US Elections
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32756
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
without trying to extend into a political here MW, is that because somwhere (whichever one wins) they're going to need to have a white male as running mate to appease the "disaffected" voters who don't fancy either of em?Montreal Wanderer wrote:Either is considered unlikely.fatshaft wrote:When are these shenanigans over?
Would Hilary make Obama her vice-presidential running mate, and vice-versa?
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
I would say that Obama would not run for VP (even if Hilary wanted him which I doubt) because it would probably prejudice his chances four years hence of getting the presidential nod. I don't think Hilary would ever want to be second to anyone. I suspect the VP candidate will be a white male, partly because they present by far the largest percentage of the available pool. The successful candidate will select the VP who they believe will help them win - and possibly the factor you imply will enter into it. But the initial reason is neither candidate would be happy to be a VP candidate for the other. Most people think America is more ready for a woman president than a black one. We'll see.Worthy4England wrote:without trying to extend into a political here MW, is that because somwhere (whichever one wins) they're going to need to have a white male as running mate to appease the "disaffected" voters who don't fancy either of em?Montreal Wanderer wrote:Either is considered unlikely.fatshaft wrote:When are these shenanigans over?
Would Hilary make Obama her vice-presidential running mate, and vice-versa?
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:03 am
- Location: Portland, Maine USA
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
So... a couple of months have trundled by... and I've started to follow things more closely..... it is now a case of Hillary hanging on, but with Obama unlikely to be able to put her away until June at the earliest. I really feel that there are so few swing voters (even fewer than normal, as Americans are renowned for their staunch partisanship) left to influence the nomination contest that they'll continue to battle it out, possibly until the summer convention where Obama will win on the basis of his slim majority. Obama can say awful things (his 'bitter' comments revealed himself to be the bigot that I've always suspected him to be) and keep his poll numbers constant, while Hillary can lie (Bosnia...) and see little change. In the end, this drawn-out fight works out very well for conservatives like me who are enjoying watching them slander eachother and waste money.
If democrats were smart (which they aren't - if they were they'd be republicans... ha), they'd see that Obama cannot win the states necessary to beat John McCain while Hillary could give it a much better chance. I've changed my mind that Hillary is 'more beatable' because every single election comes down to a handful of 'swing states' (Ohio, Florida, etc); B Hussein is weak in most of them (and has lost the respective primaries) while Hillary could present the GOP with much more serious problems in those battles. On this basis it was quite easy to predict the outcome of the 2004 election: the GOP had their safe states locked up, while all the close states were either traditional donkey states, or ones that were usually close. It seems, especially if our madrassa-educated friend wins the privilege of running for America's first Affirmative Action President, that this will be repeated. He's such an underqualified retard - part of me hopes that he does win just so that America could be taught a lesson in the value of tokenism and condescension.
If democrats were smart (which they aren't - if they were they'd be republicans... ha), they'd see that Obama cannot win the states necessary to beat John McCain while Hillary could give it a much better chance. I've changed my mind that Hillary is 'more beatable' because every single election comes down to a handful of 'swing states' (Ohio, Florida, etc); B Hussein is weak in most of them (and has lost the respective primaries) while Hillary could present the GOP with much more serious problems in those battles. On this basis it was quite easy to predict the outcome of the 2004 election: the GOP had their safe states locked up, while all the close states were either traditional donkey states, or ones that were usually close. It seems, especially if our madrassa-educated friend wins the privilege of running for America's first Affirmative Action President, that this will be repeated. He's such an underqualified retard - part of me hopes that he does win just so that America could be taught a lesson in the value of tokenism and condescension.
Last edited by mummywhycantieatcrayons on Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36439
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Oh aye because George Bush is definitely the brightest bulb in the box.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So... a couple of months have trundled by... and I've started to follow things more closely..... it is now a case of Hillary hanging on, but with Obama unlikely to be able to put her away until June at the earliest. I really feel that there are so few swing voters (even fewer than normal, as Americans are renowned for their staunch partisanship) left to influence the nomination contest that they'll continue to battle it out, possibly until the summer convention where Obama will win on the basis of his slim majority. Obama can say awful things (his 'bitter' comments revealed himself to be the bigot that I've always suspected him to be) and keep his poll numbers constant, while Hillary can lie (Bosnia...) and see little change. In the end, this drawn-out fight works out very well for conservatives like me who are enjoying watching them slander eachother and waste money.
If democrats were smart (which they aren't - if they were they'd be republicans... ha), they'd see that Obama cannot win the states necessary to beat John McCain while Hillary could give it a much better chance. I've changed my mind that Hillary is 'more beatable' because every single election comes down to a handful of 'swing states' (Ohio, Florida, etc); B Hussein is weak in most of them (and has lost the respective primaries) while Hillary could present the GOP with much more serious problems in those battles. On this basis it was quite easy to predict the outcome of the 2004 election: the GOP had their safe states locked up, while all the close states were either traditional donkey states, or ones that were usually close. It seems, especially if our madrassa-educated friend wins the priviledge of running for America's first Affirmative Action President, that this will be repeated. He's such an underqualified retard - part of me hopes that he does win just so that America could be taught a lesson in the value of tokenism and condescension.
FFS.
Oh and while I'm on the subject it would be much worse having a token black president to having the most corrupt and evil fooktard who is in power now would it?
Oh and I'm sure its not better than some 71 year old ex military nut job, who more than likely is going to win by telling the American dumbass public that "A vote for him is a vote for God".
Fook me.
Last edited by BWFC_Insane on Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So... a couple of months have trundled by... and I've started to follow things more closely..... it is now a case of Hillary hanging on, but with Obama unlikely to be able to put her away until June at the earliest. I really feel that there are so few swing voters (even fewer than normal, as Americans are renowned for their staunch partisanship) left to influence the nomination contest that they'll continue to battle it out, possibly until the summer convention where Obama will win on the basis of his slim majority. Obama can say awful things (his 'bitter' comments revealed himself to be the bigot that I've always suspected him to be) and keep his poll numbers constant, while Hillary can lie (Bosnia...) and see little change. In the end, this drawn-out fight works out very well for conservatives like me who are enjoying watching them slander eachother and waste money.
If democrats were smart (which they aren't - if they were they'd be republicans... ha), they'd see that Obama cannot win the states necessary to beat John McCain while Hillary could give it a much better chance. I've changed my mind that Hillary is 'more beatable' because every single election comes down to a handful of 'swing states' (Ohio, Florida, etc); B Hussein is weak in most of them (and has lost the respective primaries) while Hillary could present the GOP with much more serious problems in those battles. On this basis it was quite easy to predict the outcome of the 2004 election: the GOP had their safe states locked up, while all the close states were either traditional donkey states, or ones that were usually close. It seems, especially if our madrassa-educated friend wins the priviledge of running for America's first Affirmative Action President, that this will be repeated. He's such an underqualified retard - part of me hopes that he does win just so that America could be taught a lesson in the value of tokenism and condescension.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36439
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Doesn't matter. Its America. Obama will probably get the Democratic nomination, the vote will be tight as ever with obama probably just edging out McCain, but McCain will "win" because one of his relatives will be the voting official in Florida (and probably every other state) and will stuff a few extra in the ballot boxes for good measure.superjohnmcginlay wrote:Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So... a couple of months have trundled by... and I've started to follow things more closely..... it is now a case of Hillary hanging on, but with Obama unlikely to be able to put her away until June at the earliest. I really feel that there are so few swing voters (even fewer than normal, as Americans are renowned for their staunch partisanship) left to influence the nomination contest that they'll continue to battle it out, possibly until the summer convention where Obama will win on the basis of his slim majority. Obama can say awful things (his 'bitter' comments revealed himself to be the bigot that I've always suspected him to be) and keep his poll numbers constant, while Hillary can lie (Bosnia...) and see little change. In the end, this drawn-out fight works out very well for conservatives like me who are enjoying watching them slander eachother and waste money.
If democrats were smart (which they aren't - if they were they'd be republicans... ha), they'd see that Obama cannot win the states necessary to beat John McCain while Hillary could give it a much better chance. I've changed my mind that Hillary is 'more beatable' because every single election comes down to a handful of 'swing states' (Ohio, Florida, etc); B Hussein is weak in most of them (and has lost the respective primaries) while Hillary could present the GOP with much more serious problems in those battles. On this basis it was quite easy to predict the outcome of the 2004 election: the GOP had their safe states locked up, while all the close states were either traditional donkey states, or ones that were usually close. It seems, especially if our madrassa-educated friend wins the priviledge of running for America's first Affirmative Action President, that this will be repeated. He's such an underqualified retard - part of me hopes that he does win just so that America could be taught a lesson in the value of tokenism and condescension.
So God wins again!
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14101
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14101
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28832
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
You have to remember, BWFCi, that for quite some time Mummy's avatar was a picture of Margaret Thatcher.BWFC_Insane wrote:Oh aye because George Bush is definitely the brightest bulb in the box.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So... a couple of months have trundled by... and I've started to follow things more closely..... it is now a case of Hillary hanging on, but with Obama unlikely to be able to put her away until June at the earliest. I really feel that there are so few swing voters (even fewer than normal, as Americans are renowned for their staunch partisanship) left to influence the nomination contest that they'll continue to battle it out, possibly until the summer convention where Obama will win on the basis of his slim majority. Obama can say awful things (his 'bitter' comments revealed himself to be the bigot that I've always suspected him to be) and keep his poll numbers constant, while Hillary can lie (Bosnia...) and see little change. In the end, this drawn-out fight works out very well for conservatives like me who are enjoying watching them slander eachother and waste money.
If democrats were smart (which they aren't - if they were they'd be republicans... ha), they'd see that Obama cannot win the states necessary to beat John McCain while Hillary could give it a much better chance. I've changed my mind that Hillary is 'more beatable' because every single election comes down to a handful of 'swing states' (Ohio, Florida, etc); B Hussein is weak in most of them (and has lost the respective primaries) while Hillary could present the GOP with much more serious problems in those battles. On this basis it was quite easy to predict the outcome of the 2004 election: the GOP had their safe states locked up, while all the close states were either traditional donkey states, or ones that were usually close. It seems, especially if our madrassa-educated friend wins the priviledge of running for America's first Affirmative Action President, that this will be repeated. He's such an underqualified retard - part of me hopes that he does win just so that America could be taught a lesson in the value of tokenism and condescension.
FFS.
Oh and while I'm on the subject it would be much worse having a token black president to having the most corrupt and evil fooktard who is in power now would it?
Oh and I'm sure its not better than some 71 year old ex military nut job, who more than likely is going to win by telling the American dumbass public that "A vote for him is a vote for God".
Fook me.
Tokenism? Affirmative Action? "B Hussein"? You're a bright fella, don't show yourself up as a brain-dead right-wing bigot. Oooh it's the bogeyman!!!
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14101
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Still Obama, but it is getting tighter since Pennsylvania. Mummy's wish for another Republican president is incomprehensible. Being of a conservative disposition is fine, but the US (and the world) desperately need a change.superjohnmcginlay wrote:
Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
Why?Montreal Wanderer wrote:Still Obama, but it is getting tighter since Pennsylvania. Mummy's wish for another Republican president is incomprehensible. Being of a conservative disposition is fine, but the US (and the world) desperately need a change.superjohnmcginlay wrote:
Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14101
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Increasing US Poverty levels? Recession? WAR?superjohnmcginlay wrote:Why?Montreal Wanderer wrote:Still Obama, but it is getting tighter since Pennsylvania. Mummy's wish for another Republican president is incomprehensible. Being of a conservative disposition is fine, but the US (and the world) desperately need a change.superjohnmcginlay wrote:
Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36439
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Lies? Corruption? Stupidity?boltonboris wrote:Increasing US Poverty levels? Recession? WAR?superjohnmcginlay wrote:Why?Montreal Wanderer wrote:Still Obama, but it is getting tighter since Pennsylvania. Mummy's wish for another Republican president is incomprehensible. Being of a conservative disposition is fine, but the US (and the world) desperately need a change.superjohnmcginlay wrote:
Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?
Christ the list is endless.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
Are the other party some sort of magic wand? Why would it be any different under the democrats? That other Clinton was a right dodgy fooker from what I remember.boltonboris wrote:Increasing US Poverty levels? Recession? WAR?superjohnmcginlay wrote:Why?Montreal Wanderer wrote:Still Obama, but it is getting tighter since Pennsylvania. Mummy's wish for another Republican president is incomprehensible. Being of a conservative disposition is fine, but the US (and the world) desperately need a change.superjohnmcginlay wrote:
Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14101
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
That Lewinsky was a bit dodgy, come to mention it! (still had worse)superjohnmcginlay wrote:Are the other party some sort of magic wand? Why would it be any different under the democrats? That other Clinton was a right dodgy fooker from what I remember.boltonboris wrote:Increasing US Poverty levels? Recession? WAR?superjohnmcginlay wrote:Why?Montreal Wanderer wrote:Still Obama, but it is getting tighter since Pennsylvania. Mummy's wish for another Republican president is incomprehensible. Being of a conservative disposition is fine, but the US (and the world) desperately need a change.superjohnmcginlay wrote:
Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?
Maybe it won't be any better / maybe it will, but it surely won't be any worse! It's a risk that the US and the hoping / watching world, need to make
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 100 guests