Watching the BBC yesterday they talked about a Gallup poll that said Obama will get most of the independant votes, and seeing how disappointed Americans are with both parties, the upcoming elections will have a great number of independant voters. If he gets the votes of black people, women, and independant he's done. He may not have the experience that a Governor has, but with good advisors he could do a good presidency, and that's what America needs. People lost their faith in politicians, and this guy could bring it back.
I agree that he seems to be the only candidate I have seen so far who can inspire people. I mean, Hillary is throwing mud at him already. I am not counting her out just yet, but she sure as hell is scared.
edit: I know, it comes from Huffington, but still: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h … 80289.html
edit: I know, it comes from Huffington, but still: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h … 80289.html
Personally, I think the best general election (right now) would be McCain vs Obama. Their running mates would certainly alter my view of the ticket, however.
My biggest concern about Obama is that he would be far left in his policy. Perhaps it's just his innate charisma, but he doesn't appear to be nearly as left as Hillary or Edwards.
McCain's biggest selling point is that he isn't slavishly devoted to far right concepts...he is more of a centrist on many issues. Much like the American people.
What we have to get away from is the polarization between left and right in this country. My vote will be based on which candidate goes the furthest to fix that problem.
My biggest concern about Obama is that he would be far left in his policy. Perhaps it's just his innate charisma, but he doesn't appear to be nearly as left as Hillary or Edwards.
McCain's biggest selling point is that he isn't slavishly devoted to far right concepts...he is more of a centrist on many issues. Much like the American people.
What we have to get away from is the polarization between left and right in this country. My vote will be based on which candidate goes the furthest to fix that problem.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I would agree that McCain is the best republican candidate, but the polling numbers are just not there for him. He placed fourth in Iowa with 13%, and if he doesn't make up some of that lost ground today and especially on february 5th, I have my doubts that he'll get his party's nomination.
considering yourlast point, I would love to see McCain and Obama run on the same ticket though. Why not have a democratic president and a republican vice ?
You know, do what's best for the country ?
I mean, how are you going to unify the nation if it's always democrats against republicans ? How heal the divide ?
Or are american politics to competitive to allow politicians of two parties to work together ?
considering yourlast point, I would love to see McCain and Obama run on the same ticket though. Why not have a democratic president and a republican vice ?
You know, do what's best for the country ?
I mean, how are you going to unify the nation if it's always democrats against republicans ? How heal the divide ?
Or are american politics to competitive to allow politicians of two parties to work together ?
Not who but WHAT and it will prolly measure 50 cal
I have been pulling for this since I understood how politics worked.B.Schuss wrote:
Why not have a democratic president and a republican vice ?
Chuck Norris. He's already right behind Huckabee: http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-01/34570296.jpg
McCain is the only electable Republican candidate. Unfortunately for him Obama is stealing his independent votes in the primaries meaning he may not make it.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-08 03:59:22)
Well McCain wasn't really pulling that hard in Iowa as Huckabee and Romney were. Iowa has a large number of evangelical Christians to which the other two have a better chance at winning. He's been concentrating more on New Hampshire during the Iowa caucus just as Guiliani has been down in Florida.B.Schuss wrote:
I would agree that McCain is the best republican candidate, but the polling numbers are just not there for him. He placed fourth in Iowa with 13%, and if he doesn't make up some of that lost ground today and especially on february 5th, I have my doubts that he'll get his party's nomination.
considering yourlast point, I would love to see McCain and Obama run on the same ticket though. Why not have a democratic president and a republican vice ?
You know, do what's best for the country ?
I mean, how are you going to unify the nation if it's always democrats against republicans ? How heal the divide ?
Or are american politics to competitive to allow politicians of two parties to work together ?
Just as a reminder: THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE (1) PRIMARY THUS FAR. That is a single state. Out of fifty.
One more today. That makes two (2). Out of fifty (50). Two is one twenty-fifth of fifty.
For the love of God, stop calling the race when it's only 2% completed. That's our media's job.
One more today. That makes two (2). Out of fifty (50). Two is one twenty-fifth of fifty.
For the love of God, stop calling the race when it's only 2% completed. That's our media's job.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
well, I guess that's what you get with the US voting method ( electoral college and all that ).DesertFox- wrote:
Well McCain wasn't really pulling that hard in Iowa as Huckabee and Romney were. Iowa has a large number of evangelical Christians to which the other two have a better chance at winning. He's been concentrating more on New Hampshire during the Iowa caucus just as Guiliani has been down in Florida.B.Schuss wrote:
I would agree that McCain is the best republican candidate, but the polling numbers are just not there for him. He placed fourth in Iowa with 13%, and if he doesn't make up some of that lost ground today and especially on february 5th, I have my doubts that he'll get his party's nomination.
considering yourlast point, I would love to see McCain and Obama run on the same ticket though. Why not have a democratic president and a republican vice ?
You know, do what's best for the country ?
I mean, how are you going to unify the nation if it's always democrats against republicans ? How heal the divide ?
Or are american politics to competitive to allow politicians of two parties to work together ?
Personally, I find it sad that the popular vote matters so little, but hey, it's your country.
I'm not saying this based on Iowa and NH, but on the high % of independant voters who will vote for him, according to this poll.FEOS wrote:
Just as a reminder: THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE (1) PRIMARY THUS FAR. That is a single state. Out of fifty.
One more today. That makes two (2). Out of fifty (50). Two is one twenty-fifth of fifty.
For the love of God, stop calling the race when it's only 2% completed. That's our media's job.
That used to be the case, a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...B.Schuss wrote:
considering yourlast point, I would love to see McCain and Obama run on the same ticket though. Why not have a democratic president and a republican vice ?
You know, do what's best for the country ?
I mean, how are you going to unify the nation if it's always democrats against republicans ? How heal the divide ?
Or are american politics to competitive to allow politicians of two parties to work together ?
I don't think it would be a good idea because there is already so much bickering between the White House and other branches of the government, the media, etc., and I don't think sticking bickering inside the White House itself is a good idea.
It's still ridiculously premature. My point still stands.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying this based on Iowa and NH, but on the high % of independant voters who will vote for him, according to this poll.FEOS wrote:
Just as a reminder: THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE (1) PRIMARY THUS FAR. That is a single state. Out of fifty.
One more today. That makes two (2). Out of fifty (50). Two is one twenty-fifth of fifty.
For the love of God, stop calling the race when it's only 2% completed. That's our media's job.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That's how it works over here (in the Netherlands). It's different cause instead of 2 parties, we have 8 or 9. But the biggest party gets the position of prime minister. The vice-prime minister is always from another party (usealy the biggest party they form a coalition with).djphetal wrote:
I have been pulling for this since I understood how politics worked.B.Schuss wrote:
Why not have a democratic president and a republican vice ?
Ron Paul!
Id be happy with Obama
Id be happy with Obama
I think most people supporting Obama want change. What he is changing (or has changed) specifically no one seems to know. He is a fresh face and that seems to be enough.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Let me give you a lesson on American politics, for those who are not very experienced:
(1) Iowa and New Hampshire primarily serve to get rid of the lesser candidates in the field. If you don't finish 1-4 in those contests, then your Presidential chances are basically nothing.
(2) Iowa and New Hampshire are left-leaning states. They do not represent the broader US, so their results can not be used as a litmus test for the rest of the country.
(3) The candidates get FAR more personal exposure in Iowa and New Hampshire than they will in upcoming states. So, these first two states basically are looking at up-close personality. In future states, the candidate's political infrastructure will become more of a factor - their ability to appeal through polished ads, raise money, and rally grassroots political organizations. Obama and Huckaby for example, who won in Iowa, are much weaker in their political infrastructure than some other candidates in their respective parties. Now it is possible that Obama could build political infrastructure after two wins in Iowa and NH, but he is far weaker than Clinton right now in this area. Bottom Line: it is political infrastructure that ultimately wins a party nomination.
(1) Iowa and New Hampshire primarily serve to get rid of the lesser candidates in the field. If you don't finish 1-4 in those contests, then your Presidential chances are basically nothing.
(2) Iowa and New Hampshire are left-leaning states. They do not represent the broader US, so their results can not be used as a litmus test for the rest of the country.
(3) The candidates get FAR more personal exposure in Iowa and New Hampshire than they will in upcoming states. So, these first two states basically are looking at up-close personality. In future states, the candidate's political infrastructure will become more of a factor - their ability to appeal through polished ads, raise money, and rally grassroots political organizations. Obama and Huckaby for example, who won in Iowa, are much weaker in their political infrastructure than some other candidates in their respective parties. Now it is possible that Obama could build political infrastructure after two wins in Iowa and NH, but he is far weaker than Clinton right now in this area. Bottom Line: it is political infrastructure that ultimately wins a party nomination.
OrangeHound wrote:
Let me give you a lesson on American politics, for those who are not very experienced:
(1) Iowa and New Hampshire primarily serve to get rid of the lesser candidates in the field. If you don't finish 1-4 in those contests, then your Presidential chances are basically nothing.
(2) Iowa and New Hampshire are left-leaning states. They do not represent the broader US, so their results can not be used as a litmus test for the rest of the country.
(3) The candidates get FAR more personal exposure in Iowa and New Hampshire than they will in upcoming states. So, these first two states basically are looking at up-close personality. In future states, the candidate's political infrastructure will become more of a factor - their ability to appeal through polished ads, raise money, and rally grassroots political organizations. Obama and Huckaby for example, who won in Iowa, are much weaker in their political infrastructure than some other candidates in their respective parties. Now it is possible that Obama could build political infrastructure after two wins in Iowa and NH, but he is far weaker than Clinton right now in this area. Bottom Line: it is political infrastructure that ultimately wins a party nomination.
sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying this based on Iowa and NH, but on the high % of independant voters who will vote for him, according to this poll.
Sigh ... even the national polls right now are based on information from NH & Iowa ... things change DRAMATICALLY after NH & Iowa.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying this based on Iowa and NH, but on the high % of independant voters who will vote for him, according to this poll.
(And also, why do so many people think that national American politics are all about "majority opinions"? Americans are VERY easily manipulated by good politics, because, basically we are shallow.)
This was a Gallup national poll showing the high number of independant voters that will be supporting Obama, not in the primaries, but in the prez elections.OrangeHound wrote:
Sigh ... even the national polls right now are based on information from NH & Iowa ... things change DRAMATICALLY after NH & Iowa.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying this based on Iowa and NH, but on the high % of independant voters who will vote for him, according to this poll.
(And also, why do so many people think that national American politics are all about "majority opinions"? Americans are VERY easily manipulated by good politics, because, basically we are shallow.)
sergeriver wrote:
This was a Gallup national poll showing the high number of independant voters that will be supporting Obama, not in the primaries, but in the prez elections.OrangeHound wrote:
Sigh ... even the national polls right now are based on information from NH & Iowa ... things change DRAMATICALLY after NH & Iowa.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying this based on Iowa and NH, but on the high % of independant voters who will vote for him, according to this poll.
(And also, why do so many people think that national American politics are all about "majority opinions"? Americans are VERY easily manipulated by good politics, because, basically we are shallow.)
What part of "January 2008 is not November 2008" are you missing? If Gallup determined who won based on this point in the election cycle, then Bill Clinton would have never been elected President in 1992.OrangeHound wrote:
... things change DRAMATICALLY after NH & Iowa.
Yes, some election years there are dominant candidates (they have a strong political infrastructure, and the positive personality), but this year the field is all over the place.
Edit: Oh, wait, do you think independents are not influenced by the political parties? Far from it ...
Five candidates in recent decades won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and each became their party’s nominee: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gerald Ford in 1976, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
btw, at each party's national convention, are party delegates from each state obliged to vote for the candidate who won their state's primary ? Bound by law, I mean. Or can the delegates vote for whoever they want ?
OK ... and 4 out of those 5 did not become President (Carter barely got in in 1976)Kmarion wrote:
Five candidates in recent decades won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and each became their party’s nominee: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gerald Ford in 1976, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
Edit: wait? That's all? Most incumbents will win both Iowa and NH ...