Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
moderateamericain

U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

Recommended Posts

The people that i am a fan of are.... John Mccain, even though he has toed the party line on the war in Iraq, he has shown himself to be an old time acutal CONSERVATIVE. As far as i know, hes much less religious then most conservative candidates which to me is a good thing. That old seperations of church and state thing...

Mayor Juliani, Im really curious about this man, he preformed brilliantly around 9/11, so we know he can handle a crisis on a large scale, but id be intrested to hear his thoughts on the war, and what direction he would take it.

On the liberal side, I think Hilary Clinton is really doing the right thing in sticking to her guns on the war. If shes anything like her husband, she will be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If you look at Bill clintons spending record, he actually surrounded himself with people who improved the economy. As for Baraka, i really cant speak intelligently on him, the only thing i heard of him is he had ties with chicago black panther. I dont know how true that is, so dont take that to heart.

Anyways, post away your opinions, if you would like to see someone else run, by all means, post a name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama definitely wins the Democratic nomination.

The Iraq thing will kill Hillary. The only Dem who can beat Barack is Edwards, ain't gone happen.

Poor Barack, wins the nom only to get crushed in the General by .... Giuliani.

He is a persuasive man. Well-managed and will get a lot of moderate Republican votes. McCain is too much of a sh*t sidsturber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't mind the fact that over three trillion dollars are missing from the Pentagon, all the lies about wars and happen to be one of those folks that think buildings collapse directly straight down into their own footprint as a result of asymmetrical damage and fires then you should vote for one of the mainstream supported politicians. They are all making fortunes from your misfortune and are very happy to "serve". Just because they are getting filthy rich from it all doesn't mean anything.

If you don't mind the fact that your country is being sold out to corporations in every way, they are writing the new legislation and the politicians are not even bothering to read it then an establishment corporate media supported politician is the one for you. If you cannot be bothered looking into this North American Union thing and don't really care what it actually means then an establishment/corporate politician is definetly the way to vote.

If you want to change the direction of your country and start putting these crooks in jail and perhaps would like to have a separate giovernment and media you should consider Ron Paul because he tells the truth and has already been elected many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You owe the goverment 50 trillion dollars - your share is $175,000.00 - only Ron Paul points this out.

All of your income tax goes directly to private bankers, not a red cent goes toward running the country. All the other taxes do this. This was in a congressional report by Ronald Reagan in '81.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mayor Juliani, Im really curious about this man, he preformed brilliantly around 9/11

He brilliantly ensured that the proper authorities didn't get anywhere near the evidence and facilitated the illegal removal of evidence like a hero. He sounded like a hero on TV too.

John McCain wants to make posts like mine illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama definitely wins the Democratic nomination.

The Iraq thing will kill Hillary. The only Dem who can beat Barack is Edwards, ain't gone happen.

Poor Barack, wins the nom only to get crushed in the General by .... Giuliani.

He is a persuasive man. Well-managed and will get a lot of moderate Republican votes. McCain is too much of a sh*t sidsturber.

Guilliani is being criticized by the Firefighters Union of New York.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...ack=1&cset=true

Just wait till the media digs into his personal life.

I also think that unless Guiliani comes out against the Iraq war and runs against Bush's handling of the country, he will not gain traction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guilliani is being criticized by the Firefighters Union of New York.

Yes, the National Firefighters Association is hosting a bipartisan Presidential Forum with all canadidates of both parties - Guiliani was NOT invited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilliani is being criticized by the Firefighters Union of New York.

Yes, the National Firefighters Association is hosting a bipartisan Presidential Forum with all canadidates of both parties - Guiliani was NOT invited.

He doesn't need to be invited. He's leading McCain by 16 points. I wonder if the firefighters will attempt to swiftboat him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He doesn't need to be invited. He's leading McCain by 16 points. I wonder if the firefighters will attempt to swiftboat him?

I wonder of Giulliani will say the firefighters are not actually heroes.

In any event, it is the conservative elements in the GOP who think that Giulliani is too liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that as the two main parties in the U.S. get closer and closer to those first primaries, it is probably good to have one central thread where we find out the latest. Who's in, who's out? Who is on the rise and who is falling.

The Republicans have several announced candidates.

The candidates for the Republican Party:

Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator from Kansas

Rudy Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York City

Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas

Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California

John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas

Mitt Romney, Former Governor of Massachusetts

Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado

Tommy Thompson, Former Governor of Wisconsin and Former Secretary of Health and Human Services

There are a few who haven't announced yet so please feel free to throw a few names out there.

The Democratic candidates are:

The candidates for the Democratic Party:

Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York and Former First Lady

Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator from Connecticut

John Edwards, Former U.S. Senator from North Carolina and 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate

Mike Gravel, Former U.S. Senator from Alaska

Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative from Ohio

Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico

Any thoughts on the race is going? Any early predictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 possibles in Newt Gingrich on the right and Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an Indie. Bloomberg claims he isn't interested, but I wouldn't bet on it. Newt's going to watch and see if the others crash and burn first. Al Gore has been pretty adamant about not being interested and I don't think he'll get in, although I suppose there's a very outside chance after the Nobel prizes are awarded. Oops, I forgot Chuck Hagel, a Republican. He officially became a "noncandidate" earlier in the year, but has been seen dining with Bloomberg. After the first primary they'll drop like flies and we'll be left with 2 or 3 on either side for about a month. In all honesty, none of the candidates have captured my vote yet. I don't like any of the Republicans (and - believe it or not - I've actually cast a vote for McCain in the past). The Dems have their "stars," but Richardson is probably the most qualified from either party. Unfortunately for him he's also the least charismatic. Obama is the most inspiring; Kucinich the most idealistic; Gravel the most nuts. Hillary is a very smart woman - and I'd love to cast a presidential vote for a woman - but I can't stand her and I can't put my finger on it. Biden is very smart as well and well qualified, but was shown to be in the pockets of the credit card companies after his vote on the bankruptcy bill in the last Congress. That grates. Edwards is a rather sweet man. I'm looking forward to meeting him before the New Hampshire primary. Should be interesting. Thanks for starting the thread.

Edited by SkyhookJackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 2 possibles in Newt Gingrich on the right and Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an Indie. Bloomberg claims he isn't interested, but I wouldn't bet on it. Newt's going to watch and see if the others crash and burn first. Al Gore has been pretty adamant about not being interested and I don't think he'll get in, although I suppose there's a very outside chance after the Nobel prizes are awarded. Oops, I forgot Chuck Hagel, a Republican. He officially became a "noncandidate" earlier in the year, but has been seen dining with Bloomberg. After the first primary they'll drop like flies and we'll be left with 2 or 3 on either side for about a month. In all honesty, none of the candidates have captured my vote yet. I don't like any of the Republicans (and - believe it or not - I've actually cast a vote for McCain in the past). The Dems have their "stars," but Richardson is probably the most qualified from either party. Unfortunately for him he's also the least charismatic. Obama is the most inspiring; Kucinich the most idealistic; Gravel the most nuts. Hillary is a very smart woman - and I'd love to cast a presidential vote for a woman - but I can't stand her and I can't put my finger on it. Biden is very smart as well and well qualified, but was shown to be in the pockets of the credit card companies after his vote on the bankruptcy bill in the last Congress. That grates. Edwards is a rather sweet man. I'm looking forward to meeting him before the New Hampshire primary. Should be interesting. Thanks for starting the thread.

I thought Bloomberg was going to run as an independent.

Gingrich keeps threatening to run but he might have so many negatives that he might not get a dollar from anyone to carry out his threat.

I guess we have to mention Fred Dalton Thompson. I think right now he is the generic Republican candidate but he hasn't announced yet.

For the Democrats, I'd say that whoever wins, they will look to Bill Richardson as a running mate if he doesn't win himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Repubs I would say none of the above. Perhaps at a stretch Romney. That's why they are reaching out to Fred Thompson.

As for the Dems Clinton and Obama will be in burn out long before the convention. Maybe Edwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the Repubs I would say none of the above. Perhaps at a stretch Romney. That's why they are reaching out to Fred Thompson.

As for the Dems Clinton and Obama will be in burn out long before the convention. Maybe Edwards.

Generally I disagree. Depite media scepticism Guiliani continues to retain a surprisingly large prortion of core republican supporters. His support numbers within the party indicate a sizable number of supporters amongst those who are unlikely to agree with him on "social" or "family values" issues. Guiliani's biggert problem is that he has not concentrated enough in New Hampshire. Iowa is a loss for him and will probably give the "socially conservative" candidate momentum but with a right mix of pro-gun rights and other libertarian sounding mezsssages in New Hampshire Guiliani would have the ability to win that primary. Sucha win would break the back of any challanger. While Giliani has good support among conservatives (and arguably surprising support) he is in danger of lossing both of these key battles, while pursuing the larger nomination. Sometimes you have to ignore the forest of the few key trees.

Clinton wins the dem nomination hands down. Obama is going to be forced to become negative really soon, unless he gives up and decides to "run" for VP instead. At this point Clinton is beginning to run away with it. To win the nomination Obama has to demonstrate that in a alrger election her baggage will bring her down, in order to start drawing some of the Dem supervoters away from her. To do that he has to go negative.

Edwards does not have a chance in hell of winning that nomination. That's too bad for the republicans. Of the three he would be the least likely to win a general election. The man is a joke and he is not helping his credibility by kowtowing, at times, to the far fringes of the Democratic party. I'll point out to you that Dean crashed and burned by carrying out the same tactic and Edwards doesn't have nearly the momentum Dean had.

Your analysis, I dare say, is not very serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Repubs I would say none of the above. Perhaps at a stretch Romney. That's why they are reaching out to Fred Thompson.

As for the Dems Clinton and Obama will be in burn out long before the convention. Maybe Edwards.

Generally I disagree. Depite media scepticism Guiliani continues to retain a surprisingly large prortion of core republican supporters. His support numbers within the party indicate a sizable number of supporters amongst those who are unlikely to agree with him on "social" or "family values" issues. Guiliani's biggert problem is that he has not concentrated enough in New Hampshire. Iowa is a loss for him and will probably give the "socially conservative" candidate momentum but with a right mix of pro-gun rights and other libertarian sounding mezsssages in New Hampshire Guiliani would have the ability to win that primary. Sucha win would break the back of any challanger. While Giliani has good support among conservatives (and arguably surprising support) he is in danger of lossing both of these key battles, while pursuing the larger nomination. Sometimes you have to ignore the forest of the few key trees.

Clinton wins the dem nomination hands down. Obama is going to be forced to become negative really soon, unless he gives up and decides to "run" for VP instead. At this point Clinton is beginning to run away with it. To win the nomination Obama has to demonstrate that in a alrger election her baggage will bring her down, in order to start drawing some of the Dem supervoters away from her. To do that he has to go negative.

Edwards does not have a chance in hell of winning that nomination. That's too bad for the republicans. Of the three he would be the least likely to win a general election. The man is a joke and he is not helping his credibility by kowtowing, at times, to the far fringes of the Democratic party. I'll point out to you that Dean crashed and burned by carrying out the same tactic and Edwards doesn't have nearly the momentum Dean had.

Your analysis, I dare say, is not very serious.

It's a long way from now until the conventions and many things can happen between now and then both caused by outside forces and by the candidates themselves. As Harold Wilson pointed out, a week is an eternity in politics. Clinton and Giuliani have opposite problems. It would be easier for him to win the general election than get the nomination and Clinton is more likely to win the nomination than win in the November election. I don't think Clinton's appeal with the public will last. The more you hear her the more grating she becomes. Giuliani comes across better than Clinton but I don't think he has long-term appeal to Repubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Repubs I would say none of the above. Perhaps at a stretch Romney. That's why they are reaching out to Fred Thompson.

As for the Dems Clinton and Obama will be in burn out long before the convention. Maybe Edwards.

Generally I disagree. Depite media scepticism Guiliani continues to retain a surprisingly large prortion of core republican supporters. His support numbers within the party indicate a sizable number of supporters amongst those who are unlikely to agree with him on "social" or "family values" issues. Guiliani's biggert problem is that he has not concentrated enough in New Hampshire. Iowa is a loss for him and will probably give the "socially conservative" candidate momentum but with a right mix of pro-gun rights and other libertarian sounding mezsssages in New Hampshire Guiliani would have the ability to win that primary. Sucha win would break the back of any challanger. While Giliani has good support among conservatives (and arguably surprising support) he is in danger of lossing both of these key battles, while pursuing the larger nomination. Sometimes you have to ignore the forest of the few key trees.

Clinton wins the dem nomination hands down. Obama is going to be forced to become negative really soon, unless he gives up and decides to "run" for VP instead. At this point Clinton is beginning to run away with it. To win the nomination Obama has to demonstrate that in a alrger election her baggage will bring her down, in order to start drawing some of the Dem supervoters away from her. To do that he has to go negative.

Edwards does not have a chance in hell of winning that nomination. That's too bad for the republicans. Of the three he would be the least likely to win a general election. The man is a joke and he is not helping his credibility by kowtowing, at times, to the far fringes of the Democratic party. I'll point out to you that Dean crashed and burned by carrying out the same tactic and Edwards doesn't have nearly the momentum Dean had.

Your analysis, I dare say, is not very serious.

It's a long way from now until the conventions and many things can happen between now and then both caused by outside forces and by the candidates themselves. As Harold Wilson pointed out, a week is an eternity in politics. Clinton and Giuliani have opposite problems. It would be easier for him to win the general election than get the nomination and Clinton is more likely to win the nomination than win in the November election. I don't think Clinton's appeal with the public will last. The more you hear her the more grating she becomes. Giuliani comes across better than Clinton but I don't think he has long-term appeal to Repubs.

I disagree on Clinton. She is a good public candidate and perosnally I believe Obama, in a general election, would show that there is little of substance there and what is would be far less paletable to American voters than what Clinton might say.

You're probably more on the ball with Guiliani. But the current evidence seems to belie your theory. Guiliani is, for now, more than holding his own in the race.

Of course it's a long time from now 'till then. But we are still having this discussion. As such we must look at what is happening now. Taking the bromide you cite to its extreme - we shouldn';t even be discussing this at this early time. Maybe right in a platonic sense, but pragmatically - we are all thinking about it so why not chat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree on Clinton. She is a good public candidate and perosnally I believe Obama, in a general election, would show that there is little of substance there and what is would be far less paletable to American voters than what Clinton might say.

You're probably more on the ball with Guiliani. But the current evidence seems to belie your theory. Guiliani is, for now, more than holding his own in the race.

Of course it's a long time from now 'till then. But we are still having this discussion. As such we must look at what is happening now. Taking the bromide you cite to its extreme - we shouldn';t even be discussing this at this early time. Maybe right in a platonic sense, but pragmatically - we are all thinking about it so why not chat.

Right now it would Rudy/Hilly - that's clear. But I have a hard time seeing the GOP nominating a guy with his messy family history and a liberal on social issues. As for Clinton, maybe she just rubs me the wrong way but I can't see her sustaining her popularity over the next 15 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree on Clinton. She is a good public candidate and perosnally I believe Obama, in a general election, would show that there is little of substance there and what is would be far less paletable to American voters than what Clinton might say.

You're probably more on the ball with Guiliani. But the current evidence seems to belie your theory. Guiliani is, for now, more than holding his own in the race.

Of course it's a long time from now 'till then. But we are still having this discussion. As such we must look at what is happening now. Taking the bromide you cite to its extreme - we shouldn';t even be discussing this at this early time. Maybe right in a platonic sense, but pragmatically - we are all thinking about it so why not chat.

Right now it would Rudy/Hilly - that's clear. But I have a hard time seeing the GOP nominating a guy with his messy family history and a liberal on social issues. As for Clinton, maybe she just rubs me the wrong way but I can't see her sustaining her popularity over the next 15 months.

I'd think the Republicans would be pretty nervous about having Rudy as a candidate. I've got a feeling if he's the nominee, the ex-wife (Donna, not the other one) and the estranged kids will join the firefighters who are reportedly trailing him around the country to let the world know what they think of him. I'm really puzzled about the attraction of the guy and the whole "9/11 hero" thing. What, exactly, did he do on 9/11?? He walked. And walked. And walked. And walked. He was walking because he had the bad sense to put his command center in the WTC after it had already been attacked once and he had nowhere to go. The rescue workers died because they couldn't communicate with the lousy radios he provided. I just don't get it.

Edited by SkyhookJackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another of the debates took place today. This time for the Republicans.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/05/gop.debate/index.html

At the debate, candidates attacked each other's positions on abortion and offered ideas for protecting the nation's infrastructure after the Minneapolis bridge collapse.

And in some cases they criticized President Bush.

The debate got personal when former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took a swipe at Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, whose campaign had sponsored an automated phone message to Iowans. The advertisement accused Romney of pledging to uphold policies legalizing abortion, then claiming he opposed them.

"I am pro-life. And virtually every part of that ad is inaccurate," Romney said.

Don't Miss

Brownback noted Romney's previous stance, which he expressed years ago in a video that is now on YouTube.

"I get tired of people that are holier than thou because they've been pro-life longer than I have," Romney said.

Brownback vowed that, if elected president, he would appoint a Supreme Court justice who, "I hope, would be the voting decision to overturn Roe v. Wade."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who supports abortion rights, was called on to defend his position.

I don't know that Giuliani can possibly overcome his stance on abortion when it comes to the Republican party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton wins the dem nomination hands down. Obama is going to be forced to become negative really soon, unless he gives up and decides to "run" for VP instead. At this point Clinton is beginning to run away with it. To win the nomination Obama has to demonstrate that in a alrger election her baggage will bring her down, in order to start drawing some of the Dem supervoters away from her. To do that he has to go negative.

Edwards does not have a chance in hell of winning that nomination. That's too bad for the republicans. Of the three he would be the least likely to win a general election.

I disagree. I've just spent the past week or so traveling above and below the Mason-Dixon line, talking to cross-over Red voters and it's clear to me that Obama will never be president. If the Dems pick him, the Republicans will win in 2008 whoever they pick. Clinton has a vague chance because she will assemble smart people but - here too - I have to say that Clinton will not get elected in November 2008.

To win, the Dems need a cross-over leader (like Bill or Jimmy) and Edwards is the only one who has a chance of that. At the moment, Edwards appears to be doing anything he can to keep his head above water.

All in all, the Dems are facing their age-old problem. A candidate who can win the leadership is unelectable.

It'll be a Republican on the capitol steps in January 2009 - either Thompson or Romney, I'd guess now.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All in all, the Dems are facing their age-old problem. A candidate who can win the leadership is unelectable.

It'll be a Republican on the capitol steps in January 2009 - either Thompson or Romney, I'd guess now.

Thompson is struggling with money. I'm still not convinced he will run or if he does whether he has enough to keep going into the primaries where he barely registers at all.

Romney could win the primaries but I don't know his political past and present will square with voters if he wins the nomination.

Lastly: Iraq.

Even when there is one positive sign, there are several negative signs. It hurts Republicans because they don't want to be seen as close to Bush right now but don't know where to stand otherwise.

Edited by jdobbin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't heard anything officially yet, but it looks like Ralph Nader is going to run again in 2008 as a green. If it happens, this would make a Republican win more likely. I don't think America would put a woman or black in office yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't heard anything officially yet, but it looks like Ralph Nader is going to run again in 2008 as a green. If it happens, this would make a Republican win more likely. I don't think America would put a woman or black in office yet.

I've been saying that for a long time. I don't see Obama being a serious contender and Clinton will fade away. But when you get past them, who do the Dems have that will beats the Republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...