• 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."

Republicans for Obama

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,943
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.
Yep, if I was a republican I'd probably vote for him to, knowing that he will most likely fail to carry key swing states and end up losing the election by a hair just like Gore did.
That would be the best case scenario for the Democrats if Obama is the nominee. If he actually wins, he has potential to be their equivalent George W. Bush.
Explain to me how they are anything alike. Please, I'm waiting.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.
Yep, if I was a republican I'd probably vote for him to, knowing that he will most likely fail to carry key swing states and end up losing the election by a hair just like Gore did.
That would be the best case scenario for the Democrats if Obama is the nominee. If he actually wins, he has potential to be their equivalent George W. Bush.
Explain to me how they are anything alike. Please, I'm waiting.
not that I agree with it, but I think the thought process goes something along the lines of both guys having no substantial records running on a premise that they're nice guys, a promise to clean up washington, and a claim to be uniters, not dividers.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.
Yep, if I was a republican I'd probably vote for him to, knowing that he will most likely fail to carry key swing states and end up losing the election by a hair just like Gore did.
That would be the best case scenario for the Democrats if Obama is the nominee. If he actually wins, he has potential to be their equivalent George W. Bush.
Explain to me how they are anything alike. Please, I'm waiting.
They both want to be in the White House for the sake of being in the White House, and no particular agenda. Plus they are both running on personality and not on competence.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
The fact that Hillary is beating Obama in "swing states" means absolutely nothing to the general election. She's not running against Obama in the general election. It is just as reasonable to assume that Obama will actually do better in these states as it is to assume that Hillary will carry these states in the general election against McCain.
Obama has trouble with blue-collar working-class whites. This is a BIG BIG problem, because these people will flock to McCain in droves, and Obama can say bye-bye to states like OH, PENN, MI, maybe NJ Add to that the fact the his chances in FL are pretty much nil, and he's got major problems with electoral college math.
SurveyUSA just complete a comprehensive survey of voters in every state, and their math doesn't quite match up with your math. They polled 600 likely voters in every state on a McCain vs Hillary matchup and a McCain vs Obama matchup. Both Democrats ended up beating McCain, but Obama actually won by more electoral votes than Hillary did. But what's interesting where those EVs came from.

Obama actually wins HUGE in Ohio, as does Hillary. Obama loses Pennsylvania by a good sized margin, but Hillary barely wins the state. Hillary handily wins NJ, while Obama and McCain are pretty much tied. Michigan is really close, with McCain edging out Hillary and Obama edging out McCain, both by very small margins. Florida goes huge for Hillary, while McCain beats Obama by a small amount. So of the states you name, Pennsylvania, Florida and NJ are better for the Democrats if Clinton is the candidate, while the others don't matter very much.

But that's ignoring the bigger issue. As it stands right now, both Democrats would beat McCain, the question is how close the race would be. The 4 EV difference between their victories isn't important, what's important is how many EVs are currently up for grabs...in other words, how easy would it be for McCain to flip a few states and beat either candidate? I'll count within 2% as "close" for this exercise.

Obama vs McCain: 280 to 258
Obama Barely Wins:
Michigan - 17
Virginia - 13
New Hampshire - 4

Obama Barely Loses:
Florida - 27
New Jersey - 15
North Carolina - 15
Texas - 34

Hillary vs McCain: 276 to 262
Hillary Barely Wins:
New Mexico - 4
Pennsylvania - 21

Hillary Barely Loses:
Michigan - 17
Tennessee - 11
Washington - 11

Obama, who can lose 10 EVs and still win the election, needs to hang on to 34 EVs and could take up to 91 EVs away from McCain. Hillary, who can lose 6 EVs and still win, needs to hang on to 25 EVs and can take up to 39 EVs away from McCain. Under the possible scenarios you could get from the electoral math above, it doesn't look like Obama has as much of a problem with the math as you might think.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
Also, people need to realize that Clinton has a ceiling and she's already there. Everyone knows the Clinton name and she won't be able to shift more voters to her side like Obama can. We're talking about a snapshot of now. The more people get to know Obama, the more they like him. He isn't a brand name and he can still convince more people to vote for him down the road. Just look what happened to states which Hildabeast was supposed to blow Obama out of the water 2 weeks before the primaries/caucasus even happened. Obama closed the gap quickly and even won some of those states.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
off-topic, but seriously... Hildabeast? wtf. it's just really like flamebait. what's insulting her every time you use her name accomplishing other than annoying the people you're trying to convince?
 

RaiderJ

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2001
7,582
1
76
McCain and Hillary both scare me. Obama not so much.

I'm typically Republican/conservative.... but these last few years Republicans have been anything BUT conservative. Maybe a Democrat will work better.
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.
I'm not voting on giving him a community service award, I'm voting for someone I think would do a good job as President. Past accomplishments might be a decent indicator of that, but they are by no means the only one.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.
I'm not voting on giving him a community service award, I'm voting for someone I think would do a good job as President. Past accomplishments might be a decent indicator of that, but they are by no means the only one.
What exactly do you think his job as a president would entail?
Which of these problems our country faces do you think would be solved by a great speech?

-Health care?
-Iraq war?
-Economy?
-Education?
-Crime?
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.
I'm not voting on giving him a community service award, I'm voting for someone I think would do a good job as President. Past accomplishments might be a decent indicator of that, but they are by no means the only one.
I respect that.

What irks me though is the people who claim their vote on him as the golden applicant of the presidency, when in fact most people just don't want Hillary (and eventually McCain) to get the nod. It's just another lesser of two evils decision, yet his success and take-down of a Clinton has been glorified beyond belief.

 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
off-topic, but seriously... Hildabeast? wtf. it's just really like flamebait. what's insulting her every time you use her name accomplishing other than annoying the people you're trying to convince?

I agree.
FTR I am an Obama supporter and think the names - directed either way - does nothing to further the debate.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.
I'm not voting on giving him a community service award, I'm voting for someone I think would do a good job as President. Past accomplishments might be a decent indicator of that, but they are by no means the only one.
What exactly do you think his job as a president would entail?
Which of these problems our country faces do you think would be solved by a great speech?

-Health care?
-Iraq war?
-Economy?
-Education?
-Crime?
Pssst. Obama didn't skidaddle his way in life by just making speeches, having a famous father or having a famous husband;). He actually had to pull his own weight in life. You are trying to make him a one-dimensional character when he clearly isn't.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.
I'm not voting on giving him a community service award, I'm voting for someone I think would do a good job as President. Past accomplishments might be a decent indicator of that, but they are by no means the only one.
What exactly do you think his job as a president would entail?
Which of these problems our country faces do you think would be solved by a great speech?

-Health care?
-Iraq war?
-Economy?
-Education?
-Crime?
Pssst. Obama didn't skidaddle his way in life by just making speeches
What do you think a community organizer does?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.
I'm not voting on giving him a community service award, I'm voting for someone I think would do a good job as President. Past accomplishments might be a decent indicator of that, but they are by no means the only one.
What exactly do you think his job as a president would entail?
Which of these problems our country faces do you think would be solved by a great speech?

-Health care?
-Iraq war?
-Economy?
-Education?
-Crime?
Pssst. Obama didn't skidaddle his way in life by just making speeches
What do you think a community organizer does?
First of all, that isn't what a community organizer just does. Second of all, that wasn't his career. He was also a constitutional law professor, state senator, and US senator. And, as I've said before, he had to work for everything he got, unlike the person you support.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.
I'm not voting on giving him a community service award, I'm voting for someone I think would do a good job as President. Past accomplishments might be a decent indicator of that, but they are by no means the only one.
What exactly do you think his job as a president would entail?
Which of these problems our country faces do you think would be solved by a great speech?

-Health care?
-Iraq war?
-Economy?
-Education?
-Crime?
Who's talking about "great speeches"?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: senseamp
What exactly do you think his job as a president would entail?
Which of these problems our country faces do you think would be solved by a great speech?

-Health care?
-Iraq war?
-Economy?
-Education?
-Crime?
IMO, health care and Iraq ARE going to require great speeches, not "fighting" ala Hillary style.

Great speeches motivate, and build support and concensus. We're not likely to get anywhere without these things.

Economy, I've never believed the fed gov can do much about this. So, no comment about it.

Education? I still belive it's basically not the feds business. Again, no comment.

Crime? Not a fed concern. It's state and local unless your talking terrorism crimes.

(But if the fed gov is gonna jump into these three issues, you're still gonna need motivation, support and concensus.)

While I understand how "just giving great speeches" can be reasonably demeaned, I remember Reagan and what he was able to accomplish. At the time he was thought just an empty suit who communicated so well because of his acting experience.

Other than the veto power that GWB has recently discovered, the President's primary power is the bully pulpit. But it's it not worth much if you don't know how to use it. I think Obama will be able to use it to it's maximum effect.

Fern
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Also, people need to realize that Clinton has a ceiling and she's already there. Everyone knows the Clinton name and she won't be able to shift more voters to her side like Obama can. We're talking about a snapshot of now. The more people get to know Obama, the more they like him. He isn't a brand name and he can still convince more people to vote for him down the road. Just look what happened to states which Hildabeast was supposed to blow Obama out of the water 2 weeks before the primaries/caucasus even happened. Obama closed the gap quickly and even won some of those states.

What you fail to realize is that Clinton's biggest supporters, blue-collar working class, are actually underrepresented in all of this primary voting. There is a huge group of these people that do not get involved in politics so much that they would bother with a primary, but they do vote in general elections. Obama's supporters are overrepresented in primary voting, ridiculously so in caucases, so if anyone is approaching their ceiling as far as producing similar results in a general election, it's Obama.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford

snip...snip

Obama, who can lose 10 EVs and still win the election, needs to hang on to 34 EVs and could take up to 91 EVs away from McCain. Hillary, who can lose 6 EVs and still win, needs to hang on to 25 EVs and can take up to 39 EVs away from McCain. Under the possible scenarios you could get from the electoral math above, it doesn't look like Obama has as much of a problem with the math as you might think.
Look man, you can choose to put all your faith in that poll data if you like. I would argue that the Ohio poll data shown there is SERIOUSLY flawed. There are so many people there among the blue-collar working-class that are going to have a hard time voting for an inexperienced black man over a very experienced white man, war hero. Even those who are tenuously supprting Obama at first are going to be easily swayed by the same type of fear mongering as in Hillary's 3am ad, except those ads are going to be 10x more effective with McCain running them. Forget about all the elderly folks, the most reliable voters, who are going to be easily captured by steady old man McCain.

Mark my words, this election is going to come down to those working class manufacturing swing states, OH, MI, PN, NJ. And Obama is going to be dangerously close to losing all or most of those against McCain.

 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,392
3,035
126
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
The fact that Hillary is beating Obama in "swing states" means absolutely nothing to the general election. She's not running against Obama in the general election. It is just as reasonable to assume that Obama will actually do better in these states as it is to assume that Hillary will carry these states in the general election against McCain.
Obama has trouble with blue-collar working-class whites. This is a BIG BIG problem, because these people will flock to McCain in droves, and Obama can say bye-bye to states like OH, PENN, MI, maybe NJ Add to that the fact the his chances in FL are pretty much nil, and he's got major problems with electoral college math.
Hillary has problems with anybody who has a brain....
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
I find it hilarious how so many people buy the "Hillary has so much more experience" argument. Being the wife of Bill Clinton doesn't make her experienced, it makes her familiar. There's a difference.

I have been married to a pharmaceutical scientist for the last 13 years. I am much more familiar with scientific terms and concepts than most lay people, from being around her work. But I am no more a scientist than Hillary is an "experienced" President. You don't get experienced by being someone's spouse.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I find it hilarious how so many people buy the "Hillary has so much more experience" argument. Being the wife of Bill Clinton doesn't make her experienced, it makes her familiar. There's a difference.

I have been married to a pharmaceutical scientist for the last 13 years. I am much more familiar with scientific terms and concepts than most lay people, from being around her work. But I am no more a scientist than Hillary is an "experienced" President. You don't get experienced by being someone's spouse.
Hillary has been in Washington for what, 15 years? Even if you don't consider being first lady as real experience, the perception among normal people, among the masses if you will, is that she's more experienced than Obama. This is not going to change much.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,943
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: senseamp
If I was a Republican, I'd be for Obama too. He has great potential of permanently damaging the Democratic party.
Yep, if I was a republican I'd probably vote for him to, knowing that he will most likely fail to carry key swing states and end up losing the election by a hair just like Gore did.
That would be the best case scenario for the Democrats if Obama is the nominee. If he actually wins, he has potential to be their equivalent George W. Bush.
Explain to me how they are anything alike. Please, I'm waiting.
They both want to be in the White House for the sake of being in the White House, and no particular agenda. Plus they are both running on personality and not on competence.
So Hillary wants to be in the White House for what reason? That argument is extremely convenient - and short-sighted. Everybody who runs for president at least, in part, desires the position for the sake of the position.

Both Bush and Obama have very specific agendas. Bush's presidency, of course, was dramatically impacted by September 11th and I think that event shifted his thinking - either that or he had no intention of keeping any of the promises he made during the election.

Bush, though, has had a lot more leadership experience than Obama (serving as governor for five years, IMO, is closer to being president than serving as a state legislator for 7 years and a senator for four).

Your hatred for Obama, though, just means that you don't believe anything he says. Every candidate has "potential to be ... George W. Bush." Just because they both share a lack of experience doesn't mean that Obama is going to turn out exactly like him - something that you either refuse to even consider or actively deny.
 

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,762
3
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: loki8481
this republican looks forward to voting for McCain.

I'm not a paleoconservative by any stretch of the imagination, but it makes me scratch my head wondering how they could support a big government liberal who's bent over backwards pandering to the unions and has never actually stood up to his own party, especially when he's going to have control over the house and senate too.

2 terms of single-party rule was enough for me.
The flaw in your logic is in the last sentence, lumping all single-party rule into one group as if it's all equally good or bad. There's a big difference between GWB and FDR.

Frankly, we need some one-party rule by the right democrats now to undo the damage of six years of one-party rule under GWB. The results won't be the same for the two.
maybe we're just coming from different schools of conservativism.

a perfect government to me is one that's completely locked down by fighting and does as little as possible.
I think we share the same views on the Clinton administration then :) Best thing that ever happened to that guy was deadlock.

But seriously, no matter how bad the deadlock, bigger and bigger omnibus bills will still pass. Runaway spending can't be stopped. The sort of republican in office these days isn't a fiscal conservative as much as he is a one dimensional caveman on social policy. And I'm a republican, I think (I'm fiscally conservative, so the GOP will probably want to disown me).

 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Is there anyone who actually supports Obama for his merits of achievement and not his "audacity of hope"?

His campaign advisor's are genius.
The same could of been said about Bush. Then again that's not much of compliment.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY