No doubt. I certainly wouldn’t bet any money on these polls. And as we discussed elsewhere, the real question is about swing states. But we don’t conclude from that that the current polls are a wash. They are not.
The polls do show that right now Obama looks better than Hillary nationally against McCain. Whenever one considers electability, one has to make a judgment based on incomplete evidence and in the web of incomplete evidence, this is a legitimate data point.
Now you’re being willfully ignorant. If you had nothing to worry about, if the majority of Americans wanted Hillary, you wouldn’t be here in the Pit, arguing about why people who don’t like her should like her. It’s not in the bag, thank god.
You’re calling me a liar? Is that the best you can do? Have you been listening? Frank Luntz was just on Real Time With Bill Maher, stating unequivocally that the Republicans want nothing more than to run against Hillary, that they would be totally fucked trying to run McCain against Obama. I could offer more cites but YOU are going to be compelled to call them lies, so why should I bother to offer more?
Politically, I’m more closely in agreement with Obama. Also, it’s nice to back a candidate with charisma for a change. Also, someone under 60 who isn’t a Washington insider. You can argue with me until you’re blue in the face, you can insult me, but that ain’t gonna change how I feel about it. I’m from NY-- I have plenty of valid reasons to dislike Hillary.
Exactly what ignorance of mine do you think you fought? I said there were plenty of people who didn’t like Hillary, and that I think she’d have a hard time running against McCain. You said :rolleyes: . You consider that fighting ignorance? I call it being a dick.
Are you really talking to me? I have to overcome my “baser instincts” to get on board with Hillary? No, I think I have plenty of perfectly valid reasons to prefer Obama. I don’t understand why it’s OK for you to frame this debate as: I am right, and anyone who agrees with me is an igoramus who has succumbed to base emotions. Such as hate. I don’t hate Hillary. I am sick of the Clintons and would prefer Obama were the Democratic candidate. I think he has a better chance of winning the election and I like him better for a whole host of reasons, some of which are emotional. What is your problem with that?
If you can point out even ONE INSTANCE where I expressed opinions that can be accurately characterized as “visceral hatred and ignorance,” I would be very, very surprised. Go ahead and try. If you can’t do it, I expect an apology but I doubt I’ll get one.
Now you’re being willfully ignorant. If you had nothing to worry about, if the majority of Americans wanted Hillary, you wouldn’t be here in the Pit, arguing about why people who don’t like her should like her. It’s not in the bag, thank god.
You’re calling me a liar? Is that the best you can do? Have you been listening? Frank Luntz was just on Real Time With Bill Maher, stating unequivocally that the Republicans want nothing more than to run against Hillary, that they would be totally fucked trying to run McCain against Obama. I could offer more cites but YOU are going to be compelled to call them lies, so why should I bother to offer more?
Politically, I’m more closely in agreement with Obama. Also, it’s nice to back a candidate with charisma for a change. Also, someone under 60 who isn’t a Washington insider. You can argue with me until you’re blue in the face, you can insult me, but that ain’t gonna change how I feel about it. I’m from NY-- I have plenty of valid reasons to dislike Hillary.
Exactly what ignorance of mine do you think you fought? I said there were plenty of people who didn’t like Hillary, and that I think she’d have a hard time running against McCain. You said :rolleyes: . You consider that fighting ignorance? I call it being a dick.
Are you really talking to me? I have to overcome my “baser instincts” to get on board with Hillary? No, I think I have plenty of perfectly valid reasons to prefer Obama. I don’t understand why it’s OK for you to frame this debate as: I am right, and anyone who agrees with me is an igoramus who has succumbed to base emotions. Such as hate. I don’t hate Hillary. I am sick of the Clintons and would prefer Obama were the Democratic candidate. I think he has a better chance of winning the election and I like him better for a whole host of reasons, some of which are emotional. What is your problem with that?
If you can point out even ONE INSTANCE where I expressed opinion that can be accurately characterized as “visceral hatred and ignorance,” I would be very, very surprised. Go ahead and try. If you can’t do it, I expect an apology but I doubt I’ll get one.
Wasn’t Jimmy Carter basically a swell, pretty good dude who wasn’t a Washington insider? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t not being a Washington insider hamper his ability to do much of anything?
I don’t want another Jimmy Carter who smiles a lot and makes everyone feel good and gets little accomplished.
I remember another smiling outsider. What was his name…? Oh yeah! Bill Clinton!
That worked out OK. I’m sure Obama will, too.
Wow, I fucked that sentence up but good. It should have read: “I am right, and anone who disagrees with me…” I blame the Sudafed.
Also, comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter? That’s one I hadn’t heard before.
You like Washington outsiders. I was pointing another one out to you.
Yeah, and? spoke- pointed out another one for you that apparently worked out just fine. If you’re trying to convince me that voting for Obama is a bad idea, it’s not working. Otherwise, I really can’t see what the point of your post was supposed to be.
You folks just aren’t happy unless everyone walks the line right up the middle, eh? Voted for Nader? You’ve voted for the guy who couldn’t win, and you’re an idiot. Then, want to vote for Obama because you think he can win where Hillary can’t? You’re hateful and ignorant, you might as well be voting for Jimmy Carter. WTF? Really, seriously, WTF?
Here’s some more: Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. I might not go as far as saying that most of the great Presidents were outsiders, but it is historically ignorant to argue that being an outsider means you will be ineffectual.
Put the crack pipe down Ruby. You said you like Obama being an outsider. I pointed out another outsider, who wasn’t able to galvanize Washington to do much.
Was Bill Clinton an outsider? I dunno. I don’t recall him ever being described such.
Judging by more recent history it’s equally ignorant to vote for an outsider thinking he’s going to effect actual change in modern Washington.
Got it. So your historical account begins in 1963 and excludes Bill Clinton. So we’ve got LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and the Bushes.
LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Bush I were not outsiders. So our sample (contrived by you) includes Carter (the one you wanted to focus on), Reagan and maybe Bush II. I would say that both Reagan and Bush II effected actual change in modern Washington. It was for the worse, but that was because of their policies. They didn’t have any trouble using the levers of power to their own ends.
So even in your biased historical sample, you’re still wrong.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Carter is the most recent president I can recall being an outsider. You seem to feel every president was an outsider.
Please give me a definition of outsider that includes Carter but does not include Clinton.
Please tell me how every president you mentioned was an outsider.
You then: “Obviously…people are sick of the Bushes and Clintons.” Not “majority”. No qualifications at all. Just the blanket statement.
Here’s a helpful hint: Everything you post is available for anyone to read at any time, yourself included. You can change your mind, sure - but you can’t get away with claiming you didn’t. That’s a pretty valuable feature of this board, ya know.
Who gives a fuck what that partisan hack thinks?
Scroll up, fool.
That’s what adults do. Control themselves. Examine *why * they think what they think. Learn and grow from the experience.
You had it right the first time. Except there’s an n in “ignoramus”.
You’re going to have to be more specific with your dodge here. Are you asking me to give the campaign backgrounds of Reagan and Bush II? Or did you want me to talk about Lincoln and Kennedy?
Wow. That’s the best you can do? Heh. What an idiotic way of trying to dismiss my argument when you actually have no real point here. I think others have done a better job of shooting down your tenuous-at-best analogy, so I’ll just leave you to founder along trying pathetically to defend it.
The Dems nominated Kerry over Dean with the idea that the more traditional, Washington insider (100% charisma-free) had a better chance of being elected than the maverick outsider. Look how well that worked. It’s a bad idea to make that mistake again.
People want change. The Clintons have baggage. That’s not just my opinion, that’s a fucking fact. The baggage might not bother you, or you might think it’s all bullshit, but it’s there. Ignore it at your peril. Or stuff it in your pipe and smoke it.
Where’s the lie there, exactly? It’s my opinion, and it’s fairly widely shared. You can disagree with my opinion, but how can my opinion be a lie?
I’m serious. If I lied somewhere, tell me so I can apologize to you. Which I will, a service I gladly provide when I’m wrong.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, you got me on the typo. Truly you have a dizzying intellect. How exactly am I displaying a lack of self-control? How do you know I haven’t examined why I think what I think? Why exactly do you think that it’s base and ignorant of me to choose Obama over Clinton? Do you lecture EVERYONE who doesn’t favor Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama with this sort of condescending, insulting drivel?
I never noticed this before, but damn. You are seriously a dick.
Boy, you don’t listen well, do you? A LOT of people dislike her health plan for tangible, legitimate reasons, namely, her idea of “mandatory” and the effect that will have on the middle class and poor, not to mention the economy in general. I’m sure her Health Industry Lobbying friends will be thrilled with the extra bucks to line their pockets with.
In the meantime, I have no clue how she is going to decide who of us can afford it but refuse to take it, and how she thinks she’s going to get away with garnishing our wages to cover it. It’s outrageous.
Not to mention, she has a long history of failing to get this very program passed by Congress, precisely because she was unwilling to compromise on any aspect of it, telling her opponents she would “crush them”. How’d that work out for her, huh?
Well I don’t envision it working out any better this go-around. She can promise “universal” health care all she wants. I have serious doubts as to whether she’ll actually be able to deliver it.
Obama, on the other hand, has a plan that he intends to make universally affordable and available, with subsidies for those who fall below a certain threshhold. Both of their plans will still end up with people not covered, make no mistake. You can’t garnish the wages of the self-employed or the unemployed, for instance. But it’s my opinion that you’ll have more cooperation in a less coercive system, not to mention the much stronger likelihood that a more moderate plan such as Obama’s has a better chance of making it through Congress and into effect.
I hardly think my reasoning above is “insane conservative bullshit,” but a well-thought-out and valid set of concerns that lead to a reasonable conclusion as to why to dislike her health care plan.