Hillary gave up (election+general politics thread as well)

[JesusFreak offline]

I have GOT to stop encouraging you...

So, I heard Hillary actually won some state?

[Nightsabre offline]

She made a pretty dent in Obama's lead, but its still to early to know. Personally, a few slight modifications to how we elect a President would be benefitial. Mainly removing the dependance on state "superdelegates" and just going off pure popular vote.

[. offline]

only cause she won West Virginia is filled with ignorant racists.

[Andy Waltfeld offline]

Why did I expect a Rickroll coming into this topic?

But seriously, this pretty much ensures a Republican victory in the general election. With Hillary and Obama cutting so close to each other up until the Democratic National Convention, the party will be forced to decide on one of them and disenfranchise the half of the voters who voted for the loser. Everyone else will be reminded of the "smoke-filled rooms" that punctuated candidate nominations throughout Reconstruction and gravitate towards McCain, because he won the majority of the Republican delegates fair and square.

Cut to January 21, 2009. John McCain takes the Oath of Office. Ron Paul watches from his helicopter, Death Note in hand.

"EXACTLY AS PLANNED."

[JesusFreak offline]

Why did I expect a Rickroll coming into this topic?

Why on Earth do you think I would Rck Roll anyone?

[Tangent128 offline]

If you won't, I will!

[JesusFreak offline]

This is WAR!

[TrevT93 offline]

She made a pretty dent in Obama's lead, but its still to early to know. Personally, a few slight modifications to how we elect a President would be benefitial. Mainly removing the dependance on state "superdelegates" and just going off pure popular vote.

That's what the Republicans do. Popular vote only.

Something you didn't mention about the Dems: even if an area popular-votes a candidate, the delegate for that area doesn't have to pick who the people in the area picked. For that reason, in my opinion, the Democrats are about themselves; it's not about who the people want in but about who the Party wants in.

[Tangent128 offline]

Eh, Republicans don't have superdelegates, sure, but most states are winner-take-all, which adds its own problems.

[G-Force offline]

She made a pretty dent in Obama's lead, but its still to early to know. Personally, a few slight modifications to how we elect a President would be benefitial. Mainly removing the dependance on state "superdelegates" and just going off pure popular vote.

That's what the Republicans do. Popular vote only.

Something you didn't mention about the Dems: even if an area popular-votes a candidate, the delegate for that area doesn't have to pick who the people in the area picked. For that reason, in my opinion, the Democrats are about themselves; it's not about who the people want in but about who the Party wants in.

You act as if superdelegates will totally ignore public opinion. Granted they do have the freedom to do so but if one candidate has a clear majority over the other then they're not going to vote for the one losing the race as that would be political suicide. This is especially true now as there is a national effort to expose the identity and contact information of all the superdelegates in the Democratic party.

Also just a quick note when it comes to using the popular vote. In the 2000 presidential election Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush. Granted this was an presidential election and not one to determine a nominee but still the will of the people was not carried out.

[. offline]

also anyone can vote in the democratic election. Republicans and all...

[JesusFreak offline]

She made a pretty dent in Obama's lead, but its still to early to know. Personally, a few slight modifications to how we elect a President would be benefitial. Mainly removing the dependance on state "superdelegates" and just going off pure popular vote.

That's what the Republicans do. Popular vote only.

Something you didn't mention about the Dems: even if an area popular-votes a candidate, the delegate for that area doesn't have to pick who the people in the area picked. For that reason, in my opinion, the Democrats are about themselves; it's not about who the people want in but about who the Party wants in.

You act as if superdelegates will totally ignore public opinion. Granted they do have the freedom to do so but if one candidate has a clear majority over the other then they're not going to vote for the one losing the race as that would be political suicide. This is especially true now as there is a national effort to expose the identity and contact information of all the superdelegates in the Democratic party.

So...basically the Democrats added an extra layer of useless beauracracy? Sounds like them...

Also just a quick note when it comes to using the popular vote. In the 2000 presidential election Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush. Granted this was an presidential election and not one to determine a nominee but still the will of the people was not carried out.

...


ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

[. offline]

even with the electorial college, he still would of lost.

The supreme court was the only reason he won.

[JesusFreak offline]

That's not what I was talking about.


Popular vote oes not elect presidents. The electoral college, with the states and all, does.

[TrevT93 offline]

You act as if superdelegates will totally ignore public opinion.

I'm not talking about superdelegates (though I do like the fact that the GOP is superdelegate-free). Even the regular delegates don't have to follow that rule.

And the election reference:

Also just a quick note when it comes to using the popular vote. In the 2000 presidential election Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush. Granted this was an presidential election and not one to determine a nominee but still the will of the people was not carried out.

A presidential candidate can win 30 small states or 20 larger states. Depending on the states, the candidate with the big states can win the election, though more people actually voted for the other person. The electoral college system isn't perfect. However, (and I get the feeling you're another one of those Bush-haters), Bush didn't make the system. He just won the election. The people that established our system hundreds of years ago are the ones to blame if you didn't want Bush into office. Go yell at them. They'll be turning in their graves.

Hate to say it, but that's in the past. Move along to today.

Clinton won West Virginia in a landslide this week. Now more than ever she's not going to give up. Good for the GOP. Bad for the Dems. (Good for me!)

Actually, does anyone think the Democratic Party might split up sometime this year? My money's on it, with the way Clinton and Obama have been slinging mud on each other recently.

[optimus304 offline]

How many more primaries are left before we have to make a decision on the Democratic canidate?

[Kita K. offline]

If you won't, I will!

You're my hero.

Also yeah, the fight between Clinton and Obama is going to hurt the Democrats in November.

[Tangent128 offline]

On the one hand, it seems like the Democrats will have a lot of hard feelings/bitterness/claims of stealing the nomination, which could hurt them.
On the other hand, politicans do have a way of convieniently forgeting the near past.

In any case, a Clintion-Obama (or vice-versa) ticket, if actually nominated, would probably repeal some idealists on both sides. But picking someone else could lose even more of the other side's members...

On the other side, McCain has a few flip-flop/vote avoiding concerns, plus the whole "evil old WASP male" image that seems popular today.

And 8-Bit Rick Roll pwns

[Phoenix Wolf offline]

I am a Democrat, I disagree with Obama, not all of us have bitterness. I know Hillary won PA, actually Bill came to our College to get us to support her... It is deffinately going to be Hillary vs Obama in the end.... I will be voting for Hillary. Because she has more experience and she will make things happen.

[adrimarie offline]

I am a Democrat, I disagree with Obama, not all of us have bitterness.

Non-partisan person here, but I voted for Hillary on the California primaries. Right now, personally, I don't care who wins. My primary concern about this country is the recovery of the failing economy. Home foreclosures, credit companies and mortgage companies are failing really bad, people getting laid off (I was one of them back in April), gas prices are going to eat your wallets, you know the deal... it's all about the economy. Why is the economy failing now? Our taxes are leading more towards war efforts rather than national stability.

However, (and I get the feeling you're another one of those Bush-haters), Bush didn't make the system. He just won the election. The people that established our system hundreds of years ago are the ones to blame if you didn't want Bush into office. Go yell at them. They'll be turning in their graves.

Last time I remembered the first time Bush won, there had to be a recount issue regarding the votes in Florida. Back then it sounded kinda fishy to me because of the fact that W. Bush's brother (Jeb Bush) is (was?) gov. of Florida... there could be some "inside connections" going on with the ballots, we may never know. But it's the past...

My family and I didn't vote for Bush back in 2000 because we were afraid that he's going to send troops to war against Iraq again like his father did in the late '80s. Well, our fears eventually came true. Troops are still in Iraq (in fact, there are still troops in Afghanistan) for almost a decade and more are dying almost everyday. That's another issue that I wanted taken care of immediately along with this failing economy.

Back to this race thing. One theory that my brother and I came up while we were watching CNN was that Obama is being favored over Hillary at many republican-majority states because they believe he would be an easier candidate to be defeated by McCain than Hillary would be. In my case, I don't really know who to vote for, even if I voted for Hillary back during the California primaries in March (same reason as BillyGirl's... experience reasons). As of this moment I stay undecided.

Obama has many different controversies that aren't befitting of a President, such as the anti-USA statements made by his former pastor and him being a part of a black separatism march in 1995.

How much news have you actually read/watched/listened to? Obama actually opposed and denounced the things that his FORMER pastor said several times. I mean now you say he's "controversial" because of his partial involvement of causes that represents his race? All of a sudden it seems your reasoning is leaning more to his racial background than what he's actually standing up for. What's his FORMER pastor got to do with Obama as a person and candidate? The keyword to that is FORMER, meaning, he is no longer Obama's pastor. It's like saying that Bill Clinton shouldn't have been president back in the '90s because he avoided getting drafted to go to the Vietnam War, which was considered "anti-USA" back then. "Controversial" indeed, wouldn't you say....?

One part of me is saying that I don't want another republican to be the next president. Look at where we are now... we're slumping compared to the other powerful countries around the world (UK, Russia, Japan, China, etc.).

[twilightchaos09 offline]

To be honest, I don't care which Democrat wins, as long as it IS NOT a Republican. After all, it was a stupid Republican who got us into this whole dang mess. I personally think that Hilary should win, but thats just because Bill Clinton was a pretty good president. But, like usual, I'll probably get bashed for having an opposing viewpoint as you people SO LOVE to do to me -_- Though, if I had any say in it(still cant vote, not 18 yet), I'd vote for someone non-religious. But that's just my viewpoint. So, before this topic starts looking like my Civics class, I'm gonna stop here.

As for Taelia's first post in this topic: Starting to sound like you're racist.

[JesusFreak offline]

Imma try to not flame either

As for Taelia's first post in this topic: Starting to sound like you're racist.

Really?

I'm more of a McCain supprter (Republicans rule!), and I really despise Barack Obama becuase of his views and his recent controversies.

What's racist about this?

Or is this a case of "defend te messenger. not the message"?

Or is it because she's refering to Jeremiah Wright?

[Vodka's Vengeance offline]

You know what? I'm so confused. I don't really like any presidential candidate this year. I might vote for McCain, but he's just so old.... He'll probably die of old age before he completes his term.

[. offline]

Imma try to not flame either

As for Taelia's first post in this topic: Starting to sound like you're racist.

Really?

I'm more of a McCain supprter (Republicans rule!), and I really despise Barack Obama becuase of his views and his recent controversies.

What's racist about this?

Or is this a case of "defend te messenger. not the message"?

Or is it because she's refering to Jeremiah Wright?

JF is right... depending upon my understanding of sepratism, that being a black view that segragations and fair but equal should exist.

[adrimarie offline]

Imma try to not flame either

As for Taelia's first post in this topic: Starting to sound like you're racist.

Really?

I'm more of a McCain supprter (Republicans rule!), and I really despise Barack Obama becuase of his views and his recent controversies.

What's racist about this?

Or is this a case of "defend te messenger. not the message"?

Or is it because she's refering to Jeremiah Wright?

JF is right... depending upon my understanding of sepratism, that being a black view that segragations and fair but equal should exist.

So, let me get this straight. Let's say, I want to run for president. People will despise me because I did volunteer work and/or support human rights causes for Asians in this country in the past?

That being said, what Obama's FORMER pastor have stated and such has nothing to do with Obama as a person and as a candidate. Obama's past involvement with organizations and causes that are sponsored and/or supported by blacks and/or black separatists has nothing to do with him being a person and a candidate. He simply stands for what he believes in, but that doesn't mean he's going to bring all that to the table for his campaign.

Don't forget, there are still a lot of whites around the country who still discriminate against non-white races. Minority races struggle more when it comes to opportunity than whites do in general. Minorities can't help it but fight in order to have that equal opportunity. What Taelia said gave me a feeling that this was all going to fall down in to racial issues once again. A non-white running for president... it's always coming down to race issues. Always happens.