Old Article on "Why Obama Is A Sure Loser"

Minnesota is a special case because of the Democrat Farmer-Labor Party; this was in any case a state that went for Mondale, for various reasons not a good bellwether.

"old"?

this seems very recent.

Oh it could be.

Something about it gave me the impression it was older, I was probably wrong though.

2-8-8, today

Something about it gave me the impression it was older

prob the geocities look

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/flor_dees.JPG

Y'all do realize that Jeff Rense is nothing more than a poor man's Art Bell, right?

http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/newh.gif

LOL

Yeah

I just googled that name Jeff Rense, and lol at the main page of the website

Both seem ridiculous

I'm really skeptical of any conspiracy bullshit but this article seemed interesting and the author Webster Tarpley seems more credible than Jeff Rense

I don't know it could be utter nonsense

he's worldwide on the worldwide web!

i trust that hair implicitly

yeah i hesitated on going ad hominem on dude but really

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5175AMCZZTL._AA240_.jpg

This might be one of my dumber threads.

Whoa, so it turned out that that guy DIDN'T die during/after Katrina. I'm surprised.

The main problem with this article is that "Obama can't win California!" presumes that if he ends up as the nominee that Hillary voters will suddenly switch to McCain. Which I don't really see happening.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5521/imageuploadimageps0.jpg

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2045/imageuploadimagehf0.jpg

I think Art Bell may have more integrity.

this article is full of logical fallacies and lacking in punctuation

This article is pretty clearly an attempt to sweep together every possible argument that has been made against Obama into the same dustbin.
It is the old reliable shotgun approach. If most of the pellets whiz past you harmlessly, a few might wing you.

Some of the arguments hold some water, such as the fact that Utah and Idaho will not be voting for the democratic candidate in the GE and therefore the fact that Obama is supported by Idaho's and Utah's democrats loses all signifigance once the convention is over.

Some of the arguments are pure scandalmongering, like the 'Rezko is a notorious slumlord and he pulls Obama's strings' story. Some of the arguments are just fabulous bullshit, like the Trilateral Commission fable.

A good political surrogate will repeat all these stories, however absurd they seem, in the hope that it will resonate with someone, anyone, to the point where they will be totally turned off on the targeted politican. All it takes is for some of the mud to stick.

That's what Swift-boating is all about. That's all that Rense is doing here. Who knows what his motives are. It seems a sleazy way to make a buck.

Don't shortchange swift-boating. You need money, intelligence, organization, and a core of purest evil to pull off a good swift-boat. This is, at best, mudslinging.

Idaho has three fucking electoral votes.

Some of the arguments hold some water, such as the fact that Utah and Idaho will not be voting for the democratic candidate in the GE and therefore the fact that Obama is supported by Idaho's and Utah's democrats loses all signifigance once the convention is over.

This contest is between two Democrats, chosen (for the most part) by Democrats. Who says Democrats in California or New York will be predictive of how independents will vote in a contest between a Republican and a Democrat?

But even if you agree Red state Democrats aren't significant in predicting a win in the General election, the same would be true of blue states like California and New York. If they're going to vote Democratic anyway, why should we care who they prefer in the primary?

It would follow that the Democratic candidate who wins the swing state primaries is the one who will most likely win the GE.

Not that I agree with this argument, anyway.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/corpwatch.org/img/pic/2swingonly.gif

not only Dems are voting in these things

you can also look at the demographics of the voters, their locations, their numbers compared to other votes, etc.