Who Can Beat the Republicans?

[stevento]

i was at a hillary event today (the los angeles branch of her town hall) and the congressman that introduced Antonio Villaraigosa (mayor) made a good point.

can obama win?
John Kerry was fantastic. a great inspirational candidate. but he got swiftboated by the republican attack machine.
now obama did coke and i'm not holding it against him but will undecided voters see it that way? and there's alot of other stuff in his past that they can throw at him. of course i dont care what he did was he was 17. but they might be able to make something up and throw it at him
will republicans be able to pull some BS out of thin air and trick idiot undecided voters into believing it? it worries me.
you cannot swiftboat hillary clinton. she's been taking their hits for 16 years and she aint gone yet. the republican attack machine is formidable, but so is the clinton machine and hillary doesn't bow down to attacks; we know that much. this is why i think obama will make a great running mate

[forafireescape]

I see your point, although I don't think most voters will freak out about some drugs he took when he was a teenager. You could argue the same thing about Hillary. A lot of people hate her - will they vote for a GOP candidate just to keep her out of office?

Note - I am a Hillary fan. She's had my vote from the start. But I'm just saying, it could go either way.

[thebassoonist]

I think Hillary is too polarizing. And as much as I would love to like her, I just can't. The Republicans can attack her, and she will attack back.

The Republicans can attack Barack, but he will probably just shrug and be honest about his past. It's hard to attack someone who is honest enough to tell the American people that he did coke.

I am going to vote for Barack tomorrow, but I like Hillary a million times more than Romney and Huckawas, and about one hundred times more than McCain and Paul.

[stevento]

yeah but what if they make something up like
"we have reports that obama's gang leaders want to speak the truth about him" or something crazy like that and people believe it?
you cant mess with hillary like that

[killerrobot]

Why do you keep starting new threads about Clinton vs. Obama?
Why don't you just keep posting it all in the same thread?
Why do many keep responding that Obama is the RIGHT candidate, but yet you have to open another thread because you are never satisfied?

More importantly, why do I keep responding on your threads?????!!!!!

[CalBoy]

The Republicans can attack Barack, but he will probably just shrug and be honest about his past. It's hard to attack someone who is honest enough to tell the American people that he did coke.

He can't afford that in the General Election. The first rule of electoral politics is "leave no shot unanswered."

Shrugging and being honest would only work once or twice at most (people like the novelty of honest politicians) but after that Obama would be forced to either retaliate or go on the defensive about his past.

[thebassoonist]

yeah but what if they make something up like
"we have reports that obama's gang leaders want to speak the truth about him" or something crazy like that and people believe it?
you cant mess with hillary like that

"New evidence in the case of Vince Foster has surfaced."

I think that they could do that to any candidate.

[forafireescape]

"New evidence in the case of Vince Foster has surfaced."

I think that they could do that to any candidate.

I agree. I'm a huge H-dawg fan but I'm sure she's got dirt, just like everyone else.

[thebassoonist]

He can't afford that in the General Election. The first rule of electoral politics is "leave no shot unanswered."

Shrugging and being honest would only work once or twice at most (people like the novelty of honest politicians) but after that Obama would be forced to either retaliate or go on the defensive about his past.

Huh, interesting point. I don't know. I've never ran for Office.

I guess if people don't want a seemingly honest president, than Obama is probably the wrong choice. Americans do like a fight.

[motulist]

Oh please, at this point it's pretty much an accepted fact that nobody would get the republicans out to vote for their party's nominee more than Hillary as the democratic ticket. And more and more high profile republican leaders are saying that they would vote for obama over the current republican contenders.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476

[CalBoy]

I guess if people don't want a seemingly honest president, than Obama is probably the wrong choice. Americans do like a fight.

It isn't a matter of Americans wanting a fight, it's more a matter of how successful the opposing machine is. It's almost like a Catch 22. If you answer honestly all the time, the opposing side claims you're not right for the job because you can't be trusted.

If you lie, the opposing side will invest more time and money trying to catch you in your lies.

The end game is really determined by which side can prevent the most attacks from surfacing, and can successfully deflect those attacks that do surface.

So here's the question: Is Obama honest to the point where he would be Republican fodder, or is he a clever politician that knows how to win a primary?

[thebassoonist]

I agree. I'm a huge H-dawg fan but I'm sure she's got dirt, just like everyone else.

And they really only have to plant a seed like that. They never have to follow up on it (or it can be something as simple as, "Oops, we were wrong; we fired the person that came up with that) and many people will continue to believe it. Kind of like how someone near and dear to me still believes the Swift Boat thing is for real... AKA my father

So here's the question: Is Obama honest to the point where he would be Republican fodder, or is he a clever politician that knows how to win a primary?

I don't know. I don't think anyone does. Except for him, of course.

[CalBoy]

I don't know. I don't think anyone does.

You're right, we don't know yet. However, based on how Obama is a very clever person who seems to be very bright, I think it's more likely that he knows how to win a primary.

I personally will still vote for Hillary tomorrow (as the OP mentioned, Clinton has survived attack after attack since '93 and she's still here) and I think that even if she is more likely to draw Republican fire, she'll be better able to counter it than Obama.

Obama won't be shielded forever. If he's chosen as the official candidate, the Republicans aren't going to let him off any easier than the would Clinton.

The only difference with Hillary is that we've heard most of what there is to say against her already. At some point people stop listen to broken records.

The stuff the Republicans dig up on Obama will be fresh meat.

[/extreme cynicism]

[mrkramer]

I think that Hillary Clinton is too polarizing to win the general election. She would haveenough people hating her that many more people would come out to vote just to keep her out of office. Obama will be able to get some of he more moderate Republicans and independents to vote for him who otherwise wouldn't vote or would vote for McCain.

[forafireescape]

I think that Hillary Clinton is too polarizing to win the general election. She would haveenough people hating her that many more people would come out to vote just to keep her out of office. Obama will be able to get some of he more moderate Republicans and independents to vote for him who otherwise wouldn't vote or would vote for McCain.

Yeah...but McCain's not polarizing; most Republicans would vote for him. He's a pretty Republican-ish candidate, so I don't think Obama being the other candidate would necessarily take votes from him.

[motulist]

Yeah...but McCain's not polarizing; most Republicans would vote for him. He's a pretty Republican-ish candidate

Are you just making stuff up off the top of your head? Everything I've read from mainstream and independent sources alike all say that many republicans don't like McCain and would vote for a non-republican if he was their party's nominee.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=mccain+republican+limbaugh&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=mccain+republican+%22ann+coulter%22&btnG=Search

... and many more.

[thebassoonist]

You're right, we don't know yet. However, based on how Obama is a very clever person who seems to be very bright, I think it's more likely that he knows how to win a primary.

I personally will still vote for Hillary tomorrow (as the OP mentioned, Clinton has survived attack after attack since '93 and she's still here) and I think that even if she is more likely to draw Republican fire, she'll be better able to counter it than Obama.

Obama won't be shielded forever. If he's chosen as the official candidate, the Republicans aren't going to let him off any easier than the would Clinton.

The only difference with Hillary is that we've heard most of what there is to say against her already. At some point people stop listen to broken records.

The stuff the Republicans dig up on Obama will be fresh meat.

[/extreme cynicism]

About the countering attacks, one complaint that I hear often about Hillary is that she is a "bitch." I find that word completely offensive (unless when speaking of actual bitches) and it is used by bigoted people whenever a woman has power.

This is one thing I worry about as a woman. The fact that we live in a patriarchy, we are told that we should be powerless and any woman that acts powerful is labeled. Someone pointed this out above, that Republicans are choosing Obama over Clinton. Call me a crazy feminist, but I do wonder if this is because of gender. Obama and Clinton are so similar on so many things and for some reason I've never heard Obama referred to as a bastard. I've also heard (Hillary) Clinton referred to as a man. I guess it is unacceptable for a woman to be "tomboyish." I friend of mine made the argument that Obama is like an "Oreo cookie" (I honestly do not mean to offend anyone, I'm just quoting). It's probably more acceptable for a "Black" man to act "White" than a woman to act "masculine".

We can be blind to sex and gender, but I think this might sadly make a difference in the end.

As the daughter and sister of women lawyers, I've heard time and time again that women usually will not support women in law firms when they are up to make partner. Men usually don't either.

Some of my extended family are Republicans (changed to independent for the Utah primary) and are voting for Obama. They are LDS (I was shocked to hear that they are not voting Romney). I wonder why they chose Obama. Was it because of his policies (which are very similar to Clinton's) or is it because it has been ingrained into their heads, again, that women shouldn't or can't hold power.

I've talked to my family about why they think Hillary isn't electable. They say she sounds calculated and she is too mean. But what is an electable woman supposed to be like? Soft? Sweet? Attractive (how many times I have heard Hillary is ugly... it's ridiculous, we don't hold men up to the same standards)? Or maybe (I think this might be it) the first woman we elect has to be conservative.

Many of my arguments (and other arguments as well) can be made the same for ethnicity or that social construct we call race. But this is just something to think about. And to many people, gender and ethnicity do not matter as much as to others. But how much does it matter to the independents and cross-over Republicans?

Fascinating election, and I don't think we can lose with Hillary or Obama.

[motulist]

If hillary wins the democratic nomination, then the democrats will lose the presidential election, and we'll wind up with another war hawk republican. It's very clear now. A vote for hillary in the primary means a vote for the republican candidate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0350597520080204

[SMM]

any democrat will beat any republican.

[it5five]

I don't think Hillary could win against McCain. They are both very much disliked both in their party and out, but the difference is that Republicans hate Hillary more than any other person on this earth. I think that even with someone the right-wing hates running as their candidate, they'll suck it up and vote for anybody to keep Hillary out of office.

I could be wrong, of course. I think against Romney, Hillary will do fine, but I don't feel comfortable with her odds against McCain. Obama would win against either of them, for sure. I hope tomorrow works out in his (and this countries) favor.

EDIT: See the article motulist posted above. She won't fare well in the general election if she gets the nomination.

[stevento]

[QUOTE=killerrobot;4896891]Why do you keep starting new threads about Clinton vs. Obama?
QUOTE]

well i thought about making an ultimate obama clinton thread but it might be decided tomorrow.

what worries me is that obama is too green and not tough enough to take on the attack machine.
we know he brings people together and unites and all that but that does not mean they are going to go easy on him.

[stevento]

I agree. I'm a huge H-dawg fan but I'm sure she's got dirt, just like everyone else.

but they've been doing it to hillary for 20 years and she's still prominent. obama is fresh, we dont know what it'll do to him.

[atszyman]

but they've been doing it to hillary for 20 years and she's still prominent. obama is fresh, we dont know what it'll do to him.

But this also works against her. People are used to hearing (and believing) scandalous information about the Clintons. With Obama bringing people who would never vote for Hillary to the table, the mud slinging may not stick as easily. People don't want to hear bad things about the candidates they like and might actually go through the effort to verify, where they might not with Clinton since they've been hearing the scandals for years now.

[zioxide]

It basically comes down to this:

If it comes down to McCain vs Hillary, McCain is going to be President. He'll get most of the independents and even the republicans who don't like him will vote for him because they won't want Hillary.

If it comes down to Obama vs McCain, Obama will probably win. He'll be able to bring out many independents and even some republicans (see http://www.republicansforobama.org).

[Mike Teezie]

John Kerry was fantastic. a great inspirational candidate. but he got swiftboated by the republican attack machine.

Inspirational? John Kerry? I voted for him, and I didn't find him inspirational, or a great candidate.

But assuming your logic, if they can take a thrice decorated war hero and slag him through the mud enough to make a difference, how can they not "swiftboat" Hillary?

I belive the Republicans are salivating over the idea of running against HRC. They have the benefit of the most indoctrinated, blind, intense hatred of the woman on their side. People hate her. Hate. That's before the all the scandal digging players from the 90's get going again.

If John McCain is the Republican nominee, and Hillary the Democratic, after the lowest general election voter turnout in history we'll have another Republican president.

And to the fact that Barack did coke, well, so did the Dub.

[Don't panic]

John Kerry was fantastic. a great inspirational candidate.

you lost me there.

both hillary and obama can and will be attacked viciously by the right.

furthermore, one is a woman, the other is black.
don't think that these facts are not going to influence a sizeable chunk of the electorate. unfortunately we are not to the point where these are not factors.

At this point it's hard to say who will have a better shot, but inexplicably it will be very hard for either.
but either will be 100x better than any of the republican's candidates.

[Peterkro]

From my limited knowledge of US politics I would have thought a glove puppet could beat the republicans.

[Don't panic]

From my limited knowledge of US politics I would have thought a glove puppet could beat the republicans.

i wish.
bush managed to get into the whitehouse twice, one way or another.

[Kashchei]

It basically comes down to this:

If it comes down to McCain vs Hillary, McCain is going to be President. He'll get most of the independents and even the republicans who don't like him will vote for him because they won't want Hillary.

If it comes down to Obama vs McCain, Obama will probably win. He'll be able to bring out many independents and even some republicans (see http://www.republicansforobama.org).


I agree with zioxide on this point, which is why I started this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=425965&highlight=Hillary+Nader)

[motulist]

It basically comes down to this:

If it comes down to McCain vs Hillary, McCain is going to be President. He'll get most of the independents and even the republicans who don't like him will vote for him because they won't want Hillary.

If it comes down to Obama vs McCain, Obama will probably win. He'll be able to bring out many independents and even some republicans (see http://www.republicansforobama.org).

You couldn't be more correct. If you vote for Hillary today, then it's the same as if you're voting to put the republican candidate into the presidency.

[Prof.]

After the huge scar Bush put on the republican reputation, no one will be able to beat the repubs. :rolleyes:

Clinton or Obama will be the next president of the US. I promise you that.:D:D:D

[PlaceofDis]

After the huge scar Bush put on the republican reputation, no one will be able to beat the repubs.

Clinton or Obama will be the next president of the US. I promise you that.:D:D:D

and you were so sure it would be clinton in another thread.

if HRC gets the nomination its going to be close.
Zoxide was right on imo.

[Prof.]

and you were so sure it would be clinton in another thread.

if HRC gets the nomination its going to be close.
Zoxide was right on imo.
Well it's too close to call so I'm now saying Clinton OR Obama. (I still think Clinton tho)

I pray to god that Romney doesn't win. He is the biggest phony out there and ppl will see right thru him.

[Cleverboy]

If hillary wins the democratic nomination, then the democrats will lose the presidential election, and we'll wind up with another war hawk republican.Yup. No doubt about it.
any democrat will beat any republican.Nope. You mean like Gravel? You're saying Gravel would beat Romney or McCain?

Could you pass me some of that? :p

~ CB

[walangij]

But assuming your logic, if they can take a thrice decorated war hero and slag him through the mud enough to make a difference, how can they not "swiftboat" Hillary?

I belive the Republicans are salivating over the idea of running against HRC. They have the benefit of the most indoctrinated, blind, intense hatred of the woman on their side. People hate her. Hate. That's before the all the scandal digging players from the 90's get going again.

If John McCain is the Republican nominee, and Hillary the Democratic, after the lowest general election voter turnout in history we'll have another Republican president.

And to the fact that Barack did coke, well, so did the Dub.



WHAT CAN ENERGIZE AND UNITE THE GOP?


HILLARY CLINTON!!!


Obama has done coke and a lot of stuff, but he wrote about all this in his autobiography. An attack machine can't go "On p.xx of his book Obama admits drug use...". And plus, have you seen the pro-Obama videos on the web made by supporters? The viral marketing? They are 100x better than the pro-Hillary, plus Move-On.org endorsed Obama so he is not unarmed when it comes to political attacks.

[Melrose]

I think a deciding factor in November will be the main issues at hand: Iraq war vs Economy, if indeed those are the main issues (and they've certainly been focused on a great deal so far)

If it's the war, then Obama has the edge since he has a 'clean bill' voting-wise in this regard - whereas McCain is all for it. If you have people against the war, and the war is the issue, then Obama's the man.

However, with talk of a recession Hillary's got and edge, I think, because in times like that people don't want 'hope', they want someone with experience. Clinton has her plans based on her experience (whether for good or bad in your own opinion), which is hard to refute.

...and Romney, should he win eventually, I think would get plastered by either one of the democrats.

[solvs]

what worries me is that obama is too green and not tough enough to take on the attack machine.

You've said that already.

I didn't like Kerry either, but he was what we got, and he wasn't Bush. I suspect it will be the same this time around. Only this time I'm hoping people are really sick of the GOP enough to vote for someone else, even if they don't like them.

[x86isslow]

any democrat will beat any republican.

Tell that to President John Kerry.

[solvs]

Tell that to President John Kerry.
That was 4 years ago and he was awful. Granted, that was against Bush. A McCain/Huckabee team could very well beat a Clinton/someone everyone hates. At least they'd have a Dem led Congress to pretend to stand up to them.

[Kashchei]

Tell that to President John Kerry.

I was teaching at UMass four years ago and I distinctly remember that the majority of students supported Kucinich. I find it hard to believe that in four years, this support was have shifted to Paul.

[Unspeaked]

McCain vs. Clinton = McCain win. Too many people have too much dislike for Hilary and Co. They'll turn out in droves to vote against her.

McCain vs. Obama = McCain win. They'll lose key states (California, Texas, etc) because the hispanic vote will shift to the GOP. There's still too many narrow minded people that will vote against a black candidate.

And if a previous poster is correct and the main issues of 2008 turn out to be the economy and Iraq, I feel even more confident of these predictions.

Add Huckabee as a running mate, and the GOP ticket is even stronger. Richardson would make sense of the Dems side, but I don't see him being as much of an asset.

I can't believe I'm typing this in February 2008, but the Democrats have somehow managed to do what they always do and give away the presidency to the Republicans, yet again.

I think the Bush reelection would be the pinnacle, but sadly it wasn't...

[zioxide]

McCain vs. Obama = McCain win. They'll lose key states (California, Texas, etc) because the hispanic vote will shift to the GOP. There's still too many narrow minded people that will vote against a black candidate.

The hispanic vote won't go to the Repubs. If Obama gets the nomination, they'll end up voting for him. If Richardson is Obama's VP, it will help even more.

[Unspeaked]

The hispanic vote won't go to the Repubs. If Obama gets the nomination, they'll end up voting for him. If Richardson is Obama's VP, it will help even more.

Have you not been following the exit polls?

McCain is already doing well with hispanic and latino voters in the Republican party.

He can only do better if running against a candidate (Obama) who's gotten as little as 15% of the hispanic vote in some states.

I agree Richardson might help a little, but A) he's no sure bet to be the running mate and B) his name can only go so far - it's still Obama who comes first on the ticket.

I think the only chance the democrats really have this year is if a third party candidate comes around and steal votes away from the GOP.

[solvs]

I find it hard to believe that in four years, this support was have shifted to Paul.

Some (and I do want to make a point that it's some, not all) of Paul's supporters don't really get what he wants to do. They hear things about ending the war and getting rid of the IRS and think he's the next great hope. Some of what he wants though seems scary to those of us paying attention. I don't exactly like bureaucracy, but getting rid of almost all of it doesn't seem like a good idea either.

[Unspeaked]

Some (and I do want to make a point that it's some, not all) of Paul's supporters don't really get what he wants to do. They hear things about ending the war and getting rid of the IRS and think he's the next great hope. Some of what he wants though seems scary to those of us paying attention. I don't exactly like bureaucracy, but getting rid of almost all of it doesn't seem like a good idea either.

It's not that he wants chaos, he just wants stronger local government.

It makes sense, in a way.

A much more European model.

[Prof.]

After the huge scar Bush put on the republican reputation, no one will be able to beat the repubs. :rolleyes:

Clinton or Obama will be the next president of the US. I promise you that.:D:D:D
WOW!!!

I just realized how badly I screwed that post up.:o

I meant to put a ":rolleyes:" after "After the huge scar Bush put on the republican reputation, no one will be able to beat the repubs."

My bad

[solvs]

It's not that he wants chaos
I never said chaos, I just don't think it's feasible, let alone a good idea to try, based on what we see when we come even close.

[Dimwhit]

If you Democrats are smart, you'll nominate Obama. I'm a Republican, but I'm not thrilled with McCain. If he's up against Obama, I could be persuaded to vote for him. And it might not take that much. But I will NEVER vote for a Clinton. Especially Hillary.

I know a number of Republicans who feel the same way.

Obama will get many more Republicans and Moderates than Hillary will.

[atszyman]

Well the Oxy-moron himself seems to think Hillary is the GOPs best chance of winning...

link (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Limbaugh_wants_to_raise_cash_for_0207.html)

The reason I'm raising money for Hillary is because, apparently, my party, the Republican party, is relying on fear and loathing of Hillary to unite the party," Limbaugh said.
.
.
.
"Here's the slogan" for the fundraiser, he said: "Keep her in it, so we can win it."

Coulter voting Democrat and I agree with Rush Limbaugh (that Hillary helps the GOP, not keeping her in the race)... the ice skating rinks in Hell must be doing good business.

[Eric Piercey]

i wish.
bush managed to get into the whitehouse twice, one way or another.

"..or another," I'm sure. The vote means little to nothing anymore. Whoever is "the anointed one" wins. I really believe this. I'd rather see Obama in there simply because well.. Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush.... Clinton - COME ON ALREADY! There's 300+ million people in the country, tell me something is just a little eF'Ed up about that.

edit.. and yet nobody questions. MOOOOO.

[it5five]

I'd rather see Obama in there simply because well.. Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush.... Clinton - COME ON ALREADY! There's 300+ million people in the country, tell me something is just a little eF'Ed up about that.

edit.. and yet nobody questions. MOOOOO.

That is an absurd reason to not want Clinton to win.

I assume you were out in full force like this when Bush was running again, disliking him for a pattern in leaders.

At least find actual reasons to dislike her if you're going to. If this is all you've got, then it's one of the weaker reasons I've seen for not wanting to vote for somebody.

[Unspeaked]

"..or another," I'm sure. The vote means little to nothing anymore. Whoever is "the anointed one" wins. I really believe this. I'd rather see Obama in there simply because well.. Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush.... Clinton - COME ON ALREADY! There's 300+ million people in the country, tell me something is just a little eF'Ed up about that.

So why not McCain? He's neither Bush nor Clinton, nor the establishment choice of his party.

But on a larger scale, the trouble with voting in America is that despite all the anti-war sentiment, the country is still VERY polarized, probably as much as it's ever been.

Two elections in a row that were essentially a 50/50 split, with the number of votes separating the candidates fewer than the population of New York City.

It says a lot when a president whose approval rating was dismal got reelected, in the midst of a war most were opposed to, escalating gas prices and a huge deficit.

That's why the candidates that people seem to love now - the McCains and Obamas - are those that are firmly in the middle.

Romney and Huckabee are too far right, Clinton is too far left*.

* Actually, she probably isn't much further left than Obama, if anything, but is perceived that way. Whether this is because of her ties to Bill, or some other reason, I do not know.

[it5five]

Romney and Huckabee are too far right, Clinton is too far left*.

* Actually, she probably isn't much further left than Obama, if anything, but is perceived that way. Whether this is because of her ties to Bill, or some other reason, I do not know.

I'm sorry, but this is not not not true. Clinton is quite moderate, and I'd even go so far to say she is slightly right-wing. Have you looked at a lot of her positions? A lot of it reads like a conservative wet-dream. Border fence. Check. Prison and fine for flag burning. Check. A health care system still heavily entrenched with for-profit insurance companies. Anti-Iranian. Anti-Palestinian, Pro-Israeli. Anti-Cuba. Pro-Drug War. Pro-Death penalty. Anti-same sex marriage. Anti-union. It's all either in her history or her stance on issues.

Obama is further left than Clinton, though not by a whole lot.

Clinton is perceived to be more leftist because of the conservative media in this country. A lot of right-wing radio like to paint her as a socialist, but I have absolutely no idea why. She's anything but a socialist.

If Hillary were running in any other country in the world, she'd probably be one of the more right-wing candidates.

[Unspeaked]

I'm sorry, but this is not not not true. Clinton is quite moderate, and I'd even go so far to say she is slightly right-wing. Have you looked at a lot of her positions? A lot of it reads like a conservative wet-dream. Border fence. Check. Prison and fine for flag burning. Check. A health care system still heavily entrenched with for-profit insurance companies. Anti-Iranian. Anti-Palestinian, Pro-Israeli. Anti-Cuba. Pro-Drug War. Pro-Death penalty. Anti-same sex marriage. Anti-union. It's all either in her history or her stance on issues.

Obama is further left than Clinton, though not by a whole lot.

If you read my statement again, you'll see I say she's not much further left than Obama - if at all - but is perceived that way.

If she ran against McCain, she'd probably be more conservative than he is. But perception is everything in politics, and she's perceived as the physical embodiment of liberal, if just for her last name alone.


Clinton is perceived to be more leftist because of the conservative media in this country. A lot of right-wing radio like to paint her as a socialist, but I have absolutely no idea why. She's anything but a socialist.

If Hillary were running in any other country in the world, she'd probably be one of the more right-wing candidates.


I think people hear "universal healthcare" and think socialism. Sad but true.

[it5five]

I think people hear "universal healthcare" and think socialism. Sad but true.

It is sad, especially since her healthcare plan is nothing like the universal healthcare that European countries enjoy. I wish that people who think she is a socialist actually knew what socialism was, as to not offend socialist-leaning liberals like myself who don't want her beliefs associated with mine at all.

[Unspeaked]

It is sad, especially since her healthcare plan is nothing like the universal healthcare that European countries enjoy. I wish that people who think she is a socialist actually knew what socialism was, as to not offend socialist-leaning liberals like myself who don't want her beliefs associated with mine at all.

I agree with you 100%.

I think she tries to imply her goal is a European-like healthcare system by using the right buzz words, but she's a lot closer in thinking to Mitt Romney (!!!) than anyone else when it comes to her plan for health coverage for all Americans.

[Lara F]

Look at how Super Tuesday split. Clinton won big in most of the states that will go Dem (NY, California, MA). Obama got a landslide in states that will go Republican (ex. Georgia). So that leaves the swing states. It's the same biggies as last time - Florida, Ohio, PA et al. That's what matters in the end. And I haven't seen evidence that Obama can get those key states.

IMO what happened in Michigan and Florida with the votes not counting, coupled with Ohio and PA having late primaries is really warping perceptions of how well Obama can do. The best I've seen is his performance in Missouri, but I want more.

[it5five]

I agree with you 100%.

I think she tries to imply her goal is a European-like healthcare system by using the right buzz words, but she's a lot closer in thinking to Mitt Romney (!!!) than anyone else when it comes to her plan for health coverage for all Americans.

Haha. Exactly. Her plan seems to be almost completely similar to Romney's MA plan.

I'm pretty sure Kucinich was the only one that supported the idea of single-payer European-style universal healthcare.

[Cleverboy]

Look at how Super Tuesday split. Clinton won big in most of the states that will go Dem (NY, California, MA). Obama got a landslide in states that will go Republican (ex. Georgia). So that leaves the swing states. It's the same biggies as last time - Florida, Ohio, PA et al. That's what matters in the end. And I haven't seen evidence that Obama can get those key states.Why not? Two key strategic ingredients at play. Obama's appeal with independents and the low level of enthusiasm between Republicans and their nominee. In the general election, party line will go party line or simply not show up. Much of Obama's momentum stems from new voter turn out amongst amongst mostly youth and minorities. That's sounds like a good "edge" for the general election... its a hard comparison with the nomination, because of existing bias toward the Clinton brand... a brand which would go a ways toward bolstering GOP turn out (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=430483).
IMO what happened in Michigan and Florida with the votes not counting, coupled with Ohio and PA having late primaries is really warping perceptions of how well Obama can do. The best I've seen is his performance in Missouri, but I want more.Iowa isn't useful either? Considering Clinton's overspending in that state (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23037431/) put her in a precarious place for such a negative result.

~ CB

[CalBoy]

Much of Obama's momentum stems from new voter turn out amongst amongst mostly youth and minorities. That's sounds like a good "edge" for the general election...

Except for the fact that the young and minorities don't vote in the same ratios as people who are old and white. ;)

If the young or the poor or the minorities of society ever bothered to vote in meaningful numbers, the US would be a very different place today...

[Cleverboy]

Except for the fact that the young and minorities don't vote in the same ratios as people who are old and white. ;)
If the young or the poor or the minorities of society ever bothered to vote in meaningful numbers, the US would be a very different place today...Consistency and volume. True. Ive complained of that too. New Hampshire and all. Gotta start somewhere though. God bless older women for knowing their rights and what it cost to get them to this point. I had a conversation with my mother about that yesterday evening. Consistency and volume.

~ CB

[zioxide]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html

A CNN poll, conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation February 1-3, shows Clinton three points ahead of McCain, 50 percent to 47 percent. That's within the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points, meaning that the race is statistically tied..

A Time magazine poll, conducted February 1-4, also shows a dead heat between Clinton and McCain. Each was backed by 46 percent of those polled.

Sen. Barack Obama believes he can do better, arguing "I've got appeal that goes beyond our party."

In the CNN poll, Obama leads McCain by 8 points, 52 percent to 44 percent. That's outside the margin of error, meaning that Obama has the lead.

And in the Time poll, Obama leads McCain by 7 points, 48 percent to 41 percent -- a lead also outside of the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points.

In both polls, Obama looks stronger than Clinton.

[MacNut]

I would not trust polling numbers this early, all it takes is one wrong move and the numbers can change overnight.

[Dimwhit]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html

That poll seems pretty accurate to me. With McCain/Clinton, the vote will go down party lines and will be a dead heat to the end. But I think, as the poll shows, that Obama will steal some of the Republican vote for a easier win.

[atszyman]

I would not trust polling numbers this early, all it takes is one wrong move and the numbers can change overnight.

But that's true all they way up until election day. Wouldn't you rather have the candidate with the most margin to the magnitude of the screw-up would have to be larger to eliminate the lead?

[KingYaba]

The Republicans will beat themselves. Called it Jihad voting or something. Suicide voting? Vote for Clinton... prove a point?

[Unspeaked]

The Republicans will beat themselves. Called it Jihad voting or something. Suicide voting? Vote for Clinton... prove a point?

I dunno. The dems have pretty much turned beating oneself into an art form the past couple of elections..

[MikeTheC]

To the O.P.:

Wouldn't this kind of depend on who wins the GOP nomination?

There's apparently a lot of us who will not be supporting McCain. Now, that doesn't necessarily equal votes for either Obama or Clinton, but it does make one wonder.

Oh well, this ought to be interesting.

Romney and Huckabee are too far right, Clinton is too far left*.
Well, not according to Ann Coulter.

Man, what I would have given to be a fly on the wall when Hillary first heard Ann saying she would campaign for Hillary if McCain won the GOP nomination because Clinton is technically more conservative than McCain.

That look on her face must have been priceless...

[Unspeaked]

Well, not according to Ann Coulter.

Man, what I would have given to be a fly on the wall when Hillary first heard Ann saying she would campaign for Hillary if McCain won the GOP nomination because Clinton is technically more conservative than McCain.

That look on her face must have been priceless...

If I didn't think they were all too dumb to pull it off - not to mention they're so passionate when they speak of their dislike for McCain - I'd almost think it was reverse psychology.

In the past few days, I've heard several people say, "Wow, that McCain guy must be doing something right if so many of the right-wing conservatives have such hatred for him! Maybe I'll vote for him in November!!"

[NAG]

That poll seems pretty accurate to me. With McCain/Clinton, the vote will go down party lines and will be a dead heat to the end. But I think, as the poll shows, that Obama will steal some of the Republican vote for a easier win.

I have to say that I'm confused how the undecided/moderates perceive Hillary as more liberal than Obama. I mean, wow.

[stevento]

Except for the fact that the young and minorities don't vote in the same ratios as people who are old and white. ;)

If the young or the poor or the minorities of society ever bothered to vote in meaningful numbers, the US would be a very different place today...

that's why there's a war in iraq today. young people dont get off their asses and vote.
case in point : obama girl didn't vote and hillay won her state, new jersey.

[NAG]

Huh? Last time I checked there wasn't a vote by the people deciding if we went to war with Iraq, and there were demonstrations.

Yeah, the young voter turnout is usually low, but I don't see how anything you said is correlated with each other. Jumping to conclusions is fun but it doesn't solve anything.

[stevegmu]

Huh? Last time I checked there wasn't a vote by the people deciding if we went to war with Iraq, and there were demonstrations.



I can't think of any modern military campaign where the people directly voted for or against such action. We live in a republic, not direct democracy.
The Senate, however, did vote to authorize the use of force to remove S. Hussein.

Link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237).

[it5five]

In the past few days, I've heard several people say, "Wow, that McCain guy must be doing something right if so many of the right-wing conservatives have such hatred for him! Maybe I'll vote for him in November!!"

Some people just really shouldn't vote. Really. It's sad.

[MacNut]

I can't think of any modern military campaign where the people directly voted for or against such action. We live in a republic, not direct democracy.
The Senate, however, did vote to authorize the use of force to remove S. Hussein.The only thing we can vote for is who runs the country, after that we don't have any say in the laws they pass. That is the real thing we should get to vote on.
Some people just really shouldn't vote. Really. It's sad.You mean elected officials.

[NAG]

I can't think of any modern military campaign where the people directly voted for or against such action. We live in a republic, not direct democracy.
The Senate, however, did vote to authorize the use of force to remove S. Hussein.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Thank you Captain Misses-the-Point.

Since you're so happy to jump to conclusions I'll give you another chance.

Here is the text I was replying to:

that's why there's a war in iraq today. young people dont get off their asses and vote.

Here is my reply:

Last time I checked there wasn't a vote by the people deciding if we went to war with Iraq, and there were demonstrations.

Now sit, wait a minute. Let that sink in. Maybe I was talking about how blaming voter apathy for the war in Iraq was silly. But I guess if you want to stroke your own ego go ahead and start spouting off some other trivia about the US government. Maybe you could tell me how the US Mint works.

[stevegmu]

But I guess if you want to stroke your own ego go ahead and start spouting off some other trivia about the US government. Maybe you could tell me how the US Mint works.

have you read the forum rules?

[NAG]

Have any of the republican candidates?

Is that related to voter apathy?

I don't see where you're going.

[stevegmu]

Have any of the republican candidates?

Is that related to voter apathy?

I don't see where you're going.

You seem to be trolling, with your comments directed at me, versus the topic.

[Unspeaked]

Should I grab some popcorn or something, or will I end up missing the good part??

:rolleyes:

[MacNut]

You seem to be trolling, with your comments directed at me, versus the topic.The topic has been long since lost. Somehow it went from who can beat the Republicans to the war.

[Unspeaked]

The topic has been long since lost. Somehow it went from who can beat the Republicans to the war.

The war does have a lot to do with the upcoming election, so I can see how it was brought up in the first place, but you're right, the thread's devolved into an entirely different discussion as of late.

[NAG]

Beats me, I'm not sure that particular line of discussion is going to go anywhere.

About the war. I don't really think blaming voter apathy is entirely correct. I mean, the democrats basically ran on the get out of Iraq platform and retook Congress (not enough to overturn a veto but still). There were also protests and various other antiwar stuff. Special interests and money have a lot of say here (and actually causes some of the voter apathy). So I think it is disingenuous to say young (or old) voters not getting out and actually voting are killing the country.

I'll leave it up to you to decide how that is related to a text book explanation of what a republic is.

[Prof.]

The war does have a lot to do with the upcoming election, so I can see how it was brought up in the first place, but you're right, the thread's devolved into an entirely different discussion as of late.
How come none of the candidates are talking about Global Warming? I read an article a while back that 70% of US Americans think it is one of the biggest problems we are facing in the 21st century.

[MacNut]

Ok back on topic, maybe.

I wonder if when we get down to it will the average American Voter want a woman or a black man running the country. That might sound racist but it is a fact that a lot of people will share.

My father is a registered Dem and has said that he won't vote for either.

[Prof.]

I wonder if when we get down to it will the average American Voter want a women or a black man running the country. That might sound racist but it is a fact that a lot of people will share.
I, and many other young voters, have no problem with electing an African-American or a woman into office. It's the "old fashioned" ppl that have a problem. i.e. my grandfather and my dad.:mad:

[NAG]

I think race and sex might be a regional issue. Yeah, it is an issue for some people but I think it is probably over blown to some extent.

I mean, is the old white man club really that much better?

[MacNut]

I, and many other young voters, have no problem with electing an African-American or a woman into office. It's the "old fashioned" ppl that have a problem. i.e. my grandfather and my dad.:mad:But how many average voters are like that.

[Prof.]

But how many average voters are like that.
It may take a generation or two to get rid of the old fashioned ppl.;)

I'm disgusted with ppl who are still racist and sexist. C'mon, ppl, It's 2008, get with the program.:rolleyes:

[leekohler]

But how many average voters are like that.

It's this kind of thinking that keeps us from moving forward. Who gives a crap about old attitudes? Start thinking positive. It's works, trust me.

It may take a generation or two to get rid of the old fashioned ppl.;)

I'm disgusted with ppl who are still racist and sexist. C'mon, ppl, It's 2008, get with the program.:rolleyes:

Racism and sexism will never completely go away. But we can minimize their effects.

[Unspeaked]

But how many average voters are like that.

Exactly.

I voiced that exact same concern further upthread and I, too, felt kind of weird saying it out loud, but it's like the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.

People under 40, I think, can look at the candidates objectively, but a lot of people older than that - more than we'd like to admit sometimes - will always be thinking "President of the United States of America is not the job of a woman and/or black man."

[Prof.]

Racism and sexism will never completely go away. But we can minimize their effects.
That, my friend, is the unfortunate truth. It's really sad.:(

[NAG]

Exactly.

I voiced that exact same concern further upthread and I, too, felt kind of weird saying it out loud, but it's like the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.

People under 40, I think, can look at the candidates objectively, but a lot of people older than that - more than we'd like to admit sometimes - will always be thinking "President of the United States of America is not the job of a woman and/or black man."

There are a lot of younger people like that too. They're just dismissed as quacks or disaffected youth or whatnot. I think the older people just have a louder voice because they're supposed to be wise (and thus we're disappointed and frustrated when one of them says something so obviously ignorant).

[stevegmu]

Seems odd to me B. Obama is always mentioned as being a black man, or African American, since he is not African and is half white, making him a mulatto.

[Unspeaked]

There are a lot of younger people like that too. They're just dismissed as quacks or disaffected youth or whatnot. I think the older people just have a louder voice because they're supposed to be wise (and thus we're disappointed and frustrated when one of them says something so obviously ignorant).

Well, as was said, I think there will always be young people like that - racism is a problem that has always been here and will never go away.

Still, I like to believe that the under 40 crowd grew up in a time when we as a country were more accepting of each other, and in turn are less prone to the racism that older generations - some of whose members are truly good people at heart - simply were raised with and grew up believing.

I'm not a huge Hilary fan or anything, but I've heard more than one older woman say something along the lines of, "I really like what Hilary stands for, but this just isn't a role for a woman." and that's horrible because they're voting against the person they believe in at heart simply because they're a woman - and it's a woman who's saying it!

[Dimwhit]

I'm not a huge Hilary fan or anything, but I've heard more than one older woman say something along the lines of, "I really like what Hilary stands for, but this just isn't a role for a woman." and that's horrible because they're voting against the person they believe in at heart simply because they're a woman - and it's a woman who's saying it!

That's funny. I've heard a lot of older people say they've love to see a woman president, but that Hillary isn't the one they want to be that first woman president.

I have to agree with that.

[leekohler]

That's funny. I've heard a lot of older people say they've love to see a woman president, but that Hillary isn't the one they want to be that first woman president.

I have to agree with that.

Same here- BTW, I'm 40. :) She's just not the right choice. We need new blood in the White House- not the same old stuff.

[NAG]

That's funny. I've heard a lot of older people say they've love to see a woman president, but that Hillary isn't the one they want to be that first woman president.

I have to agree with that.

Yeah, all the old women I've heard that don't support Hillary have actual reasons.

I'm interested if region really plays a larger role here.

[Dimwhit]

Yeah, all the old women I've heard that don't support Hillary have actual reasons.

I'm interested if region really plays a larger role here.

From what I've heard, it more education. Hillary is having a hard time getting support of the more 'educated' women. I'm not sure what that means, but it likely means professionals and whatnot.

[Cleverboy]

Seems odd to me B. Obama is always mentioned as being a black man, or African American, since he is not African and is half white, making him a mulatto.Mixed race. You may not realize it, but what you've said is a pejorative term. For the most part, people of mixed race have a choice as to which race they want to identify themselves as. That's just how it is. For instance, Tiger Woods prefers to make it clear that he's not black (though as far as I know, he doesn't claim to be white either). Obama on the other hand identifies himself as African American. Often times its easier just to go with what others will identify you as, or in some cases, with what explains your complexion or preferred culture. You can find a lot of examples.

~ CB

[Cleverboy]

Ok back on topic, maybe.

I wonder if when we get down to it will the average American Voter want a woman or a black man running the country. That might sound racist but it is a fact that a lot of people will share.

My father is a registered Dem and has said that he won't vote for either. Unfortunately, I believe there is more sexism than racism out there. May just be because I'm male and black, but I've run into a few boneheads out there saying that they don't want to elect a woman. For someone as well-rounded as "Barack Obama", I think he'll be able to "hook in" to another phenomena. Some racists tend to create "good blacks" (like Cosby) and "bad blacks" (like Eminem... I mean, 50 cent). :)

There's enough to believe that Barack is a "good black". Moreover, he's "mixed", so much like accepting Tiger Woods, there is an "out" that they're not really voting for a black person. Barack's only REAL problem are persistant rumors that he was secretly raised Muslim, and represents so clandestine plan to overthrow America at the highest levels (nevermind Romney and his "Machurian Candidate" vibe). Right now, fear of anything "Muslim" is MUCH more vibrant a problem for Obama (though it shouldn't be) than his racial background. Obama's gone so far as to circulate fliers entitled "Committed Christian", in an effort to give background to his religious affiliation for the last 20 years.

It will be interesting if Obama wins the nomination to see the resurgence of the lies, Snopes "Obama" page skyrocket in traffic, and the "Muslims are coming" begin to take on a truly visceral urgency.

~ CB

[killerrobot]

There's enough to believe that Barack is a "good black". Moreover, he's "mixed", so much like accepting Tiger Woods, there is an "out" that they're not really voting for a black person. Barack's only REAL problem are persistant rumors that he was secretly raised Muslim, and represents so clandestine plan to overthrow America at the highest levels (nevermind Romney and his "Machurian Candidate" vibe). Right now, fear of anything "Muslim" is MUCH more vibrant a problem for Obama (though it shouldn't be) than his racial background. Obama's gone so far as to circulate fliers entitled "Committed Christian", in an effort to give background to his religious affiliation for the last 20 years.


~ CB

Some friends of my in-laws weren't going to vote for Obama because they thought he was Muslim. :rolleyes:

My wife said that it would be awesome if he were Muslim (minus the whole conspiracy part of course) because that would be a giant kick in the nuts to the extremists if the US were to elect a Muslim for president. ;)

[MikeTheC]

Some friends of my in-laws weren't going to vote for Obama because they thought we was Muslim. :rolleyes:

My wife said that it would be awesome if he were Muslim (minus the whole conspiracy part of course) because that would be a giant kick in the nuts to the extremists if the US were to elect a Muslim for president. ;)
Heck, *I* thought the guy was muslim until corrected here on MacRumors.com.

But yes, I understand where your wife's coming from, and that sure would take the wind right out of Al Qaeda's (and others') sails, now wouldn't it?

[solvs]

Heck, *I* thought the guy was muslim until corrected here on MacRumors.com.

Think about how you heard that from, or who they heard it from, and ask yourself if you should trust their opinions anymore. I only bring this up because we see this so much here. Spouting something they heard, or heard from someone who heard, something from some talking head who constantly gets things wrong. Sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose. Stay away from them, and you'll be much better informed. This isn't a criticism, just something I've noticed.

Anyway, I still don't like either of the Dems for various reasons (mostly legitimate), but I still totally plan on voting Dem in the next election unless the GOP really gets it's act together, and I don't see that happening. I suspect many people will feel the same way. But then, I thought that about Kerry and look at what happened. But then, I also thought that about the 2006 elections, and look what happened there.