USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Poll: Clinton takes charge in New Hampshire

Story Highlights
• New poll has Sen. Hillary Clinton leading among New Hampshire Democrats
• New York Democrat's lead has grown since Democratic presidential debate
• New Hampshire primary voters view Clinton as strongest leader
• Sen. Barack Obama viewed as more likeable than Clinton

But can she be elected? Democrats think so. They see Clinton as the candidate with the best chance of beating the Republicans next year.

Do Democrats think she's likeable? Not really. Clinton runs third on likability. [ ] Obama comes across as the most likable Democrat.

It's become a sort of likeability gap issue for her, I'm afraid, especially if now even Dems are pointing it out...

Here's how he answered a question about making English the official language: "When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people."

OH, MY! Thank you! That makes a linguist and language teacher happy.

Originally Posted by MWC

I think Obama handled the "infatuation" stage of his campaign in a very sober, mature fashion. I think his answers to questions in the debates have shown a lot of thought, and I hope the media gives people a chance to process that -- instead of criticizing Obama for not being "outfront" or "macho" enough in his responses, attitudes which I have read recently. I like that he is not an instinctive glad-hander or smiley-face; he is taking his calling seriously -- I like that a lot.

And to all that as well I would say

I'm in agreement. And I don't think it's easy at all, the position he's been in. Indeed, he may be in some ways the most mature candidate, imo, of all of them, or certainly may be as mature as them most mature among them, in a lot of ways. Is he the youngest in the race?

I also like the fact that he spent some time growing up outside the U.S, which I guess must be really rather rare in Presidential candidates but which is without equal in terms of perspective, and the fact that he's spent so much time on legislation and travel related to security issues, on everything from dismantling nuclear weapons in the old Soviet Bloc to improvements to border fence systems in the Southwest. Check out the Wikipedia sections on his Senate legislation and official travel for a summary (if you dare, disbelievers!).

I didn't find anything specific on it immediately, but can anyone clarify precisely how much or what type of security or international experience Bush had before taking office? You see some past work on the link about him in his brief stint as Texas Governor, there, as well, but it's a pretty mixed bag, including

Under his leadership, Texas executed a record 152 prisoners.

which I guess some would more or less applaud, perhaps, and

He proclaimed June 10 to be Jesus Day in Texas, a day where he "urge[d] all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need." [source/more]

Not exactly the ideal pedigree for service on the national or international level, there...

I think it would be ironic -- nay, just downright funny! -- if Barack Obama, oft criticized for lack of experience in particular by those on the right, actually had more experience already in international affairs and security issues than the right's own man Bush had when he took office. But that's the way it appears...

Geez, Obama is even a member of the Senate Veteran' Affairs Committee, alongside his standing on the Foreign Relations and Homeland Security Committees.

Steve

[Seakony]

you guys still talking about this stuff?

[ryberg]

Oh, but the discussion has just recently taken a nice, mutually engaging turn, Rita!



Steve

[melliedee]

More interesting numbers. Dems need to keep momentum and pick the right VP combo. You have to wonder who those 10-11% Gore votes will go to if he doesn't run (and I don't think he will).

Here’s an interesting comparison of the Democratic and Republican debates. From Media Bistro, the number of viewers:

CNN's Democratic debate averaged 2,783,000 million total viewers on Sunday night--"more than any other presidential debate of this election season," the network notes.

On the other hand, CNN's Republican debate two nights later averaged a scant 1,974,000 million viewers--a deficit of 809,000 viewers. The Democratic debate was viewed by almost 40% more people.
But it's not just the debates. In the first quarter of the fiscal year, Democratic presidential campaigns raised about $78 million, compared with just over $51 million by their Republican rivals. Senate Democrats have raised twice as much money this year as Senate Republicans.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Mexivoof

Ouch, you just put a rock in my sandal. That is such a pet peeve of mine. If Americans would just wake up and realize that there are other parties out there than the Republocrats and voted for the person closest to what they think; be it socialist, libertarian, green, whatever, maybe we could finally get something done in Washington.
Maybe thats why I like Rudy, he's the closest thing to a Libertarian in the race.
And Mike W; I, unfortunately, must agree with your comment about fiscal conservatism especially amongst the Republocrats.

I dont think you understood what i said, either that or i didnt convey it correctly but either way I am voting for Rudy or Fred regardless of their party affiliation.

[roni]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

I dont think you understood what i said, either that or i didnt convey it correctly but either way I am voting for Rudy or Fred regardless of their party affiliation.

You got a thing for electing another unqualified candidate

I think there are folks running who by experience or ideology are unqualified.

It is probably easier to write who I think is qualified by experience.

McCain, Romney

Clinton, Richardson, Biden - maybe a case could be made that Dodd is qualified

Of those not running, Gingrich and Gore.

That is it. Some of the others may make good VP candidates

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by roni

You got a thing for electing another unqualified candidate

I think there are folks running who by experience or ideology are unqualified.

It is probably easier to write who I think is qualified by experience.

McCain, Romney

Clinton, Richardson, Biden - maybe a case could be made that Dodd is qualified

Of those not running, Gingrich and Gore.

That is it. Some of the others may make good VP candidates

So you are saying that were a candidate to run for President that shared your views on both international and domestic issue, you wouldnt vote for them because you felt they lacked experience? Rudy and Fred arent exactly naive in the political arean.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by roni

You got a thing for electing another unqualified candidate

I think there are folks running who by experience or ideology are unqualified.

It is probably easier to write who I think is qualified by experience.

McCain, Romney

Clinton, Richardson, Biden - maybe a case could be made that Dodd is qualified

Of those not running, Gingrich and Gore.

That is it. Some of the others may make good VP candidates

Oh come on now Roni you certainly don't think that only the more moderate ring of the party has the experience and intellect to run the exectutive branch? Surely Edwards or Obama have merits as candidates that say errr....Senator Clinton lacks. For instance besides being thinking folks they also do not carry a significant negative in their poll numbers amongst independents. I do think Governor Richardson will make an excellent VP choice.

[roni]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

So you are saying that were a candidate to run for President that shared your views on both international and domestic issue, you wouldnt vote for them because you felt they lacked experience? Rudy and Fred arent exactly naive in the political arean.

Fred was generally conceded to a lightweight senator. Rudy was a mayor of a big city - that may qualify him, but.....

Would I vote for someone unqualified who shared my views? Good question. In voting one is not measuring candidates against a desired set of qualification, but rather measuring them against opposing candidates. I always vote for the candidate I consider to be the lesser of two evils.

I am, this year for the first time, a single issue voter. I will not vote for any candidate who does not endorse federal funding for embryonic stem cell research with an expanded number of stem cell lines.

To me opposition to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is the same as saying "Ron, I want your wife to go blind."

[roni]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Oh come on now Roni you certainly don't think that only the more moderate ring of the party has the experience and intellect to run the exectutive branch? Surely Edwards or Obama have merits as candidates that say errr....Senator Clinton lacks. For instance besides being thinking folks they also do not carry a significant negative in their poll numbers amongst independents. I do think Governor Richardson will make an excellent VP choice.

I didn't say they weren't attractive candidates, I said they were not qualified to be president

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by roni

I didn't say they weren't attractive candidates, I said they were not qualified to be president

Didn't you get the memo? It's my turn to decide who is qualified this year. I was right about Adali Stevenson and George McGovern wasn't I?

[roni]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Didn't you get the memo? It's my turn to decide who is qualified this year. I was right about Adali Stevenson and George McGovern wasn't I?

Well, OK, but I get to express my opinion

[ryberg]

Folks, check out this thread/poll for a lighter reprieve from all the serious side of the election, if you like.

Steve

[Mexivoof]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

I dont think you understood what i said, either that or i didnt convey it correctly but either way I am voting for Rudy or Fred regardless of their party affiliation.

I did not object to the point you were making, my problem is with the entrenchment of the 2 party system in America, and the American attitude that to vote for a 3rd party candidate is "throwing away your vote". It is a self fulfilling prophecy.
George Washington and John Adams warned against a 2 party system but it rapidly developed none the less.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only time in American history that I can recollect that a 3rd party candidate had a chance was Ross Perot. The way the polls were moving before he dropped out, then dropped back in, he could have won, at least the popular vote. However even then with our crazy constitution, unless he had 1/2 the electoral vote (unlikely) the election would have been held in the House where virtually everyone is ... you got it, a Democrat or Republican. And in a party line vote (as usual) Clinton would have won anyway.
Thats my beef, thanks for letting me vent, and if I have made any factual errors, please feel free to correct me.
Voof

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Mexivoof

I did not object to the point you were making, my problem is with the entrenchment of the 2 party system in America, and the American attitude that to vote for a 3rd party candidate is "throwing away your vote". It is a self fulfilling prophecy.
George Washington and John Adams warned against a 2 party system but it rapidly developed none the less.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only time in American history that I can recollect that a 3rd party candidate had a chance was Ross Perot. The way the polls were moving before he dropped out, then dropped back in, he could have won, at least the popular vote. However even then with our crazy constitution, unless he had 1/2 the electoral vote (unlikely) the election would have been held in the House where virtually everyone is ... you got it, a Democrat or Republican. And in a party line vote (as usual) Clinton would have won anyway.
Thats my beef, thanks for letting me vent, and if I have made any factual errors, please feel free to correct me.
Voof

I am all for a system that has many many parties. How can a nation as diverse as ours be represented accurately by 2 parties...