Can Paul Beat Obama?

[nw_hunter]

Singleshotsam, I don't think it just your elders that "fell asleep".  Remember, the young voters were some of the strongest supporters of obama, and helped put us where we are right now.

Not quite right! The ones that put Obama over the top were the Republicans who had had their fill with neocons like GW Bush and John McCain. He could never have been elected without the Republican cross over vote. We haven't learned a thing. We're getting prepared to run another closet Liberal against one that is in the open with his Liberalism. The Big boys don't really give a hoot which party wins as long as it's one of their chosen.

[Casull]

Not quite right! The ones that put Obama over the top were the Republicans who had had their fill with neocons like GW Bush and John McCain. He could never have been elected without the Republican cross over vote.

 
 
I don't buy that for a second.  If you have some "proof", I'd like to see it.  It was the young and the undeclared moderates that put him over.  I'd guess that there are about 40% Republican in this country.  Obama garnered well under 60% of the vote, so I doubt he had much in the way of cross over Republicans.

[BAGTIC]

I agree with much that Ron Paul says but he can not be elected. It isn't just his foreign policy. It is also his social and fiscal policy. If 42% of Americans are not paying any income tax and more than that are not paying their fair share they are not going to vote for someone that threatens to end all of their entitlements. People who are getting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 'Negative income tax rebates, food stamps, rent subsidies, etc., etc., etc. are not going to cut their own throat.
It took several generations for these programs to become entrenched and it will take a long time to gradually phase them out. The problem is that Paul is a philosophical ideologue who is willing to ignore the practicalities of implementing those necessary changes in order to preserve the purity of his idealism.

[BAGTIC]

Giving the vote to 18 year olds was one of the stupidest damn things this country has ever done. We should have instead increased the voting age to 25. Most people don't grow up emotionally or intellectually until about 25.  Thay is why such a high percentage of antisocial behavior is perpetrated by the age 16-25 cohort.

[nw_hunter]

Not quite right! The ones that put Obama over the top were the Republicans who had had their fill with neocons like GW Bush and John McCain. He could never have been elected without the Republican cross over vote.

 
 
I don't buy that for a second.  If you have some "proof", I'd like to see it.  It was the young and the undeclared moderates that put him over.  I'd guess that there are about 40% Republican in this country.  Obama garnered well under 60% of the vote, so I doubt he had much in the way of cross over Republicans.

 Are your fingers broken?.........OK! Here's a little info to get you started.


RepublicansforObama.org was founded in December 2006 by John Martin, a US Navy reservist.[4] The organization grew to include over 2,500 registered members from across the United States, and was featured in USA Today, The New Yorker and other media throughout the 2008 Presidential Campaign.[5][6][7]

Conservative praise for Obama was highlighted in the conservative Insight Magazine in July 2007. Insight's story focused on Obama's character as contrasted with the then Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.[8][dead link] In January 2008, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic also praised Obama's character and personality.[9] In March 2008, Andrew Bacevich, writing in The American Conservative, said that "principled conservatives" should consider voting for Obama since he promised a quick end to the Iraq war; which Bacevich said had contributed to the growth of federal and presidential power.[10] Bruce Bartlett, writing in the New Republic, cited Obama's opposition to the Iraq war as the main issue which appealed to conservatives. Also mentioned were his opposition to some parts of the PATRIOT Act and his possible support for school vouchers.

The Republican party reported a total of 700 Republican voters in Iowa who voted for Obama during the January 2008 caucuses, and 500 in Colorado during their February 2008 caucuses.[15] Polls in late February 2008, the height of the Democratic primaries and the point at which the Republicans had virtually decided on John McCain, showed that up to 14% of Republicans supported Obama.[16] Some disenchanted or moderate Republican donors who contributed to the George Bush campaign in 2004 have donated to the Obama campaign.[17]

Republican elected officials who endorsed Obama

    Former Illinois Congressman and former Republican and Independent presidential candidate in the 1980 presidential election, John B. Anderson. [24] Anderson left the Republican party in 1980 to continue his then-presidential candidacy as an Independent.
    Former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson[25]
    Former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee.[26] Two years later, he was elected Governor of Rhode Island as an Independent - Obama's avowed neutrality in the race was viewed by some, including the Democratic nominee,[27] as a tacit endorsement of Chafee.
    Former Minnesota Senator David Durenberger supported John Kerry in the 2004 election, leaving the Republican Party. He now supports Obama.[28]
    Former Oklahoma Congressman Mickey Edwards voted for Obama; announced one day after the election.
    Former Kansas Congressman, Nixon Administration Deputy Secretary of Defense and United States Permanent Representative to NATO Robert F. Ellsworth[29]
    Former Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (who was an outgoing incumbent at the time) told WBAL-TV that he voted for Obama in a January interview.[30]
    Former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton, father-in-law of former Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA)[31]
    Former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach[32]
    Former Maryland Senator Charles Mathias, Jr.[33] Mathias was a liberal Republican who was often at odds with the conservative wing of the party as a senator.
    Former South Dakota Senator Larry Pressler[34]
    Former Connecticut Governor and Senator Lowell Weicker. Weicker left the Republican Party in 1988 after a campaign in which prominent Republicans supported his opponent, Joe Lieberman. He supported Democrat Bill Bradley in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004 for the presidency.
    Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld[35]
    Mayor Lou Thieblemont of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Thieblemont switched his party registration from Republican to Democrat so that he could vote for Obama in the Pennsylvania primary.[36]
    Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Jim Whitaker endorsed Obama and delivered a speech on the second day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.

Just a small list of Republicans supported Obama. I personally know Republicans who voted for him.
Before the last election, I never heard a Republican say he would vote for a Democrat. But the Liberal GW Bush and the terrible price we have paid because of him, changed a few Republicans thinking about the NEO-CONS! But we still have a way to go it would appear!We are getting ready to repeat the same mistake of the last election.

[Casull]

nwhunter, you do realize that there was a determined effort by some Republicans to push obama over hillary during the democrat primaries.  The thinking was that he would be easier to beat than hillary.  I guess you missed that.  BTW, Rush Limbaugh was talking about it and pushing it for months before the election.   

[Casull]

A quick check reveals that approximately 55.46% of registered voters are democrat.  In 2008, obama received approximately 53.68% of the vote.  Sooooo, unless a lot of democrats did NOT vote for obama, I don't see how it was possible that very many Republicans voted for him.     

[nw_hunter]

A quick check reveals that approximately 55.46% of registered voters are democrat.  In 2008, obama received approximately 53.68% of the vote.  Sooooo, unless a lot of democrats did NOT vote for obama, I don't see how it was possible that very many Republicans voted for him.     

Enter John McCain 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/world/americas/05iht-voters.1.15013393.html
Quite simple......The Neo-Cons have fractured the Republican party with their continual war mentality, and no longer being for smaller Government.They are losing their base with these McCain, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum type of politicians.

They have turned their backs on the Constitution and anyone that clings to it.This has never been so obvious as this election.

[Singleshotsam]

Singleshotsam, I don't think it just your elders that "fell asleep".  Remember, the young voters were some of the strongest supporters of obama, and helped put us where we are right now.

   
 
While the younger voters tended to support Obama more, the data suggested in this article states that even if you excluded all voters under the age of 30, Obama would have still won the presidency due to the fact that he would have still received the 270 electoral votes needed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27582147/ns/politics-decision_08/t/young-voters-not-essential-obama-triumph/
 
quoted from the article posted.
 

But wait a minute — would Obama have won anyway without, for instance, younger voters?
AnaMaria Arumi, who directs the exit poll desk for NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo, has done the calculations based on the exit poll data and here is what she found: On a state-by-state level, when she re-ran the numbers as if there were no voters under 30, the only states that would switch to Republican presidential candidate John McCain are Indiana and North Carolina.
Without younger voters, Obama would still have won the 270 electoral votes he needs to become the next president.

The article goes on to say that without Hispanic votes he would have still won.  It also states that without the Black votes, he would have won.

So how is it that without all these minority votes Obama would have still won the electoral votes necessary?  Data would indicate that in 2008 Obama's best supporters were White males and females over the age of 30...
 
And to address BAGTIC's comment...


 

Giving the vote to 18 year olds was one of the stupidest damn things this country has ever done. We should have instead increased the voting age to 25. Most people don't grow up emotionally or intellectually until about 25.  Thay is why such a high percentage of antisocial behavior is perpetrated by the age 16-25 cohort.

   So your saying that even though an 18 year old is by law, required to sign up for the draft, he shouldn't be allowed to register to vote?      What about elderly people?  A large number of them have mental illnesses that prevent them from being able to remember the names of their own children, but yet I don't hear you railing against keeping them from voting...


The problem here is exactly what I said earlier.  The older voters of our country fell asleep when times were good.  They kept the mentality of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  Well now the country is really broke.  Both literally and figuratively.  Not only do a lot of the older people I talk to blame the "younger generation" for our country's faults, but they constantly point the finger at Democrats.  Or Gays.  Or Minorities.  They point the finger at everybody but who they should.  Themselves.

[nw_hunter]

They point the finger at everybody but who they should.

 
 
 
There's a lot of that going on.   

So! DO you think it's ok for 18 yr old's to fight for the country , but not be allowed to vote?
Should there be a cutoff point for seniors to vote?

[Casull]

Data would indicate that in 2008 Obama's best supporters were White males and females over the age of 30...

 
 
I seriously doubt that (actually, I would call it BS).  He may have received more votes from them, but only because they have the most votes.  His "best" supporters would clearly have been black voters, who gave him more than 90% of their votes.  Unless, of course, you are trying to say that more than 90% of white males and females over 30 voted for him.
 
 
Also, do you think he would have won without the under 30 vote AND the black vote AND the hispanic vote?  I do not.

[Casull]

So! DO you think it's ok for 18 yr old's to fight for the country , but not be allowed to vote?
Should there be a cutoff point for seniors to vote?

 
 
Well, nwhunter, since it wasn't my post that you are referring to, I'll decline to answer.

[BBF]

...............
............................................

So! DO you think it's ok for 18 yr old's to fight for the country , but not be allowed to vote?
Should there be a cutoff point for seniors to vote?

 
If they were drafted I would say YES they can vote. Otherwise it would be a NO for me.
 
Re Seniors. There comes a point in a lot of old peoples lives where they can't remember their own names. When you get to that point I don't think you are qualified to vote.

[dukkillr]

Several posts deleted.  Please act like adults.

[NWBear]

The money spent on wars amounted to very little and created many jobs.  Ron Paul is unelectable.

Not to hijack the thread, but does this mean you are for for government spending since it creates jobs (many jobs)? 
Please don't reply with, private sector... if your product eventually goes into a government product (including soldiers) it IS a government funded job.
Just curious - I know government spending creates jobs because I see lots of people working there right now.

[1sourdough]

 NO.

[Singleshotsam]

Data would indicate that in 2008 Obama's best supporters were White males and females over the age of 30...

 
 
I seriously doubt that (actually, I would call it BS).  He may have received more votes from them, but only because they have the most votes.  His "best" supporters would clearly have been black voters, who gave him more than 90% of their votes.  Unless, of course, you are trying to say that more than 90% of white males and females over 30 voted for him.
 
 
Also, do you think he would have won without the under 30 vote AND the black vote AND the hispanic vote?  I do not.

Well since my post to Casull was deleted I'll rephrase it so in a way that hopefully wont get deleted. 

You've called BS on my part of the discussion but you have neglected to offer up any evidence to debuke it other than your opinion.  Which is odd because in a previous comment to NW, you specifically asked for "Proof". 

I don't buy that for a second.  If you have some "proof", I'd like to see it.  It was the young and the undeclared moderates that put him over.  I'd guess that there are about 40% Republican in this country.  Obama garnered well under 60% of the vote, so I doubt he had much in the way of cross over Republicans.

You've also done your best to take my quote out of context.  My quote about removing the young americans voting totals was referring to the fact that Obama would have still recieved the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election.  Removing the young vote only changed the demographic in 2 states with too few electoral votes to make a difference.  The same thing happens if you specifically remove the hispanic vote seperately.  The same thing happens if you remove the black votes seperately.  Different demographics and states change when you remove a specific race or classification from the data.

My point was that it was still a majority of white Americans over the age of 30 that got BHO elected.  If you can't accept the facts that I presented Casull then maybe you should find some data that backs up your opinion and debunks mine.  Until you do that then my points are still very much valid.
 
 

[osokusmc]

Ron Paul will never get the Republican nomination. Although I agree with most of his positions on the Domestic front, his isolationist position on the International front is his downfall. In this Global economy where the economic health of the world is interlinked isolationism is not possible.  The lunatic fringe liberals, so called environmentalist, use the liberal court system from allowing the US from developing our resources so we can become energy independant. It appears that Ron Paul is not a friend of Israel (he seems to be in Obama's court on this issue). He apparently will do nothing to keep the culturally retarded Muslims from continueing to overtake the world. Ron Paul is just not a viable choice for the Republican nomination.

Ron Paul is proposing the end of all foreign aid.  Isreal would lose their aid, but so would their enemies who get several times more aid from America than Isreal does.  This would be a net gain for Isreal.  Ron Paul believes in letting Isreal defend themselves as they see fit, he was one of just a handful of people who didn't condemn Isreal for defending themselves in, I believe, the early eighties.  The Isreali prime minister said in front of Congress recently that Isreal could defend themselves.  The minister and Ron Paul share very similar ideas on the relationship between Isreal and America.  If you are one who would like to see Iran get their hide tanned, then you should vote for Ron Paul, he is the only candidate including Obrahma, that would untie the hands of Isreal.  I think Isreal would straighten out Iran in short order.

[chefjeff]

SSS, I concur...

[Singleshotsam]

Paul wanting to end all foreign is the only sane move a candidate who has America's best intrests in mind could make.  Were are 15 TRILLION dollars in debt.  And were giving countries like Saudi Arabia foreign aid!?  If there is another candidate that has a plan to cut over 1 trillion dollars in spending the first year then I'm all ears... 

[osokusmc]

The money spent on wars amounted to very little and created many jobs.  Ron Paul is unelectable.

Jobs "created" by the government don't count toward helping the economy and in fact hurt the economy, even/especially if the jobs are war related.  The source of all true wealth is thought and labor applied to natural resources.  The only way war could help the American economy is if we kept what we conquered in an amount greater than what it cost us to conquer it.  Money changing hands does not translate into economic growth. 

[Gary G]

The money spent on wars amounted to very little and created many jobs.  Ron Paul is unelectable.

Jobs "created" by the government don't count toward helping the economy and in fact hurt the economy, even/especially if the jobs are war related.  The source of all true wealth is thought and labor applied to natural resources.  The only way war could help the American economy is if we kept what we conquered in an amount greater than what it cost us to conquer it.  Money changing hands does not translate into economic growth.

+1
The wealth of a nation is the sum total of the goods it produces. It is the product of what osokusmc said about labor applied resources. War is nothing but the destruction of the things already produced, not to mention the destruction and mangling of human capital. It's result is not only debt, but also wasted resources.


Fire the government and save money.

[Casull]

Singleshotsam, I explained it once (with statistics).  I'm not about to retype it just because you missed it (if you actually did).   

[Singleshotsam]

Casull, I read your "statistics".  I found that there was little in the way of fact offered up by them.  No sources.  No links.  Just some random numbers you selected. 

My point to you sir, is that if you are going to demand "proof" from others, then we will hold you to your own standards in a discussion.  NWHunter provided links to the facts he was posting because you demanded it.  I did the same out of courtesy to fulfill your need for "Proof".  Please don't be a hypocryte.
 
As far as the main topic progression goes.  If Ron Paul were to get the GOP Nomination, I do believe his views on fixing this nation would give him enough popular support to win the Presidency.  After all, he is the only true conservative running.

The Democrats are now Communists.  The Republicans are now Liberals.  And the Liberitarians are now the Conservatives.  Only now since it's a "two party system"  Anyone with old school conservative views are labeled crazy and extremist. 

We only have a small window of opprotunity left to pull our heads out of our butts and fix this country before that window shuts for good.

[Casull]

Ok, singleshotsam, here you go:
 
 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2008/11/what_we_didnt_overcome.html
 
 
 
Seems obama did NOT receive a majority of the white vote (not even close), but McCain did.  So, you might want to reassess your statement, or at least your snide comments.  BTW, I did not see any proof provided by you that obama's best support came from white voters (clearly it did not). 

[Singleshotsam]

Casull, While I applaud your first step forward to try and back your arguement with facts, I have to point out one thing.

I never said that more whites voted for Obama than McCain.  My arguement was that out of the people who voted for Obama, older white people made up the majority.
 
White people in general made up 60% of the total vote for Obama.  See below...

According to the below CNN exit poll, 43% of whites surveyed voted for Obama, and they made up 74% of the sample.

So, given that 131.2 million total votes were cast in the 2008 presidential election, that would imply that 41.7 million white people voted for Obama, or about 60% of the 69.4 million people who voted for him.
 Source(s): http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Uni…

[Casull]

Casull, While I applaud your first step forward to try and back your arguement with facts, I have to point out one thing.

I never said that more whites voted for Obama than McCain.  My arguement was that out of the people who voted for Obama, older white people made up the majority.
 
White people in general made up 60% of the total vote for Obama.

 
 
Well, singleshotsam, thank you for the left handed compliment.  But, that is a strained bit of logic.  You stated that

Data would indicate that in 2008 Obama's best supporters were White males and females over the age of 30...

.  Yes, the majority of his votes may have come from white people, but only because they are the vast majority of voters.  They certainly were not his "best supporters".  In fact, they were his biggest opponents and were McCain's best supporters.  It defies logic to say that when the majority of a group of people vote AGAINST someone that they are his "best supporters".

[Singleshotsam]

So where's the proof that a white male or female over the age of 30, that voted for Obama, is less of a supporter than a person under the age of 30 regardless of race?  Who do you think was giving more in campaign contributions per person?  The young college student?  Or the wealthy white guy over 30?

[dukkillr]

Casull, While I applaud your first step forward to try and back your arguement with facts, I have to point out one thing.

I never said that more whites voted for Obama than McCain.  My arguement was that out of the people who voted for Obama, older white people made up the majority.
 
White people in general made up 60% of the total vote for Obama.

 
 
Well, singleshotsam, thank you for the left handed compliment.  But, that is a strained bit of logic.  You stated that

Data would indicate that in 2008 Obama's best supporters were White males and females over the age of 30...

.  Yes, the majority of his votes may have come from white people, but only because they are the vast majority of voters.  They certainly were not his "best supporters".  In fact, they were his biggest opponents and were McCain's best supporters.  It defies logic to say that when the majority of a group of people vote AGAINST someone that they are his "best supporters".

SSS picked a bad word when he used the term, "best".  I'm not aware of exactly how one would pick their, "best" supporters in an election.  If I were a candidate I would consider my biggest demographic the most important because if you lose them you won't win.  If I get 100% of the left handed, female, balding, Native American, aircraft mechanics they may be the strongest in terms of support, but they won't help me win very much, thus it would be hard to call them the, "best". 
 
Here's the thing, I think you knew what he was trying to say...  I think you chose not to address the substance... either way, this little pi$$ing match has gone on long enough... why don't you two find your way towards the substance of the thread?

[Casull]

Ok, dukkiller, you and singleshotsam win.  White voters "supported" obama by mostly voting for McCain.