Right-winger declares that Obama is really a Muslim (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 02:35:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Right-winger declares that Obama is really a Muslim (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Right-winger declares that Obama is really a Muslim  (Read 5462 times)
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« on: December 19, 2006, 04:52:47 PM »

I always love it how people completely and utterly ignore everything that radical Muslims might have to say until they can use what is said against their political opponents.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2006, 07:51:10 PM »

Here is what I mean,

With Candidates like Obama or Hillary (I like the former and do not like the latter), there is no way we would win the 2008 election with those two. Oh, and I have seen people metion Hillary-Obama tickets. Umm, that is a loser ticket. Obama would be a great candidate in the future, but 2008 is just to soon for him.

So please do not get an attitude with me you slut.

Anyway, that right-winger who said Obama is a muslim is irrelevant. Right-wingers will do anything to make any Democrat look bad.

His name may be similar to many creepy people in the mideast, but he has nothing to do with them.

If you had your way in 1990, I have no doubt that the Democrats would have been saying "Let's just lose 1992 and wait for 1996."
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2006, 09:34:10 PM »

Bill Clinton was a good candidate. He was a governor and that is a better qualification for the top executive office then a Senator.  In 1990 I surely would have been a Clinton support and would have looked foward to his 1992 election victory.

Given that Clinton was a total unknown who came out of nowhere to win the primary and then the general election, and given the fact that Bush seemed absolutely unbeatable in 1990, no, I somehow doubt that you would have.

...which is exactly my point.  You're suggesting that Democrats should just give up on 2008 two years before the election?  No political party ever rose to prominence by simply ignoring every single race in which their candidate would not have been a sure bet.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2006, 08:30:24 PM »
« Edited: December 23, 2006, 08:32:35 PM by Gabu »

Well not give up, I am just leary of running people from states that are blue nationwide.

Do you know what defines a "blue state" in general?  It's a state that voted for the Democrat in the last presidential election.  If George Bush won in a landslide in 2004 and carried Illinois, would you then be okay with Obama because he was from a red state?  Was Bill Clinton a bad candidate in 1996 since he came from Arkansas, at the time a "blue state"?

People win an election because they're a good candidate, not because they're from some particular state.  The fact that George Bush was from the heavily Republican state of Texas didn't exactly harm his ability to win elections, despite the fact that he was from a "red state", which by your logic should be a bad thing for a Republican candidate.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2006, 09:25:39 PM »

I certainly agree with you, but tactically speaking, it's not the best strategy.  But then it's not like you can choose what state you call your political home.  Unless you're Hillary Clinton that is, but apparently she wasn't reading from the same playbook.

I was half simply arguing against using the results of the previous election to define the worth of someone from that state as a candidate in the next election.  I hate the terms "red state" and "blue state".
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2007, 10:38:37 PM »

I said that the GOP has a faster growing presidential base, and you asked if it could be tranlslated, which means you don't realize that heavy blue states might ;ost votes.

No, your post made no sense. It was like a 1st grader wrote it.


bastard

No offense, but I do agree that it wasn't a very intelligible post.  Not understand what is said is not the same as disagreeing with it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 9 queries.