If the Conservatives don't back McCain?

Yeah, but at least this new Rush Limbaugh alias is a great addition to the Padded Room. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

Yeah, but at least this new Rush Limbaugh alias is a great addition to the Padded Room. :rolleyes:

---

He's an alias??? WHA?!?!? :eek: :eek: :eek:

McCain is actually fairly conservative. What conservative talk radio doesn't like about him is the independence and conviction he has shown. Rushannity wants people to vote with and stick to the party line all the time regardless of principles.

That's what I like about McCain. He is willing to stand up against his party for what he things is right. He earned alot of respect from me for his stand on campaign finance reform despite the heat he got from his party. That said, I disagree with him on most issues. But then again I rarely agree with anything republicans want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pheenster

And I don't think it's tinfoil hattish to say that the Repubs could deal with 4 years of Hillary or Obama if they believed it was going to get them 8 more years of Bush starting in 2012. Remember, Jeb was the chosen one when it came to the presidency; George just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

---

Jeezus, this country puts another Bush in the white house and I'm gone. I'll live somewhere else, north or south of the border. I don't care where.





There. That oughta scare some sense into 'em!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Clinton and Obama only look liberal because the neo-cons have dragged political discourse so far to the right over the last 25 years.

---

That is spot on. The majority of the country has shifted to moderately left-leaning views because the neocons have pushed us so far to the right. To them, anything looks liberal if it's not 'ultra conservative'

I'll preface by saying that it's going to come down to one simple issue for the General Election:

McCain - "I'm not leaving Iraq" "Give me 6 months and I'll sell you the War"
vs.
Obama or Hillary - "I will bring our troops home"

America has had enough of the neocon play. The Democrats are stupid if they don't play up in major advertising and stumping.
There are thousands of photos of McCain stumping for Bush in 2004 - it is easy to draw a correlation for another 4 yrs of Bush and make it stick.

If it's Obama vs. McCain, I predict a landslide victory for Obama
If it's Hillary vs. McCain, I predict a 3%-5% narrow victory by Hillary

FWIW, at today's caucus in Washington - many were overwhelming Obama victories.
Either way you look at the election were 1000000000x better off with anyone than King Bush.

Well said Squirrel. Were you surprised WA went so overwhelmingly to Obama?

the majority of washington dem caucus goers are white, educated (college), upper middle class people. that is obama's bread and butter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rideit

Liberalism is the basic manifestation of our constitution, and does in no way equal communism.

---

BWWWWWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirrel99

If it's Obama vs. McCain, I predict a landslide victory for Obama
If it's Hillary vs. McCain, I predict a 3%-5% narrow victory by Hillary

---

I can see Obama squeeking out a close win against McCain but Hillary doesn't have a chance in hell. If it's McCain vs Hillary it would be a blow out for McCain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Garnett

the majority of washington dem caucus goers are white, educated (college), upper middle class people. that is obama's bread and butter.

---

Even if that is true, what's your point? That if uneducated non-white people voted in larger numbers he would've lost? Or that uneducated non-white people vote for republicans? Do tell all knowing Kevin Garnett how you came to this conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Even if that is true, what's your point? That if uneducated non-white people voted in larger numbers he would've lost? Or that uneducated non-white people vote for republicans? Do tell all knowing Kevin Garnett how you came to this conclusion.

---

You've never heard of exit polls?

Why is it that when Republicans had a monopoly on the educated and upper-classes they were called just greedy elitists but now that some of the educated and rich are now going to the Democrats they are called being the smart educated reasoned voice????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisArray

BWWWWWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
....

---

Ummm... it is. There's a reason why the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization dedicated to the spirit and the LETTER of the Constitution, is considered a Liberal organization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Even if that is true, what's your point? That if uneducated non-white people voted in larger numbers he would've lost? Or that uneducated non-white people vote for republicans? Do tell all knowing Kevin Garnett how you came to this conclusion.

---

that in the democratic caucus in washington, the people who take part in the process are more likely to be in a demographic (among only democrats, this is the a primary genius) that is dominated by obama. thusly, if you are paying attentions to trends in this election you might have predicted washington to go the way it did. as such i was not surprised obama won there.

is that hard to understand?

Disappointed that no one herebouts has chatted about more of the specifics of the just completed "Super Saturday" and what it's results could portend... Anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency

Why is it that when Republicans had a monopoly on the educated and upper-classes they were called just greedy elitists but now that some of the educated and rich are now going to the Democrats they are called being the smart educated reasoned voice????

---

you dont think the democratic party has always been supported by rich educated white people? the most influential liberals in the country are rich educated white men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Garnett

you dont think the democratic party has always been supported by rich educated white people? the most influential liberals in the country are rich educated white men.

---

When the fuck did I ever say that? I said the exact opposite. Next time skip the draft and go to college dumbass. The fact is for the majority of the last century the masses of rich and educated people were diehard Republicans and the masses of poor and uneducated people were diehard Democrats. Now it is more evenly distributed.

OK, I won't wait for a taker... just throw this out hoping someone else is thinking about this.

I'm reading the news headlines from yesterday's Super Saturday (Feb. 9) contests as "Obama Dominates" and "McCain stumbles"

Dem side:
Obama sweeps the 3 states of Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington... and by impressive margins. Yes, and the Virgin Islands too. If he can keep this going for the next several contests, he may have a decent chance to pull a bit ahead because delegates are determined somewhat in proportion to the win (even when you add in the super delegates). Haven't seen anything on Maine yet, think they start coming in after 6pm eastern tonight? Clinton was WAY ahead late in '07, but I think Obama will pull out a victory, and in this caucus format he has been kicking ass, so it could surprise and be another big win?

Looking ahead at the next couple weeks, Feb 12 has Virginia, Maryland and DC - Feb 19 has Hawaii and Wisconsin (me). News/Pundits are saying Obama looks good up to Wisconsin, with Clinton ahead here by high single digits in polls. I really have nothing to base it on, but think it's a lot closer than that... and if Obama comes steaming in with big MO, I could see him getting ahead here too, we've a quite progressive past.

Looking to March and beyond, Looks like the big prizes will be Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania... I could see that being the ball game for someone right there. Clinton just shuffled her top campaign staff today, they must be VERY concerned too?

Rep side:
EVERYONE is saying McCain has this sewn up. I think he has it "NEARLY" sewn up... Yesterday Huckabee took Kansas (no surprise - they don't believe in evolution either) and Louisiana. If they ever finish counting looks like McCain will take Warshin'ton? But he is at like only 26% to 24% ahead of Huckabee there... That's gotta be a bad sign. The presumptive nominee only gets 26% of the votes in the 1 of 3 contests he will win???

I had done some math in an different thread calculating that Huck needed about 2/3's of the remaining delegates to eek out a win... I didn't take into account that with the Republicans often using a winner takes all approach, he just needs to pull off some big states and some moderate ones, and then by 1% if they are a "take all" state. I have not looked out at it state by state, and honestly don't think Huck has good odds to pull it off... but if he was endorsed by Romney or had some other push it could be closer than people think?

I had called a Clinton/McCain finals in the pre-Iowa prediction thread... I'm on the fence here, maybe you could say I've withdrawn my Clinton prediction? But won't go so far as to jump over and call it for Obama YET!

Sorry to spout off... just needed to get that out of my system I guess. :redface:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency

When the fuck did I ever say that? I said the exact opposite. Next time skip the draft and go to college dumbass. The fact is for the majority of the last century the masses of rich and educated people were diehard Republicans and the masses of poor and uneducated people were diehard Democrats. Now it is more evenly distributed.

---

I'd call bullshit... the top percent or two, especially "old money", have been Democratic for many generations now. The lower part of the top tier has been overwhelmingly Republican, especially "new money", unless they had advanced degrees/educations... then the Dems have had the larger portion. The middle class and poor have been split, often by region or religion, etc. For example; a large percent of white poor have been Republican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvwcom

I'd call bullshit... the top percent or two, especially "old money", have been Democratic for many generations now.

---

Come on, I know a bunch of you guys want to flame this guy. Why must I be the one? What about all you bleeding heart liberals here who have just always loved labeling the Republicans as the rich greedy ones? Where are you dumbfucks because I'm getting tired of arguing with this moron.

I am betting that Disarray doesn't even know what is IN the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency

Come on, I know a bunch of you guys want to flame this guy. Why must I be the one? What about all you bleeding heart liberals here who have just always loved labeling the Republicans as the rich greedy ones? Where are you dumbfucks because I'm getting tired of arguing with this moron.

---

You're just tired of "losing" :fmicon:

Edit: I bet I end up on your "ignore list"... SWEET!

Maine:

44 percent of precincts reporting:

Obama 57%
Clinton 42%

Yup, and Hillary is pissed.
Her campaign manager just 'quit' .

Hey Supreme... I know that Wikipedia is a soft source for an argument, and if you want I'll find further PROOF of my statement above... but for now I'll simply link, quote and highlight for your enjoyment.

(Sorry for the large bold red text, I had to make it VERY OBVIOUS since Supreme seems to enjoy quoting non-relevant portions of a post and continuing his/her argument)

Liberal Elite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the US, objections are raised to the term elite, based on the claim that the Republican Party contains a larger percentage of the American upper class (except the super-rich with net worths of over $10 million) than does the Democratic Party, and that Republican economic policies benefit the wealthy more than those of Democrats; thus it is the Republican Party that should be called elitist, similarly in the UK the hereditary peers who formerly sat in the unreformed House of Lords disproportionately belonged to the Conservative Party.

It does need to be noted, however, that a higher proportion of Democrats, rather than Republicans, in both the Senate and the House are multi-millionaires. Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and for senator John Edwards are just a few examples.

However, there do exist regions of the United States that are characterized by both material affluence as well as political liberalism, such as the aforementioned U.S. Northeast and the San Francisco Bay Area. Additionally, in the U.S. Congress, Democratic representatives have an average personal wealth greater than the Republicans[citation needed]. A 2004 article in The Economist, claimed that in the 2004 U.S. presidential election, people worth $1m-10m supported George W. Bush by a 63-37% margin, whereas those worth more than $10m favoured John Kerry 59-41%.

Among members of the country's intellectual elite, most of whom are members of the professional class not upper class,[1] liberalism remains the most prominent ideology. The vast majority of professors, 72% identified as liberal in 2005. At Ivy League Universities 87% of professors identify as liberal.[2] Additionally those with graduate degrees were more likely to vote Democratic in the 1996,[3] 2000,[4] 2004[5] and 2006 elections[6] than any other educational demographic.

---