Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)

i think that Florida can keep Huck in, but Rudy i don’t know about that. not that it matters he is polling so low down there that i doupt it’s worth even considering he may pull up high.

i think Clinton inc made a few moves to throw the “black vote” in SC. Bill is a powerfull figure and can do a lot with out hurting Mrs Bill’s image. for example when he took a nap on MLKjr day at the speech right behind MLKIII it never came back on Mrs Bill but just on him (understanadably), but i really doupt he was so tiered that he needed a nap (or if he was he planed to do it) but rather it was a show to make the black population dislike him more and side away from his puppet i mean wife so when people went to vote the blacks pulled away from Mrs Bill and went Obama. now you can say i’m just trying to spin it bad for them, but this guy has been to some other big events and knows that it’s pritty darn borring to sit back behind some one, so i’m sure he knows some good tricks to stay atleast looking awake, aleart, and interested. bing where he was sitting you would think a person of his intelagence would know he would be seen and pull out all the stops to stay awake. but yet he looked like a kid in school trying to stay awake durring a long and borring lecture.

No, I think they knew ahead of time that they were losing in S. Carolina and so pre-planned the spin and didn’t waste resources there.  I don’t think it’s any action they did or did not take, it’s just that Obama plays better in S. Carolina then Clinton.  Understandably so, considering it’s the Clintons keeping the Black Man from achieving equality by tearing him down (as perceived by the black population.)  Hillary’s comments that MLK was a worthless rabble rouser and LBJ did all the real work didn’t help either.

S. Carolina is hardly indicative of the rest of the nation though.  They have a lot of ingrained prejudices and have to be viewed in that light.  They are prejudiced against Mormons and White Girls tearing down Black men, to point out two of them.

As for Rudy, I think even if he manages to win Florida, and I don’t think he will, he’s still out.  It’s between the Liberal and the Conservative for the Republican nomination.  I’m hoping the conservative wins because if the liberal wins, I’m voting Hillary or Barrack this year.

Actually, it’s kinda funny, because there’s a whole movement in Illinois to go and vote Barrack en masse to keep Hillary from running in the general election.  So I’ll be in GOOD practice if McCain is the nomination, I’ll have already voted for the democrat!

I think you are probably right about Guiliani being toast even if he wins in Florida (a miracle required for that to even happen).  But it would muddy the waters a bit more going into Super Tuesday.

If Huckabee were to somehow beat Romney (another miracle needed) in Florida and place second behind McCain that would also muddy the waters quite a bit… but would actually be good for Romney as it would split the Moderate Republican vote more on Super Tuesday.  If Huckabee is still seen as “viable” on Super Tuesday, then the Moderates split between McCain (the social moderates) and Huckabee (the fiscal moderates) and Mitt could potentially pull off a landslide win thanks to votes from the hard conservative block vote.

And Huckabee IS going to do well (compared to the money he spent) in Florida due to the large support for the Fair Tax in Florida, but I doubt that he will come close to beating Mitt for second.

I think the breakdown for Florida will be:
McCain wins by 3-4% (mid 30% range of the total vote)
Romney second with around 30% of the vote.
Huckabee 3rd, with around 20%
Guiliani 4th around 15-18%

Super Tuesday presents a real problem for Romney… there are quite a few LARGE left leaning states that vote that day… states where the “typical Republican” is actually a moderate… New York and California come immediately to mind.  McCain stands to make a huge forward lurch in the delegate count on Super Tuesday, especially if he comes off a solid win in Florida.

A Romney loss in Florida will be the next step toward the end for Mitt (SC, a very religiously conservative state, being the first step).

i’m saying is that the Clintons knew SC was a loss (at least with the black vote) so what they did was take action to further the domanance for Obama in the black community so they could further there agenda to discredit him due to race.

WTF i got a -karma for that last post! thats a little messed up. i thought although contraversal it may be it was far from being offencive or waranting the -karma

I keep saying you are playing McCain up too much.  He does not have the support that is reported.  Of course, maybe the democrats are doing to the Republicans what the Republicans are doing to the democrats here in Illinois? (Getting their party to caucus for the democrat that is easier to beat or is less feared?)

That could explain McCain’s numbers after all.  Anyway, one should always be suspicious when the media is touting someone as the person they want to be the candidate when you KNOW they are not going to vote for them.  So why support them?  Maybe because he’s the easier one to beat?  Maybe because he’s the one who will not get the support from the people to be a challenge?  If the New York Times and the Washington Post are going to endorse McCain there has to be a reason other then they think he’ll be a good President, since we know that they will be voting for Obama or Clinton (probably Clinton) in November.

What that means is that any republican who wants to see the White House stay red instead of turn blue, should NOT vote for McCain.

what about independend candidates which arent from either Republican either Democratic party,

i read somewhere that in Elections2000, Gore lost Florida, or some other state i am not quite sure, beacuse the independent man ˝took˝ him the votes, if that one didnt nominate, Gore would of won that state, and the elections

now i have 2 questions

-can ˝the independent ones˝ affect much in the states, where the advantage of either camp is very small( and in which states if yes)

-and when has( if it is ) last time happened that somebody which is not from either Democrat either Republican party, wins in one of the states

thanks

Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 because Ross Perot ran as an independent and “took” votes from the Republican.  I think that’s a very bad way to view it, but there’s almost no question that without Ross Perot, Bill Clinton would have probably lost in 1992 and may have won by a very, very slim margin in 1996.

So yes, if someone like Huckabee were to team up with Leiberman they could cause all kinds of strife for the Republican Party.  Likewise, if Edwards and McCain were to team up they could cause all kinds of strife for the Democrat Party.

There is a growing effort in the United States to have a viable 3rd party.  The most likely party to take that mantle is the Libertarian Party (the only other party besides the Democrats and Republicans to have candidates on the ballot in all 50 states).

And there is a massive thought that Ron Paul, currently in 5th place among the Republican field, will be the Libertarian nominee for President.

And while I am personally a Libertarian, with an outlook of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, I think that the REVERSE of my beliefs is in the majority in this nation (social conservative, fiscal liberal).  To support that claim I simply have to point to the back to back elections of Bush 43 to support my claims (he has increased federal spending faster than any previous president including FDR and LBJ while also being a Fundamentalist Christian Conservative).

With that in mind, I see NO candidate in the current field with a chance of victory from the majority of American thought.  Instead I see only the opportunity for a victory from the candidate closest to the current political ideology.  And for that I declare Hillary Rhodam Clinton to be the closest to what America voted for in 2004, and thus the probable winner in 2008.

And YES… I just equated Bush 43 and Hitlery as being equivalent values.

@ncscswitch:

And YES… I just equated Bush 43 and Hitlery as being equivalent values.

Which goes along nicely with my statement the past couple of years that Bush (43) is no Republican.  He was in Texas, but ever since he’s been in DC he’s been a democrat through and through.

And, considering how bad he’s screwed things up while trying to pretend to be a republican, just imagine how badly things will be screwed up when we get a liberal who isn’t even pretending to be a republican?

@ncscswitch:

There is a growing effort in the United States to have a viable 3rd party.  The most likely party to take that mantle is the Libertarian Party (the only other party besides the Democrats and Republicans to have candidates on the ballot in all 50 states).

And there is a massive thought that Ron Paul, currently in 5th place among the Republican field, will be the Libertarian nominee for President.

And while I am personally a Libertarian, with an outlook of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, I think that the REVERSE of my beliefs is in the majority in this nation (social conservative, fiscal liberal).  To support that claim I simply have to point to the back to back elections of Bush 43 to support my claims (he has increased federal spending faster than any previous president including FDR and LBJ while also being a Fundamentalist Christian Conservative).

With that in mind, I see NO candidate in the current field with a chance of victory from the majority of American thought.  Instead I see only the opportunity for a victory from the candidate closest to the current political ideology.  And for that I declare Hillary Rhodam Clinton to be the closest to what America voted for in 2004, and thus the probable winner in 2008.

so only one party-besides Dem and Rep has candidates in all 50 states

the others are more less individuals who candidate in their home state?!

Well, the Kennedy clan just endorsed Obama.  I hear it was a rough decision, Obama or McCain. :P

Seriously though, I was surprised, then I remembered, that the Kennedy’s and Clinton’s don’t exactly have a buddy/buddy relationship with each trying to be the identity of the Democrat Party.

Still, with the Kennedy’s out there campaigning, not just endorsing, Obama, and Hillary’s speeches being seen as racist (whether they were intended to be or not) I don’t think Hillary has much of a chance anymore.

And in Florida, Romney has 33%, McCain 27%.  Looks like Romney will get another win today.  Hopefully Thompson will either tell his followers to vote Paul or Romney and so will Guilliani.  Though, I suspect Guilliani being a pocket Republican will endorse McCain.

i can’t direct people to the speach (i wish i could and i will when i find it on the net) where Bill said something along the lines of “if McCain and Mrs Clinton are the two nominations it will be the nicest presidental race in history as they both get a long so well.” that is not a direct quote as i can’t remember the exact words.
now with that said, i did not get it off line, i was listening to the radio this mornning on my way to work and it was a sound bite played.
now my take on it is that if the Clintions and McCain’s are such good friends, then we have a seriouse problem if we have McCain as the Republican nomination. although it might be funny (if not so sad) to watch the debates. heck we may even get them both running with no VP as they would come to an agreement that the winner take the other as the VP.

Of course they are.  They were both staunch supporters of the war.  They were both advocates of amnesty.  They were both advocates of the Dream Act.  They both supported Campaign Finance Reform (though, I think McCain should be forced to comply, no negative comments within 30 days of an election, Mr. Candidate! mwuhahahah!).  They both opposed Republicans appointing Constitutionalist Judges to the bench in 2000-2004 when the Republicans had the mandate and the majority to do so.  They both blame Bush for Katrina (even though it was Louisiana who dropped the ball, not the feds.)

Honestly, they are almost the same person, it’s just one has her reproductive organs on the inside and the other has his reproductive organs on the outside.

@Amon:

so only one party-besides Dem and Rep has candidates in all 50 states

the others are more less individuals who candidate in their home state?!

There are other parties in some states, but there is only one National “3rd Party” in the United States.

That is part of why US politics are so polarized, there are only 2 real options when you go vote, and no system in place for coalition governments that Parliamentary systems have that help keep other nations a bit closer to their political center and the “majority moderates”

On the plus side, two parties in the United States has never lead to a Hitler like the 48 million party system did in Germany in the 1930s.

No but it also has not led to the thousands of Unity governments that have existed in various Parliamentary systems where even minority opinion gets some voice and some action on their issues.

Had we not become so polarized in this nation, we probably would not have the bloated budget that we do, States Rights would exist in a form other than in a Civics text book, and perhaps just a bit of the acid would be removed from our politics, since in order to lead, you would have to have friends in other political parties.

Any move toward unity in this nation is seen as a death sentence (look at the Conservative opinion of McCain because he dared to team up with Ted Kennedy).

Democrats were in the minority from 2000-2006 and got everything they wanted passed.  I don’t think the minority not getting a voice is the problem.  I’m thinking it’s the majority (now the minority) that doesn’t get heard.

@Cmdr:

Democrats were in the minority from 2000-2006 and got everything they wanted passed.

:?

Like increasing the minimum wage? universal coverage? timestables on iraq? tax increases? dont kid yourself- they already passed one of those. if they get the presidency, the other three will follow. the only thing stopping the dem agenda is the 60 vote margin in senate and Bushs veto pen.

Campaign Finance Reform
No Child Left Behind
Minimum Wage Increases
Colin Powell
Scooter Libby
Karl Rove
Denny Hastert
Albert Gonzalez
etc

Like those pieces of liberal legislation, and unwarranted attacks on persons to get them to retire instead of doing their job.

The only thing they didn’t get is surrender in Iraq and Amnesty.  The former because Republicans knew that they would cease to be a party if they gave that to them; the latter because the people of this country flooded their offices with letters and phone calls threatening civil insurrection if they passed it.

And yes, it will only get worse if they get the Congress and the White House.  But it’s not like the majority has been heard in the past decade.  Which is why we voted them out in 2006. (Democrats filled the vacuum we left because we didn’t elect anyone back.  They did not win on their ideas, they won because they were not Republican incumbents.  Now they face the same thing, they are the incumbents and we’re all mad at them.)