Go Obama!

College Confidential Community
41

<p>I think Ron Paul is a great conversation starter, but would make a terrible president >implementing half of what he says would be a disaster. </p>

<p>I have been on working for Obama since May and staffed for him in Iowa. I have been around politicians my whole life. My grandfather was close personal friends with Reagan and my family gatherings have always been stopovers for California politicians. I am not saying this makes me an expert or anything, but Obama feels more genuine than any one I have ever met. Republican or Democrat. it is his biggest asset. Hillary is too polarizing, our country doesn't need another four years of a President with a 30% approval rating. I personally don't have any issues with her, but her demeanor is going to make bringing people back together very difficult.</p>

42

<p>I'm glad Obama won a victory, but I think a lot of what's to come will depend on how the media covers the election. The media loves nothing better than an underdog-up-from-beneath story, which ties into the mythology of the American dream. If Hillary can make herself the underdog... Don't know. I'm certainly not qualified to predict. </p>

<p>Huckabee scares me for several reasons. I don't think separation of church and state is truly possible if the president is a Baptist minister. Especially since religion tends to be the guiding force behind the values of social conservatives. Now, I don't have any problems with social conservatives themselves, their values, or their beliefs. I do have a problem with them trying to impose their values on the rest of us using laws and the judicial branch. I'm atheistic, so the issue is rather important to me. I tend towards Libertarian, at least socially. I don't care what you believe or what you do, as long as it doesn't affect my rights or the rights of anybody else. </p>

<p>Really though, I don't care what Huckabee wins in the primaries. He can win whatever state he wants, or even all of them. I don't care, as long as he doesn't win the nation. We've already tried the neo-con evangelical christian republican in the Oval Office, and it didn't go so well. </p>

<p>Speaking of conservatives, that reminds me of Ron Paul, who I would like if it weren't for the issues Dukie11 identifies. Other than Huckabee and Paul, I haven't paid any attention to the Republican field. </p>

<p>For the Dems, I like Obama. Edwards is okay, but don't think he's right for president. He's also already been a part of a major national campaign that was viciously attacked with the Rove strategy. Edwards is also on the record with past positions from that campaign, which could be dragged up and thrown back at him if the 2008 campaign gets nasty and one or two of them wasn't well thought out. </p>

<p>Overall, I think whoever we elect to president should be good at bipartisanship. I think the past legislative year has proved that the Republicans are more than effective at winning legislative battles, or at least forcing stalemates. Perhaps the Dem-majority Congress thing was overblown after 2006, but I don't think the Dems have really done anything exciting in Congress. Granted, they've passed legislation that Bush has vetoed, but I think the Republicans have been pretty effective at keeping them from passing major legislation that they disagree with. As fascinating as legislative battles are (I'm glued to CSPAN, isn't everyone?) I'd like to see more progress, less bureaucratic and legislative wrangling.</p>

43

<p>I am so in love with Barack Obama. I really want to vote in the primaries... too bad I won't turn 18 until august. I think the country is becoming really conservative. With the republicans, the battle is over who is most conservative, which is not the case with democrats being the most liberal. I think Barack Obama is more liberal and true to the democratic causes, whereas Hillary (although I admire her) tries to appeal to more conservative democrats. Plus, I think he is more likeable than Hillary or Edwards.
On a different note, Ron Paul is truly amazing me. I agree with very few of his ideas but you have to admire him. If he won, nothing would get done in D.C. because congress would never agree with him and he would veto a lot of things they pass. The only reason he has any viability (I don't think that's the word I'm looking for) whatsoever is because people are very fed up with the current administration and are looking for something different.</p>

44

<p>^ Popularity more accurate?</p>

45

<p><a href="http://www.eviltees.net/images/hos_bros.jpg%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.eviltees.net/images/hos_bros.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>^^hahaha, funniest political t-shirt i've seen</p>

46

<p>nice ^^^</p>

<p>Barack stilll is so uncool.</p>

47

<p>I so support Obama. He is more appealing than the rest of the candidates. Hillary changes her mind so much that I don't even believe anything she says anymore. I will definitely be voting for Obama in Nov.</p>

48

<p>Everyone in the world changes their mind about things...are you kidding me?</p>

<p>And it's Ron Paul or bust ;)</p>

49

<p>Chuck Norris supports Huckabee.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
Although most people are pretty moderate, I think very few people would really like to identify that way. I highly doubt established democrats and even many left-leaning moderates would see the difference between Obama and, say, Edwards as being so great, or at least the generally underinformed population.

[/quote]
Edwards is easily more electable than Obama. Edwards would <em>crush</em> any of the Republican nominees.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Especially since a lot of people are just burnt out over the Bush mess. And let me reiterate that: so many people are done with the Republican party.

[/quote]
Assuming there will be a democrat president without looking at possible matchup considerations is quite risky. It's certainly something that both parties are doing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If anyone, I think Giuliani may be the most likely to swing over Democrats, but I doubt he's going to have enough steam to inherit the elephant's nod anyway.

[/quote]
I assume he will be strong in the Northeast on the West Coast.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And the stronger hopefuls? I can't get a read on McCain, but I think Huckabee and Romney are spending too much time trying to badge themselves as Jesus Jrs to get their own party's votes, and eventually each candidate's greed for the party nomination will kill their chances at the bigger prize.

[/quote]
I think Romney would be a factor in the final election. He has the best resume, by far, of all the contenders (democrat or republican). If he was Protestant he'd get the nomination easily.</p>

51

<p>mandi_4ever: Check your state's voting laws. Many states, like VA, where I live, allow citizens to vote in primaries if they will be elegible to vote on the day of the general election. So, if you'll be 18 in November 2008, you should check your state's laws and register before it's too late. I turned in my form mid-December, and I just got my voter registration card in the mail yesterday.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
^You have a lot of faith in the American people. I'd be (very pleasantly) surprised if a black Democrat were to win.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think it's that much of an issue. Most of the people who would never vote for a black for president are Republicans (I don't have proof of this, but I have good reason for such an assertion). There are probably some semi-racist libertarians in that crowd who might cast an anti-republican ballot as a protest vote (i've looked at stormfront.org before and a lot of people there do seem fed up with the GOP, but I doubt that many of them would even consider voting democrat anyways. btw that site is full of ron paul supporters), but I doubt that group is that large</p>

<p>here's an interesting quote i've found:

[quote]
I kinda want the Republicnas to win this election.</p>

<p>Even though I am staunchly against them, I figure that the Republicans, undre Bush, have effed up so much that, in order to get the US out of the deep pile of **** they're in, th enext governing party will have to implement some very, very unpopular measures, such as eliminating all of the tax cuts that Bush implemented, increasing taxes, cutting the budget, probably social services such as education, welfare, health, museum and other grants, etc..., and many, many more unpopular practices.</p>

<p>As much as the next party will say that these policies are required due to the mess that Bush put them in, the myopic masses will merely see it as a burden, and will instinctively hate the ruling party for it. Thus, that party will lose the next election, and probably many more to come.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>==
personally i don't think that the president can do that much. look, bush is anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion and that position hasn't really done anything at all during his administration (although I am of course appalled by his stem-cell research veto). it's really difficult to trace specific results to particular presidents. i suppose that i don't care about a lot of policies other than scientific research, energy, and environment though (where the democrats actually differ from the republicans). in that i mildly favor the democrats (but am not enthusiastic for any of them). im not planning on registering and if i do register, i'm still going to cast a write-in ballot for some animal celebrity.</p>

<p>of course if there were non-mainstream candidates, i'd probably care about education too but i only see a total and complete overhaul of the educational system (that doesn't value those pursuing traditional education over homeschoolers/self-studiers; and that puts an initial down payment on the development of trustworthy sources that people can use to self-study subjects upto the college level) as desirable and none of the candidates offer such a solution. and i'd care about someone who could overhaul the fda's policy on the <em>extremely</em> inefficient process of prescription drug approval.</p>

53

<p>also, as strange as it sounds, it seems that dopamine (the lack thereof) may be one of the main causes of societal ills. </p>

<p>a lot of crime (and poverty) can be traced to diminished willpower and self-control associated with low dopamine receptor density. not ALL of it, but a good portion of it. One good book to read is "On Crime" (Herrnstein and J.Q. Wilson). And I think that the scientific route is one of the best routes to controlling this issue as we're starting to identify genes associated with diminished willpower and self-control (especially mutants in the DRD4 dopamine receptor genes). there are certainly problems associated with widespread genomic scans and the development of drugs that could increase dopamine receptor densities (without the side effects of amphetamines), but frankly, there are a lot of desperate people out there who are willing to try any route possible to improve their lot in life but can't - due to their lack of willpower (and some of those people do resort to crime). but if someone was enthusiastic about supporting research for a possible drug that could help with diminished self-control, then i'd actually be enthusiastic for someone.</p>

<p>psychology is full of research about self-control and how much it matters in "life success." If we are to equalize people's chances in succeeding at life, we should give them the opportunity to increase their willpower by chemical means, since willpower is not something that easily changes (and we can't prove that it increases with practice).</p>

<p>(intelligence is another issue too, but it is far more complicated than self-control, which is very closely tied in with dopamine). yes attitudes matter but really, all the "you can control yourself with enough practice" rhetoric still doesn't help with the massive problems that americans have with self-control.</p>

<p>unfortunately most people still blame non-biological factors or inequality of opportunity on some people's relative lack of success in life. But the problem is that it is so extremely difficult to identify any social program that helps with this widespread problem - that there shouldn't be a reason not to address potentially malleable biological factors. as intelligence is immalleable but self-control is (at least with potential for abuse and side-effects, with amphetamine-like drugs => but there is no reason not to investigate alternatives), we should address self-control. inequality will always exist - but at least this will help more ppl reach their aspirations</p>

<p>==
so basically actually I'm only going to be enthusiastic about someone who realizes the significance of the latest biology and psychology research. which fits none of the current candidates</p>

54

<p>"Most of the people who would never vote for a black for president are Republicans"</p>

<p>no. the southern democrats are far more likely to not vote for Obama because of his skin color.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
no. the southern democrats are far more likely to not vote for Obama because of his skin color.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>those are the same southern democrats who have been defecting to the republicans over the last few decades and hence are responsible for the "solid south". it's now strongly gop (and have voted overwhelmingly for bush - 85% of mississippi whites voted for bush for example - see CNN.com</a> Election 2004). they wouldn't consider voting for any one of the frontline democrats in the first place.</p>

<p>clearly, a black being on the democratic ballot isn't that detrimental to the democrats, considering that 90% of blacks vote democrat</p>

56

<p>"clearly, a black being on the democratic ballot isn't that detrimental to the democrats, considering that 90% of blacks vote democrat"</p>

<p>i didn't say it was detrimental to the democrats. merely that it's some southern democrats that are more likely to not vote for obama for racial reasons.</p>

57

<p>obama yo mama</p>

<p>bet you didn't see that one coming ;)</p>

58

<p>anyone want to make predictions for new hampshire tomorrow?</p>

<p>i think obama wins again, but by a smaller margin, and then clinton and then edwards</p>

<p>i have no idea for the republicans. i think it's going to be really close between mccain and romney, and then paul and huckabee slightly behind, with giuliani and that other guy way behind</p>

59

<p>Mccain, romney, paul, huckabee.....i thinky?</p>

60

<p>According to the polls Obama will DESTROY Clinton - by over 12%, bigger than the results in Iowa. After this, Clinton is finished - and as long as Obama doesnt screw up and Clinton doesnt have any secret info shes waiting to release left, then its over for the Democrats.</p>

<p>McCain will win big in NH, as all the polls say. He's leading by about 10% against the next candidate i believe. Ron Paul will never drop out - he doesnt give a crap, he still wants to destroy our government no matter what</p>