DC Area Voters

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by eros:
  This is the scary part.  If Hillary goes into the convention with less delegates and pulls this out of her ass, the Democratic party will again have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

I think it's hard to imagine a scenario where either candidate is significantly ahead of the other in actual-won delegates going into the convention, much less actually have the amount needed to clinch the nomination. The superdelegates are going to factor in heavily. Obama's hope is that he's 100-150 delegates up so that the superdelegates really have to vote for him or it looks like the DNC ignored the will of the voters.

[eros]

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
 Nader, if he runs, is basically a vote for the republican, whoever it is, but if it makes you feel all indie and cool to vote for him knock yourself out. It was him and the Supreme Court that put the prick we have in the Whitehouse at the moment.
 

I voted for Nader in 2000 because Virginia was solidly for Bush and my vote for Gore wouldn't have made a difference.  However, if Nader had recieved a certain percentage of the total popular vote, he would be eligible for federal money the next time around.  
 
 Voting for Nader in a "battleground" state is possibly the stupidest thing you could do.

[manimtired]

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
   

Originally posted by manimtired:
  a majority of the drones voting for this clown are motivated by "hope AND change" and have no clue what his positions are...
 he's a charismatic guy...

fine, if that means that the candidate who spoke out against the war gets in over the candidate who voted to allow the war, thats fine by me
 
 do you think any supporters of other candidates really have a clue about the issues [/b]

seeing who we're left with id say probably not.  the people dissapointed and disenchanted by the group we have left are the ones that are paying attention.

[manimtired]

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
 if that means that the candidate who spoke out against the war gets in over the candidate who voted to allow the war, thats fine by me

See my post earlier about what Obama said in 2006.
 
 And people who tout this seem to ignore the fact that today, in 2008, Clinton and Obama have carbon copy plans for what to do in Iraq. I guess if we were electing a President and giving them a time machine these "who said what in 2003" scenarios would be meaningful, but I don't select my current presidential candidate based on who has the best hypothetical plan to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
  See my post earlier about what Obama said in 2006.
 
 And people who tout this seem to ignore the fact that today, in 2008, Clinton and Obama have carbon copy plans for what to do in Iraq. I guess if we were electing a President and giving them a time machine these "who said what in 2003" scenarios would be meaningful, but I don't select my current presidential candidate based on who has the best hypothetical plan to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I am not ignoring that fact, what I cant just let go is that I have been against the war from day 1 as well, and it pissed me off that so few made any real effort to stop it in the face of fervent nationalism, but Obama made a speech in 2002 that was pretty damn predictive of what would happen.  And since the war is pretty much the reason so many problems are here today, it has to be the central issue for me.  I have concerns about Obama's health plan and how he plans to handle people who dont opt-in and then seek healthcare but I have the same concerns about Hillarys plans and what she will do with penalties for those who dont acquire their insurance.  So since there is so little difference, I look at their past.  Hillary could have been a powerful progressive voice in the Senate and she wasted it.
 
 Actually I am not crazy about either health plan, I can only hope one day we have a modified single payer system with free healthcare for all, that EVERYBODY pays for as part of their taxes, and the rich can seek private healthcare on top of that, you know, like other civilized countries have.

[Brian_Wallace]

What does ANY of this have to do with where Radiohead are playing?
 
 I just want to know if Ron Paul is hyptnotizing people.  Paul supporters are  crazily devoted to him.  Of course, Paul's strict interpretation of the Constitution is similar to Star Trek fans strick interpretation of the Star Fleet charter, so maybe that's it.
 
 Brian
 
 P.S.  I don't think it would ever happen, but I think a McCain/Bloomberg ticket would be a great ticket if they ran as semi-equals and there was some sort of unsaid agreement that McCain would step aside after one term.

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
  So since there is so little difference, I look at their past.

I look at who's going to be most effective day one. Obama is inexperienced and has no track record of accomplishing anything. Can he really bring about the changes he prescribes? Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider who came from nowhere to win the Presidency -- how did that work out for America?
 
 Clinton steps in day one with the same team her husband used to lead us to the greatest 8 years in US history.

[kosmo vinyl]

Who cares about policy.... I'm looking forward to the chance of being able to have a mistress and more porno!

[taperkat]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Would you care to share what is it about the two remaining Republican and two remaining Democrat candidates that make you so strongly despise each of them?
 
 
   

Originally posted by -kat-:
  I'll continue to "waste my vote" and not vote in the primary. I despise every single person in the race at the moment, and plan to vote for Nader if he does end up running. Otherwise I'll write in Kucinich as normal.
 
 Just because I am not voting does not make me uninformed. I would prefer not putting a vote to someone I do not like than giving someone support I cannot stand.

[/b]

I'm against war (McCain), against the banning of birth control in any form (Huckabee), "and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life." - fuck no, keep your fucking religion out of my politics (Obama), and don't get me started on Hillary...
 
 again, these are just one example i'm pulling out of my hat. I don't feel like writing a dissertation on it.    
 
 I've been watching this election since early last year when people started saying they wanted to run, i called Obama and Hillary for the nomination and McCain as the Rep candidate a long time ago. Everyone laughed at me.
 
 And bullshit about a vote for Nader is a vote for the Republican Party. A vote for any candidate other than the Dem or Rep party is a vote to get the fucking flawed outdated electoral college out.
 
 "I voted for Nader in 2000 because Virginia was solidly for Bush and my vote for Gore wouldn't have made a difference. However, if Nader had recieved a certain percentage of the total popular vote, he would be eligible for federal money the next time around."
 
 Precisely the same reason I voted for him in 2000. I lived in Kansas. Nuff said.
 
 I voted for Kucinich in 2004. Lived in NC.
 
 At the moment the only way the Democrats will even remotely get me to vote for them in November would be to put Edwards as a VP candidate. I don't know that I'd vote Obama/Edwards though. Obama having to basically hire celebrities to get him votes annoyed the living shit out of me.
 
 and guess i'm going to vote for Kucinich before my dr appointment today. Thanks for the info  
 
 the funny part is, I'll live in Maryland by the actual election in a few months legally.

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
  So since there is so little difference, I look at their past.

I look at who's going to be most effective day one. Obama is inexperienced and has no track record of accomplishing anything. Can he really bring about the changes he prescribes? Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider who came from nowhere to win the Presidency -- how did that work out for America?
 
 Clinton steps in day one with the same team her husband used to lead us to the greatest 8 years in US history. [/b]

No track record of accomplishing anything?  Come on now.

[Arthwys]

Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
 I just want to know if Ron Paul is hyptnotizing people.  Paul supporters are  crazily devoted to him.  Of course, Paul's strict interpretation of the Constitution is similar to Star Trek fans strick interpretation of the Star Fleet charter, so maybe that's it.  Brian

I'm voting Ron Paul because there's actually a guy running that is close to what I find ideal.  Getting rid of a whole heck of a lot of the federal government (though not all at once, that's just crazy) and giving over those responsibilities to state and local jurisdiction, drastically cutting back our international military presence, allowing social security to die a nice paced death w/o actually screwing seniors over.  
 
 I'll admit that the guy himself is not terribly charismatic or a good speaker.  He's a bit shrill when he gets worked up, and is probably a touch old for the job, but just the fact that he exists at all as a candidate is a minor miracle anyway.
 
 Here's why I'm voting for him even though he's a super super super virtually no chance in hell long shot.  
 
 First time I was old enough to vote was 2000.  I loved McCain.  Thought that a renegade centrist would've been the best thing for this country that's so bitterly divided by party line.  But he bowed out and I was looking at a choice between Al Gore (waaaaaay to liberal for me and as far as I'm concerned he's gotten worse) and George W. Bush a.k.a. the blithering idiot.  I abstained.  Didn't want to vote for the lesser of two evils.
 
 2004.  Bush turned out to be quite awful and a divisive character.  So I took a good look at Kerry.  The moment I knew I could never vote for him was when he was answering the question "under what pretext would you send american troops to war?".  The first thing out of his mouth was "I'd consult the United Nations"  WRONG ANSWER.  Global government is an experiment that would go drastically wrong.  So get this, I voted for Bush.   Every one had derided me for not voting last time, and told me I just had to, so I gave in to peer pressure and voted for what I believed was the lesser of two evils (and yes, by that I mean Bush).  I still believe we'd be in worse shape if we had gone with Kerry.
 
 So, now I can finally vote with conscience.  Ron Paul.

[vansmack]

I love the debate, even if most of it simply focusing on sound bites.
 
 But, Dems, let's not out think ourselves here.
 
 If you've followed things smackie thinks you should know, I've made it no secret since October of 2006 that I will be voting for Barack Obama, however that is not an endorsement.  I have also been saying from the beginning that no candidate is more important than the Party.  
 
 All I want to see come out of this Primary is a united Democratic Party, because we've seen all too well what happens when the party is split and I don't think I could tolerate 8 more years like 2000-2008.  Whether it's Hillary or Barack, I just went a Democrat in the White House.  Let's not out-think ourselves here (even if that does mean I get to finally write "What's the Matter with San Francisco?").  So yes, be fervent for your candidate, but let's be careful in attacking the other primary candidate - it's certainly better than the alternative, isn't it?  
 
 As Julian correctly points out, however, a nasty Superdelegate issue at the convention will put the Dems in spiral that could last nearly as long as the current Republican spiral (and by that I'm thinking 40 years).  This is the first year that the majority of eligible voters in America were born after 1968.  It would do a great disservice to these younger voters if the party couldn't solve this issue without invoking the Superdelegates, and worse yet if the Superdelegates didn't match up to the national vote.

[you be betty]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
  So since there is so little difference, I look at their past.

I look at who's going to be most effective day one. Obama is inexperienced and has no track record of accomplishing anything. Can he really bring about the changes he prescribes? Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider who came from nowhere to win the Presidency -- how did that work out for America?
 
 Clinton steps in day one with the same team her husband used to lead us to the greatest 8 years in US history. [/b]

A-MENN BROTHA.
 
 ...and I just cast my first official vote, ever!  AND it's free pancake day at Ihop!  Hooray!!!!

[manimtired]

Originally posted by you be betty:
   

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
  So since there is so little difference, I look at their past.

I look at who's going to be most effective day one. Obama is inexperienced and has no track record of accomplishing anything. Can he really bring about the changes he prescribes? Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider who came from nowhere to win the Presidency -- how did that work out for America?
 
 Clinton steps in day one with the same team her husband used to lead us to the greatest 8 years in US history. [/b]

A-MENN BROTHA.
 
 ...and I just cast my first official vote, ever!  AND it's free pancake day at Ihop!  Hooray!!!! [/b]

and you cast it quite horribly. congrats.