NationStates Jolt Archive

I have some problems with Obama, but McCain is too close to the Religious Right to get my vote. Anyone even mildly qualified would get my vote over McCain (i.e. anyone better than John Kerry).

Seriously? I support McCain. He's completely middle of the political spectrum. Obama is so far on the left its ridiculous. Not to mention after analyzing all his "ideas" for programs, experts on Wall Street say his policies are the last thing the economy needs.

TSI for President!

Seriously? I support McCain. He's completely middle of the political spectrum. Obama is so far on the left its ridiculous. Not to mention after analyzing all his "ideas" for programs, experts on Wall Street say his policies are the last thing the economy needs.

McCain is only middle of the road from the US perspective. Acoording to the rest of the world, he's reasonably right wing, and Obama is left-centre.

Not that this especially bothers me. I'm personally rather conservative politically, so McCain's place on the political spectrum is not worrysome.

I just feel he's jettisoned his reasonable positions and demeanour to curry the favour of Christian fanatics. Well, if he wants to make this about religion, okay; I'm an Atheist. So I WON'T be voting McCain.

McCain. But fortunately for most Generalites, I am NOT a citizen of the United States of America.

McCain is only middle of the road from the US perspective. Acoording to the rest of the world, he's reasonably right wing, and Obama is left-centre.

Not that this especially bothers me. I'm personally rather conservative politically, so McCain's place on the political spectrum is not worrysome.

I just feel he's jettisoned his reasonable positions and demeanour to curry the favour of Christian fanatics. Well, if he wants to make this about religion, okay; I'm an Atheist. So I WON'T be voting McCain.

He's not even middle of the road by US STANDARDS. McCain would be on the right and Obama would be on the left. Unsurprisingly, just like their parties.

However, by making the spectrum only apply to the typical US we end up with huge skewing because any truly left wing principle endorsed by either candidate would throw them off the chart.

Nader!

Or as the Democrats call him: Darth Nader. ;)

For the sake of information, these are the candidates:

The candidate of the Constitution Party is Chuck Baldwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin).

The candidate of the Democratic Party is Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama).

The candidate of the Green Party is still undecided.

The candidate of the Libertarian Party is Bob Barr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr).

The candidate of the New American Independent Party is Frank McEnulty.

The candidate of the Party for Socialism and Liberation is Gloria La Riva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_La_Riva).

The candidate of the Prohibition Party is Gene Amondson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Amondson).

The candidate of the Republican Party is John McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain).

The candidate of the Socialist Party USA is Brian Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_%28politician%29).

The candidate of the Socialist Workers Party is Roger Calero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero).

There are also independent candidates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_presidential_candidates%2C_2008#Independents).

Of course, were I American, I would have to vote in accordance with the US electoral system, in which the election takes place in a single round (as far as the voters are concerned). Meaning that, if I were to opt for a "small" candidate, I would thereby forego the opportunity to cast some tiny weight on the "Obama or McCain" aspect.

From what little I know of the various candidates, Obama would be pretty near the top of my list anyway. I disagree with him on a number of issues (my ideal candidate for the Democratic Party would have been Kucinich), but as far as Democrats go, and by US standards, he isn't too far to the right. The only other candidate I might be tempted to vote for would be Moore, if only to help ensure that his ideas get heard.

Perhaps fortunately for me, it's a decision I won't actually have to make. In the end, though, I would probably vote Obama.

Seriously? I support McCain. He's completely middle of the political spectrum. Obama is so far on the left its ridiculous. Not to mention after analyzing all his "ideas" for programs, experts on Wall Street say his policies are the last thing the economy needs.

Sounds like he'd get along great with our PM, Captain "Yay, we won the election, we're the best, we're so gr- OH CRAP WE DON'T HAVE ANY POLICIES!".

I support Barack Obama in states that could go either way, and I support Brian Moore in states solidly in one column or the other.

I totally back McCain. McCain has much more experience that either Clinton or Obama and because he is middle of the road I feel he is more on track with my views.

I could go on forever why I like him over Obama, but in the end the result is the same, I back McCain.

People look at see he was born in Panama and claim he is not a US citizen. However, any US military installation is considered US territory and any person born there is automatically a citizen. If you are born in Guam, you are a US citizen. If you are born on a Navy ship in the Indian Ocean, you are an American Citizen. So, splitting hairs is not needed on that issue.

and because he is middle of the road

How exactly is McCain "middle of the road"? He's not that different from Bush.

How exactly is McCain "middle of the road"? He's not that different from Bush.

He seems to think Bush is "center right" or something...

He seems to think Bush is "center right" or something...

Yeh, whereas in reality he's the 'center of wrongness" :p

People look at see he was born in Panama and claim he is not a US citizen. However, any US military installation is considered US territory and any person born there is automatically a citizen. If you are born in Guam, you are a US citizen. If you are born on a Navy ship in the Indian Ocean, you are an American Citizen. So, splitting hairs is not needed on that issue.

I could care less about McCain's citizenship status: He panders to religious nutcases, he wants to keep on the Iraq mistake, he dislikes peace and diplomacy. Bush has been doing everything in his power to turn the Apocalypse into a self-fulfilling prophecy, and McCain has pandered to an evangelical that literally thinks Israel is a tool in it.

Anything, any resources, the ends justify the means to keep that old BEING known as McCain out of the White House.

Is it just me that finds it funny that the Libertarian candidate seems to be so in favour of stopping people doing things - he appears to be anti gay marriage, pro war on drugs, voted for the Patriot Act...

Is it just me that finds it funny that the Libertarian candidate seems to be so in favour of stopping people doing things - he appears to be anti gay marriage, pro war on drugs, voted for the Patriot Act...

I find it funny, but not amusing.

Regardless, it's a good thing, as he'll siphon extreme-con votes right off McCain, so, in the end, this guy's existence might end up being useful for something.

I support Barack Obama in states that could go either way, and I support Brian Moore in states solidly in one column or the other.

Goodness, I'm not the only one!

McCain has much more experience that either Clinton or Obama and because he is middle of the road I feel he is more on track with my views.


He's not "middle of the road". He's hard on the right by the standards of almost every Western country.

I could care less about McCain's citizenship status

You mean you couldn't care less. :)

Incidentally, I have a question for Americans. How much media coverage do the "small" candidates get? Here in France we have a law which says that each media must give exactly the same amount of coverage to every candidate during a presidential election. So in 2007 Gérard Schivardi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9rard_Schivardi) got as much media coverage, and as many opportunities to speak to voters through the media, as Sarkozy did. I think that's a good thing, but "small" candidates in the US seem to be mostly ignored.

I only found out about Brian Moore through Wikipedia. (And so of course I created the French Wikipedia article about him. (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_%28homme_politique%29) ;))

You mean you couldn't care less. :)

I've seen it used both ways. I know the grammatically correct version is "couldn't", but I thought "could" would add more STYLE... ;)

I've seen it used both ways. I know the grammatically correct version is "couldn't", but I thought "could" would add more STYLE... ;)

Yes, but it makes no sense. :P If you say you could care less, you're emphasising the fact that you actually do care. You're saying the opposite of what you intend to say.

Sorry, it's the nitpicking linguist in me.

While Barach Obama would be an unmitigated disaster for the country-his time in the Illinois legislature showed him to be totally amoral and corrupt, not voting until the check cleared in whichever way the highest bidder indicated. McCain would be better than Bush-both are socialists in Republican clothing, but at least McCain already has the contempt of his own party, so we won't see the rallying around the leadership in a crisis that has buoyed Bush up. The choice is Obama-the worst government money can buy or McCain-Bush Light without the support.
I may emigrate after the election...

While Barach Obama would be an unmitigated disaster for the country-his time in the Illinois legislature showed him to be totally amoral and corrupt,

Riiiight...


McCain would be better than Bush-both are socialists in Republican clothing,


You've just lost any lingering shred of credibility you may still have had.

How do you define socialism, oh highly confused person that thou art?


I may emigrate after the election...

Yes, I think that's the most patriotic thing to do. Do your country a favour and decrease the proportion of delusional voters.

Yes, but it makes no sense. :P If you say you could care less, you're emphasising the fact that you actually do care. You're saying the opposite of what you intend to say.

Sorry, it's the nitpicking linguist in me.

It's fine, but I really wanted to know if "could" care less can be used, regardless of the apparent contradiction.

I'm a fan of the descriptive grammar. ;)

McCain? Hard right? Are you people out of your minds? He's conservative on foreign policy (kind of), on opposing pork spending, and on taxes (sort of). He might be conservative on gay marriage and abortion, but I don't know for sure, and I honestly don't care either way about those issues. He's pretty liberal on everything else (maybe with a couple exceptions). I've always done jobs that have me interacting with very, very large numbers of everyday Americans in an area of New York that's very split politically, and I can say that even McCain is to the left of 60+% of everyday, normal Americans.

If anyone hasn't noticed yet, NSG is NOT anything close to a representation of mainstream America, nor is Hollywood or most of the media.

McCain? Hard right? Are you people out of your minds? He's conservative on foreign policy (kind of), on opposing pork spending, and on taxes (sort of). He might be conservative on gay marriage and abortion, but I don't know for sure, and I honestly don't care either way about those issues. He's pretty liberal on everything else (maybe with a couple exceptions). I've always done jobs that have me interacting with very, very large numbers of everyday Americans in an area of New York that's very split politically, and I can say that even McCain is to the left of 60+% of everyday, normal Americans.

If anyone hasn't noticed yet, NSG is NOT anything close to a representation of mainstream America, nor is Hollywood or most of the media.

You're wrong.

Seriously? I support McCain. He's completely middle of the political spectrum.
Only if by "is" you mean "this is 2000 and McCain is Lord Straight-talk of Middle-of-the-road Manor." McCain has lost his mind between then and now and can't figure out who he wants to pander to but it sure ain't moderates and independents.

You're wrong.

Oh gosh! You amazing powers of reasoning and persuasion have made me see the light!

McCain? Hard right? Are you people out of your minds? He's conservative on foreign policy (kind of), on opposing pork spending, and on taxes (sort of). He might be conservative on gay marriage and abortion, but I don't know for sure, and I honestly don't care either way about those issues. He's pretty liberal on everything else (maybe with a couple exceptions). I've always done jobs that have me interacting with very, very large numbers of everyday Americans in an area of New York that's very split politically, and I can say that even McCain is to the left of 60+% of everyday, normal Americans.

If anyone hasn't noticed yet, NSG is NOT anything close to a representation of mainstream America, nor is Hollywood or most of the media.

To European standards, McCain is hard right. To US standards, he's probably "center right". It all depends on what you consider as "center".

Further I find it amusing that in the US, liberals are considered "left" while in most European countries they are on the economic right.

Oh gosh! You amazing powers of reasoning and persuasion have made me see the light!

Why, thank you. Glad I could help.

But just in case this is sarcasm, I'd like to point out that, if McCain were mainstream to 60% of Americans, he'd be at the very least faring better than Obama and with at least about 61% of the vote, and Obama'd have at the very most about 39% of the vote.

And that's "at least" and "at the most".

Given that Obama's leading McCain, and that with an yet non-united base, who's more mainstream?

I could care less about McCain's citizenship status: He panders to religious nutcases, he wants to keep on the Iraq mistake, he dislikes peace and diplomacy. Bush has been doing everything in his power to turn the Apocalypse into a self-fulfilling prophecy, and McCain has pandered to an evangelical that literally wants to use Israel as a tool in bringing it about.

Fixed and reposted. And this is, in a nutshell, why evangelicals support Israel. Not because they have any fondness for Jews, but because they need Israel to exist in order for their prophecies to come true. And if their version of Armageddon really did happen, they'd gleefully consign the Jews to the flames.

To European standards, McCain is hard right. To US standards, he's probably "center right". It all depends on what you consider as "center".

Further I find it amusing that in the US, liberals are considered "left" while in most European countries they are on the economic right.

Well, that's because Europe is pretty close to communism. We're not talking about Europe, though; we're talking about the United States. Let Europe make their own mistakes (again), we don't need to repeat them here.

Why, thank you. Glad I could help.

But just in case this is sarcasm, I'd like to point out that, if McCain were mainstream to 60% of Americans, he'd be at the very least faring better than Obama and with at least about 61% of the vote, and Obama'd have at the very most about 39% of the vote.

And that's "at least" and "at the most".


First, I said that McCain is to the left (to varying degrees, of course) of 60+% of the mainstream. A very large number of conservatives don't support him for that reason. Secondly, using current polls to prove a point is a great idea, because we all know that Kerry defeated Bush in 2004 just like the polls said. Oh wait...

But since you're so certain that I’m wrong anyway, do tell our wonderful audience what it is you do for a living that gives you any kind of insight into what everyday Americans think?

As I've made clear in the past, I definitely support Obama. While I do not agree with his policies on everything--particularly when it comes to homosexual rights--I do find him a worthy person for the Presidency, certainly better than McCain.
That he's not supportive enough, or too supportive of LGBT rights?

Well, that's because Europe is pretty close to communism. We're not talking about Europe, though; we're talking about the United States. Let Europe make their own mistakes (again), we don't need to repeat them here.




First, I said that McCain is to the left (to varying degrees, of course) of 60+% of the mainstream. A very large number of conservatives don't support him for that reason. Secondly, using current polls to prove a point is a great idea, because we all know that Kerry defeated Bush in 2004 just like the polls said. Oh wait...


The mainstream of where? 1930s Italy?

Well, that's because Europe is pretty close to communism. We're not talking about Europe, though; we're talking about the United States.
I'm pretty sure by the measure you are using, the US is the only place where commies havn't taken over.

But since you're so certain that I’m wrong anyway, do tell our wonderful audience what it is you do for a living that gives you any kind of insight into what everyday Americans think?

I stay online talking to such nice people as yourself.

Your claim that McCain is to the left of American mainstream holds even less water, because, were that the case, even LESS people would vote for Obama. That the polls didn't predict the election results didn't make them WILDLY inaccurate enough to have the 15% difference you'd need for your point to be true.

Well, that's because Europe is pretty close to communism.

Are you pretending to be a grossly ignorant fool, or does it come naturally to you? Seriously? You can't tell me that you're so far disconnected from reality that you can believe such nonsense.

I'm pretty sure by the measure you are using, the US is the only place where commies havn't taken over.

Nope, by the measure he's using, Utah is the only place...

Are you pretending to be a grossly ignorant fool, or does it come naturally to you? Seriously? You can't tell me that you're so far disconnected from reality that you can believe such nonsense.
Don't be an asshole.

Gronde: Europe is nowhere close to communism.

First, I said that McCain is to the left (to varying degrees, of course) of 60+% of the mainstream.
Now solely conservapundits count as the mainstream of America?

I would vote for Obama were I over 18. Doesn't matter though, I live in MA. It's staying blue regardless of hell or high water.

Nope, by the measure he's using, Utah is the only place...
It isn't just Utah. I think the entire Midwest has special anti-commie shielding.

It isn't just Utah. I think the entire Midwest has special anti-commie shielding.

Except Chicago and Minneapolis. :D

I stay online talking to such nice people as yourself.

Your claim that McCain is to the left of American mainstream holds even less water, because, were that the case, even LESS people would vote for Obama. That the polls didn't predict the election results didn't make them WILDLY inaccurate enough to have the 15% difference you'd need for your point to be true.

If you haven't noticed, Obama had a lot of trouble with your average white working-class Americans. And pay attention to what I said, which is that the polls are fairly inaccurate, but that another large factor is that large numbers of conservatives don't support McCain at all -- both of which affect the poll numbers.

I sell newspaper subscriptions for a living. I set up in dozens of different grocery stores both in the inner-city areas around where I live and in places that cater to more rural customers. I see and talk to a very good political cross-section on a daily basis. I know what the mainstream is because I see it almost every day. "Talking to people online" doesn't even come close to comparing.

And speaking of which, I need to head off to said job now. I'm sure there will be plenty of friendly comments for me to read when I get home.

If anyone hasn't noticed yet, NSG is NOT anything close to a representation of mainstream America, nor is Hollywood or most of the media.
Oh, we do notice that.

Snip.

Oh, so you're a salesman. And you're basing your opinion on this.

Okay, I'll just forsake your political advice and get my punditry dose from a cashier then. I mean, he talks to many people too. :rolleyes:

You have anecdotal evidence. And anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

You have anecdotal evidence. And anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
Sure it is. It's just anecdotal. :D

Sure it is. It's just anecdotal. :D

Nice! :D

Oh, so you're a salesman. And you're basing your opinion on this.

Okay, I'll just forsake your political advice and get my punditry dose from a cashier then. I mean, he talks to many people too. :rolleyes:

You have anecdotal evidence. And anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

But I sell a liberal rag, so you should love me! Either way, there's a difference between apathetically cashing someone out at Burger King and actually trying to persuade them to buy something. Point being, you can't deny that I see and talk to a whole lot of normal Americans.

Anyway, out the door now now. *dramatic cloak flutter* Behave while I'm gone, you evil, evil communists! :D

But I sell a liberal rag, so you should love me!

Nah, I just see you as useful.

Anyway, out the door now. *dramatic cloak flutter* Behave while I'm gone, you evil, evil communists! :p
*pins a note on Gronde's back as he exits*

*pins a note on Gronde's back as he exits*

*Reads* "If you can read this, you're too close."...

How exactly is McCain "middle of the road"? He's not that different from Bush.


To be honest, I consider him MOR, as I consider myself MOR. In a strick political sense he probably would be more right center.

How exactly is McCain "middle of the road"? He's not that different from Bush.
The problem is being in our frame of reference: there is no middle of the road.

To be honest, I consider him MOR, as I consider myself MOR.

I consider myself middle of the road. Therefore, Obama is extreme right.

The good thing with America is we can discuss this openly and without fear of being thrown in jail and/or shot.

Of course keeping the discussion on an intelligent level can be hard at times.

But none the less, I will vote McCain. I do not wish to have Obama and thats how I feel.

The problem is being in our frame of reference: there is no middle of the road.

Sure there is, it's where I keep the spoon!

The problem is being in our frame of reference: there is no middle of the road.
There is; that's where I got hit by a truck racing at 100 km per hour... :(

The problem is being in our frame of reference: there is no middle of the road.
What's middle of the road? (-5, -5)?

Sure there is, it's where I keep the spoon!
:D

Please can Nader fuck off under a rock or something so that he doesn't cost the Democrats the presidency again?

kthxbye.

There is; that's where I got hit by a truck racing at 100 km per hour... :(
Are you serious? Have you recovered? :(

Are you serious? Have you recovered? :(
I have been turned into roadkill. Good for making puddings. :D

Er, it's not true, sadly.

Please can Nader fuck off under a rock or something so that he doesn't cost the Democrats the presidency again?

kthxbye.

And then we have people who say thigns like this.

Plus you live in England!

Keep it clean folks.

What's middle of the road? (-5, -5)?

For me, somewhere around (-9, -9).

For US politics, probably somewhere in the positive 2s and 3s.

Please can Nader fuck off under a rock or something so that he doesn't cost the Democrats the presidency again?

kthxbye.
Bob Barr.

I have been turned into roadkill. Good for making puddings. :D

Er, it's not true, sadly.
Awwww.

*hugs*

Is it just me that finds it funny that the Libertarian candidate seems to be so in favour of stopping people doing things - he appears to be anti gay marriage, pro war on drugs, voted for the Patriot Act...

Suspicious flip-flop on cannabis - went from "Barr was a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the Department of Justice.[4] While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America.[24] This task force was established in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs."[25] The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to "win the War on Drugs by 2002".[25]" to "Barr would later reverse his position on medical marijuana, actually joining MPP as a lobbyist five years later (see Marijuana Policy Project in Political associations below). In an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report on June 4, 2008, Barr confirmed that he now supports ending marijuana prohibition, as well as the War on Drugs he once fought vehemently for.[38]"
(Ariddia's link)

Author of DOMA, voted for Patriot Act and Iraq war.

Folks, we have Barr the LINO, to add to McCain the RINO and Clinton the DINO.

Suspicious flip-flop on cannabis - went from "Barr was a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the Department of Justice.[4] While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America.[24] This task force was established in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs."[25] The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to "win the War on Drugs by 2002".[25]" to "Barr would later reverse his position on medical marijuana, actually joining MPP as a lobbyist five years later (see Marijuana Policy Project in Political associations below). In an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report on June 4, 2008, Barr confirmed that he now supports ending marijuana prohibition, as well as the War on Drugs he once fought vehemently for.[38]"
(Ariddia's link)

Author of DOMA, voted for Patriot Act and Iraq war.

Folks, we have Barr the LINO, to add to McCain the RINO and Clinton the DINO.

McCain is a MINO... Moderate In Name Only.

Suspicious flip-flop on cannabis - went from "Barr was a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the Department of Justice.[4] While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America.[24] This task force was established in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs."[25] The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to "win the War on Drugs by 2002".[25]" to "Barr would later reverse his position on medical marijuana, actually joining MPP as a lobbyist five years later (see Marijuana Policy Project in Political associations below). In an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report on June 4, 2008, Barr confirmed that he now supports ending marijuana prohibition, as well as the War on Drugs he once fought vehemently for.[38]"
(Ariddia's link)

Author of DOMA, voted for Patriot Act and Iraq war.

Folks, we have Barr the LINO, to add to McCain the RINO and Clinton the DINO.
This should not surprise us, because the Libertarian Party is here to troll in real life.

Folks, we have Barr the LINO, to add to McCain the RINO and Clinton the DINO.

But dinosaurs and rhinoceroses are actual creatures.

But dinosaurs and rhinoceroses are actual creatures.
But Lino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lino_brocka) is a great director.

Awwww.

*hugs*
:fluffle:

I for the dems in most social and economical issues, but this is internal US subject, since they are the one who get screwed by that.

as for the global affairs, there isn't that much differrence for me to care about. bush was disaster and israel was too close to the fire he made, but both candidates seem as they had more reasonable ways to deal with the scorched earth he left (hoping he won't try something as retiring gift).
anyway, I can't vote and AIPAC will take care for the israeli interest (although they far to rightwing by the israeli politic standarts).

Please can Nader fuck off under a rock or something so that he doesn't cost the Democrats the presidency again?

kthxbye.

No! Nader is lurking in the shadows and when you least expect it, he's coming for your children! Bwaaaa Hahahahaha!!!!

And then we have people who say thigns like this.
Err yep.
Plus you live in England!
Aye, on the other hand, since you guys are really the only superpower at the moment (contrary to stupid opinion, neither the Chinese nor Russians have anything like the same force projection, nor economic power as the USA), it does vaguely matter who gets in, although seeing as the State Department and military are old boy's clubs, and no amount of preaching about "change" will affect them, feh.

Keep in mind also that our news spends at least a third of their time going on about this election, and that I also get Fox News and CNN going to my TV, so I can see what your news reckons also.
Keep it clean folks.
Nah, I'll be alright, thanks.
Bob Barr.
Nein danke!

No! Nader is lurking in the shadows and when you least expect it, he's coming for your children! Bwaaaa Hahahahaha!!!!
Aww :(

Suspicious flip-flop on cannabis - went from "Barr was a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the Department of Justice.[4] While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America.[24] This task force was established in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs."[25] The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to "win the War on Drugs by 2002".[25]" to "Barr would later reverse his position on medical marijuana, actually joining MPP as a lobbyist five years later (see Marijuana Policy Project in Political associations below). In an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report on June 4, 2008, Barr confirmed that he now supports ending marijuana prohibition, as well as the War on Drugs he once fought vehemently for.[38]"
(Ariddia's link)

Author of DOMA, voted for Patriot Act and Iraq war.

Folks, we have Barr the LINO, to add to McCain the RINO and Clinton the DINO.
A change in opinion after a few years is not a fraking flip-flop. It's a change in opinion. God forbid people running the country do research and realize "hey, that was a damn stupid idea, let's fix it."

A change in opinion after 10 years is not a fraking flip-flop. It's a change in opinion. God forbid people running the country do research and realize "hey, that was a damn stupid idea, let's fix it."
Actually, aye, it'd be excellent if Bob Barr ran, especially since the only people who would vote for him would be draining votes away from the Republicans.

This is a Good Thing, let's be honest.

But dinosaurs and rhinoceroses are actual creatures.

Heh... maybe the term should be NIL - Neo-con Infiltrator of Libertarianism. NIL...

I like that....

While Barach Obama would be an unmitigated disaster for the country-his time in the Illinois legislature showed him to be totally amoral and corrupt, not voting until the check cleared in whichever way the highest bidder indicated.

It's a good thing, then, that we're not voting for him but his brother: Barack Obama.

I, as I do every year, will be voting for Jackson Kirk Grimes (http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=15772).

Keep in mind also that our news spends at least a third of their time going on about this election, and that I also get Fox News and CNN going to my TV, so I can see what your entertainment channels pretending to be news reckon also.


Oh, and Nader didn't "steal" it from Gore, the people who didn't vote for Gore did. Well, and the Supreme Court's decision on recounting.

Bob Barr '08: Let's Bring Mustaches Back Together

For the sake of information, these are the candidates:

The candidate of the Constitution Party is Chuck Baldwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin).

The candidate of the Democratic Party is Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama).

The candidate of the Green Party is still undecided.

The candidate of the Libertarian Party is Bob Barr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr).

The candidate of the New American Independent Party is Frank McEnulty.

The candidate of the Party for Socialism and Liberation is Gloria La Riva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_La_Riva).

The candidate of the Prohibition Party is Gene Amondson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Amondson).

The candidate of the Republican Party is John McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain).

The candidate of the Socialist Party USA is Brian Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_%28politician%29).

The candidate of the Socialist Workers Party is Roger Calero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero).

There are also independent candidates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_presidential_candidates%2C_2008#Independents).

Of course, were I American, I would have to vote in accordance with the US electoral system, in which the election takes place in a single round (as far as the voters are concerned). Meaning that, if I were to opt for a "small" candidate, I would thereby forego the opportunity to cast some tiny weight on the "Obama or McCain" aspect.

From what little I know of the various candidates, Obama would be pretty near the top of my list anyway. I disagree with him on a number of issues (my ideal candidate for the Democratic Party would have been Kucinich), but as far as Democrats go, and by US standards, he isn't too far to the right. The only other candidate I might be tempted to vote for would be Moore, if only to help ensure that his ideas get heard.

Perhaps fortunately for me, it's a decision I won't actually have to make. In the end, though, I would probably vote Obama.

Ah, thank you, thank you very much. I'll pop this into the original post.


Incidentally, I have a question for Americans. How much media coverage do the "small" candidates get? Here in France we have a law which says that each media must give exactly the same amount of coverage to every candidate during a presidential election. So in 2007 Gérard Schivardi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9rard_Schivardi) got as much media coverage, and as many opportunities to speak to voters through the media, as Sarkozy did. I think that's a good thing, but "small" candidates in the US seem to be mostly ignored.

Almost none, pretty much. Bob Barr and the Libertarian convention was mentioned simply in passing on CNN while they were talking about McCain and his chances. And you can guarantee that any left-wing parties won't be mentioned at all, except for MAYBE the Greens and ONLY in relation to Nader.

Remember, all of our media is corporate(except for NPR and a couple of other similar things, but those are all volunteer funded and so are only watched by a few people at most) and thus they only broadcast what gets them ratings. Small parties do not get them ratings.

Really, that's one of the largest obstacles to an Independent or third party candidate. The other major obstacle is getting on the ballot everywhere. Democrat and Republican candidates get on the ballot pretty much automatically, but everyone else has to fight rules that require the parties perform at a certain level or something like that before they're even considered. (And of course said parties can't perform at that level if they're not on the ballot everywhere, thus enforcing the whole system...)

But if an Independent can crack the nutshell of the media and getting on the ballot--said Independent would probably have to be a high profile Congressperson or Governor running on a solid record who has at least a decent amount of cash--they'd have a chance, especially if the Democratic and Republican candidates aren't great.

Right now though, if I were an Independent capable of that I'd lay the freaking hell low. There's no way they could beat someone like Obama. You'd need BOTH candidates to be of McCain quality for it to be possible, and unfortunately that's rare indeed.
That he's not supportive enough, or too supportive of LGBT rights?
Not supportive enough. I want homosexuals to have full complete rights. They're people like everyone else and their sexual orientation should not disbar them from getting the rights they deserve.

With things being exactly the way they are at this point in time and IF I could vote in the general, I would be exploring two options:

1. Write in vote for Clinton.

2. Vote for Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org/issues/).

I've seen it used both ways. I know the grammatically correct version is "couldn't", but I thought "could" would add more STYLE... ;)

I've seen it used both ways too, and it's always wrong to say "could." It just doesn't make a lick of sense. A comb can be used both ways too. I think it only works one of those ways though.

While Barach Obama would be an unmitigated disaster for the country-his time in the Illinois legislature showed him to be totally amoral and corrupt, not voting until the check cleared in whichever way the highest bidder indicated. McCain would be better than Bush-both are socialists in Republican clothing, but at least McCain already has the contempt of his own party, so we won't see the rallying around the leadership in a crisis that has buoyed Bush up. The choice is Obama-the worst government money can buy or McCain-Bush Light without the support.
I may emigrate after the election...

why wait?

Oh, and Nader didn't "steal" it from Gore, the people who didn't vote for Gore did. Well, and the Supreme Court's decision on recounting.
Let's be honest, Green voters probably would have voted for the Dems. 100,000 more votes in Florida would have won Gore the presidency.

I have been turned into roadkill.
But he got better...

But he got better...
*struggles to fill the blanks* :confused:

With things being exactly the way they are at this point in time and IF I could vote in the general, I would be exploring two options:

1. Write in vote for Clinton.

2. Vote for Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org/issues/).

Your opinion is worth less than a Nader vote.

Hyneman/Savage 08!

I've seen it used both ways too, and it's always wrong to say "could." It just doesn't make a lick of sense. A comb can be used both ways too. I think it only works one of those ways though.

Funniest annoying comparison ever. :D

Let's be honest, Green voters probably would have voted for the Dems. 100,000 more votes in Florida would have won Gore the presidency.
How about 269 more votes for Gore, rather than votes for Bush, and Gore would have won.

George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.850 Republican
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.841 Democratic

With things being exactly the way they are at this point in time and IF I could vote in the general, I would be exploring two options:

1. Write in vote for Clinton.

2. Vote for Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org/issues/).

So, as opposed to a strategic vote to stop McCain, you'd rather use your vote to make a point about... what? Hillary lost fair and square, heck, she lost after cheating. What IS your problem with Obama that you don't have with McCain or Nader? Nader's more liberal than Obama is.

Ah, thank you, thank you very much. I'll pop this into the original post.

You're welcome. It's good to know all the options.


Almost none, pretty much. Bob Barr and the Libertarian convention was mentioned simply in passing on CNN while they were talking about McCain and his chances. And you can guarantee that any left-wing parties won't be mentioned at all, except for MAYBE the Greens and ONLY in relation to Nader.

Remember, all of our media is corporate(except for NPR and a couple of other similar things, but those are all volunteer funded and so are only watched by a few people at most) and thus they only broadcast what gets them ratings. Small parties do not get them ratings.


Thanks; I was wondering about that.


Really, that's one of the largest obstacles to an Independent or third party candidate. The other major obstacle is getting on the ballot everywhere.

I would say that a third is the single-round electoral system.

Our system here in France isn't perfect, but it does give greater prominence to small candidates. There are two rounds in the presidential election. For example, in 2007, there were 12 candidates. Realistically, only three of them (Sarkozy, Royal and Bayrou) had any chance of being elected. Le Pen was seen as having a small chance of reaching the second round, where he would have been trounced anyway.

The advantage of such a system is that you're not forced to choose between voting for your preferred small candidate (thus "wasting" your vote) on the one hand, or voting for the lesser evil among big candidates on the other. You can vote for your favoured small candidate in the first round, knowing that you can then vote for a big candidate in the second round (which is between the top two). Generally, the candidate of the main left-wing party and the candidate of the main right-wing party make it to the second round, where you have a good old fashioned left versus right slug-out. The right-wing candidate always wins (except in 1981 and 1988), but there's generally some suspense all the same.

The system isn't without flaws, though. In 2002, everyone naturally expected that Chirac (right) and Jospin (left) would reach the second round. But, for a wide variety of reasons, Jospin failed to secure enough votes in the first round, and was overtaken by Le Pen, which was a bit of a national shock...

So I suppose no system is perfect.

Regarding the political spectrum in the United States, the Political Compass says it best (http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008):

[I]t's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a mainstream conservative.

Let's be honest, Green voters probably would have voted for the Dems. 100,000 more votes in Florida would have won Gore the presidency.
How about 269 more votes for Gore, rather than votes for Bush, and Gore would have won.

George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.850 Republican
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.841 Democratic

If you haven't noticed, Obama had a lot of trouble with your average white working-class Americans. And pay attention to what I said, which is that the polls are fairly inaccurate, but that another large factor is that large numbers of conservatives don't support McCain at all -- both of which affect the poll numbers.

I sell newspaper subscriptions for a living. I set up in dozens of different grocery stores both in the inner-city areas around where I live and in places that cater to more rural customers. I see and talk to a very good political cross-section on a daily basis. I know what the mainstream is because I see it almost every day. "Talking to people online" doesn't even come close to comparing.

And speaking of which, I need to head off to said job now. I'm sure there will be plenty of friendly comments for me to read when I get home.

I know this has been pointed out in numerous ways, but I'll toss another in a hat. I have lived in Santa Cruz, CA and now San Francisco, CA and through various means get to talk to a cross section as well. Would you say that the people I talk to represent the 'mainstream' of America?

At best, your sample has a shoddy chance of taking the temperature of the mainstream of your sales territory, and then only the people who have nothing better to do than to talk to the dude trying to hand out free newspapers at the grocery store. This is not a sample on which you should base much of anything, really.

So, as opposed to a strategic vote to stop McCain, you'd rather use your vote to make a point about... what? Hillary lost fair and square, heck, she lost after cheating. What IS your problem with Obama that you don't have with McCain or Nader? Nader's more liberal than Obama is.
Actually, I think Nader has a better platform than Obama in regards to national healthcare, middle east peace, and military spending.

Also looking at long term options:

A weak 4 year Presidency by McCain (most likely scenario) would probably be followed by a strong 8 year Democrat Presidency.

A weak 4 year Presidency by Obama would probably be followed by a strong 8 year Republican Presidency.

Heh... maybe the term should be NIL - Neo-con Infiltrator of Libertarianism. NIL...

I like that....

Does it really count as infiltration when the entire Libertarian Party consists of hard-line social authoritarians?

The candidate of the Libertarian Party is Bob Barr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr).

Typical. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Congressional_career) Libertarian my foot.

Not that I'd vote for a proper libertarian anyway, but still...

A weak 4 year Presidency by Obama would probably be followed by a strong 8 year Republican Presidency.

And given the near-total lack of differences between Obama and Clinton, you have such faith that it'd be a weak 4 year presidency because...?

Also, given what Republicans so far did, you assume that the world will be still here and inhabited after four more years because...?

I would say that a third is the single-round electoral system.

Our system here in France isn't perfect, but it does give greater prominence to small candidates. There are two rounds in the presidential election. For example, in 2007, there were 12 candidates. Realistically, only three of them (Sarkozy, Royal and Bayrou) had any chance of being elected. Le Pen was seen as having a small chance of reaching the second round, where he would have been trounced anyway.

The advantage of such a system is that you're not forced to choose between voting for your preferred small candidate (thus "wasting" your vote) on the one hand, or voting for the lesser evil among big candidates on the other. You can vote for your favoured small candidate in the first round, knowing that you can then vote for a big candidate in the second round (which is between the top two). Generally, the candidate of the main left-wing party and the candidate of the main right-wing party make it to the second round, where you have a good old fashioned left versus right slug-out. The right-wing candidate always wins (except in 1981 and 1988), but there's generally some suspense all the same.

The system isn't without flaws, though. In 2002, everyone naturally expected that Chirac (right) and Jospin (left) would reach the second round. But, for a wide variety of reasons, Jospin failed to secure enough votes in the first round, and was overtaken by Le Pen, which was a bit of a national shock...

So I suppose no system is perfect.

Regarding the political spectrum in the United States, the Political Compass says it best (http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008):

Indeed. The thing is, we Americans are highly traditional and I doubt we'd want to change the system.

It is still possible for an Independent or third party candidate to squeeze in. (Probably easier for an Independent, though.) It just takes the right person at the right time in the right circumstances with the right amount of money...

I think that if Obama were an Independent he'd be capable of doing it, for example. It takes someone of at least that caliber to be capable.

And I know all about the small spectrum of American politics...I'd probably be a social democrat in most other countries too, but here I am a far lefty. (Sort of. In reality a lot of my positions are all over the place, mainly because I see ideology as a guideline, not a rule book, and thus I look at everything to see how things are done best and advocate those positions. As a result if fully examined I actually look like an entire political spectrum all by myself.)

How about 269 more votes for Gore, rather than votes for Bush, and Gore would have won.

George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.850 Republican
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.841 Democratic
100,000 would have meant no worries regarding recounts etc.

B. Hussein Obama is an illegitimate candidate as he did not win the majority of votes. So I will have to vote for the candidate that actually won his primary, McCain.

B. Hussein Obama is an illegitimate candidate as he did not win the majority of votes. So I will have to vote for the candidate that actually won his primary, McCain.

Please do not vote, for McCain or any other public official. It would make me lose my faith in democracy.

B. Hussein Obama is an illegitimate candidate as he did not win the majority of votes.

...except he did.

*struggles to fill the blanks* :confused:

It's a Monty Python line. Someone is accused of being a witch. "She turned me into a toad! But... uh... I got better."

Let's be honest, Green voters probably would have voted for the Dems. 100,000 more votes in Florida would have won Gore the presidency.

But it's the fault of the Green voters for voting for Nader instead of Gore, not Gore. And the fault of the people who couldn't get off their ass for once in four years and show up to vote. And the fault of election errors, and of a bad Supreme Court decision that prevented recounting. Don't scapegoat Nader.

B. Hussein Obama is an illegitimate candidate as he did not win the majority of votes. So I will have to vote for the candidate that actually won his primary, McCain.

Err, he might not have won a majority (no candidate did) but he won a plurality. Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 18,107,710 48.1% 18,046,007 47.9% Obama +61,703 +0.2% (realclearpolitics.com)

...except he did.

No, actually, only a plurality according to RCP. Still had the most votes, though.

No, actually, only a plurality according to RCP. Still had the most votes, though.

Ok, that's true. Semantics. =)

No, actually, only a plurality according to RCP. Still had the most votes, though.

Is that counting non-Clinton votes? Because only counting Clinton and Obama, Obama had the majority. Counting Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, etc., he probably doesn't have a majority.

And given the near-total lack of differences between Obama and Clinton, you have such faith that it'd be a weak 4 year presidency because...?
First of all, Obama won't win. Secondly, Clinton is certainly stronger than Obama on most levels. I think Obama will regret not waiting 4 to 8 years for his shot.

Also, given what Republicans so far did, you assume that the world will be still here and inhabited after four more years because...?
I think Obama is more likely to blow the world up, starting in Pakistan.

Nader's more liberal than Obama is.
What is wrong with that?

The Obama/Clinton thread was locked. That's because the Obama/Clinton race is OVER.
Now, if you want to compare Obama's position on Pakistan, or whatever, to McCain's, go ahead.

I think Obama is more likely to blow the world up, starting in Pakistan.

Of course, the mental gymnastics you have to do in order to get to that conclusion are epic level.

Of course, the mental gymnastics you have to do in order to get to that conclusion are epic level.
Not really. Just a political side step. Get out of Iraq, or almost out of Iraq and take on the Pashtuns in Pakistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyi2dHZEfIE

No mental gymnastics required.

I used to think that Obama would be stronger versus McCain than Hillary would be, but over the past few months or so I've changed. I think Hillary would've been the better choice. The chances of the Republicans winning is fairly small either way. The next presidential term is not an entirely desirable one, however. The next 4 years is not likely to have favorable economic conditions, especially if the Democratic Congress gets their way. (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11496881)

First of all, Obama won't win.

Thats what you said about the primary.

Not really. Just a political side step. Get out of Iraq, or almost out of Iraq and take on the Pashtuns in Pakistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyi2dHZEfIE

No mental gymnastics required.

Oh for fucks sake...can someone just link to the pages of discussion we've already had on this so we don't have to rehash CH's equivocation yet again? It's bad enough that every 6 days we get to read the exact same argument in a fresh Sal thread...

B. Hussein Obama is an illegitimate candidate as he did not win the majority of votes. So I will have to vote for the candidate that actually won his primary, McCain.
Uhu. That's not how your system works, so there we go.

That's like me saying "The Conservatives may have won the popular election overall, but they didn't take South Yorkshire or Wales, so they can't have the points to legitimately win against New Labour".

I'd be mocked for such a ludicrous statement. Just like you should be.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing, I just figured THAT couldn't be the criteria.

That's like me saying "The Conservatives may have won the popular election overall, but they didn't take South Yorkshire or Wales, so they can't have the points to legitimately win against New Labour".

I'd be mocked for such a ludicrous statement. Just like you should be.

While also suggesting that Boris Johnson's name sounds kind of Russian.

First of all, Obama won't win. Secondly, Clinton is certainly stronger than Obama on most levels. I think Obama will regret not waiting 4 to 8 years for his shot.


I think Obama is more likely to blow the world up, starting in Pakistan.

1- Yes he will.

2- No she isn't.

3- No he won't.

4- Remind me never to read your posts if it's shortly after I underwent surgery. The laughter would be painful.

While also suggesting that Boris Johnson's name sounds kind of Russian.
Quite.

Obama is going to blow up the world? really? That shit is fuckin' funny.



Obama (to the UN): I am going to blow up the Earth unless you can give me 100 trillion dollars. *pinky to pursed lips*

U.N: Obama, this is crazy. You'll never get away with it!

Obama: Oh won't I? *camera pans to two scantily clad black muslim angry christian women with fingers on the button then back to Obama* The choice is your gentlemen. *camera pulls out and Obama is petting Gary COlemans head*

Angela Merkel: Hmmmpfh





... To Be Continued

B. Hussein Obama is an illegitimate candidate as he did not win the majority of votes. So I will have to vote for the candidate that actually won his primary, McCain.

I knew this was going to start up at some point. Thank you so very much for this sort of crap that will probably persist for years...

I used to think that Obama would be stronger versus McCain than Hillary would be, but over the past few months or so I've changed. I think Hillary would've been the better choice. The chances of the Republicans winning is fairly small either way. The next presidential term is not an entirely desirable one, however. The next 4 years is not likely to have favorable economic conditions, especially if the Democratic Congress gets their way. (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11496881)

I fail to see why we should even consider your opinion on Obama's strength given that you're a Republican and will be voting--I presume--for McCain come this November.

Obama is going to blow up the world? really? That shit is fuckin' funny.



Obama (to the UN): I am going to blow up the Earth unless you can give me 100 trillion dollars. *pinky to pursed lips*

U.N: Obama, this is crazy. You'll never get away with it!

Obama: Oh won't I? *camera pans to two scantily clad black muslim angry christian women with fingers on the button then back to Obama* The choice is your gentlemen. *camera pulls out and Obama is petting Gary COlemans head*

Angela Merkel: Hmmmpfh





... To Be Continued

On that note, is Obama a cat person or a dog person?

He's a Gary Coleman person!

I fail to see why we should even consider your opinion on Obama's strength given that you're a Republican and will be voting--I presume--for McCain come this November.

As a Republican I'm probably less biased in this regard than the hordes of pro-Obama spammers on this forum.

B. Hussein Obama is an illegitimate candidate

You wouldn't be trying to remind everyone of his middle name in a despicable attempt to scare the most stupid segment of voters, would you? :rolleyes:

As a Republican I'm probably less biased in this regard than the hordes of pro-Obama spammers on this forum.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I wasn't trying to insult you, mind. I was simply pointing out you have reason for bias, which you do.

The people will see the folly of both "main" candidates this coming election, and wake up to the world! The workers will see the cage of capitalism they are encased in, and will break free their chains.

I predict that Roger Calero will eventually win. Just look at his record, and his positions. The people will force the media to start paying attention to this wonderful candidate.

The people will see the folly of both "main" candidates this coming election, and wake up to the world! The workers will see the cage of capitalism they are encased in, and will break free their chains.

I predict that Roger Calero will eventually win. Just look at his record, and his positions. The people will force the media to start paying attention to this wonderful candidate.
Haha fail.

Hypothetically, what would happen if Roger Colaro was elected? It explictly says in the Constitution that the president must be a native born citizen. An interesting mental exercise.

Just a question for Europeans on NSG, I know US left-wing candidates arent really left-wing in the European contexts, but I want to ask: what do you consider so right wing about Hillary and Obama?

(esp. in light of this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart which makes it seem Clinton and Obama are left to a lot Euro gov'ts)

You wouldn't be trying to remind everyone of his middle name in a despicable attempt to scare the most stupid segment of voters, would you? :rolleyes:
Whatever works. But what if McCain's middle name were Moses, or Jesus? Would we be so eager to suppress it's use? Or would we strut it right out there as proof that he was going to force us all to convert to Christianity?

Seriously? I support McCain. He's completely middle of the political spectrum. Obama is so far on the left its ridiculous. Not to mention after analyzing all his "ideas" for programs, experts on Wall Street say his policies are the last thing the economy needs.

What, Obama on the left wing? I ranted about this somewhere else a few days ago.

McCain is only middle of the road from the US perspective. Acoording to the rest of the world, he's reasonably right wing, and Obama is left-centre.

Not that this especially bothers me. I'm personally rather conservative politically, so McCain's place on the political spectrum is not worrysome.

I just feel he's jettisoned his reasonable positions and demeanour to curry the favour of Christian fanatics. Well, if he wants to make this about religion, okay; I'm an Atheist. So I WON'T be voting McCain.

Well, you're closer with your positioning of Obama here...

He's not even middle of the road by US STANDARDS. McCain would be on the right and Obama would be on the left. Unsurprisingly, just like their parties.

However, by making the spectrum only apply to the typical US we end up with huge skewing because any truly left wing principle endorsed by either candidate would throw them off the chart.

...but he's finally right. Or left, as the case may be.

Just a question for Europeans on NSG, I know US left-wing candidates arent really left-wing in the European contexts, but I want to ask: what do you consider so right wing about Hillary and Obama?

(esp. in light of this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart which makes it seem Clinton and Obama are left to a lot Euro gov'ts)

They are, unfortunately. However, bear in mind that the center of gravity for NSG is about -5,-5. I, personally, am around -10,-9.5 or so. So anything over there looks right wing to me. Or another way of looking at it. In most European elections, there is actually a major party that falls left of 0,0. You don't get that in the US.

Anyway, H and O, and why they're right wing. Still far too warlike. Not proper socialised healthcare proposals. Not strong enough on defense of civil liberties over 'terrorism'. There's three, to start with.

Just a question for Europeans on NSG, I know US left-wing candidates arent really left-wing in the European contexts, but I want to ask: what do you consider so right wing about Hillary and Obama?
E.g. the classical European-American divide stuff: not opposing the death penalty; not speaking out for gay marriage (or at least against state constitutional amendments against gay marriage); not being strong on welfare because welfare is EBIL; generally having to do that whole religious shtick, except sadly it's not even a shtick. Stuff like that.

But I wouldn't call the US Democratic party right-wing, I don't think anybody does. I think it's just because Americans so often inanely go on about "ZOMG public healthcare! COMMUNISTS!" that Europeans feel the need to point out that, yeah, no, not by loooong stretch, dudes.


Edit: Oh, and the patriotism. Can't forget the patriotism.

I predict that Roger Calero will eventually win. Just look at his record, and his positions. The people will force the media to start paying attention to this wonderful candidate.

I talked to some SWPers at an anti-war rally once. It was kind of interesting. But they were distinctly out of touch... a primary concern was differentiating themselves from the people at the ISO stand across the field.

"We don't attack revolutionary movements in the Third World!", etc.

Edit: Actually it wasn't an anti-war rally, though they show up at those too. It was an immigration rally.

I talked to some SWPers at an anti-war rally once. It was kind of interesting. But they were distinctly out of touch... a primary concern was differentiating themselves from the people at the ISO stand across the field.

"We don't attack revolutionary movements in the Third World!", etc.
That's the self-defined 'real left' for you. Also, their candidate is literally unelectable as President due to his not being born in the US and all that.

That's the self-defined 'real left' for you. Also, their candidate is literally unelectable as President due to his not being born in the US and all that.

John McCain?

John McCain?
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l240/robo848/not_this_shit_again.jpg

*edits*

1) Aye, I know, it's an ironic image
2) Worst 9,000th post EVAR!

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5984/blackcatqw4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The new Mr. Bigglesworth?

Yes, and Valerie Plame will be the fembot that Obama sends to thwart the British spy.

Whatever works.

Considering the threat McCain represents to the world, due to his hawkish stance and sheer blood-lust, I'd say "whatever works as long as McCain doesn't pollute the White House with his presence in 1/20". As it stands, however, by all means, use "Hussein" as a prop. It'll only convince the sort of people that would already vote for McCain, so what's the point?

Considering the threat McCain represents to the world, due to his hawkish stance and sheer blood-lust, I'd say "whatever works as long as McCain doesn't pollute the White House with his presence in 1/20".
Seeing as the surge has actually cut down on deaths both to US troops and to Iraqis, I'd disagree that he's got that much blood-lust.

I would, however, agree that he's hawkish about Iran.

Seeing as the surge has actually cut down on deaths both to US troops and to Iraqis, I'd disagree that he's got that much blood-lust.

I would, however, agree that he's hawkish about Iran.

"We can't leave because it's bad, we can't leave because it's good."

The US army must LEAVE.

The US army must LEAVE.
No, it mustn't, because the Iraqi government has proven itself completely incapable of taking on even Al-Sadr's militiamen by itself.

No, it mustn't, because the Iraqi government has proven itself completely incapable of taking on even Al-Sadr's militiamen by itself.

And the US did so much better in '04? He's still around, and quite powerful, after all....

The fact of the matter is that the US is trying to preserve a political order that can't be preserved, that's going to collapse in a matter of time anyway... and their continued presence is only further incentive for the Iraqi factions in power to delay actually dealing with that.

The "surge" (in combination with other factors) does seem to have reduced violence, but it hasn't solved the sectarian problems with Iraq that are the real issue.

And the US did so much better in '04?
In a word : Yes.
He's still around, and quite powerful, after all....
He's not going to be actually residing in Iraq until the coalition leaves. If he tries to get back into the country before then, he will be killed, as simple as that.
The fact of the matter is that the US is trying to preserve a political order that can't be preserved, that's going to collapse in a matter of time anyway... and their continued presence is only further incentive for the Iraqi factions in power to delay actually dealing with that.
As soon as the US leaves, we will get a Fall of Saigon type affair, I'd agree, on the other hand, the price of oil basically dictates that we stay there, because I don't think anyone wants Al-Sadr in charge of Iraqi reserves. And in charge he will be unless the US stays in Iraq until he dies of old age before he can take power.
he "surge" (in combination with other factors) does seem to have reduced violence, but it hasn't solved the sectarian problems with Iraq that are the real issue."
I'm quite aware, but unless all of the Imams of the world come together and say that every sect of Islam is to become a single, mish-mash faith, and there are no dissenters, that problem will always be there. The core cause of the problems in Iraq cannot be solved simply, the more violent symptoms can.

As soon as the US leaves, we will get a Fall of Saigon type affair, I'd agree, on the other hand, the price of oil basically dictates that we stay there, because I don't think anyone wants Al-Sadr in charge of Iraqi reserves. And in charge he will be unless the US stays in Iraq until he dies of old age before he can take power.

Let's see...

Vietnam-style unnecessary war, check.
Vietnam-style unwinnable war, check.
Vietnam-style exit, check, should that materialize.
Vietnam-style loss to the natives of the country unduly invaded, check.
Vietnam-style unnecessary bloodshed, check.

So, Bush's got a Nam all of his own...

Let's see...

Vietnam-style unnecessary war, check.
Vietnam-style unwinnable war, check.
Vietnam-style exit, check, should that materialize.
Vietnam-style loss to the natives of the country unduly invaded, check.
Vietnam-style unnecessary bloodshed, check.

So, Bush's got a Nam all of his own...
Err, yep, that's not actually my point, though.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l240/robo848/not_this_shit_again.jpg

*edits*

1) Aye, I know, it's an ironic image
2) Worst 9,000th post EVAR!

You said something retarded, thus you get sarcasm.

Err, yep, that's not actually my point, though.

Sorry, but there was a point I wanted to drive home. Again. And again. And again.

You said something retarded, thus you get sarcasm.
I'm sorry, I was unaware that Nicaragua was ever US territory...

I'm sorry, I was unaware that Nicaragua was ever US territory...

Well, during its dictatorship it was de facto under American control...

He's not going to be actually residing in Iraq until the coalition leaves. If he tries to get back into the country before then, he will be killed, as simple as that.

If it's a simple matter of killing him, the Iraqi government can probably manage that too.

on the other hand, the price of oil basically dictates that we stay there, because I don't think anyone wants Al-Sadr in charge of Iraqi reserves. And in charge he will be unless the US stays in Iraq until he dies of old age before he can take power.

Forty years? The political shamble we've tried to shore up will collapse long before then, and certainly the political will of the US public will. And I'm not convinced Sadr has anything close to the power necessary to get Iraq for himself. At the very least, he would have to share power with many others... and refusing to sell Iraq's greatest resource asset would be a direct route to his removal from power.

The core cause of the problems in Iraq cannot be solved simply, the more violent symptoms can.

Only temporarily. No one wants to take on the US military, but they know they can bide their time until an opportunity presents itself.

Sorry, but there was a point I wanted to drive home. Again. And again. And again.
Aye, I am actually aware that the Iraq War was poorly planned and entirely for oil, you know. I just reckon that the Iraqi population will probably be worse off if and when the US leaves.

Aye, I am actually aware that the Iraq War was poorly planned and entirely for oil, you know. I just reckon that the Iraqi population will probably be worse off if and when the US leaves.

I don't think so. At any rate, it WOULD crown my being right about Iraq, a fact I'd make sure to rub in the faces of the people that called me an US-hater over my opposition to this goddamn bloodshed in the run-up to it.

If it's a simple matter of killing him, the Iraqi government can probably manage that too.
You'd imagine so, but their military is an absolute shambles.
Forty years? The political shamble we've tried to shore up will collapse long before then, and certainly the political will of the US public will.
Unless they introduce the draft, I'm not entirely certain that people will care all that much. Your anti-war rallies have all been pretty weak, especially by Vietnam era standards.
And I'm not convinced Sadr has anything close to the power necessary to get Iraq for himself.
I'd disagree, large areas of the capital are owned by his men, and a lot of political power was vested in him when his faction was still in government.
At the very least, he would have to share power with many others... and refusing to sell Iraq's greatest resource asset would be a direct route to his removal from power.
It's not simply that he might not want to sell it, it's also that sectarian violence could lead to the oil fields getting set alight all of the time to try to discredit Shi'a.
Only temporarily. No one wants to take on the US military, but they know they can bide their time until an opportunity presents itself.
An opportunity will have to not present itself, then.

You said something retarded, thus you get sarcasm.

How is pointing out that Róger Calero wasn't born in the U.S. retarded? Or are you just spouting off without reading again?

Yes, and Valerie Plame will be the fembot that Obama sends to thwart the British spy.


http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/3181/valzv3.png (http://imageshack.us)



I could see her shooting bullets out of her... *ahem*

Well, during its dictatorship it was de facto under American control...
Not really, no, and does the fact that UK policy regarding the wars in the Middle East should make anyone born in the last 6 years American of citizenship? No.

I fail to see why we should even consider your opinion on Obama's strength given that you're a Republican and will be voting--I presume--for McCain come this November.
Only opinions by Democrats regarding Obama should be posted?

Unless they introduce the draft, I'm not entirely certain that people will care all that much. Your anti-war rallies have all been pretty weak, especially by Vietnam era standards.

Anti-war rallies have never been a good gauge of popular opposition to war, because their political lines almost invariably are quite distinct from the arguments upon which that popular opposition is founded. We're not talking about people shouting "Stop US imperialism!" here, we're talking about people who are dissatisfied with the gross incompetence with which the war has been fought, and who don't want to keep hearing about soldiers dying and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on a foreign war whose benefit they don't perceive.

What happens to the Iraqis after the US leaves is not really much more of a concern than what happened to them after the US invaded was.

I'd disagree, large areas of the capital are owned by his men, and a lot of political power was vested in him when his faction was still in government.

But his base of power is too narrow to control the whole country. At the very least he'd have to come to some arrangement with the other Shi'ite factions.

It's not simply that he might not want to sell it, it's also that sectarian violence could lead to the oil fields getting set alight all of the time to try to discredit Shi'a.

Yes, chaos and disruption will probably disrupt oil production for a while, but we've already seen that. So be it.

An opportunity will have to not present itself, then.

It will; it's only a matter of time. They're quiet now because they know the surge isn't going to last forever.

How is pointing out that Róger Calero wasn't born in the U.S. retarded? Or are you just spouting off without reading again?
I told you I don't want any bananas.

As a Republican I'm probably less biased in this regard than the hordes of pro-Obama spammers on this forum.
Yup, I would have to agree with you there.

Anti-war rallies have never been a good gauge of popular opposition to war, because their political lines almost invariably are quite distinct from the arguments upon which that popular opposition is founded. We're not talking about people shouting "Stop US imperialism!" here, we're talking about people who are dissatisfied with the gross incompetence with which the war has been fought, and who don't want to keep hearing about soldiers dying and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on a foreign war whose benefit they don't perceive.

What happens to the Iraqis after the US leaves is not really much more of a concern than what happened to them after the US invaded was.
Aye, the problem with the Silent Majority (TM) is that they mostly don't bother to vote. Unlike old people and other such types.
But his base of power is too narrow to control the whole country. At the very least he'd have to come to some arrangement with the other Shi'ite factions.
His base of power might be narrow, but it's based in very important places, namely Baghdad and Basra. That can sometimes be enough. That other Shi'ite factions would get involved - aye, probably. But then none of them have anything like as powerful a private army, nor so much support from Iran, nor as much money as him.
Yes, chaos and disruption will probably disrupt oil production for a while, but we've already seen that. So be it.
It wouldn't be "for a while", it would be "until a Sunni got into power, but then some Shi'ite group would just do it anyway, or maybe the Kurds perhaps, until there was a government with enough armed force to stop this happening full stop".
It will; it's only a matter of time. They're quiet now because they know the surge isn't going to last forever.
If the US pulled most its troops out of Afghanistan, where they're more expensive to run, due to the sheer cost of moving things about in a landlocked, mountainous country, and also slightly more pointless, then the US military could probably afford it.

Yup, I would have to agree with you there.
Aye, aye yer candidate lost. Suck it up.

For those hand wringing Obama backers (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm):

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. June 4-5, 2008 N=447 registered Democrats nationwide.

"Do you think Barack Obama should select Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate, or do you think Obama should select someone else?"

Clinton Someone Else Unsure
54 43 3

CBS News Poll. May 30-June 3, 2008. N=930 registered voters nationwide.

"If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, would you like to see him pick Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate, or not?" Among Democratic primary voters

Yes No Unsure
59 35 6

Quinnipiac University Poll. May 8-12, 2008. N=1,745 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.4 (for all registered voters).

"If Barack Obama wins the Democratic presidential nomination, would you like him to pick Hillary Clinton to be his vice presidential running mate?"

Yes No Unsure

ALL

45 47 9

Republicans

25 66 9

Democrats

60 33 7

Independents

43 47 9

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 8-11, 2008. N=1,122 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS.

"If Obama is the Democratic nominee for president, who would you like him to choose as his vice presidential running mate?" Open-ended. Asked of Democrats/leaners.

Hillary Clinton
39

John Edwards
10

Bill Richardson
3

Al Gore
2

Jim Webb
1

Other
4

Up to him (vol.)
4

Unsure
36

Hmmmmm. :)

Aye, the problem with the Silent Majority (TM) is that they mostly don't bother to vote. Unlike old people and other such types.

Yes, they do. They gave the Democrats both houses of Congress in 2006, and most probably will give Obama a victory over McCain. Just as they gave the Republicans their victory in 2002, when most of them backed the war.

His base of power might be narrow, but it's based in very important places, namely Baghdad and Basra. That can sometimes be enough.

To control Iraq? I don't know. Sadr obviously would play a significant role--hell, he does right now--but as I've said, to control the whole country, which, as we have seen, has plenty both of people with guns and sectarian formations capable of building militias, he'd have to make significant compromises.

It wouldn't be "for a while", it would be "until a Sunni got into power, but then some Shi'ite group would just do it anyway, or maybe the Kurds perhaps, until there was a government with enough armed force to stop this happening full stop".

Iraq isn't Yugoslavia; it's not ungovernable. It's been done before and can be done again.

If the US pulled most its troops out of Afghanistan, where they're more expensive to run, due to the sheer cost of moving things about in a landlocked, mountainous country, and also slightly more pointless, then the US military could probably afford it.

And that would sit really badly with the US public, which actually supports, more or less, a troop presence in Afghanistan. It will look like an extension of what has already been argued with Iraq--that it represents not another front on the "War on Terror", but an abandonment of the real front for wasteful purposes.

*Polls, polls and more polls*
Aye, superb. As the largest points out, overall, more voters want Obama to pick someone who isn't Clinton.

Democrat supporters are not going to turn in their droves to McCain because of this, one would hope. On the other hand, if Obama picks a solid running mate, such as Edwards, then we might see more swing voters going his way. Which is just what the Dems need.

Aye, superb. As the largest points out, overall, more voters want Obama to pick someone who isn't Clinton.
Majority of Dems want Clinton. Of course Republicans don't want Hillary running with Obama....it would make it damn near impossible for McCain to win. :)

Democrat supporters are not going to turn in their droves to McCain because of this, one would hope. On the other hand, if Obama picks a solid running mate, such as Edwards, then we might see more swing voters going his way. Which is just what the Dems need.
Edwards didn't help Kerry win ANY swing States in the last election.

Hillary could help win places where she polled strong, such as Ohio (thats a biggie), Florida (another biggie), W. Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, and even Missouri.

Not to mention New Mexico and Nevada....okay I did mention them. :)

Yes, they do. They gave the Democrats both houses of Congress in 2006, and most probably will give Obama a victory over McCain. Just as they gave the Republicans their victory in 2002, when most of them backed the war.
Aye, well we shall see. Hopefully Obama will win, and he may or may not start pulling out troops. I, for one, would hope that he doesn't do it too quickly, but then maybe he might, who knows.
To control Iraq? I don't know. Sadr obviously would play a significant role--hell, he does right now--but as I've said, to control the whole country, which, as we have seen, has plenty both of people with guns and sectarian formations capable of building militias, he'd have to make significant compromises.
I, too, can't rightly say. But I reckon that, as the leader of the largest militia in Iraq, supported by Iran, and as a fairly charismatic chap, he would probably have an essential monopoly of Shi'ite power. I don't know if the Sunnis would like it, mind, and they too have very powerful friends.
Iraq isn't Yugoslavia; it's not ungovernable. It's been done before and can be done again.
Only using extreme force, or at the very least, the threat thereof. If a Shi'ite gets in power and does this, the US will probably go after them again. If a Sunni gets in power and does this, Iran will probably go after them. And a Kurd will never get into that position without massive US support, and the Turkish being really, extremely patient.
And that would sit really badly with the US public, which actually supports, more or less, a troop presence in Afghanistan. It will look like an extension of what has already been argued with Iraq--that it represents not another front on the "War on Terror", but an abandonment of the real front for wasteful purposes.
Quite true, but when the price of oil, and hence gas, starts going up as soon as the US leaves Iraq, then it's lose-lose for any government in the US. Might as well go for being the party claiming to be able to lower gas prices than the party claiming to improve the lot of an extremely poor country whose citizens will probably hate the US forever regardless, eh?

Majority of Dems want Clinton. Of course Republicans don't want Hillary running with Obama....it would make it damn near impossible for McCain to win. :)
The majority of Republicans don't want Hillary getting into any sort of power because they don't want women getting into any sort of power. Pandering to their idiocy means more votes for the Dems.
Edwards didn't help Kerry win ANY swing States in the last election.
Kerry was a piss poor candidate full stop. Unsalvageable.
Hillary could help win places where she polled strong, such as Ohio (thats a biggie), Florida (another biggie), W. Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, and even Missouri.

Not to mention New Mexico and Nevada....okay I did mention them. :)
None of those places are particularly black-friendly, 'nuff said. He probably wouldn't win any of them, ever.

None of those places are particularly black-friendly, 'nuff said. He probably wouldn't win any of them, ever.

Obama's ahead in Ohio.

Obama's ahead in Ohio.
We shall see when it comes to the actual election ;)

Obama's ahead in Ohio.

Meh, if you're using the RCP average it's being tugged by a poll at best 10 points out of step with the other two. Realistically he's competitive in Ohio, which traditionally for Obama, is good enough. If you got other polls, then I'm sorry. It's a long time till November, marrying ourselves to marginal poll victories doesn't really do anything but make us sound like the hyperventilating fringe.

I have to admit I'm already bored with the general election. Between now and the VP announcements, unless the candidates do something nutty, this argument has been too akin to dogs barking at each other through a fence.

Aye, well we shall see. Hopefully Obama will win, and he may or may not start pulling out troops. I, for one, would hope that he doesn't do it too quickly, but then maybe he might, who knows.

It depends a lot on what happens there before January '09. I wouldn't take the specific dates that have been given so far particularly seriously--if the situation doesn't suit it, it would be a far greater political liability to go with the campaign promise than not.

I, too, can't rightly say. But I reckon that, as the leader of the largest militia in Iraq, supported by Iran, and as a fairly charismatic chap, he would probably have an essential monopoly of Shi'ite power.

But that wasn't true even before he left for Iran, not even close--Sistani was well able to rein him in. Sadr has a good deal of popular support, but if he antagonizes the other Shi'ite factions too much--especially with a political line that doesn't sell as well as his current anti-occupation one--he'll be in trouble.

Only using extreme force, or at the very least, the threat thereof.

Again, Iraq isn't Yugoslavia, and Saddam Hussein wasn't Marshall Tito. Iraq prior to Hussein was no idyllic realm of political stability, but it wasn't all a series of Hussein-like dictators, either. Domestic politics that aren't quite as dominated by sectarian loyalty is possible: the trouble right now is that Saddam Hussein repressed opposition political movements, and the atmosphere of the occupation isn't ideal for developing new ones.

If a Shi'ite gets in power and does this, the US will probably go after them again.

I imagine that the US response would be like the US response to Saigon's fall in 1975: "Yeah, it sucks, but we're out of there for good."

And it'll almost certainly be a Shi'ite, at least at first. Both Iranian involvement and simple numbers strongly suggest that.

Quite true, but when the price of oil, and hence gas, starts going up as soon as the US leaves Iraq, then it's lose-lose for any government in the US.

The cynic in me suggests that this is a major reason for the surge: the Republicans want to delay Iraq falling apart until after the Democrats win.

Might as well go for being the party claiming to be able to lower gas prices than the party claiming to improve the lot of an extremely poor country whose citizens will probably hate the US forever regardless, eh?

But best of all politically is going for being the party claiming to be waging war on terrorism, rather than meddling in irrelevant, expensive quagmires. If the Democrats are smart, that will be one of their lines.

Definitely Obama.

This campaign will be over once McCain says something insane, like he usually does. The difference now is that everyone is watching him.

On the other hand...GO NADER!!!

Obama's ahead in Ohio.

So was Kerry.

Bob Barr '08: Let's Bring Mustaches Back Together

and Muttonchops?


....with monocles....

So was Kerry.

My point remains that claiming he'd never win the state...

My point remains that claiming he'd never win the state...

I think it depends on whether or not the average intelligence of Ohioans has risen because of being seen as responsible for Bush 04.

I think it depends on whether or not the average intelligence of Ohioans has risen because of being seen as responsible for Bush 04.

Mmm...

Only opinions by Democrats regarding Obama should be posted?

I didn't say that. I said I fail to see why we should CONSIDER the opinion given that Kwang has quite a lot of reason for bias. That was probably unfair of me, however.

Personally, Im hoping that McCain picks one of three people for his running mate.

1. Mitt Rommeny - This will totally ruin any chance he has with the religious right, whom he is already on shakey ground with. They arent convinced that Rommeny is really as bat shit as he pretends to be.

2. Mike Huckabee - This will endear McCain to the crazy fundies, but destroy his chances with moderates. Particularly one the press and people like me start pointing out all the crazy, bat shit things Huckster has said. Sure, saying that the Constitution should be ammended to include God, and that AIDS victims should be quarenteened (oh, Im sorry, he said 'seperated from the rest of society') will make one popular with idiot Christian fundies who expect revelations within the next week. However, moderates will jumo ship ASAP.

3. Condi Rice - Former Bush aid. Nothing says "4 more years!" like picking the most unpopular president in history's lap dog as your VP. Plus, a black woman will alienate the redneck vote, which forms a large part of the Republican base.

McCain's VP will be interesting. All his major options will help him with one aspect of the fragmenting Republican party, but ruin him with another. Its a delicate balancin act that I dont think he can pull off.

Personally, Im hoping that McCain picks one of three people for his running mate.

1. Mitt Rommeny - This will totally ruin any chance he has with the religious right, whom he is already on shakey ground with. They arent convinced that Rommeny is really as bat shit as he pretends to be.

2. Mike Huckabee - This will endear McCain to the crazy fundies, but destroy his chances with moderates. Particularly one the press and people like me start pointing out all the crazy, bat shit things Huckster has said. Sure, saying that the Constitution should be ammended to include God, and that AIDS victims should be quarenteened (oh, Im sorry, he said 'seperated from the rest of society') will make one popular with idiot Christian fundies who expect revelations within the next week. However, moderates will jumo ship ASAP.

3. Condi Rice - Former Bush aid. Nothing says "4 more years!" like picking the most unpopular president in history's lap dog as your VP. Plus, a black woman will alienate the redneck vote, which forms a large part of the Republican base.

McCain's VP will be interesting. All his major options will help him with one aspect of the fragmenting Republican party, but ruin him with another. Its a delicate balancin act that I dont think he can pull off.

What if he picks Chuck Hagel?

What if he picks Chuck Hagel?

Chuck "Anyone who has an abortion should be given the death penalty" Hagal?


Again, Moderates will run away like he's got the Bubonic Plague.

How frustrating for McCain.

There has to be someone out there that'd be good for him, though. I say this, mind, as a thought experiment.

How frustrating for McCain.

There has to be someone out there that'd be good for him, though. I say this, mind, as a thought experiment.

Hillary. ;)

Hillary. ;)

Mmm. First candidacy ever to receive a negative number of votes? ;)

Chuck "Anyone who has an abortion should be given the death penalty" Hagal?


Again, Moderates will run away like he's got the Bubonic Plague.

He won't pick the guy that was against the surge...

Personally, Im hoping that McCain picks one of three people for his running mate.

1. Mitt Rommeny - This will totally ruin any chance he has with the religious right, whom he is already on shakey ground with. They arent convinced that Rommeny is really as bat shit as he pretends to be.

2. Mike Huckabee - This will endear McCain to the crazy fundies, but destroy his chances with moderates. Particularly one the press and people like me start pointing out all the crazy, bat shit things Huckster has said. Sure, saying that the Constitution should be ammended to include God, and that AIDS victims should be quarenteened (oh, Im sorry, he said 'seperated from the rest of society') will make one popular with idiot Christian fundies who expect revelations within the next week. However, moderates will jumo ship ASAP.

3. Condi Rice - Former Bush aid. Nothing says "4 more years!" like picking the most unpopular president in history's lap dog as your VP. Plus, a black woman will alienate the redneck vote, which forms a large part of the Republican base.

McCain's VP will be interesting. All his major options will help him with one aspect of the fragmenting Republican party, but ruin him with another. Its a delicate balancin act that I dont think he can pull off.

There's talk of him picking that CEO woman...

Carly Fiorina.

How frustrating for McCain.

There has to be someone out there that'd be good for him, though. I say this, mind, as a thought experiment.

In reality, his best bet is Huckster.


He's a batshit fundie, so it gets McCain in good with the religious right, who he is currently weak with. And Huckster is a slick little eel. Charismatic as hell. And has a great sense of humor. He benefits from the "Id like to have a BBQ with that guy!" advantage. His sheer like-ability will help distract people from his crazy as shit comments.

Hell, watching the Republican debates I found myself liking the guy.

In reality, his best bet is Huckster.


He's a batshit fundie, so it gets McCain in good with the religious right, who he is currently weak with. And Huckster is a slick little eel. Charismatic as hell. And has a great sense of humor. He benefits from the "Id like to have a BBQ with that guy!" advantage. His sheer like-ability will help distract people from his crazy as shit comments.

Hell, watching the Republican debates I found myself liking the guy.

I don't think even Huckabee's "charisma" would save him from the derision from Independents when some of the comments were made public...

A women in authority? She must be a witch.


Seriously, that would, again, turn off the really really far right crazy fundies, as well as the rednecks. Cuz dat der woman is runnin a dang company rather then makin' me a samitch.

Mmm. Hope you're right. It'd be great to see these morons sitting the election out.

There's talk of him picking that CEO woman...

Carly Fiorina.

A women in authority? She must be a witch.


Seriously, that would, again, turn off the really really far right crazy fundies, as well as the rednecks. Cuz dat der woman is runnin a dang company rather then makin' me a samitch.

I don't think even Huckabee's "charisma" would save him from the derision from Independents when some of the comments were made public...

It most certianly would help. Politics is and always will be about charisma and the personality cult. Independents would just excuse or ignore his comments, especially those independents that are inclined to agree with him.

It most certianly would help. Politics is and always will be about charisma and the personality cult. Independents would just excuse or ignore his comments, especially those independents that are inclined to agree with him.

The independents that agree with him would vote for McCain anyways. I think. But I'll say this: There'd be no middle-of-the-road in picking Huckabee: Either it would help McCain a LOT or hurt him a LOT. It would be a pretty big gamble.

Regardless, I don't think McCain will pick Huckabee...

The independents that agree with him would vote for McCain anyways. I think. But I'll say this: There'd be no middle-of-the-road in picking Huckabee: Either it would help McCain a LOT or hurt him a LOT. It would be a pretty big gamble.

Regardless, I don't think McCain will pick Huckabee...

He probably wont. It will probably be Mitt based on how well he did in the general. I just know if I was McCain's campaign advisor, I would be strongly pushing the Huckster for all the reasons mentioned above.



Who knows? McCain could throw a curveball and pick Ron Paul.

Who knows? McCain could throw a curveball and pick Ron Paul.

Not a chance. He'd destroy his message by picking a vice-president that was against the useless Iraq bloodshed from the beginning.

As for Mitt, well, great. It would fracture the Republican Party into tiny little pieces.

Majority of Dems want Clinton. Of course Republicans don't want Hillary running with Obama....it would make it damn near impossible for McCain to win. :)

It's near an even split. Her supporters want her on the ticket; his don't.


Edwards didn't help Kerry win ANY swing States in the last election.

Hillary could help win places where she polled strong, such as Ohio (thats a biggie), Florida (another biggie), W. Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, and even Missouri.

Not to mention New Mexico and Nevada....okay I did mention them. :)


New Mexico is already in Obama's column, she might (or might not) boost him in Florida, West Virginia, and Kentucky, but if she does it still won't be enough for him to carry them. Nevada, she could conceivably give him. Missouri's iffy.

As for Mitt, well, great. It would fracture the Republican Party into tiny little pieces.

Woo hoo! McCain/Romney '08! Together they can carry Arizona and Utah, and that's about it. Works for me.

Not a chance. He'd destroy his message by picking a vice-president that was against the useless Iraq bloodshed from the beginning.

I was joking.

As for Mitt, well, great. It would fracture the Republican Party into tiny little pieces.

Agreed. From an adversarial point of view, Mitt is who we should all be banking on. He's a total baffoon, and in the VP debates almost any of Obama's choices would crush him like a worm. Not to mention it would lower McCain's already shaky standing with religious loons. Mitt was also very defensive of Dubya and often defended and spoke highly of his forgein policy, which would just add to the cries of "MCCAIN = BUSH VERSION 3.0!!!!!!"


Which is another reason the Huckster is a good call. Huckabee and Romney got into a tiff because Huckabee called Bush's forgein policy an "arrogant bunker mentality". This might distance McRambo from Bush a bit. At the very least it would make an already weary America more trusting of Huckster.

Woo hoo! McCain/Romney '08! Together they can carry Arizona and Utah, and that's about it. Works for me.

Indeed. Romney wouldnt even win the state he was the governor of.

And with Utah you bring up another interesting problem with Romney as VP that I had forgetton about. He is a mormon.


Fundies no likey the mormons.

You guys all realize that McCain isn't that stupid, right? He's become a bit of a buffoon compared to his old self, yes, but he's hardly an idiot. He's not going to choose Romney, especially not if the GOP has anything to say about it, which you can bet they will. They know what shaky ground they're on and they realize they can't afford idiot crap like choosing Romney.

You guys all realize that McCain isn't that stupid, right? He's become a bit of a buffoon compared to his old self, yes, but he's hardly an idiot. He's not going to choose Romney, especially not if the GOP has anything to say about it, which you can bet they will. They know what shaky ground they're on and they realize they can't afford idiot crap like choosing Romney.

The thing is, this election will be more about the moderates and independents than it normally is, especially with Obama's ability to pull both in with ease. Romney will sit well with independets whose first exposure to him is via this election, because he comes across to the untrained eye who doesnt delve any deeper into his stances as a rational guy. Also, Romney did very well in the primaries, which must also be taken into consideration.

You also need to consider that the GOP apperantly doesnt see Romney as idiotic crap, because he was the guy they were all banking on to win for a while.

The fact remains however that McCain has no good options for a VP. All of them (baring a curveball) are potential pitfalls who have a high chance of destroying his support with one or more of the Republican factions

Meh, if you're using the RCP average it's being tugged by a poll at best 10 points out of step with the other two.
That is why the RCP average is junk science, but it is good to see that you give sort of recognition that the other two just might account for something other than just being numbers for an average.

Awhile back, I refuted Corny's claim that the RCP average indicates an Obama victory in Ohio (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13734247&postcount=1763) using the RCP average reflected by these exact numbers (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html).

Here is an account by an astrophysicist that kinda backs up my claim about methodology:

Vote by Numbers (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin)

IT appears that Hillary Clinton is going to suspend her presidential campaign this weekend, at the urging of Democratic Party leaders and superdelegates. Before that happens, Mrs. Clinton and the superdelegates might want to know this: if the general election were held today, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain, while Mr. McCain would lose to Mrs. Clinton.

This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.

Here’s what they discovered: in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election — even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.

This method provides a far more accurate assessment of public opinion than most people’s politically informed commentary. In the 2004 presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush, many political analysts said the race was too close to call. But when Professor Gott and Dr. Colley applied the median method in 2004, they correctly predicted the winner in 49 states, missing only Hawaii.

That remarkable success left me wondering what result this method would give if I applied it to the 2008 presidential race. So I examined the past six weeks of polls, taken in 19 important states, that separately pitted Mrs. Clinton against Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama against Mr. McCain. The polls were compiled by realclearpolitics.com and include states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

I followed the simple rules established by Professor Gott and Dr. Colley: in states in which a poll has not been taken, you give that state to the party that won it in 2004. You do the same for states where the median poll is a tie.

In 2004, Mr. Kerry won 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of the 270 that would have won him the election. Which states among those that had gone to President Bush would today swing only to Mr. Obama, or only to Mrs. Clinton? And which of Mr. Kerry’s states would swing away from only Mr. Obama or only Mrs. Clinton? All this, of course, is based on current polls.

In Ohio, for example, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama two polls to one. But Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. McCain two polls to nothing. So Ohio, which Mr. Kerry did not win in 2004, would go into Mrs. Clinton’s column, giving her an additional 20 electoral votes.

In Florida, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But Mrs. Clinton shuts out Mr. McCain two to zero. Because Florida went to President Bush four years ago, Mrs. Clinton grabs 27 more electoral votes.

In Michigan, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But the median poll between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton is a tie. Mr. Kerry won Michigan in 2004, so Mrs. Clinton gets to keep it. But Mr. Obama loses its 17 electoral votes.

When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.

If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.

This analysis does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does.
Interesting huh?

Realistically he's competitive in Ohio, which traditionally for Obama, is good enough.
He isn't competetive if you apply the "median method".

If you got other polls, then I'm sorry. It's a long time till November, marrying ourselves to marginal poll victories doesn't really do anything but make us sound like the hyperventilating fringe.
However, you are right....it is a "long time till November"

The thing is, this election will be more about the moderates and independents than it normally is, especially with Obama's ability to pull both in with ease. Romney will sit well with independets whose first exposure to him is via this election, because he comes across to the untrained eye who doesnt delve any deeper into his stances as a rational guy. Also, Romney did very well in the primaries, which must also be taken into consideration.
True...

You also need to consider that the GOP apperantly doesnt see Romney as idiotic crap, because he was the guy they were all banking on to win for a while.
What fools these GOP be...

The fact remains however that McCain has no good options for a VP. All of them (baring a curveball) are potential pitfalls who have a high chance of destroying his support with one or more of the Republican factions

Probably true. I certainly can't think of any acceptable alternatives. Let's face it: McCain is screwed. Not that we have a problem with that...

Before you guys get too deeply into number-crunching, take the polls to the poll thread.

That is why the RCP average is junk science, but it is good to see that you give sort of recognition that the other two just might account for something other than just being numbers for an average.

Awhile back, I refuted Corny's claim that the RCP average indicates an Obama victory in Ohio (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13734247&postcount=1763) using the RCP average reflected by these exact numbers (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html).
Yeah, champ, a while back I also fed you that bone, twice. If you fucking paid attention...but then, if you did you wouldn't be wrong so so often...

And yet again you toss about the term 'junk science' like a global warming denier. The abyss has stared into you, clearly.

Here is an account by an astrophysicist that kinda backs up my claim about methodology:

Vote by Numbers (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin)


Interesting huh?


He isn't competetive if you apply the "median method".


However, you are right....it is a "long time till November"
Ah, finally you recognize that there is as much time between now and the election as there was between now and the beginning of the primary...you know, when Clinton was up by 20 points...

What's interesting is that while you can now accept that there is a long time between now and November there is apparently little difference between now and 2004. Once again your methodology relies on conceding states. That didn't work for Guiliani, it didn't work for Gore, it didn't work for Kerry, and it didn't work for Clinton. 2008 is not 2004. Substituting a four year old result between two different candidates for a lack of actual evidence only predicts how things would have been. Using your methodology we wouldn't have given the three seats picked up during special elections, including seats that had been Republican for decades.

If I were plotting a course to the moon, or predicting the trajectory of an object in space, I'd go with the astrophysicist. For an election 5 months away? Not so much.

It's near an even split. Her supporters want her on the ticket; his don't.
Do you have a break down on those numbers?

New Mexico is already in Obama's column,
Not according to this map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/).

she might (or might not) boost him in Florida, West Virginia, and Kentucky, but if she does it still won't be enough for him to carry them.
You don't know that for a fact.

BTW, no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia.

Nevada, she could conceivably give him. Missouri's iffy.
You do realize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_bellwether):

The Missouri bellwether is a political phenomenon that notes that the state of Missouri has voted for the winner in every U.S. Presidential election beginning in 1904 except in 1956.

An that exception was a Republican by the name of Eisenhower.

Before you guys get too deeply into number-crunching, take the polls to the poll thread.
Sorry...

BTW, no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia.


You do realize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_bellwether):

The Missouri bellwether is a political phenomenon that notes that the state of Missouri has voted for the winner in every U.S. Presidential election beginning in 1904 except in 1956.

An that exception was a Republican by the name of Eisenhower.

No one has won the White House without being a white male! Oh noes, quick, someone find out if John Edwards is still not busy!

Look dude, unless you can find out a causation, that's just baseball statistics. They don't predict shit, they just give the commentators something to talk about while the pitcher scratches his crotch between pitches.

Before you guys get too deeply into number-crunching, take the polls to the poll thread.
I believe that the polling aspect should be tied to the main thread. I do believe that CTOAN also made these request previously.

The separation just doesn't provide the necessary continuity.

Ultimately elections are all about polls.

Do you have a break down on those numbers?

Why, yes. Yes, I do.

Obama Backers Cool to Clinton as Running Mate
But "Dream Ticket" Draws Support From Key Democratic Blocs
June 4, 2008


On the morning after Barack Obama's historic nomination victory, attention has quickly turned to the question of possible running mates -- specifically whether Obama and Hillary Clinton will join forces in a so-called "Dream Ticket."

In a survey conducted in late May (May 21-25), a majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters (53%) said they would like to see Obama choose Clinton as his running mate. However, Obama supporters viewed a possible Obama-Clinton pairing as anything but a dream. Fully 54% said they did not want to see Obama choose Clinton as his running mate while 37% said they did. Clinton supporters, not surprisingly, were much more open to the idea -- 76% said they would like to see Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate.

An analysis of the data finds that, despite the sharp differences between Obama and Clinton supporters on this issue, key Democratic voter groups -- including some that have consistently supported Obama for the nomination -- have a positive view of a possible Obama-Clinton ticket.


For instance, black voters supported Obama over Clinton for the nomination by 80% to 15% in Pew Research's May survey. Most black Democrats (59%) say they would like to see Obama choose Clinton as his running mate. About the same proportion of liberal Democratic voters (58%) -- who also supported Obama for the nomination by wide margins (61% to 36% in May) -- express a positive opinion of a possible Obama-Clinton pairing.

However, college-educated Democrats, who favored Obama by 25 points over Clinton in the May survey (60% to 35%), are evenly split over whether Obama should select Clinton as his running mate: 46% say he should not, while 42% believe he should.

The prospect of Clinton taking the number two slot on the ticket attracts broad support from groups that have long favored her candidacy -- less educated Democrats and women. Nearly two-thirds of Democratic voters (64%) with no more than a high school education say that Obama should choose Clinton, as do 59% of women.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/860/obama-clinton-ticket


Not according to this map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/).

True, not according to that map, but according to this one...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Also, according to this site, SurveyUSA has Obama up by 8 points, and Rassmussen has him up by 9.
http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/matchups-by-state/new-mexico.html

You don't know that for a fact.

I don't find it likely, given how most Republican voters seem to view Clinton as if she were the antichrist, that she can turn that many red states blue.

BTW, no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia.

CTOAN has already addressed that silliness.


You do realize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_bellwether):

The Missouri bellwether is a political phenomenon that notes that the state of Missouri has voted for the winner in every U.S. Presidential election beginning in 1904 except in 1956.

An that exception was a Republican by the name of Eisenhower.

Relevance? How does that mean she can deliver Missouri?

Wow this was important enough to be sticked! :)

Look dude, unless you can find out a causation, that's just baseball statistics. They don't predict shit, they just give the commentators something to talk about while the pitcher scratches his crotch between pitches.

And the game would probably be a lot less dull if the commentators talked more about that.

A women in authority? She must be a witch.


Seriously, that would, again, turn off the really really far right crazy fundies, as well as the rednecks. Cuz dat der woman is runnin a dang company rather then makin' me a samitch.

I don't know about the "really far right crazy fundies" but considering that so many rural whites with low income and low education in states like Kentucky voted for Hillary in the primaries I doubt that their Republican counterparts are that much more set against a woman, esp. since she'd only be the VP, not the president.

Not a chance. He'd destroy his message by picking a vice-president that was against the useless Iraq bloodshed from the beginning.

As for Mitt, well, great. It would fracture the Republican Party into tiny little pieces.

So you're an expert on the Republican Party and the thoughts and opinions of those evil, "right-wing religious fanatics" now? The only thing that would fracture the party more is if McCain picked a running mate who was as much as a liberal sellout as he is. And I know people here are going to go off with "z0mg mccain's s00p3r far right!1!!", but there are a huge number of conservative republicans who don't think so.

It's near an even split. Her supporters want her on the ticket; his don't.

Do you have a break down on those numbers?

Why, yes. Yes, I do.
Your blanket statement "his don't", is not a true reflection, when looking at specific demographics:

For instance, black voters supported Obama over Clinton for the nomination by 80% to 15% in Pew Research's May survey. Most black Democrats (59%) say they would like to see Obama choose Clinton as his running mate. About the same proportion of liberal Democratic voters (58%) -- who also supported Obama for the nomination by wide margins (61% to 36% in May) -- express a positive opinion of a possible Obama-Clinton pairing.
Also worth noting:

Nearly two-thirds of Democratic voters (64%) with no more than a high school education say that Obama should choose Clinton, as do 59% of women.

It would appear that the only demographic that doesn't fully support Clinton on the ticket is the college-educated Democrats, and even that is close:

46% say he should not, while 42% believe he should.

CTOAN has already addressed that silliness.
It is not really "silliness", it is based on fact. In 22 elections since 1916, no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia.

New Mexico is already in Obama's column, she might (or might not) boost him in Florida, West Virginia, and Kentucky, but if she does it still won't be enough for him to carry them. Nevada, she could conceivably give him. Missouri's iffy.
New Mexico is a toss up right now for Obama, while Hillary was clearly ahead of McCain in ALL of those States, considering recent polls.

New Mexico +6, Florida +6, West Virginia +5, and Kentucky +9, Nevada +5, Missouri +2. And let's not forget Arkansas +14.

I don't believe that any other VP candidate would be able to improve on what Clinton has to offer.

So you're an expert on the Republican Party and the thoughts and opinions of those evil, "right-wing religious fanatics" now? The only thing that would fracture the party more is if McCain picked a running mate who was as much as a liberal sellout as he is. And I know people here are going to go off with "z0mg mccain's s00p3r far right!1!!", but there are a huge number of conservative republicans who don't think so.

McCain IS far-right. That he pretends not to be is his lack of character.

At any rate, there's no vice-president McCain can pick without alienating some part of his voting constituency. Which is why good will win, and Obama will get elected.

I don't believe that any other VP candidate would be able to improve on what Clinton has to offer.

Satan, perhaps?

I don't believe that any other VP candidate would be able to improve on what Clinton has to offer.
What about Edwards, who has the 'sounds more like a happy yokel and less like an intellectual than either Clinton or Obama' card?

What about Edwards, who has the 'sounds more like a happy yokel and less like an intellectual than either Clinton or Obama' card?

Then there's Sebelius, who is female, is from a red state, reaches across the aisle, is the daughter of an Ohio governor, and has some other advantages. Or Strickland, who backed Clinton and is from Ohio himself. Clinton herself should stay in Florida and campaign for Obama until her legs drop.

McCain's VP will be interesting. All his major options will help him with one aspect of the fragmenting Republican party, but ruin him with another. Its a delicate balancin act that I dont think he can pull off.

heather wilson. congressional rep from new mexico's first district for the last 10 years. madna cum laude graduate of the air force academy, rhodes scholar. she has a doctorate in international relations.

she has a few downsides--she is implicated in the us attny firing scandal and she just lost a bid for the republican nomination for senate to a much more conservative candidate. and she is a pretty strong supporter of bush's policies.

but she would help the republicans in the "look look we have extra special candidates" arena by being not just a woman but the smartest politician i have ever heard speak. she has an amazing grasp of the issues even though i seldom agree with her conclusions (she is republican im a democrat)

heather wilson. congressional rep from new mexico's first district for the last 10 years. madna cum laude graduate of the air force academy, rhodes scholar. she has a doctorate in international relations.

she has a few downsides--she is implicated in the us attny firing scandal and she just lost a bid for the republican nomination for senate to a much more conservative candidate. and she is a pretty strong supporter of bush's policies.

but she would help the republicans in the "look look we have extra special candidates" arena by being not just a woman but the smartest politician i have ever heard speak. she has an amazing grasp of the issues even though i seldom agree with her conclusions (she is republican im a democrat)

I don't think she has much chance, thankfully. Plus, many Republicans who are already annoyed at a not-fundamentalist-enough candidate would be pissed over her being a woman...

I don't think she has much chance, thankfully. Plus, many Republicans who are already annoyed at a not-fundamentalist-enough candidate would be pissed over her being a woman...

thats mccains biggest problem eh? that he is hated by the conservatives of his own party. so much so that rush limbaugh was mocking him on his show last week. if the limbaugh ditto-heads are not going to be rallied to vote for mccain, what chance does he have?

wilson would be an excellent choice for the middle ground voters who are a bit leery over obama's lack of experience but like the idea of making history with a black president. and should mccain drop dead from the stress of the presidency she is ready to take over the job.

wilson would be an excellent choice for the middle ground voters who are a bit leery over obama's lack of experience but like the idea of making history with a black president. and should mccain drop dead from the stress of the presidency she is ready to take over the job.
Aye, I'd agree with that to be fair.

Missouri +2.

2 points is within the margin of error in most polls. That's hardly "clearly winning". Maybe she could bring it in, but I strongly doubt it.

thats mccains biggest problem eh? that he is hated by the conservatives of his own party. so much so that rush limbaugh was mocking him on his show last week. if the limbaugh ditto-heads are not going to be rallied to vote for mccain, what chance does he have?

Slim to none, hopefully.

It is not really "silliness", it is based on fact. In 22 elections since 1916, no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia.

Then I've got bad news for you: McCain wins. And he would win against Clinton as well. And he will win if Clinton is the running mate. I've already made a very detailed post as to why WV will not go Democratic in the near future (barring drastic changes in political climate).

WV used to vote Democratic when labor unions were all the rage. It's a coal mining state (That's pretty much its only industry), and so was very strong in support of unions. Since unions have become less important, WV has gradually gone more conservative. Until economic concerns of Appalachia are made into a hot button issue like unions were, West Virginians will vote on the next most important thing: social issues and gun control. Unfortunately, they lean Republican on both.

Conclusion: If WV is the only state that matters, the Democrats might as well have conceded this election back in December 2004.

I don't believe that any other VP candidate would be able to improve on what Clinton has to offer.

Clinton has offered racism, divisiveness, and shameless corruption (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin). I think there are many possible VPs who can offer much better than that.

Chuck Hagel brings in the "Obamacons" (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=6632) and the right idies. HRC drives them away.

Edit: That goes double for the anti-Iraq war cons.
The Right Choice?

The conservative case for Barack Obama

by Andrew J. Bacevich

Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives—and the state of the conservative movement—they could do worse.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html

Interesting remarks from Gallup Poll:

Democrats Weigh In On Unity Ticket (http://www.gallup.com/video/107698/Democrats-Weigh-Unity-Ticket.aspx)

The five-day rolling average has McCain at 46% and Obama at 45%, exactly the same now for three nights running. From a more microscopic perspective, Wednesday night's interviewing -- the first conducted entirely after it became official on Tuesday that Obama had enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee -- also was little changed from Tuesday night's interviewing, with the two candidates tied at 45% each. This suggests no immediate bounce for Obama from the widespread news coverage of his becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee.

A follow-up question was inserted into the tracking on Wednesday night, asking voters whom they would support if the Democratic ticket included Barack Obama as president and Hillary Clinton as vice president, with John McCain as the Republican nominee (with no Republican vice presidential candidate specified). The Wednesday night interviewing using this question wording showed the Obama-Clinton ticket with a slight lead over McCain, 50% to 45%.
Note: even though Obama won the nomination, he apparently didn't get the expected bounce.

McCain agrees most with my views, I believe. So McCain.

On the ticket, I think McCain should have John Edwards as his VP. Why? To anger the Republicans even more and get some bipartisan support to actually prove that he's middle of the road.

I think Obama would take Clinton except for Bill. He'd be everywhere messing around in the White House. Obama would have inspiration, and Hillary would get down into the details.

I would most likely vote Obama-Clinton over McCain-Somebody, however.

Chuck Hagel brings in the "Obamacons" (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=6632) and the right idies. HRC drives them away.
Not according to Knights of Liberty:
Chuck "Anyone who has an abortion should be given the death penalty" Hagal?


Again, Moderates will run away like he's got the Bubonic Plague.
(I shouldn't even be replying to you because I know nothing about Hagel but since it was still in my head from reading it earlier...)

Interesting remarks from Gallup Poll:

Democrats Weigh In On Unity Ticket (http://www.gallup.com/video/107698/Democrats-Weigh-Unity-Ticket.aspx)

More telling:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080604Clinton2_mdi03jse.gif
She's down almost 15% w/in her own part since March.

Not according to Knights of Liberty:

(I shouldn't even be replying to you because I know nothing about Hagel but since it was still in my head from reading it earlier...)

The surge is done. Iraq's going to be back to a boil, and thus front and center come November. An anti-war con will be more of an asset than Hillary Rodham "lets invade Iraq AND Iran" Anathema Clinton.

More telling:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080604Clinton2_mdi03jse.gif
She's down almost 15% w/in her own part since March.
You just look at the negatives?

Obama wants to reach out to Republicans and Independents. Since Feb. her favourability has doubled amongst Republicans and increased 10 points (22%)amongst Independents.

BTW, do you have a similar graph for Obama and/or do you have the URL for that Gallup Poll?

*More Clinton rubbish*
Aye, that's all lovely. Why do you keep supporting someone who has nothing like the support from Europe as Obama, who lacks his charisma and didn't get the votes to win at all?

Seriously, Clinton is not who Obama needs on the ticket. You can't claim that you're fighting for change on the one hand, but keep up over twenty years of Bushes and Clintons being in power on the other.

Interesting remarks from Gallup Poll:

Democrats Weigh In On Unity Ticket (http://www.gallup.com/video/107698/Democrats-Weigh-Unity-Ticket.aspx)

You can quote as many of the peices on roughly the same set of polls as you want, it doesn't matter. She sunk that ship last Tuesday when she not only didn't concede, but didn't even appear to know it was over. She created an 'or else' situation for the VP slot that she once again didn't get in front of and cut off that made it politically impossible for Obama to pick her without looking like he was being force fed a chaperon for the presidency. When he's going to be facing a narrative of weakness and inexperience, bringing on someone who elbowed her way to the VP slot is fuel to that fire.

She could have been, she might have even been inevitable, but once again she found a way to torpedo her own inevability. Yes, to a degree he's going to have to pick a VP that to at least some degree addresses Clinton supporters, but thanks to her own actions, it can't be Clinton.

Note: even though Obama won the nomination, he apparently didn't get the expected bounce.
What, with his opponent leading her followers into denial about the end of the race until, what, today? Gosh, what a surprise.

So I just watched Senator Clinton's concession speech, and I have to say I gained a fair bit of respect back for her. Few probably would at this point, but I did, because she did NOT have to make the speech the way she did. She did NOT have to support Senator Obama in the way she has, and yet she has.

Regardless of her future position in an Obama administration, she's already made the difference she needed to--pushing her supporters towards Obama, which she did very well. (Note that I'm taking my dad's words here more or less, and remember, he was quite the adamant Clinton supporter during the primary.)

So ultimately I doubt he'd need her as her Vice President, and even my dad said it would only work with a clearly defined set of boundaries and rules. (He also said it would be the most powerful team if it was done right, but I personally don't agree with him there.)

She should have a place in his administration I think, but not Vice President, if only because I think at this point she'll serve him better as, say, leader of the Senate, or a high level cabinet position.

I realize that you, CanuckHeaven, and you, Shal, will not listen, that you will persist in your ridiculous behavior for whatever possible reasons you have. So be it. Most of the Clinton supporters will now happily rally behind Senator Obama.

So, all in all, good news and stuff.

She should have a place in his administration I think, but not Vice President, if only because I think at this point she'll serve him better as, say, leader of the Senate, or a high level cabinet position.

She really can't go back to the Senate and do very much, she has very little seniority. She won't be chairing committees or anything, so I look for her to serve in his health care reform program and maybe a cabinet position.

if I were to vote, I would vote Obama. But that's only if I bothered to vote.

Ok, I hesitate to post this article, knowing we will most likely devolve into bitching again. However, I think it more a statement on my Congressman than anything.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/19626524.html
Andrews: Clinton team used divisive tactics

By Geoff Mulvihill

Associated Press
Rep. Robert E. Andrews, a South Jersey Democrat, alleged yesterday that Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign had deliberately tried to exploit tensions between Jews and blacks in her unsuccessful effort to gain the party's presidential nomination.

Andrews, a party superdelegate who had endorsed Clinton, said yesterday that he had brought up the issue this week because he believed talking about it would help reunite divided Democrats.

His allegation came just days after he lost a bruising primary battle to unseat the party's incumbent senior senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg.

Andrews said he had received a call from a high-ranking person in Clinton's campaign shortly after he made some positive comments about Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, just before Pennsylvania's April 22 primary.

The caller told him about a campaign strategy to win Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and blacks, said Andrews, who declined to name the person who had called him.

"Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign . . . that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting," he said. "It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."

Andrews first discussed his allegations in an interview with the Star-Ledger of Newark that was published yesterday.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer denied the allegation.

"Comments like these, coming so soon after Congressman Andrews' crushing defeat, are sad and divisive," Singer said.

Andrews said he had not divulged the call before this week because he did not want to appear to be making an unfair play for Obama supporters in his own primary campaign.

"I guess I'm a believer that you should talk honestly about problems before you can solve them," Andrews said.

He said he expected to switch his support from Clinton to Obama after the New York senator formally conceded the race, a move expected today.

Emphasis mine. He's a lying thief (he ran for Senate but will most likely still return to his seat even though he wasn't in the primary, thank you Camden County Democratic Machine), and I doubt this is true. However, if it is, that is a serious allegation. It sat on the third page of the paper. I'm wondering why it was nestled in the paper rather than the front page. Party unity? The Philly Inquirer is solidly Democratic. Andrews is a scumbag? Real possibility.

Also, I love the shot from the Clinton campaign. :p

I have no intention of voting... but I half want to see McCain get in office. If only for him to reveal that he's been playing both sides of the fence.

I mean think about it. Everytime you see him, he's supporting this or that. But it's never really given an impression of him. He honestly seems to be manipulating the democrats to keep him on their ballad until the presidential race officially begins. And no. It hasn't yet. But if you really watch him. One half of the things he says supports Bush and the other half condemns him. I've seen the man, in one breath say that Iraq was the worst idea ever launched and in the same breath say that it was brilliant. He's playing someone. I just don't know if it's the democrats, the people, or both. And I really want to find out.

But I don't vote. And if he does get in office, I will be happy to see once and for all what side he's playing. But if he's playing us, then I will laugh at everyone else for voting him in. Hah.

I couldn't find this thread, because it had been stickied :p



I liked senator Clinton's concession speech too. Or, suspending-my-campaign speech, as it were. But she said at least four times that her supporters should rally around Obama now. And I now feel that those who chooses not to do that is stabbing her in the back in the process.

Clinton Ends Campaign, Endorses Obama (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/clinton-ends-campaign-endorses-obama/20080605221509990001)

Even Hillary can figure out the greater good once in a while.

"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him and I ask of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," the New York senator said in her 28-minute address.

So the question now is, will CanuckHeaven bow down before Great Clinthulhu and throw in his support for Obama, or will he pull a Corny and think he knows better about the Democratic campaign than either of them?

Clinton Ends Campaign, Endorses Obama (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/clinton-ends-campaign-endorses-obama/20080605221509990001)

Even Hillary can figure out the greater good once in a while.



So the question now is, will CanuckHeaven bow down before Great Clinthulhu and throw in his support for Obama, or will he pull a Corny and think he knows better about the Democratic campaign than either of them?

Well, the "Clinthlhu" probably isn't helping. In fact, it isn't. But that hasn't stopped anyone. But no, now he believes that Obama needs a chaperon to the presidency and that's the drum he'll bang until the decision is made. After that he'll scower the internet for any bit of doom and gloom that predicts that he was somehow right and Obama will lose so he can gloat-never mind that it wouldn't really indicate that Clinton would have done better...

Well, the "Clinthlhu" probably isn't helping. In fact, it isn't. But that hasn't stopped anyone. But no, now he believes that Obama needs a chaperon to the presidency and that's the drum he'll bang until the decision is made. After that he'll scower the internet for any bit of doom and gloom that predicts that he was somehow right and Obama will lose so he can gloat-never mind that it wouldn't really indicate that Clinton would have done better...

I've always been more partial to Darth Hillary;

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/hillary_vader.jpg

:D

If he's on the ballot here, Ron Paul. If not, I guess McCain just because although I don't like him or Obama, I'd rather have McCain than Obama in a second. Enough of the bandwagon bullshit, people.