News   May 24, 2024
Shoppes on Steeles Redevelopment Proposed in Markham
 9K     2 
News   May 24, 2024
Architects and More Open Up for Doors Open
 1.3K     0 
News   May 24, 2024
Lifetime Developments Goes Beyond Construction to Build Community with the Lifeline Foundation
 492     0 

U.S. Elections 2008

Who will be the next US president?

  • John McCain

    Votes: 8 7.8%

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 80 77.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 15 14.6%
  • Total voters
    103
still I fear democrates will underestimate McCain as most Obama supporters see him as a senile old man compared to the young great messiah Barrack Obama.


I think most fail to see is that Obama still has a problem with being a bit to liberal and idealistic while McCain is conservative and a realist.

I am a liberal man but I am realist so I am torn between the two. They call such people like me as independents and really no one will win this demographic by a landslide. If Obama goes all liberal and soft it could turn me off him but if McCain goes anymore conservative I can be turned off by him.

Really, some of you Obama cult worshipers need to look at McCain as more then an old senile man. This is a going to be a close election and really if the democrats lose, its all their own fault.
 
BrandonTO416 said:
Its the same in any country.
Click to expand...

No, the US is unique in that a successful presidential campaign is 18 - 24 months long... most countries it is two to four months.

...and while the two parties have consolidated most of the power for themselves, there are still other choices. For instance, the Libertarian Party is the largest third-party in the US (larger than all other third-parties combined).
 
detroitbootybass said:
No, the US is unique in that a successful presidential campaign is 18 - 24 months long... most countries it is two to four months.
Click to expand...
But the campaign in the US has not started, as the main contenders haven't both chosen their candidate. You can't have a campaign without first deciding who the candidates are.

Of course you could argue that in the US, presidential election campaigns have no official start date, and are considered "commenced" as soon as the populace starts thinking about it. That is part of having a fixed election date. If Harper can last until 2009, we all know when the election will take place, and thus the "campaign" could be considered commenced eight months or more ahead of the election.
 
We've been speculating about an election for over a year now. It likely won't let up until Spring 2009, when we more or less know it will be left to the Fall '09 date.

This is a significant problem with fixed election dates and minority parliaments, esp. when coupled with a psychotic government that insists every motion is a matter of confidence.
 
detroitbootybass said:
No, the US is unique in that a successful presidential campaign is 18 - 24 months long... most countries it is two to four months.

...and while the two parties have consolidated most of the power for themselves, there are still other choices. For instance, the Libertarian Party is the largest third-party in the US (larger than all other third-parties combined).
Click to expand...

Certainly the length of the campaign is longer, but I was talking about the fact that 6 weeks is a lifetime in US politics.

On the contrary, 2 weeks is an eternity in a Parliamentary election. You are make or break it in 4-6 weeks, and in 2 weeks everything can be decided.

You were saying 6 months is an eternity, but what about 2 weeks? ;)

I was just being playful, but I think Parliamentary elections can be pretty interesting.
 
lordmandeep said:
still I fear democrates will underestimate McCain as most Obama supporters see him as a senile old man compared to the young great messiah Barrack Obama.

I think most fail to see is that Obama still has a problem with being a bit to liberal and idealistic while McCain is conservative and a realist.

I am a liberal man but I am realist so I am torn between the two. They call such people like me as independents and really no one will win this demographic by a landslide. If Obama goes all liberal and soft it could turn me off him but if McCain goes anymore conservative I can be turned off by him.

Really, some of you Obama cult worshipers need to look at McCain as more then an old senile man. This is a going to be a close election and really if the democrats lose, its all their own fault.
Click to expand...


I doubt that Democrat strategists underestimate McCain as you suggest. You should give them a little more credit than that.

As for conservative and realistic versus liberal and idealistic, is it beyond your imagination to think that liberal-thinking people can be realistic? This simplistic analysis does nothing more than to expose a shallow knowledge of these political ideologies. Conservatism is as much an ideology as liberalism. The effort to better a society always starts with ideals converted into realities.

If you are so liberal-minded, why are you having such a tough time deciding what your political point of view is with respect to these two candidates? Would you so willingly sell out your liberal beliefs for a conservative? Why?

And as for your assumption that liberal-mindedness is somehow equated with what you call softness, this only exposes your own prejudices and limited understanding as to why a liberal outlook always persists in society. Many liberal-minded people have fought and died for the ideals they believed in - liberal ideals - but I suppose you would see them as soft for dying.

As to an Obama cult, what exactly do you mean by that? For example, does that suggest that people in the US who favour him are mentally blind, unrealistic, brainwashed and unintelligent?

How would it be the democrats fault if they lose? Should they vote for McCain like you and just sell out to some fantasy of what constitutes realism?


Pardon my pissy attitude, but your posts on this issue can seem a little facile. If you like McCain, just say you like him. Stop trying to dance on both sides of the fence.
 
I've never felt less of a Democrat than I feel today, but those feelings are largely becoming tired with the American political system.

The reason why the Democrats may lose is because of weak leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid almost never take a stand in Congress. They were elected to perform, and they haven't done much. Even if they know a bill won't be passed due to veto or fillibuster, they never take a stand and do it anyway.

That kind of inaction of leadership combined with a division in the Presidential party candidates creates significant malaise in a party that was "supposed" to win by any measure.

Jean Chretien did more to oppose the Iraq war than any other North American politician, including most in the Democratic party, and obviously Liberal Canadian politics don't affect Congress...

That says a lot.
 
Hillary is going to win PA, the demographics always supported her, and Obama has made enough slip-ups for PA voters to keep her lead into the primary on Tuesday.

There are 8 states left, and I can already tell you how they will be voting.

Pennsylvania - Hillary (one of the largest states)
North Carolina - Obama (one of the second teir larger states)
Kentucky - Hillary (relatively large)
Indiana - Hillary (relatively large)
West Virginia - Hillary (small state)
Montana - Obama (small state)
Oregon - Obama (relatively large)
South Dakota - Obama (small state)

The deadlock honestly continues right down the middle, on into convention.
 
As I understand it the polling has Obama substantially ahead in Indiana. As far ahead as Hillary is in PA. Combine IN and NC and you have the same or more total delegates as PA. So after the next three states, we'll be right back where we started: with Obama having an insurmountable and unreduced lead in delegates, in the popular vote, and in fundraising. And Hillary's only path to the nomination will still be getting something like 80% of the undeclared superdelegates on side.

Could someone remind me why this pointless and dispiriting exercise is still going on?
 
Most reliable polling sources average Indiana for Hillary:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d8b46eaa-c463-408e-98d2-b830eb122d39

Hillary - 55%
Obama - 39%

Here is a separate poll from 4/1:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=35417ff6-4985-47ce-8e1b-3fbe566d108d

Hillary - 52%
Obama - 43%


SurveyUSA is the only polling firm who has done multiple polls (in Indiana) and has had consistent results. They had some polls from March that say about the same thing, and its relatively consistent, and much more reliable and some of the polls seen in the LA Times or New York Times or some of the other big papers.

SurveyUSA is mostly funded by regional television stations that pay into the company to get results, its less newspaper oriented.


Another agency that has some overall numbers that is less known is American Research Group, they do a lot of polling on behalf of newspapers and etc.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

They too have an early April poll showing the following:

Hillary - 53%
Obama - 44%

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/indem8-701.html

That's the direct link, but their main page above has all states available.
 
Decided to crunch some numbers.

As of 4/19/2008.

Obama has 1,644 delegates and superdelegates
Hillary has 1,498 delegates and superdelegates

Using just the delegates left from the primaries of the 8 states (less Guam and Puerto Rico) here is what the polls (primarily SurveyUSA) suggest:

Pennsylvania delegates won
Obama - 63
Hillary - 85

Indiana
Obama - 28
Hillary - 40

Kentucky
Hillary - 32
Obama - 13

Oregon
Hillary - 22
Obama - 27

West Virginia
*polls unavailable, 28 total delegates up for grabs, Hillary projected to win large majority

Montana
*polls unavailable, 16 total delegates up for grabs, Obama projected to win large majority

South Dakota
*polls unavailable, 15 total delegates up for grabs, Obama projected to win large majority

There's Guam with 4 delegates and Puerto Rico with 55 delegates as well, its worthy to note that the territory of Puerto has more delegates than Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Oregon, and Kentucky. Its fair to treat Puerto Rico as a large group of votes, because 55 delegates can help make or break this election.

Its worthy to note that even with the added delegates of her wins in PA, KY, and IN that she would have 1,677 total delegates after those races. We'll have to see about Guam and Puerto Rico and the other states left.

If Hillary's delegates are to be considered from Michigan and Florida, she would have gotten 73 Michigan Delegates and 105 Florida delegates. So her delegate total with FL and MI would theoretically be 1,855 if she also wins the 3 mentioned states of PA, KY, IN.

Its very true that Hillary won't have enough delegates to get over the requirement without FL or MI, but neither does Obama. This is amazingly close.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top