Interesting theory. Bush "removed the only female"? How'd he do that, he must be more clever than I give him credit for. Either way, it's besides the point. The point is McCain would need to nominate someone of substance who was not an ideological right-winger, while Obama could appoint anyone with a congressional rubber stamp.
Interesting theory. Bush "removed the only female"? How'd he do that, he must be more clever than I give him credit for. Either way, it's besides the point. The point is McCain would need to nominate someone of substance who was not an ideological right-winger, while Obama could appoint anyone with a congressional rubber stamp.
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,163
- 136
Is the American public really that flakey?
I mean, polls are dead even one week, then something happens,
and the following week someone is 15 points ahead. They something
else happens, and its back to dead even.
I have never changed from Obama since Hillary lost out.
Many have solidly been backing Mccain, even after picking Palin or support from
republicans like Powell.
Who are these voters that flip flop from day to day, week to week?
How do these people ever made any decisions? Should I have a pepsi or coke, coke or pepsi, pepsi or coke, coke or pepsi etc etc????
Are they the same people that are still undecided with only a few days to go?
Pleaseeeeeee!!!!
I mean, polls are dead even one week, then something happens,
and the following week someone is 15 points ahead. They something
else happens, and its back to dead even.
I have never changed from Obama since Hillary lost out.
Many have solidly been backing Mccain, even after picking Palin or support from
republicans like Powell.
Who are these voters that flip flop from day to day, week to week?
How do these people ever made any decisions? Should I have a pepsi or coke, coke or pepsi, pepsi or coke, coke or pepsi etc etc????
Are they the same people that are still undecided with only a few days to go?
Pleaseeeeeee!!!!
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Some people who a) are delusional and hopelessly prejudiced to think that the world can shape itself to their wishes simply by wishing it, and b) completely oblivious to the news, may think that McCain has a shot. He doesn't. It's over. His chances of winning are about as likely as me getting a 3-point shot from the complete other end of the court.
rockyct
Diamond Member
- Jun 23, 2001
- 6,656
- 32
- 91
There is no way that McCain would ever pick a liberal judge to replace a liberal judge. A Democratic contolled Senate can only reject so many nominations before the public gets frustraited. McCain would probably nominate a strong conservative judge first to appease conservatives and like a sheep to the slaughter he would get rejected. Then, he would nominate a moderate judge with a slight conservative tilt and the Democrats would be forced into confirming him. The balance of the court will tilt even more to the right as a liberal judge will be replaced by a moderate conservative.
If he is basing his conclusion on the inaccuracy of the polls you should inform him that one of the primary inaccuracies is that the majority of them place little to no consideration on first time voters. Most of which are younger and fit the exact demographic that supports Obama the most. If the polls are inaccurate it is because they are underestimating how great of a chance Obama has at winning especially when one considers the much greater turn out of young voters actually going to the polls and voting this election already.
rockyct
Diamond Member
- Jun 23, 2001
- 6,656
- 32
- 91
Obama was a Constitutional law professor. He is not going to nominate a non-traditional nominee or someone like Hillary Clinton whose name has been thrown around. Obama will have 58-60 Democrats in the Senate but a lot of those Senators are in conservative states. They aren't going to rubber stamp a far left liberal nominee or someone who is clearly unqualified. Harriot Myers was clearly unqualified and conservatives were in an uproar about her almost as much as liberals were. Obama will nominate a liberal, but it will be one that is well qualified.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,901
- 10,231
- 136
Since 2001 I have believed our education system would have had enough impact to enforce a solid Democratic majority beyond 2008. Of course, I never expected the Democratic Party to challenge this control by picking a very left leaning black man to lead their ticket. If you gave us a second Bill Clinton you'd never even have to ask who the next President would be.
Who knows, Obama could drive away racists, could drive away some moderates, but he could also energize the base in a way I did not imagine.
I expect Obama to be our next President. I expect the Republican party to continue to embrace government as the solution to all our problems just as the 80s Democrats did. Every time they lose they move closer towards embracing the ideals that defeated them. The country continues to slide, as it has since the New Deal, towards Karl Marx's manifesto.
It is my prediction that nothing will prevent this slide and the fermenting of an abusive centralized government. I laugh when Democrats complain about the Patriot Act and wiretapping while they continue to work towards the centralization of power in this nation.
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: aphex
Well in my view, the stupid ones aren't the ones voting Obama
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone voting for Obama is dumb, that's certainly not the case, I'm just saying the damage McCain could do while in office is limited by the democratic congress. The damage Obama could do is essentially unlimited.
That argument would be a lot more convincing if Republicans hadn't spent several years trying to gain complete control of the government, then fucking us all over once they got there. Honestly I think they deserve to take a backseat for a few years. If Democrats screw up their chance like the Republicans did, well then the voters are a scant few years away from trying to fix the situation. But I'll be damned if I'm going to base my vote on some rules that the other guys refuse to follow.
Duuuuh, of course the republicans tried to gain control of government, that's what the parties do, they fight for more power for themselves. No matter what you think of the republicans or the democrats, you simply can't deny (at least not with any credibility) that McCain's actions would be more limited by congress than Obama. If Obama turns out to be a bad president, he could end up hurting the US as much as Bush has. McCain's "downside" is limited.
In re: McCain's downside, I think you're forgetting his ability to wage war and his ability to kick the bucket during his term. Both would be disastrous and have unprecedented negative ramifications.
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Jack Daniels will win. I think I'll be drinking hard liquor for the first time in five years or so on election night. America loses either way. :disgust:
Really? If America loses when you drink whiskey, I'd imagine you are one mean drunk.
as far as i've read, the best predictions of presidential elections has been on futures markets, such as the one from the university of iowa.. it's been pretty accurate from its inception in the '80s with the theory being that people are using their own money betting on who will win, rather than who they want to win.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter