You have not read the exit polling data from PA. The turnuot in the primary in PA on the Democrat side was simply massive – something like 35% higher than the highest previous vote and that was in the days before Super Tuesday rendered a later voting state like PA as having a meaningless say in selecting a presidential nominee. A huge percentage of this increased turnout was the youth vote and it broke massively for Obama. The point is that even with this huge boost in the 18 – 29 vote and even with it going largely to Obama, Clinton still spanked him. There are just so many more over 60 voters and they are THE most reliable consistent getters out to vote. And there are too many blue collar, Catholic, working class voters offended by ‘Bittergate’ to be outvoted by star struck young Obama voters.

Using Abraham Lincoln as an example is a pretty long straw – US politics have become infinitely more complex than in the 1860’s. Furthermore Lincoln gained huge notoriety in the Lincoln – Douglas debates. Obama has shown he has a glass jaw in any debate where he gets seriously questioned and he has chickened out of Clinton’s offer to replicate the Lincoln – Douglas style (ie moderator free debates). That proves that debating is a weak spot for Obama and that answers your laughable claim that he would run rings around McCain in the debates.

Dissembling his left wing stance might work in the Democrat primary – it aint going to fly in the General Election when he faces the full force of the GOP and 527’s dissecting his clearly identified left leaning background. How will he be able to explain the fact that he was the only legislator in the entire US (Federal and State) who blocked a law that required doctors to revive an infant born alive during a late term abortion. Even Planned Parenthood had the sense to at least stay silent on that law. Dissembling and giving a cool speech wont undo the damage of such extreme positions.

Your comments regarding public support for the war again betrays your ignorance of opinion in the US. Opposing the war is a different matter to supporting a precipitate withdrawal of US troops. US public opinion has now reached a point where a slim majority of voters support Petreaus’ strategy to stay the course thus rejecting Obama’s long held policy of immediate withdrawal. McCain supports Petraeus and it would appear that the success of the surge means he not Obama is on the right side of public opinion on this issue.

I note that yesterday Obama’s incendiary preacher Jeremiah Wright, at no less a place than the National Press Club in front of 30 TV cameras defended some of his more inflammatory rhetoric. Mainstream media doyen Dana Milbank of the Washington Post summed up the effect of this speech thus:

“Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama’s presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama’s longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered – and added lighter fuel.

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks (“God damn America”) and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

In front of 30 television cameras, Wright’s audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama’s vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio’s April Ryan, confirmed that Wright’s security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.” http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2008/04/obamas_pastor_reignites_race_c.html

When pollsters ask that particular question they can get that kind of answer. but when they do just head to head polls there is very little difference between Obama and Clinton vs McCain. Are these polls hiding giant switches of voters between the candidates? Possibly a small one but no where near 30%

“Over 60’s in comparison are the most motivated cohort and will vote for McCain in huge numbers.”
difficult to say. Turnouts are low in US election and if Obama can persuade a significant cohort to vote that normally does not, as he has been doing in primaries, that could be significant. I also think there is a potent affirmative action vote to be tapped, where people who are politically indifferent are motivated vote so they can boast the first black president.

“No one has ever run for President with such a thin resume. ”
Abraham Lincoln?

“4. Obama is the furtherest to the left than any previous Democrat candidate.”
to be honest, I think he is pretty opportunistic, as is Hillary!. Given he is quite capable of dissembling his opinions, assuming he has many apart from being voted in, it may not be a problem.

“6. Obama is a peacenik dove”
With around 80% of Americans opposed to the war being a peacenik dove is a fairly strong position politically.

7 and 8

This probably going to be a drover’s dog election where the democrat party could put up just about anybody and get elected it. McCain is old, economically uncertain, vague, not convincing and looks a bit like a drugged teddy bear. Obama will run rings around him in debates, as would Hillary!

Obama cannot prevail in the fall for the following reasons:

1. There are more McCainocrats than Obamicans. The Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries (key battleground states that Obama has to win in the fall to be President) show us that both states have too many older, working class Catholic Democrats who gave Clinton her strong victories in both States who will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. When reputable polls show almost 30% of registered Democrats will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, the Dems have a MAJOR problem.

2. There are twice as many over 60’s voters than voters aged 18 – 29. In PA (and across the country) Obama managed to greatly boost the youth vote but it was still out voted almost 2 – 1 by the oldies. In election after election, the youth vote promises much and never delivers because they are the lowest voting age chort. Over 60’s in comparison are the most motivated cohort and will vote for McCain in huge numbers.

3. No one has ever run for President with such a thin resume. The only candidate to even come close is Eisenhower but he had D-Day as his calling card. JFK had 14 more years in Congress (both Houses) on Obama PLUS he too was a war hero.

4. Obama is the furtherest to the left than any previous Democrat candidate. The US electorate is slightly to the centre-right and so he is out of synch with the electorate. He can only disguise his lefty positions so far by fawning media coverage. The fate of other left leaning Dem Presidential candidates is well documented (Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry). Many of his more extreme positions have not been exploited by Clinton because she is a lefty as well. McCain will have no such problem. Obama’s lone failure to support the Infant Born Alive Act equivalent in Illinois before he was a Federal Senator places him to the left of Ted Kennedy and the highly liberal California senators Boxer and Feinstein

5. His troublesome associations betray his far left ideological roots providing the GOP and 527’s with a rich treasure trove of video footage for the General Election. Rezko, Wright, Ayers/Dohrn … and maybe more to follow. Wright is a gift that keeps on giving. He says he was misquoted or quoted out of context and yet reading the entirety of his more notorious speeches (the “Goddam America” and “chickens coming home 9/11″ sermons) are even more chilling than the oft repeated clips.

6. Obama is a peacenik dove and his policy to withdraw the troops from Iraq now runs against the slow movement of US opinion in favour of backing Petraeus’ strategy – a strategy that McCain advocated before anyone else and support for which became a tailwind that assisted him greatly in the GOP primary. Add to this his war hero/POW status and its a slam dunk in favour of McCain on the all important issue of national security.

7. Obama has used soaring rhetoric to make up for his thin legislative record. This invites even greater scrutiny than normal of his associations and history. The cumulative weight of his gaffes and far left associations have stripped him of his messiah-like purity and have rendered him as just another pandering politician.

8. He has a tin ear (the bitter clinging to guns and God comments uttered from millionaires row in San Fran) that will play far more against him in the swing states in the fall than in the primaries and he has a glass jaw as we witnessed in the last debate and his failure to agree to any further Clinton debates.

tsk tsk, the pesky little tautological wench.

An argument can be rational, yet unconvincing. An example of this I ran into just the other day is the ontological argument for the existence of God. Logically sound if presented right, but not enough to convince me to run to church this coming Sunday. It’s the same thing with the argument for Gitmo. A strong argument can be made it is useful, and that the techniques there can stop potenital terrorist attacks. But there are counter arguments to that, such as the inhumane treatment of the detainees, that convince me it should be closed.

there were quote marks around hearts and minds for the very fact that it is something of a cliche. That of course doesn’t change the fact that America needs support from those in the Arab world, and that the outrages at Gitmo are used by their enemies as recruiting tools, while eroding vital public support support for the War on Terror (Which I do support in principle by the way). Is the idea that a democratic government may need the support of it’s citizens to enact policies a liberal misconception? Or am I wrong in saying that there are many people opposed to Gitmo?

Again I repeat the request for you to lay out you’re argument for why Gitmo should stay open. Who knows, you might be the one to convince me I’ve been wrong. It has happened before.

And it’s fine if you don’t want to discuss your educational background, although it does seem a little unfair, since mine seems to be fair game for discussion.

Also found some interesting stuff on the budget here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27fiscal.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

So to you, a rational argument would be unconvincing. Very strange. What is it with you then? Feelings?

“Nothing but contempt doesn’t exactly imply your ready to listen to reason does it?”

Actually I listen FOR reason, but see precious little of it from your side of the political fence.

“If you don’t mind me asking,”

I do.

“your tendancy to right off”

A spelling mistake and a context mistake. Its “tendency and “write”. See what I mean? So well schooled in left wing political perceptions but hopeless at English. Without such basics, how can you hope to understand and appreciate complex and sophisticated arguments? You’re just putty in the hands of leftist indoctrinators.

“given the black mark it leaves on the reputation of the US”

A left liberal media perception that mentally damaged sloths like you suck up with glee and is rooted in extreme left wing hate America propaganda.

“at a time when they need to be ‘winning hearts and minds””

..and yet another nauseating left liberal media cliché. These misconceptions are the foundations of your opinions, yet they’re all extremely subjective and contentious. Why are you so certain therefore that you are right??

And I don’t think there is a contradiction in what I wrote. You yourself in this very thread said you felt nothing but contempt for anyone on the left. Nothing but contempt doesn’t exactly imply your ready to listen to reason does it? If you don’t mind me asking, where were you schooled, that you were so lucky as to avoid indoctrinisation?

Again though, your tendancy to right off anyone who doesn’t agree with you as an idiot is showing through, especially when you say “that you apparently don’t know of it is proof of your one dimensional approach to global politics.” What makes you think I havn’t heard the argument for Gitmo staying open before, if not a thousand times. Is it not possible I have heard it and simply don’t find it convincing, given the black mark it leaves on the reputation of the US, especially in the Arab world, at a time when they need to be ‘winning hearts and minds”.

Maybe if your schooling had been an educational experience rather than an induction into socialist society, you’d realize how completely you have contradicted yourself in the above paragraph. Half educated. Fully indoctrinated.

That aside, there’s a rational argument for Guantanamo and that you apparently don’t know of it is proof of your one dimensional approach to global politics. The discussions you refer to were obviously extremely limited in their scope and no doubt were designed to produce pre-determined outcomes. Outcomes that of course were subtely consistent with leftist doctrine.

..and don’t worry about Sonny. He spends all his time here desperately labeling anyone who criticizes socialism as an extreme right lunatic. Entirely predictable and like a goat who keeps butting the same old tree.

hayden, don’t worry about ratbleater, even his own side is embarrassed by him.

Huh…I guess your right, they did teach us “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” in primary school. My god…..

As for the “All political Science students are leftist” arguments, I thank God it isn’t true. The most interesting thing about taking pols courses is getting to debate politics with those who don’t agree with you, in a forum that encourages rational presentation of arguments.

I realise it’s tempting too view anyone who disagrees with you as stupid or brain washed, but that’s just not how the world works. And to think that it does….well thats the part that scares me.

Sonic (8:30am) – sorry old chap, wrong again! 0/10

Actually, we should be outraged. This is a disgraceful perversion of the purpose of the education system that extends right through from pre school. The left cannot win the argument on rational grounds. They have to indoctrinate our children.

Everywhere leftists are in control, education and children are at risk. Why I find it hard to have any feeling but contempt for leftists. Of course the indoctrination only lasts a relatively short period, unless you’re a complete and utter dumbfuck.

Shame is, there’s far too many of them fit into that category. With only half an education, and socially cloistered from any opposing viewpoint, they therefore have only half a frame of political reference, and go clod hopping about the globe on their mission to change the world, and with their shallow, barbaric and ignorant perceptions only end up utterly fucking it up for people not similarly indoctrinated.

1. Too inexperienced. What has he ever run that qualifies him to be the President?

2. Doesn’t take a punch very well and doesn’t know how to knock opponents out either. His new politics seems to have am unwanted elitism about it.

3. Doesn’t know how to put lingering issues to bed that are hanging over him.

4. Most important of all he’s too far over to the left.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Apr09.html

In terms of dreaded “liberalness” Obama and Hillary are unexceptional (and pretty much identical). Also note that McCain is not this moderate some people seem to think he is. Any traces of “maverickness” he might have had were extinguished by his desperate attempt to sell his soul to get the support of the Republican Establishment (which had shafted him in 2000).

It really is hilarious how many utterly clueless individuals have bought into the Republican line about Obama being “most liberal Senator”. The US Right always arranges it so that any lists they produce have the Democratic Presidential nominee as “most liberal …” It then becomes a talking point circulated among talkback radio (which in the US is even more full of right-wing crackpots than in NZ), and so a part of the campaign of whomever happens to be the Republican nominee.

No he isnt.

Roger Nome … wrong again old son (its becoming somewhat tedious pointing this out) Clinton’s are not Catholic … Bills a Southern Baptist while Hillary is a Methodist. Why can’t you guys from the 9th Floor get your basic research right?

Am I the only one terrified by the fact that every Political Science student is a subliminally mindfucked Leftist, mindlessly spewing trendy Leftist pieties and talking points ?