Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 134
  1. #26
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Not a chance in it plays out that way. Whoever leads the popular vote and has more delegates going into the convention will win.
    It could easily play out at least mostly as spelled out. The Clinton's are arrogant elitists.

    Also, with something going down THIS CLOSE; the Clintons will play the Michigan and Florida cards; two large states she carried whose delegate are not being counted.
    This is very likely, and as I understand, already in play. I also heard that the legal team that put together the Bush defense is giving it to Obama's people.

    Will this primary election be decided in the courts? Will Clinton v. Obama go alongside Bush v. Gore? The mind boggles.
    Probably, and she will lose. Do they then say that Obama stole the election when they try to?

    Damn re-runs.

  2. #27
    "Have to check the film" PixelPusher's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    3,396
    For Clinton, Bid Hinges on Texas, Ohio
    By PATRICK HEALY

    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said on Monday.

    Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several said afterward that she had sounded tired and a little down, but determined about Ohio and Texas.

    They also said that they had not been especially soothed, and that they believed she might be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her compe iveness in those states.

    “She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

    Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.

    Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately “go with the flow,” in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.


    The Clinton team moved on Monday to shift the spotlight off the candidate’s short-term challenges and focus instead on “the long run,” in the words of her senior strategist, Mark Penn.

    “She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner,” Mr. Penn said. “Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger.”

    Clinton advisers have said that superdelegates should support the candidate who they believe would be the best nominee and the best president, while Obama advisers have argued that superdelegates should reflect the will of the voters and also take into account who they believe would be the best nominee. Superdelegates are Democratic party leaders and elected officials, and their votes could decide the nomination if neither candidate wins enough delegates to clinch a victory after the nominating contests end.

    With primaries on Tuesday in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, Clinton advisers were pessimistic about her chances, though some held out hope for a surprise performance in Virginia.

    And as polls show Mr. Obama gaining strength in Wisconsin and his native state, Hawaii, which vote next Tuesday, advisers, donors and superdelegates said they were resigned to a possible Obama sweep of the rest of February’s contests.

    Some donors also expressed concern about a widening money imbalance between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton: Obama fund-raisers say he is taking in roughly $1 million a day, while Clinton fund-raisers say she is taking in about half of that, mostly online. Mrs. Clinton’s aides say that the campaign was virtually broke as of the Feb. 5 primaries, but that finances have stabilized.

    Mr. Obama’s financial edge allowed him to begin running television advertisements in Ohio and Texas on Monday, while the Clinton campaign plans to begin advertising on Tuesday. Clinton advisers say that she will have advertisements running statewide in both Ohio and Texas, and that she will have advertisements in English and Spanish in Texas.

    “I think that clearly things have not been going as great as they were with her victories on Super Tuesday, and we can’t wait to get to March 4,” said Alan Patricof, one of Mrs. Clinton’s national finance chairmen.

    Mrs. Clinton will have “a major ad buy” through the next week in Wisconsin, a senior adviser said Monday, and spend a few days campaigning there. But this adviser and others said the bulk of her time would be devoted to campaigning in Ohio, Texas and a bit in Rhode Island. In a sign of Texas’s importance, she plans to fly there Tuesday, even though Wisconsin votes next week.

    While Mrs. Clinton’s advisers and allies emphasize that she has the time and the financial resources to regroup, they say she will have to take more significant steps to shore up her candidacy beyond the staff shakeup she engineered on Sunday, when she replaced her campaign manager and longtime aide, Patti Solis Doyle, with another veteran adviser, Maggie Williams.

    Campaign advisers said they expected Ms. Williams to bring new energy to both the campaign team and Mrs. Clinton, after a long year of campaigning, and to encourage her to show more spunk and determination on the campaign trail. They say they do not expect the candidate’s political message to change appreciably; she will increasingly focus on the concerns of working-class voters, a key demographic in Ohio, as well as of Hispanics, a significant population in Texas.

    As she seeks to erect a fire wall for her candidacy in Ohio and Texas, Mrs. Clinton will deploy her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to campaign in both states, particularly in Ohio, where her advisers believe his popularity will help her with working-class voters, labor union members and black voters.

    In a conference call with reporters on Monday, Mr. Penn, who is also Mrs. Clinton’s pollster, played down some polls that showed strength for Mr. Obama and highlighted Mrs. Clinton’s abilities to beat the leading Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

    “We believe that Hillary Clinton in the long run is better positioned to take on John McCain,” Mr. Penn said.

    Yet some Clinton donors and superdelegates worry that the focus on Mr. McCain is premature, and that other strategic decisions by the campaign — like counting on Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated at the convention even though their status is in limbo — show faulty thinking that suggests the Clinton campaign does not have a short-term game plan against Mr. Obama.

    “They are looking way too much at Florida, Michigan and McCain, because all three won’t matter if she doesn’t blow Obama away in Texas and Ohio,” said a Democrat who is both a Clinton superdelegate and major donor, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment of campaign strategy. “Obama has momentum that has to be stopped by March 4.”


    Clinton advisers took issue with the notion that Mr. Obama’s momentum was significant, noting that his victory in the Iowa caucuses did not translate into winning the New Hampshire primary five days later, and his South Carolina victory did not prevent Mrs. Clinton from winning the biggest states on Feb. 5.

    “There is no evidence that voters are voting based on momentum — in fact the evidence is to the contrary,” said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director.

    Hassan Nemazee, another national finance chairman for Mrs. Clinton, said he was also telling his network of allies not to get caught up in the headlines about Obama

    “I’m telling donors and supporters: Don’t be overly concerned about what goes on in the remainder of the month of February because these are not states teed up well for us,” Mr. Nemazee said.

    Asked if that message was sinking in, he pointed to the campaign’s announcement that Mrs. Clinton had raised $10 million online so far this month, and was on pace to raise more than $25 million in February.

    “I predict for you we will have our best single fund-raising month in February, and that’s significant,” he said.
    This is why I don't buy the "superdelegate backroom deal" aspect of ES's scenario.

  3. #28
    Purrrrrrrrrrrr Holt's Cat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Post Count
    4,203
    The Clintons are en led to the presidency. All else does not matter. Her husband embarrassed her and her child in front of the country with some plump brunette and it didn't matter as her campaign for the Senate was already in the works. After all she's given is she really going to step aside and let some rookie interloper steal her glory?

  4. #29
    TRU 'cross mah stomach LaMarcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Post Count
    5,731
    2) there is no reason why Obama wouldn't accept the VP position, that sets him up for a 2016 run, and would ensure 16 years of democratic control over the presidency.
    Uh except he'd be locked into a position for potentially 8 years that he may not want.

  5. #30
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Everyone who thinks that it would play out and is railing on the Clintons is missing a very important aspect. The Clintons are NOT the Democratic party. What they want is not nessecarily what the party is willing to give. So even if they wanted to fight dirty and take a nomination even if they didn't have the popular vote the party will not let it happen. It would be suicide. After what was said and done in regards to Gore's loss at the hands of Bush there is no way in the Democrats would play that game.

    This is not about the Clintons but about the Democratic party as a whole and regardless of what you may think about the ins ution they are not that foolish.

  6. #31
    Murdering Prostitutes Findog's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,565

    Nevertheless, Hillary will lose, and she will go down in history as the presumptive autocrat who fractured the Democratic Party coalition and jeopardized its future to advance her own self-serving ambition.
    If it results in the end of the Democratic Party, that ain't so bad.

  7. #32
    Murdering Prostitutes Findog's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,565
    Yes, I am very sure that if Hillary needs the Michigan and/or Florida delegates to capture the nomination, she will graciously demur in observance of the predetermined rules. Because if anything defines the Clintons, it is an altruistic regard for the good of their party and their nation over their own narrow political ambition. No doubt.
    In theory, Clinton could ask the convention to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations that were elected in the original primaries. But there is a Catch-22: If Clinton needs these votes, it means that she does not have enough support to prevail on the convention floor.

  8. #33
    Believe.
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    349
    Obama has already gone on record and said if he doesnt win this race, he would not ever consider doing it again. However if by some fluke he does accept a VP what better way is there for him to build "experience" for a confident run 8 years down the road.

  9. #34
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Obama has already gone on record and said if he doesnt win this race, he would not ever consider doing it again. However if by some fluke he does accept a VP what better way is there for him to build "experience" for a confident run 8 years down the road.
    He's not on the record as saying that. Provide a link to a quote please.

  10. #35
    Dr. Pepper Johnny_Blaze_47's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Post Count
    24,692
    He's not on the record as saying that. Provide a link to a quote please.
    I'm looking for the link, too, but yeah, I know he has said that.

    IIRC, he said his wife wouldn't let him get into a campaign again. Take that for what it's worth, but it's out there.

    It wasn't so much official and it seemed off-the cuff.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...on-dem-ri.html

  11. #36
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    He has to say that. If he gives any indication that he's just trying to position himself for a run in the future he completely undermines his current run and loses legitimacy. Thats nowhere near saying "I will not run in the future". Not even close.

  12. #37
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    He has to say that. If he gives any indication that he's just trying to position himself for a run in the future he completely undermines his current run and loses legitimacy. Thats nowhere near saying "I will not run in the future". Not even close.
    exactly, there is no way obama doesn't run in 8 years no matter what (with the exception of some unforeseen political meltdown)

  13. #38
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    This is Obama's best chance: he has no record to run against - an advantage he has over EVERY other candidate.

    If he's VP - he'll have to run with the record the administration leaves him with; ask Al Gore how that works out; if he remains a senator - he'll have his own voting record and/or legislative actions to run with.

    Right now he gets to have his cake and eat it, to. He's only been a senator for 4 years, and has been running for President for two of those.

  14. #39
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Yet some Clinton donors and superdelegates worry that the focus on Mr. McCain is premature, and that other strategic decisions by the campaign — like counting on Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated at the convention even though their status is in limbo — show faulty thinking that suggests the Clinton campaign does not have a short-term game plan against Mr. Obama.
    What the ? How can she "count" on those being seated? There were only 2 Demo names on the Michigan ballot. Clinton and (i believe) Kucinich. Obama/Edwards/etc withheld their names because MI was being boycotted.

    Now that may not happen?!

    So she gets all MI delegates only because the other candidates respected their party's boycott?!

    And this is going to help her?! What bull .

  15. #40
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,677
    2) there is no reason why Obama wouldn't accept the VP position, that sets him up for a 2016 run, and would ensure 16 years of democratic control over the presidency.
    this is hilarious. He should get to the back of the bus even though he's winning lol.

  16. #41
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    this is hilarious. He should get to the back of the bus even though he's winning lol.
    I was thinking the same thing. Why the would Obama accept the VP? He might just win the popular vote.

    Let Edwards shady ass take it. I'd tell the political to get ed.

  17. #42
    Purrrrrrrrrrrr Holt's Cat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Post Count
    4,203
    Taking the VP spot after how this primary has played out would be demeaning to him. It's all or nothing.

  18. #43
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I was thinking the same thing. Why the would Obama accept the VP? He might just win the popular vote.

    Let Edwards shady ass take it. I'd tell the political to get ed.
    Is Obama any less a political than Hillary? As far as I can tell, he hasn't "legislated" any more than, and maybe even less, than Hillary. , he's only been in Washington since '05, and been running for President since '06.

    Who is this guy?

    I think Biden was onto something.

  19. #44
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Is Obama any less a political than Hillary? As far as I can tell, he hasn't "legislated" any more than, and maybe even less, than Hillary. , he's only been in Washington since '05, and been running for President since '06.

    Who is this guy?

    I think Biden was onto something.
    I am going to be completely honest here...

    The fact that he has not been in Washington long makes me like him more than Clinton.

    I know what Clinton is.

    I do not know what Obama is.

    Maybe the young bas with little to no experience might actually, I dont know, do something that doesnt involve the financial meltdown of America or maybe withstand the overwhelming cronyism with being President. Maybe he'll resist his own party's inevitable pressure of a welfare state? Maybe he'll even resist the repubs wishes for a warfare state? Maybe he'll be balanced, maybe he wont. I like the idea of him being educated and well spoken alone, seeing as I have had to endure the world's worst orator struggle his way thru Hooked on Phonics for 8 years.

    One day, I hope to vote for someone in the general election that isnt even a politician. But thats probably stupid right? Because the career politicians like McCain, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, etc all did a uva job right?

    Notice the only effective presidents were governors? Wonder why that is?

  20. #45
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Sorry for the sarcasm.

    My point was/is, I have no interest in any candidate anymore.

    I have no faith in the American people, the American government or American politics.

    All these supposed "leaders" are all sides of the same coin. Big money. Big power. Big control.

    Politicians, IMO, are the worst possible option to run a country. Their interest does not lie with the people, it lies only to their vote. The two are mutually exclusive these days.

    As long as the sheep keep electing the same looking sheppard, the flock will continue its path to the slaughter.

    Because some richy-rich, son of a successful business man graduated from Yale/Harvard/Princeton, got elected in his locality a couple times and has made his way to the federal level, qualifies him or herself to guide the free world?!

    What ing parallel universe is this?

    With every drop in adult education levels, with every decline in mandatory knowledge from children, with every rise in national debt and every life lost in "preemptive war", you have politicians to thank.

    A politician will tell you their's is a thank-less job to their buddies at the golf club.

    Which is the biggest crock of in the history of crock's full of .

    Good/Great leaders are remembered and revered, time immemorial. Ceasar, Alexander, Genghis Kahn, Napolean, Washington, Churchill, Thatcher, Lincoln, Ghandi, etc, etc, etc.

    These are household names because they filled a particular role of leadership and succeeded beyond all expectation. Some brutal, some not so much. All revered by their people for at least some time (i left out Hitler on purpose, but he could be included).

    They served the self-interests of the country/people they lorded over. Whether by expansion or conquest, the people they led were better off during their reign than before it.

    Ask yourself, where do our current politicians fall in that regard?

    Do they serve the American people's interest best?

    Do their personal ambitions at least further the People's well being?

    Are they actively identifying and attacking the current problems of the day facing the People?

    Would they lay their life down in an effort to preserve that which we hold dear?

    I had trouble thinking of those questions....and yet I answered them all the same.

    The politician we elcet as President in 2008 will do nothing to change the current direction we tread toward. I am not speaking of Iraq or terrorism or any other foreign policy.

    We have problems here, in America, that need to be addressed. Not one of those Ivy League educated, political hacks are going to do a damn thing about the inumerable problems in this country.

    Why? Why wouldnt they at least try, you ask?

    Because it might not be popular, which means they wont be re-elected, which means they wont have the power tomorrow that they do today.

    So whose interests are they really serving? Their own. And that can be a broad cons uency when the end-all, be-all is self preservation in an occupation that requires millions to write your name on a line every 4 years.

    Why do we have political parties? What service do these parties provide to their respective cons uencies?

    Ive never seen the DNC serving a soup kitchen in Detroit, nor have I seen the RNC promoting political awareness. Coincidence?

    No, parties are self-serving just the same. They get their sheep to say the same things to other sheep in some trite struggle for ignorance that gets twisted into a general malaise from ALL sheep about the direction their sheppard herds them.

    They self-serve their political power in never-ending fight to gain even more political power.

    Its the old saying, if you had one wish, what would it be? Money, Power, or Celebrity?

    Everyone knows right off the bat that if you have power, you are rich and you are famous. Its a rhetorical question, really.

    But it illustrates the political zeitgeist we find ourselves observing year-in and year-out.

    Illegal Immigration? Why bother, I'll lose the Latino vote. (i dont find this to be as important as others, but then again, I dont live in the South)
    National Debt? You think Im going to be the one to tell the American people "credit" is an invention of the banks to make you "owe" them?
    Education? Im currently speaking at a rally where more people know who Brad Pitt is ing than what the Bay of Pigs is/was. Education is last thing on the minds of the uneducated.
    Taxation? As long I keep saying "lower" in the same sentence, these uneducated sheeple will buy what I am selling.


    Alright, enough...

  21. #46
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    Sorry for the sarcasm.



    I have no faith in the American people, the American government or American politics.

    .

    I have all the faith in the world in the American people.
    We are the greatest nation and remain the greatest
    nation that has ever existed.

    We have great American's laying down their life each
    and every day to protect our freedoms.

    Don't give up on the people. The people you have
    no faith in are your Parents, Grandparents, Aunts,
    Uncles and your good friends.

    Politicians are what they are politicians. Leaders some
    times enter politics. Politicians are not really leaders,
    most are followers, when you get right down to it. They
    stick their finger in the air and see how the wind blows
    and that is where they go. Barack, Billary and McCain
    are all politicians, none of the are leaders. Billary and
    Barak say they will makes changes, what changes?
    Take from the taxpayers and give to other citizens,
    if you or I did that we would go to jail. But since they
    want to use the power of government they are called
    saviors.

    But don't give up on the people. The people will
    prevail.

    Rush said it best today about the dimms. It didn't
    matter who won the primaries on the dimm side,
    Billary was going to be the nominee. And I think that
    is more than likely the truth of the matter.

  22. #47
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    If what I hold to be is true, and what you say is true, then the People are absolutely to blame. The People, at some point and a slow process, felt it easier to cede their social responsibility to the government.

    Which is the same as pouring gas on a fire.

    Which makes the people political pyromaniacs. Which means when they get burned, they have no one to blame but themselves.

  23. #48
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    If what I hold to be is true, and what you say is true, then the People are absolutely to blame. The People, at some point and a slow process, felt it easier to cede their social responsibility to the government.

    Which is the same as pouring gas on a fire.

    Which makes the people political pyromaniacs. Which means when they get burned, they have no one to blame but themselves.
    I didn't say it was not the peoples fault that people like
    the Clintons get elected. I said I have faith that they
    will also correct that problem in the future.

    If one thing has been proven in this primary it is that
    people need to take a bigger part in selecting their
    'leaders'. Using the word loosely. I think many, like
    you, now understand that they must take part in the
    election process or they end up with what we have
    today. Three, or maybe four, that have no idea of what
    leadership is about. All they have is ego's and
    socialist ideas to sustain them.

    Get active my friend. Talk to your representative and
    tell them what you want. You are absolutely correct
    when you say many have turned over their social
    responsibilities to the government. Political correctness
    is the worst thing that ever happened to this nation
    along with all the damn so called social reforms. It
    absolutely destroyed the black families of the U.S. and
    is well on the way to doing the same with the rest of
    the families of this country.

  24. #49
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    If what I hold to be is true, and what you say is true, then the People are absolutely to blame. The People, at some point and a slow process, felt it easier to cede their social responsibility to the government.

    Which is the same as pouring gas on a fire.

    Which makes the people political pyromaniacs. Which means when they get burned, they have no one to blame but themselves.
    You do understand just how conservative you actually are, right?

    Also, regarding WHO runs for president (cronyism, rich son of a rich father, etc...)...look at McCain's and/or Barack's bios; neither fit that mold.

  25. #50
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    You do understand just how conservative you actually are, right?
    I have never claimed to be either Dem or Repub. By sheer coincidence, I amy or may not fall in line with either. Its individualism, others call it something else.

    Also, regarding WHO runs for president (cronyism, rich son of a rich father, etc...)...look at McCain's and/or Barack's bios; neither fit that mold.
    Oh yeah, I know about them both. , the analogy doesnt even fit Clinton (Bill or Hillary) seeing as their mostly self-made (that is criminally negligent).

    It was a stereotype, and an apt one when applied to the overall ideolologies of their respective party's interests.

    These people, McCain/Obama/Bush/Clinton/Carter/Nixon and every other latter half 20th century politician, do not formulate their own ideas. They pluck them from various focus groups and think tanks. Thinktanks and focus groups filled with politically like-minded, party card-carrying Ivy league graduates who completely believe theyre smarter than 90% of the world (they may be right on that fact).

    Not one of these political puppets has had an original thought of their own in their entire political life. Their ideas must be sifted thru and approved by their respective party. Thats why people like Paul do not garner support from even his own people, his ideas arent filtered thru the GOP. Which means political death of obscurity. Hes the next Ross Perot only much less impactful (i think the powers that be realized after Perot not to allow a similar situation again.....nothing unites Dems and Repubs more than the threat of someone other than each other, keeps them focused).

    They balance their policy on 3 fronts. Popularity (the ability to sell it, at least), Patronage (who benefits the most from such things and the support/money it garners from that benefit) and Party (you make the party look good, they make you look good...one hand washes the other).

    As long as those 3 are met, people be damned. Social Secuirty? yeah. Its popular, it garners patronage from those who benefit from the raiding of its coffers for other activities and it certainly makes the party look good.

    Iraq? yeah! Its popular, it garners MASSIVE patronage and nothing makes a party look better than kicking ass. (over time, war popularity decreases exponentially, guess where we are now?)

    Illegal Immigration? Ummmm, no. Its popular for sure, it doesnt garner any patronage and the party needs to pander to that voting segment. No-uh-uh.

    National Debt Reform? NO! The means to correct it would be completely unpopular, would garner ZERO patronage and you'd probably ruin the party for the next 8 years. Unless you can sell something else under the pretense of a devalued US Dollar however....

    Keep going. Two of those criteria must be met. They are listed in order of importance.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •