At this point, a year before the election, it's a dead certainty that the Democratic candidate for President will be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.  Consider: a huge number of Americans (including women) do not believe that a woman should be President.  Reasons vary from outright sexism to the fashionable Venus/Mars thing, but the reason isn't important.  A lot of people, regardless of politics, simply won't vote for Hillary because she's female...

  Similarly, a lot of people, regardless of politics, simply won't vote for Obama because he's black.  I don't know how many of these people there are, but among my own circle of acquaintances, who are almost all college-educated and diversity-tolerant, I can count a couple who admit that they won't vote for either of those two.  Considering that American elections are often won or lost by a couple of percentage points, it seems possible that putting a woman or a black man at the top of the Democratic ticket could be all it takes to lose the election...

  Sure, the Republicans can't seem to find even a halfway decent candidate.  But they couldn't find a halfway decent candidate in 2000, and moreover the Democratic candidate had the nearly unbeatable advantage of having been Vice President.  And (to sidestep the argument over irregularities in the counting) Bush still got half of the votes...

  If Hillary or Obama is the Democratic candidate, even Romney or Ron Paul might be carried into office by disaffected voters who just can't stomach the idea of anyone but a white man being President...

  If Hillary or Obama runs - and loses - in '08, it will "pave the way" for the next female or black candidate.  But the best time to play that tactic is in an election you know you're going to lose anyway (Lieberman and Ferraro didn't have a prayer against His Majesty Ronald Reagan.)  Is it important to do it this year, when it could hand the White House back to Bush's party..?

  Or am I wrong: Can the Republicans be beaten by that ticket, even if they don't nominate Condoleezza Rice..?

  Please note that I'm not asking for a partisan opinion.  I hold both branches of the Republocrat Party in equal contempt.  I'm just asking whether the Democrats are out of their minds just from the standpoint of political strategy groove ;) on...

Not to play the stereotype card, but I've talked to several black voters in the past year: all said they would vote Hillary over Obama, which shocked me a bit.

I've also talked with several female voters, and few said they would vote for Hillary.

I think 2008 is the perfect year for a black man or a woman to become president. Seriously, how much worse could Republicans make themselves look? At this point, I'd vote for a box of Junior Mints over any of the Republican candidates...

I don't think the Democrats are out of their minds... maybe I am in thinking a woman or black man could be president. I sure hope not. None of the Republicans are offering anything remotely worthy of my vote.

Yes, I would pick Ron Paul over any Democratic candidate, but he's not exactly Republican if you know what I mean...

Ant

I think it's a shame that sex or colour has anything to do with electoral choice at all - have to admit that if I were over there, I'd probably not vote for Hillary: not 'cause she's a woman, she just gives me the fingernails-down-the-blackboard sort of feeling; no idea about Obama, though.  What's been published over here is just that bit too superficial to know whether he's worth voting for or not.  What I've read on the web has been none too illuminating, either.

ISTM you're in a very Douglas Adams sort of scenario: anyone capable of getting themselves into a position of running for president is someone you really don't want to be doing the job.  Maybe that's why Clinton I came across well: it always seemed that the drive to become president came from Hillary rather than Bill.

I've been talking big about never voting for Hillary under any circumstances, but the more I see of Rudy, Romney, and the other clowns, the more I back off.  Once again, I might have to vote for Hillary if only to vote against Rudy. 

Michael Dukakis was a terrible candidate in 1988, but he's the one who snagged the nomination.  That's how it's going to be with Hillary.  The difference is George HW Bush was Reagan's VP and Reagan's ratings were more than double what Dubya's are.  Hillary will be much harder to beat than Dukakis.  We knew the Duke was done in August!

I think Hillary's womanhood will be less of an issue than her last name being Clinton.  If she gets the nomination, the right-wing sh8tsorm will be a raging blizzard.  They will use any form of character assassination, hellfire and brimstone, and fear-mongering they can summon.

There are still some male chauvinist pigs who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman, but I think that will factor for very little for the Gen-Y, Gen-X, and the Boomers.  People old enough to have fought in Korea and older are the demographic for that.

I wish it wasn't so, but I think Obama's skin color and his funny name will do him much more damage than Hillary's gender at the polling stations.  Davester is absolutely right.  There are millions of white folks who would never admit (even to themselves) that they won't vote for Obama because he's black, but that'll be the gode when it comes to pulling the lever.  Besides that, who knows what kind of dirt the oppostion will dig up on Barak between now and then.

You've got Ron Paul on one ideological side and Dennis Kucinich on the other, but it's important to remember both men can shine with their ideological purity because neither has a chance at the nomination.  Once either man got closer than a million miles to the nomination, the compromising would start to snowball.
::)

I don't think it's a wash out yet. Hillary will get the nomination and I'm betting we'll see a very similar election to 2000. Close that is, not another rigged election, 3 in a row would be pushing it.

Here's the things working against Hillary.

1) People simply disliking her policy ideas.
2) People who voted against Bill will vote against her.
3) Some people won't vote for a woman.
4) Some of the southern states that Bill did well in have become far more Republican in recent years.
5) The media hates her, not even just the right wing media, that lady has pissed off a lot of people!

Things working for her however -

1) No real strong candidates in the Republican field. Giuliani still has a good image as far as I can see but he's managing to erode it bit by bit with the swing vote.
2) 8 Years of George.
3) Possibly the biggest election budget ever.
4) Popularity in New York, Illinois and California, three states vital to winning the Presidency.
5) According to the most recent populairity polls Hillary leads pretty much everybody, granted those don't count for that much a year before the election, but still, must be reassuring for her.
6) Bill. Anybody with half a brain knows Bill Clinton is up there with Reagan in terms of statesmanship and showmanship, on par with Roosevelt for reinvention of Government and in the same league Brian Greene, Nicholas Kristof and David Souter in terms of intelligence (Connection - All rhodes scholars)

I agree with Red...  I'd vote for Ron Paul over any Democrat (other than Dennis Kucinich).

That being said, I would also have to agree that the Democrats are likely putting themselves in a position to lose by running a woman or black man, but again, it needs to be done.  The more often we break racial and gender barriers, the more likely people will start accepting things like the idea of a black or female president.

Running Bill Richardson is also a good choice, and he'd be the first Hispanic candidate.

kucinich and paul would do wonders to start a third party, it would have a nice ideological spread and could found itself on a contrarian platform -- sick of the republicrats and the demoblicans? vote for the wacky militarize the borders/stop the chemtrails ticket.

has anyone made the point that some people will vote for hillary because she's black? and for obama because he's a woman? i honestly dont know how many people are still overtly bigoted enough to think a woman or a black man can't be president, although a plus -- it'll be hard to make attack ads that say, "hillary can't be president, she's just a girl." but i imagine the repubes will find a way to do it.

repubes! you like that? i just made it up. i'm always looking for new ways to elevate the discourse.

kucinich and paul would do wonders to start a third party, it would have a nice ideological spread and could found itself on a contrarian platform -- sick of the republicrats and the demoblicans? vote for the wacky militarize the borders/stop the chemtrails ticket.

has anyone made the point that some people will vote for hillary because she's black? and for obama because he's a woman? i honestly dont know how many people are still overtly bigoted enough to think a woman or a black man can't be president, although a plus -- it'll be hard to make attack ads that say, "hillary can't be president, she's just a girl." but i imagine the repubes will find a way to do it.

repubes! you like that? i just made it up. i'm always looking for new ways to elevate the discourse.


They'll attack Hillary through Bill.  They've done it before.  Michelle Malkin will get on FOX and say a Hillary presidency will be bad for women because Hillary only succeeded in politics because of her husband, and Hillary stayed in an abusive marriage, and blah blah blah.
::)

They'll attack Hillary through Bill.  They've done it before.  Michelle Malkin will get on FOX and say a Hillary presidency will be bad for women because Hillary only succeeded in politics because of her husband, and Hillary stayed in an abusive marriage, and blah blah blah.
::)

But didn't they say something along the lines of Bill only succeeding in politics because of his wife?  And shouldn't that be Bill who stayed in an abusive marriage ;)

i honestly dont know how many people are still overtly bigoted enough to think a woman or a black man can't be president


Hi Mike.

It's called the Mid-West, the South and the Rust Belt.

Hope I answered your question.

Hi Mike.

It's called the Mid-West, the South and the Rust Belt.

Hope I answered your question.
i thought they were gonna secede or something. what's the holdup on that?

i thought they were gonna secede or something. what's the holdup on that?


I keep telling Missouri that Vermont said it's Ma was fat and ugly.. but so far, my goading has only served to increase national guard spending and cut healthcare for children. Sorry kids.

Hi Mike.

It's called the Mid-West, the South and the Rust Belt.



Or the Rush belt.

Or the Rush belt.


I hear it stretches from coast to coast.

I hear it stretches from coast to coast.

Yup, that's the IED Network!
:D

What's wrong here?

Hilary-She's a woman.
Obama-He's Black and sounds like Osama.
Richardson-He's a Hiapanic.
Romney-He's a Mormon.
Gulliani-He's an Italian. (Yes, there's still hate with those guys.)

I would still go for Obama because he's more down-to-earth than the other canidates.

What's wrong here?

Hilary-She's a woman.
Obama-He's Black and sounds like Osama.
Richardson-He's a Hiapanic.
Romney-He's a Mormon.
Gulliani-He's an Italian. (Yes, there's still hate with those guys.)


Kucinich is a funny-looking little hippie dude who drinks green tea.
Paul is a reactionary crank who makes your crazy old Uncle Al look like a hep cat.

uh

Stephen Colbert announced his candidacy, maybe he's the guy!

Obama > Hillary. If Hillary is the next president...well I guess she can't do much worse than Dubya at least.  :-\\

Stephen Colbert announced his candidacy, maybe he's the guy!


Hmm.  A platform of "We'll fund the tax cuts and universal health care by bringing the troops home (and the hippies will just assume we'll legalize pot, even though we won't say a word about it)" might be competitive enough to raise turnout among the general public.  Neither the Elephant nor Jackass parties can bring that sort platform to the voters, because in order to do so, they'd have to get that platform past the primaries, and the only way to win the primaries is to appeal to the most fanatical of your respective ideologues.  You end up with what we've had for the past few decades of politics -- "leaders" who appeal to fanatics and depress turnout by alienating Sane America. 

Up until this point, that's been the formula for winning.  The fewer Sane Americans vote, the easier it is to win, because you need only appeal to the fanatics.  The guy whose platform appeals to more fanatics wins.

So, from the "You heard it here first" department:  Bloomberg/Colbert.  Last I heard, Bloomberg was still floating the idea of a "Unity Party" as a new third party, and has the money to make a reasonable campaign.  Colbert will get the pro-sanity liberals on board, Bloomberg will get the capitalists on board.  The platform (and killer rhetoric during what might have to be three-candidate nationally-televised debates) could bring the apathetic public on board.

They'd never be permitted to win, but it'd be fun as all hell watching the media try to explain away the polling data.

That goes double if the Jesusmentalist wing of the Elephant party bolts to a fourth (!) party after Giuliani gets the nomination and Colbert enables Bloomberg/Colbert to pick off Democrats who think Hillary!'s "too corporate".  They might not like Bloomberg, but Colbert makes that a wild card.

Suppose Bloomberg/Colbert got 30% of the vote, with the other 70% going 30% Hillary!, 25% Giuliani, 15% Jesusmentalist.

It'd be a total crapshoot as to which of the more populous (and traditionally Democratic-leaning) states went Hillary! or Bloomberg/Colbert.  All it would take would be a few points' worth of wise-asses in California who thought "Governator Schwarzenegger!  That's be hilarious!", and California (33% Bloomberg/Colbert, 32% Hillary!, 23% Giuliani, 12% Jesusmentalist) would dump a plurality of electoral votes into Bloomberg/Colbert's column to clinch it.

If you want historical parallel, look at Clinton I.  Bill split the difference by getting moderates, and Perot split the 'Pub vote.  In this scenario, the Jesusmentalists are splitting the 'Pub vote, and the newcomer to the party is the one who's more attractive to the moderates.  That probably won't work in a three-way split, but it might work in a four-way split.

If we go for a two-way race, or a Dem/Pub/Jesus three-way race, of course, none of this applies.  Hillary will be President by such a wide margin you might as well not bother holding the elections.  On the upside, the markets hate uncertainty, and we'll all have a year or so to adjust to her economic policies before the election.

Hmm.  A platform of "We'll fund the tax cuts and universal health care by bringing the troops home (and the hippies will just assume we'll legalize pot, even though we won't say a word about it)" might be competitive enough to raise turnout among the general public.  Neither the Elephant nor Jackass parties can bring that sort platform to the voters, because in order to do so, they'd have to get that platform past the primaries, and the only way to win the primaries is to appeal to the most fanatical of your respective ideologues.  You end up with what we've had for the past few decades of politics -- "leaders" who appeal to fanatics and depress turnout by alienating Sane America.

Very true...  Republicans are currently being sieged by the Religious Right (since Guiliani is pro-choice), and the Democrats are being sieged by the Clinton machine.

Up until this point, that's been the formula for winning.  The fewer Sane Americans vote, the easier it is to win, because you need only appeal to the fanatics.  The guy whose platform appeals to more fanatics wins.

I disagree on this one.  See, I think you've gotten the primaries down perfectly.  Things reverse when you enter a general election.  Then, that's where the large portion of America that does not follow a party matters.  For example, Bush was able to get a slight majority of the population to vote for him in 2004 because he was able to make himself look more competent and moderate than Kerry.  If he had pushed his more fanatical positions into the limelight (like his complete resistance to stem cell research), then Kerry would have likely won.  He played the moderate card in the campaign and won -- even if the last few years had proven that he's not a moderate.

So, from the "You heard it here first" department:  Bloomberg/Colbert.  Last I heard, Bloomberg was still floating the idea of a "Unity Party" as a new third party, and has the money to make a reasonable campaign.  Colbert will get the pro-sanity liberals on board, Bloomberg will get the capitalists on board.  The platform (and killer rhetoric during what might have to be three-candidate nationally-televised debates) could bring the apathetic public on board.

They'd never be permitted to win, but it'd be fun as all hell watching the media try to explain away the polling data.

Bloomberg is a good call.  He has a good enough sense of humor that I think he'd be willing to pair up with Colbert.

That goes double if the Jesusmentalist wing of the Elephant party bolts to a fourth (!) party after Giuliani gets the nomination and Colbert enables Bloomberg/Colbert to pick off Democrats who think Hillary!'s "too corporate".  They might not like Bloomberg, but Colbert makes that a wild card.

Suppose Bloomberg/Colbert got 30% of the vote, with the other 70% going 30% Hillary!, 25% Giuliani, 15% Jesusmentalist.

It'd be a total crapshoot as to which of the more populous (and traditionally Democratic-leaning) states went Hillary! or Bloomberg/Colbert.  All it would take would be a few points' worth of wise-asses in California who thought "Governator Schwarzenegger!  That's be hilarious!", and California (33% Bloomberg/Colbert, 32% Hillary!, 23% Giuliani, 12% Jesusmentalist) would dump a plurality of electoral votes into Bloomberg/Colbert's column to clinch it.

That would definitely be cool.

If you want historical parallel, look at Clinton I.  Bill split the difference by getting moderates, and Perot split the 'Pub vote.  In this scenario, the Jesusmentalists are splitting the 'Pub vote, and the newcomer to the party is the one who's more attractive to the moderates.  That probably won't work in a three-way split, but it might work in a four-way split.

If we go for a two-way race, or a Dem/Pub/Jesus three-way race, of course, none of this applies.  Hillary will be President by such a wide margin you might as well not bother holding the elections.  On the upside, the markets hate uncertainty, and we'll all have a year or so to adjust to her economic policies before the election.


The main reason why I hope the Jesusmentalists create their own party is so that the Republicans can liberate themselves from their influence.  If they went back to being a more Libertarian party, I'd be much more inclined to vote for them.

You'd be surprised how many people currently vote Democrat that are actually Libertarians who despise the social agenda of the Religious Right but still like the "smaller government" idea of much of economic conservatism.  Bloomberg would appear to be similar to this.  If the Republicans became more Libertarian, they'd pull in some of the Democrats and a lot of the moderate middle.

Let the religious nuts have their own party, so that we can easily identify them and avoid them.

Not to play the stereotype card, but I've talked to several black voters in the past year: all said they would vote Hillary over Obama, which shocked me a bit.

I've also talked with several female voters, and few said they would vote for Hillary.

I think 2008 is the perfect year for a black man or a woman to become president. Seriously, how much worse could Republicans make themselves look? At this point, I'd vote for a box of Junior Mints over any of the Republican candidates...

I don't think the Democrats are out of their minds... maybe I am in thinking a woman or black man could be president. I sure hope not. None of the Republicans are offering anything remotely worthy of my vote.

Yes, I would pick Ron Paul over any Democratic candidate, but he's not exactly Republican if you know what I mean...

Ant


 
I think it's a shame that sex or colour has anything to do with electoral choice at all -


  The frustrating thing is that the people who don't want to consider things like race are left with an obligation to do so.  Most important is to establish a political mandate to save the United States of America from their government...

  The chance to elect a "minority" president (women are a statistical majority in this country, but an empowerment minority) is an attractive factor.  It's not just the symbolism of crossing the threshold, but the idea that different skin or anatomy somehow suggests a different approach to governing...
 

   
   The frustrating thing is that the people who don't want to consider things like race are left with an obligation to do so.  Most important is to establish a political mandate to save the United States of America from their government...

   The chance to elect a "minority" president (women are a statistical majority in this country, but an empowerment minority) is an attractive factor.  It's not just the symbolism of crossing the threshold, but the idea that different skin or anatomy somehow suggests a different approach to governing...
   

Our presidents have been rich white men, a tiny minority in the human race.

Our presidents have been rich white men, a tiny minority in the human race.


  Mmm, indeed...

  *Strokes goatee - sips brandy...*

   Mmm, indeed...

   *Strokes goatee - sips brandy...*



OK dude, now your givin' me the creeps!  You got cloven hooves to go along with that goatee?
:D

Our presidents have been rich white men, a tiny minority in the human race.


Max, it is often very difficult for Republicans to understand your truths. ;)

peace...Lee

Max, it is often very difficult for Republicans to understand your truths. ;)

peace...Lee


Oh, it's worse than that...I must give credit for the rich white men observation to...Michael Moore! 

Kill the lights and hide under the bed!!!!
:o