Obama 2012

[Metanis]

Obama is wounded now. Hillary won't go quietly but cooler heads will prevail and she will lose the nomination. Obama's fans will alienate enough free thinkers and Obama himself will fire up the right so that McCain will win easily. (52 or 53% is my guess.)

But McCain is a 1-hit wonder. Obama goes back to the Senate as the loyal opposition with daily news coverage. He doesn't need the hard left for 3 years so he can soften and moderate his rhetoric. Basically he begins running for President again the day after he fails this run.

I don't see how Obama can miss in 2012 short of major catastrophe.

[Animale]

Yep, 4 more years in 2012!

Don't agree with your analysis - I still think the religious right stays home in droves which gifts the election to Obama.

Animale

[Sueven]

Analysis might well be as valid as any, but it's not worth much simply because it's ridiculously impossible to forecast elections 4 and a half years in advance.

[Siji]

Wounded? Please..

[Winnow]

McCain will be our next president.

If Obama does the right things (distances himself from religious figures and stops speaking like he's giving a sermon), he'll be hard to beat in 2012 but as Sueven said, it's too early to tell how that election will shape up except for knowing that McCain is one and done.

[Xyun]

Obama will be president in 2008. The reason is simple: The left wing is on fire. We are on a fucking mission to reclaim this country and save it from the incompetency of the current administration and its party. Once Obama wins the nomination, you will see the democratic base coalesce around him in a way few people now expect, which will be followed by a gigantic jump in the polls, and activists and a campaign who will bring in droves upon droves of people the republican party doesn't even know exist. A vast majority of key voting blocks including the anti-war vote, the black and minority vote, labor and lower to middle income vote, and even some independent minded values voters will throw their weight behind him, if for no other reason than to deny republicans another term. The pendulum is swinging our way this year boys and all the hosh-posh and pipe dreams in the world won't interfere. This year we are going to deliver like none of you have ever seen and American politics will finally be infused with a giant dose of reality in the form of Barack Obama. Chew on that, bitches.

[Aabidano]

I'd guess Met is right on the money. McCain in 2008, and Obama in 2012. That's assuming the GOP picks some far right wing asshat for a VP, which they will.

The left may be on fire, but it's still the same old group who can't seem find find their ass with both hands. They've been given sooo many opportunities over the last ~7 years and have never capitalized on anything. The fire has cooled markedly too since many folks seem to have realized that Obama is just more of the same old crap respun in a different package.

I didn't think so for a while, I'm once again betting Hill will get the nomination now. If she doesn't the shitstorm as she goes down will cost Obama in 2012 and that's easily his election.

[Siji]

I didn't think so for a while, I'm once again betting Hill will get the nomination now. If she doesn't the shitstorm as she goes down will cost Obama in 2012 and that's easily his election.

The only way it's possible for Hillary to get the nomination is if there's a serious super delegate fuck up. And if that happens, the shit storm you'll need to worry about is the voters who were already burned with the Gore/Bush election. That will cause some serious problems.

And whether you believe it or not, people don't want to be in Iraq for potentially another '100 years' as McCain says. They want to get the fuck out. If we want to prevent the country (ours) from turning into Iraq, we need to get the fuck out.

[Kaldaur]

Obama is wounded? Christ, his poll numbers are up. He's closing the gap on Hillary in Pennsylvania, even after the two media frenzies against that Reverend and the "bitter" comments. And the majority of Democrats think he has a better shot of beating McCain in the general election than Hillary does.
Obama wounded? Try again please.

[Winnow]

McCain will lose very few votes from here on out.

The Democrats will lose all sorts of votes after their nominee is finally determined. A good percentage of the batshit insane people that are voting for Hillary will vote McCain. McCain has all the prejudist, feminists-pissed-that-their (allegedly female) -candidate-didn't-get-selected, Hispanic, war mongering, fear based swing votes, and probably the fundy vote.

Obama has the "hopes and dreams" vote. That's not going to cut it when gas is $4 gallon, we're hit with condition orange on ye'ole terrorist alert meter, and the fear vote campaign kicks into high gear closer to November.

In addition, the vote is rigged anyway. (much like the NBA playoffs)

bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Watch for tensions to heat up with Iran as we close in on November.

McCain: "My opponent wants to have a dialog with these people? I say we blow the turbans right off their fucking heads!"

2008 is an easy call. You've got to think like the general population of the U.S. while trying to predict elections. You're "hopes and dreams" of a better future don't mean much in way of votes. I don't watch "reality" TV shows, but if you do, you should have a much clearer picture of how the vote will turn out.

[Sueven]

McCain will lose very few votes from here on out.

I disagree with this. You really think that a candidate who is currently facing no organized opposition won't lose some support when the media glare focuses on him?

McCain has plenty of ghosts that haven't been raised in awhile... campaign finance reform, keating five, claiming to hate gooks in the 21st century, that little 'bomb iran' clip, that little 'i haven't always understood economics as well as i should' clip...

I agree that Obama's wounded, and McCain very well could win, but to think that he's just going to coast on rainbows and butterflies until the general election is pretty naive.

[Markulas]

Speaking of not understanding economics:

McCain's Gas-Tax Holiday
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... exclusives

The election is still over 6 months away. Still plenty of time for someone to screw up.

[Nick]

The election is little more than a national intelligence test.

For that reason alone, McCain will win.


Shame huh?

[Winnow]

The election is little more than a national intelligence test.

For that reason alone, McCain will win.


Shame huh?

If that were the case, Mr Potato Head would win an Irish election with ease.

[Tyek]

The funny thing is people actually think a change in President will radically change things. Obama might be able to shift things a bit, but politics will continue as usual.

There is too much at stake for them to let in wholesale changes. Did things really change much between Reagan/Bush to Clinton? The only real changes were ones that the general public created enough of an uproar that Congress and the President knew they had to change.

It is crazy when people claim "candidate A understands the common vote." Do they? Hardly, most of these people are so far removed from the common vote that they could trip over it and not know what it is. Anyone who watched Obama bowl, or Hillary drink shots can see these people have no clue.

It also seems a little crazy to think that any one candidate can appeal or appease a country that is so diverse.

[Kaldaur]

Wait...I can't bowl. What the hell does his bowling ability have to do with knowing the common vote?
Can you play basketball, baseball, run a race, teach a classroom, drive a truck, work in accounting, raise three children by yourself, and conduct surgery? If you can't do all those things, does that mean you don't understand the common vote?
The common vote is a misnomer. It is so diverse, as you said, that it has come to encompass a million different occupations, and lifestyles, and races, and ages, and all the other factors that make up our lives. Just because you can't succeed at one individual facet of that doesn't mean that you still don't understand what a common life is, and the vote that accompanies it. I think Hillary doesn't understand it because she is fake. She puts on a new face every time she goes into public. But John McCain and Barack Obama, well, even if they are wealthy (and they weren't always that way), they still come from backgrounds similar to our own, regular Joes, and understand the common vote a hell of a lot more than Hillary. Just because a person is running for President doesn't mean he or she is oblivious to the lives of their countrymen.

[Tyek]

If you are going to go out and bowl to show you are a "common man" then maybe I would expect it to look like you went bowling at least one other time in your life. The event was done to show he was an everyday guy and he looked like he had never seen a bowling ball in his life. Pick an event you know to showcase your "everyday Joe" abilities. Personally none of that crap means anything to me either. I just find it funny what politicians will do to appease the masses before a vote.

[Funkmasterr]

I am pretty sure McCain will win also. I am also kind of excited to hear the absolute outrage from liberals because of their precious obama losing, should make for some interesting conversation here.

[Fairweather Pure]

If you are going to go out and bowl to show you are a "common man" then maybe I would expect it to look like you went bowling at least one other time in your life. The event was done to show he was an everyday guy and he looked like he had never seen a bowling ball in his life. Pick an event you know to showcase your "everyday Joe" abilities. Personally none of that crap means anything to me either. I just find it funny what politicians will do to appease the masses before a vote.

So you just want him to stage everything? I know Bush does this shit all the time, but I didn't imagine for a momment that people preferred it.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

If you are going to go out and bowl to show you are a "common man" then maybe I would expect it to look like you went bowling at least one other time in your life. The event was done to show he was an everyday guy and he looked like he had never seen a bowling ball in his life. Pick an event you know to showcase your "everyday Joe" abilities. Personally none of that crap means anything to me either. I just find it funny what politicians will do to appease the masses before a vote.

So you just want him to stage everything? I know Bush does this shit all the time, but I didn't imagine for a momment that people preferred it.

Wrong. Your statement should not be "BUSH DOES IT".........it should be "THEY ALL DO IT". Wake up.

[Sylvus]

The bowling thing is not only kind of ridiculous to focus on, it's just another example of the media mis-reporting and overblowing even the smallest issue about any candidate, not just Obama.

My best friend (who works on a radio show) interviewed the guy who was working the bowling alley when Obama and his people came in, and the guy read his scorecard on the air. He only bowled 7 frames, got more and more pins each frame, and quit bowling when he'd just gotten a spare in the 7th frame. So not only did he not even finish the game, everyone is reporting on a 37 when it was at least 10 pins more than that due to his unscored spare. I'm guessing he's been a little too busy campaigning the last few months to work on his game, he had a large security detail as well as the scrutiny of everyone in the bowling alley, and probably has other things on his mind. I don't expect him to roll a 300, though he was starting to heat up just the same. If people are going to point at his score as some kind of flaw or indicative of any characteristic whatsoever, try to compare apples to apples. It looked like he was getting ready to end up with a score closer to 80+, which isn't an impressive score by any means, but I've seen plenty of "common men" roll 60-90 on their first trip to the lanes in a while.

Here's how his scorecard looked...

1. - - | 0
2. - 4 | 4
3. 7s 2 | 13
4. 9 - | 22
5. 7s - | 29
6. 8 - | 37
7. 9 / |

Give the guy a couple balls to warm-up, and I think you'd have seen a 100, which is a respectable game for anyone who doesn't bowl often.


(sorry, I'm an Obama supporter, a hater of outright lies, and an avid bowler)

[Sueven]

I also don't think there's anything wrong with the photo-opy sorts of events that candidates hold where they go bowling or drink Yuengling in Pennsylvania bars or whatever. When you campaign, the goal is to go out and meet people and let people see you and get to know you and so on. Participating in the activities that are common in the area you're campaigning in is a pretty reasonable way of accomplishing that goal.

If a candidate were personally courting my vote, and was willing to spend two hours doing pretty much anything to court me, I'd much rather that we do something I enjoy-- say playing basketball-- than something that they enjoy-- say going to see an opera.

I mean, obviously it's sort of disingenuous to (for instance) go bowling and portray this as something you've always done, and grown up doing, and is part of your background and history or whatnot. But if you (for instance) go bowling as a way to approach voters on their own turf, and participate and engage in an activity that your audience participates in, without pretending that this is YOUR activity and that you JUST LOVE bowling... what's wrong with that?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Why are you even giving any attention to what a man bowls? It has nothing to do with anything. This is revolting.

[Winnow]

Here's how his scorecard looked...

1. - - | 0
2. - 4 | 4
3. 7s 2 | 13
4. 9 - | 22
5. 7s - | 29
6. 8 - | 37
7. 9 / |

He guttered the first two balls? They have those pad things you can put in the gutters for kids to help get the ball down to the pins.

How was his form? McCain would probably throw out his back trying to throw a 9 pound bowling ball at his age so I can't really say he'd be better.

[Tyek]

Fairplay, did you actually think that event was NOT staged? Please.

I wasn't trying to focus on any one event (i.e. bowing or drinking) those we just the latest 2 examples. I understand Sueven's point about wanting to see him do something he does, it just is not important to me.

[Sueven]

I don't think it's important or valuable that a politician go bowling or hunting or whatever... just saying that as long as they're campaigning, why not host that sort of event as opposed to a different sort of event? They've got to do something.

[Tyek]

I don't think it's important or valuable that a politician go bowling or hunting or whatever... just saying that as long as they're campaigning, why not host that sort of event as opposed to a different sort of event? They've got to do something.

The real point I was making is that Obama is the only politician running for President that will make any sort of change. He wisely positioned himself as the voice of change in government. If he gets elected there might actualy be some minor changes early on, as politicians try to align themselves with the good vibes of his election and win. It would be naive to think that any real changes would be big ones though. The President just does not have that much power.

Any votes for Clinton or McCain just mean we want things to stay completely the same and nothing at all will be accomplished. Clinton is the epitome of a backroom politician and McCain is the Republican version of this current Pope. He is a placeholder until they can find a viable candidate. He is a safe choice, if he loses it won't kill his career and he can quietly move on after his term. He also does work with the other party ocassionally, if the Republicans are smart, McCain transistions them from the Bombast of Bush into a more middle of the road, appeal to the masses, Obama type candidate for the next election. I don't think they are that smart, but it would be in their best interest.

Unfortunately both groups will do what they always do and cater to the loudest, smallest subsets of their party.

[Tyek]

edit - double post

[Winnow]

Hillary wants to start a Nuclear War with Iran!

Ah, you sandal, wearing, peace marching liberals must love her!

Clinton: Iran would pay a 'very high price' for nuclear attack

Posted: 03:08 PM

Hillary Clinton sends a warning to Iran Tuesday.

(CNN) – Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that her comments that the United States could “totally obliterate” Iran if it made a nuclear attack on Israel had been an attempt to return the United States to Cold War style deterrence.

Responding to accusations from Barack Obama's campaign that she was engaging in the sort of hypothetical thinking she had criticized him for, Clinton said the situations were not equivalent, since the threat from Iran was all too real. “I think in this particular instance of Iran it's a question not of what might be on or off the table concerning a tactical or strategic decision but an effort on my part to get back to what worked during the Cold War which was deterrence,” she told reporters in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

“…Iran is feeling quite powerful. They have been empowered by the actions of the last seven years and they must know there are lines that the world will not let them cross.”

Earlier Tuesday, Clinton told ABC’s Good Morning America that "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel].”"

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said. "That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

At last week’s presidential debate, she said an attack on Israel would bring "massive retaliation" from the United States.

On Tuesday, Obama told ABC that her latest comments amounted to “saber rattling” on the day of the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

His campaign said her comments contradicted her statement at a summer debate, when she criticized Obama for saying he might take unilateral action in Pakistan if there was solid intelligence about the location of al Qaeda members.

Clinton had said then that it was unhelpful for candidates to “engage in hypotheticals” or to signal strategic possibilities as Pakistan was potentially in upheaval.

On Tuesday in Conshohocken, she said her statements were intended to send a strong message of intent. “I want Iran to know, number one, it is not in their interest to obtain nuclear weapons and number two, we will work to deter them from using such weapons by making it clear that there would be a very high price to pay,” she said.

She added that it was vital for Iran to “understand unequivocally” continued U.S. opposition to their desire to attain nuclear weapons, and that if they were to attack Israel or the United States “any way to destabilize the world, that they would have to take the consequences.”

[Aardor]

Haha, the major part of her statement they are attacking is true. We very easily could obliterate Iran if they launched a nuclear strike on Israel (or anyone else). I mean, we could pretty much obliterate anyone(everyone) at anytime, the issue would just be world support.

[Winnow]

Don't you think that if Iran nukes Israel we should sit down with them and discuss it like Obama wants to do? Maybe send them a strongly worded letter?


Dear Iranian President (previously pictured holding a gun to the head of a blindfolded American Hostage in 1979),

Bad Iran. Bad! Nuke another country and you'll be on final probation! We'll send you food for the next 20 years if you'll just stop nuking Israel! You can send one more mini nuke to take out that stupid waling wall but that's it!

-Obama

[Funkmasterr]

Don't you think that if Iran nukes Israel we should sit down with them and discuss it like Obama wants to do? Maybe send them a strongly worded letter?


Dear Iranian President (previously pictured holding a gun to the head of a blindfolded American Hostage in 1979),

Bad Iran. Bad! Nuke another country and you'll be on final probation! We'll send you food for the next 20 years if you'll just stop nuking Israel! You can send one more mini nuke to take out that stupid waling wall but that's it!

-Obama

Sounds about right. Don't forget that he would probably ask permission from the leader of every country in the world before sending the letter.

[Kaldaur]

"bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...Again! bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb, Iran!"

We already know how the Republicans feel about this. Thanks for reinforcing the point. We get it. You don't like Iran.

[Funkmasterr]

"bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...Again! bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb, Iran!"

We already know how the Republicans feel about this. Thanks for reinforcing the point. We get it. You don't like Iran.

That was really clever.

We already know how the liberals feel about Republicans. Thanks for reinforcing the point. We get it. You don't like them.

[Kaldaur]

I see what you did there! With the repetition! Thanks.

And McCain is a sellout asshole who tried to barter his soul to the Crispies you so profess to hate. Who's the tool again?

[Winnow]

And McCain is a sellout asshole who tried to barter his soul to the Crispies you so profess to hate. Who's the tool again?

This is a prime example of knowing exactly what you get when you vote for McCain. We know he had to secure at least some of the right wing crazy vote to have a chance. You know why he did it and that he didn't do anything behind someone's back.

People get all upset over this but it was something he had to do. He's bright enough to know that. He's counting on people like you to be bright enough to know that he had to do that so we wouldn't be forced to have a Mike Huckabee candidate from the right every election to square off against murdering lunatics like Hillary (sniper fire).

[Noysyrump]

I've refrained from saying it. But here it is. My prediction.


McCain wins, with 45+ states.



Land



Slide.

[Siji]

A landslide.. by the only republican running who still can't get near 100% of the republican votes.

Pennsylvania - 16% paul 12% huckabee

[Metanis]

Trailhead blog says...

Drop Out Obama

In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton’s name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.

He's got a point here. If Obama doesn't drop out then he's just another phony politician. And he wins in 2012. Which sorta was my point starting this thread.

[Fash]

Why would the fucking delegate leader drop out?

[Boogahz]

Why would the fucking delegate leader drop out?

as well as the popular vote leader (if MI and FL are not counted) apparently.

[Fash]

Florida and Michigan don't count. This is all just a process of the DNC, and they mandated that FL and MI would not seat delegates. Hillary was on the ballot in both states, Obama was only on one. The candidates had agreed not to campaign in those states, and everyone knew months in advance that no delegates would be seated and the primaries were essentially pointless. This changed the outcome in those two states, and that outcome is not representative of the election or the electorate.

[Boogahz]

Florida and Michigan don't count. This is all just a process of the DNC, and they mandated that FL and MI would not seat delegates. Hillary was on the ballot in both states, Obama was only on one. The candidates had agreed not to campaign in those states, and everyone knew months in advance that no delegates would be seated and the primaries were essentially pointless. This changed the outcome in those two states, and that outcome is not representative of the election or the electorate.

I was just pointing out that her claim to be ahead in the popular vote is only by including those two states. I believe the numbers without them put Obama about 400k votes ahead, if that many even.

[Noysyrump]

Neither one of them can win without the 'superdelegates'. So the DNC primary election is pointless. All it's going to boil down to is, who can bribe/coerce the SDs best. And I do believe on that front, Hitlary has the advantage. So Obama would be wise to look like the better man and drop out. That of course would give him all kinds of massiah points, as already stated, and insure him at least, the backing to run again. Of course next time, there will be no Hitlery, as her getting completely creamed by the old man will ensure her eternal downfall (until the next reincarnation, perhaps the daughter?).

[Kaldaur]

Oh Christ, that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Way to go syrup, you should do polling for Fox.
"Obama up, necessitates drop-out!"

[Noysyrump]

Oh Christ, that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Way to go syrup, you should do polling for Fox.
"Obama up, necessitates drop-out!"

ROFL. Yeh that may not make sense yet. But watch, Hitlary is gonne steeeeeeelz da erection!

Then she will loose 45 - 5 states.

[Vetiria]

I've wondered for a few months now: do you just post things to see how ignorant you can be? Each post you make seems to get worse and worse.

I'm asking a serious question. Do you honestly believe what you post?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Try using your brain a smidge. He meant she will steal the primary and in turn lose the general election. Not really that difficult to figure out. But then again you didn't really try, you just jumped at any opportunity to smash someone. Shocking.

[Winnow]

lol @ democrats

[Bagar-]

Try using your brain a smidge. He meant she will steal the primary and in turn lose the general election. Not really that difficult to figure out. But then again you didn't really try, you just jumped at any opportunity to smash someone. Shocking.

Do you make snarky replies because your mother did crack-cocaine while pregnant with you?