Clinton and Obama - Page 15

Soriak · 02-01-2008, 02:47 PM

I think it's fair to say either would make a good president... far more important imo than who of the two becomes President (I'm fairly certain a Democrat will win this time) would be for the Democrats to also extend their majority in Congress. One seat is nothing, considering not all senators follow the party line.

chaos · 02-01-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soriak

I think it's fair to say either would make a good president... far more important imo than who of the two becomes President (I'm fairly certain a Democrat will win this time) would be for the Democrats to also extend their majority in Congress. One seat is nothing, considering not all senators follow the party line.

The big talk on CNN all day has been the possibility of a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket, and how furiously that would destroy the hearts and minds of Democrats.

Before this I was thinking that Clinton/Edwards would be the ticket, and it would be a good ticket. But Clinton/Obama... holy fucking jesus, talk about polarizing. I bet they'd win handily against McCain or Romney.

Kaio · 02-01-2008, 02:53 PM

I only put the two together because the administration suggested it. I'm well aware that Saddam and Al Qaeda were at odds with each other for a long time. If there 9/11 didn't happen we wouldn't have been in Iraq even if it had nothing to do with it.

Suicide bombings have increased massively since our intervention and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorism and militants started sprawling up everywhere. Back in 2003 before we invaded I don't recall their being militants/terrorists going around blowing up shit in Iraq. I don't see how can say that our going there hasn't changed it and made it a terrorist breeding ground. We've killed tens of thousands of these guys and the military really can't do anything about it.

The only thing that seems to be succeeding is paying these guys off not to fight us. That isn't a military victory. One day we are gonna have to stop paying these people off.

Obviously like you said the military achieved their initial victory but that is hardly a surprise... What's the point of having the world's most powerful military if you can't depose some puny low-tech arab country that's been neutered by UN inspectors.

Kaio · 02-01-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soriak

I think it's fair to say either would make a good president... far more important imo than who of the two becomes President (I'm fairly certain a Democrat will win this time) would be for the Democrats to also extend their majority in Congress. One seat is nothing, considering not all senators follow the party line.

I have two problems with this... Most of the board liked the Clinton administration and they had to fight a republican congress the entire time. It's good to limit the power of the president. Bush had carte blanche to do anything he wanted for at least 6 years and look at all the disastrous change he brought about.

Secondly, Nader may run this time and he just may siphon a few critical points away from the democratic candidate.

Edit: I want to stop spamming this board so i'm gonna just make another addition with this edit:
YouTube - Coulter: I'll campaign for Hillary if McCain is the nominee
That's right Ann Coulter will vote for and campaign for Hillary Clinton if Mccain wins.

I'm Rich Bitch · 02-01-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaio

Secondly, Nader may run this time and he just may siphon a few critical points away from the democratic candidate.

You are kidding right? Nader will have no impact on anything.

Kaio · 02-01-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

You are kidding right? Nader will have no impact on anything.

Clarify please, most of his voters would usually vote liberal/democrat. For example back in the 2000 election Nader voters were waiting to see some results before voting for him so Gore didn't lose. Early on it did look like Gore was winning and Nader did garner a few percent. The margin between Gore and Bush was far less.

Even in 2004 the race was very tight, we are somehow 50/50 repubs vs. dems. Any third party siphoning any votes will usually effect the outcome.

chaos · 02-01-2008, 04:13 PM

In a McCain/Clinton race, Nader could be a real factor but it's doubtful. In an Obama/Anyone race, I don't see him as a huge variable. In a Clinton/Romney or Clinton/Huckabee(lawl) race, Nader becomes a huge factor.

mek · 02-01-2008, 04:21 PM

What kind of douchebags would still vote for Nader? The guy just shuffles onstage every 4 years demanding votes for no apparent reason.

Cybsled · 02-01-2008, 04:24 PM

No one gives a shit about him anymore.

IMO he's a double agent working for the Republicans.

Zhaun's_Shade · 02-01-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaio

YouTube - Coulter: I'll campaign for Hillary if McCain is the nominee
That's right Ann Coulter will vote for and campaign for Hillary Clinton if Mccain wins.

Holy shit, this is priceless.

I'm Rich Bitch · 02-01-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaio

Clarify please, most of his voters would usually vote liberal/democrat. For example back in the 2000 election Nader voters were waiting to see some results before voting for him so Gore didn't lose. Early on it did look like Gore was winning and Nader did garner a few percent. The margin between Gore and Bush was far less.

Even in 2004 the race was very tight, we are somehow 50/50 repubs vs. dems. Any third party siphoning any votes will usually effect the outcome.

This is not the year 2000 or 2004. Gore and Kerry are not a Clinton or Obama. Nadar is a non-factor.

chaos · 02-01-2008, 04:48 PM

So you think Clinton, without Obama on her ticket, would not be extremely dependant on the Dem base to win, and that it couldn't come down to a few points making the difference? Put Clinton against Romney and you come up with a very similar scenario to 2000.

mek · 02-01-2008, 05:45 PM

I think it's still anyone's election as the Democrats consistently underestimate their opponents. After Kerry lost 2004, there is NO SUCH THING as an easy win anymore.

Clinton and Obama are also VERY attackable, for obvious reasons. Swift Boat Veterans will be a fond memory when we're out of 2008.

Laerazi · 02-01-2008, 07:00 PM

If McCain wins I will /slitwrist.

Ancalagon · 02-01-2008, 07:06 PM

My take on realistic scenarios, from least likely to most likely:

-Obama v. Romney: I believe Obama wins; I personally would rather Obama.
-Clinton v. Romney: I believe Clinton wins; I personally would rather Romney.
-Obama v. Mccain: I believe Obama wins; I personally would rather Obama.
-Clinton v. Mccain: Holy fuck. Just, holy fuck.

02-01-2008, 04:24 PM	#219 (permalink)
Cybsled Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,262 +14 Internets	No one gives a shit about him anymore. IMO he's a double agent working for the Republicans. __________________ Training the citizens of Norrath from 1999-2003!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

02-01-2008, 02:47 PM	#211 (permalink)
Soriak Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Switzerland Posts: 4,754 +29 Internets	I think it's fair to say either would make a good president... far more important imo than who of the two becomes President (I'm fairly certain a Democrat will win this time) would be for the Democrats to also extend their majority in Congress. One seat is nothing, considering not all senators follow the party line.

02-01-2008, 02:53 PM	#213 (permalink)
Kaio Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,026 +5 Internets	I only put the two together because the administration suggested it. I'm well aware that Saddam and Al Qaeda were at odds with each other for a long time. If there 9/11 didn't happen we wouldn't have been in Iraq even if it had nothing to do with it. Suicide bombings have increased massively since our intervention and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorism and militants started sprawling up everywhere. Back in 2003 before we invaded I don't recall their being militants/terrorists going around blowing up shit in Iraq. I don't see how can say that our going there hasn't changed it and made it a terrorist breeding ground. We've killed tens of thousands of these guys and the military really can't do anything about it. The only thing that seems to be succeeding is paying these guys off not to fight us. That isn't a military victory. One day we are gonna have to stop paying these people off. Obviously like you said the military achieved their initial victory but that is hardly a surprise... What's the point of having the world's most powerful military if you can't depose some puny low-tech arab country that's been neutered by UN inspectors.

02-01-2008, 04:13 PM	#217 (permalink)
chaos Registered User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 4,368 +6 Internets	In a McCain/Clinton race, Nader could be a real factor but it's doubtful. In an Obama/Anyone race, I don't see him as a huge variable. In a Clinton/Romney or Clinton/Huckabee(lawl) race, Nader becomes a huge factor.

02-01-2008, 04:21 PM	#218 (permalink)
mek homosexual Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 1,297 -17 Internets	What kind of douchebags would still vote for Nader? The guy just shuffles onstage every 4 years demanding votes for no apparent reason.

02-01-2008, 04:48 PM	#222 (permalink)
chaos Registered User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 4,368 +6 Internets	So you think Clinton, without Obama on her ticket, would not be extremely dependant on the Dem base to win, and that it couldn't come down to a few points making the difference? Put Clinton against Romney and you come up with a very similar scenario to 2000.

02-01-2008, 05:45 PM	#223 (permalink)
mek homosexual Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 1,297 -17 Internets	I think it's still anyone's election as the Democrats consistently underestimate their opponents. After Kerry lost 2004, there is NO SUCH THING as an easy win anymore. Clinton and Obama are also VERY attackable, for obvious reasons. Swift Boat Veterans will be a fond memory when we're out of 2008.

02-01-2008, 07:00 PM	#224 (permalink)
Laerazi Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 1,249 -2 Internets	If McCain wins I will /slitwrist.

02-01-2008, 07:06 PM	#225 (permalink)
Ancalagon Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Syracuse, NY Posts: 578 +3 Internets	My take on realistic scenarios, from least likely to most likely: -Obama v. Romney: I believe Obama wins; I personally would rather Obama. -Clinton v. Romney: I believe Clinton wins; I personally would rather Romney. -Obama v. Mccain: I believe Obama wins; I personally would rather Obama. -Clinton v. Mccain: Holy fuck. Just, holy fuck.