The next presidential election

[Daerath]

Based on the negative sentiment towards the current administration, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the price of oil, the numerous issues at home, stem cell research, and the usual topics (health care, abortion, gun control), the inclusion of former candidates, plus the introduction of two "new" types of candidates (a woman and a black man) who here thinks that the next election is going to be nothing less than a complete circus?

[Vinen]

Yes, esp. if Obama runs.

[kedwyn]

Yes its going to be a circus and what is funny is people actually think there is a difference between the two parties. There isn't. Nothing radical is going to change in the next 10 years until our until financial system is about ready to collapse from Social Security / Medicare issues and only then will something happen. Most likely a huge shit burger everyone will have to take a bite and swallow.

[Millie]

No offense, but has there ever been a presidential election that wasn't a media circus? There's always an intense media feeding frenzy leading up to presidential elections. You may want to narrow the scope of your question a little bit, or at least define what you mean by "media circus." :P

[Khorum]

Well, it'll definitely be popcorn-worthy when we start seeing CNN crews visit the fucking MADRASAS that Barak HUSSEIN Obama attended as he was being indoctrinated for his ultimate secret mission.

[Vorph]

The cover of Newsweek with Obama and Hillary on it should have just read, "Grats Republicans on four more years!"

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Vorph

The cover of Newsweek with Obama and Hillary on it should have just read, "Grats Republicans on four more years!"

If a slim majority of the GOP is smart enough to nominate McCain or Giuliani, it's pretty much a done deal. If not . . . not so much.

[Daerath]

Originally Posted by Millie

No offense, but has there ever been a presidential election that wasn't a media circus? There's always an intense media feeding frenzy leading up to presidential elections. You may want to narrow the scope of your question a little bit, or at least define what you mean by "media circus." :P

I thought about that, but I can't seem to alter the poll question. =P

[Daerath]

Originally Posted by Vorph

The cover of Newsweek with Obama and Hillary on it should have just read, "Grats Republicans on four more years!"

Of the two, the most likely occurrence is that Obama gets the VP ticket. I don't think the majority would reject the idea of having a black man as Vice President. It's still a big gamble especially considering that Obama is young both in age and in political experience.

IMO, Hillary as President or Vice President would mean a Republican victory.

If Obama gets the presidential ticket it'll be because the other democratic party candidates are so weak that they'll risk the election on what amounts to a huge gamble.

[Sarvius]

Originally Posted by Daerath

If Obama gets the presidential ticket it'll be because the other democratic party candidates are so weak that they'll risk the election on what amounts to a huge gamble.

Both Obama and Hillary are supported so strongly by democrats (over 80% approval rating for both of them, the last poll I saw) that it would be a miracle if they didn't get the presidential bid. I think people are overestimating the amount of racism in the parts of the country that really matter. Florida is going to carry either of those, as will the midwest. The south will vote hard against them, but the south always votes hard republican anyways, so it really shouldn't matter much.

If anything, it should be a motivator for minority voting.

[Khorum]

*groan* is it just selective revisionism or do people GENUINELY discard the lessons from 2000 and 2004?!?

It's not about Clinton, or Obama or McCain or anyone else.... 2008 will be decided by ONE man and ONE man only, the same man who decided it in 2000 and 2004: Ralph Nader.

If Al Gore decides to wreak his divinely-anointed vengeance on the Democratic party, he'd run on Nader's ticket, and we'd have the luxury of living under an entire generation of Republican rule.

[Daerath]

Originally Posted by Sarvius

Both Obama and Hillary are supported so strongly by democrats (over 80% approval rating for both of them, the last poll I saw) that it would be a miracle if they didn't get the presidential bid. I think people are overestimating the amount of racism in the parts of the country that really matter. Florida is going to carry either of those, as will the midwest. The south will vote hard against them, but the south always votes hard republican anyways, so it really shouldn't matter much.

If anything, it should be a motivator for minority voting.

Voting really has nothing to do with motivating people to vote. People who won't go out and vote aren't going to suddenly head to the ballot box because a candidate looks a certain way or makes certain promises. If it were really that simple we would have nothing but Libertarian presidents elected by drug addicts because of promises to legalize all drugs and to lower the minimum drinking age to 18.

Each election has a slight fluctuation in the number of people voting. If you usually take the time to vote, you'll still go out and vote. Some will skip the election and some will cast a ballot for a change.

What matters is whether or not the voting population has a racially biased view. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think that this election is really one where the democrats won't have to try very hard to win, but they can lose it very easily if they try and go with a publicity stunt as their candidate.

[Avellon]

So speaking of running, with Clinton planning to run in 08, what would her husband be called if she won? First-man? First-lord? First-bitch?

[Vorph]

Originally Posted by Sarvius

Both Obama and Hillary are supported so strongly by democrats (over 80% approval rating for both of them, the last poll I saw) that it would be a miracle if they didn't get the presidential bid. I think people are overestimating the amount of racism in the parts of the country that really matter. Florida is going to carry either of those, as will the midwest. The south will vote hard against them, but the south always votes hard republican anyways, so it really shouldn't matter much.

If anything, it should be a motivator for minority voting.

I think you're underestimating the anythingnotwhitemale-ism in every part of the country. There's a huge difference between what people say in public or claim to believe, and what they will do once they are all alone in a voting booth. I know I'm about as cynical as you can possibly get, but I don't think I'm wrong in this case.

Me, I'll be throwing away my vote to the Libertarians as usual. Might have to switch my registration from Republican to Democrat just so I can vote against Hillary though, not that voting against her for Senate ever did any good.

[Vinen]

Originally Posted by Vorph

I think you're underestimating the anythingnotwhitemale-ism in every part of the country. There's a huge difference between what people say in public or claim to believe, and what they will do once they are all alone in a voting booth. I know I'm about as cynical as you can possibly get, but I don't think I'm wrong in this case.

Me, I'll be throwing away my vote to the Libertarians as usual. Might have to switch my registration from Republican to Democrat just so I can vote against Hillary though, not that voting against her for Senate ever did any good.

Same...