U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[Guest American Woman]

...Obama repudiated what Wright said. McCain has yet to "reject and denounce" Hagee.

This is dated Feb. 29:

On Thursday John McCain welcomed the endorsement of John Hagee, but a day later the Arizona senator sought to maintain some distance from the evangelical leader after the Catholic League and the Democratic National Committee called on McCain to denounce his support, citing controversial remarks Hagee has made in the past on a variety of subjects.

“Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not,” ....

[BubberMiley]

Touble with a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket is that it would rub the whitebread majority's nose in the Democrats' marginalization of their role. The US is still by and large a conservative, WASPish country, and sidelining people with traditional standing will stampede many to vote for McCain, as imperfect as he is.

So when it comes down to it, you're voting for McCain because he's a white guy (despite you being a "left-winger")?

[scribblet]

I think these things are going to end up hurting Obama. Michigan is in the process of approving a new primary, and I think Florida is trying to work one out too. Coming late in the primary election, it may be affected by different issues than the early primaries. This could be a biggie for Obama. He says he doesn't agree with the pastor, but he still says the pastor is like an uncle to him. That may not sit right with some voters in light of his views.

I think it is because she's a woman. Women in power still have a difficult time of it. If she's strong, she's an uncaring bitch. If she shows emotion, she's a blubbering female. I think the Republicans, especially, hate her and I think their vocalization of it gives the impression that she's more hated than she actually is.

Obama isn't "loved by all" the way some seem to think he is. He and Hillary are running neck-to-neck. I won't be surprised if she wins in spite of those who think Obama has it wrapped up. Personally, I'd like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. Clinton has more experience so this would give Obama more, and then after 8 years of Hillary, we could go into eight years of Obama. Sixteen years of Democrats in the White House would go a long way torwards helping wipe out the legacy of Bush/Cheney et al.

Thanks, it makes sense. I'm inclined to believe that Hillary has a better chance to be President than Obama, when it comes down to it, if Obama wins the dems. many will go over to McCain. If Hillary wins, they'll stick to the dems.

I only watched Hagee once or twice, to me he's a nutjob, but hasn't spouted as much hate as Obama's pastor. I doubt that he believes the aids virus is a whiteman's attempt to kill blacks either, or that the U.S. deserved 9/11. I too believe this can hurt Obama, but I wonder how many voters understand how much he wants to raise taxes, to pay for his very large increases in government spending; for me that would be the real killer.

[jbg]

Funny thing how your "left-wing" MSM has left you completely unaware of McCain's active solicitation of John Hagee's endorsement, even though Hagee has said far worse things than Wright, like Katrina was God's wrath against New Orleans, that the Catholics cooperated with Hitler in exterminating the Jews, that we need to start bombing Iran now (cue Beach Boys), and who said that God will send terrorists to attack the U.S. because it supports a two-state solution in Israel.

Of those statements, these two are objectionable:

1. G-d will send terrorists to attack the U.S. because it supports a two-state solution in Israel; and
   
2. Katrina was God's wrath against New Orleans
   

The other two are politically incorrect but true and/or necessary.

[jbg]

So when it comes down to it, you're voting for McCain because he's a white guy (despite you being a "left-winger")?

That isn't what I said. I said many others would vote for McCain for that reason. I am voting for him because I think the other two are just awful.

[BubberMiley]

I doubt that he believes the aids virus is a whiteman's attempt to kill blacks either, or that the U.S. deserved 9/11.

I know Pat Robertson, who endorsed Giulliani, said that 9/11 was divine retribution from God. I'm not sure about Hagee's position on that.

[BubberMiley]

With identity politics, the Dems are committing suicide and the Democratic base is oblivious.

Actually, I think Obama is where he is precisely because he is signalling the end of identity politics. He didn't win Wisconsin because of his race; he won because he transcends race.

[jbg]

Actually, I think Obama is where he is precisely because he is signalling the end of identity politics. He didn't win Wisconsin because of his race; he won because he transcends race.

Not really. Wisconsin's rural areas (read, white) are Republican, its urban areas (read, minority and ethnic) Democratic. That being said, Wisconsin does have its "Progressive" tradition from the La Follette days. If Obama wins the nomination, Wisconsin will be an uphill but not impossible fight.

[bush_cheney2004]

For poll watchers, some Democrats are going to defect to Senator McCain either way because of the polarized party fight:

Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

...Even a few months ago, the presidential race looked like a major uphill climb for any Republican candidate. But recent polls suggest a toss-up between McCain and either Democratic candidate.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20080321a.html

[BubberMiley]

For poll watchers, some Democrats are going to defect to Senator McCain either way because of the polarized party fight:

People say that in March when their guy still has a chance to win. It's sort of a take-my-ball-and-go-home mentality. Once their guy is done with no chance of resuscitation, they'll have to consider their options once again and I'll doubt they'll vote Republican to any large degree.

[jbg]

People say that in March when their guy still has a chance to win. It's sort of a take-my-ball-and-go-home mentality. Once their guy is done with no chance of resuscitation, they'll have to consider their options once again and I'll doubt they'll vote Republican to any large degree.

You don't know our country very well I'm afraid. Because of the structuring of the Electoral College Democrats always have an uphill struggle.

[Regulus de Leo]

You don't know our country very well I'm afraid. Because of the structuring of the Electoral College Democrats always have an uphill struggle.

You mean because they alienate half the country with their contempt for America?

Edited March 23, 2008 by Regulus de Leo

[BubberMiley]

You mean because they alienate have the country with their contempt for America?

Did you mean half the country?

[jbg]

You mean because they alienate half the country with their contempt for America?

That too. But more importantly the "small state advantage" built in by the Electoral College. Our formula awards three "Electoral" votes even to states as small as Wyoming and Alaska. Since those "itsy-bitsy" states generally go Republican the Democrats start out deep in the hole, especially since it's not unknown for even California to go Republican every now and then, and other large states such as Texas and Florida are usually "red" states.

[BubberMiley]

That too.

You mean you hate your country too? You left-wingers are terrible. Almost makes me not want to be one.

[jbg]

You mean you hate your country too? You left-wingers are terrible. Almost makes me not want to be one.

I am a proud exponent of the left-wing tradition of being in favor of the common man, for addressing the concerns of "Joe Lunchbucket". Since the 1972 elections the Democrats have, in an irregular pattern, drifted into areas of purely elite concern, and advocated measures that would positively harm the average worker.

The Left has many beautiful accomplishments, at least in my country. They have torn down racial, gender and ethnic barriers that, in hindsight, were barbaric. They have largely eliminated sweatshops and other cruel employment conditions. That was then, this is now.

I still call myself a left-winger and a liberal Democrat because I refuse to abandon the field to people more concerned wtih "global warming" (really transfers of credits to autocrats elsewhere) and the rights of animals such as radical Islam. These are the people more concerned with the rights of inmates at Gitmo (by and large not a nice group of people) and the rights of people detained overnight for trying to disrupt the Republican convention in New York City (calling the place they were kept "Gitmo on the Hudson") than the rights of people on the 60th floor of a twin set of office towers in Lower Manhattan. I will never abandon the liberal field to that crew. Never.

[BubberMiley]

So you would be a Democrat if not for your distaste for those in the party who consider human rights to be universal and unconditional? The Republicans are running a candidate this year who believes in all that crazy xcience stuff related to global warming, so you couldn't be voting for them based on that issue. As a matter of fact, he's big on the human rights too. Your position that you are truly left-wing is rather tenuous when you would still vote right, even when your reasons for voting right aren't really there.

[August1991]

You don't know our country very well I'm afraid. Because of the structuring of the Electoral College Democrats always have an uphill struggle.

I ahve to agree and Bubbler didn't get your point, jbg.

The Founding Fathers trusted farmers more than city people and created a constitution where farmers/land-owners would have a greater weight.

In practical terms, each state gets two senators and at least three votes in the Electoral College. (In Canada, we have something similar. Each province is guaranteed a minimum number of seats in the House of Commons and in general, rural ridings are over-represented.)

In modern terms in the US, Red States are over-represented.

----

Along the same lines, but for different reasons, it seems to me that in the US, people tend to vote Democrat in local races and Republican in national races. IOW, split-ticket voters are inclined to go Conservative on top and Liberal below.

Why? I dunno. Maybe they want government money spent for their bailiwick but they don't want to pay for it.

Anyway, the Dems seem incapable of choosing electable candidates for president. Bill Clinton was the exception - and he was lucky. He ran against feckless Bush Snr who had just raised taxes and was in a mild recession, and Perot split the conservative vote. Clinton himself had the right drawl and was mainstream.

Since LBJ, the Dems have struck out (except for Carter who was a one-term product of Watergate). 2008 will be no exception. Neither Obama nor Rodham are electable.

I am a proud exponent of the left-wing tradition of being in favor of the common man, for addressing the concerns of "Joe Lunchbucket".

That's a form of populism. I agree that somehow (Nixon?) the Republicans got the ordinary vote - and the Democrats lost it.

The Achille's Heal of Republicans is that they're perceived to be white-shoed, white-bread, country club golfers. When Bush Snr didn't know what a bar code scanner was, they lost.

So you would be a Democrat if not for your distaste for those in the party who consider human rights to be universal and unconditional?

What a weird view of human rights. Edited March 24, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

Your argument that Dems are unelectable would be more compelling if they didn't come within a kuhntare in 2000 and 2004.

The idea of human rights being universal and unconditional is odd? Only if you don't believe in them at all, I suppose.

[August1991]

Your argument that Dems are unelectable would be more compelling if they didn't come within a kuhntare in 2000 and 2004.

The Democrat Gore - a Tennessee boy - had it and threw it away in 2000. Kinda my point about the Dems. John Kerry was as country club, white-bread, Yankee as they come. Did he come as close as a kuhntare? No. Kerry had no chance of winning. (BTW, what does kuhntare mean?)

The idea of human rights being universal and unconditional is odd? Only if you don't believe in them at all, I suppose.

I don't believe in perpetual motion machines or anti-gravity shoes either. Does that make me odd?

Look Bubbler, "human rights" is one of these terms that people throw around like "motherhood" or "family values". No one really knows what it means except that it's apparently good.

Bubbler, I don't want to provoke thread drift, but what do you mean by "human rights"? Are you sure that they should be "universal and unconditional"? Should Marc Emery for example have the human right to express his opinions in public universally and unconditionally?

Edited March 24, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

I'm not a human rights advocate. I just don't find it odd or offensive that some believe in them.

[jbg]

So you would be a Democrat if not for your distaste for those in the party who consider human rights to be universal and unconditional? The Republicans are running a candidate this year who believes in all that crazy xcience stuff related to global warming, so you couldn't be voting for them based on that issue. As a matter of fact, he's big on the human rights too. Your position that you are truly left-wing is rather tenuous when you would still vote right, even when your reasons for voting right aren't really there.

Do you even read the posts you say you are responding to? I made the point that the Democrats (and for that matter the LPOC and NDP) have completely derelicted the common people and stuck to academic, abstract, elite concerns. As to Kyoto, I expect McCain to "convert" quickly after taking office, as the Norweigan and Australian governments are now doing.

[BubberMiley]

Do you even read the posts you say you are responding to? I made the point that the Democrats (and for that matter the LPOC and NDP) have completely derelicted the common people and stuck to academic, abstract, elite concerns. As to Kyoto, I expect McCain to "convert" quickly after taking office, as the Norweigan and Australian governments are now doing.

The main concern that I've heard Democrats discussing in this campaign is providing universal access to health care. I'm not sure what you mean by academic, abstract, or elite. Which of those categories would health care fall under?

As for McCain, are you implying he's campaigning dishonestly and plans on implementing a right-wing agenda when he's elected? I think he has more integrity than that.

[jbg]

The main concern that I've heard Democrats discussing in this campaign is providing universal access to health care. I'm not sure what you mean by academic, abstract, or elite. Which of those categories would health care fall under?

They are not discussing who's going to pay for that. That would concern "Joe Lunchbucket" greatly, and I think they know the answer.

As for McCain, are you implying he's campaigning dishonestly and plans on implementing a right-wing agenda when he's elected? I think he has more integrity than that.

When he's inaugurated on January 20, 2009 and learns what the cost of Kyoto is he'll find a way to backpeddle, same way Rudd, Chretien and Martin have, and the Norweigans are now.

[BubberMiley]

They are not discussing who's going to pay for that. That would concern "Joe Lunchbucket" greatly, and I think they know the answer.

When he's inaugurated on January 20, 2009 and learns what the cost of Kyoto is he'll find a way to backpeddle, same way Rudd, Chretien and Martin have, and the Norweigans are now.

If you think they aren’t discussing how it would be paid for, you’re not paying attention. That’s what the discussion of m-a-n-d-a-t-e-s is about.

But you think McCain is so naïve that he is unaware that taking action on climate change might cost money? I think he’s been around the block enough to have figured that one out already.