Who Will Be President in 2009?

Post Reply New Topic

Who do you think will be President for 2009?

Obama seems the most likely, followed by McCain, then Clinton.

But the pessemist in me thinks McCain will win the presidency and then promptly die of a heart attack, leaving some random person no-one likes as the new President.

Elections in my paranoid opinion won't happen - Bush will remain in power by some evil plan to play stupid and suppress dissent... most likely by a faked attack (orly? lol -- es kann sein).

Doesn't require too much thought.... the masses are dumb enough to love the bastard. -_-;;

Who do I think shall win? Obama. Who do I wish would win? Not a career politician.

Maybe a physicist or chemist; somebody with brains and integrity... not a career politician.[i]

McCain is going to win simply because he is the only old white male in the race, and there are many voters who won't vote for Hillary or Obama based on their gender or race (respectively). I don't support that, but that's how it is. Racism and genderism are still very strong in the U.S. and we can't pretend it won't be an issue.

And another thing which helps McCain out is that the Dems are still fighting over the nomination. This means the Republicans are off to a good start with McCain and don't have to worry about who will get the nomination since McCain has already clinched it.

Now, I'm not saying McCain is who I want to win (and he isn't), but the poll asks who I *think* will win, and McCain is definitely the one I think will win for a variety of reasons.

I really think Obama would win if he were white. We have a woman running, and people are sexist.
We have a black man running, and people are racist. Then we have Republicans, who some people are less likely to trust because of Bush, but that prejudice probably doesn't run as deep.

And why do you think this? What exactly has Obama done that would position himself to be a serious contender other than the fact that he is black? He has no experience, and there are plenty of other Democrats with more impressive records than his.

I wouldn't put most of the physicists or chemists I've known in charge of my cats.

A classically secular humanist upbringing, and the endorsement of Bill Richardson.

Being highly effective in capitalizing upon his strengths. Being black could have as easily been a weakness as a strength.

He's a good team player, though, which is something that hasn't adorned the White House since it was...white. Heh.

Such as Bill Richardson. I was going to vote for Bill Richardson, but Bill Richardson is no longer running. Bill Richardson was the only one in the race I could bring myself to take seriously. I still don't take Obama seriously, but Bill Richardson has endorsed him. If Bill Richardson doesn't think he'll blow it, I don't think he'll blow it.

What about the some that you would? Also, do cats=people?

Everyone seems to be saying Obama doesn't have a lot of experience, but I have to wonder exactly what sort of experience Hillary has either. She has only been in congress since 2002 and she has not held any political office before then. So how exactly is Hillary more experienced in politics than Obama?

Furthermore, why is experience in politics a good thing anyway? Career politicians usually end up being crooks and swindlers. I think a person who isn't like that would make a refreshing change.

She was married to the head honcho. Frankly, I'm sick of the Clintons.

Experience doesn't always equate to crookedness. However, the Hils have stressed the point of experience to the exclusion of any other possible factor. Education and upbringing also come into play. For example, Obama benefitted from a classically secular humanist upbringing, and he was exposed to several different cultures and beliefs through the efforts of his mother, a highly educated cultural anthropologist (if I recall correctly). A man from his background has a higher capacity for cultural objectivity. The Hils can repeat the "experience" line until they're blue in the face, but you know what they say about putting all one's eggs in one basket.

Another thing I think is noteworthy is how the candidates work with their campaigns. Consider their performance on the campaign trail a preview of how they would do in office. The President does not do the actual well-digging of running the country. As with his campaign, he acts more as a head honcho, and having good chemistry with the people who do the niggerwork of running the country is often more helpful than having had direct experience with pulling the levers of state. Although this is an NT value, we, as Aspies, should show appreciation for what neurotypicals have to offer the world, just as we would like to be appreciated for our own skills. Besides, the only one I saw who had the Aspie-gaze was Bill Richardson, and he's not running anymore. He's busy endorsing Obama, like I am.

How well a person does on their interview doesn't indicate how well they'll do their job.

Imperfect analogy. Although a presidential campaign is effectively a job interview, the work of campaigning does not translate verbatim to a normal job interview. You're exploiting the analogy. It's not only poor reasoning, but it's horribly dishonest if you're doing it purposely.

WTH?

Don't you get the fact that how well a speaker sways an audience carries over nothing as to how well they can rule?

All analogies are imperfect, to bring that fact up and attempt to make a deal of it is dishonest itself.