Comments | canpolitik: Tit for Taft.

allhatnocattle in canpolitik

Tit for Taft.

Mar 04, 2008 08:52

For the last 4yr.s I've lived in a Liberal riding. Nothing changed for me last night. Former local radio celeb, Dave Taylor is still my MLA. Unfortunately, neither Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were on the ballot, a disappointment for many, I'm sure. Dave Taylor handily beat the well financed PC Candidate, former CNN reporter Art "scud-stud" ( Read more... )

provincial election, alberta

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

penlessej March 4 2008, 18:05:39 UTC

Wouldn't it be more disappointing for an Albertan that McCain wasn't on the ballot? :P

allhatnocattle March 4 2008, 18:20:46 UTC

Don't stereotype. Just like the USA, we havn't heard of him either.

penlessej March 4 2008, 18:22:47 UTC

Haven't heard of him? He is going to be the next President of the United States of America.

allhatnocattle March 4 2008, 18:52:25 UTC

The same imaginary USA that elected Ralph Nader? Not likely even in my best dream state.

penlessej March 4 2008, 19:04:57 UTC

If I could vote I would vote Nader. Seat belts save lives.

allhatnocattle March 4 2008, 19:13:57 UTC

As a Green Party supporter (I figured the PC's didn't need my support, as I always do) I must say Nader is anti-environmental. Saving lives is contrary to green policy. Population growth is the number one contributer to pollution problems.

sourdick March 4 2008, 20:01:12 UTC

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]

[audience gasps in terror]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

[murmurs]

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate!
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

mijopo March 4 2008, 18:55:48 UTC

Hmm, not to hijack the thread but I'd love to hear more about why you think so.

(I bought "McCain will be president" futures cheap at www.rasmussenmarkets.com and I'm not sure whether I should sell them when they hit 45 or so.)

penlessej March 4 2008, 19:01:33 UTC

I have to wait for the results from today but suppose Clinton wins today and they head to Convention. That means that the Democratics, regardless of who wins, will be deeply divided heading into a Presidential election. I think that McCain is smart enough to capitalize on that and I think that overall the Republicans have been doing a pretty good job at distancing themselves from Bush.

Republicans pretty much own the economic side of the American monopoly board and with that becoming a major issue I can see them pulling ahead with that.

Now suppose Obama wins today. Well he can't seem to make up his mind on anything and has not put forth any real policies. How is someone supposed to run a campaign on that?

mijopo March 4 2008, 19:48:12 UTC

That means that the Democratics, regardless of who wins, will be deeply divided heading into a Presidential election.

I don't think so. The Dems. certainly won't be divided any worse than the Republicans are right now, what with Rush Limbaugh, Coulter and company screaming and yelling that they'd vote Hillary before they'd vote McCain. Romney and McCain were dividing the Rep. party a lot more than Obama and Clinton are dividing the Dem. party. They're relatively indistinguishable from a policy perspective and that they're both minority candidates gives all the Dems. a warm fuzzy.

Republicans pretty much own the economic side of the American monopoly board and with that becoming a major issue I can see them pulling ahead with that.No way, not after the Clinton years followed by the Bush years. The only reason Bush stayed in in '04 was because he kept beating the terrorist drum. People are mostly unimpressed with Rep. handling of the economy and the Republicans will have to do a lot of scrambling to avoid getting blamed for the ( ... )

suitablyemoname March 4 2008, 22:25:21 UTC

There's the Nixon plan, too. Part of why the Republicans have done well since the 1960s is because of the total reversal of fortunes in the South, which went from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican, and has stayed that way ever since. You'll notice that since Kennedy, all of the Democratic presidents have been Southerners, although it would be silly to say that's the only factor at work here. Still, going by this metric, since neither Hillary nor Obama are Southern, neither of them can win the election, and it goes to McCain by default. The spoiler is that Obama's black, which might change this dynamic considerably--however, if McCain picks Condi Rice [and he may well do so], he'll give him a run for his money there ( ... )

mijopo March 4 2008, 22:43:18 UTC

The spoiler is that Obama's black, which might change this dynamic considerably--

Why do you think it would change it? Southern white Republicans would be less likely to vote for a black Democrat, no?

suitablyemoname March 4 2008, 23:13:27 UTC

Southern white Republicans are (in my view, at least) equally unlikely to vote for a woman. Southern black Republicans may well be mobilised to support a black candidate, though.

mijopo March 5 2008, 00:33:29 UTC

Southern white Republicans are (in my view, at least) equally unlikely to vote for a woman.

Quite possibly, but that doesn't explain why Obama's selection would change the dynamic.

Southern black Republicans may well be mobilised to support a black candidate, though.

Southern black Republicans???? You think all three them will vote for Obama or just one or two?

Back to all threads