Democrats Shift Dramatically Towards Obama On The Eve Of Super Tuesday

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't hold the argument that Americans aren't ready for a woman and a black man. It may hold true in certain states, but remember that South Carolina Democrats just voted resoundingly for a black man. Stereotypes change and the only reason some of them stay around for so long is that people refuse to see the truth.

As for a Clinton/Obama ticket, I am in total agreement with you. Too much fire there, too much bad blood. I could see Obama taking the VP, but Clinton's got too much ego for that.

I want to be wrong on that... I just hold limited faith in the common voter to vote on policy over appearance. South Carolina has a large Black population too, and it could have been a question of getting out the vote, coupled with people hating Clinton for several reasons, some legitimate, some questionable. Don't forget, these primary voters are the card carrying democrats. Once you get out in the main election, you have to convince the independents and social right wingers and old codgers to vote for you in order to win a majority. These are the ones that hold onto their antiquated views. Having one of them with a "good ol' boy" like John Edwards is a lot safer in winning those voters than going with both. I know, bleak theory on the common voter.

You're right about the ego angle too though.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I think if Clinton wins she should take Obama with her, but if Obama wins Edwards is the choice.

We both agree with Obama. Clinton I think would never take Obama... i think she either takes the "Official VP candidate" Edwards, or goes off the chart and grabs someone who got knocked out earlier, or even someone completely different.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I want to be wrong on that... I just hold limited faith in the common voter to vote on policy over appearance. South Carolina has a large Black population too, and it could have been a question of getting out the vote, coupled with people hating Clinton for several reasons, some legitimate, some questionable. Don't forget, these primary voters are the card carrying democrats. Once you get out in the main election, you have to convince the independents and social right wingers and old codgers to vote for you in order to win a majority. These are the ones that hold onto their antiquated views. Having one of them with a "good ol' boy" like John Edwards is a lot safer in winning those voters than going with both. I know, bleak theory on the common voter.

You're right about the ego angle too though.

Ultimately, it just remains to see what American voters will do. I do think a substantial number would support a pair like this, from a strictly technical perspective their combined talents are very impressive. But politics isn't technical, alot of it is image. For strictly personal reasons, we will never see an Obama/Clinton ticket, so I guess we'll never really know if Americans could take a woman/black double ticket.

It's funny how the Americans get slammed for all sorts of stuff but never get credit where credit is due. In America, there is a self-made women and black man running for President. Here in Canada, we've still got 4 guys with white hair. Ain't it great?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's funny how the Americans get slammed for all sorts of stuff but never get credit where credit is due. In America, there is a self-made women and black man running for President. Here in Canada, we've still got 4 guys with white hair. Ain't it great?

It's one thing to run, it's another to get elected...and considering its 2008, and this is really the first time a woman or black man has ever even had a remote chance to win, I'm not sure is that huge of a coup. The fact that it's still such a big issue is sort of sad.

And never mind the fact nobody can be president in this country unless they are filthy rich.....

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ultimately, it just remains to see what American voters will do. I do think a substantial number would support a pair like this, from a strictly technical perspective their combined talents are very impressive. But politics isn't technical, alot of it is image. For strictly personal reasons, we will never see an Obama/Clinton ticket, so I guess we'll never really know if Americans could take a woman/black double ticket.

It's funny how the Americans get slammed for all sorts of stuff but never get credit where credit is due. In America, there is a self-made women and black man running for President. Here in Canada, we've still got 4 guys with white hair. Ain't it great?

Yep... you have to respect the American system for that one. The US seems to be getting more open in its candidates, where in Canada, it seems your major candidates are of the White, 45+, Anglo/French Male variety. Its been 15 years since the leader of a governing party was a woman. Like I said in a previous thread, every PM and elected leader of the governing parties in the history of Canadian politics was a man and either French in lineage, or from the British Isles. Its the same in the US, but there is a very significant chance that will change.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Table 5

It's one thing to run, it's another to get elected...and considering its 2008, and this is really the first time a woman or black man has ever even had a remote chance to win, I'm not sure is that huge of a coup. The fact that it's still such a big issue is sort of sad.

And never mind the fact nobody can be president in this country unless they are filthy rich.....

Well, wealth can never replace good fundraising. Guys like McCain are going head to head with guys like Romney.

Of course, race and gender are a big deal. But they are a big deal everywhere. All political races appeal to some form of tribalism. I would say America is the closest Western democracy to breaking out into some form of plural appeal.

Obama as a candidate isn't just big with the black community, he's making inroads with other groups as well. Take California for example, that's going to require a fairly large coalition in order to take that state, Obama is currently leading in that state.

You're right though, if Obama or Clinton get slammed in the actual presidential race and Americans vote in another old white guy, then my thesis takes a bit of a hit, but they are still running and those are good inroads for future candidates.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Table 5

It's one thing to run, it's another to get elected...and considering its 2008, and this is really the first time a woman or black man has ever even had a remote chance to win, I'm not sure is that huge of a coup. .

How many times would this have to occur before it's a "coup?"

The fact that it's still such a big issue is sort of sad.

There was a moment in history when women were allowed to vote for the first time.

Now it's a foregone right and a matter of routine.

There's a first time for everything.

The fact these two are polling so well across a broad spectrum of the country indicates the common stereotype of America has changed dramatically.

And that speaks well of America. It's also why this election has become almost global in the daily interest it is generating outside the boundaries of the USA.

And never mind the fact nobody can be president in this country unless they are filthy rich.....

McCain effectively went from a terminally bankrupt campaign - zero- to well-financed hero. He may be the next President.

Obama isn't exactly rolling in it. He may be the next President.

Edwards, the guy with the big wallet, and Romney, the guy with the biggest wallet, are done and almost dead.

The Clintons actually left office, if I recall correctly, nearly bankrupt with Bill's very profitable big mouth getting them back into Richville.

Money of the size that matters is attracted to those perceived to be winning.

Money is not necessarily attracted to the message itself.

Hence McCain, who didn't have two nickels to rub together, suddenly gathering millions. Ditto sudden Obama's Clinton-like ability to raise money.

Cowperson

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, wealth can never replace good fundraising. Guys like McCain are going head to head with guys like Romney.

McCains lead is less about fundraising, as apparently he's virtually out of money at the moment. It doesn't appear like he did that great of a job at the money aspect, but wise wiser about using it. Romney on the other hand is just throwing money at his problem....it's good to see that that approach isn't working.

I do think out of the two democrats, Obama has the best chance if these race/sex factors are what decides things. Let's face it, he's about the whitest black dude around...that can only help him in terms of trying to reach out to conservatives.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by peter12

This one of the few nights where I would give my Flames tickets away to be able to watch this pretty dramatic day unfold.

Seriously, I'll take them.

PM me.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

McCain effectively went from a terminally bankrupt campaign - zero- to well-financed hero. He may be the next President.

Obama isn't exactly rolling in it. He may be the next President.

Edwards, the guy with the big wallet, and Romney, the guy with the biggest wallet, are done and almost dead.

The Clintons actually left office, if I recall correctly, nearly bankrupt with Bill's very profitable big mouth getting them back into Richville.

Money of the size that matters is attracted to those perceived to be winning.

Money is not necessarily attracted to the message itself.

Hence McCain, who didn't have two nickels to rub together, suddenly gathering millions. Ditto sudden Obama's Clinton-like ability to raise money.

So in the end, it's still all about money. I know campaigning in a country this big isn't cheap, but it pretty much still boils down to the idea that if you dont have money to begin with, you dont even have a chance TO START! Look at how many people agreed with Chris Dodds policies on the CP thread a few days ago....the guy didnt even register a blip.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Table 5

McCains lead is less about fundraising, as apparently he's virtually out of money at the moment. It doesn't appear like he did that great of a job at the money aspect, but wise wiser about using it. Romney on the other hand is just throwing money at his problem....it's good to see that that approach isn't working.

I do think out of the two democrats, Obama has the best chance if these race/sex factors are what decides things. Let's face it, he's about the whitest black dude around...that can only help him in terms of trying to reach out to conservatives.

I took a course on the Black Muslims last semester. It was interesting as we studied the movements capabilities and significant success at alleviating black poverty in the US. How did they do it? By essentially advocating a shift to a WASP lifestyle. Not in a racial way, but by advocating things like financial responsibility, the family and social morality. Obama may be the "whitest black guy around", but he's also quite inspiring in a way.

Blacks have suffered and endured amazing abuse by the US government and culture. They've survived but at a huge social cost. They need guys like Obama to show them that you can beat the "System" at it's own game, regardless of your skin colour.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Table 5

So in the end, it's still all about money. I know campaigning in a country this big isn't cheap, but it pretty much still boils down to the idea that if you dont have money to begin with, you dont even have a chance. Look at how many people agreed with Chris Dodds policies on the CP thread a few days ago....does a guy like that even have a chance?

Money matters. National campaigning is a big job and communications/marketing is SO expensive. But it still boils down to organizational structure and discipline.

Stephen Harper beat Belinda Stronach for the Conservative Party leadership. She spent $4 million of her own personal fortune, while Harper had to create a fundraising structure out of nothing.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by peter12

Obama may be the "whitest black guy around", but he's also quite inspiring in a way.

I don't disagree, I think Obama is a great candidate...regardless of race or anything of that nature. He is a man who projects integrity and hope, and in the end that can only trickle down in a positive way for black (and every color) people everywhere. I'm definitely from the Bill Cosby school, and think apologists in their own community who blame everyone but themselves have been a detriment to black success.

Question, does anyone else have this uneasy feeling that there might be an assasination attempt on this guy?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Question, does anyone else have this uneasy feeling that there might be an assasination attempt on this guy?

He's got a JFK Camelot ending written all over him . . . . . and I say that with some sadness, even if I am not in favour of his candidacy.

The Secret Service will certainly have to be on their toes with him.

Even as profound changes in America allow for a candidate like Obama to step forward in strength, there will also remain the lunatic crazy fringe seriously trying to exterminate him "for the good of America." Not a lot, a diminishing number actually, but there will probably be enough to make things dangerous. And most of them will be practicing their marksmanship in the woods of Idaho and Michigan right now.

On the money thing, it's about communicating the message . . . . . and a well-rounded communication strategy requires money, which is simply a fact of life in a community of 300 million.

There is a large difference, though, between significant personal fortunes which attract little money versus having a fairly common wallet that attracts millions to support it.

Cowperson

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

I took a course on the Black Muslims last semester. It was interesting as we studied the movements capabilities and significant success at alleviating black poverty in the US. How did they do it? By essentially advocating a shift to a WASP lifestyle. Not in a racial way, but by advocating things like financial responsibility, the family and social morality. Obama may be the "whitest black guy around", but he's also quite inspiring in a way.

Blacks have suffered and endured amazing abuse by the US government and culture. They've survived but at a huge social cost. They need guys like Obama to show them that you can beat the "System" at it's own game, regardless of your skin colour.

That's interesting--and there's a long tradition of Middle-class black communities cropping up in various places in the Atlantic region. Germantown in Philadelphia is one example, though that neighbourhood has fallen on hard times in recent decades.

But I do feel the need to point out that Obama isn't a black muslim--he's born and raised a Christian. His grandfather was a Muslim and his stepfather was a sort of casual Muslim in Indonesia, but Obama himself has never been a Muslim. Not that it matters--and I recognize that you were just drawing a comparison, not connecting Obama to Islam--but given the ugly smears that circulate on the internet about him attending a madrassa and so forth, I thought it an important thing to clarify.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Yep... you have to respect the American system for that one. The US seems to be getting more open in its candidates, where in Canada, it seems your major candidates are of the White, 45+, Anglo/French Male variety. Its been 15 years since the leader of a governing party was a woman. Like I said in a previous thread, every PM and elected leader of the governing parties in the history of Canadian politics was a man and either French in lineage, or from the British Isles. Its the same in the US, but there is a very significant chance that will change.

Fear not, you are more than likely to vote for your Grand Sheikh of Canada in a not so distant future...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Fear not, you are more than likely to vote for your Grand Sheikh of Canada in a not so distant future...

Wait... what does that mean?

Are crazy Islamists really going to take over our country and radicalize shariah law? If this is about the Human Rights Commissions against Steyn and Macleans, I agree. But seriously.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Fear not, you are more than likely to vote for your Grand Sheikh of Canada in a not so distant future...

I honestly see zero chance of this happening. I don't see radical Islamist social policy getting any credence with the average voter, particularly women. They would essentially have to start their own party as well as neither governing party would be willing to get in bed with that dogma.

I see the more radical Islamists continuing to abuse the existing system, like with the Human Rights Commission v. Steyn and Macleans. But there's a limit to how far they can go before the majority gets outraged and puts an end to it.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I honestly see zero chance of this happening. I don't see their social policy getting any credence with the average voter, particularly women. They would essentially have to start their own party as well as neither governing party would be willing to get in bed with that dogma.

I see the more radical Islamists abusing the existing system, like with the Human Rights Commission v. Steyn and Macleans. But there's a limit to how far they can go before the majority gets outraged and puts an end to it.

If the process is slow enough, people won't even notice, and when they will, it will be too late. Like that frog sitting in the cooking pot full of water. You turn the heat on real low and the frog will not notice the difference. Until its cooked.

I think this process has started in the EU, Canada and Australia and I don't see any outrage anywhere. If anything, any sort of "outrage" gets labeled as "racist and intolerant extreme right-wing" and what not.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I honestly see zero chance of this happening. I don't see radical Islamist social policy getting any credence with the average voter, particularly women. They would essentially have to start their own party as well as neither governing party would be willing to get in bed with that dogma.

I see the more radical Islamists continuing to abuse the existing system, like with the Human Rights Commission v. Steyn and Macleans. But there's a limit to how far they can go before the majority gets outraged and puts an end to it.

The only dogma of the Liberal Party is to win power. Should Islamic slanted views start to become more mainstream (Ie continued immigration and growth of the Islamic voter base in places like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) the liberals could start the thin edge of the wedge should they feel it would benefit them at the polls.

The majority could be outraged beyond belief, but as proven for years you only need 37% popular vote to win a majority. As demographics change the 'majority' could find themselves without the power to stop it.