The Road to the White House

[Berto 338]

quote:

Originally posted by WPMagic:

quote:

Originally posted by Kberto:

quote:

Originally posted by Natmayo:

quote:

Originally posted by Kberto:

I'll pose a question

 

Why is Obama not up 20+ points at this point?

 

Considering how tilted this environment is towards democrats,the rejection of Bush, the 600 million dollars raised by Obama, this election is still winnable for John McCain, even though he's run the most idiotic campaign i've ever seen. Why?

 

And this is a serious question. I'm not trying to be partison in anyway, i'd like to know what you guys think.

 

I have an opinion, but I'd rather not dig into it myself.

 

I dont know if the question of his associations are clicking in, or the fact that that a lot of people are questioning his lack of experience.

 

From the people I associate with, I believe that the two reasons that he hasn't run away with it is

 

A) The pick of Joe Biden. I really believe that if he had picked Hillary Clinton, this election would have been over at the convention. A lot of people that I deal with just dont like Biden.

 

B) The thought of increased power and influence of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I think the thought of those two in a very influential role in our lives scares many people to death.

 

On your two points

 

First, I agree that picking Hillary would of clinched it, but I don't think Biden hurts him at all. He doesn't give him any points, but he doesn't lose any in my opinion.

 

On your second point, most people don't know who Pelosi or Reid are, so I can't see that being a factor. I think I saw a poll where only 9% of Americans knew who Nancy Pelosi was.

 

And I know a lot of Republicans love to point to the low approval rating of congress and try to equate that to Democrats, but I think that rating reflects on the distaste of Washington as a whole. If people really disapproved of Democrats in Congress, they wouldn't be on the verge of getting 60 Senators.

 

And just for the record, I think Pelosi and Reid have been incompetent to say the least. So by no means am I defending them.

 

I agree that it has nothing to do with Congress and Reid and Polosi. I also don't think it has anything to do with Biden. There are two main factors that I think are playing a role in keeping it somewhat close:

 

1) Obama's lack of experience.

 

2) Race. The reason I say this is if you were to look at all the claims towards Obama. I'm not talking about the obvious racism, but all of these economic claims like socialist, Marxist, etc. I mean, look at the last 10 pages of this thread and the discussion has been a lot about poor black people (I'm not calling Smack or KITNO or anyone else racist here, I'm just showing where the debate has led). How often does Obama talk about the actual poor anymore? Hell, look at his half hour spot the other day. Every family, including the black family, was middle class. You would think that John Edwards were running for president the way the discourse has gone. When is the last time Obama has, other then maybe a line here and there, really talked about Katrina? Yet, for some reason, the thought of the poor black American is being talked about...

 

Do we really think that, considering Jim Crow and desegregation and other horrible things weren't that long ago that the first black President would just waltz into the White House?

 

To me, at this point it's all about race. I haven't decided whether I want to write a long post or not about it because it opens up a can of worms, but that's what I truely believe.

 

As I stated earlier, all the trends in this country would indicate a landslide, but it's still close. There has to be a deeper reason.

[SmackDaddy 30]

I think it has more to do with the growing distaste for Obama's economic policy.

His ties to radical groups, his skin color, his VP selection, etc, pale in comparsion to what liberal economic policies could do during this poor economic climate.

 

The New, New Deal.

[Ned Ryerson 94]

quote:

Originally posted by SmackDaddy:

I think it has more to do with the growing distaste for Obama's economic policy.

His ties to radical groups, his skin color, his VP selection, etc, pale in comparsion to what liberal economic policies could do during this poor economic climate.

 

The New, New Deal.

 

The problem I have with this is that his economic policies aren't that left of center! Sure they are left, but John Edwards and others would be waaaay further to the left. What is happening is that his race is the glue that makes all the economic mumbo jumbo that is being thrown his way stick. If a white Obama would be running many of the same claims would be made, but the way it's being done would be way different... And it wouldn't stick.

[Berto 338]

quote:

Originally posted by SmackDaddy:

I think it has more to do with the growing distaste for Obama's economic policy.

His ties to radical groups, his skin color, his VP selection, etc, pale in comparsion to what liberal economic policies could do during this poor economic climate.

 

The New, New Deal.

 

But come on, all this "he's a socialist," "marxist," "who is this guy," it's all code words. That stuff sticks because he's black.

 

Do you honestly believe McCain would be calling Hillary a socialist if she were the nominee? Of course not. He'd be laughed at.

 

People in this country don't really know what socialism is, or communism. But when you sling terms like that around with a black candidate with the middle name Hussein, it works.

 

I kind of rambled there so they me put it this way. Barack is basically running on the Bill Clinton economic plan. Most independents still like Clinton and they feel he did a good job. But yet when barack says it, some how it's different.

 

Obama's econmic plan is pretty much the democratic platform at this point. But democrats will make huge strides in congress. Yet, the strategy is to still paint Barack as the mystery man. Trust me, if it was Hillary with the same message, she'd be up by 10+ points.

[SmackDaddy 30]

I disagree. I've read Obama's tax code proposal front to back, and IMO it comes nowhere close to resembling Clinton's economic policies. Unless you are suggesting that Clinton's economic policy was David Banner, and Obama's economic policy would be the HULK.

 

Do you know I have three friends (white BTW) that are wealthy small business owners that are voting for Obama. I challenged them three weeks ago to read Obama's proposed tax code so that they could familiarize themselves with the financial impact it would have. To this day they still refuse to read and educate themselves because they are more impressed with Obama's "Elvis" like appeal than they are with anything else. All I ever hear from them is how we need change. It's really disgusting IMO.

[Ned Ryerson 94]

Are you reading it here? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

[Berto 338]

quote:

Originally posted by SmackDaddy:

I disagree. I've read Obama's tax code proposal front to back, and IMO it comes nowhere close to resembling Clinton's economic policies. Unless you are suggesting that Clinton's economic policy was David Banner, and Obama's economic policy would be the HULK.

 

Do you know I have three friends (white BTW) that are wealthy small business owners that are voting for Obama. I challenged them three weeks ago to read Obama's proposed tax code so that they could familiarize themselves with the financial impact it would have. To this day they still refuse to read and educate themselves because they are more impressed with Obama's "Elvis" like appeal than they are with anything else. All I ever hear from them is how we need change. It's really disgusting IMO.

 

But "tax the rich" is nothing new from a democrat. So what's the difference this time?

 

Trust me, I know plenty of white people, including family members, that repeat all that change stuff to, but that doesn't mean they're aren't many people out there that won't vote for him because he's black.

[SmackDaddy 30]

quote:

Originally posted by Kberto:

But "tax the rich" is nothing new from a democrat. So what's the difference this time?

 

It depends on how you define rich.

 

Putting a nice round number like $250,000 sounds lofty to most Americans, until you start to dissect how they're defining that figure.

 

I guarantee you that if the Dems were honest to Americans about exactly how their tax proposals, wage proposals, health care proposals, pension proposals, etc would impact employers like myself and my ability to maintain profitable operations without contributing massively to the rising unemployment rate, there would be a different feeling about all the supposed "free" handouts.

 

Truth is, somebody will be forced to cover the expenses of these "free" handouts, and it won't just be the ultra wealthy that the Dems like to tag with excessive assets. It will also be the moderately wealthy individuals like myself that contribute to employment and the GDP in mass collectively.

 

+++

 

Explain this to me.

 

How exacty will 95% of Americans receive a tax break when 40% of Americans don't even pay taxes?

[Berto 338]

He says 95% of all working families. All legal American workers have to pay into social security and medicare. I'm by no means an expert on this, but I think i'm right on that.

 

If you can show me where 40% of working Americans pay zero taxes i'm all ears.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I'm pretty sure the plan is that 95% will qualify for a tax credit, not get a tax break. Just like other tax credits, if the credit goes unused, it goes unused.

[Berto 338]

Earned income tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

 

If we apply the same standards here that we do to Obama, is this not socialism?

[Ned Ryerson 94]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/228/

 

quote:

There's a small caveat to the 40 percent number