How Obama lost in November

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Its not hurting him yet. That is because Hillary can't play that card and McCain has no reason to at this point. It will get played and it will hurt him, of that I have little doubt. Whether it will hurt him enough to cause him to lose is a question that involves too many variables. McCain is going to spend a fair amount of time on the defensive as well in ways that he has not yet.

I don't see any possible way that this comment is an issue in the general election. If it is, we are deciding elections on some pretty superficial criteria. There are plenty of ways for Obama and McCain to differentiate themselves from the other. This throwaway comment certainly won't be the tipping point.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't see any possible way that this comment is an issue in the general election. If it is, we are deciding elections on some pretty superficial criteria. There are plenty of ways for Obama and McCain to differentiate themselves from the other. This throwaway comment certainly won't be the tipping point.

I was referring to him being the most liberal Senator. Isn't that what you were talking about when you said it hadn't hurt him?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't see any possible way that this comment is an issue in the general election. If it is, we are deciding elections on some pretty superficial criteria.

Like a decades old DUI?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Clinton is doing Obama a favor by staying in, I have decided. If she wasn't in, the preacher issue wouldn't have been raised until the general election, at which point it may have been too late to do anything about it. Imagine if that story broke in late October. Game over. This latest comment is just an instance of the press wanting to grab hold of an issue for ratings. I don't think it is a huge deal, and it certainly won't be by the general election. Maybe it will hurt Obama in Pennsylvania, a state he would lose with or without that comment, but it won't do more than that.

The label of "most liberal" isn't hurting Obama either, and it won't in the general. He comes across as reasonable and moderate, much like Bill Clinton did in his elections. The common theme for all politicians is to make themselves slant much more to the extremes in the primaries, and much more to the center in the general. Just look at McCain's campaign for a textbook example.

Obama will win this thing, of that I have no doubt (barring some crazy development, like another terrorist attack which makes everything unpredictable).

It's takes true Obama-goggles to say that Hillary is helping Obama more by staying in than not. If you think delaying Obama's general election exposure is a good thing, than you inadvertantly admit that he's a weak general election candidate.

I guarantee you there is a vetting process in the generals that the primaries, no matter how brutual, don't quite approach.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's takes true Obama-goggles to say that Hillary is helping Obama more by staying in than not. If you think delaying Obama's general election exposure is a good thing, than you inadvertantly admit that he's a weak general election candidate.

I guarantee you there is a vetting process in the generals that the primaries, no matter how brutual, don't quite approach.

Why? The issue is long term gain, not short term. In the short term, it is great for Clinton to get out now. In the long term, the issues that have been raised as a result of her continued fight for the nomination are of a benefit to Obama because they are raised now. This isn't admitting he is a "weak general election candidate." I don't know why you think it must be such an admission. He is a great general election candidate. But, like all candidates, including the great ones, there are issues that must be addressed, and it is always better for them to be addressed earlier than later. Clinton is forcing that to happen now. Like I asked, what would have happened if Rev. Wright became a story in late October as opposed to a month ago?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Like a decades old DUI?

Bush won, so you can't really argue that that issue decided the election, can you?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I was referring to him being the most liberal Senator. Isn't that what you were talking about when you said it hadn't hurt him?

That won't hurt him either, in part because it just isn't true. The claim is based on one survey from one group over data from a relatively short period of time. If anything, it will motivate the Dems to come out and vote for him. The conservatives that would be scared off by such a claim wouldn't be voting for a Dem anyways.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Clinton is doing Obama a favor by staying in....

I agree. The longer Clinton is in, the more Obama will expose who he really is and the country will see just what kind of person he is.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Bush won, so you can't really argue that that issue decided the election, can you?

Ultimately, yes. But maybe Bush would've won the popular vote (and thus the election, in millions of nutty leftists' eyes) or won Florida more handily.

The point is, elections turn on superficial criteria all the time.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why? The issue is long term gain, not short term. In the short term, it is great for Clinton to get out now. In the long term, the issues that have been raised as a result of her continued fight for the nomination are of a benefit to Obama because they are raised now. This isn't admitting he is a "weak general election candidate." I don't know why you think it must be such an admission. He is a great general election candidate. But, like all candidates, including the great ones, there are issues that must be addressed, and it is always better for them to be addressed earlier than later. Clinton is forcing that to happen now. Like I asked, what would have happened if Rev. Wright became a story in late October as opposed to a month ago?

I'm not sure Hillary being in the race had anything to do with the timing of the Rev. Wright story. And there's no way to know whether, if Obama had the race locked up, it wouldn't have come out when it did anyway. IOW, I'm not sure the incidents of "October surprises" have much to do with how protracted the primary season is.

Right now the problems posed by a split party exceed the benefits gained by an early (so-called) vetting.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That won't hurt him either, in part because it just isn't true. The claim is based on one survey from one group over data from a relatively short period of time. If anything, it will motivate the Dems to come out and vote for him. The conservatives that would be scared off by such a claim wouldn't be voting for a Dem anyways.

Now you're just being an advocate. I'm not betting against your guy though.