Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
US Presidential Primaries
All right politicos and politics geeks, I'm curious as to your thoughts on the current field of US presidential candidates. Mind you, I'm actually more interested in foreign opinions than local ones, simply due to the fact that I verymuch enjoy hearing how outsiders view the US political process.
I'm really starting to believe that the outcome of this coming US election will set the precedent for the next decade or more of US foreign and domestic policy, possibly with a noticeable and palpable shift. For the first time in my entire life, there are candidates who aren't necessarily the "lesser of two evils" options I've had in the past.
Republican Candidates
Democratic Candidates
What are your thoughts? There are blurbs about each of the candidates' positions at those links.
I'm really starting to believe that the outcome of this coming US election will set the precedent for the next decade or more of US foreign and domestic policy, possibly with a noticeable and palpable shift. For the first time in my entire life, there are candidates who aren't necessarily the "lesser of two evils" options I've had in the past.
Republican Candidates
Democratic Candidates
What are your thoughts? There are blurbs about each of the candidates' positions at those links.
Comments
VIABLE REPUBLICANS: McCain, Giuliani, maybe Romney on the very outside of the track.
VIABLE DEMOCRATS: Obama, Clinton, Obama*, and maybe Edwards if something radical happens in the up-fronts.
McCain has been attempting to masquerade as a bipartisan leader, but has been coming down heavily conservative in recent actions. Giuliani is actually fiscally conservative and socially liberal (i.e. abortion stance, which shouldn't fucking matter in a presidential election, but strangely does), which could either grab him some swing voters or alienate the Christian base. Romney won't win the party nomination, but he might be the "Perot factor" if the race between the leading two becomes close.
The Democratic nomination won't be about stances -- it never is. It will be about black vs. woman, and which minority the propaganda backs more convincingly. Obama has youth, cultural relevance, no black negative marks on his record (sorry, couldn't resist that joke), looks (again, something that shouldn't matter, but does), and an endorsement from Oprah (see last set of parentheses). He is a centrist Democrat, and has managed not to really say a lot about his platform. Clinton has to wrestle with her last name and bad reputation, her refusal to apologize for her war vote, her polarizing personality, and her surprisingly centrist attitudes (support of Israel, support of the Patriot Act, anti-immigration rhetoric).
Edwards will in all likelihood never see a path to the White House. The only weapon he has is name recognition, which might come in handy if he plays the "we wouldn't be in Iraq if you had elected Kerry and me" card once Obama and Clinton are entrenched.
I think it will come down to McCain vs. Obama in November 2008.
*Yes, Obama is in there twice.
Obama is the only reason I'm not backing Hillary. He's unique in that, despite his views and manner, which have been shared by countless minor candidates in the past, he actually has the media attention and money to have a chance. So far, he's just about everything I've wanted in a (realistically feasible) presidential candidate for as long as I've been interested in politics.
John Edwards, as little as I dislike him, feels too much like a VP. Should he ever become the VP, however, I'd put my money on him becoming president himself someday. I just don't think anyone will vote for him in the Democratic primaries as things stand.
Al Gore is someone who as surprised me. Ever since he lost the presidency in 2000, he's started actually speaking his mind. Him and Howard Dean both have given me a little hope for the Democratic party, not as candidates, but as shepherds for the party itself. I think they have a lot more influence on the party than many people would give them credit for.
My Calc teacher told me a joke today. I thought it was funny ^^ :
A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the highway.
Absolutely nothing is moving. Suddenly a man knocks on the window. The driver rolls down his window and asks, "What happened?"
"Terrorists have kidnapped Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Dick Cheney, and George Bush. They are asking for a $10 million ransom. Otherwise They are going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire. We are Going from car to car, taking up a collection."
The driver asks, "How much is everyone giving, on average?"
"About a gallon".
I really doubt Gulliani could win the Republican primary. I think Gulliani would make a good president but I just think he's too liberal to make it through the primary. Now McCain, I think I've expressed here before that I like him. He's concerned me recently, seems like he's swinging further to the right which I hope is for the primary and in the general will move back to the centre.
You know what though? I've got my own freaking election to deal with.
In fact, I'm really at a loss right now to see who will win each primary and then who will be on the ticket, Republicans don't really have a choice that I think will help them win. Gulliani being the most likely to win an election but is he too liberal to win the primary. If they do elect Gulliani then it will mean a swift in Republican ideology and i figure the party will splinter and try and run someone as a third party who is anti-choice and more godly to run against Clinton and Guilliani, this will be the Perot factor that will help Clinton (or the off chance Obama) get into office.
It will be interesting to watch this all play out, I think it will really come down to how Iraq is doing and whether the ice caps have all melted (of course if that happened Gore would win ^_^)
While inclusion is a noble goal, it's not the primary factor we should be looking at. When it comes right down to it, having boobies or a certain color of skin isn't going to help a president run the country better. It's like buying a new computer based on the color of the case.
The argument that we need to elect a black or a woman is also a very subtly racist/sexist one when you stop to think about it. It's pandering. It's telling those politicians that we don't care about their experience or skills -- only their token qualities.
The last Democrat in office that had to deal with a belligerent Iran was Jimmy Carter... We all remember what happened then don't we?
As for Hillary? Anyone remember her super-secret health care reform group? A lot of people complain about secrecy in the Bush White House but Hillary is the leader in that department! Besides, you know Bill will not be happy to sit on the sidelines, he will want to meddle in things.
As much as I like Obama I just can't see him winning the general election.
On the Republican side? McCain has his "Keating Five" baggage and his deal with Democrats to block judicial nominees a few years back. He also benefits from the press liking him and not reporting the negative things he does (anyone else catch him singing, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" Beach Boys parody?
Gulliani? He may be strong on defense and a straight talker but he has his multiple marriages, anti-gun and pro-abortion background which is not likely to help him out in the primaries.
Romney? Mormons are just one step away from devil worshipers to many Christians (and I'm not saying which direction that step is!) I don't see him making it through the primaries.
I'll think harder about this later on.
I think it goes down to the question, "Is America ready for a black or woman president?" It's hard to tell, although many people support minority's, a lot of Americans are still hesitant to accept a change of that magnitude. Although everyone knows the color or gender of a person doesn't affect their abilities as a leader, it's still hard to see that change for a lot of people.
Personally, I don't really care about race or gender, I just want a good president. ^__^
Many of the "civil rights" groups are on the democratic side. Because of this conservative blacks are often referred to as "Uncle Tom" or "not black enough" because they are not democrats! Look at Justice Clarence Thomas for an example of this. If his politics were left rather than right he would be loved and lauded by groups such as the NAACP.
Even Obama has been getting heckled by Al Sharpton for not being "black enough".
I don't care what your gender or skin color is. If you are qualified to do the job you have my support.
I'm a little cautious about Clinton, but so far for me it's a race between her and Obama.
Didn't help that McCallum was such a fuckup after Thompson left. Or Doyle. McCallum's a Christian Scientist, that explains a lot.
Of course, I'd considered John Kerry an also-ran the moment he announced his candidacy, as did my political communications professor. Right up until the primaries, we were convinced that it was a race between Edwards and Dean. Kerry was the obviously pandering milquetoast bland politician candidate, and I couldn't fathom the party thinking he was a good choice to run up against an incumbent.
(I will note that, had Kerry stuck openly to his past views and stated his actual opinions, I would have been much more favourably inclined to him, much as I was to Al Gore after he grew a beard and started actually stating his opinions).
The match-up I would be happy with in 2008 would be Obama vs. Paul. I think I could be happy with that one going either way.
The big question in that scenario is who would they get as VP candidates?
The gold standard was abandoned by every nation in the world for a reason, and very few economists support a return to it. Calling for the gold standard often goes hand-in-hand with conspiracy theories and other silliness.
The flat tax nuts are right out. (So long Brownback, even though noone outside of Peoria has heard of you). "FairTax" isn't much better. (John Cox, we hardly knew ye). Neither is the gold standard. (Goodby Ron Paul). Gilmore is trying so desperately to get some press that he's obviously a non-contender. Duncan Hunter is a lunatic. McCain is unpopular and a little off, having lost just about all of his previous clout. Mitt Romney is a cultist. Giuliani is only popular among two groups: non-Republicans, and Republicans who don't actually know his stances on the issues.
Who actually has a chance? At least the 2004 Democrats had Howard Dean until the media crucified him.