Yo americans
(if you can address my head of state's prime minister this way then you 'bet your ass' i can address you this way)
When are you going to give us a democrat in the white house? we don't care about your selfishness and your local issues. you have congress and the senate for that. when can we have a democrat in the house? |
Re: Yo americans
Do you really want Hilary as the first woman president to get assassinated?
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Excuse me. I don't object to being addressed by "Yo Americans.' However, I am not sure what you are talking about otherwise. Who refered to Mr. Blair as "yo, Tony" or some such? Did George do that?
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
If it's not Hillary, it might be Obama as the next Democratic Presidential Candidate, who I think is too green to run for President, but he's high on the popularity contest for some reason.
|
Re: Yo americans
it'll irritate the fundies enough to start them foaming at the mouth
|
Re: Yo americans
The cynic in me wants to say: "Whats the difference anyway?"
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
qft, the democrats are bastards, iirc they're going after hardcore porn more visciously than the republicans; besides the earliest opportunity to have a democrat in the whitehouse is 2008. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
I'd never heard of him until today - the Guardian has a few articles on him... Although most people seem to be suggesting that a mixed-race democratic candidate that's not from the south has no chance of winning whatsoever, so the Republicans are bigging him up... |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Have a read of this, it should be pretty informative. There's a bunch of articles listed at the end, they're probably all a good read as well. Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
You really do need to be from the South - take a look at every Democratic president since JFK.
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
The Mid-West states, Ohio and Florida need to go a Democrat's way. If they do, they should win. They are the real swing states these days. |
Re: Yo americans
Essentially you're correct, but you can't gloss over the oh so dramatic red state v. blue state distinctions.
With the exception of occiasionally New Hampshire (live free or die), the Northeast and West Coast will consistently go Democrat, regardless of the candidate's geographical origin. Even in Massachusetts, where 'Mormon Mitt' Romney is a potential GOP candidate, he's not likely to win his home state. That objective look at home territory just isn't present in the South. Arkansas, which is a conservative bastion for all intensive purposes, voted Clinton. South Carolina was close enough to Kerry/Edwards that should Edwards be on the top of the ticket, it would turn blue. Though it's not a guaranteed win (See 1976), you can bank on a Northeast/West Coast sweep for any democrat ever and there's possibility for a switch for a southern politician. It's just not like that vice versa. Which is why I hope Wesley Clark wins the nomination. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
I want Hilary Clinton to win the US presidency, and Ségolène Royal to win the French presidency. Then we'd have three women in charge of powerful countries (hello Germany). No real reason for that--I just think I'd be fun.
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
No thanks :( |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Quote:
In 2004 Bush took the entire South, but Kerry only lost because of Ohio. The same can be said for Gore's loss in 2000. If the Democrats can continue their resurgeance in the Mountain states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) and the Mid-West (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin) then they'll win Presidential elections. Obama can do that. If he does that, he doesn't have to win any Southern states (which he will). Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Your point doesn't affect the general leanings of each state, nor Barrow's popular contention that a Democratic candidate needs to be from the South to win. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Out of interest, is there any rational reason why the American right hate Hilary Clinton so passionately? I mean, I know she's a woman and obviously linked to Bill, but the bile seems to be off the scale and totally disproportionate to her actions. Did she set fire to a load of bibles covered in flags while battering puppies with George Washington's remains or something?
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
the democrats could put wile e coyote and the roadrunner on the ticket right now and win
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
At the end of the day you have to be practical and encourage damage-limitation. It's all good and well to say you would like to see a communist revolution but it's not going to happen by voting for a third-party candidate who gets 0.1% of the vote. there needs to be people at all levels of social interaction (from MPs to trade unionists to people putting up posters) whilst some attempt is made to reach the vast majority of people (both voters and non-voters) that a change is needed. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
I also take exception to your argument that 'little difference' is the same as 'no difference' as regards political parties. In the American case I would cite the differing attitudes towards homosexuality, criminal justice and foreign policy as just a few reasons why I would most likely vote Democrat. Your attitude of 'if you can't fix everything why bother fixing anything?' seems quite akin to that of a tempermental four old with a broken train set. They don't vote either though :( |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Quote:
(strawman) Quote:
60.7% of the US electorate voted in the presidential election in 2004, with around 60% of the electorate voting for either a Democrat or a Republican. That suggests that a majority of voters feel able to vote for one of the main parties. You could even say that the general leaning in each state is that the main parties are satisfactory. Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Quote:
If offered a choice on whether I would like my hand or my foot cut off, I would probably offer an opinion, but I think it's wrong to assume that I'm necessarily satisfied with the range of choices on offer. Yes, people could set up alternate parties (and many do) but there are enormous barriers to entry and it's not clear whether those who dissatisfied with the Democrats/Republicans have any faith in the system generally anyway. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Kerry and Gore didn't lose 'because of Ohio' or 'because of Florida'. Surely those states are where the closest vote counts were recorded, but they lost because of their campaigns, their strategies, their platforms, and their ability to brand themselves as effective, charismatic leaders. You have to target battleground states, yes, but losing those battleground states becomes less crucial, ideally even irrelevant, should a candidate take a state or two that their party is not traditionally picked to capture. Should a Democratic nominee, for example, win the Carolinas, the focus on Florida is lessened. Should the Republican take Pennsylvania, the need to win Ohio is diminished. A great way to do this is to field a nominee from a battleground state or a state thats not traditionally in the party's camp. I.E. Romney from Massachusetts, Bill Richardson from Arizona, etc. So I guess I'd revise my statement. Democratic candidates need to be either from the South or from Ohio. Get a leg up on the electoral college. But, considering the caliber of Florida Democrats...meh. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Also while the American voting system is a sham, it shouldnt be forgotten that their third parties (eg Libertarian/Greens) are far stronger than any non-mainstream UK parties. American voters have a wider range of credible options available to them than UK voters do - the UK political spectrum is absurdly narrow. Obviously in both countries it will be centreist/populist parties that win in the end though. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
The other is the progressive segment of the Democratic Party, and to a lesser extent, the greens, of which I consider myself a member. Hillary has a much more liberal reputation than she deserves, where she has a pro-war record to defend, not much of an environmental record to speak of, and a generally wussy stance on everything else. Only the crazy evangelists stuck in the '50s hate her because she's got boobs, the rest don't think she's a very effective politician. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Regarding the Carolinas, I'd say that if a Democrat is able to take them then they'll probably take Florida as well. In the last two Presidential elections (including the last one, where Edwards was from South Carolina), it was closer in Florida than either of the Carolinas. Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
The increased efforts to promote voter turnout are a symbol of the increased partianship and the desperation of each party to stop the other party from getting into office. I doubt that this is going to end any time soon. Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
obama cannot win. he is far too easy for the republicans to smear
1) his name is barack hussein obama 2) he's black 3) his dad was muslim |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
they dont all have to be racist, just a vocal minority.
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll Perhaps the most famous alleged use of push polls is in the 2000 United States Republican Party primaries, when it was alleged that George W. Bush's campaign used push polling to torpedo the campaign of Senator John McCain. Voters in South Carolina reportedly were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?", an allegation that had no substance, but planted the idea of undisclosed allegations in the minds of thousands of primary voters[1]. McCain and his wife had in fact adopted a Bangladeshi girl. is it really so hard to imagine republicans doing the same if they were up against obama? i think not. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
Quote:
Point is once you add them up, plus the plethora of loony left groups (one of whom one a seat) smaller parties got a larger share of the national vote in this country than in the US even if we exclude the "regional parties" (which includes, of course, political parties explicitly linked to terrorist groups). That's only the last election obviously, the one before was Nader (who did relatively well in a one off campaign using his own relatively high profile) and before that was Perot who spent a hell of a lot of his own money iirc. On a local level, you're right. But that's more about local politics in America being vastly more important than in this country (which has got to be one of the most centralised in the world). You're always more likely to get some sort of break through at a local level and there's much more scope for that in America. I remember reading there's something like 800,000 elected positions in America - obviously a lot of those are within the grasp of a budding libertarian even if it's just local judge or whatever it is these people vote on. But it's not all one way, the American media seems even more conformist than our own (but in a different way) and you do seem to need millions of dollars to run for Senate, let alone the Presidency. p.s. I'd like to meet the main-party supported white candidate who could lose to a black candidate in a Presidential election. p.p.s. Unless we're talking about in thirty years when demographics have changed or something. p.p.p.s. And even then I doubt most Latino's would vote for a black guy either. |
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
------------------ 2) He's half black...wiki quote..."That my father looked nothing like the people around me –- that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk –- barely registered in my mind." 3) He even went to Muslim school. But where's the point in this one, stereotyping him to where he can't run for president because of Muslim background has nothing to do with his political career. Also, Wiki puts his Religion as United Church of Christ, which is a protestant denomination. Half the voters will probably never look up his muslim background, just read that he's currently attending a protestant church. He also got a lot of attention in January by going to Kenya, where his father was from, and I believe but I can't find a story about it, he went to visit his grandmother in her little hut in some small village, which gives him humanitarion and humility points, but it also could've just been a media stunt to get him more recognition... |
Re: Yo americans
On a side note, I just am happy that Arnold Schwarzenegger, despite his attempts to want to change the laws, will not be running for President. Bush may not always be the most afluent speaker, but at least you can understand what he's saying a majority of the time.
|
Re: Yo americans
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018