Obama and Clinton look soo good together

Zygoptera on 28/6/2008 at 06:31

Quote Posted by Stitch

Problem is you're using meaningless data (who won what primaries)

Well yeah, apart from it being the only available, proven, accurate, relevant data, and it determining who won the nomination it's completely meaningless. I know it's inconvenient that she won most of the presidential importance class primaries and was more popular in the presidentially important voter blocks, but it's hardly irrelevant.

It's certainly a better measure than phone polling.

Quote:

..assuming that white and/or female Dems aren't already breaking for Obama

You'd hope so, considering the opposition is an uninspiring septuagenarian past his political prime and hamstrung by the combination of the lamest of lame duck presidents and near unconditional support for staying in Iraq.

If there's one thing likely to get them not voting for the Dems though it's an "oh, you'll all end up voting for us anyway" attitude.

Quote:

..assuming that the Hillary-or-nobody-else voters would actually climb on board if Hillary were given anything less than top slot.

Actually, I simply presume that the "Hillary-or-nothing" mob are roughly the same size and importance as the "if she's picked as VP I'm picking up my ball and going home" Obamaphiles, ie overrepresented in overwrought internet oratory as opposed to their actual overall impact.

In any case, I'm not advocating Hillary for VP as I don't even get a say in it, and yes there are perfectly decent arguments against her. Perhaps it's because we have a proportional voting system here, but it isn't uncommon to have politicians who have spent years publicly slagging each other off ending up working together, usually fine. The main problem I have is saying that she doesn't bring anything to the table, when it's patently obvious that she does. The white working class vote has been key to electing every president of the past thirty years because they do swing vote, they voted in Ronnie, George HW, Billy C and even George W and there's no argument that Hillary appeals more to them than Barack does. Sad as it may be Obama pulling in black votes in Alabama or even young voters in Washington state is unimportant compared to Hillary pulling in voters in Pennsylvania because, frankly, your anachronistic voting system means that if those Baracknic votes matter you've already near Mondale/ Reagan class whitewashing.

The_Raven on 28/6/2008 at 14:43

Now I'm probably wrong about this, but I vaguely remember Hilary Clinton rubbing shoulders with Jack Thompson over the whole Hot Coffee thing. Not exactly what I'd call good company, but I'm very ignorant about political matters anyway.

Stitch on 28/6/2008 at 15:12

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

Of course it is. Predicting general election state results from party-specific primaries held six months earlier is an idiot's game.

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

If there's one thing likely to get them not voting for the Dems though it's an "oh, you'll all end up voting for us anyway" attitude.

Agreed. Obama has to be as welcoming and respectful as possible.

Which he has been, which is why this is largely going to be a non-issue. Hell, it already is.

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

That betrays a pretty severe misunderstanding of Obama's rise and recent Democratic Party history in regards to Clintonism. Obama represents a complete rejection of the Clinton manner of assuming and keeping power, and his immense surging popularity is due to independent and young belief in his message of true change. Slapping Clinton on the ticket would be an unholy unity that completely nerfs his power.

And hers, for that matter.

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

The white working class vote has been key to electing every president of the past thirty years because they do swing vote, they voted in Ronnie, George HW, Billy C and even George W and there's no argument that Hillary appeals more to them than Barack does.

Obama doesn't have a "white working class" vote problem, so that's irrelevant.

Thief13x on 29/6/2008 at 18:53

Quote Posted by elkston

That's fine. Stay on the sideline as the CHANGE EXPRESS passes you by. :cheeky:

if by "CHANGE" you mean the only thing left in your pocket! (Thanks Cunningham! lol)

seriously, I am absolutly floored at Obama's proposed tax hikes aimed at 250k+ (anyone know if small businesses are exempt?). Sure they spent half their lives in school and now they're rich, but can't we be a LITTLE more subtle about the redistribution of wealth?

just a really sensitive issue to me, now that I'm watching 1/3 of my summer intern earnings dissapear as I scrounge to pay the rent and utilities for 2 apartments.

P.S. imo if you want to narrow the gap between the rich and poor, STOP SHIPPING ALL OUR FUCKING JOBS OVERSEAS! good for the economy, good for tax revenue, etc

the_grip on 29/6/2008 at 19:21

Hillary as a VP would undermine every good thing in Obama's campaign. She is so 100% opposite of him that i would refuse to vote at all if it comes to pass. Sure, i'm just one vote... but still.

Quite honestly, i'd rather see McCain win than Hillary win as a VP. Obama with somebody else, please.

BEAR on 30/6/2008 at 00:52

Quote Posted by the_grip

Can you please offer some proof that you exist? I keep hearing similar sentiments from Hillary supporters that claim they would vote for McCain over Obama, but I just cant bring myself to believe that people so stupid could exist.

Are you familiar with what a VP does? You realize that she wouldn't be dictating the direction of the president right? I don't think he'll pick her, and I'm not sure I would care if she were VP, but her experience and support could no doubt help Obama in accomplishing what HE wants to.

So yeah, pictures, blood samples, whatever would work just fine. Anything to prove you aren't just a republican tool (then again you could be without knowing, like most tools).

Ghostly Apparition on 30/6/2008 at 02:37

Quote Posted by Thief13x

You make over 250k as a summer intern? Because thats how you're making it sound.
Redistribution of wealth? You mean like the multibillionaires paying 15% or less on their income while the rest of us pay 35% or more?
The republicans are the ones responsible for shipping jobs overseas. little thing called cheap labor over there, increases the corporate profits you see.
(http://www.columbustelegram.com/articles/2008/06/25/news/local/doc48612783b91dd517052248.txt)

From the link you can see how the CEO's are suffering and need to make more money.

So I can see how taxing the filthy rich would bother you, its so unfair!

Thief13x on 30/6/2008 at 02:54

I noticed your hasty republican assumption in there ghostly but I'm voting for neither them or the dems and have affiliated myself with moderates since i've been in college. No I don't make 250k+ interning (very flattering assumption though) but apparently I am being taxed almost like I am.

I don't know anything about multibillionairs (neither does Obama apparently) but I do know that 250k+ is gonna get hit 40% when he's elected. Why cry about those "filthy rich CEO's?" well, I've worked for 2 small family-owned restaraunts which both have gone out of business and both reported annual earnings of 250-350k. So...GO GET THOSE FILTHY CEO's, eh ghostly?

Otherwise, who gives a shit...take those bastard's money and give us some! I aint gonna spend a decade in school!:nono: (recognizing, of course, that some don't have to, such as Al Gore)

Epos Nix on 30/6/2008 at 04:43

Quote:

Are you familiar with what a VP does? You realize that she wouldn't be dictating the direction of the president right?

Unless of course something happened to the president during his term and she were forced to take office.

Now I'm not one to cast stones, but given (http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-body.html) odd circumstances surrounding the Clintons, something tells me Obama would be best choosing someone other than Hillary. And I very much hope he does.

BEAR on 30/6/2008 at 04:48

Quote Posted by Thief13x

God you are just all kinds of awful.