Topic: US Elections 2008

[Angela]

As a matter of fact ... the story-teller in me can see a conspiracy-story in the making: the republican party throws all their weight into seeing Hillary and/or Obama or both getting the ticket, because they know that formerly-apathetic people will roust themselves out to vote republican -- anything but see a woman or a black man take office!

</intuitive cynicism>

I don't know, V...I think the "masses" have been rousted...see S.Carolina Primary.

I don't think "they" want another Civil War on their hands.  Remember what happened in LA...Rodney King?  Imagine that on a national scale.

[Quantum Shaman]

I don't know, V...I think the "masses" have been rousted...see S.Carolina Primary.

I don't think "they" want another Civil War on their hands.  Remember what happened in LA...Rodney King?  Imagine that on a national scale.

The thing is, Ang, you are rational and can forward-think. That in itself is a rare gift!    Some of the bigots & misogynists I have known would probably defect to Russia or agree to have their naughty bits tortured before they would stand for ANY minority in office.  It's a scary world.

[nichi]

Some of the bigots & misogynists I have known would probably defect to Russia or agree to have their naughty bits tortured before they would stand for ANY minority in office.  It's a scary world.

Sad but true, D.

[Michael]

Well, America may never have seen anything like it.
But let me tell you,
the rest of the world is looking on with gobsmacking hilarity.

Super Tuesday, and what do we have?
Republican who's not a real Republican.
And in the other corner - the big bright corner?
A woman and a black man!

I tell you we, the rest, can't believe our eyes.
The US is turning in its grave.

Humanity won't change over night, just like that,
but this is still one hell of a show, for sore hearts.

[tommy2]

This IS, certainly, the shape of things to  come. 

Many don't see it but within 50 years most who live today won't recognize the U.S., for it will have changed THAT much.


If you haven't already by now, take a close look at our world history and the fate of all the other "great powers" that have been. They all fell, and fell from within.

This is just the tip of the inevitable iceberg, when a nation starts losing contact with itself.

Mark my word.  t

[Angela]

Looks like Hillary is making some progress.  She won Ohio ... crucial in obtaining the Democratic nomination.

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 5, 2:20 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton split delegates in four states Tuesday while Republican John McCain claimed his party's nomination for president.

Clinton picked up at least 115 delegates in Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and Texas, while Obama picked up at least 88. Nearly 170 delegates were still to be awarded, including 154 in Texas.

Obama had a total of 1,477 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates, according to the Associated Press count. He picked up three superdelegate endorsements Tuesday, Clinton had 1,391 delegates. It will take 2,025 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination.

McCain surpassed the 1,191 delegates needed to secure the nomination by winning delegates in the four states. He also picked up new endorsements from about 30 party officials who will automatically attend the convention and can support whomever they choose.

McCain had 1,224 delegates, according to the AP count. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who had 261 delegates, dropped out of the race Tuesday night.

The AP tracks the delegate races by calculating the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences.

Most primaries and some caucuses are binding, meaning delegates won by the candidates are pledged to support that candidate at the national conventions this summer.

Political parties in some states, however, use multistep procedures to award national delegates. Typically, such states use local caucuses to elect delegates to state or congressional district conventions, where national delegates are selected. In these states, the AP uses the results from local caucuses to calculate the number of national delegates each candidate will win, if the candidate's level of support at the caucus doesn't change."



I found this part (wikipedia - superdelegates) interesting, almost Mafioso-esque ....
At the 2008 Democratic National Convention the superdelegates will make up approximately one-fifth of the total number of delegates. The unforeseen and unprecedented closeness of the race between the leading contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama following Super Tuesday has focused attention on the potential role of the superdelegates in selecting the Democratic nominee, inasmuch as in the aggregate they could come to be kingmakers to a degree not seen in previous election cycles.[2] Such an outcome would result in the first brokered convention since 1952.

brokered convention...
A brokered convention refers to a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates obtained during the presidential primary and caucus process for a single candidate to obtain an absolute majority in the first round of voting of the presidential nominating convention. Once the first ballot has been held, and no candidate has a majority of delegate votes, the convention is then considered brokered, and the nomination is decided through political horse-trading and further ballots.

The "smoked-filled room"...

[Michael]

Watched a little of the latest debate. have to say, I like Obama. Hillery is good - she will be fine, and she is a woman. Time for a woman in the White Room.

But Obama just seems more genuine, in some refreshing way. But will he live? - big question. And more than that, if he runs for president and builds such hope, then is shot? - what will be the psychological damage to the whole American nation? - not sure they would recover easily from that.

[erik]

Being a skeptic, I would ask: what change (if any) can these two bring to the world? From the strategic viewpoint, Obama would be disaster for Iraq - quick withdrawal would hit that country hard. Even withdrawal in 1-2 years would be pretty disastrous. Counterinsurgency wars take a lot of time to be managed successfully.

[Jahn]

Being a skeptic, I would ask: what change (if any) can these two bring to the world? From the strategic viewpoint, Obama would be disaster for Iraq - quick withdrawal would hit that country hard. Even withdrawal in 1-2 years would be pretty disastrous. Counterinsurgency wars take a lot of time to be managed successfully.

Going in to Iraq was a big mistake - now leaving Iraq is a big mistake! Isn't that a paradox?

Ok I know the figures - but anyway. It's Friday and I want some fun.

[erik]

Going in to Iraq was a big mistake - now leaving Iraq is a big mistake! Isn't that a paradox?

Nope, it means that mistakes come with their price tag attached.

[Jahn]

Nope, it means that mistakes come with their price tag attached.

You are so rational.

I hope I can afford my mistakes then   .

What I meant was; by going in to a room (enter Iraq) this is considered of most of us as a mistake, then by leaving the room (get out of Iraq) is also considered as a mistake.
 
Rational would say that if enter is a mistake - then leave. Then somebody say, if you have entered - to leave is a mistake. Eehh, please,  - Anybody see my Friday evening point?

I think the US should have a 2 years time out (penalty) in International affairs for "Interference" (we have a hockey league in final right now therefore I make that allegori).

[Michael]

The US will pull out of Iraq, whoever becomes President.

As for what is the best - it would seem logical to say they should stay in order to help stabilise. But actually I don't think the Iraqis care - they are in a battle for supremacy since the first day of the US invasion, and who wins out will win out. As it is now, the US is not in the game - this game is being played by all the countries around, and the forces within Iraq.

But it is the people in US who have had enough, and I am amazed it has taken this long.

Personally I think Iran will win - Iraq will become Shia, and the Sunies are in for a very rough time. The Kurds will maybe hold their own, much to Turkey's dismay. And all that doesn't bode well for Saudi, or Israel. I believe the US admin know this, and so the big question of whether to bomb Iran back a few hundred years, before they pull the troupes out. Somehow, I can't see it happening, but then the oil crisis is likely to change many things in the next year.

[erik]

The US will pull out of Iraq, whoever becomes President.

A bit more mind candy. If the US pulled out, they would lose their bases in the Middle East. They did pull out of kingdom al-Saud, shifted into Iraq, and I wonder if any of their presidents can afford getting out of the region fully. What becomes of Israel? Million question marks there.

As for what is the best - it would seem logical to say they should stay in order to help stabilise. But actually I don't think the Iraqis care - they are in a battle for supremacy since the first day of the US invasion, and who wins out will win out. As it is now, the US is not in the game - this game is being played by all the countries around, and the forces within Iraq.

Our guys who have returned from there have said that, indeed, 80% of Iraqis have been fence-sitters so far. Yet with the US arming 'neighbourhood watch' (classic counterinsurgency move) things seem to change. It is becoming way too personal for many and thereby the struggle of elite means less. I wonder to what extent the description above is valid.

But it is the people in US who have had enough, and I am amazed it has taken this long.

It has been shown that public support for Vietnam war broke down in the US in 1967 at the weekly casualty rate of 10-20 men. In Iraq the same level of losses was reached at the end of 2004 - beginning of 2005. Considering the exit date of the US from Vietnam, it is just history repeating itself.

Having talked to some knowledgeable people form the US establishment, I heard the opinion that Democrats are heading for the loss. They keep squabbling and Republicans might put forward an unbeatable duo: McCain-Powell. The assessment is that Republicans would only have to wait until Democrats lose the election.

[nichi]

heard the opinion that Democrats are heading for the loss. They keep squabbling and Republicans might put forward an unbeatable duo: McCain-Powell. The assessment is that Republicans would only have to wait until Democrats lose the election.

I think that's a pretty sound opinion. At least as of right now. And recently Hillary has come to the press to say that she "thinks Obama could make it to the White House" -- that she never meant to imply otherwise. Fancy footwork it was, but fairly transparent. So they have become aware of their own agitation themselves. In comparison, McCain has stayed more quiet than them, and that may be the winning strategy.

Hope I'm wrong, though.

[erik]

You are so rational.

I hope I can afford my mistakes then   .

What I meant was; by going in to a room (enter Iraq) this is considered of most of us as a mistake, then by leaving the room (get out of Iraq) is also considered as a mistake.
 
Rational would say that if enter is a mistake - then leave. Then somebody say, if you have entered - to leave is a mistake. Eehh, please,  - Anybody see my Friday evening point?

I think the US should have a 2 years time out (penalty) in International affairs for "Interference" (we have a hockey league in final right now therefore I make that allegori).

Well, I did see the paradox there. It is just that everyone can put a different allegory behind the event.

For example, you could see the US' Iraq-adventure as a child playing with a hand grenade. The kid plays and throws it up in the air until suddenly ...the pin is on the floor and the kid holds the grenade in hand - desperately squeezing the spring in order to prevent explosion.

Now, the first reflex of the kid is to cut the losses (bloody hell, what to do with the grenade...my dad will kick my butt!) throw the grenade on the floor and run. But that is precisely the one thing he cannot do under any circumstances as it might kill him. The cool head, patience, clear seeing and pondering are keys out of the trouble...