Thread: Obama -> Smart = Win; Black = Huge Win

Alright, I'm a fan of Obama, because he listens to people. (But I really am clueless about his economic policy, so I have my doubts). I think this is part of the reason he won. Now when I say Black = Huge Win I'm not suggesting a direct correlation. What I think is this: Republicans thought people would vote for Obama because they wanted a historic ticket, so Republicans looked for something similar: Sarah Palin. But Palin wasn't qualified and was ignorant of almost everything, so Republicans lost by a greater margin. Obama is black -> Republicans felt threatened -> Republicans looked for minority -> Republicans find Sarah Palin -> Republicans even worse off. That's my theory. Thoughts?

Palin is not less qualified than Obama. Obama has never accomplished anything in entire his life. What Obama has going for him is the fawning news media who do not play up his gaffes. And his gaffes are every bit as egregious

I listened to Katie Couric on CBS before Obama's last speech. It reminded me of PRAVDA in the old Soviet Union. "Obama is wildly popular. He has accomplished more in his first month than any other president ever. People say the porkulus bill is partisan but he has reached out to Republican and they just reject him, blah blah, blah." Sickening.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Palin is not less qualified than Obama. Obama has never accomplished anything in entire his life. What Obama has going for him is the fawning news media who do not play up his gaffes. And his gaffes are every bit as egregious

I listened to Katie Couric on CBS before Obama's last speech. It reminded me of PRAVDA in the old Soviet Union. "Obama is wildly popular. He has accomplished more in his first month than any other president ever. People say the porkulus bill is partisan but he has reached out to Republican and they just reject him, blah blah, blah." Sickening.

I see what you mean, but if you're talking gaffes, clearly Biden is the winner. But I'll say this, everyone says dumb things, but Palin always said dumb things, oh and I'd like to see those gaffes (as egregious as fruit fly research you say?). Also it certainly looks like Obama is reaching across the aisle (meetings with Republicans, giving tax cuts) but I think he fails to understand that Republicans are against government intervention, period (and to do that, you have to be a Republican), so it's a vane quest (now that I think of it, great way of getting votes without having to do anything). He's certainly signed alot in the first month, closing gitmo, the stimulus bill, but signing isn't accomplishing (and accomplishing isn't always good, I'm talking the stimulus bill, gitmo was definitly bad), so we'll have to wait and see.

And true, Obama isn't more qualified, but he seems alot smarter, but after I see those gaffes...who knows what I'll think.

Why over-analyze? There are two sets pf beliefs: the market rules and government is your enemey; or the market needs regulating and the government is your friend.

The voters chose the latter, and as far as I can tell it was an evidence-based intelligent choice.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Why over-analyze? There are two sets pf beliefs: the market rules and government is your enemey; or the market needs regulating and the government is your friend.

The voters chose the latter, and as far as I can tell it was an evidence-based intelligent choice.

Wrongo, Bunbury.

Yes, there are two sets of beliefs: we are the government; or, the government takes care of we.

Which do you want?

Mmm, well apply that same logic to your family.

We are a family, or the family takes care of we.


Palin is quite the eye-catcher. If the americans put her in office someday, the annual addresses to the nation will be quite a lot more entertaining!

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Why over-analyze? There are two sets pf beliefs: the market rules and government is your enemey; or the market needs regulating and the government is your friend.

The voters chose the latter, and as far as I can tell it was an evidence-based intelligent choice.

There's also a balanced view, of course.

It's like in sports. No rules, and the game actually sucks quite a lot. Too many rules, and the competitiveness of the players is no longer guiding who wins and who loses.

By and large, the people who cry "government overregulation!!!" the most are those who want to be allowed to use the proverbial equivalent of steroids.