that little rat, install our own government and save the cost of shipping that crude half way round the world. Between our drilling, the Canadians, the Mexicans and the juice coming from South America - we’re set, and don’t have to rely on anyone in an Islamic region.

Who would stop us? :confused:

Molon Labe
06-05-2008, 04:46 PM
I used to think that it would be impossible for a minority to be nominated by the Democratic party and win the election. It stems from a belief that the Democratic party has been successfully stigmatized as Marxist, socialist, "liberal" etc. ...not a too popular stigma to have these days.... Then unfortunately throw in ethnicity and those things don't mesh too well with those undecided voters who decide national elections. I've always thought that the first woman or black president would definitely come from the more conservative (Republican) party. I'm not so sure lately, but I'll stand by that until I'm proven wrong.
I hope no one misconstrues this as racist....just an observation from watching who votes. I think a Colin Powell would have united the Republicans and the election this November would have been a wash be it Hillary or Obama.
McCain's strengths, if you will... is that he has been, and is more capable of, pulling in voters on the left than most other Republican candidates. But his hawkish tones of late may nullify that come November. I for one will not be in his camp.
That being said...I'm going to predict it's President McCain.

LogansPapa
06-05-2008, 04:50 PM
Powell would cinch the election for McCain. The character and experience would tip the political scale so far to the Right that it would nearly fall over.

Molon Labe
06-05-2008, 04:55 PM
If you look at Obama's policies, they are IDENTICAL to those of Jimmy Carter - both foreign policy- wise and domestically.

I have no desire to return to 18% interest rates for 30 year mortgages. There is not one bone in my body that aches for inflation rates of 13.5% and an unemployement rate of nearly 10% does not exactly make me jump for joy.

I tend to believe that these problems are rarely only about who's in office. There is definetely policy that Congress and the Pres implement that can hinder free markets, but there are far too many "invisible hand" decisions happening everyday on the market that can be accounted for simply an executive branch decision. I hate Carter, but too many people give a President Kudos for the economy.

Vepr
06-05-2008, 05:01 PM
I might entertain the notion but I refuse to entertain the entire nation. ;)

megimoo
06-05-2008, 05:36 PM
I see some of the same overconfidence here that I see at the DUmp. They think that Obama can't lose and they might be right. Every available metric favors the Democrat this year.Perception is more important than reality and the perception is the war is bad, the economy is bad, and George Bush is a failed president. You might agree or disagree with that assessment but that is what Senator McCain is up against.He is also up against a charismatic candidate who has the press in his back pocket.

The political environment in 2008 is as bad for the Republicans as it was for the Democrats in 1980 and we all saw what happened. Ronald Reagan won 489 Electoral College Votes and the Republicans won control of the Senate for the first time in twenty five years.

The one thing that can stave off defeat is John McCain has a great resume and Obama's color and his loopy friends like Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayres and Tony Rezko might make him too risky a proposition.

I don't see how either side can be overconfident.Why are you here,Is it to gloat,to feed your ego ?
Your man Obama has turned into an unelectable white albatross around the liberals political necks !By the time most Americans wake up to the real man, Obama, his wife will have totally 'poisoned the well' !

LogansPapa
06-05-2008, 05:48 PM
Your man Obama has turned into an unelectable white albatross around the liberals political necks!

Stunningly outstanding. :)

everyman68
06-05-2008, 05:51 PM
Why are you here,Is it to gloat,to feed your ego ?
Your man Obama has turned into an unelectable white albatross around the liberals political necks !By the time most Americans wake up to the real man, Obama, his wife will have totally 'poisoned the well' !


Gloat?

I think I called the election a push or "pick em"... I honestly don't know who will win.

Plus you underestimate how much the media loves Obama and how much they will do to help him. Look what they did to Hillary for him.

To me, Obama is the less evil of two lessers....

P.S. This is how I concluded my original post:

The one thing that can stave off defeat is John McCain has a great resume and Obama's color and his loopy friends like Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayres and Tony Rezko might make him too risky a proposition.

I don't see how either side can be overconfident.

I approach this race like an oddsmaker or professional handicapper.

xavierob82
06-05-2008, 06:19 PM
Depends largely on two factors:

1) The VP picks,

and

2) The debates.

All other issues are trivial and at this point its a 50/50 toss-up.

Elspeth
06-05-2008, 06:24 PM
Depends largely on two factors:

1) The VP picks,

and

2) The debates.

All other issues are trivial and at this point its a 50/50 toss-up.

Any ideas on the best VP picks?

lacarnut
06-05-2008, 06:44 PM
Anything is possible but I think Obama's chances are slim to none unless a major development takes place. Obama's lack of understanding of the military and the safety of this country along with his left wing liberal policies make him unelectable in my opinion. The race debacle with his pastor, his wife's remarks about not being proud of the US and his remarks about whites clinging to guns and religion may arouse lefty audiences but turn off white voters.

I do think the Democrats will pick up seats in Congress and may even get to the magic number of 60 in the Senate.

xavierob82
06-05-2008, 06:54 PM
Any ideas on the best VP picks?


I always thought Ridge was a good choice for McCain. If McCain could seal PA, this almost certainly dooms the Democrats. But McCain already ruled Tom Ridge out due to his pro-choice position. Sarah Palin might be an intersting choice.

For Obama, I still say Evan Bayh (whom I originally supported as a presidential candidate).

IcarusMe
06-05-2008, 07:01 PM
As a conservitative who began my "Great political awakening" on the day President Regan was shot, I do believe that if McCain does not screw it up, which he just might, we can deal with four years of his sucking up to the liberal demons that are now, as we speak, trying to distroy the very fabric of the great country.

Our only true hope is his VP pick. I see McCain as only a four year president. His age combines with his volitatle temperment will not allow his to withstand eight years of the rigors of the office.

A good solid conservatitive will be a great start, be we will aslo need to take the step to dismantle the GOP.
I know that Regan said we should change the party from within, however, I believe that the GOP has alowed itself to rot from the inside out. The few remaining true conservitive in congress need to defect after the election of 2012. and form a new, invigorated party.

LibraryLady
06-05-2008, 07:13 PM
I might entertain the notion but I refuse to entertain the entire nation. ;)

Thank you! I thought I was the only one to notice.



The few remaining true conservitive in congress need to defect after the election of 2012. and form a new, invigorated party.


I don't think there are enough "true conservatives" to form a party. I doubt I would join it. There are lots of us who are conservative in some areas, not in others. If there were that many; where is your nominee?

xavierob82
06-05-2008, 07:16 PM
I hate to say it, but McCain's age is going to be a major liability for him in the fall, and I don't think Republicans realize the full extent of McCain's age problem. If he comes across as walking Death just like he did in that drab Louisiana speech of his (in which he kicked off the general campaign), in contrast with the vibrant, energetic crowds that Obama draws, then McCain could very well be doomed.

Perception is going to have an important impact in this election.

Elspeth
06-05-2008, 07:22 PM
I always thought Ridge was a good choice for McCain. If McCain could seal PA, this almost certainly dooms the Democrats. But McCain already ruled Tom Ridge out due to his pro-choice position. Sarah Palin might be an intersting choice.

For Obama, I still say Evan Bayh (whom I originally supported as a presidential candidate).

I like Ridge, actually. Sorry he's been ruled out.

everyman68
06-05-2008, 08:12 PM
Anything is possible but I think Obama's chances are slim to none unless a major development takes place. Obama's lack of understanding of the military and the safety of this country along with his left wing liberal policies make him unelectable in my opinion. The race debacle with his pastor, his wife's remarks about not being proud of the US and his remarks about whites clinging to guns and religion may arouse lefty audiences but turn off white voters.

I do think the Democrats will pick up seats in Congress and may even get to the magic number of 60 in the Senate.


That kind of ticket splittibg would be unprecedented...That's what I see as Obama's big advantage...It's hard to see a party losing at the top of the ticket and winning at the bottom of the ticket.

If the Republicans can portray Obama as a black Michael Dukakis they can probably win but if Dukakis was running instead of Obama in this environment he would probably win. Bush's unpopularity is a drag on McCain. Reagan's popularity was a wind at Bush Pere's back.

everyman68
06-05-2008, 08:18 PM
Thank you! I thought I was the only one to notice.





I don't think there are enough "true conservatives" to form a party. I doubt I would join it. There are lots of us who are conservative in some areas, not in others. If there were that many; where is your nominee?


Splitting the Republican party would be the greatest gift to Democrats just as splitting the Democratic party would be the greatest gift to Republicans.

As for VP if McCain takes Ridge and carries PN he makes the math much harder for Obama...If Obama takes a male running mate McCain should take a woman....Maybe Kay Bailey Hutchinson...

I think the choice issue is something the Dems and Reps use to scare their groups into voting.

Elspeth
06-05-2008, 08:30 PM
Splitting the Republican party would be the greatest gift to Democrats just as splitting the Democratic party would be the greatest gift to Republicans.

As for VP if McCain takes Ridge and carries PN he makes the math much harder for Obama...If Obama takes a male running mate McCain should take a woman....Maybe Kay Bailey Hutchinson...

I think the choice issue is something the Dems and Reps use to scare their groups into voting.

Actually, Joe Lieberman is starting a new group, Citizens for McCain.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/05/lieberman/print.html

Maybe he should be McCain's VP

everyman68
06-05-2008, 08:39 PM
Actually, Joe Lieberman is starting a new group, Citizens for McCain.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/05/lieberman/print.html

Maybe he should be McCain's VP

Heads would explode at DU

Elspeth
06-05-2008, 08:57 PM
Heads would explode at DU

I'm surprised it's not up over there.

LibraryLady
06-05-2008, 09:08 PM
I'm surprised it's not up over there.


They watch us all the time!


eppur_se_muova (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-05-08 09:05 PM
Original message
Lieberman launches grassroots organization {Citizens for -- McCAIN ??}
Source: CNN Political Ticker

From CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Joe Lieberman – who has taken on increasingly high-profile campaign roles on behalf of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain – announced Thursday that was launching and heading a new grassroots organization, "Citizens for McCain," with a direct appeal to Hillary Clinton’s disappointed supporters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3340740

lacarnut
06-05-2008, 11:41 PM
That kind of ticket splittibg would be unprecedented...That's what I see as Obama's big advantage...It's hard to see a party losing at the top of the ticket and winning at the bottom of the ticket.

If the Republicans can portray Obama as a black Michael Dukakis they can probably win but if Dukakis was running instead of Obama in this environment he would probably win. Bush's unpopularity is a drag on McCain. Reagan's popularity was a wind at Bush Pere's back.

Newly elected Gov Jindal (R) of Louisiana won with over 50% of the vote in the general election. That has not happended in over 50 years to my knowledge. Several months later, a Democrat in my district won a Congressional seat that had been held by a Repub. for over 30 years. It all depends on the candidate; ticket splitting is nothing new.

Obama will be portrayed as weak on defense and as a tax raiser. I will give you a clue. Even though housing is a mess, high gas prices abound and the economy is trudging along at a modest uptick, the LAST THING VOTERS WANT TO HEAR IS" I AM GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES." That will cause him to get beat badly. They do not want Carter #2. plus they do not want Obamanomics that will destroy the economy and cause the stock market to crash.

movie buff
06-05-2008, 11:55 PM
I don't doubt there's a possibility Obama might win. I'd say this election is seriously too close to call.

megimoo
06-06-2008, 12:08 AM
Gloat?

I think I called the election a push or "pick em"... I honestly don't know who will win.

Plus you underestimate how much the media loves Obama and how much they will do to help him. Look what they did to Hillary for him.

To me, Obama is the less evil of two lessers....

P.S. This is how I concluded my original post:

The one thing that can stave off defeat is John McCain has a great resume and Obama's color and his loopy friends like Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayres and Tony Rezko might make him too risky a proposition.

I don't see how either side can be overconfident.

I approach this race like an oddsmaker or professional handicapper.Your post also makes sense .
My gut instincts are people will not trust Obama for many reasons.His pastor,his angry wife,his extreme liberalism,his Machiavellianism on gun control and his reported mockery of the Pennsylvania hillbillies in San Francisco.
The liberal/Socialists/Maoists Soros crowd all see him as some sort of messiah but they will not be able to elect him alone.

megimoo
06-06-2008, 12:13 AM
I hate to say it, but McCain's age is going to be a major liability for him in the fall, and I don't think Republicans realize the full extent of McCain's age problem. If he comes across as walking Death just like he did in that drab Louisiana speech of his (in which he kicked off the general campaign), in contrast with the vibrant, energetic crowds that Obama draws, then McCain could very well be doomed.

Perception is going to have an important impact in this election.I agree and people preceve Obama as an unelectable liberal/moslem !

Elspeth
06-06-2008, 12:34 AM
I don't doubt there's a possibility Obama might win. I'd say this election is seriously too close to call.

That's what I am afraid of...:(

Eyelids
06-06-2008, 01:31 AM
I fully expect this to go unresponded to.. but what the hell.

1) Texas

Believe it or not, Texas is not a sure thing this November. Even more, if Bill Richardson is Obama's VP pick it could become a contested state. On May 1st a Rasmussen poll of Texans indicated only a 5% lead in Texas for John McCain against Barack Obama. This was May 1st mind you, in the very heat of the Clinton/Obama battle, if the party coalesces behind Obama and even some of those Clinton supporterse who swore to vote for McCain come to their senses that 5% lead will be effectively erased. Also take into account Barack Obama's ability to campaign, in PA a 4/5 Strat Vision poll indicated a 7% advantage for McCain. A 5/17 poll (with a larger sample size) shows Obama up by 6% over John McCain. This, over the course of a month and 12 days, indicates more than a 10 point swing in Obama favor against John McCain. So, what does this mean?

The Democrats have been raising money likes it is nobodies business, and there is no way the Republicans can possibly catch up to them. That allows the Democrats to spend much more loosely, running ads in states they should win like WI and MN to shore up support while still being able to outspend the Republicans in the battlegrounds. You would never catch a Democrat campaigning for anything other than funds in states like IL and CA, and the same would go for Republicans in TX. But wait, imagine if it became too close for comfort for the Republicans in TX? What if Obama actually appeared a threat to sneak the state out from under them (it would be unrecoverable for the Republicans)? The Republicans would have to spend money and time campaigning, in of all states, Texas to even stay alive in November. In a race where resources in manpower and money both greatly favor Obama, Republicans cannot afford to spend in Texas.

2) Obama on the offensive

Of states that went for John Kerry in 2004 only one appears to be seriously contested in 08, Pennslyvania. Hardly worth overlooking because of it's 21 electoral votes (PA is worth more than OH and equal to IL), PA would be a tough blow to recover from for Obama. But there is a bright side for the Obama campaign, thats the only state they have to worry about -- and can allocate resourches as such to avoid losing it.

On the other side Republicans are not as lucky: CO, VA, IA, IN, NV, NM, TX, MO and OH are flexing disturbing trends for them. As stated earlier, resources are a problem for the Republicans and having to defend that many states is a near impossible task. Losing a state like VA, TX, OH or MO would swing the election to Obama... and any combination of states like CO, NV, IN, IA and NM could turn into a major problem. The Democrats have the ability to outgun the Republicans in all of these states except TX, OH and IN. And if the polling numbers start to sway before the election the Pro-Obama media will jump on it as a tide-turn and hint at a potential landslide.

There are more, but I'm tired.

LibraryLady
06-06-2008, 01:50 AM
I followed this site (below) everyday in 2004. The guy is quite liberal and heavily weighs the polls that lean Democrat but if you can weed though his nonsense, he has some decent information.

It nearly killed him when he realized Kerry was going to lose.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Zeus
06-06-2008, 01:55 AM
People keep saying Obama can't win because to many people won't vote for him because he is black. I got a hunch Political correctness is so engrained in so many folks mind that many will vote for him simply because he is black.

Eyelids
06-06-2008, 02:00 AM
I followed this site (below) everyday in 2004. The guy is quite liberal and heavily weighs the polls that lean Democrat but if you can weed though his nonsense, he has some decent information.

It nearly killed him when he realized Kerry was going to lose.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Yea wow thats far too optimistic by even my standards. Hell, thats a blowout.

Zeus
06-06-2008, 02:03 AM
I fully expect this to go unresponded to.. but what the hell.

1) Texas

Believe it or not, Texas is not a sure thing this November. Even more, if Bill Richardson is Obama's VP pick it could become a contested state. On May 1st a Rasmussen poll of Texans indicated only a 5% lead in Texas for John McCain against Barack Obama. This was May 1st mind you, in the very heat of the Clinton/Obama battle, if the party coalesces behind Obama and even some of those Clinton supporterse who swore to vote for McCain come to their senses that 5% lead will be effectively erased. Also take into account Barack Obama's ability to campaign, in PA a 4/5 Strat Vision poll indicated a 7% advantage for McCain. A 5/17 poll (with a larger sample size) shows Obama up by 6% over John McCain. This, over the course of a month and 12 days, indicates more than a 10 point swing in Obama favor against John McCain. So, what does this mean?

The Democrats have been raising money likes it is nobodies business, and there is no way the Republicans can possibly catch up to them. That allows the Democrats to spend much more loosely, running ads in states they should win like WI and MN to shore up support while still being able to outspend the Republicans in the battlegrounds. You would never catch a Democrat campaigning for anything other than funds in states like IL and CA, and the same would go for Republicans in TX. But wait, imagine if it became too close for comfort for the Republicans in TX? What if Obama actually appeared a threat to sneak the state out from under them (it would be unrecoverable for the Republicans)? The Republicans would have to spend money and time campaigning, in of all states, Texas to even stay alive in November. In a race where resources in manpower and money both greatly favor Obama, Republicans cannot afford to spend in Texas.

2) Obama on the offensive

Of states that went for John Kerry in 2004 only one appears to be seriously contested in 08, Pennslyvania. Hardly worth overlooking because of it's 21 electoral votes (PA is worth more than OH and equal to IL), PA would be a tough blow to recover from for Obama. But there is a bright side for the Obama campaign, thats the only state they have to worry about -- and can allocate resourches as such to avoid losing it.

On the other side Republicans are not as lucky: CO, VA, IA, IN, NV, NM, TX, MO and OH are flexing disturbing trends for them. As stated earlier, resources are a problem for the Republicans and having to defend that many states is a near impossible task. Losing a state like VA, TX, OH or MO would swing the election to Obama... and any combination of states like CO, NV, IN, IA and NM could turn into a major problem. The Democrats have the ability to outgun the Republicans in all of these states except TX, OH and IN. And if the polling numbers start to sway before the election the Pro-Obama media will jump on it as a tide-turn and hint at a potential landslide.

There are more, but I'm tired.

Nothing is for sure in Politics . For all entents & purposes though Texas is not in play. Texas democrats are more conservative than most otherstates Republicans,with some exceptions of course.

As far as all the warm fuzzies about all the money Obamas campaign has raised, If money was the deciding factor Bill clinton would have never been President.

Eyelids
06-06-2008, 02:12 AM
What I'm saying is too many signs point to a landslide, so the Republicans are trotting out a respected party member to the slaughter. They did this for Bob Dole in '96 too.

The political climate is too favourable to a candidate like Obama, say what you will about that whole "change" schtick (its a bunch of crap) but Axelrod showed almost Rovian brilliance by starting that movement. The mood of the country is ripe for Obama's picking, McCain really does not stand a snowball's chance in hell this November. Obama is the strongest candidate the Democrats have had since JFK and he's running against somebody who is painfully run-of-the-mill.

nightflight
06-06-2008, 02:47 AM
People keep saying Obama can't win because to many people won't vote for him because he is black. I got a hunch Political correctness is so engrained in so many folks mind that many will vote for him simply because he is black.


Definitely! What better way to show off your Goodguy Badge?

everyman68
06-06-2008, 08:59 AM
"Obama is the strongest candidate the Democrats have had since JFK and he's running against somebody who is painfully run-of-the-mill."

-Eyelids

And the uber charismatic JFK beat the charismatically challenged Nixon by 100,000 votes out of 68,000,000votes cast or two tenth of a percent.

I don't think TX is in play. If Obama is carrying TX he's on his way to a forty nine state victory. That's how heavily TX leans Republican.

The more things change the more they remain the same. I see a repeat of 00 and 04 and a few states deciding the race.

This race is Obama's to lose. If he allows the Republicans to portray him as an African American Michael Dukakis who is out of touch with the average American and won't stand up to the terrorists on defense he will lose.

linda22003
06-06-2008, 09:06 AM
[QUOTE=everyman68;4178And the uber charismatic JFK beat the charismatically challenged Nixon by 100,000 votes out of 68,000,000votes cast or two tenth of a percent.[/QUOTE]

That's because his father, Old Joe Kennedy, said, "I'm not going to pay for a landslide." :p

lacarnut
06-06-2008, 09:09 AM
People keep saying Obama can't win because to many people won't vote for him because he is black. I got a hunch Political correctness is so engrained in so many folks mind that many will vote for him simply because he is black.

That is half-way correct. On the other hand, there are people that will not vote for a black man and most of those are in the north. That could turn the tide in states like NY, PA & NJ. If McCain wins one or two of those, it will be a blowout. No one should be overconfident because in 6 months a lot can happen in politics. Ask daddy Bush when he ran for his second term.

If Hillary is not thrown a carrot by Obama, I look for the Clintons to half-heartly support him but may vote for McCain when they get into that voting booth. Democrats voting for McCain will be a big problem for Obama. i

Constitutionally Speaking
06-06-2008, 09:14 AM
I think the safety of the country is over-blown. If any candidate just let’s the military and regional police do their jobs - which means funding them to the hilt, safety will be a background issue. If McCain attempts to lean on ‘The Big Bad Wolf’ routine too hard he’ll sound exactly like his predecessor - and many citizens have grown quite weary of that constant pushing of the ‘Fear Button’.

Jobs, Inflation and Gasoline prices are going to be the hard nut to crack: It’s The Economy, Stupid 2.0


:cool:


It IS the economy, but it is the Democrats who are screwing it up. Gas prices are COMPLETELY the fault of the environmental lobby and their puppets on the left of the political equation ( i.e. mostly Democrats).

megimoo
06-06-2008, 09:14 AM
That is half-way correct. On the other hand, there are people that will not vote for a black man and most of those are in the north. That could turn the tide in states like NY, PA & NJ. If McCain wins one or two of those, it will be a blowout. No one should be overconfident because in 6 months a lot can happen in politics. Ask daddy Bush when he ran for his second term.

If Hillary is not thrown a carrot by Obama, I look for the Clintons to half-heartly support him but may vote for McCain when they get into that voting booth. Democrats voting for McCain will be a big problem for Obama. iAll things considered Obama smells like dead meat !!

Sonnabend
06-06-2008, 09:23 AM
"Obama is the strongest candidate the Democrats have had since JFK and he's running against somebody who is painfully run-of-the-mill."

Obama is strong all right...strong on anything except substance and actual policies.

President McCain.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-06-2008, 09:24 AM
I tend to believe that these problems are rarely only about who's in office. There is definetely policy that Congress and the Pres implement that can hinder free markets, but there are far too many "invisible hand" decisions happening everyday on the market that can be accounted for simply an executive branch decision. I hate Carter, but too many people give a President Kudos for the economy.

In some ways you are correct - but the economy of Jimmy Carter was absolutely a result of his policies.

His foriegn policy was not looked on favorably by OPEC and they also saw a weak man and took advantage of him. He instituted price controls that led to shortages and long gas lines (and failed to control prices). He pushed for and instituted the windfall profits tax on oil. Everything possible that the President can do to mess things up, he did. He interfered with the free market and we paid the price. Just like Obama is planning.

It is NOT a coincidence that once Reagan's policies took effect, our economy began to boom.

everyman68
06-06-2008, 09:36 AM
That is half-way correct. On the other hand, there are people that will not vote for a black man and most of those are in the north. That could turn the tide in states like NY, PA & NJ. If McCain wins one or two of those, it will be a blowout. No one should be overconfident because in 6 months a lot can happen in politics. Ask daddy Bush when he ran for his second term.

If Hillary is not thrown a carrot by Obama, I look for the Clintons to half-heartly support him but may vote for McCain when they get into that voting booth. Democrats voting for McCain will be a big problem for Obama. i


If Obama is losing NY he's on his way to losing forty nine states just as McCain would be if he's losing TX. Voting patterns are fairly predictable. Unless this race is blown open either way I see a close race like 00 and 04...

Yeah, there are folks who won't vote for a African American fella... That's not Obama's problem...His problem is his loopy friends and incoherent foreign policy...I think Colin Powell would win in a walk as a Dem or Rep...

biccat
06-06-2008, 10:52 AM
That makes me closer to Obama on two of the three big issues...
Hope and change?

everyman68
06-06-2008, 10:58 AM
Hope and change?

Nothing wrong with that. I'm looking at two Florida Lottery tickets. I'm hoping I have a lot of change Saturday night.

biccat
06-06-2008, 11:03 AM
Nothing wrong with that. I'm looking at two Florida Lottery tickets. I'm hoping I have a lot of change Saturday night.
I have a feeling that you're exactly what Obama is looking for in a voter.

Odysseus
06-06-2008, 02:25 PM
I don't doubt there's a possibility Obama might win. I'd say this election is seriously too close to call.

Agreed. Plus, McCain hasn't seemed to grasp that, as the Republican nominee, he doesn't have to run against his own party as well as the Democrats. If he keeps alienating his base, he's going to end up as the minority leader of the Senate.

Also, the media is entirely in the tank for Obama. The messianic thing may not go over well with moderates and conservatives, but Chris Matthews gets all tingly around him (by his own admission), and he's not the only one. The media will do everything that it can to ensure an Obama victory, to include more fake news stories from dubious sources (National Guard documents, anyone?) and ignoring Obama's gaffes and negative issues. That means that the only way to get his message out will be through paid media, which will take a lot of money, and McCain hasn't been raking it in. Throw in the restrictions from McCain/Feingold and Obama has a real advantage in getting his message out, which has to really annoy McCain. But, given a choice between poetic justice for McCain and real justice for the rest of the world, which depends on us to maintain it, I'll take the latter.

Too close to call.

everyman68
06-06-2008, 02:32 PM
Agreed. Plus, McCain hasn't seemed to grasp that, as the Republican nominee, he doesn't have to run against his own party as well as the Democrats. If he keeps alienating his base, he's going to end up as the minority leader of the Senate.

Also, the media is entirely in the tank for Obama. The messianic thing may not go over well with moderates and conservatives, but Chris Matthews gets all tingly around him (by his own admission), and he's not the only one. The media will do everything that it can to ensure an Obama victory, to include more fake news stories from dubious sources (National Guard documents, anyone?) and ignoring Obama's gaffes and negative issues. That means that the only way to get his message out will be through paid media, which will take a lot of money, and McCain hasn't been raking it in. Throw in the restrictions from McCain/Feingold and Obama has a real advantage in getting his message out, which has to really annoy McCain. But, given a choice between poetic justice for McCain and real justice for the rest of the world, which depends on us to maintain it, I'll take the latter.

Too close to call.

McCain is committed to spending $84,000,000.00...Obama might have over a billion and a half to spend...Even if that's cut in half he will still be outspent 5 or 6 to 1 ...That's what helped win him the nomination aagainst Hillary in the end...

Lager
06-07-2008, 03:54 PM
What I'm saying is too many signs point to a landslide, so the Republicans are trotting out a respected party member to the slaughter. They did this for Bob Dole in '96 too.

The political climate is too favourable to a candidate like Obama, say what you will about that whole "change" schtick (its a bunch of crap) but Axelrod showed almost Rovian brilliance by starting that movement. The mood of the country is ripe for Obama's picking, McCain really does not stand a snowball's chance in hell this November. Obama is the strongest candidate the Democrats have had since JFK and he's running against somebody who is painfully run-of-the-mill.

There's nothing brilliant about running a change themed campaign after eight years of an unpopular president and a long war. The brilliance of the dems was that they caught on to our society's "American Idol" mentality and decided to trot our a bunch differnent characters in front of the old television and see which ones the public responded to best. The public likes drama, so Hillary and Barack were voted to the final two. What's funny, is that someone like Joe Biden with his foreign policy background would probably make a better president. But he's too boring for the audience the dems are trying to influence.

Eyelids
06-07-2008, 04:39 PM
How the hell is Joe Biden boring?

And trotting out candidates (as you call them charecters) in front of the public to decide which they like best is this crazy thing called democracy. Believe it or not, even the Republicans use this "democracy".

Lager
06-07-2008, 05:40 PM
How the hell is Joe Biden boring?

And trotting out candidates (as you call them charecters) in front of the public to decide which they like best is this crazy thing called democracy. Believe it or not, even the Republicans use this "democracy".

Don't ask me, I happen to think Biden's okay for a democrat. Ask your party members, or buddies on the other site that totally ignored his experience and credentials. I happen to prefer a "democracy" that picks its leaders based on political philosophy, positions they take on issues and their proposed solutions to pending problems. Not on how well they can hold the fleeting attention of a public who's limit is about 30 seconds. Republicans are painfully aware that the media picked their candidate, your side hasn't woken up to the fact that the media not only picked yours too, but also narrowed your choices for you.

AmPat
06-07-2008, 08:31 PM
Gloat?

I think I called the election a push or "pick em"... I honestly don't know who will win.

Plus you underestimate how much the media loves Obama and how much they will do to help him. Look what they did to Hillary for him.

To me, Obama is the less evil of two lessers....

P.S. This is how I concluded my original post:

The one thing that can stave off defeat is John McCain has a great resume and Obama's color and his loopy friends like Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayres and Tony Rezko might make him too risky a proposition.

I don't see how either side can be overconfident.

I approach this race like an oddsmaker or professional handicapper.

McCain is likely to suffer Nixon's problem with Kennedy. Next to Obama, McCain looks uncomfortable. Obama nauseates me but he gives a better oration than McCain. McCain also looks downright stupid when he puts on that smile meant to engage. It looks more like a T-shirt I have that reads;" I smile because I have no Idea what is going on."

Unfortunately the media will enable the election of this Great Pretender. Obama and the nation are going to wake up and say "Oh S***! What have we done?" Especially when he starts his confiscatory taxing agenda.

Eyelids
06-07-2008, 08:44 PM
I happen to prefer a "democracy" that picks its leaders based on political philosophy, positions they take on issues and their proposed solutions to pending problems. Not on how well they can hold the fleeting attention of a public who's limit is about 30 seconds. Republicans are painfully aware that the media picked their candidate, your side hasn't woken up to the fact that the media not only picked yours too, but also narrowed your choices for you.
Uhhh what the hell? The media broadcasts what the people want to hear, and people wanted to hear about Barack Obama and McCain.

everyman68
06-07-2008, 08:47 PM
McCain is likely to suffer Nixon's problem with Kennedy. Next to Obama, McCain looks uncomfortable. Obama nauseates me but he gives a better oration than McCain. McCain also looks downright stupid when he puts on that smile meant to engage. It looks more like a T-shirt I have that reads;" I smile because I have no Idea what is going on."

Unfortunately the media will enable the election of this Great Pretender. Obama and the nation are going to wake up and say "Oh S***! What have we done?" Especially when he starts his confiscatory taxing agenda.


Don't forget that Kennedy only beat Nixon by 100,000 votes out of 68,000,000 votes cast or 2/10 of a percent...So charisma can only take you so far...

I think Obama is the favorite...I think Hillary Clinton threw him the "mother of all lifelines" this afternoon...He can't lose massive amounts of her supporters and win the election...The math is the math...
McCain was in a much better position yesterday...If (all) the Dems vote for Obama and (all) the Reps vote for McCain and they split the Indys* Obama wins because there are just more Dems than Reps... The political environment makes it hard for McCain...

* Since there are so many more Dems than Reps (now) Obama can even afford to lose the Indy vote; just not by much...

Eyelids
06-07-2008, 08:48 PM
McCain is likely to suffer Nixon's problem with Kennedy. Next to Obama, McCain looks uncomfortable. Obama nauseates me but he gives a better oration than McCain. McCain also looks downright stupid when he puts on that smile meant to engage. It looks more like a T-shirt I have that reads;" I smile because I have no Idea what is going on."

Unfortunately the media will enable the election of this Great Pretender. Obama and the nation are going to wake up and say "Oh S***! What have we done?" Especially when he starts his confiscatory taxing agenda.

I think the DNC's decision to deny money from PAC's and Lobbies is the first manifestation of Barack Obama's "change" idea on a big scale(McCain declined to follow suit, HELLO KEATING 5). Hes already making good on his campaign promises and hes not even in office yet.

How is he a pretender?

everyman68
06-07-2008, 08:55 PM
I am closer to Obama on economic and social policy... I am concerned about Iraq...The road to war is wide...The exit is narrow...I was ambivalent about going in...But we are where we are...We just can't leave Iraq without stabilizing it... Firemen don't let a building burn just because it's dangerous...

I don't want to see a repeat of Saigon circa 1975 in my lifetime...If we weren't involved in a war I would be more enthusiastic about Obama... We can't walk away from Iraq...

That's what make this election so difficult for me...

Hillary would have ran to the left of McCain on social and economic policy and would have run in the center on foreign policy. I would have been more comfortable with that...

gator
06-07-2008, 08:56 PM
McCain is likely to suffer Nixon's problem with Kennedy. Next to Obama, McCain looks uncomfortable. Obama nauseates me but he gives a better oration than McCain. McCain also looks downright stupid when he puts on that smile meant to engage. It looks more like a T-shirt I have that reads;" I smile because I have no Idea what is going on."

Unfortunately the media will enable the election of this Great Pretender. Obama and the nation are going to wake up and say "Oh S***! What have we done?" Especially when he starts his confiscatory taxing agenda.

Hitler was also a good speaker.

If the nation is so dumb as to think that Obama's promises will be good for this country then the people deserve what they get. Besides, having Liberals win an election every once in awhile is just God's way of reminding everybody from time to time to vote Conservative.

Did you hear his bullshit today about giving everybody a free college education? Maybe he didn't really mean everybody. Maybe he only meant those that speak Ebonics as a first language. Who in the hell is going to pay for all of that? What is going to happen to the economy when that money is taken out? There won't be a fracking job available for anybody regardless of their education.

Elspeth
06-07-2008, 08:57 PM
Don't ask me, I happen to think Biden's okay for a democrat. Ask your party members, or buddies on the other site that totally ignored his experience and credentials. I happen to prefer a "democracy" that picks its leaders based on political philosophy, positions they take on issues and their proposed solutions to pending problems. Not on how well they can hold the fleeting attention of a public who's limit is about 30 seconds. Republicans are painfully aware that the media picked their candidate, your side hasn't woken up to the fact that the media not only picked yours too, but also narrowed your choices for you.

AMEN, Lager. Biden would have been a really experienced person to have running. Why we have this empty suit running is just beyond me.

Eyelids
06-07-2008, 09:15 PM
Hitler was also a good speaker.

If the nation is so dumb as to think that Obama's promises will be good for this country then the people deserve what they get. Besides, having Liberals win an election every once in awhile is just God's way of reminding everybody from time to time to vote Conservative.

Did you hear his bullshit today about giving everybody a free college education? Maybe he didn't really mean everybody. Maybe he only meant those that speak Ebonics as a first language. Who in the hell is going to pay for all of that? What is going to happen to the economy when that money is taken out? There won't be a fracking job available for anybody regardless of their education.

Its called controlling the rich poor gap. Ever think that may be a contributing factor to our current recession?

everyman68
06-07-2008, 10:02 PM
The slow down in the economy can be attributed to the spike in oil prices and the meltdown in the housing sector...When people have to pay a lot more for gas and everything that is transported while their homes are worth a lot less they will have less money to spend on everything else...

Eyelids
06-08-2008, 12:03 AM
Thanks random guy on the internet (much less a Republican LOL) for a completely worthless 2 line explanation of our economic problems!

everyman68
06-08-2008, 08:24 AM
Thanks random guy on the internet (much less a Republican LOL) for a completely worthless 2 line explanation of our economic problems!

Who are you referring to?

My reasons for what what is causing the slow down are the same reasons that one hundred out of one hundred classically trained economists will give you, ergo:

"The double whammy of rising oil prices and plunging home prices could turn a mild recession into something more threatening ."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_23/b4087000987184.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5


Rising gas prices and declining home values are leaving people with less discretionary income consequently they have less money to spend to buy things. When people stop buying things in the quantity they used to it results in a recession.

There are many nations, especially Third World ones where the disparity between the rich and poor is greater than the United States...It sucks to be poor but they are not in recession...Their economies are growing, i.e. India...That renders your monocausal suggestion that inequality in income causes recessions as just wrong

I am a Democrat and have voted so my entire life...What I am not is an effete liberal elitist who condescends to everbody who disagrees with me... And since this thread is about the 08 election, if Obama loses it will because he was seen or successfully portrayed as an "effete liberal elititist"; an African American John Kerry or Mike Dukakis...

Constitutionally Speaking
06-08-2008, 08:28 AM
Its called controlling the rich poor gap. Ever think that may be a contributing factor to our current recession?


Trying to control the rich poor gap is one of the main CONTRIBUTORS to our problems today. We reward sloth and punish achievement. It is a time tested truth, you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-08-2008, 08:31 AM
Who are you referring to?

My reasons for what what is causing the slow down are the same reasons that one hundred out of one hundred classically trained economists will give you, ergo:

"The double whammy of rising oil prices and plunging home prices could turn a mild recession into something more threatening ."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_23/b4087000987184.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5


.

As an economist, I concur - with the explanation that rising fuel costs is one of the main reasons for the housing crisis also.

AmPat
06-08-2008, 08:35 AM
I think the DNC's decision to deny money from PAC's and Lobbies is the first manifestation of Barack Obama's "change" idea on a big scale(McCain declined to follow suit, HELLO KEATING 5). Hes already making good on his campaign promises and hes not even in office yet.

How is he a pretender?

The lion's share of the evidence will be seen in the future. He pretends to be qualified for leading this country for one. He pretends to be a Christian. He pretends he didn't know he was a member of a bigoted, race-bating, victim-mentality philosopy church, FOR 20 YEARS! He is a junior Senator from Illinois trying to pretend that change and hope are all that is required to govern a country. Hope won't change anything, effort and hard work do.

Change for the sake of change is wasted and careless.
Change is only positive if it is: 1. Necessary and 2. for the better.

Obama wants change simply because it makes points with simplistic voters.

AmPat
06-08-2008, 08:42 AM
Its called controlling the rich poor gap. Ever think that may be a contributing factor to our current recession?

Oh, is that what "it's" called?:rolleyes:
Who decides upon this gap? What are the metrics involved?
I thought this gap was a product of a free market. :cool:

everyman68
06-08-2008, 08:56 AM
Oh, is that what "it's" called?:rolleyes:
Who decides upon this gap? What are the metrics involved?
I thought this gap was a product of a free market. :cool:


If gas was two bucks a gallon and home prices were rising their traditional 5% to 6% or so a year would we be in this mess?

Income inequality is the product of a free market and being poor is a good incentive to work harder...That being said there does come a time when too much income inequality is not a good thing...Broke folks can't buy stuff but that doesn't explain our current economic dilemma...

I do try but sometimes fail to see things through a non-ideological lens

Constitutionally Speaking
06-08-2008, 09:06 AM
Obama wants change simply because it makes points with simplistic voters.

Who are too stupid or lazy to look at instances of when those policies he advocates have actually been tried.

If they did they would see the disasters that followed.

In nearly EVERY instance, both foreign and domestic, they have failed - but not just failed, they have failed miserably and with long term and near cataclysmic consequences.


His willingness to talk without preconditions to evil people is reminicent to JFK's talks with Kruschev. Kruschev saw Kennedy for the naive, inexperienced beginner that he was and concluded that he could put nuclear missiles in Cuba. That nearly led to an all out nuclear war.

Chamberlains talks with Hitler led Germany to believe that they could pretty much take over all of Europe with little consequence other than a strongly worded letter - and while Chamberlain was in office - he was right. That led to WWII and millions of deaths.


There are REAL consequences to electing naive and inexperienced leaders.



Economically all you need to do is look at Jimmy Carters record and see we STILL have not recovered from that debacle. Real wages - even after 40 years of growth - have STILL not recovered to the Pre- Carter levels. He did that much damage.

And Obama has flat out said he is going to implement the same policies.

Some of us are going to actually vote for this "change" and some of us are going to sit by and out of protest, let it happen.

We will richly deserve what we get.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-08-2008, 09:13 AM
If gas was two bucks a gallon and home prices were rising their traditional 5% to 6% or so a year would we be in this mess?

Income inequality is the product of a free market and being poor is a good incentive to work harder...That being said there does come a time when too much income inequality is not a good thing...Broke folks can't buy stuff but that doesn't explain our current economic dilemma...

I do try but sometimes fail to see things through a non-ideological lens


Gas WOULD be two bucks a gallon if we did not have people like Obama in congress preventing us from developing our own resources. So would home prices (in fact they are - on the average. We just incredibly high rates home value growth three to five years ago and now they are correcting).

Income inequality in itself is not a bad thing - as long as all incomes are growing - and for the most part - they have.

Of course listening to the politicians and the press you would not realize this, but it is TRUE.

Even after taking the rising prices of late, incomes AFTER those rising prices are taken into account, are higher now than at ANY point since they Crashed under Jimmy Carter.

That is simply a fact.

everyman68
06-08-2008, 09:34 AM
Gas WOULD be two bucks a gallon if we did not have people like Obama in congress preventing us from developing our own resources. So would home prices (in fact they are - on the average. We just incredibly high rates home value growth three to five years ago and now they are correcting).





Oil is fungible...The oil from ANWR would increase the supply of oil on the world market but since demand for oil is so great I am not convinced it could bring the price down sufficiently...It would be like bringing a case of Bud to a party for one hundred beer drinkers... I would be interested to see actual studies on how much drilling in ANWR can do to bring down prices and increase supply... I am not a priori opposed to drilling....

You are right about home prices...The problem is many people made decisions based on unrealistric assumptions about dramatically rising home prices...This is harming and slowing down the economy regardless of whose fault it is or was...

Constitutionally Speaking
06-08-2008, 09:59 AM
Oil is fungible...The oil from ANWR would increase the supply of oil on the world market but since demand for oil is so great I am not convinced it could bring the price down sufficiently...It would be like bringing a case of Bud to a party for one hundred beer drinkers... I would be interested to see actual studies on how much drilling in ANWR can do to bring down prices and increase supply... I am not a priori opposed to drilling....

You are right about home prices...The problem is many people made decisions based on unrealistric assumptions about dramatically rising home prices...This is harming and slowing down the economy regardless of whose fault it is or was...

ANWR alone would not. But that is the tactic that the left uses, they use evaluations of the amount of oil of each field individually to argue that drilling would not decrease the price. That is simply a method used to keep us from drilling ANYWHERE. OF COURSE each individual oil field is not enough to make much of a difference, but the TOTAL of all the undeveloped oil fields would literally cause an oil glut if we were allowed to drill for it. Prices would fall through the floor.

The left's argument is similar to looking at a drop of water and claiming that water is harmless, while ignoring the raging flooded river that is taking away the neighbors house. It is not the individual drops of water that have the awesome power, it is the accumulation. The same is true of oil fields each one individually is not all that impressive, but the sum of all the areas we cannot touch is astounding.

Right now, we have literally TRILLIONS of barrels of oil that we cannot touch. Enough for hundreds of years at current consumption rates. I documented well over a trillion barrels in this thread: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=136


All of it is off limits. In addition to the four areas I mentioned, 85% of our coastal oil areas are off limits, and hundreds of other areas.

There is no excuse for us not going after what we have right here, but the Democrats have made up a few lies to scare people into supporting them in blocking our energy independence while creating resentment of our President, and our businesses ( you know the EVIL CORPORATIONS).

gator
06-08-2008, 10:29 AM
Oil is fungible...The oil from ANWR would increase the supply of oil on the world market but since demand for oil is so great I am not convinced it could bring the price down sufficiently...It would be like bringing a case of Bud to a party for one hundred beer drinkers... I would be interested to see actual studies on how much drilling in ANWR can do to bring down prices and increase supply... I am not a priori opposed to drilling....



If it is worthwile for the Chinese to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, why not the US?

everyman68
06-08-2008, 11:23 AM
If it is worthwile for the Chinese to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, why not the US?

You and me are Floridians...I don't have a big problem with drilling in the Gulf...As you know Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, and Bob Martinez all oppose off shore drilling because they are afraid it could mess up Florida's West Coast...

Constitutionally Speaking
06-08-2008, 11:27 AM
You and me are Floridians...I don't have a big problem with drilling in the Gulf...As you know Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, and Bob Martinez all oppose off shore drilling because they are afraid it could mess up Florida's West Coast...

They were more afraid of the voting population's belief in the lie about offshore drilling.

Eyelids
06-08-2008, 11:29 AM
Obama wants change simply because it makes points with simplistic voters.

Thats what the whole election is about. The Republicans use shit like patriotism and honor which are equally unquantifiable. You're a sucker for the same kind of crap.

everyman68
06-08-2008, 11:31 AM
All of it is off limits. In addition to the four areas I mentioned, 85% of our coastal oil areas are off limits, and hundreds of other areas.



I live in Florida. There is a bipartisan consensus to oppose off shore drilling. Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, and Bob Martinez are all against it... So, it's not only the left or Dems opposing it..The Reps are afraid a spill would kill the beaches on the West Coast and touriam and home prices along with it...

You have some folks arguing that we have reached peak oil...You have some folks arguing that there are trillions of barrels of oil to be tapped... I suspect the truth is in the middle... To me stuff like science and medicine should be non-ideological...

everyman68
06-08-2008, 11:38 AM
They were more afraid of the voting population's belief in the lie about offshore drilling.


I'm not an expert...The argument is Florida's beaches are a valuable, valuable asset... An oil spill would jeopardize those beaches... That's why most Florida politicians , Reps and Dems oppose the drilling...

I will concede the point that some leftists and Dems see some moral value in conservation... I don't think folks should be wasteful but I don't see anything positive about doing without..Driving bicycles and living without air condition would be fine if you were living on a tiny hamlet in Maine...

LogansPapa
06-08-2008, 11:51 AM
Seems McBush could simply declare another national emergency - ala 9-11, and over-ride anything the opposition in Congress could conjure up legislatively. Would take some balls, but that's just another reason to turn out - in mass - to vote for the Republican candidate, no?

:confused:

gator
06-08-2008, 11:57 AM
I'm not an expert...The argument is Florida's beaches are a valuable, valuable asset... An oil spill would jeopardize those beaches... That's why most Florida politicians , Reps and Dems oppose the drilling...

I will concede the point that some leftists and Dems see some moral value in conservation... I don't think folks should be wasteful but I don't see anything positive about doing without..Driving bicycles and living without air condition would be fine if you were living on a tiny hamlet in Maine...

I would rather have a few tar balls on my feet when I go to the beach than high gas prices. The people in Texas have learned to live with it.

The only reason we aren't drilling off the coast of Florida is because of the big developer money influencing the politicians.

I don't give a shit about the tourist coming to Florida and having a nice day at the beach. I do care about the economy of our nation.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-08-2008, 12:40 PM
I'm not an expert...The argument is Florida's beaches are a valuable, valuable asset... An oil spill would jeopardize those beaches... That's why most Florida politicians , Reps and Dems oppose the drilling...

I will concede the point that some leftists and Dems see some moral value in conservation... I don't think folks should be wasteful but I don't see anything positive about doing without..Driving bicycles and living without air condition would be fine if you were living on a tiny hamlet in Maine...


And both the impact and the chances of that happening are negligible. The enviros are exaggerating every possible doomsday scenario on this issue. Just like they did with the Polar Bears being put on the threatened list - when their populations are at or near all time highs. It is all being done to keep oil companies from being able to drill.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the environmental groups in the US today are VERY hostile to our country and especially our economic system. The environmental lobby is not so much green as it is Red.