3 reasons why Obama will be president


by Sunny
13th May, 2008 at 3:34 am    

Let’s assume for a start that no catastrophic issue worse than Jeremiah Wright will affect Obama from now until November. I’m betting he will be president. Well, I’m not officially gambling but I’m saying he will be. I don’t buy the view that America will never elect a black President. For a start, the rednecks elected Bobby Jindal. And secondly, the percentage of people saying America is ready for a black president stands at 81%, about 20% higher than at the start of this election.

Anyway, here are the latest reasons why:
1) Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr formally jumped into the White House race Monday as a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination. He’ll split the Republican libertarian vote.

2) Ron Paul isn’t going away and his supporters keep trying to reclaim the Republican party. This year the Democrats are more united than the Republicans.

3) George Bush, the most unpopular president in American history, is more damaging to McCain than Jeremiah Wright is to Barack Obama. All Democrats have to do is keep linking them together, putting McCain in a fix. If he tries to distance himself too much from Bush, he loses hardcore Republicans, if he doesn’t, he loses independents.

Update: 4) Travis Childers has won Mississipi. He was linked very heavily to Obama by the Republicans.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Election News,Race politics,United States






23 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. MaidMarian — on 13th May, 2008 at 8:27 am  

    Sunny –

    I agree with you that Americans will vote for a black president. It just won’t be Obama.

  2. digitalcntrl — on 13th May, 2008 at 11:50 am  

    “And secondly, the percentage of people saying America is ready for a black president stands at 81%, about 20% higher than at the start of this election.”

    Many white people will say the are willing to vote for a black man so the don’t appear racist. However, many still prefer a WASP (white anglo saxon protestant) president.

    “1) Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr formally jumped into the White House race Monday as a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination. He’ll split the Republican libertarian vote.”

    Very few people are willing to support a candidate that has no chance. For every Bob Barr there is a Ralph Nader.

    “2) Ron Paul isn’t going away and his supporters keep trying to reclaim the Republican party. This year the Democrats are more united than the Republicans.”

    Same response as above. I would also say that Obama actually divides the democratic party. He is unabashedly liberal which means swing voters are less inclined to vote for him. And he is not very popular with working class whites who regard him as a black elitist from Harvard.

    “3) George Bush, the most unpopular president in American history, is more damaging to McCain than Jeremiah Wright is to Barack Obama. All Democrats have to do is keep linking them together, putting McCain in a fix. If he tries to distance himself too much from Bush, he loses hardcore Republicans, if he doesn’t, he loses independents.”

    Snr. Bush is definitely Obama’s friend this round. Though linking McCain and Bush is a bit teneous. McCain is basically republican-lite or centrist.

  3. Sid — on 13th May, 2008 at 11:52 am  

    Many white people will say the are willing to vote for a black man so the don’t appear racist. However, many still prefer a WASP (white anglo saxon protestant) president.

    Would be interested to know your qualifications for being spokesman and representative of “Many white people”?

  4. digitalcntrl — on 13th May, 2008 at 12:07 pm  

    “Would be interested to know your qualifications for being spokesman and representative of “Many white people”?”

    Grew up in small town white america (so mainly working class people). I know how these people think. Many are distrustful of outsiders and intellectuals. Obama, however, is both an intllecutal and an outsider. His comments about working class whites hit especially hard (the god and guns statement). Many working class whites see this as obama saying: You people are too stupid to realize that you are being screwed so vote for me so I can do the thinking for you.

    I am not acting as a spokesman or rep of white people. Just making observations based on my experiences.

  5. Ravi Naik — on 13th May, 2008 at 2:44 pm  

    “Same response as above. I would also say that Obama actually divides the democratic party. He is unabashedly liberal which means swing voters are less inclined to vote for him. And he is not very popular with working class whites who regard him as a black elitist from Harvard.”

    Oh, Obama divides the Democrat party? :) So, shame on him (and every other candidate) for having the gull to run against Clinton in a democratic process! Shame on him for having run such an outrageously well-run campaign against the inevitable candidate with one of the most well-known name in the Democrat party, and having virtually every big Democrat donors and the Democrat establishment on her feet.

    And the elitist shtick didn’t quite stick with Obama – something about him being an African-American with a single-mother, who had to pay his tuition fees on loan, might have something to do with it.

    “Grew up in small town white america (so mainly working class people). I know how these people think. Many are distrustful of outsiders and intellectuals. Obama, however, is both an intllecutal and an outsider”

    Can I say something? The hell with these retards who do not want a president who is smart, an intellectual and who understands the complexities of issues. These are the people who voted Bush – the worst President ever, because they think that the best quality in a President is the ability to drink beer with them. If they want to continue to vote against their economic interests, then by all means, they should continue to suffer.

    And yes, a lot of people in West Virginia (not all) will vote against Obama today because of racism and xenophobia, not because he is an elitist or even an intellectual. Those that aren’t, will vote for him in the general election.

  6. Ravi Naik — on 13th May, 2008 at 3:01 pm  

    A good article on why Obama is lucky to be a black candidate, as Geraldine Ferraro used to say.

  7. Sunny — on 13th May, 2008 at 3:21 pm  

    I’ll humour your digitalcntrl

    Very few people are willing to support a candidate that has no chance. For every Bob Barr there is a Ralph Nader.

    Did you see how the vote divided up for the Republicans in North Carolina? McCain is still having trouble because Huckabee and Ron Paul attrcted up to 25% of the vote. Same happened in Pennsylvania.

    He is unabashedly liberal which means swing voters are less inclined to vote for him.

    He fares better than Clinton among swing voters. And he’s not attached to the most unpopular president in history.

    Seriously, you guys come up with some spectactularly bad arguments.

  8. digitalcntrl — on 13th May, 2008 at 3:54 pm  

    “I’ll humour your digitalcntrl

    Very few people are willing to support a candidate that has no chance. For every Bob Barr there is a Ralph Nader.

    Did you see how the vote divided up for the Republicans in North Carolina? McCain is still having trouble because Huckabee and Ron Paul attrcted up to 25% of the vote. Same happened in Pennsylvania.

    He is unabashedly liberal which means swing voters are less inclined to vote for him.

    He fares better than Clinton among swing voters. And he’s not attached to the most unpopular president in history.

    Seriously, you guys come up with some spectactularly bad arguments.”

    Oh I am feeling the love Sunny : )

    As far as swing voters are concerned I will defer to the Pew Research Center:

    “Although attention has been focused on McCain’s problems with the GOP base, there are indications that some Democrats might defect if Obama is the party’s nominee. Overall, 20% of white Democratic voters say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. That is twice the percentage of white Democrats who say they would support McCain in a Clinton-McCain matchup. Older Democrats (ages 65 and older), lower-income and less educated Democrats also would support McCain at higher levels if Obama rather than Clinton is the party’s nominee.”

    From: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=398

  9. Ravi Naik — on 13th May, 2008 at 4:21 pm  

    “As far as swing voters are concerned I will defer to the Pew Research Center”

    It is still a spectacularly bad argument. This is because this voting bloc – the so called Reagan Democrats – are the least reliable Democrat bloc, and there is no guarantee that they will stick with Hillary in the general election.

    Clinton, on the other hand, is a bigger problem for Democrats because one of the most loyal voting blocs for Democrats – African Americans – have been alienated at her playing the race card. And she gets little love from independents, who usually end up deciding the outcome of the election.

  10. digitalcntrl — on 13th May, 2008 at 4:40 pm  

    “It is still a spectacularly bad argument. This is because this voting bloc – the so called Reagan Democrats – are the least reliable Democrat bloc, and there is no guarantee that they will stick with Hillary in the general election.”

    So are you saying that swing voters should not be sought out because they might vote for a republican? Pardon me they seem exactly the people to bring to your side. The past two elections have been close, very close. Both elections hinged on two battleground/swing states (Ohio and Florida).

    “Clinton, on the other hand, is a bigger problem for Democrats because one of the most loyal voting blocs for Democrats – African Americans – have been alienated at her playing the race card. And she gets little love from independents, who usually end up deciding the outcome of the election.”

    Are you saying that African Americans or very liberal whites would vote for McCain over Clinton or stay home? I think not, the democratic base is determined to see the republicans pushed out of power.

  11. Ravi Naik — on 13th May, 2008 at 5:45 pm  

    “So are you saying that swing voters should not be sought out because they might vote for a republican?”

    Actually, your Pew Research Center quote is about Democrat swing voters, not swing voters in general. The biggest bloc of swing voters are the independents (1/3 of the electorate), and they favor Obama over Clinton by a considerable margin. In fact, Obama has a better shot at getting Republicans voting for him in the general election than Clinton.

    “Are you saying that African Americans or very liberal whites would vote for McCain over Clinton or stay home? I think not, the democratic base is determined to see the republicans pushed out of power.”

    I would say that very liberal whites and African Americans are pretty pissed off with Hillary, and I cannot imagine what would happen if Hillary got the nomination to a guy who has the most popular vote, number of states and number of pledged delegates. I don’t think Democrats should try to find that out: Obama on the other hand, secures these bases + more independents& republican votes than Clinton. On the other hand, Obama does have problems with people who are not going to vote for a black under any circumstances – but these people do not tend to vote for Democrats anyway.

    Obama will win it because he has an energised base, and an unprecedented support from the grassroots movement. 1.5 million people have donated to his campaign, and this is before the general election. McCain – unlike Bush – does not have that. His stance on immigration and now environment is alienating the radical right, and his stance on woman right’s will alienate a good number of moderates and independents.
    Add what Sunny has said, and this is really Obama’s presidency to lose.

  12. digitalcntrl — on 13th May, 2008 at 11:38 pm  

    “Oh, Obama divides the Democrat party? So, shame on him (and every other candidate) for having the gull to run against Clinton in a democratic process! Shame on him for having run such an outrageously well-run campaign against the inevitable candidate with one of the most well-known name in the Democrat party, and having virtually every big Democrat donors and the Democrat establishment on her feet.”

    When did I say Obama can’t run? He can do anything he likes. I am just pointing out that the many working class whites percieve him to be elitist (whether it is true or not is wholly irrelevant) thus he turns off many blue collar democrats.

    “And the elitist shtick didn’t quite stick with Obama – something about him being an African-American with a single-mother, who had to pay his tuition fees on loan, might have something to do with it.”

    Obama is not your typical homeboy. His father was the Kenyan ambassador to the US and went to Harvard, in short to working class whites, a limosuine liberal…

    “Can I say something? The hell with these retards who do not want a president who is smart, an intellectual and who understands the complexities of issues.”

    If it were only so, but we live in a democracy not a plutocracy.

    ” These are the people who voted Bush – the worst President ever, because they think that the best quality in a President is the ability to drink beer with them. If they want to continue to vote against their economic interests, then by all means, they should continue to suffer.”

    I would agree. Heck I lived these people for nearly 12 years. Being a non-white guy whose parents had white collar jobs, I was considered an elitist who could not hold an honest job (aka a job that requires physical labor).

    “And yes, a lot of people in West Virginia (not all) will vote against Obama today because of racism and xenophobia, not because he is an elitist or even an intellectual. Those that aren’t, will vote for him in the general election.”

    Racism may be a factor but it is only a small piece of the reason…to understand these guys pysches read the following:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/12/america/politicus.php
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/12/america/politicus.php

    “Obama will win it because he has an energised base, and an unprecedented support from the grassroots movement. 1.5 million people have donated to his campaign, and this is before the general election. McCain – unlike Bush – does not have that. His stance on immigration and now environment is alienating the radical right, and his stance on woman right’s will alienate a good number of moderates and independents.
    Add what Sunny has said, and this is really Obama’s presidency to lose.”

    I actually don’t believe Clinton is a good candidate. She lacks the aura of leadership not to mention a penchant for dishonesty. I only wish another more moderate democrat (e.g. Wesley Clark) would have won the nomination. You are incorrect in that it is Obama’s presidency to lose, its really the democrat’s presidency to lose. By voting for a hard leftie such as Obama instead of a credible moderate like Clark the democracts offer the republicans a good chance at a win.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1234009820080513

  13. Ravi Naik — on 14th May, 2008 at 12:24 am  

    When did I say Obama can’t run? He can do anything he likes.

    You said he divided the Democrat Party, did you not? Isn’t that what happens in an election when two or more candidates compete?

    “Obama is not your typical homeboy. His father was the Kenyan ambassador to the US and went to Harvard, in short to working class whites, a limosuine liberal…”

    McCain and Clinton are multi-millionaires with fortunes that reach hundreds of millions, Obama just paid his college loans and also Michelle’s with his two books. And he is the limousine elitist…. ;)

    By voting for a hard leftie such as Obama instead of a credible moderate like Clark the democracts offer the republicans a good chance at a win.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1234009820080513

    I assume you didn’t read this article, which states that Obama has 51% support against McCain’s 43%. And Obama hasn’t even been formally nominated, and he is still fighting both Clinton and McCain at the same time. Expect the number to go even higher once Clinton is out, the Democrat Party is fully behind him, and McCain gets properly vetted.

  14. Sunny — on 14th May, 2008 at 12:34 am  

    Obama is not your typical homeboy. His father was the Kenyan ambassador to the US and went to Harvard, in short to working class whites, a limosuine liberal…

    I’m sorry, is your point that the other two are less ‘elitist’, whatever that means, or you’re willing to fall for the rubbish that Clinton, McCain and the media pander to? Are his two opponents less privileged?

    As for the Pew report – yes there is annoyance among some Democrats towards the other nominee. Except its happened everytime there were strong contenders. The party will heal itself.

    You don’t think the super-dels have gone over the same arguments and crunched the numbers?

  15. digitalcntrl — on 14th May, 2008 at 1:39 am  

    “I’m sorry, is your point that the other two are less ‘elitist’, whatever that means, or you’re willing to fall for the rubbish that Clinton, McCain and the media pander to? Are his two opponents less privileged?

    As for the Pew report – yes there is annoyance among some Democrats towards the other nominee. Except its happened everytime there were strong contenders. The party will heal itself.

    You don’t think the super-dels have gone over the same arguments and crunched the numbers?”

    I think people on this thread are misconstruing what I mean by an “elitist”. When a blue collar person over here talks about an elitist he isn’t talking about being wealthy rather it is intllectual elitism he is referring to. In that sense I am an elitist as well since I am a realtively cerebral person that does not do an honest day’s job (aka a job requiring physical labor as opposed to mental work). Probably a better word for it would be that these people are anti-intellectual. Now take Obama, an attorney with a very high vocabulary, he is the poster child for an ivory tower intellectual. Blue collar people here take intense pride in their contribution to America and resent intellectuals whom they see as looking down on them. So when Obama makes gaffe about bitter blue collar wokers along with god and guns, this merely reinforces sterotype that Obam is an elitist. On the other hand Bush is filthy rich but dumb as a doorknob and folksy so he is person they can easily get along with.

  16. digitalcntrl — on 14th May, 2008 at 2:02 am  

    “You said he divided the Democrat Party, did you not? Isn’t that what happens in an election when two or more candidates compete?”

    The fact that he is divise does take away in way his right to run. I wish, though, someone less divise than he was the nominee (other than Clinton). This is probably the one time in nearly 16 years the democrats have the ability to have take the presidency and congress. A hard leftie like Obama only gives McCain a decent shot at winning.

    “McCain and Clinton are multi-millionaires with fortunes that reach hundreds of millions, Obama just paid his college loans and also Michelle’s with his two books. And he is the limousine elitist…”

    Indeed he is….if you look at my response to Sunny’s comment you will understand. Oh and for your reading pleasure…http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/11/obama-draws-fire-for-comments-on-small-town-america/

    “I assume you didn’t read this article, which states that Obama has 51% support against McCain’s 43%. And Obama hasn’t even been formally nominated, and he is still fighting both Clinton and McCain at the same time. Expect the number to go even higher once Clinton is out, the Democrat Party is fully behind him, and McCain gets properly vetted.”

    Yes I read it, the point is that McCain now has a good chance of winning despite Bush’s negative image. I am sure McCain and party are already dreaming up ways of depicting Obama as a ivory tower intellectual as well as some pyscho louis farrakhan wannabe who is out of touch with middle america once the primary is over. And you know what it will work like a charm, I have seen this time and time again.

  17. Sunny — on 14th May, 2008 at 3:04 am  

    Blue collar people here take intense pride in their contribution to America and resent intellectuals whom they see as looking down on them. So when Obama makes gaffe about bitter blue collar wokers along with god and guns, this merely reinforces sterotype that Obam is an elitist.

    So your point is that poor people are dumber and therefore the a stupid candidate should be put forward? Or maybe, you’re falling for the Republican line and have internalised it so much you’re believing it.

    . This is probably the one time in nearly 16 years the democrats have the ability to have take the presidency and congress. A hard leftie like Obama only gives McCain a decent shot at winning.

    Erm, don’t know how to break this to you, but you’re wrong. And here why:
    http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/05/will_obama_unify_the_democrati.html

    What it comes down to is, who can win more independents. Again, all Democrats have to do is keep associating McCain with Bush and they’ll be fine.

  18. digitalcntrl — on 14th May, 2008 at 3:36 am  

    “So your point is that poor people are dumber and therefore the a stupid candidate should be put forward? Or maybe, you’re falling for the Republican line and have internalised it so much you’re believing it.”

    Nope. Just an individual is smart enough to play dumb (e.g. like Bill Clinton). Part of Obama’s problem is naivete. Sure he maybe right about the bitter rednecks, but his lack of tact and understanding of people’s pride could be his undoing.

    “Erm, don’t know how to break this to you, but you’re wrong. And here why:
    http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/05/will_obama_unify_the_democrati.html

    What it comes down to is, who can win more independents. Again, all Democrats have to do is keep associating McCain with Bush and they’ll be fine.”

    Well at this point we are debating someone’s punditry, he is basically stating what the poll numbers will be in the future. Lets just see if his theory pans out once Obama (almost assuredly) wins the primary.

  19. Ravi Naik — on 14th May, 2008 at 1:40 pm  

    Yes I read it, the point is that McCain now has a good chance of winning despite Bush’s negative image. I am sure McCain and party are already dreaming up ways of depicting Obama as a ivory tower intellectual as well as some pyscho louis farrakhan wannabe who is out of touch with middle america once the primary is over. And you know what it will work like a charm, I have seen this time and time again.

    Already dreaming? ha! There is already a parallel election in the US right now for the House of Representatives, where the Republicans have been making ads depicting Obama/Rev Wright associated with their Democrat opponents – and guess what? ;) These ads didn’t work in the most conservative of States – and Republicans lost! they depicted Obama with Rev Wright, and the bitter gun and religion… what makes you think that they will work in the General Election?

    2008 is not 2004 and 2000. Republicans are running the election as if it was, and running the same old tactics against Obama. The “elitist intellectual” will only work with racists, along with “he’s a Muslim/terrorist”, but these are 30% of the electorate who still think that Bush is the greatest president ever. You cannot reason with these people nor Obama should waste his time with them.

    Obama is by far the best candidate for the Democrat Party because of the unprecedented grassroot movement that is financing his candidacy, and his campaign to register new voters. It means that he can help any Democrat running for a seat in the Senate and the House, and his association to the Democrat Party has not damaged any of the current Democrats in the most Red of states. And he is someone who is a pragmatist, which means he has the capability to reach middle-ground to get things done.

  20. Ravi Naik — on 14th May, 2008 at 1:47 pm  

    Just in case you want to watch the ad that was actually aired but backfired.

    If that is what Republicans want to do in the General Election, then I guess the Obama campaign will say Bring It On.

    By the way, recent polls have showed that Bush is more toxic to McCain than Rev. Wright is – and there are two pictures that you will see a lot in ads: one in which McCain is hugging Bush as if there was no tomorrow, and the other one where he and Bush are happy with a big cake, the day Katrina destroyed so many lives. Katrina marked the end of Bush’s populary, one he never recovered.

  21. digitalcntrl — on 15th May, 2008 at 6:52 am  

    “Already dreaming? ha! There is already a parallel election in the US right now for the House of Representatives, where the Republicans have been making ads depicting Obama/Rev Wright associated with their Democrat opponents – and guess what? These ads didn’t work in the most conservative of States – and Republicans lost! they depicted Obama with Rev Wright, and the bitter gun and religion… what makes you think that they will work in the General Election?”

    Well apparently you did not read enough to notice that the democratic winner, Travis Childers, was a WASP (white anglo saxon protestant) conservative democrat.

    “The Republican effort to tie Childers, a court clerk in tiny Booneville, Miss., to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was seen even by sympathetic Republicans as something of a stretch. Childers was both anti-abortion and pro-gun-owners’ rights, which effectively removed two major GOP hot buttons. “Travis Childers very effectively ran away from his party,” Adair said. “He basically ran as a Republican and made it a regional battle.”

    From: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/may/15/election-2008-childers-collects-on-broad-support/

    Childers did not win because of Obama but in spite of him. Though he did not benefit from the backlash against Republicans in general.

    “2008 is not 2004 and 2000. Republicans are running the election as if it was, and running the same old tactics against Obama. The “elitist intellectual” will only work with racists, along with “he’s a Muslim/terrorist”, but these are 30% of the electorate who still think that Bush is the greatest president ever. You cannot reason with these people nor Obama should waste his time with them.”

    You obviously have little understanding of American blue collar culture and values. They make up a signifcant chunk to the democratic base and need to be considered by a democratic conteder. Being anti-intellectual does not mean in any way that you are a racist. Many well simply not realate to a person that speaks like a law professor.

    “Obama is by far the best candidate for the Democrat Party because of the unprecedented grassroot movement that is financing his candidacy, and his campaign to register new voters. It means that he can help any Democrat running for a seat in the Senate and the House, and his association to the Democrat Party has not damaged any of the current Democrats in the most Red of states. And he is someone who is a pragmatist, which means he has the capability to reach middle-ground to get things done.”

    LOL, please be serious a credible moderate democrat (e.g. Wesley Clark, Edwards) would have cleaned up the white house. Now we have a situation where McCain (himself a moderate republican) stands a decent chance of winning thanks to picking a hard leftie.

  22. Kismet Hardy — on 15th May, 2008 at 1:22 pm  

    Reason 4: So America can use him as a marker to disprove any future allegation that they’re right-wing fucks set out to destroy the non-white world.

    You watch. A year or so after Obama becomes predict, they’re going to unleash a terror strike on America like the world has never seen.

    The right will be voted back in, aggressive laws will be passed, and when anyone cries: ‘America, you’re out to destroy non-whites’

    They’ll say: ‘Shut up. We’re the land of the free. We had a black president, remember?’

    Like Charles Manson in his bid to cripple white people (save his own clan waiting in the forest) so black people could take over the world, fuck it up, only for his forest clan to return and rightly reclaim the world in the name of white power

    You watch.

  23. Kismet Hardy — on 15th May, 2008 at 1:25 pm  

    That’s why they’ve got that old codger up against him. They don’t expect him to win. They want a black president so they can show the world why only the rednecks can save the world

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.