I think we should just let Mr Murdoc decide. Much easyer that way.
I think we should just let Mr Murdoc decide. Much easyer that way.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I dont understand why american politics is so inbred.
Like you have bush senior, then clinton, then bush junior, then mrs clinton....? thats ****ed up. Then thats ingnoring the previous ones before that who done much the same.
There is no way anything similar could happen over here... We are wise enough not to elect anyone from the same family twice?.. I think.
If the black guy wins, that will just be becuase he is black...
the democrats are picking their candidate for the general election
this involves per-state selection, where each state's people vote for who they'd like, and those choices end up (via complex voodoo that varies per state) as "pledged delegates" who are party members whose job it is is to vote on their voters' behalf, for their chosen candidate, at a big party meeting later in the year. the states all do it at different times, hence the drawn-out process
last night many hoped would cement the question of whether hillary clinton stopped fighting (if barack obama won in the 4 states voting last night), or whether she'd catch up to his lead (by winning significant victories)
what we got is a kinda sorta victory for clinton. she won, but not convincingly enough to be a "definite" prospect, nor badly enough to be a definite drop-out. obama still has a ~11% lead on pledged delegates. there are a few states left to vote, but not enough to take either person past the post. so the fight will continue into an extremely messy territory - the decision will not be made by pledged delegates (who are meant to vote for whom their voters told them to), but to "superdelegates" (party bigwigs who can vote wherever they feel like). factoring the currently decided supers into the figures (many have yet to decide, and they can change their minds), obama's lead drops down from 11% to 6%.
and at that point, it's very hard to say "x is clearly the more popular choice, let's just go with them", in EITHER direction
so rather than last night serving as a way to clearly define the presidential election, it's just going to drag on into bitter party in-fighting.
the second half of the question is "so what, they have similar policies". the issue comes when one looks at who votes for whom. in an obama-versus-mccain fight, the young people will turn out in droves to vote for obama, the swing voters will vote obama, and many on the right (e.g. christian conservatives) just won't bother getting out of bed to support mccain because they just don't like him. conversely, clinton is a character who gets people worked up - swing voters and the young HATE her, and would rather vote mcain. and you'll also find right-wing states will mobilize in force to vote for "anyone but hillary" in a way they simply wouldn't for obama. so, in short, hillary-vs-mccain: mccain wins. obama-vs-mccain, obama wins.
that's my take on the matter, anyway
SiM (05-03-2008)
Oh, I get it now... Thanks...
Clinton and Obama are fighting for who can run for president within their party... So I take it that has McCain already won for his party
For the unitiated, and I wish to god it wasn't the case, but I think it will be a cold day in hell when either a woman or non-white becomes the pres of the good ole US of A.
Hell... They're even afraid of having a black VP for the fear that someone will assassination El Presidenti and therefore have the first black pres by default.
People just don't realise just how corrupt and racist the country is.
As for Who I want to win... anyone who know that there are lots of countries in 7 continents on this thing called a planet, and normal folks require this groovy thing called a passport to travel between them. That's be one up on the current one in mind!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)