I think a big change is coming this November.

[The silenced majority]

This administration has given us Big Brother, Be Fearful, Terror at every corner, Watch your co-workers, friends, neighbors for possible dangers. We'll screen your calls, mail and tell you what a great job we're doing as we try to inject fear and mistrust into every fiber of your being.

Democrat politicians are salivating at the idea of having government the apparatuses in place that the Bush administration has created.

Jobs, job and more jobs have been created....and you'll need at least two or three of them since they only pay minimum wage and offer no medical benefits.

What kind of jobs does the government create?

Because that's the populist message you fools are falling for. You (the little guy) need me (the Democrat demagogue) to use the government to fight the rich (wealthiest 1%, big business etc...) on your behalf. They never intend to create wealth for you, because they can't do that (only you can do that for yourself). What they intend to do is to punish the creative and productive with the intent of placing that portion of society at the mercy of the whims of government.

It's not new, it's not progressive (well actually it is because progressivism fronts for socialism these days) and it isn't change.

Mr. Millionaire gave a big donation while this administration was campaigning and he needs payback so this administration offers loads of tax breaks, of course you have to be in the wealthiest tax bracket to realize the full benefits of them, but no matter.

No "change" here, just the same old class-warfare line leftists have been touting for decades.

Question.

Have you ever heard of an employer or business owner who is poor?

"The rich" already pay a disproportionate amount of their income in taxes in relation to the "poor".

How is the government forcing money from one productive section of society to another undeserving section that needs only to re-elect a certain type of politician to perpetuate this situation representative of "change"?

I guess if you woke up one morning to breadlines, re-education camps and 1 channel on your TV set that would represent "change" too.

God is on their side. The God that judges and punishes anyone who does not conform. No worries, God also bestowed on Mr. Bush the great honor of being the “decider.” All will be well as long as citizens follow this administration. OMG....I cannot wait to be done with them!

What the hell are you talking about? Where has anyone in this country been punished for not towing a particular religious ideology over the past 7 years, or the past 70 years for that matter?

Again this is just more of the same old cold-war rhetoric targeted at the wealthy and people of faith these new agents of "change" spew as they clamor for a new way of doing things politically in this county...

Change from what this administration has pushed down the throat of Americans will be a groovy thing, baby.

So you'd be cool if we started burning Jews in ovens some times in the next administration?

That'd be "change"...

You have actually no clue what your voting for do you?

Or you just can't admit what that "change" actually means...

 

[missypea]

What kind of jobs does the government create?

Should have said the jobs that have been created under this administration....the last 7 years.

Because that's the populist message you fools are falling for.

I speak plainly on this administration's dirty tatics and this is your response? It would have been better had you just stated that you're “Bush's man” because that's really all that came across.

You (the little guy) need me (the Democrat demagogue)

Nope. That's not what I said. I said the wealthiest in this country are receiving the highest tax cuts under this administration's dirty tactics and payback policies. But you are correct in that we do need to have an administration that will level the playing field for the middle class and poor in our society......in other words, CHANGE from the Bush administration.

It's not new, it's not progressive (well actually it is because progressivism fronts for socialism these days) and it isn't change.

It abslutely is change. This administration has tried its best to instill the Big Brother mentality into this society. That needs to be changed.

Question.

Have you ever heard of an employer or business owner who is poor?

"The rich" already pay a disproportionate amount of their income in taxes in relation to the "poor".

How is the government forcing money from one productive section of society to another undeserving section that needs only to re-elect a certain type of politician to perpetuate this situation representative of "change"?

I know quite a few small business owners who are struggling. The bolded section: UNDESERVING is more of that mentalty that I am so ready to see CHANGED. Is it that the poor are undeserving? In this administration's eyes, I would say yes. One only needs to review the New Orleans fiasco.

What the hell are you talking about? Where has anyone in this country been punished for not towing a particular religious ideology over the past 7 years, or the past 70 years for that matter?

Let me tell you what in the hell I'm talking about. I'm talking about wearing Jesus on your sleeve to sell out human compassion for money, power and control. That's exactly what this administration has done since day one.

So you'd be cool if we started burning Jews in ovens some times in the next administration?

Charming. Where in the world do you pull this crap from?

You have actually no clue what your voting for do you?

Or you just can't admit what that "change" actually means...

I'm voting for change this administration and people like you have brought to America. I'm not ashamed to say that this administration's mentalty and yours scares the $hit out of me.

 

[UtahBill]

IMHO, the only way a Republican can win the White House is if he is fortunate enough to run against HRC. Possibly a McCain/Huckabee combo would do the trick.

If the GOP has to go up against an Obama/Edwards ticket, it would be a cake walk for the Dems.

But if it is HRC/Obama, or HRC/Edwards, all bets are off...

I know it is unlikely that the winners of each party would select a recent opponent, but it would possibly ensure a longer run in the White House for the Dems if they start planning now for the elections 8 years down the road.

They would have to police their own and clean house immediately if and/or when the corruption, perversion, etc. starts occurring in the senate and the house.

I don't think they can think that far ahead, tho. So I predict Dems for 8 years, charges of corruption, etc. and then the pendulum swings in favor or the republicans for 8 years.

And the public will see pretty close to zero progress towards solving any of our problems.

 

[The silenced majority]

Should have said the jobs that have been created under this administration....the last 7 years.

What?

I'm not defending Bush's expanse of government. I just don't see too much a change in that regard from the Democrat candidates...

I speak plainly on this administration's dirty tatics and this is your response? It would have been better had you just stated that you're “Bush's man” because that's really all that came across.

No you speak as though people who voted for Bush and Republicans over the past 12 or so years voted for corruption...

Bush & the Republicans didn't campaign on a platform of corruption.

To suggest that the politician that you choose to support the next election is representative of a "change" from corruption is quite petty and convenient really..

You (the little guy) need me (the Democrat demagogue)

Nope. That's not what I said. I said the wealthiest in this country are receiving the highest tax cuts under this administration's dirty tactics and payback policies. But you are correct in that we do need to have an administration that will level the playing field for the middle class and poor in our society......in other words, CHANGE from the Bush administration

.

:laughat:So it is what you're saying then?:2rofll:

It abslutely is change. This administration has tried its best to instill the Big Brother mentality into this society. That needs to be changed.

Yeah there will be a change from Big Brother, the government will no longer spy on you. The government (taxpayers) will only provide welfare, healthcare, set prices, monitor free-speech; but we'll be free!!!

I know quite a few small business owners who are struggling. The bolded section: UNDESERVING is more of that mentalty that I am so ready to see CHANGED. Is it that the poor are undeserving? In this administration's eyes, I would say yes. One only needs to review the New Orleans fiasco.

The New Orleans fiasco WAS the Great Society in full view for the public to see. People completely helpless without the assistance of government so much so that the schizophrenic directives given by incompetent public leadership trumped common sense.

It's still a disaster because the areas that have yet to be re-built were places that were completely dependent on whatever was left of the public dole after it was handled by corrupt bureaucrats.

The 9th ward was a **** hole that was barely above water (so to speak) prior to Hurricane Katrina. How do you think it's going to be re-built without a sizable chunk coming out of the 100% taxpayer funding (who's going to invest in such a blighted area) required to re-build it?

Let me tell you what in the hell I'm talking about. I'm talking about wearing Jesus on your sleeve to sell out human compassion for money, power and control. That's exactly what this administration has done since day one.

So we're "changing" to leadership that uses human compassion as a tool to aggrandize power and expand government oversight to an ever-expanding list of areas of society that used to function independently without the hand of government upon them.

Nice.

Charming. Where in the world do you pull this crap from?

So far change represents what you don't like about Bush.

Bush isn't running, change should be assumed.

I'm simply spelling out what "change" could actually mean when there's a sizable swath of the voting population that allows politicians to win elections running on a platform of "change" without ever spelling out what "change" actually means.

I'm voting for change this administration and people like you have brought to America. I'm not ashamed to say that this administration's mentalty and yours scares the $hit out of me.

People like me?

What?

People who believe:

• That the most important aspect of government is to ensure individual liberty for all so each person can live freely and choose whatever path (including failure and poverty) they want to take in life.
  
• That the Constitution is a very specific document that has very clearly laid out directives in regards to the rights of man and the processes necessary to use the will of the people (not the views of rogue judges) to amend the document itself.
  
• That the rights of the people are absolute when it comes to freedom of speech, religion, to assemble peacefully, to petition the government peacefully for change, the right to bear arms, the rights of the states' and the rights of privacy.
  
• That people at all times should be strive to maintain government locally deriving it's authority from the just consent of the governed, avoiding situations where locals must surrender their liberty for the sake of far-off centralized power.
  
• That our national heritage, it's civil institutions, it's founders all exhibit the character of Christianity, but the freedom of religion and the state's non-recognition of an official religion is important.
  
• That each new life is a gift because of it's unlimited potential to better the society in any different number of ways; science, health, technology, music, arts, morality, leadership etc..
  
• That Roe v. Wade is bad law because it really doesn't establish clear-cut guidelines as to when life truly begins only a generic date in relation to the beginning of gestation.
  
• That the true foreign policy of America is to hold high morals as a people, value our republic and it's prosperity first and foremost. To trade freely with those who are friendly with us and live up to our values and morals and use that as the best export we could provide to the world.

:2wave:

 

[donsutherland1]

Navy Pride,

While I believe it is far too soon to predict with any degree of confidence whether the Democratic or Republican Party nominee will win the 2008 Presidential election, I believe it is hazardous to rule out the possibility that, let's say Senator Obama, could be elected.

A closer look suggests how he could sew up the election:

If he won the following 12 states, he would have 250 electoral votes: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.

In the 2004 election, Senator Kerry won all of those states, except for Florida and Ohio. Kerry lost Florida 52%-47%. However, Hispanic alienation with what they perceive as anti-immigrant rhetoric from some Republican candidates may well drive Hispanics to support the Democratic nominee. If so, Florida could wind up in the Democratic column this time around considering that Hispanics now comprise 14% of that State's registered voters.

Kerry lost 51%-49% in Ohio. In 2006, Senator DeWine was routed 56%-44%. Republicans could be on the defensive there.

If Senator Obama wins all the other states (and the District of Columbia) that Senator Kerry won in 2004, that would give him an additional 49 electoral votes. Keep in mind, some of these states such as Minnesota, Hawaii, and Rhode Island have generally voted for the Democratic nominee in recent elections.

President Bush edged out Senator Kerry 50%-49% in New Mexico. Hispanics constitute 37% of that State's registered voters. Barring changes in the trend in which Hispanic voters have been turning more toward the Democratic Party since 2006 election, it is possible, if not likely, that New Mexico will also wind up in the Democratic column. That would offer Senator Obama an additional 5 electoral votes.

All said, one could easily envision an outcome in which Senator Obama would wind up with more than 300 electoral votes.

In any case, at least for me, it is too soon to make firm predictions. However, it is not too soon to envision a scenario by which Senator Obama could be elected President with a sizable majority of the electoral votes.​

 

[rhinefire]

As Obama's lead continues it could snowball with many jumping on the bandwagon. Hillary will get viscious and it will show and it will help defeat her if she is not already dead. The youth are all going for Obama including women and when Hillary can't move a portion of women to vote for her then adios. I could not offer a guess who Obama's VP would be but would it not be a true test of "non-racsim" (he never mentions race) if he chose another minority like Harold Ford?

 

[Navy Pride]

Navy Pride,

While I believe it is far too soon to predict with any degree of confidence whether the Democratic or Republican Party nominee will win the 2008 Presidential election, I believe it is hazardous to rule out the possibility that, let's say Senator Obama, could be elected.

A closer look suggests how he could sew up the election:

If he won the following 12 states, he would have 250 electoral votes: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.

In the 2004 election, Senator Kerry won all of those states, except for Florida and Ohio. Kerry lost Florida 52%-47%. However, Hispanic alienation with what they perceive as anti-immigrant rhetoric from some Republican candidates may well drive Hispanics to support the Democratic nominee. If so, Florida could wind up in the Democratic column this time around considering that Hispanics now comprise 14% of that State's registered voters.

Kerry lost 51%-49% in Ohio. In 2006, Senator DeWine was routed 56%-44%. Republicans could be on the defensive there.

If Senator Obama wins all the other states (and the District of Columbia) that Senator Kerry won in 2004, that would give him an additional 49 electoral votes. Keep in mind, some of these states such as Minnesota, Hawaii, and Rhode Island have generally voted for the Democratic nominee in recent elections.

President Bush edged out Senator Kerry 50%-49% in New Mexico. Hispanics constitute 37% of that State's registered voters. Barring changes in the trend in which Hispanic voters have been turning more toward the Democratic Party since 2006 election, it is possible, if not likely, that New Mexico will also wind up in the Democratic column. That would offer Senator Obama an additional 5 electoral votes.

All said, one could easily envision an outcome in which Senator Obama would wind up with more than 300 electoral votes.

In any case, at least for me, it is too soon to make firm predictions. However, it is not too soon to envision a scenario by which Senator Obama could be elected President with a sizable majority of the electoral votes.​

Interesting scenario............I am not discounting Obama.......A lot depends on who runs against him........I am hoping it is McCain........If that is the case no way does Obama carry Florida.........Florida has a huge population of retired and active duty military that will back McCain..............Its true Ohio might be in play but so would states like Pa, Washington, New Jersey and Wisconsin..............I live in Washington and McCain could very easily carry this state as well as Oregon which barely went to Kerry in 2004..............

 

[Navy Pride]

Are you claiming that the South is racist and wouldn't vote for Obama because he is Black?+



Ford was never winning in a landslide...it was a close race until the Republicans engaged in their patented smears.

Have you ever lived in the South? I have and you better believe there are a lot of people there that would never vote for an African American for president...........I am not saying its right but it is a fact of life.........It might surprise you to know that there are a lot of people in the North that would not vote for and African American either...........

As far as the smears on Ford go I believe they had very little to do with the outcome of the election in Tenn............

It might be 2008 my left wing friend but wake up and smell the roses there is still a lot of racial prejudice out there whether you believe it or not.........

 

[Navy Pride]

Are you claiming that the South is racist and wouldn't vote for Obama because he is Black?+



Ford was never winning in a landslide...it was a close race until the Republicans engaged in their patented smears.

Have you ever lived in the South? I have and you better believe there are a lot of people there that would never vote for an African American for president...........I am not saying its right but it is a fact of life.........It might surprise you to know that there are a lot of people in the North that would not vote for and African American either...........

As far as the smears on Ford go I believe they had very little to do with the outcome of the election in Tenn............

It might be 2008 my left wing friend but wake up and smell the roses there is still a lot of racial prejudice out there whether you believe it or not.........

 

[Navy Pride]

This is a duplicate post

 

[mikhail]

Call me cynical but i would expect any big change if Obama get elected it will mean a change in skin color of the president.Why would this lead to change?

The whole system isnt really gonna change overnight.

 

[donsutherland1]

I am hoping it is McCain...

Senator McCain would make a very strong candidate. The consistency in his positions throughout the campaign, his life experience, and his character would allow him to be competitive.

 

[DarkWizard12]

McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Liberman, and...yes, McCain Feingold.

No he gest past New Hampshire or Michigan. All it takes is Romney or any other candidate, to bring it up.

 

[missypea]

I live in Washington and McCain could very easily carry this state as well as Oregon which barely went to Kerry in 2004..............

OMG...I live in Washington!!!

No way will Washington go red Navy. Maybe some other time in the future (not), but Washington is true blue in 2008. It really doesn't matter who the candidates are.

See you at the caucus on the 9th?

 

[missypea]

Have you ever lived in the South? I have and you better believe there are a lot of people there that would never vote for an African American for president...........I am not saying its right but it is a fact of life.........It might surprise you to know that there are a lot of people in the North that would not vote for and African American either...........

I'm not calling you a bigot Navy but.......The man is as much white as he is black. I am so sick of hearing about the bigots and how they'll vote.

Faced with more of the same this administration has brought us e.g war (Huck or McCain) I think a lot of people will vote (GASP!)....black.

 

[UtahBill]

Senator McCain would make a very strong candidate. The consistency in his positions throughout the campaign, his life experience, and his character would allow him to be competitive.

It is starting to look like people want change NOW, and McCain is a plodder...
We will know more after tomorrow.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I would be willing to bet that if Obama wins the nomination, there will be states in play that are not normally completely in play.

For example, states like: Iowa, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Colorado would all be states that the Republicans would have a hard fight to defend. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say that running against Obama, we would even see the Republican candidate campaigning in Kansas because even it would not be a total sure thing for them.

As to wining Southern States. Well, I don't think any Democrat can carry the deep south. However, they don't need to. I wrote on here over a year ago that the Republican Party's move to the extreme right on civil liberties and social issues will result in them essentially being a regional party largely only winning in the deep south. Essentially being boxed into the core socially conservative base and as a result alienating as much as 70% of Americans.

Think of it this way. Take a state that votes 60% Republican and 40% Democrat in past elections. Essentially you only have to convince 1 in ten residents in that state that would to vote Democrat that would have not done so in the past for the Democratic candidate to have a shot at carrying the state. A guy like Kerry can't do that because he is so remarkably unlikable, but a very charismatic candidate can actually do that.

 

[Navy Pride]

OMG...I live in Washington!!!

No way will Washington go red Navy. Maybe some other time in the future (not), but Washington is true blue in 2008. It really doesn't matter who the candidates are.

See you at the caucus on the 9th?

Did you know that Reagan carried Washington twice and that we elected a Republican Governor in 2004 until the democrats kept counting the ballots of felons and dead people until they had enough votes to win?...............

I would not count someone like McCain out if I were you...............

 

[Navy Pride]

I would be willing to bet that if Obama wins the nomination, there will be states in play that are not normally completely in play.

For example, states like: Iowa, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Colorado would all be states that the Republicans would have a hard fight to defend. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say that running against Obama, we would even see the Republican candidate campaigning in Kansas because even it would not be a total sure thing for them.

As to wining Southern States. Well, I don't think any Democrat can carry the deep south. However, they don't need to. I wrote on here over a year ago that the Republican Party's move to the extreme right on civil liberties and social issues will result in them essentially being a regional party largely only winning in the deep south. Essentially being boxed into the core socially conservative base and as a result alienating as much as 70% of Americans.

Think of it this way. Take a state that votes 60% Republican and 40% Democrat in past elections. Essentially you only have to convince 1 in ten residents in that state that would to vote Democrat that would have not done so in the past for the Democratic candidate to have a shot at carrying the state. A guy like Kerry can't do that because he is so remarkably unlikable, but a very charismatic candidate can actually do that.

It really depends on who the Republican Candidate is.......For example if Huckabee were to be the nominee no way does Obama win Tenn or Va.

 

[Navy Pride]

I'm not calling you a bigot Navy but.......The man is as much white as he is black. I am so sick of hearing about the bigots and how they'll vote.

Faced with more of the same this administration has brought us e.g war (Huck or McCain) I think a lot of people will vote (GASP!)....black.

Call me what you want but if you don't believe there is still a lot of Racism in the south my friend then you live in La La land.........There is not a more gentleman and a person that carrys himself as and African American and he proved that in Tenn. when he ran for the senate............

 

[the makeout hobo]

Call me what you want but if you don't believe there is still a lot of Racism in the south my friend then you live in La La land.........There is not a more gentleman and a person that carrys himself as and African American and he proved that in Tenn. when he ran for the senate............

From what I understand talking to Tenn friends of mine was that Ford just kinda came off as a sleaze and a jerk overall, and that's what did him in, not his skin color.

 

[Navy Pride]

From what I understand talking to Tenn friends of mine was that Ford just kinda came off as a sleaze and a jerk overall, and that's what did him in, not his skin color.

My friends in Tenn. said Ford is one of the nicest guys you would want to meet..............Next..........

 

[donsutherland1]

UtahBill,

Just so it is clear, my point is that Senator McCain would be a competitive candidate in the general election. Mayor Giuliani might, in theory, also be competitive, but that is not assured, as his campaign to date has not exactly been an exercise in strong leadership. Candidates such as Governors Romney and Huckabee have a more passionate but narrower base. Their ability to appeal to independent voters is much more questionable. Senator Edwards would face a similar disadvantage as Governors Romney and Huckabee in that he appeals to a narrower base that embraces economic populism.

McCain appeals to independent voters and may well give serious consideration to choosing a moderate such as Mayor Bloomberg for VP, or even reach across Party lines to choose Senator Lieberman who endorsed his candidacy. Of course, I am not suggesting that a McCain victory is a sure thing.

If the economy tanks, voters could become less risk-averse than usual and seek bigger change. A milder slowdown (especially if short of a recession) and onset of a recovery would push voters more toward risk aversion. If so, it could be a "wash" between Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. Otherwise, Senator McCain might be favored over Senator Obama. Greater tolerance for risk would favor Senator Obama.

For the Democrats, both Senators Clinton and Obama would be formidable candidates in the general election. Senator Obama, like Senator McCain, appeals to independent voters. At the same time, he has positioned himself as a change agent and unifying candidate. Former Secretary of State Powell's praise for Senator Obama serves him well.

Senator Clinton should not be written off. She can position herself as experienced (indeed among NH Democratic Primary voters who had a preference for experience, she beat Senator Obama 71%-5%) and has access to senior Democratic leaders such as Robert Rubin and Madeleine Albright. She can be expected to put together a very strong team from the onset.

In my opinion, voters typically choose candidates who favor incremental change and/or continuity. That risk aversion, in my view, is a major reason why President Bush defeated Senator Kerry in 2004. Moreover, had VP Gore not distanced himself from President Clinton's Administration in his unsuccessful 2000 run, he would likely have won from his credibly offering to maintain continuity (something that benefited President Bush in 1988 when he succeeded President Reagan).

In any case, barring a recession, voters might prefer incremental change over much larger change. Voters supporting revolutionary change is less common, hence elections of leaders who espouse big change (FDR, JFK, Reagan) have not been the norm.​

 

[AndrewC]

There's that word again, change. As if it had some magical property to cure our ills. Why do people expect change when they continue to vote the same damn people and the same damn ideologies?

 

[BushWhacked]

Well now....I believe that depends very much on what he can do with the Black Vote...don't it.

We always talk about the Black Vote, and the votes of the whites in the southern states. What about the other minorities that will vote. In particular the largest minority in the states. Hispanic. Will a majority of hispanics in the south (and we all know there are a lot in the southern states) vote for Obama? Combine the Hispanic vote with the Black Vote and you might have some voting power there in the south (assuming they are blue votes)?