tk102 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 If anything, the Democratic Party is more invigorated than ever due to the tight primary race. All the media attention has been encouraging Democrats to participate in the electoral process. Even Democrats in states that have primaries as late as Oregon have been registering in record numbers. Likewise, if the dollars raised represent relative enthusiasm for a party, the GOP equally screwed. "For example, in the last month alone Obama raised $55 million, Clinton $35 million and McCain $12 million. That is a 90 to 12 money advantage and money is the mother’s milk of politics." --Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 If anything, the Democratic Party is more invigorated than ever due to the tight primary race. All the media attention has been encouraging Democrats to participate in the electoral process. Even Democrats in states that have primaries as late as Oregon have been registering in record numbers. Likewise, if the dollars raised represent relative enthusiasm for a party, the GOP equally screwed. "For example, in the last month alone Obama raised $55 million, Clinton $35 million and McCain $12 million. That is a 90 to 12 money advantage and money is the mother’s milk of politics." --Source My only issue with your first comment is: The television media is allways biased towards Democrats. Allways. They were even hyping John Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 The television media is allways biased towards Democrats. Allways. Except Fox of course. Maybe that doesn't count as television media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 There is one current day example, and I am sure there are others. Michael Ducacus, Gov. of Massachusetts. He was hyped by the media, and he ended up loosing the election. Obama is the next Ducacus. Many people are seeing this. Ducacus himself had mentioned it on the radio. Fox?! Lol... UFOs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 I followed Dukakis' campaign. Barack Obama could run circles around Dukakis. He's smarter, more polished, more articulate. The money issue--in politics, the one who can raise the most money is far more likely to win. That's not always true, but it is often true. I wouldn't make last month the model for fundraising, however--McCain's already won the nomination and is not getting near the attention that Obama or Clinton are getting. A better comparison might be from when all three were in the running for their parties' nominations. The Democrats have raised far, far more funds than the Republicans have and that is significant, but I don't think the big donors for the Republicans have come out of the woodwork yet. I suspect they're waiting to see who the VP nominee will be. @Gavroche--There are more Democrats than Republicans in the US, so any Republican seeking to win the Presidential election has to gain more support from moderate Democrats than does a Democratic nominee from moderate Republicans. It also depends on the states they win because of the electoral voting for President, but that's another story, too. In terms of what happens when either Clinton or Obama loses the nomination--theoretically the loser could take his or her support and go for McCain, but both candidates have said they want a united party and would support whoever won. Neither Obama nor Clinton want to see another Republican in the Oval Office, and they'd rather give each other their support than to give it to McCain. Their ultimate goal is to see a Democrat in the office. I would not be surprised to see an Obama-Clinton ticket. I think that unless some horrible skeleton comes out of Obama's closet rendering him unwinnable in the general election, he's going to be the nominee. He has more popular votes, more delegates, and is gaining more super-delegates by the day. If Clinton and Obama are both agreeable to that ticket, I think they would be utterly unbeatable in the November general election. They have absolutely energized the Democratic party in a way I've not seen since Bill Clinton's first race for the White House, and I think even more than that. This may be a long drawn out battle for the two, but the record voter registrations and turnouts in states that normally only have a token say and small turnouts this late in the nomination process will bring even more people to the Democratic party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavroche Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 OK, so I guess media outside the US just tends to insist only on the opposition between Obama and Clinton, while in fact Democrats won't be dumb enough to get stuck after either one's nomination. I'll keep watching what's going on in America, thanks for the answers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The Democrats have raised far, far more funds than the Republicans have and that is significant, but I don't think the big donors for the Republicans have come out of the woodwork yet. I suspect they're waiting to see who the VP nominee will be. Correction: The Democratic candinates has raised far, far more funds than the Republican candinate. The actual Republican party has raised more money than the Democratic Party. Still, fundraising is a big problem for the Republicans, especially for the possiblity of a 'veto-proof congress'. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its Senate counterpart have reportedly raised $66 million for this election cycle so far. The Republican committees have raised $20 million. While the seesaw is somewhat righted by fundraising by the Republican National Committee ($22 million versus only $3 million for the Democrats), the rest of the picture is pretty alarming for Republicans. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_vetoproof_congress.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Except Fox of course. Maybe that doesn't count as television media. Fox News is "Fair and Balanced." I saw it on television, so it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Fox News is "Fair and Balanced." I saw it on television, so it must be true. If you use a stopwatch, you might be suprised bu how balanced it really is. Sure the hosts may be more right leaning, but the left leaning guests tend to get more air time. Granted because most people are used to the heavy left leaning media, it appears that Fox News is far right. By no means am I actually making the claim that it is truly fair and balanced, just that it isn't so far right as you might think. It is actually nice to hear some of the good things that come out of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 My problem with fox has less to do with the amount of air time given to each "side" and more to do with the fact that they seem to love to set a stammering lefty ranter up against a well-spoken/diciplined righty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 There is a small chance that Clinton may pull off a sweep, taking West Virgina, Kentucky, and Pureto Rico, according to RCP, but RCP then claims it is rather unlikely for it to happen. It is rather likely that she will at the very least claim one of those three...er...places. Yes places. Not states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 My problem with fox has less to do with the amount of air time given to each "side" and more to do with the fact that they seem to love to set a stammering lefty ranter up against a well-spoken/diciplined righty. That isn't so much Fox's fault. They invite them, but the more articulate boycott going on Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I dunno. They had Bill Clinton on there not too long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I dunno. They had Bill Clinton on there not too long ago. Again I say... Hehe. Just kidding. He's a really good orator... Anyway... We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic... The Democrats may have been gathering cash, but while McCain has been able to campaign for his presidency, They're spending more money saying why the future candidate for their party shouldn't be president. Well one of them is... So technically McCain doesn't have to spend as much right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 Since the race for the Democratic nomination is almost over, I can honestly say that Obama will be the 'Democratic nomination' for president. However, I do not see Hillary as his Vice President. My prediction: Here is how Hillary will be nominated for President, and how the race will be played out for the genderal election: Tom John McCain and (His Unknown Running Mate) Republican Party vrs. Brock Barack Obama and John Edwards Democrat Party vrs. Hillary Clinton and Joe Liberman Independant Party Since Hillary has the essential states to win the presidency, her best bet is to declare herself as independant. She will be able to take a mess of votes away from both canidate, and it will ensure her success now or in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 Hillary Clinton and Joe Liberman Independant Party Since Hillary has the essential states to win the presidency, her best bet is to declare herself as independant. She will be able to take a mess of votes away from both canidate, and it will ensure her success now or in 2012. ERROR: CRITICAL READ FAILURE. BUFFER OVERRUN. No, not gonna happen. Aside from Liberman and Hillary being politically close in terms of ideologies, Hillary will not switch to independant. Not matter how desperate the Independant party gets. She's already got enough heat on her, switching parties to win the election would strip her of any credibility she may have had. Additionally, it will not strip votes from both candidates, it will strip voted from the democrats, ensureing another "4 more years!" which is the last thing this country needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 Aside from Liberman and Hillary being politically close in terms of ideologies, ...Huh? Liberman endorsed McCain for the Presidency, and is likely to speak at the Republican convention. And the Democrats want to kick Liberman out of their cacacus as punishment for that. You're telling me Clinton is just like him? You DON'T go out and declare an indepedency candinacy every time you are upset, that just makes you look like an idiot. As for if she'll/he'll receive VP pick, I think it's a rather dumb move that both Obama and Clinton would not want to consider. You'll get the worst of both sides, Obama's inexperience, and Clinton's "bad repuation". I think I may be convinced that Clinton will lose the nomination (but she will lose in a divided convention, not lose now), but I can take comfort that she can be able to take over the Popular Vote by June 3rd, and thereby turn the tables around: Obama will be the one who is overturning the will of the people by using the superdelegates. I can also take comfort however in the following: We have all but forgotten Flordia and Michigan. Obama is set to declare victory when he gets a majority of 2,025 delegates, but that excludes both Flordia and Michigan, major swing states who violated the Democratic party rules by having their primaries early. If you include Flordia and Michigan, then the amount of delegates needed to win will ALSO increase, which will benieft Clinton a lot. Plus, counting Flordia and Michigan will also aid in increasing her popular vote tally. If Clinton is to prevail, she needs to ensure that those delegates get seated in a way that will benieft her (as in, don't just go and spilt it 50-50 Flordia and Michigan, so that Obama gets 'free' delegates too), and the only group that can do that...is not the Superdelegates, but the Rules and Ways Commitee. We're going to see a ton of fights over there. And it's a fight that is needed. Snubbing your nose at Flordia is...quite simply...dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 11, 2008 Author Share Posted May 11, 2008 There's no chance for an independent ticket. Lieberman won as Senator after losing the Dem primary because the Republicans and moderate Democrats let him know in overwhelming numbers that they would re-elect him if he ran on an indy ticket. His situation was extraordinary and had unique aspects that allowed that to happen. Those same dynamics would not be present at the national level. I'm not sure if Edwards will run as VP or not with his wife fighting a recurrence of her cancer. Edit: Obama didn't campaign in either MI or FL because he was following the Dem leadership that had already said the delegates wouldn't be seated from those states. He wasn't even on the FL ballot. Seating delegates from those states would be very controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 He wasn't even on the FL ballot. Yes he was. He wasn't on the MI Ballot. There's the difference. Seating delegates from those states would be very controversial. Which is why I think Clinton will lose the nomination. If, however, I was in charge of the Democratic Party, I would half Flordia's delegates (like how the Republicans penalized Flordia), and then spilt MI's delegates 50-50 to Obama and Clinton. I think neither Clinton nor Obama offically campagined in Flordia, and since they were both on the ballot, you can be ensured that any who wanted to vote for Obama get counted. MI, on the other hand, had Obama not on the ballot, and even if you give ALL of the 'None of the Above' votes to Obama, you still have to worry about lowered turnout for Obama. However, this compromise will likely weaken both Clinton's hand, which is why I'm not so happy with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 According to the Associated Press count, Obama officially overtook Clinton on super delegates yesterday. More than a few of these new SDs have left Camp Hillary to throw in with Barack, so while his number is growing, hers is shrinking. For tk102's sake, I'm hoping that Clinton waits until the 21st to drop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 Hilary isn't going to give up any time soon, I'm betting. She's too stubborn. She's going to keep clinging on until it is absolutely impossible for her to win. As for her being Obama's VP, unless she institutes a plan to have him assassinated, which I actually don't see being beneath her, unfortunately, I really doubt she's willing to take the 'Mostly-useless' spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Clinton isn't dumb. She may be a nut job, but she isn't stupid. She knows as well as we do that if she were to run as an independent, it would only split the democratic vote and pretty well ensure that McCain gets elected. With either one winning the primary it's going to hurt the winner. If Obama wins then he has disenfranchised the voters of FL and MI. If Clinton wins(by including FL and MI) she cheated the election by using delegates that were not supposed to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Which is exactly why I'm really hoping Hilary pulls the cat out of the bag and wins. I think McCain has a good bet of beating her. I don't think he's got as good of a chance of beating Obama, the man's got charisma, even if I despise his politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 12, 2008 Author Share Posted May 12, 2008 Clinton and Obama are two of the most energetic campaigners I've seen in a long time. I think McCain will have a tough fight no matter who wins--he's representing the party that so many are now disenchanted with. He's already starting the race with that handicap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 John Edwards will be endorsing Barack Obama tonight. So much for his pledge not to endorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.