American 2008 Election

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: krbe

But American politics, that's why we're here! How come that there are some many different methods to choose a candidate? Iowas caucasuses, primaries which Independents may participate in, primaries Independents may not participate in, Wyoming just dividing their few remaining delegates between some... Why don't the parties want a fair (ie. same for all, it doesn't matter where in the country you live) and streamlined process?quote>

They all have caucuses if I remember correctly.  It's just that some of them are vastly more important than others.

About why the parties don't want a "fair and streamlined process" - they aren't in control of it, and there's nothing they can do about it.  For the most part, each state gets to determine the minute details of voting privileges.  You could have half of the country dying to see one particular state change a regulation on voting, but they couldn't change it unless they went and made a Constitutional amendment on it, which they wouldn't even think about doing.  It used to be that there was no real set of nationally standard guidelines on who could vote, except that if you were eligible to vote in the most numerous house of the state government, you could vote in the national government.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Taylor1 0]

What do you mean worship by name and what? I could answer your question.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: krbe

But American politics, that's why we're here! How come that there are some many different methods to choose a candidate? Iowas caucasuses, primaries which Independents may participate in, primaries Independents may not participate in, Wyoming just dividing their few remaining delegates between some... Why don't the parties want a fair (ie. same for all, it doesn't matter where in the country you live) and streamlined process?quote>

It's one of the many things that vary by state.

Is that really the person some republican bible-bashers want as their president???quote>

I believe the phrase you were looking for is "republican bible thumpers"  ?

[Frankie_Grove 32]

I can understand why you would want to debate the whole CCTV/Privacy thing, but the "Huckabee and Obama win Iowa" thread is certainly not the place to discuss it.

[Meg 368]

Frankie has a point.

Let's see if can separate the two topics. 

Give me a few minutes here . . .

[Flann 1,709]

So what do you guys think about the whole Huck-a-Chuck thing?

[Meg 368]

If you wish to discuss privacy and CCTV, please do so here.

If you wish to discuss Huckbee, Obama, the Iowa caucus, or questions about the US election process in general, please continue in this thread.

Thank you.

[belfastuniguy 18]

What is Huck-a-Chuck??

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by:

Flann

So what do you guys think about the whole Huck-a-Chuck thing?quote>

I personally loved it, it doesn't really make me want to vote for Huckabee, but it did give me a good laugh.

[Boggy1 45]

Just a quick point here; now that Hilary seems to be losing momentum fast, with Obama now leading a double figure ahead of her, wouldn't it be prudent for Hilary and Obama to join forces, possible having Hilary as an advisor or even vice-president (or whatever), so that she at least has some sort of say in the new Government?

Obama-Hilary are certain to win, due to the joining together of votes. But, is this allowed by US law?

I find it interesting that there seems to be a rivallery between the candidates who are within the same party. Over here there generally isn't at all, with coalitions, agreements, and compromises far more common than a divergence of opinions and stuff (we will ignore the self-destruction of the Wigs party in the 19th century - it split into two parties due to massive disagreements; Labour, and the Liberal Democrats.)

[Odainsaker 2,137]

They could, but that must decided by their own individual personalities and strategies. When Hillary was in the lead, it was often suggested the younger Obama take the running-mate role of vice president, with that insider executive experience setting him up to later run for president in a classic succession strategy. Now the leads are reversed, and the argument for Obama is that we need his vision of change now, untarnished by any dabbling in the current Washington system. If you believe in the caricature of Hillary Clinton as the cold, calculating, self-serving, femi-nazi control-freak desperately trying to seize the levers of Supreme Power to placate her vindictive vanity and enact her Sinister Socialist Agenda, it would be difficult seeing her accept the second-place position. Through the course of a term as Obama's vice, she would not be getting any younger, making the chances of later successful runs to become the first female president increasingly dimmer.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Just a quick point here; now that Hilary seems to be losing momentum fast, with Obama now leading a double figure ahead of her, wouldn't it be prudent for Hilary and Obama to join forces, possible having Hilary as an advisor or even vice-president (or whatever), so that she at least has some sort of say in the new Government?

Obama-Hilary are certain to win, due to the joining together of votes. But, is this allowed by US law?quote>

Yes, it would be permitted, because I believe that Hillary is running with her voting candidacy in New York and Obama from Illinois (there's a thing in the Constitution that running mates have to be from different states).

However, Obama would be a fool to take Hillary as his running mate.  People either love her or hate her.  There's basically no middle ground.  Those who love her want her to be President, not Vice President.  Those who hate her could very well turn away from Obama if he picks her.  On top of that, I really don't think Hillary wants the second-tier job.  The Vice Presidency usually isn't a very powerful job, and she wouldn't want to give up her job as a Senator for a Cabinet position.  Hence, I have a strong feeling that for her, it's "White House or Bust" so to speak.  In reality, she doesn't really want the office because she wants to reform the country.  She just wants to be the first woman in the office.  Personally, I really don't have an issue with a woman being the President, but I can think of at least a few people I'd rather have in there than her.

I find it interesting that there seems to be a rivallery between the candidates who are within the same party. Over here there generally isn't at all, with coalitions, agreements, and compromises far more common than a divergence of opinions and stuff (we will ignore the self-destruction of the Wigs party in the 19th century - it split into two parties due to massive disagreements; Labour, and the Liberal Democrats.)quote>

We'll get to coalitions and other stuff later on, but you have to remember, over here in the US, there's a general sentiment that the government sucks.  Why?  Look at how the candidates are running?  They'd rather bury each other than try to help issues.  Hence, we usually don't trust them, and on top of that, there's the little saying that "the people don't want in office are the ones who want it, and the people you do want in office don't want it."

[belfastuniguy 18]

Hillary does seem to be losing New Hampshire, however I don't think she is worried just yet. She is still likely to most major states and stills leads in national polls.

To be perfectly frank, I like Obama, he seems like he would make a good President, but not yet. If he gets the democratic candidacy the Republicans will tear him to shreds and the the democrats will look like idiots to giving the presidential race to someone so inexperienced. It's all well and good seeking change from the usual Washington politics, but he still has to battle through it to win and he won't able to do it, no matter how many rousing speeches he gives. I also, and I hate to say this, but I don't think America is yet ready for a black president, while it would be great, it won't happen, I just don't feel that American has moved that far.

Hillary is not liked by everyone, but she is able to do the job from day one, defend her position against lobbyists and corporations and has the clout to push through change. Obama will rely heavily on advisers and that is not what America needs, they need a strong leader than can make the changes that country needs. He also uses the word change to much. What changes?? He doesn't specify nor does he has the power behind him to make those changes, all empty words. I'm afraid. The only good thing about him is that he has brought young people back into politics.

I would like to see Hillary as President and Obama as Vice President. Then he can start to gain experience and then think about running for President again.  But that's just an outsiders view.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I hate to say this, but I don't think America is yet ready for a black president, while it would be great, it won't happen, I just don't feel that American has moved that far.quote>

I wonder about that myself.   Did you know that America has never had a President whose last name ends in a vowel?   It's difficult to make generalizations about ethnicity and having your name end in a vowel but there is probably one in there somewhere.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

I think that Obama and Hillary would not work well together as running mates, I feel they both want to be control and vice presidency wouldn't suit either.

However, I think Edwards has a chance really affect the votes. If he were to run as Vice President with either Hillary or Obama it would give a huge boost to their campaign, pretty much sealing the results. Edwards really doesn't have chance of winning anymore, with all the attention focused on Obama and Hillary. However, he still could have a huge influence on the results , unlike Hillary he is not a love or hate candidate meaning that whoever he supports wouldn't loose any votes but all those who were planning to vote for Edwards would likely vote for whoever he supports.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

Oh yeah, saw Chuck Norris with Huckabee on a BBC news story. Seemed like they were physically attached to each other.

He really said that, oh dear..........would be funny to send him to somewhere like the UK or France and say something like that, the respond would be hilarious for us......

[Voar Tok 4]

belfastuniguy: The only thing that Hillary has enough clout for is causing massive political gridlock. You can't push anything through without the help of Congress, so how "strong" of a leader you are is almost irrelevant, and she doesn't even have the support of all the Democrats (even if Obama and everyone running against her dropped out tomorrow). To be a strong President, you have to be able to get the mass public to rally around you. She can't do that. I don't know that she's unelectable, but not even having the overall general backing of your own party doesn't help you at all. Now, this was back in 2004, and people can say anything when they don't have to face the music on it, but when the rumors started flying about what the public would think about Hillary running, there was actually a decent number of democrats that would rather vote for whoever the republican was that was running against her.

If you want an example of what a strong President is, look at Reagan. While I'm not trying to start a debate on Reagan's policies, he won the 1980 election with 44 out of 50 states going for him (the other six and the DC area went to Carter). Then comes the 1984 election, and he wins 49 out of 50 states, with Mondale winning his own home state by less than 5000 votes. That is an example of a strong President. Hillary couldn't even come close to getting people to come out and side for her like that.

Meg: OK... not quite sure I'm following your connection there.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguyHillary is not liked by everyone, but she is able to do the job from day one, defend her position against lobbyists and corporations and has the clout to push through change. quote>

You mean defend lobbyists and corporations from the rest of America...or have you not heard of the Lincoln-bedroom-turned-resort-hotel-for-lobbyists scandal? Or Travelgate, or Whitewatergate, etc...

 

Originally posted by: Odainsaker If you believe in the caricature of Hillary Clinton as the cold, calculating, self-serving, femi-nazi control-freak desperately trying to seize the levers of Supreme Power to placate her vindictive vanity and enact her Sinister Socialist Agenda,...quote>

What do you mean, if? I know of no other Hillary Clinton....

[krbe 193]

And the votes are in! Democrats: Obama 7 votes; Republicans: McCain: 4 votes.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok belfastuniguy:

Meg: OK... not quite sure I'm following your connection there. quote>

Well, it's kinda of a weird one.   It's a 1950s way of looking at things.

The exercise goes something like this:  What WASPish last name ends in a vowel?  (let me know when you find one)

or to look at it another way:  name a non-WASP President.  

The obvious answer to that is Kennedy.  He wasn't a WASP. and sometimes "y" counts as a vowel.

The good news is I haven't heard the term WASP in a while.  (white anglo-saxon protestant, in case anyone was wondering.  and I hope a lot of people were.)  I would like to think we are past this but I do remain somewhat skeptical.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Voar Tok belfastuniguy:

Meg: OK... not quite sure I'm following your connection there. quote>

Well, it's kinda of a weird one.   It's a 1950s way of looking at things.quote>

Seeing as how I wasn't alive then, I see why I didn't get your connection.

The exercise goes something like this:  What WASPish last name ends in a vowel?  (let me know when you find one)quote>

It took a minute or so, but the name "White" comes to mind.

or to look at it another way:  name a non-WASP President.  

The obvious answer to that is Kennedy.  He wasn't a WASP. and sometimes "y" counts as a vowel.quote>

In your previous post, I was wondering why it seemed like you weren't counting that.

The good news is I haven't heard the term WASP in a while.  (white anglo-saxon protestant, in case anyone was wondering.  and I hope a lot of people were.)  I would like to think we are past this but I do remain somewhat skeptical.quote>

I sure as hell was.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I believe this is meant as a reference to celebrities endorsing candidates.  In this case, Chuck Norris is polling for Huckabee.  Chuck Norris is a narrow-minded Christian that believes "In God We Trust" should be tattooed on the foreheads of atheists.  I'm serious.  He said that.

Barbarossaquote>

 

Did you think he was serious? C'mon, that's obviously a facetious statement. You don't want to open the Pandora's box of stupid things said by politicians and their supporters, do you?

Hillary

As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway." -Rev. Al Sharpton, supporter of Obama

"A zebra doesn't change its spots."

- algore

 

...ad infinitum.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: ccecill

I don't believe anyone deserves reporations for something that happened 150+ years ago. That's like me demanding that the UK pay me reporations for dead relatives in the Revolutionary War, or demanding reporations for the Involentary Servitude during the early days of the colonies.quote>

Okay, here's where you're wrong. (and I'm pretty apathetic about the reporations argument btw)

The Colonies and the UK were enemies. They had broken away, and weren't even part of the country. The UK promised absolutely nothing to them.

The rhetoric on equality for all (the common theme in this country's founding document) was spewed from the mouths of hypocritical men for a matter of 192 years. Why were they liars?

How old is this country?: 231

Amount of years it took to abolish segregation: 192

Amount of years it took to allow suffrage for blacks: 94

Amount of years it took to extirpate slavery: 86

Amount of years it took to promise equality for all: 0

There are some things that people can't be consistent on. For everything else, there's truth.

Like it or not Frankie, the us was promised nothing from the uk, but slaves were people-born in the US, all of whom were promised equal and just treatment... and then denied it. Moreover, for a government to promise something (and from it's conception!!!) and and only follow through with that promise for 39 years (16.9% of america's existence) is pious, deceptive, and lying. I'm trying my best not to America bash, but I'm tired of people putting this country on a pedestal so god darn much. Do not confuse American Exceptionalism with common Patriotism. Because the system under which you seem to base your views and comments is not the latter. (In my opinion)

Furthermore, they still havent (to an extent) Look at gays...

And frankie, for one to compare the worst chapter in american history to a dispute over tea is disgusting. You cannot compare the two. Let it be known. I do not care about the reporations debate. I think that our government was very wrong, but I remain apathetic... But I did feel the need to respond to this.

Views like that are exactly why I drift into the race debate... ugh.. Let's get back to why Romney is satan.. quote>

 

No offense dude, but, you weren't alive back then, so why should you be fueling your choices on what our ancestors did to your ancestors back then?

I don't go around Lowell beating all the english people whose ancestors tooled on my irish ancestors.

the american revolution was much more then a dispute over tea. Why else would the greatest football team ever be named after it's soldiers?

---

Anyway, would someone like to explain what the point of all these things are? we got primaries, cauceses, etc. I miss being little

[belfastuniguy 18]

So far 50% counted:

Hillary on 39%

Obama on 36%

Edwards is 3rd

McCain seems to have it in the bag with 37%

Rommey on 31%

Huckabee is 3rd

Well this is all very exciting...........even if Hillary does not win, the margin will be very very tight and I think this is a bad night for Obama....

[Taylor1 0]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Taylor1 What do you mean worship by name and what? I could answer your question.quote>

An off-the-cuff remark that probably didn't make sense.  My point is that I have yet to see a Republican who bashed the Bible.  They tend to court the Evangelicals, or at least claim to be religious.  That's all.  It was a rhetorical question, lol.

Barbarossaquote>

Ahh ok I get what your saying now. The reason you wont see any republican bible bashers is because that the way the candidates are there wont be any. If there is they will be out of the race with no votes faster than a cat running away from dogs. Thats one way to put it because no republican (at least to my knowledge) wants a bible bashing person in house. Now if you have someone who is respectful its still a slim chance. Most candidates come from the south or were raised in a Christian family me being the same way its kind of hard not to agree. Its already hardwired into your head you can't really make anyway out of it at least with most people.

[Zelgadis 638]

The New York Times is calling New Hampshire for Clinton

75% reporting

Clinton: 39%

Obama: 36%

Edwards: 17%

Gravel: 0%

ISF