Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

What is crazier?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
The next President of the United States of America being a Woman?
The next President of the United States of America being a Black Man?
The next President of the United States of America being a Mormon?

Personally i think the idea of a Mormon President is the craziest, but that is just my opinion of what the American voters will do.

Still, it is going to be an interesting race... well until the Democrats make their nomination, then i think it will be pretty much over.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    mormon.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Black? Knowing nothing about American politics lol
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The mormon got's no chance - I think the article I read suggested a third of American's don't trust them...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The mormon got's no chance - I think the article I read suggested a third of American's don't trust them...


    Only a third? That poll can't have included the south ;)

    Black dude will win it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Giuliani is my bet, though it depends who the Democrats put in. Against Obama it migth be a tough fight. Against Clinton he'll walk it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Against Obama it migth be a tough fight. Against Clinton he'll walk it.


    Couldn't agree more. Obama would have to really piss off huge sections of democrat voters to lose the election (should they choose him), although I can't see him winning much in the south...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    'The mormon' is Mitt Romney. Whilst he has a pretty good political record I think he would struggle against most Democrats, even Hillary. With Giuliani or McCain I think the Republicans have a good chance of holding on to the White House, although, McCain is damaged by his views on the war.

    Interestingly according to willhill, Hillary is 11/8 to win the actual election and Obama 7/1. (Giuliani and McCain both 5/1). If I was going to bet on the election the odds seem pretty generous for Obama....That said, what goes against him is that he'll struggle to beat Hillary to the actual Democratic nomination...so maybe not so generous. As for Hillary still looking like the most likely nominee for the Democrats? Excellent news for the Republicans.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Mormon.

    Either of the other two winning isn't crazy at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The mormon got's no chance - I think the article I read suggested a third of American's don't trust them...

    A lot of people don't. They're sorta viewed as an older version of scientologists.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote: »

    What is crazier ?

    The next President of the United States of America being a Woman?
    The next President of the United States of America being a Black Man?
    The next President of the United States of America being a Mormon?

    The idea of any President seems crazy to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why does everyone think Obama will beat Clinton?

    She has the party history, more political experience, should gain a huge Female vote (though i know she will most likely lose all the Black vote to Obama) and most of all, she has the background. Her husbands campaign team and allies with in the party will back her up, raise money for her campaign. Can Obama raise the money to take her on?
    Just look at what happened to Dean last year!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd much rather it was Obama than Clinton, not because I think he is all that much better, or all that much different, but Clinton is so divisive, she's hated by almost as many people as love her. The US desperately needs a President who can get votes from both sides.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    I'd much rather it was Obama than Clinton, not because I think he is all that much better, or all that much different, but Clinton is so divisive, she's hated by almost as many people as love her. The US desperately needs a President who can get votes from both sides.

    What he said, except I'd have it the other way round and say she's loved by almost as many people as hate her.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What he said, except I'd have it the other way round and say she's loved by almost as many people as hate her.

    Fair point.

    As for Obama and the 'black vote' apparently he is only in favour with about 20% of the black voters, which the commentators on the Daily Show were saying is an entirely good thing for him. If he becomes a 'Black Candidate' he's doomed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote: »
    She has the party history, more political experience, should gain a huge Female vote (though i know she will most likely lose all the Black vote to Obama) and most of all, she has the background. Her husbands campaign team and allies with in the party will back her up, raise money for her campaign.

    Those are also her faults, that and her surname.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And do people really think white America will vote for a black guy? :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who ever raises the most money will win the party Nomination and i just do not think Obama, as interesting and charasmatic as he can be when he is prepared has the resources to raise the kind of money that Clinton will raise.

    She will not only raise more for the Party nomination, but in the long run, i don't think a Republican will be able to match her spending either. Not with most big donaters backing off under the impression no Republican can win.

    It is nice to think a unifying political figure, much like David Palmer in 24, could win and unite America, pull out of Iraq, turn around the economy and bring peace to the world, but i doubt it will happen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote: »
    It is nice to think a unifying political figure, much like David Palmer in 24, could win

    I get the impression that such a thing does not, and moreover cannot, exist in the US at the moment. Politics there seems to be polarised between extremist, fundamentalist, Christians and everyone else.

    It's not possible to be anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, pro-Iraq war and the opposite at the same time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not possible to be anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, pro-Iraq war and the opposite at the same time.

    Politicians almost everywhere else manage it :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only if you don't listen to them. Most won't actually state any reaal principles at all. Fewer people get pissed off that way.

    Just me :mad:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote: »
    Who ever raises the most money will win the party Nomination and i just do not think Obama, as interesting and charasmatic as he can be when he is prepared has the resources to raise the kind of money that Clinton will raise.

    Money actually has little to do with it, there isnt any conclusive proof to show that more money = a win. Its just when you start looking like a winner people back you, that way the winner normally gets the most funding. The money follows the likely winner, the money doesnt make the likely winner.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Money can make the winner, tv and radio slots always help a campaign in America and unless it is free tv time such on 24 hour news channels, it cost alot of money.

    If it is who ever looks like a winner who will win, then Clinton has the Presidency right now, regardless of popularity, because she already looks like a winner and President and a commanding figure unlike her opponents.

    Some how i think it is not who looks like a winner will get the funding a win, it will simply be who can afford an election.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote: »
    Money can make the winner, tv and radio slots always help a campaign in America and unless it is free tv time such on 24 hour news channels, it cost alot of money. .

    I've not met one American who didnt hate those, so I doubt they have the slightest impact on voting at all. Plus of course as any honest advertiser will tell you, telling whether or not advertising is working is nigh on impossible.
    Bullseye wrote: »
    If it is who ever looks like a winner who will win, then Clinton has the Presidency right now, regardless of popularity, because she already looks like a winner and President and a commanding figure unlike her opponents.

    Really? I'd say she looks old and she is too tainted by her voting record, and her husband.
    Bullseye wrote: »
    Some how i think it is not who looks like a winner will get the funding a win, it will simply be who can afford an election.

    But then how do the people doing the funding choose? They pick a winner, thats the point of funding, to buy influence. On your basis anyone could run and win if only they had enough money, which is of course totally false.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    But then how do the people doing the funding choose? They pick a winner, thats the point of funding, to buy influence. On your basis anyone could run and win if only they had enough money, which is of course totally false.

    In a two horse race you would have to back both horses.

    The backers in the political world are the major corporations.

    In the corporate world the strategy of hedging is a common risk aversion.

    If you have the time to do some research you may well find that most of the major US corporations make substantial donations to BOTH parties.

    (How they get paid back isn`t so well documented).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whats crazy is the fact that Bush got in, in the first place! My money's on the black guy though, for the simple fact that he will be the first black president, therefore will get the african american vote.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    satehen wrote: »
    Whats crazy is the fact that Bush got in, in the first place! My money's on the black guy though, for the simple fact that he will be the first black president, therefore will get the african american vote.

    He doesnt want it though, at least he certainly does not want to be seen as the candidate of the African American community. He's not even African American himself, he's mixed race, his dad was Kenyan.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just because people hate party political broadcasts doesn't mean they do not enter the mind on a subconscious level and have an effect on voters. It is Voters who matter, not the none-voters.

    And i think Clinton really does come across better. Despite the negatives. Obama seems to come across as unprepared unless he is reading something pre-written. That will come back to haunt him with the voters if he doesn't overcome it.

    As for funding, so long as some one has at least one of the parties behind them, if they have enough money then they should win the election. the close races are usually when spending is equivelent after all. I am not sure, but i think Clinton hugely out spent his fellow Democrats when it came to winning party nominations. though i do forget who he was up against now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Those are also her faults, that and her surname.
    That said, some commentators reckoned that Gore lost the vote by trying to distance himself from Clinton's administration. By and large he seems to be remembered as a good president.

    I don't know how it'll go, I'm intrigued.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting thread. Personally, I'd like to see a black lesbian mormon president. Preferably an anti-semitic one, just to watch the fun in the Middle East :D
Sign In or Register to comment.