If Obama wins the nomination, the Rev. Wright controversy will still be an important factor in October.
Submitted 213 days ago by plawler  Favorite
Embed
Options
|
|
Loading...
| Results | |
|---|---|
|
Likely
Unlikely
|
|
| Very Unlikely | |
|
|
| 36 votes 13% | |
| Unlikely | |
|
|
| 46 votes 17% | |
| Not Sure | |
|
|
| 74 votes 27% | |
| Likely | |
|
|
| 67 votes 24% | |
| Very Likely | |
|
|
| 55 votes 20% | |
"Still be"...? No, it never was an important factor, and it won't be then either.
As I have said before, the only people who were up in arms about this issue were Republicans, and they were never going to vote for Obama anyway.
This issue has not hurt him at all among Democrats and people who support him. In fact it was responsible for him giving one of the greatest speeches on the subject of race in 40 years. All good.
Obama will win the nomination, that is certain. And Republicans will try to use it, sure. They'll run clips of Wright ad nauseum on Fox Noise. Wright, who is clearly not one to miss the free publicity, is coming out with a book in the fall, so I'm sure GOP wonks will pour through that looking for any phrase that can be used in a negative light.
But none if it will matter. It hasn't mattered, and it won't matter.
I don't know waugs. It does appear to have hurt him so far in the primaries among independent and crossover voters. I agree that MikeHend and crazyyake would never vote for him anyway, and his supporters won't be dissuaded, but the election could very well hinge on moderates and independents.
I haven't seen any indication, in polls or votes, that it has hurt him. There was a slight dip in Gallup's daily for a couple of days when the story first broke, where he and Clinton got closer together for a bit, but that resolved by the third day.
When the Dems redirect their energies away from each other and towards McCain, the election will hinge on the Iraq war and the economy, not on crap like Wright.
You're kidding, right? A month ago he was 20 points ahead in North Carolina, and how he's only 7 points ahead, and it's closing. A month ago he was 9 points ahead in Indiana, and now it's dead even.
Not kidding. There's no reason to attribute any of those numbers to Wright. In NC, the change has been due to Clinton gains, not Obama losses.
Indiana - well I can't find any poll that shows him ahead by 9 points. Where are you getting that? He was briefly ahead by a few points for a couple of days in late April, that's it.
Clinton has consistently led there, it's only recently that it's been more or less dead even.
What kind of spin is that? Who's loss is a Clinton Gain if not Obama's? Sorry... it wasn't 9 points, but he was up 46-43 last month and he's down 48-41 now. So he's fallen 5 points while she's up 5. Even Obama's people acknowledge Wright has hurt him <http://urltea.com/35cx>
It's not spin. If Clinton's numbers come up, and Obama's numbers have not changed, that shows he's not being hurt by Wright. Her gains are attributable to positive things for her (such as the PA win), not negative things for him.
I have been following the NC and IN polls for trends, since these are the next group of people actually voting. He's stayed about the same level in NC all along, so this issue has not affected him in NC at all.
He is down in IN, but as I mentioned, he only had that little spike in late April, otherwise he has been consistently behind there. So you can't attribute his IN points to Wright either. In fact, I would be curious to find out what caused that spike.
For national numbers, I check Gallup, which has them even at 47 right now.
You can say this has hurt him if you want, I disagree. I see no evidence of it, and what's more, I don't see even how it can hurt him at this point. He is certain to win the nomination, it's virtually impossible for him to lose it now.
For all intents and purposes it is impossible, really. Clinton would need to win states by ridiculous margins, unlike anything she has done so far. That still won't be enough, so then she'll have to convince the SDs to disregard the African American senator who won more states and earned more delegates, and instead give her the prize. Not on your life is that going to happen.
Come the general election, the GOP will continue to hammer on this, but it'll be mostly old news by then. Again, I point out that by then the Dems will have focused their attack on McCain, who has no shortage of outrageous pastors close by, ones he sought out, intentionally for political purposes.
Not an issue now, won't be then.
The media never lets any 'smear' die as long as it can be used to harm a liberal candidate. OF course it will continue to hurt him. There is no such thing as respond and be done with it these days.
Not as long as we have YouTube. ;o)
It's really not that big of a deal now. I would just hate to see a bunch of ads by both parties featuring each of the two candidate's preachers instead of issues that matter.
I doubt that you will see such ads by the parties, but I'd be willing to place a small wager that you will see a bunch of them from the 527 groups.
I don't know if it will be a factor, but I don't think its going away as long as Barack is around. You watch. They will troup it out 20 years from now if they can get away with it. Right up there with the blue dress!
It will be THE factor that will keep him out of the White House.
You wouldn't want to make a small wager on that would you Mike? ;o)
Ahh... sometimes silence speaks volumes.
Says a Republican.
Oh, he's way right of Republican, waugs. I would say that he and crazyyake are somewhere to the right of Mussolini.
Oh me, left wing liberals resorting to "ad hominem" remarks. I'm shocked.
I was going to ask how you could possibly know if Pupala was a liberal, but then I thought about it and realized, when you are as far right as you are, virtually everybody else is to your left.
Thank you waugs, that's one of the very few nice things you have said, it pretty much holds up on this forum, with a few exceptions.
It's helpful to keep your perspective in mind.
You need to look up the definition of "ad hominem" MikeHend. I didn't say you were Mussolini, I said you were politically to the right of Mussolini. Your and crazyyake's statements about locking people up or destroying countries for wrong thoughts or wrong words bear that out.
he just learned that last week, he uses it every day, don't break his bubble..
You left wing libs just love to use that phrase, thought I'd throw it back at you.
Free Tickets
I have 4 extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel ( Evels son ) event this weekend if anybody wants them.
He's going to try to jump 500 Republicans with a bulldozer. Should be a good time!
Is it a Harley Bulldozer?
Suzuki!! http://www.suzukicycles.com/Products/ProductDisplay.aspx?modelCode=GSX1300RK6&activeSection=OVERVIEW
Mirriam Webster Definition:
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
I'd say my comment was correct.
Then allow me to rephrase. You and crazyyake are really good guys. Your positions are fascist.
It still fits definition #1, but you are improving. Of course you realize that I think your position is socialist in the extreme, bordering on communism with a touch of fascism.
Umm... no. It doesn't fit definition #1. And communism and fascism are opposites, Mike.
Is it any wonder you guys are confused?
No, because you're making up definitions as you go along... very confusing.
Huh? You think her position of not locking people up for "wrong thoughts" and "wrong words" is socialism bordering on communism? You need to spend some time with an encyclopedia and a dictionary.
It will never be any more important than the news of Jennifer Flowers prior to Clintion's first election in 1992. It will simply be a non-issue just like that was. The Rev is playing up his connection to Obama more than vice versa, how much credence can we give it. Just like who really believed Monica had "been with Bill" (intimately) before his re-election. Did anyone really care? I didn't. I thought "more power to him" and voted for him, possibly because of it rather than despite it. I consider him one of my homeies, somebody I would really enjoy having a beer with to discuss world affairs, or maybe just his latest exploits with Monica. The dude is really a man's man, and a ladie's man as well. I hope one of the future candidates turns out to be equally colorful while in office.
Hee hee... I don't think you're exactly the demographic that the campaigns are aiming for, Chip. Obama won't be able to win without independents and moderate conservatives.
With the price of food and gas - I'm sure we'll be talking about more important things in October - like who's gonna fix this mess !!!
Rev. Wright is an elderly man who lives in a free country and is giving his opinion to the media.
I think it's time the media gave their time and energy to other more important issues.
Nah, he chose to make further public comments and deserves all the attention he gets.
Is Wright running for something--I thought the candidates were decided and he wasn't one of them, is your preacher?? Get on with the candidates and forget some of the media bull. How can this replace the war or the economy or education?
The same way the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" did in the last election.
Thats true, unfortunately.
One thing to keep in mind here is that the media has a conflict of interest when it comes to the Democratic race. And I don't mean just Fox Noise. All media have done very well from the Clinton/Obama neck-and-neck, the debates, etc. CNN has had record ratings because of it. So they don't want this to go away any time soon. Therefore it is in their best interest to continue to portray the Dem situation as this neck-and-neck race, using whatever tools are available to manipulate the coverage. It means artificially upselling Clinton coverage, doing things such as hammering on about her victory in the PA primary. It'll happen again if she wins Indiana. And they also pull Obama down by going on and on about Wright and the like.
With very few exceptions, you will not hear any reporting about how none of this matters and that Obama has virtually clinched the nomination already. If you hear or read a story that starts off with a line like "Can Obama recover from..." or "Clinton's new success puts her back in the race..." - you can know for sure that the rest of the story you are about to see is bullshit.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important
I never stopped to think about that aspect before, it has been great for the media ratings hasn't it. This is one good video, :)
Watch what happens in Indiana on Tuesday. If Clinton wins, the coverage will be a mix of "Can Obama recover..." stories, along with the "She's in it to win it" interviews with her surrogates, etc. Magnifying the importance of her victory. If Obama wins, there will be non-stop pundits talking about how there's still more states to go, this thing isn't over yet, Obama has not shown he can ride momentum, etc. The coverage will attempt to negate his win.
If he wins NC, that will be almost completely disregarded because he was 'expected' to win there anyway.
In neither case will you see anyone say, 'well it doesn't really matter, he's got this locked up.' Actually you might see Jeff Toobin on CNN say it, but he'll correct himself in the next round table.
I dunno. MSNBC has pretty much been saying that Obama has it locked up for the past month.
That could be. I haven't watched MSNBC as much lately, I've passed my Chris Matthews saturation point.
I'm Chris Matthews saturated too... but I'm a big Keith Olbermann fan.
Except that it's not totally bulls**t. The reason the super delegates exist is to prevent a very popular but ultimately unelectable candidate from becoming the nominee. Neither candidate can win without the super delegates. If Hillary can convince the super delegates that Obama is ultimately unelectable, it would be their duty to make her the nominee. That's why they exist in the first place.
That is true, but that is not going to happen in this case. Obama is clearly electable, he has consistently polled higher than McCain, even as the Dems are distracted with their own issues. At least half of the SDs are politicians themselves, and they are not ready to put their careers on the line for Hillary. On top of that, there would be riots in the streets, and the Democratic party would probably cease to exist. And no, I don't think that is overstating it.
I'm sure you're overstating it. Perhaps you are too young to remember 1968, but I'm not. Hubert Humphrey, who didn't even participate in any primaries basically stole the nomination because of the (then equivalent of) super delegates. The party survived.
Not too young, but I wasn't paying much attention.
1968 is not a typical year to use as an example. The Dem candidate that year would have been RFK.
The Republicans will not invest big bucks campaigning until they know who they're running against. Once they know it's my hunch we will see some big bucks pour into the campaign. Look at the history books and see how few states Goldwater took in 1964 and how few McGovern took in 1968. Candidates in 2008 will get the same kind of media attention. Just before the election the Republicans will probably pull some kind of maneuver and make gas prices plummet and people will not know what to think nor for whom to vote, ...IMO. Could I could be wrong? Certainly, I just think it's a possibility.
I have to agree, something will happen..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml
Obama now leads McCain by 11 points.
I think you are not seeing what I'm seeing. try looking at Real Clear Politics aggregation.
<http://urltea.com/35fz>
Yes, it's quite evident we are on different pages on this topic. I'm not clear how that's possible exactly.
I use Real Clear Politics a lot, but unlike the rest of the polls in that aggregate, the CBS/NYT poll was done after Obama made his last statement denouncing Wright last Tuesday. So it is a clear indicator of the impact that statement had. Again, this shows that Wright is not a factor.
Not according to the Washinton Post: "Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, according to USA Today/Gallup poll published on Monday.
The poll showed Hillary Clinton leading Obama 51 percent to 44 percent nationally among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters, in contrast to a CBS News/New York Times survey released on Sunday that had Obama leading Clinton by 12 points." <http://urltea.com/35ht>
Perhaps. Comparing two different polls probably has a lot to do with that, too. They are moving around a lot.
You can find different polls to say different things.
I maintain that Wright has not had an effect.