Obama’s Policies

This is a classic example of how people are brainwashed into voting for politicians without even knowing what their policies are.

This is what the Demo☭rats rely on: the ignorance of the masses.

Posted by Macker  on  10/13  at  05:13 PM

Couple of things I’ve noticed about voters in general—

(This is life experience and personal observation talking.  Frankly, the poli-sci classes I took in college weren’t worth it and I learned more OUTSIDE the class and just listening to people are work!)

A) People vote on name recognition.  That’s the only reason I can think of for why Kennedys continue to be elected into office!  I really don’t buy the notion that people are voting for old Ted because they really like him or agree with his policies…

Right now, Obama has way more campaign advertising than McCain.  For sure, he’s done some underhanded things and a lot of the money is undocumented as to its source of origin, but he’s blanketing about every media you can think of including new Internet and videogame avenues!  That helps name-recognition even if it’s VERY annoying to some people (including yours truly).

B)  There’s no question people vote in groups.  Blacks voted for Republicans before FDR.  After FDR threw them a fine nice-sounding lines, made promises to them (he mostly didn’t keep!) and put pressure on factories to employ Blacks during World War II, they started voting Democrat.  For the most part, Dems haven’t done that much for any minority group since the 1960s and take it for granted their vote is bought forever!  General voting trends tend to support this.

American Jews also tend to vote Democratic based on progressive platforms.  I would tend to think pro-Israel platforms are becoming less important over time to American Jews as their worldview diverges more by the decade from Israeli Jews.

C) Economics are going to trump real-world politic any day of the week.  Americans are generally clueless about the realities of economic downturns and corrections and go on like Chicken Little when downturns happen.  People want immediate action taken to fix things and don’t think about about how the power-players created these problems in the first place and how keeping them AWAY from the money is probably a better idea!

This is the perfect time for a charismatic nobody to capture high-office.  It worked for Carter in the 1970s—although he had the spectre of Watergate to work with as well—and it worked for Clinton, too.

Clinton eeked out two terms because of Ross Perot (‘92) and Bob Dole’s generally ineffective campaigning (‘96).  His personal charisma (while I never fell for it—I saw the guy for what he was) was enough to convince enough voters to re-elect.  It’s sad to say but Bob Dole was more effective on SNL and the Daily Show than he ever was campaigning!

I really see economics and ineffective campaigning (by McCain) putting Obama in the White House.

Unless Obama’s really as good as Clinton was with the public, I still don’t see him lasting more than one-term.  When the honeymoon’s over and his closet of skeletons and his general lack of knowledge about the real world outside his home in Chicago come back to haunt him, he may make Carter look like a great president!

(Carter wasn’t a great president…  Best thing that old fellow does is grouse about everything and everyone and generally behave like a pain-in-the-ass.  The Clintons sure didn’t like him, either…  Habitat for Humanity aside, I generally have no use for an ex-President who can’t stop badmouthing his successors and government for one minute WHILE HE’S OVERSEAS talking to legitimate world leaders and dictators!)

Posted by  on  10/14  at  06:35 PM

All I know is that if Obama gets elected, I hope he doesn’t let me down.  If he’s as good as he claims to be, he’d better prove it . . .

And I agree about Clinton (I supported him back in ‘92, and was kind of disappointed with him later on), even though he’s not without his merits.

Posted by John Cassidy  on  10/15  at  04:06 AM

I doubt if Obama can handle the job. His record as a state and US senator is poor. He has done nothing of note, he barely shows up for work and when he does he just votes along party lines 95% of the time.

Consider that his party leads the senate and congress with a 12% approval rating. And this is who he votes with 95% of the time.

Posted by  on  10/15  at  10:40 AM

I fear many voters don’t care what he does or doesn’t do.  He’s got the words.  He’s got the looks.  He’s got their vote.

Posted by Amritas  on  10/15  at  06:58 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main