OT: 2008 Elections

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:56 pm

The fight for the nomination for Democrats will certainly make for great television! My state, Pennsylvania, will finally matter with it's painfully late primary in late April. Of course, it won't matter for me because McCain has the Republican nomination locked up and I don't feel strongly enough about either of the Democrats to change my party affiliation. Some of my friends hate (or possibly fear?) Hillary so much they've discussed changing parties just to vote against her in the primary. I've never heard anyone suggest that to vote against Obama.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:58 pm

Slumberland wrote:WAKE UP DEMOCRATS. Hillary can not beat John McCain! This is a dark morning.

(end impassioned plea)

I have been saying that all along.

However, the experts all say that there is no way Hillary can take over the delegate lead with the remaining states unless she wins every one by at least 60/40 and that looks near impossible. It will all come down to the Super Delegates and I am counting on them to go the way of the people. Oh and you can count on Hillary bringing up the FL/ Michigan back to the forefront again. At the very least, they will probably have caucuses there that will count.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:57 pm

Neither of them will win enough delegates. So their arguments will be about the future, i.e. the general election.

It won't be about who won which primary but who will win which battleground state.

For all the big states Clinton has won, she's still behind in delegates.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:00 pm

Leebo33 wrote:The fight for the nomination for Democrats will certainly make for great television! My state, Pennsylvania, will finally matter with it's painfully late primary in late April. Of course, it won't matter for me because McCain has the Republican nomination locked up and I don't feel strongly enough about either of the Democrats to change my party affiliation. Some of my friends hate (or possibly fear?) Hillary so much they've discussed changing parties just to vote against her in the primary. I've never heard anyone suggest that to vote against Obama.

Your favorite, Ed Rendell, may win PA for Clinton.

She won OH because she was squired around by the OH governor.

Supposedly, some small number of Republicans have switched to vote for Obama. Maybe they were also voting against Clinton at the same time.

Or maybe it's mischief.

The independents will decide in the general.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:13 pm

I find it unsettling how many people vote for Hillary without a substantive positive reason. JackB said it earlier about how everyone he talked to liked Hillary because of her husband. I saw this again on 60 minutes this week, when they asked their small focus group why they would support Hillary, and only real answer anyone said was because the economy was good under Bill. Even the person running her campaign in the town they were featuring didn't have a substantive answer about why Hillary other than being a loyal democrat and following orders of higher ups in the party. It's kind of disturbing to me how much support she gets from people who seem to have no idea why they're voting for her.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:30 pm

Naples39 wrote: It's kind of disturbing to me how much support she gets from people who seem to have no idea why they're voting for her.

That statement applies to 99% of the electorate LOL

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:36 pm

RobVarak wrote:
Naples39 wrote: It's kind of disturbing to me how much support she gets from people who seem to have no idea why they're voting for her.
That statement applies to 99% of the electorate LOL

Yep...

I watch Real Time with Bill Maher sometimes (sometimes he gets on my nerves) and they started to have reporters go to the caucuses or primaries and ask supporters or people in the crowd why they are supporting one of the candidates.

It's shocking just how little we know and want to know about the next president we elect.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:59 pm

Yeah, I guess having support from ignorant voters applies to all candidates, but I think I just expected a little more from someone like, um, I don't know, a local campaign manager.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:09 pm

Hell, it's not just regular folk who are ignorant supporters.

Chris Matthews shredded a state senator from Texas two weeks ago on MSNBC who was supporting Obama. He asked the senator to name one legislative accomplishment of Obama's during his U.S. Senate term, and the Texas state senator couldn't name one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

Pretty funny. Pretty sad.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:54 pm

Presidential elections have often been characterized as the lesser of two evils.

When was the last time you voted for a candidate for "positive" reasons?

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:56 pm

wco81 wrote:Presidential elections have often been characterized as the lesser of two evils.

When was the last time you voted for a candidate for "positive" reasons?

Totally agree. Hell, that's life in a nutshell. Most people are a-holes, so why should presidential candidates be any different

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:08 pm

Can anyone name Chris Matthews's accomplishments? Aside from having a bigger hat size than Barry Bonds and inspiring more televised seizures than Mary Hart?

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:13 pm

Actually, it's a failure of the two-party system and the need to campaign across a continent-sized country.

Candidates must be willing to play ball with certain interests to finance these expensive campaigns and in the long campaigns, they're going to be over-vetted, nitpicked and worse.

It takes a certain kind to run for office under those circumstances.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:16 pm

If you are a Democrat, heck even if you aren't, you have to be rooting for this thing to go down to the convention.

I don't see how this can be good for McCain. You would have to say that unless Obama or Clinton destroy the other in Pennsylvania this is going all the way to the wire. With that, McCain is basically going to be backpage news until the dems pick their candidate.

Anyway, even though I like Obama, it's like rooting for a good super bowl. No one wants to see a blow out and the game out of reach in the first quarter. I hope this goes all the way to Denver (the Dems convention). That would be wild.

dougb · Post by **dougb** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:18 pm

Mathews is dreadful - completely dysfunctional.

For a run down of the horror that is Chris Mathews you could do a lot worse than check out dailyhowler.com. It has a very good run down on the problems in the press - particularly at the top of the pecking order in the journalistic/pundit ranks (and also in the top two papers of record). Russert is equally appalling.

Best wishes,

Doug

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:36 pm

Brando70 wrote:Can anyone name Chris Matthews's accomplishments? Aside from having a bigger hat size than Barry Bonds and inspiring more televised seizures than Mary Hart?

Former aide to Tip O'Neill, former speechwriter in Carter Administration, former print journalist and nationally syndicated columnist for about 15 years for the San Francisco Chronicle. Then went to TV.

Take care,
PK

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:45 pm

All I have read in support of hillary is....

Yall dislike hillary just cause you are men and she is a woman.

That in itself is pretty sad...

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:07 pm

Interview with Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz on the cost of the war.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=87801279

Total comes to $3 trillion and it includes things like opportunity costs, price premium on oil and a lot of hidden costs like long-term care for injured veterans ($600 billion and counting).

Stiglitz also notes that the DoD has failed audits for 10 years running, suggesting the Pentagon is a budgetary blackhole.

When in an election year, there's discussion about new programs, Stiglitz suggests other things which could have been paid for with that money.

The cost will go up if the next president decides to continue the burn rate at current levels.

While the economy may eclipse the war as an issue, both are intertwined in many respects.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:17 pm

Great quote from one fine lady....

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hill ... -more.html

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," Clinton says.

What an amazing woman

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:35 pm

XXXIV wrote:Great quote from one fine lady....

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hill ... -more.html

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," Clinton says.

What an amazing woman

It's true and it's working, however. Well except McCain's experience was real and not that off a first lady.

dougb · Post by **dougb** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:53 pm

Wow,

firestorm up here in parliament and media as all of a sudden Canada potentially plays huge role in Democratic primary outcomes (go figure). Someone leaks story that Obama aide told Canadian government not to worry about his anti-Nafta comments. All evidence points to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff. But it's unclear who actually contacted the Canadian government - rumour has it that the Clinton team also contacted the government, and may have been the source of the Obama rumour.

I guess if Hillary wins you really could 'blame Canada'

Best wishes,

Doug

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:02 pm

I don't think that NAFTA rumor/leak out of Canada was decisive.

The blue collar workers weren't likely to vote for Obama anyways, even though they resent NAFTA.

And OH gave Clinton like 9-plus net delegates. Not enough of a dent to Obama's lead.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:51 am

I want to warn everyone that some of the far right conservatives are VERY dangerous. There are a few dominionists sometimes called Christian reconstructionists who are very powerful amoung the extreme religious right that hate democracy and freedom and would deny it to anyone who does not agree with their theology. These are very dangerous, weird, scary, militant people who are kept hidden in the closet. You will not likely read about them in the media but they exist and they will deny your freedom and liberty if they could. They have taken over the Republican party in some districts.

Just think, we are fighting a war in Iraq so that the people there will experience democracy and tolerence and yet there are those on the far extreme religious right who HATE democracy and freedom! They would stone gays, adulterers, children, jews, and anyone who would dare question their authority.

I am a conservative Republican and I am scared as hell of these people.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:56 am

For those who think I am making this up, read what Pat Robertson said years ago.

The State, Columbia, South Carolina, Nov. 14, 1993; "They have kept us in submission because they have talked about separation of church and state. There is no such thing in the Constitution. It's a lie of the left, and we're not going to take it anymore."
The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981; "The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society."

These people want dominion and they want to take away your freedom.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:00 pm

It looks like the Democrats are actually encouraging moderate Republicans to switch parties to vote in the PA primary.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08067/863195-176.stm

If I could vote in the primary without switching I would probably vote for Obama just to piss off Rendell. But the place where I vote is a small church where I know everyone and I don't want any of my neighbors to accidentally think I'm a Democrat (even if I do vote that way on occasion).