More McCainocrats

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

You guys crack me up. With the utter disdain for Mrs Clinton that I've seen from nearly every poster on this board, I'd think you guys could recognize that the vitriol she inspires makes her a weaker general election candidate than Obama - who granted has his own liabilities. Hillary is one of the few politicians who can actually inspire otherwise rational individuals to show up en masse just to vote against her.

Her unique weakness is not her inability to garner to moderate support (as Obama likely shares this problem in the long run) - but rather her unrivaled ability to inspire active opposition among Republican voters.

Babara, I highlighted that particular phrase because I actually do agree, but I post not because I want her to be President, but because I don't want a Democrat anywhere near the White House.

Besides, you have to remember that she is a Clinton and the Clintons believe their shit doesn't stink and that we should all praise and worship them. The entitlement to the Oval Office that she feels is what drives her to do whatever she has to do to claim it and she won't allow something as insignificant as primaries or caucuses (cauchi ?) stop her.

I've said it once on this side and I'll say it again - I'm not one to believe in conspiracies, but if Obama is assassinated, I know the first person I'd question about it.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

You guys crack me up. With the utter disdain for Mrs Clinton that I've seen from nearly every poster on this board, I'd think you guys could recognize that the vitriol she inspires makes her a weaker general election candidate than Obama - who granted has his own liabilities. Hillary is one of the few politicians who can actually inspire otherwise rational individuals to show up en masse just to vote against her.

Her unique weakness is not her inability to garner to moderate support (as Obama likely shares this problem in the long run) - but rather her unrivaled ability to inspire active opposition among Republican voters.

I'm not sure why I crack you up...

I don't hate Hillary. Personally, I find her immensely superior to Obama, as at least she has some iota of experience and is somewhat grounded in reality (in comparison to the alternative, IPU...). I think those who detest Hillary weren't voting for a Democrat anyway, so I'm not sure the I-hate-Hillary factor is a big deal. Additionally, I think Hillary brings a large female independent block with her.

Would a Hillary nomination energize the republican base? Maybe, but give the talk shows time with Obama--they're just scratching the surface with him.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I'm not sure why I crack you up...

I don't hate Hillary. Personally, I find her immensely superior to Obama, as at least she has some iota of experience and is somewhat grounded in reality (in comparison to the alternative, IPU...). I think those who detest Hillary weren't voting for a Democrat anyway, so I'm not sure the I-hate-Hillary factor is a big deal. Additionally, I think Hillary brings a large female independent block with her.

Would a Hillary nomination energize the republican base? Maybe, but give the talk shows time with Obama--they're just scratching the surface with him.

I am sure that is precisely why Rush Limbaugh and others are encouraging Republicans to vote for her- to make it tougher for McCain to win the election.

You may not like Obama. You may even loathe him. But you are kidding yourself if you think he is less electable than Clinton. Survey USAs polling on the issue is a great example of why she is not more electable. Her negatives are much higher, she inspires Republican fundraising at previously unseen totals, she has her husband's past as a major distracting factor to deal with, etc. The "I-Hate-Hillary" factor is a big deal because many of the Republicans who hate her would go out to vote against her, whereas they otherwise might just stay home and not vote at all.

If you think "experience" is going to be the biggest issue people vote on this November, I couldn't disagree more.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am sure that is precisely why Rush Limbaugh and others are encouraging Republicans to vote for her- to make it tougher for McCain to win the election.

You may not like Obama. You may even loathe him. But you are kidding yourself if you think he is less electable than Clinton. Survey USAs polling on the issue is a great example of why she is not more electable. Her negatives are much higher, she inspires Republican fundraising at previously unseen totals, she has her husband's past as a major distracting factor to deal with, etc. The "I-Hate-Hillary" factor is a big deal because many of the Republicans who hate her would go out to vote against her, whereas they otherwise might just stay home and not vote at all.

If you think "experience" is going to be the biggest issue people vote on this November, I couldn't disagree more.

If Hillary were leading, Rush would be telling everyone to vote for Obama. Truth is, the longer the Democrats fight with each other, the better McCain does. Hillary's doing McCain's work for him.

Hillary's negatives are higher because she is better known. Give Obama time.

There are a lot of independents like myself that would vote for Hillary much more readily than Obama.

In the end, we can argue back and forth about who's more electable, but the truth is, both have serious issues, and the more fighting they do with each other, the lower their chances of winning the general election go. Which is seriously amazing--this is an election the Democrats have no business losing. But I really think they're going to--there's not a good way out of this mess they've made.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

IIn the end, we can argue back and forth about who's more electable, but the truth is, both have serious issues, and the more fighting they do with each other, the lower their chances of winning the general election go. Which is seriously amazing--this is an election the Democrats have no business losing. But I really think they're going to--there's not a good way out of this mess they've made.

Yep. I hope they argue and scratch and bite right up until the Dems go to Denver. By doing so, they'll tick off enough of each one's base to either not vote or vote for McCain.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

If Hillary were leading, Rush would be telling everyone to vote for Obama. Truth is, the longer the Democrats fight with each other, the better McCain does. Hillary's doing McCain's work for him.

Hillary's negatives are higher because she is better known. Give Obama time.

There are a lot of independents like myself that would vote for Hillary much more readily than Obama.

In the end, we can argue back and forth about who's more electable, but the truth is, both have serious issues, and the more fighting they do with each other, the lower their chances of winning the general election go. Which is seriously amazing--this is an election the Democrats have no business losing. But I really think they're going to--there's not a good way out of this mess they've made.

I am not nearly as concerned about the Dem battle as the media wants me to be. It will get resolved, and Obama will be the winner. Clinton will rapidly come on board, acting like nothing bad ever happened between the two. The war will once again be the driving issue in the election, together with the economy, and McCain will stand on the wrong side on both, having breached the possibility of a 100 year presence in Iraq and admitted no knowledge of how the economy functions. Dems win, and an energized base propels even bigger gains in the House and Senate.

FWIW, I think the article linked below is also right on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/op...on&oref=slogin

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am not nearly as concerned about the Dem battle as the media wants me to be. It will get resolved, and Obama will be the winner. Clinton will rapidly come on board, acting like nothing bad ever happened between the two. The war will once again be the driving issue in the election, together with the economy, and McCain will stand on the wrong side on both, having breached the possibility of a 100 year presence in Iraq and admitted no knowledge of how the economy functions. Dems win, and an energized base propels even bigger gains in the House and Senate.

FWIW, I think the article linked below is also right on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/op...on&oref=slogin

They won't simply put it behind them. The Dem party may put them behind themselves. They have been very divisive. As those who dared cross over and support Obama.

It's ugly.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am not nearly as concerned about the Dem battle as the media wants me to be. It will get resolved, and Obama will be the winner. Clinton will rapidly come on board, acting like nothing bad ever happened between the two. The war will once again be the driving issue in the election, together with the economy, and McCain will stand on the wrong side on both, having breached the possibility of a 100 year presence in Iraq and admitted no knowledge of how the economy functions. Dems win, and an energized base propels even bigger gains in the House and Senate.

FWIW, I think the article linked below is also right on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/op...on&oref=slogin

And the Cougs are going undefeated and will win back-to-back national championships. In basketball.

Not saying it isn't possible, but you're optimism reminds me of the blue goggles of August. Wait...blue goggles...Democrat...analogy works better than I thought.

It is a little entertaining watching an Obama fan criticize McCain's knowledge on the economy. Good luck with that one.

You're right about Iraq--this is the issue that could hurt the Republicans. However, again--Hillary has a much more palatable policy with respect to Iraq than Obama's. Is he still talking about 100-day withdrawal (I easily could be "misremembering" this one)? However, mark my words--neither candidate will follow through on their promise to withdraw. It's just not feasible or smart.

Hillary's economic credentials are actually fairly good (for a Democrat). Obama's policies are just plain idiotic.

So if the focus is Iraq and the economy, how again is Obama more electable than Clinton?

You also keep glossing over the fact that Obama has just even further alienated a good portion of the white vote. He's such a "typical black man". Oh wait--only he can say that.

PS...Please, please, PLEASE call me a racist for that last comment. I would love to open up that discussion.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

And the Cougs are going undefeated and will win back-to-back national championships. In basketball.

Not saying it isn't possible, but you're optimism reminds me of the blue goggles of August. Wait...blue goggles...Democrat...analogy works better than I thought.

It is a little entertaining watching an Obama fan criticize McCain's knowledge on the economy. Good luck with that one.

You're right about Iraq--this is the issue that could hurt the Republicans. However, again--Hillary has a much more palatable policy with respect to Iraq than Obama's. Is he still talking about 100-day withdrawal (I easily could be "misremembering" this one)? However, mark my words--neither candidate will follow through on their promise to withdraw. It's just not feasible or smart.

Hillary's economic credentials are actually fairly good (for a Democrat). Obama's policies are just plain idiotic.

So if the focus is Iraq and the economy, how again is Obama more electable than Clinton?

You also keep glossing over the fact that Obama has just even further alienated a good portion of the white vote. He's such a "typical black man". Oh wait--only he can say that.

PS...Please, please, PLEASE call me a racist for that last comment. I would love to open up that discussion.

I am starting to wonder if you are paying attention to the candidate's actual policies or just repeating talking points you hear on tv. Which of Obama's economic policies do you take issue with? Please be specific. I assume you are referring to policies on which he and Clinton differ (given that you find her policies "fairly good"). Clinton will have a difficult time defending an interest rate freeze (which Obama opposes).

Don't confuse lack of time in national office with lack of intelligence or lack of understanding of the economy. McCain has openly stated he doesn't understand the economy. I would be thrilled with a forum that pitted Obama's knowledge of the economy against McCain's.

And yes, you are most certainly "misremembering" Obama's statement on Iraq as well. Far from "100 days," he has said 16 months after taking office he hopes to have all troops home. He always follows that up with his statement that he can't guarantee they will all be withdrawn in 16 months because a lot can happen between now and his first day in office. He also notes that as the process begins, he may need to revise the time frame depending on what he hears from the generals as they go through the process. In reality, his position isn't that different from Clinton's on the war.

Clinton has such a high negative reaction among so many people that her mere presence in the race diminishes the policy gains on Iraq and the economy that the Dems hold on Republicans. The Clinton name is far from popular in the military. Clinton's "experience" card is currently being torn to shreds. Clinton puts the Democrats right where they don't want to be- in a battle for the same states Dems won in 2000 and 2004 and in a close fight for those they narrowly lost. Obama opens the map up, forces Republicans to defend areas they haven't worried about in years, and creates the possibility of a blowout. In terms of electability, it isn't even close.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by exUte

They won't simply put it behind them. The Dem party may put them behind themselves. They have been very divisive. As those who dared cross over and support Obama.

It's ugly.

She wants power and influence in the party. At some point she will realize the only way to hold such power and influence is to make nice with Obama and endorse him. Then she will make a run at either Senate Majority Leader or Governor of New York.