|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| In this situation I would definitely be writing here that it's time for Obama to give up for the good of the party even though he's my preferred candidate. |
| SNK wrote: |
| the decisive majority of the votes have already been cast |
Mith,
Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
This 'good of the party' argument is such crap. |
That's Richardson's argument, your favorite dem, and someone who knows the Clintons far better than you or I ever will. How is it that your judgment is superior? |
Fallacy of argument by authority. Richardson is but one superdelegate, among many who have waited to endorse. |
I'll see your fallacy of argument by authority and raise you one cherry picking. What I'm asking you is why you've suddenly decided that Richardson doesn't know what he's talking about after pining away for him for so long here on the forums. How is he qualified in your mind to lead the country as commander in chief for the next four years, but not qualified to comment on the democratic race to the extent that his view is 'such crap'? |
No, no, no. I do not have to agree with everything Richardson says. For example, I do not agree that sexuality is a choice. Am I cherry-picking? Hell, no. Did you read the email Richardson sent out? He allowed that we would all have opinions on what's best for this country going forward. The fact is, the Obama campaign wrote his speech, it even kept the stage directions when the Obama campaign released it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| In this situation I would definitely be writing here that it's time for Obama to give up for the good of the party even though he's my preferred candidate. |
| SNK wrote: |
| the decisive majority of the votes have already been cast |
Mith,
Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
This 'good of the party' argument is such crap. |
That's Richardson's argument, your favorite dem, and someone who knows the Clintons far better than you or I ever will. How is it that your judgment is superior? |
Fallacy of argument by authority. Richardson is but one superdelegate, among many who have waited to endorse. |
I'll see your fallacy of argument by authority and raise you one cherry picking. What I'm asking you is why you've suddenly decided that Richardson doesn't know what he's talking about after pining away for him for so long here on the forums. How is he qualified in your mind to lead the country as commander in chief for the next four years, but not qualified to comment on the democratic race to the extent that his view is 'such crap'? |
No, no, no. I do not have to agree with everything Richardson says. For example, I do not agree that sexuality is a choice. Am I cherry-picking? Hell, no. Did you read the email Richardson sent out? He allowed that we would all have opinions on what's best for this country going forward. The fact is, the Obama campaign wrote his speech, it even kept the stage directions when the Obama campaign released it. |
I don't think that you have to accept everything he says but I found it odd that you brushed off his endorsement so quickly when he put so much thought into it himself (he said in an interview afterwards that he was on the brink of endorsing Hillary a while back but held off and was glad that he did), since for quite some time he looked like he really didn't want to make the choice between the two.
I'm not trying to make the argument that you should change your position all of a sudden but I actually did think that you would reluctantly agree with him based on how much praise you were showing him before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm expecting the party to choose a third option if they truly bloody each other, and themselves, campaigning. I think the Clinton campaign alienates a large number of people with their tactics. Obama's campaign also seems to be dropping the ball, especially given Clinton's thumping of the Wright drum at every opportunity.
Is Al Gore going to get another run? I'm not sure any of the earlier candidates would be an acceptable option to the two main camps. Biden or Richardson could be, but if they were considered I expect Edwards to argue he would be the best third option.
It would be interesting to see the first woman and first black man running for the highest office of the US destroy their chances by playing the same old, old white man, politics. Horrible, but interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| In this situation I would definitely be writing here that it's time for Obama to give up for the good of the party even though he's my preferred candidate. |
| SNK wrote: |
| the decisive majority of the votes have already been cast |
Mith,
Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win yet.
This 'good of the party' argument is such crap. |
That's Richardson's argument, your favorite dem, and someone who knows the Clintons far better than you or I ever will. How is it that your judgment is superior? |
Fallacy of argument by authority. Richardson is but one superdelegate, among many who have waited to endorse. |
I'll see your fallacy of argument by authority and raise you one cherry picking. What I'm asking you is why you've suddenly decided that Richardson doesn't know what he's talking about after pining away for him for so long here on the forums. How is he qualified in your mind to lead the country as commander in chief for the next four years, but not qualified to comment on the democratic race to the extent that his view is 'such crap'? |
No, no, no. I do not have to agree with everything Richardson says. For example, I do not agree that sexuality is a choice. Am I cherry-picking? Hell, no. Did you read the email Richardson sent out? He allowed that we would all have opinions on what's best for this country going forward. The fact is, the Obama campaign wrote his speech, it even kept the stage directions when the Obama campaign released it. |
I don't think that you have to accept everything he says but I found it odd that you brushed off his endorsement so quickly when he put so much thought into it himself (he said in an interview afterwards that he was on the brink of endorsing Hillary a while back but held off and was glad that he did), since for quite some time he looked like he really didn't want to make the choice between the two.
I'm not trying to make the argument that you should change your position all of a sudden but I actually did think that you would reluctantly agree with him based on how much praise you were showing him before. |
I've said before Richardson's endorsement that I would support Obama should he be nominated.
But the constant Hillary hatred keeps me loyal to her. The blogosphere is so anti-Hillary, and so is this site, that I sympathize heavily with her. I think she was a fine First Lady and is an excellent and dutiful Senator. And this forum is full of crap arguments against her 24/7. I had to stop reading AndrewSullivan.
Notice the difference in tone between Richardson and the rest of the Obama Camp. You may not think it makes a difference or a distinction, but for Hillary supporters, it certainly does.
And it is absolutely mind-boggling to me that Hillary is being told she cannot win it, when SHE CAN QUITE POSSIBLY WIN IT.
And the other thing that is upsetting is that nobody seems to understand that the race for the nomination is more than about simply winning. Richardson has said that his campaign has put issues on the ticket. And Edwards was almost certainly influential in liberalizing the Democrats' message.
People are telling Hillary to sit down and shut up. It is partisan, undemocratic, and sends a worse message than even her worst attacks against Obama have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
I'm expecting the party to choose a third option if they truly bloody each other, and themselves, campaigning. I think the Clinton campaign alienates a large number of people with their tactics. Obama's campaign also seems to be dropping the ball, especially given Clinton's thumping of the Wright drum at every opportunity.
Is Al Gore going to get another run? I'm not sure any of the earlier candidates would be an acceptable option to the two main camps. Biden or Richardson could be, but if they were considered I expect Edwards to argue he would be the best third option.
It would be interesting to see the first woman and first black man running for the highest office of the US destroy their chances by playing the same old, old white man, politics. Horrible, but interesting. |
Neither of the two candidates are running for VP. The Gore noises some pundits are making are predicated on some very, very unlikely premises: first, that there will be a deadlocked convention, and second, that either Hillary or Obama would consent to throw their delegate support behind Gore in exchange for a VP slot. What would either really stand to gain from the Vice Presidency?
Either Obama or Clinton will be the nominee. At this point it's at least 90% likely that it will be Obama.
If the Rev. Wright business is the best that Clinton or the GOP can come up with to tarnish Obama, then Michelle might as well start picking out the drapes for the White House. Rev. Wright is not fodder for swiftboating, for the simple reason that none of his incendiary sentiments have been echoed by the candidate himself. No one not already disposed to vote against Obama is going to abandon him over something he didn't even say. Negative campaigning at one remove has never swung an election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hillary is in this race for Hillary. She should stay in because she still has about a 25% chance of arm twisting, blackmailing, and bribing (with jobs, bills, and government booty) enough superdelegates to get the nomination this time.
And she'll never get another shot. After this, being Hillary "Pinocchio" Clinton will end her Presidential dreams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDDyW2i8tqo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
I'm expecting the party to choose a third option if they truly bloody each other, and themselves, campaigning. I think the Clinton campaign alienates a large number of people with their tactics. Obama's campaign also seems to be dropping the ball, especially given Clinton's thumping of the Wright drum at every opportunity.
Is Al Gore going to get another run? I'm not sure any of the earlier candidates would be an acceptable option to the two main camps. Biden or Richardson could be, but if they were considered I expect Edwards to argue he would be the best third option.
It would be interesting to see the first woman and first black man running for the highest office of the US destroy their chances by playing the same old, old white man, politics. Horrible, but interesting. |
Neither of the two candidates are running for VP. The Gore noises some pundits are making are predicated on some very, very unlikely premises: first, that there will be a deadlocked convention, and second, that either Hillary or Obama would consent to throw their delegate support behind Gore in exchange for a VP slot. What would either really stand to gain from the Vice Presidency?
Either Obama or Clinton will be the nominee. At this point it's at least 90% likely that it will be Obama.
If the Rev. Wright business is the best that Clinton or the GOP can come up with to tarnish Obama, then Michelle might as well start picking out the drapes for the White House. Rev. Wright is not fodder for swiftboating, for the simple reason that none of his incendiary sentiments have been echoed by the candidate himself. No one not already disposed to vote against Obama is going to abandon him over something he didn't even say. Negative campaigning at one remove has never swung an election. |
You're making two mistakes.
First, the presumption that either would accept VP, or be offered VP, is fallacious. Neither campaign has discussed this issue, but in the event of a sense, come the convention, that neither candidate could win against McCain anything is possible. I think the Dems, regardless of who've you've supported, primarily want to WIN. If that mean both go current candidates get bumped, that's what will happen. If the convention is extremely contentious it could take one good speech to change everything. Pledged delegates can do anything they want at the convention. If that happened I think both Obama and Clinton would make some back room deals with the candidate who's put forward not running in four years so they don't have to wait eight. That doesn't mean they would be honored, but I'm sure both of the O/C campaigns would want assurances they'd have a shot in four years.
Second, what is at issue is not whether Obama supporters would change their vote over the Wright or Rezko business. What is at issue is whether or not the indys and Reps that have become interested in Obama will be driven away by the implications. And the polling says they have been. That could change by the end of the week, in two months, or never. Politics is like gambling, not sports. Luck, the whims of fate, whatever you want to call it, play a part in how things play out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, of course 28% of Democrats (or whatever the current BS polls say) are not going to vote for McCain in the general if their candidate doesn't win. However, some of them will, and there are two things that will drive this number up.
1. An extended, bitter primary that leaves less time for accomodation and outreach before the general.
2. A nominee that is perceived as illegitimate.
You can guess, I'm sure, what conclusions I draw from that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Second, what is at issue is not whether Obama supporters would change their vote over the Wright or Rezko business. What is at issue is whether or not the indys and Reps that have become interested in Obama will be driven away by the implications. And the polling says they have been. That could change by the end of the week, in two months, or never. Politics is like gambling, not sports. Luck, the whims of fate, whatever you want to call it, play a part in how things play out. |
Obama has taken virtually zero hits over the Wright controversy. The fact that this outcome is viewed as surprising by pundits is evidence of how foolish and out-of-touch the chattering class is, as usual.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
| Quote: |
As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton is. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans.
On one of the most critical questions we've been tracking for a few months, Obama showed resilience. When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton. All three candidates saw dips on this issue, by the way. In January, 67 percent thought Obama could unite the country; 68 percent thought McCain could do it; and 55 percent said Clinton would be able to pull it off. |
Basically, the people who were bothered by the Wright clips were the people who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. Which includes at least 90% of self-identified Republicans, whatever nice things they had to say about him in March. No one, certainly not Obama, was counting on their votes in November. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Second, what is at issue is not whether Obama supporters would change their vote over the Wright or Rezko business. What is at issue is whether or not the indys and Reps that have become interested in Obama will be driven away by the implications. And the polling says they have been. That could change by the end of the week, in two months, or never. Politics is like gambling, not sports. Luck, the whims of fate, whatever you want to call it, play a part in how things play out. |
Obama has taken virtually zero hits over the Wright controversy. The fact that this outcome is viewed as surprising by pundits is evidence of how foolish and out-of-touch the chattering class is, as usual.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
| Quote: |
As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton is. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans.
On one of the most critical questions we've been tracking for a few months, Obama showed resilience. When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton. All three candidates saw dips on this issue, by the way. In January, 67 percent thought Obama could unite the country; 68 percent thought McCain could do it; and 55 percent said Clinton would be able to pull it off. |
Basically, the people who were bothered by the Wright clips were the people who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. Which includes at least 90% of self-identified Republicans, whatever nice things they had to say about him in March. No one, certainly not Obama, was counting on their votes in November. |
Re: Wright,
Its unfair that Obama has taken so much criticism for something he has not said. But he's handled it quite well.
I think what you're saying is generally more true than not. But its hard to say with certainty that Obama has not lost noticable support. I do lean towards your views on this.
Here are two men who know more than I do about it. These two do a good job of treating the issue of race very seriously in a non-partisan way. But its long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
