One of our candidates has hit 270

One of my favorite features of this site is the pollwatchers on the upper corners of the page. I don't think I'm alone in attentively waiting for one of our candidates to hit the 270 mark. Well, it's finally happened.

I think that event is an occasion for all of us to reflect on who really is the more electable candidate!!



Display:


Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

I didn't know the presidential election was in April.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:22:17 PM EST

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

Hoorah!

The only problem is the person who hit 270 is not our supposed nominee.

Again, I join millions of americans in asking.

Why can't Barack Obama close the deal ?

Frankly, I don't think he will ever close the deal.

If one can't close the deal with 4 to 1 financial advantage plus all out MSM help, he ain't going to close the deal in 2008.


by latinfighter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 2)

Even MSNBC acknowledged how brilliant the Clinton campaign has changed Hillary's image from left-liberal to moderate - This is EXACTLY why Bill Clinton won, this is exactly why Hillary Clinton will win. This is exactly why Obama will lose.


by Jaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:26:59 PM EST

Hillary knows what she done (none / 0)

Hillary, your consequences are now.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 0)

I'd rather nominate the person I think would be the best President.  I think that is Obama.  If we lose because we chose the best guy for the job then so be it.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:29:26 PM EST

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 1)

Could you provide specific examples of why you believe he is best qualified to be our next President?  Thanks.


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 1)

1) He saw through the Iraq BS and took an unpopular position because he believed it was the right thing to do.

2) His dealings with R's like Coburn & Lugar lead me to believe he can build consensus on run of the mill yet important issues.  

3) His ability to sway the public with his speaking skills leads me to believe he will be able to make his case directly to the people on issues that we can't find a compromise position on such as health care and fixing social security.  

4) He has no bagage or unfinished business with the Republicans and therefore doesn't have to spend time mending fences before he can get things done.

5) He doesn't have decades of political favors to pay back so he can appoint the most qualified people any particular job.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 1)

He's got plenty of baggage, as it's now appearing. Ayers, Wright...

The argument is so invalid, it's unbelievable.

He has no example of "unifying" anything, quite infact, it's becoming more and more obvious that Catholics, Hispanics, White-Rural will be willing to vote for Hillary but not Obama.

This is more of a character issue, rather than a political issue.


by Jaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

No one will care about Ayers or Wright after Obama takes the oath of office.  I don't think anyone cares about those guys now.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:59:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Iraq Myth (none / 0)

He delivered a speech against Iraq because it was advised by his political strategist at the time - he needed to secure the liberal base in order to win his state ticket.  Interestingly, he also used legal manuevering to muscle out a fellow Democrat who had seniority and was expected to run on that ticket in his stead - a tendancy that is repeating itself in this campaign.

Once he began running for U.S. Senate, at a time when the war was popular, he wrote in his own book that he began to think his opposition to the war was wrong.  He also said he wasn't sure how he would have voted after all.  By 2004, his thinking had morphed into this: "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."  He removed the speech from his website, calling it "dated"

When asked by Tim Russert on Meet the Press last year why he didn't speak out against the war in 2004, he said it would not have been politically convenient, because we had just nominated Kerry, who, like many Democrats, voted to authorize the use of force.

By September of 2004 he spoke out publicly against any withdrawal from Iraq.  He said that would "make things worse."  Again, this was to conform with the politically popular viewpoint at the time.

Later that month, he began to advocate sending additional troops to Iraq, to expand and extend the war, "if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country."

He stressed this further in November, on the Charlie Rose show.  "Once the decision was made , then we've got to do everything we can to stabilize the country [...] because we'll have too much at stake in the Middle East.  And that's the position I continue to take."  The Dubya rationale, almost word for word.

For the next year he said almost nothing on Iraq, and voted identically to Hillary each and every time.  By November of 2005, sensing a change in the political winds, he modified his position and said "we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. Military footprint in Iraq."  "Notice that I say reduce, and not fully withdraw", he stressed.

Out of nowhere, in late October of 2006, Obama had a revelation, and proclaimed the urgent need for "all the leadership in Washington to execute a serious change of course in Iraq."  I wonder what was on his mind?

By February 10, 2007, his position has shifted yet again, and he said it was "time to start bringing our troops home" right NOW.  He emphasized that he had "a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008."

Why the sudden reversal?

After spending years reinforcing the Republican position and stating countless times that a sudden reversal would be a disastrous idea, why the radical change in thinking?

The answer is clear when you recognize that something else happened on February 10, 2007: the annointed Junior Senator announced he was going to run for President.

Where does Barack really stand on Iraq?  We don't know.  We can take cues from his top foreign aid advisor, who have recommended plans to keep a substantial contingency of 80,000 troops in Iraq past 2010.  Or perhaps we can take a cue from another one of his advisers, who is the author of the famous "Afghan Trap" strategy that was responsible for creating the radical terrorist organizations that would later be responsible for 09-11.  For a man running on an anti-war platform, he has surrounded himself with some of the most hawkish Democrats alive today.

And is his 16-month time table a real commitment, or another broken promise?  Notwithstanding the fact that another foreign policy adviser confessed that it was a "best case scenario" that he "almost certainly would not" stick to if elected, no serious independent analyst seems to think he will do it either.

There are some good reasons to support Barack Obama - his attempt to pull off Dean's 50-state strategy is one.  But the Iraq Myth is not.


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The bipartisan myth (none / 0)

Of the three remaining candidates for President of the United States, two have admirable track records for bi-partisan work.  Barack Obama is not one of them.

In their expose "Star Power, Minor Role", the NY Times notes that Barack disappointed fellow democrats by saving his political capital, and backing down from the tough fights.  At times he would have his name added to a bill, but several senators recall instances in which the Messiah would come to a meeting, say a few words, and leave - saving the heavy lifting for others.

In a series of interviews conducted by the Boston Globe, numerous Republican Senators indicated their strong respect for Hillary Clinton.  Several of them considered her the "go to" person if you needed to get something serious done in a bi-partisan way.

It is well known that she entered the Senate with the potential to have a huge chip on her shoulder.  But she chose not to.  She kept her head down, and worked hard.  Her technique was so admired that it became known as the "Clinton Method", and when the Junior Senator first entered the Senate, Hillary was one of the mentors he turned to for guidance.  Her advice was simple: work hard, tend to your constituents.

As this contest continues, I cannot help but feel that Barack, or at least most of his supporters, do not understand what unity actually entails.

There is a big difference between "come together" and "come to me".  Unity that is simply the end-result of shutting out all opposition is a dictatorship.  So Unity in and of itself can be good or bad.  What matters is how you get there.

It strikes me as curious that so many Obama supporters chastise President Clinton for his "triangulation".  I don't think they ever stopped to think that "reaching across the aisle", "working together", "unity" and "triangulation" all amount to the same thing: working toward the middle and reaching a compromise.

Barack has talked about working together a lot.  But Hillary Clinton has actually walked the walk, time after time after time.  I think we do need to come together, but I can see through the media smears and recognize that Hillary is actually someone who can do it.


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your other points (none / 0)

"Ability to sway the public with his speaking" is not at the top of my list of criteria, to be frank.  I acknowledge it is a useful skill.  But Dubya also has the ability to sway the public with his speaking (outrageous and offensive as that is, but the truth is.. he sways people..).

Hillary does not have his oratory skill.  But I'm choosing a President, not a Pep-squad Captain.  She could never have gotten where she is today if she lacked the ability to be persuasive.

"He has no baggage or unfinished business" is a polite way to say "he has no experience and won't know what he's doing."  Our entire political structure, which has endured more than two centuries, is not simply going to melt away in the glorious sunlight of Obama.  Special interests don't go away either, as you can see in Obama's case: after delivering speeches stating that public financing was the ONLY WAY (his words) that we would ever see real change in this country, it looks like he plans to break his pledge after all.  Once he got a taste of special interest dollars (they account for over 60% of his fundraising thru February, who knows what they are up to now), he decided they weren't so bad after all.

On the other hand, if we know one thing about life, it is this - we grow through struggle.  We learn through failures.  These are the experiences that, if we're made of the right stuff, harden our resolve and ultimately allow us to rise to the challenge of our time.

The last person you would hire as a CEO would be the guy who never made a mistake.  Why?  Because he won't know what the hell to do when he does make one, as we all will, from time to time.  Hillary learned a lot from her battles in healthcare reform - remember - this was not even a topic on the nation's conscience until she demonstrated the leadership to raise it.  It didn't work, but she got back up, and we have SCHIP in no small part due to her.

I would not hold it against someone to have made a mistake - what matters much more is how they respond in the aftermath of it.


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

That's an amazingly short-sighted strategy. Almost as ingenious as voting for Nader in 2000 because "it doesn't matter who the president is".


by LakersFan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:25:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

Actually it is the exact opposite.  The risk may be higher (according to Hillary supporters) but the payoff is bigger.  No guts no glory as they say.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:37:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

If the Democratic candidate loses, we all lose.

I know it's difficult to accept, but politics is really only about winning elections. Ideology and principles don't do a bit of good if you don't win. (Princpled stances and ideology are fine, but they rarely wins elections, especially not for Democrats.)


by LakersFan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

Winning at any cost isn't a philosophy I will ever embrace.  If we can't figure out how to win when we have the best man for the job as our nominee then we deserve to lose.  There are many ways to win the election in November.   Anyone who thinks otherwise lacks imagination.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (1.00 / 2)

We've had the best person for the job and managed to lose many times before. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this isn't about using your imagination, it's about harnessing reality and using it to your advantage. (If principles are what you're into, you might be better off concentrating on religion or philosphy.)


by LakersFan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

What is the reality?  

If your answer is that only Clinton can beat McCain in November then you lack imagination.  There are many ways to beat McCain in November.  If you believe it will be harder for Obama to beat McCain then it will be for Clinton to beat him then we will have to agree to disagree about that.  If you want to tell me you know Obama can't win then that is crazy talk.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

I'm not saying any of that. I'm just saying that nominating the "best person" won't help if they can't get elected. You said that if the best person lost, "so be it", and I just don't think we can afford to have such lofty ideals. That's how we ended up with W.

Don't get me wrong. Values, idealism and ideology are fine, they just don't necessarily go that well with politics and winning elections. The electoral success of the GOP proves this.


by LakersFan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

That zero rating is uncalled for.  If I had my mojo powers I would rate you up.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

Thanks.


by LakersFan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

I would rather nominate a nominee who can really be President.

Rather than someone who will run in November but will surely lose by a landslide.

I'm not hear to make any protest statement.

I'm in it to win!

Only one woman can win it all!


by latinfighter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:16:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One has hit 270 (2.00 / 1)

I notice the other one is losing?


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM EST

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 1)

Looking at these two tickers I have a concern.

Is there any way to win in the GE if OH, Pennsylvania, Fl and MO all go for republicans in Nov?


by J Rae on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:38:29 PM EST

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 1)

Possible, but much less likely.


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

If Ohio goes GOP, most likely FL will too. If PA goes GOP, most likely WI goes to. If MO goes GOP, say goodbye to any chance with KY or TN. The only states in the West, which could go blue are NM, CO, and NV, and that is not enough to offset losses in PA.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

No.


by LakersFan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

270 what?
superdelegate?

From Chuck Todd the numbers guy:
MSNB:
Obama 238
Clinton 262


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

Get your head in the right place. Electoral college. If you were trying to change the subject and be a spoiler, leave.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

I knew what it meant......my comment was a commentary on how much faith I put into those totally "Unbiased, fair, and balanced"...electoral counters.......the answer is NONE


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 1)

Yay! Let's trust the flash animation! Someone call the superdelegates!


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:49:34 PM EST

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 1)

Good thing that there's no chance of any bias at all  in a graphic like that.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (none / 0)

There is not a single trace of bias. They are a pure representation of the latest poll done in every state for each candidate.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One of our candidates has hit 270 (2.00 / 1)

Over the last month, it has been consistent that Obama performs better than Clinton in the national polls against McCain, but when it comes to the electoral college, state-by-state, Clinton has the advantage. They both have strengths and weaknesses. I just believe that Clinton's strengths outweighs Obama's strengths and provides Democrats a better path to the Presidency. Can Obama win on his electoral strengths? Yes. But I feel much more comfortable with Clinton heading the ticket.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:03:35 PM EST

Wow (none / 0)


   since one day, one candidate hits 270 this long before election day, that proves her electability and Obama's inability?

  Now that I know who's supporting Clinton, with such logic, it's no wonder her campaign has been the utter disaster it has.


by southernman on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:10:54 PM EST

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Yet Obama supporters have been crying "Unelectable! Unelectable" since January 2007. Yet, for some reason, as we get closer to the election, Clinton looks "more" electable than Obama. Hmmm.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)


   Very few Obama supporters have said that Clinton couldn't beat McCain. We HAVE said she has no practical shot at the nomination.

  But should she get it, she very well could beat McCain.

  Nice try!

  Obama looks more electable against McCain, but Hillary can also beat him. But Hillary has no reasonable shot at the nomination, except for a superdelegate coup.


by southernman on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Nice try for you. Look it up. I dare you. Every week there was a diary saying Clinton was unelectable. Everyone said Obama or Edwards were the only candidate who could beat the Republicans. Again, Exhibit A: Daily Kos.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)


   And yet, according to you, there aren't any diaries claiming Clinton is the only electable candidate.

  Your outrage is pathetic. It's ok when Clinton makes such absurd claims, but not when Edwards or Obama does?

  I love it! Textbook example of the hypocrisy and resentment of the Clinton forces. She got beat. The better candidate won!


by southernman on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.