Politics United States Presidential Election Thread

[xi0]

You're all missing the point about this issue though. It was put in place to prevent back-room deals during the convention if the delegate count as too close to call. Above all else, Super Delegates are prominent Democratic party members, and the majority WILL do what's best for the party. Having a controversy is something the Democrats CAN NOT afford to have. As benign as the some of the controversies were during the Clinton Presidency, Republican Pundits used it as a rallying cry to "crusade" against them.

If Obama has a substantial lead, but less than the amount of Super Delegates, they will do what is best for the party and choose the clear favorite, Obama.

When Super Delegates say they are declared for a specific candidate it usually doesn't hold through until the convention, because often the clear-cut favorite to win the nomination is no longer in the race when the Convention rolls around. Super Delegates will affiliate themselves with the favorite, much like regular citizens will vote for who the media portrays as the favorite in the elections. It's a domino-effect.

Obama will almost certainly win Wisconsin, and if Hillary does not win Ohio AND Texas, she will be in horrible shape by the time the Primaries of April-June come. Candidates tend to gather steam and go on a roll, much like Obama as he has gone 8-0 since Super Tuesday. If Hillary starts to go negative, like she did earlier in the campaign, there will almost certainly be a backlash. So if the domino-effect holds true, and Obama doesn't have any major setbacks, Hillary must win Ohio and Texas to be in good shape, if not, it doesn't seem like the Super Delegates will even have much of a role at the convention.

 

[mrcongojack]

You're all missing the point about this issue though. It was put in place to prevent back-room deals during the convention if the delegate count as too close to call. Above all else, Super Delegates are prominent Democratic party members, and the majority WILL do what's best for the party. Having a controversy is something the Democrats CAN NOT afford to have. As benign as the some of the controversies were during the Clinton Presidency, Republican Pundits used it as a rallying cry to "crusade" against them.

Actually, you've got it backwards. To quote wikipedia:

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party implemented changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.

These comprehensive changes left some Democrats believing that the role of party leaders and elected officials had been unduly diminished, weakening the Democratic ticket. In response, the superdelegate rule was instituted after the 1980 election. Its purpose was to accord a greater role to active politicians

They were actually put in place to bring back backroom deals.

Obama will almost certainly win Wisconsin, and if Hillary does not win Ohio AND Texas, she will be in horrible shape by the time the Primaries of April-June come.

Obama's win in Wisconsin isn't a lock yet. I live in Wisconsin and have friends who attend UW Madison who had the opportunity to see both Obama's rally on Wednesday and Bill Clinton today. Both said they were going to go with Hillary (one was a supporter of Obama since the beginning of his campaign) because she was "more focused on the issues" while Obama "was all rhetoric." Now if you ask me, it doesn't matter what plans or pie charts you have right now, the second day in office all your plans will be obsolete. Things are going to change a lot in the next year. Everything about politics, the economy, public opinion; it's going to change and I personally think Obama will be able to roll with the punches just as well as Clinton.

 

[Gold Knight]

However this race ends up, it certainly has been an interesting one so far. May the best candidate win, I guess. Even if it is a Democrat.

I'm feeling a little better about the whole thing, considering I don't think we had that many good Republican candidates either anyway. So whatever. I think even if we had chosen a Republican President, the public would still have wanted the soldiers back out of Iraq eventually anyway so the President probably wouldn't have been able to do much about that, even Bush was going to withdraw sooner or later.

I still hope we get a good answer to the immigration problem though...

 

[xi0]

They were actually put in place to bring back backroom deals.

Well you can of course say that, but Super Delegates haven't been a factor in Primary yet, so this will be a treading of new water so to speak. My point still remains, that regardless of any affiliations a SD has, they are still officially undeclared for any candidate and will vote for who they want. Now the Clintons can go gangbusters and smooze with a number of them, but if she appears to be the underdog by the time the convention comes, the SD's will do what is best for the party. This is why as unlikely as it looks now, and Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket might be inevitable if the party is to be unified.

Obama's win in Wisconsin isn't a lock yet. I live in Wisconsin and have friends who attend UW Madison who had the opportunity to see both Obama's rally on Wednesday and Bill Clinton today. Both said they were going to go with Hillary (one was a supporter of Obama since the beginning of his campaign) because she was "more focused on the issues" while Obama "was all rhetoric." Now if you ask me, it doesn't matter what plans or pie charts you have right now, the second day in office all your plans will be obsolete. Things are going to change a lot in the next year. Everything about politics, the economy, public opinion; it's going to change and I personally think Obama will be able to roll with the punches just as well as Clinton.

Well nothing is obviously a lock with these Polls, as they have been proven to be way off in many cases.

I'll agree that while Obama seems to be better at energizing people, he isn't entirely forthcoming on the "Meat and Potatoes" of what he wants to do as the President. His speech after the Potomac Primaries brought forth some of these things though.

 

[Gold Knight]

...though the more I think about it, the more depressed I get >.<

I keep thinking after Obama pulls the troops out of Iraq, we'll suddenly see the Al-Qaeda take Iraq and all its oil, they'll be able to get more successful suicide attack attempts on America, and we'll be hearing about the massacre of thousands if not millions of people there.

Well... -_- I think I'm just going to turn the news off for a while.

 

[xi0]

...though the more I think about it, the more depressed I get >.<

I keep thinking after Obama pulls the troops out of Iraq, we'll suddenly see the Al-Qaeda take Iraq and all its oil, they'll be able to get more successful suicide attack attempts on America, and we'll be hearing about the massacre of thousands if not millions of people there.

Well... -_- I think I'm just going to turn the news off for a while.

al-Qaeda itself doesn't run any country, remember the Taliban ruled over Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda may end up with a more pronounced population in Iraq, but they would still be fighting against Sunnis and even Shiites if they wanted to take over an entire country. That seems unlikely to me, as Iraq is much more modernized than Afghanistan, and as rich as bin Laden is, he probably doesn't have the infrastructure to achieve such a thing.

If he moves to do this, the UN will have no choice but to respond. Then of course the warhawks will be vindicated, but this scenario in itself is way unlikely. Nearly all of al-Qaeda in Iraq are foreigners.

The more likely scenario is probably Iran moving to take over Iraq, but even if we pull troops out, we'll still have some degree of influence and will of course still fund their military.

 

[Gold Knight]

Either way, we move out just to be drawn back into war again. Whatever advantages we have will most assuredly be lost.

 

[mrcongojack]

But if we don't pull out, our National Guardsmen will continue to be underprepared for another 9/11, leaving us vulnerable. The War in Iraq has done nothing but ruin or standing in the world and leave us open to attack.

Besides, their oil won't matter if we go off fossil fuels and switch to solar/hydrogen... something Obama and Clinton support

 

[xi0]

But if we don't pull out, our National Guardsmen will continue to be underprepared for another 9/11, leaving us vulnerable. The War in Iraq has done nothing but ruin or standing in the world and leave us open to attack.

Besides, their oil won't matter if we go off fossil fuels and switch to solar/hydrogen... something Obama and Clinton support

Well that's something many people say they support...even Bush himself "says" he does. His actions certainly speak to the opposite though.

 

[mrcongojack]

Well that's something many people say they support...even Bush himself "says" he does. His actions certainly speak to the opposite though.

Yeah. His actions speak to the contrary. And besides, if we go off oil, how are Bush's good friends like Cheney and Rumsfeld going to pay the bills?

 

[Gold Knight]

But if we don't pull out, our National Guardsmen will continue to be underprepared for another 9/11, leaving us vulnerable. The War in Iraq has done nothing but ruin or standing in the world and leave us open to attack.

I don't think so. If it was so bad as that then why haven't we had a 9/11 since 9/11? There's been about ten close calls since then that we've stopped every single time - barely... - and it's because we're there right now in the Mideast, keeping them on the move, being a pain in their ass, and we have more information. If we move out, we'll more than certainly leave ourselves even more vulnerable to attack and I wouldn't be surprised if within one year of pulling out (if we haven't won the war or pulled out too soon) we're going to see something like 9/11 happen again.

I'm not saying that to be a pain, I'm just saying that's my opinion and feeling on things. I don't want to be against pulling out but I would like for it to happen when things are more favorable over there.

 

[xi0]

I don't think so. If it was so bad as that then why haven't we had a 9/11 since 9/11? There's been about ten close calls since then that we've stopped every single time - barely... - and it's because we're there right now in the Mideast, keeping them on the move, being a pain in their ass, and we have more information. If we move out, we'll more than certainly leave ourselves even more vulnerable to attack and I wouldn't be surprised if within one year of pulling out (if we haven't won the war or pulled out too soon) we're going to see something like 9/11 happen again.

I'm not saying that to be a pain, I'm just saying that's my opinion and feeling on things. I don't want to be against pulling out but I would like for it to happen when things are more favorable over there.

Osama bin Laden himself has said in many of his propaganda tapes, that Al Qaeda's plan is to attack America's allies following 9/11. The effect would be that even our strongest allies would be afraid to continue to support us (e.g. Keeping a troop presence in Iraq).

Now, I'm not saying that our vigilance following 9/11 hasn't helped in stemming whatever attacks may come our way, but is it worth the price? 3,960 servicemen/women and counting. Billions of taxpayers dollars being spent every month.

Our presence in Iraq and the Middle East is only enraging Al Qaeda and similar Jihadist groups. The Al Qaeda presence in Iraq is because of OUR doing. Most of the Jihadists in Iraq aren't even Iraqi...they're foreigners. They're extremists who believe in bin Laden's operations...and they're being funded by Iran.

So what's the alternative to staying in Iraq? Pulling our troops out in a timely fashion, continued funding of their governmental operations, since it's our duty in the first place...we were the ones who disrupted their infrastructure in the first place, and lastly...we use the money that would have been spent in Iraq, to beef up security at our borders, and continued research of alternative energy sources.

40% of oil supply in the US is from OUR OWN Country, some of it we actually export, believe it or not. 35% of our Oil Import comes from Canada and Mexico and the res from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. In fact, the US imports just as much Oil from Africa as it does from all the countries in the Middle East combined.

It's debatable whether us losing any assets we've seized in Iraq will affect us in the long-term and we can negate any affect is might have by making a REAL effort in alternative energy sources. Not to mention that the oil supply in Iraq should be for rebuilding Iraq and not us or our allies.

Well whatever, I feel like I'm pontificating at this point...

 

[Gold Knight]

I know about the oil (although we could actually have more local oil if not for the interference of the environmentalists, ie. in Alaska.)

I dunno man. Other than the immigration issue (which I don't think the Dems are addressing very well) we seem to be doing fine at home. All our boys coming home would serve to only give the Al Qaeda more opportunities over there to do whatever they wanted to do. Also, you said we're "enraging" them? How about they are the ones who enraged us?

We ARE trying to completely run them down into the ground. We're not trying to be their friends. Leaving now won't help them be any happier anyway. They'll still want to kill us. Us leaving now would lead them to be able to more efficiently recruit not to mention give them more ammunition in the way of propaganda. "America left you. They don't care."

And since you mentioned Iran a few posts before, they don't exactly like us either.

The reason there's an Al Qaeda presence is in Iraq is because they can strike at us there. They can't strike at us where they really want to, though... at home. If we move out, though, you can bet that's on their agenda.

---

(EDIT: Bleh, should we have a separate thread for this discussion?)

 

[miyi]

I have the gut feeling Democrats will win, too. The War in Iraq has become so unpopular, I just wish Democrats (whether Hillary or Obama), think twice before they withdraw the troops altogether. Iraq needs US troop assistance, more than ever, while the political structure is being stabilized. Nobody seems to notice (or perhaps they refuse to acknowledge), the decreased level of violence in that region.

On the other hand, if a Republican wins, I hope they don't focus too much on Iraq, since there are other priorities that we are neglecting to address globally (i.e. poverty, overpopulation, climate change, education, epidemics, Darfur Genocide, etc.)

I hope Clinton doesn't win, though. She publicly insulted Putin, which is irresponsible of her. The last thing we need now is to anger Russia and intensify our problems in foreign relations.

Clinton said back in January that Putin "doesn't have a soul": (Hillary on Putin), at which Putin fired back, that Hillary "doesn't have a head" (in paraphrase), which I thought was funny (Putin on Hillary).

And I personally dislike Clinton's pro-smoking ban policy: Smoke-ban.

For Democrats who recently refused to extend the soon to be expired anti-terror surveillance "spy" program on grounds that it violates citizen's private liberty rights (Spy bill), this clearly contradicts with Hillary's smoking ban policy, in itself an encroachment to private citizen's rights.

Naturally I'm Democrat leaning, however I just don't trust neither Hillary and Obama at all. Neither is Mccain really all that appealing to me.

I think in the end, Obama will win. He currently has so much momentum, I can't imagine him slowing down any time soon.

Oh, and the immigration issue, something needs to be done about this. The narcotics trafficking and corruption and gang related crimes is one of the most troubling issue here in California. I'm all in favor of ethnic diversity, but it's in the best interest of U.S. citizens and "legal immigrants" alike that we make sure illegal immigration is taken care of, not to mention the vulnerability this imposes on our national security to potential terrorist threat.

 

[yoniekai]

i think im losing interest in obama. and the democrats in general. right now global issues are very crucial, terrorism, space wars, etc i dont think the democrats can handle it. if this keeps up the US needs mccain to maintain US stronghold. i dont know, earlier obama appeals, but now the democrats dont address the global issues as seriously as mccain. "end the war" "pull out the troops" is not as easy and will be easy as it sounds

 

[Gold Knight]

I have the gut feeling Democrats will win, too. The War in Iraq has become so unpopular

I wonder... I said that myself a while ago, but is that really what the media wants us to think? Gotta remember the media is mostly liberal after all.

Sometimes I think the polls are set up this way in order to make it seem like the war is unpopular?

"Do you like being in a war?"

Of course any sane person would say no. So naturally most polls are made this way by people who are against the war and sometimes I think it's all B.S., can't believe everything you hear.

However I definitely agree with you that if we elect a Republican for a President, I want somebody who is better able to handle more matters than Bush did. Bush was way too preoccupied with one or two things and not the whole.

 

[xi0]

Gotta remember the media is mostly liberal after all.

You honestly believe that? The media is obviously sensationalists over having any political affiliations.

Nearly ALL of political talk radio is Conservative, I'd say there's an equal amount of liberal and conservative newspapers and magazines. The same goes for TV News as well. With the advent of Cable news, there's no more reporting of news it seems. Only editorialized versions like The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, Hardball with Christ Matthews, and Lou Dobbs Tonight which pass themselves off as being "No-Spin" (as O'Reilly puts it), or unbiased. PPPPLLLLLLEEEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE....LOL. I would say with the exception of Christ Matthews, Alan Colmes, Keith Olberman, and Lou Dobbs (Who's an Independent mind you), every pundit on TV are Conservative.

If anything the media has no political bias...it seems to all cancel it self out in the end.

 

[Gold Knight]

I can't listen to talk radio actually so I didn't count them.

But news channels and magazines definitely are liberal for the most part.

 

[xi0]

I know about the oil (although we could actually have more local oil if not for the interference of the environmentalists, ie. in Alaska.)

Why drill into protected Enviroments to get MORE oil, when Bush himself has said we're addicted to it as a nation? What we need is alternative energy sources. It will not only be cheaper to us as nation in the long run, it will also give us less of reason for the politicians in Washington to meddle in other countries affairs unilaterally.

I dunno man. Other than the immigration issue (which I don't think the Dems are addressing very well) we seem to be doing fine at home. All our boys coming home would serve to only give the Al Qaeda more opportunities over there to do whatever they wanted to do.

Although I am a Democrat, I disagree with amnesty, and agree with beefing up the border patrol on both borders. I don't think I agree with building a wall, as that would be a mess as far as coordination goes, and the maintenance of such a monstrosity wouldn't be ideal.

Although it's reported that Al Qaeda is some sort of Illuminati-like organization, they wouldn't have an influence over entire governments like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, who are our allies. Like Saddam Hussein, some of the leaders of the countries in the Middle East won't put up with Al Qaeda running things, despite a few of those leaders being nutjobs in the Western World's eyes.

Also, you said we're "enraging" them? How about they are the ones who enraged us?

Why do you continue to lump Iraq and Afghanistan together Phil? Iraq didn't do anything to us...they had no involvement in 9/11, and in fact Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein for being a secular leader. We removed one of the people in the Middle East who didn't stand for Jihadists running amok in his country.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we're there...plain and simple. It's just a fact. Now if we had finished the job and caught bin Laden prior to invading Iraq, than Al Qaeda may have fractured and lost it's influence...but the war in Iraq would have still occurred due to false intelligence, and would have still been unjust.

---

I can't listen to talk radio actually so I didn't count them.

But news channels and magazines definitely are liberal for the most part.

Well, they're still part of the media, lol. I understand that you might not be informed about it though.

Like I said, I feel newspapers are split pretty evenly, but if NewsCorp continues to buy every single one, they might end up being entirely conservative

As far as magazines go, they might be more liberal...but there are certainly clear conservative publications, and liberal publications.

Network TV news isn't as easily classified IMO, but Cable News is classified as this IMO.

Fox News = Conservative
MSNBC = Liberal
CNN = Almost balanced

 

[Gold Knight]

I've been hearing CNN is about to go under, heh. And MSNBC isn't having an easy time of it either.

I don't think Fox News is as conservative as some people make it to sound but I guess I can't convince liberals of that, lol.

---

Why do you continue to lump Iraq and Afghanistan together Phil? Iraq didn't do anything to us...they had no involvement in 9/11, and in fact Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein for being a secular leader. We removed one of the people in the Middle East who didn't stand for Jihadists running amok in his country.

Because it's the Mideast dude... we're having to chase the Taliban and Al Qaeda everywhere. Saddam Hussein would have been a threat eventually. So would Iran. Israel knows all too well just how dangerous this whole region actually is... now imagine if WE were their neighbors. Just covering Afghanistan isn't going to cut it, they're everywhere. I even count America, because we're having to stop them from coming over here as well.

Fact is, we have to cut down on their organization, and it's not so simple as just going into Afghanistan. And we weren't just concentrating on ONE terrorist group. Saddam Hussein himself was a terrorist, even though he was the leader of his own country, he was a terrorist to his own population.

Granted I don't think we went into Iraq with that mindset but I think it was the right thing to do anyway. The problem now is having to help them rebuild to be a country that can stand for itself, and it's not that simple either.

---

Why drill into protected Enviroments to get MORE oil, when Bush himself has said we're addicted to it as a nation? What we need is alternative energy sources. It will not only be cheaper to us as nation in the long run, it will also give us less of reason for the politicians in Washington to meddle in other countries affairs unilaterally.

If you haven't noticed, gas prices are rising. The more local oil we withhold from our population, the more tempting it is to buy from people we rather wouldn't want to deal with.

Anyway, you're right though, we do need alternative energy sources, but at the moment we don't have that.