Iowa Predictions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BonoVoxSupastar said:


First of all, NO SHIT SHERLOCK, secondly, how do you know there won't be any radical changes?

Like you always say about the war, changes take time.

I think her relief comes from not having a fucking idiot in the white house...

Unless Huck or Mitt wins, we are stepping up!


Because this country is still overall conservative. Its why Bill Clinton was forced to move to the right after the 1994 elections. If one of the leading three Democrats is elected, they will be careful not to make the mistakes of Clintons first two years.

But on the largest issue in foreign policy which is Iraq, the leading Democratic candidates went from supporting a withdrawal of all US combat troops by March 31, 2008 at the start of 2007, to not committing to having all US troops out of Iraq by 2013 just a couple of months ago. Right now it seems highly unlikely that a new Democratic president will be pursuing a radically different policy in Iraq come January 2009 in light of the dramatic success in 2007 and the continued progress were likely to see in 2008.

Of course Edwards once again changed his tune at the last second and is now promising to have all troops out of Iraq by October 2009, but that will change again in the unlikely event he got the nomination.

Often, what the candidates promise in the primaries is one thing as they try to satisfy their party base, then what they promise in the general election becomes an attempt to find the center, and then they enter the office and face reality and are forced once again to revise things. I'm not saying that change, for better or worse, can't happen, but don't be surprised if a new Democratic administration is not radically different from the Bush administration you so despise.
 
anitram said:
The one thing I was always not sold on re: Obama is that I feel like he says all the right things, but they rarely have any content.

That said, he is absolutely inspirational when you watch him. My father just saw the speech, he is a man who hasn't voted in 18 years and he said he'd vote for Obama. He makes you feel like you can actually do anything - a black man who was the first editor of the Harvard Law Journal (people have no idea what an accomplishment this is), who won one of the whitest states, and who has finally figured out how to bring young people to the polls. That is remarkable, whether or not you agree with him.

Republicans should pay attention. They have a guy sitting in the white house whom people voted for because they thought they could have a beer with him. The amount of hypocrisy about Obama's lack of experience is stunning given that Bush was a failure at everything he ever did. But, if the country was willing to vote for a guy they want to go to a bar with, then you should fear the guy who makes people think that they really can achieve the American dream. I would not want to run against him.

The reason I like Obama is because of his ideas and more than that, the way he thinks. There's a lot of "content" to what he thinks--at least there was. I remember reading articles about him before he was even a candidate and I was impressed with how he approached the issues. He seemed to really THINK rather than just taking knee-jerk party line positions. Right then, I knew this is a rare thing--a politician I would believe in. I sense that may have changed some as he's gone into campaign mode and I find that disappointing, but I'm hoping the Obama I first was captivated by is still there.

The fact that he's an inspiring speaker is a bonus, but that's all.

It is remarkable though, the kind of mood he seems to inspire in people. It is infectious. It's the kind of effect I imagine John F. Kennedy had on people. The whole excitement about what might be possible for the country and so on.

Another irony. . .I can only think of one other politician that I thought demonstrated the kind of independent thinking that I admired in Obama. . .and that was John McCain circa 2000--a guy who didn't just talk "reaching across the aisle"--someone who actually did it.
 
maycocksean said:


True. Remember that one guy. . .fella from Illinois. . .very little experience, lost most elections he ran for and somehow ended up in the White House. . .what was his name? Oh, yes. Abraham Lincoln. Good thing this inexperienced man didn't get in to office when the nation was in a time of serious crisis.

Different times... different issues... a completely awful alternative in Douglas...

Oh, and Lincoln was way more experienced than Obama is right now.
 
they are the true Americans that have been paying attention to the news the last fews days that said Obama wins
and Hillary takes 3rd and she is all done.

So these are the white ditto-heads putting a stake in Hillary's heart?
 
Last edited:
2861U2 said:


Different times... different issues... a completely awful alternative in Douglas...

Oh, and Lincoln was way more experienced than Obama is right now.

Plus
Obama is a straight black Democrat.
 
Strongbow said:



Because this country is still overall conservative.



no, it isn't. more people identify as Democrats than Republicans, and independents have moved away from the Republicans in droves.

it's the Republicans who've been pandering most to their base -- all this "brown peril" illegal immigrant nativism -- and the Democrats who have all run centrist, national campaigns up to this point.
 
It's kinda funny how in this mostly conservative country, you have such an evil liberal media. I mean, it's like media apartheid out there.
 
Irvine511 said:




no, it isn't. more people identify as Democrats than Republicans, and independents have moved away from the Republicans in droves.


Don't confuse Dem/Rep with liberal/conservative.

Conservatives outnumber liberals.

Democrats outnumber Republicans.
 
Irvine511 said:




it's true.

it's going to take years and years to repair the damage.


Its more likely they will find themselves adopting policies they previously opposed because of their obvious success. For the Kucinich branch of the Democratic party, the primaries will seem like a distant memory by November 2008 as who ever is the Democratic nominee will be running as far as they can from them in order to win.
 
2861U2 said:


Different times... different issues... a completely awful alternative in Douglas...

Yeah, they were even worse times. The very nation was on the brink of imploding. You think we're divided today? Try 1860. (Granted, Lincoln through no choice of his own, was more of a divider than a uniter. Secession largely boiled down to his election victory). He also had three opponents--Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell, I believe. Douglas was far more experienced than Lincoln was.

2861U2 said:
Oh, and Lincoln was way more experienced than Obama is right now.

How so?
 
deep said:


Lincoln is over-rated.

brown1.jpg


and this true hero, almost forgotten.

John Brown?
 
2861U2 said:

Tell me honestly why you think this is?

Because I've always been curious when someone says this, and sense you are a young educated Republican on the verge of his first real vote, why do you think this is?
 
Strongbow said:



Because this country is still overall conservative. Its why Bill Clinton was forced to move to the right after the 1994 elections. If one of the leading three Democrats is elected, they will be careful not to make the mistakes of Clintons first two years.

But on the largest issue in foreign policy which is Iraq, the leading Democratic candidates went from supporting a withdrawal of all US combat troops by March 31, 2008 at the start of 2007, to not committing to having all US troops out of Iraq by 2013 just a couple of months ago. Right now it seems highly unlikely that a new Democratic president will be pursuing a radically different policy in Iraq come January 2009 in light of the dramatic success in 2007 and the continued progress were likely to see in 2008.

Of course Edwards once again changed his tune at the last second and is now promising to have all troops out of Iraq by October 2009, but that will change again in the unlikely event he got the nomination.

Often, what the candidates promise in the primaries is one thing as they try to satisfy their party base, then what they promise in the general election becomes an attempt to find the center, and then they enter the office and face reality and are forced once again to revise things. I'm not saying that change, for better or worse, can't happen, but don't be surprised if a new Democratic administration is not radically different from the Bush administration you so despise.

I agree with just about everything he said! Weird. . .
 
deep said:

Why John Brown?

The Pottawatomie Massacre, the raid on Harpers Ferry, and a hangman's noose doesn't add up to making more of an impact than Lincoln in my book.

Lincoln himself bestowed that honor on Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin.
 
maycocksean said:

It's the kind of effect I imagine John F. Kennedy had on people.

You mentioned JFK, I mentioned Jackie O. Did we fall for sublimal messages? :uhoh:
 
lately

I am thinking Lincoln, Truman, W, Guiliani get a lot of credit for just being at the helm what disasters hits.

When the Country survives, and recovers and gets better, these leaders are elevated beyond what they deserve.
 
Irvine511 said:




no, it isn't. more people identify as Democrats than Republicans, and independents have moved away from the Republicans in droves.

it's the Republicans who've been pandering most to their base -- all this "brown peril" illegal immigrant nativism -- and the Democrats who have all run centrist, national campaigns up to this point.

To some degree that is true, but your still going to see a change in how the nominee for the Democrats runs in the general election compared to the primaries.

If the country is no longer conservative or as conservative as it was in the 1990s, John McCain would not be beating all three Democratic candidates in the latest polls. Over the last 10 Presidential elections, the Democrats have only won 3, and only achieved a 50% majority in one of those elections. The two victories by Clinton showed him moving to the right in order to survive. The largest turnout ever in this country's history since 18-20 year olds got the right to vote was the 2004 election and George Bush solidly won that election. The 2006 election may have indicated big changes, but the turnout for that election was much lower than in 2004, so will see what happens in 2008.

I still think Republicans have an uphill battle this year, but its not because the electorate has radically changed their political views and party membership since 2004. No matter what the political situation, since World War II, a party in the White House for two consecutive terms has only won a third time in a row once.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Tell me honestly why you think this is?

Because I've always been curious when someone says this, and sense you are a young educated Republican on the verge of his first real vote, why do you think this is?

According to a 2005 Harris poll, Democrats outnumber Republicans 34%-31%. Conservatives outnumber liberals 36-18, with moderates at 41.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548

I guess my young mind would answer that most Americans support smaller taxes, a strong defense and traditional values which at times emphasize religion. And with some 90% of Americans being religious, this makes sense.

I don't know, I really don't have a great answer. Maybe a lot of people view "liberal" as a scary word being more and more associated with irresponsible outlets and polarizing people like Michael Moore and MoveOn.
 
deep said:
lately

I am thinking Lincoln, Truman, W, Guiliani get a lot of credit for just being at the helm what disasters hits.

When the Country survives, and recovers and gets better, these leaders are elevated beyond what they deserve.

I hear you but I would question whether that was the case with Lincoln (the others, I probably wouldn't argue with). The Civil War was far more than a disaster that "hit." The generals he chose (granted he had to go through a few--but he went through them), the Emancipation Proclamation, his willingness to follow through on a war that was often quite unpopular, and who knows how things might have been different had he lived and been able to manage the Reconstruction in the manner he wanted to. I don't think Lincoln was lucky. Those were rare times and fortunately we had someone worthy to the task.

My argument is simply this--if a man of little "experience" could do his job well in perhaps the most crucial point in our nations history, how can we say that a similar person can't do the same now.
 
national polls right now mean NOTHING.

Rudy is leading in national polls. go figure.

and how did the 18-20 year olds vote? i'll give you a hint -- not Republican. and a majority of them support such "liberal" things like marriage equality. whites are going to continue to decline in population, and the Republicans have always hated blacks and have just done huge damage to whatever inroads Bush may have made with Latinos.

Clinton moving to the right was moving to the center. you're going to see the Republican nominee moving to the center. the election is won from the center.

ask yourself why Congress has been overwhelmingly Democratic since WW2.
 
2861U2 said:


According to a 2005 Harris poll, Democrats outnumber Republicans 34%-31%. Conservatives outnumber liberals 36-18, with moderates at 41.



Democrat or Republican is quantifiable identity.

"liberal" or "conservative" is not. and one thing that has been done very, very well by the right since the 1960s is to demonize the word "liberal."

i don't call myself a liberal. i'm a progressive.
 
maycocksean said:



My argument is simply this--if a man of little "experience" could do his job well in perhaps the most crucial point in our nations history, how can we say that a similar person can't do the same now.

I would reply by saying just because it worked 150 years ago, we should take a risk and hope Obama can do the same? Lincoln was a great man with great skill. I don't see Lincoln in Obama. Why not take more of a safer road and elect someone who has lived through war and has more experience and knowledge?
 
2861U2 said:


I would reply by saying just because it worked 150 years ago, we should take a risk and hope Obama can do the same? Lincoln was a great man with great skill. I don't see that in Obama. Why not take more of a safer road and elect someone who has lived through war and has more experience and knowledge?



who had more "experience" and "knowledge" than Cheney and Rumsfeld?
 
Irvine511 said:
national polls right now mean NOTHING.

Well, I wouldn't say that. :slant: How else would you explain an incompetent boob like Dubya being elected twice in a row in the Dems have such a strong backing in this country? (EDIT: Sorry, I thought you were talking to 2861U2 there, but you quoted his post later :lmao: )

However, in 10-20 years, I think the US will be predominately liberal, as many of those 18-20 year olds you mentioned will have grown up and will probably remain as they are politically, and they will influence their children, and so on.
 
maycocksean said:

Lincoln himself bestowed that honor on Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin.


Yes, that's right before Uncle Tom's Cabin all clear thinking people just believed Negroes workers were appreciative of the plantation owners.

These plantation owners gave them an opportunity to improve their standard of loving by being around the white folks.


In all seriousness, I am embarrassed for my country. That people turned a blind eye to the horrors of slavery for as long as they did.

Sure Stowe's book may have been a turning point.

I guess Rosa Parks was the first Black person to be told to give her seat to a white person?

If I watch a fellow human being being beaten to death by his slave owning master. I hope I would risk my life to save him.
Not read a book.
 
Back
Top Bottom