Why Obama will lose in the fall

[Harvey Dent]

I still haven't heard anyone give a strong case for why Obama will lose in the fall.  I've seen plenty of people talk about why they think he should lose, but that's something quite different.

[Miss P]

I still haven't heard anyone give a strong case for why Obama will lose in the fall.  I've seen plenty of people talk about why they think he should lose, but that's something quite different.

I agree.  I don't think he's going to lose, but if he does, it will be because McCain/Palin played the Rovian game better than Obama/Biden did.

[vercingetorix]

Yes, those private investment dollars have obviously been a real boon to the economy over these last several years.  I can see why you'd want to keep more of them in individual hands.

without googling, can you tell me if fannie/mac are privately owned?

[vercingetorix]

I still haven't heard anyone give a strong case for why Obama will lose in the fall.  I've seen plenty of people talk about why they think he should lose, but that's something quite different.

that was my opening argument.  despite all of the positive polling with white/hispanic/asian voters, Obama will lose due to racism, specifically hispanic and asian racism.  most posters made light of this pointing out the small groups of latinos in key states.  i would argue that those small minorities are enough to win/lose an election. besides, in a year like this, the democratic nominee should be eons ahead of the republican.  instead we have a dead heat.  as much as you try to minimize this, democrats should be, and are, alarmed. this is particularly true when you consider the weaknesses inherent in a McCain/Palin ticket.  i mean come on.

[Harvey Dent]

I still haven't heard anyone give a strong case for why Obama will lose in the fall.  I've seen plenty of people talk about why they think he should lose, but that's something quite different.

despite all of the positive polling with white/hispanic/asian voters, Obama will lose due to racism, specifically hispanic and asian racism. 

I wouldn't consider that a particularly strong case, particularly given the fact that you are arguing that this will be the cause in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Of course, the strength or weakness of a particular argument is, at least to some degree, a matter of opinion, so if you think it's a strong case then there's not really much I can say about that.

[Miss P]

Yes, those private investment dollars have obviously been a real boon to the economy over these last several years.  I can see why you'd want to keep more of them in individual hands.

without googling, can you tell me if fannie/mac are privately owned?

Well, yes, they have just been taken into what I believe they are calling a "temporary public conservatorship" or something at a cost of $85 billion and considerable moral hazard.  Prior to that they were privately controlled but backed by government guarantees (since the late 1960s).  I am not sure what you're getting at, but if you are trying to suggest that the secondary mortgage market failed because of public malinvestment, I'd like you to try to articulate the argument. 

I still haven't heard anyone give a strong case for why Obama will lose in the fall.  I've seen plenty of people talk about why they think he should lose, but that's something quite different.

that was my opening argument.  despite all of the positive polling with white/hispanic/asian voters, Obama will lose due to racism, specifically hispanic and asian racism.  most posters made light of this pointing out the small groups of latinos in key states.  i would argue that those small minorities are enough to win/lose an election. besides, in a year like this, the democratic nominee should be eons ahead of the republican.  instead we have a dead heat.  as much as you try to minimize this, democrats should be, and are, alarmed. this is particularly true when you consider the weaknesses inherent in a McCain/Palin ticket.  i mean come on.

I am scared, but not because of purported Latino and Asian racism.  I am scared because of the effectiveness of Republican scare tactics and white racism.  We had considerable back and forth about this already, and I am not interested in discussing it further.  Your evidence is weak.  I believe you know it.

[Matthies]

I still haven't heard anyone give a strong case for why Obama will lose in the fall.  I've seen plenty of people talk about why they think he should lose, but that's something quite different.

Obama will lose due to racism, specifically hispanic and asian racism. 

OMG this is so true tottally see the tie in. I’m not voting for Obama and I’m racist against Asians and Latinos.

[vercingetorix]

Yes, those private investment dollars have obviously been a real boon to the economy over these last several years.  I can see why you'd want to keep more of them in individual hands.

without googling, can you tell me if fannie/mac are privately owned?

Well, yes, they have just been taken into what I believe they are calling a "temporary public conservatorship" or something at a cost of $85 billion and considerable moral hazard.  Prior to that they were privately controlled but backed by government guarantees (since the late 1960s).  I am not sure what you're getting at, but if you are trying to suggest that the secondary mortgage market failed because of public malinvestment, I'd like you to try to articulate the argument. 

I still haven't heard anyone give a strong case for why Obama will lose in the fall.  I've seen plenty of people talk about why they think he should lose, but that's something quite different.

that was my opening argument.  despite all of the positive polling with white/hispanic/asian voters, Obama will lose due to racism, specifically hispanic and asian racism.  most posters made light of this pointing out the small groups of latinos in key states.  i would argue that those small minorities are enough to win/lose an election. besides, in a year like this, the democratic nominee should be eons ahead of the republican.  instead we have a dead heat.  as much as you try to minimize this, democrats should be, and are, alarmed. this is particularly true when you consider the weaknesses inherent in a McCain/Palin ticket.  i mean come on.

I am scared, but not because of purported Latino and Asian racism.  I am scared because of the effectiveness of Republican scare tactics and white racism.  We had considerable back and forth about this already, and I am not interested in discussing it further.  Your evidence is weak.  I believe you know it.

i have included links to recent articles outlining a pervasive latino and asian racism against blacks specifically. you can choose to ignore those, although i think you do that at your peril (both in terms of its impact on the election and just in general as a perceptive, all around good person).  i have admitted that white racism continues to be a problem, though not on a scale purported by the left.  as for your fannie/mac argument, i think it is flawed.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will092108.php3
i cannot pretend to put it more eloquently than one of my heroes George F. Will.

[Miss P]

i have included links to recent articles outlining a pervasive latino and asian racism against blacks specifically. you can choose to ignore those, although i think you do that at your peril (both in terms of its impact on the election and just in general as a perceptive, all around good person).  i have admitted that white racism continues to be a problem, though not on a scale purported by the left. 

I don't know what good you think it is going to do to continue to call people racist, but you should go on by all means.

WRT the scale of white racism, I am sure you've read this new study: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/20/could-obamas-race-cost-him-the-election/.

as for your fannie/mac argument, i think it is flawed.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will092108.php3
i cannot pretend to put it more eloquently than one of my heroes George F. Will.

I am not sure what you think my "argument" is.  I was answering your question with facts, and I haven't really made any arguments.  I do agree (perhaps I didn't state so explicitly) that government backing of private investment is both bad for the economy and a moral hazard.  I am not sure what else you want from me.  Of course, the implicit government guarantees did nothing to prevent Fannie and Freddie from being so reckless.  I think you'll find, however, that other organizations that did not have these guarantees (AIG, Lehman, Bear, Merrill, et al.) were also reckless.  You can't, therefore, attribute Fannie and Freddie's fall to government action (except inasmuch as you are referring to their formal privatization in the 1960s and the dismantling of the regulatory regime throughout the last several decades).   

[Harvey Dent]

Let's assume that the candidates are roughly even at the moment.  That's already taken into account racism of all stripes.  Now what trends can we identify?  People are growing more concerned about the economy.  I would think that this would tip the rough parity in Obama's favor (due to the fact that people tend to lean Democrat when economic matters are the focus).  Anyone disagree?