NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, as promised here is the Presidential election.

As expected, Obama ran away with the NS Democratic primary with 80% of the vote. Edwards was in second place with 12% and Hillary finished in the single digits.

On the Republican side, it was close. Giuliani won with 48.33% (29 votes) and McCain came in second with 40% (25 votes)

Please post why you voted to keep this on the top of the General pile. Voting will close at 5 PM Central time on Monday Feb. 26th.

Non US citizens can vote and the President will be the candidate that gets the most votes from Republicans, Democrats, and non-citizens.

Poll on the way.

I'd rather not vote in a presidential election since I view the presidential system as vastly inferior to proper parliamentarianism... and I have virtually no clue who those people are... but it's a poll, and it's fun to click. So, meh.

Obama FTW.

Giuliani.

I'll make a prediction for the real election. I think Hillary will win the Democratic primary and Giuliani will win the Republican primary. Hillary might pick Obama as her running mate because of his popularity. I have no idea who Giuliani will pick as his running mate.

Undecided as of yet. I need to learn more about the candidates. I won't really have my mind made up until after the primaries when I know exactly who is actually in the running.

Giuliani.

I'll make a prediction for the real election. I think Hillary will win the Democratic primary and Giuliani will win the Republican primary. Hillary might pick Obama as her running mate because of his popularity. I have no idea who Giuliani will pick as his running mate.

Giuliani would have to pick a socially conservative running mate to solidify the Republican base. Well, maybe not if he's running against Hillary. I hope Democrats realize Hillary is bad for the party and don't pick her in the primaries.

Obama.

Giulliani will never win the nomination. Once the other Republicans start their smear machines, he'll go down in flames.

i vote enthusiastically for obama.

when bill richardson has to drop out of the race, obama is my man.

doesent matter, because by 2008 america will be part of the glorius polish empire.

Giuliani would have to pick a socially conservative running mate to solidify the Republican base. Well, maybe not if he's running against Hillary. I hope Democrats realize Hillary is bad for the party and don't pick her in the primaries.

Do the Republicans really have to solidify their base? It's not like the regular Republican voters are going to cross the aisle to vote for Hillary or a black man.

Do the Republicans really have to solidify their base? It's not like the regular Republican voters are going to cross the aisle to vote for Hillary or a black man.

You're definitely right about Hillary. As for Obama, he's not hated enough to really turn out the Republican vote against him I think.

Obama, though I really am looking into Bill Richardson as well.

Well, I had to mull it over a bit. Giuliani is a strong candidate for my liberal views, but I take issue with his constant bringing up of 9/11 at the Republican primaries to use it as a political tool. Obama, however, is a pretty clear-cut democrat, so I voted for him.

Giuliani would have to pick a socially conservative running mate to solidify the Republican base. Well, maybe not if he's running against Hillary. I hope Democrats realize Hillary is bad for the party and don't pick her in the primaries.

I wonder if Guiliani would pick Romney? Wow, two centrist Republicans. Hell, might even pick up some Democratic votes just on that combination. Maybe, Condi, as she is conservative (or more so than Rudi) and a woman. Might be a good choice if he was running against a Clinton-Obama ticket. What do you think?

Obama, though I really am looking into Bill Richardson as well.

I think Richardson would be a much better candidate than Obama. He has a lot more experience especially with foreign policy. I might even consider voting for him if he won the primary even though I don't like the North Korean nuclear power deal he pulled off. :(

Do the Republicans really have to solidify their base? It's not like the regular Republican voters are going to cross the aisle to vote for Hillary or a black man.

its not the crossover voting that a conservative VP candidate might prevent. its that the base might not vote at all if they think that guiliani is too liberal.

I'm voting for the LP candidate. We haven't had our convention yet, so I can't name him, but I'm certain it's a better choice than the Dem or Rep choice.

its not the crossover voting that a conservative VP candidate might prevent. its that the base might not vote at all if they think that guiliani is too liberal.

A republican will vote for a republican, just as a democrat will vote for a democrat.

I think Richardson would be a much better candidate than Obama. He has a lot more experience especially with foreign policy. I might even consider voting for him if he won the primary even though I don't like the North Korean nuclear power deal he pulled off. :(

its better than having kim setting of practice bombs.

A republican will vote for a republican, just as a democrat will vote for a democrat.

very true. but that doesnt mean that they wont decide not to vote at all.

I wonder if Guiliani would pick Romney? Wow, two centrist Republicans. Hell, might even pick up some Democratic votes just on that combination. Maybe, Condi, as she is conservative (or more so than Rudi) and a woman. Might be a good choice if he was running against a Clinton-Obama ticket. What do you think?

he cant pick romney. too close geographically.

too bad he cant pick schwartzenegger. condi would be an excellent choice. (if it doesnt keep 30% of likely republican voters home altogether) he needs a southern or western running mate a with solid conservative record

i vote enthusiastically for obama.

when bill richardson has to drop out of the race, obama is my man.

Bill Richardson FTW! He helped get rid of Mobutu.

very true. but that doesnt mean that they wont decide not to vote at all.

In my uneducated opinion, I don't think low turnout will be an issue in the comming presidential election.

I think Richardson would be a much better candidate than Obama. He has a lot more experience especially with foreign policy. I might even consider voting for him if he won the primary even though I don't like the North Korean nuclear power deal he pulled off. :(

I like the fact that he has that foreign policy experience, we really need that now, what with our international reputation in ruins.

Do the Republicans really have to solidify their base? It's not like the regular Republican voters are going to cross the aisle to vote for Hillary

Corrected

A republican will vote for a republican, just as a democrat will vote for a democrat.

Not always and not everyone. I was a Republican and I voted for several candidates who were not Republicans. I even tried to help an Independent get elected Governor.

its better than having kim setting of practice bombs.

And how did he get the material to set off the practice bomb? :confused:

snip...southern or western running mate a with solid conservative record

NOoOoO0 Please, NOT JEB!:D

Bill Richardson FTW! He helped get rid of Mobutu.

OK, OK, I give up. This old fart can't figure out FTW. What the hell does it stand for???

OK, OK, I give up. This old fart can't figure out FTW. What the hell does it stand for???

For The Win

For The Win

Though I didn't get FTW either, I was more annoyed that I had to go to wiki to find out who Mobutu was. :(

NOoOoO0 Please, NOT JEB!:D

ohmygod wouldnt that be awful?

how long would guiliani last before some bush fanatic assassinated him to make jeb president?

OK, OK, I give up. This old fart can't figure out FTW. What the hell does it stand for???

i have to ask my son what it means every now and then. its usage goes in waves and if its not used for a while i forget.

Where's Obama from? Democrats only get elected President if they're from the south.

Hillary has a shot, but there's no way Obama wins that election.

We have a fucking year for Christ sake!

I'd rather not vote in a presidential election since I view the presidential system as vastly inferior to proper parliamentarianism... and I have virtually no clue who those people are... but it's a poll, and it's fun to click. So, meh.

Why so? I've always seen it the other way around. With a parliament, you vote, not for the candidate, but for the party. That doesn't sound so good to me. With a candidate, you know (at least basically) what you're getting, but with a party- say you voted Democrat during Kennedy's election- how do you know you were getting Kennedy, a pro-tolerance liberal, as opposed to a Southern Democrat, (which in that era meant) a candidate who was a racisct conservative who was only a Democrat to protest Lincoln being a Republican? There's a big difference between the candidates there. And at the time, the party was completely split; you really wouldn't have known which candidate you were getting. -Long story short: Why would you (or anyone else if they'd like to chime in) prefer a system like that?

Where's Obama from? Democrats only get elected President if they're from the south.

Hillary has a shot, but there's no way Obama wins that election.

Obama is from Illinois (represents Illinois anyway). The Midwest is a good place to be from, it is being from the Northeast that is the real weakness I'd say.

As an independent, between Obama and Guiliani, I vote Obama. Had anyone other than Obama won the Democratic primary I'd vote for Guiliani, but Obama is the superior candidate.

Tweedledee.

Though I didn't get FTW either, I was more annoyed that I had to go to wiki to find out who Mobutu was. :(

Could have asked me. More than 70% of the wiki article was written by yours truly. ;)

Tweedledee.

Y-Yeah? Well, then Tweedledum gets my vote! :D

Er, wait... *shifts eyes* Which is which??? :confused:

We have a fucking year for Christ sake!

Don't worry, the nation will be sick and tired of the infighting between the candidates who come out now.

Remember Clinton's first run? No one knew who he was when things first started. He wasn't even in the news.

Be patient. Someone else may appear who is better.

NADER!

c'mon, you know he'll run in 2008!

Obama 08 Bitch!!!

Where's Obama from? Democrats only get elected President if they're from the south.

Hillary has a shot, but there's no way Obama wins that election.

Roosevelt wasn't from the South.

Could have asked me. More than 70% of the wiki article was written by yours truly. ;)

Well simply going to wiki would be quicker now wouldn't it? After all, you'd just link me to the article, yes? ;)

I'm a Democrat and I vote for Obama.

Roosevelt wasn't from the South.

That's sixty years, though - and before the South shifted parties.

Kerry wasn't, and he nearly won.

Well simply going to wiki would be quicker now wouldn't it? After all, you'd just link me to the article, yes? ;)

Either that, or bore you to death for hours with stories. :p

Why so? I've always seen it the other way around. With a parliament, you vote, not for the candidate, but for the party. That doesn't sound so good to me. With a candidate, you know (at least basically) what you're getting, but with a party- say you voted Democrat during Kennedy's election- how do you know you were getting Kennedy, a pro-tolerance liberal, as opposed to a Southern Democrat, (which in that era meant) a candidate who was a racisct conservative who was only a Democrat to protest Lincoln being a Republican? There's a big difference between the candidates there. And at the time, the party was completely split; you really wouldn't have known which candidate you were getting. -Long story short: Why would you (or anyone else if they'd like to chime in) prefer a system like that?

You omit that parliamentarianist countries usually have more than two parties, and they tend to have actual political parties, as opposed to the election machineries that the US "parties" are. Also, the leaders of the party are the ones who end up being ministers, so you do know exactly what you are getting. And what you get is better because of the parliamentarian system, which coincidentally renders a presidential office superfluous in many cases.

Roosevelt wasn't from the South.
Well, neither was Kennedy. But since Kennedy (who was elected 47 years ago), only southern Democrats win.

And Kerry didn't win, which reinforces my point. He was up against an incredibly weak incumbent, and he still managed to lose, thus demonstrating what a terrible candidate he was.

The Democrats have done an awful job at selecting candidates the last two elections. I'm no fan of Bush, but there's no way I would have voted for Gore or Kerry.

For The Win

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/tanks/tank-whippet.jpg

Obama is from Illinois (represents Illinois anyway). The Midwest is a good place to be from, it is being from the Northeast that is the real weakness I'd say.

Hillary is from the Northeast (represents NY anyway.) ;)

Don't worry, the nation will be sick and tired of the infighting between the candidates who come out now.

Remember Clinton's first run? No one knew who he was when things first started. He wasn't even in the news.

Be patient. Someone else may appear who is better.

...runs and gets binoculars...

That's sixty years, though - and before the South shifted parties.

Kerry wasn't, and he nearly won.

Nixon wasn't from the South and he won.

Hillary is from the Northeast (represents NY anyway.) ;)

So basically, if the Dems are smart they'll have Obama nominated instead of Clinton?

Nixon wasn't from the South and he won.

Nixon wasn't a Democrat.

When you get down to cases, not many Senators have won the Presidential election. Governors do have an edge, in that they do lead, rather than caucus.

Where's Obama from? Democrats only get elected President if they're from the south.

Hillary has a shot, but there's no way Obama wins that election.

He's from the North, but so is Hilary.Since WW2 there have been 6 Democratic presidents (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Clinton), 4 of which have been from the south (Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton). Kennedy and Reagan were from Massachusetts and California. So 2 out of 6 isn't "only get elected from the south".

Nixon wasn't a Democrat.

I misread what was said. I thought they said you don't get elected President unless you are from the South. I miss the D word. My bad. :(

When you get down to cases, not many Senators have won the Presidential election. Governors do have an edge, in that they do lead, rather than caucus.

Jimmy Carter led Georgia? Damn, I wish he did the caucus thing instead.

He's from the North, but so is Hilary.Since WW2 there have been 6 Democratic presidents (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Clinton), 4 of which have been from the south (Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton). Kennedy and Reagan were from Massachusetts and California. So 2 out of 6 isn't "only get elected from the south".

Um. Reagan was a Republican.

He's from the North, but so is Hilary.Since WW2 there have been 6 Democratic presidents (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Clinton), 4 of which have been from the south (Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton). Kennedy and Reagan were from Massachusetts and California. So 2 out of 6 isn't "only get elected from the south".

TAP...TAP...over here... Reagan was a Republican when he was Governor of California and when he was President. :eek:

Prove it

Prove it

ROTFLASTC*

link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html)to his official biography. Note this part:

Ronald Reagan won the Republican Presidential nomination in 1980 and chose as his running mate former Texas Congressman and United Nations Ambassador George Bush. Voters troubled by inflation and by the year-long confinement of Americans in Iran swept the Republican ticket into office. Reagan won 489 electoral votes to 49 for President Jimmy Carter.

*I literally laughed so hard I scared my cats out of my office.

Jimmy Carter led Georgia? Damn, I wish he did the caucus thing instead.

...down the primrose path, anyway. We did survive him and Lester Maddox, and a few other characters.

He's from the North, but so is Hilary.Since WW2 there have been 6 Democratic presidents (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Clinton), 4 of which have been from the south (Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton). Kennedy and Reagan were from Massachusetts and California. So 2 out of 6 isn't "only get elected from the south".
Truman was from Missouri. That's not the real South.

I did notice something interesting when I was reading his bio.
"During World War II he headed the Senate war investigating committee, checking into waste and corruption and saving perhaps as much as 15 billion dollars."
As a note to most of y'all, this war in Iraq isn't the first war where the government has wasted money and it isn't likely to be the last. Think about what $15 billion in 1945 dollars would be equivalent to today.

Lets see...and this proves...?

Oh yeah...NS is dominated by liberals. Breaking news, I'm sure.

:rolleyes:

If you botherd to learn a little about the 1980 elections you would see my comments aren't as stupid as they look. Yes, Reagan was techniclly a republican. But you will notice he won the election with ease. Million of democrats across america, who identify themselves as democrat voted for him, this has come to be known as "the Reagan democrats" because he was seen as more of a traditional democrat candidate then a traditional republican candidate.

Because Carter alienated all those Democrats with his lousy policy.

ROTFLASTC*

link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html)to his official biography. Note this part:

Ronald Reagan won the Republican Presidential nomination in 1980 and chose as his running mate former Texas Congressman and United Nations Ambassador George Bush. Voters troubled by inflation and by the year-long confinement of Americans in Iran swept the Republican ticket into office. Reagan won 489 electoral votes to 49 for President Jimmy Carter.

*I literally laughed so hard I scared my cats out of my office.

If you botherd to learn a little about the 1980 elections you would see my comments aren't as stupid as they look. Yes, Reagan was techniclly a republican. But you will notice he won the election with ease. Million of democrats across america, who identify themselves as democrat voted for him, this has come to be known as "the Reagan democrats" because he was seen as more of a traditional democrat candidate then a traditional republican candidate.

If you botherd to learn a little about the 1980 elections you would see my comments aren't as stupid as they look. Yes, Reagan was techniclly a republican. But you will notice he won the election with ease. Million of democrats across america, who identify themselves as democrat voted for him, this has come to be known as "the Reagan democrats" because he was seen as more of a traditional democrat candidate then a traditional republican candidate.

Jesus wept.

Just gracefully admit you were wrong: Reagan was a Republican, not a Democrat.

And Reagan was more than just "technically" a Republican.

Jesus wept.

Just gracefully admit you were wrong: Reagan was a Republican, not a Democrat.

And Reagan was more than just "technically" a Republican.

I plan on being President one day, i don't have time for grace. I am right. You are wrong. Please vote for me in 2032 if you are an american, if you are not vote for the party in your country that likes me more.

...down the primrose path, anyway. We did survive him and Lester Maddox, and a few other characters.

Ah yes good old Lester. Whatever happened to him? Did he just melt into obscurity?

Lets see...and this proves...?

Oh yeah...NS is dominated by liberals. Breaking news, I'm sure.

:rolleyes:

Hell, get your conservative friends to join and take over the joint. :eek:

Because Carter alienated all those Democrats with his lousy policy.

Damn that was confusing. How does the reply to a post get posted in front of the original post? :confused: :confused:

If you botherd to learn a little about the 1980 elections you would see my comments aren't as stupid as they look. Yes, Reagan was techniclly a republican. But you will notice he won the election with ease. Million of democrats across america, who identify themselves as democrat voted for him, this has come to be known as "the Reagan democrats" because he was seen as more of a traditional democrat candidate then a traditional republican candidate.

WTF? That does not make him a Democrat.

Hell, get your conservative friends to join and take over the joint. :eek:

Haha...nah. I wasn't complaining as much as stating a fact. I've accepted it. I've moved on. There are more liberals here than conservatives. Besides, "Republican" these days seems to mean religious prudes who spend too much. I wonder what happened to my political party. :(

I long for the days of Republicans being fiscally responsible and not having a bible shoved up their asses.

I plan on being President one day, i don't have time for grace. I am right. You are wrong. Please vote for me in 2032 if you are an american, if you are not vote for the party in your country that likes me more.

You will never be President with that attitude young man.

Him: Attitude? What attitude?

Me: The "I am right," = I will not admit I was wrong = I am superior to you attitude young man.

Him: I aint go not attitude you senile, stupid, old man.

:eek: :eek: :D :D

I long for the days of Republicans being fiscally responsible and not having a bible shoved up their asses.

I agree, I sent them my card and registered as and Independent. We need Australia and the USA's Democratic President Reagan back in the White House. :D He was a real Republican and a hell of a good President.

And sure enough, the election is clear on the NS Board. Will not be this way in the real election.

Speaking of which, the first member of the Democratic potential candidates has dropped out:

Pittsburgh native Vilsack drops presidential bid (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_494661.html)

Obama FTW

83.67% as of this post.

Obama FTW

83.67% as of this post.

:rolleyes: Because of course the foreign votes count...

Ok, as promised here is the Presidential election.

As expected, Obama ran away with the NS Democratic primary with 80% of the vote. Edwards was in second place with 12% and Hillary finished in the single digits.

On the Republican side, it was close. Giuliani won with 48.33% (29 votes) and McCain came in second with 40% (25 votes)

Please post why you voted to keep this on the top of the General pile. Voting will close at 5 PM Central time on Monday Feb. 26th.

Non US citizens can vote and the President will be the candidate that gets the most votes from Republicans, Democrats, and non-citizens.

Poll on the way.

You forgot Ralph Nader!

I vote for Newt.

Oh, Wait A Minute...it's February of 2007. Too early. My fault.

Damn early Election Cycles...they mess up my circadian rhythms and stuff...

:D

I plan on being President one day, i don't have time for grace. I am right. You are wrong. Please vote for me in 2032 if you are an american, if you are not vote for the party in your country that likes me more.

No thanks. I prefer a president with some basic knowledge of American history and geography. Thinking Reagan was a Democrat and Truman a Southerner just won't cut it.

If Hillary is elected president, there is only one logical solution, at least for me and all other residents of Texas.

First we use our state powers to suceed from the Union, and then overthrow Governor Parry and put Kinky Friedman in his place.

We would be the only country in the world to have a mystery writer and rock n' roll artist as president.

In a perfect world I wouldn't vote for either, but I picked Guilani. I'd prefer McCain or Evan Bayh or perhaps a true leader who wasn't a career politician, but that's too much to ask.

Of the two given, I picked Obama, yet I wouldn't mind having Guiliani as president. I'm preatty much 51%-49% Obama. Too early to have a strong stance on the election. Yet, to be honest, I would like to see an independent win, at least to show a lot of Republicans and Democrats that money isn't everything, and they need to start picking better candidates.

You will never be President with that attitude young man.

Him: Attitude? What attitude?

Me: The "I am right," = I will not admit I was wrong = I am superior to you attitude young man.

Him: I aint go not attitude you senile, stupid, old man.

:eek: :eek: :D :D

The funny thing is i even win an arguement in someone elses head... I will be president if people vote for me, and people will vote for me if i'm right. Being right isn't that hard. Therefore i might as well book the whitehouse right now for '32-'40. Unless i decide i want to die young and i get assassinated so the public likes me more, then my VP who i don't even like gets into the Presidency, he sucks so bad that i look even better then reality next to him, and cement myself as one of the best 15 presidents ever.

:rolleyes: Because of course the foreign votes count...He's still holding 74.46% of the US citizen vote.

:rolleyes:

No thanks. I prefer a president with some basic knowledge of American history and geography. Thinking Reagan was a Democrat and Truman a Southerner just won't cut it.

I have explained myself about Reagan, i did not mean he was a candidate for the democratic party. But those that normally voted democrat before then and have voted democrat since voted for him, and those my point was volid, democrat voters are not opposed to voted for people that are not from the south. Even if in this intance, the person they voted for wasn't a democrat.

And about Truman, Missouri is regarded by most as being part of the "south". Just because it isn't deep south doesn't mean it isn't south at all.

Now, we've sorted that out, vote for me in '32 and if your not an american vote for the candidate in your country that is most willing to do whatever i want them to. Like Blair and Howard.

He's still holding 74.46% of the US citizen vote.

:rolleyes:

I think we can toss this poll out though. Let's face it, we're as representative of the entire population of the United States as Fox News. We skew the vote too much.

Yeah, i'm very much an Obama supporter and i think he'll win, but by nowhere near as much as what this poll is showing.

And about Truman, Missouri is regarded by most as being part of the "south". Just because it isn't deep south doesn't mean it isn't south at all.


Hi. I'm from Missouri. I've lived here for the vast majority of my life. I have never once in all my life heard anyone other than you suggest that I am a Southerner - and I even live farther to the south than Truman did!

Missouri didn't join the Confederacy. Missourians vote blue almost exactly as often as red. We don't speak with southern accents, we have porches instead of verandas, and we drink pop (or, if you're in St. Louis, soda) instead of Coke. We are, in fact, neither geographically nor culturally Southern. We are geographically and culturally Midwestern, and Truman was about as stereotypically Midwestern as it is humanly possible to be. You're just wrong on this one, I'm afraid. :p

I think we can toss this poll out though. Let's face it, we're as representative of the entire population of the United States as Fox News. We skew the vote too much.

Not to mention the wildly speculative poll options.. I mean, 18 months out.. no way to know.

Hi. I'm from Missouri. I've lived here for the vast majority of my life. I have never once in all my life heard anyone other than you suggest that I am a Southerner - and I even live farther to the south than Truman did!

Missouri didn't join the Confederacy. Missourians vote blue almost exactly as often as red. We don't speak with southern accents, we have porches instead of verandas, and we drink pop (or, if you're in St. Louis, soda) instead of Coke. We are, in fact, neither geographically nor culturally Southern. We are geographically and culturally Midwestern, and Truman was about as stereotypically Midwestern as it is humanly possible to be. You're just wrong on this one, I'm afraid. :p

I've just gone to wikipedia and it says we are both right...

" It is a state with both Midwestern and Southern cultural influences, reflecting its history as a border state between the two regions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri

I've just gone to wikipedia and it says we are both right...

" It is a state with both Midwestern and Southern cultural influences, reflecting its history as a border state between the two regions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri

Yep. There be some hillbillies in the Ozarks. More than a few in some rural mid-state areas, too. Of course, the accent's midwestern. But there's more to hilbillies than the accent.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind having either as new president, but Obama's stance on Gun Rights push me ever so slightly to Guliani.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind having either as new president, but Obama's stance on Gun Rights push me ever so slightly to Guliani.

And what about Guliani's stance on censorship? And what about the prospect of putting the republicans back in power?

And what about the prospect of putting the republicans back in power?

You say that like it's a bad thing... ;)

Anyway, Giuliani may not be ideal, but until the real candidate surfaces, he'll do well to feel out the competition.

And what about Guliani's stance on censorship? And what about the prospect of putting the republicans back in power?

Again, neither are bad candidates. Both have strengths and weaknesses. And I would be proud to call either of them my President. I just prefer Guliani.

Again, neither are bad candidates. Both have strengths and weaknesses. And I would be proud to call either of them my President. I just prefer Guliani.

Fair enough, I guess. though I still would have a hard time voting for a republican right now.

I really especially support Obama because he is for the single payer system, something I've been itching for for quite some time.

Hi. I'm from Missouri. I've lived here for the vast majority of my life. I have never once in all my life heard anyone other than you suggest that I am a Southerner -

What?!

Of course Missouri is in the south! Where else WOULD it be? It's not Mid-Western! It's Southern!

If Hillary is elected president, there is only one logical solution, at least for me and all other residents of Texas.

First we use our state powers to suceed from the Union

Already been done but they picked the losing side.

Well, I still think Edwards is the better candidate, but I voted for Obama ahead of Giuliani. Though frankly, of all the possible Republican choices, I'm least uncomfortable with Giuliani. This would be one race where I wouldn't worry too much about the outcome, knowing that whoever won would at least be competent and not an extremist.

Interesting that McCain came in second in your Republican primary - I think a Giuliani-McCain ticket would be nearly unbeatable. Especially running against Hillary Clinton - I know a lot of Democrats who would prefer Giuliani to Clinton. :D

Too goddamn early for this.

Too goddamn early for this.

Don't worry, we can do it again in six months. That'll be a lot closer to the real election. :D

Ah yes good old Lester. Whatever happened to him? Did he just melt into obscurity?

At one point, he was running the Pic-Rik cafe where the Georgia Tech North Campus dorms now stand. That was way before my tenure at Tech, probably in the '60s.

This one is more accurate than this NS General poll

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/Giulianivs.Clinton20070223.htm

This one is more accurate than this NS General poll

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/Giulianivs.Clinton20070223.htm

Most things are more accurate than an NSG poll.

This one is more accurate than this NS General poll

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/Giulianivs.Clinton20070223.htm
One can only wonder how that will change after the primaries. Then the Hillary attack machine can focus on the Republican candidate. I'm sure you've read that Mr Trailer-Trash himself, James Carville, has come to Hillary's aid, promising that she won't be swift boated. What further damage he can do to the nation, especially since Dick Morris and David Geffen don't seem interested in the Clintons anymore?

This one is more accurate than this NS General poll

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/Giulianivs.Clinton20070223.htm

Thanks for the RL link. I know this election is way off, but that's what happens when you go fishing in the bastion of liberal (or so called progressive) thought. :p But this is a democratic forum and we must let the people decide.

Obama would love it if the rest of the world could vote in our election.

I'm not a US citizen and I vote for... Gore.

I think we can toss this poll out though. Let's face it, we're as representative of the entire population of the United States as Fox News. We skew the vote too much.This isn't supposed to be representative of the whole US. It's representative of NS only. Obviously.

Yep. There be some hillbillies in the Ozarks. More than a few in some rural mid-state areas, too. Of course, the accent's midwestern. But there's more to hilbillies than the accent.

Of course, Truman didn't live anywhere near the Ozarks. If we'd been talking about someone from the Ozarks, I wouldn't have disputed the point nearly as strongly. :p

(And Ozarks residents have a distinct accent from most Missourians, anyway - neither standard Midwestern nor Southern, and not dissimilar to the stereotypical "hillbilly" accent of the Appalachians.)

I'm not a US citizen and I vote for... Gore.

Name your country and we will be glad to send him to you.

I'm voting for myself. Both of these candidates are abominable (Obaminable?)

Have you voted yet? Do it now if you haven't. Poll closes at 5 PM CST Monday Feb. 25th.

The 25th is Sunday, is it not?

The 25th is Sunday, is it not?

OOOPs. You are right, it closes on Monday the 26th.

Look's like Obama is going to win if he was running for President of NS.

Obama is seriously kicking ass.

In my uneducated opinion, I don't think low turnout will be an issue in the comming presidential election.

Yeah, people will be voting against Republicans as much as possible in fear of getting someone like Bush again.

Ilaer

In my uneducated opinion, I don't think low turnout will be an issue in the comming presidential election.

No, the issue will be electoral fraud, same as '00 and '04.

He's still holding 74.46% of the US citizen vote.

:rolleyes:

Yes, on a website with an enormous liberal following as opposed to a conservative one. Also, since the percentages are bound to update with each vote, perhaps it was a bigger deal when I posed that than when you posted this.

Not to mention that the whole idea of this thread is dumb, considering that there are years of campaigning until two real candidates are chosen, not to mention the election taking place.

In my uneducated opinion, I don't think low turnout will be an issue in the comming presidential election.

It will be. Yet again. In 2004, there was an enormous "get Bush out of the whitehouse" and "not my president <insert picture of dubya>" campaign, as well as MTV's ridiculous voter ads to get youth to vote. What happened? Trends stayed the same, and actually less young adults voted.

Your "uneducated opinion" makes rational sense, as one would think it worked that way, but American voters are mainly either apathetic or idiotic, so "rational sense" can't really apply.

No, the issue will be electoral fraud, same as '00 and '04.

No, the issue will be apathy, yet again. No one votes, and many of those who do have no clue what they're voting for, other than a (D) or an (R) straight ballot. Voting habits in this country are pathetic.

He's still holding 74.46% of the US citizen vote.

:rolleyes:

Not to mention that right now he's holding 45.75% of the US citizen vote, proving my point.

:rolleyes: back at ya

Not to mention that right now he's holding 45.75% of the US citizen vote, proving my point.

:rolleyes: back at yaNewsflash:

Total votes (US only): 62
Votes for Obama: 44
Votes for Giuliani: 18

Which means...

Obama: 70.96%
Giuliani: 29.04%

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: back at ya.


And need I not remind you again, this is not supposed to be representative of real life? It's our own mock election, as in who would be the candidates and win the presidency if it was up to NSG. So stop mixing the two up. They do this shit in high school.

If you don't want Giuliani as president in the USA, then can we have him over here in the UK?
I think he'd be an even better PM than good ol' Maggie ever was (and I worship the ground she walks on).

Thanks to G.W. nothing with an R before their name is going to get elected president anytime soon. Jimmy Carter effect anyone?

Independents for Obama!

I'd rather not vote in a presidential election since I view the presidential system as vastly inferior to proper parliamentarianism... and I have virtually no clue who those people are... but it's a poll, and it's fun to click. So, meh.

I think a dual system is best. A parliament made up of parties, choosing a prime minister as is typical and a president to represent the people to the Parliament. It doesn't make terrible sense, but it seems right to me.

doesent matter, because by 2008 america will be part of the glorius polish empire.

Polish empire lol thats a good one...

Giuliani.

I'll make a prediction for the real election. I think Hillary will win the Democratic primary and Giuliani will win the Republican primary. Hillary might pick Obama as her running mate because of his popularity. I have no idea who Giuliani will pick as his running mate.
The democrats best hope is for Obama to win the primary. He isnt quite as left winged as Hillary and she has no chance south of the Mason Dixon. Obama does since he will pull some de Facto black votes. If it comes down to Hillary (Any vice prez but Obama) vs Guiliani (VP McCain?) I think Guiliani wins, almost comfortably.

The democrats best hope is for Obama to win the primary. He isnt quite as left winged as Hillary and she has no chance south of the Mason Dixon. Obama does since he will pull some de Facto black votes. If it comes down to Hillary (Any vice prez but Obama) vs Guiliani (VP McCain?) I think Guiliani wins, almost comfortably.

I'll take issue with a few things here. First, Obama is definatly MORE left wing than Hillary is. Secondly, you haven't been watching the polls because Hillary has more support from the blacks than Obama does. Third, I guess you have forgotten that Hillary and Bill were from Arkansas, and the last time I checked Arkansas was still South of the Mason Dixon line. Giuliani will beat either Hillary or Obama. In fact, Giuliani could pull a lot of Democrat votes.

I'll take issue with a few things here. First, Obama is definatly MORE left wing than Hillary is. Secondly, you haven't been watching the polls because Hillary has more support from the blacks than Obama does. Third, I guess you have forgotten that Hillary and Bill were from Arkansas, and the last time I checked Arkansas was still South of the Mason Dixon line. Giuliani will beat either Hillary or Obama. In fact, Giuliani could pull a lot of Democrat votes.

I know two D states that would pull Giuliani along. NY and NJ, after helping keep hope after 9/11, I think they would vote R this time if Giuliani wins the primarys.

I'll take issue with a few things here. First, Obama is definatly MORE left wing than Hillary is. Secondly, you haven't been watching the polls because Hillary has more support from the blacks than Obama does. Third, I guess you have forgotten that Hillary and Bill were from Arkansas, and the last time I checked Arkansas was still South of the Mason Dixon line. Giuliani will beat either Hillary or Obama. In fact, Giuliani could pull a lot of Democrat votes.

A) Giulliani will never win the Republican nominations because of his rather spotty past.

B) If the 'Pubs keep hurting themselves on Iraq, it won't be a problem for any Dem to win.

C) If Giulliani does run for Prez, it will depress the the theo-con vote, balancing out his "moderate" nature (which he's already thrown by the wayside to make himself more attractive as a candidate).

I know two D states that would pull Giuliani along. NY and NJ, after helping keep hope after 9/11, I think they would vote R this time if Giuliani wins the primarys.

If I recall correctly, Giuliani is pro-gun control, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. He may end up pulling more dems if the Republicans decide that social issues are important to them in '08.

Maybe, but I don't think Giuliani is going to do that well. Conservatives won't show up for him, and, given the choice, most Democrates are more comfortable voting for a standard Democrate than a liberal Republican. And I do think Dems will show up so long as the US stays in Iraq.

Yeah, people will be voting against Republicans as much as possible in fear of getting someone like Bush again.

Ilaer

Its comments like this that drive voters away. WHy don't you get new material because the old one is getting old.

No, the issue will be apathy, yet again. No one votes, and many of those who do have no clue what they're voting for, other than a (D) or an (R) straight ballot. Voting habits in this country are pathetic.

That is indeed 100% true.

Thanks to G.W. nothing with an R before their name is going to get elected president anytime soon. Jimmy Carter effect anyone?

*dies of laughter*

The democrats best hope is for Obama to win the primary. He isnt quite as left winged as Hillary and she has no chance south of the Mason Dixon. Obama does since he will pull some de Facto black votes. If it comes down to Hillary (Any vice prez but Obama) vs Guiliani (VP McCain?) I think Guiliani wins, almost comfortably.

You do realize that over 90% of the black population vote DEMOCRAT ANYWAY?

A) Giulliani will never win the Republican nominations because of his rather spotty past.

He's up in the polls by a wide margin over McCain at the moment.

B) If the 'Pubs keep hurting themselves on Iraq, it won't be a problem for any Dem to win.

Other issues will define this campaign than Iraq. If the dems want to take action on the Iraq front then they need Obama over Hillary because Hillary voted for the Iraq War. The Republicans will play that one up so fast, it won't be funny.

C) If Giulliani does run for Prez, it will depress the the theo-con vote, balancing out his "moderate" nature (which he's already thrown by the wayside to make himself more attractive as a candidate).

He does not need the extreme religious right to win this campaign.

He's up in the polls by a wide margin over McCain at the moment.

Yeah...but while that's an indication...I'm not sure it matters much now. We're too far away. Howard Dean was leading in the polls A LOT closer to election time and still fizzled out when he made an idiot of out of himself. I'm sure there are candidates who haven't even announced yet.

]Other issues will define this campaign than Iraq. If the dems want to take action on the Iraq front then they need Obama over Hillary because Hillary voted for the Iraq War. The Republicans will play that one up so fast, it won't be funny.

It will amaze me, if these two really do come down to a fight to the finish, to see whether America is more racist or sexist. Black men did get to vote first. Will it be the same thing with the white house?

He does not need the extreme religious right to win this campaign.

Oh please god lets hope if a Republican wins he doesn't cater to the religious right. (heh...subtle irony... :p )

If all the stars align just the way that I would like them to we could have a Clinton - Obama ticket.:cool:

Yeah...but while that's an indication...I'm not sure it matters much now. We're too far away. Howard Dean was leading in the polls A LOT closer to election time and still fizzled out when he made an idiot of out of himself. I'm sure there are candidates who haven't even announced yet.

Oh I'm sure and if they have not done so now, then I bet you 3 to 1 that they probably won't. According to an Article I read earlier this month, it is being estimated that a Dem candidate is going to need at least $20 Million to actually have an effective campaign.

It will amaze me, if these two really do come down to a fight to the finish, to see whether America is more racist or sexist. Black men did get to vote first. Will it be the same thing with the white house?

I do not know. It'll make this election interesting if Obama does indeed get the nomination for the Democratic Ticket.

Oh please god lets hope if a Republican wins he doesn't cater to the religious right. (heh...subtle irony... :p )

I have to agree with you on that one.

If all the stars align just the way that I would like them to we could have a Clinton - Obama ticket.:cool:

And that will cost them the election in a New York minute.

If all the stars align just the way that I would like them to we could have a Clinton - Obama ticket.:cool:

That's terrible. There has never been a woman pres or vice pres, and there has never been a non-white pres or vice pres. Now you think America's going to elect both? Sorry...the real world has racism and sexism. Your utopia doesn't exist.

Oh I'm sure and if they have not done so now, then I bet you 3 to 1 that they probably won't. According to an Article I read earlier this month, it is being estimated that a Dem candidate is going to need at least $20 Million to actually have an effective campaign.

Unless I'm terribly behind the curve here, I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet. There are still plenty of guys out there like Newt, and I really haven't researched the differences between the Republican candidates yet, not to mention the Democrats. Perhaps no one new is on the way, but there are surely plenty of unknowns out there who may fizzle out or only get stronger as campaigning becomes more intense.

Unless I'm terribly behind the curve here, I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet. There are still plenty of guys out there like Newt, and I really haven't researched the differences between the Republican candidates yet, not to mention the Democrats. Perhaps no one new is on the way, but there are surely plenty of unknowns out there who may fizzle out or only get stronger as campaigning becomes more intense.

Agreed with you 100%

Oh I'm sure and if they have not done so now, then I bet you 3 to 1 that they probably won't. According to an Article I read earlier this month, it is being estimated that a Dem candidate is going to need at least $20 Million to actually have an effective campaign.


20$M, well it's good to know the price of free democracy in the USA then...

No third party option??

The poll is made of fail!

Obama needs the rascist vote and Hilary needs the sexist vote ALOT less then Guliani needs the neocon vote. You really think the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the Republican delegates are going to allow Guliani to even get past the primaries?

If Obama is the democratic candidate then i'm voting Obama, but if i can't get that i would like to see Guliani. My Prediction is Mccain will win the primary and get, or at least attempt to get Guliani as his VP. An Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket versus Mccain/Guliani or Guliani/Mccain would be something...but i don't see that happening. Mcain/Guliani is a possibility but the other 3 are unlikely.

I think it highly unlikely either Obama or Hillary will win the nomination. I think Edwards likely will. Then you might see Edwards, a southern moderate, pick a midwestern or western running mate, something on the order of Edwards/Richardson or Edwards/Bayh.

As far as the Republicans go, Giuliani has major problems with the decision makers in the GOP. He is too moderate for most in power, and unless there is a state delegate level revolt (almost unheard of in the GOP) you will see McCain as the frontrunner. Mitt Romney just has too many negatives, plus the whole issue of him being a Morman will bring his candidacy down. With the self-destruction of Bill Frist and George Allen, the evangelicals in the party have no one to choose from. Frankly, I actually think the GOP is in serious trouble. McCain is too old, Romney won't be supported by the right-wing Christians and Giuliani is too middle of the road, although IF Rudy somehow got on the top of the ticket, he could win a national election from the center.

JC/Schwarzchild

No third party option??

The poll is made of fail!

Third parties are made of fail. They can't win. The system is stacked against them. Third parties are only used as spoilers.

As far as the Republicans go, Giuliani has major problems with the decision makers in the GOP. He is too moderate for most in power, and unless there is a state delegate level revolt (almost unheard of in the GOP) you will see McCain as the frontrunner. Mitt Romney just has too many negatives, plus the whole issue of him being a Morman will bring his candidacy down. With the self-destruction of Bill Frist and George Allen, the evangelicals in the party have no one to choose from. Frankly, I actually think the GOP is in serious trouble. McCain is too old, Romney won't be supported by the right-wing Christians and Giuliani is too middle of the road, although IF Rudy somehow got on the top of the ticket, he could win a national election from the center.

JC/Schwarzchild

What about Newt?

Third parties are made of fail. They can't win. The system is stacked against them. Third parties are only used as spoilers.

I'd rather throw my vote away on a third party than vote for any of the jokers the Repubs or Dems are trotting out in front of me.

I agree, I sent them my card and registered as and Independent. We need Australia and the USA's Democratic President Reagan back in the White House. :D He was a real Republican and a hell of a good President.

I did a spit take at this one. I only wish Hinckley had aimed a little more to the right. Then perhaps I could have gone to college without sinking myself into twenty years of crushing debt. Fuck Reagan in the ass with a besplintered broom handle. I'm glad he's dead. Twenty-eight years too late IMO

I'll take obama over the mafia anyday personally..

I'll take obama over the mafia anyday personally..

I'm sorry, the mafia? What, are you playing on Italian stereotypes now? A downward thumb to you sir!

And a downward thumb to Celtlund for his support of Reagan! Celt, you're as much of an independent as Bill O'Reilly is and you damned well know it. Stop trying to hide it. You're a party-line Republican through and through.

I know nothing about US politics, but Obama's black isn't he, so I'd better vote for him, or I'd be a racist.

I'm sorry, the mafia? What, are you playing on Italian stereotypes now? A downward thumb to you sir!

.

no i just remember a bunch of allogations coming out years ago during his stint as mayor about him having ties to the mob. the fact that hes italian has nothing to do with it...

(and there are other mobsters besides italians you know...)


i am part italian myself you know, not everything should be assumed as a stereotype....

I know nothing about US politics, but Obama's black isn't he, so I'd better vote for him, or I'd be a racist.

Don't be so idiotic. I have not heard one person say anything along those lines. I'm voting for Obama, if he gets past the primaries and not because he is black, but in my opinion he is the best person for the job, like how everyone should vote. But sadly there will be rascists going out to vote, voting against him just because he is black, and hopefully that number is equaled by the voters who will vote FOR for him just because he is black, which is just as bad.

Don't be so idiotic. I have not heard one person say anything along those lines. I'm voting for Obama, if he gets past the primaries and not because he is black, but in my opinion he is the best person for the job, like how everyone should vote. But sadly there will be rascists going out to vote, voting against him just because he is black, and hopefully that number is equaled by the voters who will vote FOR for him just because he is black, which is just as bad.

I'm only joking. I haven't even heard of the other guy. I don't live in the US so I don't know anything about Obama, other than John Howard doesn't like him. That alone is a good enough reason for me. An enemy of Howard is a friend of mine.

I'm only joking. I haven't even heard of the other guy. I don't live in the US so I don't know anything about Obama, other than John Howard doesn't like him. That alone is a good enough reason for me. An enemy of Howard is a friend of mine.

John Howard is the guy George Bush loves, i saw him with Dubya in a comic invading Canada...

What about Newt?

He couldn't find his rear end with a flashlight and a map, much less win the Presidency. He is irrelevant.