homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread (Page 24)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  ...  109  110  111 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Ralph who? [Snigger]

Some old has-been who used to be mildly left-wing by US standards but is now in the pay of the Republicans who wheel him out every few years to try to damage the Democrats.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Ralph who? [Snigger]

but is now in the pay of the Republicans who wheel him out every few years to try to damage the Democrats.
oh....... well, we do enough damage to ourselves at times [Smile]

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Nader is largely a has been. He might be able to damage a Clinton campaign as some on the left will be disaffected with Clinton. I don't think the same would be true of an Obama candidacy.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960

 - Posted      Profile for Tukai   Email Tukai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Did anyone catch the speeches by Obama and McCain last Tuesday night after the primaries?

Obama gave a typically rousing address on an island podium surrounded by thousands of cheering fans. ...McCain spoke in front of a wall with banners and six or eight stoney-faced politicos standing shoulder-to-shoulder around him. To his immediate right was Senator John Warner (R-Virginia) doing his best Methuselah impression at 81 years old. Another unidentified crone stood to McCain's left.

If the US election comes down to Obama vs McCain, it will be an interesting parallel with the recent Australian election, which also featured a generational clash.

In Australia, Mr Howard (nearly 70 years old, and in parliament for more than half his life) lost to Mr Rudd (about 50 y.o. and less than 10 years in parliament, and only 1 as Oppostion leader).

One of the many reasons that Howard lost, despite (or because) he had been Prime Minister for nearly 12 years, was that he was perceived as old and out of touch, especially by voters under the age of 30. Another reason was his sycophantic support for George Bush and his foreign policies, including the invasion of Iraq .

--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.

Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
Campbellite

Ut unum sint
# 1202

 - Posted      Profile for Campbellite   Email Campbellite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Nader is largely a has been.

Nah. Nader is more of a "never was".

--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?

Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Campbellite

Ut unum sint
# 1202

 - Posted      Profile for Campbellite   Email Campbellite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In most instances the US vice presidency is a place for political careers to die.

One Vice President described the office as "monumentally insignificant", and another said it was "not worth a warm bucket of spit". [Paranoid]

--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?

Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Nader is largely a has been.

Nah. Nader is more of a "never was".
to be fair to Ralph, he is an activist who accomplished a lot of good for consumers and did shake some out of their political complacency in the Democratic Party in the mid to late 90's.

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
some Election Comic Relief from Miss Betty Butterfield:

Betty Butterfield - Elections 2008

[ 25. February 2008, 05:44: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
beza
Shipmate
# 10581

 - Posted      Profile for beza     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by beza:
I think this Hilary Clinton attack on Obama has pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of the idea of him serving as her vp.

The notion that either of the Democratic candidates might serve as VP running mate for the other is a peculiarly British notion that is totally inapplicable to the situation, to the interests of these two politicians, and to the political reality of the American vice presidency vs. a seat in the Senate. Both Hillary and Barak are much better off in the Senate than serving as the other's VP. It's not like being Deputy MP, where one retains one's own power base to some degree and a seat in the Commons, with the potential to move into other cabinet posts. In most instances the US vice presidency is a place for political careers to die. There are prominent exceptions, of course, in US history, but a US senator with good electoral tenure has far greater power and status than the VP, whose only constitutionally defined function is to preside over the Senate and cast a vote in case of a tie in that house. In point of fact, of course, the normal presiding officer of the Senate is its President Pro Tempore. Cheney has apparently exercised undue influence in the Bush administration, but that influence has been both anomolous and sinister. Of course, the VP can constitutionally take over for an incapacitated POTUS, and succeeds one whose died in office, but those are obviously exceptional circumstances.
I can see how this would apply to Hillary - this is her only chance to be President, so she may as well stay in the Senate if she does not get the nomination.

As I said, there is no chance of Obama being VP now, but had he been knocked out a month ago, why would he not have accepted being the running mate and why would Hillary not have wanted some of his magic on board.

True, the VP is not a powerful position in its own right (neither is deputy PM in the UK, by the way - Gordon Brown hasn't even bothered appointing one and no deputy PM has ever gone on to be PM since WWII). However, it is a good place from which to win the nomination, provided they are prepared to sit on their hands like Bush did in the 80s.

The Senate, by contrast, has not been a good place from which to run for President, which I assume Obama will want to do again, whether he wins this year or not. The last person to go directly from the Senate to the Whitehouse was Kennedy. Everyone since has been either a former or incumbant governor or VP. Johnson had certainly been a powerful senator, (maybe Ford?) but it is a moot point whether they could have made the jump directly into the Oval Office.

This election will break that pattern, of course, as for the first time in nearly 50 years a senator will become President. If Obama loses the nomination or the election, would it really be in his interests to spend the next 4-8 years in the Senate having mud stuck to him? Maybe it would be better for him to be a voice crying in the wilderness - or a governor's office.

Posts: 510 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
VP is by far the best bet for a future President - in the last century seven vice Presidents or formeer VPs became President. That's about a 1 in 4 chance which is a lot better than any other.

Seven or eight governors or former governors did as well, but there are about fifty times as many governors as there are vice presidents so the odds are a lot worse.

I might be wrong but I think that for the forst half of the twentieth century no-one who had ever been in the House of Representatives went on to be President, but then all of a sudden there were about five in a row - though they were Senators or Governors after they were congressmen. As if there was a change in the nature of Congress round about WW2 - before then the Houses were different classes of politician and the kid of person who became a Senator (or President) was unlikely to be in the House. But later it was a more typical route.

Not many of them every held cabinet jobs before getting elected though - Taft and Hoover way back, but since then only the elder Bush, if you count being DG of the the CIA.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The Clinton camp is now circulating a 2006 picture of Obama dressed in Somali garb. Here comes the desperate fear mongering.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
From the article:
"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

Now, there's a mental image... [Killing me]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It's worked before.

Rule of campaigning #357 - Never put on a hat.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It's worked before.

Rule of campaigning #357 - Never put on a hat.

Or scream.

(I wonder (re. Dukakis) if it wasn't that the helmet obscured his forehead, making his unibrow more pronounced?)

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Trying to evoke the macho image usually doesn't work, especially when it makes you look like a snob instead.

--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Joyeux

Ship's Lady of Laughter
# 3851

 - Posted      Profile for Joyeux   Email Joyeux   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Ralph who? [Snigger]

Some old has-been who used to be mildly left-wing by US standards but is now in the pay of the Republicans who wheel him out every few years to try to damage the Democrats.
(italics mine)

ken - do you have any evidence of this employment by Republicans? From statements he's made, including in the article previously posted, he seems to have little to no use for either party.
quote:
from the article previously linked
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Nader said the two major parties "don't stand for the people".
"They stand for big business. That's overwhelmingly documented. And they have not cracked down on the corporate crime-wave that the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post and the networks have documented day after day, the Enron scandal all the way to Wall Street."



--------------------
Float?...Do science too

Posts: 4318 | From: over th... no, there! | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by cqg:
Speaking of simmering sex scandals, I wonder if this one will get any traction. Also discussed here.

From the looks of the plaintiff, I simply can't imagine it.

Apparently, no fire. I guess the Republican's will have to be satisfied digging up pictures of Obama dressed such that the not-very-intelligent might get the wrong idea.

Oh, wait ...

Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Fuckhead Farakhan endorses Obama. I'm sure he's thrilled. Not.
Poll says Obama more likely to win against McCain. We'll see.....

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Joyeux

Ship's Lady of Laughter
# 3851

 - Posted      Profile for Joyeux   Email Joyeux   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by cqg:
I guess the Republican's will have to be satisfied digging up pictures of Obama dressed such that the not-very-intelligent might get the wrong idea.

Oh, wait ...

Umm... from an earlier post by Gort, it looked as though the campaign of HRC found that picture of Obama in Somali dress.

Any group of human beings from any particular political party is as susceptible to selective interpretation as any other group of human beings from any other particular political party. I would say that HRC and supporters are the not-very-intelligent ones (see points below) to attempt floating that picture in an attempt to influence people against Obama and towards her.
1. The circumstances of the picture are easily verifiable, thus less open to absurd interpretation.
2. Photos of HRC in similar native dress are easily obtainable.
3. Should Obama win the nomination over HRC, and HRC's campaign has had any success in fear-mongering based on the picture, her own party will suffer.

--------------------
Float?...Do science too

Posts: 4318 | From: over th... no, there! | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Is the full court press of attack from Clinton actually going to work?

You'd think she would, if she somehow won, be splitting her party.

Or, at best, turning off all the people interested in Obama and not the Dems, or politics.

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It would appear not. I mean, with just a week to go until the March 4th primaries in Texas and Ohio, you'd think we'd have seen the worst by now. Despite rather nasty jabs, it seems all in all a campaign marked by tiffs and squabbles rather than all out war.

The conundrum for Clinton is that she doesn't seem to have anything to use to build herself up. It seems to be clear that trying to take Obama down doesn't work.

The last polls I've seen still give Clinton the edge in Texas and Ohio, but not by enough. Time will tell.

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
polls in Texas are now putting Obama ahead by a few points (within the margin of error) and CLinton's lead in Ohio coming down. Hillary thought this was going to be handed to her. What a difference a few months make.

[ 26. February 2008, 03:50: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Remember back in--what was it, October?--when everybody (including me) was sure it was going to be Hillary vs. Rudy? (Rudy who?)

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Joyeux:
Umm... from an earlier post by Gort, it looked as though the campaign of HRC found that picture of Obama in Somali dress...

I didn't imply that...I said that they were "circulating" the picture (which has been widely available on the net for months). The Drudge Report (always a suspicious source) claims it was "in an email obtained (my bold) by the DRUDGE REPORT" written by a Clinton staffers. For all we know it was an internal email between disgruntled Clintonites and leaked by a headquarters janitor. But who am I to squelch juicy rumor when it makes the competition look bad?
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
polls in Texas are now putting Obama ahead by a few points (within the margin of error) and CLinton's lead in Ohio coming down. Hillary thought this was going to be handed to her. What a difference a few months make.

Really? Who's calling that? RealClearPolitics.org has a roundup of most polls. Most of the Ohio polls are for Clinton by more than the margin of error; Texas is within the margin of error with Clinton having the non-significant edge; except for the CNN poll as the lone standout.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
...as I said earlier, I sold my soul when I became a party hack.

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
As Gene McCarthy once said, "It's not enough to win a primary--you have to beat the spread." Hillary has to win Texas and Ohio by with at least 60% to have a shot (but then there are the superdelegates, and the credentials and rules committees--see Geraldine Ferraro's cynical op-ed piece for the positive spin on that).

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm not so sure; it depends on how many delegates the state awards proportionally, and how many might go to winner of a given district and how many might go to the overall winner.

In Texas, there is no 'bonus' to the overall winner, so your point is well taken. Don't know about Ohio.

The New York Times page puts up exactly how delegates are apportioned by the state, but only after the voting is over, unfortunately. By 'apportioned', I mean the method, not the victor.

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
polls in Texas are now putting Obama ahead by a few points (within the margin of error) and CLinton's lead in Ohio coming down. Hillary thought this was going to be handed to her. What a difference a few months make.

Really? Who's calling that? RealClearPolitics.org has a roundup of most polls. Most of the Ohio polls are for Clinton by more than the margin of error; Texas is within the margin of error with Clinton having the non-significant edge; except for the CNN poll as the lone standout.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html

[ 26. February 2008, 05:39: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Interesting commentary here from RealClearPolitics.com (in the person of Jay Cost).

It was interesting to see how significantly super delegate outcomes could change depending on whether super delegates currently in elected office follow the popular vote in their district or other directly electing area or their state.

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
If it does go down to the superdelegates (and remember that I'm British) I reckon they will tick the box that will, in their opinion, lead to a likely winner for their party.

Some states may as well be painted red now so the superdelegates may disregard any lead and think "will x win enough electoral votes across the fifty states" rather than "who do I want in the White House". What I mean is that, if Obama has a substantial lead built in states that won't vote for any Democrat, the superdelegates won't vote for him.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If it does go down to the superdelegates (and remember that I'm British) I reckon they will tick the box that will, in their opinion, lead to a likely winner for their party.

Of course they will. So the question is "are MOTR slightly-conservative possible swing voters in the USA less likely to vote for a black man or a white woman".

At the moment it seems that the usual answer is that they are thought less likely to vote for the white woman. Which slightly surprises me.

Maybe it shouldn't. As a feminist friend of mine pointed out on Saturday, African American men got the vote fifty years before white women.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Gosh, all this angst that a woman is possibly not going to get the nomination, when......

A woman has a real shot at it, and may lose because A) She got fairly beaten and B) People like Obama better. It's not that she has a vagina for Buddha's sake. It's that she fucked up this campaign, and/or that she simply wasn't as good. I don't even like Obama, and I think he has ran a kick ass campaign. He has done SO well at it actually, that I am seriously considering a probable pinko liberal from hell (Obama), should she lose.

Judas priest, you'd think the American public was screwing over Hillary. I think that she may yet get it, only eight years from now! It's not the general election, its the primary, and she is nearly the exact same spot McCain was in eight years ago and now look at him.

This isn't about her vagina folks. It's that she has not camgaigned as well.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
P.S. The irony is that if Obama was winning, we would be discussing how the American public couldn't handle a black man over a white woman for president. Apparently Americans are assholes if EITHER loses. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If it does go down to the superdelegates (and remember that I'm British) I reckon they will tick the box that will, in their opinion, lead to a likely winner for their party.

Of course they will. So the question is "are MOTR slightly-conservative possible swing voters in the USA less likely to vote for a black man or a white woman".
Except it's not a choice between a generic black man and a generic white woman. It's a choice between two very specific people, and those of us in the US who aren't virulent racists and/or sexists have realized that. I didn't vote for Obama because I prefer a black man over a white woman.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Gosh, all this angst that a woman is possibly not going to get the nomination, when...

You miss the point. Well, you ,iss my point, I'm a political-process fan. I like elections the way some people like football (no I never understood why they did either).

This is a really conmplex bit of political process. If it goes to the Convention then, angst or no angst, the delegates need to decide which candidate is least unnacceptable to their opponents. Or at least those of their opponents who live in states they thing might go either way and who they think might be persuaded to vote Democrat.

So there is a sort of triple-think strategy. Its like one of those TV quizes where you don't get points for the right answer, but for giving the answer most popular with the studio audience. Except here the studio audience are deliberatly trying to fool you. A big game of "Prisoners Dilemna" with fifty rounds of play and a hundred million prisoners.

Even without the angst.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This is a really conmplex bit of political process. If it goes to the Convention then, angst or no angst, the delegates need to decide which candidate is least unnacceptable to their opponents.

Although the Democrats have shown for some time that they are perfectly capable of, and seemingly willing to, fumble on exactly that point.

The problem with the set-up as it now exists is that in order to win the nomination for one's party, one has to pander to the away-from-the-other-party side of the party, then to win the election one has to pander to the middle ground of the nation as a whole. Finding somebody who can pull this off is a real struggle for both parties, although the Dems have a knack of missing it better than the GOP does.

Although, admittedly, the last four presidential elections seem to have been as much about personality as about issues.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This is a really conmplex bit of political process. If it goes to the Convention then, angst or no angst, the delegates need to decide which candidate is least unnacceptable to their opponents.

Although the Democrats have shown for some time that they are perfectly capable of, and seemingly willing to, fumble on exactly that point.

The problem with the set-up as it now exists is that in order to win the nomination for one's party, one has to pander to the away-from-the-other-party side of the party, then to win the election one has to pander to the middle ground of the nation as a whole. Finding somebody who can pull this off is a real struggle for both parties, although the Dems have a knack of missing it better than the GOP does.

Although, admittedly, the last four presidential elections seem to have been as much about personality as about issues.

I don't see any of this as a "problem" per se. Pandering to the middle ground is part of the point. If we emphasized/pandered to the freaks of either side, we lose. In a way the last eight years have been an exercise in pandering to the (Christian) Right. No thanks.

It seems to me that like most things in life, one wants to be in the middle of the bell curve when it comes to matters of an entire country. We don't want fundie fascist freaks or leftie lunatics being listened to too much, except as a sort of gadfly for occasional change. It's why we have checks and balances, and why we have a grueling primary that vets the contenders.

I don't honestly think that the candidate is chosen really by the "least unnacceptable to their opponents" standard. NPR did a podcast (can't find it) that discussed how the media really calls the primary. They follow the candidates around, until someone develops the Big Mo (momentum), then the media hails them to the heavens which creates the final candidate. I think Obama has already got this, although it will take winning Texas and/or Ohio to seal the Big Mo for Obama.

Now granted, IF (and I think this is a big If) Clinton takes Texas and Ohio, this may ultimately for the first time in a very long turn into a process-based decision and the Convention will really decide it. It will be a most fascinating exercise then, in an already fascinating race.

I am actually scared if this turns into a process-based decision. The last time we had a process based decision the SCOTUS made GW president. While this won't be the same kinda thing, I am scared that the Convention will pick a loser, and then we'll get to hear the Dems bitch about a stolen election (or equivelent) for another 4 to 8 years.

More seriously, my projection: Obama has the Big Mo and wins Texas and Ohio. Anyone want to project?

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As a feminist friend of mine pointed out on Saturday, African American men got the vote fifty years before white women.

Many African American men and women didn't actually get the vote until 45 years after white women. I take it your feminist friend is drinking the same Kool-Aid as Gloria Steinem.

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
More seriously, my projection: Obama has the Big Mo and wins Texas and Ohio. Anyone want to project?

I'll bite. Obama wins narrowly in TX, Clinton wins narrowly in OH, but the way TX apportions delegates -- more delegates for areas of the state that have voted Democrat in recent elections, which is where Obama is doing well -- means Obama pulls further ahead in the delegate, but still doesn't have a commanding lead in pledged delegates. The struggle goes on through the last two good-sized states to vote, Pennsylvania (April 22) and North Carolina (May 6), at which point party leaders finally decide they'd better get their ducks in a huddle and encourage people to rally around one candidate so they can campaign against McCain over the summer and avoid a brokered convention. It's a toss-up who that will be, but my money is on Obama.

[ 26. February 2008, 16:35: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I don't know...Howard Dean had some incredible "mo" a few years back, and yet he imploded disastrously (granted, he did himself in at hte beginning of the race, but it shows that "momentum" isn't everything).

Once you've got the mo going, you have to know how to ride it. I do believe that Obama has shown some rather impressive mo-ridin' skillz, but it's not over yet. We might see a Clinton resurgency.

All that said, if I weren't such a Methodist, my money'd be on Obama. I think he's got both the movement and the skill to work the movement.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668

 - Posted      Profile for Alicïa   Email Alicïa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QB]
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As a feminist friend of mine pointed out on Saturday, African American men got the vote fifty years before white women.

Many African American men and women didn't actually get the vote until 45 years after white women. I take it your feminist friend is drinking the same Kool-Aid as Gloria Steinem.
eh? That's confusing.
15th amendment - February 3, 1870.
19th Amendment - August 18, 1920.

--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness

Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Nah. [Biased]

Dean had internet money and no Mo. He woulda had to get much further for Mo to be declared and have it stick. The difference between Dean and Obama, is that Obama has the money raising abilities of Dean, the interent savvy, and he can preach (I gotta call it like I see it), he can lead a campaign from hell (to Hillary), the press adores him (more Mo), he can drag in the Yutes adn people that don't normally vote, and he's just all around got the Cool Thing happening.

Shit I sound like I'm trumping for him, and I am not.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones has a chat with Pat Buchanan and talks about Obama in a way that some that seems at least odd, to me.

quote:
BUCHANAN: You saw that lovely photograph on Drudge yesterday and Drudge said initially that Clintonites gave it to her. If Clinton, the Clintonite did that, would you consider that first a dirty trick and secondly, would you think the individual that did it should be fired if they could find him or her.

JONES: Understand this: The Clinton campaign does not condone people putting out pictures that they seem to believe are inappropriate. But let me say this: I have no shame or no problem with people looking at Barack Obama in his native clothing, in the clothing of his country.

This is a diverse country and people across America recognize that. I would not personally have done it and we can't attribute it to anybody in our campaign, but the Clinton campaign does not condone the conduct and we would hope that America is going to have an opportunity or begin to see if we're supporting a woman or an African-American for President, we ought to be able to support their ability to wear the clothing of their nation.

Shouldn't she couch it in terms of "ethnic heritage", if anything rather than implying that he's not a native citizen? If that were so, he wouldn't qualify to be president, of course.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Alicia of Scouseland:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QB]
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As a feminist friend of mine pointed out on Saturday, African American men got the vote fifty years before white women.

Many African American men and women didn't actually get the vote until 45 years after white women. I take it your feminist friend is drinking the same Kool-Aid as Gloria Steinem.
eh? That's confusing.
15th amendment - February 3, 1870.
19th Amendment - August 18, 1920.

You need to start the clock from the voting rights act , which is when many black Americans actually got the vote in practice. You just failed to understand the implications of that small word in the OP.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Re: Tubbs Jones, I read an article just a few days ago about how she's basically going against her own constituents by backing Hillary Clinton, who she appears to support almost unconditionally.

Consider the source.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think the clothing thing is absurd squared. Democrats are not the ones that tend to get upset about ethnic clothing, or ethnic anything actually, unless its someone being persecuted for their ethnicity, and similar.

It was a dirty trick, but it was a lame one. It ranks somewhere below Stupid, and right about Childish in ranking, IMO.

I do wonder though. I think Texans (if anyamerican) appreciate a scrappy fight. I can't help but wonder if this Going Negative at this time isn't actually timed to coincide with Texas. May just be me projecting stereotypes....

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
So, heh. This might be so-called "dog whistle politics," where Clinton is airing something that would be a non-issue to most people, but might remain an issue to Texans who (stereotypically) have a strong sense of nationalism (don't want to see US president in for'n garb).

Eh...it's possible. I don't think it'll work, but it's certainly a funny theory.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668

 - Posted      Profile for Alicïa   Email Alicïa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Alicia of Scouseland:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QB]
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As a feminist friend of mine pointed out on Saturday, African American men got the vote fifty years before white women.

Many African American men and women didn't actually get the vote until 45 years after white women. I take it your feminist friend is drinking the same Kool-Aid as Gloria Steinem.
eh? That's confusing.
15th amendment - February 3, 1870.
19th Amendment - August 18, 1920.

You need to start the clock from the voting rights act , which is when many black Americans actually got the vote in practice. You just failed to understand the implications of that small word in the OP.

--Tom Clune

OK. Thanks for clearing that up Tom.

--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness

Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Joyeux

Ship's Lady of Laughter
# 3851

 - Posted      Profile for Joyeux   Email Joyeux   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Texas resident weighing in on the "What Would Obama Wear" question. In the metropolitan areas, I don't think it will have any negative effect on Obama's campaign. If the locals believe that Clinton's campaign published it in an attempt to smear, then HRC will see a small amount of backlash. Suburban, small town, and rurals aras will probably find the picture to be more negative, until they're confronted with pics of HRC in the local garb of other countries, too. All of this within context of Texans identifying themselves as Democrats, or Democrat-leading, of course.

--------------------
Float?...Do science too

Posts: 4318 | From: over th... no, there! | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There we go.

quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So, heh. This might be so-called "dog whistle politics," where Clinton is airing something that would be a non-issue to most people, but might remain an issue to Texans who (stereotypically) have a strong sense of nationalism (don't want to see US president in for'n garb).

Eh...it's possible. I don't think it'll work, but it's certainly a funny theory.

I dunno. This is the State where their then-Dem-governor zinged then-president HGW Bush with "Poor George. He can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

Texas has an interesting contingent of Dems in it. Surprisingly left for such an otherwise right-wing state. Texans probably are also a little closer to real bullshit than many other states. Therefore they can smell it quicker. [Big Grin]

More seriously, that picture appears to have been a nonplayer everywhere but the internet, and there it was a "what a stupid petty bullshit thing" almost universally (or at least my infomral observations seem to indicate). I am willing to be corrected, of course.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  ...  109  110  111 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools