Election Aftermath

So Clinton won Pennsylvania, as we expected. But Obama cut her margin from 20% to 10%, which one would expect with someone who outspent her 4 to 1. Problem is for Clinton, she needs some landslide wins in order to make up ground, and that seems statistically unlikely to happen. But Obama needs a couple landslide wins in order for it to not look like he’s faltering. I think he’s more likely to get that than she is, with North Carolina and Oregon coming up.

I have concluded that the long drawn out battle between the two of them is not a bad thing. It’s keeping them relevant, and McCain is only getting older and getting less relevant. His unwavering support for Bush and the Iraq War is also only going to look more and more stupid as the war drags on and the economy tanks. And consistently, both Obama and Clinton poll better than McCain in a potential national election.

The problem I see with the Democrats is this: If Clinton gets the nomination, I fear some of the younger, louder Obama supporters will go toward third party candidates, and that we may have another 2000 election on our hands, where Nader/whoever getting 5% of the vote really matters. But if Obama gets the election, I fear some working class, white Clinton supporters will go toward McCain. And that too could tip the election toward McCain.

The best thing I think that could happen for the Democrats is that the economy continues to plummet, because nothing sparks a strong turnout and a regime change like a poor economy. So, I’m rooting for a deep and long recession, one that ends around the middle of January, when hopefully Clinton or Obama takes office.

Advertisements

~ by realsupergirl on April 23, 2008.

3 Responses to “Election Aftermath”

  1. From your mouth to God’s ears.

  2. $1.5 trillion mess forced upon American tax payers by the CEOs of Fannie May and Freddie Mac are economic advisers to Barack Obama. In addition, Obama is the “largest recipient of political funds from mortgage giants Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae.”

    Think about it, just look how Obama’s economic advisers, CEOs Franklin Raines and James Johnson, ran Fannie and Freddie into the ground. This whilst forcing more debt, in the trillions, upon tax payers meaning higher taxes for Americans.

    The Democrat controlled congress just helped in causing this financial meltdown. Before the Democrats controlled congress the US economy was strong, but ever since then the economy has been heading downwards.

    The Democrats control all branches of government except the executive branch. Do we really need more of the same Democrat agenda? Do Americans really want more socialism that creates bigger government, more government spending, and higher taxes that ultimately gives more control of government over the people??

    How often do you think a lawyer turn preacher politician lies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M

  3. The idea that the “democrat controlled congress” is responsible for the financial crisis is just ridiculous. First, the Democrats BARELY “control” Congress, and haven’t maintained a majority until 2 years ago. The financial crisis is the result of the fiscally negligent and irresponsible policies of the Bush administration over the past 8 years. It’s very obvious, unless you’re just spouting Republican lies.

    The biggest cause of the financial crisis? The 2+ billion dollar a month war we’re waging in Iraq, which appears unending, and which has done nothing but create a more fertile ground for terrorism and a trillion dollar debt. We have Bush, Cheney, et al for this mess.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: