Ok, serious question: Are the Democrats seriously trying to throw this election??

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#1
Hillary Clinton?

Barrack Obama?

Where the FUCK is the Southern Governor? It's not that fucking hard to figure out: pick up a single state from the Old South, and the Dimmycrats swing the Electoral College their way. There are 11 states in the Old South: pick ONE popular Democrat governor from any of those states, run him (and yes, I mean "him") and he'll be in the White House.

It's that fucking simple. If he actually does a good job for a couple of terms, THEN'S the time to go with the "gag" candidate (as Anthony put it).

Hey, I'm a registered Republican. But I'd really like to see 2 REAL candidates out there.

I don't care what the polls right now say (honestly, I have no idea what they say): Americans are going to have a really hard time voting in a black man and they're going to have a really hard time voting in a woman as divisive as Hillary.

Governors are EXECUTIVES. They make decisions, and they carry them out. Even if they're BAD decisions, they make decisions. Senators and Congresscritters are all talk, little action. The US Senate is also known as The World's Greatest Debating Society for a reason. Being a Senator is an albatross when it comes to running for the Presidency, because you've got a voting record which'll have something in it that can sink you.

I think things were better when the Party Bosses ran things, and decided who the candidates were in smoky back rooms, rather than this primary bullshit. All we end up with these days are Democratic candidates that are middle-of-the-road for the DNC and Republican candidates that are middle-of-the-road for the GOP, instead of candidates that are middle-of-the-road for the USA.
 

boardsofcanada

You're a Charcoal Briquette..ditsoon..a moolinyan
Jun 8, 2006
2,347
1
261
#2
exactly what ive been thinking.

if they just threw any regular white guy in their they'd win.

but then again, the republicans really don't have much going for them either.
 

CougarHunter

Lying causes cat piss smell.
Mar 2, 2006
10,594
2,574
566
KC Metro
#3
Howard Dean could fuck up a wet dream, and I'm thankful for it.
 

WonkaVision

To my Friends!!! To My Friends!!!
Sep 5, 2005
3,059
1
236
HOUSTON
#4
I want to vote Democrat sooooo bad, but they are just too fucking stupid.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#5
Howard Dean could fuck up a wet dream, and I'm thankful for it.
Could? He is currently, in fact, fucking up the wet dream in the most literal of terms.

The DNC doesn't believe in small victories, they're just as bad as the Right when it comes to totalitarian followership. We have a Republican President with a single digit approval rating, and instead of coasting through for the easy win with a John Edwards (Who I also think is a joke, but he'd electable at least), they push a woman and a black dude to complete their fucking "We are the world" holier than thou bullshit.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
15,266
4,696
693
South Jersey
#6
I don't know, I think Barrack is going to win because of the stupid kids. They all just keep reiterating his ongoing theme of "change." No shit stupids, it isn't a new concept.
 

Razor Roman

Save the USH!
Aug 27, 2002
10,393
0
366
Sayreville NJ
#7
I can't vote Democrat. No matter how bad the GOP fucks things up...

1. I DO NOT WANT SOCIALIZED MEDECINE
2. I DO NOT WANT MY TAXES GOING UP

it's that simple.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
15,266
4,696
693
South Jersey
#8
I can't vote Democrat. No matter how bad the GOP fucks things up...

1. I DO NOT WANT SOCIALIZED MEDECINE
2. I DO NOT WANT MY TAXES GOING UP

it's that simple.
YES!!! Two of the most important things that concern everyone. I wish Forbes was running again or Newt.
 

sbrainb

Go suck a bag of dicks.
Jul 27, 2007
1,244
0
0
New York City
#9
The only reason why I am a registered Democrat is so that I can vote in the primary. I lean pretty far left, so I'm a Kucinich supporter and I want to throw my support his way in the primary (even though I know he would never get elected in a million years). I think our whole party system is just inherently fucked. That fact, coupled with the fact that money plays such a huge role in who ends up in office makes it so that really good, capable people who ACTUALLY give a shit can't get elected.

I do agree with the original point made on this thread though that Obama and Hillary the Bitch being the front runners doesn't bode well for the party overall.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#10
The only reason why I am a registered Democrat is so that I can vote in the primary. I lean pretty far left, so I'm a Kucinich supporter and I want to throw my support his way in the primary (even though I know he would never get elected in a million years).
Yeah, but that just illustrates the problem of the party binding primary system, something the Democrats invented in response to the 1968 DNC Convention.

Under the old system, the party nominee tended to be beholden to the party bosses, but was also more likely to be center-of-the-aisle for the country, rather than "center" for the party. Theoretically that meant the President was more likely to be able to work with both sides of the aisle.

Let's say Kucinich and Pat Buchannon both won their DNC and the GOP nominations, respectively. Even if your guy won, do you think the result would be better than Bill Richardson or Rudy Giuliani winning in their place?

And frankly, historically the DNC primary is a GREAT example of the kind of election pandering Democrats need in order to get elected. Take a good, hard look at non-Presidential elections. When Democrats win governorships, Senate seats, and even some House seats, they RUN TO THE RIGHT. When I went to college in Virginia, Democrats became a governor and a senator and in both cases ran on classic Republican platforms (ie- more local control, less "big government", friendlier to businesses, etc.). But if either of them were to run for the Presidency, they'd HAVE to run waaaaaaaaaaay over to the left in order to secure the nomination, and then run waaaaaaaaaay over to the "center" in order to win the Presidency.

Republican have to do the same thing, of course, but they typically run for the party nomination from wherever they actually are in the first place, and then run for the center if they win the nomination.

Take a look at ol' Bill Clinton, just as an example. I think he was a total fuck-up when it came to foreign affairs and security (90+% cuts to the CIA's Directorate of Operations, and he has the balls to call out Bush's response to 9/11?????), but the reality is that the "It's the Economy, Stupid" platform he ran on in '92 was essentially a Republican platform. Bill Clinton was a Blue Dog Democrat, which is a large part of WHY he was so hated by the right: he was seen as "stealing" Republican issues.
 

Garyisajoke

I created FRED, fuckface. Show some respect.
Nov 20, 2005
3,581
0
0
D.C.
#11
I'm going with Patti and voting for John Kerry.

Dems are fucked anyway - they pushed everything too soon. Let's see - white majority goes into the voting booth and see a black man with an arab name and a woman we really didn't like as First Lady on one side and a familiar white man on the next - what do you think is going to happen? Dems suck and now that I'm making a lot of money, fuck them and their taxes.

And here's my thing since I'm typing - I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative (I'm a registered Libertarian.) My whole thing about voting is who is going to be a leader in foreign affairs - go down the list, each notable president made their name in foreign affairs. Social issues - Congress won't let anything like abortion go away, etc. so I pick the guy who'll kick ass diplomatically.

I didn't vote for Bush.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#15
I'll see those and add

3. I DO NOT WANT ANY MORE ILLEGALS IN MY COUNTRY
Get the INS to actually set the incoming quotas at where they logically should be, and you'll solve most of the problem.

If you're any kind of a free market capitalist, you'll understand that the American economy, almost regardless of how it's doing, SCREAMS for cheap labor. For any free market capitalist, or who claims to be fiscally conservative, any government interference with those cheap labor jobs getting filled is what's at fault.

Yeah, they're entering the country illegally. They're entering the country illegally because the government has consistently fucked up the incoming quotas on immigration. The INS hasn't done their job, plain and simple, both in keeping illegals out and in setting the incoming quotas to where they should be to keep the American economy going.
 

CringeRadioWanted

I got nothin'....
Aug 23, 2003
388
0
316
#16
I'm an independent, and am VERY middle of the road (just qualifying what follows...)

I can't understand what the Democrats are doing...I could vote for almost ANYONE that the Democratic party would put up against Romney, if only because I like having Civil Rights, and they've been squeezed just a fucking tad over the past 7 years.

That being said, there is NO WAY IN FUCKING HELL I can make myself vote for either Clinton or Obama. Hillary's gender has nothing to do with it, because I'd hate her pompous fucking guts even if she was a dude, and Obama just doesn't have any kind of experience to lean on. He's the Democratic version of a young starlet: the "IT" person of the moment, the new kid on the block making waves simply because he's a new face, but who fizzles out after the initial honeymoon period wears off and the first signs of aging appear.

I can't see myself voting for McCain, either...his time was 8 years ago, and his ideas are as well. It just seems that as he has entered his 70's, he has started to become somewhat complacent. I respect the hell out of the man, but if he was going to be a good president, it would have had to have been in 2000. Huckabee is interesting, and I like some of the things he's said, but there is no way in hell he gets past the convention. He might make an interesting VP candidate for Romney, though, against Hillary/faceless junior senator from somewhere.

I am going to have to wait this one out, and think long and hard. PA's primary is so late, it's probably not going to matter much, and as an independent, I'm not going to care much anyway until October.

Why is it that I can foresee myself staring longingly at the idea of Bloomberg running as the forbidden third option against Hillary and whoever survives the dogfight in the red states.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#17
You people saying things about civil rights.: Do you think any of the Democrats would be better? As bad as the Republican party has been on big government the last few years, the Democrat party is still worse. It would take 40 years of nanny state politics by Republicans to even come close to what the Democrats have done to this country, and what they plan to do to it in the future.

You want a southern governor? They're pretty much all Republicans now. Huckabee is one of them, Haley Barbour is pretty good and the best one of all doesn't stand a chance because his brother isn't being seen as having done a good job. Well that, and his daughter's a crackhead.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#18
You want a southern governor? They're pretty much all Republicans now.
Well, that's kind of my point. If the DNC were capable of long-term planning (they're not: putting Howard Dean in charge is proof of that), they'd have thrown every resource they had into every governor's race in the South since the 2000 elections. They should have HAMMERED every one of those elections, grooming a bunch of their best and brightest.

Why do you think the Republicans put GWB up for the governorship of Texas in '94?

Long Term Planning.

US Senators are typically seen as a step UP from a state governorship. Fuck that. There are some strong Southern Senators, at least within their own states (like, say, Edwards?). Drop down from Senator to governor, be popular there for a term and a half, and then run for the Presidency. Start running for President from your first stump speech in your first governor's race, and give the "aw, shucks, I just want to help [my home state] as best I can, I'm not even thinking about the Presidency!" sound bite every time you're asked.

Shit, that's what Hillary should have done: gone back to Arkansas and run for governor THERE. That'd give her a better base because she'd then be an EXECUTIVE instead of just another junior Senator. A governorship gives a politician a chance to shine as a LEADER, not just another debater in the Senate.

Democrats are just fucking idiots, maaaaaaaaaaan. The just can't figure out how to get this kind of shit DONE.

It's fucking OBVIOUS. Carry a single decently sized state from the Old South, get all the other states that voted Democrat in the last 2 elections, and you win. Period. But none of the "leadership" in the party can figure that shit out. Pathetic.
 

DanaReevesLungs

I can keep rhythm with no metronome...
Donator
Jun 9, 2005
9,133
2,536
681
Louisiana
#19
You people saying things about civil rights.: Do you think any of the Democrats would be better? As bad as the Republican party has been on big government the last few years, the Democrat party is still worse. It would take 40 years of nanny state politics by Republicans to even come close to what the Democrats have done to this country, and what they plan to do to it in the future.

You want a southern governor? They're pretty much all Republicans now. Huckabee is one of them, Haley Barbour is pretty good and the best one of all doesn't stand a chance because his brother isn't being seen as having done a good job. Well that, and his daughter's a crackhead.
Jeb Bush's best achievement was signing the legislation to protect the Everglades....other than that the man has done very little for education and health care. 2 areas in high need of reform in Florida.

The bullshit grading system for the schools is a wash. Schools only teach the FCAT test during the school year rather than focusing on the subjects at hand due to pressure from administrators. How is this doing anything for the kids in school? When teachers have to resort to teach a test over a subject, no one learns.

So he's the best one available huh? I highly doubt that.
 
May 24, 2005
528
0
166
Charlotte, NC
#20
If businesses and people thought that the other dems were that good then they'd be getting more votes and money via the primary process. They're not. I guess Hillary and Obama are the best at saying the right things and raising the most money and therefore are the best 'politicians'. Not necessarily saying that they'd be the best at running the country. I think everyone realizes that they only have to carry the right states to win as we've seen in the last few elections.

When it comes down to it, I still think enough people are going to be hung over from the Bush administration and that the swings states (or enough of them) will probably go blue. Unless something happens with a 3rd party.
 

ShiftyMH

Registered User
May 31, 2004
251
52
348
#21
I'd love to vote for the Democrats, if only they would separate themselves from the homos, peaceniks and stop pandering to minorities.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#22
I don't know, I think Barrack is going to win because of the stupid kids. They all just keep reiterating his ongoing theme of "change." No shit stupids, it isn't a new concept.
"Change" is such a bullshit, empty buzzword. We all know that even if Obama gets elected, NOTHING will change. It'll be political bullshit as usual, only with a Democrat flavor.

There's something to remember here: people say they want change, but they DO NOT WANT IT. The will is not there. This has been proven time and time again. If this really was not the case, Ron Paul would be stealing the election, because he's the only one out there really proposing significant changes. Now, of course, I (and a lot of other folks) think the changes he does want to make are totally insane, but that's kind of moot anyway, because even if someone in favor of radical change were to get elected, the will is still not there to really bring about such changes. Not from the politicians, but more importantly, NOT EVEN from the electorate.

People just like to tell themselves they're for "change" to make themselves feel better.
 

VersionX

Registered User
Jul 18, 2004
159
0
0
#23
I'm inclined to agree with you. I think ti will take drastic circumstances (see: Post-WW1 Germany) to make radical changes to the awful structure we have at present


"But I am essential to ze war effort!"