lol, nah we'll start a nuclear war and destroy the earth before satan comes to power.ATG wrote:
Aw fuck, this is how the end will come.CommieChipmunk wrote:
anything but Bush.
He can't be any worse, you'd hope. But yeah he is very charismatic... it'd be nice to hear intelligent/fluent presidential addresses...
Eventually it won't matter what they say as long as its coherent and we elect satan.
I'm going to disagree with you on this one. You cannot be elected President without carrring at least some of the south. The last time is happened was in 1900 (McKinley v. W.J. Bryan).san4 wrote:
That used to be true, but I think the democrats' plan is to run a candidate who can get every vote Kerry got and then get just a few more. About 100,000 more votes in Ohio would have done it in 2004. That strategy totally ignores the south (which Kerry completely lost).blisteringsilence wrote:
You guys are missing the big point here. If the dems are serious about taking back the white house, they have to put forth a candidate that can win in the south. You can't be president if you can't carry the south. Look at the history of presidential politics.
Now, this is not to say that you must win the entire south. However, no political pundit sees Ohio or Florida getting more democratic, so the stragedy you described would be a little difficult to pull off.
If you want to be President, you have to do well in the south. You have to take several of the southern swing states (West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas).
The fact of the matter is that a New England liberal democrat (Hillary, Kerry, Dodd, etc. Kucinich goes here too despite the fact he's not from NE) cannot win the south. It will take one of the new, conserative (blue dog) democrats to win southern states, and to win in a general election.
The problem with the Democratic party is that in their primary, they cater to the extreme left wing of their party. Moderates don't decide the platform of the Democratic party. Then, they get to the general election with a smug, holier/smarter than thou candidate (like Kerry or Gore) that pisses off the electorate so badly that they pick the other option. I don't care how much you liked Kerry's politics, he was a smug son of a bitch, and that killed him. Especially against a man of the people candidate like Bush.
I see your point, and if I were advising a Democratic candidate I would work hard to win some southern states, but I don't fully agree that it is necessary. If Kerry had won Ohio he would have won the election. Ohio may be getting less Democratic, but winning Ohio would still allow a Democrat to win without winning any southern states.blisteringsilence wrote:
I'm going to disagree with you on this one. You cannot be elected President without carrring at least some of the south. The last time is happened was in 1900 (McKinley v. W.J. Bryan).san4 wrote:
That used to be true, but I think the democrats' plan is to run a candidate who can get every vote Kerry got and then get just a few more. About 100,000 more votes in Ohio would have done it in 2004. That strategy totally ignores the south (which Kerry completely lost).blisteringsilence wrote:
You guys are missing the big point here. If the dems are serious about taking back the white house, they have to put forth a candidate that can win in the south. You can't be president if you can't carry the south. Look at the history of presidential politics.
Now, this is not to say that you must win the entire south. However, no political pundit sees Ohio or Florida getting more democratic, so the stragedy you described would be a little difficult to pull off.
If you want to be President, you have to do well in the south. You have to take several of the southern swing states (West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas).
The fact of the matter is that a New England liberal democrat (Hillary, Kerry, Dodd, etc. Kucinich goes here too despite the fact he's not from NE) cannot win the south. It will take one of the new, conserative (blue dog) democrats to win southern states, and to win in a general election.
It's a crappy, divisive strategy, but it's what you do if you have a candidate who isn't capable of winning over anyone except people who already support him. I agree, a candidate who is not a NE liberal would have a shot at the south and would be foolish to ignore it.
I totally agree with all of that. I think Kerry was also stupid, confused, and had no sense.blisteringsilence wrote:
The problem with the Democratic party is that in their primary, they cater to the extreme left wing of their party. Moderates don't decide the platform of the Democratic party. Then, they get to the general election with a smug, holier/smarter than thou candidate (like Kerry or Gore) that pisses off the electorate so badly that they pick the other option. I don't care how much you liked Kerry's politics, he was a smug son of a bitch, and that killed him. Especially against a man of the people candidate like Bush.
Kerry lost to Karl Rove.san4 wrote:
I totally agree with all of that. I think Kerry was also stupid, confused, and had no sense.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How about a sock full of rocks ON Hilary?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
i would take a sock full of rocks over hillary.
Kerry lost to Kerry. Karl just brought the potato salad to the bbq, Kerry was behind the grill.Kmarion wrote:
Kerry lost to Karl Rove.san4 wrote:
I totally agree with all of that. I think Kerry was also stupid, confused, and had no sense.
Uncle Sam owns my ass till next month.usmarine2007 wrote:
QFEGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
i would take a sock full of rocks over hillary.
Where the fuck have you been troop?
Negative, Rove is a political genius. Both sides of the aisle agree with that for the most part. He did in fact get Bush elected, it sure as hell wasn't because Bush hit any home runs in the debates. Everyone makes mistakes in politics, it takes a true craftsman to exploit them for maximum gain. It is because of Rove you think Kerry fumbled the elections.blisteringsilence wrote:
Kerry lost to Kerry. Karl just brought the potato salad to the bbq, Kerry was behind the grill.Kmarion wrote:
Kerry lost to Karl Rove.san4 wrote:
I totally agree with all of that. I think Kerry was also stupid, confused, and had no sense.
This book is a good read.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1586481 … eader-link
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-18 18:24:31)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I actually give GWB significant credit for winning the presidency. Rove is definitely great at what he does, but W's got real people-skills, and that also helped him win. His personality worked well in the campaign that Rove designed for him.Kmarion wrote:
Negative, Rove is a political genius. Both sides of the aisle agree with that for the most part. He did in fact get Bush elected, it sure as hell wasn't because Bush hit any home runs in the debates. Everyone makes mistakes in politics, it takes a true craftsman to exploit them for maximum gain. It is because of Rove you think Kerry fumbled the elections.
He won't be elected because of this --->Barack Obama<---
If he changed his name to Johnny Johnson he would do ok but wouldn't be elected because of this ---> <----
If he was white and named Johnny Johnson he would have a real good showing except for this ---> far left <---
If the far left nut jobs remained sanely coherent during his run so he would not have to appease the nut jobs like Al Gorrilla or John Heinz, he could win hands down because the Republicans are sick of the democrats forcing them to vote for Republicans that are corrupt. I know many a Republican that didn't want to vote for Bush but was forced too because Kerry couldn't keep his stupid mouth shut.
Gee, it is not hard to figure out. Clinton lied 2x and said he was a conservative and got elected 2x on the same lie. He was a draft dodger that put in writing that he hated the US military, but the Republicans are so stupid they voted for him 2 times.
Bush did the same thing and lied to the Republicans 2 times and said he was conservative and got elected. 2 times he lied and got elected.
Gee, say your liberal and don't get elected or say your conservative and get elected.
let's face it. Jimmy Carter exposed liberalism as the special olympic political ideology it is. Since Carter every politician has had to state that they are Conservative. Nothing makes a Democrat happier than thinking he voted for a Conservative person that was not Republican and nothing makes a Republican happier than thinking he voted for a Consevative person that was not Republican.
If he changed his name to Johnny Johnson he would do ok but wouldn't be elected because of this ---> <----
If he was white and named Johnny Johnson he would have a real good showing except for this ---> far left <---
If the far left nut jobs remained sanely coherent during his run so he would not have to appease the nut jobs like Al Gorrilla or John Heinz, he could win hands down because the Republicans are sick of the democrats forcing them to vote for Republicans that are corrupt. I know many a Republican that didn't want to vote for Bush but was forced too because Kerry couldn't keep his stupid mouth shut.
Gee, it is not hard to figure out. Clinton lied 2x and said he was a conservative and got elected 2x on the same lie. He was a draft dodger that put in writing that he hated the US military, but the Republicans are so stupid they voted for him 2 times.
Bush did the same thing and lied to the Republicans 2 times and said he was conservative and got elected. 2 times he lied and got elected.
Gee, say your liberal and don't get elected or say your conservative and get elected.
let's face it. Jimmy Carter exposed liberalism as the special olympic political ideology it is. Since Carter every politician has had to state that they are Conservative. Nothing makes a Democrat happier than thinking he voted for a Conservative person that was not Republican and nothing makes a Republican happier than thinking he voted for a Consevative person that was not Republican.
I'm not arguing that Rove is a genius, and manipulated everything Kerry did into a loss for him. I'm saying that if Kerry hadn't played into Rove's hands he might have pulled it off. I doubt it, but it is possible.Kmarion wrote:
Negative, Rove is a political genius. Both sides of the aisle agree with that for the most part. He did in fact get Bush elected, it sure as hell wasn't because Bush hit any home runs in the debates. Everyone makes mistakes in politics, it takes a true craftsman to exploit them for maximum gain. It is because of Rove you think Kerry fumbled the elections.blisteringsilence wrote:
Kerry lost to Kerry. Karl just brought the potato salad to the bbq, Kerry was behind the grill.Kmarion wrote:
Kerry lost to Karl Rove.
This book is a good read.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1586481 … eader-link
And you forget that Bush didn't have to hit any home runs in the debates. All he had to do was show that he wasn't a moron, and wait for Kerry to say something smug or surly or arrogant, and then exploit the hell out of his mistake. And Kerry made the mistake of playing into his hands. It was a masterful job, but the fact remains Kerry was too smart for Kerry.
Could he be reelected??ATG wrote:
Aw fuck, this is how the end will come.
Eventually it won't matter what they say as long as its coherent and we elect satan.
Last edited by oug (2007-01-19 04:00:23)
ƒ³
Yah, Obama's got charisma, and he's a good speaker.
Its too bad that I vote for people based on not how they speak, but what they are saying. And Obama does not fall into my preferences because I disagree with what he says.
Its too bad that I vote for people based on not how they speak, but what they are saying. And Obama does not fall into my preferences because I disagree with what he says.
So I stumbled on his smugmug page while going through Galleries there.
I see photoshop opportunities here, which we all know is a prerequisite for being President of the United States of America.
http://barackobama.smugmug.com/popular/ … 12#7171068
I see photoshop opportunities here, which we all know is a prerequisite for being President of the United States of America.
http://barackobama.smugmug.com/popular/ … 12#7171068
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmarion, is it just me, or do I sense that you dislike Barack's likability?
I'm a left-leaning moderate, but I like Obama. He's pretty much everything Bush isn't. We need someone like that right about now. I'd certainly prefer him over the war nuts that currently run things right now.
I'm a left-leaning moderate, but I like Obama. He's pretty much everything Bush isn't. We need someone like that right about now. I'd certainly prefer him over the war nuts that currently run things right now.
Be nice to see an answered question for once.CommieChipmunk wrote:
anything but Bush.
He can't be any worse, you'd hope. But yeah he is very charismatic... it'd be nice to hear intelligent/fluent presidential addresses...
Or is there another you'd prefer?Are there any democrats who would endorse him as a candidate? Just curious.
Please do not use the "anybody but Bush" slogan this time around. He's not running again, and it didn't work last time.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-02-14 16:38:42)
Yeah, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is intelligent, charismatic, great speaker, and dangerously delusional. Not to draw any comparisons, but Adolf Hitler was also famous for his speaking ability (among other things). I hope that you're not saying your only desired credential for a US president is a good speaking ability...CommieChipmunk wrote:
anything but Bush.
He can't be any worse, you'd hope. But yeah he is very charismatic... it'd be nice to hear intelligent/fluent presidential addresses...
Agreed. And wasn't Hillary in cahootz with the people who think video games are the source of all evil? Yeah, I want an extremist soccer mom for president...Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion, is it just me, or do I sense that you dislike Barack's likability?
I'm a left-leaning moderate, but I like Obama. He's pretty much everything Bush isn't. We need someone like that right about now. I'd certainly prefer him over the war nuts that currently run things right now.
No not at all. The only problem I have with Obama is his experience. He has a couple years to get that in line though. I just thought that was funny...lolTurquoise wrote:
Kmarion, is it just me, or do I sense that you dislike Barack's likability?
I'm a left-leaning moderate, but I like Obama. He's pretty much everything Bush isn't. We need someone like that right about now. I'd certainly prefer him over the war nuts that currently run things right now.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-14 17:23:43)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, Obama has had a lot of experience with Illinois politics. I'd argue his experiences in Chicago make him more worldly than Bush was during his governorship, because Chicago is generally more metropolitan than anywhere in Texas.
Granted, being a governor is more demanding than being a state senator.
Granted, being a governor is more demanding than being a state senator.
Obama is pretty much all talk with little political experience to give that talk merit. He just tells people what they want to hear. Dictators have risen to power this way. So it would be wise to base your vote on more than just the candidate's public speaking ability, assuming that you're actually old enough to vote.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2007-02-14 17:29:11)
Bush had four years under him, thats why I said Obama has a couple years to get himself heard and out. There is no way in hell I am standing behind any particular candidate two years before an election. That's for sure.Turquoise wrote:
Well, Obama has had a lot of experience with Illinois politics. I'd argue his experiences in Chicago make him more worldly than Bush was during his governorship, because Chicago is generally more metropolitan than anywhere in Texas.
Granted, being a governor is more demanding than being a state senator.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Sorry to jump back a bit, but I agree with this. Not because I don't like Hillary one way or the other, but if Hillary won that would be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. THAT does not sit well with me. Our country in under the control of two families for the last(next) 16 years? No thanks, let's pass the torch on and get some new perspective going on.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
i would take a sock full of rocks over hillary.
To each his own, but I'm at the point where I'm sick of the typical politician. Obama strikes me as less sleazy than what we've grown accustomed to from Washington.Kmarion wrote:
Bush had four years under him, thats why I said Obama has a couple years to get himself heard and out. There is no way in hell I am standing behind any particular candidate two years before an election. That's for sure.Turquoise wrote:
Well, Obama has had a lot of experience with Illinois politics. I'd argue his experiences in Chicago make him more worldly than Bush was during his governorship, because Chicago is generally more metropolitan than anywhere in Texas.
Granted, being a governor is more demanding than being a state senator.
I'll be honest, if Obama fizzles out and doesn't make the nomination for the Democrats, I'll probably not even vote. The last 6 years have shown me just how corrupt and nearly hopeless our federal system is, and for someone who seems on the fringes of the system to rise so prominently, it actually renews a little of my faith in American government.
At this point, I'd actually say experience lends itself to more corruption and more lobbyist bullshit than anything good in this government. We're at a point where lobbyists and so-called thinktanks do most of the real legislating, and where corporations do most of the budgeting. We need someone independent and different as president.
We'll probably never see another George Washington style president, but I think Barack can give us a lesser reflection of him in his appeal for the common man.
I'd say your more hopeful than anything else now Turquoise. I would like to think that we all are. It's just too early for me to even consider committing my vote to anyone. I'm pretty sure we are all tired of the mud slinging. Obama is a fresh face but there is much to be understood yet.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-14 18:07:20)
Xbone Stormsurgezz