Who Can Win in November?

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: abfabinri @ 01/01/2008 12:28:42 PM

    Obama can't win the general election. The Republicans would have a field day with the "cocaine Muslim" comments and every white redneck would come out to vote against him. Is this racist--sure it is but it also the reality.

    • Posted By: aconservativedemocrat @ 01/01/2008 12:39:35 PM

      I agree, but as I said in my post there are plenty of Liberal racists in Blue states and cities (like NYC) who won't vote for him either. It isn't just Southerners and those from more conservative regions.

  • Posted By: Degrizz55 @ 01/01/2008 12:37:16 PM

    Amazing! How can such an informed writer join the other "I'll inform you with what I want you to know" hype and continue to miss mentioning the one who will really make a difference for out nation! No mention of Ron Paul? Your silence betrays you!

  • Posted By: warrior dowager @ 01/01/2008 10:54:20 AM

    Obama's visions for the future are appealing--until you match that with Hillary's pragmatic plan based upon long experience. We are not voting a prom king or queen. The choice
    between appeal and experience will shape our nation's future for generations to come.

    • Posted By: Schroeder108 @ 01/01/2008 12:31:58 PM

      All of the Democratic Candidates have great credentials, but the main issue is who can win. I am a yellow dog democrat and nothing will ever change, I will support and fight like heck in the presidential campaign. But the real issue is who can beat the GOP. The only candidate who can bring the independents, swing voters, moderates, Republicans who cannot vote for another republican, and the Dems is Senator Joe Biden. Good Gosh! This is it folks, if we have to get it right this time. I wish that all voters would stop looking at the celebrity, the money, the sizzle and start thinking long and hard about who we can nominate who will win in November, Joe Biden is the one. He will bring everyone to the table, he has proven he can work with Congress in a bipartisan manner and he is tough and can deal with the foreign policy and domestic policy that has been ignored for the past 8 years.

      Everyday Joe Biden is doing the job of the President....what does that tell you. While Bush is at his Crawford farm, Joe Biden is talking to the leaders in the Middle East. Joe Biden is already performing the duties of the President, and he is making progress....He is the only candidate who can win in November. There is not one GOP candidate who can match Joe's experience.

  • Posted By: revnana @ 01/01/2008 11:49:56 AM

    I agree with Schroeder108 about Biden - he's certainly the one with the most qualifications - both domestically AND in foreign policy. After this week of news from Pakistan, I don't understand why everyone isn't moving in the Biden direction. He's been the only one with a real plan for Iraq; he's got the experience with leaders all over the world. Come on, press people - give him a fair look even though you're not impressed with his money! And, if he gets "talky" once in a while, maybe it would be good to listen to what he's saying instead of complaining that he's talking more than your sound bites allow!

  • Posted By: Lenedone @ 12/31/2007 8:06:06 PM

    Your analysis is cogent and logical for the most part, but then you developed a rather quixotic paradox when discussing Obama chances of winning. For all the reasons you stated as ???Cons??? the Republicans will decimate Obama, and yes, race will play a part albeit covertly, especially in the south. Remember, the out of wedlock child rumor used against John McCain 8 years ago, and the ???call me Harold??? ad. against senatorial candidate Harold ford in the ???06 elections.

    From an electoral college perspective, Obama will not win a Southern State, and he will do no better, and quite possibly worse than John Kerry. Therefore, if a landslide occurs it will be in an Obama loss not the other way around.

    A similar analysis for Hilary shows that she will win every state that John Kerry won, plus Florida and Ohio, giving her at a minimum 298 to the Republican nominee 239. She also has a better than 50% chance of winning a few other states including Iowa and Arkansas.

    Finally, your analysis has the fatal flaw of assuming surprises against Hillary which is quite unlikely given the length of time she has been in the spotlight, but most importantly, swift boating her will be difficult and extremely risky given her gender. Hillary will win the general elections if she becomes her party nominee. Do not bet against it.


    Lenedone

    • Posted By: aconservativedemocrat @ 01/01/2008 11:17:20 AM

      Hillary's negatives are formidable. Mos men cross their legs when her name is mentioned, and more than a few women (including many female Democrats) can't stand her and won't vote for her. She won't win Florida and Ohio would be very difficult.

  • Posted By: fedupdemo @ 01/01/2008 10:55:27 AM

    None of the above. As a life long democrat (55 yrs) I would not give them the time of day for these do-nothing cowards who have let the Bush Cheney Reich lose America. If Bloomberg runs I'll vote for him, if not, its back to Nader.

    • Posted By: Schroeder108 @ 01/01/2008 11:16:53 AM

      You show em' fedupdemo, go right ahead and hand our future right back into the hands of the religious right's hands. The answer is to put the Democrats back in control of the Senate and the House and the White House. We are to blame, the voters for not giving them enough of a majority to make the changes. we can only blame ourselves....

  • Posted By: Schroeder108 @ 01/01/2008 11:13:28 AM

    It never ceases to amaze me that the mainstream press and the journalists
    believe that they have so much control over the minds of the American
    People. I have personally resented their opinion that because they are
    journalists they will decide the most important decision that this country
    will ever face, the election of a president. Mr. Alter did not fail to
    mention Joe Biden who has a tremendous amount of experience with domestic
    and foreign policy, but his analysis of Joe Biden was lacking to say the
    least. Mr. Alter you mention gaffes, hasn't eight years with a president
    who cannot complete a sentence make gaffes pretty much moot, Mr. Alter
    brushes right past Senator Biden, stating that Biden cannot carry the
    message of change for the Democrats, Senator Biden is capable of bringing
    everyone to the table and repairing the divide, your comments are much like
    I have noticed with other pundits. You just do not want to give Joe Biden
    anymore attention than necessary because he is a strong candidate. Mr. Alter, your not going to brainwash the American people with your opinions, as much as you would like to think you have that much mind control
    over the people is comical, but more insulting to the voter.

    And for fedupdemo below, you show em' vote for Bloomberg and hand over the whole ball of wax back to a republican. The real blame for the quagmire we are in goes to the people, that is right, fedupdemo, your just as much to blame as every other voter. We have not had the votes to do what needs to be done, and whose fault is that, it is the fault of the voter, but you go ahead big boy and show em.....

  • Posted By: Elastigirl @ 12/31/2007 2:54:29 PM

    "Heavy black vote could tip a couple of Red states into the Blue column, while those against him because of race wouldn't be voting Democratic anyway."

    So, if you are a Democrat, you COULDN'T be a racist? Let me tell you, racism doesn't run across party lines, and for you to say something like that is inflammatory and biased. I live in the pacific Northwest, and let me assure you democrats can be as racist as the next person. In fact, more so with the ones I know. They are still toasting Kennedy and what he did for the white collar worker, and how he helped the "coloreds", even when they didn't deserve it. Several of them want to appeal Martin Luther King's birthday as a holiday. Pretty heinous, huh? It is to ME. Shocking? Not to anyone who has an open ears and open eyes. To placate yourself into believing racism is dead except for a select few is ignorance, and to draw it by party lines--foolishness. No, my mistaken friend, racisim is alive and well, even in the forward thinking West, beven by *GASP* the democrats.

    • Posted By: aconservativedemocrat @ 01/01/2008 11:09:47 AM

      Amen. I live in the Bluest section of the Bluest state (i.e., New York City) and I know plenty of Liberal racists. America is not ready to elect a Black president.

  • Posted By: aconservativedemocrat @ 01/01/2008 11:07:32 AM

    I'm glad Jonathan mentioned that "[d]epth of American racism unclear". Let's put it out there. America is not ready to elect a Black president. We Blacks know this because of the way we're treated (overtly and subtly) every day. I live in a Blue state and there's plenty of racism hear. Much amusingly from white Liberals. When you start to see Blacks representing majority white districts in state legislatures and Congress, you'll know America's ready for a Black. Until then, we're deluding ourselves. If Obama makes it to the general election (which I can't conceive of given the Clinton's machine) whites who haven't voted in decades will come out to make sure he doesn't take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The best person to lead the country (and probably the most appealing candidate generally) is John McCain. If Americans are foolish enough to pass on him again we deserve what we get.

  • Posted By: warrior dowager @ 01/01/2008 10:51:23 AM

    Gran tned, Obama is personally appealing; however, visions of the future in no way trump Hillary's education and experience. Theoretically, Obama can promise us the moon;
    actually, Hilllary knows what lies ahead. We are not voting for a prom queen and king.
    Hillary's experience addresses the make or break for the US for years to come.

  • Posted By: schustej @ 01/01/2008 10:49:39 AM

    A 3rd party candidacy - with money - would have a better chance in this electoral environment than at any time in the last 60 years. Add Sam Nunn to a Bloomberg candidacy and you have instant credibility.

  • Posted By: elite1ceo @ 12/31/2007 11:20:22 PM

    Why would you include people like Chris Dodd and Fred Thompson ... but leave out Ron Paul. Ron Paul has huge support among people who do not fit the normal "polling" profile but are still likely voters.

    • Posted By: lynnmike @ 01/01/2008 12:01:29 AM

      Let's be serious, Ron Paul was elected as a congrressmen, He has a nice, extreme platform to eliminate taxes, but does anyone believe he is a viable candidate?>

      oops..time to go and wish 2008 glad tidiings for ajl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Posted By: averagejoe @ 01/01/2008 10:48:17 AM

        Yes, millions of people of do think he is electable. and judging by the medias complete dismissal of him confirms the status quo is getting a little nervous about his electability as well.

  • Posted By: schustej @ 01/01/2008 10:47:00 AM

    A 3rd party candidate with money would have a better chance in this year's electoral environment than at any other time in the last 60 years. Add Sam Nunn to a Bloomberg candidacy and you have instant credibility.

  • Posted By: discipulo @ 01/01/2008 10:46:40 AM

    Where is your most enlightened analysis of Ron Paul?
    You slipped Dodd and Biden in there but "forgot" about Paul?

    For shame! You, sir, are part of the problem.

  • Posted By: discipulo @ 01/01/2008 10:45:50 AM

    Where is your most enlightened analysis of Ron Paul?
    You slipped Dodd and Biden in there but forgot Paul?

    For shame! You, sir, are part of the problem.

  • Posted By: averagejoe @ 01/01/2008 10:39:03 AM

    Where is the mention of Dr. Ron Paul? the "mainstream" press has no shame in trying to ignore this years history making candidate. If it says anything, it should be positive in that Dr. Paul is not beholden to the corporate/media interests that are destroying this country.

  • Posted By: Jermo @ 01/01/2008 10:37:14 AM

    I have more chance to win as a regular joe than any of the current candidates. Although Ron Paul is my favorite candidate I find he's just a little too far "out there" for me. No other candiate is even marginally close. In November I may find myself voting for an independant over any of the current Republican canditates since Ron Paul has stated he has no "plans" to run as an independant.

    It's unfortunate our election process has been reduced to who can generate the most money to buy the most press/exposure. I believe we as a country lose.

    I know I would be a better president than any of the current candidates simply because I've not been corrupted by years in Washington. Politics as a vocation ultimately destroy's a person's ability to be objective to the American condition and our constitutional way of life.
    Jerry Moore

  • Posted By: Gigs @ 01/01/2008 10:32:56 AM

    Of course Ron Paul is the most electable. An organization like Newsweek that relies on the status quo would never dare to mention someone who might bring real change.

  • Posted By: Dr K @ 01/01/2008 9:50:49 AM

    Ron Paul? He is not even worthy to lick the boot of the only inspirational agent of change out there -- of course I am speaking of Mike Gravel. Anyone who has seen his Xmas ad can attest to his messianic populism -- who but the Lord Gravel would spike the punch bowl even further and simulate snorting coke as silver confetti filled the screen, And you speak of Ron Paul's "greatness"? I laugh at you! Now back to the future. Alter didn't mention St Paulie Girl because he has no legitimate chance of being elected. Notice how the BIg A didn't mention Lord Gravel or Impish Dennis.

  • Posted By: xtrabiggg @ 12/31/2007 6:16:50 PM

    Ron Paul is the only candidate to set himself apart form the rest of the field, Democrat or Republican. Your ignoring him for lackadaisical ham-actors like Fred Thompson, the Christian Ayatollah Mike Huckabee or the Waffler-in-Chief Mitt Romney is appallingly sloppy journalism. Perhaps it's the fact that he's the ONLY candidate for an end to the Iraq war (let alone a quick one) that worries your possible loss of advertising dollars from the Military Bloc. Or maybe it's the fact that his opposition to The Federal Reserve's stranglehold on the U.S. Economy when they are neither elected, appointed or accountable to congress (let alone transparent). Maybe it's his sensible foreign policy that scares you, where he says we should stop shoving dictators down other countries' throats and calling it 'spreading democracy'. Perhaps you don't like the fact that he's the only candidate with a REAL plan to not only allow young people to opt out of Social security, but a REAL, WORKABLE plan to FULLY FUND Social Security and Medicare for those still relying on it now and for the forseeable future.

    Naaaah. I think it's because Newsweek still wants a 'Status-Quo' candidate who will promise everyone the world, then only deliver to the people who bought and paid for him! If that's what you want, anyone else will do, except Ron Paul!

    xtrabiggg
    +++++++++++++++++++

    • Posted By: Earl E @ 01/01/2008 8:59:56 AM

      Ron Paul does not need to debate on Fox. Putting him onstage with giggleing little girls and pompous ass circus leader clowns is demeaning to the greatness of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the name which cannot be spoken. Who is Ron Paul? Ask the Fox crew. They'll say some candidate running for the wrong party in the wrong country. .... taking his marching orders from Al Queada somewhere in Pakistan....

      I just hope a time comes when we can sue the media for having an opinion. An opinion is a covert operation paid for by non-us government operatives for the purpose of financial gain through manipulation of the electoral system. We need to exact a fine for every occurance.

    • Posted By: ducdebrabant @ 12/31/2007 7:06:24 PM

      Before you call Mike Huckabee "the Christian Ayatollah," you should know that your "Dr." Paul (why do members of Congress insist on clingint to the "Dr." title?) declares his non-belief in evolution too. That's right. Life didn't evolve upon this planet. It must be hard being such a religious troglodyte that everytime a flu virus mutates into a more severe strain you have to whistle "Dixie' and think of something else.

      • Posted By: aclove78 @ 01/01/2008 1:56:05 AM

        A couple of things, "duce". We still call him "Dr." because you don't lose the medical degree you went to school for 8 years or more to earn just because you are elected as a representative of the people. Second, there isn't a religious test for public service in this country, or at least there isn't supposed to be. Liberals don't rag Romney for being a Mormon, but it's okay to go after Dr. Paul for what he believes? And the reason we're giving Huckabee flack about religion is because he's waving it around in people's faces to curry favor and votes. Dr. Paul never brings up his personal beliefs unless he's pressed on it, because it's classless pandering to do so.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse