Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>We cannot be afraid of these small minded bitter little people. And we cannot kowtow to them and their bigotry. We as a nation should just vote our conscience, and if that means some cannot bring themselves to vote for a black man, or a mormon, or a woman, or a politically moderate republican, let them sit home. We're better off without them anyway.<< Well said, gadzuux!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I honestly think Obama has a better shot at winning the Presidency than does Hillary. Obama isn't running with the anchor around his neck that is Bill Clinton.<< Nothing, and I mean nothing, would get Republican voters out in force than Hillary Clinton. McCain vs. Clinton: McCain wins huge, especially if he's clever in choosing a running mate. The campaign would be ultra nasty, swift boating all around from both sides. If you thought the country was torn the last two elections, look out. McCain vs. Obama: Much closer. The tone of the debate would pit experience vs. a fresh start. Actual issues might be dabated rather than personalities. (How's THAT for the audacity of hope???)
Originally Posted By jonvn "That actually proves my point, Iowa is a public caucas" I think that is exactly right.
Originally Posted By jonvn "in Tiger I see a man who has broken the racial divide wide open sheerly from his likeable public persona, talent, etc. " He's black. Look at the recent "lynch" nonsense. He's black.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Actual issues? Hey, let's not fool ourselves.<< I know. i got carried away.
Originally Posted By jonvn Ugh...i wish there was an edit... "Nothing, and I mean nothing, would get Republican voters out in force than Hillary Clinton. " I think this would happen, too. Neither of the two top dems can win.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That actually proves my point, Iowa is a public caucas>> <I think that is exactly right.> Then how is it he barely lost NH which has very few black voters? Why didn't IA go for Jesse Jackson if all those white Iowans supposedly can't bring themselves to not vote for a black man in the caucus format? Why did he carry more white men even in SC than Hillary? Why did he win whites under 30 in IA, NH, AND SC? He has more appeal to white voters than I think you're allowing for.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Then how is it he barely lost NH which has very few black voters?" Key word: Lost. The democrats need to look to Lieberman as a bellwhether. He did not win the primary, and instead they nominated some other guy. Well, the Republicans didn't want to vote for the other guy, so when Liebermann ran as an independent, he won. It doesn't matter who you nominate or what the symbolism is if he or she is not going to win the election. We've aleady had a woman run for Vice Presdident. Lost. It was a nice gesture, I suppose, because they probably knew they hadn't a chance against Reagan anyway. But this time, they have the election sewn up, provided the nominate someone who won't have a major portion of the population coming out to do little else but vote against them. So, looks like we'll have McCain for President, until he kicks it due to age, and whoever he's got running as VP will fill the slot. If McCain actually manages to make it through 6 years, we may end up with a Republican President for the next 16 years thanks to the nonsense going on in the Democratic party right now.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy It doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate. By November, the economy is going to be so sorry that no Republican running on a Reaganomics platform, e.g. McCain, will have any chance in the election. Both Clinton and Obama have appeal to those that the economy has left behind during the Bush era. If Clinton is the nominee, expect lots of reminders about the relative prosperity during the previous Clinton administration -- a period that many voters have an affintiy for when it comes to their pocketbook. Obama represents a non-establishment figure that would stand against the supply-side conservatives. Either way, even the crummiest Democratic nominee shouldn't be able to screw this one up.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"Then how is it he barely lost NH which has very few black voters?">> <Key word: Lost.> But it gives the lie to the idea that white people won't vote for him. If he can nearly carry nearly-all-white NH, he could, theoretically, win. Not saying he will. But it's just not right to say he can't attract white support.
Originally Posted By jonvn I never said white people won't vote for him. Certainly white people would vote for him. If he gets the nomination, I'll probably vote for him, because I do not think it good for a Republican to get into office again. But it won't be enough to cover the ones who will vote against him.
Originally Posted By alexbook Responding late to post #17: >>Maybe you should vote for the Green party candidate. I'm sure that Ralph will get the nod, again.<< Nader broke his ties to the Green Party after the 2000 election. He ran in 2004 as an independant, and the Greens ran David Cobb. Nader hasn't said whether he's running this year. I'm hoping he won't, since he's proven himself to be such a lousy campaigner in the past. Candidates for the Green nomination for president this year include ex-Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and some people you've never heard of. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States#2008_Presidential_Election" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G reen_Party_of_the_United_States#2008_Presidential_Election</a>)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But it won't be enough to cover the ones who will vote against him.> Well, if he gets the nom, we'll have to see. A lot can happen between now and November, positive and negative, for both him and the Rep. nominee. I just wouldn't say it's a given that he can't be elected. I guess you do think it's a given, but there we are.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Well, if he gets the nom, we'll have to see. A lot can happen between now and November, positive and negative, for both him and the Rep. nominee. I just wouldn't say it's a given that he can't be elected. I guess you do think it's a given, but there we are.<< Well put. I understand why jonvn and william might think the way they do - I just disagree. They have nothing to back them up other than their own observations and anecdotal experiences. But now we've seen Barack win two states and do extremely well in New Hampshire. New Hampshire and Iowa aren't exactly hotbeds of African-American activism. Until we see some actual evidence to the contrary, I don't see how anyone can continue the "he can't win" argument. Mind you, I'm not saying he will win; a lot of people are concerned about his inexperience. But in order to be taken seriously, arguments that he can't win because of his race have to be backed up by some actual numbers or evidence, and right now, it just isn't. Quite the opposite, actually.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm sorry, but I think you're really living in a fantasy world. In South Carolina, Obama got 80% of the black vote, and 25% of the white vote. While that's a good showing, it's not good enough.
Originally Posted By onlyme >>>>We cannot be afraid of these small minded bitter little people. And we cannot kowtow to them and their bigotry. We as a nation should just vote our conscience, and if that means some cannot bring themselves to vote for a black man, or a mormon, or a woman, or a politically moderate republican, let them sit home. We're better off without them anyway.<< Well said, gadzuux!<<<< Yes, a very good statement. Unfortunately, and not just in this election, the intention of some, is not to vote FOR someone, but, instead, AGAINST someone else. Also, I'm not convinced that if Obama does, indeed, become the Dem nominee, that this means an automatic win for the Republicans. But, we're still too early on in the primaries to make an 'educated' statement. We'll see. But, if I was to speculate, I feel that if Clinton becomes the Dem nominee, this will cause a lot of Republicans to get out and vote (against her). More than if Obama is the nominee. Just my guess.
Originally Posted By jonvn A lot of men will flat out not vote for a woman. A lot of Obama white male support is going to come from that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>A lot of men will flat out not vote for a woman.<< I suppose. But we have had lots of female politicians elected. Up until recently, we hadn't had a woman as speaker of the house or as secretary of state. Now we do. There are plenty of reasons people will have not to vote for Hillary. I don't think the majority of that has anything to do with her being a woman. People can have policy differences with someone of a different gender and race, and that doesn't automatically make the racist or sexist. I'm neither racist or sexist, but I disagree with Condoleeza Rice quite often, for example.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Up until recently, we hadn't had a woman as speaker of the house or as secretary of state." The public at large did not elect them. What you should look to is governorships. Who gets those. We have, I think, around eight or so. When that number gets closer to triple that, then women will have a more reasonable shot at being President. Looking at black governors, you see two elected in the history of the country, one appointed. In 2006, five black men ran for governor in various states. One won. That's a 20% success rate. As with women, when there are more black governors, we'll see more of a chance of a black person winning the Presidency.
