November is around corner. What's your call in Obama vs McCain?
As for me, although I'll vote for the brother I predict McCain for the win. This county is too white and too conservative to go otherwise. You?
--DK
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Official Election Prediction Thread
Official Election Prediction ThreadFollow
Ron Paul '08.
I would say a win for McCain, or at least I would hope so.
Either way though at the end of the election we will either hear:
1. Complaints about how terribly racist our country is for not electing a black president and instead getting another straight white male in.
2. Far too much talk about how despite how racist our country is a black man was able to overcome tremendous odds and become president. Along with that would accusations anyone who is upset he is president is a racist and how much better the United States is just because we have someone who isn't white in. Oh yes, and a few more change and new stuff speeches.
Either way though at the end of the election we will either hear:
1. Complaints about how terribly racist our country is for not electing a black president and instead getting another straight white male in.
2. Far too much talk about how despite how racist our country is a black man was able to overcome tremendous odds and become president. Along with that would accusations anyone who is upset he is president is a racist and how much better the United States is just because we have someone who isn't white in. Oh yes, and a few more change and new stuff speeches.
The only prediction that really matters, is Smash's, right?
@ Hillary!
@ Hillary!Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
Ron Paul '08.
Sorry, my bad: McCain vs Obama vs Ron Paul.
With all the usual caveats of it being six months out, I'll call it for Obama. I think the party will unify behind him and his campaign will do a good job of painting McCain as an extension of the Bush presidency. Gas prices will stay up, the economy won't recover enough for most people to think of it as anything but sour and we'll still be in Iraq for the indefinite future (under McCain anyway). As much as I hate just saying "Change" and stuff, I think that a majority will see Obama as a change from the past 8 years and McCain as largely maintaining the Bush course.
Not that I'm unbiased but that's my guess. Maybe in September we'll find a videotape of Obama waving a scimitar and saying "Fuck Whitey".
Not that I'm unbiased but that's my guess. Maybe in September we'll find a videotape of Obama waving a scimitar and saying "Fuck Whitey".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
AlexanderrOfAsura wrote:
getting another straight white male in.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Obama.
McCain has a lot of issues. Age, temper, sexual indiscretions, intellect, platform, you name it.
McCain has a lot of issues. Age, temper, sexual indiscretions, intellect, platform, you name it.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Has there been a lot of call for a gay president?
Not really, but it sounds like we are even more prejudiced if we make sure to add straight in there.
Edited, May 9th 2008 4:14pm by AlexanderrOfAsura
Jophiel wrote:
Has there been a lot of call for a gay president?
Edited, May 9th 2008 3:22pm by Doomfist
AlexanderrOfAsura wrote:
Quote:
Has there been a lot of call for a gay president?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I think McCain means well. My only concern is EVERYONE ELSE behind him that will be doing the real work.
On that note however, I really have no idea who Obama would have as his staff. The entire Democratic party seems utterly fragmented to me. I heard the other day how the thing between Clinton and Obama is going to (OMG!) "split the party up!"
Are they even really "together" anyway save for by default?
Whereabouts the Republican party really DO seem to have a bit more fusion amongst it's members... which in our situation I think is a bad thing.
this is from someone who pays decent attention but does no research on it...afraid of what I would find
Edited, May 9th 2008 5:25pm by Kelvyquayo
On that note however, I really have no idea who Obama would have as his staff. The entire Democratic party seems utterly fragmented to me. I heard the other day how the thing between Clinton and Obama is going to (OMG!) "split the party up!"
Are they even really "together" anyway save for by default? Whereabouts the Republican party really DO seem to have a bit more fusion amongst it's members... which in our situation I think is a bad thing.
this is from someone who pays decent attention but does no research on it...afraid of what I would find
Edited, May 9th 2008 5:25pm by Kelvyquayo
Kelvyquayo wrote:
The entire Democratic party seems utterly fragmented to me.
Agreed. The Republicans have been more cohesive over the last two decades than the Dems by far. It's really contributed to many of their successes over that time period. They've always been able to get all their party leaders and the talking heads on radio/TV to spit out the same propaganda.
Pelosi and others got the Dems to do the same thing in 2006, which seems to me why they really wasted the GOP that year. It appears that Obama and Clinton have been working hard to undo any sort of cohesive Democratic party that has formed.
McCain wins if he can convince America that his staff is qualified. Obama is a one man show right now imo.
This one might come down to the VPs.
This one might come down to the VPs.
Quote:
It appears that Obama and Clinton have been working hard to undo any sort of cohesive Democratic party that has formed.
It seems that by the very nature of the Democratic party that it must remain fragmented. It's policies seem mainly directed towards the people who have extremely diverse values. Spread that notion around geographically and they should be as fragmented as the country is culturally diverse.
The republican can stay so cohesive because they are concentrated on the same things and the same people no matter where you are in the country.
Quote:
They've always been able to get all their party leaders and the talking heads on radio/TV to spit out the same propaganda.
Yeah, anything that isn't 100% supportive of democrats is terrible right wing propaganda huh?
AlexanderrOfAsura wrote:
Quote:
They've always been able to get all their party leaders and the talking heads on radio/TV to spit out the same propaganda.
Yeah, anything that isn't 100% supportive of democrats is terrible right wing propaganda huh?
I never said that any or all of it was "terrible right wing propaganda". I'm actually a Republican, just making a little commentary on the failures and disorganization of the Democratic party. The comment had to do with party cohesiveness, not whether or not I agree with the ideology.
Ah, I apologize for that then. Just a little bit on guard on these forums because except for when a few people talk. Anything said about Republicans is something bad ^^; .
It depends on who decides this election: The American People or the Supreme Court.
That being said, I do honestly believe the John McCain is a good man. Had he got the Republican nominee, even as a life long Democrat (My Father is a life long Union pipe fitter/welder and my mother was a Teacher. All three of us have belonged to Unions and let's face it: Republicans are NOT for organized labor.) I honestly would have had a hard time deciding between him and Gore.
And while it's pure speculation, I doubt we'd be in Iraq if John McCain had been in charge after 9/11.
But it's 8 years later, the Economy is heading towards recession, half the world hates us, gas is ridiculous, and while "major combat operations" ended years ago, we are stuck trying to hold the fort in Iraq while Iraqis try and get their **** together by shooting at each other (& US).
-Side Note-
CNN was showing video footage of tornadoes provided by "The S&M Equipment Company"
-End side Note-
While I do think McCain would bring about a lot of change compared to W, his economic policies & policies on Iraq, as well as his willingness to work with EVERYONE involved in Iraq, would be similar.
I think Obama represents the best chance to "solve" Iraq and get a TRUE multinational coalition in there, thus reducing our troop levels. His economic policies will benefit myself and the rest of the middle class. And, compared to McCain, Obama has a better chance at mend the international wounds inflicted by George W. Bush and co.
I do love my country, but we're simply spread out too much at the moment. We're sticking our noses in things that are pissing off the rest of the world, all the while China continues to grow stronger.
What happens if we **** them off while we're in Iraq?
Edited, May 9th 2008 6:26pm by Omegavegeta
That being said, I do honestly believe the John McCain is a good man. Had he got the Republican nominee, even as a life long Democrat (My Father is a life long Union pipe fitter/welder and my mother was a Teacher. All three of us have belonged to Unions and let's face it: Republicans are NOT for organized labor.) I honestly would have had a hard time deciding between him and Gore.
And while it's pure speculation, I doubt we'd be in Iraq if John McCain had been in charge after 9/11.
But it's 8 years later, the Economy is heading towards recession, half the world hates us, gas is ridiculous, and while "major combat operations" ended years ago, we are stuck trying to hold the fort in Iraq while Iraqis try and get their **** together by shooting at each other (& US).
-Side Note-
CNN was showing video footage of tornadoes provided by "The S&M Equipment Company"
-End side Note-
While I do think McCain would bring about a lot of change compared to W, his economic policies & policies on Iraq, as well as his willingness to work with EVERYONE involved in Iraq, would be similar.
I think Obama represents the best chance to "solve" Iraq and get a TRUE multinational coalition in there, thus reducing our troop levels. His economic policies will benefit myself and the rest of the middle class. And, compared to McCain, Obama has a better chance at mend the international wounds inflicted by George W. Bush and co.
I do love my country, but we're simply spread out too much at the moment. We're sticking our noses in things that are pissing off the rest of the world, all the while China continues to grow stronger.
What happens if we **** them off while we're in Iraq?
Edited, May 9th 2008 6:26pm by Omegavegeta
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
I'll say something and then contridict myself.
I think the "fragmentation" of the Democratic voters is over-rated. It's been a long contest and people get emotionally vested in their choices and so, when you're asked, it's easy to say "I'll vote Republican if I don't get my way!". Once the primary race is over, folks settle down a lot more. Right now, I really think the party is looking for a gracious way for Clinton to exit the race without looking as though she was forced out and that her supporters were "cheated". This is why the stream of superdelegates to Obama has been a trickle rather than a torrent -- they want to make it clear who won but not make it look like "GTFO, Clinton!" She'll at least stay through WV and KY to end on a high note or else stay in through June 3 to complete her "every state must vote" mantra. At the end of the day, with a gracious exit from Clinton and a little time to redraw the differences between political ideologies, I think Obama will carry his party's vote just fine as well as collect independents who are sick of not just Bush the person but the policies that Bush brought and McCain will continue with.
Mind you, as noted upthread, the fate of the Democratic party is to be somewhat fragmented because you have a range of agendas and attitudes which don't fall into line as easily as the Republican movement has had it in past years by rallying around social (and nominally fiscal) conservatism. Although even that's falling apart for the Republicans these days; hence Gingrich warning that the Republicans need a new "Contract With America" if they don't want to be stomped in Congressional races in November.
Anyway, to contridict myself, I think that if Obama lost then the Democrats would have seen deeply suppressed African-American voter turnout this November and would possibly lose the industrial swing states as a result. Potentially tight races in MI, OH, PA and maybe others would suffer from lower urban turnout for the Democrats. Had Clinton cinched the nomination early this wouldn't be a problem but between the tone of her campaign at times and how well Obama has done in the race, I think a lot of African-American voters would have seen a Clinton nomination post-Ohio as her 'stealing' the race.
I think the "fragmentation" of the Democratic voters is over-rated. It's been a long contest and people get emotionally vested in their choices and so, when you're asked, it's easy to say "I'll vote Republican if I don't get my way!". Once the primary race is over, folks settle down a lot more. Right now, I really think the party is looking for a gracious way for Clinton to exit the race without looking as though she was forced out and that her supporters were "cheated". This is why the stream of superdelegates to Obama has been a trickle rather than a torrent -- they want to make it clear who won but not make it look like "GTFO, Clinton!" She'll at least stay through WV and KY to end on a high note or else stay in through June 3 to complete her "every state must vote" mantra. At the end of the day, with a gracious exit from Clinton and a little time to redraw the differences between political ideologies, I think Obama will carry his party's vote just fine as well as collect independents who are sick of not just Bush the person but the policies that Bush brought and McCain will continue with.
Mind you, as noted upthread, the fate of the Democratic party is to be somewhat fragmented because you have a range of agendas and attitudes which don't fall into line as easily as the Republican movement has had it in past years by rallying around social (and nominally fiscal) conservatism. Although even that's falling apart for the Republicans these days; hence Gingrich warning that the Republicans need a new "Contract With America" if they don't want to be stomped in Congressional races in November.
Anyway, to contridict myself, I think that if Obama lost then the Democrats would have seen deeply suppressed African-American voter turnout this November and would possibly lose the industrial swing states as a result. Potentially tight races in MI, OH, PA and maybe others would suffer from lower urban turnout for the Democrats. Had Clinton cinched the nomination early this wouldn't be a problem but between the tone of her campaign at times and how well Obama has done in the race, I think a lot of African-American voters would have seen a Clinton nomination post-Ohio as her 'stealing' the race.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
And we all know how much African Americans love stealing.
NephthysWanderer wrote:
And we all know how much African Americans love stealing.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
NephthysWanderer wrote:
And we all know how much African Americans love stealing.
Also true.
Richardson was out of the race in January. Try and keep up.
Edited, May 9th 2008 6:07pm by Jophiel
Edited, May 9th 2008 6:07pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ron Paul '08?
McCain is going to have to choose between the Latino vote or the Conservative vote.
"You can't have your cake and eat it too."
"You can't have your cake and eat it too."
Recent Visitors: 245
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (245)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Official Election Prediction Thread
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC