Limbaugh's Fat Mouth Opens Yet Again...

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

It is what it is, there are a lot of middle class white folks who just don't like Obama, they think he's smug and arrogant and couldn't possibly really identify with them for whatever reason.. I know some of these people IRL in NC, they're moderately conservative, but are sick to death of Bush and the way the Republicans have handled the running of the country.. and he's rubbed them the wrong way, and this Wright thing is being talked about quite a bit by those same people

They aren't bad people, they aren't racist, they just think (rightly or wrongly) that Hillary is better able to identify with where they're coming from.

In the past it's been different groups that ultimately played a large role in deciding the outcome of the election.. the black demographic has played a tremendously important role in getting Obama to where he is now

If he didn't receive such a dominating majority of their votes, he would have had to bow out long ago..

My mom is another good example, she is a Hilldog supporter and doesn't like Obama because of his inexperience and Rev. Wright ties. So she thinks she is voting for McCain.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

Another reason why open primaries are stupid, but I think Rush is pathetic for urging his retarded listeners to interfere in the primaries.. we should have an honest contest between parties without people from either interfering in the other party's selection process

It seems I remember something like this happening once before but with Democrats doing it and DK leading it. But I don't remember the exact circumstance.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Many middle and lower class whites do not relate with Obama's message nor do they agree his far left politics.

What "far left politics" are you talking about?

Maybe you could point to a bill he introduced or co-sponsored that would make people think he's a raging liberal, or something in his voting record.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

What "far left politics" are you talking about?

Maybe you could point to a bill he introduced or co-sponsored that would make people think he's a raging liberal, or something in his voting record.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

This will be replayed over and over again in the general.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It seems I remember something like this happening once before but with Democrats doing it and DK leading it. But I don't remember the exact circumstance.

That doesn't make it okay, and DK doesn't speak for most Democrats

[motivez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

This will be replayed over and over again in the general.

Seems like whoever the nominee is going to be winds up being called the most liberal Senator

That same charge was leveled against Kerry

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

This will be replayed over and over again in the general.

Yeah, I wasn't asking for you to name a group that calls him a far left liberal, I was asking for something in his voting record or bills sponsored.


As motz pointed out, those guys said the same thing about Kerry in '04.

[motivez]

They can't point to all of his liberal accomplishments and still attack him for being inexperienced and not actually doing anything of substance in the Senate yet

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by motivez

It is what it is, there are a lot of middle class white folks who just don't like Obama, they think he's smug and arrogant and couldn't possibly really identify with them for whatever reason.. I know some of these people IRL in NC, they're moderately conservative, but are sick to death of Bush and the way the Republicans have handled the running of the country.. and he's rubbed them the wrong way, and this Wright thing is being talked about quite a bit by those same people

They aren't bad people, they aren't racist, they just think (rightly or wrongly) that Hillary is better able to identify with where they're coming from.

In the past it's been different groups that ultimately played a large role in deciding the outcome of the election.. the black demographic has played a tremendously important role in getting Obama to where he is now

If he didn't receive such a dominating majority of their votes, he would have had to bow out long ago..

You are right, they aren't bad people, and I don't think they are racist.

But, I don't think choosing a candidate based on "identity" is a farse. Because I remember people saying Gore was elitist, and Bush was a beer buddy, and I think that has proved to be a crappy method for choosing Presidents.

[kombayn]

Oh my god! Obama is liberal! Someone stop the presses!

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The people that voted for clinton will mostly vote for Obama in the fall. Count on it. Most people thought that either of them would make a good president. They thought that we had two strong candidates and in the end they had to pick one and vote that way. Now that we are pretty sure the candidate will be Obama. you will see probably 75% of the clinton voters turn to Obama and stick with the party. The rest will either stay home or vote 3rd party. I think it will be a cold day in hell when a Clinton voter decides that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama.

I may fall into the category of someone who would have voted for Clinton but may switch over to McCain over Obama. We'll see.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by motivez

It is what it is, there are a lot of middle class white folks who just don't like Obama, they think he's smug and arrogant and couldn't possibly really identify with them for whatever reason.. I know some of these people IRL in NC, they're moderately conservative, but are sick to death of Bush and the way the Republicans have handled the running of the country.. and he's rubbed them the wrong way, and this Wright thing is being talked about quite a bit by those same people

They aren't bad people, they aren't racist, they just think (rightly or wrongly) that Hillary is better able to identify with where they're coming from.

In the past it's been different groups that ultimately played a large role in deciding the outcome of the election.. the black demographic has played a tremendously important role in getting Obama to where he is now

If he didn't receive such a dominating majority of their votes, he would have had to bow out long ago..

For me its just a matter of being disgusted with him dumbing himself down into repeating "politics of change" 11tybillion times. (and the NASA thing, really, mostly the NASA thing)

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Seems like whoever the nominee is going to be winds up being called the most liberal Senator

That same charge was leveled against Kerry

Here is their methodology:

A panel of National Journal editors and reporters initially compiled a list of 216 key congressional roll-call votes for 2007 -- 107 votes for the Senate and 109 for the House -- and classified them as relating to economic, social, or foreign policy.

Polidata, a nonpartisan political data-analysis firm, downloaded lists from the House and Senate websites of how all the members voted on the key votes. Those lists were then sent to the Brookings Institution, where the Information Technology Services division performed the data processing and statistical analysis. The ratings system was first devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal.

The votes in each issue area were subjected to a principal-components analysis, a statistical procedure designed to determine the degree to which each vote resembled other votes in the same category (the same members tending to vote together). Ten of the 216 votes (eight in the Senate and two in the House) were dropped from the analysis because they were statistically unrelated to others in the same issue area. These typically were votes that reflected regional and special-interest concerns, rather than general ideology.

The analysis also revealed which yea votes correlated with which nay votes within each issue area (members voting yea on certain issues tended to vote nay on others). The yea and nay positions on each roll call were then identified as conservative or liberal.

Each roll-call vote was assigned a weight from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest), based on the degree to which it correlated with other votes in the same issue area. A higher weight means that a vote was more strongly correlated with other votes and was therefore a better test of economic, social, or foreign-policy ideology. The votes in each issue area were combined in an index (liberal or conservative votes as a percentage of total votes cast, with each vote weighted 1, 2, or 3).

Absences and abstentions were not counted; instead, the percentage base was adjusted to compensate for missed roll calls. A member who missed more than half of the votes in any issue category was scored as "missing" in that category (shown as an asterisk[*] in the vote-rating tables).

Members were then ranked from the most liberal to the most conservative in each issue area. These rankings were used to assign liberal and conservative percentile ratings to all members of Congress.

The liberal percentile score means that the member voted more liberal than that percentage of his or her colleagues in that issue area in 2007. The conservative figure means that the member voted more conservative than that percentage of his or her colleagues.

For example, a House member in the 30th percentile of liberals and the 60th percentile of conservatives on economic issues voted more liberal than 30 percent of the House and more conservative than 60 percent of the House on those issues, and was tied with the remaining 10 percent. The scores do not mean that the member voted liberal 30 percent of the time and voted conservative 60 percent of the time.

Percentile scores can range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 100. Some members, however, voted either consistently liberal or consistently conservative on every roll call. As a result, there are ties at both the liberal and the conservative ends of each scale. For that reason, the maximum percentiles are usually less than 100.

Members also receive a composite liberal score and a composite conservative score, each of which is an average of their six issue-based scores. Members who missed more than half of the votes in any of the three issue categories do not receive a composite score.

What problem do you have with it?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Yeah, I wasn't asking for you to name a group that calls him a far left liberal, I was asking for something in his voting record or bills sponsored.


As motz pointed out, those guys said the same thing about Kerry in '04.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
-by not voting

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

They can't point to all of his liberal accomplishments and still attack him for being inexperienced and not actually doing anything of substance in the Senate yet

he was in the Senate for 15 minutes before he started running for President, but even his own supporters don't know of any accomplishments in the Senate.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
-by not voting

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

If you consider that Obama would have voted along with Durbin on the vote he missed, all four of those votes had Lieberman, McCains best bud, voting the exact same way.

Yeah, crazy liberal.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I may fall into the category of someone who would have voted for Clinton but may switch over to McCain over Obama. We'll see.

But why? Obama and Clinton are not that far apart policy wise. They agree on most things. McCain is the opposite of Clinton. Would you just be voting out of spite for your candidate not winning the primary? It makes no logical sense to support Clinton and then switch to McCain.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

But why? Obama and Clinton are not that far apart policy wise. They agree on most things. McCain is the opposite of Clinton. Would you just be voting out of spite for your candidate not winning the primary? It makes no logical sense to support Clinton and then switch to McCain.

If you don't like a candidate it means a lot. I would have voted for McCain and not out of spite that my candidate lost. I said that from the start. I feel that Hillary Clinton was too dishonest and immoral to be in the White House... even moreso than McCain.

Most people don't agree with McCain 100% or Obama/Hillary 100%. They're typically somewhere in the middle. So voting for one doesn't mean they'll vote for someone with similar views. One legacy Bush leaves us with this November is the idea that you need to be able to trust the President. I didn't trust Hillary to do the right thing or to not allow her drama to overshadow American politics. That same argument could be made for Obama.