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.
Options
What is crazier?
Former 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.
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.
0
Comments
Only a third? That poll can't have included the south
Black dude will win 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...
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.
Either of the other two winning isn't crazy at all.
A lot of people don't. They're sorta viewed as an older version of scientologists.
The idea of any President seems crazy to me.
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!
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.
Those are also her faults, that and her surname.
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.
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.
Politicians almost everywhere else manage it :thumb:
Just me :mad:
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.
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.
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.
Really? I'd say she looks old and she is too tainted by her voting record, and her husband.
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).
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.
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.
I don't know how it'll go, I'm intrigued.