Doubts from an Obama supporter

[What_Exit]

@Bricker

In 2004, the strong consensus on this board was that John Kerry had the election sewed up, because people were sick of George W. Bush’s incompetence and the war in Iraq.

Can I suggest, again, that the possibly apocryphal story about Pauline Kael is of relevance here? (Supposedly, Kael, a writer for a New York newspaper, expressed utter surprise at Nixon’s 1972 landslide victory over McGovern, saying something like, “How is that possible? None of my friends voted for Nixon!”)

I find an amazing tendency here to hear the widespread agreement from active posters on a board that leans politically left, and extrapolate those attitudes to the American populace at large.

I wasn’t here in 2004, but I can well believe it. I spend a lot of time with old school liberals in the environmental group I am in. Despite planning to vote for Kerry (who I despise) I kept trying to tell my liberal friends that Kerry was capable of grasping defeat from victory and that the grassroots anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives would draw out a lot of low brain function new or rarely voting voters.

Now whether I was right or wrong about the cause of Kerry losing to Bush, Kerry did to the surprise of most of those I hang out with, lose.

Clinton can lose with ease and even Obama might lose to John McCain. working against Obama is the lies about him being Muslim, a Furriner or even a sleeper agent.

Jim

[Bricker]

@Richard Parker

Where are you seeing this?

This is a point that all on the SDMB should agree to, but I can’t help wondering to whom it is addressed? Was someone in this thread saying that Obama is a lock in the general because of their anecdotal observations?

I certainly get that feel from several posters on this board. But if someone’s reading this and NOT relying on anecdotal data that’s subject to confirmation bias… why, then, this post isn’t for you!

[Maeglin]

@Bricker

I certainly get that feel from several posters on this board. But if someone’s reading this and NOT relying on anecdotal data that’s subject to confirmation bias… why, then, this post isn’t for you!

Very funny. I am sure the irony of this is by no means lost on you.

[Little_Nemo]

Bush had more executive experience than most candidates in history have had. The idea that Bush was an inexperienced candidate is a bit of a myth. He was inexperienced in Federal politics.

That’s just ridiculous. George Bush was a two-term governor. His political experience was at best average for Presidential candidates.

[Sam_Stone]

@Little Nemo

That’s just ridiculous. George Bush was a two-term governor. His political experience was at best average for Presidential candidates.

And that would make Obama’s experience well below average. Probably in the bottom 10%, wouldn’t you say?

[Jragon]

@Sam Stone

This is a senator with no executive experience. He’s a one-term senator who is generally considered to be one of the most liberal members of the Senate. He has not performed all that well in the debates, and quite poorly in the last one. He’s got no foreign policy experience. He’s an academic in law, but has no real training in economics or anything to do with the military.

I’m not saying we should outright ignore experience, and this is an odd case, but I would like to point out President Lincoln’s experience involved a handful of terms in the Illinois Legislature and a single term in the US House of Representatives (as well as being a lawyer of course).

I do agree with the general vibe of your post though.

[Bricker]

@Maeglin

Very funny. I am sure the irony of this is by no means lost on you.

Yes, I posted that and then imploded in a recursive, self-referential loop.

Took me all night to find my way out.

[Maeglin]

@Bricker

Yes, I posted that and then imploded in a recursive, self-referential loop.

I hear they make a cream for that now.

[mswas]

@Little Nemo

That’s just ridiculous. George Bush was a two-term governor. His political experience was at best average for Presidential candidates.

Plus years of executive experience in the private sector. Remember experience and being good at your job are not mutually inclusive. That’s more than say, Reagan had, but less than his own Father had, but more than Clinton had.

[Taber]

I believe that Obama will have no trouble winning the general election. In the past 28 years, we’ve had Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Clinton, Bush II, Bush II. Notice anything? Six of those 7 names are known for their charisma. Charisma wins elections, and Obama is the most charismatic candidate right now.

McCain does have a lot of experience, but so does Bill Richardson, who didn’t do so well against Obama. It maybe isn’t how it should be, but it is what it is.

[Contrapuntal]

@Shayna

You’re looking at this the wrong way, Key Lime Guy. Obama is trouncing her by every conceivable measure. A 150+ pledged delegate lead is a trouncing. He’s also way ahead in popular vote totals, even if you include Florida and Michigan (where his name wasn’t even on the ballot!).

Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Florida? Are you sure? He got nearly 600,000 votes.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/FL.html

I don’t think that, given that some states relied on a caucus system, it even makes sense to talk about the popular vote.

That said, the worst is yet to come. The final four states–Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington–all held caucuses. But unlike Florida and Michigan, none of them even kept track of how many people voted for each candidate. (This is standard operating procedure in some caucuses, where delegates are awarded proportionally in thousands of precincts.) Wonks can devise equations to estimate the popular vote all they want, but mixing precise vote totals from other states with caucus approximations–which are, by definition, inaccurate–is mixing apples and oranges. Besides, thousands of voters in Iowa entered the caucuses intending to support Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, but were forced to jump to Obama, Edwards or Clinton once their preferred candidate didn’t reach the 15-percent viability threshold; in Nevada, the same thing happened to Edwards supporters. How can you possibly pretend to count people required to resort to their second choices?

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/23/flashback-the-popular-vote-still-doesn-t-add-up.aspx

[The_Hamster_King]

@Contrapuntal

Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Florida? Are you sure? He got nearly 600,000 votes.

He wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan. The Clinton camp can make a valid case for counting the Florida votes for Hillary. But counting the Michigan votes is ridiculous.

[Contrapuntal]

@Pochacco

He wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan. The Clinton camp can make a valid case for counting the Florida votes for Hillary. But counting the Michigan votes is ridiculous.

That’s why I didn’t ask about Michigan.

[Shayna]

@Contrapuntal

Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Florida? Are you sure? He got nearly 600,000 votes.

Florida Primary Election Results - Election Guide 2008 - Results - The New York Times]

Not what I said. The parentheses were immediately following Michigan, which is where he wasn’t even on the ballot (which Hillary acknowledged at the time was clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.") Only now that she’s so far behind, she wants to disingenuously make it count. Oh, and blame Barack Obama for the fact that it doesn’t. As if 12 of the 30 members of the DNC Rules Committee who voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates weren’t her supporters, including her Chief Strategist, Harold Ickes.

Hillary Clinton, fair-weather friend to Michigan and Florida.

. . .

On Aug. 25, when the DNC’s rules panel declared Florida’s primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida’s defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness’ sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee’s 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida’s full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

. . .

[Shayna]

@Pochacco

The Clinton camp can make a valid case for counting the Florida votes for Hillary.

No they can’t.

[Contrapuntal]

@Shayna

Not what I said. The parentheses were immediately following Michigan,

Tell that to my Mom and Dad (who raised me to be precise in my speech.)

Or perhaps you could ask my Mother, and my Father (who lives in a retirement center near me.)

[stolichnaya]

By any chance, are your parents Ayn Rand and God?

[Contrapuntal]

@stolichnaya

By any chance, are your parents Ayn Rand and God?

By the use of the word “and” do you mean to connect those two in any way? As in suggesting joint parentage?

[Shayna]

@Contrapuntal

By the use of the word “and” do you mean to connect those two in any way? As in suggesting joint parentage?

Oh for fuck’s sake. How pedantic can one get? If you were unclear about my meaning, ask. And when I clarify, refrain from criticizing a missing fucking comma. Jesus Christ.

[pulykamell]

@Contrapuntal

Or perhaps you could ask my Mother, and my Father (who lives in a retirement center near me.)

Actually, I don’t think a comma belongs there–at least it’s not any usage of a comma I’m familiar with. Shayna’s sentence did not require a comma, but it could be construed as ambiguous.