|
|
Post by gogonutz on Feb 19, 2008 10:16:37 GMT -5
^^that makes a lot of sense. Just wanted to add that with Richardson they would also get a lot of experience on foreign politics, which is always a major issue. But the reason I thought of it most was because of the SW & hispanics, yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by gurlnlifemagazine on Feb 20, 2008 0:05:40 GMT -5
Okay, so Obama wins another state and builds on his lead tonight. From watching CNN it really looks like he's taking a good lead on this thing. Though nothing is locked up yet, I find it very hard to see him losing this lead now. But there is still time for Clinton so we'll see.
Richardson would be a great choice for VP. That would seal up the Latin vote and the independants, which the Republican's don't have. I think Huckabee would be a bad choice because while he does well with Christians, he doesn't cross over and if the republican party plans to win this election they are gonna have to steal some votes from the Dems because Dems are coming out in these primary's in record numbers. If this was a general election the Dems would win by a landslide with the way voter turnout is going.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogonutz on Feb 24, 2008 10:32:21 GMT -5
Okay, I guess Ralph Nader is running as the independent candidate again, so there'll be a threeway contest for the presidency. Nader might be bad news for the Democractic candidate, since he's on the left side of the spectrum too
|
|
|
|
Post by lhrulz2007 on Feb 24, 2008 12:38:29 GMT -5
Nader doesn't really matter. People learned their leason about him in 2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogonutz on Feb 24, 2008 13:01:37 GMT -5
I remember the Democrats blaming him for Gore's loss though
|
|
|
|
Post by lhrulz2007 on Feb 24, 2008 13:51:19 GMT -5
yea, that's why people won't vote for him in as impressive of numbers as they did in 2000. He didn't even get half a million votes in 04.
|
|
|
|
Post by gurlnlifemagazine on Feb 24, 2008 17:24:23 GMT -5
Nadar will have to go up against Hillary or Obama so I don't think he'll matter at all to be honest. The Dems actually have candidates we really like.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogonutz on Feb 24, 2008 18:11:22 GMT -5
Well, Nader's probably no threat for anyone, but he's more likely to cut into the Democrat base than the Republican base, like if you would force the Nader voters to pick a side, they'd most likely go with the Democrats.
I doubt he'll be of any influence at all, especially since both the Democrat & Republic base are so involved during the primaries/caucuses already and it's already such a big issue in the States that there's just no way to get a foot between the door for Nader.
|
|
|
|
Post by lhrulz2007 on Feb 24, 2008 22:40:12 GMT -5
Also Nader will have a hard time getting on the ballot in alot of states. He didn't make it on the ballot here in Ohio in '04 and I know the state Democratic party worked to make sure it didn't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogonutz on Feb 25, 2008 9:42:37 GMT -5
Oo, I didn't know that, but yeah, I think the Democrats & Republicans both have enough momentum over Nader to make people 'forget' about him
|
|
|
|
Post by gurlnlifemagazine on Feb 25, 2008 9:51:52 GMT -5
Mike, who are you voting for now?
|
|
|
|
Post by lhrulz2007 on Feb 25, 2008 10:54:31 GMT -5
Obama
|
|
|
|
Post by savemeimdtba on Feb 25, 2008 12:02:33 GMT -5
Good choice  |
|
|
|
Post by gurlnlifemagazine on Feb 25, 2008 15:23:45 GMT -5
They both are, but yeah Obama is a better choice |
|
|
|
Post by gogonutz on Feb 25, 2008 15:49:52 GMT -5
I find it hard to say who's the better pick, but to me at least, Obama is the more appealing candidate. But that would be a pick based on character, not on issues. As far as it goes for issues, I think it really doesn't make a big difference in the big picture. If you want things to change in US politics, I'm pretty sure Obama is your best bet on that. I think if I were an American citizen I'd be satisfied with either one of them.
|
|
. I'd also like to know if anybody has an HD copy of Lifehouse at Pinkpop 2003. BY far their best concert ever