Does Obama stand a chance?

I didn’t realize until I read your second sentence that you clearly favor him–which is probably why you find my very neutral comments harsh. :wink: Perhaps you can point out to me which of my remarks were harsh, above?

Again, I can only suggest that you check out the fanbase of other candidates, whose supporters run the gamut from “she/he’s fantastic” to “she/he’s not perfect, but the best we can find.” But then, you may find my saying so as proof that I positively loathe Paul. Which is hardly the case. :smiley:

I just said it was harsh because it just seemed like you just spitted out facts with no reaction to my clearly optimistic way of writing :laughing: Sure Ron Paul fanatics may not “win the hearts of the american people” or 75% of the population as you put it, but what I’m saying is that the fans out there are getting the message out of the guy. This is unique of his campain because his only getting this type of advertisment, (not from the major news networks).

But it isn’t unique, surely. If you ignore the top 3 contenders on the Democratic and Republican side, there are at least another 5 Democrats and 8 Republicans, all of whom are pretty well ignored by the media. When’s the last time you saw a lot of time spent by the mainsream media on Tancredo, or Dodd? Meaning no offense, but Paul falls well within this group.

Eh, (rasies shoulders) Im only 15 anyway, cant know everything about the world.

By the way, putting away reality and plausibility just for a second, who do you guys want to win?

so after yesterdays speeches, has anything changed regarding Obamas chances?

Read this … id=9535976

Interesting. It always amazes me how low African-American turnout is.

I don’t think so, in large part because Obama is far better as a speaker than he is at debating. And because the questions didn’t permit followups, which would have allowed those who provided the questions to zero in on major weaknesses–such as Clinton’s statement that she would keep a major US military presence (50,000 soldiers) in bases after supposedly leaving Iraq.

Right now, Obama still runs a close second to Clinton, and Edwards is a fair third behind them both. No changes, there, but also no improvements from the Republican side of the equation against them. …And there’s always the possibility that Gore will enter the race. It’s really too early to tell how any of this will turn out, self-absorbed Beltway pundits to the contrary.

Ahh… the difference a year makes. :slight_smile:

Not really, black people in America as a whole are in a poorer demography, and poorer people are extremely less likely to vote. This is why candidates talk about the middle class and almost never about the poor (except for healthcare, which affects the middle class too).

There are two other problems associated in the US with getting out the black vote:

  1. Gerrymandering. Republicans traditionally don’t have the black vote, so when they control state legislatures, there have been numerous instances of voting districts being redrawn to give blacks approximately 40% of the population. This effectively nullifies their vote.

  2. Vote rigging. This has been a severe problem since 2000, when massive vote fraud was noted in solidly black districts of both Ohio and Florida. Large numbers (and in tens of thousands) of votes simply went missing. Because the state government at the time was Republican, the investigation that was held afterwards was short and perfunctory. When the Ohio legislature changed hands in 2006, the Republican official in charge of voting administration in the state was quietly told that he would leave office by choice, or face an expensive lawsuit detailing the illegal manipulation of votes that had occurred over the last several years. He left in a huff.

Usually, the districts are redrawn after the census, which takes place every ten years. In 1990, some districts in some states were redrawn to give a solid black majority to increase their representation in various levels of government. One of the interesting side effects of this was that the Republicans actually took more seats in the 1992 House Election (see Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America for what happened in the 1994 election). The theory was that because there were heavily concentrated areas of blacks voting, other districts had less minority representation. Since blacks usually vote for the Democratic party, this gave a slight edge to Republican candidates.

As for the vote rigging, Premier Election Solutions (aka Diebold) should really be getting grilled about what has happened with their machines.

This happens, but I was referring to the frequent practice of redrawing district boundaries by state legislatures at times other than following a census. Numerous instances can be detailed in any given year prior to an important state/federal election year.

I don’t doubt that if the minority in question was inclined to vote Republican, Democrats in charge of state legislatures would do the same to them. But they aren’t, the only sizable, nationwide minority in question is black, and inclined to vote Democratic. And gerrymandering is consequently associated almost exclusively with Republicans.

Especially when one reads this,, or this, or this, or this. But Diebold has its hooks in some major political machines (and by that, I mean the human-based ones, not the ones they create). A few states have removed their machines, but when you’re playing in that league, it appears that nobody comes after you. The powerful look after their own.