Up for Debate: Obama's Tennessee campaign

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:34am

Can Obama's campaign make it a "tougher" general election this time around compared to 2008? Who in the GOP field do you think will have the best primary success on Super Tuesday?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

97 Comments on this post:

By: pswindle on 2/21/12 at 12:18

I would not spend a dime in TN. He has the support of the democrats, but the GOP, Tea Party and the Christian-right has such total contol on TN that it would be a waste of money. TN has not awaken yet.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 12:22

He might not even be allowed on the ballot since a case is going forward in the Tennessee legislature now.

His eligibility status has also just been brought up in Pennsylvania.

A big issue in the fact is he co-sponsored the questioning of John McCain about his eligibility while refusing to be questioned himself.

By: dargent7 on 2/21/12 at 5:30

Romney needs to win Michigan, if only psychologically. If he loses MI, he'll stay in the race, but severely wounded w/o any clout.
Obama should go about his campaign thinking there's only 49 states. Tenn. wouldn't vote Democratic in 500 years. Williamson County would register all their dead grandparents, dogs and cats, wear disguises to vote 3x each, and have them all vote Republican.
And tell a Republican, "Hey, that's cheating" they respond, "Yes, I know. And we're damn good at it".

By: Ummm... on 2/21/12 at 5:51

The fact that Tennessee is impossible for Obama to win (even against complete losers like Romney or Santorum or even the disgusting Gingrich) is an argument for abolishing the electoral college and electing presidents by popular vote majority. I'm sure the conservatives in New York City would agree, since their votes for president are just as meaningless as Tennessee liberals'. And just think, if that were the case in 2000, Al Gore would have been elected (assuming he wasn't anyway- Florida Jeb you cheat) since he got many more votes than GWB who subsequently ran the ship of state aground.

By: Ummm... on 2/21/12 at 5:54

Correcting a bad analogy- since New York City has no electoral votes (only New york State does), I should probably have referred to Massachusetts conservatives instead.

By: govskeptic on 2/21/12 at 6:24

With Tenn not being one of the 10 swing states, the only visit to Tenn by the
President would be a desperation fund raiser which would probably be a
problem finding a sponsor! A quick stop at "Bonnarroo" this summer has a
distinct possibility with or without the belting out of a few words of a good
soul tune!
Romney is already running ads here, so his internal polls or state party leaders
following the national leaders commands have convinced him he can carry. Tn.
Santorum will be the only close challenger here not Gingrich!

By: WickedTribe on 2/21/12 at 6:30

I agree with the other posters that Obama shouldn't waste any time or money here. Tennessee is a lost cause. I guess it's a matter of local Obama supporters wanting to have something to do during the campaign, though.

By: BenDover on 2/21/12 at 6:34

He shouldn't waste any money here. The blank screen upon which we can all project our dreams and aspirations [gag] is outed now and he'd be lucky to carry 40% in Tennessee.

By: parnell3rd on 2/21/12 at 6:34

Where are all the dembots screaming about high gas prices? Like Chuckie Schummer on live tv filling up their tanks at $1.81 a gallon blaming President Bush. Hopefully some of the Tennessean's who voted for history will wake up! "Energy prices will have to skyrocket" Sen. Barack Hussein Obama" mmm mmm mmm!

By: BenDover on 2/21/12 at 6:35

Loner you misunderstood my point yesterday. I responded in the earlier article.

By: BenDover on 2/21/12 at 6:42

I hope he does try to run another 50 state campaign though... the electoral map will look like Mondale.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 6:51


Do you think Obama can possibly carry 40 percent of Tennesseans... even after being alerted about his constitutional ineligibility?

I would hope even 4 percent wouldn't be that ignorant and surely 40 percent wouldn't be that many "don't give a damns".

By: dargent7 on 2/21/12 at 6:59

"Danger Will Robinson! Danger!" We've all "been alerted" as to Obama's ineligibility.
Romney's dad, granfather, great-grandfather were all born in Mexico.
Mrs. Romney's father was born in Wales.
That's all we need, a bunch of Mexicans and the English in the W.H.
Thanks for pointing that out, "yogi".

By: Ummm... on 2/21/12 at 7:13

BenDover said: "I hope he does try to run another 50 state campaign though... the electoral map will look like Mondale."

Oh, it's gonna look like Reagan vs. Mondale alright, just not the way you think.

By: Loner on 2/21/12 at 7:32

Good morning, Nashville.

Obama's odds of winning Tennessee's Electoral College votes are infinitesimal. If he visits the Volunteer State, he might leave in a body bag....these Christian crackers are packin' heat and they are fired up and mad as hell....the Jihadi wing of the Tea Party is running the show in TN.

I agree with uuum....the EC has to go...as it stands now, fifty non-living, artificial sates decide on who will be our president...the 310 million people who live in the USA have only an indirect voice in deciding the race...the fifty states, not we the people, elect our president and this crap has to cease, IMO.

Ben, you compared Rasputin, not President Obama, with Dr. Mengele, ...OK....I got it...sorry for the misread on that.....smooches.

I like the rasp...I think that the analogy is over the top.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 7:47

For an "educated" man, you're proving yourself to be ignorant, dargent7, especially in the Constitutional requirements to become President of the USA.

Based on papers offered by Mitt Romney, they show he was born in the USA to American parents. His father and mother were both American citizens.

It shows his father was born in Mexico to parents who were BOTH American citizens. His grandparents were BOTH American citizens who had moved to Mexico and kept their American citizenship after moving there.

His mother was born in the USA to parents, both of whom had became naturalized American citizens before she was born after moving to the USA from Wales.

So, tell me, dargent7, where does that make him ineligible for the office?

Now, consider your favorite man for the office. Just what in the hell is his name and where was he born?

Based on his autobiography as his history he proves beyond any reasonable doubt he is not eligible for that office. So..., why do you favor him so much? Because of his race? That is purely an ignorant reason to accept a person to the highest office in this nation when you don't actually know who he and what he can do to this nation in that office.

Wake up, dargent7! There's a couple of free courses on the Constitution on the internet. Maybe you should take them.

By: BenDover on 2/21/12 at 7:47

Even with his advocating the sterilization poor people?

By: BenDover on 2/21/12 at 7:49

Josef Mengele and his ilk saw the 'big picture' too.

By: dargent7 on 2/21/12 at 7:55

Re: Electoral College. It's still based on we, the people. It's kinda like a concentrated system of how one campaign's. Republicans know the big prizes of CA, NY, FL, MI go to Democrats. Well, used to. Now, THEY want MI, OH, and FL. There's not enough time and campaign rhetoric to cover all 50 states for a "popular vote". You'd have to change your speeches 50x to pander to each state differently.
This allows them to play a game of chess, and strategically go to the "swing states" and focus. Like Santorum really wants Mich. if only to embarrass Romney.
It's more important to, "Get out the vote", than change the scheme.
Only 40% of Americans vote which is a shame.
But, on the bright side, 95% of Catholics use birth control.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 7:59


Our founders decided on the Electoral College for particular reasons. Do you consider yourself smarter than they were in stating it should be abolished now?

That argument has been brought up before and the reasons for it were decided it should be kept.

If the Electoral College is nullified, that will change our constitution. Do we want it changed?

By: Loner on 2/21/12 at 8:00

I'll let the Rasp defend his posts, Ben....but triggering Godwin's Law is not your usual style.

Thanks for the suggestion, Yogi....but the birther thing is totally played out....if you give that a rest, more posters might respond to your posts...you made your points....let it go man....the guy's eligible for the POTUS job and he won the election fairly....time to get beyond that, isn't it?

By: BenDover on 2/21/12 at 8:01

Throw out the Electoral college and the candidates will, necessarily, throw all of their energies to the population centers. Urban will trump rural and the US society will implode accordingly.

People should be thankful that rural communities still have a limited voice in this country whether they are smart enough to appreciate it or not.

By: dargent7 on 2/21/12 at 8:03

How can the Romney family tree, 5 generations back, all born in Mexico, be considered, "American parents". "Naturalized, or not"?
Uncle Mitty was indeed born in Detroit by a Mexican mother. (they actually don't say where his mother was born). Even if his mother was Mexican, HE was born on American soil. The Founding Father's never thought society would get this mixed-up, genetically. It's all about geography. America is still America.
Obama was born in Honolulu by a Kansas, born and raised mother.
The father's birth place and Nationality is really illrrelevant.

A story problem: What if someone born in a US Territory,eg., US Virgin Islands or American Samoa, ran? Is that legal? If McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone was cleared, anything's possible.

By: BenDover on 2/21/12 at 8:05

I don't take violating Godwin lightly, Loner but in my mind he earned it.

By: Ummm... on 2/21/12 at 8:08

Ben, the candidates already focus their energies on population centers. No matter which state they're in, they go where the votes are. As long as the primary system is in place, even small states (like New Hampshire and Iowa) will still be able to make their voices heard in choosing candidates. The candidate who gets the majority of the votes should be the one who wins- the electoral college is an outdated relic.

By: Loner on 2/21/12 at 8:16

The Founders were human beings...gifted, but fallible...and they admitted their limitations; that's why they left a method for altering the document.

The Bill of Rights was an afterthought...how enlightened were those guys?

The original document was a binding agreement, a covenant between sovereign states. Democracy was indirect, state legislators appointed the US Senators and state electors elected the President and VP. The only direct democracy was in the voting for US Representatives to the House; that was quickly defeated by the various redistricting schemes (gerrymandering).....the House is thus filled with hard-to-beat incumbents in safe districts...the system was buggered right off the bat.

Both major parties like the present EC system, as it makes their jobs easier....only a handful of states are really up for grabs....in the non-battleground states, the votes of the minority are worthless...many people simply don't bother to vote, because they know their vote will be functionally discarded.

We need to re-do the Constitution, IMHO....much of it is largely ignored anyway.

By: Rasputin72 on 2/21/12 at 8:16

I think we can beat Obama in Tennessee. However I do not think Tennessee really matters in the "big picture" as there are just too many people who pay no income tax and make less than $50,000 dollars a year with no health insurance and bad credit to beat him nationwide.

I predict that Obama will get 54% of the popular vote. The majority rules in a democracy and the majority want welfare,food stamps,free health care 144 weeks of unemployment and a chicken in their pot. Jobs have been abundant for years and still are. If one does not believe that they should ask the hispanic community. They took the jobs that a "group" of Americans did not want.

The productive Americans and the wealthy Americans are going to learn a real lesson in how to support a family of their own and six other underclass Americans as well.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 8:31

Sorry, Loner, but Obama is not legally eligible for the POTUS office. But, as I've stated before on making an agreement with you and your fellow posters on this site to keep my mouth shut when you prove he is legally eligible for the office. Fair enough?

Simply read his autobiography and quote to me where you find him to be legally eligible. Simply because he was born in Hawaii to an American mother? Or so he said, even though the hospital noted on his "birth certificate" did not exist when he was born.

Why did he co-sponsor the bill that placed John McCain under question about his legal status. And why did he accept it when they decided he was eligible because both of his parents were American citizens.

And why then, did he refuse to answer those same questions? And why has he spent almost a million (the last I heard) dollars keeping his papers under lock and key?

And he's legally eligible, Loner? Gimme a break.

By: bfra on 2/21/12 at 8:47

why did? why did? why did? why did? why did?

By: Loner on 2/21/12 at 8:49

That's it, the troll is beyond help...activating "Ignore Troll" feature.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 9:00

Wrong, Loner. "Troll" isn't beyond help. You and your fellow believers are. As I have stated in the past, just give me proof... which you obviously can't or you would have; "right off the bat".

And by the way, proof isn't just what you think, its what the actual facts are.

By: bfra on 2/21/12 at 9:03

Loner - Not just A troll, a slop sniffing troll! After sniffing, he post his garbage, then starts with the what, when, where & why.

By: Ummm... on 2/21/12 at 9:15

Rasputin72 said: "Jobs have been abundant for years and still are. If one does not believe that they should ask the hispanic community. They took the jobs that a "group" of Americans did not want."

So, if Americans are willing to accept minimum wage (or less, like some illegals) and live 2 or 3 "families" per apartment, they should be happy with that, right? A job that doesn't pay a living wage doesn't "bring home the bacon."

By: Loner on 2/21/12 at 9:24

I agree, Bfra....he wallows in it...then tracks it into the house.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 9:28

Call it what you wish, bfra. I call it facts. Haven't you eve learned to read?

By: bfra on 2/21/12 at 9:32

You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bounced off your rock filled head! This isn't "eve".

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 9:35

As I have stated in the past, just give me proof... which you obviously can't or you would have; "right off the bat".

I submitted it last week, you f'ing retard.

Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were natural born subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this same rule was applicable in the American colonies and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ... with respect to citizens.

There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

Source: http://www.legistorm.com/score_crs/show/id/82388.html

Also submitted: all three branches of the Federal government have affirmed that the election results of 2008 are valid and binding.

Now, idiot, if you have tangible evidence, submit it now, or forever hold your stupidity.

By: Rasputin72 on 2/21/12 at 9:56

Ummm......Those are the jobs that are available. There are no guarantees in this world until the United States invented a standard of living for not working. Who do you think finances the government "no work standard of living" I do mean to question your intellectual capacity but the answer is the "productive people of the United States."

The fastest growing segment of the population in the United States are the people who are comfortable with a "no work standard of living," They breed at a higher rate than any other group. The productive people have no more children than they can afford.

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 10:02

Rasputin, I believe that the basis for this country is that everyone has certain unalienable rights, not just the productive ones, no?

When I was in the Marines, we had a saying, we take care of our own. It seems that the only thing people want to take care of is their own money.

By: Ummm... on 2/21/12 at 10:10

Rasputin, you make my point for me. Unless the job you do provides you with a living wage, where is the incentive to do it? Leaving talk of "breeding" aside, why would you take a job that doesn't help you provide for yourself or your family? While the richest people in this country have seen their incomes skyrocket, the poor and middle class have been going in the other direction. Do the CEO's really work 386% harder than their employees? The only time you hear the words "class warfare" is when the "little people" start fighting back.

By: Eye Nose & Now ... on 2/21/12 at 10:36

Today (Tuesday) I just did all I can do (until November) to replace the imposter
in the White House (Obama, aka: Barry Soretoro). I voted for Santorum in
the TN primary. I'll vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who he is.
We need to return to the "good old days" when we had legally qualified
people in the White House.

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 10:38

Well, it's been one hour since I posted the evidence. There has been no "right off the bat" response from the troll. So, by his own logic, the issue is closed.

By: bfra on 2/21/12 at 10:50

By: Eye Nose & Now ... on 2/21/12 at 10:36
Troll deception!

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 11:04

If only the government was as transparent as yogi is...

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 11:09


I understand the point you posted about the writing from 'legistorm'.

If I'm so wrong on my "argument", why are so many states also questioning his legal eligibility? The last I read, eleven states have brought laws forth to make him prove his eligibility, and Tennessee is one of them.

Could that possibly be because there is so much evidence he isn't legally eligible and the states want to make sure he is? Like that fake birth certificate he has shown, naming a hospital that didn't exist at his birth? That the certificate numbers on the twins born in the same hospital were larger than his even though they were born before him? Or why he is using a SSN that was issued to a now dead man?

Could it possibly be he isn't even a US citizen?

The bottom of the line is: Why has he refused to prove his legal eligibility? Would you be so willing to spend as much money as he to refuse to identify yourself if only 20 bucks would show all of us idiots how dumb we are?

I'd bet you would spend that 20 bucks and laugh like hell at us idiots.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 11:14

My apology, dargent7. My 11:09 post was addressed to you when it should have been to gdiafante.

Just place your name as the addressee, gdiafarte.

By: Eye Nose & Now ... on 2/21/12 at 11:22

EVERYONE in Congress KNOWS Obama is an illegal President. It seems that
even Republicans are keeping quiet and not seeking to impeach him as they
feel (and I agree) that it would cause a racial war because NO WAY will the
blacks let their black President get kicked out. Decent people in Congress)
are sitting back, hoping he will be defeated in November. I hear some of them
are ALREADY trying to work out some changes in the Constitution to repeal
the laws passed ILLEGALLY by our ILLEGAL President. Now THAT is going
to be one huge mess!

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 11:24


I'll simply repeat the evidence I have posted several times before where you and your fellow Obama lovers just ignore it.

Read his damned autobiography, gdiafarte. If what he wrote about himself is true, how did he become eligible?

And why did he make the comment he made to Alan Keyes on his legal status in their debate when running for the State Senate seat: "So what? I'm not running for the President's office."?

By: Eye Nose & Now ... on 2/21/12 at 11:26

Democrats love Obama because Obama is in favor of Pervert Marriage,
Unborn Baby Killing and increases in welfare programs. That's about 80% of his constituency. Other 20% are crooked Democrats hoping for a typical Chicago
style crooked kick back.

By: bfra on 2/21/12 at 11:27

yogi you have NEVER posted any "evidence", just cut & paste garbage from trash sites! More why did? why did? why did?