Are the Democrats about to march to their doom?

Almost certainly, but what about so-called independents/swing voters?

I keep hearing this, but do not know why. Do they have a lot in common?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think another Republican president for the US will definitely mean disaster, it will automatically send out a message to the world that Americans are bent on their headlong crash to the bottom. The market is not even waiting for the results of the election. Personally, I am not in favor of Hillary, she's too manipulative to be trustworthy; she may well decide that keeping the Americans fearful is an excellent strategy to remain in power. Obama, IMO, is a product of the present and more in step with what the rest of the world expects from a US leader.

But, as I said, I don't expect either of them to win.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He has spent more time in public office than a lot of candidates. We know enough about him, that isn't an issue. The issue is if you agree with him on policy or not.

His competitor at this point is Hillary, who was only able to be a Senator because of her husband. And what is more important than quantity of experience is quality of experience -- and Hillary's quality sucks. She has unequivocally demonstrated that she is clueless when it comes to making important decisions.

When considering the importance of experience here, remember that President's have a large staff of experts working for them. Obama has demonstrated to me that he would make good use of such staff. Reason one is I find his analytical ability to be high when he answers questions, and I agree with the conclusions he makes on most issues, and he is in touch with modern ideas. So I expect him to be able to make good use of reports presented to him. Reason two is he has actually addressed the importance of having a good staff (I haven't noticed this forward thinking in anyone else). He did this by contrasting him with Bush, in that he would have highly qualified people and transparent evaluations of them. IMO the President's team is vitally important.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am a real-time Lamarckist transformation. Suck on this, n#$$%^: Youtube.com/watch?v=tnPorliRVns

 

Well, I'm glad the rest of the world doesn't get a vote. Obama is a far left winger. He'd be a disaster, especially if combined with a Democrat congress.

 

Heh, I hope conservatives spread that message, because it goes with what Obama has been saying. Hillary is "Bush-Cheney lite". Obama is "a fundamental change". While it may dissuade many republicans who don't vote democratic, it could help persuade democrats.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_fSpI4oZoDc&mode=related&search=

Awesome video!

 

Tch Tch Tch.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lots, or maybe not much ... er ... um ... yeah

Er ... um ... read the book? Okay, okay, I haven't read it, either. Nor am I sold on Obama, despite hearing it from two disparate fronts.

Superficially, Obama does have some things that help:

• He is charismatic
• He is aesthetic
• He is hopeful​

As far as the race issue is concerned:

• He is black, and can probably secure an overwhelming portion of the black vote
• He is what the '80s pop culture called a "Cosby black"​

"Cosby blacks" is a dubious term referring to the fact that Bill Cosby was often the blackest black in the frame. The Huxtable family of Cosby Show fame was at once hailed for being a positive representation of blacks in American society while also being criticized in the derogatory sense of the phrase "Uncle Tom". If we believe the Cosby Show representation, then it is hard to believe there is any real problem in race relations, and as much as I would like it to be true, it's not. My problem. Obama's problem is evident in the question of whether or not he is "black enough". Roland Martin recently wrote for CNN.com:

In other words, Obama can likely overcome this particular question of race. The rest is up to the voters who will have to sit in their living rooms, ask themselves whether they want a black president, mark their ballot, and then mail it off. Oh, right ... some folks will have to ask themselves that question while standing in front of a computer that they may or may not trust to count their vote. Either way, only the voter--that is, each individual voter--will know what the truth is regarding whether we are ready for a black president.

And, yes, the chance to elect a "minority" president (women are a statistical majority in this country, but an empowerment minority) is an attractive factor to many Americans. It's not just the symbolism of crossing the threshold, but the idea that different skin or anatomy somehow suggests a different approach to governing. I'm not sure that's fair, especially inasmuch as Hillary Clinton is aching to demonstrate that she's "one of the boys".

Obama's inexperience will count against him in a couple of ways, though. In the first place, while some of us are reassured by the notion that he has been a Constitutional law professor, conservatives often portray college professors as sinister elitists only slightly less evil than entertainers with consciences; the fact that he probably knows the Constitution he intends to preserve and protect better than the other candidates--and definitely better than the current Oval occupant--won't be enough to offset fears recalling the last foreign-policy experience disaster (e.g., the current Oval occupant). Additionally, there is a factor that is at the crux of your question.

For some reason, the people get worked up from time to time about incumbency. "Throw the bums out!" they shout. Established politicians are disconnected from the people, don't understand the needs of everyday citizens. And it sounds like a great pitch. But on election day, the voters tend to panic and elect either the incumbent or, if that is not possible, the nearest clone thereof. No matter how much people say they want a fresh perspective, there comes a point when the voters sound like a South Park town meeting. "Only two years in the federal system? Rabble! Rabblerabblerabblerabble!"

And this I don't get. Especially in light of the Bush years. Gore would not have prevented 9/11, Bush supporters said. And this is probably true. Gore would have made a mess of Iraq, as well. Presuming that he would have been stupid enough to go, this is probably true. Kerry would have been just as mired down as Bush. Again, this is a fair assertion at the least. Now we see the media relying on irrelevant (e.g. national) polls to proclaim Hillary Clinton the frontrunner. If she truly is the frontrunner, then people really aren't looking for a way out of Iraq, but rather they're just looking for someone to blame their misery and embarrassment on. After all, Hillary is clearly the "same as the old boss" frontrunner.

So we come to Barack Obama, the anointed "fresh perspective" groomed since the 2004 convention at least. And now the people are afraid of the fresh perspective specifically because it is supposed to be different from the failing establishment. What does Obama offer? Nearest I can tell, a new disaster in Pakistan. Really. That's it. I haven't been able to figure out what else he's promising. Apparently, I need to read the book, and all will become clear. (Two people have promised to lend me their copies, so I can't imagine I won't get around to it.)

• • •​

On a separate note, your obsession with S.A.M. is clouding your thought process. Bush's "poo flag" has nothing to do with a reason to vote for Obama; rather, as I read the discussion, it's a note in support of the idea that Americans won't vote black or female, but will flock to the GOP despite the danger. And, yes, some could accuse naivete, but she does have good reason to suspect that outcome. 2002 saw voters dump a man who gave three limbs in Vietnam because they doubted his patriotism. 2004 saw people lining up for heaping helpings of Swift fraud. And despite all the rhetoric about the 2004 election being about Iraq and terrorism, the morning-after analysis made the inescapable point that the outcome reflected the "3G" platform: "God, guns, and gays".

Really. Terrorism is just a club to beat thy neighbors with. More than Osama bin Laden, Americans fear science and buggery.

I'm hoping for a landslide. If the GOP is crushed this time around, Americans will have signaled to the world that we're aware of how badly the Bush Adventures have gone. Doesn't mean a Democratic executive combined with a Democratic Congress and Democratic state houses will actually bring us the proverbial shining city on the hill. But it will suggest that we haven't absolutely lost our minds yet.

And as to that, Hillary will be the weaker declaration of sanity. Obama would be better. But either of them could easily win the White House while splitting and losing the rest of the country.

And that would be problematic.
____________________

Notes:

Martin, Roland. "Obama: Enough with the 'black enough' talk". CNN.com. August 11, 2007. See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/11/obama-enough-with-the-‘black-enough’-talk/ ​

 

The question is still what has he done that qualifies him for the presidency?

And exactly what is his platform?

You expressed your opinion, now what has he done, he is like Hillary, no track record of legislation that makes a difference.

 

I think that it would be nice to move beyond gender and race issues, but also believe that it's not likely to happen.

You have two issues.

1. The people who would never vote for a black man or a woman of any color.

2. The people who don't think that a black man or a woman of any color could get elected.

These two combined would utterly sink any possibility of Clinton or Obama being elected.


As to the Democratic party, I think that they're just being typically politically correct; but when it comes down to it, they'll elect someone else as presidential candidate.

I'm curious. Are the nomination votes anonymous? If so, I doubt anyone would actually admit to not voting for either Clinton or Obama. But, they're not going to be the candidate.

I hope.

We need to get past this Republican nightmare.


However, another issue is the need to get past the two-party system. It would be really nice if Clinton or Obama were the Democratic candidate and a third party or independent squeezed into the White House.

That. Would. Fucking. RULE.

Down with Republicans and Democrats both.
Time for a new way.

 

(Insert title here)

See, that's the thing. It's impossible to disagree with the numbers about the black vote, yet for some reason the black vote is really important. Take the GOP, for instance. We've seen them pander to the black vote, and we've also seen them try to buy the black vote out of the election. For some reason, that fraction of an eighth is perceived as very important.

As to Hillary ... I can't explain the women's vote. They're more than half the population, yet we've never had a female president? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Of course, it's worth noting that when Emmaline Pankhurst stood for Parliamentary election as the Women's Party candidate, part of her platform was that women should wear less makeup. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere along that path, that past female candidates may have been too gynocentric. I won't stand on that suggestion, though.

Like I said, presuming he would have been stupid enough to go in the first place.

I just don't see how invading Pakistan will help. If the Bush Adventures have taught us anything, it's that we're going to have to go above and beyond in order to find another way to solve the problem.

Maybe we'll know more come January:

_____________________

Notes:

Witte, Griff. "Pakistan's Musharraf Sweeps Presidential Vote". Washington Post, October 7, 2007; page A24. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100600240.html ​

 

Too lazy.