Political Intuition

[Roxanne Appleby]

My intuition says... It's not something I want to risk having happen.

And you don't even live in Hanoi!

 

[Stella_Omega]

And you don't even live in Hanoi!

They don't call it fallout for nothing...

 

[shereads]

Obama is relatively new on the national political scene. We're too used to choosing among the usual suspects; he defies voter complacency.

As for a hidden agenda, I can't imagine anything of any importance being 'hidden' by a public figure these days, absent a court order. (And why hide it? Cheney didn't bother to hide his own agenda. It was available to anybody who bothered to look. Most voters didn't. Most won't.)

My own opinion of Barack Obama went up after the speech he made in response to Pastorgate. He could have chosen a much easier path - and would have, I believe, if he had an agenda that demanded he win at all costs.

BTW, I'm no fan of McCain's - he's anti-choice for one thing, which is a deal-breaker for me - but I respect what he endured as a POW and I think it's offensive as hell to imply that a survivor of torture is somehow made unfit to be Commander in Chief. If the man was going to snap under stress, he'll never have a better opportunity than he had in that cell.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

BTW, I'm no fan of McCain's - he's anti-choice for one thing, which is a deal-breaker for me - but I respect what he endured as a POW and I think it's offensive as hell to imply that a survivor of torture is somehow made unfit to be Commander in Chief. If the man was going to snap under stress, he'll never have a better opportunity than he had in that cell.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean it's not a concern. I wouldn't reject him on that basis alone either, but I can't ignore the fact that such an extraordinary ordeal leaves scars in the psyche, and it's not unreasonable to wonder where they lie.

 

[Belegon]

Then when he said, in effect, "If I don't get the nomination, I'm taking the black voters with me."

This is the quote I asked you to find a supporting source for....

You replied...

Now that you ask... This is one article that points out what Obama is talking about. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/17/poll.blacks.democrats/index.html. If you want, I can find 20 more.

Face it. Obama is slipping now that people are actually looking at him as a candidate rather than the "darling of the media." Last night even Leno turned on him. I LMAO.

A direct quote form the article you represent as showing that Obama is threatening to take Black voters away from the Democratic candidate...

But black voters appeared overwhelmingly likely to vote Democratic, with 80 percent of them saying they were definitely or probably going to cast their vote for the party's candidate.

Huh?????

At least read the damn thing before you cite it!

Yeah, Jenny, go ahead and find me twenty more articles that say that black democrats are likely to vote for the democratic candidate regardless of whom it is... that will prove your point... NOT!

 

[Belegon]

Then look here. This one is from today.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/poll-democrats-ready-to-defect-to-mccain/

Edit: And another from Reuters today http://www.reuters.com/article/blog...rAA&bbParentWidgetId=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL

OK, let's look at these now. The poll in questions says that Clinton supporters are less likely to support Obama... not that Obama is threatening to break the party. Actually, this suggests the opposite is true...

According to the just-released poll, 28 percent of Clinton's supporters would back McCain should the New York senator lose her quest for the Democratic nomination.

That compares to the 19 percent of Obama supporters who say they will favor McCain should Clinton be the party’s nominee.

As to the post you cite as being from the news service Reuters...

The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com.

Which means they take about as much responsibility for his unsupported blathering as they do for yours and mine.

 

[Edward Teach]

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean it's not a concern. I wouldn't reject him on that basis alone either, but I can't ignore the fact that such an extraordinary ordeal leaves scars in the psyche, and it's not unreasonable to wonder where they lie.

First I heard of the possible scars was from the Bushes in 2002 in SC. They also said his wife was a drug addict and had a black baby.

 

[shereads]

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean it's not a concern. I wouldn't reject him on that basis alone either, but I can't ignore the fact that such an extraordinary ordeal leaves scars in the psyche, and it's not unreasonable to wonder where they lie.

After how many decades of productive living and evident sanity might such questions become unreasonable?

This isn't a kid just back from 'Nam with a nervous twitch and a drug habit, for god's sake. Neither is it a man who has avoided stressful work and decisions under pressure. Should we be looking for McCain to go postal when he's ninety and has a bad day on the golf course - maybe tries to beat his caddie to death with his putter?

What's the statute of limitations on being imprisoned and withstanding torture?

I think it bugs the right wing a lot that McCain has spoken out against torture, and that he does so as an authority on the subject. What bugs me about him is that he helped re-elect the people who condone it. He sold out his own ideals in 2004 and looked embarrassed doing it.

Whatever. I have little doubt that McCain will be the next president, no matter what the far-right thinks of him. He'll win because my party's circular firing squad is shooting with record accuracy. It'll be a tragedy when he wins, not because he lacks honor or intelligence but because he's obligated himself to appease evangelicals with the appointment of an anti-choice Justice. Or two. He also has a miserable voting record on the environment, which should please you mightily.

 

[shereads]

First I heard of the possible scars was from the Bushes in 2002 in SC. They also said his wife was a drug addict and had a black baby.

Next, there will be rumors that Obama has a black baby.

 

[DeeZire]

...I have little doubt that McCain will be the next president...

Stop saying that! Give us our little fantasy moment of hope. We deserve it, after enduring 7 & 1/2 years of hell.

And don't forget, the voters do forget. By the time Nov. rolls around, Iraq will be burning to the ground, and the voters will have a whole new set of negatives on their minds.

 

[Edward Teach]

What bugs me about him is that he helped re-elect the people who condone it. He sold out his own ideals in 2004 and looked embarrassed doing it.

I too have been bothered by this. I could have voted for McCain back before he knuckled under.

And, I will not be surprised if he wins the presidency. But I do not think the Dems primary fight will bring it about -- I just don't have confidence that this country is ready to elect either a woman or a black.

 

[shereads]

Stop saying that! Give us our little fantasy moment of hope. We deserve it, after enduring 7 & 1/2 years of hell.

Would you mind moving half a step closer to Teach? It's my turn to play Circular Firing Squad and I'm hoping to take out two members of my team with one bullet.

 

[Edward Teach]

Next, there will be rumors that Obama has a black baby.

Why? Have you heard that he's preggers?

 

[shereads]

And, I will not be surprised if he wins the presidency. But I do not think the Dems primary fight will bring it about -- I just don't have confidence that this country is ready to elect either a woman or a black.

Then you'll be pleasantly surprised when Vice President Rice is sworn in.



Please kill me then.


Edited to add: What I hate about political intuition is that mine nearly always turns out to be true. Oh please let me be wrong this time! Oh please!

 

[Edward Teach]

Then you'll be pleasantly surprised when Vice President Rice is sworn in.



Please kill me then.

Sepuku pact?

 

[shereads]

Sepuku pact?

Subaru?

 

[Edward Teach]

Subaru?

Have you got your ride back yet?

I was gonna offer my water bus, but figured you'd rather roller skate.

 

[sr71plt]

I didn't see anything about Obama threatening to take the black votes. And, wasn't that article from October of 2007? I totallyl understand that you don't like the dude Jenny. I respect that.

Gawd, yes. Right.

Honestly, some folks aren't capable of seeing any of the complexities of real life.

It isn't Obama or the Devil for blacks. The Clintons have been the darlings of the blacks. The blacks have only gone to Obama because they were forced to choose. (And we saw one black superdelegate almost break down and cry on national TV when he said he had to switch to Obama.) If Obama drops out for some reason or doesn't get the nomination, the blacks will snap right back to their former darlings--and will be welcomed with open arms.

Gawd, there's a lot of digging your choice of ditch and then making all the dirt fit with a lot of forum posters on the election campaign issues. Such naivete. Luckily the candidates themselves aren't that naive. Unfortunately, most voters are as naive and pigheaded as some of the posters here.

 

[shereads]

"The blacks" want this. "The blacks" do that.

I feel as if I've stumbled into a coffee shop in Selma, Alabama, circa 1965.

 

[Belegon]

"The blacks" want this. "The blacks" do that.

I feel as if I've stumbled into a coffee shop in Selma, Alabama, circa 1965.

exactly true.

After all, just because I support Obama doesn't mean the man is immensely popular in Scotland.

 

[fifty5]

In the UK most voters are effectively disenfranchised because of voting patterns.

Where I live it doesn't matter which way I vote because the Conservative candidate will win. He has a large majority and even a heavy slump in Conservative support won't change the result.

In most Parliamentary seats the result can be just as predictable. The seat is guaranteed to be either Labour, or Conservative, or a very few Liberal Democrat.

The few seats that have low majorities will decide who forms the next government. In those so-called marginal seats a change of 7,500 votes would alter the colour of the next government. If you don't live in one of those marginals you might as well vote for The Raving Monster Loony Party - you won't change anything.

The majority of voters will vote as they always have done no matter who the candidate is.

Those who vote on intuition on the day, or those that decide at the last minute not to vote at all - they are the ones that change governments.

Og

Og, why the fuck are you as right again as you usually are?

I'm standing again for the May local election - and although Groucho might maintain it's the best qualification, I really don't want to be a Councillor.

My parents came from a constituency where it was reputed that the-party-in-question could have put up a goat (four legs, cloven hoof and all) and it would be elected.

What really hurts is that my party - the only UK one that I believe is based on principle rather than will to power; "The **** exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" has become 'professional' enough to campaign on the undeniable fact that, to win, it is pointless to address anyone who has existing loyalties. In 21st century politics, the only audience worth addressing is the comparatively few who haven't already made up their minds before the debate starts.

Election politics is sordid!

PS By chance, I can also relate to the Loonies - a friend since school days was David Sutch's election agent until he (Sutch) died.

PPS The above addresses UK politics directly, but I suspect it is equally applicable to the US>

 

[sr71plt]

"The blacks" want this. "The blacks" do that.

I feel as if I've stumbled into a coffee shop in Selma, Alabama, circa 1965.

Why? Broad sections of voters are discussed as blocks all of the time--women, young voters, Hispanics, blacks, unions. And they are discussed this way because voting patterns do pan out along these broad aggregate lines.

Part of the Selma Alabama 1965 coffee shop "schtick" was to avoid and talk around realities. Blacks are discussed as a broad voting block because organizing themselves into that was their most effective ticket out of what you depict as the 1965 Selma coffee shop world. They organize themselves as a voting block (sensibly)--and appoint mouthpieces to speak for them. So why shouldn't we talk about that voting block?

This isn't Neverneverland.

 

[sr71plt]

Og, why the fuck are you as right again as you usually are?

I'm standing again for the May local election - and although Groucho might maintain it's the best qualification, I really don't want to be a Councillor.

My parents came from a constituency where it was reputed that the-party-in-question could have put up a goat (four legs, cloven hoof and all) and it would be elected.

What really hurts is that my party - the only UK one that I believe is based on principle rather than will to power; "The **** exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" has become 'professional' enough to campaign on the undeniable fact that, to win, it is pointless to address anyone who has existing loyalties. In 21st century politics, the only audience worth addressing is the comparatively few who haven't already made up their minds before the debate starts.

Election politics is sordid!

PS By chance, I can also relate to the Loonies - a friend since school days was David Sutch's election agent until he (Sutch) died.

PPS The above addresses UK politics directly, but I suspect it is equally applicable to the US>

I don't see much of a difference with the American presidential election system. We have a "winner take all" award of party electors on a state basis. My vote for president has never meant squat. My state has always been won by the candidate I didn't vote for.

 

[fifty5]

My state has always been won by the candidate I didn't vote for.

"state" aside, we have that in common.

 

[cloudy]

"The blacks" want this. "The blacks" do that.

I feel as if I've stumbled into a coffee shop in Selma, Alabama, circa 1965.

No shit. It would make more sense to me to say, "Those that support Obama," because it's obviously not only Blacks.