U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[Drea]

Rue this is very surpising coming from you!

Is "looks" all that counts in America? In that case why not just vote for Britney

[bush_cheney2004]

It is remarkable that the US is treating this election as an internal matter. The US has been a global player on a level above the UN given its willingness to use its ultra-tech military ability to enforce its policies. The US should be seeking external input. Of course it will not. It has yet to declare its primary foreign policy issue.

Correct...it is entirely an internal matter. The USA's primary foreign policy issue is plain to see.

Meanwhile, China and India are stealing a march....

If Hillary Clinton gets elected, it's all for naught. She has shown no inclination to vary from Bill Clinton's screwed up foreign policy.

If Obama gets elected, he might be more open to alternatives, but he has done little to declare foriegn policy an important issue beyond Iraq.

If McCain gets elected it's more of the same old. McCain is delusional.

No matter what, it will still be American foreign policy, with continuity. Don't expect any big changes.

Not a single one of them has shown any inclination to pay any attention to Canada's needs, in spite of the fact that we are currently the most important raw materials supplier they have.

Canada's needs are irrelevant to winning a party nomination and general election. In Canada, the parties go out of their way to distance themselves from anything American just to win support.

Studs Terkel put it very well on a BBC interview recently: The result of the current administration's One Billion dollar foreign policy has been to deny healthcare, deny social services, and deny the welfare of everyday ordinary Americans.

True, but many Canadians come on down for employment, healthcare, and services anyway.

Review your RRSP investments closely. The new boss should not be the same as the old boss., but they are gonna get fooled again...

I love America. It has given the world so much, but the almighty buck has gotta stop right here.

America is the same as it ever was. You just get to watch more of it than ever because of satellite and cable TV.

[Carinthia]

Rue this is very surpising coming from you!

Is "looks" all that counts in America? In that case why not just vote for Britney

No, she is apparently "too sane".

[August1991]

It is remarkable that the US is treating this election as an internal matter. The US has been a global player on a level above the UN given its willingness to use its ultra-tech military ability to enforce its policies. The US should be seeking external input. Of course it will not. It has yet to declare its primary foreign policy issue.

Remarkable? Americans pay the taxes to the US federal government. It seems only right that they get to choose how it's spent.

The rest of the world should be grateful that the US president is chosen in such a way. There seems divine justice in that remark.

-----

Well, on the Republican side, the only thing left to do is sweep up the balloons and the streamers. McCain has several months to choose the next Veep. I thought he might go with Huckabee but on second thought, I don't see why he would. McCain can pick someone else who adds more to the ticket. It's not as if Obama/Clinton are going to get the electoral college votes of Georgia, Tennessee or Arkansas in November. (If you're cynical, McCain will get the bible belt because he's more pro-life than Obama/Clinton.) I think McCain might go for true-blue ideological conservative. Anyway, he's got time to think about it.

As to Huckabee as VP, I liked Karl Rove's comment:

Effortlessly spilling references to Henry Cabot Lodge and Lloyd Bentsen, Rove said nobody votes for the vice president anyway and Huckabee would be a terrible choice. "That's called doubling your trouble," he said.

Link

On the Democrat side, I have to say that I'm impressed with Obama. He has more money than Clinton and he has about just as many elected/caucused delegates. That wasn't the plan. At this point, Hillary was supposed to have a commanding lead and face clean-up time. (She had control over the Democratic primary timeline.) Maybe she should have pushed for winner-take-all.

Anyway, the next few primaries (DC, WV, La) will likely go to Obama until Hillary will win in Texas, Ohio and Pa.

Overall, this is going to be close. Two points come to mind. First, Michigan and Florida. What happens there? Here's how the NYT put it:

There is, however, one nightmare convention scenario worth thinking about. Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates because they held their voting earlier than Democratic Party rules allowed. Mrs. Clinton, who won both states, has said she will fight to have the delegates from those states seated.

If she and Mr. Obama are still neck-and-neck, there could be a donnybrook. The Clinton camp will argue that it is not fair to the voters of those states to deprive them of representation simply because their legislatures jumped the gun. But seating the delegations would be wrong, because it would fly in the face of party rules. And if Mrs. Clinton won the nomination ugly, the effect could be so bitterly divisive that the nomination would not be worth much.

Second, the several hundred superdelegates. How are they going to vote?

For these reasons, I still think that Clinton will win the nomination but I'll admit that I'm less certain of my prediction than several weeks ago.

----

There's an odd idea about that Obama will do better in the fall than Clinton. (New man, got the big Mo... ) Frankly, I think either would lose but I think Obama would be a bigger loser. Why? The US has never elected someone of so little experience.

Eisenhower? Supreme commander in WWII. Kennedy? 12-yr congressman/senator, candidate in 56, significant war hero. Johnson? VP and longtime political mover/shaker in congress. Nixon? More political experience in one finger than Obama has in his entire body. Ford? VP and longtime congressman. (Not elected). Carter? Democratic civil-rights Gov in Ga. Reagan? Governor of Cal and loser in 76. Bush? VP and congressman. (Not re-elected)

Obama? He was elected Senator 4 years ago and he was a State senator before that. That's it. No significant accomplishment in his life - other than being black.

Sorry to be crude about this but Obama hasn't done much - at least compared to the past 10 or so presidents. (Jason Cherniak, of all people, makes the same argument.)

It's not surprising that alot of Obama's support comes from young people, blacks and curiously, rich white Democrats - limousine liberals.

So, when it comes down to it - I'll go with the Walmart candidate (Clinton) rather than the Starbucks candidate (Obama). And then President McCain in November with VP X who is a conservative's conservative.

Edited February 7, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

Being a politician isn't the only way to gain relevant experience. His resume is, as he might put it, "full enough."

[bush_cheney2004]

Obama? He was elected Senator 4 years ago and he was a State senator before that. That's it. No significant accomplishment in his life - other than being black.

Sorry to be crude about this but Obama hasn't done much - at least compared to the past 10 or so presidents.

Well, at least you admit to being crude.

Let's translate your thinking to a Bill Clinton in 1992....he was a governor and attorney general (lesser feats than US Senator and State Senator). Oh, and he was very qualified at being "white" (and sexual harrassment).

I think we have a winner!

[August1991]

Let's translate your thinking to a Bill Clinton in 1992....he was a governor and attorney general (lesser feats than US Senator and State Senator). Oh, and he was very qualified at being "white" (and sexual harrassment).

He'd been governor, then lost. Kicked out of office, he picked himself up and ran again and was re-elected twice. He formed the DLC and pushed the Dems to the centre. (Remember Third Way?)

Obama hasn't done anything like this. He organized voter registration in south Chicago and he got video-taping of questioning through the state legislature. He went to high school in Indonesia. Wow.

On past record, Americans choose someone with a significant track record to be president. Maybe Obama should sit in a governor's mansion for a few years or something and then re-apply.

And BTW, I don't agree that State A-G or Governor is a lesser feat than Senator. For president, Americans prefer Governors to Senators for the simple reason that Governors have executive experience - they actually ran something - and Governors are not part of the Washington cabal. (Being a senator will hurt McCain but at least he has the advantage of being disliked by many of them.)

[bush_cheney2004]

He'd been governor, then lost. Kicked out of office, he picked himself up and ran again and was re-elected twice. He formed the DLC and pushed the Dems to the centre. (Remember Third Way?)

Obama hasn't done anything like this. He organized voter registration in south Chicago and he got video-taping of questioning through the state legislature. He went to high school in Indonesia. Wow.

On past record, Americans choose someone with a significant track record to be president. Maybe Obama should sit in a governor's mansion for a few years or something and then re-apply.

Significant track record? That would not be Bill Clinton in 1992, as he was a virtual unknown nationally. Ditto Jimmy Carter. Obama's "lack of experience" may be his greatest asset to supporters. No matter....how much experience does Ms. Clinton have besides a lifetime of "whiteness"?

And BTW, I don't agree that State A-G or Governor is a lesser feat than Senator. For president, Americans prefer Governors to Senators for the simple reason that Governors have executive experience - they actually ran something - and Governors are not part of the Washington cabal. (Being a senator will hurt McCain but at least he has the advantage of being disliked by many of them.)

Yes and No....Senators are not absent from presidential victories. Americans prefer a lot of different things. Eisenhower had none of these domestic political experiences.

Edited February 7, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Significant track record? That would not be Bill Clinton in 1992, as he was a virtual unknown nationally. Ditto Jimmy Carter. Obama's "lack of experience" may be his greatest asset to supporters. No matter....how much experience does Ms. Clinton have besides a lifetime of "whiteness"?

Yes and No....Senators are not absent from presidential victories. Americans prefer a lot of different things. Eisenhower had none of these domestic political experiences.

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and he had lost an election. He was a liberal in a southern state. He ran a state government. I don't care about how well known he was in 1992, when he ran for president, he had a track record of accomplishment to put before the American people. Eisenhower had forgotten more about domestic politics in 1952 than Obama has yet learned. Jimmy Carter (lucky to get elected because of Watergate anyway) was a graduate of Annapolis, a nuclear physicist, captain of a nuclear submarine and a liberal governor in the south who brought in civil rights changes.

In any case, my point is that in general, looking at recent history and the past 10 presidents or so, the American people choose presidents with a demonstrable track record. Even Bush Jnr ran a state government, a baseball club, defeated a popular Dem Governor and got re-elected.

You're right that Hillary Clinton doesn't have alot of elected experience but she's certainly seen it all as the proverbial fly on the wall. I think it's fair to say that Hillary has a track record.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and he had lost an election. He was a liberal in a southern state. He ran a state government. I don't care about how well known he was in 1992, when he ran for president, he had a track record of accomplishment to put before the American people. Eisenhower had forgotten more about domestic politics in 1952 than Obama has yet learned. Jimmy Carter (lucky to get elected because of Watergate anyway) was a graduate of Annapolis, a nuclear physicist, captain of a nuclear submarine and a liberal governor in the south who brought in civil rights changes.

President Carter was never a sub skipper....or nuclear physicist. He was a nuclear power trained naval officer and engineer from Rickover's program (this I know something about). He had no track record for national political purposes. Obama is a viable candidate for his party's nomination and general election. Governors win..and governors lose.

In any case, my point is that in general, looking at recent history and the past 10 presidents or so, the American people choose presidents with a demonstrable track record. Even Bush Jnr ran a state government, a baseball club, defeated a popular Dem Governor and got re-elected.

You're right that Hillary Clinton doesn't have alot of elected experience but she's certainly seen it all as the proverbial fly on the wall. I think it's fair to say that Hillary has a track record.

Yea...she voted for Iraq. Let's see how that works for her.

[August1991]

President Carter was never a sub skipper....or nuclear physicist. He was a nuclear power trained naval officer and engineer from Rickover's program (this I know something about). He had no track record for national political purposes. Obama is a viable candidate for his party's nomination and general election. Governors win..and governors lose.

Carter graduated in physics and then studied nuclear physics. He was an officer on subs and his association with Rickover was a big deal in garnering support. The track record doesn't have to be in national politics - in fact, it usually isn't. Americans like state executives and/or military experience - they don't like business experience.

Look, Obama is over 35 and he's a US citizen born in the US. So, I guess he's minimally qualified. Will the Dems pick him as nominee and will teh American people pick him as president? I don't think so and the reason I say that is because, apart from anything else, Obama doesn't have enough of a track record.

[Visionseeker]

Yea...she voted for Iraq. Let's see how that works for her.

That's what's killing her IMO. Young male Dems and a good chunk of young female Dems won't swallow this. This deprives her camp of the young volunteers that can litterally spend 20 hours a day selling her brand. Add to this the indy crowd who've grow to hate the war, it becomes near impossible for her to win.

The only hope Clinton has is that right-wing talk radio somehow sells this idea that they'd vote Clinton if McCain is the republican candidate. I see this bluster as nothing more than an attempt to get Clinton in, so that conservatives can then be galvanized to vote for their less-than-perfectly-conservative candidate.

If Clinton wins, the White House and other votes are up for grabs. If Obama wins, the game is over for the Republicans.

[BubberMiley]

So, when it comes down to it - I'll go with the Walmart candidate (Clinton) rather than the Starbucks candidate (Obama). And then President McCain in November with VP X who is a conservative's conservative.

Again, one can make predictions based on gut feelings or ones based on actual data. Data suggest it would be very difficult for either Obama or Clinton to lose in November. Look at this chart from Pew Research demonstrating the party Americans currently most identify themselves with. 50% was for the Democrats and 35% for the Republicans: the largest such spread in recent memory. It would take a dramatic change in political tides for McCain to pull this one off, especially since Super Tuesday demonstrated that conservatives in the party don't consider him a conservative's conservative. He tracked very, very poorly among them.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312

[August1991]

Again, one can make predictions based on gut feelings or ones based on actual data. Data suggest it would be very difficult for either Obama or Clinton to lose in November. Look at this chart from Pew Research demonstrating the party Americans currently most identify themselves with. 50% was for the Democrats and 35% for the Republicans: the largest such spread in recent memory.

According to that chart and your logic, Bush should have lost in 2004.

Americans have never been happy to see their soldiers abroad in combat. Bush is not popular and since he's not facing re-election, he doesn't care about his popularity. The poll on party supports reflects this.

As to the idea of a sea change in the thinking of Americans, I don't buy it. I'll take this one quote:

Despite these favorable shifts in support for more government help for the poor, 69% agree that "poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs." Still, the number in agreement has been declining over the past decade.

I'll agree that Americans are somewhat more socially liberal now than, say, 40 years ago. The Pew results seem to impy that although the change is small.

----

Reagan Democrats are people who identify with the Democrats but vote Republican. Bill Clinton got those voters back. At present, some of them are voting for Hillary but few are going to Obama.

I'll finish with this. It is one thing to answer a poll question and it's another thing to vote. Remember Obama Girl?

So, did the “Obama Girl” actually vote for Barack Obama on Tuesday?

Actually, no.

Last summer, the music video “I Got a Crush on Obama” was a Web hit, splashing a seductive performance by a 26-year-old model named Amber Lee Ettinger across millions of screens and prompting deep thoughts about candidates and sex appeal, the YouTube generation of voters, viral marketing and so forth.

On Tuesday night, City Room ran into Ms. Ettinger at an election-watching party in Greenwich Village and asked how things went at the polls.

“I didn’t get a chance to vote today because I’m not registered to vote in New York,” she said.

So where is Obama Girl registered to vote?

“New Jersey.”

Um, but didn’t New Jersey also hold a primary?

True. The problem, she explained, was that she was sick in New York City and was unable to get back across the Hudson River to the polls in Jersey City.

“I was in Arizona for the Super Bowl — every time I get in the airplane I get sick,” said Ms. Ettinger, who did manage to make it to the Svedka Fembot election returns party at Chinatown Brasserie. (The Fembot campaign for the White House, the Svedka marketing manager assured us, is not a commentary in any way on Hillary Rodham Clinton, who defeated Mr. Obama in both New York and New Jersey.)

Ms. Ettinger said she had dragged herself out Tuesday night under duress only because she was scheduled to perform at the Bowery Poetry Club. The previous day she had hit the streets of New York to interview voters, where a Daily News photographer snapped her picture on Park Avenue.

And how did she feel about missing the opportunity to cast her ballot for her one and only? “I’m a little upset but I really couldn’t help it today,” she said mournfully.

NYT

If I were a politician, I'd prefer to have pensioners on my side rather than youth.

Edited February 7, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Mitt Romney to suspend campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/rom...aign/index.html

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will suspend his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, GOP sources tell CNN.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is expected to suspend his campaign Thursday, sources say.

A candidate may "suspend" his or her campaign rather than dropping out, and technically remain a candidate. In this case, he or she is entitled to keep any statewide pledged delegates as well as their district-level delegates.

I guess that just leaves Huckabee and McCain.

I have been listening to and watching some of the conservative pundits after this Tuesday. It is some of the strongest dissent that I have seen thus far from those quarters.

[jbg]

Being a politician isn't the only way to gain relevant experience. His resume is, as he might put it, "full enough."

In what way? I'm curious. Maybe there's something about Obama you know that I don't.

[jbg]

You're right that Hillary Clinton doesn't have alot of elected experience but she's certainly seen it all as the proverbial fly on the wall. I think it's fair to say that Hillary has a track record.

Her "track record" is a meltdown on her forte, health care issues and being an enabler of an adulterer/near pedofile (yes, I admit to voting for Bill twice).

[JerrySeinfeld]

My two cents on Hillary

[GostHacked]

Mitt Romney to suspend campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/rom...aign/index.html

I guess that just leaves Huckabee and McCain.

I have been listening to and watching some of the conservative pundits after this Tuesday. It is some of the strongest dissent that I have seen thus far from those quarters.

And RON PAUL is still in the race.

9u11iani is out.

Romney is out.

Thompson is out

..........

[BubberMiley]

According to that chart and your logic, Bush should have lost in 2004.

Yes, he should have. Blame Ohio.

But are you saying such a dramatic shift in declared party affiliation means nothing?

[BubberMiley]

In what way? I'm curious. Maybe there's something about Obama you know that I don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[BubberMiley]

Reagan Democrats are people who identify with the Democrats but vote Republican. Bill Clinton got those voters back. At present, some of them are voting for Hillary but few are going to Obama.

I don't know how Reagan Democrats would vote in a general election, but I know how Obama Republicans (or Obamacans) are voting.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476

[JerrySeinfeld]

I don't know how Reagan Democrats would vote in a general election, but I know how Obama Republicans (or Obamacans) are voting.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476

Nobody "knows".

My prediction is that it will be McCain v. Hillary

If it's McCain v. Obama, McCain will win hands down.

If it's Hillary, it should be very...very close.

I see McCain winning out in that scenario.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If it's McCain v. Obama, McCain will win hands down.

If it's Hillary, it should be very...very close.

I see McCain winning out in that scenario.

True...all Senator McCain has to do is keep his temper in check and watch the Democrats shred each other.

[August1991]

I don't know how Reagan Democrats would vote in a general election, but I know how Obama Republicans (or Obamacans) are voting.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476

Susan Eisenhower?

The only thing I conclude from this is that the Eastern MSM (and the Barbara Streisand wing of the Democratic Party) have gone ga-ga for Obama. I think we had a thread here about how trendy it was to have a black friend.

Mitt Romney to suspend campaign.

I liked the email from a Southern Christian to Mark Steyn explaining why Romney didn't do well in the south on Super Tuesday: "It wasn't because he was a Mormon it was because he's as phoney as baloney."

I wonder whether the Talk Radio support for Romney came about because Romney paid some of them off. I suspect they'd be cheap to buy.

But are you saying such a dramatic shift in declared party affiliation means nothing?

According to the graph, the shift occurred after 2002.

For the past 40 years or so (or at least since the Boll Weevils became Republicans), the default party in US federal politics has been the Republicans. As long as they stay away from prissy, country club candidates, the Republicans win because the Democrats usually self-destruct. 2008 seems to be turning out to be a typical presidential election.

My prediction is that it will be McCain v. Hillary

If it's McCain v. Obama, McCain will win hands down.

If it's Hillary, it should be very...very close.

I see McCain winning out in that scenario.

I agree except for the "very close" bit. It'll be close for readers of Newsweek and the NYT who will wake up in November and be shocked to discover that it wasn't close at all. Edited February 8, 2008 by August1991