were you suckled on Thomas Hobbes or something? "State of Nature" and all?

Seems like a math problem from that point.

How many of hers do you lose that simply won't vote at all?
How many do hers you lose that vote for McCain?
How many unlikely voters do you gain by her presence on the ticket somewhere? And how many (if any) McCain voters come over to the combined ticket?

Get reasonable answers to those & the choice becomes pretty simple one way or the other.

Taking Clinton as VP isn't worth the baggage and contrary to what the media says, she doesn't want the job. She's been there and done that.

Obama will get half of her supporters and that's enough to win, so long as the kiddies vote. And yes, I know, that's a bet many have lost before..but in case people didn't realize it yet, Obama hasn't happened before either.

If Obama loses half of Clinton's supporters, he'll lose...and as far as Electoral votes, it'll be a landslide for McCain.

We shall see. Not gonna be a landslide.

Yeah, just some spot checking says half wouldn't leave Obama a pretty picture.

ABC news says Clinton will drop out Friday.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...ory&id=4705151

It will be a close election.

It's still amusing to hear those that were "tortured" over the past 8 years as if they were personally affected or something. Why don't you just come out and say 'my world is red vs blue and that's all I know'.

For me, personally, the past 8 years have been the best years of my life. I didn't like much of what happened in Washington DC (and the world) but then again, I rarely do.

That's the most arrogant thing I've ever heard in my life. Your life has been the best so everyone elses life has to be the best or they're just partisan liars.

No disrespect but fuck you. I know several people who are worse off than 8 years ago. My best friend was laid off 8 months ago and had to take a job at half the paycheck. He's drowning in debt. The woman I'm seeing lost her little brother in the war. Again, fuck you.

Not as flamboyant as Axxon, but I agree. I had the hardest time after 9-11 and things are finally looking better for me going into 2009. I was a Clinton supporter until she decided to continuously take the low road against Obama. He hardly ever responded with the level rebuttals despite everything the Clintons did. That sits very well with me so its Obama for me in Nov.

Back in the late 60s and early 70s, I heard of several families of schoolmates that lost members to the Vietnam war (though no one in my family, that I can recall). Then the recession hit, the global markets changed and my dad lost his job of 20 years ago. In the next several years, there were constant bad news in the semiconductor field and we moved around a lot. For a lot of people, those were the best years. During the 1990s, it got so bad for my parents that they ended up foreclosing and declaring bankruptcy. A lot of people wished the prosperity of the 1990s were here again. My parents do not.

I really didn't mean to sound like it did since I was making two separate points. It is true that, for me personally (I did say that), these have been the best years - BUT it had nothing to do with who's president, no more than my parents can blame Clinton (or Nixon) for their troubles.

One of the reasons it had been the best is because I was able to give more than I have ever been able to before. I have come to learn to separate myself from the politics of the federal govt and do what I can locally and within my sphere of influence. I contribute sizeable amounts to local services that help families that are hurting and are in need. I've talked to some of them, give what I can to help, esp. material and financial needs, so I can make a small difference in their lives. I am not delusional to know that it will never happen to me, as I seen with my parents and others in my family. There were people hurting 1, 5, 10, 15 years ago and there will people hurting 1, 5, 10, 15 years from now and it is our responsibility to do what we can and not expect some governmental powers do do it for you.

You obviously have not had anyone close to you have to spend time in, become disabled, or die in Iraq. You probably do not have to spend much time or gas in your vehicle on your way to or from work. You probably have not tried to sell your house in the past year. And, I would guess that you have little to no interest in public education (and/or you make enough money to send your child to public school or live in a wealthy area that has a well-funded public school system).

I live 1/2 mile from one of the gates to Fort Carson. Many of the families of the 3rd Brigade live in my neighborhood. I believe this brigade has suffered more casualties than any other single brigade. I have seen and know of dozens of families that left the neighborhood because the father or mother was killed or mia.

No, I don't spend much time or gas in my vehicle. It was a conscious lifestyle choice to not do so, partly in eliminating many non-critical trips. I am also an advocate for public transportation and despite my libertarianism, support a 1% sales tax increase to fund a regional public transportation system.

I am not selling our house this year and fortunately, we did not have the real estate run-up that some other places have.

I have had a great interest in public education since my son started going to our neighborhood public school 6 years ago. We live in the poorest school district in the city (District 2) but I am very thankful for the wonderful teachers he had 4 of the 6 years. Plus I am also grateful for the Special Ed help that they had been giving him.

Yes, I am trying to talk my way out of this and while I regret what I implied, I still try to make the point that personal circumstances rarely have anything to do who is or is not president. The Iraq war may be an exception (but I still would argue that other presidents, of either party, may have made the same choice) but I also lived during the Vietnam War and that was bad too.

Not with Iraq.

I disagree, as we have discussed several times in the past 5 years. Going to war (whether in 2003 or later) would have been the easy choice, it's what happened after the brief 1-month war that makes the difference. Anyone administration would have done better and gotten out much, much sooner instead of enduring needless casualties since the fall of Baghdad.

I seriously doubt that Gore or McCain would have gone after Iraq.

Depending how much pressure UN, Congress and the media had put on WMD and the Resolutions. Hindsight does not count. But what about the next four years with either McCain or Obama where we will not see any significant reductions until 2012-2013? Will we still tolerate casualties in the meantime?

I've had a great 8 years. In fact, this year I'll earn 40% more than I did last year. Next year, I'll earn about 10% more than this year. I've gone to Iraq (note, I said IRAQ, not Kuwait, Qatar, etc.).

I can't complain.

During Vietnam, my little town lost a few guys and since it was a town of roughly 1000 that was felt. My sister lost a very good friend she'd dated once or twice and who'd hung out with me too a couple of times when somebody had to. Really great guy. She was pretty shook up by it and started protesting the war but not really enthusiastically.

I was too young for all that but I can remember sitting in my room, clutching my IG Joe and crying because I simply knew that this war wasn't ever going to end and one day, it'd be me that was going to die and my family would be mourning me. Didn't really stop me from playing war with Joe though ( this was pre kung foo grip in my house ).

I hear a lot of people blaming Nixon for Vietnam but even then I knew it was Kennedy and then Johnson. Nixon got us out of Vietnam and frankly, for that he has always had my utmost gratitude and his foreign policy successes have earned my utmost respect. I don't get how anyone can really doubt either of those two things even though of course, it wasn't as black and white as a paragraph here can convey, thems the facts.

Buc, how, if at all, do you reconcile libertarian views with government support for public transport?

McCain in a landslide. You heard it here first.

So, he's planning to go mountain climbing in the future?? Rough way to go out though. ;)

Hmmmm ... what worse, die in landslide or lose to obama

Well, Hillary can answer the second part and no one can answer the first one. I guess we could ask her if she'd rather have died in landslide but that's be anectdotal at best.

Just one of many reasons I'm thankful neither of them was in the White House during the past several years.

This is how it will go down

Popular Vote

McCain 56%
Obama 40%
Other 4%

And I'm neither Republican or Democrat. This is what my magic 8 ball has told me.

Amd I'm drunk. But still.

One question for those who identify as Republicans. How important is McCain's choice of VP to you? McCain if he wins is going to be the oldest person ever to start a presidential term. Does this worry you at all and will you consider his VP as important or is any VP better than the alternative?

Easy question: Lose to Obama is far worse.

You can have an extraordinary circumstance of bad luck & die in a landslide.
It takes a concerted string of fuck ups to lose to Obama.

Yep, Jon's not happy without a heaping helping of dead Americans.

Wonder who else likes heaping helpings of dead American's... oh yeah. ;)

img gonna need link to drunk thred thx

THEYREEE PEEEEEOPLEEEEEE

Be careful cooking up that 8 ball dude. :)

Given the current matchup he could pick virtually anyone - living, dead, fictional - and still be guaranteed my vote this November.

man i could ruse one right now. gonna snort one for hilarry since i have no liquor to poor on the curb

Which is why he's running against republicans. That factor is already built in for him.

I'd laugh my ass off if he picked Hillary then. :)

Have fun man. I kinda am envious right now. Might just have to tip a few myself.

Actually, in stony seriousness, I'd be one hell of a lot happier with a lot fewer of them than we've ended up with. But the fault I find there, which I do put at the President's feet to a significant extent, is the failure to properly prosecute the war. The only fault I find with the decision to go to war in the first place might rest with whether I'm ever convinced one way or the other that he knew beforehand that he would not attend to things there in a militarily efficient fashion. In other words, I might someday reach a point of deciding "better not at all than half-assed" but I'm not yet convinced that the eventual strategy was what was originally intended.

They're actually a reasonably well matched set. Neither one of them belong in the White House, but both would be better than the current alternative.

See, it's the aftermath that to me was inevitable which was why I was very against the war in the first place. Otherwise I'd have been apathetic to it. Can't get worked up with Greneda even though we didn't need to do it.

The aftermath was inevitable. Either that or simply leave then and all we'd have accomplished is create a huge power vacuum in a resource rich country with those not particularly aligned with us surrounding it.

The only way to remove the dictator properly is coup with the power structure already in place to fill the void. Had we done that I wouldn't have had such a negative view of the affair and I think how that turned out would have judged it's success or failure.

No surprise, but just for the record, we disagree.

And not remotely because I have even the slightest bit of confidence the Iraqis will be capable of governing themselves peacefully in the next hundred years.

Heh...interesting timing on this...day after Obama claims victory...

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New..._chicago/8389/

Ok, give me one example in history that would show that you can simply dethrone a population the size of Iraq and then leave and things turn out great without them already having someone inside who is prepared to immediately step up to the plate.

{scratches head}

Did I say anything about leaving?

Ok, what was your plan. Maybe follow Russia's example in Afghanistan...oh wait.

Then what would be the plan? Nation build?

As usual, I completely disagree with JimG, which means I'm on the right track. :)

Some interesting statements in here of late.

People actually believe die hard democrats who were for Hillary are going to jump ship in any significant number? Some (the vocal minority) are angry right now, but in 5 months there is no chance that they are staying home or voting for McCain. No chance.

People actually believe or thought for a second that Clinton was going to endorse McCain or submarine Obama after the delegates were in? What planet are you living on, man?

People think that because Obama lost to Clinton in some of the important swing states there is no way he can win those in the general election? These people voted for democrats. Around 40 million in total. Clinton was one heckuva candidate and the front runner. She's tough to beat. I can't believe anyone thought he would just walk all over her in some of those states. But she's been beaten now. Obama's now the nominee. People now think that the 18 million who voted for Clinton are just not going to vote anymore in the general election or vote for McCain instead in any significant number? For most of those 18 million, Obama is their second choice.

This election is going to be a turnout election. The turnout for the democratic primaries was enormous. The democratic party is energized. McCain is boring and couldn't energize that pink bunny. For these reasons alone, Obama is going to win easy. Based on the electoral college, I am not saying it will be a landslide, but he will cruise to victory.

Wasn't Kerry supposed to cruise to victory? ;)

Based on the electoral college, I'm saying this is going to be a very close election. Obama will probably make it closer in a lot of traditional Republican states, but he won't be able to win them, and it'll come down, once again, to the swing states.