How can the dems just be blowwing another election?

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I just don't understand how the dem party can be blowing this election with such a poor choice in candidate. I'm not politically affiliated and always vote for the best candidate.

People that I know (as well as I) want change from the current repub party but will never vote for such a left winger as obama.

I just can't believe with the current approval rating in the repubs and people looking for alternatives that this race is even close.

Know it looks like they are going to blow it again

new polls

I agree with you.

The people in 'the middle' like you and I are seriously getting jacked again this election. Its funny is that WE are the ones that decide elections and not the lefties or righties.

Until Obama gets a simple message out and starts sticking up for himself its going to be possible for McCain to win.

You aren't getting jacked at all. Both of the candidates are centrists. In a two party election the median voter always decides it.

I don't think so but McCain is closer to the center since he has actually went against his party and went across the isle to get things done. Any person for a "windfall tax" on companies with less than 10% margins is not centrist. Any person for a huge hike in the capitol gains tax when the economy is struggling is not a centrist. I won't even go into his energy policy that was writen by the extreme left eco-crazies.

The democrats deserve to lose again they could of put up any moderate and won in a landslide not seen since 1984.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I could still see Obama winning but I also have my doubts. The problem with Democratic party is that they do not recognize the importance of race in electoral politics. This is still a white country. That will change but for now it is the case.

The average white person sees Democrats pandering to illegal immigrants (amnesty) and minorities (affirmative action). Obama is an archetypal liberal. Kerry already failed as that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Democrats need to pick a Nascar-looking candidate like Bill Clinton.

i knew this was coming if Obama started to lose. Just call all those who vote against Obama as racists. BTW McCain has tried the amnesty thing so it is just not democrats pandering.

Here is a quick way for Obama to gain 10 points in the polls. Call out Pelosi and demand she call congress into session. Have a major roll in passing a complete energy plan that includes drilling complete lifting of the bans let states decide including ANWR, nuclear and alternatives. He won't because he is in the pocket of the tree huggers.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: quest55720
i knew this was coming if Obama started to lose. Just call all those who vote against Obama as racists. BTW McCain has tried the amnesty thing so it is just not democrats pandering.

Here is a quick way for Obama to gain 10 points in the polls. Call out Pelosi and demand she call congress into session. Have a major roll in passing a complete energy plan that includes drilling complete lifting of the bans let states decide including ANWR, nuclear and alternatives. He won't because he is in the pocket of the tree huggers.

It's not so much about people being racists as much as it is people looking out for themselves. Just like most blacks voting for Obama because they feel he's one of them.

The energy issue is not going to decide this election.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I just don't understand how the dem party can be blowing this election with such a poor choice in candidate. I'm not politically affiliated and always vote for the best candidate.

People that I know (as well as I) want change from the current repub party but will never vote for such a left winger as obama.

I just can't believe with the current approval rating in the repubs and people looking for alternatives that this race is even close.

Know it looks like they are going to blow it again

new polls

I agree with you.

The people in 'the middle' like you and I are seriously getting jacked again this election. Its funny is that WE are the ones that decide elections and not the lefties or righties.

Until Obama gets a simple message out and starts sticking up for himself its going to be possible for McCain to win.

You aren't getting jacked at all. Both of the candidates are centrists. In a two party election the median voter always decides it.

I don't think so but McCain is closer to the center since he has actually went against his party and went across the isle to get things done. Any person for a "windfall tax" on companies with less than 10% margins is not centrist. Any person for a huge hike in the capitol gains tax when the economy is struggling is not a centrist. I won't even go into his energy policy that was writen by the extreme left eco-crazies.

The democrats deserve to lose again they could of put up any moderate and won in a landslide not seen since 1984.

I don't really care how you define a centrist. He simply is one.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I just don't understand how the dem party can be blowing this election with such a poor choice in candidate. I'm not politically affiliated and always vote for the best candidate.

People that I know (as well as I) want change from the current repub party but will never vote for such a left winger as obama.

I just can't believe with the current approval rating in the repubs and people looking for alternatives that this race is even close.

Know it looks like they are going to blow it again

new polls

I agree with you.

The people in 'the middle' like you and I are seriously getting jacked again this election. Its funny is that WE are the ones that decide elections and not the lefties or righties.

Until Obama gets a simple message out and starts sticking up for himself its going to be possible for McCain to win.

You aren't getting jacked at all. Both of the candidates are centrists. In a two party election the median voter always decides it.

I don't think so but McCain is closer to the center since he has actually went against his party and went across the isle to get things done. Any person for a "windfall tax" on companies with less than 10% margins is not centrist. Any person for a huge hike in the capitol gains tax when the economy is struggling is not a centrist. I won't even go into his energy policy that was writen by the extreme left eco-crazies.

The democrats deserve to lose again they could of put up any moderate and won in a landslide not seen since 1984.

I don't really care how you define a centrist. He simply is one.

Then so is bush by your definition.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: quest55720
i knew this was coming if Obama started to lose. Just call all those who vote against Obama as racists. BTW McCain has tried the amnesty thing so it is just not democrats pandering.

Here is a quick way for Obama to gain 10 points in the polls. Call out Pelosi and demand she call congress into session. Have a major roll in passing a complete energy plan that includes drilling complete lifting of the bans let states decide including ANWR, nuclear and alternatives. He won't because he is in the pocket of the tree huggers.

It's not so much about people being racists as much as it is people looking out for themselves. Just like most blacks voting for Obama because they feel he's one of them.

The energy issue is not going to decide this election.

Is that why he got the nomination of his party because only african americans voted? Come on if Obama loses it will be because of his positions or total lack of experience plain and simple.

I do think energy will decide this election since it affects the price of all goods on the market place. That is why I expect Obama to completely cave on drilling very soon. The reason this election is close is because Obama can not win over the working class voters. What do you think is at the top of their agenda? The prices of food and gas other things can wait.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't really care how you define a centrist. He simply is one.

Then so is bush by your definition.

No, he's not. Just because both the candidates are centrists this time doesn't mean that all candidates must always be centrist. Remember how Bush ran in 2000? Very centrist. Sure he was lying, but that's how he ran. Incumbency advantage means a lot, which is why Bush was able to campaign to the hard right in 2004.

 

[railer]

I don't like Obama's initial stance on pulling out troops from Iraq immediately.

I don't like Obama's initial stance on offshore drilling.

I don't like Obama's idea of a 1000 tax credit funded by "big oil".

He's flopped around and changed his tune on the first two, I know.



Things I don't like about McCain:

Bush is an idiot.

McCain is old.

McCain's ideas, honestly, I don't mind so much. Nuclear power, offshore drilling, Iraq, I all agree with.

Pushing for NATA membership for Georgia, and his cold war attitude towards Russia, I don't like so much.

No mindless partisan hackery from me. That's just what I think, today.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But for the love of God, how can people be so stupid as to actually consider this a real argument? I mean, John Kerry was "the most liberal member of the Senate" in 2004, and he's still there...so do you mean we went ahead and election someone even more liberal to the Senate, and then nominated him for President? Is Kerry now the second most liberal member of the Senate? Boy, this is some bad luck on the part of the Dems :roll:

Seriously, how does this not sound ridiculous to everyone else?

Or the really obvious answer, based on their own behavior....Democratic Presidential candidates become liberal kooks for a couple years when it comes campaign time in order to march in lockstep with moveon and NARAL.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But for the love of God, how can people be so stupid as to actually consider this a real argument? I mean, John Kerry was "the most liberal member of the Senate" in 2004, and he's still there...so do you mean we went ahead and election someone even more liberal to the Senate, and then nominated him for President? Is Kerry now the second most liberal member of the Senate? Boy, this is some bad luck on the part of the Dems :roll:

Seriously, how does this not sound ridiculous to everyone else?

Or the really obvious answer, based on their own behavior....Democratic Presidential candidates become liberal kooks for a couple years when it comes campaign time in order to march in lockstep with moveon and NARAL.

Do you people really believe this stuff? Seriously, take a step back and look at this and honestly ask yourself if what you just wrote is something you really think. You don't have to be this big a hack.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But for the love of God, how can people be so stupid as to actually consider this a real argument? I mean, John Kerry was "the most liberal member of the Senate" in 2004, and he's still there...so do you mean we went ahead and election someone even more liberal to the Senate, and then nominated him for President? Is Kerry now the second most liberal member of the Senate? Boy, this is some bad luck on the part of the Dems :roll:

Seriously, how does this not sound ridiculous to everyone else?

Or the really obvious answer, based on their own behavior....Democratic Presidential candidates become liberal kooks for a couple years when it comes campaign time in order to march in lockstep with moveon and NARAL.

Do you people really believe this stuff? Seriously, take a step back and look at this and honestly ask yourself if what you just wrote is something you really think. You don't have to be this big a hack.

What's there not to believe? John Edwards was fairly moderate from 1998-2002, cosponsored the IWR, then flocked to the left wing of his party for whatever he did vote on in 2003.

Evan Bayh did the same thing a couple years later, he was one of very few red state Democrats to vote against Bush's SCOTUS nominees.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

What's there not to believe? John Edwards was fairly moderate from 1998-2002, cosponsored the IWR, then flocked to the left wing of his party for whatever he did vote on in 2003.

Evan Bayh did the same thing a couple years later, he was one of very few red state Democrats to vote against Bush's SCOTUS nominees.

What's not to believe is that you think all the Democratic presidential candidates attempt to move in lockstep with moveon.org and NARAL. An idea that's obviously absurd and completely unsupportable by someone who takes even the slightest bit of time to look up their positions.

These people aren't caricatures man, they are regular people. Instead of just blindly hating them, take some time to learn about it.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

What's there not to believe? John Edwards was fairly moderate from 1998-2002, cosponsored the IWR, then flocked to the left wing of his party for whatever he did vote on in 2003.

Evan Bayh did the same thing a couple years later, he was one of very few red state Democrats to vote against Bush's SCOTUS nominees.

What's not to believe is that you think all the Democratic presidential candidates attempt to move in lockstep with moveon.org and NARAL. An idea that's obviously absurd and completely unsupportable by someone who takes even the slightest bit of time to look up their positions.

These people aren't caricatures man, they are regular people. Instead of just blindly hating them, take some time to learn about it.

I think the point is valid, at least in recent elections. If the candidate isn't far enough to the left the Dems won't nominate him/her. If the candidate isn't centrist the people won't elect him/her. Sooner or later the Dems will wise up and nominate a centrist then the candidate won't be forced to shift so hard for the general election.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I just don't understand how the dem party can be blowing this election with such a poor choice in candidate. I'm not politically affiliated and always vote for the best candidate.

People that I know (as well as I) want change from the current repub party but will never vote for such a left winger as obama.

I just can't believe with the current approval rating in the repubs and people looking for alternatives that this race is even close.

Know it looks like they are going to blow it again

new polls

Please explain what positions Obama has that you think are 'far left'.

Voting on favor or partial birth abortion.

Voting against the bill to provide medical care to babies that survive abortions.

The guy was rated as the most liberal Senator by very respected organization.

 

[Vic]

Liberal != left, PJ

And anyone deciding solely on the basis of the abortion issue needs to get their head examined. This country has more important things to deal with than pandering to the religious right's crusade against women.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I just don't understand how the dem party can be blowing this election with such a poor choice in candidate. I'm not politically affiliated and always vote for the best candidate.

People that I know (as well as I) want change from the current repub party but will never vote for such a left winger as obama.

I just can't believe with the current approval rating in the repubs and people looking for alternatives that this race is even close.

Know it looks like they are going to blow it again

new polls

Please explain what positions Obama has that you think are 'far left'.

Voting on favor or partial birth abortion.

Voting against the bill to provide medical care to babies that survive abortions.

The guy was rated as the most liberal Senator by very respected organization.

Remember that other thread where we all learned why that study was crap? Use the search function or your memory. You participated in it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

What's there not to believe? John Edwards was fairly moderate from 1998-2002, cosponsored the IWR, then flocked to the left wing of his party for whatever he did vote on in 2003.

Evan Bayh did the same thing a couple years later, he was one of very few red state Democrats to vote against Bush's SCOTUS nominees.

What's not to believe is that you think all the Democratic presidential candidates attempt to move in lockstep with moveon.org and NARAL. An idea that's obviously absurd and completely unsupportable by someone who takes even the slightest bit of time to look up their positions.

These people aren't caricatures man, they are regular people. Instead of just blindly hating them, take some time to learn about it.

I think the point is valid, at least in recent elections. If the candidate isn't far enough to the left the Dems won't nominate him/her. If the candidate isn't centrist the people won't elect him/her. Sooner or later the Dems will wise up and nominate a centrist then the candidate won't be forced to shift so hard for the general election.

Both parties do that to an equal extent. Just because centrists pander to the base for a few months doesn't make them not centrists.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

What's there not to believe? John Edwards was fairly moderate from 1998-2002, cosponsored the IWR, then flocked to the left wing of his party for whatever he did vote on in 2003.

Evan Bayh did the same thing a couple years later, he was one of very few red state Democrats to vote against Bush's SCOTUS nominees.

What's not to believe is that you think all the Democratic presidential candidates attempt to move in lockstep with moveon.org and NARAL. An idea that's obviously absurd and completely unsupportable by someone who takes even the slightest bit of time to look up their positions.

These people aren't caricatures man, they are regular people. Instead of just blindly hating them, take some time to learn about it.

I think the point is valid, at least in recent elections. If the candidate isn't far enough to the left the Dems won't nominate him/her. If the candidate isn't centrist the people won't elect him/her. Sooner or later the Dems will wise up and nominate a centrist then the candidate won't be forced to shift so hard for the general election.

Both parties do that to an equal extent. Just because centrists pander to the base for a few months doesn't make them not centrists.

Or...Just because extremists pander to the majority for a few months doesn't make them not extremist.

In most cases I would agree with you. In Obama's case, there isn't enough history to say for sure which is true.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RY62

Or...Just because extremists pander to the majority for a few months doesn't make them not extremist.

In most cases I would agree with you. In Obama's case, there isn't enough history to say for sure which is true.

Do you consider Hillary an extremist? Their platforms are pretty much identical.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

What's there not to believe? John Edwards was fairly moderate from 1998-2002, cosponsored the IWR, then flocked to the left wing of his party for whatever he did vote on in 2003.

Evan Bayh did the same thing a couple years later, he was one of very few red state Democrats to vote against Bush's SCOTUS nominees.

What's not to believe is that you think all the Democratic presidential candidates attempt to move in lockstep with moveon.org and NARAL. An idea that's obviously absurd and completely unsupportable by someone who takes even the slightest bit of time to look up their positions.

These people aren't caricatures man, they are regular people. Instead of just blindly hating them, take some time to learn about it.

I think the point is valid, at least in recent elections. If the candidate isn't far enough to the left the Dems won't nominate him/her. If the candidate isn't centrist the people won't elect him/her. Sooner or later the Dems will wise up and nominate a centrist then the candidate won't be forced to shift so hard for the general election.

Both parties do that to an equal extent. Just because centrists pander to the base for a few months doesn't make them not centrists.

That make George Bush a centrist in 2004?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

What's there not to believe? John Edwards was fairly moderate from 1998-2002, cosponsored the IWR, then flocked to the left wing of his party for whatever he did vote on in 2003.

Evan Bayh did the same thing a couple years later, he was one of very few red state Democrats to vote against Bush's SCOTUS nominees.

What's not to believe is that you think all the Democratic presidential candidates attempt to move in lockstep with moveon.org and NARAL. An idea that's obviously absurd and completely unsupportable by someone who takes even the slightest bit of time to look up their positions.

These people aren't caricatures man, they are regular people. Instead of just blindly hating them, take some time to learn about it.

I think the point is valid, at least in recent elections. If the candidate isn't far enough to the left the Dems won't nominate him/her. If the candidate isn't centrist the people won't elect him/her. Sooner or later the Dems will wise up and nominate a centrist then the candidate won't be forced to shift so hard for the general election.

This is the strategy on both sides.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RY62

Or...Just because extremists pander to the majority for a few months doesn't make them not extremist.

In most cases I would agree with you. In Obama's case, there isn't enough history to say for sure which is true.

Do you consider Hillary an extremist? Their platforms are pretty much identical.

On some issues, yes. I tend to agree more with the ideas of DLC. The whole health care thing was kind of extreme. Still, if the government were to get involved, I'd prefer her plan over Obama's.

The biggest difference is that Senator Clinton has a known history. I can guess, with some degree of certainty, where she'll stand on most issues. I couldn't begin to guess where Obama will end up on most issues.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RY62

Or...Just because extremists pander to the majority for a few months doesn't make them not extremist.

In most cases I would agree with you. In Obama's case, there isn't enough history to say for sure which is true.

Do you consider Hillary an extremist? Their platforms are pretty much identical.

On some issues, yes. I tend to agree more with the ideas of DLC. The whole health care thing was kind of extreme. Still, if the government were to get involved, I'd prefer her plan over Obama's.

The biggest difference is that Senator Clinton has a known history. I can guess, with some degree of certainty, where she'll stand on most issues. I couldn't begin to guess where Obama will end up on most issues.

try reading his website..I think its pretty clear and user friendly.

Or

ontheissues.org. They did most of the homework for you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I just don't understand how the dem party can be blowing this election with such a poor choice in candidate. I'm not politically affiliated and always vote for the best candidate.

People that I know (as well as I) want change from the current repub party but will never vote for such a left winger as obama.

I just can't believe with the current approval rating in the repubs and people looking for alternatives that this race is even close.

Know it looks like they are going to blow it again

new polls

Please explain what positions Obama has that you think are 'far left'.

Voting on favor or partial birth abortion.

Voting against the bill to provide medical care to babies that survive abortions.

The guy was rated as the most liberal Senator by very respected organization.

Remember that other thread where we all learned why that study was crap? Use the search function or your memory. You participated in it.

It was the National Journal that rated him most liberal. They have been rating Senators like that for years. It is probably the most respected nonpartisan ratings in Washington.

He may not be THE farthest left of all Senators, but his record for 2007 did place him as the most liberal Senator. Even if the ratings are messed up it is hard to go from furthest left to middle of the road like some of his supports want to do.

 

[OrByte]

I thought Kerry is the most librrl?