Who will be the next President?

[Vlad!]

I agree. Our whole electoral system is fundamentally flawed. People appeal to tradition for justification, but honestly the tradition that the founding fathers were trying to instill was to question the system and change it if it doesn't make sense. When the system was created, it did make sense. The moment that instant intercontinental communication was developed, it really ceased to make sense anymore.

[leinad]

Of course, the early one-state-at-a-time schedule is not a problem in itself; it's the practical effect it has these days that is wrong.   I am wondering whether it might be better to have a three-round general election.  As it is now the campaigns are already well, well underway a year before the general election, and there are always local elections in November anyway; why not have an expansive first round then, with all Republicans, Democrats, third-parties, and independents who are running?  The top four would move on, and duke it out in what is now Primary/caucus season, with the top two then facing off the following November.  Hmm, that might actually solve some problems.  But that many candidates in the first round might make things difficult.  But I imagine many would consolidate (i.e. quit and support someone who has a good chance of being in the "final four".)

[leinad]

But back to the subject of the thread.  In my opinion, the current situation is actually a great advantage for Democrats.  In 2004, when some controversial things came out about John Kerry, it was, for practical purposes, too late to stop his nomination.  Hillary is probably now unelectable both for reasons internal and external to the Democratic voting base.  Obama is looking less and less electable every day, and from what I have read, there are more issues on which he may be especially vulnerable to Republican attack.  If I were a superdelegate loyal to the Democratic party, I'd be looking for someone else to nominate, and encouraging others to do the same thing.

[Vlad!]

For the benefit of those of us who don't follow this sort of crapthing, why is it that Hillary and Obama are looking unelectable?

[leinad]

Well, Hillary is polarizing anyway and could motivate many to show up at the polls just to vote against her.  And if she were to "steal" the nomination at this point, many many Obama supporters would feel that she indeed literally stole it and might refuse to vote for her in November.  As for Obama, the latest issue is with his now former pastor (former only because he retired), who is being compared to Fred Phelps.

[Aaron]

For the benefit of those of us who don't follow this sort of crapthing, why is it that Hillary and Obama are looking unelectable?

Because Hillary is a bi...... um...She's been a crappy senator for my state. 

[Vlad!]

I don't know why, in Hillary's case, this puts her as "now unelectable", given that nothing has particularly changed. She's as electable as ever, which is to say, less so than Obama and probably McCain as well.

[leinad]

Well, if Hillary now wins the nomination via the superdelegates, there will a widespread perception within the Democratic voting base that Obama should have been the nominee, but Hillary won dishonestly (whether it's true or not).  Those who believe that aren't all that likely to show up in November to vote for her.  So that would cost her votes from the Democratic side, which otherwise would have gone to her had she been the decisive nominee.  So yes, I would say that she is less electable now than in January, for a reason that would be hard to overcome.

[dgp11776]

This raised at least one of my eyebrows.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx?version=print

[leinad]

And that doesn't even take into account who would just not bother to vote if their candidate doesn't get nominated.  I am fairly convinced now that McCain would clobber either one in the general election.  I think the delegates need to forget about these two and come up with a ticket that could unite the party and potentially take swing-votes away from McCain at the same time. 

[Vlad!]

That's messed up. Sometimes I take a look at the American public and think, gee, we have just about the president we deserve right now.

[murlough23]

I had a dream last night that it was the day before the next president was supposed to take office, and it still wasn't known for sure who it would be.

Given that we've gone about a month after an election and still not known who the next President would be, this doesn't seem entirely unrealistic.

I suppose it might be a separate topic... but do we have a "Who Are You Voting for and Why?" thread?

[bloop]

Well, it's hard to make that poll until the Dems have a clear nominee.  There's a lot of time before the election, though, so much could change between now and then.  I think Obama will likely get the nomination eventually, and at the very least give McCain a solid run for his money, if not win it himself.

[murlough23]

Well, it's hard to make that poll until the Dems have a clear nominee.  There's a lot of time before the election, though, so much could change between now and then.  I think Obama will likely get the nomination eventually, and at the very least give McCain a solid run for his money, if not win it himself.

I'm more interested in the "why" than the "who", so I'm not worried about polls.

[danny316]

Speaking as a current resident of North Carolina, I can say for certain that there are states still up for grabs with open primaries (where Republicans and unaffiliated voters can vote on who they'd like to have be the Democratic nominee).

I got a poll call earlier, but surprisingly, we found out that the 4 Obama votes in my household don't count to many pollstars because we have too many ties to the campaign. It's a bit ironic that we actually have a polling system designed to penalize people who care enough to get involved, but hey, they need unusually tight figures to argue about on the news, so I guess we're stuck with this crap.

On a side note, I'm seeing the Arcade Fire tomorrow, and you're not. I had decided that Hillary was f'ing crazy before they announced the shows, though (and the nice black man doesn't seem too bad).

As for the next President? I think the smart money's on Bush again. He's definitely ballsy enough to insist on sticking around, and really, who's going to stop him if he wants to stay? It's not like he's been listening to anyone else so far. If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, there's a very good chance that we'll just be thankful to take anyone else we can get (I know I'm likely to vote McCain against her, and I'm told I'm not alone).

[murlough23]

As for the next President? I think the smart money's on Bush again. He's definitely ballsy enough to insist on sticking around, and really, who's going to stop him if he wants to stay? It's not like he's been listening to anyone else so far. If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, there's a very good chance that we'll just be thankful to take anyone else we can get (I know I'm likely to vote McCain against her, and I'm told I'm not alone).

I'm with you in the "anyone but Hillary" camp. What I can't decide is McCain versus Obama.

[leinad]

It looks like CBS news and Hillary herself really jumped the gun on Indiana.  If Obama manages to actually win the state, this will serve as a cautionary tale for November.  Not that it matters at this point who actually wins a close state.  Any close finish helps Obama.

[danny316]

Not that it matters at this point who actually wins a close state.  Any close finish helps Obama.

Assuming the numbers haven't changed since I last checked, North Carolina disproves what you just said. A big win is better than a close finish.

[Josh]

Obama's the nominee. Game on.

[latinchic]

Okay, this is not a poll about who you favor, just your prediction.

Obamarama

[leinad]

Assuming the numbers haven't changed since I last checked, North Carolina disproves what you just said. A big win is better than a close finish.

What I meant was that if a state is close, Obama is the one who benefits (whether he finishes on top or not), since it means Hillary has failed to make up ground.  Now, if it were winner-take-all by state, as in the general election, it would still be really interesting.  But I agree, Obama has to be the nominee now.  I was reading a blog of a Hillary supporter who was optimistic yesterday, but today concedes it's over (and he feels McCain is certain to defeat Obama.)

[leinad]

This just dawned on me: How will the moderator address McCain and Obama during the debates? Last time it was "Senator" and "Mr. President", and the previous time it was "Governor" and "Mr. Vice-President". Presumably it will just be "Senator McCain" and "Senator Obama".

I participated in a message board once in which John McCain (or an impersonator) was a registered user, and in response to other posters calling him "Senator", he said "just call me John".

[Josh]

Maybe they'll go with "Mr. President-elect" and "Hey old guy."

[Aaron]

Maybe they'll go with "Mr. President-elect" and "Hey old guy."

this assuming that obama will actually win.

[Josh]

this assuming that obama will actually win.

That's an assumption I'm pretty comfortable making at this point. For Obama, the hard part's over.

[latinchic]

Maybe they'll go with "Mr. President-elect" and "Hey old guy."

lol!  I actually think he'd like to be called 'old guy'. 

[murlough23]

Barack Obama got me out of jury duty early today, so if he didn't have my vote before, I guess that seals it!

[leinad]

One poll shows Obama 15 points ahead of McCain, another shows them tied. I wonder if this race will go down to the wire (i.e. on Election day the outcome is still very uncertain, as it was in 2000 and 2004.) In fact, there is still controversy over who actually won both of those elections.

[murlough23]

One poll shows Obama 15 points ahead of McCain, another shows them tied. I wonder if this race will go down to the wire (i.e. on Election day the outcome is still very uncertain, as it was in 2000 and 2004.) In fact, there is still controversy over who actually won both of those elections.

I don't remember the 2004 outcome being controversial. Sure, close to half the country was pissed that Bush won, but that was because they didn't like Bush, not because the race was mathematically close enough for the results to be dubious.

[Josh]

I think it will be the widest margin since... well, at least 1996. I do not think it will be close.

[danny316]

I don't remember the 2004 outcome being controversial. Sure, close to half the country was pissed that Bush won, but that was because they didn't like Bush, not because the race was mathematically close enough for the results to be dubious.

There were inconsistencies that can be worried about, but it was hard to tell how they added up and most of them took so long to come to light that they didn't get any real media coverage.

...the more likely explanation is that most Americans were either unaware of what Bush's policies were doing, or just fricken' crazy.

I don't see how the Democrats will find a way to lose this one, though. I think that "no really, there are people crazy enough to want to elect Hillary" bullshit was the best they could manage. In any case, I'm not actually afraid of McCain - I'm an Obama supporter, but I think it's clear that we'll be seeing some of Bush's crazier ideas disappear next year no matter who wins.

Josh is probably right about this not being close.

[Vlad!]

I think there was controversy over voting machine rigging in both the 00 and 04 elections, but my apathy towards politics keeps me from verifying any of that or remembering back to when it was current.

[leinad]

Yes, in fact my grandmother's former pastor did an investigation and was very vocal in his conclusion that the Ohio voting machines were rigged and that Kerry actually won the state (which would have put him over the top in the electoral vote.)

[danny316]

I don't see how the Democrats will find a way to lose this one, though. I think that "no really, there are people crazy enough to want to elect Hillary" bullshit was the best they could manage.

Has anyone else heard this crap about Obama encouraging his grassroots supporters to help pay down the crazy white millionaire's debt? They are really trying to lose this one.

We have really funny laws in this country - if Hillary ran the same campaign in Europe, it'd be a competition to see what she'd be in jail for longer - the dubious donations and debts, or the blatant hate speech. Here, the poor black guy is forced to tell ordinary people to pay an exploitive and bigoted millionaire, and people act like it's no big deal.

I really want to see the bigot fry, but I keep forgetting that that's not how our justice system works. It feels like running to the right of Hitler should be a crime, but enough spineless democrats actually want to keep all of Bush's worst policies and add in some eugenic abortion. "Party unity" is code for giving in to some of the most repulsive bigots on the left, so why do they keep telling us that this is a good thing?

[Josh]

Wow, Danny-- that was really angry.

I don't think anyone is forcing Obama to pay HRC's debts; he's doing it because he's a nice, decent sort of guy. He's graciously-- mercifully-- helping someone out. There's nothing wrong with that-- it's called being a good neighbor.

[murlough23]

Wow, Danny-- that was really angry.

I think he's worried nobody will respond if his comments aren't inflammatory enough.

I don't think anyone is forcing Obama to pay HRC's debts; he's doing it because he's a nice, decent sort of guy. He's graciously-- mercifully-- helping someone out. There's nothing wrong with that-- it's called being a good neighbor.

Agreed. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean it's your responsibility to do it. It would be nice for our country to not be in so much debt. I'm cool with that concept.

I know some folks are bitching and moaning about how Obama's gonna drag us into socialism, but personally, I can do without a little spare change if it means someone less fortunate gets a slightly better outcome. I suppose that's the classic Republican/Democrat argument when it comes to taxes and economic reform, though.

[danny316]

I think he's worried nobody will respond if his comments aren't inflammatory enough.

It took me over a month to even notice you responded - I think that speaks for itself. I don't troll. If I really just wanted to see a response, I'd be clear about it like I was in the "All the cool Christians..." thread.

I sound angry about this because I really am angry about it. It's also only getting worse - the dems are now saying that they'll hold a real roll-call vote at the convention, and lots of people are afraid that Hillary's going to steal the nomination there. With this sort of stupidity going on, it does look like they're trying to lose - and c'mon, this should be an easy year for them to win (then again, how'd they manage to screw up 2004, anyway?).

Agreed. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean it's your responsibility to do it. It would be nice for our country to not be in so much debt. I'm cool with that concept.

It's not really about the country's debt, though (and try as they may, no President's going to fix that in the next four years anyway). This is about Hillary - a crazy rich lady with millions of dollars of her own - trying to finance her disgusting campaign by taking yet more money from the American people. She openly brags about children who've been conned into selling their favorite toys to raise money for her - she's in cartoon villain territory at this point, and we're still hearing democrats say good things about her for the sake of "party unity".

She should be forced to pay for it herself, and I do seriously think less of Obama for helping her like this. It's not nice to help a rich person take more cash from little old ladies...

I know some folks are bitching and moaning about how Obama's gonna drag us into socialism, but personally, I can do without a little spare change if it means someone less fortunate gets a slightly better outcome.

Obama's platform isn't even remotely socialist, though. I know that there are two ways to read his flip-flopping away from his earlier, more leftist views, but I see it as a pragmatic "that's what we want in the long term, but for now we have other problems to fix that most of us can agree on" thing (the other reading that I'm sure Republicans are espousing is that he's lying now to sneak in systems he's previously said he'd like).

I suppose that's the classic Republican/Democrat argument when it comes to taxes and economic reform, though.

Realistically, if you get a chart of the past five administration's records on the economy, national debt, taxes, etc,  the keep-your-money fiscal-conservative party turns out to not be what the conventional wisdom would indicate.

...of course, I think it's safe to say that Republican congressional pressure on Clinton probably pushed him over the top on that front, but the fact remains that he ended up being far better on those issues than Reagan or either Bush. There's simply no credibility to the economic or small-government parts of the Republican platform now, and that's why there's Ron Paul and all those libertarians that are trying to really pursue those issues now.

If Hillary does manage to steal the nomination at the convention, I know I'll vote libertarian. I'm one of those rare lefties who's not afraid of letting McCain win, and he'd certainly do more to correct the past 8 years that Hillary would.

[leinad]

This is one of the reasons I had been hoping it would end with a compromise candidate. Some people (perhaps including on the phorum) who had been inclined to support Obama, but weren't quite sure, are going to find out about this and their decision will be made against him.

[bloop]

WorldNetDaily is where I always turn for unbiased journalism.   

[murlough23]

This is one of the reasons I had been hoping it would end with a compromise candidate. Some people (perhaps including on the phorum) who had been inclined to support Obama, but weren't quite sure, are going to find out about this and their decision will be made against him.

It won't be a major factor in my decision. Frankly, I'm quite sick of abortion and gay marriage being the only things that matter to most of the other Christians I talk to. I care a lot more about education, health care reform, the environment, and ending this dumbass war. You can call me a selfish homo-sympathizing baby killer for it if you like, but I really don't care.

That said, my decision has not yet been made.