2008-05-07, 18:33 | Link #421 |
~
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston
Age: 35
|
I was talking about the primaries, not the general election... But the primaries are over, so I'll talk about the general election now.
These are my predictions for the general election. The number next to each state and candidate indicate electoral college votes; 270 are needed to win. McCain: (274 total) Texas (34) Florida (27) Ohio (20) Georgia (15) North Carolina (15) Virginia (13) Indiana (11) Tennessee (11) Missouri (11) Arizona (10) Colorado (9) Alabama (9) Louisiana (9) South Carolina (8) Kentucky (8) Oklahoma (7) Mississippi (6) Arkansas (6) Kansas (6) Utah (5) Nevada (5) West Virginia (5) Nebraska (5) Idaho (4) Montana (3) South Dakota (3) Alaska (3) North Dakota (3) Wyoming (3) Obama: (264 total) California (55) New York (31) Illinois (21) Pennsylvania (21) Michigan (17) New Jersey (15) Massachusetts (12) Washington (11) Maryland (10) Wisconsin (10) Minnesota (10) Oregon (7) Connecticut (7) Iowa (7) New Mexico (5) Maine (4) New Hampshire (4) Hawaii (4) Rhode Island (4) Delaware (3) Vermont (3) Washingotn, D.C. (3) And I predict this outcome as someone who hopes Obama will win. : ( Last edited by Autumn Demon; 2008-05-07 at 19:55. |
2008-05-07, 21:43 | Link #422 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Also, New Hampshire will very likely go to McCain. No ifs/ands/buts about it. Quote:
2. If you look at the charts, not all red states stay red for Obama. He has a good chance of flipping a few. Quote:
|
|||
2008-05-07, 21:58 | Link #423 | |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-05-07, 22:15 | Link #424 |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Aw, come on If we were holding things like that against people then I'd say that I'm surprised that Hillary Clinton survived Bill Clinton's "sex scandal." I mean, Reverand Wright won't even be in the White House; we can't afford to have a First Man in the White House who has admitted to infidelity, now, can we?! (/sarcasm) And Bill Clinton was nearly impeached, now isn't that horrific? As much as George Bush deserves it (and Bill Clinton didn't, unless we want to be super-purists), has he fielded an impeachment? Impeachment is big stuff. Personally, I'm amazed that people made such a big issue over Wright, they seem to have forgotten Bill Clinton (both the good and bad aspects - I liked Bill Clinton, personally), and nobody is outraged over George Bush. Those priorities are really screwed.
__________________
|
2008-05-07, 23:47 | Link #425 | ||
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
Obama is on'y winning becuase of the way the democrates setup thier primary. If it was a Winner takes contest then Clinton would have won it. Quote:
Obama and Wright on the other hand is whole different animal altogether. Obama stay in that church and every sunday listen to wright preach. You can't tell me that over 20 years Obama isn't aware of wrights views. So it becomes this. If Obama did not agree with Wright why did he stay? if he did agree with it then he needs his head examine. If Obama was ok with what Wright has been preaching for 20 years why did Obama cut his ties with Wright now and not earlier? Is he cutting ties because he suddenly discover he didn't agree with Wright or becuase it becuase political non-convenient. if that is the case did Obama stay in Wright church for 29 years because it was political convenient. If that is the reason what makes Obama different form another political other then he is black?
__________________
|
||
2008-05-07, 23:51 | Link #426 |
Hina is my goddess
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Its easy, the media have nothing else to talk about on Obama. Its easy to forget everything with Bill Clinton, because it happen so long ago. Even if he was nearly impeached, the scandal was a personal matter. As for focusing on Bush, I expect to see a lot more on that when the pressure is on HRC to drop out and start pushing Obama as the candidate. Right now, there isn't much to talk about the republican side, and a lot of time after for it. Now is the time of the frenzy for the democrats so all the attention is on there, but it will shift soon enough.
True question is, how much damage does Clinton want to do before she finally wakes up and smells the s**t shes swimming in? She so worked up on labeling Obama as inexperienced and unelectable, shes making him unelectable. She so worked up on saying how she won two states that won't count. Period. They won't revote in time, and they won't let Clinton take the delegates when Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Even former presidential candidate and clinton supporter Magovern has jumped ship. If she drops out, lets Obama take the spot light, and tells her supporters that a Democrat in the white house is more important than individual victories, i think Obama will be a likely choice as the next president. Because she obviously no long has any chance, unless she wins 68% of the remaining votes, which wont happen. |
2008-05-07, 23:58 | Link #427 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
@Ledgem: Yes... we're surrounded by people who.... are "people who have lived on their land for generations... they have unchanging values... the salt of the earth.
You know. ... Morons. " (extra point given for reference)
__________________
|
2008-05-08, 00:12 | Link #428 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
And I fine it quite funny that Obama supporter already have reason why if Obama lose to McCain they will just blame Clinton. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that if Obama loses it is becuase McCain run a better campign ot Obama is flaw candidate. It is All Clinton's fault.
__________________
|
|
2008-05-08, 00:25 | Link #429 |
Hina is my goddess
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Its different when you take criticism from an opposition. When HRC is so determined to be in the race even when she has realistically no chance left, she would rather wear down in a long and pointless races that it will end with a much better chance for four more years of Bush with Bush jr. there then to admit defeat.
I don't believe in the galvanization argument at all. You don't turn away democrats over to Macain to toughen him up. The states that Obama needs more support in are the ones that Clinton holds. She throws some support Obama's way and hes clear right to the white house. Shes using lies and deceit and just about every other underhanded technique to make her look much better off than she is. Even if she somehow does win the primaries and the nomination, where the hell is she going to fund it? She not only got nothing left, but is now paying for it out of her own pocket. If Obama's campaign is flawed, then Clinton's is a swiss cheese raft. He beating her in every category that counts. Delegates, Popular votes, money raised, and states won. Her only strong point was super delegates, which he is catching up. How is she ever going to beat Macain if Obama isn't good enough, and is kicking her ass? Even if i don't agree with Clinton's political position, i would respect her for staying to the end of a tight race. The only problem is shes not anywhere near close with no time to make it up. |
2008-05-08, 00:31 | Link #430 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
I'd have actually voted for either one in the fall election but Obama isn't winning so much as Clinton is losing the race with gaffe after faux pas after inept foul-mouthed aide.
The primaries could easily have been hers to win but dual wielding pistols each carefully aimed at her own feet seems to have been their strategy at times.
__________________
|
2008-05-08, 00:52 | Link #431 | ||
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2008-05-08, 01:20 | Link #433 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
As a disclaimer, I don't personally give a damn about this next part that I'm about to write, but let me show you why it would theoretically matter a lot more than Reverand Wright. Because even if Obama is elected, Reverand Wright isn't going to be in the White House. But if Clinton is elected, her husband is going to be with her. While the First Man/First Lady position isn't recognized as being a position of major power, Bill Clinton is a former president which means that he'll probably have more influence than any other First Man/First Lady. Bill Clinton was not faithful to his wife and gave in to sexual lust. Come on, if you're out there claiming that Wright hates America and Obama's a terrorist, then surely you're security-minded enough that the idea of Bill Clinton being manipulated through sex must bother you, or that it could be used as a means of affecting Hillary Clinton? And what about their relationship - are the Clintons a stable family unit, or are there grudges and weaknesses? What happens if there's some sort of a divorce, that'll massively ruin Hillary's leadership abilites and may create a conflict of interest that could be a threat to national security! How horrific! Don't argue against any of that, because even if it were true I don't personally care or buy into it. It was made to show a point, and that is that people are being very selective about what matters to them (the media seems to be directing people's priorities). Does the fact that Obama broke ties with Wright now mean anything, or make him guilty? Not at all! I think he was forced to, as a political move, but otherwise he probably wouldn't have. And to be honest, unless Obama were repeating Wright's words and views, I don't think it would - or even should - matter. Tell me why it matters. Do you practice what you preach in this regard? You cut off any friends or disown your parents when they have a view that you don't disagree with? I highly doubt it. Yet somehow there are expectations for a presidential candidate to be some sort of saint (if you could even call that saintly). The president isn't a divine ruler, get that straight. The president is a person just like you and I are; the only difference is that they should ideally be a bit more upstanding in terms of morals and integrity than the average person. It's really a shame that politicians are accepted as being vile and somewhat corrupt... and then we see these unrealistic expectations for how they should be handling personal affairs.
__________________
|
|
2008-05-08, 02:03 | Link #434 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
The reason for the above is multifold. 1) Clinton will use the "nuclear option" and thus keep her promise. 2) It will not affect the results, therefore it will not harm the will of the people. 3) Obama will not do anything about it because he realizes they need to be seated somehow and at this point it won't matter. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Current polls is swing states: State (->Primary winner for D): Current head to head results Michigan (->Clinton) : Obama > McCain > Clinton Florida: (->Clinton): McCain > Clinton > Obama Penn: (->Clinton): Clinton > Obama > McCain Ohio: (->Clinton): Clinton > McCain > Obama Colorado: (-> Obama): Obama > McCain > Clinton Iowa: (-> Obama): Obama > McCain > Clinton New Mexico (-> Clinton): McCain > Clinton / Obama (Different sites disagree who does better against McCain) Texas (->Clinton): McCain > Obama > Clinton Missouri (->Obama): McCain > Clinton > Obama Virginia (->Obama): McCain > Obama > Clinton Nevada (->Clinton): Obama > McCain > Clinton Wisconsin (->Obama): Obama > McCain > Clinton Indiana (->Clinton): McCain > Obama > Clinton New Hampshire (->Clinton): McCain > Clinton > Obama Washington (->Obama): Obama > McCain > Clinton I have flagged a few patterns among the key swing states. Obama has a chance to hold some of the swing states he won and Clinton is also losing some of the swing states she won. Any argument along the lines of "Obama won in a red state and can't hold it in an election" is as false as "Clinton won in a red state and can hold it in an election". (Source on all of these is pollster.) Edit: Found the site I wanted earlier: http://www.270towin.com/ (Note: Their head to head charts are a little off in some places. ) Edit 2: Michigan has come up with a way to split the delegates. Last edited by bayoab; 2008-05-08 at 11:56. |
||||
2008-05-08, 22:32 | Link #435 |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
I've been pondering for quite some time just how much all this election talk means considering just what the president is responsible for.
Well, today one of the finer blogs on the internet asks the same question. I think it's a good read for any one who actually cares about government.
__________________
|
2008-05-08, 22:50 | Link #436 |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
That's a rather interesting article. I don't know how presidential races used to be, but I'd imagine that they didn't always expect that the president would have to act as an all-knowing entity. It's actually frightening when you come to realize the amount that people come to expect from the president compared to other arms of government. Is the government really attempting to gain more power for itself, or is it just conforming to the expectations of the people?
It's interesting to know a president's view on these matters, of course, because they have veto power. If a president wants abortion to be illegal then you can bet that they're going to try to veto any pro-choice bills that come out of the Congress, for example. Somewhere along the way the people get wrapped up in what the presidents say and seem to think that the president will be the one to write laws and put them into action. At that point, the president might as well be the monarch. The issues that the presidential candidates discuss and go over would really be better-suited to congressional candidates.
__________________
|
2008-05-08, 23:12 | Link #438 |
Hina is my goddess
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Because that would mean that Hilary's near victory is just as good as Barack's overwhelming 14 point victory, which doesn't represent the will of the people well. (i know that those two states probably have different amount of delegates, but my general idea stands)
I never liked the idea of winner takes all because all that means is that a certain candidate is like more in more areas than the other. What they don't show is how one could be overwhelmingly supported while the other barley scratched out a win. Happened in Ontario where one party won with a popular vote of 30%. Ended up being a disaster. |
2008-05-08, 23:53 | Link #439 | |
神聖カルル帝国の 皇帝
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Korea
Age: 37
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-05-08, 23:56 | Link #440 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
The view of a president as a near-monarch built for a long time when the president was really the face of government before media made information far more available, but the trend continued. It reached a new height lately after the Clintons had so much President-and-First-Lady-crafted-or-backed legislation (not that there's anything wrong with that) and has continued so that now it seems that anything that happens is a result of the "Bush Administration", whether or not it really is. I hate to point fingers between parties, but the Democrats as a whole are far worse on this than the Republicans (don't worry about partisanship from me--I think the Republicans have their own problems). From blaming Reagan for rising government spending when it was caused by the Democrat-controlled congress's spending-spree bills (which he protested and vetoed some of) to John Kerry actually having the gall to blame Bush for congressional decisions in the 2004 debates--things Kerry, himself, had voted for (And I don't mean Iraq. My opinion of Bush was lowered by the fact that he didn't call Kerry on these points.) And now these "pie in the sky" promises. They're coming from the Republican camp, too, but mostly in a reactionary fashion. I think the entirety of the US government needs a high school civics course.
__________________
|
|
Tags |
debate, elections, politics, united_states |
|
|