View Single Post
  #55  
Old 11-07-2008, 10:47 AM
SniperSB23 SniperSB23 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 6,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gales0678
see scott here is where i disagree with you - a lot in life is timing and luck

the democrats wanted the "anti war" candidate , they didn't get it in '04 , but . the thing that killed Hillary this year was that she was running against someone who did not have to cast a vote for "iraq authorization" in 2002

thus obama had the single greatest asset on his side that , edwards, biden ,dodd and clinton didn't have that luxury - edwards cam out early and said he made a mistake on the vote , hillary wouldn't budge , it became a constant thorne for her during the primarys

thus he had the clear path to the nomination because he was not in the senate and did not have to make a vote that the others had to do in 2002

now 86% of hillary voters went for obama in the general, do you really think that if it was hillary and not obama on the ticket that his supporters would have gone for mccain - i highly doubt it

the election was a cakewalk , all the problems that the country faced , no republican was going to win -

the key to obama winning was winning the primary , and democrats wanted to go for a candidate that did not have that vote for iraq in 2002 on their resume - it was that simple
You are right that the opposition to the war in Iraq was the single biggest factor that got him through the primaries. In the end though, when he really surged ahead was when the economy stepped front and center. He inspired far more confidence from the voters that he could lead us out of this recession than McCain did. He was probably winning either way but without the economy coming front and center he loses Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida and doesn't get a blowout victory in Pennsylvania.
Reply With Quote