USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[roni]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Anyone catch the Dem's debate last night? I know there is no way he'll get the nomination, but I love the kind of crazy Kucinich throws out there. It is refreshing and he has nothing to lose. Everyone else tries deperately to sound like a soundbite. Hillary is looking presidental...

The only thing I agree with Kucinich on is a single payer health care system. I want to transplant Canada's system to the USA - other than that he has a young, tall, pretty, European wife .

It is a yawn right now. Obama didn't help himself, Edwards did all right, Hillary had her best night and did look presidential. Who will the VP be, that is the only question

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

The only thing I agree with Kucinich on is a single payer health care system. I want to transplant Canada's system to the USA - other than that he has a young, tall, pretty, European wife .

It is a yawn right now. Obama didn't help himself, Edwards did all right, Hillary had her best night and did look presidential. Who will the VP be, that is the only question

Just slightly premature with that, aren't you, amigo?

Steve

p.s. Wait a minute: Kucinich is 60, his wife is 29 and she's not from the U.S. THIS is going to fly with voters, including conservative voters? I hardly think so!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

While it is still way early, here is an article about the most recent poll

Here is a link to the article, which reports that:

The poll also showed that all three leading Democratic contenders beat their Republican counterparts in head-to-head competition among registered voters. But there is a lot more there for those who click and read the short article.

Unfortunately for the Dems, it also reports that while

Among Democrats, Clinton remains in the lead for her party's nomination, garnering 51 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters over Obama's 39 percent. She leads Edwards by 57 percent to 38 percent.

even though

Illinois Senator Barack Obama bested leading Republicans by larger margins than either New York Senator Hillary Clinton or former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, according to the poll of 1,001 adults conducted May 2 and May 3.

Obama beat former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani 50 percent to 43 percent, Arizona Senator John McCain 52 percent to 39 percent, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 58 percent to 29 percent.

It is, I fear, as I warned back in this thread: Hillary is not very electable. Just too much baggage, too many high negatives, too many people whose view of her is just the B word, etc. The Dems keep up the myopia revealed by the above and about a gajillion other things and they'll find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

Steve

[melliedee]

Some "baggage" can be viewed as nostalgia, and I think many are nostagic for the Clinton era--Hillary is a big part of that. I think she's electable with the right VP...

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Some "baggage" can be viewed as nostalgia, and I think many are nostagic for the Clinton era--Hillary is a big part of that. I think she's electable with the right VP...

Or a bad nightmare depending on your point of view.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by horizon200

Or a bad nightmare depending on your point of view.

I guess I don't rate an oval office bj the same nightmare gravitas as the Iraq war? Nostalgic for peace and change is what I meant.

[dartay]

I so hope the Democrats elect Hillary as their candidate. She flip flopped her way around the debate last night, proving just how unelectable she is.

"I'll use my husband as a global ambassador." His failed policies are what got us where we are in the world. She wants to put a bold faced lier as global ambassador, that's what we need.

"This is George Bush's war." She voted for it and she can't say that. Only what she thinks that people want to hear, not the truth. Not that the man she was sleeping with's policy was regime change, not that she BELIEVED that there were WMDs. Only negativity about Bush. That's how she's trying to score points. In the long run it will bite her.

She's completely unelectable. When the Republican's start to bring up how she methodically destroyed the women from her husband's affairs she'll be shown as the power hungry, ruthless, arrogant bitch that she is. And they will.

Obama's not going to make it. That's the only 2 choices right now. If Gore runs then there would be a formidable foe.

The more I learn about Fred Thompson, the more I like. I don't agree with all his stances but he's made of the Reagan mold. I have to listen and hear him out a lot more.

Guillani has no shot, the Christian right from the GOP will eat him up. He's the same as Hillary from the Republican side.

I think Romney has a problem with flip flopping too. That, combined with his religion, poses too big a hurdle for him to cross IMO.

McCain is probably the candidate if Thompson falters.

[melliedee]

I don't think Gore will run, but I also think Edwards is still in it. Why is power associated with bitchiness only when applied to women???

[sctx]

Originally Posted by melliedee

She's completely unelectable. When the Republican's start to bring up how she methodically destroyed the women from her husband's affairs she'll be shown as the power hungry, ruthless, arrogant bitch that she is. And they will.
.

don't hold back, we're all adults here....tell us how you really feel

[melliedee]

That's not MY quote, folks! It's dartay, I have quoting problems

[ryberg]

I agree with Dartay's assessment of their chances, except that I give more possibility to Obama, I think. This doesn't mean I disagree with the other comments about Hillary. The point is that what one considers right or wrong or proper or improper or good or bad qualifications is one thing, and what the public -- and again of course everybody votes in the election, not just Dems! -- will go for is another. That public -- the one that includes lots and lots of conservative voters, too -- will not accept Hillary. I think that's particularly true when you consider not only the sort of initial divide on her and how each side reacts, but also consider that while she might generate some of those nostalgia votes you mentioned, she'd most assuredly generate at least as many "prevent" votes from those against her, if not more. I think the Dems are operating in a self-damning vacuum if they nominate her, though I think it's quite likely that they will nominate her. But again that's the second point, there, I'm not talking about the first.

Obama on the other hand doesn't generate that degree of negativity, even if people think he's not qualified or vague or whatever. Those poll results again corroborate the idea that while she may be more popular among Democrats, he is currently more popular among the whole populus of voters. Dems probably won't pay attention to that, though, or they will but won't figure out in their intra-party mechanisms how to reflect that when determining their candidate.

Gore I don't think will run but I agree that if he does, he'll be formidable, the moreso if (as it looks like) he holds back, increasing the drama while also sparing himself some of the dog fighting, and then comes in reluctantly only because of a draft-type movement. In that case I think he's the single best chance the Dems have of winning out of these three possibilities.

Personally I don't see Edwards as very viable, at least not yet. Dunno why -- maybe I underestimate him, maybe he just looks like a pretty boy -- but I can't see him garnering enough support. But then that's about what somebody thought about a small southern state governor I can think of, too, before he won the nomination and the election and then was re-elected.

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

..........

Gore I don't think will run but I agree that if he does, he'll be formidable, the moreso if (as it looks like) he holds back, increasing the drama while also sparing himself some of the dog fighting, and then comes in reluctantly only because of a draft-type movement. In that case I think he's the single best chance the Dems have of winning out of these three possibilities.
...........

Just thought I would highlight this....

[dartay]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Obama on the other hand doesn't generate that degree of negativity, even if people think he's not qualified or vague or whatever. Those poll results again corroborate the idea that while she may be more popular among Democrats, he is currently more popular among the whole populus of voters. Dems probably won't pay attention to that, though, or they will but won't figure out in their intra-party mechanisms how to reflect that when determining their candidate.

I think you're right about him not generating negativity. I think that's a positive. In fact, being conservative, I view Obama as the lesser of evils. I do think he has an issue with race and with this name, right or wrong. It plays into what you said earlier about the entire voting public. I think if he gets the noimination that he also energizes more conservatives to vote that normally wouldn't

Originally Posted by ryberg

Gore I don't think will run but I agree that if he does, he'll be formidable, the moreso if (as it looks like) he holds back, increasing the drama while also sparing himself some of the dog fighting, and then comes in reluctantly only because of a draft-type movement. In that case I think he's the single best chance the Dems have of winning out of these three possibilities.

I tend to agree. Personally I don't like him but I think he's the Democrat's best shot.

Originally Posted by ryberg

Personally I don't see Edwards as very viable, at least not yet. Dunno why -- maybe I underestimate him, maybe he just looks like a pretty boy -- but I can't see him garnering enough support. But then that's about what somebody thought about a small southern state governor I can think of, too, before he won the nomination and the election and then was re-elected.

Steve

Who's Edwards?

[melliedee]

If Edward's doesn't wear out his welcome like Kerry, Dems might remember why they liked him in 04. I agree that the pretty boy populist millionaire aw shucks grows a bit thin, but I still think he had a little life last night. It's just TOO early! They're all going to each each other alive and have no friends left for a vp slot!!

[MWC]

I disagree about Gore. He has the same "intangibles" problem that Hillary has with the greater population. Hillary, I, too, have said before, would be a mistake for the Dems as a presidential candidate. So far, I would take the gamble on Osama over anyone else in the Dem race right now. For the Reps, they should go with Giuliani.

I think we are getting to the point where it would make more sense for "slates" to run, as opposed to having people elect individuals. If I know who Candidate X would be putting forth as his/her SecState, SecDef, Energy Czar, etc., and those people committed to serving; I think that would help me overlook some of what I saw to be Candidate X's shortcomings (or the opposite). Yes, Gore would probably be the best choice for developing a cohesive environmental/energy policy; but I have huge questions about how effective he would be on the diplomatic front, especially where a strong defensive action is required. John Edwards would be good in the dmoestic policy arena; but I don't know about the worldwide arena.