| Author | Message | ||
     Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 1928 Registered: 05-2005 |
I, for one, am very happy with that. Now on to the White House. The crucial element, other than the basic first step of a first win, is the huge turnout. It shows Democrats are geared up for change and they know who they want. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 918 Registered: 10-2004 |
Well, we *really* want Kucinich, but yeah, seeing Obama snag Iowa felt good, nonetheless. I'm hoping people will wake up and realize that Hillary is not the choice for anyone who wants even moderate change from the white house. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 962 Registered: 01-2005 |
Hilliary is not much different than Joe Lieberman. Obama is not my first choice on the Dem side, but he's better than any Republican running. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 1930 Registered: 05-2005 |
The only way the Democrats won't win is if they run with Hillary Clinton. Too much baggage. It's not likley to happen now anyway. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 1494 Registered: 03-2005 |
Wow. That has to be the hardest crack at Hillary I've ever seen Michael. I don't want her either. But never underestimate the capacity of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. | ||
| spence Member Username: Spence Post Number: 2039 Registered: 05-2005 |
It sounds good running to me, though I have very limited knowledge on both Clinton and Obama. Either way, its great news for me that if it is the 2 horse race the polls suggest, that either a woman or a black man will enter the White House, that'll do me. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 2017 Registered: 05-2005 |
Spence, you are right that either a woman or a black man could enter the White House, but only if which ever of these two Democrats wins the race to be the Democrats presedential candidate beats the Republican candidate when the elections take place later on. So if the Republican(probably McCain?) was to win that battle over either Obama or Clinton it would still be a white man in power. | ||
| frank bascombe Member Username: Frankb Post Number: 235 Registered: 01-2007 |
What wrong with being white and a man?I can't help it, but I can help being biggoted narrow-minded etc | ||
| frank bascombe Member Username: Frankb Post Number: 236 Registered: 01-2007 |
I know what you're saying that for America or any place it would be something for a woman or a black or non-white person to be elected,how things have changed since MLK. I was thinking the same thing my self as I woke to radio 4.I hope the dems do get in but I'm not up with the subtleties of their politics to make a preference.Obama seems sleek good looking slim and presentable nad may be that is what will win it for him. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 921 Registered: 10-2004 |
Kevin - I think it's highly unlikely McCain will be the victorious republican - he's barely a blip on the radar these days. I think both Obama and Edwards have their good points (and bad points), but the one thing I keep going back to is that when the US first invaded Iraq, Obama was quite vocally opposed to the invasion, while Edwards supported it emphatically. Anyone with half a brain who could have ever supported the invasion is either a complete moron or a weakling with zero integrity. Michael - your Lieberman-Clinton comparison is spot-on. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 967 Registered: 01-2005 |
Jeff, Hillary could almost be toast if she gets trounced in New Hampshire today. | ||
| Dr Girlfriend Member Username: Doctor_girlfriend Post Number: 18 Registered: 10-2007 |
barely a blip, huh? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/n h.main/index.html | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 924 Registered: 10-2004 |
Well, it was predicted/almost expected that McCain would take New Hampshire, just as he did in 2000. This news isn't a complete surprise, despite the fact that his campaign had nearly ground to a halt. Thing is, nationwide, Republicans are much more divided and McCain is a harder sell in many states. We still have the other 48 states left. It's disappointing to see early reports of Hillary leading, NH. Why Dems like to shoot themselves in the foot will always perplex me (hence my shift to Green Party nearly 10 years ago). | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 925 Registered: 10-2004 |
...and they're all calling Hillary. Bummer. | ||
| David Gagen Member Username: David_g Post Number: 131 Registered: 02-2007 |
Will Ralph Nader run again? | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 926 Registered: 10-2004 |
Yes, Nader is on the Green ticket. | ||
| David Gagen Member Username: David_g Post Number: 132 Registered: 02-2007 |
Jeff, will he take votes from the Democrats or does he attract voters who otherwise wouldn't vote at all or for either of the major Parties? | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 1946 Registered: 05-2005 |
Jeff, do the Greens have elected representatives anywhere in the US? In the Californian state legislature or the SF council maybe? I know I could google this but I'd prefer you to tell me! | ||
| Geoff Holmes Member Username: Geoff Post Number: 304 Registered: 05-2005 |
Just like any outsider, I can't say I know all the ins and outs of the candidates like the people who live in the culture and are actually going to vote for them. Who do you prefer with the Democrats and why? There's been some discussion as to Hillary losing the Presidency before she even gets to face off to a Republican. Why is that? Do you think the Republicans will win again by mobilising the Theist vote? Will Obama wither like a sapling under the intense scrutiny before an election? Having just spent 11 years yelling at a tv screen every time Howard and his henchmen were on, I am still politically wound up! | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 927 Registered: 10-2004 |
David - I'm not sure what impact Nader will have this year. Typically he appeals to more progressive Democrats and any of the progressive independent party members. Last election the Green Party felt it so urgent to get Bush out of office that they quietly backed Kerry and didn't run any of their own candidates. Nader ran anyway as an independent, which really pissed some people off. But at the end of the day, in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, *more* votes were stolen from Gore and Kerry by organized election rigging and fraud than by Nader's presence. (Journalist Greg Palast has written extensively on this). (For the record, I voted for Nader in 2000, when I knew Gore would take California, but I voted for Kerry in 2004, because the prospect of an overwhelming Bush defeat seemed nice, although it obviously didn't happen). Padraig - the short answer is yes there are elected Green Party representatives, though California seems to have the highest number and by far most are locally elected officials, like city council members, school board members, etc... Basically, their presence is felt only on a local scale in typically left-leaning communities. Geoff, I can't speak for others, but out of the three Democrats who have any chance of winning (and that number is quickly narrowing down to two) I prefer Obama, and I'm definitely not alone. To put it simply, Obama voted against invading Iraq, while Clinton adamantly supported it. Obviously there are a host of other issues in which Obama comes out the more savory candidate, but, like any Democrat, he's certainly not flawless. Overall, I think Obama represents more of a chance for real change and undoing some of the damage Bush has done over the past 7 years. My gut feeling is that Hillary is more beatable than Obama. Despite her experience, I think at the end of the day, Obama has a more charismatic personality which may resonate with people more (and, sadly, that always seems to be massively important in US politics). I think by choosing Hillary (if that's how the primaries wind up going) the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot. But with either candidate, the Republicans are going to fire up the hate-machine big-time. With Hillary it will be easy, as Republicans HATE her with a passion. There is a lot of sexism at work in their hatred of her. With Obama, it will be tricky because Republicans will have to somehow play the racist card without appearing racist, if that makes sense. To me, Hillary is so middle-of-the-road Lieberman-esque that I really dread the prospect of having to vote for her, whereas I could vote for Obama with more enthusiasm. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 1498 Registered: 03-2005 |
Hillary: She's the new Lurlene Wallace. Or America's Cristine Kirchner. Those are not admirable things. This election cycle has reminded me of why I used to get uncontrollably angry at Bill Clinton. The man has great and obvious talents and he oversaw what he now seems to be determined to make the last great decade of this country's existence, but he also got on a f'g plane and flew back to DC specifically to sign a bill that prohibited the marriages of people like me from being recognized. Now, he is pushing and pushing to get his smart but definitely not presidential-caliber wife elected to the Presidency just because, well, she deserves it, dammit! Hillary and Bill are pursuing this election on pure ego. They don't give a s--t about the country. This post is taking me forever to write because I keep erasing all of the terrible bad-karma-creating wishes that I have for them. I have the exact same view of the small-minded Ralph Nader. The guy can't see the forest for the trees and I hold him personally responsible for the past eight year destruction of this country--destruction so fundamental that I probably will not live long enough to see it all repaired. I've been able to read a few interviews with Obama. That's where you get the sense of the man, not from the silly speeches. I think he is unbeatable because he has the gift for seeing the big picture--something no other current candidate has (except maybe in his scary libertarian way, Ron Paul)--and he has people skills at least equal to Bill. And he does not have Bill's insane level of egomania. I don't know if people quite yet understand how comprehensively the classic Republican orgy of national & cultural strip-mining over the past 8 years has destroyed this country. It's not just the Iraq war, though god knows that's bad enough. It's also the undermining of our scientific infrastructure and the associated willful refusal to take the reins on global climate change. It's the disavowal of our proud origin in the Age of Reason and the associated disassembly of the public educational system (although California's been pursuing that fatal course for longer than the past 8 years). It's the bizarre depletion of financial equity at both the national and the individual citizen levels. Boiled down to its essentials, this horrifying regime and its supporters have abandoned the Social Contract. Sadly, many of our allies (such as Oz) will find themselves hurting from the consequences of this country's reprehensible conduct. Ask those local governmental jurisdictions in NSW how they're coping with the disappearance of a bunch of their capital after investing it fraudulent U.S. "securities." People actually used to admire us as a nation. Now, we are synonymous with hubris and fraud. I sincerely believe that Barack Obama is the only chance we have at reviving both our image and our reality. That Bill & Hillary in their ego-driven insanity can't see that is the final and best proof of their loss of credibility. Just imagine what would happen if they threw their support behind Obama--he'd sweep all 50 states. Every single one. | ||
| spence Member Username: Spence Post Number: 2045 Registered: 05-2005 |
A great piece Randy. You should be a jurno my friend! Its nice to get your view on it all, as i am a tad lost. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 928 Registered: 10-2004 |
Randy - an excellent post!! You may have a bit more faith in Obama that I do (he's got some key corporate interests deep in his pockets, and seems a bit tentative on certain environmental issues, etc..), but your comment on the Clintons running on pure ego is absolutely spot-on. I do take issue with the Nader comment, however. Arguments that suggest that he is responsible for Bush's victory simply do not hold water. The media blamed him for taking Florida from Gore in 2000, but the stark reality of the situation was that under Florida governor Jeb Bush, rampant election rigging had a much more damaging effect on Gore than Nader. And ultimately, it was the supreme court who basically illegally handed Bush the presidency at the end of that mess. Election fraud also killed Kerry in Ohio in 2004 (although it was organized differently). (Again, Greg Palast has done extensive reporting on both elections). The media likes to spin the whole "Nader steals votes from the Democrats" story because it's easy and I think certain people have an interest in deflating Nader (and smaller independent parties) in order to maintain the firm 2-party grip on government. In my humble opinion, it is misguided to put the blame on Nader. Nader might have some ego problems, and even I thought it was a bit weird of him to run as an independent in 2004, but at the end of the day, I see his presence as pretty benign. | ||
| Geoff Holmes Member Username: Geoff Post Number: 305 Registered: 05-2005 |
Thanks guys for your views. It gives me more of a handle on Obama. I felt the same way with Howard in our elections in Oz - he broke the social contract: good phrase Randy. Let's hope the Democrats do get in this time. Onto slightly other matters, I've talked to a few Americans on my travels and I can't convince them that compulsary voting is good and that the right to bear arms is bad! Your views??? | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 1500 Registered: 03-2005 |
Right to bear arms is bad? You'll get no argument from me Geoff. I used to live in an otherwise quite nice largely african american neighborhood terrorized by gangs. The houses were pretty and their owners took great pride in them, but you could count on hearing gunshots at night at least once every other week. I literally found a couple spent shell casings on my roof during my five years there and, no, I wasn't any particular target. I always wanted to drop all the a-hole libertarians in there with their guns and let them show us all how the law of the jungle works out. I remember arguing with Padraig about the compulsory voting thing on this board. I've always feared that the nonvoters would make the worst choices if they did vote, but things are dysfunctional enough in the U.S. that I'd certainly be in favor of trying mandatory voting. Maybe if people HAD to vote, those who have opted out would actually put a little effort into it and vote their interests. Clearly, the super wealthy profit from the current system of nonparticipation. | ||
| David Gagen Member Username: David_g Post Number: 133 Registered: 02-2007 |
Thanks for your informative posts Jeff and Randy. The election before last I voted Green instead of Labor and saw Howard re-elected, but we have preferential voting where as long as I put Labor before Lib anywhere on the card it still ultimately goes to Labor. Although Padraig may argue that is one reason Labor doesn't control the Senate. This time I voted Labor just to make sure my vote counted such was my disgust at the Howard regime. Preferential voting does allow for independents and minor parties' voice to be heard I think. Mayb people would vote for Greens/Nader who wouldn't bother voting for Dem/Rep who are dissillusioned? Randy I am generally inclined to support freedom of choice in things so I tend to support non-compulsory voting. But would be worried about the power of powerful lobby groups. Padraig, when we become a Republic I would suggest we don't follow the complicated US model. They seem to spend a fortune and a year of electioneering. Gore Vidal once said that the best way to trick the people into believing they have a democracy is to have as many elections as possible! | ||
| XY765 Member Username: Judge Post Number: 395 Registered: 01-2006 |
I'm not in favour of compulsory anything. Anyway the Republicans still managed to rig the first Bush presidency so I don't see how that would change anything... And on that note here are some pretty funny posters on democracy, the Diebold way... http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold /adworks.htm | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 1957 Registered: 05-2005 |
Great posts guys, especially Randy's. As for Nader, I loved the episode of The Simpsons where he was driving a car powered only by his own ego! Got him in one with that. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 974 Registered: 01-2005 |
While there is still the hard core Republicans in congress and the senate that still back Bush and all that he stands for, the moderate Republican and idependent voters are really upset about the direction Bushco has taken this country the last 7 years. A number of these hard line Republican senators are choosing to retire rather than run gain in 2008, as they know the jig is up and they will get voted out of office if they run again. What we saw the beginnings of in 2006 will be magnified in 2008 with the end result of about 58 Dem senators and a bigger Dem margin in the congress. I doubt that a Republican will be President in another 376 days, but if he is he will be powerless and the Dems will be able to overide any vetos. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 970 Registered: 10-2004 |
Well, I was certainly wrong about McCain, but I don't know anyone who would've predicted that after the first several primaries he and Giuliani would essentially trade places. That's what you get for following the media's coverage of all this a bit too closely. Political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow has a great satire of how the media has covered each primary: http://action.credomobile.com/comics/200 8/01/the_adventures_of_conventional.html That said, Obama's decisive win in South Carolina was definitely promising. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 1024 Registered: 01-2005 |
Jeff, I think Hillary is toast now with the liberal wing of the Democratic party with Obama being endorsed by Ted Kennedy and JFK's and Jackie's politically reclusive daughter Caroline. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 973 Registered: 10-2004 |
Michael, I'd like to think so, but I'm not so certain. Kennedy's endorsement and Obama's win in South Carolina were certainly big blows to Hillary's campaign, but Hillary still seems to have a lot of steam left. As I suspected would happen, a lot of major newspapers are endorsing Hillary (like the NY Times). I'm thinking it'll still be a close race. I guess we'll find out on Tuesday. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 991 Registered: 10-2004 |
Well, as I (and everyone else) figured would happen, yesterday's primaries resulted in more or less a tie between Obama and Clinton. The thing that's frustrating and slightly confusing is the delegate count. Even though Obama seems to have the edge in terms of the popular vote, Hillary still has a lead of about 100 in the delegate count, and it's the delegate count the one needs in order to win the nomination. Obama is closing in, but NPR continually reminds its listeners that Hillary seems to have a stockpile of "super-delegates" that she will likely be able to rely on, as result of all the connections she's made over the years. Regardless, this is going to drag on for a while. Meanwhile, I'm slightly perplexed and disappointed in "progressive" California's results. Clinton got a whopping 52% of the vote, to Obama's 42%. I need to remind myself that I live in the Bay Area, one of the most progressive hotbeds on the planet, where Obama fever is pretty much rampant. I blame Southern California! Actually, NPR is saying the Latino vote, which went overwhelmingly to Clinton, helped quite a bit. I'd like to see a map of California that shows an area by area breakdown of who won where. I'll bet money Obama got considerably more support in Northern CA. When Schwarzeneger won the governor's seat, virtually all his support came from Southern California. It's always election time when Pavement's "Two States" seems entirely appropriate. Fortunately, Obama thoroughly trounced Clinton in several other states, like Idaho and a sweep in the deep south. But again, it's all about the delegates. | ||
| kevin Member Username: Kevin Post Number: 2041 Registered: 05-2005 |
Jeff, I take it McCain can be picked up on the radar again  | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 992 Registered: 10-2004 |
Heh, heh - I know! I conceded that several posts up, but yeah, it's true. But honestly, no one, and I mean no one was predicting that McCain would make the sort of comeback that he did. I mean, I was merely echoing all the news outlets with my grim McCain prediction. He and Giuliani essentially traded positions, which I think surprised a lot of people. Several months ago his campaign was deemed dead in the water and it had run out of money. Last I read, Romney and Huckabee are still hanging on, though it's clear at this point that McCain is the one. What's good is that despite McCain's lead, Republicans are still pretty divided. However, I'm willing to bet McCain will pull some creepy fundie Christian in as his running mate (hell, Huckabee, maybe?) to appeal to all the Christians who seem to all be voting for Huckabee. McCain isn't getting the Christian vote, and that's what he's going to need if he wants to unify the Republicans. But I also think that the prospect of Hillary in the White House might serve as a huge rallying cry to band Republicans together in great numbers. Hillary (and especially her husband) is deeply hated by conservatives in this country. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 995 Registered: 10-2004 |
Ooooh, just found out that with everything more or less having been counted, Obama has nudged ahead in the delegate count with 838 to Clinton's 834. Super-delegates still up for grabs may start gravitating toward Obama if he keeps up the momentum; many will want to align themselves with the candidate most likely to stay ahead. Still a ways left to go, but at least now it's showing that Obama has beat Hillary with the number of states won, the popular vote, *and* the delegate count. Obama's still got a decent chance at nabbing this thing. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 1528 Registered: 03-2005 |
This election is going to give me a heart attack. Jeff, it is not nearly as simple as you think in California. Santa Barbara went for Obama which I find amazing because that's a rich blue-haired place. LA went Clinton. So did Santa Clara and Contra Costa and San Mateo and Napa. I'm talking counties here. In the Central Valley--not surprisingly--Clinton swept except for Sacramento. Apparently, Obama simply failed to resonate with latino voters and the election results track that just about perfectly. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 996 Registered: 10-2004 |
Well, I didn't think CA would map out quite as neatly as I wrote above - it was a bit of hyperbole on my part by placing all the blame on So Cal. But, I am curious to see a map or report that shows which district or county went to which candidate, like the one you've apparently had a chance to examine. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama took Alameda County and SF. Marin could go either way, but Contra Costa and San Mateo going to Clinton isn't too surprising. But it does indeed seem pretty complicated, beyond just the Latino factor. For example, it's weird that Obama could take Santa Barbara which to me doesn't seem a million miles away demographically from Napa or Contra Costa (both very affluent, not particularly progressive counties). | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 1530 Registered: 03-2005 |
Yes, Obama got Alameda County and SF. Also Alpine County which I found interesting. I forgot to check Marin. The big SoCal counties did indeed all go Clinton. I think it tracks amazingly well with where the big chunks of latinos live in this state, i.e., southern and central CA. Missing out on the growing latino electorate indicates a mistake made by someone in Obama's campaign, obviously very well exploited by Cristine Kirchner. Er, Hillary Clinton, sorry. I found the map by poking around the LA Times' website. I think it was actually the AP that put it together. | ||
| David Gagen Member Username: David_g Post Number: 140 Registered: 02-2007 |
Randy et al, Is this a racial thing between Latino voters and Obama, or is there a huge loyalty thing between this constituency and the Clintons from Bill's reign? Or is this a gross over-simplification? Excuse my ignorance but from the outside it does sound surprising? | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 1533 Registered: 03-2005 |
I'm hearing it's a little bit of both David. Some of the southern California urban areas (Los Angeles to some extent but especially in smaller satellite cities such as Compton, Lynwood and Inglewood) DO have conflicts between the growing latino populations and the declining african american ones. But I've also heard a lot about a Clinton loyalty thing. In California in particular, the Republicans were hideous with the latinos by blatantly fanning the flames of xenophobia in the electorate. The Clinton White House was a very welcome contrast. My guess is that Obama's campaign failed to recognize that they needed to make concerted efforts with this demographic. Because they are predominantly Catholic, the latinos can be a tricky constituency for any Democrat. Many would probably be Republican if that party were not such a bastion of bigotry. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 1033 Registered: 01-2005 |
I wish Bill Richardson would back Obama. He would make a good VP candidate in return. That would help Obama out the Latino voters and combat McCain in the southwest. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 997 Registered: 10-2004 |
I'm wondering if/when Edwards is going to endorse either candidate and give him/her his delegates. It's funny how the popular vote count and delegate count keeps shifting depending on what news source you read. The NY Times is giving the edge to Hillary, while yesterday AP was giving it to Obama. It's *that* close that nobody really seems to know for sure. I would also echo Randy's comment that there are a few factors that can explain Latino voting patterns in these primaries, but yes, there has been increasing racial tension over the years between Latino and African American communities, not just in Southern California but in the Bay Area too. I also heard an interview on NPR recently with a Latino political science professor from Southern CA, who maintained that older generations of Latinos tend to vote conservatively, but with the Republicans blatant xenophobia on one end, and Obama's relatively youthful trumpeting of "change" at the other end, Clinton's more middle-of-the-road policies seem more appealing to them. | ||
| Dr Girlfriend Member Username: Doctor_girlfriend Post Number: 21 Registered: 10-2007 |
in other U.S. presidential campaign news... "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. --------------- may we officially offer you, Mitt, a hearty Go-Betweens message board "fuck you and good riddance!"? | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1003 Registered: 10-2004 |
Yes, but maybe there's still a chance for this: http://action.credomobile.com/comics/200 8/02/three_republican_candidates_aw.html | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 1041 Registered: 01-2005 |
With Obama's three wins yesterday, he now has pulled ahead of Hillary in the overall delegate count. Sill to go are big states like Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Smaller liberal states like Wisconsin should be an easy win for Obama. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 2044 Registered: 05-2005 |
Of the big three above I think he will Penn. Ohio is touch and go. Texas will be closer than people imagine, but he won't win it. Let's see how I go with the predictions... | ||
| Rob Brookman Member Username: Rob_b Post Number: 1103 Registered: 08-2006 |
I think the biggest thing Obama has going for him right now - aside from votes and delegates - is that he's winning over Dems who didn't think he was electable. A lot of Dems are so used to backing losing horses that they're obsessed with idea of electability, and will vote for someone they think can win over someone they actually like. Hence Hillary's big early lead. But things have turned. I agree with Padraig that Texas is a long shot but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him take Penn. and Ohio. Given his string of wins - and his blockbuster margins - I think the electability canard can officially be retired. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 1043 Registered: 01-2005 |
Hillary would lose more independent voters to McCain than Obama would. I also think some blacks would stay home and not vote for Hillary. While Obama has some fence mending/reaching out to do with Latinos, I don't think it's an impossible task. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 1565 Registered: 03-2005 |
Ok, those of us in favor of Obama have to regroup now. I am definitely disappointed by the Texas result. I knew he didn't have a realistic chance in Ohio. With her famous name and years of Democratic loyalists slobbering over her, Hillary Clinton has not been able to win a majority of the delegates. THIS is all that is needed to prove that she is a weak candidate. There aren't a bunch of independents--much less Republicans--out there waiting to vote for her in November. If the so-called superdelegates appoint her as the nominee, John McCain will win. But it will be a one-term presidency with McCain floundering against the bad economy he admits that he knows and cares nothing about. THEN Obama. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1056 Registered: 10-2004 |
Going on what I read this morning (and this could've changed in the last hour) is that Obama is still ahead in the delegate count, and that yesterday's results were pretty much a draw in terms of that (with Clinton's win in TX being razor thin). I'd like to think that the superdelegates are taking this into consideration and that they will sway toward Obama, since if Obama still has the edge, he is technically the "winning" candidate, and superdelegates historically always appoint the candidate who is ahead. Of course with the race being so narrow, it's clearly not so cut and dry, but I guess we'll see. | ||
| Ewan Talisker McEwan Member Username: Ewan_mcewan Post Number: 54 Registered: 02-2008 |
Though I've been an Obomoite, Obama Mama or whatever you call it, I'm starting to wonder if I'm "bi". Ms. Hillary seems pretty dang tuff and smart - I like her grip on the details. Also, Obam's failure to close the deal and that he's unable to win those big states like CA and OH makes me worry. I read this mornign that according to the most current poles, they both would do equally well against the Hoarse Whisperer (McKane). | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 1066 Registered: 01-2005 |
There are a number of southern states to go yet, plus the do-overs in Florida and Michigan for the Dems. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1058 Registered: 10-2004 |
Michael - was the decision actually made to do FA and MI over? If so, I didn't hear about that; only that it is clearly a contentious issue. | ||
| Dr Girlfriend Member Username: Doctor_girlfriend Post Number: 45 Registered: 10-2007 |
What country do you live in, Ewan? you seem to know alot about the States, but from your name and the way you write I assumed you were in the UK, or even down Aussie way. but if you're feeling politically "bi," there might be good news as my homegirl Hillary was hinting at a combined ticket with Obama, tho it's hard to imagine him settling for the VP role in that arrangement... | ||
| Ewan Talisker McEwan Member Username: Ewan_mcewan Post Number: 55 Registered: 02-2008 |
I'm Scottish American, thank you for askin Dr Girl. Or maybe that should be Scotch American based on how much of the stuff I drink! Me Granda' Hamish immigrated many years ago and will tell you all about it if he's drunk, which is basically any night after 6 oclock. there is no decision at this point to have do-overs, but most of the punditz are predicting they will - it may be the only way to resolve the whole mess! The Guvnors of Mich and Florida have come out calling for them but that could just be because theyre Repubelickan shitbirds. But anyhoo I predict that they will happen one way or nother. | ||
| David Gagen Member Username: David_g Post Number: 147 Registered: 02-2007 |
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, what sort of oligarchy do the punters want for the great Republic!! | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1060 Registered: 10-2004 |
David, no kidding! If Clinton is elected president, it would be mighty sad to contemplate 24 years of White House domination by *two* families. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1064 Registered: 10-2004 |
Randy, I was thinking about your prediction above, and it's a likely scenario, except you left out the part where my friend's teenage son spills his blood on Iranian sand after having been drafted by McCain as part of an Iranian "surge". I think McCain is pretty fucking scary, and I hope that enough "'Mericans" out can see that. He *is* running for Bush's third term, as they say. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 1569 Registered: 03-2005 |
Yeah, I did leave that out Jeff. I suppose that means I'll have no choice but to vote for HRC if she ends up being the nominee. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1068 Registered: 10-2004 |
I'm grappling with the same dilemma myself, Randy. It'll be a matter of turning my head and cringing as I poke the needle through the "chad" next to Hillary's name. | ||
| Ewan Talisker McEwan Member Username: Ewan_mcewan Post Number: 59 Registered: 02-2008 |
Is the Republicans serious with McKain, though? Ain't people just being polite about him "oh sure you're candidate can win, right mate". He's an OLD bugger innit he? - What is he like a 100? My Granda' Hamish is that age and we won't even let him have the remote for the TV set. I heard that he said that the Americans will be in Iraq for 100 years. That my friends is bullshit. The Demoscrats should run that as acommerchial. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 1069 Registered: 01-2005 |
Jeff, You are correct regarding the no decision on the Florida and Michigan redux. And it is contenious. Ewan, Michigan's Democratic Guvnor Jennifer Granholm is an avid Hillary supporter. She was also the Michigan Attorney General for years, which has many wondering if she is aiming for a cabinet spot in Washington DC if Hillary wins. Jen is also term limited and can't run for Guvnow again. And she's Canadian to boot, so we could have some back bacon frying in the White House washed down with 24 50's (which would be a case of these): http://www.labatt.com/english/lbc_brands /fam/fb_50.html | ||
| Ewan Talisker McEwan Member Username: Ewan_mcewan Post Number: 61 Registered: 02-2008 |
Mr. Mike, anybody who likes a good brew is okay by me. Seriously my feel today is that crankly old fart won't win which means that either way we win - I guess I am bi and like both Hill and Obama. Man that will be some celebracion the day the Americans see the back of Bush. Itll make those celebartions after WWII was over look like funeral marches. Therell be champain flowing and f**ing in the streets! | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1070 Registered: 10-2004 |
Thing is, LK.. cough... Ewan, McCain IS a weak candidate. He may very well fall prey to the Bob Dole syndrome. Plus, his "straight-talk" spiel is a load of horse puckey, and it will be *very* easy to make that crystal clear. McCain is plagued by inconsistency. McCain doesn't appear to have a Rove-ian strategist either, from what I can tell, and without that he's going to have to work that much harder. I think if enough swayable voters see things like this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2a nI, that can help sink him. But still, you'd think that Bush's alcoholism and cocaine abuse and going AWOL, not to mention his inability to articulate a full sentence, all would've contributed to his downfall, but clearly not. So, despite McCain's weaknesses, I don't think that beating him will be a slam-dunk. AND - don't forget that McCain has yet to choose a running mate. If he chooses a fundie christian like Huckabee, he'll be harder to stop since that'll lure in the religious right, who are currently apprehensive about McCain. I heard on NPR last week that one of McCain's top campaign managers said he would quit the campaign should Obama get the Democratic nomination. This was from the guy who helped McCain come back from oblivion over the past few months, and yet *he* doesn't even want to do battle with Obama. That speaks volumes. | ||
| David Gagen Member Username: David_g Post Number: 149 Registered: 02-2007 |
So Hilary wins a few really huge states, Obama wins a shit load of little states, the Repubs are praying to their Almighty that Hilary wins the nom cos they will all unite to defeat her so much is their loathing, someone has to work out what to do with Florida and (forgot other state) redos cos someone stuffed up the first time, Osama has to decide to take gloves off to land the big one on Hilary (like theres plenty of stuff right!!) but if he does he loses the very thing people like bout him ie a fresh start and turning away from gutter politics blah blah, Bill's in the background cheerleading rotweiler Hilary on, McCain just has to do nothing for a coupla months, and everybody spends a trillion dollars. Have I got it right? | ||
| David Gagen Member Username: David_g Post Number: 150 Registered: 02-2007 |
Oops I mean Obama! | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 1571 Registered: 03-2005 |
Pretty much, David. That's why some of us just want to emigrate. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 1072 Registered: 01-2005 |
Even if Hillary beats Obama by a whisker in Pennsylvania, she will lose by large margins to Obama in the medium states like North Carolina and Oregon, plus she will loose by a huge margin tomorrow in Mississippi. If anything, I see the gap growing larger. | ||
| Ewan Talisker McEwan Member Username: Ewan_mcewan Post Number: 66 Registered: 02-2008 |
Beins Im a pintglass half full kinda bloke and a poltitical junky, I'm very happy to watch this donnybrook. I hope it goes all the way to the convention. Think about it - where is all the intereset all the fun? It's the Dems. Nobody gives a rats bollix about McCain. The only way he can get in the news is if he throws another one of his shitfits the cranky bastard. Seems to me it could go either way. Both are going to need the sooperdelegates to get to 2025. Hillary has done a good job to make it not about the gap too. And if they have a dooever in Floarida and Mishigan there may not be no gap. So like I sayed Im happy either way. Should be a entertaining few months! | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1078 Registered: 10-2004 |
Has the news media stopped claiming that Hillary won Texas? I keep hearing on NPR that Obama will likely take the lead with Texas' caucus results, and that all the noise about Hillary taking Texas is premature and erroneous. (On NPR's election results web page, they still have TX listed as "results pending"). I really wish the Dems weren't so divided on this, Chiefly because I think McCain's an easy and deflatable target, and they need to start focusing on him pronto. I mean, McCain was given this nomination quite reluctantly, almost a fluke because all the other candidates looked so much worse. I mean, I even think Hillary could theoretically beat him if she played her cards right. | ||
| Ewan Talisker McEwan Member Username: Ewan_mcewan Post Number: 71 Registered: 02-2008 |
MCain has the hottest pinche wife though | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1082 Registered: 10-2004 |
Speaking of McCain's wife, a friend of mine read somewhere that McCain dumped his first wife - after she was seriously injured in a car accident - for a 25-year-old bimbo, the woman he's still with today - Cindy - who stole pain killers from a charity she was in charge of. Great first lady. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 1075 Registered: 01-2005 |
Had Macaca-Boy George Allen not been caught on camera uttering the following, he might have been locked in as the GOP candidate by now. As Jeff mentioned McCain was given this nomination quite reluctantly, a great deal due to the fact that the GOP heir apparent Allen fell from grace. “This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent. … Lets give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.” The volunteer, S.R. Sidarth, was born and raised in Virginia. Sen. George Allen (R-VA) is accused of possibly calling a 20-year-old volunteer of Indian descent on his opponent’s campaign a “monkey” (macaca). Later reports also indicated he used the "N" word frequently durring his 20's. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1084 Registered: 10-2004 |
My new jaded prediction: with an indisputable lead in delegates for Obama, Hillary, for the first time in her life, tempers her colossal ego and takes one for the team by going along as Obama's running mate, forming an unbeatable machine that chews up McCain and spits him out. Obama/Clinton begin the arduous task of cleaning up the mess of the past 8 years, but then 3 or so years into the term, Clinton secretly orchestrates Obama's assassination, shrouded in an intricate web of conspiracy and air-tight cover-up. Conspiracy theorists will quickly dub her the new LBJ. I guess I'm feeling cynical today. | ||
| Ewan Talisker McEwan Member Username: Ewan_mcewan Post Number: 77 Registered: 02-2008 |
That scenario works for me, but why would Hil'ry get out? If she wins Peannsyliviana, which she seems poysed to do, and they have the do-overs its probable that she will have more popular vote, which could be persuasive with the superdegelates. She will have a case. I want my president to have a big ego - to want it so bad they'd rip a vein out of their opponants neck with their teeth. Some might say that describes Ms. Hillry. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1086 Registered: 10-2004 |
It would describe GW Bush too. Nixon also comes to mind. | ||
| Michael Bachman Member Username: Michael_bachman Post Number: 1082 Registered: 01-2005 |
The arrogance of the Clinton's this week is enought to turn ones stomach. Suggesting that Obama would be a good VP candidate for Hillary even though she is running behind him in everything but the super delegates, and she is rapidly losing her lead of them. I used to respect both of them years ago, but not anymore. I'll stop short of demonizing them, but that's about it. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker Member Username: Jeff_whiteaker Post Number: 1103 Registered: 10-2004 |
Can someone please tell me why this is even an issue? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634881 I don't get it. Everything his minister is quoted as saying in this article is right on the money. It's depressing just how far people go to shelter themselves from reality. That people would hold this against Obama is beyond absurd. | ||
| Ewan Talisker McEwan Member Username: Ewan_mcewan Post Number: 96 Registered: 02-2008 |
Secret Service code name for John Mccain, according to Conan Obrien: "Enlarged Prostate" |