Mr. Kinsley Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 The hard thing for me to comprehend is just 6 weeks ago there were approximately 15 people running for President and now, for all intensive purposes, there are 3. I didn't see that coming so quickly. Just a short while ago it looked as if the Republicans might have a brokered convention - that's over and done with. Johnny is either gonna save the White House or be a sacrificial offering while the party gears up for a serious challenge in '12. Barack seems to have some mojo going on right now but I would not count HRC out of this at all. The number of possibilities here are staggering - you could make a very convincing case for any of the 3 at this point. Sometimes the 'inevitability' for any of them geting the nod can change from day to day in my mind. This is where my life-long hobby of playing devil's advocate will probably be the catalyst for driving me crazy ( officially ). Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 The only way for the minorities not represented by the two parties (Believe it or not, there are people who don't fit within the constructs of a 2 party system) to have a say in what happens within a two party system is to vote for 3rd or (and, at rare times in history) 4th parties and have them take even a small amount of the vote. Enough where they force one of the two major parties to take their stances seriously. I'm not saying I'm going to vote 3rd party, but I can't bring myself to say that is throwing away a vote. Voting to perpetuate a system that breeds complacency and incompetence (2 party, being that system) is much less morally justifiable than "throwing a vote away".I agree with you, twobobs. It's perfectly rational to play the game and consider electability in any given race, but I also think it's perfectly rational to vote outside the two-party parameters--such a vote is not wasted, it's just a vote with an eye on issues larger than the "current" race, such as setting a foundation that may, someday, help strengthen a movement towards a breakdown of the two-party system. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Even if your candidate doesn't get elected, voting 3rd party can at least affect what issues the major parties focus on; the rest of this sentence is to prevent me from ending with a preposition. Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Even if your candidate doesn't get elected, voting 3rd party can at least affect what issues the major parties focus on; the rest of this sentence is to prevent me from ending with a preposition.You did anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 It was a task I was not up to. Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 "There is some shit up with which I shall not put." Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 So Mrs. Obama really put her foot in her mouth, huh? Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 So Mrs. Obama really put her foot in her mouth, huh?No, she just gave a chance to people with trouble grasping context to show off their shortcomings in the critical thinking department. Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 Breaking News: The KKK does not endorse Barack Obama! Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/ Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/WTF was that? Am I going to have spyware and viruses from that site? Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 WTF was that? Am I going to have spyware and viruses from that site? When I first happened upon it seemed innocent (random phrase generator)...but now... Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 And endorsement from beyond the grave. Actually, her vote would still count in Chicago. Link to post Share on other sites
Pecan_Pie Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I was listening to my local community radio station (KVNF... I can go on with the call numbers too), and they were saying on Midday Edition (Our midday local news show) that Colorado is making a big push for paper only elections in the next presidential election. However, the cost of this could possibly be higher than the cost of having electronic voting machines because of the cost of certifying the machines to count the paper ballets. One interesting thing about this is also how the state has decided it doesn't care about whether the voters here know EXACTLY who won 15 minutes after the poll close, but would rather have accurate results that wouldn't cause a stolen vote here. Who else thinks that any other states will also go along with this now that Colorado is planning on using only paper ballots? I'm really excited that my state is going to be doing this, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks of it. Hasta,Charlie Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Bump. So what thinks ye regarding the TX and OH primaries? This is getting really interesting. I am still hoping that Obama can pull out both, but its looking like TX may be all he will get (if that at all; polls in TX are showing them in a virtual dead heat). The rhetoric is getting pretty heated. Hillary's camp is now claiming that even a one state loss for Obama will look like buyer's remorse, and give her reason to stay in the race through PA at least. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I saw two things today that really took me back. 1) Article in today's LA Times about how many women are getting fed up with the number of females who are deserting over to the Obama camp. They really want to see a woman in the White House and want to see it in their lifetime, so therefore they feel that all ladies should be obligated to vote for Hillary.2) Commentator on CNN today talking about the demographics of various portions of Texas and hypothesizing on how they might end up voting. He rattled off a few urban areas with a high concentration of African Americans and then said, "...and I'm sure that they will do what they should do and vote for Barack Obama." I really thought we were past all of this silliness. Is it just a press-driven phenomenon or are there still that many shallow people out there who have to check their skin tone or take a gander down their short first before voting. I understand really wanting a woman or a black to finally win, because that would really signal tremendous progress for our country. But is it really progress if we go about it that way? Oh well. As for the primaries, I think Vagina will probably take Ohio and Penis will pull out a victory in the other 3 contests. Yeah Penis!**I have one too!! From NatalieDee.com Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Gawd -- A few days ago Cokie Roberts said something very similar about how women are (or at least should be) feeling obligated to vote for Hillary. It really took me aback. I agree with you MK; I voted for Barack because I genuinely like him and want him to be my president -- and I hope that others are looking past the media hype and are doing the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Line of the election: Jon Stewart (To Brian Williams): So, are you biased against Hilary because you are a sexist, or are you biased against Obama because you are a racist? Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 During the 2008 "State of the Black Union" Convention host Tavis Smiley offered a question to the very fine (imo) Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones: (I'm paraphrasing here) TS: I've seemed to notice that there are divisions within the Congressional Black Caucus ( 42 members strong, all Democrats of course) regarding whether to endorse HRC or Obama. You've publicly endorsed HRC. Are these divisions deep enough that it will splinter the Democratic Party and eventually give McCain the election? ST-J: We may disagree on who the nominee should be, but that's not why we were elected to come here and serve. We are here to serve our constituency and deal with issues that concern both them and the country. Regardless of who gets the nomination we will be together when the time comes - because we do agree for the most part on the issues. This was what you want to hear - hopefully it will come true. All the Republican candidates have pretty much folded their tents and are prepared to get McCain in the White House so it seems imperative to me that the Dems don't eat each other alive. It could be another close one. Or not. I fluctuate daily on this. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I don't really understand the weird primary/caucus hybrid that they use in Texas, but I get it enough to know that there's no way of knowing how the delegates are going to be split between the candidates based on statewide polls. Link to post Share on other sites
quarter23cd Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 It will be interesting to see how Ohio turns out tomorrow. The race has narrowed so much in recent weeks--at least according to polls--although its hard not to feel that from first-hand interaction with people around me it seems like Obama (at least in my little corner of the state, which is not necessarily indicative of the state as a whole) is winning the word-of-mouth leadup to the vote in a landslide. Hell, even my far-right-as-you-can-get brother in law dropped the bomb recently that he actually plans to vote for Obama over McCain in the general election. This kind of talk--coming from somebody who has actively worked for GOP campaigns in every election since I have known him, kind of left me at a loss for words. Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Hillary's camp is now claiming that even a one state loss for Obama will look like buyer's remorse, and give her reason to stay in the race through PA at least.The logic goes something like this:Obama wins 3 of 4 = Clinton victory overall I don't want this woman's grasp of math anywhere near the economy. The way Obama has very quickly closed seemingly insurmountable deficits in Texas and Ohio does, indeed, show buyer's remorse... remorse that we too quickly anointed Clinton as inevitable. There's just no way to positively spin Clinton's meltdown. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Even if Obama loses both by a hair it still seems like a victory for him in a sense. She had double-digit leads in both places... and the first digit wasn't a one! Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 She can spin it any way she wants, but that won't cancel out all the delegates he already has and will continue to pile up. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts