US Presidential Elections

[walkerguy]

Upcoming... Indiana & North Carolina ... 13 Days Away!

 

Primaries and Caucuses Results from CNN

CNN 2008 Election Center

 

Democrats

[Guard Dog]

I repeat: They're not as dumb as you hope they are. Seriously, do you have any idea what would happen if an african-american candidate with the lead in delegates, popular vote, and victories is denied the party's nomination by party elders?

 

Oh yes, it would make 1968 look like a kidde tea party. It may even fracture the democrat party forever. You know my politcal persuasion so I can say i have no love for democrats but it would be a bad thing if the party were permanently damaged. However, it may just exorcise the socialist left who are really the ones driving Obama at this point. That would be a good thing because it would bring the Reagan/JFK democrats back in control and the party would no longer be the punchline of a bad joke. Or it may not. I sort of want to see it happen just to see what the outcome would be.

 

Looking at past elections, there is no correlation between a state's support of one candidate in a primary and their support for that candidate in the general election. People voting in the Dem primaries are a pretty small subset of the electorate as a whole. And they are, by and large, Democrats: Faced with the choice of either a candidate whose policy positions are virtually identical to the positions of the candidate they preferred in the primary, or a candidate who stands for 4 more years of the Bush economy and Bush foreign policy, they're not going to switch sides.

 

Pennsylvania did nothing but prolong the process. Hillary won by a large enough margin to stave off elimination (for now-- the media blitz in PA has left her campaign broke), but not by a large enough margin to change the overall picture.

 

I agree with you on that much. A comitted democrat is not going to vote for Mccain just because the primary candidate they supported lost. However, if they have no strong feeling for the one in the general they may stay home too. we have seen that a few hundred votes can turn an election. 512 votes decided Florida in 2000. I was just pointing out the states where Obama was not the "first choice" of the majority of active democrats may become must win for him. That certainly does not mean he can't win them. A democrat will vote for a democrat every time so long as the candidate is not objectionable in some way. None of these three are objectionable to anyone for any reason other than politics and policy.

 

But you must admit, if I end up being right there will be discussion fodder on this for years to come. Plus, i don't want to see Pop take Tarnas $100.

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry Gorgon, I edited out that 9-11 bit. Sarcasm and tounge-in-cheek humor often don't work in a forum like this.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Gorgon]

Reagan democrats ?

 

The notion that Bush was behind 9/11 has to do with America's fascination with conspiracy theories, it's just as much Michigan militia as ultra hippies. Mainly it's just a story thats so good that it doesn't matter if it's true or not. It takes on a life of its own.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Gorgon

[walkerguy]

You know my politcal persuasion so I can say i have no love for democrats but it would be a bad thing if the party were permanently damaged.

 

User!

[Guard Dog]

Reagan democrats ?

Reagan won by huge majorities in 1980 and 1984. Large numbers of democrats voted for him over Carter or Mondale.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Guard Dog

[~Di]

With 99% reporting Clinton - 55%, Obama - 45%. No surprise she won and it was by a big enough margin to keep her going. So with Hillary likely to win Indiana, Montana, and Guam and Obama likely to win Oregon, North Carolina, and PR there is an excellent chance they will go into the convention in a virtual tie. I am loving this! Plus the polling trends are going against Obama. The more he talks, the less people like him.

 

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/22/de...aws-to-a-close/

 

Definitely could be a floor fight. It's the DNC's fault, too. If they hadn't disqualified Michigan and Florida delegates, Hillary would take it prior to the convention.

[Pop]

The only people to blame for Michigan and Florida getting cut out of the process are the state parties of Michigan and Florida. The DNC told them what the consequences were for moving up their primary dates, and they moved them anyway. It's pretty delicious too, they would have been tremendously important states had they not tried to muscle themselves into an artificial position of importance.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Pop

[babydol]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24271377 , I really dont want to get into politics with you guys, but I will say, I'd rather ANYBODY be the Pres than this Bimbo.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I would almost agree with you. She was much better than Huckaby and it would be a toss-up if came down to her or McCain - although I would most likely vote for the latter. Obama beats everyone who is viable at this point, although I would not mind getting someone who was even more leftist in some regards.

[~Di]

I disagree. Obama is an unknown quantity with rock-star charisma. Turning presidential elections into a personality contest is what gave us George Bush in 2000. Gore was too "boring". We wanted excitement? Boy-howdy, Bush has given us excitement!

 

I like McCain, I just don't want another republican in the Whitehouse. Hillary has proven she would be a dynamic and competent president. Obama has proven nothing, and cannot even be pinned down on what kind of changes he plans, how he plans to accomplish them and how the nation would benefit. Change simply for the sake of it isn't always good, after all. Change is what Bush promised... and change we got.

 

Just something to think about.

 

And I kinda take issue with calling a senator and presidential candidate a "bimbo".

Edited April 24, 2008 by ~Di

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Hillary has proven she would be a dynamic and competent president.

 

I'm not sure where you came up with that - her record and personality, in my mind, does not seem to agree with you.

[Gorgon]

I think it's entirely possible that they wind up chewing each other's heads off and hand everything to McCain despite being acutely aware of the danger.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Yeah, but at least he hasn't been getting in the news while all of this is going on. On the negative, for the democrats, he hasn't been in the news in a bad light while this is going on.

[babydol]

And I kinda take issue with calling a senator and presidential candidate a "bimbo".

Sorry, Di, I really don't like the idea that I offended you, but, I used Bimbo in this sense: a foolish, stupid, or inept person. , and I'm afraid that's just what I think of her. I'm not completely opposed to a female pres, I just don't want HER to be the 1st.

[walkerguy]

I'm not a spout of reasoning, but D_N never says just why Obama may be so superior, just that Hillary is trash. Oh, and if her campaign is to be reffered to as Billary, then call Barack Obama's "Barackelle". He's married too you know.

 

Also: That monster with a hat is very distracting.

[Gorgon]

Spaceballs

[walkerguy]

 

O RLY?

[Guard Dog]

Here is something we were discussing on another forum i'd like you guys to comment on. Assume for the moment that what I posted before was true and that the democratic party would be permanently damaged if the superdelegates overturn the election results and name Hillary as the nominee. She has described herself as a "loyal' "comitted' "lifelong" democrat. And she is no fool, she knows what the potential outcome would be but she is building a case to ask the superdelegates to do exactly that so she can be President. She is willing to see the party destroyed to satisfy her ambitions. Narcissim barely begins to describe it.

[Guard Dog]

Here is an intersting web site. it has the Truth-O-Meter on it. basicly it goes through all the things that the candidates, campaigns and PACs are saying and determines if it is true or not. Worth a look.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm not a spout of reasoning, but D_N never says just why Obama may be so superior, just that Hillary is trash.

 

I dislike both Hillary and Bill, and I agree with Obama on more issues than either of the other two candidates.

 

Oh, and if her campaign is to be reffered to as Billary, then call Barack Obama's "Barackelle". He's married too you know.

 

But he is not using his wife's political clout as a shield for his campaign, she is doing that.

[Moatilliatta]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

I like that site, except that it misses the point a few times. An example would be that it displats Obama's statement "I'm the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born." as mostly true, because it wasn't 12 but 22. Surely the point of such a site would have to be to show that they lied (where lying is defined as intentionally spreading falsehood), instead of simply reporting the wrong number (pretty obvious as the number is lower than the actual number and a higher number would be to his gain).

 

Edit: In short, it is too pedantic.

 

Edit2: Funnyness.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[babydol]

Also: That monster with a hat is very distracting.

 

 

Good.

[Gorth]

She is willing to see the party destroyed to satisfy her ambitions. Narcissim barely begins to describe it.

I think putting up with the public humiliation and the outrage over her (I did not have sex with this woman) husbonds infidelity at work shows exactly how far she is willing to go to satisfy her ambitions.

[~Di]

And I kinda take issue with calling a senator and presidential candidate a "bimbo".

Sorry, Di, I really don't like the idea that I offended you, but, I used Bimbo in this sense: a foolish, stupid, or inept person. , and I'm afraid that's just what I think of her. I'm not completely opposed to a female pres, I just don't want HER to be the 1st.

 

People's opinions differ when it comes to politics. Hillary wasn't my first choice either; I wanted Biden or Richardson. However, I do not believe by any stretch that a two-term senator with a strong record of accomplishment can accurately be labeled as stupid or inept. Foolish? We're all human and have our foolish moments. I just get a bit ruffled with gender-specific insults used against females in general, and strong, politically powerful females in particular. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not the least bit angry, so don't give it another thought.

[~Di]

Here is something we were discussing on another forum i'd like you guys to comment on. Assume for the moment that what I posted before was true and that the democratic party would be permanently damaged if the superdelegates overturn the election results and name Hillary as the nominee. She has described herself as a "loyal' "comitted' "lifelong" democrat. And she is no fool, she knows what the potential outcome would be but she is building a case to ask the superdelegates to do exactly that so she can be President. She is willing to see the party destroyed to satisfy her ambitions. Narcissim barely begins to describe it.

 

That's a bit over-simplified. Don't forget, nearly half of the democratic party supports Hillary. If we took into account Florida and Michigan, two states that will not be allowed a voice in the democratic primaries at all, she has more than half. I find it hard to believe that a candidate with that much support would be considered to be "destroying" the party simply because she doesn't roll over and die.

 

It's just as easy to say that an ambitious, first-year freshman senator with extremely limited governmental experience, no foreign policy or economic experience, no demonstrable program beyond "change!" is destroying the party to satisfy his own narcissim.

 

In my experience, obsessive or extreme hatred, even of a politician, for whatever reason seems to distort the reality of those who are consumed by it. Hillary has proven herself to be a capable, experienced politician who has earned the respect of her colleagues. The fact that two major delegate states decided to tic off the DNC by changing their primary dates, thus losing all of their delegates and disenfranchising millions of their voters... the majority of which voted for Hillary... is hardly her fault. She has a duty to her millions of supporters, nearly half of the party, to continue on.

 

Gorth: Frankly I think that implying because she didn't end her marriage over her husband's infidelity proves her ambitions to be utterly sexist and unfair. Now she is to blame because her husband publicly humiliated her? That's rubbish. A lot of women and men are able to rebuild their marriages after infidelity. And please point out which male presidential candidates of the past few decades have not been politically ambitious. Why is ambition a bad thing only when a female possesses it?

Edited April 25, 2008 by ~Di