Would Barack Obama be considered for the presidency if he was not black?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

As long as he was still a young, smart, good looking Senator from Illinois who opposed the war in Iraq from the start, he would have had a shot.

Also, are you saying voters are racist for voting for him?  It's their right to vote for whoever they think would be best and nobody stopped other people with his experience level or more experience from running. I don't understand the point you are trying to make as far as that goes.

Maybe so, but having 95% of the African American vote doesn't hurt when you are running against the Clinton machine. In these southern states, he started with 40-60% of the vote in most cases. With a handicap like that, it's almost impossible for anyone to win. Race plays a huge part in this movement. Being anti-war has never been the be all end all issue in the past, and it wouldn't have been this year. If it was, then Dennis Kucinich should have done better. It's his speeches and his race that has allowed him to do as well as he's done. John Edwards is considered a good, inspiring speaker, yet he didn't make it anywhere. Without the black vote, Obama would've had no shot against Hillary.

True, but no Democrat can win without huge black margins.

Just a note on your comment, Al Sharpton did very poorly amongst black voters.

And Obama would've too if he had lost Iowa. IIRC, Hillary was winning the black vote until Iowa. Blacks want to back a winner, and they knew Al Sharpton had no chance.

Yeah but he didn't. Did he win Iowa only because he's black too?

No. He won Iowa because of a number of factors. First, the state is tremendously idealistic, especially those that caucus. The Democrats who participate in the caucus tend to be your far left Democrats or students, and most of them non-working class. Second, it was a caucus, which Hillary showed time and again that she lacked any type of plan or organization at all to win. He does fine with the white vote in states that have no blacks in them.

As long as he was still a young, smart, good looking Senator from Illinois who opposed the war in Iraq from the start, he would have had a shot.

Also, are you saying voters are racist for voting for him?  It's their right to vote for whoever they think would be best and nobody stopped other people with his experience level or more experience from running. I don't understand the point you are trying to make as far as that goes.

Maybe so, but having 95% of the African American vote doesn't hurt when you are running against the Clinton machine. In these southern states, he started with 40-60% of the vote in most cases. With a handicap like that, it's almost impossible for anyone to win. Race plays a huge part in this movement. Being anti-war has never been the be all end all issue in the past, and it wouldn't have been this year. If it was, then Dennis Kucinich should have done better. It's his speeches and his race that has allowed him to do as well as he's done. John Edwards is considered a good, inspiring speaker, yet he didn't make it anywhere. Without the black vote, Obama would've had no shot against Hillary.

True, but no Democrat can win without huge black margins.

Just a note on your comment, Al Sharpton did very poorly amongst black voters.

And Obama would've too if he had lost Iowa. IIRC, Hillary was winning the black vote until Iowa. Blacks want to back a winner, and they knew Al Sharpton had no chance.

I thought he and HRC were nearly tied until the racial attacks started coming around the time of the SC primary.  Besides, he won handily in lilly-white Iowa.

They may have been, I don't know, but he got over 80% of the black vote in SC. Then Bill came out and played the race card, supposedly, and the blacks united behind Obama 9 to 1.

Like I said earlier, there were different reasons why he won Iowa. He will win states in which the electorate is very liberal and no blacks are in the state at all. States with whites and blacks, he does poorly among the whites.

[Torie]

No.

[Lincoln Republican]

Some, myself included, believe that Barack Obama does not have the experience or qualifications to become President.

However, two lessons from history to consider.

Warren Harding was not qualified for the Presidency, however, he was given the 1920 Republican nomination by the party bosses as a compromise candidate in part because he was handsome and a good speaker.  His Presidency turned out to be a disaster.

Richard Nixon was one of the few Presidential candidates who came to the Presidency truly qualified for the office, and look at how that turned out.

So lack of experience or an abundance of experience do not necessarily determine how successful the President will be.

[Smash255]

As long as he was still a young, smart, good looking Senator from Illinois who opposed the war in Iraq from the start, he would have had a shot.

Also, are you saying voters are racist for voting for him?  It's their right to vote for whoever they think would be best and nobody stopped other people with his experience level or more experience from running. I don't understand the point you are trying to make as far as that goes.

Maybe so, but having 95% of the African American vote doesn't hurt when you are running against the Clinton machine. In these southern states, he started with 40-60% of the vote in most cases. With a handicap like that, it's almost impossible for anyone to win. Race plays a huge part in this movement. Being anti-war has never been the be all end all issue in the past, and it wouldn't have been this year. If it was, then Dennis Kucinich should have done better. It's his speeches and his race that has allowed him to do as well as he's done. John Edwards is considered a good, inspiring speaker, yet he didn't make it anywhere. Without the black vote, Obama would've had no shot against Hillary.

True, but no Democrat can win without huge black margins.

Just a note on your comment, Al Sharpton did very poorly amongst black voters.

And Obama would've too if he had lost Iowa. IIRC, Hillary was winning the black vote until Iowa. Blacks want to back a winner, and they knew Al Sharpton had no chance.

Yeah but he didn't. Did he win Iowa only because he's black too?

No. He won Iowa because of a number of factors. First, the state is tremendously idealistic, especially those that caucus. The Democrats who participate in the caucus tend to be your far left Democrats or students, and most of them non-working class. Second, it was a caucus, which Hillary showed time and again that she lacked any type of plan or organization at all to win. He does fine with the white vote in states that have no blacks in them.

As long as he was still a young, smart, good looking Senator from Illinois who opposed the war in Iraq from the start, he would have had a shot.

Also, are you saying voters are racist for voting for him?  It's their right to vote for whoever they think would be best and nobody stopped other people with his experience level or more experience from running. I don't understand the point you are trying to make as far as that goes.

Maybe so, but having 95% of the African American vote doesn't hurt when you are running against the Clinton machine. In these southern states, he started with 40-60% of the vote in most cases. With a handicap like that, it's almost impossible for anyone to win. Race plays a huge part in this movement. Being anti-war has never been the be all end all issue in the past, and it wouldn't have been this year. If it was, then Dennis Kucinich should have done better. It's his speeches and his race that has allowed him to do as well as he's done. John Edwards is considered a good, inspiring speaker, yet he didn't make it anywhere. Without the black vote, Obama would've had no shot against Hillary.

True, but no Democrat can win without huge black margins.

Just a note on your comment, Al Sharpton did very poorly amongst black voters.

And Obama would've too if he had lost Iowa. IIRC, Hillary was winning the black vote until Iowa. Blacks want to back a winner, and they knew Al Sharpton had no chance.

I thought he and HRC were nearly tied until the racial attacks started coming around the time of the SC primary.  Besides, he won handily in lilly-white Iowa.

They may have been, I don't know, but he got over 80% of the black vote in SC. Then Bill came out and played the race card, supposedly, and the blacks united behind Obama 9 to 1.

Like I said earlier, there were different reasons why he won Iowa. He will win states in which the electorate is very liberal and no blacks are in the state at all. States with whites and blacks, he does poorly among the whites.

Virginia, Maryland, CT, and DC have no blacks?  Interesting.....

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

As long as he was still a young, smart, good looking Senator from Illinois who opposed the war in Iraq from the start, he would have had a shot.

Also, are you saying voters are racist for voting for him?  It's their right to vote for whoever they think would be best and nobody stopped other people with his experience level or more experience from running. I don't understand the point you are trying to make as far as that goes.

Maybe so, but having 95% of the African American vote doesn't hurt when you are running against the Clinton machine. In these southern states, he started with 40-60% of the vote in most cases. With a handicap like that, it's almost impossible for anyone to win. Race plays a huge part in this movement. Being anti-war has never been the be all end all issue in the past, and it wouldn't have been this year. If it was, then Dennis Kucinich should have done better. It's his speeches and his race that has allowed him to do as well as he's done. John Edwards is considered a good, inspiring speaker, yet he didn't make it anywhere. Without the black vote, Obama would've had no shot against Hillary.

True, but no Democrat can win without huge black margins.

Just a note on your comment, Al Sharpton did very poorly amongst black voters.

And Obama would've too if he had lost Iowa. IIRC, Hillary was winning the black vote until Iowa. Blacks want to back a winner, and they knew Al Sharpton had no chance.

Yeah but he didn't. Did he win Iowa only because he's black too?

No. He won Iowa because of a number of factors. First, the state is tremendously idealistic, especially those that caucus. The Democrats who participate in the caucus tend to be your far left Democrats or students, and most of them non-working class. Second, it was a caucus, which Hillary showed time and again that she lacked any type of plan or organization at all to win. He does fine with the white vote in states that have no blacks in them.

As long as he was still a young, smart, good looking Senator from Illinois who opposed the war in Iraq from the start, he would have had a shot.

Also, are you saying voters are racist for voting for him?  It's their right to vote for whoever they think would be best and nobody stopped other people with his experience level or more experience from running. I don't understand the point you are trying to make as far as that goes.

Maybe so, but having 95% of the African American vote doesn't hurt when you are running against the Clinton machine. In these southern states, he started with 40-60% of the vote in most cases. With a handicap like that, it's almost impossible for anyone to win. Race plays a huge part in this movement. Being anti-war has never been the be all end all issue in the past, and it wouldn't have been this year. If it was, then Dennis Kucinich should have done better. It's his speeches and his race that has allowed him to do as well as he's done. John Edwards is considered a good, inspiring speaker, yet he didn't make it anywhere. Without the black vote, Obama would've had no shot against Hillary.

True, but no Democrat can win without huge black margins.

Just a note on your comment, Al Sharpton did very poorly amongst black voters.

And Obama would've too if he had lost Iowa. IIRC, Hillary was winning the black vote until Iowa. Blacks want to back a winner, and they knew Al Sharpton had no chance.

I thought he and HRC were nearly tied until the racial attacks started coming around the time of the SC primary.  Besides, he won handily in lilly-white Iowa.

They may have been, I don't know, but he got over 80% of the black vote in SC. Then Bill came out and played the race card, supposedly, and the blacks united behind Obama 9 to 1.

Like I said earlier, there were different reasons why he won Iowa. He will win states in which the electorate is very liberal and no blacks are in the state at all. States with whites and blacks, he does poorly among the whites.

Virginia, Maryland, CT, and DC have no blacks?  Interesting.....

Did I say that? I said he does poorly among whites in states that have a relatively large black population and well among whites when a state has no blacks at all, like Iowa. He didn't win the white vote in DC, Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut, did he?

[Хahar 🤔]

Too much double-posting! Shield your eyes!

[Smash255]

They may have been, I don't know, but he got over 80% of the black vote in SC. Then Bill came out and played the race card, supposedly, and the blacks united behind Obama 9 to 1.

Like I said earlier, there were different reasons why he won Iowa. He will win states in which the electorate is very liberal and no blacks are in the state at all. States with whites and blacks, he does poorly among the whites.

Virginia, Maryland, CT, and DC have no blacks?  Interesting.....

Did I say that? I said he does poorly among whites in states that have a relatively large black population and well among whites when a state has no blacks at all, like Iowa. He didn't win the white vote in DC, Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut, did he?

He won it in D.C & Virginia, tied it in CT, MD he lost it but did quite well with the white vote.

[Gustaf]

I don't know what "considered" is supposed to mean exactly. He wouldn't be the Democratic candidate for president, of that I'm pretty sure. Without being black Clinton would have landslided the black vote against him and getting a little more among applachian whites would not have made up for it.

His chances of winning a general election in general terms would be higher though. He would obviously have been a successful politician regardless.

[minionofmidas]

He isn't Black.

[J. J.]

Considering the number of times someone when from state senator to presidential nominee in four years, I would say that his race was an advantage.

It wasn't the sole clause, but it is part of the equation.

[elcorazon]

Would John McCain be considered for President had he not been a POW for years and married a rich bitch.

[TheresNoMoney]

Would John McCain be considered for President had he not been a POW for years and married a rich bitch.

^^^^^^^^^^

[J. J.]

Would John McCain be considered for President had he not been a POW for years and married a rich bitch.

Admiral McCain probably would have been, yes.  The money helped, I'm sure.

[Conan]

He would be considered but would not have won. It's probable to say that a white version of barack obama wouldn't have gotten 80-90% of the black vote in every contest.

[Gustaf]

They may have been, I don't know, but he got over 80% of the black vote in SC. Then Bill came out and played the race card, supposedly, and the blacks united behind Obama 9 to 1.

Like I said earlier, there were different reasons why he won Iowa. He will win states in which the electorate is very liberal and no blacks are in the state at all. States with whites and blacks, he does poorly among the whites.

Virginia, Maryland, CT, and DC have no blacks?  Interesting.....

Did I say that? I said he does poorly among whites in states that have a relatively large black population and well among whites when a state has no blacks at all, like Iowa. He didn't win the white vote in DC, Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut, did he?

He won it in D.C & Virginia, tied it in CT, MD he lost it but did quite well with the white vote.

1. It's fascinating that you know how DC voted, given that I've seen no exit poll from there. Where is that information to be found? Anyway, DC's white vote...lol.

2. In Virginia he swept the white independent and Republican vote but he lost the white Democrat vote in a landslide. And that was in the midst of Hillary's absolute low-point.

3. In Connecticut he lost the white vote, albeit very, very narrowly. 9% of the CT Democratic primary vote was black. I don't know what your threshold is for considering a state to have a large black factor, but that's not incredibly high, imo.

Anyway, no way would Obama have won in the South without being black.

[Gustaf]

Would John McCain be considered for President had he not been a POW for years and married a rich bitch.

^^^^^^^^^^

It's interesting that the two of you consider fundamental choices and decisions in life to be comparable to what skin one is born with, but I can't agree with that view of "race" personally.

[J. J.]

They may have been, I don't know, but he got over 80% of the black vote in SC. Then Bill came out and played the race card, supposedly, and the blacks united behind Obama 9 to 1.

Like I said earlier, there were different reasons why he won Iowa. He will win states in which the electorate is very liberal and no blacks are in the state at all. States with whites and blacks, he does poorly among the whites.

Virginia, Maryland, CT, and DC have no blacks?  Interesting.....

Did I say that? I said he does poorly among whites in states that have a relatively large black population and well among whites when a state has no blacks at all, like Iowa. He didn't win the white vote in DC, Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut, did he?

He won it in D.C & Virginia, tied it in CT, MD he lost it but did quite well with the white vote.

1. It's fascinating that you know how DC voted, given that I've seen no exit poll from there. Where is that information to be found? Anyway, DC's white vote...lol.

2. In Virginia he swept the white independent and Republican vote but he lost the white Democrat vote in a landslide. And that was in the midst of Hillary's absolute low-point.

3. In Connecticut he lost the white vote, albeit very, very narrowly. 9% of the CT Democratic primary vote was black. I don't know what your threshold is for considering a state to have a large black factor, but that's not incredibly high, imo.

Anyway, no way would Obama have won in the South without being black.

Do you have a list of states where Obama won:

1.  The white vote.

2.  The white working class vote.

[Nym90]

Clearly Obama's race has helped him overall in the primary (not as much as many people think, but yes, it has helped more than it has hurt). It hurts him overall in the general (again not as much as people believe, but it's there).

If he were more than half-black he very likely would have never had the upbringing necessary to put him in a position to be considered for President, sadly.

[phk]

Clearly Obama's race has helped him overall in the primary (not as much as many people think, but yes, it has helped more than it has hurt). It hurts him overall in the general (again not as much as people believe, but it's there).

If he were more than half-black he very likely would have never had the upbringing necessary to put him in a position to be considered for President, sadly.

The most wealthiest, educated and elite immigrants to the US surprisingly come from Africa (Obama's dad was apart of this cohort).

The one thing that could have made things infinitely easier on Obama would have been if his dad wasn't a Muslim.

[nyquil_man]

Why did you ask if you already had your answer?