April 21, 2008 -
The Democratic presidential nomination could turn on tomorrow's primary in Pennsylvania. And while both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have had their issues with video games, this campaign has far deeper ramifications.As a Keystone State resident, I can assure you that the candidates are working overtime with appearances, rallies and the like. And phone calls...
Here at GPHQ we've received about a dozen calls since last week, evenly divided between the Clinton and Obama camps. Phone calls from volunteers, recorded messages from candidates, and even one from Bill Clinton.
So we're running a poll today and tomorrow to ask GamePolitics readers who they think will win in Pennsylvania.
Be sure to vote!
Comments
if Obama wins, it will be monumental. if Hillary wins, it won't be by enough.
either way it'll be a tough slog through the DNC.
and voting Hillary over Obama is a guaranteed vote to ban your vidja games.
He said video games aren't the most important thing in the world. Some people cant seem to understand thats not the same as wanting to censor them
But, also being a native Pennsylvanian, I'm really hoping Obama comes out on top here.
But Obama all the way.
yep... doesn't matter - the public loses.
It's just that some people decide that one set of lies told by a person is better than another set of lies told by a different person.
All depends on who's lies you choose to believe.
if you look at how negative the whole mess is, I see far more bile coming from obama's camp then clinton's.
Beyond that, people keep talking about how opportunistic, power hungry, dodgy, etc clinton is. of COURSE she is, she is running for president! All three candidates are pulling stuff like that.. the only difference is clinton is a woman and american's have an image of how powerful women should behave.. and it's not like powerful men (which is how she is basically acting).
Though for the record, I'm not a clinton supporter or even a democrat so this is coming from a bit of an ouside perspective.
I am guessing the republicans do not believe McCain will win. Otherwise they would not have used a rebate-based economic package like they just did. Such stimulus packages are generally designed to gain short term good will at the expense of whoever will be in office next april.
Game Politics. This is simply the political side of that. The vast majority of items we get here are game based without much of a hint of the political, seems only fair to have the adverse.
Besides who wins the next election could have a major impact on our games so it is best to keep advised as to the going-on's and that does belong here.
Did you get any at 3 AM?
Although I can't vote because I live in California, unfortunately though I turned 18 after the primary so I couldn't vote (although it makes my job easier since now come election I only have to research 2 candidates).
You copied that line from MAD magazine, didn't you?
Actually, lies. It's the way that the government works with the three branches and powers given to each branch to counter other branches (Executive can veto, Legislative creates spending limits, Judicial can smack down co-op actions of the Legislative and Executive, etc.).
Obama is running a campaign mainly on "Change." The change? To make some of the politics in Washington, D.C., fair so that the people are more accurately represented. How? Lobbyists. Now, in all fairness, a lot of stuff goes down in D.C. that would surprise you. In any other city, in any other occupation, it's pretty much taboo at the least. For Congressmen? It's business! Now, in that sense, and only considering that information, change sounds good, very good.
But the President can't change that.
Obama's idea of instating change is to become president so that he can change some of the ways that the Legislative branch works, which, quite frankly, isn't how it works. In order for Obama to change how Congress works in that area, he'd have to stay in congress and be a team player -- which he's against -- and change it from the inside. That means that he has to take money from lobbyists and companies (which, from his wording, I'd say that he already does (since he says that he's the only candidate that doesn't take money from OIL companies, leaving out every other type of company there is)), as well as party politics. Things that he opposes.
However, I find it odd that he's so proud of not taking money from companies. How many books does he have out? I think I remember reading that he's written 2 books... One dirty trick of companies paying their respects is to buy thousands of copies of books written by congressmen (Senators and Representatives alike), so the congressman gets money. However, it's not in a healthy donation to their campaign funds. It's straight to their own bank accounts.
We run into some other issues as well. Most congressmen who decide to run for president often face a single common problem: they have a record. Look at Obama: he's attacking Hillary because (and I'm paraphrasing here) "she sent troops to Iraq." Honestly, all that bill said was that, if diplomacy failed, military action could be taken, which was the only way Bush would let that pass (otherwise, he'd probably just send the troops in anyway). Also, they all like to play a little trick: they "passed a law." Passing a law doesn't mean that it went into effect. It could have been vetoed and then shot down during the second run of votes. It was still passed.
Unfortunately, something that I've been saying would happen has: many votes are coming down to either race or gender. Hey, here in Philly, Mayor Nutter is being criticized for supporting Hillary and not Obama. Quite frankly, no matter their race, if the deciding factor for voting for someone is their race, that's racism. Same goes for sexism in this case.
In my honest opinion, I'd rather have Hillary in office. Hey, she's not perfect, and she's using as many little tricks as Obama is (but she's not lying that she will change the way congress works). If Obama really does go through with his platform, and he does become president, things will be catastrophic. He needs experience, he needs to actually understand how things work in D.C. He can't force the Republicans to do anything, but he would have some leeway over the Democratic congressmen. If he says, "Alright, Democrats, vote however your people want you to," well, it'll be even more elitist, I can tell you that, and the Republicans will continue to stick together and have their way. Nothing will get done, and, overall, we'll have a very unproductive government in the works.
This presidential campaign is very unappealing to me. Not to long ago (well, when I was 10, but...), I was excited that this presidential election would be the first election I'd ever get to vote at. Hillary has experience, and knows how things work. I hate republicans (Philly is 85% registered Democrat, you know, or at least that's what my AP Government & Politics teacher says), so no McCain there. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I won't vote. Voting third-party is pretty much useless, and I won't give the Republicans another 4 years. I can't vote for Obama. He's pretty much running his entire campaign on one big, fat lie that people are rallying behind. It's not that I don't want to see a black president, or prefer to see a female president. It's not the party affiliation. It's just the lie that prevents me from wanting to vote for Obama. Granted, give me a few months and I might be saying, "Well, I sure don't want McCain in office, so I might as well vote Obama."
The guy's just lying to the American people, and doing pretty damn good, too. That's what's bugging me the most.
I really don't care what there stance are on videogames, I know Hilary and buddies Liberman ride with the JT nutjob so I have little faith in her... Barak... I can't tell, the dude is a shifty little bugger i know that. I can tell when I look at these people and he just looks like a freakin' rubicks cube... McCain looks like he couldn't care less, which is good and bad. He probably wouldn't bother videogames but wouldn't think to hard about not signing bans. And despite being Republican (and expected congress puppet) he actually looks like a decent person, the only one I would vote for if I had a gun to my head.
[little off tangent, but may be interesting for those with an open mind]
And for some reason the "Mabus" term from Nostradamus' prediction is ringing a bell...
While osaMABUSh works... so does obaMABUSH.
Bush started this "epic" war, and no matter what Obama will continue it. If he keeps the troops there, a lot of people are gonna die over there. We bring the troops back home, well guess where the war will move too... home as well. These people are not going to stop, they are commited to bringing this place down at any cost.
[/open minded thought over]
So all in all Obama will win presidency and America will continue the spiral into economic downfall (oh noes! The almighty dollar! :O), immigration continues to balloon (not just Mexico to blame), and crime will increase (thanks to gang members for your excellent contributions!), kinda like Russia at the end of the Cold War, only we'll have a fukkin war to deal with as well. :)
Just remember the next election (after this years) is 2012, another coincidence maybe? We'll see... :D
I'm thinking about voting for Buckethead, he would make for a fun president! :D
Peace :)
Why no edit? :(
Hillary will win the primary, with the same tactics she's using right now (plus maybe some of those good old fashioned 'making people disappear' tactics she borrowed from her husband). She'll go up against McCain, who enough democrats will vote for out of spite that McCain will win. This is the best way for things to go, really.
Hillary panders to stupid people. Seriously. That's all there is to it. She's got no leadership potential, knows nothing about the issues, and is a complete fucking communist (fairness doctrine).
Obama really isn't much better. He's all for signing on to certain UN agreements, including one in which we would send .8 percent of our GDP (It's either .8, .9, or .6) more to African nations in need (where they will promptly turn it into Ak47s and continue oppressing their own people). The other side of this agreement is that civilians are no longer allowed to own Pistols, Assault rifles, sniper rifles (by the way, many of our hunting rifles are classifiable as sniper rifles under this agreement) and any other destructive device. He'll sell us out to the UN, which has a long history of trying to screw us over, nevermind that we pay for the UN building. Part of the problem is that countries like Nigeria get an equal say to countries like England and the USA.
McCain is somewhat anti-gaming, as they all are, but not to the point where it will dominate his presidency. Actually, he'll probably drop it once he's in office. Remember, campaign promises aren't very accurate. Look at their overall record from before they started campaigning.
Moral of the story?
They all suck, but McCain sucks the least, followed by Obama, and Hitlery is by far the worst.
She knows nothing of the issues. What she says are the regurgitated words of the people who write her speaches. The only issues she knows a damn thing about are the ones that she wants to use to turn the USA into a communist nation.
By the way, its been proven that Hillary appeals more to lower-class people who are, for the most part, without college and highschool diplomas. Why? Because her policies are pro-communism, and anyone who knows anything about history could draw some clear parallels between what she says and what other communists have said.
Hillary is one of the biggest liars of all time. On many policies (medicare and medicaid, for example) the only thing she has to say is what has been written for her. Now, when it comes to things like her Fairness Doctrine, she can speak for 2 hours from the heart (because she shouldn't have to pay a cent of tax on her and her husband's 10 million dollars a year, but the people who do REAL work to earn 250 thousand a year should have to pay 52 percent tax, right?) about how it'll be better for the 'country' (ie her constituents). If you want to find a bigger hypocrite than Hillary, you'll be hard pressed.
For the record Kanders, I never claimed Obama was intelligent either.
By the way, before you try and talk down to me, I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and go meet the candidates. The only reason Hitlery can give a two hour speech on anything is because she's been prepped for all the 'issues' that people ask her about on TV.
Well this poll goes to show that the majority of the voters who participated don't pay attention to the current events which has shown Hillary was likely to win in Pennsylvania.
It appears more people voted what they wished would happen instead of what was likely.
You're right. Hillary is an idiot. She was the first woman partner at her law firm because she was stupid. She was the first student to deliver the commencement address at Wellsely because she was banging her professors and not because she was extraordinarily bright. Your claims that she only knows the issues because she has advisors is just idiotic. Your claims that Obama, the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, is not bright is also pretty stupid on it's face. Basically you are a dumbass.
Well jackass, let me explain something to you.
Being the first blank to do something isn't an achievement. It doesn't make you better than the people who did it before.
The first woman to go to West Point? Worthless as a soldier and leader. Wasted a slot, and was hated by faculty and cadre alike. She was there just so she could claim to be the first.
Unlike most partners, she rarely litigated at her law firm. You see, she was what lawyers call a rainmaker; someone who has a name that brings in cases. THAT is why she was made a full partner, not because she's a great lawyer.
The college is spelt Wellesley by the way, and the only reason she got to give the speech was because the 400 graduates demanded she be able to give it to comment on the Senator's actions of late.
Giving a commencement speech doesn't make you intelligent; it means you have charisma. Big fucking deal.
Obama wasn't the first black editor, he was the first black president. But I do appreciate your ability to talk with half truths and poor opinions. Come back when your short response doesn't contain glaring grammatical errors and stupidity.
You, sir, are a dumbass the likes of which I haven't encountered in the last five years.
In fact the system that's broken is the election process itself, and with congressmen, once they get into office, the lobbyists take hold! Although, that wouldn't be a problem if American politicians were amoung one of the least paid politicians world-wide.
Maybe our founding fathers would be pissed, considering that out constitution was supposed to be a temporary system to last 20 years at the most. Maybe they'd be amazed at that fact. Also, considering that, historically, it's the shortest AND longest-lasting constitution in the world, I'd figure that they would be at least a little bit amazed.
... Also, on a side-note, if insanity is pleaded, it must be proved. Pleading guilty, on the other hand, just reduces your sentance.
To begin with, pleading guilty doesn't reduce jack-shit unless you plea bargain. Plea-bargainning cuts down on the time spent in court. Say I murdered someone, and they know it. We could go to court for a year and a half, or I could go from premeditated murder to something like manslaughter (with time served), and they don't have to worry about me winning, and I don't have to worry about spending life in prison.
In summation, pleading guilty doesn't reduce your sentence on its own.
You can bribe a jury, it's actually done fairly often. You can also have an effect on the selection of a jury, which is the most amazingly clever way of assuring the outcome you want.
Being a lawyer is about litigation. Except in Hillary's case, it was more about how much money she could bring in for her firm. SHE WAS A RAINMAKER.
As to insanity, it is amazingly easy to find someone with a degree in Psychology, Psychiatry, or something akin, to say 'oh yeah, that dude is batshit nuts. If you look at DSM-IV-TR, it says he suffers (name obscure 'disease' here)'.
@Austin Lewis: No self-respecting communist would ever support Hillary. The programs she supports aren't socialism. They're insurance scams PRETENDING to be socialism that will do little to actually help the working class and will do all the more to buffer up interests of the entrenched insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
I believe it, having looked at them.
A lot of the things democrats have been pushing are things that pretend to help the needy, and just help their lobbyists and personal interests.
... You really don't know how the judicial system works... Normally, I'd say that I'd hate to see you in court, but it'd be too damn funny to see you trying to bribe the jury.
As for Psychology... Well, I'll just leave it at that you will be advised NOT to plead insanity, as well as go into psychology (although it would enlighten you on actual psychology, nonetheless).
Actually asshat, I'm a criminologist. You talk about things that you don't understand or that you saw on TV (PROTIP: TV IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION). Law and order doesn't make you an expert on the criminal justice system.
Juries are easily bribed (even when sequestered). Pleading Guilty doesn't help you at all unless you plea-bargain. Many of the things you said were, in fact, wrong.
You, like Kanders, ought to pull your head out of your ass. If you think you know more about the judicial system, you're sadly mistaken.