June 11th, 2008, 03:22 PM
Ok, It's no doubt going to be McCain vs Obama in November.
So the healthy debate i want to set in motion is simple: Who is Bush keeping the chair warm for?
Personally, i think the biggest voting factor in a presidential election is personality rather than party, and on that basis i think it'll be...
Gah i can't decide :P
But i don't think Obama has an easy ride though...
So come on guys, what do you think?
Demons; Probably until this cycle, in US politics 80% of people voted along party lines, because their parents did or some influence when they first vote. Of the 20%, many do or at least realize that party platforms are important, call themselves moderate this or that or are truly independent and vote their conscience and issues. This year that 80% and about split between the two major party's, are having major problems. It seems media has nominated both those nominees.
You may be right on Obamas clear road to the White House, but it would be more than one 'first'. Many liberal or 'Big Government' candidates have run, been nominated only to lose. Johnson, a liberal, sneaked into the WH when Kennedy was killed and Carter had the help of Nixon's problems when defeating the replacement. The proverbial Mickey Mouse Candidate would have won any of these elections. This year, using the analysis of either party, MM should win or neither base (that 40%) is satisfied with their choice.
A lot depend on VP picks and what happens during the next 5 months, both geo-political and domestically. If the 'War on Terror' goes well, no major attacks in the US or abroad and the economy swings back to the good, McCain in my estimation could win by a landslide. If Obama is indeed the Candidate (have my doubts) and we have problems in Iraq or Iran or the economy more than stumbles, he could win but by a very small margin.
I think that when the Hillary democrats calm down and remember that "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned" (quote from his website), and that McCain plans to appoint Supreme Court judges who will accomplish that goal, they will stop their current nonsense about voting for McCain, and Obama will win handily.
Well i wanted Mrs Clinton to win, but she fell at the first fence. As for McCain and Obama, well, it's six to one, half a dozen to the other isn't it? I've heard virtually zero from McCain over here and an awful lot from Obama. He seem to say change quite a bit which reminds me of Blair a few years ago (god help us).
The way i see it, the ball is in Obama's court. If he can keep the feel good factor around him, make sure his wife doesn't put her foot in it again, and makes sure his priest keeps his mouth shut, then he will be the next president.
That is rather insulting to the American electorate. Do you really believe we are that shallow?Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
I read an article in Australia a couple of months ago about the presidency nominees. In the article the journalist suggested that if all the nominees were white middle aged men than Clinton would have won by a mile. This is something i agree with.
It's not that i think you lot are shallow, i think every voter on earth is shallow. Look at the European constitution vote in Ireland at the moment. 99% of the people that are voting have no idea what it is about. They are not voting on the constitution, they are voting on the idea of it.
Imagine if tomorrow morning you wake to find Obama or McCain have come out of the closet and confessed to being a muslim. Do you ready think that person would have a hope of getting into power? People don't vote for policy's, they vote for people.
If arguing 'Constitutional Law', many would agree. The 14th Amendment has been used for social engineering for many years. If nothing else, it attacks the religious foundation of a society, denying right to what they all feel is a viable human. Additionally the fetus, is a product of two people, in all cases, but the decision requires only one person to abort. When taken to the extremes it has, minor children or aborting at birth, many people and/or the society itself can and does suffer.
Having said this: I DO NOT think the SC will ever void 'R v W' in total, even with 6-7 Conservative Judges, or do I think McCain's main interest in picking that type judge is for that single issue. Probably for public safety, where pregnant women are already at some risk and knowing abortions will be performed legally or not. Many States would keep legal under State Law and underground abortions would continue, as they did prior to the 1973 decision.
A silly generalization.
Another silly generalization.People don't vote for policy's, they vote for people.
Yes and not only shallow, but ignorant to the interest of the Nation over their own. Do you think in the primaries 92-95% of Blacks in each State or near 80% of the young/college students, voted for Obama on issues.
He never mentioned an issue, until after super tuesday...
Cat; Ms. Clinton, of the three was/is the most qualified, IMO for the people she knows to fill post, which always make or break a presidency. I would go on and say, she probably has the highest rating in all the industrialized nations and the respect of the rest, which neither Obama or McCain could achieve.
With out giving 'hope' (where have I heard that), to Clinton followers, the convention has not been held. Legally the candidate has not been picked and presumptive, means just that.
The topic is "Who is Bush keeping the chair warm for?" not "What are your beliefs about abortion."If arguing 'Constitutional Law', many would agree. The 14th Amendment has been used for social engineering for many years. If nothing else, it attacks the religious foundation of a society, denying right to what they all feel is a viable human. Additionally the fetus, is a product of two people, in all cases, but the decision requires only one person to abort. When taken to the extremes it has, minor children or aborting at birth, many people and/or the society itself can and does suffer.
Having said this: I DO NOT think the SC will ever void 'R v W' in total, even with 6-7 Conservative Judges, or do I think McCain's main interest in picking that type judge is for that single issue. Probably for public safety, where pregnant women are already at some risk and knowing abortions will be performed legally or not. Many States would keep legal under State Law and underground abortions would continue, as they did prior to the 1973 decision.
I think the debates will reveal Obama as an empty suit, who is useless without his teleprompter. Anybody who thinks asthma sufferers do not need to go to the emergency room because they can just use their "breathalyser" is going to run into some serious problems.
Just a reply to YOUR comment. Seems you have an agenda on the issue, which IMO is flawed and no reason to vote FOR incompetency. Incidentally most of the SC Judges WERE Republican nominated and nothing has changed (R v W)....Why in the future???
Harold; The "57 STATES" got me, but virtually every off the cuff statement or answer, shows signs of ignorance (or arrogance) on many subjects and/or issues. Dictating what can be discussed, not my name, not my wife, not my ears, not my church, just a few, is also irritating.
All the candidates made their share of gaffes, and I don't think this one of Obama's particularly stands out from the run of the mill. However, I do share your concern about his real depth on the issues. I think Clinton would have been the better candidate and the better president.
Even if you overlook the "breathalyser" gaffe, what was the man trying to say? That there are people with serious asthma who don't have inhalers? Or they have inhalers but stubbornly refuse to use them, and go to the emergency room instead? This is the man that wants to reform our health care system. He's an idiot.All the candidates made their share of gaffes, and I don't think this one of Obama's particularly stands out from the run of the mill. However, I do share your concern about his real depth on the issues. I think Clinton would have been the better candidate and the better president.
Bunbury, they probably were silly generalisations, but Obama has gone from third place in the middle of 2007 to first place in 2008, and beat the once unstoppable Clinton in the process in under 12 months. As Jackson points out, anyone can see the clearly defined ethnic, racial, gender and income social groups in peoples voting patterns.
Of the 8 original democratic party candidates, none of them had any policy's which promoted them far and above or bellow any of the other nominees, and yet you still ended up with two nominees after the others realised they didn't have a hope of winning. It seem pretty clear to me why the two most high profile and well funded candidates made it to the end.
The current policy's of Obama and McCain follow traditional party lines. With the exception of the candidates Iraq/Iran policy's, this election IMO will be fought on personal issues.
I would have thought the American economy would be a more important voting issue tho it likely depends on how the current surge in violence in Iraq/Afghanistan continues. Obama appears to take the party line on economic plans, as does McCain, and it will be interesting to see if the American people go for the democratic or republican proposal this time.
If by personal issues you mean color, age, and charisma, then of course these will all be factors, and no doubt they will be the deciding factors for some people. Most people however, I am sure, are far more concerned with (as FR says) the economy, and environmental issues, health care, abortion, wars and so on.The current policy's of Obama and McCain follow traditional party lines. With the exception of the candidates Iraq/Iran policy's, this election IMO will be fought on personal issues.
Traditionally, 40% of the US electorate (those that vote) will vote democratic and 40% republican. 20% would decide the election per state.
This cycle MAY be a little different, but for (IMO) quite unexpected reason.
Women and the Latino vote. These two major blocks, with in that 20% are going to vote Republican 75-25, if the current trend holds. That is, the VP picks could influence, more so this cycle than ever before. Blacks have in recent history voted democratic, in the 40% - few in the 20% and will make little difference. Woman traditionally (in that 20%) have split their vote and Latinos have trended democratic. Where issues have influenced before (not a large percentage), they will be diminished by 'sexist or racial' attitudes, which has never been an issue. Political junkies, often overlook the real interest of an electorate, which is most often driven to placing the party into their view point, not the candidate on their particular issue of importance.
I think people would like the economy to be run in some way that differs from how GW ran it. Obama is probably going to be more different than McCain, so it would seem unlikely for him to fail.
On the other hand, McCain seems more likely to pull a "win" out of Iraq. (Note that I put the word "win" in quotes, not like anything we do at this point would really count as a victory after all it's cost us)
Oh goodness. That would be a really funny way to throw an election. You decide you don't want to win, so you just say you're a muslim. True or not, you'd get about 3 votes, maybe.
Is Obama, Muslim??? His name "Barack Hussein Obama Jr" named after his father, same name Sr., who HE claims was an atheist. His half brother, still in Kenya, claims both were Muslim and feels our Obama has disgraced his heritage. The Koran, says once a Muslim always and any attempt to convert (tho not possible) makes the worst of all infidels. I don't know and really don't care. His qualifications, to lead the US, as a figurehead or a real power is limited to being a Black US Citizen, by law.
There were no candidates of either or all parties, less qualified than he.
kojax; Am sure you mean President Bush, on the economy, GWB. In the entire history of this country, no president received an economy in decline for the effects of our 'Tech Bubble", literally trillions of dollars, been hit on US mainland by four very large bombs, three of which hit major targets and crippling the very grounds our financial system worked from, been hit by three major (Now four) weather related catastrophes and topped off by world wide related uses of commodities and managed to maintain the economy and ACTUALLY increase the GDP, living standards and over all conditions in better shape, than that person has accomplished. Not to mention freeing two International peoples, maintaining oil supply to the WORLDS ECONOMY and if you like over the heads of our entire political structure. If you want more, every person in this country, democrat or other, expected to be hit again and IT DID NOT HAPPEN. I have no idea where you figure Mr. Bush or his administration failed or to be quite frank, if Mr. Obama had been in charge things would or could have been better.
The COST, my friend is your very freedom. Do you realize how many Americans have paid the ultimate cost (their lives), for your right to pay a few dollars to maintain that idea and the hope of that terrible person GWB, that just maybe all the people in this world can indeed live in peace.
| « Hey you friggin' Irish pricks....... | Why oh Why did they kill government » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
