Well, polls indicate that all other things aside, voters will reject them out of sexism or (less likely, since Obama probably won't win the nom) racism. I saw some interesting analysis about this. Respondents mostly said that *they* wouldn't decide on that basis, but that some hypothetical guy they know almost *definitely* would. Apparently pollsters use this sort of thing to check for biases respondents would rather not admit.
He'll be president during an economic downturn that the West will never fully recover from and the final act of an unpopular war, and part of his mandate will be given out of sexism in the electorate and not his virtues, such as they are. The Dems will, by the way, quietly ensure that a protestant white man runs in 2004.
Incidentally, lest anyone think I'm being especially hard on Americans here, I note that we don't pick our PMs directly, and that's why we had Kim Campbell in the first place.
I never claimed to be either. I have no tolerance for Libertarianism, I have no tolerance for conservatism (social or financial), and I feel that being intolerant of both is an acceptable position to hold. I don't expect my own position to be tolerated.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Statistically speaking, if McCain decided to run for a second term, he'd probably make it in.
Doesn't make me any happier about the prospect.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I, unfortunatly, agree with your prediction, though.
What that'll do to my generation's politics makes me very curious, and I'm secretly hoping it'll move us even further to the left out of desperation.
I want to see the day when saying you're a republican is a dirty thing to say.
Or is like calling yourself a whig.
no subject
I responded, "Go vote for Paul, you confused dickhead!"
no subject
no subject
no subject
-Marco