I expected that. I want to see who came in second in the democratic run though. Hope it was Edwards more than Clinton.
Didn't mean to. rain on Lyrhawn's thread. But I just thought this needed it's own thread.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Now, I don't mind Hillary or Edwards. They both seem like they'd be good. Edwards, certainly, seems good.
But I wans Obama. I've already donated money, and I'm going to vote for him in my state during the Democratic Primary.
And during the Presidential race?
Well... I have less power there. If the majority of people in my state vote against him there, my vote won't matter. It won't help him at all... which will be very annoying. This is my first presidential election in which I can legally vote, and I'm excited.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I want to see who came in second in the democratic run though. Hope it was Edwards more than Clinton.
Edwards beat out Clinton. It was close though.
EDIT - I just realized I'm probably a few hours late with that info. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
RESULTS: Obama 37.53% Edwards 29.88% Clinton 29.41% Huckabee 34% Romney 25% Thompson 14% McCain 13% Paul 10%
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote: This is my first presidential election in which I can legally vote, and I'm excited.
Me too!! First election period, actually. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Looks like this might be the first one I actually sit out.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
As long as Clinton doesn't get it, I don't really care. The person I'd really like to see get it isn't going to, and I've resigned to that fact. So now I'm just hoping against people.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
There is no one running I would vote for. But Obama and Huckabee are pretty close to the top of those I would vote against.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I am against Obama because he doesn't seem to have a strong character. Say what you will, a leader has to be a strong, strong person, and in our past, when we've elected a young, charismatic person, they didn't show decisive leadership and faltered under a crisis.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I am against Obama because he doesn't seem to have a strong character. Say what you will, a leader has to be a strong, strong person, and in our past, when we've elected a young, charismatic person, they didn't show decisive leadership and faltered under a crisis.
*coughJFKcough*
Edit: Young, charismatic leader. Didn't falter under crisis, and Obama has proven to be a clever, wise and strong leader in the past, in his days in the Illinois Senate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
When was he in even a mild crisis in the Illinois Senate? For that matter, when did he demonstrate particular cleverness or wisdom in the Illinois Senate?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yes, much better to elect Clinton, whose character is known. >_<
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:When was he in even a mild crisis in the Illinois Senate?
That wasn't something that was asked for or that I was positing he has. Phanto said that he didn't think Obama was strong, I responded that his time in the senate suggested that he was strong, clever and wise and good at getting things done. Phanto was pondering whether he would do well in a crisis, because no one but the president or people in his cabinet ever really faces the kind of crisis that a president faces. None of the other folks in the democratic race have been there either (being the wife doesn't count).
Requires NYTimes login -- which is free by the way.
quote:Mr. Obama did not bring revolution to Springfield in his eight years in the Senate, the longest chapter in his short public life. But he turned out to be practical and shrewd, a politician capable of playing hardball to win election (he squeezed every opponent out of his first race), a legislator with a sharp eye for an opportunity, a strategist willing to compromise to accomplish things.
quote:With the assistance of Senator Jones, Mr. Obama helped deliver what is said to have been the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the state’s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies.
By all accounts he got a crapload done in a real short time in the Illinois legislature. In a legislature that was notoriously corrupt. And he did it with out losing hold of his ideals. That, to me, shows strength of character and backbone as well as cleverness and wisdom. Read the whole article, it's a good read and shows a lot about him.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Here's another article about his time in the Illinois legislature saying much the same things. Again login required, but free.
quote:From a district on the South Side of Chicago, he reached Republican-dominated Springfield as a committed liberal, later writing that he understood politics in the capital "as a full-contact sport, and minded neither the sharp elbows nor the occasional blind-side hit."
Yet he emerged as a leader while still in his 30s by developing a style former colleagues describe as methodical, inclusive and pragmatic. He cobbled together legislation with Republicans and conservative Democrats, making overtures other progressive politicians might consider distasteful.
Again, if you ask me, being able to do that shows strength and wisdom. And that's the kinda person -- someone who can unite Democrats and Republicans to common cause and get things done -- that I want in the White House right now, personally. If you want someone who's strength lies more along the lines of fighting the partisan battle, that's your prerogative.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Again, if you ask me, being able to do that shows strength and wisdom. And that's the kinda person -- someone who can unite Democrats and Republicans to common cause and get things done -- that I want in the White House right now, personally.
Here Here! Though you may not agree with what I have to say now.
President Bush has shown that even with a congress that is resisting his policies he can still get what he wants, although most of it has been in the area of foreign policy an area the legislature has traditionally been very weak at controlling.
The legislature is doing a piss poor job right now and it has no back bone, in part because of partisan bickering. We don't need another strong president who will sling the congress over his shoulder and carry them kicking and screaming into our destiny, with the rest of the populace chasing after them because they don't know what else to do.
We need a president who has SHOWN that he can cross party lines and work with people from multiple backgrounds and unite them in actually getting positive things done. Anyone who does an even cursory look at Obama's work in Illinois and in the Senate will easily see that he is very good at bringing people together and getting things done.
In short we need a mediator president, and Obama fits that bill.
Make no mistake he is not a sissy, he doesn't sell out, and he has firm beliefs, but he is also humble enough to listen. Everyday I wait for the other shoe to drop when it comes to Obama, but so far I am happily disappointed. Everyday he continues to work the way he does, the more confident I am that he is the real deal, a good man who is not only running for president, but actually has a chance at securing the vote.
If he manages to surround himself with wise men and women should he get the Democratic nomination he will plow into the presidency and I think we will see some wonderful things from him.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is Obama your first pick, BlackBlade? I really like him, but I'll probably vote Republican.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
An Obama v. Huckabee matchup would be perfect because Huckabee is too much of a loon to get the swing vote.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: An Obama v. Huckabee matchup would be perfect because Huckabee is too much of a loon to get the swing vote.
My extended/step-family on my mother's side, who are all staunch conservatives and republicans, are all expecting some weird story to come out about Huckabee sometime soon in line with the many Christian preacher controversies of the last few years.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Don't we have that already? I mean, he called for the isolation and quarantine of aids victims in 1992, said "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.
It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents." '
and has refused to recant that statement.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: There is no one running I would vote for. But Obama and Huckabee are pretty close to the top of those I would vote against.
I would have thought you'd be a Ron Paul supporter, Pix. I could have sworn you identified as libertarian, and all the libertarians I know are pretty high on "Dr. Paul."
Speaking of Paul, if he ran as an independent/libertarian, I wonder whether he'd bleed off more Republican or Democrat support? It seems to me the libertarians (whom I view as an essential part of the current Republican coalition) are drifting more and more to the Democratic party.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BTW, I see Huckabee's victory as making him a viable VP candidate, but I doubt he'll capture the delegates necessary for the actual nomination. I think the most likely scenario is McCain as the nominee with Huckabee as a possible VP. We'll see what happens in NH, though; if Romney pulls out a first there, I think he'll give McCain a real run for his money. And there's always the possibility that Giuliani's crazy "neglect all the little states as long as I get FL, NY and CA" strategy which I doubt will play well, but you never know.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I looked up Huckabee, and while some of his opinions on matters like illegal immigration and race are, in fact, not something I'd complain about in the least, and stuff like covenant marriage, though bizarre to my palette, is irrelevent and nothing to keep those who wish to go to that length from doing, he's got some other things that bother me greatly.
Of course, I'm not a Republican. But I'm no blind Democrat, if a guy has some views that agree with me, I'll give him credit for that.
And a cursory glance shows some good stuff, at least in some aspects.
But have him as leader of the whole nation? Um... I dunno if he's the guy I want as leader...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"when we've elected a young, charismatic person, they didn't show decisive leadership and faltered under a crisis."
JamesPolk doubled the size of the UnitedStates with the addition of Texas and through winning the West from Mexican. TeddyRoosevelt was 42 when he became President.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, but no one can say that Teddy Roosevelt hadn't faced a number of crises before he was president. The man practically went in search of trouble, and then he beat it to death with a stick, a BIG stick.
Senoj -
quote:And there's always the possibility that Giuliani's crazy "neglect all the little states as long as I get FL, NY and CA" strategy which I doubt will play well, but you never know.
Oh I don't know about that. Giuliani still leads nationally. Florida is only a couple weeks away, and I expect he'll start to finish in the top three or four in every race between now and then. A great deal depends on what happens to McCain and Romney between then and now. If the two of them batter each other down between now and January 29th, Giuliani will slip in, with his money already in the right states and his apparatus already functioning in those states and he'll sweep 'em up. Huckabee will be back of the pack in every state that doesn't have a large evangelical population, as Iowa proved, the non-evangelicals go elsewhere. He needs to broaden his message or settle for the VP spot (but seriously, I don't know if Huckabee as VP could soften a Giuliani ticket enough).
His plan is unconventional, but I like it. Romney spent $40 million dollars in Iowa to snag second place and lose by 9 points. How worth it was that? Especially given that Huckabee's viability is STILL in question? Frankly I think Giuliani was silly to ignore states like Nevada and South Carolina entirely, but he'll slowly infuse them with cash, and he might even stop off in Michigan a time or two, which Romney has been hammering with cash.
He's taking advantage of the field. The other four or five candidates are stepping all over each other to jockey for position. When they make it to HyperTuesday, there will be no clear frontrunner among them, and Giuliani will step out, unblemished and say "What took you guys so long to get here?" And he'll win. It's a strategy that could only work with all these factors going for him.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Giuliani spent more money in Iowa than any Republican other than Romney, and finished with less than a third of RonPaul's support.
[ January 04, 2008, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What's the actual number?
Huckabee, McCain, Thompson and even Paul until recently have been cash poor since the start, so saying he outspent them is useless without the actual number.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Is Obama your first pick, BlackBlade? I really like him, but I'll probably vote Republican.
I'm still divided between Obama and Romney. If it comes down to those two I'll go crazy trying to decide, It'll take a few debates and a few hours of research to decide.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)