Should have been expected I suppose:


-- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been placed under the protection of the U.S. Secret Service, reportedly because of a threat against him, the Secret Service said Thursday.

sadly, obamas been on my death pool for a while now. i mean, he even gets asked about it in interviews.

he just has too many similarities to jfk. the good news is that he has stated many times that this wont stop him.

Obama can't win shyt. Republican are salivating at the idea of a black guy who rhymes with Osama running against them.

^troof

I still think John Edwards is electable.

94% of americans say they would vote for a black man.

i realllllly hope the dems dont vote for the most 'electable' again, and take the best candidate (obama).

Obama got endorsed by Oprah, you can pretty much consider this one in the bag.

Oprah's gunning for a VP slot. :)

94% of americans say they would vote for a black man.
and of course you're going to back this up with a source that covers a majority of americans. or just irresponsibly say some shyt like its gold?


i realllllly hope the dems dont vote for the most 'electable' again, and take the best candidate (obama).
And republicans agree with you. Obama's run will be an unfortunate waste of time. He will win no southern states, no midwestern states, and even the blue states are up in the air. The day this country is ready to look past his race in the long run, is the day that republican or democrat parties dont matter in who people vote for.

Look at Gutz, gettin' his ANGER on!
I agree with you Gutz. This country can't look past sex either. Hillary stands as much fo a chance as I do.
I've said it before: Alot of nations have elected leaders from a minority group, and alot have had women. Even an Islamic nation has elected a woman.
But not here in this "progressive" country, the USA. While Gutz is getting his ANGER on, the rest of this nation is getting its UPTIGHT on!

and of course you're going to back this up with a source that covers a majority of americans. or just irresponsibly say some shyt like its gold?



always doubting me... http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8304.htm

if you scroll a little down the page, you'll see a gallup poll from 99 that says 92% would vote for a black man. i cant find the poll i was referring to, where the correct number was 94. but the thing of note about the poll was that 94 % said they would vote for a black man while they said only 1/2 the country would. the poll was much more recent than 99, btw.

point is, its a irresponsible thing to say that the country wouldnt vote for a blackman so you shouldnt vote obama.

there are def people who would never vote a blackman president, but those are redneck hicks who vote streight republican anyway.

always doubting me... http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8304.htm
and that didnt help. you use that as gold? like i said irresponsibly b-diddy. typical as ever. I mean damn, you are actually trying to pass that off as accurate account of the majority of the country? rotflmao.

if you scroll a little down the page, you'll see a gallup poll from 99 that says 92% would vote for a black man. i cant find the poll i was referring to, where the correct number was 94. but the thing of note about the poll was that 94 % said they would vote for a black man while they said only 1/2 the country would. the poll was much more recent than 99, btw.


point is, its a irresponsible thing to say that the country wouldnt vote for a blackman so you shouldnt vote obama.
well i'm glad i didnt say that, because it would be if i did. too bad i didnt. I'm sure you thought you totally flipped something back on me. But unfortunately my point had nothing to do with telling people not to vote for him. It was just giving the reality of his chances of winning in this society.


And zip i dont know where you got anger from, but its none here. bad assumption.

from beefing with webber over his treatment of baggage handlers to begging for Imus to get more attention because your idol Fatlock spoke on the situation, your antics further the odds that you are stuck in your own reality. Where as it was entertaining before. its fairly boring now. Igg button on. good luck using useless links on someone else. LOL@positive atheistism aka the source for facts on american society's voting capability.

There's a difference between what people -say- they would vote and what they really do at the ballot box. Some scattergories of Republican-leaning voters in particular don't like to be polled, and|or are less likely to vote what they poll they would. One example are rural Southern housewives who may theoretically poll as progressives, but vote with their more-regressive husband and church leaders every time. Do you take them at face value or not? Specifics of how a given poll is constructed, conducted, and interpreted should have a powerful bearing on how people feel about them.

i think you guys are confusing glenn danzig and gallup. its actually glenn thats the spin master that cant be trusted. gallup is the polling organization thats about the most trusted in the country. no biggie, its a common mistake.

This message is hidden because b-diddy is on your ignore list.

and the world is a better place. [smilie=blaha.gif]

This message is hidden because b-diddy is on your ignore list.

and the world is a better place. [smilie=blaha.gif]

punk coward.

[smilie=peepwall.gi: LOL@Hermy

i think you guys are confusing glenn danzig and gallup. its actually glenn thats the spin master that cant be trusted. gallup is the polling organization thats about the most trusted in the country. no biggie, its a common mistake.
And if I told you that the CEO of Gallup donated to black Republicans...

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=WASHINGTON&st=DC&last=clifton&first=james

Naaahhh... I wouln't do such a thing.

punk coward.
Punk ass bitch!
No shit, hey Gutz-LESS, put me on your ignore list also!
Thanks in advance,
Your pal
Zip G

And if I told you that the CEO of Gallup donated to black Republicans...

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=WASHINGTON&st=DC&last=clifton&first=james

Naaahhh... I wouln't do such a thing.

so your saying the data is wrong?

heres a good read: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0216/p01s04-uspo.html

which would suggest that obama has an advantage over hilary, mit romney, and mccain, just by generic polling preferences. of course, it also uses gallup so its probably way off base. maybe we can commission glenn to get the real answers.

Did anyone catch the moment last night when the moderaor of the GOP "debate" asked McCain about evolution, and he said, "Yes", he believes in evolution.
The moderator then asked who among these corpses did not believe in evolution, and some of the rest of them raised their hands, including the guy on the end who waited to see if the other guys did (after all, Pat Robertson was watching, armed with a full head of Bedtime Bible Stories that'll condemn anyone who doesn't believe in apples, ribs, and big boats that carry 197,000 animals and birds)
McCains double take and choke was classic. Talk about a guy who left his dick back home when it became apparent that he might have a Kerrey's chance in Tennessee of getting elected.
"COuGh, HaCK, excuse me, but can I just say one thing?"
"Sure, Mr McSatan"
"When I walk though the Grand Canyon, I see the hand of God"
Sure, I do too. Rattlesnakes, scorpions, rocks, mule shit, and cactus. It's a veritable paradise down there when it's 139 degrees under a rock with a three foot lizzard nibbling on your nuts.
I swear to god, allah, and Harry the Pickle: Romney and Rudy must be taking formeldahyde intravenously to get that "Been rotting in a casket look" that will be sure to get you the Republican nomination now that the last guy's steady diet of whiskey, cocaine, and war crimes have turned off all but the most steadfast members of the Nazi Party.

sadly, obamas been on my death pool for a while now. i mean, he even gets asked about it in interviews.

he just has too many similarities to jfk. the good news is that he has stated many times that this wont stop him.

I've heard a lot of people who really follow politics compare him to Bobby Kennedy actually.

so your saying the data is wrong?

heres a good read: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0216/p01s04-uspo.html

which would suggest that obama has an advantage over hilary, mit romney, and mccain, just by generic polling preferences. of course, it also uses gallup so its probably way off base. maybe we can commission glenn to get the real answers.
No, I'm saying:

- be critical of your cited sources -- pollsters are human beings who don't work for free
- be critical of polling methodologies. Suppose they asked the question "would you prefer a white or black person as president"?
- the gap between what people want to do and what people will do can be significant

As much as I hate to say it, I've done political polling during an election year, and Mxy is absolutely right. Pollsters receive their payments from partisan organizations who have final review of the wording of all questions. At its extreme, that's where you start to get "push polling" where the pollsters are either trying to create a certain result, or they are actually not interested in the results of the poll as much as they are interested in using a polling organization to spread innuendo about an opposing candidate.

You end up with polls that say "OK, question 1: How do you rate your approval of the Governor? Very Favorable, Favorable, Neither Favorable Nor Unfavorable, Unfavorable, or Very Unfavorable? Question 2: How would you rate your approval of the Governor if you heard that in 1989, she declared that she was a sex-crazed, cocaine-using, child-molesting communist nazi atheist?"

yea, i think everyone knows polls can be manipulated, but i dont think that was the case here.

my first cite was from 99, second from 2007, the one i originally referenced was from the last 6 months.

heres more:

http://www.pollster.com/charles_franklin/would_you_vote_for_a_fill_in_t.php

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec/18/poll_american_voters_more_likely_elect_black_presi/ (news week, 2006)

they all say mid 90's.

i think the people are demanding a glenn danzig official poll to settle the matter.

bd, dude we get it, you think I post skewed polls. I guess message boards need to hire professional pollsters these days.

Sometimes you just need to use common sense, poll or no poll. There is no way that 75% (let alone 90+%) of the citizens in this country would actually vote for a black candidate for president. I mean, look who they have been voting for lately.

Of course, when people are asked on the street or even on the phone they are going to claim that they "would consider it", the alternative would be the equivalent to saying "I don't vote for black candidates", which is sort of an uncomfortable thing to admit to an interviewer (even if they really feel that way).

Racist tendencies for most people are usually kept in the closet, or the voting booth, as it were. There is a reason that klansmen wear hoods.

Punk ass bitch!
No shit, hey Gutz-LESS, put me on your ignore list also!
Thanks in advance,
Your pal
Zip G
No need, you're just a baby screaming for attention. Randomly at that. I bet you're oblivious as to why you were banished away from whatever message board banned to into WTDetroit's custody.

Sometimes you just need to use common sense, poll or no poll. There is no way that 75% (let alone 90+%) of the citizens in this country would actually vote for a black candidate for president. I mean, look who they have been voting for lately.

Of course, when people are asked on the street or even on the phone they are going to claim that they "would consider it", the alternative would be the equivalent to saying "I don't vote for black candidates", which is sort of an uncomfortable thing to admit to an interviewer (even if they really feel that way).

Racist tendencies for most people are usually kept in the closet, or the voting booth, as it were. There is a reason that klansmen wear hoods.

well, this is exactly what im talking about. everyone assumes a large portion of the population would not vote black, but there is no statistical evidence to back this up. if all the poles say mid 90's, maybe it really is mid 90's. moreover, and i have no stats on this, but my money says that people who wouldnt vote for a black man probably also wouldnt vote for a democrat, and ibet the relationship is about 1 to 1.

the fact is that statistically, being black is slightly less of a handicap than being female (hilary), and is much much much less of a handicap than benig 72 (mccain) or being mormon (romney).

to say that obama cant win because he is black shouldnt be so, but that idea is so pervasive that im concerned that it could become a self-fullfilling prophecy. people dont like to throw their vote away.

which is why it irks me when people say it. they have nothing to back it up, and they are infact hurting obama's campaign... which is fine if you dont like obama, i guess.

I think his name hurts him too, not just the similarity to "Osama", but just wait until the "guy with the funny sounding name" shit starts flying.

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy. His speech at the DNC a few years ago was amazing. I just don't think he can win yet, and he might know it too. He might just be laying the groundwork for the next election (once everybody knows him better).

maybe it would help if he went by his full name: barrak hussein obama

GutzLESS:
Hell no I'm not oblivious!!!
I fight the good fight against hypocrisy and self righteousness, two things that are the cornerstone of your personality.
Anger on, Brother!

like i said oblivious and stuck in your own reality. enjoy it for all its worth.

Did you guys see/hear Obama mis-speak the other day when he was talking about the tornadoes that hit Kansas recently?

He mistakenly said "10,000 people died".

Ouch.

I thought he actually said "10,000 worthless whiteys died"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/02/obama-raises-325-million-in-second-quarter-outpacing-clinton/#more-661


Obama raises $32.5 million in second quarter, sets record
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.
(CNN) — Presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama announced Sunday his campaign raised at least $32.5 million in the second quarter, the highest amount ever raised by a Democratic candidate, topping the first quarter fund-raising and exceeding predictions from rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign for her take in the same period.

In a statement, Obama’s campaign they received money from over 154,000 donors in the quarter, up from 104,000 donors they cited in the first quarter. The campaign said it raised “at least” $31 million in the second quarter in primary money, and a total counting general election funds of $32.5 million.

In a surprising first quarter performance, the Illinois Democrat raised $25.7 million, worth $24.8 million going to the primary campaign.

Obama said in the statement, “Together, we have built the largest grassroots campaign in history for this stage of a Presidential race. We now have hundreds of thousands of Americans who are ready to demand health care for all, energy independence, and an end to this war in Iraq. That’s the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it’s just the beginning.”

Last week, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said he expected Clinton bring in $27 million this quarter, but they have not announced their numbers since the period ended. Last quarter, Clinton raised $26 million, with $19 million in primary dollars.


An Obama campaign official provided CNN with an e-mail going out to supporters Sunday. In it, campaign manager David Plouffe said,”The pundits and political insiders questioned whether a new leader and fledgling campaign could compete with the big money and massive organization of other candidates who have been preparing to run for years, and even decades. Well, for the second consecutive quarter, you’ve helped send a resounding answer.”

Plouffe write that the number of donors, much of it small donations., “sends an unmistakable message to the political establishment that the same old politics just won’t do in 2008.”

He said the fundraising will allow them to compete fully funded in all February 5 contests in large states like California and New York, saying “frankly, when we entered this race, we did not think that was possible. We estimated at this point of the campaign we’d be at least $20-25 million behind one of our fellow candidates. But due to the amazing outpouring of support from people all across the country, remarkably, we should be on at least even financial footing for the duration of the campaign”.

Go Barack, Go! Phenominal job.

interesting backread. a good reminder as to how big of a douchebag guts is. did he say even one thing that was close to being accurate this thread?

Obama got endorsed by Oprah, you can pretty much consider this one in the bag.
Oprah is a bonafide kingmaker, carrying a lot of sway in demographics that have disposable income to donate and will show up to the polls. I think she'll really shore him up among black voters too. If O says he's black enough, he's black enough.