garrett said:
The ones I've talked to up there aren't particularly kicked in the ass about a woman either...
Obama
- Thread starter RBBailey
- Start date
The ones I've talked to up there aren't particularly kicked in the ass about a woman either...
Nomar said:
Yes for the most part. Central PA has a strong Democratic following, but Philly is the strongest area for the Dems. People tend to think of Pittsburgh as a "working" town, but it has become a "tech" town in the past 20 years. Still a good number of working class folks there though. Just look at Rob D.
North east and western PA are mostly small town, working class areas areas for the most part with Republican roots.
I can't see too many "Get er done" PA folks wanting a woman or a black guy in the big white house.
Intereting perspective on Obama and his 'wins', before the PA primary.
Obama’s Real Problem
NewsMax ^ | April 20, 2008 | Christopher Ruddy
Watching the Pa primary results coverage last night what struck me was how the map looked like the Bush/Kerry county map of 2004
The Democrat Party leadership also knows this.
Obama’s Real Problem
NewsMax ^ | April 20, 2008 | Christopher Ruddy
Typically, primaries are over almost before they begin. One clear front-runner emerges and the party, the activists, and donors rally around their candidate. That did not happen this time because of Obama’s unique set of problems.
Consider that the Democrats are set to back a nominee who has not won any of the “big” blue states, with the exception of his home state of Illinois. California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts . . . and probably Pennsylvania will join Hillary’s list as well.
Obama has consistently done poorly with key constituencies of the Democratic Party: union members, Hispanics, wage earners making less than $50,000 a year, and older females. They don’t want Obama as their nominee and they stubbornly won’t fall in line.
In primary after primary these core groups have voted against Obama. Even in his home state, Hispanic voters backed him with a slim majority of 52 percent.
Consider that the Democrats are set to back a nominee who has not won any of the “big” blue states, with the exception of his home state of Illinois. California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts . . . and probably Pennsylvania will join Hillary’s list as well.
Obama has consistently done poorly with key constituencies of the Democratic Party: union members, Hispanics, wage earners making less than $50,000 a year, and older females. They don’t want Obama as their nominee and they stubbornly won’t fall in line.
In primary after primary these core groups have voted against Obama. Even in his home state, Hispanic voters backed him with a slim majority of 52 percent.
Watching the Pa primary results coverage last night what struck me was how the map looked like the Bush/Kerry county map of 2004
Obama has cobbled together an unusual recipe of success mixing the African-American voting bloc with the Moveon.org liberals of his party. These two groups, substantial as they are, normally would not have given him the nomination.
His new cookie mix has worked because he has outspent and outmaneuvered his rival in caucus states. Caucuses are notoriously open for manipulation by small, well-organized groups.
As he sprints to June and the end of the primaries, however, Obama is being crippled. His woes have nothing to do with the fact he is black or even inexperienced. They have everything to do with how Obama has identified himself.
He is an unrepentant liberal.
Many Democrats know that when they nominate an unrepentant liberal like George McGovern, Michael Dukakis or John Kerry they lose.
Always.
His new cookie mix has worked because he has outspent and outmaneuvered his rival in caucus states. Caucuses are notoriously open for manipulation by small, well-organized groups.
As he sprints to June and the end of the primaries, however, Obama is being crippled. His woes have nothing to do with the fact he is black or even inexperienced. They have everything to do with how Obama has identified himself.
He is an unrepentant liberal.
Many Democrats know that when they nominate an unrepentant liberal like George McGovern, Michael Dukakis or John Kerry they lose.
Always.
The Democrat Party leadership also knows this.
Why Hillary won't quit - Hillary now leads in popular vote — if FL and MI are counted
so what is Obama's strategy?
Obama has started to run against John McCain, ignoring Hillary Clinton . . .
And the Analogy - Enemy in sight - Battle of the River Plate
so what is Obama's strategy?
Obama has started to run against John McCain, ignoring Hillary Clinton . . .
And the Analogy - Enemy in sight - Battle of the River Plate
MarkP said:
Lets start by banning commercials for prescription drugs. people are being marketed to and the marketing works. But this will take government regulation. GASP can't have more of that.
Mark is there ever a point where general society becomes to dumb to govern itself and liberalism makes sense? I feel like we are at that point, which is why I vote the way I vote half the time.
MarkP said:
Yet *another* freepers cut'n'paste. :ack:
By now the country knows than when you elect an incompetent "neocon" like George Bush, we all lose. Always...and - unfortunately - for many years yet to come.
Since you are so critical of every minor comment or statement from the two democratic candidates, remind us again, what accomplishments the current administration has made? In *anything*....anything at all that hasn't turned into a complete, utter and absolute FUBAR? Dazzle us with your hypocrisy yet again...how Bush invented sliced bread or cured cancer or whatever else you might lift from freepers....
And if the current group is so damned good, why isn't Cheney running for president - again?
apg said:
Ok, here an major accomplishment of the Bush administration: he cut tax rates and was still able to increase the overall federal tax revenue collected.
2001: $1.874B in tax collections
2002: $1.732B
2003: $1.650B
2004: $1.738B
2005: $1.998B
2006: $2.238B
2007: $2.396B
source: http://www.irs.gov/index.html
Keep in mind that he inherited a small recession from Clinton when he took office. Bush's tax policies have kept more of the countries in their hands which stimulated the economy throughout the decade.
Sure, it can be argued that his spending policies have been atrocious, but his tax policy was a resounding success. My wife and I have been able to save thousands of additional dollars compared to what would have happened if Gore and/or Kerry would have won.
nosivad_bor said:
Yikes! You sound like Obama
Seriously, the general population is not too dumb. Sure there are some real idiots out there but they are the minority. It is only the LSM that focuses on them. Most people are ignorant (look up the defn, I'm not saying they are stupid) because they lack information. Provide 90+% of the population with the data and they will make the right choice.
If you assume government is the anwer and enable liberalism you enable a society that is lazy and dependant. The relationship should be that the nanny state causes ignorance, not the other way around. A good example is the discussion around why young adults "fail to launch", that many are still at home. The primary reason is overprotection by the parents. Isn't that the nanny state? Isn't that the result of years of moving to the Left?
So should we move further to the Left or realize our errors and move away from Marxist/Euro-Socialist/Neo-Conservatives? I suspect the spending binge of the last 50+ years, which was a result of moving to the Left, will force a retrenchment back to conversative values. There is already discussion of how we need to return to the values of our grandparents, great-grandparents or even great-great-grandparents.
That is not the values of Obama.
MarkP said:Yikes! You sound like Obama
Seriously, the general population is not too dumb. Sure there are some real idiots out there but they are the minority. It is only the LSM that focuses on them. Most people are ignorant (look up the defn, I'm not saying they are stupid) because they lack information. Provide 90+% of the population with the data and they will make the right choice.
If you assume government is the anwer and enable liberalism you enable a society that is lazy and dependant. The relationship should be that the nanny state causes ignorance, not the other way around. A good example is the discussion around why young adults "fail to launch", that many are still at home. The primary reason is overprotection by the parents. Isn't that the nanny state? Isn't that the result of years of moving to the Left?
So should we move further to the Left or realize our errors and move away from Marxist/Euro-Socialist/Neo-Conservatives? I suspect the spending binge of the last 50+ years, which was a result of moving to the Left, will force a retrenchment back to conversative values. There is already discussion of how we need to return to the values of our grandparents, great-grandparents or even great-great-grandparents.
That is not the values of Obama.
I guess we could return to the values of our great-great grandparents, where massacres of indigenous populations were the policy, and lynching niggers was a fun sunday-afternoon-after-church-activity with the kids. Or burning witches at the stake. Personally, I prefer that values have advanced somewhat.
You call a state that provides fire, police, military, health care, infrastructure, etc a nanny state, but I'd argue you are wrong. I'd argue these type of services are the only reason we need a government.
A nanny state is one that wants to make personal decisions for its citizens, like reproduction and abortion, recreational drugs, alcohol, religion, and the all other personal shit republicans like to get involved in. The repubs are knee deep in the nanny state you abhor so much. So if these are your conservative values, you can keep them.
nosivad_bor said:
I think we reached the point in 2000 where general society became so dumb, that they voted for someone dumber than themselves to govern them
The question is now whether society is dumb enough to buy into the right wing smears of 2 good candidates, and vote for the repubs selection, who is going to perpetuate and extend the incompetence and corruption of the present administration. Or vote for someone who can actually dig us out of the mess the republicans have created. I have my doubts. Repubs are great at winning campaigns and elections, but they suck donkeys balls at governing and policy. Maybe americans have figured that out after these last 8 years, maybe not. We shall see.
vray said:
Why is health care in that list? Fire, police, military, and infrastructure (I assume you mean roads) are things that simply are not practical for the private sector to do. However, the profit motive behind health care has provided us with the best health care technology advancements in the world. If you take the profit incentive out of it, how will the system get better?
So from your list, do you think its a good idea to get rid of welfare & social security?
vray said:
Then why do you vote to and support candidates who wish to enlarge the government to control even more than they do now?
[qoute=vray]
A nanny state is one that wants to make personal decisions for its citizens, like reproduction and abortion, recreational drugs, alcohol, religion, and the all other personal shit republicans like to get involved in. The repubs are knee deep in the nanny state you abhor so much. So if these are your conservative values, you can keep them.[/quote]
I happen to agree with this, I don't think the Government has ANY business legislating morality. In fact according to the Constitution, they can't (but that does not stop them). But, a nanny state is one that not only tells people what they can and can't do, but rather attempts to protect them from themselves.
I know if I am mature enough to own and carry a gun.
I know if I should or should not eat trans fat, or meat.
I know if I should smoke or not.
I want to spend MY money on MY healthcare, not someone elses.
I want to save MY money for MY retirement, not someone elses.
I want to be able to work MY ass off to earn MY money to spend as I wish, not on some lazy ass peice of crap that would rather sit on the porch all day.
etc.
That is the reason I vote the way I do. And I HATE the direction the politics of this Country is going and the political choises we are fed. I do know that Socialized anything is not the answer though.
vray said:
No surprise that you would focus on the negative. Actually your list of negatives sounds like the Democrat Party of old. No, we wouldn't want to return to the values of the Democrat Party, would we?
This person already has an informed perspective, which were listed in a previous post.
An Open Letter to the Democratic Party
By Lt. Colonel Frances Rice,U.S. Army Retired:
Lincoln Heritage Institute
Advanced values? Agreed. Beyond the failed policies of socialism, marxism, communisim, . . . . .
vray said:
Wow, if we rolled it back to that era, who would run against McCain from the Democratic party?