|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Political Prognostication | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5501 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
this country is on a dangerous trend. to many Americans have strong opposing views, anda nation divided cannot stand. This is nothing new and has always been the case--people will always have strong views on the role of government in a society. Washington's election was just as contentious as it is today. A lot of voters did not like the idea of Washington serving as the Supreme Commander; he was thought of as someone having too much influence with the Continental Army. There was a lot of mud and dirt flying back then too. Even though the constitution prohibits active miltary from serving as President, people were actually worried about a possible military state under Washington.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/523622.html
This shows electability in the west, an element that can improve the overall electability.
quote: This is the issue that superdelegates will look at. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
If it comes down to Moderate vs Liberal, the Moderate will always win. That may be true; it's hard to say since we haven't had an election between a moderate and a liberal in the US Presidential elections in the last 30 years. Our previous Republican presidents have all proudly claimed to be conservatives, while sticking the mainly moderate Democrat candidates with the label "liberal". So it may be that a conservative will always win against someone perceived as a liberal. It's kind of hard to say, since the stated policy goals of the Democrat "liberal" candidates have always been closer to the American mainstream than that of the Republican conservatives. My guess is that the winner will be the one whose swagger causes the bigger boners in the pants of the good ol' boys. Edited by Chiroptera, : i before e except after c. ...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Obama is unelectable by the middle of the electorate. Why? From the OP:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
This shows electability in the west, an element that can improve the overall electability. Among Democrats in the west, yes. It says nothing about electability in a general election, where I predict Obama will be unable to prevail. I would think the Super-delegates would see this as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
There was a lot of mud and dirt flying back then too. Heh. People don't realize how important the election of 1800 was, when the government changed hands from the Federalists to the Democratic-Republicans. The two factions despised each other, and the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which allowed them to jail Democratic-Republican newspaper editors for disparaging the Federalist President. Yet, the Democratic-Republicans were able to take the government without resorting to a coup, and the Federalists relinquised power, again without attempting a coup. ...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5501 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
\That may be true; it's hard to say since we haven't had an election between a moderate and a liberal in the US Presidential elections in the last 30 years. Our previous Republican presidents have all proudly claimed to be conservatives, while sticking the mainly moderate Democrat candidates with the label "liberal". So it may be that a conservative will always win against someone perceived as a liberal. It's kind of hard to say, since the stated policy goals of the Democrat "liberal" candidates have always been closer to the American mainstream than that of the Republican conservatives. My guess is that the winner will be the one whose swagger causes the bigger boners in the pants of the good ol' boys. IMO very few people are true Conservative or Liberals across the board. Take for instance Huckabee -- he is obviously a social conservative but his Fiscal policy and actions as Arkansas governor would be considered very Liberal by the current Conservative status quo. Bush also pushed a Conservative social agenda but his administration has spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse. Clinton was a social liberal put his foreign policy was quite Conservative. Liberal and Conservative have simply become catch-phrases for someones social attitudes rather than true political preferences. We have become a nation of one-issue voters and these issues prevent people from looking at the big picture. When someone hears Liberal or Conservative they don't think of Fiscal and Foreign affairs, Budget, Taxation, or the Military - they immediately think of someone's stance on abortion or gay rights. In this election, Social Conservatives will grudgingly vote for the McCain GOP ticket simply because they understand that failing to do so increases the chances that Obama/Hillary are in the WH. IMO, the success of the DNC in this election depends on having Obama and Hillary on the DNC ticket. It is very possible they are going to drag each other through the mud to the point the DNC Convention turns into a WWF smack down. It might very well divide the Obama and Clinton camps to the point their supporters do not want to see the other take the WH out of spite. Without a Hillary/Obama ticket, it could spell trouble if the supporters of the loser are so ticked off they are no-shows on election day. Also, if the mud slinging gets bad enough, the loser might very well say 'no-thanks' to a VP offer.The DNC ticket can implode very quicklky if they are not carefull. For me, it's another case of having to pick from the lesser of two evils. Slim pickings again. I really am not enthralled with any of the prospects this time around, either DNC or GOP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Liberal and Conservative have simply become catch-phrases for someones social attitudes rather than true political preferences. So, then your claim that a Moderate will always beat a Liberal seems a bit empty, unless you're talking about the perceptions that AZPaul brought up in his OP. Which is my point as well, although I believe that there is a little more substance underneath the labels "conservative" and "liberal" than you apparently do. ...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5501 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
Among Democrats in the west, yes. It says nothing about electability in a general election, where I predict Obama will be unable to prevail. I would think the Super-delegates would see this as well. Aggreed - with the exception of the West Coast, the DNC knows the primary in these western Conservative-leaning states is simply academic. Neither Obama or Hillary are electable in Wyoming. Wyoming has cowboys, ranches, cowboys, ranches, oil wells, and a lot of empty space in between the ranches. Hillary or Obama has an ice cube's chance in hell of getting elected in any state where the majority of citizens are cowboys and ranchers. The DNC could care less about Wyoming or Montana. After the primary, the state is worthless for the DNC - both in Presidential delegate counts and possible victory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Hello, nice avatar and interesting analysis. While I agree with much of what you said, I disagreed with the strength of your objection (or perhaps calculation is the better word) regarding Obama.
Your argument regarding his viability in a general election, particularly due to racial issues, is an assertion. Black candidates have found footing at previously unheard of elected positions all over the country. More importantly, blacks have now served at essentially the second highest non-elected office in our nation: secretary of state. Even good ol' boy conservatives considered Powell a potential VP, and more moderate conservatives potential Presidential material. I think race has disappeared as an issue to a large degree, particularly for charismatic/powerful/famous people seeking or within prominent positions. And I think that has little to do with intentionally putting aside prejudice. Its just that familiarity removes that issue, and charisma/power/fame breeds familiarity. They wouldn't have gotten into the possibility of obtaining a prominent position without having previously removed themselves from the "out group" category. While there certainly may remain sections of the US which would not want a black person as president, I don't think a solid case has been made that it would be big enough to effect a general election. As change is a big theme, promoted by both parties, Obama is the only symbol of true change... and that's without addressing race. Clinton, as she campaigns, already admits to having been in the White House. Her arguments seem to be more about projecting back to the past. And if she does win Bill will be back in power. If she were to dispute this then I'd have to ask how she can claim to have been in power while Bill was president? It is really same old same old with her, and even if competent she has fumbled the ball enough to lose some dems and independents, as well as having overt negative effects on reps in general. McCain, though sometimes a maverick, is largely a part of the system that has been working for some time. He might siphon some independent votes from Hillary, but not so likely from Obama. I doubt he'll pull in dems. Obama has been attracting members from all parties. I was astounded to learn a march in step/born and raised republican I knew is considering voting for Obama. I know its anecdotal, but I've been hearing similar stories and it is something I have not heard for either Hillary or McCain, where their appeal is generally limited to traditional party affiliation. So I guess this is to say, I think a Hillary McCain battle will be the same old election scheme, with the general election turning on basic base party affiliation turnout . An Obama McCain battle would involve more of a shakeup, with the potential for greater crossing of lines (and I believe more from rep to dem, as well as ind to dem). Personally, I would vote for Obama over McCain, but I might consider Nader over Hillary. Edited by Silent H, : lil fixes h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5501 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
So, then your claim that a Moderate will always beat a Liberal seems a bit empty, unless you're talking about the perceptions that AZPaul brought up in his OP. Which is my point as well, although I believe that there is a little more substance underneath the labels "conservative" and "liberal" than you apparently do. Yes, I am talking about perceptions. If the perception is Moderate vs Conservative or Moderate vs Liberal the Conservative stands the better chance. I honestly don't believe there is more substance under the labels to most voters. For most, Liberal or Conservative simply means 'Whats your stance on abortion or gay rights?' Most will have no idea what a fiscal Conservative is or what the nature of a Liberal domestic policy is. They simply have decided one of the Labels means the candidate is 'bad' based because they have defined thes labels based on how they answer the types of questions above. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
While there certainly may remain sections of the US which would not want a black person as president, I don't think a solid case has been made that it would be big enough to effect a general election. There is no doubt in my mind that a black can be elected to be president. I think you are right that a majority of the electorate could support a qualified, intelligent black for president. It would be a substantial sea change for them to so vote but I agree such is a good political possibility these days. And Obama has all the attributes for such a post. Now add the "moslem" label. Unfair as it is, he is being so labeled. In this country, in this time, with this central electorate, "black moslem" presents too much of a change. The moderate middle-class majority will not go there given the state of world affairs today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5501 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
There is no doubt in my mind that a black can be elected to be president. I think you are right that a majority of the electorate could support a qualified, intelligent black for president. It would be a substantial sea change for them to so vote but I agree such is a good political possibility these days. And Obama has all the attributes for such a post. Now add the "moslem" label. Unfair as it is, he is being so labeled. In this country, in this time, with this central electorate, "black moslem" presents too much of a change. The moderate middle-class majority will not go there given the state of world affairs today. A point the GOP definately will attempt to use to it's advantage come election time. Forget about McCain's call for civility - the campaign will no doubt use every clandestine opportunity to freak people out with his middle name and try to dig up more photos of him in Muslim garb.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Grizz writes:
The question is should they even care about the least populous state in the union?
Neither Obama or Hillary are electable in Wyoming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5501 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
The question is should they even care about the least populous state in the union? Basically, no. Democrats are simply not electable there - Montana as well. Very laid back state but many of the people hate Democrats and hate Liberals even worse. A lot of it has to do with Wildlife management and environmental issues. Ranchers hate the re-introduction of wolves and there is a big flap over snowmobiling in Yellowstone and the national parks. On a side not, I do a lot of skiing, cycling, mountain hiking, camping, bear/wolf watching in WY. Beautifull state indeed. It's interesting to note that 98% of the people in Wyoming at any given time are there to see Yellowstone or are using I-90 to get somehwere else. I have had to stop alongside the road a few times after missing the road sign -"200 miles until the next service stop."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024