Obama's running mate

[pinksirfidel]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Eh, Clark would have brought a myriad of soft spots too. I was hoping he'd pick a governor. Richardson was my top pick as well, but there were a couple of govs that would have brought a lot to the table. I was counting on his veep pick to get me fired up for the election finally. Now, I'm still just.... meh.

Maybe I'm just slow, but what does "Meh" mean? Lol.

[KDAngel]

As a hardcore McCain supporter and DC politico, it's proof that there is a God for all of those who had any doubts.

[KSigkid]

Not really a surprise. Biden's kind of an interesting guy. If you've ever read "What It Takes," which tracked the 1988 Presidential Campaign, it does a good job of summarizing Biden's background. He's a pretty smart guy with a bit of a temper, and as someone who's anti-Obama, I just wonder how many votes he'll be able to pull.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KDAngel

As a hardcore McCain supporter and DC politico, it's proof that there is a God for all of those who had any doubts.

Well, let me clarify that I don't think it in any way clears the path for McCain, I still think he's got a tough road ahead and is most likely not going to win. I think he's a poor, poor candidate and not a bright selection on the GOP's behalf. And I personally staunchly oppose following up the last two GOP terms with another one, thus allowing all the entrenched politicos to likely stay where they are and keep performing at their sub-standard levels. I just wish I could get more excited about the ticket I will undoubtedly be voting for if for nothing else than the beat-out-the-DC-rug-to-dislodge-the-dustmites-that-are-buried-too-deep-in-the-nap factor.

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Well, let me clarify that I don't think it in any way clears the path for McCain, I still think he's got a tough road ahead and is most likely not going to win. I think he's a poor, poor candidate and not a bright selection on the GOP's behalf. And I personally staunchly oppose following up the last two GOP terms with another one, thus allowing all the entrenched politicos to likely stay where they are and keep performing at their sub-standard levels. I just wish I could get more excited about the ticket I will undoubtedly be voting for if for nothing else than the beat-out-the-DC-rug-to-dislodge-the-dustmites-that-are-buried-too-deep-in-the-nap factor.

I totally agree!!!!!! I am a registered Republican.....and I HATE McCain!

I think 8 years of a President so out of touch with the world, has really led to yet another shake up in politics! Its about time!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

I totally agree!!!!!! I am a registered Republican.....and I HATE McCain!

I think 8 years of a President so out of touch with the world, has really led to yet another shake up in politics! Its about time!

I think it all depends on what you mean by "shake up." We have a Democrat-controlled Congress - does that mean we should also vote to turn Congressional control to the Republicans, to shake things up? Or, do we only want a shake-up as far as it replaces a Republican president, a selective shake up, so to speak?

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but I just find it interesting that a lot of the people who are talking about change, and about a shake-up, would want 1) to keep control the same in Congress and 2) would be so fired up over two Washington insiders in Obama and Biden. And, yes, Obama is a Washington insider, it's impossible not to be as a member of Congress.

I think the Obama camp made an error in not bringing Hilary on the ticket; there would have been some PR work to do in bringing on a former rival, but Obama's camp is pretty solid in PR (plus the press LOVES Obama), and picking up most of those former Hilary votes could have widened the gap considerably.

Then again, I was listening to one of the political radio shows, and they were talking about the McCain-Bush battle in 2000, how something like 30-40% of McCain backers had said at the convention that they wouldn't back Bush, and how that number decreased to about 6% at election-time. So, I could definitely be wrong.

But, hey, I'm just a Republican who isn't all that thrilled with his own party's candidate, and is voting for him in a "lesser of two evils" context.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think it all depends on what you mean by "shake up." We have a Democrat-controlled Congress - does that mean we should also vote to turn Congressional control to the Republicans, to shake things up? Or, do we only want a shake-up as far as it replaces a Republican president, a selective shake up, so to speak?

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but I just find it interesting that a lot of the people who are talking about change, and about a shake-up, would want 1) to keep control the same in Congress and 2) would be so fired up over two Washington insiders in Obama and Biden. And, yes, Obama is a Washington insider, it's impossible not to be as a member of Congress.

I think the Obama camp made an error in not bringing Hilary on the ticket; there would have been some PR work to do in bringing on a former rival, but Obama's camp is pretty solid in PR (plus the press LOVES Obama), and picking up most of those former Hilary votes could have widened the gap considerably.

Then again, I was listening to one of the political radio shows, and they were talking about the McCain-Bush battle in 2000, how something like 30-40% of McCain backers had said at the convention that they wouldn't back Bush, and how that number decreased to about 6% at election-time. So, I could definitely be wrong.

But, hey, I'm just a Republican who isn't all that thrilled with his own party's candidate, and is voting for him in a "lesser of two evils" context.

Congress, the Supreme Court, etc., are whole other balls of waxes. For my part, when I spoke of dislodging the entrenched politicos, I'm talking about the countless political appointees who have gotten way too comfy deep in the bowels of the agencies, affecting policy without most of the country having any idea or understanding of how it works. Same with the lobbying groups that have well-trod paths into and out of the executive offices. This is not to say the current lobbyists won't just be replaced by a new set of interest groups, but at least the paths might change slightly so the grass can have a chance to grow back on the paths that have been so worn down the past 8 years.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Congress, the Supreme Court, etc., are whole other balls of waxes. For my part, when I spoke of dislodging the entrenched politicos, I'm talking about the countless political appointees who have gotten way too comfy deep in the bowels of the agencies, affecting policy without most of the country having any idea or understanding of how it works. Same with the lobbying groups that have well-trod paths into and out of the executive offices. This is not to say the current lobbyists won't just be replaced by a new set of interest groups, but at least the paths might change slightly so the grass can have a chance to grow back on the paths that have been so worn down the past 8 years.

Fair enough - I think, though, that the same interest groups are going to be there. Also, those political appointees will probably be on thin ice, no matter who gets elected - McCain and Bush aren't the best of pals, so I think there'd still be a housecleaning.

[SHEETCAKE]

Originally Posted by KDAngel

As a hardcore McCain supporter and DC politico, it's proof that there is a God for all of those who had any doubts.

Get your own thread.

I'm voting for Obama because McCain would just jack up fuel prices more, making me cost more, making people eat less of me. Somebody tried to send a me with a gay stripper inside to McCain but they didn't know what house to send it to, so I just went to Larry Craig instead.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SHEETCAKE

Get your own thread.

I'm voting for Obama because McCain would just jack up fuel prices more, making me cost more, making people eat less of me. Somebody tried to send a me with a gay stripper inside to McCain but they didn't know what house to send it to, so I just went to Larry Craig instead.

You know, I was about to ask why you though McCain would jack up fuel prices more, but then I said, what the hell is wrong with me that I would try to have a political discussion with a cake?

[AGDee]

Normally, who the VP candidate is has no bearing on how I vote. Unless a President dies in office, (or shoots a staff member) we don't hear about them much and they don't have much of a role in anything until they run for President at the end of the President's two terms (or unless they are Cheney). However, this year, given McCain's age and Obama's security issues (needing secret service coverage earlier than any other candidate... almost as soon as he started running) I'd say there's a good chance the VP this time could end up President.

I'd be curious to see numbers on how influenced voters really are by the VP candidate.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Normally, who the VP candidate is has no bearing on how I vote. Unless a President dies in office, (or shoots a staff member) we don't hear about them much and they don't have much of a role in anything until they run for President at the end of the President's two terms (or unless they are Cheney). However, this year, given McCain's age and Obama's security issues (needing secret service coverage earlier than any other candidate... almost as soon as he started running) I'd say there's a good chance the VP this time could end up President.

I'd be curious to see numbers on how influenced voters really are by the VP candidate.

Honestly, talking to my friends and family that are still on the undecided/independent side of things - they say that after the last eight years, the VEEP candidate matters a lot. Or at least a lot more than it has in the past.

Regarding Biden, I think he's a good choice for Obama.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Normally, who the VP candidate is has no bearing on how I vote. Unless a President dies in office, (or shoots a staff member) we don't hear about them much and they don't have much of a role in anything until they run for President at the end of the President's two terms (or unless they are Cheney). However, this year, given McCain's age and Obama's security issues (needing secret service coverage earlier than any other candidate... almost as soon as he started running) I'd say there's a good chance the VP this time could end up President.

I'd be curious to see numbers on how influenced voters really are by the VP candidate.

I keep hearing more and more along these lines, especially as I go on my client visits. Let's not forget that Biden has already survived two brain anerysms. Scary, scary thoughts!

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Normally, who the VP candidate is has no bearing on how I vote. Unless a President dies in office, (or shoots a staff member) we don't hear about them much and they don't have much of a role in anything until they run for President at the end of the President's two terms (or unless they are Cheney). However, this year, given McCain's age and Obama's security issues (needing secret service coverage earlier than any other candidate... almost as soon as he started running) I'd say there's a good chance the VP this time could end up President.

I'd be curious to see numbers on how influenced voters really are by the VP candidate.

My bf (a republican) and I were talking about this last night. I wouldn't say that I think there's a "good chance" that the next Prez will die in office, but it's certainly a stronger possibility than in a typical election, I think. McCain is looking and sounding older and older, and there are plenty of whackos out there that might make an attempt on Obama just because he's black. We all know that's wrong, but a real possibility.

[AGDee]

You're right, "good chance" is too strong but I was lacking a better way to say it. A stronger possibility than in more recent elections is a better way to put it. I know the concerns about Obama were expressed way back around the time of the Michigan primaries. One popular DJ said that the best way to ensure it didn't happen would be for Obama to pick Al Sharpton as his Veep... lol. All jokes aside, the underlying concern is there.