Jan 09, 2008 11:22 pm Ummm... what? lol
presidential primaries
Posted on Jan 09, 2008 05:20 pm
fortymile
Member Since: Jan 18, 2003
i am playing it safe with my predictions. let's say the patriots take south carolina.
[ Back to Top ]
Jan 09, 2008 11:22 pm Ummm... what? lol
Jan 10, 2008 02:41 am I say John Edwards is an ELITE candidate. Just look at what he was to work with, his team is crap yet he is consistently good. He has a quick release and never takes a sack.
Jan 10, 2008 04:39 am well actually...
i think that's backwards. he is crap yet his team is crap. so that's half backwards. i just know edwards is crap.
he has a quick release, and every time he's sacked (which is every time) he pretends it didn't happen. and that's edwards.
Jan 10, 2008 06:52 am Quote:
I say John Edwards is an ELITE candidate.
While I totally appreciate the sarcastic humor in that comment, Edwards is a scumbag lawyer that is a part of the problem in health care that he claims he wants to fix. There are very rarely candidates I hate, but he's one. I'm glad he's getting his *** kicked. He's one of those guys that needs an *** kickin just on principal.
Obama is the dems best bet, but there is something about that guy that just doesn't sit right with me...I can't lay my finger on it...Clinton, well, that'd just be scary...
For the repubs, I am a Romney man so far, have been from the beginning and haven't found a reason not to be yet. I like his business background of creating lean, effective businesses and making them profitable, I like his quick thinking and his position on most everything.
Jan 10, 2008 09:52 am romney is my least favorite repub guy. he's *unctuous* to me. a scary, plasticized rich man.
believe it or not, i prefer huckabee over on the right. after him, mccain. i don't worry too much about huck's religiosity. i probably should, but i don't. i just so far like the guy a lot as a person. i would only hope he doesn't govern from a god standpoint. if he could take care to avoid that, i'd feel ok about that particular repub.
Jan 10, 2008 09:58 am Well, if nothing else, I got my new word for the day...
I can see where he would appear unctuous, I can see that, but to me, he stands where I stand more than anyone else. Huckabee is in the wrong party...sort of. My main issue with Huckabee is that his stance on immigration is the worst...he is completely ****** up on that one.
Jan 10, 2008 11:23 am Who would take a President Huckabee seriously?
Then again - why not? Right now we have a Bush and a Dick running the country. Maybe we should continue to elect the shlubs with the goofiest names, just for the laughs.
No, I'm not running.
Jan 10, 2008 11:28 am Quote:
Who would take a President Huckabee seriously?
yeah, I kinda had that same thought...same reason I laughed at the thought of "President Jeb" a few years back when peeps thought he'd run...
I would love to see President Herb Utsmelz...I'd hate the legislation for four years, but it'd be worth the good laugh.
Jan 10, 2008 11:35 am Quote:
"President Jeb"
"President Mitt" then?
Jan 10, 2008 11:37 am ::plugs ears::
lalalalalalala, I can't hear you...
Jan 10, 2008 12:15 pm Serious (and hopefully not offensive) question from a Brit.
Do you think the Dems can win with a woman or black man running ???
I know what you mean about osama/obama, there is something about his way that doesn't seem right, it sounds bad but he reminds me of a closeted gay man, like he has a secret but you just don't quite know what it is.
Jan 10, 2008 12:20 pm I personally wouldn't have a problem with a woman or a minority in office, but I suspect that person would not win a general election...but you never know, nobody thought Jesse V would win gov of Minnesota either.
Yes, that is exactly how I feel about Obama, hiding something...I heard some stuff about his wife getting serious pay raises at a job in a hospital that was screwing uninsured people, while Obama is out preaching about health care reform...didn't hear details though.
Jan 10, 2008 12:26 pm Not that I really care who wins, but I think Obama is considered "acceptably black" by most people, even a lot of Republicans. My $0.02: he is probably more acceptable by the general pop. than any woman would be at this moment in time.
Jan 10, 2008 01:16 pm Well, you do realize while many people won't vote for them cuz they are female or black...many people WILL vote for them for that same reason...
Jan 10, 2008 01:21 pm I know Quagmire would vote for Hillary.
(gigity gigity)
Jan 10, 2008 01:24 pm I don't think Hillary will win over the women's vote. You should hear my wife's take on it, about how women don't trust other women. It's quite convincing.
It's probably still a man's world (or country). At least for a little while longer.
Jan 10, 2008 01:28 pm Yeah, I have heard a couple girls in the same mindset, I think that Obama will reap the reward of getting the vote that way than Hillary will...but then, I don't think Hillary will loose because she's a woman, she'll loose because she's a cold, very artificial person with a poorly conceived ideal for how to fix things that insists nobody can take care of themselves...
And her silly little "emotional" monologue she had the other day was laughable.
Jan 10, 2008 01:34 pm Sure, and there's a lot of real estate between here and November. Obama could do something stupid and shoot himself in the foot, etc. Of course, I was coming from the standpoint of "all other things being equal."
Edit: I meant between here and the DNC convention...
Jan 10, 2008 03:45 pm My impression of Mitt is that... it'd be hard to find an actor cheezy enough to play him in a movie... plasticized is definitely a good term for it.
Though I'm voting for the guy with two first names...Ron Paul... I expect to see McCain/Thompson come out of the RNC. But I think the MSM wants Mitt...but Thompson as VP either way...
Jan 10, 2008 05:00 pm the one thing i would change about my last post is that mitt isn't really scary to me. those other two words match my perception, though. it's just kind of a creepy feeling in general, nothing really bad.
when it comes to H or obama, my opinion is that if one of them wins the nomination, a lot of things change. i believe that when it comes down to the wire, enough democrats simply vote democrat in the general election. sex and race will become less important to many people when the issue becomes republican versus democrat, in the end. that is, if people have problems with it, they'll overcome them in the end. some people think none of these republican candidates can win in a general election, owing to the apparent fact that each of these guys ends up splintering the republicans a little bit. there's less unity this time on the right and more on the left. also, it's been eight years. so if i'm a dem, i'm not particularly worried as long as the candidate ends up being H or obama, the two strongest candidates. edwards, if he were to somehow win, i think would simply keep a lot of people home. he doesn't inspire. the other two do, in their own distinct ways. obama is a simply a great speaker (though a poor debater) while hillary, as polarizing as she is, seems somehow inevitable to me, if she gets the nom.
i kind of thought her breakdown was a genius move. i think the emotion was clearly real but that it was, as some critics say, more about ego and more about her situation. so letting that stuff out was kind of like a deliberate decision to let something that's really there come out. it just probably wasn't about 'the country' so much (although no doubt she believes what she said there, i don't think it's the source of the feeling.) even brit hume said it was real. (he said 'her husband could cry on command; i don't think she has that ability). but she needed to have a moment like that at some point to counter to coldness charges. weirdly, the display was at exactly the right 'volume.' just a hint of feeling there.
Jan 10, 2008 11:45 pm Just the thought of Hillary or Obama being president should send chills down the spine of any red blooded American. If we don't elect a strong, forward thinking commander in chief the way of life we were all born into is likely to be destroyed. Just because we've never been seriously threatened before doesn't mean it won't happen.
We need an effective, clear thinking person who is willing to remain on the offensive in our struggle, yet create and implement domestic policies that keep our economy growing and our population legal citizens.
Mit Romney is the only one with the know how AND a proven track record of successful leadership. Guliani (sp) has a pretty fair record, but it is very socialistic in some aspects.
Huckabee is no conservative, and he said publicly that his religion defines him as a person. We don't need a pastor, we need a commander in chief.
Hillary claims to have 35 years experience in helping people or something to that affect. Dick Morrison, Bill Clinton's campaign manager and political advisor for over 23 years, says Hillary doesn't have 35 years experience in anything. Sha has never had a job that lasted more than 12 years, and being first lady is not experience in politics. She is a compulsive liar, no insult intended, just the plain truth.
Mit's IT. Romney/McCain in '08.
Jan 11, 2008 02:03 am you may not like her, but she's a professional politician and public servent. in a sense, she's had the same job her entire life. dick morris absolutely hates the clintons.
what we need is a democratic republican. it's not black and white. there are real penalties now for making foreign policy blunders, and i sense a certain willful unconsciousness on the right, which disturbs me. the left has its own problems when it comes to foreign policy, but frankly, you know, when people automatically *discount* any and all arguments about the effects that your own foreign policy has on the psyche of other countries, that's f'n irrepsonsible. what we need is strength and common sense. we have the former presently, but sometimes not the latter.
Jan 11, 2008 02:08 am Giggity Giggity GOO!
Jan 11, 2008 03:41 am Huh, does this have something to do with the Queen?
Jan 11, 2008 08:26 am I'm not a Republican, but I did watch the debate last night. I had never really heard Ron Paul talk until then. He's a goofball, but he does raise some great points about what we are doing in the Middle East.
My take on it, after listening to the debate, is that Mitt will get the nod. McCain looks too old and serious to be the face of the Republican Party. Huckabee was good, but I found it hard to take him seriously (the name?) Rudy and Fred don't have a chance. I like Mitt's strong economic background, and I would probably vote for him over Hillary (but not Obama).
We'll see what happens. For the first time in my life I am really paying attention to the Presidential race. Maybe I'm finally growing up.
Jan 11, 2008 08:37 am I agree with glnflwrs whole heartedly...as that comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone I strongly suspect. I am not sure if McCain would be my first choice for VP, his view(s) on immigration confuse me, I'm not sure what he stands for...I lean more toward Thomson for VP based on his position on issues.
Ron Paul is wacky (read: insane)...Rudy's performance has bummed me out. Right when he announced he's running I was excited to hear it, it's been a bummer to see he isn't making the mark, but I have since turned to Romney anyway.
With the dems I lean toward Obama over Clinton, but quite honestly, all their views of health care reform are just stupid. That said, the most viable democrat I see is Huckabee...and make no mistake, he is a democrat.
Jan 11, 2008 10:30 am You guys have convinced me to enter the race. I'll start my own ticket. How about the "Lottery" ticket. I'll throw all HRC members' names into a hat, and it'll be the luck of the draw for my running mate.
Or I could select one. Keith, you up for it? Our slogan could be Utsmelz/Warren - It wouldn't be borin'!
How about it, Bleak? Utsmelz/Bleak - With our tongues in our cheeks!
I could go on...
Jan 11, 2008 12:19 pm What you actually need is something other than a two party system where the two parties really headings over multiple factions where it's sometimes hard to tell the difference.
Jan 11, 2008 12:23 pm Yeah, I tend to agree with that, but really, more parties have never been very successful in the US beyond regional elections.
The better solution is no parties, just people, but, bird of a feather flock together eventually...
Jan 11, 2008 02:55 pm Quote:
We need an effective, clear thinking person who is willing to remain on the offensive in our struggle, yet create and implement domestic policies that keep our economy growing
First off, what is our struggle???
Second off, the two things that you mentioned above are almost diametrically opposed to each other. Our OFFENSIVE (in more ways than one) war in Iraq has used up nearly a TRILLION dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000), and is due to consume much more as it continues. This is at the direct expense of our society and our economy.
Third off, any red blooded American who thinks that Hillary or Obama could do any worse than the current Bush is living with their head in the sand as far as I'm concerned.
That being said, my order for the democratic nominees is Obama, Kucinich, Edwards, Clinton. Though I will almost certainly vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is.
Jan 11, 2008 03:29 pm Dan, the system is too entrenched. A third party can't survive now, but a multi party or individual system could work if you got rid of the system we have now.
Jan 11, 2008 03:31 pm The worst thing about the system now isn't the two party thing, it's the electoral college...we gotta rethink how votes are counted...that seems the bigger issue. Or the issue that actually is realistically changeable.
Jan 11, 2008 04:17 pm Right, I had forgotten about that :) Fundamentally a few states decide the election. It's just dumb that if a candidate gets 51% of the vote in California that it gets all of it's votes.
Remember all this comes from a non-citizen (yet) who can't vote :)
Jan 11, 2008 04:18 pm I am comforted knowing you can't vote ;-)
I can see where the electoral college was a good idea in a smaller, spread out population but when states have clustered areas of dense population of different kinds of people when more or less density and votes per "cluster" it makes it impossible to work.
Jan 11, 2008 04:20 pm one state made a move to change the electoral system this year. blogs.chicagotribune.com/...nal-popula.html
Jan 11, 2008 05:22 pm hmm, i read that, and some of the linked articles, one of which being the 'trash the compact'.
A interesting point therein:
< begin snippet >
So rather that trying to eviscerate the Electoral College, we should be embracing it. It was put in the Constitution to allow states to choose presidents, for we are a republic based on the separation of powers, not a direct democracy. And the Electoral College--just like the Senate--was intended to protect the residents of small states. As James Madison said, the Electoral College included the will of the nation--every congressional district gets an electoral vote--and "the will of the states in their distinct and independent capacities" since every state gets two additional electors.
< end snippet >
I think I agree with what he's saying.
Jan 11, 2008 05:38 pm Some college. They don't even have a decent football team..
Jan 11, 2008 05:44 pm personally i kind of like the EC. i like how we have an election season, all these debates, etc. it's like a substitute for football, this competition. it comes at exactly the right time, too, in january. american idol, too. we need competition to fill the football gap!
on the other hand, gerrymandering sucks, and there's that whole problem with the bush/gore election. i wish there would be a way to preserve the system while eliminating close calls that go the wrong way.
Jan 11, 2008 05:48 pm If you think about it, with the electoral college being the way it is, the smaller states actually wield more influence per capita then the big states do.
This just came to mind. Maybe we don't need to do away with the electoral college, but states need to reform the way they use the electoral college. If I'm not mistaken (and I certainly could be) there is nothing written that says all electoral college votes from a certain state have to be for the same candidate. So, a state could choose to give representative proportion of votes to different candidates.
And now, the more I think about it, I actually like the way it works now. Basically a state takes an internal vote of who they want to support, and then at the end of the day, the state as a whole backs the candidate that won in that state. That actually makes a lot of sense to me. But I'm willing to be dissuaded if someone has a good argument. whisper tone... I think it's just that right wingers are mad that they can't win new york and california, and many other states with large cities in them....if it were the other way around they would love the electoral college...
Edit:
I completely agree that gerrymandering is a problem, even if it is a fun word to say...
Jan 11, 2008 05:58 pm And why in the hell are Iowa and New Hampshire so ferking important? Let's switch around the order every four years. Start in Alaska or Wyoming once in a while. Give Hawaii a chance. Make it interesting, fer crapsake.
I got yer caucus right here.
Jan 11, 2008 09:32 pm well if they weren't important then nobody would pay attention to them! Thats why they're so important! sheesh!
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.