Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archives' started by biscuitsbrah, Aug 11, 2014.
All the kids and blacks voted for him. Simple as that.
So is America a far-left nation? Or do you exclude "kids and blacks" from your understanding of America? BTW, it wasn't just kids and blacks. Obama overwhelmingly won among Hispanics, Asians and "other" (not white, black, Hispanic or Asian), and won highly educated whites by a big margin. And in addition to 18-29-year-olds, Obama also won among 30-44-year-olds. Are all of those groups "far-left" and not really Americans? It's really just uneducated whites that gave Romney the South and made it a little close.
It doesn't mean America is far left or far right. A presidential nominee will generally get the 45% or so of Americans who will vote just for the (R) or (D) next to their name. Then it's up to them to secure the swing voters. Obama's swing voters were the young and the black (or minority, if you prefer).
You ask how it squares that Obama is "some kind of far-leftist" and still won two elections. It's because he got the Dem party liners as any Dem would, and he got the youth and minority votes.
Obama being a better candidate had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he is far left or even if the nation is far left. I also never claimed either of those, but it's quite ludicrous to describe him as conservative.
In the war room, however, most of his apologists do seem to be extreme leftists.
Blacks and young people vote reliably Democrat don't they? That's kind of the opposite of what a swing voter is.
Sure it matters. That's way oversimplistic. If the GOP nominated an extreme right-wing candidate (like Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul), they'd lose a lot of people who normally vote Republican. A candidate that is far from the center won't win.
Again, you're just avoiding the issue. Is the electorate "far left"? And if it's not, how does a "far left" candidate win? Do you think Obama is to the left of the typical Democrat? I think he's pretty clearly to the right of the typical Democrat (generally, any winning Dem is going to be to the right of an average Dem and any winning Republican is going to be to the left of the party's center).
Of course it does. "Better" is subjective. If most of the country thinks he's the better candidate, he can't differ much from them ideologically.
More accurately, anyone who doesn't buy some of the ludicrous criticism of the president is branded as an "extreme leftist" regardless of their actual views.
Yeah. And most "independent" voters are just as consistent with their party preferences as self-identified party voters.
bring your victimisation Sherman.
Turnout increased. I haven't run the numbers. Would Obama have won if it weren't for young and black voters? Maybe so.
The Dem electorate isn't "far left" as far as I know. But they'll vote for a far left guy if he's running against an (R). I'm going to guess that staunch (R) or (D) party line voters won't actually switch camps over how close to center or how far out extreme their candidate is. They'll just either vote their side of the ticket or stay home.
Personally I'll stay home in Nov '16 if Chris Christie's the (R) nominee. I just don't like the guy. That is, unless Hillary is the (D) nominee. I'd vote for just about literally any (R) against her, I just dislike her that much. Actually I'm not looking forward to this next election cycle at all.
For a Democratic president, he is no farther left than should be expected and, to a lot of left-leaning voters, he is further right than expected. And, on a lot of issues, he has been markedly right of center (or, in some cases, the absence of actions towards the left would makes it appear so). No one is saying he is a damn Tea Partier.
Also, who are these extreme leftists on this board? I'm genuinely curious. Most of the persons arguing from the left, being portrayed as die-hard liberals, are actually closer to center when it comes to actual policy preference. I can't think of any real "extreme leftists."
Probably not, but I don't think this says much about far-left or far-right. Republicans wouldn't be competitive without the elderly or people who believe the earth is 6000 years old.
LOL. I think he's under the impression that your av is Richard Sherman.
Because, you know, something about people looking the same.....
I agree. I don't think that Obama's winning says the electorate has moved left. He was a guy in the right place at the right time, and he's a hell of a campaigner. And he appealed to the youth, and him getting nearly 100% of the black vote plus unprecedented black voter turnout was a no-brainer. If the Republicans were smart, they'd run a Hispanic woman in '16.
lol, good catch.
I legitimately had no idea. That's priceless.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
My clients are general counsel for corporations and litigators at corporate law firms (typically AM 100's).
I can't tell you, throughout the years, how many have left the corporate side of things to pursue more intrinsically rewarding, but less monetarily rewarding positions. Typically, they move to Federal Gov't positions. They make some cash doing corporate litigation, pay off some student debt, then when their debt is paid down a bit, make the move.
As I've seen so many people do it, that might be a route you consider.
Gratz on the acceptance. Call me when you graduate and have a few terabytes of e-discovery processing to knock out!
Hopefully they don't rush to choose a candidate based entirely on supposed demographic appeal. It didn't work so well in 2008 with that VP they chose.
No, she turned out to be a dud. Yet it does help to have the press on your side. The Dems run a black guy, it's historical, compelling. The Repubs run a woman, it's gimmicky and manipulative. The Repubs do seem to lack finesse when it comes to choosing candidates. I'd happily vote for a third party candidate just to bust things up, like when Perot ran (not that that one turned out any better).
Well, the Democrats didn't run a black guy for the novelty of it. It's not like they threw out a Herm Cain. Obama was the best candidate in their stable: smart, fresh, charismatic, and well-regarded in his previous offices. Palin was seen as a gimmick because she was a gimmick. She had no business bearing that level of responsibility because she was simply incapable.
I wish people around here had more of a sense of humor.
Bunch of obummers.
I admitted Obama is a great campaigner and that the Dems ran the right guy at the right time. But you don't need to try to feed me your Kool Aid, bro. I get that you actually believe that when the D's do it, it's strategy, and when the R's do it, it's gimmick. That's not a ringing endorsement of your powers of perception or your ability to look at things objectively.