Real Voter Breakdown
|
Posted By: R. D. Briceland Posted on: Mar. 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM |
0.0 / 5
Based on 0 ratings.
|
Americans have simply been inspired to vote for two great candidates and equally disgusted with the continuation of the current administration that John McCain represents. I personally know lifelong republicans that plan to vote for Obama because they genuinely believe he is the bet candidate.
Barack Obama will beat John McCain in the national election for 4 main reasons.
1. Obama better represents independents and moderates: John McCain earned his reputation as a "maverick senator" by supporting across the aisle legislation, staying away from the party line and genuinely representing the best interest of the people of AZ. You were lucky to have such a great senator. If Hillary wins the democratic nomination a lot of people who would otherwise not vote republican will cast their vote for John McCain because of his past achievements. With Obama in the race all the independents and moderates view McCain's staunch support of the Bush tax cuts, his staunch support for Bush's War and his questionable ties to Washington lobbyists inside and outside his campaign as pandering to the republican base. Obama represents a true alternative to this type of politiking so he will get their votes.
2.Obama is more organized at the grassroots level: Almost 1 million people have separately donated to Obama;s campaign. His organization's relentless effort to mobilize support has been the backbone of his campaign, Hillary didn't have a plan after Super Tuesday, Obama kept on rolling, to 11 straight victories. He really doesn't take money from lobbyists, something McCain was forced to do when his campaign ran out money before the primaries even began. Democrats have been showing up at the polls in record numbers and its not because they're handing out booze or candy this year.
3.John McCain will not stoop down to traditional republican tricks: He has substantially denounced the racist radio host who spoke before a rally in Ohio. He won't run a campaign like Bush did and make personal values like abortion and gay marriage central themes of his campaign. The issues that inspire the crazy evangelicals to come out in masses won't be there for McCain. Right-wing hacks like OReilly, Hannity and Coulter aren't biding their time before pouncing on Obama, they're scrambling. They were so overly prepared for Hillary that they don't know what to do about the cool black guy without revealing their covert racism. They don't have anything substantial to bash Obama with. (Think before you speak Michelle).
4. Obama opposes the war, McCain does not. McCain would be a great, great, great candidate if used his prior experiences of war as a platform for respectfully pulling America out of this quagmire. He spent 6 years as a POW, was presumably tortured beyond belief and yet he will not vow to end injustices like torture and gitmo practiced by our country. Above anything else, Obama was right about the War. Subsequent votes to fund the troops were his duty to the young men and women involved in the battle. All serious people understand this.
McCain did what he had to do to get the nomination, but he payed a great price. Only an unnatural event with unforeseen consequences could change the certainty of America electing the first African-America President in our history.
From listening to the Toad and the American Abomination on the Voice of Arizona radio show all Obama has to do is stay out of Arizona during his presidential term and he should be alright.
Comments:
|
Mar. 2, 2008 at 07:02:18 PM
|
||
| R. D. Briceland just tried "unsuccessfully to characterize the voting paradigm of the upcoming presidential election." I believe his conclusions are wrong. I personally know lifelong republicans that plan to vote for Obama because they genuinely believe he is the bet candidate. You should think before you write. I'll see you on election day when your fantasy land is interrupted by a cold does of reality. In response to your 4-point argument supporting an Obama victory:
Facts are facts and if you don't like to hear them and you want to silence them for everyone, then maybe you'd better find a candidate who really suits your agenda... but last I heard we already have an evil dictator in office and his name is George W. Bush. By the way, you're talking points suck and you have no evidence to back them up. Let's have a debate when you have more than half-truths and gut-feelings to defend your views on Obama. |
||
|
Mar. 2, 2008 at 07:09:33 PM
|
||
| For every Republican that you claim you know leaving for Obama 3 independants and Demos will join McCain. Kid, you're putting up a noble fight but it just ain't gonna happen. By the way how can you be African and American at the same time, I'm not Irish American, I'm just American. Until that basic issue is resolved in this country there will not be an "African American" in The Office. Nothing against you or Obama but that's the facts and it's going to take more than a few months of campaigning to change the way people think. Where do you think all the Hillary votes are going to go? Before you answer that ask yourself why they're not on the Obama wagon to begin with. Good luck, and TY for the McCain support, when the chicks out we're in.
|
||
|
Mar. 2, 2008 at 07:28:18 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by giddyup on Mar. 2, 2008 at 07:09:33 PM]
giddyup
Mar. 2, 2008 at 07:09:33 PM For every Republican that you claim you know leaving for Obama 3 independants and Demos will join McCain. Kid, you're putting up a noble fight but it just ain't gonna happen. By the way how can you be African and American at the same time, I'm not Irish... View this Comment Im so impressed with your talking points R.D. Still, when and if Obama gets the nomination, he will have to start answering questions about his policy. Have you even watched any of the debates with Hillary? He either dances around the question, with hope and change, or agrees with Ms Clinton. He's no leader. He's a Barock star. Just remeber the only thing the media likes more than building someone up is tearing them down. |
||
|
Mar. 3, 2008 at 03:13:07 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by postman on Mar. 2, 2008 at 07:28:18 PM]
postman
Mar. 2, 2008 at 07:28:18 PM Im so impressed with your talking points R.D. Still, when and if Obama gets the nomination, he will have to start answering questions about his policy. Have you even watched any of the debates with Hillary? He either dances around the question, with hope... View this Comment "I have a white friend, his name was the First Black President, now he's known as "the first-former-president-to-lose-an-election." Guys, if you want to be successful talking politics on the radio you have to get the politics part right. All the opinions on VofA are on the wrong side of history. No one is successful by being wrong, tell me your business plan, I have a vested interest. The Toads rebuttal to my arguments couldn't win over Pauly Shore in "Jury Duty." Your first argument enlightens readers to the common racist undertones you often imply. The second section blames the democratic turnout on 16-year-olds sneaking into primaries like they're the next James Cameron movie premiere. The third position you take firmly entrenches you behind Hannity, OReilly and the Average Abomination. Your democratic card will not be renewed. Fourth and most importantly you are completely wrong about Iraq. Funding the troops is not a reauthorization of the war. Did you really just quote Dennis Kucinich? You're the type of guy that would've criticized Obama for not "supporting the troops" if he had voted against providing them with body armor and ammunition. He was right to begin with, your girl was wrong. Are you really a credible radio talk show host when the truth escapes you like this? Does Joe Biden know you speak his name in vain? Lets talk about Biden's real strategy for winning the War. I support his proposal of turning the region into three, separate, autonomous countries. Maybe an intelligent discussion of this possibility precludes us. You'd better have something prepared for this Sunday, I don't want to move to Phoenix just yet. |
||
|
Mar. 3, 2008 at 08:07:19 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by R. D. Briceland on Mar. 3, 2008 at 03:13:07 AM]
R. D. Briceland
Mar. 3, 2008 at 03:13:07 AM "I have a white friend, his name was the First Black President, now he's known as "the Guys, if you want to be successful talking politics on the radio you have to get the politics part right. All the opinions on VofA are on the wrong side of history.... View this Comment Let's get some things straight before you blow your top. First, your take on independent voters is full of assumptions and they'll continue to be assumptions until we see the results in November. Second, you're neglecting to account fro one crucial variable: Hillary Clinton is still in the race and we will find out tomorrow if she will remain in the race. Remember, she has won and continues to win substantial numbers of voters in each contest. If it's Obama's year, then why hasn't he won all the votes and sealed the deal already? Third, your comment about the "wrong side of history" is funny. I didn't know I was talking to Sean Hannity's liberal brother. Fourth, let me speak about Joe Biden. Joe Biden is the first and only candidate in this race that I have supported with financial contributions. In fact, I was prepared to volunteer in Arizona to help his campaign, but unfortunately a dufus of a candidate named Barack Obama decided that 2008 was his chance to make the history books. This Obama guy came in looking like the Fresh Prince yammering about hope and change. I thought, what an idiot! Nobody's going to buy that load of s*** again! And I was wrong. The good candidates like Joe Biden were defeated by Mr. Change himself. A guy with no record and no ideas, just hope and change. Biden actually had a plan to help end our occupation of Iraq, unlike candidates like Bill Richardson, who actually suggested marching the troops through Turkey or something like that. And what was Obama's policy or idea? "I will talk to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and ..." Blah blah blah blah blah. People like you, R. D., are responsible for ruining elections because you live in the moment and you have zero aptitude for recognizing the reality of the world and seeing the bigger picture. I've been a Biden supporter since 1998 and I swear to some higher being that I sent him emails in 2000 and 2004 requesting that he run for president. He was the ONLY --- got that? --- ONLY honest candidate in the race, the only one with a good plan for Iraq, and the only candidate that can bring the parties together. The Obama Republican and independents phenomenon is merely a myth --- or a fairy tale until we see the results in November. Finally, war funding. If you read anything but your own posts and your own articles, you would know how I feel about war funding. Like Biden, I agree that if you don't have the numbers to cut the funding, then you use your funding vote to make sure our soldiers are well-protected, supplied, and armored for their mission. However, I am aware that the mission was the wrong mission. I'm not an idiot. And I'm well aware that Biden, Dodd, Edwards, and Clinton voted for the war. And I'm very well aware that Obama made a speech opposing the war. And I'm more than aware of Obama's double-talk and indecisiveness when he was pressed on how he would have voted: BOSTON GLOBE (MAR. 22, 2007) --- "Obama has said repeatedly that while he would have voted against the war in 2002 based on what he knew at the time, he could not be sure that classified intelligence reporters made available to senators wouldn't have changed his mind." Read the article I'm also aware of how he decided to get political and join the temporary winning team in 2004 when asked about his support for the Democratic nominee John Kerry's vote for the war: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." I'm also aware that he has campaigned for the highest office in the land based on the fact that he opposed the war from the start. But what we now know is that he wasn't serious about that! So let's sum up what we know about Barack Obama's definition of "opposition" to the war:
Use some logic, Briceland, if I tell you to invest in Bob's Broccoli-Flavored Ice Cream Shop and you know it's going to flop, then why would you invest in it. Don't say that I'm working my ass off and you're doing it for me. If you wanted to help me, you'd tell me the truth, not invest, and "bring me home." Maybe that didn't make sense. How about this: Before the Iowa caucuses, a resolution went to the Senate and was passed by a large margin. That resolution stated that the U.S. would declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Obama didn't vote because, (A) he was too busy campaigning (no surprise, he has one of the worst attendance records in the Senate) and (B) he would have shown up if his vote would have been a deciding vote. But as I said, the bill was passed by a large margin. Why didn't Obama use that reasoning to not vote for funding? Plenty of Senators have voted for war funding. Why didn't he just stand on principle and say NO, Mr. President. I will not help fund your war! I'll tell you why, Briceland, because he has no political courage, he's a Washington insider with an agenda and thirst for power, and he's as politically calculating as every other politician you've come to despise. Stay out of Arizona, please. I don't think I can deal with this argument again. It's exhausting and the fact that you only hear on the radio what you want to hear makes my task more difficult. |
||
|
Mar. 3, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM
|
||
| First, your take on independent voters is full of assumptions and they'll continue to be assumptions until we see the results in November. *** That is right, but how many independents want to go back to White Water and Monica? Second, you're neglecting to account fro one crucial variable: Hillary Clinton is still in the race and we will find out tomorrow if she will remain in the race. Remember, she has won and continues to win substantial numbers of voters in each contest. If it's Obama's year, then why hasn't he won all the votes and sealed the deal already? *** No, she hasn't won, been winning or continuing to win primaries, she's been losing. She's been 2nd, a loser, 11 straight times, if Obama had lost 11 straight, we wouldn't still remember his name. In the South, North, East and West. Clinton lost Wisconsin, a white, blue collar state by 17 points. The only 2 categories she won were voters over 60 years old, and Catholics, both with 54-58%. Third, your comment about the "wrong side of history" is funny. I didn't know I was talking to Sean Hannity's liberal brother. Fourth, let me speak about Joe Biden. Joe Biden is the first and only candidate in this race that I have supported with financial contributions. In fact, I was prepared to volunteer in Arizona to help his campaign, but unfortunately a dufus of a candidate named Barack Obama decided that 2008 was his chance to make the history books. This Obama guy came in looking like the Fresh Prince yammering about hope and change. I thought, what an idiot! Nobody's going to buy that load of s*** again! And I was wrong. *** Wake up, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are all Adlai Stevenson, all over again. A big part of winning the Presidency is getting the most votes. Biden and Richardson were clearly the 2 best resumes, but they had the leadership and charisma of a bowl of oatmeal; and not Maple Brown Sugar, just plain oatmeal. As for the war funding, has Biden stopped voting for funding? Or Clinton, or Dodd? Probably not. |
||
|
Mar. 3, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by Phaedrus on Mar. 3, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM]
Phaedrus
Mar. 3, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM First, your take on independent voters is full of assumptions and they'll continue to be assumptions until we see the results in November. *** That is right, but how many independents want to go back to White Water and Monica? Second, you're... View this Comment Once again you have missed my point so I'll paste it from the article to this one: My point about Obama is simple, I think. If you're against the war from the start, great. But don't trash your Democratic opponents because of their votes, especially when you yourself voted to fund it and had the chance in 2007 to vote for Russ Feingold's measure to end the war and bring the troops home by July. Like Biden, I agree that if you don't have the numbers to cut the funding, then you use your funding vote to make sure our soldiers are well-protected, supplied, and armored for their mission. Fund the war and oppose the war, but don't say that you did everything you could to stop the war. You see, if Obama had political courage he would have said "No" to Bush on the funding. Instead, he attacked his Democratic opponents for voting for the war that he now supports with funding. It's called inconsistency, for those who still care about the idea. That catch is, Phaedrus, why bash your Democratic opponents and alienate the "second place" candidate who still has a large number of Democratic voters solidly behind her? I hear a fracture coming. |
||
|
Mar. 3, 2008 at 04:53:54 PM
|
||
| "2.Obama is more organized at the grassroots level:" Yes, and I think that is a powerful plus that is overlooked. Obama apparently can put together a campaign and lead it. That is a very good skill for a president. "I personally know lifelong republicans that plan to vote for Obama because they genuinely believe he is the bet candidate." That is encouraging, but what is a "bet candidate". Are we talking Jimmy the Geek here?
|
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


This is the same as a racist saying, "I'm not a racist, I have black friends".
Or maybe they are members of my secret team, because I handed out those very comments for GOP'ers to tell Democrats who push Obama.
The rest of your article looks like it could have come from the Obama website... all fluff.
But you go ahead and call in next week... ok?
That way you can step from behind the keyboard where you can organize, cut and paste your comments and show us all how a master does it.
Report Abuse