If Edwards Drops Out Obama Would Beat Hillary?

[Joe1990]

I was thinking its unlikely that either Edwards or Obama can defeat Hillary (I'm just being realistic, look at the polls). But if they agree to choose each other as running mates and Edwards drops out before the primaries, they could definately beat hillary! The only question is Edwards gonna go for being vice president, he did once before. This is what I think they need to do if they are serious about defeating her. John Edwards and Obama should be thrilled about becoming running mates if it means their victory. They would make a great team. If they are not willing to do that then I very much doubt either of em will win. Sad but true!

[preservanation]

I think it would take a minor miracle for Hillary not to be the Dem nominee.
You make an excellent point there though, Joe!
Welcome.

[lily]

It definately will mkae for a tighter race. Edwards is running out of money. I don't think he's going to be in it much longer than Iowa. I also woudln't put too much money on Hillary. As Democrats found out with Dean.....being frontrunner isn't everything.

This is going to sound both sexist and rascist, but it's been an all boys club for so long, I don't think America is ready for their first woman president. Ferrario (sp) has shown us that. We will chose a man over a woman, and if that man happens to be black, we can consider that a step forward.

[preservanation]

I would have voted for Condi Rice a New York minute.
It's not that America won't elect a woman or black, they won't vote for them just because they are a woman or black.
The best person, is the best person.

If the "independents/moderates" don't show up to vote for Hillary or Obama, who are the sexist and racists then?
Clue...it ain't the conservatives!

[lily]

It's not that America won't elect a woman or black, they won't vote for them just because they are a woman or black.

I'm not sure what the difference is?

If the "independents/moderates" don't show up to vote for Hillary or Obama, who are the sexist and racists then?
Clue...it ain't the conservatives!

Yes, they are playing it safe and not running either. They know their base wouldn't vote for either a woman or a black. Please note...I did not say that the Democrats won't vote for either I said America isn't ready. I for one am glad to see the Democrats break ground.

[micfranklin]

I don't know I kinda liked some of what Edwards said last night.

[Wndrtch]

It definately will mkae for a tighter race. Edwards is running out of money. I don't think he's going to be in it much longer than Iowa. I also woudln't put too much money on Hillary. As Democrats found out with Dean.....being frontrunner isn't everything.

This is going to sound both sexist and rascist, but it's been an all boys club for so long, I don't think America is ready for their first woman president. Ferrario (sp) has shown us that. We will chose a man over a woman, and if that man happens to be black, we can consider that a step forward.


I'm not so sure about that, lily. Just because THIS woman causes shrinkage in men, doesn't mean that America wouldn't vote for a different woman. If you had a Maggie Thatcher up there instead, I think the results would be much different. I mean, even Camille Paglia has more genuine character and dedication, than Mrs. Bill Clinton.

You’re going to hate me a little more for saying this, but I wanted Condi Rice to run. I would have had no problems giving her my vote. And you have to admit, Rice vs Clinton race would have been spectacular! Condi would have wiped the floor with her.

[lily]

I'm not so sure about that, lily. Just because THIS woman causes shrinkage in men, doesn't mean that America wouldn't vote for a different woman. If you had a Maggie Thatcher up there instead, I think the results would be much different. I mean, even Camille Paglia has more genuine character and dedication, than Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Sorry, when posts start out with she causes shrinkage in men, or (not you) accuse her of being a lesbian, it shows me that the poster really has no argument. I also don't agree that Thatcher would have won. I don't know, maybe it's my age and I've seen a lot of elections, but from where I'm sitting, it's still an all boys club. A woman is going to have to be vicepresident first, not president first.

You’re going to hate me a little more for saying this, but I wanted Condi Rice to run. I would have had no problems giving her my vote. And you have to admit, Rice vs Clinton race would have been spectacular! Condi would have wiped the floor with her.

Condi has too much baggage and is too closely related to the Bush doctrine. Republicans campaigning now are getting as far away from him as they can. It should be his busy time of year. He should be out campaigning, but just like last year.......no one wants him around. If this war had turned out better, then Condi might have had a chance....her time is over. Bush did for her reputation the same he did for Powell.

[Buck Laser]

I'm not so sure about that, lily. Just because THIS woman causes shrinkage in men, doesn't mean that America wouldn't vote for a different woman. If you had a Maggie Thatcher up there instead, I think the results would be much different. I mean, even Camille Paglia has more genuine character and dedication, than Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Sorry, when posts start out with she causes shrinkage in men, or (not you) accuse her of being a lesbian, it shows me that the poster really has no argument. I also don't agree that Thatcher would have won. I don't know, maybe it's my age and I've seen a lot of elections, but from where I'm sitting, it's still an all boys club. A woman is going to have to be vicepresident first, not president first.

You’re going to hate me a little more for saying this, but I wanted Condi Rice to run. I would have had no problems giving her my vote. And you have to admit, Rice vs Clinton race would have been spectacular! Condi would have wiped the floor with her.

Condi has too much baggage and is too closely related to the Bush doctrine. Republicans campaigning now are getting as far away from him as they can. It should be his busy time of year. He should be out campaigning, but just like last year.......no one wants him around. If this war had turned out better, then Condi might have had a chance....her time is over. Bush did for her reputation the same he did for Powell.

Ms Rice causes me the same kind of misgivings a great many people appaently feel about Sen. Clinton. I see her as damaged from her role as a spokesman for Bush's failed foreign policy. Further, I perceive a "brittleness" in Rice's demeanor that reminds me of someone who might fly off the handle at any moment. I know some people think that characterizes Clinton, but she seems to be a rock of calmnes compared to Rice

[preservanation]

It's not that America won't elect a woman or black, they won't vote for them just because they are a woman or black.

I'm not sure what the difference is?

If the "independents/moderates" don't show up to vote for Hillary or Obama, who are the sexist and racists then?
Clue...it ain't the conservatives!

Yes, they are playing it safe and not running either. They know their base wouldn't vote for either a woman or a black. Please note...I did not say that the Democrats won't vote for either I said America isn't ready. I for one am glad to see the Democrats break ground.
But if the Dems run a woman or black and people don't show up to vote for them, who are you going to pin it on, the conservatives?
It would just show that the people who the Dems rely on to vote them into office are either sexist or racist.
Take your pick.
How's that make you feel?

[The Donkey]

If you go here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

You'll find some interesting polling data.

One poll snapshots Clinton-Obama-Edwards: CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007.

Another tracks Clinton-Obama:USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 2-4, 2007

They suggest that Obama cannot count on picking up the lions share of Edwards voters at this point if Edwards drops out.

But I don't think Edwards is anywhere close to that, and other polls show Hillary fading recently.

If Iowa and NH shake the conventional wisdom that Hillary is inevitable, Obama may pick up considerably -- much of this from other tier two candidates.

Folks tend to flock to whoever they think will be the winner. If Hillary loses that advantage, there is no telling what will happen.

[preservanation]

Edwards is over.
Obama s soon to wake up with a "horse" head in his bed, courtesy of Hillary Inc.
(No offense, "The Donkey")

[The Donkey]

Obama s soon to wake up with a "horse" head in his bed, courtesy of Hillary Inc.
(No offense, "The Donkey")


Hillary as Don Corleone, huh?

Not in this neighborhood.

Here in the South-East an awful lot of the Democratic hoy paloy are Obama fans, and are not afraid to say so.

They do not "sleep with the fishes."

But there are older blacks who think that the white establishment still won't let a black man be President.

If Obama can convince them that they are wrong (and that will be challenging) he would come out on top in the South-East: a few early wins would go some way to getting him there.

Horse head: I doubt it. But no offense taken (you didn't say "donkey head").

[preservanation]

Horse head: I doubt it. But no offense taken (you didn't say "donkey head"). ...but I was about to.
No harm, no foul.

[J-Glantz]

If the latest polls in Iowa and New Hampshire are any indicator, then we are in for an interesting run here on in. Obama is gaining ground as of late, If he takes Iowa and New Hampshire then he will pick up even more steam. It also means he will be opening his mouth, and that will turn heads. He could be quite a force to be reckoned with for anyone with that momentum heading towards Feb. 5.

[Pookie]

I think Obama has a hell of a chance in spite of Hillary and Edwards. This is really going to be fun to watch!
Purrs,
Pookie

[preservanation]

Obama s soon to wake up with a "horse" head in his bed, courtesy of Hillary Inc.
(No offense, "The Donkey")


But there are older blacks who think that the white establishment still won't let a black man be President.
Ah yes, but these would be those who would normally vote democrat, would it not? So how does this jive with the liberal claim that they are the ones who want blacks to succeed and need all the help in the world from these altruistic whites in order to get on a level playing field.
It is the height of hypocrisy that if Obama is not nominated or doesn't win the presidency (there are more registered Dems than reps, and even moderates tend to vote dem as well) it is the left who obviously have the problem with race...not the right.

Look at how some libs treat Keyes, Rice, Steele, etc...they are the ones who have a problem, and any one dem who doesn't vote for Obama proves this incontrovertibly.

[lily]

Huh? If Democrats don't vote for Obama they are racist, if they don't vote for Hillary they are mysogionist, and if they don't vote for Edwards they believe Coulter and are homophopes?

Oh no, Mr. Bill......we all have to vote Republican so we aren't labeled by Republicans!

[The Donkey]

It is the height of hypocrisy that if Obama is not nominated or doesn't win the presidency (there are more registered Dems than reps, and even moderates tend to vote dem as well) it is the left who obviously have the problem with race...not the right.

Look at how some libs treat Keyes, Rice, Steele, etc...they are the ones who have a problem, and any one dem who doesn't vote for Obama proves this incontrovertibly.


Obama has always had a base of support among a racially diverse group: initially, they tended to be more financially successful, younger, progressive, urban, college students and college graduates, but that base is broadening.

One reason race is a factor is that it is an important part of Obama's history and personna. This personna makes him attractive to many democrats. Another has been a concern among some democrats that the reality of racism could prevent any attractive african american candidate from winning the general election. We democrats really want to win.

Obama's recent surge reflects that democratic concerns about racism in the electorate and Obama's electability are diminishing.

You are among a number of self-described conservative republicans who have expressed that somehow race ought to be the the primary factor influencing our votes. Indeed, according to what you say above, it ought to be the only factor.

With stuff like this, is it any wonder that people are tired of conservative republicans?

[preservanation]

Good post Donkey.
However the libs are the ones obsessed with race.
Does affirmative action all of a sudden stop when it comes to politics?
If this is true, I guess I didn't read the fine print.[hr]
Huh? If Democrats don't vote for Obama they are racist, if they don't vote for Hillary they are mysogionist, and if they don't vote for Edwards they believe Coulter and are homophopes?

Oh no, Mr. Bill......we all have to vote Republican so we aren't labeled by Republicans!
The only way the libs can save face in this is to put both Hillary and Obama on the ticket as co-president.

Their logic, or lack there of, has put them in an ideological box, but the corners point inward.

[AnnEsthesia]

Interesting idea preserva... wrong, but interesting. So I guess in your world, you will need to vote for someone who likes gay sex in order to not be a homophobe. ;)

[AlonzoMourning23]

It's not that America won't elect a woman or black, they won't vote for them just because they are a woman or black.

I'm not sure what the difference is?

If the "independents/moderates" don't show up to vote for Hillary or Obama, who are the sexist and racists then?
Clue...it ain't the conservatives!

Yes, they are playing it safe and not running either. They know their base wouldn't vote for either a woman or a black. Please note...I did not say that the Democrats won't vote for either I said America isn't ready. I for one am glad to see the Democrats break ground.
But if the Dems run a woman or black and people don't show up to vote for them, who are you going to pin it on, the conservatives?
It would just show that the people who the Dems rely on to vote them into office are either sexist or racist.
Take your pick.
How's that make you feel?


I think conservatives are more likely to think a black man can win but less likely to want him to win. I think Liberals are more likely to want that black man to win and actually support them, they just are also more likely to think that a black man cannot win due to his race.

[The Donkey]

I think conservatives are more likely to think a black man can win but less likely to want him to win. I think Liberals are more likely to want that black man to win and actually support them, they just are also more likely to think that a black man cannot win due to his race.


Interesting.

I wonder what percentage of democrats who were supporting Ms. Clinton because they thought "a black man cannot win due to his race" would describe themselves as "liberal."

They are moved politically by racism and a racist legacy, but socially and culturally, they have much in common with self-described "conservatives."

The Republican Party has recognized this and tried to exploit it. Keyes and Huckabee's performance at the Republican debate hosted by Tavis Smiley shows how some of the Republican message can connect with this audience.

Nevertheless, the GOP outreach to African Americans consistently fails because Republicans deliberately resort to racial fears and racist stereotypes to win elections. Consider (for example) the GOP's TV ads in the 06' Tenessee senate race, Willy Horton, or Reagan's "welfare queens." African Americans recognize the symbolic racism in these messages -- they see it much clearer than the insecure whites these messages are crafted for.

Historically minded African Americans are also turned off by dirty tricks employed by Republicans. E.g.: the sample ballots circulated in african-american areas by Michael Steele in the Maryland gubenatorial race which fraudulently suggested that he was a democrat, and 04' shortage of voting booths in Ohio's urban precincts. The GOP -- it seems -- cannot resist this sort of thing.

Understandably, many African-Americans view the political system and the electoral process with distrust. They distrust both parties, but distrust the Republicans considerably more. They think Obama's optimism is naive. So initially, they go for Clinton, as a realistic democrat who can win.

But the more they look, the more they like about Obama: (perhaps not so naive? perhaps an african-american president like Obama is possible?)

I think: 1. if Obama zaps Hillary in the early primaries, Hillary will be at a substantial disadvantage going into February; and 2. if Obama wins the nomination, the democratic party will have its strongest candidate since Roosevelt.

[preservanation]

Interesting idea preserva... wrong, but interesting. So I guess in your world, you will need to vote for someone who likes gay sex in order to not be a homophobe. ;)
Yes, I have a response...Ah, What?

alonzomourning23 Wrote:
I think conservatives are more likely to think a black man can win but less likely to want him to win. I think Liberals are more likely to want that black man to win and actually support them, they just are also more likely to think that a black man cannot win due to his race.Ditto my response to AE.
Libs don't think that a black can win in the case of Obama because other libs won't vote for him due to his race?
McFranklin, pass me that vial.

Remember, Republicans are not in this equation, if he is not nominated nor elected it is because of libs not conservatives.
We vote straight ticket...like it or not.
If there was a black with one eye and a penis growing out of his forehead who was a conservative who supported my views, I would vote for him/her over a white bread, checked pants lib male in a heart-beat.
Again...it is the libs who are obsessed with race, not the cons.

[AnnEsthesia]

You do realize that there are more than conservatives and liberals, democrats and republicans in the country, right preserva?

[preservanation]

Only the people are confused about their beliefs or ignorant, are the ones who can't figure out which side they are on.
Basically wusses...

This is good...I have personally met people who vote on the basis of polls, regardless of party or ideology, just so they can say "I voted for the winner".
Very sad but if I'm lyin, I'm dyin.
First time I heard this I bruised my chin on my steel-toed boots.

[AnnEsthesia]

How nice. You just called all the independents on this forum "people (who) are confused about their beliefs or ignorant". I would bet they would disagree.

[preservanation]

Yes I did.
Moderates and Independents are usually just too insecure about their positions or so politically correct that they don't want to take a stance for fear that they "offend" someone.
Wimp + Puss = Wuss.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Libs don't think that a black can win in the case of Obama because other libs won't vote for him due to his race?

It's about electability. People want to vote for someone they think has a shot of winning. They don't want to put up someone in the general election who they don't think can win, whatever the reason.

[AnnEsthesia]

It is the same reason why the republicans probably won't put up the Mormon candidate... or is it just religious bigotry if they do not vote for the Mormon? Hmmm....

[preservanation]

Libs don't think that a black can win in the case of Obama because other libs won't vote for him due to his race?

It's about electability. People want to vote for someone they think has a shot of winning. They don't want to put up someone in the general election who they don't think can win, whatever the reason.
But i will reiterate...
If Obama is not "electable" it's because libs won't vote for him.
When was the last time you relied on conservatives to elect a Dem?
Maybe JFK, but that was a long time ago and the parties have changed a lot since then.

[AnnEsthesia]

Again Preserv, you do realize there are a LOT of people who are voters and not part of a party, right? Most elections come down to which way those voters swing, since the two parties generally vote for themselves.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Libs don't think that a black can win in the case of Obama because other libs won't vote for him due to his race?

It's about electability. People want to vote for someone they think has a shot of winning. They don't want to put up someone in the general election who they don't think can win, whatever the reason.
But i will reiterate...
If Obama is not "electable" it's because libs won't vote for him.
When was the last time you relied on conservatives to elect a Dem?
Maybe JFK, but that was a long time ago and the parties have changed a lot since then.


Neither conservatives or liberals are a majority. There's that whole swing/moderate group.

[preservanation]

Wussies.
Take a stance, the choice is traditional Constitutional America or European socialism.
One or the other , there is no middle road.
A little socialism is like being a little prego.[hr]

[quote=alonzomourning23]
[quote]Libs don't think that a black can win in the case of Obama because other libs won't vote for him due to his race?

It's about electability. People want to vote for someone they think has a shot of winning. They don't want to put up someone in the general election who they don't think can win, whatever the reason.
But i will reiterate...
If Obama is not "electable" it's because libs won't vote for him.
When was the last time you relied on conservatives to elect a Dem?
Maybe JFK, but that was a long time ago and the parties have changed a lot since then.Neither conservatives or liberals are a majority. There's that whole swing/moderate group.
That is true.
These "middle" people imo are conservative, they just have to be convinced of it...just like Reagan did.

[The Donkey]

Edwards is over.
Obama s soon to wake up with a "horse" head in his bed, courtesy of Hillary Inc.
(No offense, "The Donkey")


No horse head.

No donkey head.

Just ahead.

:clapper:

[Labrocca]

I have always liked Edwards and last night I told the wife that a ticket with Obama and Edwards would be very powerful indeed. Edwards already knows the campaign trail. I think it was Kerry that lost the election in 2004 not Edwards. This combo would have that youthful change thing going for them. It would imho energize a lot of people into politics.

Certainly another Clinton in the White House will not help America. Electing a Bush, then a Clinton, then a Bush and then a Clinton makes the USA appear to be a monarchy of some sort imho. These 2 families can't and should not control politics anymore. We are a 2 party system not a 2 family one.