Why Obama Can't win

macgyver06

I FORGOT!! one guy said his middle name will lose him the election

macgyver06

MrBrian wrote:

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

It just seems wrong.

a fake war isnt a major issue to anyone but fake republicans.

MrBrian

macgyver06 wrote:

a fake war isnt a major issue to anyone but fake republicans.

well then, I sure hope the 100.000 plus innocent lives were not really lost in this fake war.

macgyver06

MrBrian wrote:

well then, I sure hope the 100.000 plus innocent lives were not really lost in this fake war.

yup..i dont care about that..
???

do you realize all the information presented to us and presented to the world of WMDs was a lie, false, fabricated.

that is what John Kerry voted for....not a WAR WITH IRAQ

dude comon...

macgyver06

no one voted for this war...

jeffbr

macgyver06 wrote:

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


1.No experience...i asked how

How about 'little experience'? He obviously has some experience, but as has been addressed in this thread a number of times, the experience he has may not be sufficient for voters in this election. 8 years as a state senator and a couple as a US Senator is a pretty weak resume. It is certainly a valid point, which you seem to be dismissing.

macgyver06 wrote:

2.black..lol

You laugh, and I may think it is ridiculous as well, but the fact is there has never been a black president. So, again, not sure why you are dismissing this as a valid point. There are, unfortunately, many people in this country who wouldn't vote for him because of his race.

macgyver06 wrote:

3.He voted for Kerry

This may or may not be relevant. Most people who wouldn't vote for him, wouldn't vote for him because of party affiliation or either of the above 2 points. Most people who would vote for him would vote for him because of party affiliation, so this would be less significant.

macgyver06 wrote:

4.he supposedly has never given speeches

We know he has. NCFan just posted an AIDS Day speech that was full of bible and church references that should sit well with some folks and not so well with others.

macgyver06 wrote:

5.he will be ruined by the media for wrong-doings unknown at the present time but will arrive in the futere (speculation)

I agree, total speculation. I hope no press latches onto trivial things. It is nearly impossible to find someone with a spotless history, and stupid things have a way of cropping up.

So as far as you list goes, you seem to be dismissing a couple of very relevant points without responding intelligently to any of them. So I will ask you to respond directly to a couple of questions using facts:

1. What evidence do you have to factually demonstrate that America will elect a black president?

2. What evidence do you have to factually demonstrate that America does not require demonstrated political leadership experience in a president?

RainDog

MrBrian wrote:

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

It just seems wrong.

I don't see it that way. I'm opposed to the war, too, yet I voted for John Kerry. Sometimes it really is the lesser of two evils - and, without question, Kerry would be a better president than Bush. And I seriously doubt that if it were his decision, Kerry would have called for the invasion of Iraq.

I imagine Dennis Kucinich, who's anti-war as all hell, probably voted for Kerry, too.

There are only two parties in this country that are capable of winning the office of President, for better or worse. And, when you play in the majors, you're expected to support the majors. I suppose he could be a third party candidate - but then we wouldn't even be talking about him right now. Until our election system is changed, people with different ideas about how the world should work will invariably end up under the same party banner.

macgyver06

jeffbr wrote:

How about 'little experience'? He obviously has some experience, but as has been addressed in this thread a number of times, the experience he has may not be sufficient for voters in this election. 8 years as a state senator and a couple as a US Senator is a pretty weak resume. It is certainly a valid point, which you seem to be dismissing.


You laugh, and I may think it is ridiculous as well, but the fact is there has never been a black president. So, again, not sure why you are dismissing this as a valid point. There are, unfortunately, many people in this country who wouldn't vote for him because of his race.


This may or may not be relevant. Most people who wouldn't vote for him, wouldn't vote for him because of party affiliation or either of the above 2 points. Most people who would vote for him would vote for him because of party affiliation, so this would be less significant.


We know he has. NCFan just posted an AIDS Day speech that was full of bible and church references that should sit well with some folks and not so well with others.



I agree, total speculation. I hope no press latches onto trivial things. It is nearly impossible to find someone with a spotless history, and stupid things have a way of cropping up.

So as far as you list goes, you seem to be dismissing a couple of very relevant points without responding intelligently to any of them. So I will ask you to respond directly to a couple of questions using facts:

1. What evidence do you have to factually demonstrate that America will elect a black president?

2. What evidence do you have to factually demonstrate that America does not require demonstrated political leadership experience in a president?

i will not answer seriously opininated questions on a chat board.. and keep the title of this post in mind...its not...reasons he will win.

macgyver06

finally a view though


1. He will not win because 8 years as an American Citizen and a Senator is a weak resume.

2. He is Black. Many people in this country are still racist.


this a good list of reason from this post so far?

macgyver06

lol ya i know...i put american citizen in there im a dumbass

floyd1975

Campaign Finance Reform has killed his hopes of beating Senator Clinton unless he finds a huge house to mortgage.

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

Campaign Finance Reform has killed his hopes of beating Senator Clinton unless he finds a huge house to mortgage.

Nah. All that free publicity from Lie-beral MSM will allow him to save his funds for emergencies. Besides, I didn't think the whole CFR played a part in the primaries - I thought it was for the last two months of the general.

floyd1975

RainDog wrote:

Nah. All that free publicity from Lie-beral MSM will allow him to save his funds for emergencies. Besides, I didn't think the whole CFR played a part in the primaries - I thought it was for the last two months of the general.

It plays a bigger part in the primaries with regards to the donations that people can accept. Nobody has privately financed a general election before. Bush was the first one able to privately fund his primary campaign and not accept matching funds. Kerry had the self funding needed to do so in 2004. Clinton already is closing in on the money needed for 2008. It will take a personally rich candidate to beat her fundraising edge. Forget about allowing non-wealthy governors to run for President anymore. McCain and Feingold fixed that little problem by only allowing Federal officeholders to transfer their campaign accounts over to a Presidential campaign account.

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/Pollsters/DavidHill/112906.html

NCfan

I doubt there are any anyalist, pundits or commentators (with credibility) that think Obama can't win for any variety of reasons. At this point, nobody knows for certain that he can't win. To the contrary, his position is lookin quite good.

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

It plays a bigger part in the primaries with regards to the donations that people can accept. Nobody has privately financed a general election before. Bush was the first one able to privately fund his primary campaign and not accept matching funds. Kerry had the self funding needed to do so in 2004. Clinton already is closing in on the money needed for 2008. It will take a personally rich candidate to beat her fundraising edge. Forget about allowing non-wealthy governors to run for President anymore. McCain and Feingold fixed that little problem by only allowing Federal officeholders to transfer their campaign accounts over to a Presidential campaign account.

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/Pollsters/DavidHill/112906.html

Still doesn't make me want to go back. So we replaced one system where only a rich person can win with another system where only a rich person can win. I say, outlaw donations all together, outlaw people from using their own money, and make candidates sign up for public funds for both the primary and the general.

Aside from that, though, Obama is still getting more free publicity than he could have ever hoped for (or wanted as the case may be).

MrBrian

RainDog wrote:

I don't see it that way. I'm opposed to the war, too, yet I voted for John Kerry. Sometimes it really is the lesser of two evils - and, without question, Kerry would be a better president than Bush. And I seriously doubt that if it were his decision, Kerry would have called for the invasion of Iraq.

I imagine Dennis Kucinich, who's anti-war as all hell, probably voted for Kerry, too.

There are only two parties in this country that are capable of winning the office of President, for better or worse. And, when you play in the majors, you're expected to support the majors. I suppose he could be a third party candidate - but then we wouldn't even be talking about him right now. Until our election system is changed, people with different ideas about how the world should work will invariably end up under the same party banner.

Of course, you are right.

But I just don't see how it (the system) will change if we keep on feeding it. if we always vote for the lesser of two evils, that's all we'll ever get.

floyd1975

RainDog wrote:

Still doesn't make me want to go back. So we replaced one system where only a rich person can win with another system where only a rich person can win. I say, outlaw donations all together, outlaw people from using their own money, and make candidates sign up for public funds for both the primary and the general.

Aside from that, though, Obama is still getting more free publicity than he could have ever hoped for (or wanted as the case may be).

While doing that you should outlaw the newspapers and internet since they cover these things. This message board would have to be outlawed since we have discourse on these topics. You can't advocate a candidate in your system since it really isn't fair to those without a computer.

Bill Clinton was not personally rich but what the incumbency reelection act did was outlaw his ability to stay competitive in a primary race. Good thing for him and his wife that he came along before the free speech was repealed.

RainDog

MrBrian wrote:

Of course, you are right.

But I just don't see how it (the system) will change if we keep on feeding it. if we always vote for the lesser of two evils, that's all we'll ever get.

The way our election system works, that's all we're ever going to get. If you vote third party (which I do encourage and do often myself) the best you can hope for is for that party to grow strong enough to overtake one of the major two, relegate that major party to third party status, and take it's place as one of two major parties - with all the corruption, incompetence and what-not we've come to expect from many of our major party politicians. Proportional representation would be a great way to remedy this, as would a more procedural change like Instant Run-off Voting.

However, proportional representation would require a Constitutional amendment - which is harder than hell to do even with majority support; and Instant Run-off Voting would require a major popular movement. I'm all for either.

Until one of those things happens (or a third way I haven't thought of), I'm not going to decry what may be a good presidential contender (one that actually reflects many of my feelings on issues) simply because he supported a member of his own team.

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

While doing that you should outlaw the newspapers and internet since they cover these things. This message board would have to be outlawed since we have discourse on these topics. You can't advocate a candidate in your system since it really isn't fair to those without a computer.

Bill Clinton was not personally rich but what the incumbency reelection act did was outlaw his ability to stay competitive in a primary race. Good thing for him and his wife that he came along before the free speech was repealed.

What I suggested wouldn't require any of the things you brought up in this post. But I see you said "should" instead of "need to." So even if I should, I wouldn't.

floyd1975

RainDog wrote:

What I suggested wouldn't require any of the things you brought up in this post. But I see you said "should" instead of "need to." So even if I should, I wouldn't.

Then I can see that fair elections don't really mean much here. All that really matters is a competitive advantage for those who are not hated by your side.