Options
The 2008 U.S. Election thread
![[Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4d60f6dcafcac6d5f6addb6e86074074.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 6,314 Forum Member
✭
It may seem a long way away to November 4th, but, as is the nature of U.S. politics, the long slog to the White House is already long begun. The pivotal Iowa caucuses are little over a week away and could influence the trajectory of each candidate in the primaries to come.
Whom would you elect? Can the Republicans win again despite Bush's impopularity? Can a surprise candidate make an impact (Huckabee, for instance?) This thread is to discuss anything related to the highly decisive choice of President.
Whom would you elect? Can the Republicans win again despite Bush's impopularity? Can a surprise candidate make an impact (Huckabee, for instance?) This thread is to discuss anything related to the highly decisive choice of President.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You're right, that we have a mixture of the under-experienced and the downright unpalatable this year. It's a bit late, though, for totally new faces to jump into the race, as they'd be severely lacking in funding, and the nomination for candidate starts on January 3rd.
The one thing that can happen, though, is independent campaigns emerging, which could be a huge spoiler. Ron Paul, the Libertarian Republican candidate with a bewildering large internet following, is countenancing an independent run, as did Mayor Bloomsberg, who recently disaffiliated from the Republicans, although most sources report that he is out of the running.)
To a lesser extent, lesser-spoken-of candidates may just almost emerge - it seems unlikely, but it has happened before, and primary election season is a crazy and unpredictable time. Clinton I, for example, lost the Iowa caucus and the N.H. primary, but managed to emerge later in the race.
On the Dem. side, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich and Williamson are overshadowed by Obama and Clinton II, (John Edwards rivals this status quo in some states), whereas Hunter, Paul, and - surprisingly - John McCain are hiding beneath the Giuliani/Thompson/Romney Republican triangle. Proof of the fluidity of the primaries comes in the form of Huckabee, a preacher who, only a few months ago, had a few percent in the polls, who may well win the Republican Iowa caucus and thus get a real boost in subsequent primaries. To me, at least, that isn't a particularly great development.
It is a shame that Wes Clark decided to get out of the race, and, even more so, that Al Gore has resisted calls to be 'drafted' in. Gore in particular - a man of great legislative and exectutive experience, a former Vice President and Nobel Prize winner who regained his fire-brand charisma after 'losing' the 2000 election - outshines Obama and Clinton II in terms of electability.
Speaking of which, what are you all's opinion of the Clinton II campaign? Personally, though I would love for there to be more women in U.S. politics and in the top jobs, I feel that Hillary is the wrong candidate. A moderate whose campaign has been run by focus groups rather than personal conviction, her campaign is wrought with baggage from the 90s, and would both galvanise the Right (who, somehow, consider her centrist policies to be Ultra-Left) and the Left (turned off by her support to the Iraq war and some of her policy choices.)
Bloomberg is interesting as he might launch an independent bid. He's going to use millions of dollars of his personal fortune to the campaign. It's his money and he can do whatever he wants to do with it but he can at most just mess the balance without having chances of his own.
All I can say is GO HILLARY!
Huckabee is too right-wing. He'll get the religious right's vote, but he'll scare off moderates and centrists.
Thompson is decrepit, but appeals to the hard right, as with Huckabee.
Giuliani has a dreadful reputation in NYC and recent stories about use of public funds to ferry his then-girlfriend around don't help. He doesn't appeal to the core Republican vote as he's seen as a "liberal" on certain social issues. And he's multiple times divorced (=no family values).
Ron Paul is a loon. He wants to scrap income tax and return to the gold standard.
John McCain leaves a bad taste in the mouth due to his cheerleading for the Iraq war and support for waterboarding.
Romney is a Mormon and a moderate ex-governor of Massachusetts, bastion of liberalism and one most hated of all states for Republicans.
Prediction: either Romney or Huckabee; outside shot for McCain.
The Democrats are similarly uninspiring. Their best candidate (Gore) has decided he doesn't want to run. Not too surprising, as the next holder of the office will have to deal with trillions in federal debt and the Iraq debacle.
Hilhary Clinton is far too polarising and shrill. She is also a (strong-minded, independent) woman, so there's automatically a section of the electorate that won't vote for her. She is also a Clinton (=bad).
Obama is black, which means that he won't get the Southern racist vote. He has been smeared for apparently being a Moslem (oh no - a terrorist!). He is an outstanding orator, but I can't help but think he's fairly vacuous.
Edwards, former VP candidate is seemingly mired in the middle of the pack, behind HRC and Obama. He is (IMHO) by far the best Democratic candidate and talks about things like poverty. His message is one of optimism and hope, which I like.
Both Chriss Dodd and Joe Biden are no-hopers, unfortunately.
Kucinich is too shrill and left-wing. No hope at all.
Prediction: if a "anyone but Hillary" situation develops, Obama or Edwards. Otherwise Hillary, possibly with Bill Richardson as VP (to appeal to the Hispanic community). Tiny chance of Al Gore as a last minute "stop Hillary" candidate. The Democratic base loves him; Richard Nixon (bad example): lost in '60 but won in '68. Gore: lost in '00, wins in '08?
I want the Democrats to win, but the Republican machine is without parallel. They got an imbecile elected twice: how hard can it be to hold on to power for four more years?
You're absolutely right - it's a shame that Gore can no longer contest the 2008 election. He has already beat the Republicans once in electoral votes, and he has such a commited base and a popularity amongst swing-voters and unaffiliated voters that he could take on any Republican candidate
If Bloomberg decides to run, possibly alongside Chuck Hagel, he could only act as a spoiler, much like Nader in prior elections, but it would certainly make the debate more interesting, and, to be honest, he'd hurt the 'GOP' more than the Dems, not a bad thing in my opinion..
There were also reports that she was considered too old, although this was heaviliy criticised.
Of course the Texans I spoke to were intent on the country remaining Republican and made allowances and justifications for Bush despite him not being able to go in for a 3rd term. However, in Nervada, one guy said 'that guy cant walk and chew gum at the same time' - no guesses as to who he was talking about.
I heard some say that Obama was too radical....too pro-black etc. Not that I agree with that.
One thing is for sure, whoever it is has alot of work to do. I don't think anyone is the best one for the job....
That's true, Jamandell - it's quite funny how incessant the political system is over in the States. I was listening to Air America when they were covering the nail-biting 2006 Congressional elections, and the first thing that they spoke of, after it had been found that the Dems won the House and the Senate, was the elections of 2008.
It must be a really stressful job, being a Congressman for a swing district, because, due to there being a House election every two years, one must almost start campaigning as soon as one has stopped it. Still, it's a joy for political scientists and election lovers.
Out of interest, how long have you been a supporter of Hillary? What drew you to her, and what do you think she would do in her presidency?
That's a really good, if frightening, analysis: it is either Romney or Huckabee. Previously, I was really hoping that it would be McCain who would do what he should have in 2000, by winning the nomination. However, recent events have left a bad taste in my mouth as well; his rôle as a maverick within the Republicans who was willing to do bipartisan work, stand up for his beliefs and attack the status quo is seemingly long gone, as he has thrown away his principles for the sake of a few votes.
Back in 2000, he stood up to 'religious' extremists, like the loathsome Jerry Falwell, and pushed for a platform of economic but not necessarily social conservatism. His opposition to the systematic use of torture was also very commendable - but the McCain of old seems to have dissolved into Realpolitik.
Huckabee, although he seems genial in his well-produced campaign adverts, is beyond the pale for mainstream U.S. society, but I don't particularly rate Romney any higher. His economic policy seemed to be one of austerity, by widely cutting funding, rather than imposing taxes on the better off. He doesn't have much scruples either, having gotten into power in one of the most stereotypically liberal states (known coast-to-coast as the home of John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy) writing in gay newspapers, claiming that he would not intrude into people's business, nor lead a fight against gay civil unions. Very different (much more extreme) language to-day...
I feel precisely the same; Richardson would be good both for the Hispanic vote and for her prospects in the increasingly 'purple' South-West. Gore would have been the best candidate - he has the experience, the vision, the oratory skills, the latter two of which were sadly not on show during the '00 election - but out of those in contention, I prefer John Edwards too. A former senator, with experience of Presidential runs, who managed to come out unmired by the '04 election, he and his ideologies really chime with mine. Obama is a great speaker, but his speeches are very vague, abstract even; Edwards has ideas and conviction to see them through.
It really is interesting to get to the States and see how polarised things are, almost more than over in England, because politics are in the heartblood of most folk. Nevada is really interesting, in particular, considering that the state is almost evenly split between Democrats (40.1%) and Republicans (40.5%), and state office, support for Presidents, and representation in congress has consistently shifted for a good deal of time. Although it voted for the Republicans in both prior elections, in 2004, Bush won with only 50.5%, and it is part of a group of South-Western states upon which one ought to keep an eye in the run-up to the election, given that it could go back to the Democrats, if a good enough candidate is chosen.
Arizona is very interesting too - how did you find people's beliefs there? It's been voting Republican for a number of years, but many people there seem to be more Libertarian than socially conservative, having elected McCain in the days when he was a paleocon rebel to the new Republican order…
You're right that whoever wins has a lot on their hands, not so much a poisoned chalice, but one full of some nauseating liquid, given that, as Jules Winfield was arguing, they'll have to deal with the economic, social and foreign problems laid like landmines by Bush Jr. No wonder, when one considers it, why Gore decided to call it quits.
Well I remember back after the 2004 election, I was bitterly disappointed that Kerry lost. I watched the news and one of the reporters said "However for one Democrat this may be a small bit of good news, and that person is Hillary Rodham Clinton". (Or something like that)
From that moment I started feeling optimistic, that she was the person to replace Bush and also, a woman President! (Woo!)
Now I'm male, but I'm a big feminist, so the fact that she is a woman is a big factor that attracted me to her. I've watched her in debates, seen interviews, and now read her autobiography, and she just seems like an amazing, kind, strong woman. To me she does seem to have the best skills to end the war in Iraq and bring in universal healthcare.
Obama's a nice guy, and I'm sure he could be a great President one day. But when I watch him in debates or hear him speak, he just seems so amateurish and, well, wussy.
For a short example of why I support Hillary, take a look at these videos...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MXnakPrdDr4
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6V9JBItfTZI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7UKIYSqTU
Bush snr - Clinton - Bush jnr - Clinton
The 'land of the free' in which anybody can become president.
I was in Massachusetts a few months ago, and I didn't come across a single person who liked George Bush or Hilary Clinton for that matter. Many of them were fed up about the situation in Iraq and how the US political system works, but it was the simple case of "we don't know what to do about it". Sure is a strange country, I always got the feeling that many were in a zombie like state and were afraid to speak out. If you think materialism, consumerism and apathy is rife here in the UK, well just check out the States. Extreme.
As long as they were born in America. As mentioned in the film Demolition Man it would need a constitutional amendment for someone like Arnie (born in Austria) to become President. I don't recall hearing that that had been done.
Ron Paul isn't a loon, he is a smart man who knows whats best for a country, looking out for its citizens and forgetting about foreigners.
You make an impressive case, Jamandell, and those three links that you provide are good examples of inspiring and fairly radical oratory on subjects that really matter for the U.S. and beyond. I would also consider it a welcome change to see a female president someday, as well as a Congress that was not so skewed on gender lines. I too like her history of strong independence and standing up for herself. One other positive would be that it may open the doors for future female Presidents and the like.
I just hope that, if she is nominated, it won't be an excuse for whatever sub-species the 'G'OP chooses to galvanise support... and that, if she got in, she did not take the route of her husband, id est, she stands up for the ideals and implements the ideas that she proclaims in her speeches.
I like Bill - it is difficult not to - but his outlook in economical terms was thoroughly Republican and his years as President did little to help the most disadvantaged, kicking 10 out of 14 million people off welfare, signing bills to outlaw gay marriage, agreeing with the lowering the capital gains tax, etc. I hope that Hillary does not go down this route too, considering that she (admirably) played a rôle in Bill's policy formulation.
That's true (NCLB was enacted in Bush's time, but with bipartisan support)... and her biggest involvement in politics during Bill's presidency was a health plan towards a fairer system.
I doubt that Obama really wants to invade Pakistan; I think that it is a bit of a misrepresentation. In a speech, he said that he would take action against terrorism if Musharaff did not, but the action that he specified was not militaristic in nature:
'OBAMA: As president, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005.
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.'
I agree with Ron Paul on several things, such as his stance against Iraq, against the 'Patriot' act, against the war on drugs and his instance on constitutionality. How would the U.S. survive without income tax, though?
If Hillary wins, I would laugh darkly if, in 2012/16, Jeb Bush, the man that Bush I intended to be President, decided to run and won. I would not put it to the side: he has a good track record, was fairly popular even upon leaving office, and has ambition. Maybe he'd be challenged by Chelsea in 2024? He was pushed to run in '08, but was clever enough not to ruin his good name.
The political system is inherently polarising, but it is also fairly unrepresentative. One have two choices - and, in much of the country, one only has one - and it can feel very disenfranchising...
McCain is actually very strongly opposed to waterboarding.
These days, a Southern racist would be highly unlikely to vote for a Democrat anyway.
That is right - it was heartening to see John McCain stand up to much of the rest of the Republicans alongside the Gang of 14, with a principled stand on torture. McCain himself suffered excruciatingly at the hands of his captors and has fought to ensure that the U.S. stop sinking to such barbaric depths: he wrote a good article about his experience of torture and beliefs regarding it here.
It is a shame that the principled, maverick McCain, who appealed to independents with his moderate bipartisanism, seems to have disappeared in this election season.
Exactly. There's no use pandering to the racist vote, when most racists would never vote for the post-Kennedy Democratic party.
The Washington Post talks about Obama's - and other candidates' - push to activate the student vote. Much of the student populace is heavily politicised, but often fail to turn out for the crucial caucuses and primaries. The Trail makes a point that may seem trivial but may be very important: weather conditions look good for January 3rd, meaning a higher turn-out, which they suggest will be to the detriment of John Edwards.
As the Des Moines register suggests, Hillary is going to emphasise her experience over the last few days of the pre-caucus, in an attempt to win over floating voters. The New York Times questions what importance will Hillary's years as a 'hands-on' first lady have, and Seelye discusses the growing rôle of internet videos to the race, and lists ten of the most important 'Youtube' moments of the campaign.