US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III

[Irvine511]

Hillary got more votes than McCain. in a contest that didn't matter.

very interesting.

 

[U2democrat]

Obama got more votes than hillary in counting ballots cast purely in the last 30 days. Interesting swing there.

 

[deep]

Hillary got more votes than McCain. in a contest that didn't matter.

very interesting.

yes

but it was not in an important state

this state will not even matter in november

 

[Irvine511]

yes

but it was not in an important state

this state will not even matter in november

i'm quite pleased that Mrs. Clinton won the Florida Democratic Beauty Contest. good for her.

we must remember, if there's anybody who can get the GOP band back together for one last show, it is HRC.

on the good side, if McCain is the GOP nominee, and he probably will be, aside from his promise of "more wars," we will at least get someone who will stand against waterboarding and torture.

which is more than i can say for *any* of his supporters in here.

 

[deep]

we must remember, if there's anybody who can get the GOP band back together for one last show, it is HRC.

there is a person that the right has been demonizing longer and perhaps even more viciously than Hillary

and he has been all over the news lately as Obama's patron saint

don't worry the right will line up against Obama (I was always against the war) / Kennedy / Oprah with a passion and fury like nothing you have ever seen.

Yes, Obama can go around gathering up delegates from the red states to help on his way to the nomination.

The question one should be considering is
who can win the one or two states that matter.
The battle ground states that will determine the election.
States like Florida, New Hampshire.

 

[Strongbow]

Hillary got more votes than McCain. in a contest that didn't matter.

very interesting.

Well, if you do the math, you'll notice that in South Carolina the Republicans had their votes divided among 6 candidates and in Florida they had their votes divided among 5 candidates. Democrats the past two primaries have only had their votes divided among 3 people, so its absurd to be making any sort of claim about the number of candidates voting for one candidate in the Democratic primary comparered to a 6 or 5 person race for the Republicans.


But here are the latest polls for the national election that is supposed to be a cake walk for Democrats according to yourself:


National Election:

NBC/WSJ 01/20 - 01/22

McCain VS. Clinton

McCain 46%
Clinton 44%

NBC/WSJ 01/20 - 01/22

McCain VS. Obama

McCain 42%
Obama 42%


The Democrats clearly do not want to run against John McCain in the national election. Clinton will be unlikely to get many Republicans to vote for her, but John McCain will draw many Democrats. In any event, as the Republicans draw closer to picking a nominee, it will be funny to watch the rather childish debate with in the Democratic party between Hillary and Obama.

 

[anitram]

NBC/WSJ 01/20 - 01/22

McCain VS. Clinton

McCain 46%
Clinton 44%

The Democrats clearly do not want to run against John McCain in the national election.

Clearly not.

A lead within the margin of error in a national poll when the winner is decided based on the electoral college is a sure sign of that.

 

[anitram]

In any event, as the Republicans draw closer to picking a nominee, it will be funny to watch the rather childish debate with in the Democratic party between Hillary and Obama.

Yes.

I much prefer the highbrow debate between McCain (a liar) and Mitt (a flip flopper).

 

[verte76]

Who won the primary?

 

[Irvine511]

Well, if you do the math, you'll notice that in South Carolina the Republicans had their votes divided among 6 candidates and in Florida they had their votes divided among 5 candidates. Democrats the past two primaries have only had their votes divided among 3 people, so its absurd to be making any sort of claim about the number of candidates voting for one candidate in the Democratic primary comparered to a 6 or 5 person race for the Republicans.
.

democrats have crushed republicans in overall turn out, even in South Carolina, as sure a Red State as any in the country. 534,747 came out for the Dems and only 444,183 came out for the Republicans. in South Carolina!

Florida wasn't a contested election for the Democrats, no one campaigned there (until Mrs. Clinton at the very end) and she still got nearly 200,000 more votes than McCain.

if the election in the fall is on national security, McCain -- who's pretty much become the John Kerry of the Republicans, they looked around and wondered who was the most electable, and they decided, wisely, on him -- will do well; if it is on the economy and the likely coming recession, he will not do so well.

but keep flashing your polls and reading more into them than is actually there and don't worry about context as it obviously makes you feel smart.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It's being reported that Edwards is dropping out

 

[joyfulgirl]

Shit. I was looking forward to voting for him next week. He's the only one I actually really like. The smartest of the bunch, imo.

 

[Infinity]

if the election in the fall is on national security, McCain -- who's pretty much become the John Kerry of the Republicans, they looked around and wondered who was the most electable, and they decided, wisely, on him -- will do well; if it is on the economy and the likely coming recession, he will not do so well.

I highly doubt that.

If John McCain gets nominated and the election is focused on national security, he will not do well, considering that most Americans are against the genocide in Iraq and John McCain is the most hawkish of candidates out there.

If it is on the economy it will be very close I think.

 

[Diane L]

My heart is broken.

My candidate is gone.

America deserves the politicians it gets. Don't expect government to help you, or make an even playing field in which all of us can have a shot at doing well. You're on your own, and if you make a mistake--i.e., credit card debt--you are screwed forever...

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Even though it's reported that he's not endorsing anyone right now, I still say he goes for VP with Obama.

 

[Irvine511]

I highly doubt that.

If John McCain gets nominated and the election is focused on national security, he will not do well, considering that most Americans are against the genocide in Iraq and John McCain is the most hawkish of candidates out there.

If it is on the economy it will be very close I think.

his area of expertise is foreign policy, and he has no problem bludgeoning his opposition with cries of, "YOU JUST HATE THE TROOPS IS ALL!!!"

it's still effective. horrible, unfair, and shameless. but effective.

he's not nearly as conversant in economic matters.

 

[phanan]

Even though it's reported that he's not endorsing anyone right now, I still say he goes for VP with Obama.

I agree. Why else would he bow out before Super Tuesday?

I think this is a pre-emptive strike at Clinton, by dropping out now and throwing his support behind Obama. Between this and the Kennedy endorsements, I think Obama does very well next week, and then will thank Edwards by offering the VP.

 

[Irvine511]

i bet Edwards gets the DOJ, not the VP.

 

[U2democrat]

Edwards will never go for VP again. Never.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Edwards will never go for VP again. Never.

I agree.

 

[2861U2]

i bet Edwards gets the DOJ, not the VP.

That's what I heard reported yesterday- that he would be a likely Attorney General choice.

 

[martha]

Shit. I was looking forward to voting for him next week.

Ditto.

 

[U2democrat]

Obama has done a lot of great work with the poor especially in Southside Chicago fighting payday lenders, which is a big issue for me

 

[joyfulgirl]

Ditto.

Now who do we vote for??

 

[U2democrat]

Well I can suggest someone

 

[BonosSaint]

i bet Edwards gets the DOJ, not the VP.

Agreed. Attorney General. And I think a great choice.

 

[martha]

Now who do we vote for??

Obama? At least he seems less pro-war than Clinton. But he's got that weird Donnie, the Former Gay touring with him. :shudder:

 

[phanan]

Edwards will never go for VP again. Never.

Never say never.

If Obama wins the nomination, and Edwards wasn't the VP nominee, who would you think is the most logical choice then?

 

[deep]

Obama? At least he seems less pro-war than Clinton. But he's got that weird Donnie, the Former Gay touring with him. :shudder:

seems - may be the right word

and you are picking up on his (Republican - light) pandering


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oceansidebox30jan30,1,2612454.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Barack Obama: Opposed invading Iraq; has voted as senator to authorize war funding;
would begin withdrawal of troops within 16 months
and leave some troops to protect diplomats and prevent Al Qaeda gaining a "foothold." Wants no permanent military bases in Iraq; would launch aggressive regional diplomatic efforts to stabilize the region, isolate Al Qaeda and support Iraqi reconciliation; favors financial support for Iraqi reconstruction and humanitarian aid.





Hillary Rodham Clinton: Voted to authorize Iraq invasion in 2002. Has three-step plan to end war,
begin phased troop withdrawal within 60 days of taking office;
would redeploy some troops to ensure regional stability and convene group of key allies, global powers and states bordering Iraq to stabilize Iraq and the region.

 

[deep]

Never say never.

If Obama wins the nomination, and Edwards wasn't the VP nominee, who would you think is the most logical choice then?

he will suffer from the same perception that W did in 2000


he will need a heavy-weight for gravitas


Edwards is wrong.

Richardson would be a better pick.