• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama for VP?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.
And once again, here we have the real hate.

I've voted Democratic in every single Presidential election since I was eligible to vote in one (1992). Exactly how does that make me "Bushite?"
I am pro-Obama, because that's because (1) I think he's the BETTER choice, and (2) I've already voted for and lived through a Clinton Presidency, I know what that is like, and I believe that we can do better in the future. See, no hate here. I
Well, as someone older and more experienced then you I can say that I often wondered how good of a POTUS Bill Clinton would have been if he didn't have to deal with a Republican controlled House and Senate tat were clearly out to get him on any little thing they could find. That is why I give Hillary the experience edge. Both her and Bill were put through the mill like nobody I've ever known has been.

I seriously considered Obama, but in the end I don't see him as being a very effective POTUS because so much of his support are the same dumb asses that elected Bush and that once they get him elected their support will vanish into thin air. Indeed they will do their best to put him through the same grinder they did Bill.

It's just the nature of the game.

We need someone who knows how to deal
Me too, but somebody who doesn't deal from the bottom and somebody dealing a different game.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,699
9,899
136
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, you're wrong about the Pubs wanting Hillary because they think she's easier to beat. Hopefully, you'll catch on as to what they're really doing as they continue to bounce back and forth between Hillary and Obama until August. Here's a hint: they're laughing their heads off at this thread.
I've actually been thinking all of today that I bet the Republicans are having a grand time watching the Democrats implode with this infighting. It's hard to believe that the Dems aren't run by a bunch of amateurs.
As far as Republican insiders are concerned, McCain won the Presidency last night. And with this Dem infighting almost certain to continue all the way, they're not even concerned about keeping momentum. They can just sit back and watch the Dem implosion. I am pissed.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.
And once again, here we have the real hate.

I've voted Democratic in every single Presidential election since I was eligible to vote in one (1992). Exactly how does that make me "Bushite?"
I am pro-Obama, because that's because (1) I think he's the BETTER choice, and (2) I've already voted for and lived through a Clinton Presidency, I know what that is like, and I believe that we can do better in the future. See, no hate here. I
Vic, not you specifically. Even though we disagree at times, but I think you're more classy than the throng of Obotsma that's spewing the hate that we're all seeing that you're refusing to acknowledge.
There's only a handful of pro-Obama 'Hillary Haters' here. The rest of us 'democrat voting Obama supporters' are only angry at Hillary because 1) she's stooped to dirty, mudslinging tactics while Obama's taken the high road and 2) we don't think she can defeat McCain and don't want to see another 4 years under the (R) party. As has been pointed out over and over - there's not a huge difference in their stance on policies. That said, I think Obama has the far superior charisma needed to mend the fences between party lines in this country and the great rift between the US and our 'allies'.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,699
9,899
136
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Dari

The point went straight over your head. Hillary could've been a 25 cents a blow prostitute, but if she marries the President that changes everything? She didn't earn the right to represent America like all the hard-working Americans working in government.
Nice sexism, douche-bag!
Pfft... that's not sexism. I'd say the same thing even if it were a same-sex marriage.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, you're wrong about the Pubs wanting Hillary because they think she's easier to beat. Hopefully, you'll catch on as to what they're really doing as they continue to bounce back and forth between Hillary and Obama until August. Here's a hint: they're laughing their heads off at this thread.
I've actually been thinking all of today that I bet the Republicans are having a grand time watching the Democrats implode with this infighting. It's hard to believe that the Dems aren't run by a bunch of amateurs.
As far as Republican insiders are concerned, McCain won the Presidency last night. And with this Dem infighting almost certain to continue all the way, they're not even concerned about keeping momentum. They can just sit back and watch the Dem implosion. I am pissed.
Blame the 67% of dems who wanted the race to continue even if Hillary lost either TX or OH, including the over 40% of Obama supporters.

 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
819
47
91
Things are getting a little off topic here. We all know the party is pretty evenly split. This thread isn't so we can hurl insults at each other, it's to discuss the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Does anybody deny this would be a winning ticket that would re-unite the party?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.
You like to use your made-up word Obostma as much as possible in the hopes that it'll catch on - we get it. Just FYI though - it's not going to catch on, mostly because it's lame. Maybe give it a rest?
No, not really, I thought it's cute playing on the Obotsma and Oblahma thing, in an effort to keep even with Paulbots, Hildabeast, bitch, cvnt, wh0re, Billary, etc...

You dig?
Only the 'Paulbot' term represents a group and they earned the term by constant spamming of P&N when the guy didn't have a snowballs chance. The rest of those terms are specifically directed at Hillary and only by a handful of people. A few of them (cvnt/wh0re) I haven't even seen used here. So who are you keeping even with?
Is this the only political forums you read? If it is, I suggest a few other places, start with www.google.com
I read here and I read links from here. I don't hang on other forums so I'm talking about here. And FWIW I'm sure there's plenty of racist hate being spewed at Obama based on his skin color and muslim father. Does that mean everyone here who dislikes Obama is now lumped in with them.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.
And once again, here we have the real hate.

I've voted Democratic in every single Presidential election since I was eligible to vote in one (1992). Exactly how does that make me "Bushite?"
I am pro-Obama, because that's because (1) I think he's the BETTER choice, and (2) I've already voted for and lived through a Clinton Presidency, I know what that is like, and I believe that we can do better in the future. See, no hate here. I
Vic, not you specifically. Even though we disagree at times, but I think you're more classy than the throng of Obotsma that's spewing the hate that we're all seeing that you're refusing to acknowledge.
There's only a handful of pro-Obama 'Hillary Haters' here. The rest of us 'democrat voting Obama supporters' are only angry at Hillary because 1) she's stooped to dirty, mudslinging tactics while Obama's taken the high road and 2) we don't think she can defeat McCain and don't want to see another 4 years under the (R) party. As has been pointed out over and over - there's not a huge difference in their stance on policies. That said, I think Obama has the far superior charisma needed to mend the fences between party lines in this country and the great rift between the US and our 'allies'.
Lies. Everyone who opposes Hillary hates women, or is a sucker easily swayed by a pretty speech.

Between those oft-repeated statements and the work the Democrats do every election to alienate gun owners and the religious... *shakes head* If this was an action movie, I'd be tempted to root for the bad guys just so the dumbassery of the good guys doesn't get rewarded.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk

A cornerstone of her support comes from people who want a fighter in DC and they don't think Obama is a strong fighter, as much as he is a good negotiator. If her "argument" is crap because you disagree with it, then Obama's entire campaign is crap as it's based on some illusory "change" that he promises.
This is the linchpin of her campaign however. If you have noticed the patterns over the last few weeks re:Dem primaries, you will see that a great deal of people are being turned off by all of the "fighter" tactics being employed by the Clinton campaign. They are starting to see that a fighter is nice in the ring or on your side in a court case, but it's a horrible thing to be as a leader.

You don't want or need a fighter, you need someone that can make a reasoned, rational argument to get a majority of people over to your side to accomplish goals. As much as I hate them, the majority of people in the current administration are fighters. They have shown a propensity to do whatever it takes and fight as dirty as possible to get 'er done. How's that working out for the country?

Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had the right mindset even if I don't agree with their policies. That is the mindset of getting enough people to like you or at the very least listen to you long enough to get your agenda through. Bashing people like Ivan Drago every chance you get makes for a great Rocky movie but it is a horrible way to run a business and an even worse way to run a country.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,375
25,131
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, you're wrong about the Pubs wanting Hillary because they think she's easier to beat. Hopefully, you'll catch on as to what they're really doing as they continue to bounce back and forth between Hillary and Obama until August. Here's a hint: they're laughing their heads off at this thread.
I've actually been thinking all of today that I bet the Republicans are having a grand time watching the Democrats implode with this infighting. It's hard to believe that the Dems aren't run by a bunch of amateurs.
As far as Republican insiders are concerned, McCain won the Presidency last night. And with this Dem infighting almost certain to continue all the way, they're not even concerned about keeping momentum. They can just sit back and watch the Dem implosion. I am pissed.
Give me a break. You people are getting all hysterical over absolutely nothing. Who are these republican insiders who think that McCain won the presidency? I'd love to know... because I want to know who the total morons are.

Tell me why this infighting is 'almost certain to continue all the way'. (to the actual election I presume) Just because the Democrats will be choosing their nominee a month or two later then the Republicans means nothing in an election cycle that is the better part of a year.

If anyone really thinks that the Democrats' chances of victory in November depend on having all the primary challengers drop out in the beginning of March, they are sadly sadly mistaken.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
They did a scenario on a local radio show here yesterday that gave Hillary the win in all 16 remaining votes. Even if she wins them all, she will still not have the electoral votes necessary to win. Super Delegates would be her only way to win. Would they take the win from Obama and give it to her? Very doubtful.

Obama cannot get enough delegates to reach the required number either. The rules say you need 2025 delegates to win the nomination. Hillary has positioned herself as the better candidate since she has shown she has a better chance to win key battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan.
Florida and Michigan? (sigh) /shakes head
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: RY62
Things are getting a little off topic here. We all know the party is pretty evenly split. This thread isn't so we can hurl insults at each other, it's to discuss the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Does anybody deny this would be a winning ticket that would re-unite the party?
I deny.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, you're wrong about the Pubs wanting Hillary because they think she's easier to beat. Hopefully, you'll catch on as to what they're really doing as they continue to bounce back and forth between Hillary and Obama until August. Here's a hint: they're laughing their heads off at this thread.
I've actually been thinking all of today that I bet the Republicans are having a grand time watching the Democrats implode with this infighting. It's hard to believe that the Dems aren't run by a bunch of amateurs.
As far as Republican insiders are concerned, McCain won the Presidency last night. And with this Dem infighting almost certain to continue all the way, they're not even concerned about keeping momentum. They can just sit back and watch the Dem implosion. I am pissed.
Give me a break. You people are getting all hysterical over absolutely nothing. Who are these republican insiders who think that McCain won the presidency? I'd love to know... because I want to know who the total morons are.

Tell me why this infighting is 'almost certain to continue all the way'. (to the actual election I presume) Just because the Democrats will be choosing their nominee a month or two later then the Republicans means nothing in an election cycle that is the better part of a year.

If anyone really thinks that the Democrats' chances of victory in November depend on having all the primary challengers drop out in the beginning of March, they are sadly sadly mistaken.
Who's getting hysterical? My main post in this thread was to tell someone that the term he coined sounded idiotic.

Consolidation of the party's leadership as early as possible is pretty important. Not only are the two frontrunners eating away at their finances trying to beat each other, they're also obliged to keep gabbing at each other - providing the other side with loads of material to use against them in the months ahead. Not to mention that this isn't going to be a cakewalk of an election and that the Democrats don't need a half-hearted effort from party loyalists who switched over to the eventual winner at the last moment.

McCain's wisely gone mostly silent while the Repubs pile together money to fight the coming election. Senator Kerry's campaign was a great lesson in saying too little; this election might be a study in what happens when you say too much. Obama and Clinton alike are starting to tread into this area.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Lies. Everyone who opposes Hillary hates women, or is a sucker easily swayed by a pretty speech.

Between those oft-repeated statements and the work the Democrats do every election to alienate gun owners and the religious... *shakes head* If this was an action movie, I'd be tempted to root for the bad guys just so the dumbassery of the good guys doesn't get rewarded.
So true. And I'm getting pretty sick and tired of hearing how ignorant and gullible I am because I'm following Obama down the yellow brick road of hope, change, and fairy dust.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: sirjonk

A cornerstone of her support comes from people who want a fighter in DC and they don't think Obama is a strong fighter, as much as he is a good negotiator. If her "argument" is crap because you disagree with it, then Obama's entire campaign is crap as it's based on some illusory "change" that he promises.
This is the linchpin of her campaign however. If you have noticed the patterns over the last few weeks re:Dem primaries, you will see that a great deal of people are being turned off by all of the "fighter" tactics being employed by the Clinton campaign. They are starting to see that a fighter is nice in the ring or on your side in a court case, but it's a horrible thing to be as a leader.

You don't want or need a fighter, you need someone that can make a reasoned, rational argument to get a majority of people over to your side to accomplish goals. As much as I hate them, the majority of people in the current administration are fighters. They have shown a propensity to do whatever it takes and fight as dirty as possible to get 'er done. How's that working out for the country?

Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had the right mindset even if I don't agree with their policies. That is the mindset of getting enough people to like you or at the very least listen to you long enough to get your agenda through. Bashing people like Ivan Drago every chance you get makes for a great Rocky movie but it is a horrible way to run a business and an even worse way to run a country.
that's not really what I see at all.

she won a majority of the last minute deciders -- those who decided after she really started criticizing Obama.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Originally posted by: RY62
Things are getting a little off topic here. We all know the party is pretty evenly split. This thread isn't so we can hurl insults at each other, it's to discuss the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Does anybody deny this would be a winning ticket that would re-unite the party?
You can't pick a VP who wouldn't make as good a President as McCain after you tell the world that fact.
 

dennilfloss

Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Oct 21, 1999
30,549
10
0
dennilfloss.blogspot.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sirjonk

Both of course, with one side a bit more virulent in their dislike of the other side's candidate. Do I need to post the thousand hate filled rants from dozens of posters against Hillary the evil satanic bitch?
I don't care what you're reading on other sites.

Funny you don't see those kind of posts from me (or even on ATPN that I've seen, but I don't bother to read them all) though but I get labeled just the same...
I'm talking about this site. There's like 5 pro-hillary posters and the rest are obama. No, generally not from you. You pretty much post reason/logic based arguments. But if you are seriously saying you haven't seen the hundreds of posts calling her a bitch or wishing she'd die or get raped with a baseball bat, then you definitely have not been looking around here.
That should have been your first clue. Maybe you're too young and haven't been around long enough to understand American politics, but a lot of people felt the same way about Bill too. While I liked Bill and voted for Bill, I'd rather not keep reliving this cycle of partisan bickering and hatred over and over again, particular when there is a clear, electable, and worthy alternative right in front of us.
Way to change the argument. Maybe you're too old and multple threads confuse you now but we were discussing your claim about how Hillary supporters are bigger "haters" than Obama supporters. I said both sides have attack dog members. Do a search for "bitch" on P&N. Then get back to me. Here's a 2 second sample:

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
and I won't vote for that cackling sellout bitch.
Originally posted by: shinerburke
People are harsh towards HRC not because she is a woman, but because she is an arrogant power hungry soulless bitch.
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

I hope that bitch is toast...
Originally posted by: nullzero
Hillary is one mean bitch
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

She's a mean, evil bitch, what the hell did you expect, she's turning on the media now...
Originally posted by: smack Down

Well thats ok that bitch doesn't have any real power
Plus hundreds more, order now! So, still sticking by your claim we don't see "those types of posts" on P&N?
:roll:

If we could search back far enough, I'm more than sure that we could find posts from shinerburke and Pliablemoose saying similar things about Bill while he was in office. They're anti-Clinton Republicans.

The posters being called "haters" in this thread are pro-Obama Democrats.
Well, at least those guys should get it right.:p
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
819
47
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: RY62
Things are getting a little off topic here. We all know the party is pretty evenly split. This thread isn't so we can hurl insults at each other, it's to discuss the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Does anybody deny this would be a winning ticket that would re-unite the party?
You can't pick a VP who wouldn't make as good a President as McCain after you tell the world that fact.
Why not? She'd be better than McCain and he'd bring his followers to unite it all. Problem solved.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,375
25,131
136
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, you're wrong about the Pubs wanting Hillary because they think she's easier to beat. Hopefully, you'll catch on as to what they're really doing as they continue to bounce back and forth between Hillary and Obama until August. Here's a hint: they're laughing their heads off at this thread.
I've actually been thinking all of today that I bet the Republicans are having a grand time watching the Democrats implode with this infighting. It's hard to believe that the Dems aren't run by a bunch of amateurs.
As far as Republican insiders are concerned, McCain won the Presidency last night. And with this Dem infighting almost certain to continue all the way, they're not even concerned about keeping momentum. They can just sit back and watch the Dem implosion. I am pissed.
Give me a break. You people are getting all hysterical over absolutely nothing. Who are these republican insiders who think that McCain won the presidency? I'd love to know... because I want to know who the total morons are.

Tell me why this infighting is 'almost certain to continue all the way'. (to the actual election I presume) Just because the Democrats will be choosing their nominee a month or two later then the Republicans means nothing in an election cycle that is the better part of a year.

If anyone really thinks that the Democrats' chances of victory in November depend on having all the primary challengers drop out in the beginning of March, they are sadly sadly mistaken.
Who's getting hysterical? My main post in this thread was to tell someone that the term he coined sounded idiotic.

Consolidation of the party's leadership as early as possible is pretty important. Not only are the two frontrunners eating away at their finances trying to beat each other, they're also obliged to keep gabbing at each other - providing the other side with loads of material to use against them in the months ahead. Not to mention that this isn't going to be a cakewalk of an election and that the Democrats don't need a half-hearted effort from party loyalists who switched over to the eventual winner at the last moment.

McCain's wisely gone mostly silent while the Repubs pile together money to fight the coming election. Senator Kerry's campaign was a great lesson in saying too little; this election might be a study in what happens when you say too much. Obama and Clinton alike are starting to tread into this area.
I sincerely doubt that a single candidate would be raising the sort of cash that both are together. Between the two of them they raised over $80 million last quarter. John McCain, the presumptive nominee, raised $12 million. (or so) You could make the argument that this is actually giving the Democrats a fundraising advantage, not to mention domination of the news cycle.

And what do you mean half hearted effort from party loyalists? That's what every presidential election entails. Most times the primary is decided in the early running, and the winning candidate is usually only topping out at ~30% or so. That means most people in the party weren't voting for him. The candidates are also not providing the opposition with much material they weren't going to have or use anyway. Do you really think the Republicans need the Democrats to do opposition research for them? I guarantee you they have a list of things a mile long for both candidates with or without help from the Democrats.

Anyways I wasn't specifically calling you out for being hysterical, I was calling out a lot of people in this tread for it though.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,333
791
126
Originally posted by: SSSnail
QUIT YOUR FRIGGING HATE! DAMN!

Everywhere I look, every political blog, every single Obotsma posts has been Clinton bashing, Clinton hating. ENOUGH!

Enough with the hate, enough with the idiocy. Clinton wins big in battleground states and BIG GINORMOUS STATES that carry a lot of electoral colleges, if you're a true Dem, and not just an Obotsma, you'd think differently.

I bet you that most of the gen-X (that's right, the GEN-X VOTES), naive voters don't even know where to begin with politics, let alone having a thought for themselves. Most of them don't even respect their mother, so it's understandably that they would lynch Clinton. YOU fit that category. Yes, that's you. Look in the mirror. And don't even get me started on the blacks and Oprah votes.

Look deep within yourself, isn't it time you grow up?
Shes won two swing states, Ohio and Florida*. Obama has won two swing states, VA and Missouri. Doesnt matter if she wins NY or CA, they are voting Dem in the general doesnt matter if its Obama or Clinton. Texas isnt going to go Dem. Clinton wont even step foot in the state if she gets the nomination. Florida would be a toss up if the conduct another primary which looks extremely likely.

Obama netted MORE delegates out of VA, than Clinton has out of Ohio, TX and RI COMBINED.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I sincerely doubt that a single candidate would be raising the sort of cash that both are together. Between the two of them they raised over $80 million LAST MONTH!. John McCain, the presumptive nominee, raised $12 million. (or so) You could make the argument that this is actually giving the Democrats a fundraising advantage, not to mention domination of the news cycle.
Fixed!

McCains's probably gonna grab the 100M in public financing anyway.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: yllus
Lies. Everyone who opposes Hillary hates women, or is a sucker easily swayed by a pretty speech.

Between those oft-repeated statements and the work the Democrats do every election to alienate gun owners and the religious... *shakes head* If this was an action movie, I'd be tempted to root for the bad guys just so the dumbassery of the good guys doesn't get rewarded.
So true. And I'm getting pretty sick and tired of hearing how ignorant and gullible I am because I'm following Obama down the yellow brick road of hope, change, and fairy dust.
Hope is great, it just not legal tender. Hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets full the quickest.

You just as well tell me you're going to vote for Obama because he has pretty eyes.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: RY62
Things are getting a little off topic here. We all know the party is pretty evenly split. This thread isn't so we can hurl insults at each other, it's to discuss the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Does anybody deny this would be a winning ticket that would re-unite the party?
You can't pick a VP who wouldn't make as good a President as McCain after you tell the world that fact.
Why not? She'd be better than McCain and he'd bring his followers to unite it all. Problem solved.
It's already been asked but why should Obama - the candidate who is leading the race - give up his quest and join under the Hillary flag?
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,333
791
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I sincerely doubt that a single candidate would be raising the sort of cash that both are together. Between the two of them they raised over $80 million LAST MONTH!. John McCain, the presumptive nominee, raised $12 million. (or so) You could make the argument that this is actually giving the Democrats a fundraising advantage, not to mention domination of the news cycle.
Fixed!

McCains's probably gonna grab the 100M in public financing anyway.
I dont know. There is a LOT of money yet to be tapped among GOP Donors.

Now that someone has been made official there will be some money go to McCain. Bush can also help him in this area. He can go raise millions in TX, and Florida for McCain.

Also Obama and Clinton are blowing all their money against eachother. They arent going to have much of an advantage.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,375
25,131
136
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I sincerely doubt that a single candidate would be raising the sort of cash that both are together. Between the two of them they raised over $80 million LAST MONTH!. John McCain, the presumptive nominee, raised $12 million. (or so) You could make the argument that this is actually giving the Democrats a fundraising advantage, not to mention domination of the news cycle.
Fixed!

McCains's probably gonna grab the 100M in public financing anyway.
I dont know. There is a LOT of money yet to be tapped among GOP Donors.

Now that someone has been made official there will be some money go to McCain. Bush can also help him in this area. He can go raise millions in TX, and Florida for McCain.

Also Obama and Clinton are blowing all their money against eachother. They arent going to have much of an advantage.
What is this based on? McCain has been the assured nominee for a month now, including nearly all of February as everyone knew after Romney dropped out that it was over. If you look at the donation profiles of the democratic candidates their fundraising is coming from tons of small donors, very few of whom are at their maximum donation limit. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that Democratic fundraising will slow down... if anything it has been increasing.

There certainly is a lot of money untapped for GOP donors, but McCain's fundraising is already so anemic that even if he doubles his current rate, he's still in a huge hole. I can see no realistic way that the Democrats will not have a HUGE money advantage in this election unless both candidates take federal funding. This is one of many reasons why the GOP is totally screwed in this election.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY