american politics

[deathboy]

Another reason why Obama is the better candidate (well, kinda, or more that his supporters are marginally less twattish than Clinton's):

"Recent polls suggest that more than a quarter of Mrs Clinton's supporters would defect to the Republicans if Mr Obama wins. Almost a fifth of his voters threaten to switch if she becomes the Democrat nominee."

1/4 and 1/5 of democrats would go republican if their democrat didn't win??

You've got to be fucking nuts. I'm such a strong supporter, I'll change my whole ideology out of spite if my horse don't win the popularity contest, yeehaw!

Fucking politics blah blah fucking americans grumble blah rant GOOD MORNING WORLD.

I have rehearsals today. I shouldn't be in a bad mood as it will be fun, but it's also The Morning. Blah.

¬_¬

Comments

[gillen.livejournal.com]

Since the Democrats and Republicans are basically the same product with different flavour packets there's no real reason not to.

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

Well, largely yes, but since the Republican flavor packet was labeled "Down Home Style" yet actually contained "rancid diarrhea (now with corn and torture!)" for the last eight years, you'd think more folks would take be equally willing to take a chance on Democratic "chocolate" or "vanilla" as an alternative, even if they're normally not fans of either.

Don't get me wrong, I've always admitted that American presidential elections are a question of choosing between the douche or the turd sandwich... but at least the douche has a purpose. The turd sandwich is just... revolting.

Still, I had been waiting to see how the Dems would, yet again, snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory. Guess now I know.

[gillen.livejournal.com]

How is by offering up a choice between a charismatic but inexperienced black man and the most unpopular woman in America who thinks going on baby-kissing junkets as the First Lady equates to foreign policy experience as their candidate to run against a war hero with 25 years in the Senate and a reputation for taking on corruption.

If they'd wanted to win the election, they should have run Al Gore. After all, he won last time - and back then he didn't have his Nobel prize or Oscar.

But I'm sure they'll find some way to blame it all on Ralph Nader.

[smarriveurr.livejournal.com]

Of all the folks on his side of the aisle, I respect McCain the most, but I agree with the platform of nearly every democratic nominee more. McCain's also given me cause for doubt on issues I care about. There were several Dems I'd much rather have seen get the party nod, but they were out of the race before my primary even came up, so tough for me, I suppose - I can have the woman with all the baggage, or the black guy with hardly any record. And if I don't like that, I'm either a sexist or a racist.

Meanwhile, I continue to find it hilarious that a decade ago, there were all these complaints that Hilary was too involved in Bill's administration, running things behind the scenes, and now the cry is that she has no experience.

Either way, I can't stand the American vacillation that seems omnipresent in my lifetime. "Man, [party in power] hasn't done enough. Send a message! Let's vote [the other guys] (with too narrow a margin to accomplish anything), then complain when they fail, and show our displeasure by swinging the other way." I want a Democratic legislature, and a Democratic president, in the forlorn hope of the government actually achieving something in my lifetime. The mess we're in is intractable enough without keeping not quite enough legislators to bust a veto up against a president with a differing agenda.

I do mostly agree on Gore, though. He certainly had the best slogan option of anyone: "Re-elect Al Gore in 2008." Sadly, the folks who realize he won are fewer than those who think he lost, and fewer than those who voted against him, so the rhetoric would all come down to running a loser - or, even acknowledging his win, a quitter - a second time.