Erroll 80 #1 February 5, 2008 A search for the word 'unelectable' yielded several hits. This one about Hillary was posted as far back as 2004:- "She's unelectable in a national election. This isn't going to change." And more recently, about Obama:- "He's unelectable for a myriad of reasons." Have things changed? From my vantage point as an interested foreigner, it certainly appears that they both are not only electable, but quite popular too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #2 February 5, 2008 I'm not sure about Obama, but many consider Hillary to still be unelectable because of the high percentage of voters who will not vote for her under any circumstances and will, in fact, take part in the election just to vote against her regardless of who her opponent is. Whether she can overcome this liability will determine her success. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #3 February 5, 2008 If Hillary did win, I reckon we could power a small country by installing steam turbines in republican's ears. Vote Hillary... save the planet! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #4 February 5, 2008 Quote Have things changed? From my vantage point as an interested foreigner, it certainly appears that they both are not only electable, but quite popular too. yeah of course --- Gravel is the dem's last chance Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #5 February 5, 2008 Quote A search for the word 'unelectable' yielded several hits. This one about Hillary was posted as far back as 2004:- "She's unelectable in a national election. This isn't going to change." And more recently, about Obama:- "He's unelectable for a myriad of reasons." Have things changed? From my vantage point as an interested foreigner, it certainly appears that they both are not only electable, but quite popular too. Check out the "Bradley Effect". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect Basically it says that opinion polls do not accurately reflect the extent of racial bigotry that appears in a secret ballot, because bigots don't like admitting to pollsters that they are bigots.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #6 February 5, 2008 Quote Have things changed? I believe they have -- one of the two will certainly be "electable" come November. If Diebold does their part, one of those two might even be "elected". . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #7 February 5, 2008 Quote Check out the "Bradley Effect". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect Basically it says that opinion polls do not accurately reflect the extent of racial bigotry that appears in a secret ballot, because bigots don't like admitting to pollsters that they are bigots. Read also the article to the end. It's not the 80's anymore ... Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #8 February 5, 2008 Clarify your question. Are you asking if they are "unelectable" because one is black, and one is a woman? IMO no, neither of those things make them "unelectable". I'd like to think that things have progressed far enough in the US for that not to matter. Now the fact that neither gives a shit about the people of this nation, and are so out of touch with reality..... well that's another thing.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #9 February 5, 2008 WT clicky Washington Times article on the anti-vote. People who aren't voting for someone, but against someone else. Lesser of two evils vote. For women, 36% said that they would vote against HC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 February 5, 2008 Obama is electable. He's gettign most of his votes from minorities and moderates. Hillary is getting her primary votes from the hardcore democrats. She's unelectable in a general election, but electable within the party. It's amazing that someone as previously unelectable as McCain may very well be the next POTUS because of the Democratic candidate. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #11 February 5, 2008 QuoteObama is electable. He's gettign most of his votes from minorities and moderates. Hillary is getting her primary votes from the hardcore democrats. She's unelectable in a general election, but electable within the party. It's amazing that someone as previously unelectable as McCain may very well be the next POTUS because of the Democratic candidate. Yep. It would not be the first time the Dems have laid an egg when they had the GOP on the ropes; John Kerry and George McGovern come to mind. That said i am still not convinced that Clinton is unelectable. I think there is still a significant chance that the recession (assuming there is one) will be sharp and painful. Whether you blame B. Clinton for the 2000 slowdown or not, people still remember his tenure as good times. If the Dem machine can link the recession to the GOP rather than Bush personally, they can win with a lamp post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #12 February 5, 2008 QuoteObama is electable. He's gettign most of his votes from minorities and moderates. Hillary is getting her primary votes from the hardcore democrats. She's unelectable in a general election, but electable within the party. It's amazing that someone as previously unelectable as McCain may very well be the next POTUS because of the Democratic candidate. What he said. I believe Hillary is unelectable, primarily because of the scores of people who will not vote for her under any circumstance (including myself). I think Obama-McCain would be a close match-up, and though my vote would go to the former, I wouldn't be all that upset about the latter. At least neither of them are *complete* fucktards like our current President. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 February 5, 2008 If the Dems avoid Hillary (as anyone reasonable should) then they do stand a chance of winning. It's ironic that the tables are completely 180 now. As always, people will vote in the general election by plugging their noses and voting on who they distrust the least. But the reversal is within the parties. This time the Dems are trying to pick who they like more. And this time the REPS are trying to pick who they distrust the least. So as someone who leans right: 1 - Thanks GWB for really creating distrust within the party for your crappy fiscal irresponsibility and trying to redefine the Reps by the social agenda instead - we now have 2 parties that are essentially Dems - it's just which social agendas you want to support with everybody's money. 2 - I think it's about time that at least it's apparent what we are really have between these two parties. Two equivalent social welfare agendas based on taxing and spending as much as they can get away with. 3 - I might distrust McCain as much as I distrust Obama. But for different reasons. tough call 4 - I might trust Romney to do what he says, but I don't think I'll agree on his social agenda any more than Obama. Though at least having a businessman running is a step in the right direction. tough call. So I'd have a very close decision unless Hillary wins the DNC nomination. I don't agree with her on social or fiscal agendas - and I don't trust her. HOwever, if the Dems stay true to form as over the last 8 years, they'll pick Hillary to run.... I hope better of them. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 February 5, 2008 Quotethey can win with a lamp post. Yes. But not with Hillary. At least lampposts are viewed as unobtrusive and useful. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #15 February 5, 2008 I think they're both unelectable. Obama seems the lesser of two evils by far between the two. McCain and Romney - both of them scary in their own way. Conservatives have nobody to vote for. They can vote against whichever party they think will do the most damage. disgusting. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #16 February 5, 2008 Quote Quote they can win with a lamp post. Yes. But not with Hillary. At least lampposts are viewed as unobtrusive and useful. I am starting to see that from the posting on here. The question is will the Dem establishment give a big F**k You to the voting members and use their 20% superdelegates to push her over the top against the will of the elected delegates? It looks like it may well come down to the supers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #17 February 5, 2008 Quote I think they're both unelectable. Obama seems the lesser of two evils by far between the two. McCain and Romney - both of them scary in their own way. Conservatives have nobody to vote for. They can vote against whichever party they think will do the most damage. disgusting. Why would anyone with any intelligence vote for a conservative after the experience of the past 7 years? Or, to quote someone famous: 'There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."'... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 February 5, 2008 Quote Why would anyone with any intelligence vote for a conservative after the experience of the past 7 years? Because they were given a bad choice? McCain certainly is more qualified than the current guy. Romney might be, though I fear the influence of the LDS nuts may exceed the influence by the Christian Right on the current guy. Many will never vote for Clinton, and Obama, though well spoken, is a one term Senator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #19 February 5, 2008 Quote Why would anyone with any intelligence vote for a conservative after the experience of the past 7 years? Or, to quote someone famous: 'There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."' Perhaps this will spread some light on the situation, or at least on the gene pool from which that famous person arose... Vote early, vote often! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 February 5, 2008 Quote Check out the "Bradley Effect". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect Basically it says that opinion polls do not accurately reflect the extent of racial bigotry that appears in a secret ballot, because bigots don't like admitting to pollsters that they are bigots. Women and blacks are unelectable as President ... until one finally wins. When it happens, it will probably be a bit of a surprise. The fact that Clinton and Obama are winning the nomination process already suggests the effect is diminishing, even though it isn't testing the waters with the unaffiliated. It also appears to have no effect in the under 30 voters (all 34 of them), so one more generation and it may be a fair playing field. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #21 February 6, 2008 QuoteClarify your question. Are you asking if they are "unelectable" because one is black, and one is a woman? Not at all, although a number of other posters have suggested those reasons before. I merely wanted to revisit the subject, just before Super Tuesday and get a feel for how folks are thinking now. Watching CNN this morning (Wednesday, 5 am local time), several results were in and I got the impression that voter turnout was higher than normal and there certainly was a lot of support for both of them. I obviously didn't get to see all the results but I found it interesting that in the states where Obama beat Hillary, he did it by huge margins compared to the other way round. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 February 6, 2008 Quoteseveral results were in and I got the impression that voter turnout was higher than normal and there certainly was a lot of support for both of them. I think it can be read in a different way. We can see that in both parties there is a great deal of polarization. On the Dem side, you've got the two major candidates - Clinton and Obama. They have their key constituencies. Obama gathered the VAST majority of the black vote. Obama also seems to gt the under 40-white male vote. Clinton, however, gets the majority of the non-black female vote. But what REALLY swung the Cali election for her was the Hispanic vote. They voted in droves for Hillary - or against Obama. Meanwhile, the GOP was REALLY polarized. The evangelicals came out in droves to vote for Huckabee- none of them above the Mason-Dixon line. He's regional and that is all. The moderates voted McCain - and in caucus states voted for Huckabee to push out Romney. And Romney - the guy got some states he couldn't have lost like Mass and Utah. Both GOP and Dems are highly, highly polarized. Plenty of the Dems hate Obama, and plenty hate Hillary. Plenty of the GOP hate McCain, and plenty hate Huckabee. Most don't care about Romney. This will be interesting. Especially considering that Super Tuesday did nothing more than give McCain a clear edge, and made the Clinton/Obama race wide, wide open. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #23 February 6, 2008 I'd say because despite a most disappointing 7 years and incredibly disappointing Republican Congress, I and many other conservatives remain - conservatives. Why should I or anyone else abandon their political beliefs because of a disappointing presidency/congress? Surely you don't think because they failed in so many areas that I'd lose my sense and become a demoKKKLaner - or did you? Did you think that because GWB is unpopular and has pissed off a lot of conservatives that I'd become a progressive? A moron who supports increasing spending and taxes? A fool that believes socializing healthcare is the answer to society's woes? A racist that supports Affirmative Action, perhaps? Give me a BREAK! No f'ing WAY! Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peek 21 #24 February 6, 2008 QuoteCheck out the "Bradley Effect". Basically it says that opinion polls do not accurately reflect the extent of racial bigotry that appears in a secret ballot, because bigots don't like admitting to pollsters that they are bigots. Now, John, I didn't find the word "bigot" in that article. Let me rephrase that in another way and see what kind of comments we get: Opinion polls do not accurately reflect how many people will say they are going to vote for the "minority" candidate (because they think it will make them seem open-minded or progressive), but reconsider when actually voting. I think a lot of "bigots" would have been glad to vote for both a woman and a minority if the right person had been interested in the position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #25 February 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteCheck out the "Bradley Effect". Basically it says that opinion polls do not accurately reflect the extent of racial bigotry that appears in a secret ballot, because bigots don't like admitting to pollsters that they are bigots. Now, John, I didn't find the word "bigot" in that article. No, I provided a summary so instead of using code phrases I used the nice short English word Quote Let me rephrase that in another way and see what kind of comments we get: Opinion polls do not accurately reflect how many people will say they are going to vote for the "minority" candidate (because they think it will make them seem open-minded or progressive), but reconsider when actually voting. I think a lot of "bigots" would have been glad to vote for both a woman and a minority if the right person had been interested in the position. You are altogether too kind to bigots.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
