Obama will loose

BoatMad

At this stage I think the game over. Obama has made a terrible choice with Biden, He should have put the job to Clinton.

Secondly he has no real policies, just lots of " lets change" mantra

The Democratic party nomination process has alienated some many women that palin is a serious threat.

In my opinion the democratic party will tear itself apart when Obama looses. One might ask how in the hell such a commanding lead in teh polls has resulted in them falling behind

I dont particulary have any opinion on McCain , but he will win.

Crash

You post Good.

Hobbes

BoatMad wrote: »

Obama has made a terrible choice with Biden,

Can you expand on as to why?

Secondly he has no real policies, just lots of " lets change" mantra

You did actually read his policies? I am guessing you didn't. Here let me help you.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I mean it is 33 pages long and reasonably well detailed.

The Democratic party nomination process has alienated some many women that palin is a serious threat.

Can you actually prove this? If you go by donations then you are wrong. More women donated to Obama then McCain.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055376982

I dont particulary have any opinion on McCain , but he will win.

If you have no opinion on him then how can you know he will win?

axer

BoatMad wrote: »

At this stage I think the game over. Obama has made a terrible choice with Biden, He should have put the job to Clinton.

Secondly he has no real policies, just lots of " lets change" mantra

The Democratic party nomination process has alienated some many women that palin is a serious threat.

In my opinion the democratic party will tear itself apart when Obama looses. One might ask how in the hell such a commanding lead in teh polls has resulted in them falling behind

I dont particulary have any opinion on McCain , but he will win.

I don't think obama will get any looser but he certainly won't get any tighter either.

Palin seems to have more of an influence on men than women it seems so I don't think women have been alienated.

With regards the polls, national polls are of no importance really. It is the state polls that matter most since they give the best indication of who will gain the most electoral college votes - on that front the polls suggest Obama is winning 243 to 189 with 106 electoral votes up for grabs. It seems the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia and Florida will decide the winner - although there are some other states that are currently only just about in a candidates favour which could very easily come into play yet.

Pocono Joe

We in the US have become a country that yearns for partisanship. You will continue to hear from Democrats that "McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time." But the average, non koolaid drinking, voter resonate more with "Country First" and "shaking things up in Washington". That type of rhetoric by Obama is the kind of partisan attack the American people are sick and tired of. There is no history to support Obama's proof to his claim of bi-partisanship, but lots for McCain. John McCain is the one running against Washington.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/
It just keeps gettin' better every day.

axer

Pocono Joe wrote: »

There is no history to support Obama's proof to his claim of bi-partisanship,

Do you really mean that? or do you want to retract?

Pocono Joe

Dramatic effect... Would you be happer with "little to almost none"?

Overheal

Obama is not bi-partisan. He knows he ought to be, but he hasn't done so.

I think it was madness for him to run against Clinton to be honest. He should have stayed in the Senate another 4 years and left this election alone to be honest.

wiredup

Overheal wrote: »

Obama is not bi-partisan. He knows he ought to be, but he hasn't done so.

I think it was madness for him to run against Clinton to be honest. He should have stayed in the Senate another 4 years and left this election alone to be honest.

I can't wait to see your reaction when Obama wins

Overheal

you mean when the russians start invading georgia again and obama suddenly realises he cant summon a flood to drown the heathens?

irish_bob

hillary would have thrashed mc cain , the turning point in the primaries was the kennedys coming out for obama

BlaasForRafa

Pocono Joe wrote: »

John McCain is the one running against Washington.

McCain is running against washington....with a campaign stuffed full of washington lobbyists? how does that work then eh?
http://current.com/items/89288337_fact_check_mccain_lobbyist_connections_cnn_com

wiredup

Overheal wrote: »

you mean when the russians start invading georgia again and obama suddenly realises he cant summon a flood to drown the heathens?

I love this BS about Russia and Georgia and how the US is gonna save the day yet again. Open your eyes. The US is going down the pan, how many trillions is it borrowing from China this year?

Anyway, I will be astounded if Obama does not win. Astounded at the stupidity of it as I'm sure the majority of the world will be too.

dave2pvd

This thread is like a room full of After-Hours posters reading tea-leaves.

Here's a good cross section:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

2 big big flaws in all of this polling:

* the notion that calling land lines can accurately sample the nation. There will be a big turnout of young voters. Young, urban voters do not have landlines.

* The 'undecideds' tend to swing Republican. Some polls ad skew to correct for this. Some don't.

Since this is a place for opinion giving: (IMO) Hillary would have bombed by now. There's a huge portion of America that hates her. There are Democrats that intensely dislike her. I'm not sure that the pro-Dem Irish/UK media portrays this.

It will be interesting, that's for sure.

Expect a lot of campaigning in swing states over the next few weeks.

axer

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Dramatic effect... Would you be happer with "little to almost none"?

How about that he has a history of bi-partisan and not there is no history of, which is complete lies.

Hobbes

dave2pvd wrote: »

* the notion that calling land lines can accurately sample the nation. There will be a big turnout of young voters. Young, urban voters do not have landlines.

This was an issue at the last election and a lot of the polling companies poll on mobile phones as well now. Zogby and Nielsen for example that I know do this.

I agree with your comments on Hillary. Her running would of swung a lot of people Republican. Even McCain knew this when he came out and supported her over Obama.

eamonnm79

There are some US studies that suggest that people are more likely to say they will vote for an african american than they are to actually vote for them.

I think this latent racism will have a huge impact. I think Obama would have to be up by 5%-10% of the popular vote in order to win.

dave2pvd

Hobbes wrote: »

This was an issue at the last election and a lot of the polling companies poll on mobile phones as well now. Zogby and Nielsen for example that I know do this.

I had heard about Zogby calling mobiles. I wonder how well that works? I certainly wouldn't answer an unfamiliar number.

axer

dave2pvd wrote: »

I had heard about Zogby calling mobiles. I wonder how well that works? I certainly wouldn't answer an unfamiliar number.

That could be said about landlines too. Americans get alot of spam calls thus many are wary of answering the phone or else have it setup that you have to say who you are first before they talk to you.

snow scorpion

Obama's Lament:

“For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been'.”

dave2pvd

axer wrote: »

That could be said about landlines too. Americans get alot of spam calls thus many are wary of answering the phone or else have it setup that you have to say who you are first before they talk to you.

Yep. A lot of landlines will have a caller ID readout.

I can still see far fewer people picking up on a mobile than on a landline...but then again, what do I know, I haven't been paying the evil empire* a dime for 10 years now.


*that be AT&T

dave2pvd

Iceland doesn't get a zero?

Not fair!

norbert64

polls are tightening again.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

it really is anyones games, lol

which is a bit of a travesty.

snow scorpion

dave2pvd wrote: »

Iceland doesn't get a zero?

Not fair!

I noticed that, too!

I'm not sure I'd want a bunch of Reykjavikers mad at me.

Lirange

Hobbes wrote: »

I agree with your comments on Hillary. Her running would of swung a lot of people Republican. Even McCain knew this when he came out and supported her over Obama.

Agreed. Some people have short memories. They forget how unpopular she was with moderate democrats and independents.

Sand

Polls are a nonsense tbh, they give only the vaguest sense of whats going on. But its nice to see this is only being recognised at a time when Obama is in trouble in the polls.

Obama may win or lose, but hes being repeatedly shown up as a lot of talk and not a lot of substance. As already pointed out he talks about unity, but its McCain who is the legislator that is actually getting cross-party support. Obama talks the talk, but with McCain hes got the record to prove it.

The thing with Obama is that if he had 8-12 years Senate record to concentrate on legislating and building up a track record to judge him on, he wouldnt have these issues. He really may have peaked too early, and *if* he loses, its hard to see how he can recover his careers upward momentum. That would be sad as hes clearly a gifted politician and campaigner, its just a question of whats the reality behind the bull****. No one knows.

Sand

I mean jesus wept...

Bipartisanship is a frequent issue on the campaign trail, with the McCain camp and surrogates such as Mr. Graham arguing the standard is how often someone takes leadership on an issue in defiance of his own party - a measure by which Mr. Obama falls short and Mr. McCain clearly excels.

He even revels in his stances, telling the audience at a values forum at Saddleback Church in California last month his list is extensive: "Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture." He could have added campaign-finance overhaul, immigration, a patients' bill of rights, gun control and tax cuts as other areas on which he's broken with the majority of his party.

At the same forum, Mr. Obama said his major break with Democrats came on congressional ethics, when he sponsored a bill to curb meals and gifts from lobbyists.

His major break? That was his major break?

Lirange

Maybe they're just tired of the Republicans Sand? Look the two big issues, the economy and foreign policy he's done little to distance himself from Jr. Bush. More bellicosity and tax cuts that Alan Greenspan says the country cannot afford? Many are tired of this and his positions on Green issues don't eclipse the larger ones?

He hasn't been the "maverick" recently has he?
A maverick reformer?

norbert64

/\ there's always the FISA bill, does that count :P

Manic Moran

dave2pvd wrote: »

:
* the notion that calling land lines can accurately sample the nation. There will be a big turnout of young voters. Young, urban voters do not have landlines.

Although this is true, there is a factor which cancels out the amount of cell-phone-only people who may vote Obama: The several hundred thousand overwhelmingly republican people serving in the US military who are not at their home addresses right now to pick up their 'phones. Not just the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those in Korea, Germany, Italy, on sea duty on ships...

Obama's Lament:

Was very surprised to see an Obama 08 sticker on the back of a car here in The Hague. (I'm on holiday). As the Obama European Tour showed, it may have been all very well for the Europeans who love him, but it doesn't do him any favours in the US, indeed, it backfired a bit.

NTM

kmick

I hope he wins but time and time again in the US we see the people who vote are the conservative middle Americans who like McCain style leadership. Its like FF being really low in the polls done just before the election and then sweeping the boards. Every bible bashing, model t ford drivin Kansan puts on his best hat and Sunday shoes and heads to the poll to vote for McCain while the 22 year old apartment renting, latte drinking, bohemian artist from the inner city heads to the gym.

I cant see him winning but I hope to God he does for the sake of the rest of the world.

alastair

kmick wrote: »

Every bible bashing, model t ford drivin Kansan puts on his best hat and Sunday shoes and heads to the poll to vote for McCain while the 22 year old apartment renting, latte drinking, bohemian artist from the inner city heads to the gym.

Except that Democratic candidates do usually win the cities. The elections are normally won or lost outside the cities.

Black Swan

BoatMad wrote: »

At this stage I think the game over. Obama has made a terrible choice with Biden, He should have put the job to Clinton.

Yes, if the Dems don't wake up before the late September VP debates and replace Biden with Clinton, the game is over. Both Biden and Palin have been recorded publicly stating that they think Hilliary Clinton to be qualified as VP. All Biden would have to do is now decline the nomination of his party in favour of Clinton, then all news media hell would break loose, shifting the stardom attention from Palin to Clinton. Then run the ads over and over again showing both Biden and Palin stating the qualifications of Clinton. The Obama half and the Clinton half of the Democratic party would unite, plus all the women that slipped to Palin because of gender, and with the number of Democrats as registered voters in the large majority, Obama-Clinton would win.

This silly election is not about qualifications for high office, serious economic issues, or two wars that face the American people. It's about voting for the next American Idol. That's way the Super Power presidential election this year is a Super Farce!

alastair

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Yes, if the Dems don't wake up before the late September VP debates and replace Biden with Clinton, the game is over.

Obama doesn't want Clinton. Biden isn't going to lose the election for Obama, but changing the VP ticket would be a sure-fire way to lose.

gixerfixer

Why are people hiding the real fact why Obama will not win? There is no way in hell Americans will EVER vote for a black man as president. That is the bottom line. It disgusts me but it's the truth of the situation.

alastair

gixerfixer wrote: »

Why are people hiding the real fact why Obama will not win? There is no way in hell Americans will EVER vote for a black man as president. That is the bottom line. It disgusts me but it's the truth of the situation.

If he loses it'll be by 1 or 2 percent of the popular vote (if that). Clearly Americans will vote for a black man.

Black Swan

alastair wrote: »

Obama doesn't want Clinton. Biden isn't going to lose the election for Obama, but changing the VP ticket would be a sure-fire way to lose.

Obama will not do the switch, so discussing it or predicting the outcome is really moot?

Although posters like myself have had fun speculating in this and other US Election 2008 threads, no one across the pond is listening to us. We are akin to those who waste euros in lotteries. It's fun to fantasize while we can...




(Oh, now I am laughing at myself, cause I am temporarily across the pond at USC! Well, my spirit is still with Ireland).

brianthebard

alastair wrote: »

If he loses it'll be by 1 or 2 percent of the popular vote (if that). Clearly Americans will vote for a black man.

Minorities don't get elected to president, I've pointed this out before.

alastair

brianthebard wrote: »

Minorities don't get elected to president, I've pointed this out before.

Wow - I hadn't noticed that fact until now!
Which minority was ever selected to run for president?

brianthebard

alastair wrote: »

Wow - I hadn't noticed that fact until now!
Which minority was ever selected to run for president?

Your sarcasm needs work. I wasn't just referring to the US there, I meant in general. It applies to all public offices though, just look at how many senators or governors in the US are from a minority background. Not very many, and not representative of the size of their minority.

alastair

brianthebard wrote: »

Your sarcasm needs work. I wasn't just referring to the US there, I meant in general. It applies to all public offices though, just look at how many senators or governors in the US are from a minority background. Not very many, and not representative of the size of their minority.

Well, 9% of Congress is African-American (12% of the population), so not too much of a disconnect there.

alastair

brianthebard wrote: »

Your sarcasm needs work. I wasn't just referring to the US there, I meant in general.

Presidents in general?

brianthebard

alastair wrote: »

Well, 9% of Congress is African-American (12% of the population), so not too much of a disconnect there.

O rly? You don't think three black senators since reconstruction is a bit of a disconnect?

As for presidents in general, yes I was referring to world politics, its just not the done thing to elect a president who is a minority. People vote for the candidate that reminds them of themselves.

alastair

brianthebard wrote: »

O rly? You don't think three black senators since reconstruction is a bit of a disconnect?

Disconnect on the Sentor front, no real disconnect on House of Representatives. 9% of Congress, with a population at 12% isn't a particulary compelling case that minorities don't get elected to public office.

brianthebard

Well seeing as that is just one house of two, and both houses are required to be fully representative of the country, I think it is fairly compelling evidence.

alastair

brianthebard wrote: »

I think it is fairly compelling evidence.

I suppose it is - if you ignore all the minorities actually elected to Congress. :rolleyes:

eamonnm79

alastair wrote: »

I suppose it is - if you ignore all the minorities actually elected to Congress. :rolleyes:

Hey Alastair, I dont think anyone is saying that all Amaricans are racist.
But in a close election, there may be enough latent racism (ie not observed in by polls) to swing it in McCains favour.

alastair

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Hey Alastair, I dont think anyone is saying that all Amaricans are racist.
But in a close election, there may be enough latent racism (ie not observed in by polls) to swing it in McCains favour.

No doubt about it. But my point was that racism is enough of a dead issue that he'll only lose by the smallest of margins.

BenjAii

alastair wrote: »

But my point was that racism is enough of a dead issue that he'll only lose by the smallest of margins.

What evidence do you have that racism is a "dead issue" in America ? The consensus opinion seems to be that there is still a considerable rump in society who hold to these views, but that exactly how much is hard to quantify as people are notoriously unwilling to admit to it.

alastair

BenjAii wrote: »

What evidence do you have that racism is a "dead issue" in America ? The consensus opinion seems to be that there is still a considerable rump in society who hold to these views, but that exactly how much is hard to quantify as people are notoriously unwilling to admit to it.

Listen - I've seen racism first hand in the US. I'm not saying that racism is done and dusted. I'm saying that it's enough of a dead issue that Obama will pull 50%ish of the popular vote - win or lose - in this election. I'll go further - I'm betting he outperforms John Kerry - a white dude with a similar set of policies, who was up against a more polarising opponent.

BenjAii

alastair wrote: »

Listen - I've seen racism first hand in the US. I'm not saying that racism is done and dusted. I'm saying that it's enough of a dead issue that Obama will pull 50%ish of the popular vote - win or lose - in this election.

Alastair, all i'm asking is how do you quantify that ?

Most people seem to think its impossible to gauge. There is the phenomena of the Bradley Effect
where there is a discrepancy between the numbers of white people who tell pollsters they will vote for a black candidate and the lower amount that actually do.

I know it's equally impossible for me to quantify exactly how many white people would not vote for Obama because he is black, but I would suggest the number would not be insignificant. Particularly in very tightly drawn states when relatively small numbers of voters could sway the outcome.