U.S. Elections 2008

[JasonParis]

You can throw my support behind the unified Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary movement, it is likely to resolve the problem of feeling disenfranchised.

Being a devil's advocate here, but having a ticket without a white middle-aged man on it could also be a little too much for most American voters.

 

[JasonParis]

Curious, but does anyone want me to merge this thread with the Who Would You Like To See As The Next U.S. President thread? It's seems like we have two pararellel discussions about the same thing going on and nobody really voting in the poll anymore anyway.

 

[afransen]

I think Obama will all-too-easily get bogged down in day to day politics. You can keep up the 'yes we can' routine for 4 or 8 years....

Hillary, warts and all, I think would be a very effective President. She also strikes me as more of a 'real person' with her awkwardness than Obama.

 

[Brandon716]

I think Obama will all-too-easily get bogged down in day to day politics. You can keep up the 'yes we can' routine for 4 or 8 years....

Hillary, warts and all, I think would be a very effective President. She also strikes me as more of a 'real person' with her awkwardness than Obama.

Thank you. While I'll vote Obama if he's the nominee there's a lot of people, after seeing Obama for the past two months, have seen his message become more of a campaign stump speech than substance. I have believed Hillary is a stronger candidate for quite some time now.

 

[Brandon716]

Yes, if Florida's election and Michigan's election were added in Obama would be ahead by a few thousand votes (pop. vote), and may have drawn equal in delegates. Unfortunately for Clinton, Russian style elections where only one candidate is on the ballot is not acceptable. Now, it is going to likely cost 25 million to rerun - and that money may have to come from the DNC (which means 25 million less for the election )

Its a disgrace people are calling the Michigan vote a Russia or Iraq style vote.

Obama CHOSE TO WITHDRAW HIS NAME from the ballot. He kept his name on the ballot in Florida.

Hillary decided to have her name on both ballots in both states.

In Michigan, 31% voted uncommitted, in effect meaning NOT HILLARY.

That's nothing like an election in Russia. Now, with that said, she handily won Florida with ALL NAMES on the ballot in a national election with media coverage many many months before the election.

In Russia, however, they do hold elections several times on occasion to get a predetermined result. Hillary has already won Florida, so what are we going to do? Hold an election again and again until Obama wins just to say he won?

That's more Russia-like than what you suggested in Michigan.

 

[Brandon716]

I'd like to see them combined, if possible.

BTW, wanted to take a moment to say that I don't understand why our nomination system doesn't have uniform rules.

The caucus system is the most interesting part. People hold hands in a local meeting place, the count is then taken, and supposedly a proportional amount of state delegates go to a state party convention to elect national delegates. The national delegates end up going to the national convention.

My biggest problem with the caucus system is that its largely unregulated. Anyone can just walk into the precinct and just claim to be a Democrat or not.

I'm not sure I like non-Democrats choosing the Democratic nominee. I fear a lot of Republicans have voted for Obama who have no intention of voting Obama this fall.

In Canada its my understanding the nomination process is more controlled. If you are an NDP member, you must be an NDP member. If you are Liberal, you must be liberal when register and go to the local meetings to send delegates to the national convention.

The United States' non-responsible party system is completely destroying any possibility for 3rd parties to ever get a real chance when the parties themselves can't even make sure real Democrats participate in the Democratic nomination process.

Again, I personally prefer the Parliamentary system in Canada because you at least have clear choices and know who is in charge.

 

[Jayomatic]

It only makes sense to hold both votes again.

Considering that the majority of the population with, a college education, are between the ages of 18-45, and have access to internet and media, the vote in florida is pretty skewed.

Considering that the majority of Obama's supporters would have known this vote didn't count, they wouldn't turn up. Unlike most Clinton supporters who probably just showed up because they didn't know better.

The only way to make the vote fair is to have a new vote.

 

[cacruden]

It only makes sense to hold both votes again.

Considering that the majority of the population with, a college education, are between the ages of 18-45, and have access to internet and media, the vote in florida is pretty skewed.

Considering that the majority of Obama's supporters would have known this vote didn't count, they wouldn't turn up. Unlike most Clinton supporters who probably just showed up because they didn't know better.

The only way to make the vote fair is to have a new vote.

So I guess you are not a fan of Clinton..... if you think here supporters are stupid....

 

[JasonParis]

...and you have organizations like Elections Canada making sure rules are uniform across the entire country.

 

[Brandon716]

It only makes sense to hold both votes again.

Considering that the majority of the population with, a college education, are between the ages of 18-45, and have access to internet and media, the vote in florida is pretty skewed.

Considering that the majority of Obama's supporters would have known this vote didn't count, they wouldn't turn up. Unlike most Clinton supporters who probably just showed up because they didn't know better.

The only way to make the vote fair is to have a new vote.

Plenty of college educated Americans support Hillary. You find in states where Hillary wins, she gets many of the college educated crowd, in states where Obama has won he has gotten many college educated voters.

Here's the proof:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#OHDEM

Scroll to page 2

College Educated voters
47% - Hillary
51% - Obama

Hillary won Ohio, and the college educated crowd was split.


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MODEM

Scroll to page 2

College Educated voters
65% - Obama
31% - Hillary

Obama won Missouri, and he got a clear big majority of college educated voters, but Hillary still won 31% in a state she lost the vote in.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NYDEM

Scroll to page 2

College educated voters
55% - Hillary
42% - Obama

Hillary won her home state of New York quite a bit, so naturally she got a clear majority of educated voters.


So the rule of thumb is that Obama is attracting more college educated voters on average slightly, but its not as if Hillary doesn't have support of educated voters. Really its about who wins the state as a whole, in states where Hillary has won (like MA, NY, OH) she's got a lot of educated voters behind her, in states Obama has won he has got the most educated voters. Education isn't the key here, although the US media has blown this category out of proportion and said stupid people support Hillary (I find this an anti-Hillary bias in media coverage).

The truth is people with lower incomes tend to support Hillary more, because she has a more working class message, whereas Obama's message of inspiration and hope really doesn't explain his economic ideals therefore it doesn't resonate with these types of voters. If you have a low paycheck, have consistently had unemployment problems, and generally been shafted by this economic environment there's not much "inspiration" or "hope" to be happy about. When Hillary gets on the stump speech platform and says we don't need someone who just says hope, but we need action and that we need solutions not just words, this resonates with people who are left out. That's the real reason why Hillary gets more working class voters, it has less to do with education. College educated Americans who tend to have solid jobs and careers really don't have to worry about getting a reliable paycheck that is ample to meet their needs, so this unity, hope, and inspirational message without any specifics is easy to buy into. It really makes sense when you study the politics of this election.

The US media have created a charicature that the Hillary supporter is an uneducated racist who tends to live in rural America in order to give her a bad impression. CNN and MSNBC have particularly been bad in their coverage, repeating the frame that Hillary supporters tend to be uneducated literally every few minutes of coverage all 24 hours of the day.

Another thing that the media have failed to report is that Hillary is an establishment Democrat, but her funding hasn't been from corporations. Only $1 million of the $130+ million her campaign has raised in the past year since she began this campaign was corporate donations, and that was entirely in the beginning of 2007 before her campaign began to get individual donations. Obama has mostly raised his funds through individuals.

We're fortunate both Democrats have taken most their campaign funds from individual contributions from citizens.

Source:

Hillary Clinton campaign finance information: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00000019&Cycle=2008
Barack Obama campaign finance information: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00009638&Cycle=2008

While its obvious Hillary is more of an establishment Democrat (not that I think that's a bad thing, she has experience), its also obvious she's not beholden to corporate America. Corporate America hasn't financed either Democrat's campaign in this election.

 

[Jayomatic]

I didn't mean that Hillary supporters are uneducated. I was just pointing out that Obama seems to have a slight lead when it comes to educated voters. He also has the majority of support in urban centers.

 

[Brandon716]

The most comprehensive poll as of yet between Barack Obama and John McCain. This biggie takes into consideration the electoral college as well as it coming from one of the most respected national polling agencies, SurveyUSA. For those on here who are unaware (which I doubt are many), 538 people elect the President of the US on the recommendation of the winner of the individual states. These electoral college delegates are chosen by political parties to vote for their candidate, and they are not required to vote for who the state elects. In an average election you usually have several electoral college delegates vote against who their state voted for, but its never enough to change the outcome of the election. States with large populations like PA or CA have many electoral votes, whereas small states like North Dakota only have 3 electoral votes.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Barack Obama appears to win the electoral college with 280 votes vs McCain's 258, but I see a big problem.

This poll shows that Barack Obama can't win all of the Democratic base. It shocks me that with Obama on the ticket McCain ends up winning Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Missouri.

Its encouraging he wins Virginia and Nevada and North Dakota, but there's an underlying problem. Obama's winning Virginia is very risky rather than letting Hillary win some of her big supporters in states like PA, NJ. Those are large states with many more electoral votes.

 

[DENTROBATE54]

That would suggest that Obama is appealing to new age Democrats more so than ones in rural ridings and traditionally Red states. If Obama maintains control of the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and Pacific plus garners a sizable number of supporters from the 18-35 demographic nation-wide, he should have no problem not only convincing superdelegates he is the man for the job but could easy well defeat aging dinosaur McCain.

Hiliary has a lock on white women and Latino caucases. Perhaps more stage presence from Oprah, Richardson and his wife could persuade some delegates to reconsider who they'll be backing.

While I'll vote Obama if he's the nominee there's a lot of people, after seeing Obama for the past two months, have seen his message become more of a campaign stump speech than substance. I have believed Hillary is a stronger candidate for quite some time now.

I'm dissappointed to hear that so many have written off Obama becuase he's a good pugilist. All politicians have to sound empassioned and dedicated about the causes they support. Why is only him being targeted for 'all dreams, no substance'? Hilary might have more experience but so what, all presidents have an extensive team of behind-the-scenes advisors ensuring the nation won't run amok.

What better way to prove the system works, than charter away from the establishment, tradional conventions of who can run the nation. Show that centuries of inequality were worth it, to see a son of the unsung, rise through the ranks to govern Americans of all stripes. A son of the world running the world's great superpower.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I'd like to see the results of a poll pitting the Mean Old POW ( and Condi for VP ) vs. the Tiger Beat Candidate ( and the Former First Lady for VP ).

 

[rpgr]

I'd like to see them combined, if possible.

BTW, wanted to take a moment to say that I don't understand why our nomination system doesn't have uniform rules.

The caucus system is the most interesting part. People hold hands in a local meeting place, the count is then taken, and supposedly a proportional amount of state delegates go to a state party convention to elect national delegates. The national delegates end up going to the national convention.

My biggest problem with the caucus system is that its largely unregulated. Anyone can just walk into the precinct and just claim to be a Democrat or not.

I'm not sure I like non-Democrats choosing the Democratic nominee. I fear a lot of Republicans have voted for Obama who have no intention of voting Obama this fall.

In Canada its my understanding the nomination process is more controlled. If you are an NDP member, you must be an NDP member. If you are Liberal, you must be liberal when register and go to the local meetings to send delegates to the national convention.

The United States' non-responsible party system is completely destroying any possibility for 3rd parties to ever get a real chance when the parties themselves can't even make sure real Democrats participate in the Democratic nomination process.

Again, I personally prefer the Parliamentary system in Canada because you at least have clear choices and know who is in charge.

One thing I always remembered during Canadian history class was the intention of not having the same mistakes as in the US for Canadas electrorial system. I don't know the exact quote but the idea was to avoid the idea of the undereducated from taking over the house and putting up poorly thought out policies (that way, the elected is surrounded by scholastic peers) but still giving them a voice in national policy.