How Obama lost in November

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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

If you're not betting against him, it is because you agree I am saying something beyond just being an advocate.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you're not betting against him, it is because you agree I am saying something beyond just being an advocate.

No. Not really. It just means that I don't have the energy tonight for an argument, but for other reasons think Obama may well win.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

Elections involve superficial criteria all the time. I wouldn't go so far as to say they turn on such criteria, at least in presidential contests. You have no way of knowing whether Bush would have won by more but for the DUI. In any event, Bush won, so it doesn't appear to be a very good example supporting your case.

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.

Many sources indicate that Clinton pushed the Wright story and was frustrated that the media didn't appear to be reporting on it earlier when they raised it quietly. I absolutely think Clinton's presence in the primary resulted in the issue being raised when it was. I don't know that there are huge problems right now with Clinton being in the race. There may come a point where it is a big problem, but as of now, it doesn't seem to be hurting Obama. He is raising more money than ever before, is setting up a formidable campaign infrastructure in at least 3 more states, and is keeping the attention totally off of McCain.

So there are barbs being thrown back and forth. At times it looked like it could get out of control, but it never has to a point of being irreparable (though there have been at least 2 occasions where it came too close for comfort). In the end, I fully expect the party to once again unite around their candidate, this time being Obama, and take the energy from his campaign to trounce a very old candidate on the other side.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Elections involve superficial criteria all the time. I wouldn't go so far as to say they turn on such criteria, at least in presidential contests. You have no way of knowing whether Bush would have won by more but for the DUI. In any event, Bush won, so it doesn't appear to be a very good example supporting your case.

We're all drawing hypotheticals here, Cali. It's as good an example as any.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Many sources indicate that Clinton pushed the Wright story and was frustrated that the media didn't appear to be reporting on it earlier when they raised it quietly. I absolutely think Clinton's presence in the primary resulted in the issue being raised when it was. I don't know that there are huge problems right now with Clinton being in the race. There may come a point where it is a big problem, but as of now, it doesn't seem to be hurting Obama. He is raising more money than ever before, is setting up a formidable campaign infrastructure in at least 3 more states, and is keeping the attention totally off of McCain.

So there are barbs being thrown back and forth. At times it looked like it could get out of control, but it never has to a point of being irreparable (though there have been at least 2 occasions where it came too close for comfort). In the end, I fully expect the party to once again unite around their candidate, this time being Obama, and take the energy from his campaign to trounce a very old candidate on the other side.

Perhaps. That's what some people say about conservatives and McCain. We'll see.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

The man - for all of his gifts for rhetoric and public diplomacy - is just starting to look more like the Amazing Unelectable Howard Dean.

He's already spooked the Jewish vote (wave buh bye to Florida, kids!) by not being more penitent about his 20-year friendship with Jeremiah Wright, the man who inspired the title of his autobiography, and a man who proudly flaunts his man-love for Louis Farrakhan.

Now he's gone and in one sentence managed to write off gun-owners, religionists and small towns as "bitter." Obviously Obama didn't mean to group them all so sweepingly, but that's beside the point. The fact that he links gun ownership and religion at all on ANY level to some economic malaise indicts his judgment. (What idiotic logic - people buy guns and go to church because they're bitter? Really? My varmint-hunting devout Mormon cousins in Arizona are the least bitter people I've ever met.)

Now the irony in all of this, is, of course, that Obama has been publicly lying about his own opposition to free trade through the course of his entire campaign. We now know he's lying when he stands up and vents against NAFTA or other agreements because (a) one of his own advisers told the Canadian government as much and (b) he (thinking he was off the record) told some wealthy donors in San Fran that such thinking was characteristic of the "bitter" (and as we know, Obama's all about hope, not bitterness).

If I were a Republican strategist - one of the ones that's been crossing fingers that somehow Hillary will win the nomination for the Dems - I'd shift my thinking. Obama looks sooo takeable right now. Jewish vote? Gone. Veteran vote? Long gone. Working class whites? Slipping away. Reagan Democrats? Very nervous. Hispanics? No guarantees given that McCain has developed a base there.

Who's the fat lady over there any way? Is she getting ready to sing?

No, the end is still a long way off. But it amazes me that this year - of all years, a year that Dems could have taken in a walk with just a sensible centrist white guy like Mark Warner or Tom Vilsack - the Democrats find themselves yet again on the verge of overreaching, of picking a candidate that Americans simply will not allow to be president.

Whatever happened to Oxcoug? I came across this post today and it made me smile.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Whatever happened to Oxcoug? I came across this post today and it made me smile.

These were my favorite lines:

He's already spooked the Jewish vote (wave buh bye to Florida, kids!)

No Dem has gotten less than 75% of the Jewish vote ever; that is one confident projection.

Working class whites? Slipping away.

And Obama clobbers McCain in the rust belt.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

These were my favorite lines:



No Dem has gotten less than 75% of the Jewish vote ever; that is one confident projection.



And Obama clobbers McCain in the rust belt.

Don't forget his inclusion of Hispanics (not likely they go Republican anytime soon) or his contention that Obama's loss of the veteran vote would sway the election in McCain's favor (when was it ever thought Obama would win the veteran vote with McCain in the election?). Obama would have loved to capture the veteran vote (and I think he is working hard to protect veterans and their rights), but he certainly wasn't ever counting on their vote in the election.