Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

*NOTE: Politics, especially US politics can be heated. Please remember the dakka rules before posting. Flame wars and baiting will not be tolerated*

Any predictions for the US presidential elections?

As an outsider I'm suprised that Guliani is not the front runner for republicans. Sure he's a moderate (centerist) republican but he's the only one who can hold up a definite record of actually doing things that have helped/ made something better rather than being a vague and mysterious politician.
Also he would have good cross over appeal to democrats who know that as a moderate he won't be lumping US policy to the right.

Which is why he's struggling with the christian conservatives. They want policy to stay to the right.

But given a vote between Guliani and Hillary I'm sure they'll pick the guliani.


Hillary vs Edwards vs Obama.

I think barring a debacle of epic proportions it will end up being an Obama vs Hillary race for nomination. Which is why Edwards should cut his losses and join one of the other 2 as VP candidate. the votes he drags with him should get the one he joins with over the line decisively.

Hillary will struggle if she wins as people love her or hate her and she won't drag too many republican votes across.

Obama is the wildcard. Noone knows what he stands for, he doesn't give detailed policy directions and works crowds fantastically. Kevin rudd won the Australian parliamentary elections this year doing exactly the same thing. He has the ablty to drag a wide cross section of voters to him. However what would be assumed to be his base (african americans) mostly vote democrat anyway.

You have to understand the primaries to see why Giuliani
isn't leading in the Republicans. They're not simultaneous,
so State primaries that occur earlier have a much more
profound effect on the campaign than primaries later in
the election. Who are our first primaries? Iowa and New
Hampshire. Who's probably not going to do well in Iowa
anyway? Giuliani.

For the rest of the political discussion, I turn this over to
Ravening Hordes.

Guliani is leading in all the national polls, he just did not win the Iowa caucus, but then he was not trying to win it either. It is complicated and a pain, but the Iowa and New Hampshire Caucasus's are polls people pay to be a part of and have no bearing often on the final presidential election. Guliani is going for a Super Tuesday win in states that have lots more delegates.

I agree with your assessment of the situation Guliani is in. Centrist that will be attacked by the Religious Right. Huckabee is a one trick pony that I don't think will make it through national elections, not enough broad support.

I don't think Obama is that much of a wild card. He is fairly young but his stance is fairly clear. I'd rather he get the Democratic nomination then Clinton. Edwards won't get a presidential nod; always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

If nothing I think we'd look like a(n even bigger) nation of idiots if we elect Clinton so that our history books show Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. How boring is that? Might as well make a House of Lords and let some families elect the President every four years from within their ranks.

I haven't paid much attention to the Republican canadites as religion seems to be a huge topic that keeps surfacing among them and right now I think we could do with a little less religion in politics (Whole nother thread, obviously).

As far as the Democrats go though, Clinton just scares me. Who wants a President that can't even say what her favorite baseball team is because she's so scared of offending someone? Edwards just doesn't seem strong to me and will probably get run out on Super Tuesday. Obama is where my money is. Someone a little younger and without a long list of political ties and obligations. It would be nice though to have a military veteran in the white house for once so that maybe these fat cat politicians won't be so gung ho to send our boys and girls to the front lines (again, another thread).

HOWEVER! Overiding all of this is the fact that Huckabee had Chuck Norris standing behind him at the Iowa Primary. Ladies and Gentlemen, this simply means that whoever dares oppose Huckabee will recieve a pimp slap to the neck fat. CHUCK NORRIS FOR VP!

I vote in the New York Primary, by which point these things are normally decided. This year it might be close though.

Obama is a really great speaker. I liked Hillary more going in, but he's really starting to win me over. Honestly, I think either of them could win in November and both would be great Presidents. I'm still undecided at the moment, but increasingly leaning towards Obama. Obama at least has a chance to rise above the fray a bit, whereas Hillary might be as divisive as GWB.

Edwards has been really playing the class-warfare card a lot and hasn't really impressed me this time out. I voted for him in the 2004 primary, but not this time.

On the Republican side McCain is the only candidate I could see myself supporting. He's honest and he knows his stuff - even if I disagree with him on most policy issues. Giuliani's personal life makes Bill Clinton look like a nun and I don't want those distractions when he's trying to do the job. Romney comes across as a bit two-faced and I'm a social liberal so Huckabee is pretty much diametrically opposed. I don't see Thompson being able to win.

I'm hoping an Obama-McCain match-up would be a nice change from previous elections. They both seem like decent people, so hopefully there would be less of the Swiftboating this time out.

Stormtrooper X wrote:I haven't paid much attention to the Republican canadites as religion seems to be a huge topic that keeps surfacing among them and right now I think we could do with a little less religion in politics (Whole nother thread, obviously).

As far as the Democrats go though, Clinton just scares me. Who wants a President that can't even say what her favorite baseball team is because she's so scared of offending someone? Edwards just doesn't seem strong to me and will probably get run out on Super Tuesday. Obama is where my money is. Someone a little younger and without a long list of political ties and obligations. It would be nice though to have a military veteran in the white house for once so that maybe these fat cat politicians won't be so gung ho to send our boys and girls to the front lines (again, another thread).

HOWEVER! Overiding all of this is the fact that Huckabee had Chuck Norris standing behind him at the Iowa Primary. Ladies and Gentlemen, this simply means that whoever dares oppose Huckabee will recieve a pimp slap to the neck fat. CHUCK NORRIS FOR VP!

I think she just doesn't like baseball...

Asmodai, I am curious about your opinions or understanding of the Internet social network darling candidates... Kucinich (D) and Paul (R)? Also who do you get from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346 ?

legoburner wrote:Asmodai, I am curious about your opinions or understanding of the Internet social network darling candidates... Kucinich (D) and Paul (R)? Also who do you get from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346 ?

I'm somewhat familiar with Ron Paul. He has a relatively small base of very dedicated supporters, but I think he's a bit too radical to be successful. Lots of Republicans talk about abolishing the IRS, but there's an understanding that it's just rhetoric. When Ron Paul says that, he means it. Although I can sympathize with Ron Paul's principles, I don't think they'd work out in actual practice. The world is a little too complicated for strict Constitutionalism to really be a viable philosophy.

I don't know a lot about Kucinich aside from the UFO thing. I understand he's on the far left of the Democratic party. That's probably a bit too extreme for me.

The poll thing gives me McCain, then Huckabee then Dodd. With most of the questions none of the answers really reflected my views (most only offered one solution, where a combination of them is necessary).

Who won in the republican Caucus?
I know Obama was first for the Dem. and Edwards was 2nd.

snorkle wrote:Who won in the republican Caucus?
I know Obama was first for the Dem. and Edwards was 2nd.

Huckabee first, Romney second, Thompson and McCain basically tied for 3rd (Thompson had 300 or so votes extra), Ron Paul in 5th, Rudy and Hunter in the rear.

Interesting stuff. From here in the UK all I ever hear about from the various places I read is Kucinich, Paul and Obama. I need the daily show and colbert report to come back so that I can follow what is going on without having to read the tedious 'real' news

http://www.politics1.com/

Excellent site for beginning US Politics as well as campaign coverage. My Political Science Prof told me about it so i know you will like it.

Well, I think Clinton would make a better President than Obama.
I think Obama has a lot of ability, and I'd vote for him in 8 years... but Hillary has experience over him.
Additionally, she has Bill.
Say what you want about the man's indescretions, he WILL go down in US History as one of the "great presidents."
He made some flubbs and errors, but he did some real good.
Hillary will be as much of an "individual" president as he was.
What I mean is that she was deeply tied into his politics and presidency, and he'll be the same with hers. It's like getting 2 presidents for the nomination of one.

Where Obama is a great candidate, he just needs more experience. He's simply TOO new to "big" politics for me to feel comfortable.

That all being said, anyone that the Democrats nominate, short of a talking guinea pig, is a shoe-in. The American public, in general, had blamed the last 8 years on Dubya and the rest of the Republicans. Our currency is weak, our society/culture is waning and we're losing popularity in all sectors of foreign countries. Let's not even talk about immigration. "We" blame the Republicans. "We" showed it with the state elections and I think "we" will do it again for president.

I wish Obama was willing to be Hillary's Vice-Pres. It would give him the experience in the White House that he needs to be taken seriously and given respect by everyone who, like me, feels that he's just too inexperienced.

That being said, if the Democrats nominate him, he'll have my vote 100%, unless Hillary runs Independent... Then, I'm 50/50. I'm not sure if Hillary would win as an independent and I wouldn't want my vote to be wasted on her and help a Republican slip in the back door (I feel like I've had my "back door" slipped into by the Republicans enough in the last 8 years).

For the record, "We" meant the GENERAL population and is not meant to include anyone in specific.
This is all MY PERSONAL opinion and not meant to be set forth as gospel.


Eric

Is there word of Clinton running as an Independent in the
face of an Obama selection? And is there word of Obama
unwilling to work under Clinton? Are they really that
divided?

Hillary as an independent?

That sounds extremely implausible. Both she and Bill have been lifelong Democrats (didn't they meet on McGovern's campaign or something?).

Obama had to suggest that he wouldn't want to work under Clinton because at that point she was the 'inevitable' nominee and he needed to distinguish himself. If Hillary were to actually win the nomination then he might reassess that decision. (I think Richardson or Biden are more likely VP picks for her though.) I've heard (conspiracy?) theories that Obama would be a good choice since he could apply the $100 million or so that he raised to the general election pool if he ran with Hillary. I'm not sure if there's any truth to that, or how much of that money has already been spent.

I agree with MagickalMemories that the Democrats have the edge going in because of Bush fatigue. A lot could change be November though, so it's too early to stop holding our breath.

As far as independents, both Bloomberg and Lou Dobbs have been mentioned. I'm not sure either will run though. Both are ego-maniacs and wouldn't want to lose. Dobbs would also fail horribly in a debate where he didn't control the set and script. I think Bloomberg would only run if one of the major candidates imploded somehow.

Hillary has experience, but not executive experience. She has always been a background player. I don't hold any personal ill will toward her, I just do not want her for president, nor do I think she will be it. She brings way to much baggage and a built in hate machine against her. Even with Bush fatigue I think it would be a tough win.

Like Kennedy, Clinton will be remembered as a popular President, but he will not be remembered as a great President. He will certainly be better remembered in the long run than Bush. I think Bush will be remembered as a strong arm President who made many mistakes under pressure, similar to John Adams pushing the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I think Bush will be remembered. As possibly the stupidest president we ever have. Well more that his decisions were incredibly stupid.

MagickalMemories wrote:Well, I think Clinton would make a better President than Obama.
I think Obama has a lot of ability, and I'd vote for him in 8 years... but Hillary has experience over him.
Additionally, she has Bill.
Say what you want about the man's indescretions, he WILL go down in US History as one of the "great presidents."

So I watched the New Hampshire Republican debate last night to get an idea of what the Republicans are about.

Ron Paul is an angry little man. It's great that he's passionate about things, but he needs to focus a little more when he's trying to give his rundown. I noticed that if he talked for more than about 20 seconds on something he just wasn't making much sense anymore.

Giuliani needs to get over the 9/11 thing. The reason you were right there when things went down was because you put your headquarters in the WTC after being told that it's not such a great idea since it's a prime target for attack. But, since you were lazy and just wanted to walk across the street to get to work you endangered the lives of your co-workers.

Huckabee is the epitome of a politician as well as Romney. I don't mean that in a good way. Last night after quoting a chunk of the Constitution Huckabee stated that the people of America should live free and in the pursuit of happiness withouth the Government interfering with their lives. Now, Mr. Huckabee, if you could, give us your standing on abortion and gay marriage...

Romney = pancake. That was pretty much what I picked up last night from him. That, and the fact that the rest of the candidates all liked to bash him. Whether this is out of fear that he has a great shot at Presidency, the fact he's a Mormon, or just the fact that he likes to think he's right and you're dumb I don't know.

That leaves me with McCain and Thompson. Now, I've always had a soft spot for McCain. He's a veteran and back in the day he used to lay out the smackdown when it was needed. However, he seems to be lacking testicles these last few years. Especially after all the crap that Bush has drug him through and then to continue to stand by his side. Talk about me all you want, but talk about my family the way Bush did and I'd... well we'll leave it with a simple . He does stick by his principles though even when they aren't popular.

Thompson... I just don't know about Thompson. I guess I'd just need to see more from him.

malfred wrote:Is there word of Clinton running as an Independent in the
face of an Obama selection? And is there word of Obama
unwilling to work under Clinton? Are they really that
divided?

No re: Hillary.
I was not attempting to imply that she'd made any statements of the sort. I was merely discussing hypotheticals.

As far as Obama, I can't recall the exact point, but I do remember when he said -not implied- that he would not be Hillary's VP.

JFrazell... Should I take that to mean you disagree? Agree or not, I understand either way.

Asmodai... I think we could "win" in Iraq (please, note the quotation marks) and get the rest of our boys safely home before November, see the Dollar back to about $1.50 = 1 British pound and gas back at $70 a barrel and the Republicans still wouldn't stand a chance.

Granted, that's just my opinion and we all know what opinions are like... LOL

Ahtman... I think that you saying Hillary doesn't have Executive Experience shows that our thoughts on her involvement in Bill's presidency are quite different. I think she was as big an advisor to him as anyone else.

I think Bush will be remembered as a strong arm President who made many mistakes under pressure

Amen, Brotha!


Snorkle... I think you're right... but I think it'll be about him AND his decisions.

Eric

And his administration. Scary bunch there.

Magickalmemories you're right. If you're stupid but make good decisions then nobody will notice. Or at least people won't care.

I like Obama and Edwards. Edwards has a nice, coherent message. Obama actually listens to people and thinks about his answers to questions. Both are very intelligent, hardworking people, and either would be a 1000% improvement on the criminal atrocities we've been dealing with for the past eight years.

I tend to favor the one that taught Consitutional Law for ten years.

I liked the Hillary we had at the beginning of Bill's administration, when she was actually trying for healthcare reform, before her morale and principles were crushed, and the healthcare industry bought her out.

Nobody talks seriously about Kucinich here. That said, I love the guy for having real principles, and ideas that would be genuinely good for the country.

-----------

Mitt Romney is a relatively empty-headed rich politician. Similar to Bush Jr. Thankfully his having been Governor of Massachusetts means that he had to be relatively centrist during that time, a fact that will cause the religious fanatics who represent the strongest and most devoted part of the Republican base to turn on him like a heretic.

Rudy has the same problem, having been Mayor of NYC. His personal and social views and practices have been as or more hedonistic/free than those of most liberals.

Both of them are now trying to make up for this by saying bats**** insane things that they think will endear them to the rightwing nutjobs, like Rudy's endorsement of building and staffing a wall across the entire 1969 mile US/Mexico border, or Mitt's memorable line about doubling Guantanamo. It is my hope that if either actually got elected that they would not pander to the crazies or to corporate interests as much as Bush has. But I have no faith in either of them.

Huckabee is Satan. He talks a good game, and that makes him genuinely scary, as I find his policy ideas morally repellent, and they are exactly what the religious nutjobs are looking for.

Most of Ron Paul's stuff is attractive to me, as I was raised in a Libertarian home (both my parents ran for office in NH on the Libertarian ticket). That said, as I grew up I came to believe that a lot of governmental programs that aren't supported by the Constitution really ARE necessary to avert a great deal of human suffering and injustice. Libertarianism would work in a more ideal world, but not in ours.

McCain had a great deal of my respect, until he sold a lot of his soul and credibility down the river with his steadfast support to an immoral and criminal administration. One that smeared and attacked him personally in the 2000 primary race. Back in 2000 I had several liberal friends who actually were going to switch sides to back him. We were that impressed by his principles, experience, and intelligence. He's a huge disappointment. That said, I do have some centrist friends who are registering Republican so that they can vote for him in opposition to the Republican frontrunners. (Here in NH we can register the day of the primary, and registered Independents can temporarily register R or D to vote in the primary, then switch back). McCain's still showed signs of real principle, intelligence, and morality in the debates and on TV (such as his appearances on the Daily Show). So he's far and away the best of the lot on the Republican side of the fence.

MagickalMemories wrote:

JFrazell... Should I take that to mean you disagree? Agree or not, I understand either way.

Disagree wholeheartedly. Clinton's big claim to fame was the great sucking sound of NAFTA and letting the ATF point a machine gun at a child (that and Gore taking campaign contributions from the Chinese). Well that and the intern thing.

He will also be known as the President who let Bin Laden get away (well the first one anyway but there's always hope).

Hillary espouses 35 years of experience. Sorry, looking the other way while the President is banging interns does not count as experience.

Edwards is a bloodsucking smoker trial attorney. He represents everything that is wrong with our legal system. He's a populist who spends $400 on haircuts. He had his shot, now get off the stage.

Kacinich is just a wackjob. He, Paul, and the corpse of Perot can form the Cookoo Party.

I want to see an Obama / McCain fight. I like McCain, and wouldn't be disgusted if Obama won.

****Manny none of this is directed at you in any way.

Mitt Romney is a relatively empty-headed rich politician. Similar to Bush Jr. Thankfully his having been Governor of Massachusetts means that he had to be relatively centrist during that time, a fact that will cause the religious fanatics who represent the strongest and most devoted part of the Republican base to turn on him like a heretic.
****Sorry you're brilliantly wrong. He's run Fortune 100 corporations. He's no bubble head. But he is a flip flopping poll watcher.

Rudy has the same problem, having been Mayor of NYC. His personal and social views and practices have been as or more hedonistic/free than those of most liberals.
****And you say it like its a bad thing Anyone who will contiue to work while under mob death threats is my kind of guy.

Both of them are now trying to make up for this by saying bats**** insane things that they think will endear them to the rightwing nutjobs, like Rudy's endorsement of building and staffing a wall across the entire 1969 mile US/Mexico border,
****Nothing wrong with that. When the terrorists cross the border that way or heaven forbid cart a nuke across-how will you feel then?

Huckabee is Satan. He talks a good game, and that makes him genuinely scary, as I find his policy ideas morally repellent, and they are exactly what the religious nutjobs are looking for.
****He's not Satan. Satan's not in this game-but has already signed up Clinton to represent him


Most of Ron Paul's stuff is attractive to me, as I was raised in a Libertarian home (both my parents ran for office in NH on the Libertarian ticket). That said, as I grew up I came to believe that a lot of governmental programs that aren't supported by the Constitution really ARE necessary to avert a great deal of human suffering and injustice. Libertarianism would work in a more ideal world, but not in ours.
*****Ron Paul believes 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Many of supporters reflect anti-semetic views. Sorry but he left the heat lamp on too long and fried his brain.

McCain had a great deal of my respect, until he sold a lot of his soul and credibility down the river with his steadfast support to an immoral and criminal administration. One that smeared and attacked him personally in the 2000 primary race. Back in 2000 I had several liberal friends who actually were going to switch sides to back him. We were that impressed by his principles, experience, and intelligence. He's a huge disappointment. That said, I do have some centrist friends who are registering Republican so that they can vote for him in opposition to the Republican frontrunners. (Here in NH we can register the day of the primary, and registered Independents can temporarily register R or D to vote in the primary, then switch back). McCain's still showed signs of real principle, intelligence, and morality in the debates and on TV (such as his appearances on the Daily Show). So he's far and away the best of the lot on the Republican side of the fence.
****McCain-recently I agree and I don't like his Bushesque stance on illegal immigration. But it becomes a case of best of the worst.

jfrazell wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:

JFrazell... Should I take that to mean you disagree? Agree or not, I understand either way.

Hillary espouses 35 years of experience. Sorry, looking the other way while the President is banging interns does not count as experience.

Exactly. She should at least have the decency to watch.

Exactly Malfred.

Actually President Clinton will probably be remembered for his massive Welfare reform more then NAFTA, and for tax cuts for small business.

I know it is hard for people to remember when the only reminders come from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, but Clinton was much more moderate then pundits make him out to be, and Bush is not as conservative as he is painted. Talk to a full on conservative and they will paint a different picture of how Bush isn't conservative enough.

jfrazell wrote:I want to see an Obama / McCain fight. I like McCain, and wouldn't be disgusted if Obama won.

I hear ya there.

I wouldnt mind either of them getting elected. Atleast I can respect their stances.
I like others more, but I feel these two have the most solid chance of become nominees of their respective parties.

Personally there is not one of the candidates i really favor. As a lifelong Democrat and a big supporter of Bill Clinton i think i [i[should[/i] favor hillary but she has done nothing to inspire me the way her husband did. Obama sometimes inspires me but does not have the level of experience i would really like when it comes to running the country.

As to the republicans i cant stand a single one of them. admittedly thats a pretty basic state for me and republicans but still.

I guess at this point I'm leading more to Obama because I think he has the greatest chance in the general. (admittedly i doubt heavily that in the wake of bush any republican could win, but there is still a lot of residual clinton hate around and i wouldn't want to risk it. i mean if anyone can lose an election the democrats can.)