Clinton/Obama together?

kaiser sauze

Lirange wrote: »

If Obama is the nominee, it will be the largest ever age discrepancy between two candidates in a general presidential election.

I don't think McCain will be able to energise the "base" of his party to the extent he needs. I think many Republicans will stay home. Especially if Obama is the nominee.

I think it will energise the far right nuts to come out in their droves and support him, simply because of racist bigotry and their fear of a black person in the oval office.

Einstein

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I sincerely hope that does not turn out to be sageworthy.

I am of the opinion that the people of the US are truly sick of the mud they've been dragged through over the last eight years and would not contemplate another four of them.

I agree,

I actually believe that the republican supporters even realise that the country needs a change in leadership...
Whether Obama or Clinton get in, it's gonna be a very different 4 years....

MCMLXXXIII

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I sincerely hope that does not turn out to be sageworthy.

I am of the opinion that the people of the US are truly sick of the mud they've been dragged through over the last eight years and would not contemplate another four of them.

I now live in the US. I agree with what you are saying about the general public. However, McCain is OLLLDDDDD!!! ...and the elderly vote much more than the younger generation. This is partially due to interest, and it is also due to the fact that it is much more convinient for someone over the age of 60 to vote than anyone else. If you are 60yo, the government "mails" you a ballott, you fill it out, and "mail" it back. If you are under 60, you take time off work and go vote at (and only at) the closest public facility to your home.

I think it will be interesting to see the amount of younger voters that turn out because they greatly disagree of the current administration.

Also, this (supposedly) has been the most off-balance primary election in a long time. The results showed that many people from the democratic party crossed the line and voted in the republican primary. The republicans were REALLY excited until they figured out that all the democrats were just voting for the most inelligible republican to throw their campaign off track. The older, and far-right-wing voters will stay true to their party, but the democrats are trying to come back with a vengance.

I'm excited to see what happens.

Back to the main topic, they have started suggesting a Clinton/Obama combination in the media in the US. When the media does that, it usually means that they are trying to get everyone used to the idea so it goes over smoothly when it actually happens. The only thing is...I'm not sure they are trying to convince the public (who already likes the idea), or if they are trying to convince the candidates.

We will see.

snow scorpion

Stargal wrote: »

He voted in favour of establishing an Office of Public Integrity to deal with ethics complaints against Senators while she voted against

Thanks, Stargal, for the best laugh I've had in a week. Imagine that, a Clinton voting against integrity! BWAHAHAHA!! And I bet she's wondering how she could be losing to a neophyte.


As far as Obama's quote, "Well, I say to them tonight: There's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America" goes, it sounds nice but there's not an ounce of truth in it.

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Manic Moran

Remember 70% of US citizens want the troops home, I think he is abhorrent to those

I don't suppose you've noticed that Iraq is not the hot-ticket item it was a year ago? It's economy, healthcare and, to a lesser extent, immigration these days. Ever since the surge which Democrats loudly proclaimed a year ago could never work started working, it's been very much taken off their front page. "It's the Economy, Stupid" has been proven the rule for Presidential elections many times.

NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't suppose you've noticed that Iraq is not the hot-ticket item it was a year ago? It's economy, healthcare and, to a lesser extent, immigration these days. Ever since the surge which Democrats loudly proclaimed a year ago could never work started working, it's been very much taken off their front page. "It's the Economy, Stupid" has been proven the rule for Presidential elections many times.

NTM

I actually have, and McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, having initially voted against them, something that would be a disaster for an economy that is staring down a hole and the end of the petro-dollar.

While the surge may have made an impact, well 30,000 troops will do that(!), they've taken their eye off Afghanistan and that is turning into Baghdad before the surge. It's all cyclical, these people are too myopic to manage two wars. We'll be turned back to Afghanistan next, then back to Iraq, back to Afg... :rolleyes:

Don't forget the surge ends before the election. We'll see how calm things stay.

edanto

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't suppose you've noticed that Iraq is not the hot-ticket item it was a year ago? It's economy, healthcare and, to a lesser extent, immigration these days. Ever since the surge which Democrats loudly proclaimed a year ago could never work started working, it's been very much taken off their front page. "It's the Economy, Stupid" has been proven the rule for Presidential elections many times.

NTM

Yeah, it's about the economy of course. But people are starting to question the clichés now that they've been examined over 10 years of being discussed on the web. The revolution in grassroots democracy taking place in the states in unprecedented.

Well, what kind of clichés and how does it related to Clinton/Obama; the old assumption that growth in GDP is good for everybody and you shouldn't question that in detail. The thing that matters this time around is the property crash, corporate finances, a dollar on a tightrope. Rich americans that are travelling are finding out that their dollars are squishy (made from oil, remember!) and poor americans are losing their houses in numbers not seen in the Great Depression.

Obama will win the nomination; my punt would be that he won't pick Clinton for strategic reasons despite the short term bump on the opinion polls; he is happy to face McCain and will need more support from the bipartisan establishment than Clinton can bring to springclean DC.

kerry4sam

FatherTed wrote: »

I dont think Obama would be VP or vice-versa. If Obama loses he will look immediately to 2012. I think McCain if he wins, will be a 1 term president (76 yo in 2012).

i agree with this. There has already been too much water under the bridge between these two and its tense enough now. As its too close too call right now they are still pressing ahead with their attack ad-campaigns and people still haven't forgotten South Carolina and the antics there. With VP position you should at least be able to trust them should the need arise for them to cover for whatever reason and IMO the their is very little if an trust between these two camps right now. Which-ever one gets elected IMO their will be a neutral-surprise VP elected

flogen

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't suppose you've noticed that Iraq is not the hot-ticket item it was a year ago? It's economy, healthcare and, to a lesser extent, immigration these days. Ever since the surge which Democrats loudly proclaimed a year ago could never work started working, it's been very much taken off their front page. "It's the Economy, Stupid" has been proven the rule for Presidential elections many times.

NTM

Yeah and McCain has already shot himself in the foot by making it clear that he doesn't know much about the economy!

He'd probably prefer the Iraq war to be higher in the agenda, simply because he supported the surge and so far it appears to be working.

Then again, even those who are happy to see this be the case may not be impressed by his talk on more wars, 100 years in Iraq and "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bombiran".

mike65 wrote: »

The longer this goes on the more I think McCain will win the election regardless of who the Democrats nominate

Mike.

I'm not convinced on that. McCain has a lot of work to do within his own party so it's not like he has a free run on things as it stands. Now the Reps are legendary for getting behind their man no matter what but some seem genuinely disgusted at the idea of having to support McCain in the election so it might not be so easy this time.

banquo

Might be a lot of dissapointed people who were looking forward to that 'dream ticket'

is_that_so

Been nothing on this for a bit but Justin Webb wonders aloud whether this could happen. Who knows, we've had pretty much everything else to date in the campaign.

I saw Clinton on a Network 2 News clip suggest it was not beyond the realms of fantasy but the question of who should be at the top of the ticket would need to be figured out, meaning her .

What is clear is that a degree of imagination will be needed, to come up with a candidate before the party ends up in a serious bunfight.
Webb also has a link to a conservative website with lots of "interesting articles".

Overheal

I'm sorry but its another Dick Cheney thing: shes too evil - youll let her sit in the passenger seat but someone else has to take the wheel while she presses her fingers together in a very evil fasion

Jesus Wept

I'm hoping for an Obama / David Palmer dream ticket.