USA Politics

Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

It's really quite sad that she's dragging this out so far.  If the Republican nomination was still up in the air, that'd be fine.  But to the majority of Americans (and foreign observers like myself), it's only looking petty and selfish.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I think either of them would have dropped out by now were there a clear winner, but their isn't. Drag it out I say, who gives a flying fuck.
I think many here can relate to Bill :D

22940319.JPG
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

The thing is, Penn-state and the the remaining primaries really won't make a difference in the lead.  Obama will go into the convention with the lead.  From there, the superdelegates will make up the difference.  So, that being said, the vote will be out of the hands of the voters.  I will be dissappointed if Clinton wins the nomination, because she will go into this convention behind in the popular vote.

I don't think that the dollar will see much difference whether its Clinton or Obama.  IMO
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

The person most helped by Ms. Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania is John McCain.  Clinton can continue to beat up Obama, who can continue to look like an effete wimp for getting beat up by a woman.  Then, when Obama wins (as he ultimately will), he will no longer be seen as a visionary leader but as a guy who couldn't deliver the knockout punch despite a huge lead and who descended with Clinton into petty political mudslinging.  His message of "Hope" and change is probably irreparably tarred. 

Meanwhile, McCain is currently shoring up the middle-ground by distancing himself from all of Bush's myriad policy failures and trying to win over the moderate undecideds who usually decide these elections.  And, after the conventions, the Republican Party's political machine -- which is even better at mud-slinging than the Democrats' and can still be quite effective despite Bush's nosedive in popularity -- will deliver an even more ruthless beating to Obama for being a left-wing liberal (which he is) who is going to raise everyone's taxes to fund a government bureaucracy that, if the Bush presidency has proven anything, is largely ineffectual. 

Obama's best chance against McCain was to go into the general election viewed as a larger-than-life, Kennedy-esque icon for change, a beacon who inspires voters.  That is the only way he could win the moderate voters who otherwise would gravitate toward the more moderate McCain.  Much tougher to do that now, after what Ms. Clinton's campaign has done to him.  It also doesn't help that he hasn't backed up most of his lofty ideals with any concrete policy proposals.  He now looks like just another politician, and not a particularly strong one, at that.  The longer this drags out, the better for McCain.  The disaster for the Democrats is if Clinton wins the nomination by carrying the superdelegates despite having fewer overall votes, which will make the Democrats look just as bad as the Republicans looked after they (according to Democrats) "stole" the 2000 election.  Plus, Clinton has no shot of beating McCain.  As I noted in an earlier post, too many people hate her. 
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

The idea that there's no clear winner is horsehockey.

Obama has a lead of 158 pledged delegates over Clinton.  That's including no "super delegates".  That represents 6% of the total pledged delegates so far allocated. It's also somewhere close to 40% of the remaining delegates.  At this point, Hillary needs to win EVERY REMAINING RACE by 20% or more to catch up, to be within 50 of Obama's pledged delegates.

If this was a presidential election that was this badly split, it'd be called by now, no worries at all.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

cornfedhick said:
The person most helped by Ms. Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania is John McCain.  Clinton can continue to beat up Obama, who can continue to look like an effete wimp for getting beat up by a woman.  Then, when Obama wins (as he ultimately will), he will no longer be seen as a visionary leader but as a guy who couldn't deliver the knockout punch despite a huge lead and who descended with Clinton into petty political mudslinging.  His message of "Hope" and change is probably irreparably tarred. 

Meanwhile, McCain is currently shoring up the middle-ground by distancing himself from all of Bush's myriad policy failures and trying to win over the moderate undecideds who usually decide these elections.  And, after the conventions, the Republican Party's political machine -- which is even better at mud-slinging than the Democrats' and can still be quite effective despite Bush's nosedive in popularity -- will deliver an even more ruthless beating to Obama for being a left-wing liberal (which he is) who is going to raise everyone's taxes to fund a government bureaucracy that, if the Bush presidency has proven anything, is largely ineffectual. 

Obama's best chance against McCain was to go into the general election viewed as a larger-than-life, Kennedy-esque icon for change, a beacon who inspires voters.  That is the only way he could win the moderate voters who otherwise would gravitate toward the more moderate McCain.  Much tougher to do that now, after what Ms. Clinton's campaign has done to him.  It also doesn't help that he hasn't backed up most of his lofty ideals with any concrete policy proposals.  He now looks like just another politician, and not a particularly strong one, at that.  The longer this drags out, the better for McCain.  The disaster for the Democrats is if Clinton wins the nomination by carrying the superdelegates despite having fewer overall votes, which will make the Democrats look just as bad as the Republicans looked after they (according to Democrats) "stole" the 2000 election.  Plus, Clinton has no shot of beating McCain.  As I noted in an earlier post, too many people hate her. 
Click to expand...

What a nice post  :ok:

Before this thing started, about 6 months ago, there was a general feeling that Democrats will win; Not any more.
Too selfish she is  :mad:
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean has released to the media this preview of the Democratic Convention in August:

28bcikg.jpg
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

The way I understand Indiana is that even though Obama lost, it was by just a few votes, and it was still a 'victory' for him, closing the gap in a state that Clinton should have won.  I read this on MSN and had to laugh at this one blurb:

Barack Obama has the lead in elected delegates and the popular vote. Those leads increased Tuesday as he widened his margin by 15 delegates and roughly 200,000 more votes. For Clinton to move ahead in those numbers now, she must bring more states into the union.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Hillary got around +4 delegates from Indiana, of 72 up for grabs. That may change as the vote is finalized in Indianapolis, indeed, to give Obama one or two more delegates there. But +4 is a good estimate for now.

Obama got appx +18 from North Carolina.  That may change as the vote is finalized.  So a +14 day for Obama.

Hillary's "big win" in Pennsylvania only netted her 12 delegates last week.  So she is still sinking, sinking hard.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

If you are looking for a couple of laughs at the way people think Hilary can win, read this.

I got a couple of laughs out of it.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

West VA had their primary today and it passed with a big yawn.  Hilary won 'handily', but it means nothing.

I was sitting in the Dairy Queen eating my ice cream and watching the flat screen tv (ah, America, where eating ice cream requires a tv now [/sarcasm]).  The thing that made me laugh was how minute they got in the details (I think it was CNN, but doesn't matter).  The difference in votes was broken down by age, sex, education, race, and income.  The thing that made me stop in my tracks was one exit poll percentage: "Does race matter, 77% say 'no'".  And I thought to myself, is that good?  And, honestly, I don't know the answer to that.  However, I do know that I look forward to the day when that isn't a question that needs to be asked.

As far as the primaries go, I am looking forward to them being over.  I think it was mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread, but it gets to be a joke after a while, having these elections so far apart.  The republican race has been over forever and the dem one is close to over.  These last few states just don't carry any weight--which is unfortunate. 
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Stepping aside from the presidential race somewhat, I want to look at the way the House is lining up.

There have been three special elections for Congress in the last few weeks, all of them in very Republican districts, and the Democrats have won them all, including an election in rural Mississippi last night.  Two of these elections involved the "test strategy" for November: tying the Democratic candidate to Barack Obama, calling them "tax and spend Liberals", using Reverend Wright's sermon to try and accuse the Democratic candidate of hating America.  It hasn't worked.  And these aren't small races - millions of dollars were spent on these races by the Democratic National Congressional Committee (DNCC) and the Republican National Congressional Committee (RNCC).  The recent race in Mississippi involved over $1.5 million spent by either side.

The two Committees are a national fundraising unit that can spend its cash on any House race in the USA.  The difference?  The DNCC has over $40 million in the bank, the RNCC has around $3 million.  The RNCC, even spending liberally, can't make their strategy stick in rural, conservative areas of the USA.  While we don't know if Obama or McCain (or even Clinton) will win the presidency, it looks like the Democratic Party will be gaining a stranglehold on the House of Representatives in November.

In the Senate:

35 seats are up for grabs this year - 12 Democrat and 23 Republican.  2 of the Democratic seats are in danger, whereas about 10 of the Republican seats are.  So the Democrats could, possibly, hit 60 seats in the Senate - a filibuster-proof majority.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

.... and unfortunately, at this time, that's the only way our democracy here really and truly works: opposite parties in the executive and legislative branches...
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

That depends on how you define "working".  I think that every now and then a firm majority can make great leaps forward.  Most of the time I want my government to be in moderation.

I wish you guys would consider allowing a third party.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

LooseCannon said:
I wish you guys* would consider allowing a third party.
Click to expand...

Is it really on their hands ?? a third party to survive needs sponsors, and this is a difficult thing as I see it right now
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

A third party needs to survive what?

In order to create a viable third party in the USA, all that needs to happen is either one of the two current parties split, or people actually start thinking and voting for a third party when it's viable.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

That depends on how you define "working".
Click to expand...

Yes, "working" here being a very ambiguous word. A solid majority in both branches can serve to expedite the process nicely at times but what I was referring to is in limiting abuses.

I wish you guys would consider allowing a third party.
Click to expand...

We'll get right on that.......  :)
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

LooseCannon said:
A third party needs to survive what?
Click to expand...


sponsors, why you find it strange, even relovutions needs sponsors to exist

LooseCannon said:
In order to create a viable third party in the USA, all that needs to happen is either one of the two current parties split, or people actually start thinking and voting for a third party when it's viable.
Click to expand...

I don't find a reason for one of the two parties to split, it could be a nice thing though
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I don't know what you mean by "surviving sponsors", mate.

And there's lots of reasons for the parties to split - especially the Republican Party, which has a moderate and an extreme-right wing.  The Democrat seems to have lost most of their moderates.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

We do need other viable parties, more than just one more as well, believe me. You just have no idea how difficult that would be to grow one into a serious force to be reckoned with......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top