At this point, I honestly have no idea. I could try to guess, but since I was wrong the last time, I don't really trust my own judgement for shit. So that's why I'm asking other people.
Clarification: I don't want to hear who it is you'd like to win. That's not what I'm asking. If at all possible, try to keep your own personal bias out of your answer. What I'm asking for is who you think is most likely going to win.
The other night my roommates were arguing about this around the kitchen table. After about an hour or so, they both agreed that if either Hillary or Obama wins the Democratic nomination, and if either Guiliani or McCain wins the Republican nomination, the Democrats will lose, because the nation is simply not ready to elect a woman or a black man to the presidency. I'm not convinced that my roommates really know what they're talking about, however, so I'd like to get a few more opinions on the matter.
I mean, do people really care that much anymore about the gender and race of their president? I heard someone else say that anybody likely to not vote for a candidate just based on gender or race alone probably wouldn't be voting Democratic anyway, so the Democrats shouldn't worry about it. The thing is, I've heard all kinds of people say all kinds of things. Everyone's just stabbing in the dark as far as I can tell.
Alright. I know I said I wouldn't try, but it's impossible to resist:
If the Republicans go with anyone other than McCain and Guiliani, they'll lose. Those two may not excite the "base," but any candidate who would excite the base at this point would fail to excite anyone else. The Democrats should forget about trying to break barriers for the moment and just go with the safe, white maleness of Edwards. However, if Gore decides to run, the election would be his.
But I could be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Americans are ready for a major change in leadership. Hillary Clinton will win in 2008 - why? Because she has a lifetime of experience in presidential and state level politics. There was often talk of who really wore the pants when Bill Clinton was in office - personally I have doubts she will make a fine president, and I believe we are ready for one of her caliber.
I don't think being black or female will have a noticeable impact on the outcome.
The country is still divided about 50/50 between democrats and republicans(among those who vote at least), stupid little things that get headlines and backroom deals we never hear about will have a bigger affect than the sex or race of a candidate.
I was pretty convinced that George Bush wouldn't be reelected, so I wouldn't be surprised by much.
I'm an Obama supporter, but after the last couple of debates Hillary has really shown her stuff. I doubt that Edwards would make it, though I like him I wouldn't want him as president.
I don't know if people care about race and gender as much these days, but if Hillary takes the nomination you're going to see people on the far right coming out en masse to vote against her.
Otherwise I think it's too early to tell, "Reply hazy, try again."
"Americans are ready for a major change in leadership." And that change is...Hillary? Didn't we, as you say, already have her as president? I mean, that's OK with me I guess, but voting for Hillary is sort of like voting for the 90s all over again. It would be a major change from Bush, certainly, but not a major change from politics as I've known it in my young adulthood.
I don't think people are finding Hillary particularly inspiring. She just seems to ooze...ambition. I have jokingly (and politically incorrectly) dubbed her "The Vagina of Steel."
Let me revert back to something else one of my roommates said. In his rough words: "Even if Hillary continues to do well in the polls, once she gets to Iowa, she's not gonna make it. In the Iowa caucuses everybody can see which table you go to when you choose your candidate. And nobody will want to be seen going to Hillary's table."
Well Yoggoth, when you think about it, George Bush was not re-elected, since voter fraud was involved in Ohio (and people are in jail for that now, but not our 'honorable' leader. For that matter, he wasn't even elected in 2000, since Florida disqualified a large percentage of the Democratic base. So Bush was appointed as President, much like (and ironically) the the leaders of the Axis powers of WWII.
He is credited with creating the Patriot Act, which is nothing more than an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the Nation, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Does that sound about right? It's the definition for Fascism, not that I am on a rant.
I think the far right will come out to vote against both a black man, or a woman - but it's a good point Herr Zrbo.
Little Earl, I don't think you could be more wrong about Iowa. Hillary is a lot more conservative than most Dems in general, so I think that will be embraced by Mid-Western ideologies.
Wait and see; I think she's going to clean the floor with her ambitions, and more importantly, add a level of integrity to the race and politics in general that has not been seen in many decades.
Yes, there was fraud, but it was still a very close election. And knowing everything we knew about the Bush administration at that point, the margin was surprising. Basically, something like 45% of voters that will vote for Republicans no matter what they do(I should say the 'conservative' candidate to be more accurate). Unless something changes, this election will probably also be close.
As for Bush being fascist, well maybe in a really wimpy way. All of the things he's done may be bad, but let's face it, none of them affect our nice California lives all that much. I associate fascism with politically inspired violence, which we just don't have in America at this point.
Hillary's presidency will probably be much like her husband's. They are both intelligent people who will generally do a good job but who won't be able to change the actual political landscape that much. In other words, she will successfully get policy changes through as long as she compromises with conservatives. Of course, anything is preferable to the bumbling band of evil that's in the white house now.
I'm not very interested in comparing Bush to the Nazis, mostly because it doesn't change anybody's mind. Also, Hillary may be more conservative than someone like Ted Kennedy, but the thing is I don't believe the average middle American THINKS of Hillary as being more conservative. Somehow the Right has managed to successfully brand the Clintons as the ultimate symbol of the degradation of "moral values" in our modern society, which has always seemed to me like an awkward fit, but hey, as long as it works, the Right doesn't exactly care whether it makes any sense or not. Karl Rove managed to brand Kerry a "flip-flopper," even though that didn't really make much sense, but somehow people bought it.
You must not have heard about her views on the use of nuclear weapons then.
Ya anyways, gotta run, no more time for politics until later. Have a look at my newest article.
http://www.cryptic.tv/news.htm
What's with all the anti-Bush sentiment going on here? I thought this was a young republicans blog??
Anyways, I'm interested in Obama, even if he's not that experienced he seems like he wants to change things up more, or at least he's good at convincing me that he wants to. Hillary is like little earl said, a return to the 90's and not a major change in terms of politics. But I'll vote for whoever's running against baby-eating-hatemonger.
Yeah, that's how I feel about Obama too Zerbo.
Post a Comment