The Anti-Christ and his followers will be electing the next president

Abuskedti

The Anti-Christ and his followers... you mean the American People

Cosmo

cornnifer wrote:

... a lying, slandering, swiftboating, do anything to get elected, bitch of a political opprotunist.

...
That is the perfect description of George W. Bush.
...
And who said anything about 'Stealing'? If you are stupid enough to vote simply because there is an 'R' next to the candidate's name... or because your Preacher tells you who to vote for... it's not stealing. It's stupidity.

cornnifer

Cosmo wrote:

...
That is the perfect description of George W. Bush.
...
And who said anything about 'Stealing'? If you are stupid enough to vote simply because there is an 'R' next to the candidate's name... or because your Preacher tells you who to vote for... it's not stealing. It's stupidity.

i don't disagree about Bush. Bush isn't in the running this time, though. Democrats are banking on the fact that W. screwed things up so badly that dems are guaranteed a win. That, chum, is a HUGE mistake. i guarantee hillary does not win.

slightofjeff

cornnifer wrote:

The religious right hates her?

Yeah, they do. So does the NON-religious right. So do the vast majority of independants and a fairly sizable number of democrats. i hate her and i'm not part of the religious right. Its because she's a lying, slandering, swiftboating, do anything to get elected, bitch of a political opprotunist. Look, i'm not a fan of the religious right, either, but i'm also not stupid or naive enough to blame them for stealing elections. If democrats nominate hillary, they are handing the election over. Its their own fault. No one has to STEAL anything.

I tend to agree with you. Nominating Hillary would be like a death wish for the Dems. I think Obama would be a much, much tougher candidate for the Republicans to beat, for a couple of reasons.

1) He'll garner the independent vote, which is basically what swings national elections these days.

2) If he's running against McCain, they might split the independent vote, but guess what? There are a lot of people on the right who will sit this one out if McCain is their nominee, unless they are given another reason to go to the polls (cough, Hillary). I don't think there's enough Obama-hatred on the right to drive voter turnout.

3) McCain vs. Hillary, I think McCain wins. Because there IS enough Hillary hatred to drive voter turnout on the right. There are a lot of right-wingers that will say, "I don't know about McCain, but I do know Hillary and I'll be damned if I let her get elected." On the other hand, I think there will be a lot on the left who might say, "Fuck Hillary. McCain is almost a Democrat anyway. I'll vote for him." And, of course, McCain would own the independent vote in that matchup.

4) I hate to say this, but I think Obama will get a lot of the sympathy vote. Deep down, America still feels guilty about slavery/segregation/Jim Crow. A vote for Obama says, "Hey, look at me, I'm not a racist. I can feel good about myself." For a white man, it's like a personal deposit toward reparations.

Cosmo

cornnifer wrote:

i don't disagree about Bush. Bush isn't in the running this time, though. Democrats are banking on the fact that W. screwed things up so badly that dems are guaranteed a win. That, chum, is a HUGE mistake. i guarantee hillary does not win.

...
How do you know that? How do you know what the Democrats are banking on? No one knows, not even the Democrats.
The thing at hand is the hardcore religious right... about 25%. These are basically the ones still standing behind Bush. Once you've secured that bloc, all you need to do is split the remaining 75%... actually... all you need is another 26% to win. Toss in a Third Party wildcard... and it becomes easier.
Basic Karl Rove campaign strategy... a proven strategy that has worked in the past... twice.

slightofjeff

Cosmo wrote:

...
How do you know that? How do you know what the Democrats are banking on? No one knows, not even the Democrats.

I don't know what the Democratic party leaders are banking on, but I do know the attitude of the rank-and-file democrats seems to be, "It doesn't matter who we nominate, Bush fucked up so bad nobody would DARE vote Republican."

And, like our friend here, I think they will pay dearly for that hubris if they nominate Hill.

cornnifer

Cosmo wrote:

...
How do you know that? How do you know what the Democrats are banking on? .

You've never heard a democrat voice these sentiments!? That George W. Bush has assured a democrat victory in the next election?! Be honest. Look, i'm not going to fight with you. You're obviously looking for one, but wont find it with me. You obviously have such a complex with religion that you would deny obvious truths in order to push your bullshit "its all because of the religious right" theory. if hillary gets the nomination, democrats lose, and its their own fucking fault. deal with it. do something about it.

Cosmo

cornnifer wrote:

You've never heard a democrat voice these sentiments!? That George W. Bush has assured a democrat victory in the next election?! Be honest. Look, i'm not going to fight with you. You're obviously looking for one, but wont find it with me. You obviously have such a complex with religion that you would deny obvious truths in order to push your bullshit "its all because of the religious right" theory. if hillary gets the nomination, democrats lose, and its their own fucking fault. deal with it. do something about it.

...
I'm just looking for clarification... no need to spaz out.

cornnifer

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm just looking for clarification... no need to spaz out.

Not spazing. Just clarifying.