January 17, 200719 yr And the day the Republican party nominates a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun candidate like Guliana is the day accord comes back from Iraq and proclaims that Saddam and Osama are really good guys. :notworthy My point as well.
January 17, 200719 yr Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all.
January 17, 200719 yr Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. I'm a Republican, and I can see myself voting for him Are you implying there are more racist on the Republican party?
January 17, 200719 yr Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. Just following the "all the people that wouldnt" vote for him theory. If you do not carry the southern states, since I assume those are "the people" you refer to, you are not going to win. The Democrats could run the guy from your local Blockbuster and carry the west coast and New England, but that has not exactly worked out so hot...
January 17, 200719 yr Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. I'm a Republican, and I can see myself voting for him Are you implying there are more racist on the Republican party? Yes. That's what I am implying. Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. Just following the "all the people that wouldnt" vote for him theory. If you do not carry the southern states, since I assume those are "the people" you refer to, you are not going to win. The Democrats could run the guy from your local Blockbuster and carry the west coast and New England, but that has not exactly worked out so hot... No, that's not who I was referring to. I was referring to the extremes - people that are racist and wouldn't vote for someone who is otherwise qualified simply because he or she is black or Hispanic. Those people tend to vote Republican. And I agree with your comment about the Southern states, but only to an extent. You don't need to win all of those states. You need to win at least one, though. In 2000 if Gore had carried a single Southern state he would have won the election. In 2004, if Kerry had won Florida he would have won the election. If he had won two of the other Southern states he would have won. The winner just needs one or two Southern states. The question is whether Obama can win in Florida, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri or maybe North Carolina. I think he can win in Florida, Virginia, and Missouri. Maybe Tennessee. However, it looks like some of the mountain states may be in play for Dems. If they can pull out a win in Colorado or Arizona they can win without any Southern states.
January 17, 200719 yr Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. I'm a Republican, and I can see myself voting for him Are you implying there are more racist on the Republican party? Yes. That's what I am implying. racism is not only about kkk, or fanatical racists. there are a lot of people out there that claim they aren't not racist, but wouldn't vote for a black president. Democrats included. I think the generalisation is uncalled for
January 17, 200719 yr Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. I'm a Republican, and I can see myself voting for him Are you implying there are more racist on the Republican party? Yes. That's what I am implying. racism is not only about kkk, or fanatical racists. there are a lot of people out there that claim they aren't not racist, but wouldn't vote for a black president. Democrats included. I think the generalisation is uncalled for It's fair to say that most racists that vote lean Republican. Of course I wasn't implying that all racists are Republican or that no Democrats are racist. It's just an overall trend.
January 17, 200719 yr Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. I'm a Republican, and I can see myself voting for him Are you implying there are more racist on the Republican party? Yes. That's what I am implying. Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. Just following the "all the people that wouldnt" vote for him theory. If you do not carry the southern states, since I assume those are "the people" you refer to, you are not going to win. The Democrats could run the guy from your local Blockbuster and carry the west coast and New England, but that has not exactly worked out so hot... No, that's not who I was referring to. I was referring to the extremes - people that are racist and wouldn't vote for someone who is otherwise qualified simply because he or she is black or Hispanic. Those people tend to vote Republican. And I agree with your comment about the Southern states, but only to an extent. You don't need to win all of those states. You need to win at least one, though. In 2000 if Gore had carried a single Southern state he would have won the election. In 2004, if Kerry had won Florida he would have won the election. If he had won two of the other Southern states he would have won. The winner just needs one or two Southern states. The question is whether Obama can win in Florida, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri or maybe North Carolina. I think he can win in Florida, Virginia, and Missouri. Maybe Tennessee. However, it looks like some of the mountain states may be in play for Dems. If they can pull out a win in Colorado or Arizona they can win without any Southern states. All Obama would need to do is carry all the states Kerry got and pick up Ohio and either Florida or two other smaller states. I think the Dems will be able to carry Ohio because of the backlash Republicans have had there the last year or two.
January 17, 200719 yr And the day the Republican party nominates a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun candidate like Guliana is the day accord comes back from Iraq and proclaims that Saddam and Osama are really good guys. :notworthy My point as well. That statement is insulting to Republicans, assinine, and baseless. Democrats call African-American Republicans any number of insulting names, and even African-American Democrats refuse to vote for African American Republicans.
January 17, 200719 yr And the day the Republican party nominates a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun candidate like Guliana is the day accord comes back from Iraq and proclaims that Saddam and Osama are really good guys. :notworthy My point as well. That statement is insulting to Republicans, assinine, and baseless. Democrats call African-American Republicans any number of insulting names, and even African-American Democrats refuse to vote for African American Republicans. How is the statement insulting? The biggest base for the Republican party right now are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-gay groups. So how would the Republicans nominate Guilani?
January 17, 200719 yr Virginia has elected a black governer before and it has gotten more democratic than before. Taking Florida alone makes up for a number of states and Florida is almost always in play. DaGreatOne hit the nail on the head with Ohio. Colorado could be the southern state you guys insist on. And the day the Republican party nominates a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun candidate like Guliana is the day accord comes back from Iraq and proclaims that Saddam and Osama are really good guys. :notworthy My point as well. That statement is insulting to Republicans, assinine, and baseless. Democrats call African-American Republicans any number of insulting names, and even African-American Democrats refuse to vote for African American Republicans. First off, what does that have to do with what I said? And second, why should an African-American vote for a republican because he is African-American? Don't you think that is a bit racist?
January 17, 200719 yr I see Ohio likely going blue in 2008, especially considering the heavy gains the Dems made in the last midterms in that state. I wonder if Louisiana might go to the DNC, considering the backlash from Katrina...
January 18, 200719 yr And the day the Republican party nominates a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun candidate like Guliana is the day accord comes back from Iraq and proclaims that Saddam and Osama are really good guys. :notworthy My point as well. That statement is insulting to Republicans, assinine, and baseless. Democrats call African-American Republicans any number of insulting names, and even African-American Democrats refuse to vote for African American Republicans. How is the statement insulting? The biggest base for the Republican party right now are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-gay groups. So how would the Republicans nominate Guilani? Frankly, I hit the wrong quote button. I was responding to the statement that the GOP wouldn't vote for an African American.
January 18, 200719 yr I'm an independent voter, leaning Democrat. I've voted for a Republican for President in every election from 1976-1996, because in most elections it was the best of the worst. I finally voted Democrat in 2000 and 2004 because I thought Bush was an incompetent man with dangerous people behind him. I think he's proven that thought correct. I think the American people have shown in 2006 that they have had it with Bush, Republicans, Iraq, and compassionate conservatism. I think Obama could win. I just hope the Democrats produce some candidate that inspires rather that another drone. . . . My super-duper longshot Democrat ticket in 2008 is a Boxer-Obama quinella. You could switch them and put either on top or bottom.
January 18, 200719 yr Anyone who doesn't vote on a dude because of his name doesn't deserve to vote anyways. You want to talk about an irrelevant and idiotic reason NOT to vote for somebody. That's it.
January 18, 200719 yr You can throw history and partisan politics out the window, Rudy runs, then he'll win....book it. Most popular person in national politics A new Quinnipiac poll of 1,892 registered voters nationwide asked respondents to rank selected politicians on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being most favorable. The former mayor of New York City, a Republican who is considered a possible candidate for president in 2008, edged out Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.... Four Democrats who are considered potential presidential candidates in 2008 were also mentioned in the poll's top 10: Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards received a 50.8, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner scored 50.7, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 50.4 and Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin 49. The Newsday account linked above lists these selected figures: Hillary Clinton 50.4% Bill Clinton 56.1% Condoleezza Rice 57.1% John McCain 59.7% Barack Obama 59.9% Rudolph Giuliani 63.5%
January 18, 200719 yr I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. You mean like Dixiecrats? And I agree with your comment about the Southern states, but only to an extent. You don't need to win all of those states. You need to win at least one, though. In 2000 if Gore had carried a single Southern state he would have won the election. In 2004, if Kerry had won Florida he would have won the election. If he had won two of the other Southern states he would have won. While your scenario is true, to a point, the fact of the matter is that the Democrats need to win 4 or more Confederate states to take an election. The Confederate states I'm defining as Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The 20th-21st Presidential Elections: Confederate States Carried: 2004: 0 (loss) 2000: 0 (loss) 1996: 4 (win) 1992: 4 (win) 1988: 0 (loss) 1984: 0 (loss) 1980: 1 (loss) 1976: 9 (win) 1972: 0 (loss) 1968: 0 (loss) 1964: 4 (win) 1960: 5* (win) 1956: 6 (loss) 1952: 7 (loss) 1948: 5 (win) 1944: 9 (win) 1940: 9 (win) 1936: 9 (win) 1932: 9 (win) 1928: 6 (loss) 1924: 9 (loss) 1920: 8 (loss) 1916: 9 (win) 1912: 9 (win) 1908: 9 (loss) 1904: 9 (loss) 1900: 9 (loss) Record carrying 4 or more Confederate states: 12-8 Record carrying 3 or fewer Confederate states: 0-7 That's a pretty staggering history to try and topple. Now states change, sure. But not winning a single election in 100+ years without carrying a good chunk of those nine states? That's a pretty stone cold lock.
January 18, 200719 yr On a brighter note....I think this guy will be the next President! He used to be homeless too.... http://www.hargis.info/ Here are how the early polls look on http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc George Washington University Battleground Poll conducted by the Tarrance Group ® and Lake Research Partners (D). Jan. 8-11, 2007. Rudy Giuliani ® 53% vs. Hillary Clinton (D) 43% ................................... John McCain ® 53% Vs. Hillary Clinton (D) 43% ....................................... Rudy Giuliani ® 50% Vs. Barack Obama (D) 41% ................................... John McCain ® 51% Vs. Barack Obama (D) 39% Then there is a CNN poll that has Giuliani beating Obama 50-41% also however, the liberal biased CNN poll has Hillary beating Giuliani 48-46% !!! The Gallop poll has Rudy beating Hillary 50-45%. I think if Rudy did get the Repub. nomination, he would destroy Hillary by getting every undecided voter. Nobody hates Rudy but there are plenty of people who hate Hillary!
January 18, 200719 yr Wildmarlin, it's way too early to be relying on polls. Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt lead most of the polls for dems in 03. http://www.politics-now.com/polling/democratprimary2004b.htm. A lot of things can change a poll. This becomes magnified when the two nominees are made. Bush sr. was way down to Dukakis in the 88 polls and then crushed him. Juanky, don't you think it's a bad idea to make an analysis on elections from 40 years ago let alone a 100 years ago? The Democrats used to carry the south because they were the party of the south back then. A lot of states are now much more solid blue than they used to be, even when Clinton was running. NY and Cali are much more reliable then they used to be. The dynamic of the country has changed.
January 18, 200719 yr Wildmarlin, it's way too early to be relying on polls. Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt lead most of the polls for dems in 03. http://www.politics-now.com/polling/democratprimary2004b.htm. A lot of things can change a poll. This becomes magnified when the two nominees are made. Bush sr. was way down to Dukakis in the 88 polls and then crushed him. Juanky, don't you think it's a bad idea to make an analysis on elections from 40 years ago let alone a 100 years ago? The Democrats used to carry the south because they were the party of the south back then. A lot of states are now much more solid blue than they used to be, even when Clinton was running. NY and Cali are much more reliable then they used to be. The dynamic of the country has changed. Who said I'm relying on polls? Just showing some facts as of today.
January 18, 200719 yr Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. I'm a Republican, and I can see myself voting for him Are you implying there are more racist on the Republican party? Yes. That's what I am implying. Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. So true. I would describe myself as a Democrat who is very pro-death penalty/abortion rights and I would be very open minded to voting for a black president but does anyone on here really believe that he has ANY shot of getting elected? I think he's got a shot of getting elected. All the people that wouldn't vote for him because he's black don't vote for democrats anyway. I think the independents (the swing voters) wouldn't consider his race at all. Just following the "all the people that wouldnt" vote for him theory. If you do not carry the southern states, since I assume those are "the people" you refer to, you are not going to win. The Democrats could run the guy from your local Blockbuster and carry the west coast and New England, but that has not exactly worked out so hot... No, that's not who I was referring to. I was referring to the extremes - people that are racist and wouldn't vote for someone who is otherwise qualified simply because he or she is black or Hispanic. Those people tend to vote Republican. And I agree with your comment about the Southern states, but only to an extent. You don't need to win all of those states. You need to win at least one, though. In 2000 if Gore had carried a single Southern state he would have won the election. In 2004, if Kerry had won Florida he would have won the election. If he had won two of the other Southern states he would have won. The winner just needs one or two Southern states. The question is whether Obama can win in Florida, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri or maybe North Carolina. I think he can win in Florida, Virginia, and Missouri. Maybe Tennessee. However, it looks like some of the mountain states may be in play for Dems. If they can pull out a win in Colorado or Arizona they can win without any Southern states. So most racists are republicans and all independents are sound minded fair voters with absolutely no personal bias? Yep, that makes sense.
January 18, 200719 yr Juanky, don't you think it's a bad idea to make an analysis on elections from 40 years ago let alone a 100 years ago? The Democrats used to carry the south because they were the party of the south back then. A lot of states are now much more solid blue than they used to be, even when Clinton was running. NY and Cali are much more reliable then they used to be. The dynamic of the country has changed. Nope, I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Hundred years ago maybe. But 40? Not at all. Our core issues have always been the same (since the country's birth) and they are especially similar to what we had 40-50 years ago. Besides, if it was close, I might give it to you. But not a single one? Nu-uh.
January 18, 200719 yr Juanky, don't you think it's a bad idea to make an analysis on elections from 40 years ago let alone a 100 years ago? The Democrats used to carry the south because they were the party of the south back then. A lot of states are now much more solid blue than they used to be, even when Clinton was running. NY and Cali are much more reliable then they used to be. The dynamic of the country has changed. Nope, I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Hundred years ago maybe. But 40? Not at all. Our core issues have always been the same (since the country's birth) and they are especially similar to what we had 40-50 years ago. Besides, if it was close, I might give it to you. But not a single one? Nu-uh. Any statistical model has to take into account actual results, especially with the limited number of samples you're using here. A chunck of votes in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 shift and all of a sudden the model flips. I think the more accurate model is that the person who wins 2/3 in between Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida pretty much wins the election. And such a scenario is not always dependent on the type of candidate. Election officials who run the state(Ken Blackwell in 04), issues within the state(Hurricane Andrew in 92), and other major issues(a candidate screwing up at the last second costing him votes). Youre probably right in that the type of guy who can go into the Republican held south and win 3 states is the type of candidate who can win it all in a romp. But if those vote switches happen, then one could say that a Republican has to win 3 New England states to win it all. Nobody ever suggests that. The problem is that blowout elections tend to scew perception. Close elections can be a better assessment. And that is not the only strategy a person can take. If you are John Kerry's campaign manager in 04, do you tell him to work his but off to try and switch 3 different long shot southern states or work his butt off in Ohio and switch one close state? Regardless, I think theyll be gunning for Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida as the three southern states they hope to switch.
January 18, 200719 yr Rightly or wrongly, hell will freeze over before the American population elects a black man with such an ethnic name to the office of president. I'm not so sure. Depends on the competition. I think Colin Powell would've had a relatively good shot at winning, had he entered the race last election. And yes he'd have some hurdles to clear in the south, but when you think about the black vote he might turn out... I'll say this: I think a black man will be elected president before a woman (white, black, or otherwise) will. I'm on the Obama wagon so far. To answer Don's question, sure I think he has a legit chance.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.