www.ditl.org

stitch626 wrote:Can that happen?
I mean, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, could he and McCain join together?
I don't think that could work.

Probably not but if Hillary won than he could name Obama his VP or vice versa. Hell if Obama wins the nomination but loses the general election he might even be able to name him.

That would be very weird. Not impossible, but I don't think that would happen.

stitch626 wrote:That would be very weird. Not impossible, but I don't think that would happen.

Indeed, though it's overdue. Politics in America resembles a high school class.

Yay high school!

It would make logical sense for the Dem convention to name Hillary as the nominie but then the public would very likely feel betrayed and turn on her.

Teaos wrote:It would make logical sense for the Dem convention to name Hillary as the nominie but then the public would very likely feel betrayed and turn on her.

Why exactly does it make sense? It would be political suicide for the Dems, Obama has virtually the same platform with the bonus that he isn't a Clinton.

The current analysis of polls show Obama winning against McCain with 300 EVs, the low end being 271-267.

Clinton wins against McCain with 338 EVs, the low end being 290-248.

But the problem with those numbers though is it takes into account a time when McCain isnt campaigning and the Dems are so they have higher support which will disolve the second a nomine is picked.

So I can acknowledge Clinton polls better but looking at the states involved - Michigan and Florida - which don't currently deliver for Obama but deliver for Clinton in a few scenarios, it becomes obvious. Along with West Virginia and Kentucky and Arkansas being states Clinton can pick up and Obama not, you get the 20-50 extra Electoral Votes.

But I don't want a centrist c**t who voted for Iraq and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I can tolerate Obama. I can't tolerate Clinton.

After the RBC works it out tomorrow, and if Clinton is pushed aside (which is what needs to be done), then Michigan should improve. Florida's a difficult one. Jews and Cubans both not on both? You can suffer one but not both.

As it turns out, however, he now polls better than Clinton in New York among Democrats in a couple of polls which is really a sign that the Jew-factor might be surmountable. And that Clinton is losing in her own home state?

So Clinton is stronger now - but no one is attacking her. Not the Republicans or Obama; she's gotten kid gloves by the media as they've tried to deliver ratings and money by prolonging this campaign beyond its expiration date.

So while it would be better over all for the Dems to vot for Hillary that doesnt take into acount the betrayal factor. But since the race is SO close that might not play up so much.

The "Jew-factor?" We don't all roll the same way as we used to, Teaos. Although I can understand your confusion - I assume that IF New Zealand has a Jew, he's running scared.

Kendall - technically McCain could name Obama as his veep, but it's customary to name your ticket-mate during the campaign for the general election. And Obama did initially poll better v. McCain than Clinton did, and his staff's better electioneering - as shown by his ability to maximize his wins, as well as minimize his losses/retain fair delegate counts in losing states - will, I think, compensate ven further for the current "v/ McCain" differences.

The "Jew-factor?" We don't all roll the same way as we used to, Teaos. Although I can understand your confusion - I assume that IF New Zealand has a Jew, he's running scared.

No you probably dont vote all the same. But you do have loby groups and do generally vote one way more than the other.

Its the same as the black vote and the woman vote. Not every black person votes Obama but generally they are more likely to vote for him than not.

Well, then how do you regard the current "Jew-factor?" We do traditionally vote democratic, and a percentage favor the more pro-Zionist candidate (not all of us!) but there is no particular democratic candidate which appeals to American Jewry en masse this time around.

Well, then how do you regard the current "Jew-factor?" We do traditionally vote democratic, and a percentage favor the more pro-Zionist candidate (not all of us!) but there is no particular democratic candidate which appeals to American Jewry en masse this time around.

The Jew vote (which as I said is a trend not a rule) tends to be very traditional. White over black, man over woman, democrat over Republican. Not to say they are racist but since that is how their social make up is put together it is hardly a suprise.

My only problem with Obama is that he says he never voted to go to war in Iraq. He wasn't in the Senate at the time, so he didn't get to vote. Maybe hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't mean that he would not have voted for it, had he the chance at the time. He was elected to the Senate in 2004. The war in Iraq started in 2003 (though the vote was in 2002). There is no way he could vote for it, so I wish he would not have made it an issue. Of course, the public in general is stupid and not a single person has noticed his... error.
I hate politics.

stitch626 wrote:My only problem with Obama is that he says he never voted to go to war in Iraq. He wasn't in the Senate at the time, so he didn't get to vote. Maybe hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't mean that he would not have voted for it, had he the chance at the time. He was elected to the Senate in 2004. The war in Iraq started in 2003 (though the vote was in 2002). There is no way he could vote for it, so I wish he would not have made it an issue. Of course, the public in general is stupid and not a single person has noticed his... error.
I hate politics.

He is technically correct, he never voted for it because like you say he wasn't there. Go by his record which pretty much indicates that he would had he been there.

Really in the grand scheme, it's a minor issue. There is no perfect candidate, besides maybe zombie FDR.

Teaos wrote:

Well, then how do you regard the current "Jew-factor?" We do traditionally vote democratic, and a percentage favor the more pro-Zionist candidate (not all of us!) but there is no particular democratic candidate which appeals to American Jewry en masse this time around.

The Jew vote (which as I said is a trend not a rule) tends to be very traditional. White over black, man over woman, democrat over Republican. Not to say they are racist but since that is how their social make up is put together it is hardly a suprise.

You're pretty much describing a generality which could be applied to 50% of the US populace. How then are these particular trends specifically Jewish? And how can you say that Jewish voters tend toward white over black and men over women when before now the only serious African-American presidential contender made horrible anti-Semitic slurs and the only serious female contender was... er, nobody?

Actually I've read an article (by a Jew) that a bunch of Jews in Florida might decide the election.

Not some kind of consipiracy or anything. It's just that they happen to make up a fair chunk of the population where it really matters.

However I recall that the writer didn't have a clear idea which way they would swing. Which to me indicates it might not be that relevant to speak of them like they're a voting block if they aren't this time around.