Jump to content

U.S. Presidential Elections 2008


Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman
There are quote lists like this for every single candidate,gathered by various political organizations who like to one up each other.

No, there aren't quote lists like that for every candidate. Every candidate doesn't think people infected with the AIDS virus should be quarantined; every candidate hasn't condemned common-law couples, thinking they are living a demeaning life-style; nor does every candidate believe that gays live an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle ..."

If you don't like the idea of a christian leader in the white house, then you better vote none of the above. Clinton was a christian and occasionally had photo ops while walking out the church doors with wife in one hand and bible in the other.

Did you see the debate in which the God question was raised? All of the leading Dem candidates professed to be Christians, especially Obama.

I didn't say I don't like the idea of a christian leader in the White House. I said I don't like Huckabee's promoting himself as a "Christian leader." They are two very different things.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I honestly can't say that I care for any of the Republican candidates, and I really can't believe they couldn't come up with anyone better.

I guess maybe they couldn't come up with anything better because anybody with any druthers wouldn't want to be associated with them at this juncture. Why spend millions on an impending train wreck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess maybe they couldn't come up with anything better because anybody with any druthers wouldn't want to be associated with them at this juncture. Why spend millions on an impending train wreck?

Oh.....you mean like Gore and Kerry? We call it direct democracy...it's different from that insider's game played in Canada to pick a PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
I guess maybe they couldn't come up with anything better because anybody with any druthers wouldn't want to be associated with them at this juncture. Why spend millions on an impending train wreck?

It is almost as if they don't want to win this time around. Perhaps they'd rather pass on this administration's messes to the Democrats; then, if the dems can't fix it overnight, they can point their fingers and say "the mess we're in is the Democrats' fault!"

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is almost as if they don't want to win this time around. Perhaps they'd rather pass on this administration's messes to the Democrats; then, if the dems can't fix it overnight, they can point their fingers and say "the mess we're in is the Democrats' fault!"

Yes, they are all good at that game.

What I'm finding amazing is that Fox News is giving much air play to Obama!! And in a positive way, I might add.

The Obama phenomenon is reminding me of Trudeaumania of the late 60's. Not that I am comparing Trudeau with Obama. Charisa and academia yes, but Obama lacks Trudeau's snotty arrogance. Trudeau appealed to the young on a mass scale though. I think Obama is doing the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is almost as if they don't want to win this time around. Perhaps they'd rather pass on this administration's messes to the Democrats; then, if the dems can't fix it overnight, they can point their fingers and say "the mess we're in is the Democrats' fault!"

There were a number of GOP pundits who voiced arguments against Bush's re-election in 2004 because of all the messes that would begin piling up in the 04-08 years (increases in defecits, expansion of Social Security payments to retiring baby boomers, increased healthcare costs, not to mention the war). Bush has managed to not fix much of anything in his 2nd term (and his "popularity" reflects this, to an extent). The GOP has to win the presidency if it wants any relevance from 2008-2010 when the mid-terms come up.

From 1981 up to and through the 84 election, the GOP played the "remember how bad things were under Carter" card mercilessly. I expect that if the Dems win and control the levers of power in DC, they will borrow that tactic, otherwise they run the risk of taking the blame for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...From 1981 up to and through the 84 election, the GOP played the "remember how bad things were under Carter" card mercilessly. I expect that if the Dems win and control the levers of power in DC, they will borrow that tactic, otherwise they run the risk of taking the blame for everything.

Even if true, notice how unsure they are of a Democrat victory. Such was not the case in 1980. As bad as they wish to paint President Bush (Congress actually has much lower ratings), there is no lock on the upcoming election and White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if true, notice how unsure they are of a Democrat victory. Such was not the case in 1980. As bad as they wish to paint President Bush (Congress actually has much lower ratings), there is no lock on the upcoming election and White House.

Locks are easier to peg in hindsight. Carter wasn't assured defeat until November 1980. From the perspective of now, the Democrats are looking better and better for a lock on the White House. But, of course, seeing as it's not in the past, anything can still happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Locks are easier to peg in hindsight. Carter wasn't assured defeat until November 1980. From the perspective of now, the Democrats are looking better and better for a lock on the White House. But, of course, seeing as it's not in the past, anything can still happen.

No, Carter was toast way before that by virtue of the Iran Hostage Crisis and the economy was in shambles. The 1980 Democrat convention was a divisive disaster. Carter only won 6 states + DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Carter was toast way before that by virtue of the Iran Hostage Crisis and the economy was in shambles. The 1980 Democrat convention was a divisive disaster. Carter only won 6 states + DC.

Perhaps you're too young to remember or your memory fails you. It was a tight race with Carter slightly ahead until the last debate, which Reagan won handily, pulling him ahead for victory. This excerpt from Wikipedia's summary of the campaign might jog your recollection:

"The most important event of the entire 1980 presidential campaign was the second presidential debate, which was held on the Friday before the election (October 31). Over the course of two hours, the entire race changed drastically, and what was considered an extremely tight race with the President slightly ahead became a comfortable Republican victory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden..._election,_1980

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Obama phenomenon is reminding me of Trudeaumania of the late 60's. Not that I am comparing Trudeau with Obama. Charisa and academia yes, but Obama lacks Trudeau's snotty arrogance. Trudeau appealed to the young on a mass scale though. I think Obama is doing the same.

I'm thinking the same thing.

If he takes NH and South Carolina, then it will be sealed.

Of course, he can't possibly live up to the hype either so if there is an Obama phenomenon, it might not make it through the election.

All of this being said, I'd like to point out that the dearth of ideas and issue discussion continues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you're too young to remember or your memory fails you. It was a tight race with Carter slightly ahead until the last debate, which Reagan won handily, pulling him ahead for victory. This excerpt from Wikipedia's summary of the campaign might jog your recollection:

I am neither too young or of failing memory, having served at the pleasure of both President Carter and Reagan in the US military. The debates were only one factor in an election that revolved around several key domestic and foreign issues. The impact of last minute defectors just days before the election followed a more insidious process by so called "Reagan Democrats", particularly organized labor. There was also a strong third party candidate in the way of John Anderson.

The race was tight based on polling, largely found to be erroneous today...Where The Polls Went Wrong:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...24541-4,00.html

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this being said, I'd like to point out that the dearth of ideas and issue discussion continues...

I think that acknowledging the Obama phenomenon aspect of this election is an issue in and of itself. Currently, change is the buzz word that encompasses the mood of Americans. As I have no faith that the Bush administration will orchestrate any miracles that will turn around the publics desire for change, this phenomenon will likely gain momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which was my point: in January of 1980, no one would have said Reagan was a lock to win the election. It's much easier to say it was a lock after he won.

These are two different ideas:

(1) Reagan had a lock on the White House in 1980

(2) Nobody said Reagan had a lock on the White House in 1980

Clearly, and regardless of hindsight today, he did have a lock, winning handily. Reality vs. perception. No candidate running today can hope for anywhere near such a lopsided advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that acknowledging the Obama phenomenon aspect of this election is an issue in and of itself. Currently, change is the buzz word that encompasses the mood of Americans. As I have no faith that the Bush administration will orchestrate any miracles that will turn around the publics desire for change, this phenomenon will likely gain momentum.

The word "change" in this race for the Presidency (which is in its infancy as US races go), crops up with Democrats on average every 20th word. The Republicans not so much. Whether Americans want it or not is beside the point. Change will come regardless of the forces at work because Bush must step down.

I acknowledge that Obama's showing to date is interesting and ground-breaking. Some may see his gains as a phenomenon but I see it nothing more than a natural progression of US politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "change" in this race for the Presidency (which is in its infancy as US races go), crops up with Democrats on average every 20th word. The Republicans not so much. Whether Americans want it or not is beside the point. Change will come regardless of the forces at work because Bush must step down.

I acknowledge that Obama's showing to date is interesting and ground-breaking. Some may see his gains as a phenomenon but I see it nothing more than a natural progression of US politics.

Well, Bush certainly wasn't a phenom, it was however, phenomenal to me that he got elected, twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "change" in this race for the Presidency (which is in its infancy as US races go), crops up with Democrats on average every 20th word. The Republicans not so much. Whether Americans want it or not is beside the point. Change will come regardless of the forces at work because Bush must step down.

Indeed....the Democrats are now fighting over who can be the greatest change agent.

I acknowledge that Obama's showing to date is interesting and ground-breaking. Some may see his gains as a phenomenon but I see it nothing more than a natural progression of US politics.

Still very early in the game. Much dirt has yet to fly in this blood sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed....the Democrats are now fighting over who can be the greatest change agent.

And while they're doing that, the Republicans are getting into the nitty gritty of debating policy and pitting their personalities one against the other.

Still very early in the game. Much dirt has yet to fly in this blood sport.

No doubt some surprises are in store. This is the ultimate reality show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like military service won't be an issue this time around....pretty slim pickings beyond Senator McCain's career as a Navy pilot and POW. Vietnam vets have not faired well in elections.

Most of the candidates have never served in the military.

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/apr/28/fe...litary-service/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while they're doing that, the Republicans are getting into the nitty gritty of debating policy and pitting their personalities one against the other.

No doubt some surprises are in store. This is the ultimate reality show.

I expect Hillary to launch into the man who stands between her and the Whitehouse, and Obama better have some ammo ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you have to take seriously is that the margins of victory in many key states are incredibly tight. What makes a candidate a loser in such a context can be simply that all his party's supporters don't come out to vote.

No matter who the Dems put up, virtually all their supporters (and a good many of their non-supporters) will come out to vote for them. The reason is sitting in the White House. The same is not true of the Republican candidates, each of whom represents some split in the coalition of corporatists, libertarians, and religious social conservatives that Atwater-Rove forged and held together increasingly shakily. Not even hatred of Hilary or fear of a black president is sufficient to bring low-tax secularists out to vote for Huckabee, or anti-gay fundamentalists out to vote for 9iu11iani.

In my opinion, of course. This is guesswork from all of us, at this point.

I understand your logic but I think you apply it to the wrong party. It's the Dems that are a strange, hard-to-keep-united coalition. Clinton and Carter were the only ones to achieve it since Johnson and Carter arguably got a free pass because of Watergate. Note too that all three were from the south and all were Baptists.

Johnson said it himself that by passing the civil rights legislation, the Dems were committing suicide in the South for a generation or more.

The default party in the US is the Republicans now and the only way for the Dems to win is to get everything right.

As to your argument that the evangelicals won't turn out for a fiscal conservative, or the northern conservatives for an anti-abortionist, it just doesn't matter that much. Clinton (and Gore) got many people to vote Democrat. Neither Obama nor Hillary will get those votes.

I'll save this for later mea culpas. heh

It was sort of fun pointing out later errors by some of the right about the mid-term elections.

Dobbin, you'll never forget this prediction. True, I was wrong on the mid-terms but not by alot. And the Republicans were facing the historical odds in winning in the sixth year.
The Obama phenomenon is reminding me of Trudeaumania of the late 60's. Not that I am comparing Trudeau with Obama. Charisa and academia yes, but Obama lacks Trudeau's snotty arrogance. Trudeau appealed to the young on a mass scale though. I think Obama is doing the same.
From where I sit (and that happens to be in the sunny US South right now), that comment is almost as laughable as the suggestion that Oprah would make a good running mate.

Obama is a one term Senator. The only mania is in the youtube crowd. Pierre Trudeau had been minister of Justice and was hand-picked by Pearson. Trudeau spoke colloquial English and French fluently. Obama is no Trudeau.

----

I don't think this change is everything. Every opponent talks about "change". I'd pay more attention to Obama if he opposed change. Frankly though, everytime I've heard him speak, he states in serious tones glib phrases that, like kitsch, mean nothing. "There are no red states nor blue states. There are only united states."

The one issue that will help the Dems is economic fear. Falling house prices have spooked many people and some fear stories of foreclosure. This is the real effect behind the the "sub-prime market problem".

If the Dems had a better candidate (eg. someone of the calibre of Bill Clinton, Gore), then they could have a chance at winning.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he takes NH and South Carolina, then it will be sealed.

Of course, he can't possibly live up to the hype either so if there is an Obama phenomenon, it might not make it through the election.

All of this being said, I'd like to point out that the dearth of ideas and issue discussion continues...

While I'll be the first to admit that I didn't anticipate Obama's rapid rise, I think this think will not be decided until Super Tuesday on 5 Feb - regardless of who wins in NH, NV and SC.

If McCain wins in NH, that will certainly be the case on the Republican side.

As to Obama, I'll also admit that seeing a thin Bill standing behind Hillary on the podium in Iowa wasn't a good sight. I know he's the candidate's spouse and all but it just reminds everyone that there'd be another dynasty in the White House. Despite being a good candidate, Jeb Bush simply could not run in 2008 because of his family name.

For this reason, call it Clinton fatigue, the Dem leadership may default to Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the NH debates last night (the CNN rerun version) and here are my thoughts:

As per usual the democrats all look like feel-good dreamers more concerned with polls, moods and feelings than actual right and wrong.

Edwards had a good couple of genuine-sounding soundbites on lobby groups and special interests but good luck ever changing anything there and it's not a hot button issue for voters.

I can't help thinking Hillary just wants so much to sound like a man when she speaks - and she's fricken boring to listen to. The only person less interesting to listen to is Obama. He is like watching paint dry.

Richards isn't eloquent enough and looks like a friars-club guy exchanging opinions over scotch. He comes across as a dreamer with no real teeth.

Overall impression on the Dems: As beat up as GW Bush has been, I can't believe they actually might find a way to lose the next presidential race with this collection of clowns.

On the GOP:

Fred actor dude was completely unprepared and unimpressive. The more he talks the worse off he is. He should stick to law and order. I couldn't understand what he was trying to say half the time and actually felt sorry for him at moments.

Mitt Romney isn't likeable. I felt like punching him in the face half the time.

Ron Paul is quickly lokoing like a small timer with one or two issues typical of Libertarians: the war and monetary policy.

Giuliani was the most eloquent, on message, clear and straightforward. He gave clear examples of past successes and clear explanations as to his positions and how he has been consistent with them. He's also the most centrist non-religious candidate which could hurt him in the GOP but help him in the general election. He also lacks that warm politico Bill Clinton-esque quality which makes voters fall in love with him.

Huckabee looks like a talking head - even when he is actually saying something intelligent I can't help but think of his appearance on "talking to americans" when he congratulated Canada on preserving their national igloo. his might actually help him in the polls, however because americans get a guilty pleasure of riling up non-americans with their supposed ignorance about the rest of the world.

McCain by far looked the most presidential of anyone from either party. He was calm, clear and unwavering. He was also able to give examples of how he hasn't shifted with public opinion - a quality only held by the greats such as Reagan and GW Bush. I liked how he laughed knowingly at Ron Paul's adolescent left-wing sounding complaint that "all we do is bomb people who we don't agree with". It was a perfect reaction to a low level thought process.

I'd like to see a McCain-Giuliani Ticket myself. I think it would absolutely stomp on a Hillary-Obama or Obama-Hillary ticket. They'd take all the Red States Plus New York and Florida which is an easy victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...