| 0 |
Subject: 2008 Candidates (CONT...)
Posted by: CJ
- Leader [499271021] Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 00:04
OKAY Needs some help in Understanding this Michigan Primary. I m going to Place a vote AGAIST McCain....and I am leaning to vote for Romney or the Huck. Like I said it is really a vote against McCain. I like the guy but his immigration, and against lower taxes disgust me and I do not trust he will reverse course once elected as he now claims in recent debates.
Now I understand Democrats in Michigan can vote and skew the registered Republican voters. Meaning Democrats could vote for McCain? |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 337 | walk
ID: 590432617
Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 19:25
|
We pause for this temporary announcement...OBAMA!
|
| 338 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 20:01
|
He is going to lap Hilary.
|
| 339 | Perm Dude
ID: 56015268
Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 20:20
|
Looks like Billary is already on the "we didn't really want to win SC/it isn't all that important" excuses already.
The more they go on, the more their reputations among Democrats sink.
|
| 340 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 21:36
|
Looks like Billary is already on the "we didn't really want to win SC/it isn't all that important" excuses already.
And since the rest of the country doesn't have SC demographics, she's right.
Obama's support among....
White Men: 27 percent
White Women: 22 percent
Black Men: 80 percent
Black Women: 77 percent
|
| 341 | Perm Dude
ID: 56015268
Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 21:53
|
Obama won Iowa, which is about 94% white. And came very close in New Hampshire, which is about the same.
Sure, the rest of the country isn't SC. But it isn't Iowa, either.
|
| 342 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 21:54
|
MBJ,
The white vote among men was won by Edwards, who also did well with white women. Depending on where those Edwards voters goes, let's say Obama, then those percentages get a lot tighter.
|
| 343 | Perm Dude
ID: 56015268
Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 21:55
|
Exit polling breakdown, SC
Previous exit poll, Iowa
Previous exit poll, New Hampshire
|
| 344 | Perm Dude
ID: 56015268
Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 22:39
|
Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama
Those on the Right will surely ignore this (it is a Kennedy, writing in the New York Times). But the hope and optimism of President Kennedy still resonates quite a bit in this country.
|
| 345 | PJ
ID: 21842202
Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 23:41
|
#342
I doubt that those white votes will go to Obama. I truly doubt that there were any white voters in South Carolina that supported Edwards in the primary that prefer Obama over Clinton.
This SC primary election is easy to read. Obama got the black vote and the more liberal white vote. Edward and Clinton split up the remaining white vote.
The white voters who didn't support Obama in the SC primary would probably vote for McCain or Huckabee over Obama in the general election in November.
|
| 346 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 00:24
|
PJ,
Obama got more votes overall than McCain and Huckabee combined. Obama carried all but three counties.
You really think enough white Democrats would cross over to McCain in the general election for him to carry that state? Check out these numbers, then explain to me a scenario where Obama would be vulnerable in November.
|
| 347 | Perm Dude
ID: 56015268
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 00:34
|
The overall delegate scoreboard shows Clinton still ahead by a good amount, and competitive in many areas. As much as I like Obama, it will be very close.
|
| 348 | PJ
ID: 21842202
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 00:46
|
Presuming that McCain is the Republican Party nominee and Obama the Democratic Party nominee, it's quite possible that enough white Democrats will cross over and vote for McCain to give South Carolina to the Republicans.
Is it a certainty? Of course not. But it's a definite possibility.
Or course, you know you just can't add up the number of votes based on the primary results. (Remember the Republican votes were suppressed in-part due to the very bad weather a week ago in South Carolina.)
|
| 349 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 04:43
|
Presuming that McCain is the Republican Party nominee and Obama the Democratic Party nominee, it's quite possible that enough white Democrats will cross over and vote for McCain to give South Carolina to the Republicans.
Who gets the independent vote in that scenario? I would have to think McCain which is quite possibly why he'd win nationally.
|
| 350 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 08:37
|
Yep....you steadfast Republicans who have spent the past 8 years bashing McCain suddenly see yourselves pinning your hopes to his coat. Quite comical in a highly ironic sort of way. You do realize, that you are going to be HUGELY disappointed come November if Obama is indeed the Dem Candidate.
|
| 351 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 09:54
|
The main problem McCain will have with cross-over Democrats and independents is Iraq. His staunch pro-life position won't help either.
He currently parrots the notion that "the surge" is wildly successful, a position that fails to take into account that Iraq remains unstable politically, socially, economically and religiously.
He is so pro-Iraq that he has to make up secret withdrawl plans supported by Romney in a Rovian smear attempt. In a national election, he will have to justify the continued expense, lack of political cooperation between Iraqi sects, Bush plans for permanent occupation, and a basic philosophy of military, not diplomatic solutions.
That won't play well with the Ron Paul contingency, much less the huge percentage of Democrats and independents opposed to an open-ended Iraq policy based on winning, without coherently describing what winning looks like.
|
| 352 | walk
ID: 590432617
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:32
|
Great points, PV. McCain is too dogmatic on the "we must win in Iraq" and "come home with honor" without indicating what "winning" really looks like, admitting that we are not really fighting al quaida there (as the #1 threat), and discussing the feasibility financially of being in Iraq for decades, if not "100 years." It also fails to address how our presence foments the hatred against the U.S. which led to 9/11 in the first place. It's far more complex, and what McCain and the other repubs say on the campaign trail clearly caters to the simplistic notion of many Americans that "we just have win, baby." Much easier said than done. I don't think that enough Americans feel this way to carry their vote.
|
| 353 | walk
ID: 590432617
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:33
|
Frank Rich, NYT: Billary
|
| 354 | walk
ID: 590432617
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:35
|
There's McCain on Russert right now, saying, "if we lose, Al Quaida declares victory." I really resent these types of comments cos it's not Al Quaida that is the #1 issue in Iraq. They are an issue, but the issue is...well, what PV said. When it gets reduced to AQ, it creates an inaccurate nationalistic argument intended to rally the base when in fact our presence in Iraq is far more reaching than merely "defeating Al Quaida."
|
| 355 | J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 11:20
|
can someone explain to me why it is being reported as inappropriate or petty for bill to point out that jesse jackson won sc in 84 and 88. seems to me to be a fair statement on how to minimize(if thats possible) the win by obama.
|
| 356 | Perm Dude
ID: 21022711
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:02
|
Because Jackson was the "black" candidate. Bill is saying, essentially, it doesn't matter that Obama won because that's where the black candidates win and so it doesn't matter.
pd
|
| 357 | J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:16
|
so it is taboo to even mention that historically sc has voted for a black candidate. somehow that seems like the press determining what can be said and what can't. the same goes for the berating that i saw someone getting for using his full name in discussing him.
|
| 358 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:37
|
historically sc has voted for a black candidate
Historically, SC has not given a black candidate more than twice the votes of the runner-up, nor more votes than the two top Republicans put together. These are obviously unchartered waters, especially given that Obama won Iowa, a lily white state. Since there's no real historic precedent, it's not taboo, just stupid.
If that someone who used Obama's full name does the same with all the other candidates, then they should not be berated.
However, we both know that's not the case, but thanks for insulting our intelligence by acting naive as to why Obama is singled out for the honor.
|
| 359 | Perm Dude
ID: 21022711
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:41
|
What's next, Jag: Calling Obama a "nigger" and then claiming you meant he was just a stingy person?
|
| 360 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:05
|
Additionally, when does twice = historically?
In 2004, John Edwards won the primary with Al Sharpton in the mix.
In 2000, Alan Keyes got all of 5% in the Republican primary.
The years Jesse Jackson won, 1984 and 1988, South Carolina held caucases, not primaries, another historical anamoly.
|
| 361 | J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:20
|
first off pd i don't where you are coming from. hillary for years has been referred to with her middle name. and pv there are some unchartered waters but not all. i have yet to see anyone in the media explain the whole race vote and why it even makes since to seperate the votes by demographics (which i thought we had gotten past as a nation) except to try and interject race. but then if you show historically that the state has voted on race lines before it is wrong. the kid gloves being used by the media in referring to obama is almost funny.
|
| 362 | J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:21
|
thanks pv i didn't know the difference
|
| 363 | J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:26
|
but the keyes stmt is not relevant since 90% of black voters are dems in sc
|
| 364 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:30
|
hillary for years has been referred to with her middle name
[shakes head]
|
| 365 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:43
|
but the keyes stmt is not relevant since 90% of black voters are dems in sc
Then your statement:
historically sc has voted for a black candidate
is not relevant, since Alan Keyes(and Al Sharpton) are both black. Instead of historically, which indicates a pattern rarely broken, a more honest interpretation would have been that there is precedent.
|
| 366 | walk
ID: 590432617
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:50
|
MITH, #364, LOL!
|
| 367 | J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:03
|
ok pv i will let you be right the black voter in sc does not historically vote as a block in elections if that is what you are saying(though i think that would be a tough proof) because that was not my original inquiry, but the original assertion that bill was wrong for stating the fact that jesse won in 84 and 88 is where i am having a hard time. those are the facts. obama's victory should be commended and i never said it shouldn't. i wanted to know why bill was wrong for his statement. is this candidacy gonna not allow for normal discourse due to the "racist" epithet being held over all who have commentary.
|
| 368 | walk
ID: 55114717
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:26
|
J-Bar, I guess it's a fine line. Bill's motives for making such a comment cannot be discounted. They are to seemingly minimize the potentially broad appeal Barack could have. It also potentially sends a message to others that this victory, this state, is relatively less important because it's proportionaly more African American than other states. While you may be perceiving Bill's statements as merely stating fact, given the context of all of this statements, and his intensity of past statements, and motives (to win), it's seemingly evident that he's trying to suggest that Obama won, just like Jesse Jackson, cos he and SC are Black.
|
| 369 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:27
|
At the request of PV here is my point from the Pelosi thread.
One thing to watch out with Obama are his backers. According to Fortune magazine this month, I only have the print copy handy, he's backed by Orin Kramer (Boston Provident), Paul Tudor Jones (Tudor Investments), Ken Griffin (Citadel Investment Group), and George Soros (Soros Fund Management).
I don't know enough about the other three, but Soros is a loon. The larger point is that all four are hedge fund gurus and may have well greatly contributed to some of the problems that Obama wants to address. If he comes off as a money whore like the rest of them I don't know how he'll have credibility beyond his catch phrases.
|
| 370 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:52
|
i wanted to know why bill was wrong for his statement.
The question Bill Clinton was asked was about it taking "two clintons to beat Obama". What could any answer to that question possibly have to do with Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 88 victories in SC?
Everything he does is calculated. He is deliberately associating Obama with the last black man who won in SC. His point served the dual purpose of dismissing Obama's victory as a function of racial voting tendencies in SC and associating Obama with Jackson, who most of the rest of the country views quite negatively and whose politics Obama has worked hard to distinguish himself from.
|
| 371 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:56
|
is this candidacy gonna not allow for normal discourse due to the "racist" epithet being held over all who have commentary
I don't think anyone here is calling Clinton a racist, or holding the term over his head. At least I'm not. If anything you might argue that he is passive-aggressively appealing to racist feelings that some people might harbor, which is pretty slimey, but not what you'd call racist in itself.
|
| 372 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 16:06
|
What's next, Jag: Calling Obama a "nigger" and then claiming you meant he was just a stingy person?
What did I do? I was actually behaving myself for a change.
The first person I saw commenting on Jesse winning SC in 84 and 88 was Mr. Bill.
|
| 373 | walk
ID: 55114717
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 16:07
|
#370-1, agreed.
|
| 374 | Building 7
ID: 48033121
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 16:39
|
Obama had a white mother and a black father. Why does this make him black? Why is he not white? Why does black trump white? The same thing happens with Halle Berry.
|
| 375 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 16:43
|
#347...and Tiger Woods, who is pulling an Obama in San Diego this week..or did Obama pull a Tiger?
|
| 376 | walk
ID: 470542717
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 18:59
|
#374. I think Obama would agree with you...why do we distinguish between races? And Stephen Colbert would, too ("I don't see color").
|
| 377 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 20:42
|
If Obama is pulling a Tiger Woods, he will build a huge lead and just be average the final day.
|
| 378 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 22:56
|
I see you dont sh*t about golf either.
|
| 379 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 23:29
|
Sarge, you are showing your ignorance again. I play fantasy golf and when Tiger has a large lead, he plays par golf. I suggest you chime in on subjects you are more familiar with, like which feminine hygiene product gives you the freshest feeling.
|
| 380 | Perm Dude
ID: 120552719
Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 00:24
|
Well, that's easily proven. Define "large lead" and we'll see if you are right.
|
| 381 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 00:33
|
5 shots or more. Tiger was close to par golf on the final round today with a 1 under. He did it a little differently than normal, he usally has just a couple bogies, couple of birdies and the rest pars, today he had 6 birds and 5 bogies.
|
| 382 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 00:34
|
5 birds 4 bogies
|
| 383 | Perm Dude
ID: 120552719
Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 01:19
|
Well, in major championships, Tiger has only had a 5 stroke lead or better after 54 holes three times. the 1997 Masters (9 stroke lead), the 2000 US Open (10 stroke lead) and the 2000 Open Championship (6 stroke lead). He won all of those, by 12, 15, and 8 strokes respectively. His
Wikipedia entry has a chart about halfway down which shows that in major championships Tiger Woods tends to increase his lead after 54 holes.
Now, maybe you are talking about leads during play (in other words, maybe at the end of 54 he was only up 4 strokes but during the day he was up by 5 or more, or during the last 18 he got up by 5 or more). Due to the fluid nature of in-play scores I don't know if you can even determine when a player was up 5 or more, but I'll poke around. I did fine the 2007 WGC Press Release which stated that, in his career, Woods has won 6 times after a last round over par. Doesn't say what he lead was, though.
Last year Tiger won 8 tournaments and finished second three times. Looking at just those tournaments, I don't see that at anytime he had a 5 stroke lead or better and went under that after 54 holes.
Tiger does have a tendency to lay up, at times, the last holes of a tournament when he has a lead. But this doesn't seem to reflect his final stroke differential.
|
| 384 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 08:18
|
If Obama is pulling a Tiger Woods, he will build a huge lead and just be average the final day.
Average or smart?
If the Patriots have 3 TD lead going into the 4th quarter, are they average if they abandon the passing game, or smart to run the ball and work the clock?
Anyone who has a big lead going down the stretch in a golf tourney is going to play more conservatively to protect the lead. Instead of shooting at pins where a few feet can mean landing in a bunker or in green-side rough, the player will shoot for the middle of the green, content with a two putt and par.
Faced with clearing a water hazard with a long fairway shot to reach the green in 2 on a par 5, the smart play is to lay up, and trust your short game to get a birdie or at least par.
Using a shorter but more accurate club off the tee on a narrow fairway, or one where trouble lurks if at all wild(trees, long rough) may reduce the birdie op, but birdies aren't essential with a big lead. Staying away from bogies and higher is.
|
| 385 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:10
|
FTR record JAG...I once played Fantasy NASCAR...doesnt mean I know sh*t about NASCAR.
IF Obama pulls a Tiger, then he will simply "hang around" through the cut round. Then in the 3rd round (what Tiger himself refers to as "moving day"), he'll position himself to strike. Then, in the 4th round, with his competitor paying more attention to what he (Tiger) is doing than what he is doing himself....he'll kick royal arse and win the thing going away.
|
| 386 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 12:11
|
FTR Buckwheat, I am creating a website and will be doing a live internet show with golf as one of the primary topics.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|