U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[August1991]

It's obvious how the Republicans will lose.

For the Republicans to lose, the Democrats must win.

There is no way that Obama or Hillary Rodham will become president. By choosing identity politics, the Democrats have chosen to lose. Americans are not designer label people.

A black or a woman could become president but only by being simply American. When a woman or a black crosses over and becomes simply a candidate, then America will have such president. IME, ordinary Americans, black or white, men or women, are not racist or sexist. IME, Americans are fair people.

----

If I go to hard political choices, Hillary Clinton simply has too many negatives to be president. She carries the baggage of her husband. I thought before that she could overcome this baggage and win the Democrat nomination, but now I realize that's impossible.

Obama? There is no way that the American people will vote for him as president. He is far too unknown and far too left/liberal. He has no track record. Since JFK, over 40 years, all presidents have been either governors or vice-presidents. Obama is no JFK. Even Kennedy's boiler-plate speeches had a touch of originality. Obama's speeches are simply glib. Kennedy eschewed glibness.

The Democrats live in the shadow of JFK, like Canadian Liberals live in the shadow of Trudeau.

[WIP]

WIP, your post illustrates simply why the Democrats will not win. You rant on about how McCain and the Republicans will lose but you don't explain how that will happen? Do you really believe that Clinton can win the nomination? If she doesn't, the nominee will be Obama. Do you really think that the American people will vote for Obama?

At this point, the Republicans aren't going to win; it's teh Democrats who are going to lose.

At least Canadian Liberals have a practical sense (and unfortunately, that's about all they have.)

The Democrats will win because so many Americans want Republicans to lose, as noted by Bubermiley earlier. Most of the reasons are to find a way to exact some revenge on George Bush for the War and state of the economy, but since they can't vote him out of office, they have to turn their wrath at the Republican heir to the Bush Whitehouse.

McCain has personal flaws, especially his angry outbursts, that may become as much, or even greater issues than the complaints about Hillary and Barach Obama. http://youtube.com/watch?v=VYoL8CNKT54 He's been able to keep it reigned in better this time around than he did in 2000, but all it will take is one Howard Dean moment and any slim chance he has of winning goes out the window.

When people are really up in arms against the government, they're in a mood to vote the people they hate out of office, not vote in the ones they like. Under these disastrous conditions, the Democratic nominee will just have to do what John McCain is doing now, sit back quietly while John McCain is attacked for the economic problems and an endless war.

You mean, like, who provides funding for the Carter Center?

As far as I know, the Republicans have received more largesse from the Saudis than Democrats, but they are no different than other large corporate donors who buy influence on both sides of the political aisle. There must be some reason why Jimmy Carter got a nice retirement gift from the Saudis!

[WIP]

Oil reigns supreme because the production costs are still well under $10/bbl, and the price could easily drop that far, wiping out everything in between. Just ask how Alberta fared for the first few years after the NEP was repealed by Mulroney.

Oil is not going to be reigning supreme much longer! Of the 20 largest oil fields in the world, nine are already recognized as being in decline; some of the others may be as well, but state oil companies in OPEC countries have an incentive to exaggerate their oil reserves. The U.S. and most western nations have done little or nothing to reduce the demand for oil, and newly industrializing countries like China and India are increasing the world demand for oil. Increasing demand at a time of decreasing supply will sink any faint hope of seeing $20.00 a barrel an oil in the future.

And that $10.00 a barrel number is based on figures from the major oil fields where finding and lifting costs are the lowest. To meet the increased demand for oil, new wells have to be put in areas that were previously considered too costly. And since you mentioned Alberta, most of their oil is locked up in the Athabasca Tar Sands, where extraction, capital costs, and the costs of upgrading crude bitumen to synthetic crude, puts the total costs of new mining operations at between 36 and 40 dollars per barrel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Tar_Sands#Economics

The tar sands raises another issue in that virtually all of these new hard to get oil developments are environmental nightmares that poison land and ground water and make a huge increase in CO2 emissions. Ways to phase out the dependence on oil may be needed for environmental reasons as much as economic realities.

[BubberMiley]

A black or a woman could become president but only by being simply American. When a woman or a black crosses over and becomes simply a candidate, then America will have such president. IME, ordinary Americans, black or white, men or women, are not racist or sexist. IME, Americans are fair people.

I agree that Americans would vote a black president if he is simply a candidate for president. That's what Obama is. He hasn't used identity politics in this campaign. What are you referring to when you say he has?

[jbg]

Oil is not going to be reigning supreme much longer! Of the 20 largest oil fields in the world, nine are already recognized as being in decline; some of the others may be as well, but state oil companies in OPEC countries have an incentive to exaggerate their oil reserves.

Saskatchewan?

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree that Americans would vote a black president if he is simply a candidate for president. That's what Obama is. He hasn't used identity politics in this campaign. What are you referring to when you say he has?

If you think he is just a candidate, then surely you would agree that he could lose. Many Americans will vote for a "black president", but many more will just vote for a president.

[jazzer]

That's because there is nothing more to offer but the same in Iraq. Those who cluck about the 2006 midterms and Democrat victories need to be reminded that not one damn thing has changed.

So I guess the surged failed. And oh, Bush recently said: "violence in Iraq yielded a very positive moment in the development of a sovereign nation that is willing to take on elements that believe they are beyond the law."link

So now violence in Iraq is interpreted as a postive moment. Man, this guy has a real problem expressing himself.

[bush_cheney2004]

So I guess the surged failed. And oh, Bush recently said: "violence in Iraq yielded a very positive moment in the development of a sovereign nation that is willing to take on elements that believe they are beyond the law."link

So now violence in Iraq is interpreted as a postive moment. Man, this guy has a real problem expressing himself.

Works for me....America has a very long history of using "violence" to shape outcomes at home and around the world, and that includes joining in your empire's struggles to preserve the Commonwealth.

Edited April 20, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jazzer]

Works for me....America has a very long history of using "violence" to shape outcomes at home and around the world, and that includes joining in your empire's struggles to preserve the Commonwealth.

Too bad you waited 2+ years to jump in.

[bush_cheney2004]

Too bad you waited 2+ years to jump in.

Like Canada, the USA was never attacked. Y'know, like the Iraq thing. Gee, I wish you guys would make up your mind!

[jazzer]

Like Canada, the USA was never attacked. Y'know, like the Iraq thing. Gee, I wish you guys would make up your mind!

You seem to forget that Canada was a self-governing Dominion under the British Crown, and as such we had obligations as a member of the Commonweath.

[bush_cheney2004]

You seem to forget that Canada was a self-governing Dominion under the British Crown, and as such we had obligations as a member of the Commonweath.

Nope.....Canada specifically waited to formally declare war as an independent sovereign since the Statute of Westminster. I don't have any problem with Canada joining in the fun and games to keep that world domination empire thing going, but no need to pretend that Canada was obligated to do anything. And even if I did, it would be IRRELEVANT.

Accordingly, and getting back on topic, the Americans will choose their next president without obligation to any other sovereign.

Edited April 20, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jazzer]

Nope.....Canada specifically waited to formally declare war as an independent sovereign since the Statute of Westminster. I don't have any problem with Canada joining in the fun and games to keep that world domination empire thing going, but no need to pretend that Canada was obligated to do anything. And even if I did, it would be IRRELEVANT.

Accordingly, and getting back on topic, the Americans will choose their next president without obligation to any other sovereign.

Interesting, and would make wikipedia a little embarrassed.

"At the beginning of the war, Canada was the oldest Dominion in the British Commonwealth. As a nation, it was, for the most part, reluctant to return to war. Nonetheless, Canadians entered the Second World War united with Great Britain, through Commonwealth asociation"

and this from links north

"Canadian sovereignty thus had been achieved by a long process of peaceful constitutional evolution. This was vividly demonstrated by the independent decision of its Parliament that Canada enter World War II at the side of Britain, which it did within a week of the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939."

[jazzer]

deleted

Edited April 20, 2008 by jazzer

[bush_cheney2004]

"Canadian sovereignty thus had been achieved by a long process of peaceful constitutional evolution. This was vividly demonstrated by the independent decision of its Parliament that Canada enter World War II at the side of Britain, which it did within a week of the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939."

Correct, and as I stated, an INDEPENDENT decision, not an obligation. IIRC, it was last to do so behind New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa. Oh my....Canada chose to go to war even though it was not attacked. Oh the humanity!

The Americans were under no obligation either, and had already wasted lives and billions in the previous European adventure for Pax Britannia. Now we do it for ourselves thank-you-very-much.

Edited April 20, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jazzer]

Correct, and as I stated, an INDEPENDENT decision, not an obligation. IIRC, it was last to do so behind New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa. Oh my....Canada chose to go to war even though it was not attacked. Oh the humanity!

The Americans were under no obligation either, and had already wasted lives and billions in the previous European adventure for Pax Britannia. Now we do it for ourselves thank-you-very-much.

Oh that pesky interpretation bug. I really think both quotes of mine above could be correct. Canada was a new sovereign nation, but still had the Queen on our money and a Governor General. We pledged allegiance to the Queen in school. I believe there was an expectation that Canada would enter the war, but under a British umbrella. And that's precisely what happened. The word I should have used was expectation, not obligation.

Edited April 20, 2008 by jazzer

[bush_cheney2004]

...The word I should have used was expectation, not obligation.

Yes there was an expectation, but there existed no obligation. My only point being that sovereign Canada declared war by choice, the same criticism we hear today about the UK/USA/AUS/POL decision in Iraq.

[BubberMiley]

If you think he is just a candidate, then surely you would agree that he could lose. Many Americans will vote for a "black president", but many more will just vote for a president.

Of course, he could lose. I just don't haven't seen any evidence yet that he's on track to do so. The main argument in these circles that McCain would win is based on misleading statements, like Obama is basing his campaign on "identity politics" or based on the idea that we are still in 1988 or even 1968. The nation has changed considerably since Dukakis ran (and there aren't that many similarities between Obama and Dukakis anyway). Some people have formed their conceptions of the electorate a long, long time ago and have not kept in touch enough to realize that times have changed.

And it's time for change.

[sharkman]

Yeah, Bushie's had an 8 yr kick at the can, time for an old guy's perspective!

[Zachary Young]

There is only one decent candidate - Ron Paul.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, he could lose. I just don't haven't seen any evidence yet that he's on track to do so. The main argument in these circles that McCain would win is based on misleading statements, like Obama is basing his campaign on "identity politics" or based on the idea that we are still in 1988 or even 1968.

Senator Obama hasn't even secured the nomination of his party, so he is hardly a shoe in for the general election. He may be on track to barely squeak out a nomination victory, but then the real competition begins. Did you feel just as confident about Senator Kerry winning in 2004?

The nation has changed considerably since Dukakis ran (and there aren't that many similarities between Obama and Dukakis anyway). Some people have formed their conceptions of the electorate a long, long time ago and have not kept in touch enough to realize that times have changed. And it's time for change.

There will be a change, just like clockwork, but it may not be consistent with the kind of change that you want or think is necessary (for whatever reason).

Edited April 20, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

The main argument in these circles that McCain would win is based on misleading statements, like Obama is basing his campaign on "identity politics" or based on the idea that we are still in 1988 or even 1968. The nation has changed considerably since Dukakis ran (and there aren't that many similarities between Obama and Dukakis anyway). Some people have formed their conceptions of the electorate a long, long time ago and have not kept in touch enough to realize that times have changed.

And it's time for change.

That's a fair criticsm, and it's also wrong.

I think too many people suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome". They hate Bush so much that they still can't believe that he was elected president. In their minds, it is unimaginable that the American people could elect another Republican. (These same people are the kind who thought George McGovern would get elected. Or who voted against Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary.) Rather than look at how McCain will win, take a look at why the Democrats will lose.

The United States hasn't changed that much in electoral terms, and it hasn't shifted to the left. Compared to 40 or 50 years ago, the Hispanic vote is now more important. The West and South are more important than the Northeast, and unionized labour is less important.

The most significant change is how the South no longer votes Democrat - the so-called Senate boll weevils that Nixon first got and then Reagan kept. (Even Kennedy had the good sense to name a Texan as a running mate.) Sometimes these voters are called Reagan Democrats - and neither Obama nor Clinton will get these voters. Hence, both Democrats are unelectable.

Here's another way of looking at this. The 1950s base of the Republican Party was (and still is to a degree) the "country club establishment". The base of the Democratic Party is minorities and the "whacko fringe". For either party to win the White House, they have to appeal to the centre. Since Nixon, Reagan, civil rights legislation and the 1960s, this is easier for the Republicans. For the Democrats to win, they have to get everything absolutely right.

Since Nixon, only Carter, Clinton and arguably Gore managed to win. All three were mainstream, right of centre Democrats from the south. (Gore played too left in 2000.) Obama is far too left wing, far too inexperienced. He hasn't been stellar dealing with the few hardballs he's had to face.

Look, politics is a crazy game sometimes and anything can happen. And I suppose Ron Paul might become president some day too.

Edited April 20, 2008 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

This could definitely determine who becomes the Democratic candidate:

Undecided superdelegates don't feel bound by primaries

Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple — they just want a winner in November.

Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discussed their decision-making with The Associated Press in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter — whether it's who has the most national delegates or the candidate who won their state or congressional district. But few said the primaries will be the biggest factor in their decision.

I'd say that's good news for Clinton.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Since Nixon, only Carter, Clinton and arguably Gore managed to win. All three were mainstream, right of centre Democrats from the south. (Gore played too left in 2000.) Obama is far too left wing, far too inexperienced. He hasn't been stellar dealing with the few hardballs he's had to face....

This is key....the Lee Atwater (Karl Rove mentor) strategy still counts because of the Electoral College. The Democrats offered up John Kerry in 2004 and although he came close, he could not overcome limitations in voting demographics that exist to this day, and will be even more polarized by Barack "Hussein" Obama. When faced with such stark choices, America will choose center / right of center over far left every time.

The Democrats have inspirational hope with Senator Obama, but that does not translate into political hope in November. However, it will make for a great Boondocks episode.

[jdobbin]

That's a fair criticsm, and it's also wrong.

I think too many people suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome". They hate Bush so much that they still can't believe that he was elected president. In their minds, it is unimaginable that the American people could elect another Republican. (These same people are the kind who thought George McGovern would get elected. Or who voted against Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary.) Rather than look at how McCain will win, take a look at why the Democrats will lose.

I love how the right wing trots out the type of statement you just did. Bush has been hobbled by Iraq and so have the Republicans. The mid-terms pretty much showed that the American people were taking the first step towards change there. They certainly have shown no real support of continuing Bush's policy there.

I have no idea who will win the Democratic primary at the point. I said it would be Obama back when when we were making predictions at the end of last year. However, I just don't know how the Superdelegates will see it.

I thought that Mitt Romney was the candidate who stood the best chance of winning the nomination and possibly doing well in the overall election. What I didn't count on was that compared to when his father ran, Romney came against a strong anti-Mormon feeling. That, and some inconsistent policies over the years, led to his defeat.

McCain suffers from no less an inconsistent reputation. He had considered joining the Democrats! The difference between Romney and McCain is temperament. I don't think McCain will be able to stand the heat without exploding at some point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24223304/

John McCain cupped a fist and began pumping it, up and down, along the side of his body. It was a gesture familiar to a participant in the closed-door meeting of the Senate committee who hoped that it merely signaled, as it sometimes had in the past, McCain's mounting frustration with one of his colleagues.

But when McCain leaned toward Charles E. Grassley and slowly said, "My friend . . ." it seemed clear that ugliness was looming: While the plural "my friends" was usually a warm salutation from McCain, "my friend" was often a prelude to his most caustic attacks. Grassley, an Iowa Republican with a reputation as an unwavering legislator, calmly held his ground. McCain became angrier, his fist pumping even faster.

If he can remain calm and somehow articulate policies that are clear and don't just sounds like a continuation of George Bush's foreign policy, he might have a chance. The problem is that people seem ready for change and it might not be satisfied with staying with the same party for the presidency.

I can remember just how wrong people here were about the mid-terms. I think we are seeing something similar now.