Its Super Tuesday time

[Sand]

You're right, Guard Dog. I am just getting a tad nutty. I just feel so freaking frustrated that the US is spending the most resources in countries like Afganistan and Iraq, trying to improve the lives of those people while at the same time we are still having major problems here that needs to be addressed. It just feels like the US government cares more about foreigners than its own citizens.

[Walsingham]

Well, feels is perfectly valid. It's something real as feelings get. But a quick look at your budget over there

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...et-glance_N.htm

 

You've got $59.2 billion pegged for education in the US

You've got $775 million pegged for a 'virtual' border fence covering just Mexico.

You've got $668 milllion pegged for "modernising air traffic control"

 

Just as a comparison the TOTAL civilian reconstruction budget for Afghanistan was set at $650 million by Hamid Karzai.

 

I'm not really sure where I'm going with those figures. It's obviously also true that billions are being spent on fighting forces abroad.

[Hildegard]

If Obama is elected they'll kill him.

[WITHTEETH]

If Obama is elected they'll kill him.

Who would try to kill him? With something like a half trillion going to "Defense" it would be a shame if someone could kill our president easily.

 

Run Obama, run run Obama! Hes kicking Hillary's Arse! Exciting stuff. I wonder who his running mate would be, the obvious guess is Edwards.

[Guard Dog]

I wonder who his running mate would be, the obvious guess is Edwards.

 

I seriously doubt it will be Edwards. Obamas whole message is "change" and trotting out a tired and continual candidate like Edwards only undermines that. Elections are like chess games, you have to think tactics. He has lost to Hillary in both the northeast and southwest so his weaknesses are there. He will choose a running mate from one of those two areas. He is a Senator so his running mate will probably not be (A senator-senator combo has not won in over 100 years) so we are down to a US Rep, Governor, or political icon not in office. He will not concern himself with ideology since this is a "democrat year" so he will feel comfortable choosing another liberal. Since he is young he will probably take someone older with real stage presence.

 

My guesses are: Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Tom Vislak, or possibly Michael Bloomberg (that would be a bold choice).

[Enoch]

My guesses are: Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Tom Vislak, or possibly Michael Bloomberg (that would be a bold choice).

Clark, Richardson, and Vilsak are all more attached to the Clintons. They'd be near the top of the list if Hillary were the candidate, but I don't think the same goes for Obama.

 

Some other names to think about:

Tim Kaine. He was one of the first major elected officials to endorse Obama, and is a popular governor of a formerly-red state that Dems think they can pick up (VA). Odds go up if he wins tomorrow's primary.

Tom Daschle. Lots of Barack's staff used to work for the former Senate leader.

Kathleen Sebelius. Very popular second-term governor of Kansas.

[Guard Dog]

You are right about clark now that I think of it, the Clintons own him. And now that I think about it, Richardson would be a wasted choice because McCain is going to win his home state. Vislak would be an olive branch to the center of the party that has consistently voted against Obama plus that would put Dean on his side in truth as well as name. Daschle would be a solid choice except he does not bring any electoral votes with him. Obama will not win South Dakota. Ditto for Sebelius, Obama will not win in Kansas. Plus I doubt he is bold enough to pick a woman as VP, even if she would be a solid candiate.

 

What about Max Cleland?

[Sand]

I would love to see McCain/Obama ticket. The best of the Republicans with the best of the Democrats together in joint leadership. I hope the Democrats choose Obama because if Clinton is nominated then I will have to vote for McCain. I rather see a Republican like McCain as president than Bilary Clinton

[Brdavs]

Well the day that happens is the day UK becomes a leading pro EU force...

(not talking about cause-effect but about probability)

 

I wonder just how likely an Obama/Hillary ticket is... (or vice versa).

 

 

But honestly, it`s but cosmetics and colors setting the republicans and democrats apart... neither of them would pass as anything but "right wing" in lets say Europe, with the rhetorics flat out extremist like (republican especially- ppl would seriously consider Mitt R. for president? LOL?)...

So I`m guessing the world is praying for a democrat, as if that would change much heh... only difference ever noted in foreign affairs policies was that the democrats had more "finesse" but ultimatly still did whatever they set out to do lol...

 

As far as economics go, that will be the decider imo and thats where the democrats will pip it, based on past records... I wouldn`t expect miracles thoe, recessions are innevitable as economic growth simply cannot just expand indefinetly. Funny thing about this morgage crisis is that a little regulation would have prevented it all...

And as far as neoliberalism chicago stlye goes and the "geniouses" of it being the answer to troubles... well that blew up in ppls faces more times than it worked well hehe...We`ll see how it pans out in the newly privatised Iraq and largly privatised Iraq war. You gotta hand it to the C boys, every time **** hits the fan, they allmost never miss it to help do another "experiment"

Edited February 11, 2008 by Brdavs

[Walsingham]

I would love to see McCain/Obama ticket. The best of the Republicans with the best of the Democrats together in joint leadership. I hope the Democrats choose Obama because if Clinton is nominated then I will have to vote for McCain. I rather see a Republican like McCain as president than Bilary Clinton

 

it's a really interesting idea. A shame in some ways that you can't have coalition presidencies. I sometimes think half the problem is being 100% one way or another. But I wouldn't have even thought of putting it this way.

[Hurlshort]

Initially the presidential runner-up became the vice-president, so there is a historical precedent for Sand's scenario. Unfortunately the two political parties (and the people who identify themselves with one party) are too busy waging a pissing contest to ever get along that well.

[Enoch]

I would love to see McCain/Obama ticket. The best of the Republicans with the best of the Democrats together in joint leadership. I hope the Democrats choose Obama because if Clinton is nominated then I will have to vote for McCain. I rather see a Republican like McCain as president than Bilary Clinton

 

it's a really interesting idea. A shame in some ways that you can't have coalition presidencies. I sometimes think half the problem is being 100% one way or another. But I wouldn't have even thought of putting it this way.

We tried it. It didn't work very well. We then amended the Constitution so that it would not happen again.

[Meshugger]

If Obama wins the democrat election, then he should choose Gravel or Kucinich as VP. Atleast those two seems to have the integrity to tell lobbyists, and other politicans who are in bed with them, to go **** themselves (in a kind and polite manner of course).

Edited February 11, 2008 by Gorth
Circumventing language filter

[Hildegard]

If Obama is elected they'll kill him.

Who would try to kill him? With something like a half trillion going to "Defense" it would be a shame if someone could kill our president easily.

 

Run Obama, run run Obama! Hes kicking Hillary's Arse! Exciting stuff. I wonder who his running mate would be, the obvious guess is Edwards.

 

 

Who will kill him? Oh well...you know the same old same old story...shots being fired from different angles, one assassin caught and charged, case closed American style.

[Dark_Raven]

If Obama is elected they'll kill him.

Who would try to kill him? With something like a half trillion going to "Defense" it would be a shame if someone could kill our president easily.

 

Run Obama, run run Obama! Hes kicking Hillary's Arse! Exciting stuff. I wonder who his running mate would be, the obvious guess is Edwards.

The Klan or some other white supremist group. They wouldn't want some colored boy being president.

[Sand]

I would love to see McCain/Obama ticket. The best of the Republicans with the best of the Democrats together in joint leadership. I hope the Democrats choose Obama because if Clinton is nominated then I will have to vote for McCain. I rather see a Republican like McCain as president than Bilary Clinton

 

it's a really interesting idea. A shame in some ways that you can't have coalition presidencies. I sometimes think half the problem is being 100% one way or another. But I wouldn't have even thought of putting it this way.

We tried it. It didn't work very well. We then amended the Constitution so that it would not happen again.

 

Personally I think it would work with Obama and McCain for both really try to bridge over partisanship. Obama is good getting Moderate Republicans and Independents on his side and McCain is good getting conservative Democrats and Independents on his side. A team up of Obama and McCain could do wonders for this country.

[Guard Dog]

Personally I think it would work with Obama and McCain for both really try to bridge over partisanship. Obama is good getting Moderate Republicans and Independents on his side and McCain is good getting conservative Democrats and Independents on his side. A team up of Obama and McCain could do wonders for this country.

 

The pigs are fueled and moving onto the landing strip!

 

BTW, did anyone see Terry McAuliff (a Clinton operative) discussing Obama being Hillarys running mate on CBS News Sunday? How arrogant is that? Obama is winning. Mark my words, this will get seriously ugly. Hillary will not take losing gracefully. Watch for an attempt to peel off the super delegates despite election results.

[Sand]

I think there will be a splitting of the Democrat party. If Clinton is nominated I can see a lot of Independents and Obama supporters vote for Obama anyway. The same can be said with McCain and Huckabee, but Huckabee doesn't have as strong following as Obama. If both the Democrats and Republicans split vehemently in their camps I can see the end of the two party system. One can dream, right?

[Musopticon?]

What would they be called? (Mc)Cainists and Huckabeans? Clintonians and Obamaists?

Edited February 12, 2008 by Musopticon?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I think big centrist 'national unity' coalitions are good for a short time, but become problematic in the longer term. People who oppose the incumbents (often for very good reasons) get driven to extremes of right and left as the only sources of real opposition. That's how Haider got elected in Austria.

[Arkan]

Whew...Obama with the Potomac Sweep!

 

Clinton, You've Lost the Lead.

[Meshugger]

If he gets either Texas or Ohio on march the 4th, then this might turn into something interesting.

[Pop]

I would love to see McCain/Obama ticket. The best of the Republicans with the best of the Democrats together in joint leadership. I hope the Democrats choose Obama because if Clinton is nominated then I will have to vote for McCain. I rather see a Republican like McCain as president than Bilary Clinton

 

it's a really interesting idea. A shame in some ways that you can't have coalition presidencies. I sometimes think half the problem is being 100% one way or another. But I wouldn't have even thought of putting it this way.

No, it's not a shame. To people who have no understanding of politics, bipartisan presidencies are a great idea, because as far as they're concerned "democrat" and "republican" are clear-cut and distinctive groups. But they're not. The most plausible bipartisan ticket would probably be John McCain / Joe Lieberman. Certain substance-free movements might look upon such a ticket as a major step forward, because it's a dem and a rep running side-by-side. What they fail to see is that it's really just two conservatives running. Any and every viable bipartisan ticket will be like this. Party affiliations are essentially meaningless, and thus "bipartisanship" is essentially meaningless.

 

I think there will be a splitting of the Democrat party. If Clinton is nominated I can see a lot of Independents and Obama supporters vote for Obama anyway. The same can be said with McCain and Huckabee, but Huckabee doesn't have as strong following as Obama. If both the Democrats and Republicans split vehemently in their camps I can see the end of the two party system. One can dream, right?

No. No no no no. Take a civics class. We don't have a two-party system because people are stubborn, we have a two-party system because elections in America are First-Past-The-Post races. Meaning, a candidate who receives 49% of the total votes gets absolutely nothing even though he only lost by a percentage point. Winners are the winners. Not everybody gets a trophy. Third parties don't work in this system, in most cases they don't even function on the local or state levels. Hence we have a democratic party that consists of all stripes of liberals, from greens to socialists to pacifists, and a republican party that consists of all stripes of conservatives, from corporatist libertarians to fundamentalists to foreign policy hawks. The thing is, by and large, the people in these parties are smart enough to realize that splitting up gets them nowhere at all. Only activists join third parties.

 

Far right wingnuts hate McCain and establishment dems don't like Obama. They'll bicker up until the point at which the race actually begins before falling into lockstep, because winning now is what matters.

 

The alternative is a parliamentary proportional system. We'll probably never adopt such a system. Besides, we'd end up more like Italy than Denmark.

 

If he gets either Texas or Ohio on march the 4th, then this might turn into something interesting.

He probably won't. But then, Hillary will have to win TX, OH, and PA by 63% to break even with Obama on the numbers, and that's counting in projected superdelegates. The superdelegates favor Hillary, but if it's perceived that Obama is going places Hillary won't get to, they might swing his way. If it comes down to Florida and Michigan, it's going to get ugly. If those states hold their ground, Hillary gets the nomination but not legitimacy.

 

If Obama wins the democrat election, then he should choose Gravel or Kucinich as VP. Atleast those two seems to have the integrity to tell lobbyists, and other politicans who are in bed with them, to go **** themselves (in a kind and polite manner of course).

"Electability" is the watchword here. Fringe candidates appeal to the young and to activists, but the old and comfortable are the ones who show up to the polls. Obama trails Hillary amongst working class folk, an endorsement from John Edwards and the possibility of his being second on the ticket would help him. Either candidate needs an old white man riding shotgun. That's politics.

 

I'm not really convinced by Obama. I know a lot of smart people who support him for stupid and / or nonexistent reasons, and contrary to the belief of many a foreign acquaintance, the young and the "independent" and even republicans will vote for him simply because he's black and really, who doesn't want to be able to say that they voted a black man into the white house not 40 years past the age of lynching? Still, having to rely on nebulous goodwill in an election is better than having to fight nebulous antipathy. A great number of people don't like Hillary for no good reason at all.

 

And if there are two things to remember, one is that nothing is a lock, and the other is that people are fickle. In 2004 we had a gigantic ****up of a president and a war hero challenger to the throne, who still lost, for three reasons. The biggest one is that nobody could picture themselves having a beer and watching the game with Kerry, while Bush was still a good old boy. The second was that he wasn't able to respond to mudslinging in an acceptable manner. The third was that even though the war wasn't exactly popular, the rule of thumb said wartime presidents deserve unconditional support (also: USA USA USA, etc.) I believe McCain can make people who really should know better accept his hawkishness with minimal effort and pick up the Presidency through sheer machismo.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Pop

[Walsingham]

OK, I see what you mean in general terms. And certainly partisan candidates is no bad thing. But simply because there is little to distinguish the two parties does not mean there is little to distinguish the two candidates. We've just been saying so.

 

If only the candidates were going to ignore their foreign policy pronouncements as faithfully as they were going to ignore their tax pronouncements.

[Hurlshort]

Pop, it sounds like you don't think the Bull Moose party is ready to resurface. It will!