thevoiceoftruth - 27 February 2008 09:45 PM

“On the other hand, his candidacy this time like in 2000 with Al Gore will draw more support from the Democratic candidate than the Republican and the reality is that his chances of winning are slim to none. So, we could conceivably end up with a President that is farther to the right than the one he draws support from. Any thoughts on that?”

Maybe Ross Perot or another right-wing candidate could be encouraged to run as an independent. He was the one who drew votes away from George H W Bush when he faced Bill Clinton in 1992. Then we would have four, with two independents drawing support away from the two mainstream party candidates. That would be very interesting, indeed.

Wonder if the Republican machine had a hand in Nader’s sudden decision to run again?

Voice,
I considered the conspiracy theory on that but I don’t think there is anything to it. I think he is motivated by ego or his desire to remain in the limelight, and his desire to have issues he feels are important addressed by the Democratic nominee and/or McCain. I’m sure he realizes that he has no chance of being elected but I don’t think he will be fully financing his campaign either. What do you think?

Is Obama being presumptuous in campaigning against McCain at this point?

Basically, Obama is trying to suggest that Clinton is becoming less relevant. We will have to wait until the results of March 4th are here, to decide if Clinton tanks in the numbers from Ohio and Texas.

The “straight talk express” of McCain is attacking Obama because if they can get Clinton nominated, they have a much better chance of winning in November against Hillary. Clinton has a loyal following of, let’s say, 38% of total voters. Clinton doesn’t have widespread support; certainly not enough to win in November’s general election.

Obama has converts joining his Campaign everyday - people who will be voting for the first time, people who are Bush haters, and people who are Clinton haters who weren’t going to vote, but may vote now that they see Obama has a chance to win.

Notice how quickly the “stay the course a few more years” mantra from the Bush Admin has become stay 50 to 100 years in Iraq from the “straight talk express.” When George W Bush speaks in anyway against either Obama or Clinton, that just drives more people to determinantly elect a Democrat for President. There is a core of McCain supporters, let’s say 38%, who are die-hard Bush Admin supporters who will vote Republican regardless of the economy or Iraq War. McCain doesn’t have widespread support; certainly not enough to win in November’s general election.

I see a virtual tie between Clinton and McCain with a slight advantage for Obama beating McCain with popular votes in November. But, the electoral college could support McCain due to pressure from Big Business, Wall Street, and Hispanics who want immigration reform, McCain style.

The election coud be a repeat of 2000, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you watch Clinton, there is not much likeable - either from frumpy Hillary, to finger wagging Bubba Bill. Obama benefits each time Bill Clinton is on TV wagging his finger and getting red-faced at some schmuck at a rally. Hillary is more focused on her experience than on leading a united country. Isn’t all that “experience” the reason we went to War in Iraq in the first place?

During the H W Bush Admin the U.S. was an ally to Iraq. George W’s decision to invade Iraq was personal, had nothing to do with intelligence or lack thereof. But to answer your question, Obama has to walk the fine line between appearing arrogant and avoiding bickering with Clinton. When Clinton and Obama bicker, then McCain gains votes.

Clarification to prior post. The 38% for Clinton and 38% for McCain are estimates of registered Dems and registered Repubs - not 38% of the general population. My feelings are that the remainder of the registered Dems and registered Repubs are undecided, and could go for their party nominee, or against the party nominee in November. In this election in November, there is a huge undecided voter and Independent voter on the sidelines, waiting to see how all this plays out.

So far, I don’t see anyone who is a sure winner - neither Clinton, Obama, nor McCain.

Well, while reading an article regarding the likelihood Obama would be the nominee, I read that a person involved in the Obama campaign stated that Hillary would have to have a significant delegate advantage in the March 4th primaries to overcome Obama’s lead. He went on to say that, “She will fail and fail miserably” in getting that delegate advantage. So, I’m more optimistic now that he will be the nominee. I’m also hopeful that Hillary will withdraw and endorse Obama so the Democrats can stop bickering among themselves, unite, and focus on McCain.

OK, I’m back in with my opinion of this topic. How does a Clinton - Obama ticket sound? One way or the other, voters from Michigan and Florida are going to have a say in the outcome of this election and will more than likely go Hillary’s way. Also, this ticket would be quite effective in uniting the Democrats now, and building consensus with Congress on the Democratic agenda later. I can imagine a good cop - bad cop scenario with them. He could use his consensus building talents to positively create support for her policies with Congress, and if that didn’t work she could come in with the HAMMER tactics.

While a Clinton Obama ticket might unite Dems; I, for one, will be voting for Repubs.

Anything to do with a Clinton or a Bush? No way. The nominee will be Clinton. Many Independents who sided with Obama will go to John McCain. And, we will see 3 more months of mudslinging from Clinton, because she will not run on talent. And Obama? Not enough experience to get the nomination because the old guard Dems will not support him in higher numbers.

Quite a disaapointment to see Ohio go to Clinton. But not unexpected, because Ohio is still old guard, traditionalists who won’t support an African American. It is such a shame that Colin Powell didn’t run, or Condi Rice. Obama is viewed as a radicalist by many, and an unknown to the country.

But “experience” is why we are where we are today. We don’t need experience as much as we need a vision to unite the country, and stop all the fighting in Washington DC. Sen John McCain has already proven he can work bipartisan politics. Clinton has not shown that ability to work with both Dems and Repubs.

I still support Obama too but I do have my concerns about him. If Michigan and Florida get the delegates counted via another election, I’m sure both will go for Hillary and along with Penn, this probably will give her the most regular delegates and the Super Delegates should follow along with this. The overall popular vote is irrelevant as this is a delegate issue.
As for Ohio, the residents have suffered a great loss of jobs due to NAFTA and she was the most appealing candidate on that issue. People up there are accustomed to good paying blue collar jobs and as you know, our country and particularly Ohio is losing them to Mexico and Canada. Her stated position on NAFTA along with her position on universal healthcare is very appealing to them. While I know some racism still exists, I don’t think that was the issue there. I think it was the other issues but who knows for sure?
I’m still on board with Obama and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I did just hear about a recent poll which indicated that 20% of Democrats would switch parties and vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee. The radio announcer attributed this potential switch to racism stating that racism was common place among white blue collar union workers. Hopefully, that is Republican hog wash as most of the talking heads are Republicans.

Unfortunately, I don’t see that as being in error. FYI, I am not what most would consider a “minority.” I just think that Obama is the best choice for President, given the need for a charsimatic leader who can work with both parties. Obama would likely do better running as an Independent, but the two party system chokes any chance that a maverick will be elected.

The latest idea being floated around about a redo of the Democratic primary is that it will be done by mail. Wonder which candidate would benefit from a mail in primary? Assuming the ballots will be mailed out, I guess it depends on which supporters have kept their addresses current with the Supervisor of Elections.

This re vote is a mess. By the time any re vote is done, Clinton and Obama will have beaten each other into the ground, then Mc Cain walks away as President in Nov. The Dems have caused a major mess by changing the primary date to Jan 29. Old Charlie Crist is just pouring gas on the fire with his opinions and photo ops. Let the Dems sort it out and Crist be governor, not DNC chair de facto.

It surely is a mess. The outcome of a mail out/in vote is going to be different than if people went back to the polls and voted. You’ve got the snowbird issue with the vote being held in the summer and a host of other variables so its a complex problem.
For years, I was partial to the Republicans at the State level but actually it was the Republican legislature that changed the primary date. I think the Republicans in Tallahassee are pleased with how this is turning out watching the Democrats fight among themselves over these delegates. However, I also know they had many if not a majority of State Democrats supporting that legislation. I wish this would become a campaign issue at the State level during this upcoming election and those Democrats would have to account for their vote in support of violating their own Party’s rules knowing full well what the consequences would be.
As long as the race is resolved with enough time to recover for the November election, I think the Democrats will still be in good shape. Also, there are many things that could happen domestically and around the world between now and November that could influence the outcome of the election. Only time will tell.
Obama did get a few extra delegates today in Wyoming and will win Mississippi next week but there is a ways to go.

Senator Bill Nelson adamantly defended the Democrats today on Meet The Press stating that the Republicans were responsible for the change in the election date and that this effort was resisted by the Democrats. I like Bill Nelson, but I’m going to look up that vote in the next few days and see if that is true. I have a feeling that there were a number of State Democrats on board with the Republicans supporting that change. I did learn that this isn’t the first time a State has tried to do this and in those cases the primary was redone.