The Next President?

Thanks lads. There was a minute after Manchin had actually been called the winner in WV when the Dems were 2.2 (or something around there) - they should have been 1.1 to hold the Senate at that stage. It was all very strange ~ I tried to have the remnants of my Betfair account but there just wasn't the liquidity in the market really.

Media reports would have us believe this was a "split verdict" btw ~ far from it in my opinion. Harry Reid holding Nevada was as much to do with weird polling in a weird polling state as any last minute surge (was there prior to the 2008 primaries and the demographic dynamics there are very hard to poll). The Democrats have done well to hold on to Colorado and Washington though, which will secure a majority even if the Republicans convince either Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman (the two independents) to caucus with them.

That aside, 65 seats in the House is a huge number of seats to take and constitutes a "wave" - albeit hardly a tsunami. The Democrats didn't really lose any Senate races they were expected to hold but that is largely becuase the likes of Feingold in Wisconsin and Ohio and Florida (where Marco Rubio was impressive) were largely written off weeks ago.

Looking ahead Obama's team will be particularly worried that he performed so poorly in Ohio and Pennsylvania - losing pretty much every house district that looked in play and more importantly the governorships in both states (hugely important for congressional redistricting as well as to his presidential operation.) There looks to be a pretty strong negative correlation between Democratic performance and unemployment by district at first glance.

I certainly don't deny that there is a huge element of "X Factor" politics in America, Hamm - though the intrigue is all part of the fun! There may be less substance (not necessarily sure I would agree with that entirely though) but there is a far broader political landscape and far more demographic issues at play. I did a year in college working on a campaign and with a polling firm in the States and have been totally obsessed with it since. Went back in 2008 as well - albeit partially for work.
 
Last edited:
Moehat - me, too! Dear God, what an about-turn she's done in getting herself back into the fray, the mad bint. I find the Tea Party concerning, especially fielding 'pro life' candidates and that idiot who wants to bomb Mecca to prevent Al-Queda getting a nuclear bomb! Jeezusaitch, Saudi Arabia is our best ally in the area to signalling what the bastid group's doing, ffs! And forget about your oil after that, US of A. Once again, I can't believe how incredibly ignorant and narrow in view so many wannabes in Stateside politics are. They truly don't have a clue beyond approving full-term pregnancies for victims of rape and incest ("God would want it that way" - delusions of grandeur, or what?), shooting anything with four legs, and still hoping to reintroduce some forms of racial and gender segregation wherever possible. Their right-wing groups would probably be stamped 'neo-Nazi' anywhere else.
 
and still hoping to reintroduce some forms of racial and gender segregation wherever possible
Click to expand...

I dont recall any candidate coming out with that one. Perhaps if they believed that, then they could copy the Saudi model???

The tea party largely failed but it is a concern to see Rand Paul get elected. It would appear that he is very much son of the father and thus a semi autistic idealogue. I cant abide those that see the world in such simple terms, whether its on the left or right. He could be as much of a problem for his own party as for the administartion, especially if he starts fillibustering
 
Never one to let a little jibe go by, Snidex? There's no racial segregation in Saudi or the rest of the Gulf, any more than there is here. Gender, yes, because that's unfortunately part of Islamic text and clerics worldwide promote it. Nowt to do with it being Saudi - if you lived near a mosque or madrassa, you'd know.

Going back to the very first premise, I can't see a problem with Hilary Clinton running for prez, or her becoming America's first woman in the position. Would Bill have to be called First Gentleman? She's got a lot more savvy about international affairs since some of her Middle East jaunting, and I imagine she was a distinct power behind the throne when Bill was in office. She strikes me as very much the diplomat, very at ease with any type of person, but with a steely inner core. Very much the iron hand in the velvet glove. There wouldn't be the bluster and posturing from her that we should expect from some of the other candidates on display, including ex-runners for the office who ought to be a busted flush, but seem determined to exhaust themselves and their parties again.
 
Last edited:
What has happened to Condalesa Rice these days? There was an article in The Observer a couple of years ago that said, if ever there was to be a woman president, she would be the best option [and that coming from a leftish paper that I thought would have been supporting Hilary Clinton].
 
A woman and black? I think The Obs is asking a bit too much of Americans now. A mixed-race man, just about okay. An all-white woman - well, all right, the Limeys had one the US liked, because she was just slightly right of Vlad the Impaler. But black and female? Not for at least another 20 years. Condoleezza never came across in the Bush administration as 'warm' - no connection to the general public, as she's really an academic, very highly paid in her own right, and represents more Ivy League than projects blackdom. And don't think that black men would rush to support a black woman - if ever there's a breed which prefers their wimminfolk as bedtime toys or kitchen slaves (preferably both), it's the USA's cornpone white and black men.
 
Last edited:
Gender, yes, because that's unfortunately part of Islamic text and clerics worldwide promote it. Nowt to do with it being Saudi - if you lived near a mosque or madrassa, you'd know.
Click to expand...

I think saudis attitude to gender is somewhat adrift of that in turkey and other islamic countries wouldnt you say? Pakistan even with a female president? Any chance of that in saudi .. i think not

Also a country that bans visitors on the basis of race. ie Jews

Im not sure i recall any tea party candidate proposing either gender bans (Palin would be displeased) or race segregation

Hilary Clintons support was with the blue collar voters. Sarah Palins with the backwoods conservatives. Michelle Obama is seemingly admired across the whole electorate. The last post is ridciulous

She strikes me as very much the diplomat, very at ease with any type of person
Click to expand...

From what ive read (race of a lifetime being a good example) I think many would burst out laughing at that one. But she is talented and would probably make a fine president
 
Last edited:
Can I point out, for the sake of accuracy, that being Jewish is not a race, it's an adherence to a religion! This is why you're so exasperating, Clivex. There are Middle Eastern Jews, just as there are Middle Eastern Muslims and Middle Eastern Christians. There are Arabs who are Muslim, and Arabs who are Christian. Indigenous Middle Eastern Jews are, like Arabs, from the Semitic race, but Jewishness is not confined to them, as we should all know - and you really need to remember this - from the pogroms of the Nazis (a belief, not a people or a race) against Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, German, Austrian, Dutch, French, Italian and any other nationality of Jew in the second world war.

The last post is my opinion, ridiculous (not ridciulous) or not - and that's only your opinion, too. As in 'she strikes me as' - not a point of view culled from reading other people's observations, but my own. It would be good if, should you ever manage an opinion based on your own observations, you could base it in fact and not nonsense. It would further the cause of civil discussion if you could also base your caveats about members' observations in objective, rather than slightly denigrating subjective, terms. I'm sure you're not too old to try, now that I understand you're not, as I'd thought, an old fossil of around 75.

But I'll never take you seriously in matters of politics, religion, or race, because you are always so desperate to fall over yourself to make some uninformed jibe.
 
Last edited:
Cant be bothered to respnd to that. Its up to others to judge whether
there is some accuracy in my points (and they look like little more than statements of facts from where im standing)
 
You wanted evidence about the Tea Party. Okay, howzabout these for starters?

I'm looking at a very fetching photo of Rich Iott, dressed in an SS officer's uniform. Apparently, he 'loves to dress up' in Nazi regalia. Can we assume that a love of looking like a Nazi might possibly go hand-in-hand with hoping to be able to act like one? Next - Sharron Angle. Nevada candidate who claimed that two US towns were operating under Shari'ah Law. Xenophobic paranoia, anyone? She then went on to appear before a group of Hispanic students to explain her harsh immigration policies, saying, "I don't know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me."

On we go (still Tea Pardee candidates, in case you thought I'd fallen on an old Monty Python script)... Carl Paladino, with pretensions to become Governor of New York. Having threatened to 'take out' a persistent reporter (so much for freedom of speech), he called New York's gay pride rally a 'disgusting event where men in little Speedos grind against each other'. But tried to insist he wasn't homophobic. Maybe, like some of us, he's just Speedophobic and would settle for mutual manly grinding in boxer shorts.

And what to make of professional 40 year-old virgin, Christine O'Donnell, kicking off her campaign with an advert claiming "I'm not a witch". She believes in celibacy unless there's marriage (fine, if you don't have any hormones), no pregnancy terminations even post-rape or incest, and a host of fundamentalist views which would do Abu Hamza proud.

All of which is culled from this week's edition of 'The Week', which has sourced them in turn from TheAtlantic.com, the Washington Post and the New York Times. Although my last week's copy's gone to a neighbour, I'm fairly sure it was Angle who was angling for racial segregation of the Senate - presumably so senators of non-Caucasian extraction could put forward their interests separately from the whiteys, although that bit I am making up.
 
I know all these facts about the tea party candidates. They are idiots and fringe nuts that the electorate booted out

You said

still hoping to reintroduce some forms of racial and gender segregation wherever possible
Click to expand...

and still havent justified that statement

The fact is,its simply isnt true
 
One of the more accurate ways of assessing the perceived (and oft-mentioned) "enthusiasm gap"* is of viewing how the composition of the electorate differed from the previous presidential. What is really interesting looking over the exit polling data (which is how I spend my Friday nights...) is that, in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania (which Obama won by more than 5 points in 2008) the majority of those voting last Tuesday night were McCain supporters. In Pennsylvania for example there was a 7 point swing (a very big number) which suggests that Obama supporters just didn't turn out last Tuesday and must rate a very big worry for 2012.

Anyway the point is that the Tea Party was a significant - possibly the significant - factor in revving up the Conservative base. Whilst you have essentially cherry-picked three of the most bizarre Tea Party candidates, Krizon (add in Joe Miller btw - the guy is insane)**, the general line of smaller, less activist government is something that has really resounded with conservatives. Whatever trouble they may be causing the establishment about potential 2012 worries (particularly Palin) there is no doubt that the Tea Party has had a net positive effect on the Republican Party.

*This refers to which party's base of support support is more revved up and thus more likely to vote.

**The likes of Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey would all be more mainstream Tea Party candidates that won on Tuesday night. I actually disagree with something said earlier that the Tea Party had a bad night. Apart from being rather anti-climactic in that there were no real surprises, they held their own.

edit: on the "enthusiasm gap" point, the biggest swing was in New Hampshire (+14 GOP) with Indiana (+13), Ohio (the most important state in the country in terms of a presidential) +8 and Pennsylvania +6. All big swings which suggest a seriously pissed off country with a president who has, in reality, thusfar accomplished little of what he set out to.
 
Last edited:
The Tea party did have a bad night in so far as they lost seats which mainstream republicans would probably have won. That has to put them on the back foot.
 
Back
Top