Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
This is a prediction, you understand. I am sure enough of what I'm saying to be willing to stick my neck out and say it, but not sure enough to bet the mortgage payment on it. It also does not necessarily express my own personal preference but, for a change, I expect to vote FOR one presidential candidate this time around, rather than voting AGAINST his opponent.
The most one-sided elections in the history of America, in terms of popular votes and electoral votes, were George Washington's two victories, when there were no other candidates, and James Monroe's election in 1820, when there was only token opposition. Outside of that, the most lopsided elections, in terms of electoral votes, were Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeating Alf Landon in 1936 by a margin of 523 to 8, and in 1972, when Richard M. Nixon defeated George McGovern by a margin of 520 to 17. The most one-sided in terms of popular vote were in 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater by a margin of 61.1% to 38.5% and FDR over Landon by 60.8% to 36.5%. Third party candidates won small percentages of the popular vote in those last two years and, in 1972, John Hospers won a single electoral vote.
I am not saying that the election will equal any of those landslides. What I am saying is that John McCain's victory in November of this year will be by comparable margins, in terms of popular vote and electoral vote. Barack Obama will probably carry The District of Columbia, and he has a shot at Vermont and Massachusetts. If the Dailey machine in Chicago can get enough dead people registered, and can get them to vote early and often enough, he might also carry his home state of Illinois. That's all.
Of course, I'm not going to make a prediction like that without some reasons. Obama won enough votes in the primary elections and caucuses to narrowly defeat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and is expected to be nominated by the Democrats at their convention. One of the reasons for his winning was the animosity against the New York senator. People still remember the Whitewater hearings, and consider her to be totally lacking in integrity. She was never indicted or even formally accused, but the voters were aware of her chicanery, which was well established, and they haven't forgotten.
Another reason was race. I hesitate to level any accusations of racism on the part of the voters in the Democratic primaries. People vote for any reason they want, and the race of a candidate can be a reason just as well as his or her charm and charisma. However, it is known that Senator Obama won most of the states in the South, all of which have a fairly large percentage of black voters, almost all of whom are registered as Democrats. According to people who know how to calculate such things, he racked up huge majorities among these black voters, 90% or more. Undoubtedly, he will do at least as well in this year's presidential election, but will he be able to win the hearts and minds of those who voted for Senator Clinton? My prediction is that he will not, at least not in a large enough quantity, and Senator McCain will therefore sweep the South, winning every state. That includes Florida which, although geographically part of the Deep South and a former member of The Confederacy, has a different kind of population than the other southern states, with large numbers of retired senior citizens and Cuban refugees. It is also the largest, in population, of any of the southern states.
Except for Illinois and North Carolina, which is part of the South, Clinton won all the ten largest states during the recently concluded Democratic primary elections. That includes Florida and Michigan, although her victories in those states might be somewhat dubious. To win the general election, a presidential candidate must carry some of these, which brings up the question: Will Obama do so? I am predicting he won't, except maybe Illinois. The Republicans will succeed in using his own words against him, and will portray him as an elitist, somebody who considers himself to be somehow above the ordinary hoi polloi. The kind of attitude he will be alleged to have just will not play in places such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and most of New York and California. Nobody has ever accused John McCain of being an elitist, and I doubt that anybody ever will.
Nobody expects the president to govern by himself; therefore, they will look at his advisors. Who comes to the forefront in the case of Senator Obama? One of the most prominent is Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and we can expect to be treated to more videotapes of his racist diatribes, compliments of the Republican campaigners. Another, not an advisor but a supporter, is the rapper Ludacris. Will voters, especially white voters be able to listen to his foul lyrics and not be turned against the person they are extolling? Most will, of course. They will recognize that the man is just one person, albeit a person highly regarded by the subject of his recording, but many won't see it that way. Other associates of the senator are Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers, two of the notorious Weather radicals from the Sixties and Seventies. Both these unrepentant hoodlums supported Obama in his early political campaigns, and they still do.
To be sure, Senator McCain has some dubious figures in his background. Among them is Reverend John Hagee who is probably as bad as Reverend Wright. Hagee endorsed McCain but the candidate, after learning more about who the man was and is, rejected it. Even if he hadn't, you can hardly compare the relationships of the two preachers with the candidates. McCain never attended a single service of Hagee, and never had much of anything to do with him. Obama, on the other hand, attended the church of Reverend Wright for twenty years, and was married and had his children baptized by the man. He has since repudiated Wright but, after twenty years of close association, it seems a bit late. There are probably other somewhat unwholesome characters who have been associated with McCain, but nobody of the magnitude of those who have been close to his presumptive opponent.
In an earlier paragraph, I said I didn't want to level any accusations of racism, and I still don't. However, I am not some Pollyanna who thinks it doesn't exist, and won't be a factor in deciding who the next president will be. There are people who will do the PC thing and say they are going to vote for Obama but, once they are in the privacy of the voting booth will say something such as: "I'm just not ready yet for a black president, and McCain's not so bad." There probably aren't a lot of such people, but they do exist, and their votes will contribute to the landslide I am predicting.
There are probably also a lot of people who will say something like: "I ain't voting for no N----, and I hear he's a Mooslim too." Of course, there are also those who will vote for "The Brother" but they would have voted for any Democratic candidate. It is a shame that a candidate's race or gender would have any effect in an election, but I am predicting, not extolling.
All in all, Senator Barack Obama is just not the right candidate, even though he may have come along at the right time. There will, sooner or later, be a black president, just as there will, sooner or later, be a woman president and an Hispanic president, but not in this election. First, such a departure from the usual will have to involve somebody more mainstream than Barack Obama - he's considered to be one of the most liberal members of the senate - and I believe it will involve entering through the back door. By that I mean that some day there will be a woman, and some day there will be an Hispanic and some day there will be an African American elected to the vice-presidency, and those persons will succeed to the top office when the president dies. Either that or the president will term out and the female or black or brown vice-president will be elected to replace him. I also believe this will happen during my lifetime, but not this year.
The most one-sided elections in the history of America, in terms of popular votes and electoral votes, were George Washington's two victories, when there were no other candidates, and James Monroe's election in 1820, when there was only token opposition. Outside of that, the most lopsided elections, in terms of electoral votes, were Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeating Alf Landon in 1936 by a margin of 523 to 8, and in 1972, when Richard M. Nixon defeated George McGovern by a margin of 520 to 17. The most one-sided in terms of popular vote were in 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater by a margin of 61.1% to 38.5% and FDR over Landon by 60.8% to 36.5%. Third party candidates won small percentages of the popular vote in those last two years and, in 1972, John Hospers won a single electoral vote.
I am not saying that the election will equal any of those landslides. What I am saying is that John McCain's victory in November of this year will be by comparable margins, in terms of popular vote and electoral vote. Barack Obama will probably carry The District of Columbia, and he has a shot at Vermont and Massachusetts. If the Dailey machine in Chicago can get enough dead people registered, and can get them to vote early and often enough, he might also carry his home state of Illinois. That's all.
Of course, I'm not going to make a prediction like that without some reasons. Obama won enough votes in the primary elections and caucuses to narrowly defeat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and is expected to be nominated by the Democrats at their convention. One of the reasons for his winning was the animosity against the New York senator. People still remember the Whitewater hearings, and consider her to be totally lacking in integrity. She was never indicted or even formally accused, but the voters were aware of her chicanery, which was well established, and they haven't forgotten.
Another reason was race. I hesitate to level any accusations of racism on the part of the voters in the Democratic primaries. People vote for any reason they want, and the race of a candidate can be a reason just as well as his or her charm and charisma. However, it is known that Senator Obama won most of the states in the South, all of which have a fairly large percentage of black voters, almost all of whom are registered as Democrats. According to people who know how to calculate such things, he racked up huge majorities among these black voters, 90% or more. Undoubtedly, he will do at least as well in this year's presidential election, but will he be able to win the hearts and minds of those who voted for Senator Clinton? My prediction is that he will not, at least not in a large enough quantity, and Senator McCain will therefore sweep the South, winning every state. That includes Florida which, although geographically part of the Deep South and a former member of The Confederacy, has a different kind of population than the other southern states, with large numbers of retired senior citizens and Cuban refugees. It is also the largest, in population, of any of the southern states.
Except for Illinois and North Carolina, which is part of the South, Clinton won all the ten largest states during the recently concluded Democratic primary elections. That includes Florida and Michigan, although her victories in those states might be somewhat dubious. To win the general election, a presidential candidate must carry some of these, which brings up the question: Will Obama do so? I am predicting he won't, except maybe Illinois. The Republicans will succeed in using his own words against him, and will portray him as an elitist, somebody who considers himself to be somehow above the ordinary hoi polloi. The kind of attitude he will be alleged to have just will not play in places such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and most of New York and California. Nobody has ever accused John McCain of being an elitist, and I doubt that anybody ever will.
Nobody expects the president to govern by himself; therefore, they will look at his advisors. Who comes to the forefront in the case of Senator Obama? One of the most prominent is Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and we can expect to be treated to more videotapes of his racist diatribes, compliments of the Republican campaigners. Another, not an advisor but a supporter, is the rapper Ludacris. Will voters, especially white voters be able to listen to his foul lyrics and not be turned against the person they are extolling? Most will, of course. They will recognize that the man is just one person, albeit a person highly regarded by the subject of his recording, but many won't see it that way. Other associates of the senator are Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers, two of the notorious Weather radicals from the Sixties and Seventies. Both these unrepentant hoodlums supported Obama in his early political campaigns, and they still do.
To be sure, Senator McCain has some dubious figures in his background. Among them is Reverend John Hagee who is probably as bad as Reverend Wright. Hagee endorsed McCain but the candidate, after learning more about who the man was and is, rejected it. Even if he hadn't, you can hardly compare the relationships of the two preachers with the candidates. McCain never attended a single service of Hagee, and never had much of anything to do with him. Obama, on the other hand, attended the church of Reverend Wright for twenty years, and was married and had his children baptized by the man. He has since repudiated Wright but, after twenty years of close association, it seems a bit late. There are probably other somewhat unwholesome characters who have been associated with McCain, but nobody of the magnitude of those who have been close to his presumptive opponent.
In an earlier paragraph, I said I didn't want to level any accusations of racism, and I still don't. However, I am not some Pollyanna who thinks it doesn't exist, and won't be a factor in deciding who the next president will be. There are people who will do the PC thing and say they are going to vote for Obama but, once they are in the privacy of the voting booth will say something such as: "I'm just not ready yet for a black president, and McCain's not so bad." There probably aren't a lot of such people, but they do exist, and their votes will contribute to the landslide I am predicting.
There are probably also a lot of people who will say something like: "I ain't voting for no N----, and I hear he's a Mooslim too." Of course, there are also those who will vote for "The Brother" but they would have voted for any Democratic candidate. It is a shame that a candidate's race or gender would have any effect in an election, but I am predicting, not extolling.
All in all, Senator Barack Obama is just not the right candidate, even though he may have come along at the right time. There will, sooner or later, be a black president, just as there will, sooner or later, be a woman president and an Hispanic president, but not in this election. First, such a departure from the usual will have to involve somebody more mainstream than Barack Obama - he's considered to be one of the most liberal members of the senate - and I believe it will involve entering through the back door. By that I mean that some day there will be a woman, and some day there will be an Hispanic and some day there will be an African American elected to the vice-presidency, and those persons will succeed to the top office when the president dies. Either that or the president will term out and the female or black or brown vice-president will be elected to replace him. I also believe this will happen during my lifetime, but not this year.
