Why Obama Can't win

ledvedderman

hippiemom wrote:

I'm saying that the confident tone could be enough. In the 80s, poll after poll showed that people disagreed with most of Reagan's positions, but they LOVED Reagan. After Watergate and the Carter years, people just wanted to feel good about the country, and Reagan made them feel that. After the quagmire that has been the Bush administration, people may be feeling the same way. If Obama can make them feel proud and confident, his individual policies won't matter as much to a lot of voters.

Exactly.

Here's another reason why he would win...

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m61/ledvedderman/6989576-M.jpg

That was only 2 years ago and I look like a pup in that pic...

puremagic

macgyver06 wrote:

What will they attack, or is this just nonsense?

No, it's not just nonsense, it's fact.

1st, his inexperience. This may not have been a big deal in prior elections, but, I think the people and media will be a little more quizical in the expectation of Presidents from now on.

2nd, have you seen anything else out there regarding his voting record? No., neither have I. Yet, two years in Congress, he had to vote for and against some bills right? Yet, all we hear about is that one national issue about his opposition to the Iraq war from the start, right. Then, of course, there's that little thing with the land deal. I stand by answer, he'll have to rely too heavy on "build me up" type campaign.

He has an early opportunity, within this coming year, to make an impact on his positions through Hearings and his sitting Committee responsibilities, especially on the Iraq situation. If he can then 2008 maybe his best shot.

Look, even now, if I was advising him, I'd make this the last week of his exploratory outings til 07, no more. Chalk it up for his need to step back to enjoy the upcoming holidays with his family and friends and get ready for January. Right now, they have him on a express lane, he is becoming too overexposed, too overhyped, he's moving so fast he doesn't gather the implications of some of the photo opts he is taking. The bottomline is that nothing of substances in being said that hasn't already been heard. The endorsements can come without appearances being scheduled during the christmas and new year's holidays. Slow him down, take him out the spotlight, his biggest asset right now is his "ok kind of guy" appeal.

Just because Bush has a 71% disapproval rate, does not mean the public is going to switch party votes like they did in the Congressional races. He'll have to fight for it and the gloves will come off.

ledvedderman

puremagic wrote:

No, it's not just nonsense, it's fact.

1st, his inexperience. This may not have been a big deal in prior elections, but, I think the people and media will be a little more quizical in the expectation of Presidents from now on.

2nd, have you seen anything else out there regarding his voting record? No., neither have I. Yet, two years in Congress, he had to vote for and against some bills right? Yet, all we hear about is that one national issue about his opposition to the Iraq war from the start, right. Then, of course, there's that little thing with the land deal. I stand by answer, he'll have to rely too heavy on "build me up" type campaign.

He has an early opportunity, within this coming year, to make an impact on his positions through Hearings and his sitting Committee responsibilities, especially on the Iraq situation. If he can then 2008 maybe his best shot.

Look, even now, if I was advising him, I'd make this the last week of his exploratory outings til 07, no more. Chalk it up for his need to step back to enjoy the upcoming holidays with his family and friends and get ready for January. Right now, they have him on a express lane, he is becoming too overexposed, too overhyped, he's moving so fast he doesn't gather the implications of some of the photo opts he is taking. The bottomline is that nothing of substances in being said that hasn't already been heard. The endorsements can come without appearances being scheduled during the christmas and new year's holidays. Slow him down, take him out the spotlight, his biggest asset right now is his "ok kind of guy" appeal.

Just because Bush has a 71% disapproval rate, does not mean the public is going to switch party votes like they did in the Congressional races. He'll have to fight for it and the gloves will come off.

1) Expectations of Presidents should be high, however being an experienced executive hasn't panned out too well for GW. Not being experienced worked out quite well for JFK. It's a gamble either way. I've met a lot of people and Obama is easily at the top of them when it comes to ideas and knowing what the American public wants.

2)I don't think anyone that's been in Congress over the last couple years has much of a voting history. It's been a rubber stamp. There hasn't really been much of anything to vote for that hasn't been strictly partisan. The Rezko land deal is nothing and people trying to dig up anything they can negative about the guy. There isn't anyone from Chicago who hasn't had ties to Rezko at one point or another.

macgyver06

puremagic wrote:

No, it's not just nonsense, it's fact.

1st, his inexperience. This may not have been a big deal in prior elections, but, I think the people and media will be a little more quizical in the expectation of Presidents from now on.

2nd, have you seen anything else out there regarding his voting record? No., neither have I. Yet, two years in Congress, he had to vote for and against some bills right? Yet, all we hear about is that one national issue about his opposition to the Iraq war from the start, right. Then, of course, there's that little thing with the land deal. I stand by answer, he'll have to rely too heavy on "build me up" type campaign.

He has an early opportunity, within this coming year, to make an impact on his positions through Hearings and his sitting Committee responsibilities, especially on the Iraq situation. If he can then 2008 maybe his best shot.

Look, even now, if I was advising him, I'd make this the last week of his exploratory outings til 07, no more. Chalk it up for his need to step back to enjoy the upcoming holidays with his family and friends and get ready for January. Right now, they have him on a express lane, he is becoming too overexposed, too overhyped, he's moving so fast he doesn't gather the implications of some of the photo opts he is taking. The bottomline is that nothing of substances in being said that hasn't already been heard. The endorsements can come without appearances being scheduled during the christmas and new year's holidays. Slow him down, take him out the spotlight, his biggest asset right now is his "ok kind of guy" appeal.

Just because Bush has a 71% disapproval rate, does not mean the public is going to switch party votes like they did in the Congressional races. He'll have to fight for it and the gloves will come off.

YOU SAY ITS FACT....AND THAN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE YOU SAY...''I THINK'' ...GET REAL

macgyver06

why do people now base opinions on stuff in the future...rather what has been done in the past?

human behaviors...

so weird the amount of distorted, opinionated information on these boards, proposed as fact, and taken as fact...

macgyver06

its a difference of potential and kinetic energy. Kinetic is the one that affects us all now..and no one seems to wanna fix that.. basing things on potential, and what he could do, and what might happen... and what if this and what if that...meanwhile back on the ground...everything is still moving and happening why you are trying to predict the future, it passes by you.

and im lost.....behind......the words i will never find....left behind....the seasons roll on by

jeffbr

macgyver06 wrote:

why do people now base opinions on stuff in the future...rather what has been done in the past?

human behaviors...

so weird the amount of distorted, opinionated information on these boards, proposed as fact, and taken as fact...

Well, if you can tell me how Obama did in his past presidential race, I'm happy to focus on that. Because the only presidential race of Obama's I'm aware of will occur in the future, that may help you understand why people are talking about the future. Just a thought.

That being said, puremagic nailed it.

The trouble with focusing on the past for all of the answers is that times have changed. Inexperience like Kennedy had is not going to be rewarded today. The press handles issues differently, and campaigns are run differently.

Also, it is infinitely harder to win a presidential race than a US Senate seat from your own state. You need to have a much broader message that appeals to a much broader, and more diverse base. Perhaps Obama has it but so far nobody's heard it.

As for your rant about facts, here's another clue -- when talking about future events there will be much speculation. Unless you are a seer, you will have to rely on opinion and speculation like the rest of us.

puremagic

macgyver06 wrote:

YOU SAY ITS FACT....AND THAN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE YOU SAY...''I THINK'' ...GET REAL

Noone can predict the future. The fact is clear he will be tested on his inexperience. And YES, I THINK the people and the media will more quizzical in the expectation of Presidents from now on. As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.

If that is not real enough for you, so be it. Tell me something of substance about the man that you have learned over the past few days because all the blah, blah, screaming does nothing to help spark my interest in why you feel he would make a good candidate in '08.

macgyver06

puremagic wrote:

Noone can predict the future. The fact is clear he will be tested on his inexperience. And YES, I THINK the people and the media will more quizzical in the expectation of Presidents from now on. As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.

If that is not real enough for you, so be it. Tell me something of substance about the man that you have learned over the past few days because all the blah, blah, screaming does nothing to help spark my interest in why you feel he would make a good candidate in '08.

As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.

im only 23, and i know this will never happen! lol

puremagic

ledvedderman wrote:

1) Expectations of Presidents should be high, however being an experienced executive hasn't panned out too well for GW. Not being experienced worked out quite well for JFK. It's a gamble either way. I've met a lot of people and Obama is easily at the top of them when it comes to ideas and knowing what the American public wants.

2)I don't think anyone that's been in Congress over the last couple years has much of a voting history. It's been a rubber stamp. There hasn't really been much of anything to vote for that hasn't been strictly partisan. The Rezko land deal is nothing and people trying to dig up anything they can negative about the guy. There isn't anyone from Chicago who hasn't had ties to Rezko at one point or another.

Inexperience is not necessarily about time served, it can also be about how one gets caught by the seemingly innocence of an action when it's twisted in the media.

--Everyone is not from Chicago, so old news can become new and that is a point that has to be made.

--Rubber stamping can get twisted, remember McCain and breast cancer.

--Kerry and a joke got bad?


macgyver didn't get it. The people testing the waters for Obama needs to.

macgyver06

puremagic wrote:

Inexperience is not necessarily about time served, it can also be about how one gets caught by the seemingly innocence of an action when it's twisted in the media.

--Everyone is not from Chicago, so old news can become new and that is a point that has to be made.

--Rubber stamping can get twisted, remember McCain and breast cancer.

--Kerry and a joke got bad?


macgyver didn't get it. The people testing the waters for Obama needs to.

just admit your a racist

puremagic

macgyver06 wrote:

As a voter, I WILL expect to hear more substance from ALL candidates and not just PUNCH LINES.

im only 23, and i know this will never happen! lol

No surprise here!!!!

MrBrian

macgyver06 wrote:

you think this is different than any other election?

Nope,

MrBrian

hippiemom wrote:

I'm saying that the confident tone could be enough. In the 80s, poll after poll showed that people disagreed with most of Reagan's positions, but they LOVED Reagan. After Watergate and the Carter years, people just wanted to feel good about the country, and Reagan made them feel that. After the quagmire that has been the Bush administration, people may be feeling the same way. If Obama can make them feel proud and confident, his individual policies won't matter as much to a lot of voters.

ah yeah, of course, that's what I think also.

thebleumeany

This isn't really a reply, but I can't figure out how to post a message,

I'm looking for the sheet music for "Present Tense". Anyone know where I can find it?

MrBrian

macgyver06 wrote:

weak? how

He was against the war yet voted for a person (J.Kerry) who supported the war.

That's not only weak, it's pretty pathetic. well to me anyway.

macgyver06

puremagic wrote:

No surprise here!!!!

what is no surprise?

RainDog

MrBrian wrote:

He was against the war yet voted for a person (J.Kerry) who supported the war.

That's not only weak, it's pretty pathetic. well to me anyway.

He's a member of the Democratic Party - and a rather successful one at that. After the nomination process was over, who'd you expect him to vote for?

macgyver06

jeffbr wrote:

Well, if you can tell me how Obama did in his past presidential race, I'm happy to focus on that. Because the only presidential race of Obama's I'm aware of will occur in the future, that may help you understand why people are talking about the future. Just a thought.

That being said, puremagic nailed it.

The trouble with focusing on the past for all of the answers is that times have changed. Inexperience like Kennedy had is not going to be rewarded today. The press handles issues differently, and campaigns are run differently.

Also, it is infinitely harder to win a presidential race than a US Senate seat from your own state. You need to have a much broader message that appeals to a much broader, and more diverse base. Perhaps Obama has it but so far nobody's heard it.

As for your rant about facts, here's another clue -- when talking about future events there will be much speculation. Unless you are a seer, you will have to rely on opinion and speculation like the rest of us.

sorry but i was looking for supporting facts on why he won't win..and so far


1.No experience...i asked how
2.black..lol
3.He voted for Kerry
4.he supposedly has never given speeches
5.he will be ruined by the media for wrong-doings unknown at the present time but will arrive in the futere (speculation)


this is what has come from this post..

and search the posts...these ARE FACTS

you cant twist it around

MrBrian

RainDog wrote:

He's a member of the Democratic Party - and a rather successful one at that. After the nomination process was over, who'd you expect him to vote for?

Well so what if hes a dem? he was against the war yet backed a guy who was for it.

It just seems wrong.