IIRC when the scandal broke, Obama had just delivered his DNC speech? Or was it right before?

I don't recall now, though I do recall some articles since that point out the latest information had Obama with a lead (not a huge one) over Ryan just before the scandal broke.

 

I don't recall now, though I do recall some articles since that point out the latest information had Obama with a lead (not a huge one) over Ryan just before the scandal broke.

Well, Obama would have gotten a bounce from the speech. It was the "Messiah is born" speech...

 

I can't remember the timeline for sure.

I wasn't in the U.S. at the time so I definitely don't remember, but I do remember the speech itself pretty clearly because it was all over the news. The talk was about a "new young African-American politician" and there were some black intellectuals dropping hints but not actually saying he was presidential material. At the time I laughed thinking that was putting the cart before the horse (and it was).

Edited April 15, 200917 yr by lostfan

I don't recall now, though I do recall some articles since that point out the latest information had Obama with a lead (not a huge one) over Ryan just before the scandal broke.

It's difficult to actually interpret the data from that race because the court case regarding the release of the divorce documents dragged out over months. It was talked about in the Republican primary. Prior to the document release, Obama had a lead of somewhere in the 11-22 point range, according to whatever limited polling I could drag up. The documents were released well before his speech to the DNC and Ryan was out over a month before then.

"Messiah is born"

Good parrot, Rush would be so proud.

 

There's actually a YouTube video were some guy predicts Obama winning the presidency directly after his DNC speech.

 

Edited April 15, 200917 yr by DukeNukeEm

Good parrot, Rush would be so proud. <_>

 

There's actually a YouTube video were some guy predicts Obama winning the presidency directly after his DNC speech.

That was probably me.

Once there was talk of Obama entering the race I knew he was going to win it, there was a certain way it felt. At no point did I really think HRC could actually beat Obama.

Once there was talk of Obama entering the race I knew he was going to win it, there was a certain way it felt. At no point did I really think HRC could actually beat Obama.

lol you were on the Ron Paul bandwagon dude. I think we jumped off at about the same time actually, sometime in winter 2008 when the Dem primaries started heating up.

 

(I realize this post looks extremely odd to posters here)

I wouldn't call it ridiculous - every politician starts somewhere, learns, improves his approach and network. Obama was a lot greener then, and Ryan had money, smarts and connections.

 

But the premise that Ryan somehow had it in hand is just patently false.

 

A great example is how many elections did Abe Lincoln lose?

lol you were on the Ron Paul bandwagon dude. I think we jumped off at about the same time actually, sometime in winter 2008 when the Dem primaries started heating up.

 

(I realize this post looks extremely odd to posters here)

TBT and I talked about it before you joined up. Oh the days of RP, screw that dude... that was a dark part of my life.

lol you were on the Ron Paul bandwagon dude. I think we jumped off at about the same time actually, sometime in winter 2008 when the Dem primaries started heating up.

 

(I realize this post looks extremely odd to posters here)

 

That is hilarious.

what killed RP for me was my 1st econ class and american chief exec 300-something. It didn't take much reading to realize pretty much every aspect of hyper-conservatism is complete bulls***.

what killed RP for me was my 1st econ class and american chief exec 300-something. It didn't take much reading to realize pretty much every aspect of hyper-conservatism is complete bulls***.

Ron Paul is right, but WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over the top, which makes him wrong. I hope that makes sense.

Ron Paul is right, but WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over the top, which makes him wrong. I hope that makes sense.

None of the s*** Ron Paul says makes any sense at all. He basically wanted to privatize everything from the water supply to national defense, luckily only like 3% of the country actually agrees with him.

Ron Paul is right, but WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over the top, which makes him wrong. I hope that makes sense.

It does actually.

None of the s*** Ron Paul says makes any sense at all. He basically wanted to privatize everything from the water supply to national defense, luckily only like 3% of the country actually agrees with him.

I think libertarian views are good, but not for defense, highways, water supply... , that is over the top.