The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Guys.

Clinton is not going to get the nomination. Edwards (who won't win, regardless) will quit if he doesn't finish a very strong second today (which he won't). Obama will be the Democratic candidate, and the only way this won't happen is if he screws up royally, or if Clinton is sitting on a serious bomb (a snuke, if you will). When Edwards steps out, he will instruct his supporters to follow Obama, further increasing his momentum.

Once again, Clinton won't win, quit worrying about what would happen with Clinton v. Guiliani. Obama v. Huckabee or Romney would scare me more.

The Republicans have a lot going on. Romney has been the clear money favorite, but Huckabee's victory in Iowa set him back considerably. Romney also sucks pretty bad in general. Huckabee doesn't stand a chance in the long run imo, because the Republican party knows he's unelectable in the general.

We'll have to see what Guiliani brings on Super Tuesday. It may already be too late for him by then, with his name out of the news and low on the polls for so long.

McCain is the most realistic candidate to come through for the GOP. He's ahead of Romney in the NH polls, and has a pretty good road ahead of him, especially if he takes today.

Obama v. McCain is the overwhelming market favorite right now, and that matchup would be in America's best interest either way.

And stfu about white-supremacist Ron frickin Paul

Lord of Oats wrote:France is a lot more progressive than the US.

What are you trying to say, you fuckin' frenchie-loving buttfucker? You think we ain't progressive? Well if you hate America so much, get out and go suck pierre's cock somewhere.

Sober wrote:Guys.

Clinton is not going to get the nomination. Edwards (who won't win, regardless) will quit if he doesn't finish a very strong second today (which he won't). Obama will be the Democratic candidate

This remains to be seen, and I do hope you are wrong. I think that no matter how many leaps and bounds this country has made in the area of Civil Rights, women's suffrage is still way out ahead. I think we'll see a white female president before we see a black male. On a personal level it doesn't matter to me, I'll vote for either one, but on the national level, I think Hillary has a better chance. (I also believe she's the better choice, but that has no bearing on this conversation)

Sober wrote:

Lord of Oats wrote:France is a lot more progressive than the US.

What are you trying to say, you fuckin' frenchie-loving buttfucker? You think we ain't progressive? Well if you hate America so much, get out and go suck pierre's cock somewhere.

and of course I got a pretty good chuckle out of this.
<font size="1"><i>And for the folks who don't understand this satire in context, it sort of illustrates the mindset sale being used in our current climate</i></font>

Hoblit wrote:women's suffrage is still way out ahead. I think we'll see a white female president before we see a black male.

Assuming that the candidate's respective demographics will vote for them because they share a demographic is just silly. Iowa is 95% white. Iowa is also ~51% female. Obviously not all women voted for Hillary, just as all white men didn't vote for Edwards.

Obama is rapidly gaining the majority of women's votes (I can't find a relevant link at the moment, but I believe he may already have her dominated). You can't assume that women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Lots of women hate Clinton for lots of reasons, so that idea will work against her as often as it will work for her, so I think it's pretty irrelevant. Women are the majority in the country. If they really wanted one of their own in office, just for the sake of doing it, they'd have done it by now. Oh, and Obama has OPRAH FUCKING WINFREY'S SUPPORT.

Look at the polls. Obama is now leading in every post-Iowa poll you can find by huge margins.

People on the right are rooting for him, for god's sake. He is admired by people on all sides, across America. Hillary, however, is extremely polarizing. She is despised by most of the right and much of the left.

Hillary in the general means droves of republican voters coming out to vote AGAINST the democratic candidate. Obama in the general means droves voting FOR their candidate, and no one is incredibly pissed if he wins, or is motivated to go out of their way to see that he doesn't.

I don't know what issues make you prefer Hillary over Barack, but if it's electability, Obama is 1000x more electable than Hillary.

Sober wrote:

Hoblit wrote:women's suffrage is still way out ahead. I think we'll see a white female president before we see a black male.

Assuming that the candidate's respective demographics will vote for them because they share a demographic is just silly. Iowa is 95% white. Iowa is also ~51% female. Obviously not all women voted for Hillary, just as all white men didn't vote for Edwards.

.. You can't assume that women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman.

Look at the polls. Obama is now leading in every post-Iowa poll you can find by huge margins.

Whoah, slow down there guy, were on the same team.

<font size="5"><b>1st</b></font> of all, I NEVER said anything about woman voting for Clinton. I don't know where you got all of that.

<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/200 ... hires.html" target="resource window">2nd, I only glance at polls these days and never <b>look</b> at them. </a>

I'm not talking about demographics here, I'm talking about strait up racist skepticism. Maybe I'm hoping on hope, but I don't see Obama beating any white guy in the presidential election. I do feel (and *I* could BE wrong) that Clinton still has a real shot. But I mean, if you're calling it now...

Caravan Ray, when you were talking about how Australian elections work, I was sitting there, nodding my head, going "Why don't we do it that way?" Fact of the matter is, yes, all voting in the U.S. is "first past the post" style, and that really feeds into our current oligarchy system. Only the two major parties ever get represented, and those who support other parties still generally vote Republican or Democrat, because voting for a third party is seen as "Throwing your vote away."

Our last best hope for defeating this two-party system was Ross Perot. He came pretty close to meeting the criteria (winning the majority in any one state) for recognition as a major party in 1992 (which would have resulted in his party being given government campaign funding and invitations to the official Presidential Debates in subsequent years—if he'd had a party), so he ran again in 1996 under the ticket of his own newly-founded Reform Party. Didn't do so well that year.

Anyway, if you're still confused, just look at it as a tournament bracket format. We're narrowing down both fields to one person on either side. Why we don't all do this at once is still beyond me, because the nation tends to vote the way they heard things came out in New Hampshire, anyway. It's why John Kerry got the Democratic Nomination in 2004, and it's why Rudy Guliani's strategy this year is so god-damned idiotic; by the time the states in which he's campaigned get around to voting, it'll already be WAY too late for him. Which is a shame; he's still my favorite candidate on either side of the line.

Still. Obama (with Edwards as veep?) Vs. McCain (with Romney as veep?) seems the obvious configuration right now, and I'm fine with that. I'll vote for Obama, but I won't lament the fate of humanity if McCain wins. This is fine. Quite alright.

Sober wrote: ...quit worrying about what would happen with Clinton v. Guiliani. Obama v. Huckabee or Romney ...Obama v. McCain ...

There always seems to be a lot of this "he would beat him...but not beat her...and she wouldn't beat him..." sort of stuff going on.

What would stop a party from just scrapping all this primary stuff and the party executive picking a "horses for courses" candidate.

eg. If the Dems select Clinton as their opponent first - the powers-that-be in the Reps go - "OK, screw all this caucus stuff - Guiliani is the best bet to beat her - he gets the job". Could this conceivably happen?

Something of a similar nature happened here recently. When a Labor Government takes office - traditionally, all members of the Parliamentary Party elect the Cabinet Ministers. This is Labor tradition and usually results in some sort of factionalism. This time though, Kev Rudd went all Presidential and said "screw that - I'm picking my own Cabinet". Labor diehards were shocked - but the world didn't end.

also,
Devils Advocate Question: Is this long drawn out way of picking candidates simply a mechanism to ensure that only the rich can become President?

Hoblit wrote: I'm not talking about demographics here, I'm talking about strait up racist skepticism..

Do you think Obama should be living in fear, as Philip Adams suggested yesterday:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/ ... ssins_gun/


NB: Adams is a very witty, very respected left-wing columnist. Somewhat prone to exaggeration or hyperbole sometimes, but who isn't? For the past 11 years he was one of the most public and most vocal critics of the numerous failings of the Howard government.

Caravan Ray wrote: Devils Advocate Question: Is this long drawn out way of picking candidates simply a mechanism to ensure that only the rich can become President?

It's entirely possible. Of course, presidential hopefuls do a lot of fundraising anyway, but I'd be surprised if Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and Guliani didn't all spend out of pocket more money than most of us see in a year. Stephen Colbert initially wanted to run on both tickets, but then he decided not to run on the Republican ticket because they wanted $35,000 from him for the priviledge of putting his name on the ballot. And then the Democrats just said "Sorry, no," anyway.

That's just sad.

Caravan Ray wrote:If the Dems select Clinton as their opponent first - the powers-that-be in the Reps go - "OK, screw all this caucus stuff - Guiliani is the best bet to beat her - he gets the job". Could this conceivably happen?

It does happen, to an extent, but it's not so direct. Convincing the public that you can actually win the final election is a major campaign issue for the candidates at this point. It gets clearer when the field is narrowed down to one person from each party: they'll select their VP running mates almost solely on who gives them the best chance to win.

You don't have to be rich to run for President (though it helps immensely). Major candidates will expect to raise hundreds of millions of dollars each in donations. It's customary to return unopened any checks from NAMBLA, but other than that, all you need to do is be in one of the two main parties and the real rich folks will trip over each other in a rush to give you money.

Generic wrote:That's just sad.

Why is that sad?

Caravan Ray wrote:

Hoblit wrote: I'm not talking about demographics here, I'm talking about strait up racist skepticism..

Do you think Obama should be living in fear, as Philip Adams suggested yesterday:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/ ... ssins_gun/


NB: Adams is a very witty, very respected left-wing columnist. Somewhat prone to exaggeration or hyperbole sometimes, but who isn't? For the past 11 years he was one of the most public and most vocal critics of the numerous failings of the Howard government.

While that article does point out a possibility, and I'd even go as far as saying that his being black does increase that possibility, I don't think anyone here is really considering that possibility. Its certainly not in the forefront of our minds. (But thats me just generally speaking for the whole country of Democrats)

However, I do feel like that all of those middle of the road independents may be influenced by racism be it from advertising, region, tradition, family, or even their own beliefs. The "I ain't votin' fer no n#@$er!" type mentality. ESPECIALLY if McCain wins... Then for those undecided racist folk its " War hero or n#@~er! ". I don't advocate this thinking...I just think it'll be a few more years before that ignorance is eradicated out of the decision making process enough to get a very competent black man in office.

erik wrote:

Generic wrote:That's just sad.

Why is that sad?

Yeah, I'm with you. I don't want to see votes get wasted on a comedian. Thats why there is a price tag...thats why there are guide lines to qualify for each party. Only serious applicants need apply.

Hoblit wrote:I'm not talking about demographics here, I'm talking about strait up racist skepticism. Maybe I'm hoping on hope, but I don't see Obama beating any white guy in the presidential election. I do feel (and *I* could BE wrong) that Clinton still has a real shot. But I mean, if you're calling it now...

In the debate over who is more electable in the US, a black man or a white woman, I feel it should be pointed out that Amendment 15 precedes Amendment 19.

That is to say, black men were granted the right to vote in the US in 1870.
Women didn't get that right until 1920.

Just sayin'.

anti-m wrote:

Hoblit wrote:I'm not talking about demographics here, I'm talking about strait up racist skepticism. Maybe I'm hoping on hope, but I don't see Obama beating any white guy in the presidential election. I do feel (and *I* could BE wrong) that Clinton still has a real shot. But I mean, if you're calling it now...

In the debate over who is more electable in the US, a black man or a white woman, I feel it should be pointed out that Amendment 15 precedes Amendment 19.

That is to say, black men were granted the right to vote in the US in 1870.
Women didn't get that right until 1920.

Just sayin'.

...and I still can't believe we let that happen as early as 1920!

<b>or</b>

...and with that I can concede officially. (into the corner I go with my gut feeling.)

Hoblit wrote:
...and I still can't believe we let that happen as early as 1920!

<b>or</b>

...and with that I can concede officially. (into the corner I go with my gut feeling.)

Although, just to be clear -- I don't favor voting to "game the system" -- that is -- letting your concerns about elect-ability have too much sway over your decision...especially this early in the game. If you like Hilary, you should vote for her.

Of course if you are the type of person who voted for Nader in '00, you might want to consider gaming the system just a little bit. Heh.

Hoblit wrote:

erik wrote:

Generic wrote:That's just sad.

Why is that sad?

Yeah, I'm with you. I don't want to see votes get wasted on a comedian. Thats why there is a price tag...thats why there are guide lines to qualify for each party. Only serious applicants need apply.

But why is money the best/only indicator of whether someone is "serious?"

Generic wrote:But why is money the best/only indicator of whether someone is "serious?"

Because it works? If you can't raise $35K then you have no hope in the election.

Generic wrote:But why is money the best/only indicator of whether someone is "serious?"

What would you rather use?

Votes in the primary.

So, if enough people vote for you in the primary, you, um, get your name on the ballot for the primary?