@jadedcritic

Voting for a third party, or a non-silly write in is probably a better protest than not voting or voting for something silly.

@Shadowfox

Lies, or empty promises? Because there is a difference.

Anyone else bothered by the fact that all three canidates at the moment are Washington insiders, senators no less, and senators have a very sketchy record in the white house (at lest from a modern perspective)

Hillary needs a big win in PA to make herself seem a serious contender, and it looks like she's not getting that big win. Hillary wins the battle, but odds are Barack wins the war.

I'm importing my games from Europe if Hillary wins. The censorship she will bring will be worse then the comics code authority from the 50s. :'(

Please Obama please win!

Since when have lawyers been intelligent?! (JT ring a bell?!)
Cause they were lawyers, they equal awesome? Dear Lord…

I didn’t think it was that hard to claim “insanity” for you guilty ass client is it really? The law is not a challenge to work in because it’s FUCKING BROKEN! You can do whatever you want! It’s a game of who the better BSer is, who can find the most loopholes, who can bribe the most people… it really is a big fucking joke.

Oh man… America is in deep shit… the founding fathers would be pissed. Hahaha!

And Austin +1 lol

Probably Clinton

C v O v M

Who ever wins we lose.

Don't know. I hope Barak wins, because I can't vote for Billary or McCain. If he doesn't carry the democratic nomination I'm gonna have to either not vote or vote for some ridiculous write-in candidate.

PA is, district-wise, mostly Rebuplican due to its many suburban and country areas. In that sense, I think that Clinton has a good chance of winning. However, with Obama's political nonsense that he spouts at every rally, he's attracting quite a crowd, and I wouldn't be very surprised if he won. I admit, change is a very appealing platform, but he's campaigning on lies... That work, nonetheless. That's politics for you.

If you have the recording of bill's message, you shoul post it. That would be awesome to hear.

From what I have heard, I don't think they both would not be any good for the Videogame Industry.

Sure I may be an Australian and I would perfer Obama over Clinton anyway since Obama's views on Videogames are only just his opinions.

Clinton's opinions are so extreme that she wants to turn them into law.

So I would ask you Americans to do what you can to chose Obama for your Democrat Candidate, but think verry carefully when you decide either Republican or Democrat as it is that the Anti-gamers can be from one or the other depending where you guys live.

Thanks, Canary from the UK, for asking so nicely. Barack Obama will become our 44th President, evicting Bush from the White House and ending our long national nightmare.

Hillary Clinton will win Pennsylvania (ugh!), though not by much. Considering she was leading Obama by 16 points only a few weeks ago, he's done an excellent job tightening up this race, despite her very negative and destructive campaign.

I'm not sure how much it actually matters at this point.

After months of bickering too many people from either camp won't vote for the other now. Obama supporters have become as acidic to Clinton has the republicans at this point.... and many Clinton supporters are just giving up on the party.

The democrats are probably too fractured and self-destructive now. Republicans will probably get the whitehouse now.

Clinton will "win" Pennsylvania, but not by a large enough margin to overtake Obama in the delegates count. It'll come down to a knife-fight at the Democratic Convention this summer.

@ the 1 jeffy,

You're right: not voting does protest anything (although, I made a pretty logical argument for non-voting earlier this year; it was pretty convicing). Vote 3rd party.

Actually, I'll probably go with Alan Keyes in the final election; he's the one I should have voted for last time, regardless of his chances. His values line up closest with mine, and he hasn't said anything against games yet.

Games aren't the only thing that matters to me; I'm obviously not voting for some scumbag, no matter how much they claim to support games.

If push comes to shove, I'll vote for myself, just to show I don't support any major candidate.

wow, I thought GP users were savvy. Looking at the poll, the majority are dumbasses. The Q isn't who do you want to win, it's who is going to win.

I hate to say it, but I have a strong feeling that Hillary is going to win...

I'm not a US resident, but my money is riding on Obama, he seems to have the crest of the wave at the moment.

And take it from a UK Resident, female leaders are nothing special, the last one we had was more of an authoritarian control freak than anything else. Though, in all fairness, that was more down to the person than the gender, but I don't see Hilary being a million miles from Thatcher in that respect either.

Unfortunately as this whole process drags on it further's McCain's cause. Mark my words, when someone is FINALLY decided as the Democratic candidate for President, McCain and the Republican party will harp on the fact it took soooo long to finally decide on who's going to run against him and if it takes that long to make such a decision how effective will they be in the White House? Ugh, you know it's coming and it sucks.

Politics FTL.

Hillary

I don't care who wins as long as they remember to visit Canada first. None of this "break tradition and go to Mexico" stuff!

Hillary will win. Obama has huge crowds to be sure. But Hillary has an older population that will not necessarily turnout at an event. I don't know that her margin will be huge. I think it may run tight, similarly to Texas.

I do hope that Obama will win, but I somehow doubt he will in Pennsylvania. With the recent controversies regarding his speach about how Pennsylvanians turn to "God and guns" and media accusations that he's an elitist, and the fact that Clinton has been hammering away at those controversies, I don't think he will. I don't think Clinton will beat him by a large margin, though, and a big victory is what she will need in order to get the nomination as Democratic nominee.

@TheEdge

That's what I'm betting.

Gauling as it might sound I think Jon Kanders and Schadenfreude are correct (though the presentatoin was questionable). The poll was Who will win in PA. Not who do you want to win. The general concesus seems to be that that Hiterlery will win. Pity. Still, it seems unlikely (to the put of "who are you trying to kid?) that she will win with enough of a margin to do her any good.

@ Conejo

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

I still think Stephen Colbert should have been able to run...
But Obama all the way.

@hudson922...

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.

@Kajex

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.

@ J C

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.

"And phone calls…"

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).

@ Gray17

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.

YAY! I DID A FROWNY FACE! :)

*decent human being = decent person

Why no edit? :(

@Jon

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,Hillary won.Great for her.I was right!

@Jon kanders
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.

@Shadowfox

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)'.

@ Ravenhawk
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.

@Shadowfax.

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.