Vote 2008. Presidential Race

I didn't participate in the Iowa Caucuses. The man I wanted didn't run apparently here and will be focused on the New Hampshire primaries.

Just curious who do you want to see win the 2008 Presidential vote, come November.

I think they're all pretty much bores and douches. At least the front runners.


Now let me just say a couple of things...

I don't buy into the ******** that if you don't vote, you don't have a right to talk. I understand that there's a lot of confusion. Not everyone knows where to go to vote, not everyone has the time, and not everyone knows who to vote for so they chose not to vote.

I think that's a good idea. If I don't follow the issues, then it's better for me not to vote. I'd much rather have a country of 100,000 brilliant people who've done their research and thought about the issues to vote than 100,000,000 mindless drones in our country voting based on what moronic celebrity, i.e. Oprah or Chuck Norris is backing them. BS.

If you're too busy to follow the issues, don't understand politics, and such then I have more respect for you as a person if you don't vote. I don't buy into the whole stupidity of not voting = a bad citizen.

That said...

I don't much care for...

Obama... he seems very impersonal. I dislike his way of speaking and the way he presents himself. THere's something about him I don't trust and I don't think he has the forcefulness or even grace to be president. I know those two terms contradict each other but a president needs both, at the appropriate time. I also think he's banking on the youth vote, who wants to see a black president or something different, new, and fresh after GW.

Hillary Clinton... I don't think we need another Clinton or another Bush in office.

John Edwards... I looked at some of his old lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Silly malpractice suits. Sure some may have justification but we wonder why health care and health costs are such a big issue. People like Edwards contribute to this. I also dislike how he's beated the drum of his wife's cancer throughout the campaign.

As for the republicans, I haven't followed them as closely.

I do know I would not want Mike Huckabee at all. He seems to be a religious fanatic to me. He's very conservative and almost reactionary. I think he's a great speaker and a very intelligent person, but he's misguided. I don't want someone like him who would not put an end to the Iraq war and would use religion as a basis of his decisions in the office.


That said the person I support has no chance of becoming president... Mike Gravel.

I've listened to him talk... not in person of course, but over the internet and he seems to be sincere and very liberal. A true liberal that uses common sense and tries to think of the good of Americans, but also remembers that we do have a place to keep in an ever "flatening world." YEt he stills respects some isolationist views and knows we have to stick out for our own as well. He's for an immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq. Full gay marriage rights, health care vouchers (I'm already uneasy about universal health care) and the elimination of the income tax. That I'm not quite sure about.

But based on the person and their stances, he's the one that I seem to fit and mold best with. He's down to earth, has common sense, and doens't seem to play politcal games because he speaks his mind and isn't wishy washy like a Obama or Clinton.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, except this: Not everyone knows where to go to vote........???? If you do not think your right to vote is a privilege given to you by sacrifice and if you are too fi'ng lazy to find out where to do so or too busy to care then you do not deserve the right to vote. Go to a country where tyrants and dictators run the show. I do not care if you vote or not, but if you want to and you do not because you are too ****kkkkkking stupid to find out where to do it then you need to go somewhere else. Good lord. Sorry if this sounds a bit rough, but get real, would you rather not even have the option?

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Think about all the young people out there. Lord knows are schools don't always tell them this information. Also people have other things going on in their life. I know that if it wasn't for my government class in high school I would have had no idea how to register to vote and anything about the process back in 2000. Many aren't even aware of the absentee ballot.

And no it doesn't sound rough, it sounds ignorant and naive. Not everyone is educated on these things like you or I and has the iniative. But I do think you agree with me that people who aren't willing to do their homework, should not vote. However I'm not going to call them bad people because they don't find that information out. Each person has their own stresses and responsibilities.

If I had the energy or the philosophic chutzpah, I would totally want to get into an interesting discussion about elitism, responsible citizenry, the health of democracy, republicanism, and populism--but I am wiped.

Obama won't hold the youth vote--he won't lose it, but he won't hold it. Youth don't vote. If the recent caucus in Iowa is any indication (and the last congressional election) voting is up, but not among the youth.

Edwards is running on class warfare, and he's unelectable. The economy will be a big issue, but I don't think when put under scrutiny, that populism resonates as well with voters as it does with the left.

HRC is not in a good spot right now. The chatter of her crashing and burning has a lot of truth to it. She's been the front runner for the Democrats since, what, 2005? She's losing her inevitability though. She loses points when she attacks her opponent on experience, and whines everytime she thinks she's being treated unfairly (Reality Check: She was the front runner. She's raised the most money in this race <<I am pretty certain>>> She's not the underdog). I think she was sincerely crying today. Okay. I mean, she can't fake much. Remember the accent? Remember that cackle?
She's going to lose in New Hampshire tomorrow--no she isn't going to come behind Richardson, but she is going to lose by not winning. Obama pulled away a lot of Hillary voters after his large victory in Iowa.

The Republican race is much, much more interesting.

A Huckabee nomination would effectively dissolve the Reagan Coalition. In my more depressed moments I think it would ruin the GOP; in my more optimistic moments I think that a Huckabee nomination would only just prevent a Goldwater conservative from winning anything for a very long time.

A McCain nomination has a similar, though not as bad, adverse affect. McCain is the most experienced candidate in both fields, and pretty electable. However, as President he would be the leader of the Republican party and he's broken line with so many top Republicans and so much of the GOP base that I do not think that in a time of policy crisis that he could effectively unite his party together.

Take note though: The problems most conservatives have with Huckabee are ideological: he's basically a socially conservative populist--brilliant politician though, and that's the scary thing. While the problems most conservatives have with McCain have to do with poor policy choices--for example, campaign finance reform makes my blood boil.

Thompson suffered from too much media hype. He is a principled conservative, but he didn't fit people's expectations. In a fluid, wide open field he was perceived as being slow and it's sometimes as if he doesn't even want to be President.

Romney needs to win tomorrrow. I don't think he will. He had a hard time defending himself last Saturday, but according to focus groups did much better on Sunday. He didn't even come close to touching Huckabee in Iowa, and he needs New Hampshire to gain momentum (the Big Mo'.) However, remember this: 61% of Iowan republicans go to church on Sunday, compared to 30% nationwide. Iowan Republicans are traditionally more evengelical, and the evangelical turn out last Thursday was phenomenal--I forget the number, but it was something crazy.

Mostly what this points to is a Republican race that could last longer than normal.

Oh, and...Giuliani who? Now, I know he's focusing on big wins on Super Tuesday, but losing to Ron Paul tomorrow would be bad voodoo (Giuliani's at +8 something and Paul is at +7.)

But we'll see. The field is wide open, four viable candidates with serious scenarios for winning the nomination, and so the nomination is up for grabs.

__________________
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
T.S Eliot, "Preludes"

Your sample ballot and general election information are always mailed to the home with the address you registered at, but if you have moved or are a student who has changed locations, it can be difficult. However, if you bothered to register in the first place, you're probably aware of this; if you never did, you can't vote, so I guess it doesn't matter.

As far as Iowa and New Hampshire go, I don't recall them ever being that flippin' important, but if someone wants to produce some historic info, I'll change my tune.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

It has to do with momentum and perception. If something is perceived as being important enough, it can be. Punditry bemoans the "front runner" effect of Iowa and New Hampshire as much as it creates it. They do matter, not as much as they think they matter, but as much as they are perceived to matter.

Historically, no, the winners in New Hampshire and Iowa haven't been that significant (didn't Robertson win Iowa in 88 or 92?), but they do change the dynamics of the race.

Iowa made Huckabee a legitimate threat. Romney losing by 9 points to Huckabee does matter in as much as it hurts Romney a lot, changing the dynamics of the race.

Hillary taking third does matter. How she responded, how voters in NH quickly switched to Obama--it all affects the race (not necessarily causes effects.)

Excellent thread. I was gonna start one with this exact same topic yesterday.

I had a lot of fun watching the debates on Saturday, especially the Republican one (the Dem. one was pretty much Edwards and Obama being all buddy-buddy and teaming up on Hillary). I gotta learn a lot more about the candidates and now have very definitive opinions of each of them.

I can't believe how much of a douche bag Thompson was being (I think this was the first Rep. debate I saw with him in it) and ALT is absolutely right about him seeming at times as if he doesn't even want to be president. He spent more time taking potshots than making comments of substance.

I kind of felt bad for Ron Paul (does he remind anyone else of Kucinich?). Everybody else on that stage united together to make him look like a complete fool. Which sucks when the whole country is watching and expecting to learn more about the candidates and where they stand on the issues. That being said I don't agree with Ron Paul on much other than we need to pull out of Iraq.

McCain, I like. He's always been one of the better Republicans in my opinion, but he wasn't on his A-game Saturday night. He seemed pretty comfortable sitting there and letting everybody do their thing. He probably should've kept his head in the game because Romney caught him off-guard and tore him up. Neither of them looked good during that little tussle.

I didn't know much about Mitt so it was interesting watching him. He, like Thompson, was content with being an a-hole for the duration of the debate. Jumping on McCain's back when it came to immigration policies, talking down to Ron Paul, trash talking the Democrats, and hogging the mike. And when he wasn't praising Bush he was scaring me half to death with his thoughts on the military. One thing I gotta give him props for is he's got the hottest wife of the bunch.

Huckabee did a really good job, he was very articulate, very civil (compared to the others), and he probably came out looking the best that night. I was so happy to see him put his foot down and at least attempt to shut up Romney when he started going on about his position(s) on the surge. I looked up where he stands on the issues and even though I don't agree with a lot of what he thinks, I'd much rather see him in office than all the others, except McCain.

And as far as Giuliani goes... goodness. God help us all if he becomes president.

Didn't both states smash Howard Dean four years ago ?

Like I said, Howard Who? I thought his performances in a debate or two fried his hash.

I realize I might be very wrong here, but it seems to me, more and more, that people in this country are becoming lemmings, that they are just going to follow what the others around them are doing, and not think for themselves. Its just far too evident to me in the massive swing in the polls on the Democratic side. All those people didn't suddenly realize "hey, Obama is the guy for me". They didn't know who they wanted to vote for, but the media made such a huge deal out of his win in Iowa, that those people just sort of shrugged their shoulders and said "hey, why not Obama, he won there... I don't really know if I completely agree with him, but he must be the one to vote for!"

I'm being simplistic with all that, but I really do think a lot of what happens at this point is as much a case of what others appear to be doing/what the media says, as people actually thinking for themselves and deciding who they would personally like to see president.

Here's how I personally see some of the candidates, keeping in mind that I'm a bit more democratic leaning, but not in everything;

Edwards - just a bit too "slick" feeling for the general public, while he has some good ideas, he mainly feels like someone who wants to be president not because of the good he could do for the country, but for what the office could do for him (loosely paraphrasing a famous line by a past pres.)

Obama - While I would like to see someone like him win, someone who really does seem to want to make a difference, make things in DC different, he is not the right person. He honestly doesn't have the right kind of experience in my mind to not get overwhelmed by the lunacy in Washington right now. If he became president, I think he would end up being eaten up by the politics, become highly ineffective, and yet stick to his guns that things should change in specific ways "NOW", as his message went down in flames. The general population may say they want changes, but the government in Washington isn't quite as ready, and they will fight him every step of the way, and he would be out of there in 4 years. The one thing I have never really heard from him is just how he intends to make all these big changes he wants. He is big on words, but I don't see him being able to back those words up.

Clinton - In many ways, I see her as being just about as slick as Edwards, but for one big difference. While she does like, and want the limelight of being president, I think she also seriously wants to change the way things are done at the federal level. She wants to make changes, like Obama, but has been a part of the Washington culture long enough to know that things don't change that fast there, so she tempers her message. She knows how "the game" is played, and is willing to play that game to get the things done as president that she sees as important. The problem is, I can also see how I could be completely wrong about her, and find out that all she wants is the presidency, not because she wants to do anything to help the country, but just because. She may be just so slick, that I'm reading her totally wrong.

Huckabee - He certainly adds an interesting dimension to the race, but I'm always very concerned when a VERY religious person, of any creed, seeks the presidency. I am a huge proponent of the separation of church and state, and highly religious people in a secular position, especially the presidency, and especially if that person feels that their religion should be reflected in the laws and such at the federal level, is of major concern to me. I'm not sure just how much his religion would impact his decisions as president, but my first guess would be... quite a bit.

McCain - If I was more in tune with his politics across the board, I could actually see myself considering voting for him. He has the right experience, has some good ideas, and just has that presidential type of feel around him. One big thing against him though in my mind - his age. I don't have issues with older people in general, heck, my parents are 74 and 75, and I know a number of people over the age of 65, and while they are great people, with impressive life experiences, they are also, well... physically old, and prone to the issues of aging. I see what being president does to people physically, and I can't see how he could survive it really, especially a second term.

Romney - I honestly don't know as much about him as I'd like, to get a better feel for how he would be as a president. All I can say is that I don't think I'd be voting for him, as what I have heard sounds fairly conservative, and "republican", and that's not for me. If he ended up being the Republican nominee, I'd have to pay far more attention to his ideas before making a final decision though.

Thompson - Thompson just really doesn't belong as president. We have had actors become president before, but I have to say, I was never a fan of Reagan. Even though I was only in my teens while he was president, I can still remember never being happy with the way things were run by him. At least he had charisma to an extent, he was able to be effective in his own way by sheer force of will. I just don't see that in Thompson. Besides, I just don't see him as having the right kind of experience to handle the job of president either.

Guliani - Having lived within a few hours drive of NYC all my life, I have heard plenty about Rudy, and when I say plenty, I mean that I would be happy if I didn't hear another word. He is the only candidate that, if he became president, would make me expressly very, very concerned for the future of our country.


...and after all that.. I'll be damned if I'm gonna proofread.. if there are mistakes.. live with it... mwahahahaha!!

__________________
The Divide by Zero Foundation - Where the real world ends... and mine begins

His ideas, put into action, would certainly shake the establishment to the core. I would vote for him in an instant but I have no delusions that he's a viable candidate (for the aforementioned reason). I like his foreign policy, his stand on taxes and the IRS, his stance on border security and pretty much everything else the man says. IMNSHO Dr. Paul is the best candidate to set America right again.

It was a good debate. The "what if Obama is the nominee" question was stupid though, and a total waste of time.

Did we watch the same debate?

Thompson was "even-keeled" (to borrow from Thomas Sowell's column) in comparison to McCain, and I thought he did well last Saturday night. He had a few one-liners, but if you've been watching the debates, then you understand that they all exchange barbs (The best came from Giuliani to Thompson on how he did the job Thompson played on television). It's politics.

I felt a little sorry for Ron Paul too (though not so much today after the stuff coming from TNR), but when he starts going on about the monetary system...
And listen, the debates are supposed to allow candidates to differentiate themselves from one another--Paul represents the old, isolationist, paleo-con wing of the Right, and a major bloc of Republican voters, the National Security wing, want to see candidates with (in their view) steady "peace through strength" style foreign policy.

McCain was not at his best (though it obviously didn't hurt him, more on the NH results below). His contentious temperment is well-known. I think he avoided the amnesty issue when Romney brought it up by lashing out at Romney.

Romney was the target, and he didn't do the best job defending himself. There's real animosity between him and McCain. He could have used the amnesty moment to make a clear picture of his position, but instead he responded to McCain. He even came off as a bit of a whiner. Still, he was put on the spot the most last Saturday.

Huckabee didn't do very well at all. He was evasive and not nearly as articulate as he usually is. I do not think he is the best pick, but he's the most natural politician in the Republican field.

Dean smashed Dean.

Four years ago, right? I thought it was his performance at a few rallies...

Well, now he's chairman of the DNC, and he still says stupid stuff. Last Thursday after the Iowa results came in, he was being interviewed on CNN and he derided Mike Huckabee's win, said he was only the governor of some insignificant state (Arkansas). Of course, Bill Clinton came out of Arkansas. Not only that, but both governors were born in the some town, Hope.

I don't think people switched from Hillary to Obama because the media hype around his win in Iowa--I think that Hillary is losing her inevitability. She only won by 3% in NH, hardly a victory, and it was, as they say, touch and go there for a minute. This is a weird twist on populist thinking that discounts American voting minds to some extent. People base their voting decisions on some weird stuff, some of it they pick up from the media, but I think it's a little cynical (and even paranoid) to say the media is pulling all the strings here and telling people who to vote for. Yesterday, there was a lot of dancing around (on both sides) in the blogosphere and pundit class that Hillary could be finished. Obviously she's not dead yet (mostly dead, Miracle Max might say.)


Edwards was a trial lawyer. Of course he's slick. This has always stuck with me. Listen, I don't agree with his policies, but this comes from Bob Shrum via Powerline:

I would agree with most of that. He's Jimmy Carter without the experience. He's all rhetoric, and doesn't have the inside knowledge to accomplish what he wants.

No, you're not wrong. But listen, she may know the game, but she didn't really play it until her Senate career. As First Lady she didn't hold top security clearance, she didn't sit in on meetings, and the health care reform that makes up such a big part of resume didn't go through.

I think that's a misinterpretation of what separation of church and state should mean. I think it's perfectly acceptable for somebody of deep faith to be president. I think that it is alright that they allow this deep faith to inform their views. Romney's "Religion" speech illustrated the balance needed perfectly I think.

I do not think it appropriate for a President to use his office to "Take this nation back for Christ" as Huckabee has said is his purpose in politics. I am also concerned that he attributes his rise in Iowa to "the same power that turned two loaves of bread and five fish into enough to feed five thousand."

Interesting. McCain still has a lot of fight in him, and he looks young. I think that in a possible McCain/Obama match-up, McCain wins because of his experience.

I have to disagree about Reagan, and about Thompson to a certain extent. I don't think he's the most experienced, but he isn't just a former actor. He was a lawyer in D.C during the Nixon administration, and he served six years as a Senator. Personally, I think he's less of an executive and more of an advisor.

I think it's an odd turn of events when Ron Paul, whose only real "sin" with the GOP base is his isolationism, is tossed out in the cold over Mike Huckabee who is only a strong conservative on the social issues (the man wants a National Smoking Ban! We all know what Barry Goldwater would have said to that...) BeAuH2o's son, Barry Jr., BTW is supporting Paul, but I think that Goldwater would have strongly disagreed with Paul on foreign policy.

More later.

First off, I'm very glad to have my thoughts that people were just being lemmings proven at least somewhat wrong...

However, you say she "only" won by 3% and that makes it hardly a victory. I think you are wrong there. The fact that she won at all makes it a big victory, especially after all the crap with the polls after Iowa, and so many people, including, and especially a pretty large portion of the media saying that her ship is sinking, or whatever term you want to use.
I do have to make something clear here.. I never said the media is pulling all the strings in the election. They are a major influence, yes, but I don't see them as some sort of shadow conspiracy or something. If someone were to say to me that the influence the media has is negligible, I would strongly disagree.
I normally don't take too kindly to jabs at me, especially when they are coming from an argument that is twisting what I said, attempting to make my comments appear to be something they aren't... but then again... maybe I am somewhat cynical about the election process that we use in this country, and how backwards it is nowadays (most specifically about how the absolute popular vote really doesn't mean anything), and it filters over to all parts of the elections...


If you think she wasn't a major role player in what was done and not done in a lot of things while her husband was president, and that she just sat on the sidelines, I think you are being a bit naive, and so what if the health care reform didn't go through... Do you think that everything she went through in trying to get that pushed through doesn't count as real world DC politics experience? Just because something you do isn't successful, doesn't mean you come away with no experience from doing that thing.


I'm not going to get into the separation of church and state discussion all over again. That happened once before with me in this forum, and it just didn't go in very good directions (mostly because things got off topic, but still, I have no desire to start it up again). I would like to say though, that I do feel that someone being vocal about how their religion, or whatever aspects thereof, play an important part in how they would run this country as president, is creating a link between church and state that shouldn't be allowed.

Hello

You went and grew up on us didn't you? Your posts in this thread are impressive, kudos to you!

Yeah, I do hate seeing Dr. Paul getting so little traction in the media. For my own personal belief system he's the guy and he'll be getting my vote. I would think that some conservative fatcats are less than enthused with his ideas RE: reverting to the gold standard and shutting down the IRS. Not a real 'sin' to them but it would actually make them practice what they preach.

Only thing I wanted to get across here was if a person wants to vote and just does not because they do not know how then they are more lazy, than ignorant. It just seems that the division in the country is almost 50/50 on a lot of issues so votes count more than ever in recent history. If anyone of you out there really wants to vote then do it, if you do not want to vote then don't. I just wish more people would understand the wonderful rights we have as Americans and how lucky we are.

I think this exlains my view of the religious persons role in government (italics mine):

i have a pretty standard knowledge of the current race so forgive if there are gaping potholes in my judgements

Clinton - started out so solidly but has somehow slipped and i think will continue to. Her 'victory' in NH is meaningless and shes not coming on strong enough in tough areas. However she is a game player, shes had an inside look at the process and she's no fool. But i don't think she'll win the vote. Plus i cant look at her without seeing Emma Thompson.

Barack Obama - I like the look of his immigration policies, not much to say about him at this point

John Edwards - slick isnt the word - slippery. I heard talk about how much Edwards earns and how it conflict with his ability to relate to 'real' people. So what if he's rich - he's not going be supplying the country's budget so it what does it matter? That said I agree with a lot of his views but only on paper - vigorous promises like his tend to fall through the hardest


Give this a try - see if your political views actually match up with your chosen candidate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...candidatequiz/

__________________

Undercoverlovers 100 REDUX

Hey ALT all those quotes in your last post weren't mine. Just wanted to let you know. But I totally agree with you about Clinton and Obama.

Ackk, you're right. I apologize for the misquote to both parties involved.

Do any of you buy into what some news stories are saying about Hillary faking that mini-breakdown on the eve of the New Hampshire primary?

Here's a link for those who haven't seen it:


I personally don't have a conclusive opinion about that. It might've helped score her some more of the female vote (she got 47% or something like that right?) but I honestly doubt she'd stoop that low and she seems very genuine during it.

Strike that non-conclusive bit actually. I think she was being real.

And I got my voter info in the mail today!