<p>I don't understand why people vote for anyone other than either the Democratic or the Republican nominee. Sure, I get that other candidates represent your beliefs more, or that it's a way to make a political statement if you're dissatisfied with the nominees from the major parties. But, when it comes down to it, either John McCain or Barack Obama will be our next president. You might as well pick which one you like better (which one better represents you) and vote for him.</p>
<p>so why do people get flack for disliking obama?</p>
<p>^ Because they don't like "dissenters"</p>
<p>I do like that article, altho I think it's too much conspiracy-theory to actually be true. I do agree that there were people pushing her out from all over, but there are a few variables that would make the argument work for me. One of these is that Obama is bad. He is not. Sure I feel bad for Clinton and think she would have made a great president (and feel she was vilified way too much, especially around media and the internet and also from youth and republican circles). I think Clinton would have been a good president and did not deserve the treatment she got. But would she have won the swingstates necessary due to the amount of people who "hated" her? I just don't know. This abundant amount of hate was surely part of a mud-slinging campaign. And since I couldn't do much to stop that campaign I made an educated choice about who I thought had a better chance of getting elected and who I liked more (policy and personality). The Clintons were great but for now I just have to focus on Obama winning because even if that's the 2nd priority to Clinton supporters it is oh so important for the world.</p>
<p>Great to hear cool-man. I really like it when Clinton supporters can think about the election and it's repercussions and realize that it is in their best interest to vote for Obama.</p>
<p>I do agree with voting for someone who has a chance to win...unless ur vote doesn't matter. In a swing-state I would urge everyone possible to vote within the 2 party system. But in a place where either candidate is easily going to win ur state or district I'd say vote for who you believe in the most. I would have done that in the primaries if my candidate hadn't dropped out b4 it came to my state. Hence, Obama.</p>
<p>PS I do support Ron Paul supporters as much as if not more (probably more) than McCain supporters since they are obviously thinking critically and surpassing the 2-party system as well as pushing for a revolution in politics. I do agree with libertarian liberal social values, but I personally think their economic values are just ridiculous. But hey...at least u have the liberal social values (hence, more respect than McCain lol)</p>
<p>Did you really just say you don't think she could win swingstates? She's a much stronger opponent against McCain. </p>
<p>Rasmussen Reports: July 15, 2008</p>
<p>Barack Obama says a vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush’s third term, but a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that the Democratic hopeful would have a much easier time of it if he were actually running against the incumbent president this year.</p>
<p>At a time when Obama and McCain are locked in a tight race, the poll shows that Obama would rout President Bush 54% to 34%. Looking at the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, McCain is outperforming Bush by more than 15 percentage points.</p>
<p>The poll results also show that Obama would have an easier go of it against two of McCain’s chief rivals for the Republican nomination. The presumptive Democratic nominee leads former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by eight points 49% to 41% and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee 50% to 39%.</p>
<p>However, McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%.</p>
<p>**These numbers help explain why Election 2008 is competitive even though events so heavily favor the Democrats -- because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not. **Perhaps even more importantly, the data suggests that voters don’t see a potential McCain Administration as the third term of President Bush.</p>
<p>In all five hypothetical match-ups featured in this article, the Democrat leads the Republican among unaffiliated voters. In the match-up between the two presumptive nominees,McCain holds a slight edge over Obama among those voters. </p>
<p>I love living in a swing state ;) (one that Clinton would have an easier time carrying than Obama, by the way)</p>
<p>That article is interesting but u in no way rebuked my swing state comment. I remember seeing polls in which midwest/west states don't like Clinton. The general pop poll is interesting to see tho. But that doesn't say anything about the list of swing states...so if u can find a poll of it be my guest. What swing state do u live in? I'm very much not in a swing state so it's kinda boring in pres elections for my vote personally...still fun to watch the other states tho!</p>
<p>I am constantly suprised he isn't beating McCain by more. And it's just a disgrace for America that Gore wouldn't even be beating him by that much...ridiculous. You are right tho that unfortunately many people aren't seeing McCain as McBush...the Repubs def chose the best candidate to run against a Democrat, even if many of them aren't happy about it.</p>
<p>Well as November gets closer, I think we will start to see a wider margin between Obama and McCain. Obama's problem is that a lot of people still don't know him. They only know his name. As November approaches, though, he will start to flood the airways with commercials. Remember, he has three to four times the amount of money McCain has, so he will outspend McCain tremendously. And those ads will introduce him to a lot of people who may still be unsure of him. Also, they will probably highlight how McCain is so similar to Bush.</p>
<p>I live in Pennsylvania, by the way.</p>
<p>^ Uhh...actually coolman, not to be rude, but you need to watch the news more.</p>
<p>Obama is falling FAR short of his fundraising goals - and the DNC can't even afford the convention anymore. McCain chose public financing, and Obama opted out (thinking he would be able to raise more), but it backfired.</p>
<p>Second, it's the exact opposite of what you say. Kerry had a wide lead over Bush this far from November. The Republicans are masters of manipulation, one thing they DO know how to do is win elections. They are saving their money, waiting to barage Obama with attack ads in October when he has no chance to recover from them.</p>
<p>If they do one attack ad every few weeks, he will recover. Saving them up to do all at once destroys him. Think about Kerry being "swiftboated" - notice the timeline?</p>
<p>Republicans mostly hang back and let democrats destory themselves (like they've already done by choosing the less electable candidate) they only come out swinging late in the game. </p>
<p>Obama's own supporters have said he would need a large margin at this point to provide a "buffer" for the Republican attacks later. He doesn't have that.</p>
<p>Oh, and here is your swingstate information:</p>
<p>Gallup Polling: Hillary's Swing-State Advantage</p>
<p>PRINCETON, NJ -- In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.</p>
<p>In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.</p>
<p>As the Gallup analysis shows, Clinton is currently running ahead of McCain in the 20 states where she has prevailed in the popular vote, while Obama is tied with McCain in those same states. Thus, at this stage in the race (before the general-election campaigns have fully engaged), there is some support for her argument that her primary states indicate she would be stronger than Obama in the general election.</p>
<p>The same cannot be said for Obama in the 28 states and D.C. where he prevailed in the popular vote. As of now, in those states, he is performing no better than Clinton is in general-election trial heats versus McCain. Thus, the principle of greater primary strength translating into greater general-election strength -- while apparently operative for the states Clinton has won -- does not seem to apply at the moment to states Obama has won.</p>
<p>Hillary</a> Clinton?s Swing-State Advantage</p>
<p>I'll admit - it's from the beginning of June. But it's the most recent swingstate polling. Since then, Hillary has only gained support (as shown by the Rasmussen Poll I've posted earlier - she's now beating McCain by 8 pts) while Obama has lost support - now tied with McCain in most polls.</p>
<p>Swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky, and West Virginia are filled with Hillary's type of supporters. It's common sense she's stronger in these states.</p>
<p>Obama still has a lot more money than McCain, and he will have the financial edge even as November approaches.</p>
<p>And I don't really understand why you keep bringing Hillary Clinton into this. Like I said earlier, I'm a huge Clinton fan. I agree that she would have been the better candidate. I voted for her. I went to her rallies. But she lost. There's no chance that she will be the nominee. Obama is our nominee, and he's going to have a very tough time competing in November if Clinton supporters like you can't rally around him.</p>
<p>(Okay, I wrote this in another thread but that one died...)</p>
<p>By October at the latest, I predict there ultimately be some sort of a "conflict" (war) between Iran and Israel, and the Israelis are going initiate it before President Bush leaves office. And by conflict/war, I don't see it being like Iraq; it's probably going to be a tactical operation targeting specific Iranian nuclear facilities instead of a full-scale invasion. </p>
<p>Tying this into the discussion, this (inevitable, IMO) conflict is probably only going to help McCain, though it could also backfire (unlikely, but possible). A lot of independents and moderates will look automatically to McCain. But without a doubt, Ahmadinejad needs to go and I think this is only the beginning; interesting months ahead.</p>
<p>I find it interesting how the recent polls show McCain and Obama neck to neck, compared to just a few weeks ago when Obama had the 12+ point lead... McCain's getting my vote, regardless of an attack on Iran or not. </p>
<p>That, and Cindy McCain's a USC Trojan :)</p>
<p>when hillary lost i knew the media was setting up sodom hussy ooboombie for a fall ^_^</p>
<p>Interesting article and polls. Btw they are from May not "June". I also want to throw in that I know she couldn't be doing as well in places Obama is suprising people (esp large black pop states...altho perhaps she could carry large hispanic swing states)</p>
<p>But lemme just throw in that it's obvious that Clinton would have recovered and Obama would have fallen since June...Clinton has gotten sympathy and people stopped being mad at her while Obama keeps being attack since he's still in the game.</p>
<p>I do think that Israel will eventually do a tactical strike on Iran, just like they did before on Iraq, but not while Bush is in office. Iran's nuclear systems are spread out across the country in places such as hidden underground bunkers...much harder to attack than Iraq's. I believe ur right about the situation, but wrong about the timing.</p>
<p>Well if anything at least Obama is bringing more blacks into the Democratic fold. Clinton would have done that as well, but I doubt as many (esp after the dirty primaries) and she would have also brought more hispanics.</p>
<p>I am really interested to see who the VP choices will be. Location, experience, age, specialties, and draw make the VP choice pretty thrilling.</p>
<p>\I love Clinton...and who knows she might have done just as well/better, but as Cool said, Obama won. And I just wanted to throw in that I know that the western swing states (ones around Colorado) have MANY people who hate Clinton as seen by polls I looked at when she was still running. But I guess u were saying this wasn't true of other states...which I guess isn't suprising since so many blue-collars like her and that is a big pop in mid-south and mid-west swing states.</p>
<p>Lets just hope Obama pulls thru!</p>
<p>ps. McCain is far far behind Obama in donors but he does have more than 60 million from the RNC if I recall correctly...and that's a ton and doesn't even compare to the DNC. McCain said that Obama needs to raise $200 million to keep up his 50-state strat at the same pace. While I pray that will be raised, I do kind of doubt it. People need to get all enthusiastic again and the Clinton donors needs to unite behind Obama. He is opening up states that haven't been open for Dems since Clinton so it is really important that he is able to throw money into those key states. Also it was NOT a stupid idea for Obama to rely on donors instead of the gov...he may not have just raised a ton in the past month but he will easily surpass McCain's money.</p>
<p>ps it is interesting to think how this election would have turned out if Michigan and Florida hadn't been idiots and moved their primaries up therefore losing their power. Clinton could very easily be the nominee.</p>
<p>BigRed, I love how you speak as if everyone shares your beliefs, because I have news for you: a large percentage of people do not. You come across in a way that makes it sound like robots vote republican and people are wrong for disagreeing with you. Everyone is different and has their own personal views, and yours are not more worthwhile than theirs. McCain will be getting my vote because a 3rd party candidate winning is not exactly realistic. Even though I don't think he is the perfect candidate, he is not bush the 3rd.</p>
<p>hermanns: He is in the way that he is perpetuating the war, even though he denies it. I don't buy that.</p>
<p>That alone is enough for me to reject John McCain. By the way, I am not an American. ^^
Also, it is just insane and plain stupid that a government would spend $1 billion A DAY on a meaningless war while there are tens of thousands of homeless people starving in one of the wealthiest nation on Earth (or THE WEALTHIEST nation on earth).</p>
<p>As a person who has lived in Canada for 4 years, I can tell you that there is a strong anti-American (government) sentiment here, where most of my teachers and some neighbours make fun of the U.S. Although I don't share any of their abhorrence for the administration, I cannot believe how much money the U.S. is squandering (on a war initiated by a person with only IQ 90).</p>
<p>Anyway ^^ Isn't this a Cornell forum?</p>
<p>I agree that the current administration is blowing money like it is endless. Republicans are supposed to be conservative, but their spending the last 8 years has been very far from it (well at least bush). </p>
<p>I also agree this topic has gotten way out of hand and that it doesn't really belong here...</p>
<p>It's been pretty respectful and I don't think anybody has a problem with it.</p>
<p>And it's not like the Presidential election of 2008 won't affect all Cornellians past and present. So it's all good.</p>
<p>politicians are puppets of corporate and elite interest</p>
<p>you are correct juliushark...why are both mccain and obama members of the elite CFR?</p>