NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
How is this possible in the America that I've experienced for 48 years?
I'm putting down my prediction so that I can't come back later, when he's president and say, "well, I didn't think he'd win but I wasn't really sure."
But I am sure. And if I'm wrong, then I need to remember that today, I've never been more wrong.
I remember McGovern. Do you fucking remember McGovern? He ran against this president named Nixon. Nixon had us in Vietnam. Do you fucking remember Vietnam? Iraq is a Club Med experience compared to Vietnam. The streets were on fire over that war. There were 3 television networks, 3 news programs, and 1 opinion. It was time to get out of that war.
Well, America voted. McGovern, a candidate promising liberal change, won only two tiny states. And Nixon was back in.
Welcome to America.
Obama is Black.
Have you noticed lately that America is racist. Obama can not win on this point alone. I know, I know, you're not racist and you can't imagine many more people in this country are still rascist. You look at all your friends who love Obama, and they're obviously not rascist. But they're also bicyclists... hardly a core sample of America. America = black vs. white vs. brown vs....
Obama is liberal. Have you all forgotten that America just voted for Bush in the last two elections? People may say they want change, but they themselves have not changed. Gore was too liberal. Kerry was too liberal. Dukakis was too liberal. And you think America, this time, is going to vote ultra liberal?
Obama is a Muslim. I know he's not a muslim. But Barack Hussain Obama? Yea, when McCain pulls that one out, the masses in the great flyover zone will believe what they believe. His name alone is enough to be his downfall.
"But Obama has such a huge, loud, dedicated following." What Obama has is a vocal, rabid minority. That is enough to get him on the ticket but means nothing beyond that.
So there's my prediction. McCain or Clinton in 08. Personally, I don't care which pathologically egotist wins the presidency. The only change I count on is that which I do myself.
I remember McGovern. Do you fucking remember McGovern? He ran against this president named Nixon. Nixon had us in Vietnam. Do you fucking remember Vietnam? Iraq is a Club Med experience compared to Vietnam. The streets were on fire over that war. There were 3 television networks, 3 news programs, and 1 opinion. It was time to get out of that war.
But Nixon didn't get the country into that war, so the voting public didn't hold it against him. And the fact that the streets were on fire helped Nixon. He was the Law And Order candidate. Don't forget that most of the American public actually supported the actions of the National Guardsmen who shot those students at Kent State in 1970.
While a majority in America by 1972 thought that getting into Vietnam was a mistake, on the question of whether and how to get out they were far from united. The "dinner table divide" was still in full effect, and a whole lot of people were willing to give Nixon the benefit of the doubt.
Your analogy isn't analogous, is what I'm trying to say.
Have you noticed lately that America is racist.
Have you noticed lately that it's not 1972 anymore? To be sure, there's still racism, there are still racists, and there are still places like Kentucky; but on the whole, the willingness of white people to vote for a black presidential candidate is just not a remarkable thing anymore. Far out, man!
Obama is already winning elections, or he wouldn't be the presumptive nominee in the first place. A lot of those are elections that a black man couldn't have imagined winning back in Nixon's time.
My prediction: Obama will win. And he'll be a huge disappointment in much the same way that Villaraigosa has been. Yay!
My prediction: Obama will win. And he'll be a huge disappointment in much the same way that Villaraigosa has been. Yay!
PC
05.23.08 - 4:38 pm
In much the same way that all presidents have been. Whether it's long term or short term; the president is there to take the blame for the mistakes made by the previous constituancy.
The day we have a great president is the day we elect someone that doesn't give a shit about being president.
The Vocal Majority has always ALWAYS been representative of the underdog, the losers, the also-rans. The Actual Majority keeps their mouths shut, stands by their leadership - for better or worst. No one likes to hear it, but it's the TRUTH(tm) as I see it.
I like Obama, much more than I like Clinton (any of them). I definitely don't care for McCain - who? If you catch a glimpse of TV (Not that any of you actually WATCH TV, I know you're all too cool for school) it's clear that Hilary is losing, and Obama is going to be the Democratic candidate. We can go on and on and debate for days on whether the "NEWS" is actual indicator of what's going on, but no one can deny that the "NEWS" or any media has a powerful effect on public opinion, and right now - from Late Night TV to morning news, everyone is all smiles about Obama. My opinion is that is EXACTLY what the Republican Party wants. It's why Kerry was the candidate last time, and Gore the guy before him. Guys with Little to NO CHANCE.
Republicans are EVIL, and Democrats are DUMB - Period.
PC, thanks for your intelligent response. From my personal experience and recollection from that 1970's time period, I believe there is an analogy that can be drawn upon. And as for your discounting racism being a major factor in the election, I can only hope and wish you are the one who is right. I'd love to see me wrong here and go, "shit, we really have made some movement in race relations." As for your prediction that Obama being ultimately a disappointment... that's probably a no-brainer. He is a politician, afterall.
I agree with your point abot Obama's skin color. But Obama isn't liberal. Kerry wasn't particularly liberal. Gore certainly wasn't particularly liberal. These people are centrists at best. You've just, apparently, completely bought into the republican campaign propaganda. Both Kerry and Gore were defeated (not that Gore was defeated at all, of course) by smear tactics in the campaign, nothing more.
Race will factor into this election. Fortunately, it will mostly factor into the results in states that are already likely to vote republican. There has been real change in people's attitudes to race in much of the country, and Obama's campaign is going to have to be about getting people in those parts of the country to get out and vote. Fortunately, the war in Iraq and the state of our economy, not to mention the gratuitous abuses of the govt power over the last 7 years, is likely to continue to lead to record numbers of folks voting. I have my fingers crossed that the liberals in the core blue states will be able to put Obama into the white house.
That said, I think Hillary has even less of a shot at the presidency, not because of her gender, but because she's a deeply divisive person for anyone who considers themselves to be conservative. Hillary's pull with 'swing' voters is essentially nil. More importantly, the last thing this country needs is another 4 or 8 years of Clinton era divisiveness, and that's what we'd get. I really wanted Edwards to take the nomination precisely because I worry about Obama's electability.
I have a lot of conservative friends who are reasonably intelligent people and I'd say that the majority of them are willing to vote for Obama over McCain despite a lifetime of voting republican. My suspicion is that voters like them will compensate for the relatively few (I hope) democratic voters who would vote republican rather than vote for a black man. My guess is that the kind of voter who votes democrat but also won't vote for a black man is likely to not vote in the presidential election at all, rather than vote for McCain. Meanwhile, there is a surprisingly large number of conservative voters who are actively looking to vote AGAINST a perceived continuation of Bush policies in the white house.
In the end, its possible that the entire race is going to come down to the vice presidential nominees - McCain's because he is old and Obama's because the chances that he'll suffer an assassination attempt seem pretty high. I just hope he isn't dumb enough to put Hillary into the VP slot. That would definitely doom his election chances, I think, as most conservatives who would otherwise vote Obama would almost certainly refuse to do so if it were to put Hillary a heartbeat away from the oval office.
come now, idea. as far as american politics goes, obama is liberal.
as for your other opinions and prognostications... looks like we both should check back on this thread after the election and review our words on the state of the union.
if i'm wrong i WILL change my thinking and understanding of americans.
I do worry that race will factor into this. Racism is alive and well in many states, it's just just kept on the down low. I have heard some pretty blatantly racist remarks in places like Arkansas and Tennessee, remarks made feeling they were safe saying them in front of me because I'm white.
My hope is that the population density of places more open to race will counter it, however as usual it will come down to to a few select "swing" states. I'm still optimistic though, change isn't going to happen if people don't believe it possible.
I met a DNC strategist camping at Joshua Tree a few months ago and she was so overconfident that either Clinton or Obama were going to have no problem beating McCain that I instantly had a premonition that McCain won with ease.
I see too many incidents of racism even here in southern California to think that Obama has a chance of winning.
From my personal experience and recollection from that 1970's time period, I believe there is an analogy that can be drawn upon.
I understand what you're saying, but there are too many important differences. The only thing that really ties the elections of 1972 and 2008 together is that both take place during an unpopular war. After that, the analogy breaks down.
I think what you're trying to say is that Nixon vs. McGovern should have been a slam dunk for McGovern because of Vietnam, just as Obama vs. $REPUBLICAN_CANDIDATE should be a slam dunk because of Iraq, but that McGovern lost anyway because of the baseness and ignorance of the American electorate. What I'm saying is that there actually was no particular reason why '72 should have been a cakewalk for McG.
First of all, it was a "halfway" election, meaning that Nixon had served only served one term and was asking for another. In general, unless the incumbent is perceived to have really botched things during his first four years (not to be confused with failing to fix a situation he inherited), the American electorate has tended to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Moreover, domestic concerns tend to have at least as much importance as foreign policy issues in American elections.
And let's face it: there was little wrong with America in 1972 that could plausibly be blamed on Nixon. The turmoil in the streets and campuses over Vietnam and the race riots in major American cities had started some years before Nixon's first term, largely during the Johnson administration. The suburban homeowners, Southerners, and working-class whites who made up the crucial swing vote in 1972 saw Nixon as the guy who would "get tough" on the Yippies and Black Panthers and other undesirables who seemed to be making America such a difficult place to conduct business.
Finally, as I said before, Nixon may have "had us" in Vietnam, but he certainly didn't get us into Vietnam. LBJ, a Democrat, did. To be sure, and to put it mildly, Nixon's way of trying to get us out wasn't universally beloved--but voters were aware that he had inherited, not created, that mess.
Now, back to 2008. Bush and his administration very plainly did get us into the quagmire in Iraq. They stood by and did next to nothing while a major American city was ruined, people died in the streets, and much of the population was made homeless. They did more damage to civil liberties than any administration in recent history (the megachurch crowd may not be losing too much sleep over this, but there are legions of libertarian conservatives, especially in the Southwest, who are furious about it). They did nothing to stop, and much to encourage, the speculative asset price hyperinflation that made housing unaffordable to millions of young people and made the subprime mortgage crisis inevitable. They spent two full terms very visibly running the country into the ground in every way imaginable, and now the man to whom they are passing the torch has got to try to distance himself from all of this crap without alienating that small but crucial group of delusional fuckwits who still approve of the job Bush is doing.
And, while there are a certain number of geriatric fools who won't vote for Obama no matter what because of his skin color, there are arguably just as many vapid young people who will vote for him no matter what because he is hot and McCain isn't. Now THAT is a slam dunk, mister!
"I think what you're trying to say is that Nixon vs. McGovern should have been a slam dunk for McGovern because of Vietnam, just as Obama vs. $REPUBLICAN_CANDIDATE should be a slam dunk because of Iraq..."
No, what I'm saying is that Obama has the same amount of chance of winning as did McGovern. None.
What I'm also saying is I remember the same type of rabid excitement about McG as I see for Obama.
What I'm also saying is America is divided by race lines, and blacks are not the most popular of the races as seen by the masses.
What I'm also saying is that being in a war that is now considered unpopular will not automatically thrust a "change" politician into office.
PC, I'm not offering a documented study of the comparison of two eras and making a prediction. I'm considering my life's observations about people, america, behaviors and trends. To me, as it sounds like to you, the answer is obvious. But different.
Fortunately for both of us we'll be able to look back at this thread in six months and laugh about either our ability to predict or lack thereof.
I wasn't alive to remember McGovern, but from my own limited grasp of history, I would say that this election year seems more like 1980 than 1972. Astronomical gas prices, tanking economy, worsening tensions in the middle east... People want "change," but they also want "stability." The question for the election will be which candidate can sell their message more effectively.
McCain's got an amazing ability to say stupid things that undermine his image as Mr. Foreign Policy McWarHero, but far too many people don't really care if he can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shia. People who vote on issues of national strength often care more about America's self-image than its actual interactions with the rest of the world. Obama has no meaningful experience in foreign policy, so aside from his vague promises to increase diplomacy and get us out of Iraq (both of which are good things in my book), there's not much to go on. I just "hope" that he chooses some good advisors.
Unfortunately, in most people's minds, the war is not nearly as pressing a concern as the economy, and many would just as soon forget that the two are related. It will undoubtedly be part of the Republican strategy to encourage this forgetting by focusing on "strength" and "stability" in a time of economic crisis.
McCain's been selling himself as a moderate on domestic issues, but after his last few years of towing the party line, he'll have to do some work to keep pulling that off. His economic policy seems to be Reaganomics Redux. He's got a bunch of oldskool supply-siders on his advising team, and he's planning to raise revenues (and also improve the economy) by cutting taxes. And just as with Reagan, who was elected in a similar economic climate, it seems likely that "conservatives" will eat this message up. The fact that people still buy this shit is astonishing, but with Rove as spin-meister, I've no doubt that the Republicans will do their best to sell the country piss and call it lemonade yet again.
Will they succeed? Hell if I know. The general election's still half a year away, and the campaigns for that haven't even begun in earnest. The Republican party may be in shambles, but never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to fuck things up.
I have a proposition for you two, to make some easy money. Open to anybody else who is willing.
I'm not going to talk about race, (Obama is less black, then me, all over middle America White girls are preferring the taste of black boys to white boys), MONEY, or that Obama will keep us in Iraq and Afghanistan (with more troops and money) NO NO NO, that is all irrelevant to what I am purposing,.
What I'm talking about is a little wager. I say this Obama ( military man for capitalism, supporter of the rich of USA and the world) will win this Presidential election easy. The Good news is, if you lose, you might lose a little money, but have the President you want. I have no illusion of this "Paid for Man", so I will only be disappointed if I lose the money, (the country is already lost)
I have never been one to not pay a debt in a wager, I hope if you take me up on this wager you will be loyal to your word of payment.
The maximum bet I can pay to each person is $100 (I don't want to make wagers I can't pay for) I will be willing to pay out up to $500 if I'm wrong. The first 5 people that want to bet me $100 each, can do so. If the wager is less $100. I will take bets up to my $500 lose limit.
Who is in on this? If your so sure of Obama will loose, here is an easy way to put some money in your pocket come November.
I need to know you or who you are to make this bet. I'm not betting someone I don't know.
Just so you know, I've only lost one bet in my life
(Yankee vs Dodgers Worlds Series early 80's 82 I believe)
I was in 8th Grade, bet $40 on the Dodgers, lost and paid my debt.
The guy I bet was surprised I paid.
Your future will hold.....disappointment, happiness, disappointment
Disappointment, that you lost $300
Happiness that Obama is the President
Disappointment with his Presidency
craig: here's something on today's la times that made me think of your comment:
"Obama campaign targets black voters -- carefully
What makes the idea of bringing in so many new voters more than just political fantasy is the Obama campaign’s deep pockets and the sophisticated apparatus it has begun building to achieve its goals.
Strategists believe they've identified a new and potentially decisive Democratic electorate in at least five battleground states. The trick lies in wooing them without alienating whites.
By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 23, 2008
WASHINGTON -- As they ponder a political map that has spelled defeat for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, Barack Obama's campaign strategists are quietly laying plans to draw African American voters to the polls in unprecedented numbers by capitalizing on the excitement over the prospect of electing the nation's first black president..."
how can obama loose when he is supported by such brilliant campaign stategists??? targeting black voters to vote for a black candidate! what a breakthrough idea.
I have a rule that I think should be stipulated in case something terrible happens to Candidate Obama.
Should the candidate Obama, be assassinated, injured or forced to not be able to take the office of President of The Untied States, this bet is null and void.
In other words, if Obama is assassinated, injured to the point of not being able to fulfill the duties of President or forced for whatever reason to resign the nomination before the general election, then the bet is off.
Please agree to this rule so that the bet can continue, or disagree so that I can call the bet off.
Look, we live in a country that is fucking rich, bogarts resources from all over he word, bullies the rest of the world, directly or indirectly, and arrogantly tries to force its values on the entire rest of the world. It has been this way for at least the last 50 years and counting.
We all benifit from this. We are all complicit.
Most Americans like it this way and they want to keep it this way.
Any candidate that has any chance of getting elected will have to maintain this system to some degree. The best we can expect is that a candidate will put a slightly kinder face on the US and perhaps slightly reign it some of our worst crimes against the world.
This is unquestionable at this point in history.
Is there zero difference between the candidates? Between the parties?
I think that point would be difficult to defend.
I do believe that more so than any other leading candidate in my life time Obama will do a better job at serving the people.
Will we have to hold him accountable? Will we have to put him to task? Will we have to push him to be everything he promises and more? Absolutely.
I do believe that his starting position is way better than any other president in at least a generation and that he will be more responsive than any of the others.
If you look at his personal history, his actions, and his politics it is clear that while imperfect, Obama will be a substantially better leader for us than Bush.
And right now, every indication says that Obama is going to crush McCain in the fall. His fundraising, the polls, the level of excitement and support ... everything.
When he gets elected it will be up to us to organize and pressure him to be a better leader.
When we have shitty leadership its extra shitty for poor people.
When we have shittier leader its is even shittier for poor people.
If you have a good job, health insurance, an inheritance, a family safety net, etc. keep in mind that not all people do, and for some people, small differences in the way the deck is stacked can make a substantial difference in their quality of life. Sometimes its the difference between life and death.
.......................
Now Sexy,
I love you, I respect you, I consider you family.
Your statement, even if it was supposed to be some kind of joke, that you are "blacker" than Obama is the dummest fucking thing I have ever seen you write. I could expand if you like.
is it really shitter.? Do you think things would have been worse with GH Bush a second time then with Clinton. Lets just look at NAFTA, look at the harm that has done in all three countriesy. Do you think that would have gotten through with a GH Bush administration? I don't think so.
Do you think the crime bill would have been passed or even drawn up with Bush I as it was with Cllinton. Remeber Clinton took us to 1 million incarcerated and and then 2 million.
Welfare reform?
About me being Blacker then Obama, its true. Its all perception. Obama has done everything he could to show that he is not black. Has disassociated himself with anything that could remind voters he is black. At time to time, my girlfriend and my friends say I act/dress/talk (whatever is stereo typical of) like a black man, do you think Obama's wife, friends or colleagues think or say he acts like a black man. I think not. Skin color and heritage be dammed, it is about peoples perceptions. I don't even think people that are supporting him to be President think "this is going to be USA first black president" no they think he is a candidate, that would act as President as you stated above. The only time his race enters his supporters mind is when it is fear that those people in the red states won't vote for him because he is black, and it take something or someone to remind them of that.
"I don't even think people that are supporting him to be President think "this is going to be USA first black president"
ohh pish, sexy. every black person in america is thinking that. if you were as "black" as you claim to be, you'd know that. but it took me, a really really black man, to correct you. for i am black. black i am, i say. did i mention i'm black, blacker than both obama, and sexy. now that's fucking black.
Shut up and vote, everyone, please. If you're sick of having two shitty choices and only being able to vote for one, demand instant runoff voting. Our current winner-take-all system guarantees that you will always have two shitty choices and you'll be throwing your vote away if you try to vote for a third party.
destroy the mainstream media and it's supporters (advertisers). with a hatchet knife and a pipe bomb. I mean it. seriously. Corporate Media reporters should fear for their lives in the streets. I want to see PAul Moyer running for his life. I want to see Josh Rubenstein bloodied and unconscious. I want to see Kent Shockman stabbed in the chest. I want to see Jackie Johnson..... naked in my bed. the point is all these people are not reporters they are well fed well paid corporate owned droids that tow the money line. nothing is going to change so long as MONEY supports our most accessible information.we keep talking about how media control is being concentrated..... how long have we been depending on media that is based on basically 2 SOURCES? Reuters and Associated Press?
The media is selling us stories that we all talk about. What about the shit that is NOT reported and thus NOT talked about. we're immersed in SHIT, LIES and more SHIT. Turn on the fuckin TV and I see "news" stories about television shows! I see 3-4 minute WEATHER reports. I see blurbs about attacks on Refugee camps.... REFUGEE CAMPS! by countries with nukes and military might.... on REFUGEE CAMPS and somehow this is not a crime in the eyes of these news reporters?!
VOTE WITH YOUR MONEY. people waste their lives away buying bullshit that keeps them enslaved to debtors and credit ratings. It's laugh-able. but a nervous laugh. like a murderous nervous laugh.
the war was over long ago, the good guys lost. Obama is a great speaker but unfortunately, he's just an empty suit that will sell us out like the rest. I'm going to ride my bike and w8 for the rest of the retards to wake up. I'm planning on doing a lot of riding..
Hello. How are you? I am fine. I'm just bumping this thread to remind users sexy and indigis that their bet is still, in gambling parlance, "working." I'm certainly on the edge of my seat waiting to see who will walk away with the $300, aren't you?
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
@dak "Evil always beats Dumb. "
Nah, I'm voting for Javi.
sexy, no disappointment in his presidency. i have no expectations, therefore, nothing to be disappointed in.
just so you know, she doesn't look half bad without the beard
Sexy, you still taking bets?