Primaries

Remove all ads!

NOG,

As far as the gun comments go, I don't think that if Obama is elected he's going to take away anyone's gun. I doubt that will be part of his first 100 days plan. As Bill Maher accurately put it, "If you think either of the Democrats are going to take away your bible, you're an idiot. If you think either of the Democrats are going to take away your gun, you're an armed idiot."

I don't think he's saying it just to get elected, because I don't think he has a problem with people going hunting for deer in PA. I don't think he cares if you own 20 hunting rifles. I think he does care about people owning assault weapons, fully automatic weapons and being able to walk into a gun show and basically buy anything you want with no background check. However, holding such views doesn't make someone "anti-gun" - it makes one a reasonable person.

 

I think we could break off the current discussion to an entire new thread as it is a very interesting one. The issue of race and ethnicity albeit important is not as important as the issue of, yes here it comes a word that as I understand things is pretty much taboo in the US, class. The world is still run pretty much by the people whose ancestors a few thousands years ago poked someone with a sword and declared that they were in charge. The last century or two have seen more class movement than previously but your future is still pretty much decided by your parents. I doubt the descendants of those indentured servants are all that much better off than the descendants of slaves in the US. The main reason that black people in the US are poor isn't that they are black, the main reason they are poor is that they are poor. Poverty breeds poverty just as wealth breeds wealth. All this is widely off topic though and if anyone feels that it is interesting enough to discuss feel free to open a new topic, I am too lazy.

Oh and Chandos, I have no intention or inclination of calling you a flipflopper or claim anything negative around your views. I was just interested in what they are and to point out that you seem to be one of few democratic voters who have not taken a strong stand for one or the other.

 

Just to point something out - I think most Democrats WILL vote for whomever the eventual Democratic nominee is. It is true that most Democrats have a strong preference for Hillary or Barack. But all the people saying if [insert candidate name] doesn't win the nomination, I'm voting for McCain is just a lot of sour grapes, and 99% of them will come to their senses and vote Democrat in the fall. Regardless of which Democrat you support, the other Democrat is a hell of a lot closer to your views than McCain.

 

Oh come off it. If THAT'S all it took to convince you he was a dishonest panderer then you were never really open to him in the first place. And you know it. This is nothing. What he said was not a flip-flop or a pander, it's the position most Democrats share, and pretty much the official policy of the Democratic party. See Aldeth's post above. And stating that position to a state where that issue is of importance to the voters there is not pandering, it's called campaigning.

 

You are correct, however it is always the independent voters that carry the election.

Edit: Have you seen this yet, it pretty much sums it all up.

 

People also go to church for community, NOG. Also, Barack may disagree with Wright on the status of race relations, the rightness of our foreign policy, or his ridiculous ideas about our government and HIV, but aren't Wright's thoughts regarding the gospel and what it has to say about salvation what actually matters? Lots of people disagree with their clergy on matters of politics and gullibiliy*, but that isn't why most people go to church, now, is it? When I was religious, my birth control using (mortal sin), democrat/green party supporting (probably a mortal sin, since pro-life democrats or greens are rare) self, went for the community and for the prayer. When the priest started prognosticating on the importance of voting pro-life (and the dire eternal consequences of voting for someone who is pro-choice), I stopped listening, but I still went to church. When I left the church, it wasn't because my social and political beliefs weren't in perfect harmony with the church's. I left because I no longer believed in the Gospel.

I understand where you come from with your idea, since in fundamentalist communities, lockstep agreement tends to be the norm, but Obama's is a liberal denomination that was the first to ordain an African American (1785), a woman (1853), and an openly gay man (1972). His charism bears little to no resemblance to yours and what is true of your church is probably not true of his.

So, Arnold Schwarzenneger is actually a Liberal because his wife is? Come on, dude.

Are you getting your information from the NRA or something? Obama doesn't want to take anyone's legal firearms away. He supports gun control, sure, but so does the Bush administration, for crying out loud!

* By gullibility, I'm of course talking about conspiracy theories. Since nearly 1/4 of Americans actually believe some of that crap (only the exceptionally gullible actually believe all of it). You know, crap like us faking the moon landing, intentionally allowing the bombing of pearl harbor, the Navy's invisible destroyer, the government staging 911, intentionally infecting the black community with HIV, etc, it stands to reason that a good chunk of preachers actually believe it too. Believing this ridiculous tripe, however, doesn't necessarily render a person's understanding of the gospel any less insightful.

 

Hey! The Philadelphia Experiment was real. I knew a guy, who had a cousin, who had a friend, whose grandfather SAW Elvis on the deck of the Eldridge before it went completely invisible. Which, by the way Mister High-And-Mighty, proves Elvis is still alive!

 

I stand corrected, then. Clearly, Elvis is alive and kicking on an invisible destroyer somewhere in the South Pacific right now.

For my part, I naturally left Johnson's CIA assassination of JFK off my list because, hey, we all know that one's true. That Oliver Stone movie totally proved it!

 

Exactly! I don't believe in any conspiracy theories - except the true ones, of course

 

I apologize if I sounded a bit defensive: I'm here in America afer all, the land where everyone must defend his/her political views with their dying breaths. Ah, well....

Also, you are right on target to mention "class" as a factor regarding exploitation. Americans consider themselves above the notion of "class." The Revolution was supposed to prove our democratic/equality with the demolition of the European Aristocracy in the colonies. We still cling to that notion of a destroyed aristocracy desperately, and claim that almost all inequality has to do with race (first) and gender (second). The notion of class is still unthinkable (also it would prove the inequality of capitalsim - in some instances as well). We can't have any of that.

 

Nah, inequality is ok - everyone wants to have more, so it's no fun being equal; of course, it is presumed that all enjoy equal starts, and some just pull themselves up by working harder and smarter. . However, talking about class is often associated with socialism, and I get the feeling that the S-word and the C-word are more offensive than anything starting with "N"

 

I didn't bother to spell it out initially because I thought it was obvious - but evidently not. Everything I said regarding Democrats is also true of Independents leaning towards a Democratic candidate.

Let me try paraphrasing here - anyone who supports one of the Democratic candidates, regardless of their own political affiliation, will find the alternative Democratic candidate much closer to their views than John McCain.

While I'm sure there are a few, I seriously doubt many people out there would rate the candidates in order of preference as Obama, McCain, Clinton, or Clinton, McCain, Obama. In fact, the only people I think who would do that are people who will not vote for a woman or a black man under any circumstances.

Having said all that, if independents decide elections (and keep in mind that typically isn't true unless you consider all swing voters independents*), then McCain is screwed in the fall. Both Democratic candidates have double digit poll leads on him currently, and this is BEFORE the supposed healing process has begun. I think McCain's hopes rest more on in-fighting within the Democratic Party for him to win this election.

* The reason I say that independents typically do NOT decide elections is because I find many independents to be more extreme than either the Democrats or Republicans. Most independents I know of don't find the mainstream of either of the two major political parties appealing; they are either more liberal than the mainstream Democrats or more conservative than the mainstream Republicans. They are independents not because they are torn over which side they are on, but rather because there isn't a mainstream party that accurately represents their views. Many people mistakenly assume that most independents are in the political center, and while some no doubt are, I find the majority of independents to be on the policial extremes.

To cite a couple of examples, I personally know two people who are independents - one of which could be described as a fiscal libertarian and the other an avid environmentalist. They consistently vote Republican and Democrat, respectively, and are both registered as independents because they feel the major polical parties aren't conservative or liberal enough. Heck, on these very Boards Chandos is an independent. Do you consider him in the center in most of his views?

The people who do decide the election are what could more accurately be described as swing voters. They are given different names through the years - remember in the 80s the reference to "Reagan Democrats"? Surely some independents are in the middle, but there are just as many moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans who can be convinced to swing the other way depending on the political climate.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that. You have to remember that McCain is so close to being a Democrat that he has always been rumored to have considered switching parties. I would not be surprised to find many issues that McCain agrees with one Democratic candidate and not the other and this could very easily split the Democratic and Independent vote.

 

You're talking about the John McCain circa 1999. Unfortunately John McCain circa 2008 bears very little resemblance to that man of eight or nine years ago. He has made every effort to make himself look as far to the right as possible, and his voting record, stump speeches, and the voter demographics he most appeals to bear that out.

Bottom line, I don't even think the 1999 John McCain was really that close to being a Democrat - keep in mind that his first run at the presidency was when he tried to secure the Republian nomination in 2000. The John McCain of today is NOTHING CLOSE TO A DEMOCRAT.

The only time McCain agrees with a Democratic candidate is when the Dems take opposite views on an issue, and he has to side with one or the other. (Take the current proposal of the gas tax holiday - Obama is for, Clinton is against, so McCain has to agree with one of them.) I find it strange that you say you can envision a scenario where McCain agrees with one Democrat and disagrees with another. Aside from the fact that there are so few areas where Obama and Clinton are different, does it not logically stand that any time people have opposite opinions you are going to agree with one and disagree with another? That doesn't make McCain close to a Democrat - that makes him logically consistent.

If you truly believe that McCain is "close to being a Democrat" and "agrees with a Democratic candidate" on an issue where HRC and BO hold the same view, please enlighten me.

 

I find it amazing all the "differences" between Republicans and Democrats.

In the end, both parties have the same goals: both sides want a strong America, a strong economy, affordable health care, good education, a safe place for everyone, to help those unable to help themselves, and low unemployment. Virtually every end result is the same for the two parties -- it is just the method to achieve the goals and the exact end point of the target that appear to be different.

In the case of gas relieve (R-O-L-A-I-D-S) the method has not been decided upon by the parties. So individual politicians have their own opinions -- incredible as that may sound.

 

You have to remember that you're fairly far to the right, and that your perception of McCain is far from universal.

 

All hail the voice of common sense! I said something very similar to my husband recently, when we were discussing the elections. Basically, I don't see much difference in MY bottom line with either party - the Dems will take my money and give it to the poor, while the Reps will take my money and give it to corporations. Either way, my money ends up somewhere other than in my bank account. Politicians can't afford to allow the middle class to be squeezed out of existence, because who would be left to pay for everything?

That said, I'm going to side with the party that has the social agenda I prefer, and as long as the Christian right has a stranglehold on the GOP, that choice is obvious.

 

I think last night was the beginning of the end. After all the delegates are awarded, Barack will likely be about 180 votes away from the magical 2025 needed to win. Hillary won Indiana in a squeaker, but Barack won much larger North Carolina by 14 percentage points. That means he gets the lion's share of last night's delegates, and the math gets very, very bleak for Hillary.

Barack is also only 30 delegates short of being able to claim having won the majority of elected delegates (i.e., the delegates you get from winning primaries and caucuses, not the superdelegates who may vote for whomever they chose).

So now, what do we do about Michigan and Florida? My prediction is that Obama campaign is going to make a rather magnanimous offer to the Clinton campaign. The rules committee for the DNC meets on May 31st. Between now and then, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon will hold their primaries and caucuses. The only one of those three that Obama will win is Oregon (which is the largest of the three), but they are all small states (in terms of population) with few delegates, so they won't make a big impact on the numbers, except that Obama will now have enough elected delegates to claim with certainty that he has the majority of elected delegates. That argument (I think) will also convince enough super delegates to break his way between now and then so that he likely will reach the 2025 required for the nomination.

At that point, I believe Obama will propose that the DNC seat half of the delegates from FL and MI (like the Republicans did). That will penalize the states for going early, but also give them some representation at the convention. Obama will propose that he and Hillary each receive a share in accordance with the percentage of the popular vote in FL, with Edwards' share of delegates (he won about 18% of the popular vote there) divided between them. Since Obama was not on the ticket in Michigan, I think that he will propose that Hillary gets the delegates proportional to her share, and he get's the "uncommitted" voters. That will mean that Hillary will get about 55% of the delegates from both FL and MI. I also think Obama will let all the supers have a vote.

The rationale I have for Obama essentailly conceding these two states is that by the time May 31st rolls around, it will be a near mathematical impossibility for Hillary to catch him. (Keep in mind that even though he'll have a majority of elected delegates before May 31st, that the magic number to win the nomination goes up once MI and FL are included.) Even if Hillary gets a majority of the delegates from MI and FL it will be insufficient for her to catch up to Obama. In return, Obama will ask that Hillary concede after the primary season concludes in the first week of June, and that she not attempt to fight him all the way to the Convention in August.

(Note: The reason that Hillary would concede in the deal is that technically, even if Obama has hit the magic number, she can take the fight to the convention. Even though the supers voice their support, they do not actually cast their ballots until the Convention, and can theoretically change their mind between now and then. Obama will have the majority of elected delegates (the ones that can't change their mind), but will not have a majority of total delegates. That's why the deal will be that Obama will concede MI and FL, if she agrees to concede the election if she is behind after the primary season - which she certainly will be.)

 

Hillary has apparently cancelled her TV appearances scheduled for this morning. Hmm...