Folks. Let me first say I am a Republican. I was deeply concerned that we would have no shot in November with what is transpiring in this country. But Obama is a gift to those of us on the right. He will be your nominee in November. He has to be. If the super delegates take it away from him, your left wing base will scream bloody murder. You may lose the black vote for a generation. Deep down thinking Democrats know Obama is the weakest candidate they can field but you are stuck. Hillary ran a terrible campaign early on. She clearly under estimated him and handled the caucus states poorly.

But folks look at the numbers. It has been reported for months now that Hillary can't win the nomination but what are the Dem voters saying? She just cleaned his clock in WV. She has won every major swing state. MOST IMPORTANTLY, she is killing Obama with White males and blue collar workers. If Obama can't get these groups he cannot win.

Why can't Obama win? One, he seems like a nice man. He seems like a guy who would be a good friend. He also comes across as somewhat of a p****y. I do not want a wimp in the white house. Hillary has more stones than he does and McCain obviously has a huge set.

Two, his demeanor is that of an ivy league lawyer. This does not play well east of Mass.

Three. There is no substance to his campaign. Hope and change has gotten tiresome. The details he does provide are ultra-left wing stuff. He is just too liberal to be President.

Four. His legislative accomplishments are non-existent. He talks about being able to unify Dems and Reps in D.C but has failed to do so while in the Senate. Furthermore, if he thinks Reps will follow him down the path of higher taxes, a ridiculous energy policy and surrender in Iraq, he is nuts.

Five. Jeremiah Wright. I know you Obama fans think this is meaningless. You are dead wrong. To people who live between New York and LA this is big. It tells us something about Obama.

Notice I have said nothing of race. I am not saying race is not a factor for some. Unfortunately it is. I am also concerned that after he loses in November, the lib media will spin this along racial lines. Race, however, is not why Obama will lose. He will lose because he is, ultimately, the next George McGovern.

Obama may not win. We won't know until the general election is over.

What we do know is this:

<link>

U.S. Outlook Is Worst Since '92, Poll Finds Results Give Democrats Edge By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; Page A01

"McCain romps against Obama among the 16 percent who think the country is headed in the right direction, but among the near-record 82 percent who hold a pessimistic view, Obama runs more than 20 points ahead of McCain. Similarly, about seven in 10 of those who disapprove of Bush said they would back Obama over McCain, while McCain picks up most of those who are still behind the president. The trouble for McCain is that Bush's approval has slipped to 31 percent, and has been lower than 50 percent for 38 consecutive months. "

Hey Ben, you Republicans can't even hold on to your seats in Congress! Keep running those Rev. Wright and Obama ads attacking the Democrat rivals, and we will continue to WIN! McCain doesn't have a PRAYER of winning in November...Micky Mouse could beat him! But you all keep using that old Rove playbook, we are loving it.

Agreed....and seeing what I have been seeing, this empty suit is no match for a female pantsuit.

Clinton has beein going and going and going because to her, losing the general elections to the republican machine simply because the DNC, Dean, Brazile and all the other loser democrat superdelegates do not understand the power of this nation to always steer right of center, whether it is a democrat or republican they vote for.

The DNC, Dean and Brazile will go down in flames and with them, the Democratic party as they think they know it will sink under the tsunami of rejection that they will encounter in the general elections.

The DNC, Dean and Brazile and all those superdelegates will ultimately be responsible for the total destruction of their democratic party [but they will be in denial and blame it on the "white racist vote"), their vision and what they think they can overcome and change with simply a blowgas "idealistic" hip-hop Jay-Z rap imitator trying to take possession and ownership of the White House and the most technologically advanced military-industrial complex in the entire world, along with those generals, despite Obama's known and friendly association with Bill Ayres, and the dedicated link of Ayres to Hugo Chavez along with those Chavez links to Hezbollah and Hamas entities within Venezuela.

No matter...this has all been a "conspiracy of the neo-cons" to ENSURE that the republican machine continues well into another 8 to 16 years of political power and control of this nation...until they find no other need to control a broken nation.

They are going to ensure that the democratic party no longer has life, power or a following. At that time, well into the future, a NEW POLITICAL party will arise...under the control of the republican machine.

Think ye not it is not a possibility of the neo-cons to have manipulated this entire trash primary? Who is Howard Dean? and what is he capable of?

Dean and Brazile, together in hell.

New poll out today: Obama leads McCain by 7 points

I keep hearing about how Obama can't win. Yet he polls better nationally against McCain. So the numbers don't back it up.

Neither do the arguments in the original post.

The claim that he can't win certain states or sway certain voters in primaries simply do not apply to the general election because the opponent will not be Clinton; it will be McCain. And the latest poll had Obama doing just fine against McCain in Pennsylvania; the reason is that most Democrats will vote Democratic in the general election.

And the same applies to particular voting groups. Just because I prefer A to B doesn't mean I won't prefer B to C. And a recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama doing nearly as well as Clinton with blue-collar white voters in head-to-head contests against McCain.

The idea that is demeanor doesn't play well east of the Mississippi is also simply false. He has good chances of winning Colorado and New Mexico. He's likely to win Oregon and Washington. He'd be the favorite in Iowa. He actually plays better in these and other states than Clinton does.

The accusation that he is "too liberal" is not backed up by any policy stances. He is actually a moderate Democrat, and his policies are very close to Clinton's on most matters.

Why can he win, despite Reverend Wright? Issues, issues, issues. Most people don't want an indefinite occupation of Iraq. Most people side with Democrats on the economy. Most people want health care reform. If the Republican attack machine tries to bring up guilt-by-association, Obama will respond, correctly, that it's because they have nothing to offer on the above issues and others that really matter to Americans.

And I haven't even started on McCain's weaknesses.

It's clear Obama isn't McGovern. He's got NY, CA, and other large states in his pocket. And it's still a long way to November.

He gets every "blue" state Hillary would get. It's the swings where they differ. Pennslyvania, Ohio, possibly Michigan because of the primary issue. Hillary might get Florida, Obama can probably kiss it goodbye. But also in play are Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and--should blacks register and in high enough numbers, and Republicans be disenchanted enough with McCain--South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Indiana may come into play as well. Admittedly, the last 5 are pretty far fetched.

pfire, are you implying that Obama can't carry Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico...but Hillary could?

No one really knows who will win in November. However, we all can speculate. While we can look at polls and articles written by so called professionals, I think that so much can happen to change things anyone can win.

However, since I currently am feeling pretty good about myself, I will state what my opinion is so that I can catch the wrath wrath and vile comments from those who seem better at name calling than in intelligent discussion about the issues.

I have been a Democrat all my life so it pains me that the Dem party seems to poised on one more self destructive journey.

The primaries certainly set the table for it, Fla and Mi (what were they thinking), the caucuses where true representation is not likely, proportionality which in some ways instills some fairness but then they rant about it taking so long.

In any case, I think Hillary is done for. I also think that is a shame. I believe that she has a good chance of beating McCain although she really needs to get some better people to run her campaign. Maybe she got the people who helped Gore.

So Obama will be the Dem candidate in a year that should favor the Dem candidate to a greater extent than the year Gore ran. After he lost that year I was sure the party would never give him a chance at the office again. There is no way that should have even been close.

I think that the same will happen to Obama although because of the race thing I think the party will have to give him a pass so he might be able to come back in 4 years. But in those 4 years he will have to show what he accomplished which I do not think will be any more impressive than what little record he has to date. Probably 4 more years of running for office.

Why do I think he will lose.

First, I live in Pa and even my kids would not vote for him. Now that it is time to run in the real world he is very shaky in all the big states. A very big problem indeed.

Second, When he starts talking details to me he just does not make sense. While I could never fall in line with the Reps and Cons I find him to liberal for my taste and in my opinion his philosophy very strongly resembles socialism. Given that his churches philosophy is based upon the philosophies of Karl Marx perhaps this should not be too surprising. There is no way you could stay there and not incorporate some of church beliefs into your own. You can say he does not agree with those statements they played on TV but I am more concerned with his belief system which had to be affected by the very clear doctrine of that church.

I do not agree with his plan for Health Care and after listening to McCain actually think he has a good idea.

While Obama stands for Hope and doing the right thing there are a few things where I believe he had the opportunity to do the right thing but chose to do what would benefit him the most.

How he eliminated competition in his State Senate race to me is abhorrent. According to the rules and laws but to win a race that way to me is totally self serving and not the right thing to do. Secondly, his stand on Fla and Mi again self serving. The rules were written by the Old school politician so when it benefits him, he choses to stand by them. Especially in Fla where so many people voted and could chose either one his stand to me contradicts his speaking to being the candidate of hope and all that is good. I can hear the rants now but by including Fla and even Michigan using Hillary's votes as hers and all the others as his would not change the outcome. I believe he still would win and would be better because of it. Including them would not hurt him one bit.

Race is also an issue. There are racists that will not vote for someone who represents himself as a black man. Why not as a white man after all he is just as much white as black. But given that his color might give the racists all they need, I think it will hurt him more in the general than in the Dem process. Not because the Reps are more racist than the Dem's but because I think there are more people with a sexist attitude than a racist attitude. It comes out in so many articles and reports and on these sites but in a way it is harder to change because it often is passed off as common knowledge.

While he can raise money and has some very faithful followers he and they seem more focused on being righteously indignant that you would question Obama than on critically examining his history and policy statements.

Shouting other people down with claims that he is the one person who can bring about the change we seek just does not provide details to a discussion of who is the better candidate. He is inspirational, he provides hope for a better future but how that will happen has never been explained to me in terms that make any sense.

People, billions of people go to churches, synagogues and temples based upon hope and that is what he is selling. But underneath it all no one can say with 100 percent certainty that anything they tell you to do is going to work. Forget 100 percent that truly cannot have any certainty that what they tell you to do is going to work because there is nothing other than faith behind it. But if you look at what most religions have been or currently are is a gigantic organization where the people running the show are doing great, telling you that you need to be humble and do as they say so you get your ticket punched for heaven. All while they are living the high life and coming up with new ideas on how make their religion stronger by showing how evil all the others are.

Obama has his MSNBC which seems to pretty much masturbate to pictures of Obama but the viewership of Fox is much higher and I believe higher than CNN. So most people will be getting information from that bias. Face it not one press organization is neutral in this race. They all present their news to support their bias. Personally I think that FOX has to some extent been more balance than MSNBC for sure but CNN as well. I think CNN tried to replicate the bias that FOX has always had, to get more viewership but I think they went too far. Very little of anything on that network presents both sides. Lou Dobbs aside.

One last thing. When you listen to McCain talk it really is clear at least to me that he has a pretty vast understanding of what is going on in this world and what has been done, what could be done and what he wants to do. I just do not get that with Obama. So if they do those town hall meetings McCain is going to clobber him. Hillary dominated the debates and she is not even close to the same league as McCain. You may disagree on McCain's take on things but I do not think you can say he does not have a clue as to what is going on.

OK I think you can catch my long winded drift. I think Obama gets the nomination because the Dem party painted themselves into a corner that they are now trapped in, and in the General Obama loses by an overwhelming amount.

I don't have much to add or reject in your article.

it's simply going to be a long entertaining wait (entertaining for those MSM shows that need to get the advertiserment money into their coffers) until November 2008.

No matter, at some point in time the democratic party did not exist as it now is known. At some point in the near future, (within the next 25-50 yearts) another party will have arisen that will overtake the democratic party and will closely resemble some of the features of the republican party.

All the old politicians of the "Old ways of doing politics" as Obama is so consistently repeating, such as Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Ted Kennedy and others, all of those will die off or not get re-elected.

raptor5816:

While I appreciate your sentiments, I don't think they're backed up by the evidence.

Regarding PA, the two most recent polls have Obama beating McCain outside the margin of error. That may or may not hold up, but I think it shows Obama can carry PA--especially after the rancor of the primary dies down. Nor do the polls show him "shaky" in big states; he's up comfortably in CA, NY, NJ. The Clinton camp's argument that primary results carry over to the general election doesn't have any validity, and the recent LA Times/Bloomberg cited in the Slate article of this thread says he does almost as well against white blue-collar voters against McCain as Clinton does.

Nor have I seen policy positions which place him as far-left, much less Marxist. He and Clinton are close on most issues, and their biggest policy difference is on health care where he is more moderate. I keep hearing from his critics that he's too liberal but I never see the evidence to support it. Moreover, if he were so left-wing, he would not have the support of independents. But they favor him far more than they favor Clinton.

FL and MI are distractions. People who support just seating their delegations have not explained how to prevent even more egregious line-jumping if no penalties are imposed. If we think this round was chaotic, it will look like a paragon of order if there are no sanctions. Also, those states had options after the DNC said it would follow through on the sanctions threat. Florida could have held a caucus; the state party refused. And the state's Democratic delegation in Congress opposed a revote. Michigan has the added problem that the Democrats who voted in the open Republican primary and independents who would did the same but would have voted in the Democratic primary would have been disenfranchised in any revote plan; this problem was never resolved by the Clinton campaign.

Yes, Obama may be vague at times. But that's in part because he's trying to reshape our connection to government. Government isn't "them," its us. Politics isn't about what our elected officials say they're going to do; it's about what we're willing to do. But no one has asked us what we're willing to do for a long time, and that's one reason why the system has worked so poorly. When we take responsibility to say what we're willing to do on the issues we say we care about, then the possible solutions to our problems will become clearer. But if we expect that just electing the right people will make everything better, then we're in for four more years of disappointment.

And Obama does have proposals for Iraq that clearly differ from McCain's and that have far more support with the public. Same for health care (the only people in modernized countries who think the market provides incentives for good health care seems to be the Republican Party in the US). Polls show Obama up significantly nationally over McCain at the moment, and he's still in the middle of a contentious primary. I'd think that when this intraparty fight is over, his numbers will only improve. The electoral college map already shows him competitive for the general election; consequently, I see no reason to assume he will lose, much less by "an overwhelming amount."

Well dsimon you make some good points. My views are clearly not based upon polls which I believe are meaningless at this point and I believe that they have a tendency toward bias. My opinion is what I think as well as what I hear around me. My county vote overwhelmingly for Hillary so if you talk to someone in Phila their view would be different.

As far as leaning toward being a socialist I think that some of his statements lead me believe this is more true than not. Pushing Capital gains up to 55% clearly is a method to prevent the upper class from getting ahead via a res distribution of wealth. Taxing the oil companies is one more example. The Church he belongs to has a stated doctrine that is a progression from Marxist beliefs. Not opinion.

While the public might believe national medicine is the way to go I think that a look North into Canada might show that this might not be reality.

I think the fact that independents support him is not proof that he is not liberal. I believe that the majority are neither fully liberal or conservative. There are some things that conservatives believe that I agree with while I think I am more liberal than conservative. Things such as reducing the size of our government is something that I think is critically important but it seems to me that liberals think the government should solve all our problems. In your statement you say that the market could not control the health field yet many Obama supporters feel that the market will control gas prices.

I think that the root of many of the problems of this country are being covered over by issues that are related but do not get to the root cause. A great deal of the problems with health care costs is related to how expensive it is to protect providers from ridiculous law suits which drive up insurance costs. I think Tort reform is the real issue.

I agree that Obama's line on Iraq is different from McCain's but if you recall perhaps 5 or 6 years ago the public by a vast majority supported going to war.

I think the reality is that he will not be able to do what he says and it is more likely that the end result will be closer to what McCain says it will be. Obama says he is then going to go into Afghanistan, but the problem there is the Taliban not AlQuida who are now in Iraq where we are.

I thought the war was a joke, a bad joke, being waged for unstated reasons. I still believe I am correct in that belief. However, I think that no matter how wrong we were and how stupid W was just pulling out is not the answer. Perhaps it is somewhere in between Obama and McCain but just pulling out I believe will lead to a disaster. I think that when we could not find WMD we should have given the keys to mansion back to Saddam and left. Seems the only way to have some semblance of control over there is through violence. To think that every person we kill over there is a terrorist is not reasonable. Not equating us to Saddam but I am sure from the view point of the people living next to a home that gets bombed there is very little difference.

As I stated above these are only my views based upon my experiences and intuitions. I think that in my lifetime of doing business I have a pretty good track record of reading what a person is about and what their real goals are.

The flaws I see in Obama seem to mirror those I see in Bush although I never would compare the intellect as that is not even a competition.

As for Mi and Fla, I will stand on what I said, Obama could have just agreed and all that you sated would have become a non issue. This country was based upon a union of states but where state rights are paramount. Well not completely but they are held very highly. I see no reason why they should bother with when a state holds an election. I know there has to be lots of reasons but honestly just let them do as they see fit for them to select their delegates. I am not willing to concede that Obama's handling of this issue reflects on his character. It also reflects on Hillary's as well some in a good way but some in a negative way. To my way of thinking most politicians have a very difficult time only doing what is right.

As far as how things turn out, well we will see. If I or you could know the future there would be no need for discussion.

I never could understand how people could ever be so enamored with Bush yet he won a first and then a second term and for a while he was very popular. I think in that case my intuition about him has proved to be true while for a while I was just as ridiculed on this site as I now hear about Obama. Perhaps his popularity will lead him to the presidency but I hold little hope that the country will be better off for it. Way back when I felt that Carter was saying what the country wanted to hear and that he would be come president. At the time he was little known and not expected to be a front runner but he said what people wanted to hear. He won and for the most part his presidency was pitiful.

Given Obama's intelligence and charisma perhaps he can become a good or even great president. But for now I think the country would not be better off if he were elected.

raptor5618, I greatly appreciate your civility and well thought out posts.

I don't agree with you, but I think your opinion is based on the facts as you see them and you've stated them in a respectful manner. From my perspective I think that regardless of what Rev. Wright has said or what doctrine their church promotes, Obama is clearly a very intelligent person and most likely unaffected by the more controversial statements and policies of his church. I think the most likely case is that he goes to church for the community aspect and leaves what he can't use at the door (the same way most church goers do).

I also think that the re-distribution of wealth argumen t is not what motivates Obama's stance on raising capital gains tax or income taxes on those making over $200K. The fact of the matter is that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are currently taking up 45% of our budget and projected to take up 70% of our budget in the coming decades so we'll likely have to raise taxes to some degree (and cut funding for many other existing programs) to address this issue (and that doesn't begin to address our crumbling infrastructure). Robert Samuelson wrote on this in the WaPost again today (as he does almost every week):

<link>

"Of necessity, spending cuts should focus on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are projected to grow from about 45 percent of the present budget to 70 percent over a couple of decades. Paying for that exclusively with taxes would be devastating for the economy and our children. Paying exclusively by cutting other programs would gut vital government services. I admit that raising eligibility ages for baby boomers and cutting some benefits are unfair. People should have received more warning. But our politicians have so dawdled that there's no warning time left."

Anyway, you seem like a reasonable person. I hope we get your vote in the general election.

tubbs

Obama 08

You've done quite of job of convincing yourself. But your logic is so obviously flawed it barely requires repeating.

Tell us the correlation between what voters do in the primary and what they will do in the general. You left that part out.

And while you're at it apply your logic to McCain's dismal showing in the WV primary. By your logic, he can't win the general either.

As for Rev. Wright, the evidence shows that most people don't care. We can make a distinction between what Wright says and what Obama says. But out of curiousity, have you disassociated from everyone in your life that made comments others might find offensive? Oh and let me add that a friend recently found out that his priest of 25 years has molested several children. Guess that makes my friend a person who "sympathizes" or shares the views of a molester, right? How could he not have known that the person who married him and officiated at his mother's funeral was a predator?

Finally, your self-congratulatory remark about saying "nothing of race" really does say it all. We all know that matters of race are simply contrived by black liberals, and supported by that "lib" media. Race can't be a factor in a country that has only given blacks the right to vote in the last 50 years and that has had less than a handful of black senators in a couple of centuries.

raptor5168:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I would just like to point out that Obama has not proposed raising the capital gains tax rate to 55%. He has said he would not go above the rate during the Clinton administration, which was 28%. The tax rates during the Clinton years were clearly no impediment to people acquiring substantial wealth, and those who were already wealthy became far more so. Yes, there is a point at which higher rates damage the economy and become counterproductive, but we're not there; our tax rates are far lower than just about all of our peer nations.

Also, my understanding is that malpractice suits account for only a small fraction of the increase in health care costs. I think the amount lost in administration costs would dwarf it, and that's even before we got to insurance company profits. The problem with health insurance is that it doesn't respond well to profit motives. The companies have incentives to insure only people who are well and then not to pay unless it's clear that they have to do so (and it's the threat of being sued that helps provide the incentive to do so). Other countries get just as good health outcomes as we do, if not better, and spend far less. One thing none of them have is for-profit insurance. So it's not as if there aren't other examples for us to look at and learn from. I'm generally a free-market guy, but it just doesn't seem to work where health care is concerned.

As for the war, I had a letter in the NY Times a few weeks ago. It said that anyone who has been to that part of the world and haggled in a market knows that you're not going to get a deal until you show you're willing to leave. I just don't see the incentive for Iraqis taking responsibility for their own security as long as we're willing to stay and do it for them. Reasonable people can disagree on the matter, but as a political matter the issue favors Obama.

And for Florida and Michigan, again there must be some penalty for voting early or else things will be orders of magnitude worse next time. Otherwise we'll be having primaries on Labor Day 2010 for the 2012 general election, and that's not good for the party. And it's not a question of state rights; parties are independent associational organizations and are free to make their own rules, which is a pretty important constitutional principle. State parties can rely on state governments for election services, or they are free to do things on their own. The Florida state party in particular had the option to have a caucus; they chose not to. (The national parties are free not to have any selection process; the primary/caucus system is a relatively recent development. In 1960, it seems that only 14 states and DC had voter-selected delegates.)

As I wrote before, I think the most important thing we can do is take responsibility for our government again. Obama has said he can't get anything done by himself; we're the ones who will have to act on the issues we say we care about. I don't hear anyone else with that message. McCain continues to pretend that we can put the war on our national credit card and have more tax cuts and reduce the debt; it's fiscal disaster. If he thinks we should support the war, he should ask us to pay for it. I don't see how we'd be better off with him in office where we can pretend actions don't have costs that won't have serious consequences down the road. I hope that with Obama we will start having serious discussions about what we are willing to do as a nation, and what we're not, and let the will of the people prevail--but in a responsible way.