EdgeIsTooSexy
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 10,828
thankfully pennsylvania isnt as stupid as i thought it was
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - The Fifth Installment
- Thread starter phillyfan26
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
EdgeIsTooSexy said:
Obama is pulling ahead then?
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Harry Vest said:
So now you're a spokesman for the world?
I'm actually finding *this* an interesting and historic battle.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
9 points?
Harry Vest
Refugee
VintagePunk said:
So now you're a spokesman for the world?
I'm actually finding *this* an interesting and historic battle.
Ya, I guess it's "interesting" and "historic" seeing democrats ripping apart the party when they should of decided this months ago!!! The one year you actually have a chance at winning the Whitehouse and look what you do...keep voting for a loser...a liar and a cheat instead of the guy who's anything but perfect but could really begin to heal what Bush and Co. have done for the past eight years. This baffles me. Really, what's up America???
Sincerely,
Spokeman for the World
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I would say that Obama is absolutely the way, way ahead favourite globally. Just a quick perusal of global media would confirm that, and anecdotally I know dozens of people who are watching this race who otherwise take absolutely no interest in US politics, let alone at a primary race level, purely because of him and the hope he gets in. 'Audacity of Hope' is in our Top 10 best sellers here in Australia at the moment. No US political books or biographies ever do that, EVER. A year ago it probably wouldn't even have been available in 95% of Australian bookstores. It was my girlfriend - completely and totally non-politically interested in any way either locally or globally - who let me know that Obama was on the Daily Show yesterday and wanted to make sure we saw it. There are little things like that everywhere.
'The Story', the narrative around the three candidates, that you can clearly pick up from any international media source, is of the Golden Child, the Stubborn Spoiler, and the Can't Honestly Believe that Americans Would Be So Stupid As To Go For Another Republican. That's just the way it is, and it makes perfect sense that it would be that way, IMO. Partly becuase he's a media dream, but also because he's a global dream President post-Bush.
Of course, 'we' (the rest of the world) are paying zero attention to domestic stuff. Tax, healthcare etc etc = yawn. Far more interested, obviously, in the President as a figurehead and big decider in the general direction and image the US takes on at a global level. No Obama, and everyone would be rooting big time for Clinton, but Obama exists and is seen as a dream candidate internationally. Anyone who is everything Bush isn't, and isn't anything Bush is, was always going to get a dream ride globally, and he is, and would continue to do so if nominated, and would probably continue to do so if elected. Globally, Obama would really change the perception of the US around the world in a heartbeat. Clinton would too to a degree, absolutely, but to get there she's seen as knifing Obama too much and it's certainly damaging the way she's being presented. If the US eventually goes for McCain, you'll hear the sound of a billion hands slapping a billion foreheads in stunned amazement.
'The Story', the narrative around the three candidates, that you can clearly pick up from any international media source, is of the Golden Child, the Stubborn Spoiler, and the Can't Honestly Believe that Americans Would Be So Stupid As To Go For Another Republican. That's just the way it is, and it makes perfect sense that it would be that way, IMO. Partly becuase he's a media dream, but also because he's a global dream President post-Bush.
Of course, 'we' (the rest of the world) are paying zero attention to domestic stuff. Tax, healthcare etc etc = yawn. Far more interested, obviously, in the President as a figurehead and big decider in the general direction and image the US takes on at a global level. No Obama, and everyone would be rooting big time for Clinton, but Obama exists and is seen as a dream candidate internationally. Anyone who is everything Bush isn't, and isn't anything Bush is, was always going to get a dream ride globally, and he is, and would continue to do so if nominated, and would probably continue to do so if elected. Globally, Obama would really change the perception of the US around the world in a heartbeat. Clinton would too to a degree, absolutely, but to get there she's seen as knifing Obama too much and it's certainly damaging the way she's being presented. If the US eventually goes for McCain, you'll hear the sound of a billion hands slapping a billion foreheads in stunned amazement.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
This is the equivalent of watching the NFC Championship game, when one team is up by 10 in the fourth quarter. The losing team gets the ball, drives down the field, chews up a ton of clock and is in the red zone...and only manages a field goal. Then the winning team gets the ball and runs the clock down as far as they can. Then the losing team brings the ball back down the field, time is running out - and they kick another field goal.
Sure, points are going up on the board. But they're still losing and are basically out of time. And you really just want it to be over with so you can watch the Super Bowl.
Clinton managed to take a whole six delegates off Obama's lead of over 130 tonight, according to CNN (ETA: Now it's down to a whopping three delegate difference).
Pack it the heck in, Hillary.
Sure, points are going up on the board. But they're still losing and are basically out of time. And you really just want it to be over with so you can watch the Super Bowl.
Clinton managed to take a whole six delegates off Obama's lead of over 130 tonight, according to CNN (ETA: Now it's down to a whopping three delegate difference).
Pack it the heck in, Hillary.
Last edited:
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
DaveC said:Pack it the heck in, Hillary.
She's the modern day Rasputin, she's never going to go away.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
10+ points
Harry Vest
Refugee
" The sound of a billion hands slapping a billion foreheads in stunned amazement"
BRILLIANT QUOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!
BRILLIANT QUOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that whenever people talk about how Obama can't win OH or FL nobody, and I mean nobody thinks to ask how Hilary will win in OH if the African Americans stay at home (bye Cleveland!), or Missouri (bye St. Louis!), etc? Given that they're voting 92% for him now and given that she can only win by a superdelegate debacle, why would this extremely reliable Democratic constituency bother voting for her?
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
2861U2 said:
With 95% of vote in you're right on the money.Operation Chaos comes to Indiana.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
INDY500 said:
Operation Chaos comes to Indiana.
I can't wait to hear what Rush will say tomorrow.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
No one should ever care what that man says...
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
anitram said:
because the only people democrats take more for granted than gay people are black people.
i mean, where else do we all go? to people that actively hate us?
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
BonoVoxSupastar said:
After a few drinks and with a bit of honesty, it's probably something about how much he can't wait for the ratings and cash another Clinton presidency will send his way.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
INDY500 said:
Operation Chaos comes to Indiana.
Operation Chaos had no impact
Last edited:
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Nice, a Clinton victory in Pennsylvania. Who could've seen that coming, eh?
10 points is not nearly enough, however. Treading water at best, and it's getting a bit late in the day for that.
10 points is not nearly enough, however. Treading water at best, and it's getting a bit late in the day for that.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
He out spends 2 or 3 to 1.
Why can't he win a state that matters?
Why can't he win a state that matters?
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
deep said:
Will we see Democrats in the "states that matter" voting for McCain rather than Obama? Or is it simply that given a choice they'd rather have Clinton than Obama but would still vote Democratic in November?
You're suggesting that the independent swing voters would vote for Hillary over McCain but McCain over Obama?
If that is the argument you've been making, then I guess I've never been convinced of that. The Republicans certainly aren't convinced of it. Just look at how 2861U2 cackles and rubs his hands together at the thought of a Clinton vs. McCain match up. They clearly think they have a better shot against Clinton than against McCain.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
maycocksean said:
That is the question
it just seems that with all the media saying Hillary can't win
and that Obama will be the nominee
that the Democratic primary voters would fall in line
that is what happened with the GOP and McCain
deep
Blue Crack Addict
maycocksean said:
Again, I believe Obama will be the nominee
I also believe the GOP do not want to run against the Clintons at all. They lost twice to them and could not beat them down in the polls even with Bill's dirty deeds.
You may recall Gingrich and Limbaugh were saying Hillary would be the next president last fall, they had already conceded to her.
Everyone says Rove is/was a genius, he barely won each time.
The Clintons figured out how to win and governed with 60+% approvals.
And now they are out spent 2-3 to 1 and written off and they still win most all of the battle ground states. All the while having to cede 90% of a block of their base to Obama.
The Clintons have received 90% of the Black and Gay vote in previous elections for one reason only. Because in those elections the Clintons were the candidates that would and did best represent those groups in a fair and decent way, especailly compared to the GOP alternative.
I don't fault the 90% of Black voters that choose Obama over Hillary. A vote for a qualified Black role model is tempting, but for me it is not the main factor.
I just don't think it is fair to label the Clintons as Klansmen or even in the likes of politicians that have not supported voting rights, civil rights laws, affirmative action, equal rights, etc. They have a legitimate legacy and record.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
politico.com
A measure of racism: 15 percent?
By: Roger Simon
April 22, 2008 07:45 AM EST
I was talking the other day to a prominent Republican who asked me what I thought John McCain’s strongest issues would be in the general election.
Lower taxes and the argument he will be better able to protect America from its enemies, I said.
Republicans have a pretty good track record with those two.
The Republican shook his head. “You’re missing the most important one,” he said. “Race. McCain runs against Barack Obama and the race vote is worth maybe 15 percent to McCain.”
The man I was talking to is not a racist; he was just stating what he believes to be a fact: There is a percentage of the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black person no matter what his qualities or qualifications.
How big is that percentage? An AP-Yahoo poll conducted April 2-14 found that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.”
I don’t know if 8 percent sounds high or low to you, but I was amazed that 8 percent of respondents were willing to admit this to a pollster. And I figure that the true figure is much higher.
The same poll, by the way, found that 15 percent of voters think Obama is a Muslim. He is, in fact, a Christian. But thinking a person is a Muslim probably does not encourage you to vote for him in America today.
And consider this little nugget from Monday’s Washington Post, in a story by Kevin Merida and Jose Antonio Vargas datelined Scranton, Pa.:
“Barack Obama’s campaign opened a downtown office here on March 15, just in time for the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade. It was not a glorious day for Team Obama. Some of the green signs the campaign had trucked in by the thousands were burned during the parade, and campaign volunteers — white volunteers — were greeted with racial slurs.”
Signs burned? Racial slurs shouted out loud? In this day and age? Maybe that 15 percent estimate is low.
I am not suggesting for a second that McCain would exploit race in a campaign against Obama. He would not. But the real question is whether the racial issue has to be “exploited” at all. It is pretty powerful just sitting there on its own.
Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign in 1980 by giving a speech at a county fair in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers — James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman — had been murdered in 1964.
Reagan made no mention of the murders or civil rights in that speech but did say, “I believe in states’ rights.” “States’ rights” was common code in those days for letting states discriminate against black people.
A few months ago, David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times, defended Reagan, claiming it is a “distortion” to say Reagan opened his campaign “with an appeal to racism.”
But Brooks also wrote: “Reagan could have done something wonderful if he’d mentioned civil rights at the fair. He didn’t. And it’s obviously true that race played a role in the GOP’s ascent.”
In 2005, then-Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman gave a speech to a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People convention in Milwaukee denouncing the use of race as a wedge issue.
“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” Mehlman said. “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
On Monday, McCain went to Selma, Ala., where on March 7, 1965, more than 500 civil rights marchers were beaten and clubbed by state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as the rest of America watched on television.
“They watched and were ashamed of their country,” McCain said. “And they knew that the people who had tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge weren’t a mob; they weren’t a threat; they weren’t revolutionaries. They were people who believed in America — in the promise of America. And they believed in a better America. They were patriots — the best kind of patriots.”
The Associated Press noted that McCain drew a crowd Monday of about 100 people that “was mostly white, although, as the campaign noted, Selma’s population is 70 percent black.”
“I am aware the African-American vote has been very small in favor of the Republican Party; I am aware of the challenges, and I am aware of the fact that there will be many people who will not vote for me,” McCain said. “But I’m going to be the president of all the people.”
Which was an intriguing point: Sure, there are voters who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, but McCain was saying there are also voters who will not vote for him under any circumstances.
But which group, if either one, will hold the balance of power in November?
A measure of racism: 15 percent?
By: Roger Simon
April 22, 2008 07:45 AM EST
I was talking the other day to a prominent Republican who asked me what I thought John McCain’s strongest issues would be in the general election.
Lower taxes and the argument he will be better able to protect America from its enemies, I said.
Republicans have a pretty good track record with those two.
The Republican shook his head. “You’re missing the most important one,” he said. “Race. McCain runs against Barack Obama and the race vote is worth maybe 15 percent to McCain.”
The man I was talking to is not a racist; he was just stating what he believes to be a fact: There is a percentage of the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black person no matter what his qualities or qualifications.
How big is that percentage? An AP-Yahoo poll conducted April 2-14 found that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.”
I don’t know if 8 percent sounds high or low to you, but I was amazed that 8 percent of respondents were willing to admit this to a pollster. And I figure that the true figure is much higher.
The same poll, by the way, found that 15 percent of voters think Obama is a Muslim. He is, in fact, a Christian. But thinking a person is a Muslim probably does not encourage you to vote for him in America today.
And consider this little nugget from Monday’s Washington Post, in a story by Kevin Merida and Jose Antonio Vargas datelined Scranton, Pa.:
“Barack Obama’s campaign opened a downtown office here on March 15, just in time for the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade. It was not a glorious day for Team Obama. Some of the green signs the campaign had trucked in by the thousands were burned during the parade, and campaign volunteers — white volunteers — were greeted with racial slurs.”
Signs burned? Racial slurs shouted out loud? In this day and age? Maybe that 15 percent estimate is low.
I am not suggesting for a second that McCain would exploit race in a campaign against Obama. He would not. But the real question is whether the racial issue has to be “exploited” at all. It is pretty powerful just sitting there on its own.
Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign in 1980 by giving a speech at a county fair in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers — James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman — had been murdered in 1964.
Reagan made no mention of the murders or civil rights in that speech but did say, “I believe in states’ rights.” “States’ rights” was common code in those days for letting states discriminate against black people.
A few months ago, David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times, defended Reagan, claiming it is a “distortion” to say Reagan opened his campaign “with an appeal to racism.”
But Brooks also wrote: “Reagan could have done something wonderful if he’d mentioned civil rights at the fair. He didn’t. And it’s obviously true that race played a role in the GOP’s ascent.”
In 2005, then-Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman gave a speech to a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People convention in Milwaukee denouncing the use of race as a wedge issue.
“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” Mehlman said. “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
On Monday, McCain went to Selma, Ala., where on March 7, 1965, more than 500 civil rights marchers were beaten and clubbed by state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as the rest of America watched on television.
“They watched and were ashamed of their country,” McCain said. “And they knew that the people who had tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge weren’t a mob; they weren’t a threat; they weren’t revolutionaries. They were people who believed in America — in the promise of America. And they believed in a better America. They were patriots — the best kind of patriots.”
The Associated Press noted that McCain drew a crowd Monday of about 100 people that “was mostly white, although, as the campaign noted, Selma’s population is 70 percent black.”
“I am aware the African-American vote has been very small in favor of the Republican Party; I am aware of the challenges, and I am aware of the fact that there will be many people who will not vote for me,” McCain said. “But I’m going to be the president of all the people.”
Which was an intriguing point: Sure, there are voters who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, but McCain was saying there are also voters who will not vote for him under any circumstances.
But which group, if either one, will hold the balance of power in November?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
deep said:
you're twisting their words -- they had conceded the democratic nomination to her, not the presidency, and Rush has said he'd prefer to run against her than against anyone else.
[q]The Clintons have received 90% of the Black and Gay vote in previous elections for one reason only. Because in those elections the Clintons were the candidates that would and did best represent those groups in a fair and decent way, especailly compared to the GOP alternative.[/q]
compared to the GOP, yes, but it was the Clintons who ushered in DADT and the original DOMA. the Clintons use gay money, and give nothing back, and never have, and would toss us out under the bus -- as Clinton encouraged Kerry to do in 2004 -- without blinking.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Irvine511 said:
Money can be gay? I didn´t know. Does G.Washington agree?
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Operation Chaos is not necessarily trying to get Hillary the nomination. The goal is just to create chaos, and to try to get the thing to go to the convention.
As far as who I'd rather face, I'm kind of split. As I said, Hillary puts Ohio and Florida and play, where I think McCain would win those handily against Obama. Obama hasn't had a good 10 days or so. As of right now, I'd probably prefer to face Obama, but by a hair. That could easily change.
As far as who I'd rather face, I'm kind of split. As I said, Hillary puts Ohio and Florida and play, where I think McCain would win those handily against Obama. Obama hasn't had a good 10 days or so. As of right now, I'd probably prefer to face Obama, but by a hair. That could easily change.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
I am not twisting their words one bit.
Those two among other conservatives did say Hillary would win in Nov and their hope was to have her out in 4 years.
Irvine511 said:
I have seen you spin DADT this way before. It is amazing how uninformed you are about these things. As someone that was there you get this all wrong and completely misrepresent it.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Operation Chaos makes about as much sense as a Rooster thinking he is responsible for the sun rising, just because he crows at dawn.2861U2 said:
or believing throwing virgins into a volcano prevents it from erupting
the success of Limbaugh is that some Obama supporters are playing into his hands and allowing him to mold their thinking
some have been doing this from day one, saying things like Hillary is too polarizing, my (bigoted) friend and all the people (bigots) around here would never vote her.
phanan
Blue Crack Addict
I have a question, because I'm not sure the answer...
What happens if the superdelegates end up splitting 50-50 between Obama and Clinton. Would either one be able to secure the nomination?
I guess I could go try and find the answer, but I'm a bit lazy at the moment.
What happens if the superdelegates end up splitting 50-50 between Obama and Clinton. Would either one be able to secure the nomination?
I guess I could go try and find the answer, but I'm a bit lazy at the moment.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
phanan said:
They were talking a little about this last night on one of the news channels. I think they said that if Obama and Hillary split the remaining primary delegates 50-50, and if the remaining undecided superdelegates went 50-50, Obama would be over 2025.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
