This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

If she wants, she can...but I don't consider her years as First Lady experience the same way I do Hillary Clinton. Hillary was heavily involved in foreign affairs and policy while Laura has not

How?

If that is the case, she didn't win Ind. He had more votes at the end of the voting here......so did he win it or not? I'm just trying to go by your logic. See, they tied in Missouri, even though he had more votes. So, by your logic, they tied in IND. because she had slightly more votes, right?

And......I saw NBC News polls which had them winning by the exact amount they won by in each state. I don't put any stock into Survey USA......they apparently were WAY off the mark.

And she said the game changer would be the fact that she would win NC......she said it, and her people said it. Now it's something different.

I also agree with Adam....she should think about calling it a day when she is behind in the popular vote......AND PDs.......and states won.......and he is catching up in SDs.

And......the polls don't mean anything, but the do when they show her winning?

What?

Once again, for everyone in the cheap seats........if she is gievn this nomination after trailing in almost every single category, don't say one word when Obama's supporters stay at home or vote for McCain in November.....

Because she will have brought it on herself.

He would not have tied in Indiana because she got more delegates than he did-6 more. I meant they tied in Missouri because they got the same amount of pledged delegate votes. Here is proof: Missouri 72 48% 49% 3% 36 36

Survey USA was right in that they predicted who would win each state-just not with their numbers. The polls I think you are referring to go by what happens that day and those are the most accurate because they reflect on actual voter turnout.

Game changer, from what I heard, meant she would cut into his big lead, get many votes, and he would not win by as much as was predicted.

There is no real reason for her to quit the race when she is winning by McCain even more so than Obama is. I think this should go all the way to the end with everyone voting. This might make them more faithful to vote Democrat (WV, Montana, Kentucky seem to be Republican states...perhaps people there will appreciate Democrats more for going all the way and letting them vote?)

I never said polls are meaningless when Obama wins. They showed him winning in North Carolina-I agreed that he would win there but that it would be close. I was off on that projection. That poll was right...I look at more than one poll to see how a person will win (Survey USA and Rasmussen are the most accurate).

Not many Obama supporters will go for McCain if she is the nominee and he is not on as VP...ony 14% will do it, compared to 30% of Hillary supporters for McCain if she is not on the ticket.

How?

She just was...visiting places like China to discuss human rights, Bosnia (she did visit, aside from how she described it) and had a hand in creating CHIP, tried to get universal health care, and was just known to be involved in foreign affairs and basically policy in general

She is not destroying the party if she wants every person to vote in the remaining primaries and they should vote. Dropping out means they won't vote...she is behind in the delegant and popular vote counts for now. I never said McCain is scared of her but she is beating him right now-more than Obama.

You like your polls and I obviously don't care about them so this is moot to me. I do think she's destroying the party but we'll never be on the same page about that either.

Don't pull this "it's so lame and like you..." BS because that borders on bashing (also shows you as an arrogant know it all) and you seemed to do that earlier on in this thread and I called you out on it.

I don't recall your calling me out about anything. You did want me to agree to a couple of things and I said I'd agree to one of them. I got the impression that you were done responding to me in this thread and it turns out I was wrong. I'm not trying to bash you but if you feel that way then I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent. If you feel I'm an arrogant know it all then that's how you feel and that's your business not mine.

When I refer to his bitter comments, it is to show where he loses points with certain people and those remarks will hurt him for much longer...they are still fresh in people's minds. I would not say people misstate things every day but yea it can happen...he knows he is in a position where he should choose his words more carefully. I will defend Hillary if I see some assertions against her that I find are unwarranted and unreasonable....I never said he meant to hurt people with the bitter comments. Don't put words into my mouth.

You said he was selfish and gave the "bitter" remark as an example of his selfishness. You pick what you want to respond to which is certainly your right but you missed the part where I asked what he hoped to gain from the "bitter" remark? It was an error on my part to say: I mean obviously when he uttered those words he did it with the intent of hurting people and gaining what exactly for himself? when I should have just asked what he hoped to gain by uttering the selfish comment about people being bitter.

He would not have tied in Indiana because she got more delegates than he did-6 more. I meant they tied in Missouri because they got the same amount of pledged delegate votes. Here is proof: Missouri 72 48% 49% 3% 36 36

Survey USA was right in that they predicted who would win each state-just not with their numbers. The polls I think you are referring to go by what happens that day and those are the most accurate because they reflect on actual voter turnout.

Game changer, from what I heard, meant she would cut into his big lead, get many votes, and he would not win by as much as was predicted.

There is no real reason for her to quit the race when she is winning by McCain even more so than Obama is. I think this should go all the way to the end with everyone voting. This might make them more faithful to vote Democrat (WV, Montana, Kentucky seem to be Republican states...perhaps people there will appreciate Democrats more for going all the way and letting them vote?)

I never said polls are meaningless when Obama wins. They showed him winning in North Carolina-I agreed that he would win there but that it would be close. I was off on that projection. That poll was right...I look at more than one poll to see how a person will win (Survey USA and Rasmussen are the most accurate).

Not many Obama supporters will go for McCain if she is the nominee and he is not on as VP...ony 14% will do it, compared to 30% of Hillary supporters for McCain if she is not on the ticket.

Survey USA was wrong when they had her up by 12 points and she won by 1 & 1/2 points.

Game changer was her winning NC.......and I heard that come out of her mouth and Terry McCaulif's mouth. He was also the one who had a huge smile on his face last night before NC was announced, and then you didn't hear anything else about it after she got her tail kicked.

And right now.....Obama is beating her for the Democratic nom.

And since you want to say that 30% of Hillary voters will not vote for Obama, here's one number that some FAIL to wrap their minds around.......

The 91% of black americans who are voting for Obama. Since always seem to hear about the white voters he can't get (Even though he is).......

Let's see Hillary try and win the WH without the black vote.

How?

When are you going to assimilate?

You like your polls and I obviously don't care about them so this is moot to me. I do think she's destroying the party but we'll never be on the same page about that either.

I don't recall your calling me out about anything. You did want me to agree to a couple of things and I said I'd agree to one of them. I got the impression that you were done responding to me in this thread and it turns out I was wrong. I'm not trying to bash you but if you feel that way then I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent. If you feel I'm an arrogant know it all then that's how you feel and that's your business not mine.

You said he was selfish and gave the "bitter" remark as an example of his selfishness. You pick what you want to respond to which is certainly your right but you missed the part where I asked what he hoped to gain from the "bitter" remark? It was an error on my part to say: I mean obviously when he uttered those words he did it with the intent of hurting people and gaining what exactly for himself? when I should have just asked what he hoped to gain by uttering the selfish comment about people being bitter.

You don't have to like the polls but I am just saying what they are having in results. We will agree to disagree about party destruction

Okay well if you say you did not try to bash that is fine and I believe you. So that is square so all is said and done.

Yes I believe he was selfish on the bitter remark and it did hurt some people's feelings and turn them off of him. He was better off not saying anything and just discuss his plans for America rather than utter that statement.

She just was...visiting places like China to discuss human rights, Bosnia (she did visit, aside from how she described it) and had a hand in creating CHIP, tried to get universal health care, and was just known to be involved in foreign affairs and basically policy in general

She just was?

So, by that rationale, I should be able to run the company that owns McDonald's, since I visit them twice a week.

She said herself and her husband said she was not involed in any policy decisions during his terms in the WH. But, becuase she went on the same types of trips every FL has went on......this apparently makes her qualified to be president.

Not to me. We see this COMPLETELY differently.

She is not qualified to be president one bit.

Especially since she would bomb Iran and her vote on the Iraq War (Which she still has yet to apologize for).

Survey USA was wrong when they had her up by 12 points and she won by 1 & 1/2 points.

Game changer was her winning NC.......and I heard that come out of her mouth and Terry McCaulif's mouth. He was also the one who had a huge smile on his face last night before NC was announced, and then you didn't hear anything else about it after she got her tail kicked.

And right now.....Obama is beating her for the Democratic nom.

And since you want to say that 30% of Hillary voters will not vote for Obama, here's one number that some FAIL to wrap their minds around.......

The 91% of black americans who are voting for Obama. Since always seem to hear about the white voters he can't get (Even though he is).......

Let's see Hillary try and win the WH without the black vote.

Yes they were wrong about what they polled and I think that was a week before the election...but they were right in how she won.

She did say game changer but I am thinking the intent was she would lose but still cut into the overall lead that he had about a month ago, which she did. She also got many votes there but, throughout the past three contests, she won overall in pledged delegates but not by much.

Obama will only beat her for the nomination when he has 2,025 delegates and that number will only happen with superdelegates.

30% for McCain if Hillary is not on the ticket and 14% for McCain if Obama is not on the ticket is where it stands now. I hope both numbers come down but obviously there are still African Americans for Hillary from Obama's camp if only 14% of those supporting him will go for McCain if he is not on as VP.

When are you going to assimilate?

Resistence Is Futile.

She just was?

So, by that rationale, I should be able to run the company that owns McDonald's, since I visit them twice a week.

She said herself and her husband said she was not involed in any policy decisions during his terms in the WH. But, becuase she went on the same types of trips every FL has went on......this apparently makes her qualified to be president.

Not to me. We see this COMPLETELY differently.

She is not qualified to be president one bit.

Especially since she would bomb Iran and her vote on the Iraq War (Which she still has yet to apologize for).

Yes she was more than just an ordinary First Lady and those years count...the McDonald's analogy does not work because you are not in charge of their day to day operations. She had a hand in policy and foreign affairs while she was in The White House. She may not have been involved in policy but her influence certainly had a hand in them so that still somewhat counts as her being involved..or at least her influence

She is definitely qualified with her tenure as U.S. Senator...she did not say she would just outright bomb Iran. She said only if they attack Israel that we should attack them.

It is time to forgive her for voting for Iraq. She was misled on intelligence that was fabricated...she was given the wrong information. She made up for it by calling for an end to the war and voting to withdraw troops and also refusing to vote for the war. She should not have to apologize-that should be The Bush Administration's job

It's a sad day when I have to decide between McCain or Obama. I'd rather just stay home and not vote at all.

What makes you say it will be between McCain and Obama, Ron?

What makes you say it will be between McCain and Obama, Ron?

Because Roman say so.

LOL okay well you never know in DC