Obama loses to McCain??

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Train
A "little less"? Did you read the part where I made the 300+ plus times argument based on number of people affected? .....

Yes but what is the net positive of 1 million wiretaps vs. a social program on everyone?

I hate to break it to you, but a social program on everyone will end up helping WAY more people than 1 million wiretaps will. Even if you don't agree with said social program, it WILL end up making at least some people's lives better. There is no guarantee of anything with 1 million wiretaps.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Vic

Why would he lose any of those states? Because you say so?

Why would you want to send him into a general election, knowing the importance of those states, when you have another candidate who is doing 10-15 points better in those states?

Your logic is flawed. You can't extrapolate primary data directly to the general. And Obama didn't even campaign in MI and FL. I can expect him to do just as well there while carrying other states (most of them red) that Hillary doesn't do as well in. Plus, Obama has a better stance on the issues, more charisma, less political baggage, and his last name isn't Bush or Clinton.

Wreckem posted a link to the real math the other day, but I think the current projections in a McCain v Obama race involve McCain winning NJ, PA, and FL but Obama more than making up the ground in the mid and south West, whereas McCain v Hillary looks more like a variation on '00/'04 with Hillary taking Ohio.

it seems exceptionally unlikely that the democrats won't take Ohio, but FL will be a tough fight for them.

 

[owensdj]

Those types of nationwide percentage polls are meaningless. As you know, the election is determined by the electoral college votes, not the total popular vote, as Al Gore discovered in 2000. A few weeks ago Karl Rove did a study comparing McCain vs. Obama and McCain vs. Clinton in each state. Obama would beat McCain in electoral votes but Clinton would lose.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: loki8481

it seems exceptionally unlikely that the democrats won't take Ohio, but FL will be a tough fight for them.

I disagree with you. Ohio voted republican the last two elections. They voted democrat for both Clinton elections but before that they voted repub 3x. So, ironically, in the last 7 elections only a Clinton managed to get the state to vote democrat.

You underestimate the influence of race on the mind of the Ohio working-class and older white population that is now voting for Clinton. These people are going to be nervous about voting for a black man, even more so as they see the 80-90% black vote which can be seen as racially motivated. McCain is going to be an attractive option for these people.

 

[chowderhead]

Here are some baseline starting numbers for Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain
Rasmussen National Poll

Which Candidate Do You Trust More on National Security?

McCain 49%
Clinton 36%

McCain 55%
Obama 30%

Unaffiliated voters prefer McCain by a two-to-one margin.

Which Candidate Do You Trust More on the Economy?

Clinton 47%
McCain 41%

McCain 45%
Obama 39%

Obama starts off behind McCain on two important issues. Can he catch up? Yes, but I believe Clinton is the stronger general election candidate.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is doing well in states that:
- Democrats don't need to win
- Democrats will win anyways

He's not doing so well in:
- Battleground states that democrats need to win

Missouri? Colorado? VA?

Quit cherry picking data.

Those states are not going to help him when he loses OH, FL, PA, MI... the battelground states that have been most important in recent elections.

There are more swing states, than just Ohio, Florida, and PA.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
Here are some baseline starting numbers for Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain
Rasmussen National Poll

Which Candidate Do You Trust More on National Security?

McCain 49%
Clinton 36%

McCain 55%
Obama 30%

Unaffiliated voters prefer McCain by a two-to-one margin.

Which Candidate Do You Trust More on the Economy?

Clinton 47%
McCain 41%

McCain 45%
Obama 39%

Obama starts off behind McCain on two important issues. Can he catch up? Yes, but I believe Clinton is the stronger general election candidate.

It's futile to try to present logic to the Obamabots, they'll simply ignore it. Just a tip.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that many underestimate the intelligence of voters, at least in terms of voters recognizing that they've been screwed by the repubs, deep and repeatedly.

While they may not trust Dems entirely, and often see Obama as an unknown quantity, they know and will become acutely aware that voting for McCain is basically voting for McSame- that a McCain Admin won't be enough different from a Bush Admin to effectively take a more positive direction. It can't be. McCain's just the front man- the power behind the throne won't change. Few will make the mistake of thinking that McCain represents someone other than the "true Bush constituency"- he wouldn't be the nominee if he didn't.

Running against Hillary just puts the well conditioned Hillary-haters firmly in the McCain camp, and lets him avoid the "McSame" label as he represents that Hillary is largely "McSame", as well... whether that's really true or not. Dems need to differentiate themselves strongly from the other side, and that's a lot tougher for Hillary...

These early polls are meaningless, anyway, considering that the Dem nomination is still up for grabs. Only some sort of obvious subterfuge in the process will prevent Dems from rallying 'round whoever that choice may be. With a little luck, that won't happen, and John McCain will simply become a sacrifice...

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Train
A "little less"? Did you read the part where I made the 300+ plus times argument based on number of people affected? .....

Yes but what is the net positive of 1 million wiretaps vs. a social program on everyone?

I hate to break it to you, but a social program on everyone will end up helping WAY more people than 1 million wiretaps will. Even if you don't agree with said social program, it WILL end up making at least some people's lives better. There is no guarantee of anything with 1 million wiretaps.

You are using the false presumption that social programs help people. They dont, they only put power in the hands of politicians. The are inevitably counter-productive for those it was intended to help.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Train
A "little less"? Did you read the part where I made the 300+ plus times argument based on number of people affected? .....

Yes but what is the net positive of 1 million wiretaps vs. a social program on everyone?

I hate to break it to you, but a social program on everyone will end up helping WAY more people than 1 million wiretaps will. Even if you don't agree with said social program, it WILL end up making at least some people's lives better. There is no guarantee of anything with 1 million wiretaps.

You are using the false presumption that social programs help people. They dont, they only put power in the hands of politicians. The are inevitably counter-productive for those it was intended to help.

Okay guys, time to stop arguing with this idiot. Anyone who says social programs inevitably hurt whomever they were intended to help is not open to rational argument, nor is he open to... well... a basic understanding of history.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Train
A "little less"? Did you read the part where I made the 300+ plus times argument based on number of people affected? .....

Yes but what is the net positive of 1 million wiretaps vs. a social program on everyone?

I hate to break it to you, but a social program on everyone will end up helping WAY more people than 1 million wiretaps will. Even if you don't agree with said social program, it WILL end up making at least some people's lives better. There is no guarantee of anything with 1 million wiretaps.

You are using the false presumption that social programs help people. They dont, they only put power in the hands of politicians. The are inevitably counter-productive for those it was intended to help.

Okay guys, time to stop arguing with this idiot. Anyone who says social programs inevitably hurt whomever they were intended to help is not open to rational argument, nor is he open to... well... a basic understanding of history.

talk about ignoring a problem. This country has inter-generational dependence on social programs. Welfare familes create welfare kids, who grow up to be on welkfare or end u pin jail, further increasing the cost. The "safety net" turns out to be an oppression. The only benifit is power to a few. Ironic, as the masses believe the opposite. Despite billions dumped into programs every year, the % of the population under the poverty line never budges, in fact, it keeps most of them there.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Train

talk about ignoring a problem. This country has inter-generational dependence on social programs. Welfare familes create welfare kids, who grow up to be on welkfare or end u pin jail, further increasing the cost. The "safety net" turns out to be an oppression. The only benifit is power to a few. Ironic, as the masses believe the opposite. Despite billions dumped into programs every year, the % of the population under the poverty line never budges, in fact, it keeps most of them there.

Hey, way to be wrong. Your arguments have several fatal flaws, some of them logical, some of them factual. First of all, just because one social program could be bad would not mean that all social programs were bad.

Secondly, you're just factually incorrect about poverty. Since 1959 (the earliest date in the US census report) poverty levels for all families in the US is approximately half what it was. As shown here. In addition, the standard of living for those considered to be 'in poverty' is also significantly higher in real terms today then it was back then. Now a family with 2 cars, a bunch of TV's, etc... etc... could be considered to be 'living in poverty' depending on their circumstances. Their life in a material sense is one that is much much better off then the life of someone considered to be in poverty 50 years ago.

So... yeah. You should know that any time you make a blanket statement like 'all social programs are bad', that you're going to get owned. It's just a stupid thing to say.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is doing well in states that:
- Democrats don't need to win
- Democrats will win anyways

He's not doing so well in:
- Battleground states that democrats need to win

Missouri? Colorado? VA?

Quit cherry picking data.

Those states are not going to help him when he loses OH, FL, PA, MI... the battelground states that have been most important in recent elections.

There are more swing states, than just Ohio, Florida, and PA.

Tell that to Al Gore and John Kerry

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Vic

Why would he lose any of those states? Because you say so?

Why would you want to send him into a general election, knowing the importance of those states, when you have another candidate who is doing 10-15 points better in those states?

Because most Americans would have more trust in Bin Laden as US president than Hillary?