He's Crazy! He'll Do It! (Political Discussion)
 

Link

Personally, I want Obama to win. I've been rooting for him from the start. What? I like his views on health care. Keep in mind that I don't really look into politics that much save for hearsay and what I see on the TV as I pass by, so my opinion is skewed. (As if it weren't anyways.)

This is probably going to open up another Global Warming thread, but I like Al Gore. Even if you don't believe in GW, you have to admit that he does a lot of good for the environment, and what with the whole Bio-Fuel messin' with our beer, we need someone looking out for the planet.

I'm not so sure if its reasonable to 'not believe in global warming' any more that its reasonable to not believe that the earth revolves around the sun. All evidence suggests that the climate is getting warmer.

The real question is not about the existence of global warming, but whether its caused by human intervention or a natural phenomenon. In that, there really isn't any evidence to suggest one over the other. Climate shifts have been a long standing part of our global history, and its ridiculous to think that it would stop now. However, if humanity is somehow exacerbating it or causing it, then we probably should quit that.

But even so, even if global warming is natural, its still nice to be kind to the environment, because we certainly haven't done it any favors over the past few centuries. The damage our environment has taken in of itself seems to be enough reason to go 'green'.

However, if Al Gore did become VP, I'm not so sure he would have the time to be an environmental crusader. I mean, he's done more good since he stopped being VP than when he was... I would say he's needed exactly where he is.

I don't know. I think that as VP of an administration that made environmentalism a top issue, he'd be great. As VP of an administration that'd get him busy with tons of other things, not so much.

That said, my concern, and the thing I thought Seil was gonna touch on when he wrote "He's crazy!" as the thread title, was the political ramifications of standing next to Gore so publically so soon. I mean, I've heard plenty of conservatives say Obama ought to be just as, if not more, polarizing than Hillary, and if he really wanted to bring left and right together (as opposed to impose left over right) then what're the chances this will blow it?

I was reading the local paper this morning, and it was saying that because of the blows Clinton has suffered (she's lending herself a few million dollars) the writer of the article thought it better that she concede to Obama under the term that she's become VP, which I think might work out all right. I mean - Gore would still be a cabinet member, but Clinton would get the power she wants and Obama would be able to start affecting change.

fuck no. Hilary stands for all the fucked-up things in politics that Obama wants to change, and giving her a VP spot would be like cutting himself off at the knees.

I think the name Clinton (or possibly Gore) would break the spell that everyone keeps talking about, whereby Reps are mostly staying home or flipping, allowing Dems to vote a Dem in. I dunno how true that spell is, but if it's a myth, its a very pervasive one.

That said, I just don't think Hillary would, given the competitiveness she's exhibited throughout this primary, be willing to take second-best. I also doubt Obama would be her VP, but I can't put my finger on why.

Oh, and everything Mad Jack just said. Pretty much accurate. I don't think he'd use those words, but...

Bad, even horrible, idea. Obama runs on a platform of change. You can't run as a change candidate though if your VP is a former first lady. There's also the problem with Bill vs Obama. They just don't like each other. Obama started out his campaign critizing the Clinton Presidency and pointing out its flaws. In fact, picking Hillary as a VP would undermine Obama's entire criticism of the Clinton administration.

However, I feel like it's probably the only chance the Democrats have of winning this election:

1. Republicans will, of course, vote for McCain.
2. Rural Democrats are heavily favoring Hilary and I don't see them voting for Obama. They would likely switch to McCain or vote independent.
3. McCain has been courting the Latino vote.
4. A lot of Hilary voters refuse to vote for Obama and vice versa.

I personally would like Richardson for vice-president, but a black/latino vote I feel would alienate too much of the population to even have a chance to defeat McCain.

Edit: I recommend this video, if just for understanding how campaign money deals into the situation.

That might have been true, if they hadn't had this long drawn out nomination fight. Obama had a mystique about him at the start of the campaign that was leading many normally Republican voters to consider switching to him. But this battle with Clinton has brought out too much negative information about him. His pastor, his comments about bitter people, "a typical white person", etc.

Whether founded or not, they've created the impression among many Republicans, myself included, that Obama is actually nothing more than your typical pandering double-talking politician. With a somewhat higher than usual charisma stat.

That's why certain talking heads, most notably Limbaugh, have been gleeful over this nomination battle. It's hurt both Clinton and Obama severely, and given the Republican party a big fighting chance this November, where before it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that a Dem would win.

Despite the fact that a lot of Republicans don't really like McCain all that much either.


- This reminds me of a question I have for Democrats: What is with your party's primary system? For a party that claims to be for the people, you have an increadibly elitist nomination system.

Disregarding the Super-delegates, which usually side with the winning runner anyhow, the Democratic primary system is a lot more representation per person's vote than the winner take all version that the Republicans use. There are other factors, such as someone who only gets 15% not getting any delegates because, at best, they're just leeching points from others instead of actually contending with more reasonable nomination choices.

Basically, the districts that are represented by a delegate (similar to the House) vote for the candidate and the candidate gets that districts delegate, instead of getting 200 easy delegates when you only win the popular vote by a ridiculously small margin.

I've never been fond of the Electoral College-like systems. It's begging for exploitation and ignores the popular vote far too frequently.

The point of my question was the Super-delegate system. The fact that they almost never overturn the popular vote doesn't make up for the fact that the system is set up so they can. In fact, that's what Clinton is counting on as her only chance of winning now. Without the super-delegate system, Obama would have clinched it long ago.