• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Howard Dean in 2016

Dean 2016?

  • He'll try; I won't support him.

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • He'll try; I'd be willing to support him.

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • He won't run, but I wish he would.

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • He won't run, Thank God.

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Does his sausage taste as good as his brother Jimmy's does?

    Votes: 5 31.3%

  • Total voters
    16
Sure....but it wasn't the factor that caused people to vote for him. I doubt highly that even 1/100th of 1% voted for him because he was black. To say so is just silly.

I think you are underestimating the role it played, especially when it came to bringing out hitherto untapped voters. Just as a thought experiment: Do you think a white candidate with a white name and Obama's background would have whipped up the same level of excitement and voter turnout especially in crucial minority strongholds and college aged voters? I personally have a hard time believing that, especially when matched against Hillary Clinton. Being black allowed his campaign to underscore a tremendous narrative that would not have resonated nearly as much had he been white.
 
LOL.....ok.....1 person out of how many million?
LOL.... that's STILL one person, and a fairly influential person at that, which trashes your original argument about my comment not being based in reality. Samuel L's comments were very significant in that he was voicing what most libs were already thinking. You'd have to be a complete Harry Reid airhead to not see that. Are you a Harry Reid airhead, disneydude?
 
I think you are underestimating the role it played, especially when it came to bringing out hitherto untapped voters. Just as a thought experiment: Do you think a white candidate with a white name and Obama's background would have whipped up the same level of excitement and voter turnout especially in crucial minority strongholds and college aged voters? I personally have a hard time believing that, especially when matched against Hillary Clinton. Being black allowed his campaign to underscore a tremendous narrative that would not have resonated nearly as much had he been white.

I think he got elected for a a few of reasons:

1)because his name wasn't Bush or Clinton.

2) He was relatively unknown by most people.

3) Bush had pretty much made people tired of Republicans at the time.

4) The birther movement.

5) The best the GOP could come up with was McCain and Palin.
 
I think you are underestimating the role it played, especially when it came to bringing out hitherto untapped voters. Just as a thought experiment: Do you think a white candidate with a white name and Obama's background would have whipped up the same level of excitement and voter turnout especially in crucial minority strongholds and college aged voters? I personally have a hard time believing that, especially when matched against Hillary Clinton. Being black allowed his campaign to underscore a tremendous narrative that would not have resonated nearly as much had he been white.

Some of what you say is true...but you are over-estimating the role that it played. There is no indication that Obama caused so much excitement that cause large numbers of untapped voters to register and vote. I would say that it had more to do with his youth and his charisma than it had anything to do with his skin color. Obama generated excitement among young voters because he wasn't a boring old guy and spoke to them. It wasn't his skin color that did that.
 
LOL.... that's STILL one person, and a fairly influential person at that, which trashes your original argument about my comment not being based in reality. Samuel L's comments were very significant in that he was voicing what most libs were already thinking. You'd have to be a complete Harry Reid airhead to not see that. Are you a Harry Reid airhead, disneydude?


Sorry...but one person does not support your asinine comment. You are grasping at straws and doing acrobats to try to extrapolate a point that you cannot prove....because it is a silly thesis that does not exist outside of your right-wing propoganda. Sorry...but once again and epic failure on your part.
 
Duane Swierczynski trying to run for office.

I have no idea who that is, but he has my vote. About time we had someone with an unpronounceable Polish name in the White House.
 
Howard Dean 2016? Hmm. I am conflicted. Tempted to say yes - because I certainly want Democrats to lose.
But wouldn't it mean that Republicans win? Damn.
 
I think he got elected for a a few of reasons:

1)because his name wasn't Bush or Clinton.

2) He was relatively unknown by most people.

3) Bush had pretty much made people tired of Republicans at the time.

4) The birther movement.

5) The best the GOP could come up with was McCain and Palin.

I agree with most of what you said. Voters being tired of the Republicans and a bummed out economy as it was, the GOP probably could have ran Lincoln and still lost. In 2008, I think McCain was probably the Republicans best choice, although that best meant relative little and Palin was the wrong candidate for VP which hurt an already weak candidacy even more. The promise of change and cooperation between the two parties coming from Obama was enough for him to win the independents and cement the election.
 
Sorry...but one person does not support your asinine comment. You are grasping at straws and doing acrobats to try to extrapolate a point that you cannot prove....because it is a silly thesis that does not exist outside of your right-wing propoganda. Sorry...but once again and epic failure on your part.
I guess I could keep responding to your vacuous comments, but I'm not going to do that anymore. You and I both know who is wrong, and it's not me. That's all that really matters.

Kudos to you for keeping my attention this long. ;)
 
Last edited:
LOL.... that's STILL one person, and a fairly influential person at that, which trashes your original argument about my comment not being based in reality. Samuel L's comments were very significant in that he was voicing what most libs were already thinking. You'd have to be a complete Harry Reid airhead to not see that. Are you a Harry Reid airhead, disneydude?

And some people voted for McCain/Romney because he was white. Yeah, sure there are plenty of folks who voted Obama purely on the color of his skin.

McCain lost because he was a Republican coming out of the Bush years. ANY Republican would have had a seriously hard time purely because of the R after their name. After the Bush Debacle Years, the Democrats could have run Dick Gephardt and stand a good chance at winning. You are placing way too much emphasis on Obama's skin color rather than the horrid chances at a Republican for the Office Of the Presidency had in 2007-2008.

Romney lost the election for a large numbers of reasons.
 
What think you. I think he is going to make a run for it now that Benghazi will haunt Hillary and Biden. He disapproved of Obama's budget plans, he and his wife are both physicians I believe so he will have real world insight into the fiasco that is to come, and he was very good at organizing grassroot support.

Unless more comes out about Benghazi than already has I don't think it will hurt Clinton or Biden. Right now and even when fresh in the 2012 elections it did not seem to be an issue that resonates with voters.

I wouldn't vote for Dean, but I don't expect him to run again at 68. If he did, I think he'd have a tough time winning the Democratic Primary even if Hillary and Biden didn't run. He'd be on a tier behind O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Cuomo, Warner, and Schweitzer if he ran. But then again, McCain won in 2008 in a similar situation, so you never know.
 
And some people voted for McCain/Romney because he was white. Yeah, sure there are plenty of folks who voted Obama purely on the color of his skin.

McCain lost because he was a Republican coming out of the Bush years. ANY Republican would have had a seriously hard time purely because of the R after their name. After the Bush Debacle Years, the Democrats could have run Dick Gephardt and stand a good chance at winning. You are placing way too much emphasis on Obama's skin color rather than the horrid chances at a Republican for the Office Of the Presidency had in 2007-2008.

Romney lost the election for a large numbers of reasons.
Oh, I agree. I'm certain every single member of the KKK who did vote, voted for McCain or Romney. But again, they're no better than the millions of racists who voted for Obama because he's black. Say, do you happen to have any video clips of prominent conservatives stating that they voted for McCain or Romney because they are white?

McCain lost because he was conflicted. He also lost because the Left pegged him as a carryover from George Bush, and he failed to convince otherwise.

Romney lost for many of the same reasons.

Republicans will always lose until they call out the Democrats.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea who that is, but he has my vote. About time we had someone with an unpronounceable Polish name in the White House.




Works for me.

Howard Dean will not be running, you can take that to the bank.
 
I voted "I wish he would run". Why? Because I miss that damn scream. LOL.
 
Oh, I agree. I'm certain every single member of the KKK who did vote, voted for McCain or Romney. But again, they're no better than the millions of racists who voted for Obama because he's black. Say, do you happen to have any video clips of prominent conservatives stating that they voted for McCain or Romney because they are white?

If you think anyone votes on what Samuel Jackson said, you are deluded.

McCain lost because he was conflicted. He also lost because the Left pegged him as a carryover from George Bush, and he failed to convince otherwise.

Romney lost for many of the same reasons.

And none of those reasons have to do with Obama being half black.
 
Oh, I agree. I'm certain every single member of the KKK who did vote, voted for McCain or Romney. But again, they're no better than the millions of racists who voted for Obama because he's black. Say, do you happen to have any video clips of prominent conservatives stating that they voted for McCain or Romney because they are white?

McCain lost because he was conflicted. He also lost because the Left pegged him as a carryover from George Bush, and he failed to convince otherwise.

Romney lost for many of the same reasons.

Republicans will always lose until they call out the Democrats.

Republicans will lose until they:

(1) actually achieve a conservative goal (limit the size of government, significantly reduce divorce rates, etc)

(2) convince the center that conservative goals are still worth reaching for

Both are equally unlikely and have little to do with the behavior of the Democratic Party.
 
If you think anyone votes on what Samuel Jackson said, you are deluded.
Who told you that anyone doesn't? Are you omniscient too?

And none of those reasons have to do with Obama being half black.
I never said they did, but thanks for filling in for Disneydude. You're doing a great job in his absence. ;)
 
Who told you that anyone doesn't? Are you omniscient too?

I never said they did, but thanks for filling in for Disneydude. You're doing a great job in his absence. ;)

Except that you said Obama won because he was black.

Skin tone was the chief, if not only, reason Barack Obama was voted into office..

Oops.

Forget that eh?

FYI, Go read the new TOS. You are cruising for violations.

Too bad you can't go edit your posts.
 
Sorry, but the subject of racism started with you, just now (which is no surprise). And wrong, again. Most people who voted for Obama voted for him because it was of "historical significance" meaning, a black man had to be in office if America were ever going to be able to demonstrate that it practices what the Left preaches. Never mind that he wasn't qualified for the job.

The wrong is all on you.
How many people do you know personally that voted for Obama?
 
Except that you said Obama won because he was black.



Oops.

Forget that eh?

FYI, Go read the new TOS. You are cruising for violations.

Too bad you can't go edit your posts.
That is the main reason he won. As for McCain and Romney, I was referring to what they did to defeat themselves.

And why are you trying to fill in blanks where there aren't any?
 
Not likely. His campaign's greatest contribution was in terms of organization and party recruitment. That deserves enormous credit, but it does not lend itself to another Presidential run, especially against someone like Hillary or Biden.
 
That is the main reason he won. As for McCain and Romney, I was referring to what they did to defeat themselves.

And why are you trying to fill in blanks where there aren't any?

He didn't win because he was black. He won because the national mood soured on the Republican Party in general, and Bush in particular. 8 years in office tends to do that to political parties, and second terms tend to be sour notes for Presidents in the short term. Obama's race certainly helped his public persona and aura, but what mattered a great deal more was his predecessor's time in office.
 
Republicans will lose until they:

(1) actually achieve a conservative goal (limit the size of government, significantly reduce divorce rates, etc)

(2) convince the center that conservative goals are still worth reaching for

Both are equally unlikely and have little to do with the behavior of the Democratic Party.

Republicans will win when Democratic ideas and public perception tank. It didn't necessarily mean that Democrats needed to pull out of two wars to win an election. It just needed the mood to sour enough. The idea that you won't win an election by being against someone is only half-true. You need to be against someone and present a somewhat plausible platform of distinctions between yourself and the other guy. The amount of similarities between you and an opponent only need to be ignored in favor of the distinctions.
 
That is the main reason he won. As for McCain and Romney, I was referring to what they did to defeat themselves.

You do realize you just lied about your own statements?

Let's revisit what you said:

Skin tone was the chief, if not only, reason Barack Obama was voted into office.

Care to change your story?

And why are you trying to fill in blanks where there aren't any?

Well, I know you are massively dishonest and now I have you trapped. Let's see you try weasel out of this one.
 
Back
Top Bottom