The DITL primaries

In the real world

Cast your ballot!

Barrack Obama
16
80%
Hillary Clinton
4
20%
 
Total votes: 20
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Post by sunnyside »

Tsukiyumi wrote:
sunnyside wrote: I still can't understand how that's even allowed. "Let's vote on subject A. Oh, wait, the senator from *insert state name* wants to add subject B to the same vote... Uh, NO! We'll vote on subject B seperately, as it has no bearing or connection to subject A." Wow. That was hard.

They shouldn't be allowed to toss whatever crap they want onto an unrelated bill. Hell if they'd ever vote to make that a law, though...
That's actually one of the issues I like McCain. He's got a loooooooong record of fighting earmarks and promisis to throw nasty vetos at anything crossing his desk with them in it.

I googled to actually see how Hillary and Obama do and found this.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cli ... 06-13.html
And this.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 32145.aspx

And I think this might speak to the experience issues. Both Hillary and Obama use earmarks for further their agenda and bring money to their States, however from the first article Hillaries political clout and ability to build political alliances makes her a heck of a lot better at it. It would seem she out porks Obama by something like 6 to 1 cash wise.


Can we really be that confident Obama can pass all the stuff he says he will if he can't "bring home the bacon" very well? I mean he does a little. Getting in 65 million for Chicago's commuter rail system.
(Note that Obama doesn't oppose earmarks. His thing is that they should be disclosed and transparent).
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

To be fair, Dusk, Obama picked up some major coups over Hill-dog in the unions.

And earmarks, riders, etc. on bills are often simply used as a way to knock down a bill, or to stigmatize it.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

Mikey wrote:To be fair, Dusk, Obama picked up some major coups over Hill-dog in the unions.

And earmarks, riders, etc. on bills are often simply used as a way to knock down a bill, or to stigmatize it.
You are right. But there are people who flat out would not vote for him because he was black, and I'm ashamed to have some relatives who are in that category. Diehard Democrats, but they live in the Midwest, and they're not voting for "one of those." (They'll probably just sit out when/if he wins.) I'm not proud of that at all of course, but they're somewhat distant family I didn't grow up closely with, living very far apart.

I think that if everything about Obama were the same, except that his father had been from the Netherlands or something, Hillary would have been up the creek months ago.
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Post by Aaron »

Duskofdead wrote: Some part of that is that people tend to assume "liberal" when they hear "Democrat." There are an awful lot of union or former-union workers in the U.S. who voted hardcore Democrat pretty much on labor issues alone; and a lot of these people are Midwestern or Southern white people who wouldn't exactly rub shoulders with black people.
It doesn't help that the unions will often endorse a candidate and then the members are expected to vote for them. The CAW does that up here. "Liberal" in US politics has almost no relation to what it means in the rest of the world anyways, even Obama is quite far to the right in comparison to a Canadian Liberal Party member.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15380
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Post by Teaos »

Obama may lose some votes because he is black. But he will pick up just as many if not more because he is black.

Same with Clinton. Some may not want a woman in power but a lot of woman do want one in power.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Post by Aaron »

Teaos wrote:Obama may lose some votes because he is black. But he will pick up just as many if not more because he is black.

Same with Clinton. Some may not want a woman in power but a lot of woman do want one in power.
Yes but I get the distinct impression that she (and her supporters) assume that woman will vote for her because she is a woman. That's not a good thing to base your run on, candidates that have based their run on being black didn;t have much luck either.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15380
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Post by Teaos »

To true.

Look at the lattest TIME magazine. They have the stats from the uo coming primary and the stats for woman voting for Clinton over Obama are unbelievable.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Post by sunnyside »

Duskofdead wrote:
Mikey wrote: I think that if everything about Obama were the same, except that his father had been from the Netherlands or something, Hillary would have been up the creek months ago.
Actually I think if his dad had been from the Netherlands he wouldn't even be running for the President right now. Not as a young (for a president) first term senator. He might still go places, but he wouldn't have been able to rise this fast.

And I feel pretty confident he wouldn't have 80% of the black vote either.


Where I worry about racism hurting him instead of helping him is in the general election. Now white racists tend to vote republican anyway, and Blacks tend of vote Democrat. So those two groups don't matter as much (except maybe for getting people to vote who otherwise wouldn't bother).

But there are some in both camps that may flip. And I don't know how the important independent and moderate camps are going to act between racism and voting for the first black American president.

With a little luck it'll sort of cancel out and it'll come down to issues and the person.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15380
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Post by Teaos »

Independents tend to be effected by race and gender than either of the parties.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

Other minorities may be a surprising issue, too. Hispanics have tended to favor Clinton; if Obama is the nominee, that's a bloc that might sit out rather than support the party line.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Post by Tsukiyumi »

Mikey wrote:Other minorities may be a surprising issue, too. Hispanics have tended to favor Clinton; if Obama is the nominee, that's a bloc that might sit out rather than support the party line.
They may support her because of her lax stance on border control. Yet another reason I'll never vote for Hillary Clinton...
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Post by sunnyside »

I think they both offer pretty sweet deals for illegal immegrants. Actually I'm a little surprised they haven't gone more for Obama. He's offering illegals drivers licences and I believe Hillary drew the line after Medicaid, welfare, and social security.


On that issue I don't see them picking McCain over either.


Actually though maybe the reason they swing for Hillary is that illegal immegration isn't the major issue for the bulk of the population.
MetalHead
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:53 am
Location: Cheshire, UK
Contact:

Post by MetalHead »

Obama

are we really going to let a woman who has been cheated on by the former leader of our country get into his exact same position? Next thing you know she'll be bonking the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously I think alot more of Obama than Hillary anyway, but I need to see the debates.
"Beware what you intend to say, those words will always make you pay." - Soilwork

Booze and Strippers!
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Post by Tsukiyumi »

sunnyside wrote:...Actually though maybe the reason they swing for Hillary is that illegal immegration isn't the major issue for the bulk of the population.
Too bad more people don't live in Texas, or they'd realize how big of a problem it actually is. I'd say 30 million people living in our country illegally is a bit of a problem, especially when our tax dollars pay for their health care and education. They need to fix their own country rather than come screw up ours.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Granitehewer
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:03 pm
Location: Teesside, England
Contact:

Post by Granitehewer »

hey tsuk
is the 30million a realistic quote, or scaremongering,whats the source?
If it is 30million,then is obscenely high
PTLLS (Tees Achieve), DipHE App Bio (Northumbria), BSc Psychology (Teesside), Comparative Planetology (LJMU), High Energy Astrophysics (LJMU), Mobile Robotics/Physics (Swinburne), Genetics (SAC), Quant Meths (SAC)
https://www.facebook.com/PeterBrayshay
Post Reply