I agree with everything you've said... with the exception that I see race as an unchangeable element among a sizeable chunk of voters... and no message will overcome that obstacle with that group of voters.

Sadly... I know some.

Can he overcome by following the plan as you suggest. I believe so. He can overcome the handicap.. and must strive to do so.

Racism will have nothing to do with it, unless Obama does something wrong? That is quite a statement! Is it logical, or a playing of the Caucasian Card?



I would agree that Obama has many other obstacles than racism.



Was his milkman a Communist?

The republicans hammering away at Obama on non policy issue topics will certainly have an affect on voters such as yourself. It is ludicrous to believe that Obama's mixed race has nothing to do how some voters will cast their ballots...racism has and will enter into this election because we have racists in this nation.

double post.

Racism is an inescapable element... an obviously apparent one. McCain and the GOP don't have to mention it and it is a losing one for Obama.

There's nothing for Obama to win by trying to play race... he already has the black vote... and playing race won't help him with the white vote.

The Republicans... we'll they'll attack, smear and defame as always. It's all they know... and all they have.

I don't know if was or not Arne. I bet you could go over to Free Republic and get some of the folks over there to bite. If you do, I'd suggest, you make sure your immunization records are up to date, especially for rabies.

Obama doesn't need any bigot or pseudo bigot's vote

the question is-will they allow Obama's base to vote or will it be stolen

because Obama don't need one more vote

And note, Obama leads every single electoral college poll. He could lose 100% of the popular vote in the 26 states he don't need to win, and still win
big time in the electoral vote.

Of course it is ludicrous! Now that does not mean that if Obama loses that it would be wise to put it all to race, there certainly would be other reasons, things actually under his control and that of his supporters. We cannot get into the old racism as an excuse mode. But it is absurd to deny obvious reality.

ITA... it is an element. An inescapable element... but certainly not the only one.

Well, I've already heard one republican ad last week which can only be explained by Obama's lack of experience. It was a montage of Obama's speeches where he'd tell one audience one thing then turn around to a different audience and tell them just the opposite. For the 40% of independent voters out there in the middle Obama's lack of clearly speaking consistantly to his core beliefs are going to be devastating. For that 40% in the middle they don't go beyond what they hear on the radio and see on the TV, if they listen to that ad they'll have no idea what Obama stands for.

With the debate?
Who won the debate in most people's approximation?

I didn't hear the ad, but what the heck are you talking about? First of all saying different things to different audiences (assuming this is really much of a fair charge against Obama) is not an indication of inexperience. Second of all, it is hardly atypical of politicians in general. Now could the Republicans hurt Obama by making such a charge stick? Of course they could, but I doubt if it would be "devestating" to inculcate the idea that he shares a defect common to many politicians.

And of course Obama has his own ads speaking to what he stands for.

"
We'll never know the true "why" if Obama loses...race, republican smears.....rabid Hillary supporters....nothing will surprise me after the 2000 and 2004 elections? Nothing!

Well G4A, Obama's own people hold no illusion that at best they expect is only somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of the hard core democrats are going to vote for Obama (that would be at best 27% of all likely voters) and when the republicans get through shredding Obama he'll get about a quarter of the independents in the center. That will give Obama some where in the territory of 35 to 37% of the popular vote.

For Obama to win he'd need to get better than 60% of the independents to vote for him and with every passing day the likelyhood of that diminishes. After the conventions get ready for the attack ads to come out and too bad for Obama, they'll have a lot of material Obama created himself to fuel those attack ads.

It looks like your math skills equal those of Graham's. The thing here is that you can make numbers do anything with the right assumptions. Like Obama is going to wilt, any day now...

Marine, the conventions will be over in about two and half weeks. Even Graham allowed himself a bigger margin (so people would forget) when a year ago he predicted that the U.S. would attack Iran in 90 days.

guess you have no knowledge whatsoever about real numbers

your stats are for s%it

Your numbers make no sense whatsoever

If dems are 27% of the vote, then repubs are 22% as many more voters call themselves Dems than repubs.
You make it seem like independents are to the right, when in actuality, independents are to the left more than the right

INDEPENDENTS ARE NOT UNDECIDED VOTERS. THEY ARE JUST VOTERS WHO DO NOT DELCARE (ON THE FALSE ILLUSION THEY WON'T SERVE
JURY DUTY).

So, if indpenednets who don't like McCain and are republican leaning vote Barr or someone else, that makes them less.

Obama only needs Democratic voters to win
As McCain won't get 27 percent more of the total popular vote from the independent voters anyhow
(you are using sleight of hand to get those non-good at numbers confused with syaing

and of course, if you actally are a cpa (though I thought you were a gardener, depends which year on the board you are from), you already know all this spittle you are spewing.

And a 3% popular win by Obama =325=375 electoral votes
a 5% popular win means Obama gets 375-450 electoral votes

who needs Iran when they attacked russia?

marines # are bullspit
he is hoping people don't see his sleight of hand in the #s

Well, this was just one of the six or seven things they had in that radio ad:

Saying At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference In June 2008 That Jerusalem Should Be "'Must Remain Undivided and the Capital of Israel"
One Day After The AIPAC Conference, Obama Said "The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated".
"Facing Criticism From Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama Acknowledged Today That The Status Of Jerusalem Will Need To Be Negotiated In Future Peace Talks"

Depends on who the audience is as to what Barrack Obama's position is, eh Arne? Would you attribute it to Obama just has no core beliefs or would you atribute it t a lack of experience?

Should we start reciting McCain gaffs, blunders, flip-flops and idiocies ?

Well Graham, I think that when people confidently make predictions in boldly arguing against others that it is salutory for them to be reminded when their predictions end up falling flat. I know you are irritated now, but you might actually appreciate my point in a few weeks.

Anyway, I am sure that Marine can make his numbers look good. My main point was that that would not mean that they weren't bullspit, and you are likely to be dead on here.

Of course we should! What kind of question is that?

LOL

"Some" appear to believe that only Obama has said contradictory and ill-informed things...

How would you put this down to inexperience? Do you think that he does not understand the meaning of these words?

I think that he has core beliefs. I do criticize him for pandering (as most politicians do at least one time or another) at the AIPAC meeting, but that does not mean he has no core beliefs. I also believe that John McCain has core beliefs, but I also think that he will do nothing that means squat to the Russians if Moscow were to fool around more with their neighbors if he becomes President.

Whatever Obama believes about the future status of Jerusalem, of course it will have to be negotiated. He knows that and I think that is more important than what he might personally envision as the best outcome. I think that he is likely to push for something that satisfies both sides as much as possible and is seen as fair.

Actually, G4A the numbers are from the 2004 exit polls. The republicans and democrats split even getting 30% each of all voters, the remaining 40% identified themselves as independents.

This is why the ideologues in the democratic party keep screwing up just like you are. You can't win a national election unless you attract greater than half of the folks in the middle. Obama has put himsef in a hole cause instead of starting out with 30% he's managed to piss off enough of Hillary's people so he's starting of with between 25 and 27% which he'll need to make up with getting more independents. Independents are real quirky, this far out from election day they vote with their hearts, te closer it gets to election day they vote with their heads. I'm a real believer that history holds the answers to what we see and Obama ought to be holding about a 15 point lead on McNasty right now this far from the election but he's not.

SOMETHINGS WRONG? You bet somethings wrong, Obama ain't electable is what's wrong.

There is one left hook that could knock the chess pieces off the table:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/

August 18, 2008
Is the Dream Still Alive?
Posted by TOM BEVAN
Dan Balz has a lengthy rundown of Obama's VP options which includes this graf:

Clinton, of course, would be the ultimate surprise. She would be a big-league pick for Obama, and a gesture designed to unify the Democratic Party. But given all the questions and concerns about the role Bill Clinton would play during the campaign and particularly in an Obama administration, her selection still appears highly unlikely.
Fair enough. But if you scroll down Obama's list of choices, the analysis hasn't really changed: Obama with anyone other than Clinton doesn't seem to add much at all, while an Obama-Clinton "Dream Ticket" would seem to be nearly unstoppable.

Eight weeks ago Obama probably felt like he didn't need her. Eight weeks later, he probably needs her more than he's willing to admit, and certainly more than she needs him. If Obama wants to win, and if his ego will allow it, he should pick Clinton.

________________________________

What do y'all think? A Clinton in the White House?

No, I just don't see Hillary as the magic choice.

I think he made the first statement without thinking. An experienced politician don't say stuff of that importance unless it's been a well thought out process. Either Obama knew so little about the Israel/Palestinian problem not to grasp what saying an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would mean to the Palestinians or he's a really dumb fellow. Now I don't think he's dumb, I think he's just too wet behind the ears to know that much about the Middle East.

What do you think about McCain's statements about Czechoslovakia, about Iran supporting Al Qaeda? (If you want to challenge the last one remember that your hero Joe Lieberman corrected McCain on it. On that point of fact Joe happened to be right.) If McCain is wet behind the ears then why doesn't it matter for him?

you are full of it

Obama is winning ALL the blue states and five others
and if you believe the polls from 2004, then KERRY WON, as he was leading 5 other states that day

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

AL GORE is going to be the vp

the rest is bull

I won't vote for Obama if he picks Hillary.though Hillary is better than Bayh.
But Hillary is speaking Tuesday. You don't speak 2x

Of course Marine's case is dependent upon the present poll numbers changing.

marine has no case

he fudged his figures

hope his clients ask for a refund

He may be seeing trends that we don't see. I think he may also be seeing some election years and not others.

if you are going to quote exit polls from 2004, then you have to quote the fact that John Kerry won 5 states that all of a sudden he didn't

Yep, what John McCain is likely to stir up a hornets nest, eh Arne? From what I can tell the Czechs and the Slovaks are still pretty buddy buddy. One of the reasons I picked Ellis County Texas as where to settle down is cause of all the Czechs who live around here as farmers, nothing can beat a good polka band for entertainment.

I am not going to quote exit polls.

I happen to think that your general conclusion about the worth of Marine's prediction is correct, and my guess is that if he tries to prove it he will use very selective evidence.

I don't think one has to prove that the election of 2004 was stolen to prove him wrong. (Wheww!!!)

The election of 2000 was essentially a dead heat whose outcome hinged on the dubious results in Florida, and the Republicans aggressively grabbed the state by hook and crook.

So his being wet behind the ears doesn't matter? Ignorance is fine as long as it does not immediately spark a controversy?



So maybe McCain was right after all but the folks in Prague and Bratislava don't know that they are still one country.

Well I attribute that to the fact that some democrats have got to manufacture a conspiracy heory to explain why their unelectable candidate lost. You see, it's never some folks fault for anything.

Anytime you want to make your case Marine. Remember that right now the polls are showing that Obama is tied with McCain or leading him by a few points, less than 90 days before the election. We can say that he should be leading McCain by more, but the fact is that if he is ahead in the end, by whatever margin, he wins.

I'll rely on history Arne, the democrat always has had the lead at this point in the game. At one point Dukakis lead Poppy by 17 points and by this point in time was at a 15 point lead. The closer it gets to the election the less support a democrat shows; it's a hearts versus head thing. Unless McNasty makes some major blunder Obama's going to be creamed.

That is one year, Marine, 1988.

Let us look at another year, 1968. How does that fit the pattern?

this isn't dukakis marine

dukakis ran against an incumbent vp running for President

which is totally different than 2 unknowns.

Just wait til the negative ads start against mcCAin

Rememeber- Obama has run a perfectly clean campaign and McCain has relied on dirt.
Wait til the big boys start. McCain is spending his money now, because he is limited(as he has no actual fans).

Obama will unleash the arsenol and people will discover the real MCcain, they haven't even started to get the truth out.

And saying things like "McCain isn't actually pro-choice" is not even dirt, it is simply the truth!

Or so you hope.....yeah that old hearts vs head thing.....you're hoping that the majority, like yourself, will abandon reasoning and embrace some kind of fuzzy heart thingy....kind of like fuzzy math.....you can make a case for it but it just isn't reality based.

No, he's spending his money now because he has to. Because he accepted public financing, he had (at the start of the month) $27 million he had to spend before the convention or he could not use it.

Wasn't GW's "look into Putin's eyes and see his good soul" based on a fuzzy "heart thingy"? GW's "heart" was really accurate on that one...and on Iarq's WMD, etc.....I'll let my heart take over when looking at puppies and other cute critters...I'll use my mind when it comes to voting for politicians.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bull...etin_080820.htm

Wednesday, August 20, 2008
CAMPAIGN NEWS

McCain Moving Up In Polls,
Takes 5 Point Lead In Zogby National Survey

New polling data just released by Zogby International this morning shows Sen. John McCain jumping to a 5 point lead over Sen. Barack Obama nationally. The poll of 1,089 likely voters taken August 14-16 shows McCain leading Obama 46%-41%; a similar poll last month showed Obama leading McCain 47%-40%.

Obama Edges McCain Nationally In LAT/Bloomberg Poll Another new poll out this morning also shows McCain making strong inroads on Obama. A Los Angeles Times /Bloomberg News poll shows Obama leading McCain 45%-43% head-to-head, and 42%-41% if minor party candidates are included. The poll surveyed 1,248 registered voters from August 14-18. A similar survey in June showed Obama leading by 12 points.

Tracking Polls Show Similar Narrow Gap. The Gallup daily presidential tracking poll shows Obama leading McCain 45%-44%, down from a 46%-43% the previous day. The poll surveyed 2,648 registered voters from August 16-18. The Rasmussen Reports automated daily presidential tracking poll for August 19 shows Obama leading McCain 45%-42%, and 47%-45% including leaners.

Obama Up By Single Digits In Iowa Poll The AP reports that according to a University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll conducted Aug. 4-13 Obama leads in Iowa 44%-38%. Including leaners, Obama leads 48%-43%.

McCain Up By 3 In Florida A Rasmussen Reports automated poll of 700 likely Florida voters taken August 18 shows McCain leading Obama 46%-43%. In a similar survey in late July, Obama led 46%-45%.

McCain Up By 6 In Indiana A SurveyUSA automated poll of 645 likely Indiana voters taken August 16-18 for WCPO-TV Cincinnati and WHAS-TV Louisville shows McCain leading Obama 50%-44%.


---------------------------

I continue to believe it will be close...and I see the Obama Campaign has taken the gloves off with new attack ads.
It's the right thing for him to do...if he can refine the message to a baseline...and pick the right VP. I think Kaine
is not too good a choice (lack of national experience), but it might help in Virginia...and in a close race...well...
it could just come down to who stumbles the least/most in the home stretch...

I'd still like both to move away from this One-World stuff (McCain - free trade; Obama - world citizenship)...

It is one world. Last month I was in Colombia, and it was about as foreign to me as...upstate New York. My kids have cousins there.

And I am sure that Obama would only mean "world citizenship" in some kind of vague, metaphorical sense. Still, we are all tied together, whether we like it or not. (A big part of the problem is that many, all over the world, don't like it at all!)

I figure Obama handled it ok when the entire DLC Kitchen Sink got thrown at him..I figure he will muster his resources while staying centered on presenting a person-centered, community-based
and nationally guaranteed system of goverance which is a notably more humanitarian constitutional
democratic republic than we citizens have experienced during the Bush Administration or could
hope for from a McCain Administration...

Maybe you ought to check the news this morning Arne, Obama is down by five to McCain. It's going to get worst.