The Next President?

FACT---HC has to win both of Tuesdays major primaries by large margins to remain in the race---it is not going to happen , she should pack her bags and go back to Bill.
 
She needs to win two of the states alright but she does not need to win by large margins to stay in the race.

If she wins both she certainly deserves the shot at going on to Pennsliyannia and the rest as it would keep here well within range of Obama. I would go as far to say that if she wins both states she might well go on and win the whole thing.
 
She could well hang on in Ohio, but the prospects of her managing to win in Texas seem remote at the minute. If she wins both, no matter the margin, she will plough on to Pennsylvania.
 
Why are her prospects of winning Texas remote? All polls suggest it is a close run race, Obama the slight favourite alright but I would be surprised if there was more than 3-4 points in it either way.
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Feb 26 2008, 03:01 PM
If anyone can be bothered to work through this link it should detail the right wing bias. Newspapers probably don't have the impact in the States that they do over here, as USA Today is the only mass circulation national daily I seem to think. As documented, the others tend to be pecuiliar to certain cities, which and as a general rule Eric would be right in that there's a liberal slant on the eastern seaboard and parts of California. New York has two papers of course, and very diametrically different they are too, a bit like Le Monde and Figaro. New York also has it's own television news station (rather unimaginatively called New York 1). My experience is that it could have been called The Guiliani Broadcasting Company and no one would have noticed

Television is much more biased than we'd allow under broadcasting standards. The big growth has been in shock jock religious radio.

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

And just in case anyone's slightly confused with the rogues gallery and the capations, I think you can safely assume they're sarcastic. You also need to remember (sorry if it sounds patronising - but it's worth under lining in case anyone is unsure) that the political colour system is reversed in the States, so when they talk of a swathe of 'reds' they actually mean Republican
Click to expand...
Just reading this thread again now.

From just looking at that poster on the link Warbler, all of those (with the exception of Blitzer and Russert) are talk show hosts and, as such, are not presented as neutral sources, but rather those with recognized biases.

Very harsh on Russert by the way, who is probably the best political journalist in the States IMO. Plays it fairly straight as far as I can see as well.

Traditionally, all of the networks (ABC,NBC,CBS) have a reputation for having a liberal slant, though I don't see nearly enough of them to know really. Fox News has an intensely conservative bias.

With regards to papers, the NY Times and Washington Post traditionally have a liberal slant. Truth as far as I could see is that most Americans get their news from their local papers (whose biases vary of course) or from USA Today, which is a rag.
 
Momentum is definitely behind Obama in Texas, as she is almost totally dependent on keeping the Latino vote, which Obama seems to be eating in to. If she loses by 3 or 4 in Texas it's all over.

The problem in Texas for her is that the way it is set up is that the districts that traditionally vote Democrat in high numbers (voter turnout) are given more weight delegate-wise. These tend to be largely African-American districts, particularly in urban areas such as Houston and Dallas, which of course favour Obama.

One thing in her favour in Texas is that most people tend to view NAFTA in a favourable light.
 
I think Obama will probably win Texas but it is a state (I personally feel) who's votes could very suddenly get cold feet and go with the "safer" option.
 
Ohio is the state that is more likely to go with the "safe option" IMO..

Anyway, in terms of electability at least, Hillary is certainly not the safe option. Her problem is that she has completely failed to chip away at any of Obama's core voter blocks, while he is constantly chipping away at her's.
 
To be honest, clivex, I'm no fan of Barak. He seems as vacuous as the next American politician, and I'm very much of the Hicksian "Puppet on the Left/Puppet on the Right/One Guy Working both Puppets" school of thought, when it comes to US Presidential elections.

I'm really having a pop at Phillips, who continues to masquerade as an 'intellectual' when in fact she is the worst kind of knee-jerk reactionary around.

She is a total charlatan.
Click to expand...

why are american politicans any more vacuous than those from any other country?

dont buy this puppet theory. Usually put about those with more hard left or right views. Ron Paul nutters or Micheal moore fantasists. Theres no appetite for for either in the US

Philips does not masquerade as an "intellectual" (whatever that is) at all. Shes razor sharp of course (destroyed a useless bishop on QT recently) and very clear sighted too...whether you agree or not. Completely down to earth IMO

shes from the left but like so many, now can see how pathetic much of that constituency has become. Economic argument lost for ever of course and now they rely on getting cosy with hard right bigots. Not good...
 
So I'm guessing Clinton wins snugly in Ohio and Texas is close either way, but the delegate split doesn't change much, Clinton takes the one (two?) victories as a sign she can still win, and we end up going all the way to the convention...

(at which point Jimmy Smits shows up).
 
Agree Galileo. I find the media fawning over windbag quite revolting frankly. Its racism too. If he was white and coming out with all that wishy washy drivel, refusing to take questions not scripted six months in advance and blundering badly on his rare foreign policy responses (invading pakistan FFS), then he would be hammered as a lightweight. And thats without going into his links againm

No reason at all why there should not be a (half) black president (does it really matter???). Colin Powell would have been excellent i always felt

wouldnt be at all suprised if hilary picks up a little momentum now

She has her faults (mostly presentational) but she has the necessary
grasp of detail and depth to steer the US through what could be rocky times
 
".....but she has the necessary
grasp of detail and depth to steer the US through what could be rocky times....."

The same grasp of detail that Reagan and Bush have displayed?
 
Originally posted by Grasshopper@Feb 29 2008, 07:19 PM
To be honest, clivex, I'm no fan of Barak. He seems as vacuous as the next American politician, and I'm very much of the Hicksian "Puppet on the Left/Puppet on the Right/One Guy Working both Puppets" school of thought, when it comes to US Presidential elections.

I'm really having a pop at Phillips, who continues to masquerade as an 'intellectual' when in fact she is the worst kind of knee-jerk reactionary around.

She is a total charlatan.
Click to expand...
I read an excerpt from one of her diatribes that managed to get published - I actually thought it was a spoof and couldn't be real.

I couldn't agree more about her Grasshopper, she's the worst 'journalist' I've ever had the misfortune to come across.
 
Yes.

the "worst". A "charlatan"

and sod all to back it up

i dont agree with everything she says by a long way, but shes wonderfully effective at hammering the remains of the pathetic left and their spineless appeasing of the most far right mass grouping we have seen since ... The nazis maybe?


Could be argued that that is a very easy target of course

Colin. Fair point, although sloppiness and lazy rhetoric allied to simplistic solutions has been Bush's unravelling i believe.
 
Originally posted by clivex@Mar 5 2008, 02:41 PM
Yes.

the "worst". A "charlatan"

and sod all to back it up

i dont agree with everything she says by a long way, but shes wonderfully effective at hammering the remains of the pathetic left and their spineless appeasing of the most far right mass grouping we have seen since ... The nazis maybe?


Could be argued that that is a very easy target of course

Colin. Fair point, although sloppiness and lazy rhetoric allied to simplistic solutions has been Bush's unravelling i believe.
Click to expand...
Do we need anything to back it up when you are doing such a wonderfully good job by making statements like that? :clap:
 
The one thing I should add is that I find a journalist who is completely incapable of reporting on a news item without constantly and routinely twisting the details of the story to suit their own ends is the worst kind of journalist. I don't need to know what she thinks (though Christ does she like to tell us), I want to know what the story is and make my own mind up on it.
 
Really?

but still no examples?

Just about every entry on her blog is sourced. Thats more than could be said for proven liars such as Yasmin Brown for instance.

And Guardian morons like Seamus Milne still have difficulties providing sources for their belief that the Soviet Union was a great success

I don't need to know what she thinks (though Christ does she like to tell us), I want to know what the story is and make my own mind up on it.
Click to expand...

The one thing I should add is that I find a journalist who is completely incapable of reporting on a news item without constantly
Click to expand...

Shes a columnist not a reporter. Its her job to say what she thinks. :rolleyes:

And back to previous post what do YOU think of the far lefts love in with the Islamists?
 
Originally posted by clivex@Mar 5 2008, 02:41 PM
Yes.

the "worst". A "charlatan"

and sod all to back it up
Click to expand...
What are you banging on about now, clivex?

All the "backing-up" necessary was pre-delivered in my post of 4.06pm a few days ago.

In a response to an earlier post, you asked me "Why are American politicians more vacuous than any other politician?".

Try reading my words again, as I did not state that they were more, less or equally vacuous as any other politician - only that they were vacuous.

This would appear to be either an attempt to put words in my mouth, or a complete misinterpretation of a very simple and straightforward sentence..........it's almost Philipsesque.......... :brows:
 
She was absolutely correct to focus on the relatively woolly response to the hard question rather than the obvious response to the straightforward one

As i asked at the time, what response would be expected if Cameron did not conclusively dump the support of the equally (maybe less so) racist Nick Griffin.
 
Originally posted by clivex@Mar 5 2008, 02:41 PM
...but shes wonderfully effective at hammering the remains of the pathetic left and their spineless appeasing of the most far right mass grouping we have seen since ... The nazis maybe?
Click to expand...
Have you been at the absinthe again?
 
Back
Top