Today's mid-term election day in the US. Please go vote if you can!
Any predictions? Will the Democrats take back the House and Senate? Does anybody care, other than me?
Quote from: Anarcho on Tue 07/11/2006 17:30:36
Does anybody care, other than me?
I think so:
http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=28964.0
oops, didn't see that thread. nevermind!
Two reminders are better than one! Happy voting, folks!
But I don't wanna! :(
You can vote for me then, since I have taxation without representation. :=
Straight D please.
How do you have taxation without representation, Steve?
Those of us who live in the District of Columbia (all 582,049 of us, that's 88, 267 more people than the entire state of Wyoming) have taxation without representation.
No congressional representation. No senators. Congressional oversight over laws passed by our own government. We're a colony! Don't get me started!
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Quote from: Anarcho on Tue 07/11/2006 19:49:16
How do you have taxation without representation, Steve?
I'm in the US&A on a work visa.
Damn it, someone tell me what's going on in Virginia! Why is it taking so long to count the last 1% of the vote?!
Great to see McCaskill in front. But still too close to call, apparently.
Likewise, Tester vs Burns.
Why is this taking so long!?!?! Why is CNN dickteasing me?!?!?!
The last news are that the democrats have too advantage in both states for having the majory in both cameras, no?
Edit: Eeeer... Sorry, I goofed. Apparently there will be less that 1% of difference, so, new recount (Can people misscount 25,000 votes? This is insane...) Plus summing up the votes coming from mail. So, the decission could be delayed till december, apparently.
DEMOCRATS take the House of Representatives :D!!!
The Senate race is still going, with only two states undecided.
Change gonn' come...
If it comes down to a difference of 1% in Virginia (or maybe it's 1000 votes) it triggers an automatic recount. I thinks it's so close that there is definitely going to be an automatic recount. Also, I hear it's going to be long and drawn out. With that said, I still think Webb (the dem) will win in the end.
Surprisingly, Montana is very close but I think that will be settled any time now. I also think Tester (the dem) will win. That would mean the democrats will have a razor thin majority in the Senate, assuming Leiberman (who ran as an independant, but has always been a right of center Democrat) actually caucuses with the Democrats.
It's a very complicated year!
Well, Maryland is doomed. If O'Malley brings his "winning" abilites of how he was Mayor of Baltimore to now being Governor, we really will have the highest crime rate in America. We actually have it now, but "somehow" numbers are being skewed out of Baltimore.
Oh, and I love how he has lowered acceptable passing grades in Baltimore just to get kids out the door. Yeah, that temporary solution has got to be the perfect solution.
Hooray for Maryland. :-[
Yeah, Montana shouldn't take too long. But Virginia is literally down to some 3000 votes at this point. If the difference is less or equal to 1%, the loser has the right to request a recount. I don't think it should take too long though. Things tend to happen faster when the Senate is one senator away from being active :).
George Allen and Jim Webb aren't the most clean-cut and upstanding candidates, but I'm happy to see the best of the worst leading in the count (Webb).
Yes, i don't particularly like Webb, but he's considerably better than Allen and if it means Democratic control of the Senate...then well...
Also, it's disturbing that someone from Finland probably knows more about American electoral politics than 90% of Americans...
Anyone surprised that Lieberman won as an indepedent after losing the Democratic primary?
Tom Delay is quoted as saying "The Democrats didn't win; the Republicans lost." In a way, I can't help but think he's right. With all the scandals, discontent over Iraq, and Bush's rock bottom approval ratings, I don't think there was any way the Republicans were going to have a good night. But now the Democrats will have to come up with more of a platform than "We're not Bush."
I'm not so surprised, Lieberman has been doing well in the polls, and as someone from Connecticut...he's been around so long that there are so many people who probably voted "Lieberman" without thinking twice because he's "Lieberman".
These people probably didn't even know he's running as an Independent.
UPDATE: Burns conceded! Senator John Tester it is!!!!!! Also, Rumsfeld has resigned!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Anarcho on Wed 08/11/2006 17:43:12
UPDATE: Burns conceded!Ã, Senator John Tester it is!!!!!!Ã, Also, Rumsfeld has resigned!!!!!!!!
Seems that the Republicans are pushing the "reset" button for having any chance to win in the presidentials. :)
One thing... How does look the Presidential race? Hillary for the donkeys and...who for elephants?
That's a forgone conclusion. It's a wide open race for candidates on both sides. I think Hillary would be an awful choice. Barak Obama might run, and while he'd be a great candidate, he's still a little green. I expect John Edwards could come out on top as the Democratic candidate.
For the Republicans? That's a good question. George Allen was a candidate until he scuttled his reelection campaign with his own racism and idiocy. Bill Frist was a candidate until he made a fool out of himself through the Terry shiavo mess and his "tears cause AIDS" BS. At this point, I suspect some random Republican governor to try and get the nomination, but we'll just have to see. I've heard that Rudy Guiliani and George Pataki might run...
I' ve heard about a black candidate, a republican one, not Obama... It was 2 years ago, I might be confussing curious news with "serious" ones. Somebody has a clue of what I am talking about?
Ken Blackwell (loser in the Ohio governor's race)?
Or Condoleezza Rice?
Well, you can count all the black republicans in the country on one hand...maybe you're thinking about Michael Steele who just ran for senate in Maryland as a Republican? I don't think he's ever been mentioned for the presidency but...
Then there's Alan Keyes who ran against Obama, i think he's run for president before...he's just a crazy man.
Honestly, i can't think of any other prominent black republicans.
AP is reporting that Webb has won Virginia. Allen doesn't want to drag it out with a recount. MSNBC and CNN are carrying the report too.
Looks like the Democrats have control over both houses.
Tis a great day. My lunch will taste better than any meal I have ever had!
Damnation. The forums were down for me, so I couldn't reply until now.
Great results. Democrats have now secured Virginia and have taken the Senate majority :D!
Anyways, possible '08 presidential election candidates:
D:
Hillary Clinton (viable, good base, popular, although leaning to the right a bit, still a woman)
Barack Obama (very intelligent, young, energetic, witty, still black)
John Edwards (previous vice presidential candidate, pretty boy, likeable, popular, environment as his main issue)
Joe Biden (very witty and funny guy, intelligent, great speaker, likeable, authoritative)
Wesley Clark (former general who opposed iraq, intelligent, a little squirmish, not that great a speaker nor the greatest charmer)
R:
George Allen (racist, stupid, not gonna happen)
Bill Frist (idiot, douchebag, has been under indictment, completely corrupt)
Newt Gingrich (old player, good speaker, conservative)
Rudy Giuliani (very likeable, great loyal voterbase, popular, vacant :))
John McCain (war veteran, torture victim, very intelligent, likeable, liberitarian, popular, the youth loves him, lately been smoozing with some unsavory right nutjobs, like Bush, Fallwell, to gain Republican votes)
EDIT:
Condoleezza Rice has assured many times already that she is not going to run in '08, nor does she harbor any such intentions in the near future.
I think (hope) the Dems won't let Hillary run.
You forgot Jon Stewart.
Quote from: Redwall on Thu 09/11/2006 04:45:23
I think (hope) the Dems won't let Hillary run.
Why not? She seems like a good candidate and her re-election is fuelling momentum. She's popular, which her Senate constituency demonstrates. She's married to a former president who left office with a positive approval rating domestically, a budget in surplus and has good diplomatic ties with leaders in other countries.
If you asked me several months ago, I'd have said no. But considering the degree she's won in the mid-terms (67 per cent), I'd say she has a bloody good chance now.
Sure, the main Red States don't like her but I reckon, if she picks the right running mate, she'll get the majority of support.
My roommate and I are predicting a Clinton/Obama ticket in 2008 and a Giuliani/McCain ticket for the Repubs.
However, my favourite Senator who I think will make a bid for 2008 (and ildu left him off the list) is Russ Feingold. Out of all the political players in the US, Feingold has impressed me the most these last few years. Very intelligent, highly articulate and has a big set of balls.
Quote from: [lgm] on Thu 09/11/2006 05:28:41
You forgot Jon Stewart.
Nah, Stewart has said he's not running.
And besides, it's a bit like saying Christopher Walken is in the running for 2008. Not going to happen, no matter how much people wish it.
But speaking of which, my favourite Republican candidate for 2008... Denny Crane! (http://www.dennycrane2008.com/)
I think people tend to see the more liberal segments of the US as being more devoutly liberal than they are. In the San Francisco area of California, any time Hillary's name comes up as a potential candidate everyone maintains that it would be interesting, but that there's no way she would win, usually adding that they wouldn't vote for her either.
There's too much negative association with the Clinton administration, depictions of her as an iron-fisted bitch, and generally ignoring her constituents when she's got a pet-issue. She's also been associated with a good amount of censorship & morality -type proposals.
While I'd love to see things shaken up with a female president, I'm afraid we're still a little too backwards to accomplish this yet.
Hillary might be populair in the new england area, but she's disliked unanimously by the south and the mid west. Even the big cities in the south east and south west, she isn't taken seriously.
Her conservative viewpoints to compensate with republicans won't work. It's better to find someone who has the balls to be liberal.
I was not very interested in this election, but if the results worked for making Daniel' s meal the tastiest ever... Damn! I am happy! Devil can came and shiver my timbers if I am not! :D
Quote from: jet on Thu 09/11/2006 12:07:31
Hillary might be populair in the new england area, but she's disliked unanimously by the south and the mid west. Even the big cities in the south east and south west, she isn't taken seriously.
Her conservative viewpoints to compensate with republicans won't work. It's better to find someone who has the balls to be liberal.
Hence why I said "if she picks the right running mate".
An interesting turnout to the vote, was good to see the Democrats take the senate. I still want to visit whilst Arnie is in office though! movielaand :D
(http://3dflags.com/media/icon/classic/u/3dflagsdotcom_usa_2fawm.gif)
Running mates really don't matter all that much IMHO, just look at Edwards and Kerry. Edwards was a great VP choice, but he couldn't help save that sinking, pretentious ship.
Clinton is very popular in New York, specifically downstate. That's great for New York, but it won't get you far elsewhere. People outside of New York HATE New York. Also, there's a really nasty streak of anti-feminist, anti-women-as-leaders resentment in the media and public at large that would make her candidacy problematic.
Furthermore, do we live in a Monarchy? We shouldn't elect the wife of a former President, just like we shouldn't have elected George Bush Jr, just like we shouldn't ever elect Jeb Bush. It's bad for democracy.
Finally, Clinton has no charisma. She's a terrible public speaker.
With all that said, I think she should run.
Okay, I'm seriously thrilled!!!!!!!!!
Democrats are taking the House and the Senate, and Donald Rumsfeld just resigned his sorry ass... this must be Heaven.
8)
well, there is still one big monkey on our back.
A monkey who's just had his balls cut off...
Quote from: Anarcho on Thu 09/11/2006 14:24:33
Running mates really don't matter all that much IMHO, just look at Edwards and Kerry. Edwards was a great VP choice, but he couldn't help save that sinking, pretentious ship.
No, Edwards was terrible choice. He was as effective as having a boiled carrot for a running mate.
Look at Cheney. The man is evil, but still an effective running mate for Bush.
QuoteClinton is very popular in New York, specifically downstate. That's great for New York, but it won't get you far elsewhere. People outside of New York HATE New York
You do know that people described her a carpetbagger because she moved to New York just to run for the Senate seat there, right? Originally she wasn't very popular as she is now, winning only 55% in 2000.
But hey, you only just ignored the many other states she's lived in and all the work she's done in those states.
Quote
Also, there's a really nasty streak of anti-feminist, anti-women-as-leaders resentment in the media and public at large that would make her candidacy problematic.
Really? People seem to be okay with Nancy Pelosi as the new House Majority Leader. What resentment in the media are you on about?
QuoteFinally, Clinton has no charisma. She's a terrible public speaker.
Has you actually listened to a Bush speech? I don't think it's all that important to be a good public speaker.
Erm, what is your obsession with Hillary? What has she done that makes her such a great leader?
People call her a carpet begger!
You mock Jack Thompson, but she supports him (or visa versa, whatever).
Don't want to come over cross, but I don't see her as THE politicion to kick start the progression. I don't know somebody who is, but is't not her.
Yes, I'm fully aware that people called her a carpetbagger in New York and that people got over it. But that's because it's fucking New York. If she had tried running, oh let's say in Tennessee, she'd have gotten her ass handed to her. She's appreciated in one of the most liberal areas of the country. Big whoop.
Other states she's lived in? She's from Illinois, right? Ok. She's got Illinois locked up. Another liberal stronghold. Hooray. Then you've got Arkansas. Not exactly friendly territory. They elected her slick southern husband, not her. Notice she didn't run for Senate in Arkansas...she never would have won.
And people are not ok with Nancy Pelosi. I don't know if you're American or not, and listen to American radio or TV, but during the election Pelosi was held up as this SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL!!!! image in order to create fear in teh conservative base. There was quite a tinge of anti-feminism in the language used by the ads and media personalities.
I think it really comes down to people's reaction to strong-willed women...they're viewed as "bitches" be it in the boardroom or workplace or the White House. Hillary got lambasted during her husbands presidency for doing things and saying things that, if a man had said them, wouldn't have caused such a raucous. Honestly it's reprehensible, but I think it's the real reason America won't elect a woman President any time soon.
Finally, I still think Edwards was a fine candidate, it's just that Kerry was a terrible. Talk about how public speaking is critical---Kerry could not communicate a single cogent message to the American people. He just would ramble on and on about miscellanea while referencing arcane policy info. Bush used accessible language and repeatedly stressed clear ideas. Cheney didn't have jack to do with Bush getting relected.
Quote from: jet on Thu 09/11/2006 17:35:35
Erm, what is your obsession with Hillary? What has she done that makes her such a great leader?
People call her a carpet begger!
You mock Jack Thompson, but she supports him (or visa versa, whatever).
Don't want to come over cross, but I don't see her as THE politicion to kick start the progression. I don't know somebody who is, but is't not her.
Maybe if you opened your eyes and actually read my posts, you'll see I never said I supported her. I said I supported Feingold (and it doesn't matter anyway because I'm not from the US, so I can't vote on either of them).
What I am saying is that she's the best chance the Dems have at having a presidential candidate. And most opinion polls reflect this position.
I'm just thinking realistically. Realistically, she's the best chance the Dems have.
Quote from: Anarcho on Thu 09/11/2006 18:00:26Yes, I'm fully aware that people called her a carpetbagger in New York and that people got over it. But that's because it's fucking New York. If she had tried running, oh let's say in Tennessee, she'd have gotten her ass handed to her. She's appreciated in one of the most liberal areas of the country. Big whoop.
Other states she's lived in? She's from Illinois, right? Ok. She's got Illinois locked up. Another liberal stronghold. Hooray. Then you've got Arkansas. Not exactly friendly territory. They elected her slick southern husband, not her. Notice she didn't run for Senate in Arkansas...she never would have won.
Maybe she didn't run in Arkansas because
Arkansas didn't have an open seat in 2000 (you idiot) and tried out in New York because the incumbent retired. You know, cause people seem to prefer incumbents over new challengers and with the incumbent gone Hillary had a better chance.
Speaking of incumbents, what if she campaigned in your other example, Tennessee (which WAS up for grabs in the 2000 Senate elections), against Bill Frist. Firstly, that's a dumb example cause we're talking Frist here. How are you going to unseat someone as high up as the Senate majority leader from a state he's held since 1995? That's just crazy talk!
But since Frist retired, you do realise this year the Tennessee races were pretty close with Republican candidate Bob Corker winning by 3% against his Democrat opponent (51% vs 48%)?
I think Hillary had as much chance if she was the opponent. Look at McCaskill's victory in Missouri against an incumbent low-level Republican. Missouri has been pretty Republican influenced over the last few years with candidates like John Danforth, Jim Talent and John Ashcroft. (Only variation was when Ashcroft lost to a dead man in 2000).
but hay in tennisee they're all right-wing repubs there, am i rite?
Also, perhaps you should stop the wild speculation and do your damn research BEFORE giving your opinion.
Quote from: Anarcho on Thu 09/11/2006 18:00:26
And people are not ok with Nancy Pelosi. I don't know if you're American or not, and listen to American radio or TV, but during the election Pelosi was held up as this SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL!!!! image in order to create fear in teh conservative base. There was quite a tinge of anti-feminism in the language used by the ads and media personalities.
By American TV and radio, do you mean Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?
Seriously, if people were that worried about Pelosi being a femo-commie-babyeater, why the hell did the majority of American districts vote for a Democrat-controlled congress? Surely they think she can facilitate better policy decisions regarding Iraq than Dennis Hastert. Otherwise, why'd they vote for her?
Maybe the majority of the American public voted while drunk that day. Y'know, since FHM and RALPH say all women look hotter after a couple of cold ones, did the voters decide "damn pelosi's pretty hot i'd hit that" and vote for their Democrat congressman?
Seriously, a recent CNN poll shows most people like her - 35 per cent favourable, 24 per cent unfavourable, 23 per cent have never heard of her, and 19 per cent are unsure.
QuoteI think it really comes down to people's reaction to strong-willed women...they're viewed as "bitches" be it in the boardroom or workplace or the White House. Hillary got lambasted during her husbands presidency for doing things and saying things that, if a man had said them, wouldn't have caused such a raucous. Honestly it's reprehensible, but I think it's the real reason America won't elect a woman President any time soon.
So that's why Elizabeth Dole and Jean Schmidt didn't get elected into office! Because they're women!
Oh wait, they DID get into office! But they were Republicans. I guess you have to be a Republican if you also want to be a strong-willed woman.
Hello, Condi!
On the other hand, you have Katherine Harris. And I don't think she lost because she was a woman. I think she lost because her campaign was poorly run and most of her staff deserted her.
Seriously, I think you have some wacky logic that just doesn't make sense here.
Sure, there's some perception of "women leaders=uh oh", but I do think that times have changed to the point where enough states realise that maybe a woman in power isn't such a bad thing.
In a Time poll, 19 per cent of sampled voters said they'd prefer a male president, 11 per cent prefered a female president and
69 per cent said it doesn't matter whether the president has a vagina or not.
1 per cent said they were unsure.
Likewise, a recent poll by Gallup shows 61 per cent of Americans (selected randomly throughout the country) feel ready for a female president.
In the same poll, 55 per cent ready for a Jewish president.
According to those figures, I'm supposed to be crazier for supporting Feingold ahead of Hillary as opposed to saying Hillary has a good chance. But you seem to be lambasting my speculation on Hillary in 2008 but not Feingold.
In response, I only have one question: Whaaaaaaaaa???
QuoteFinally, I still think Edwards was a fine candidate, it's just that Kerry was a terrible. Talk about how public speaking is critical---Kerry could not communicate a single cogent message to the American people. He just would ramble on and on about miscellanea while referencing arcane policy info. Bush used accessible language and repeatedly stressed clear ideas. Cheney didn't have jack to do with Bush getting relected.
Both Kerry and Edwards weren't great. It was like the Dems were running a zombie and Gomer Pyle for Pres and VP. But the Dems picked 'em so they must be worth something, right?
As for Cheney, I think he's evil, but as for whether he's an effective VP -- who knows? Various polls showed different winners in the 2004 VP debates. I do think Cheney sucker-punched Edwards in that debate and, trust me, I say that with a great pain in my voice.
I do think having a good VP helps. After all, people have to consider a replacement if something happens to the president. Case in point, look what happened to Kennedy or Nixon and their respective VPs Johnson and Ford.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 10/11/2006 09:01:36
In a Time poll, 19 per cent of sampled voters said they'd prefer a male president, 11 per cent prefered a female president and 69 per cent said it doesn't matter whether the president has a vagina or not.
1 per cent said they were unsure.
Likewise, a recent poll by Gallup shows 61 per cent of Americans (selected randomly throughout the country) feel ready for a female president.
In the same poll, 55 per cent ready for a Jewish president.
Some encouraging figures.. not so much the Jewish one. I'm curious (not being antagonistic here) what percentage of the randomly selected were female. I'd be genuinely surprised if more than 50% of male voters surveyed felt ready for a woman in charge. There's been a lot of progress in this arena, but good ol' fashioned USA values tend to put the female squarely in the kitchen where she can mass-produce apple pies when she's in-between flag sewings.
I worked for nine months at Gallup. I wasn't immediately involved with the polling, but I designed a lot of the e-learning modules that the pollers and management-types had to go through, so I know a lot of secret stuff about their polling proceedures. I can assure you that their sampling is very accurate. The real question is not whether females are accurately portrayed in that number, but how many men are lying about their preference because they don't want to sound sexist even on an anonymous poll.
Presidentials are weird, people focus between two personalities... If the Republican is a real ass, Hilary (if she is the choosen) will win, this figures have no real meaning.
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Fri 10/11/2006 13:00:57
I can assure you that their sampling is very accurate. The real question is not whether females are accurately portrayed in that number, but how many men are lying about their preference because they don't want to sound sexist even on an anonymous poll.
Like I said - curious, not arguing the validity. Regardless, given an accurate sampling, roughly 51% of those polled would be female and likely have less resistance to a female president. Since this leaves the remaining 49% making up only 18% more of the pro-woman tally (in theory), it's not as surprising. I would be interested in learning what percentage of females surveyed were pro, and what percentage of males were.
Also, given 51% of those polled having a greater inclination towards supporting their own, it's not as disheartening knowing that the support for a Jewish president is much higher than the estimated 2-3% Jewish population.
Still, my hope would be for numbers in both surveys nearing 100% of not caring with respect to race, gender or creed. Getting closer versus a couple decades ago, I would imagine.
Quote from: TheYak on Fri 10/11/2006 13:35:19
I would be interested in learning what percentage of females surveyed were pro, and what percentage of males were.
And you can find out if you pay gallup for the full report!
I don't believe they'd appreciate you revealing their insidious master plan. Mwa ha ha.
Sorry, I'm a bit daft since someone crashed VLC player and it keeps repeating "Pitagora Suichi" or some other such Japanese-sounding phrase (looped for an hour now).
I sincerely hope they choose Hillary. If not for the fact that I do respect her husband more than most American presidents, then because she is a woman and that'd really make a big difference in everything.
It would be great if both the Republicans and Democrats had women candidates in 2008... Or both had black candidates... it would force the bigots into a dilemma.
SSH, they'd start debating HOW black the candidates are. Like people did with Tiger Woods.
Speaking of which, same Gallup report said (from memory) 58 per cent of voters were ready for a black presidenial candidate.
Which makes my support for Feingold even more ludicrous!
Would they debate how female the candidates are if both were women? 'Cause I always thought that Hillary was a bit manly...
Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 10/11/2006 15:35:48
Speaking of which, same Gallup report said (from memory) 58 per cent of voters were ready for a black presidenial candidate.
Which only means 58% doesn't care which party to vote for, so should the other be black, then the other one would win.
Quote from: TheYak on Fri 10/11/2006 12:38:19... but good ol' fashioned USA values tend to put the female squarely in the kitchen where she can mass-produce apple pies when she's in-between flag sewings.
I can't help but think TheYak is right. I find it particularly damning that despite being the oldest(?) democracy around we've yet to have either a woman or a minority as our president. Meanwhile numerous other countries, including those with little tradition of democracy, seem to have accomplished this feat rather effortlessly. Despite being the "land of the free," our cultural values keep us very much behind the curve in some ways.
There's a pretty interesting statistic that no one born since 1962 has voted in a presidential election without either a Bush or a Clinton in the running.
If Hilary runs in 2008, the Bush/Clinton families will have covered a good 26 years of presidential elections.
DGMacphee, why are you being such a jerk? There's no need to call me an idiot. I was talking hypothetically, at least about Tennessee. But you know what, you're right. I should do my research before giving my opinions! I'll go crack the books right now! Thanks for teaching me this valuable lesson.
Really.
Thanks a lot.
But I should say that Harold Ford Jr. came from very far behind and ran a fantastic campaign. I doubt Hillary would have fared as well, but hey, I guess if I actually did my research as you'd suggest I would in fact be able to gain multi-dimensional clairvoyance and decisively see all possible electoral outcomes.
Claire McCaskill is a born and raised Missourian who's been a politician there for decades. Just because MO voters barely elected a local democrat with high name recognition, doesn't mean they'd elect Hillary. But again, I don't have the power to do research / see through time.
I like how you didn't answer my question. Do you live in the states? Have you seen any of the TV commercials that were on during the election? I mean, turn on Meet the Press or This Week and you'd have seen all the right wing talking heads using Pelosi to scare up Republican voters. I'm sure plenty of people saw through that kind of thing, but I think it's a clear indicator of how a women, specifically liberal women, can be vilified here.
For the record, I would love to see a female president but having traveled all over this country, especially in really rural areas, I can honestly say that I don't think it'll happen any time soon. At least not Hillary, there's too much baggage there. It could more likely be a conservative woman, like your Libby Dole. But I hope I'm proven wrong! That would be great.
Also, I think Russ would be a great candidate. I've thought about going to work his campaign if he ran. I don't know that he'd have a chance to win, but I think he's got a pretty good shot. He's principled and stands by his opinions. That will get you far in this country.
But seriously, just relax. We're just having a debate here, you don't need to throw around insults. You dickhead.
Quote from: Tuomas on Fri 10/11/2006 16:08:08
Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 10/11/2006 15:35:48
Speaking of which, same Gallup report said (from memory) 58 per cent of voters were ready for a black presidenial candidate.
Which only means 58% doesn't care which party to vote for, so should the other be black, then the other one would win.
Eh? How'd you get to that conclusion.
Quote from: Anarcho on Fri 10/11/2006 19:25:13
DGMacphee, why are you being such a jerk? There's no need to call me an idiot. I was talking hypothetically, at least about Tennessee. But you know what, you're right. I should do my research before giving my opinions! I'll go crack the books right now! Thanks for teaching me this valuable lesson.
Really.
Thanks a lot.
Oh, please. If you're going to say to me, "Notice Hillary didn't run for Senate in Arkansas" as one of your main points without actually checking if Arkansas had their seat open that year, hmm, yes, that constitutes idiocy.
If you're going to engage in some political discussion, make sure your facts are right. Otherwise you could say things like, "Ned Lamont lost the Connecticut to a llama".
Seriously, you want to talk, fine, then talk. But at least make sure you've got your facts straight. Otherwise people, like me, are just going to think you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
QuoteBut I should say that Harold Ford Jr. came from very far behind and ran a fantastic campaign. I doubt Hillary would have fared as well, but hey, I guess if I actually did my research as you'd suggest I would in fact be able to gain multi-dimensional clairvoyance and decisively see all possible electoral outcomes.
But clairvoyance isn't really an accepted research metho... OH YOU WERE BEING SARCASTIC! ZING! How stupid of me for not seeing that. Ha ha, you got me!
QuoteClaire McCaskill is a born and raised Missourian who's been a politician there for decades. Just because MO voters barely elected a local democrat with high name recognition, doesn't mean they'd elect Hillary. But again, I don't have the power to do research / see through time.
But that wasn't your point. Your point was that she's a woman and being woman=no chance of being elected. You even said so: "I think it really comes down to people's reaction to strong-willed women". Now you're saying, "Hey Claire McCaskill can get elected to a non-New York state, but not Hillary."
Seriously, are you making this up as you go along?
QuoteI like how you didn't answer my question. Do you live in the states? Have you seen any of the TV commercials that were on during the election? I mean, turn on Meet the Press or This Week and you'd have seen all the right wing talking heads using Pelosi to scare up Republican voters. I'm sure plenty of people saw through that kind of thing, but I think it's a clear indicator of how a women, specifically liberal women, can be vilified here.
Maybe if you read my response to jet in the same post, you'll see that I don't live in the US.
However, thanks to miracles known as "The Internet" and "YouTube" and "online polls", I can gain as much insight into the American political system as any American can. I probably know more about US politics and politicians than my own country's politics (Mainly cause I find US politics more interesting). Even American friends of mine say I seem to more about their own political climate than they do.
Yes, I've seen the right-wing talking heads using Pelosi to scare Republican voters. So what? What about uncommitted voters? They're the ones who get swayed. As the polls I mentoned said, most people like Pelosi. If the majority of voters didn't, why are the Dems now controlling congress?
By the way, I think it's odd how you want to condemn my knowledge of US Politics just because I don't live here even though you didn't even know Arkansas didn't have an open seat in 2000.
QuoteFor the record, I would love to see a female president but having traveled all over this country, especially in really rural areas, I can honestly say that I don't think it'll happen any time soon. At least not Hillary, there's too much baggage there. It could more likely be a conservative woman, like your Libby Dole. But I hope I'm proven wrong! That would be great.
Maybe not a woman anytime soon. But it won't happen anytime soon unless people try.
QuoteAlso, I think Russ would be a great candidate. I've thought about going to work his campaign if he ran. I don't know that he'd have a chance to win, but I think he's got a pretty good shot. He's principled and stands by his opinions. That will get you far in this country.
Aye, that's why I like him. I particularly liked his speech on the censure motion he put forth. That's what made me say, "Wow, this guy is great!"
QuoteBut seriously, just relax. We're just having a debate here, you don't need to throw around insults. You dickhead.
You tell me not to throw insults around before calling me a dickhead. Way to take the moral high ground!
Seriously, pal. I'm all for debate. But one thing I cannot stand is people who come to a debate with no substance. It's all just empty talk, talk and more empty talk. You want to make a good point, fine, come armed with facts. Something to back up your point. Not rhetoric.
As for being a dickhead, you're not the first one to call me that on this forum. In fact, I think the first person to say I'm a dickhead was me.
But I prefer
professional dickhead.
QuoteYou tell me not to throw insults around before calling me a dickhead. Way to take the moral high ground!
It was meant to be a joke, you know, I take the moral high ground and tell you not to throw around insults, then i use one. Ha ha. Guess you didn't get it.
QuoteOh, please. If you're going to say to me, "Notice Hillary didn't run for Senate in Arkansas" as one of your main points without actually checking if Arkansas had their seat open that year, hmm, yes, that constitutes idiocy.
Dude, Hillary could have run for senate in Arkansas in 2002, if you want to be so literal about it. Bu I wasn't being literal. I was simply making a point that it was probably no accident that she chose to run in a ridiculously liberal state as opposed to an extremely conservative one. I could have easily said "you didn't see her running in Texas, did you?" It doesn't matter if there's an open seat or not! Even if you wanted to be literal about it, she could have waited around until 2006 and ran for Frist's open seat! You're nit-picking.
So I'm not exactly sure what "facts" I've gotten wrong. I was sharing my "opinions" and didn't intend to write a thesis for the adventure game development community. If you want to call my "opinions" rhetoric, then go ahead. But I'll keep sharing them.
And before you pull out your textbooks, yes, Arkansas elected a woman! Blanche Lincoln is in fact a woman. But she's also a centrist and from the state. I don't think I ever said a woman had no chance of getting elected to office. I'm pretty sure that all I said was that HILLARY had no chance of getting elected President, and a lot of that has to do with her being a woman. And with the fact that people around here react to "strong-willed women" negatively, as we all witnessed during the Clinton administration. People vilified Hillary for being outspoken, and doing more than hold tea parties. Sure, there are a number of women being elected to public office, we're definitely making progress. But I think that some people here have a lot of holdover resentment and anger towards Hillary, and it has to do with gender roles and misogyny.
I'm basing that opinion on my experiences talking to people in various parts of the country. Not on polls. I hope that's factual enough for you.
QuoteBy the way, I think it's odd how you want to condemn my knowledge of US Politics just because I don't live here even though you didn't even know Arkansas didn't have an open seat in 2000.
No, I don't plan on condemning your knowledge of US politics just because you're not from here, but when you say things like:
QuoteSure, there's some perception of "women leaders=uh oh", but I do think that times have changed to the point where enough states realise that maybe a woman in power isn't such a bad thing.
it's clear that you haven't driven around places like Arkansas, or Texas, or Iowa, or Missouri. I mean, there are SOOOO many people who still think a woman's place is in the kitchen, and it's ok to slap a woman's ass, or that some liberal woman from chicago who tries to be President when her husbands the one who's elected is one serious f'in bitch! People are not as enlightened as you might think from watching you tube. or reading online polls.
But for the record, last time let's get this straight, I will make my opinion clear. I think women in general have more of an up hill battle when running for office, especially in more rural "red state" areas. I think lots of people, especially in rural "red state" areas, have very negative reactions towards Hillary, and those reactions have everything to do with her history as First lady and the fact that she was an independent, strong-willed woman. For that reason, I don't think she'd fare well as a candidate for the Presidency.
Hillary would be a terrible candidate for the Dems. Just the people who already hate her are probably numerous enough that she's lost the election, years before the campaign has even started.
Ideological left wingers hate her because they think she's sold out their principles.
Partisan Democrats hate her because they don't think she can win, and that her candidacy will lead to another Republican administration.
Conservatives hate her because they still think Bill is the anti-Christ.
Men hate her because they think she's a bitch.
Conservative women hate her because they think her marriage is a politically expedient sham.
She does have high positives among women in general, but it's just not good enough. A Clinton candidacy would galvanize the Republican base and leave much of the Democratic base cold.
Worst possible Democratic ticket '08: Kerry/Clinton (Oh please God no!)
There has been some loose talk about Al Gore running again. That might be an interesting proposition. His last campaign was lackluster, but most Democrats seem to have forgiven him for "losing" to Bush, and a green platform (as in environmental, not as in Nader) might actually be a winner come 2008. I personally think he has the charisma of an especially bland herring, but there's no denying that he has the credentials and would probably make a good president.
Best possible Democratic ticket '08: Gore/Obama
Incidentally, I'm no fan of Edwards, especially after the populist, economically ill-advised protectionist rhetoric he ran on in the 2004 campaign. Obama is a much more attractive proposition.
As for the Republicans, I think being out of power in Congress will knock some sense/beat the fear of God into them, and they will nominate someone they deem electable. Probably McCain, if his health doesn't seem too shaky. McCain, in turn, will choose a running mate depending on what the likely Democratic ticket looks like.
An interesting election for me, locally. I've heard all of the national results over and over, but California's surprises me. In, what is arguably, the most liberal state, the voting trends mirrored national politics from the past four years. Numerous multi-billion dollar bonds were approved while any increase in parcel taxes or consumer-based taxes were rejected. The flood-prevention 4 billion-dollar bond was approved, likely due to remembrance of Katrina. Prop 90, seemingly meant to curb abuse of eminent domain, was shot down, and alternative energy research money was rejected.
I expected the usual knee-jerk reaction by Californians of approving anything associated with the Democrats' agenda, so was a little surprised. I wonder how things are going to go with a national Democrat legislative majority. I'm guessing it won't be that different.
Quote from: Anarcho on Sat 11/11/2006 04:59:52
QuoteYou tell me not to throw insults around before calling me a dickhead. Way to take the moral high ground!
It was meant to be a joke, you know, I take the moral high ground and tell you not to throw around insults, then i use one. Ha ha. Guess you didn't get it.
Oh sorry, I guess didn't see it. Maybe if you weren't acting like a crybaby, I would have.
QuoteDude, Hillary could have run for senate in Arkansas in 2002, if you want to be so literal about it.
No she couldn't. She's already a Senator for New York. Duh!
Interestingly, Republican Senator Tim Hutchinson was defeated by Democratic challenger Mark Pryor after Hutchinson got a lot of negative publicity from a his marriage scandal (divorced his wife and married one of his staff). Hillary had a damn good chance in 02 as well.
QuoteSo I'm not exactly sure what "facts" I've gotten wrong. I was sharing my "opinions" and didn't intend to write a thesis for the adventure game development community. If you want to call my "opinions" rhetoric, then go ahead. But I'll keep sharing them.
You were trying to tell me that Hillary could have run for Arkansas instead of New York in 2000 and in doing so she would have lost. I said this was impossible to do since Arkansas didn't hold a Senate election that year.
It's a dumb hypothetical based upon faulty information. You got called out. Deal with it and move on.
As for rhetoric, you've basically gone on and on and on with your posts without anything to back them up.
QuoteI'm pretty sure that all I said was that HILLARY had no chance of getting elected President,
Uh, no. You said:
"Also, there's a really nasty streak of anti-feminist, anti-women-as-leaders resentment in the media and public at large that would make her candidacy problematic."If there is such a problem with "women-as-leaders" and them being seen as "bitches", why are people electing representitives in the House and the Senate?
And if they're electing women in such offices, why not the president?
If there's such resentment with gender roles and misogyny, why is there a growing number of representitives? Why was there speculation over "Hillary vs Condi" a few months back in regard to 2008?
QuoteQuoteSure, there's some perception of "women leaders=uh oh", but I do think that times have changed to the point where enough states realise that maybe a woman in power isn't such a bad thing.
it's clear that you haven't driven around places like Arkansas, or Texas, or Iowa, or Missouri.
Just a minute ago you said Arkansas has had a female Senator.
And Senator McCaskill in Missouri.
What I'm trying to say is that things are changing. And according to the information I've presented, it's still likely that Hillary will lead the Dems in 2008.
Quote
But for the record, last time let's get this straight, I will make my opinion clear. I think women in general have more of an up hill battle when running for office, especially in more rural "red state" areas. I think lots of people, especially in rural "red state" areas, have very negative reactions towards Hillary, and those reactions have everything to do with her history as First lady and the fact that she was an independent, strong-willed woman. For that reason, I don't think she'd fare well as a candidate for the Presidency.
Look, I don't deny that a lot of people in red states have a negative perception of Hillary and women as leaders in general. But you seem to think that the 2008 election rests of Red States. What about swing states?
And in regards to swing states, I can only say this: things change, my friend. More people will start to realise that women-on-top aren't as scary as people would think. A lot of the swing states voted for Bush in 00 and 04, but this year they've voted differently. They've put Pelosi in charge.
If Pelosi is the first female majority house speaker, what's to stop Hillary?
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 11/11/2006 08:44:44
More people will start to realise that women-on-top aren't as scary as people would think.
And with that sentence I swing to DG's side of the argument. Women-on-top in '08!
It's like Robin Williams says, if there was a woman president there'd never, ever be any wars. Just every 28 days some severe negotiations.
Acting like a crybaby? That's just great. Are you fifteen? I'm done talking to you. You haven't even read my posts, and I'm tired of repeating myself.
Snarky, I think you sum up Hillary's situation quite well.
I'm not sure that it's a good idea for Gore to run again, but he's definitely impressed me these past couple years with his movie and speaking campaigns. But the democrats need a fresh face.
Obama is in a tricky situation. He's really hot right now, and it's hard to tell if that will last. If he doesn't run in '08, either as a Presidential candidate or as a VP and a democrat gets elected, that could potentially be 8 or 16 years before there's an open ticket. You know he's thinking about it. Plus, the longer someone's a senator, the more bullshit votes they get involved with, the more they can be called a flip flopper, the more they say stupid things like "i voted for the war before I voted against it."
It's hard for senators to run for this reason, and probably one of the reasons a senator hasn't been elected in 46 years.
Quote from: Anarcho on Sat 11/11/2006 15:41:49
...I'm done talking to you...
I'll bet you're not.
I'll take that bet!
I DISAGREE
Quote from: Anarcho on Sat 11/11/2006 15:41:49
Acting like a crybaby? That's just great. Are you fifteen? I'm done talking to you. You haven't even read my posts, and I'm tired of repeating myself.
You're calling me fifteen but you're the one getting stroppy and saying "I'm not talking to you anymore!!!" like some pre-schooler. Well, waa, waa, waa, I'm not talking to you either cause you're a poopy-head. You also smell.
P.S. When you cry, make sure you don't get any tears on your petticoat.
Ok, stop it. Arguing over the Internet is completely stupid. We're all idiots, except me :).
Sorry, I haven' t been reading all this thread, and maybe I am severelly pissing it off, but... Daniel, Anarcho has allways prooven to be smart and respectfull... and I think this even after having deep disagrees with him!
I' ve took a glance in this thread and I don' t think that he deserves this... Ã, :-\
My two cents.
Quote from: TheYak on Sat 11/11/2006 07:25:18I wonder how things are going to go with a national Democrat legislative majority. I'm guessing it won't be that different.
I suspect you're right. Even though the Democrats made huge gains off of dissatification with Iraq, I think people are fooling themselves if they think there's going to be a huge policy change or some quick and easy solution. The problem with Iraq isn't how to get out, the problem is that we're even there to begin with. I suspect that with a new Secretary of Defense we'll see a concerted effort at putting new political spin on the issue.
My fear is that the Democrats will fall into the same trap as the Republicans, thinking there will be point in which Iraq "stabilizes" and it will be possible to pull out troops without causing a civil war. The damage is done, and no matter how many troops you pour into that country, it's not going to stabilize until we're gone.
Bush started this war, but it will unfortunately be up to someone else to pull out the troops. I just hope the democrats have the will power to do the right thing, or for the time being, pressure Bush to do the right thing.
Announced today: Feingold won't run for Pres in 2008.
Quote"I'm sure a campaign for President would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a Senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget Committees," the senator explained. "Although I have given it a lot of thought, I cannot muster the same enthusiasm for a race for President while I am trying simultaneously to advance our agenda in the Senate. In other words, if I really wanted to run for President, regardless of the odds or other possible candidates, I would do so. However, to put my family and all of my friends and supporters through such a process without having a very strong desire to run, seems inappropriate to me. And, yes, while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can through the Progressive Patriots Fund, and consistent with my duties in the Senate, to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008."
I'm a little disappointed but can understand his reasons not to run.