U.S. Presidential election 2008

Who will win?

Indeed, but please don't rent-a-mod.


The other thread is on the third page, and quite long, so at this point I see no harm in letting this thread stay open, provided that ARealRevolution wouldn't mind saying what he believe, and why.

Indeed, the other one is long, and it started when Huckabee and Obama won Iowa.

So here is what I believe:
Hillary Clinton will win PA but will not be the democratic nominee. Why? Some people dont trust the Clintons, and people want change.

Barack Obama brings change but he doesnt have the experience, and some Americans might not vote for him because hes black.

John McCain will bring about a third term for George W. Bush, which nobody wants.

Its going to be tight.

For a brit, I think I know a bit about this.

Barack Obama seems like someone that will bring change, I somehow don't see him as the lying, scheming, stereotypical politician, but then again you never know with politicians. I hate to say it, but I think he will lose votes (not many at all) because he's black. But I'd hate that to be the reason he doesn't win. That said, he isn't really that experienced.

Hilary Clinton. Hm. I was rooting for her originally - it would be great to see a woman in what was seen as a mans job -. But Clinton seems really fake, and although I think she's less "fake" than McCain, I don't think America will see much change with her.

And well, I don't know much about McCain to comment. I really hope Obama wins.

I find McCain, ironically, to be the least fake of all the candidates.

He's supported some policies that are very unpopular with no real attempt to conceal it; he went into the Republican primaries completely opposed to torture, and weak on illegal immigration; now he's going into the general election supporting the Iraqi occupation.

That said, I think I would still prefer a democratic candidate.

Originally Posted by EternalSunshine

For a brit, I think I know a bit about this.

Sorry, do some more research.

Barack Obama seems like someone that will bring change, I somehow don't see him as the lying, scheming, stereotypical politician, but then again you never know with politicians. I hate to say it, but I think he will lose votes (not many at all) because he's black. But I'd hate that to be the reason he doesn't win. That said, he isn't really that experienced.

He lied about his racist pastor, who is also a big hypocrit. He also associates with terrorists, the bomber you may have heard on Tv. He is nothing but a left wing nut job with no experience, I would prefer Hillary bewteeen the two of them.

Hilary Clinton. Hm. I was rooting for her originally - it would be great to see a woman in what was seen as a mans job -. But Clinton seems really fake, and although I think she's less "fake" than McCain, I don't think America will see much change with her.

Not only that but she has been the epitemy of scandle. She is as fake as you get, save for Barack 'Hinsane' Obama.

And well, I don't know much about McCain to comment. I really hope Obama wins.

So you are a lefty, perhaps you should look up the other side? I think so, maybe then you can change your mind.

Or option 3: The 3 legs of the Conservative party completely split their votes to 3rd Party Candidates(Libertarian, Constitution, Natural Law). The Dem. nominee will anger the other candidates base. Thus splitting votes again. I'm not saying the Dem loser will try to run as independent, but Nader is running also. And a Green Party candidate. Whoever wins will not have a majority.

I know it's far fetched, but still in the realm of plausible.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Sorry, do some more research.



He lied about his racist pastor, who is also a big hypocrit.

He lied? When was that?

Also, fun fact, his pastor was in the marines.

Yet, somehow, people insist that he's never done anything but hate America.



Again, I don't agree with a thing the pastor said, but attacking Obama for it? That's beyond stupid. It's guilt by association.

My thoughts for tomorrows primary:

Since every major newspaper has endorsed Obama in Pennsylvania, and he current leads in the polls there. I think Obama will win by just a hair.

If in fact he loses, Hillary won't win the nomination anyways, since she has to win with 60% of the vote in each of the remaining states.

I think Obama should win the nominations. Hillary Clinton isn't much of a change, despite being a woman. The phrase goes "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." and I agree with it about her. She's nothing new under the sun, just another of the same generic presidential clones from the democratic side. McCain is the generic presidential clone from the republican side. What Hillary has going for her is that she's a woman. That's about it. Most of her experience isn't even applicable to the White House (unless she was a big part of her husband's administration, which would make me worried). Senators have a completely different job than the president.

In this instance, I think Obama's lack of experience could be a good thing. He will get to start from scratch, so to speak, and learn his job from the ground up, rather than having a couple more decades to color his perspective of what he should be doing.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Again, I don't agree with a thing the pastor said, but attacking Obama for it? That's beyond stupid. It's guilt by association.

Harboring fugitives from the law can be something as simple as giving an escaped convict a hot meal when they're cold. Guild by association has roots in law, not just social perception. That said, I agree with you. I find it strange that Obama goes to that church, being the kind of guy he seems and makes himself out to be, but I couldn't say I'm against him because of the place he goes to church. That's just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

He lied? When was that?

He claimed he was unaware of his pastors hateful words. 20 years and nothing? I think not. He never denounced these hateful sermons before, why? Oh thats right he wasn't running for president then, he is just a nasty politician.

Also, fun fact, his pastor was in the marines.

Yeah so are violent gang members.

Yet, somehow, people insist that he's never done anything but hate America.

Pretty much yeah. HTen he goes and buys a 10 million dollar house next to a bunch of rich white people, what a hypocrit.

Again, I don't agree with a thing the pastor said, but attacking Obama for it? That's beyond stupid. It's guilt by association.

IF you were an accomplis in a murder but didn't kill anyone, you are still a criminal.

IF you were an accomplis in a murder but didn't kill anyone, you are still a criminal.

That's an inaccurate comparison. Reason being that the pastor never killed anybody.

Let's say, for instance, you have a pretty racist family member that you've known for a long time. But they're family, so you still see them from time to time; saying "No, I want them completely out of my life" just because they're racist seems a bit excessive, no? You still aren't really condoning it.

Does this make you racist? Of course not. That would be stupid.

Now let's say that you helped one person kill another person. You were still involved in the murder. Not only are you condoning the crime, you are helping it along, whereas in Obama's case he wasn't necessarily doing either.

Being associated with someone and being an "accomplice" with someone are not comparable.

He claimed he was unaware of his pastors hateful words. 20 years and nothing? I think not.

I think, why not? There's no real proof otherwise, is there?

He also associates with terrorists, the bomber you may have heard on Tv.

Educate me.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Yeah so are violent gang members.

I think a better example here would be "Yeah, so was Lee Harvey Oswald." Not that I agree with you, but I just felt like pointing that out.

IF you were an accomplis in a murder but didn't kill anyone, you are still a criminal.

By law, sure. By law you're also a criminal if you know someone's going to commit a murder but don't do or say anything about it, even though you haven't got an active hand in it. And by law it's NOT a crime to watch someone drown.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

He claimed he was unaware of his pastors hateful words. 20 years and nothing? I think not.

Tell me, what is your pastor's opinion on the socio-economic effects of World War II?

What? You can't tell me? But he's your pastor, surely you know his stance on every issue!

He never denounced these hateful sermons before, why? Oh thats right he wasn't running for president then, he is just a nasty politician.

Or he didn't know of them, or he was embarrassed by them, but liked the man's opinion and stances on other issues so didn't want to stir up a problem over this, etc.

I mean, honestly, if you knew that your pastor occasionally did drugs, would you turn him in to the police?

Yeah so are violent gang members.

You miss my point.

It's rather hard to argue that a member of the marines hates the country he put his life on the line for, isn't it?

IF you were an accomplis in a murder but didn't kill anyone, you are still a criminal.

Indeed, but your analogy only works if Obama shares all of this man's views and is actively spreading them himself.

You have no proof of any of that.


Or, to put it another way, if your best friend kills someone tonight, without your knowledge, should you go to jail?

It's going to be hard for the Republicans to keep control of the White House anyway. Its been eight years with a Republican President, so Americans do want change. Im not saying the Republicans are bad, but im sure if Al Gore won the 2000 election (which he did) and won re-election in 04, Americans would pick a Republican this year.

I'm going for Hillary. She seems to be the only one so far who realizes what big, stupid mistakes Bush made and seems to have the best ideas. I have a feeling Obama is just going to be Bush all over again, same with McCain. I don't know enough about Ron Paul to say anything about him.