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

U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

Recommended Posts

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.

Nader's vote count has dropped considerably in the years he has run. He will certainly get some votes but whether it is enough for a wounded Republican party to take advantage of is another question.

Edited by jdobbin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Prior to the mid-terms, we heard a lot of voices here saying that the Republicans would retain the Senate and Reps. We heard arguments suggesting that the Republicans had more money, better ideas, better organization. Well, in the end Iraq and Bush killed off several Republican candidates and incumbents. Iraq still hangs like a noose around some Republicans now as they try to distance themselves from the President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ingrish preez?

I've corrected that to "run."

And I was mistaken. He had a small percentage in 1996, did better in 2000 and faired poorer in 2004, partly because he couldn't get his name on the ballots in several places.

Nader failed to be a spoiler in that campaign. Bush's margin was much higher in 2004.

I don't know that he will act as a spoiler in this election based on the past election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prior to the mid-terms, we heard a lot of voices here saying that the Republicans would retain the Senate and Reps. We heard arguments suggesting that the Republicans had more money, better ideas, better organization. Well, in the end Iraq and Bush killed off several Republican candidates and incumbents. Iraq still hangs like a noose around some Republicans now as they try to distance themselves from the President.

True. If the Repubs are to win, it will have to be a candidate who can overcome the Bush-factor. However, the best candidate for the GOP would be Clinton - if she is nominated by the Dems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I was mistaken. He had a small percentage in 1996, did better in 2000 and faired poorer in 2004, partly because he couldn't get his name on the ballots in several places.

Nader failed to be a spoiler in that campaign. Bush's margin was much higher in 2004.

I don't know that he will act as a spoiler in this election based on the past election.

Tell that to the 'truthies' who are convinced that Bush stole the 2000 election. I don't think they realize if Nader hadn't run, Gore would've won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prior to the mid-terms, we heard a lot of voices here saying that the Republicans would retain the Senate and Reps. We heard arguments suggesting that the Republicans had more money, better ideas, better organization. Well, in the end Iraq and Bush killed off several Republican candidates and incumbents. Iraq still hangs like a noose around some Republicans now as they try to distance themselves from the President.

If the Iraq war (vote) be a noose around Republican necks, then Clinton surely feels the same rope burns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell that to the 'truthies' who are convinced that Bush stole the 2000 election. I don't think they realize if Nader hadn't run, Gore would've won.

Some people believe both happened.

I just happen to think it was Nader who acted as the big spoiler.

I also happen to think that many aspects of the U.S. voting system suck. Not just for Democrats but Republicans too. I was in Florida when the vote count was happening in 2000 and it was just tragic that it came down to and endless count of pregnant and dimpled chads. What a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Iraq war (vote) be a noose around Republican necks, then Clinton surely feels the same rope burns.

I'm sure she does. We'll see if enough mea culpas help. It might not and she might lose out to Edwards or Obama in the end.

Certainly McCain's strategy of being close to the President on Iraq hasn't helped. The rest of the Republican field is trying to distance themselves from Iraq but their party is most associated with that county.

There were some people here who had complete certainty that the Republicans would retain the Senate and the Reps in the mid-terms. They didn't and Iraq was a huge issue for many people. It still is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure she does. We'll see if enough mea culpas help. It might not and she might lose out to Edwards or Obama in the end.

Certainly McCain's strategy of being close to the President on Iraq hasn't helped. The rest of the Republican field is trying to distance themselves from Iraq but their party is most associated with that county.

There were some people here who had complete certainty that the Republicans would retain the Senate and the Reps in the mid-terms. They didn't and Iraq was a huge issue for many people. It still is.

This is incorrect. McCain has been hurt by his immigration stance, McCain-Feingold - a big issue amongst conservative primary voters and donors), and his general derision for those who make up the base of the party. Amongst the base of the party I've spoken to the one saving grace for him is support of the war. But I do not begrudge you your misunderstanding, painted as it is by your personal bias and support it gets from the media. The truth is most Republican voters support the war as long as it is being run to win. The disaffection is not with the Iraq war per se but with the idea that Bush screwed the pooch. Successes in iraq - or heck even the percveption that the US military is fighting to win again - will bring republican back to the fold. Other than Ron Paul there is no Republican who is calling for withdrawal in the race. You know they do carry out focus groups. A nominee who is perceived to be ready to win Iraq will be lauded - at this poiunt at least - by Republicans. A nominee who nattempts distancing via defeatism will sink.

The media reads polls showing disaffection with Iraq in one way only - as a loss of support for the war. It is a simplistic reading that plays to their agenda. It is a reading I welcome - as long as the dems believe the Repubs lost in '06 due to the war they will not exploit the true weakness of the Repubs. Rather they will, and are, missing the target. To gain Repub support, and to bring out voters in '08, all a Republican nominee will have to do is play clips of Dem defeatism. If the Dems realized that the Repubs really lost in '06 due to perceived corruption, overspending OTHER THAN THE WAR, and the beginning of the immigration battle they could press a PResident on these issues - issues where the Republican party can face defeat again because their reforms have stalled.

But as is often the case the Democrat-media alliance creats an echo-chamber with little input from outside. All the dems have to do is to listen to conservative talk radion to figure out why Republican voters are dissatisfied with their party and which drums they should bang. They'll never "stoop" to taking direction from Limbaugh however. Even if the guy put down all he says regarding the Repubs failings on paper and titled it a manual to defeat the Republicans.

Mark my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is incorrect. McCain has been hurt by his immigration stance, McCain-Feingold - a big issue amongst conservative primary voters and donors), and his general derision for those who make up the base of the party. Amongst the base of the party I've spoken to the one saving grace for him is support of the war. But I do not begrudge you your misunderstanding, painted as it is by your personal bias and support it gets from the media. The truth is most Republican voters support the war as long as it is being run to win. The disaffection is not with the Iraq war per se but with the idea that Bush screwed the pooch. Successes in iraq - or heck even the percveption that the US military is fighting to win again - will bring republican back to the fold. Other than Ron Paul there is no Republican who is calling for withdrawal in the race. You know they do carry out focus groups. A nominee who is perceived to be ready to win Iraq will be lauded - at this poiunt at least - by Republicans. A nominee who nattempts distancing via defeatism will sink.

The media reads polls showing disaffection with Iraq in one way only - as a loss of support for the war. It is a simplistic reading that plays to their agenda. It is a reading I welcome - as long as the dems believe the Repubs lost in '06 due to the war they will not exploit the true weakness of the Repubs. Rather they will, and are, missing the target. To gain Repub support, and to bring out voters in '08, all a Republican nominee will have to do is play clips of Dem defeatism. If the Dems realized that the Repubs really lost in '06 due to perceived corruption, overspending OTHER THAN THE WAR, and the beginning of the immigration battle they could press a PResident on these issues - issues where the Republican party can face defeat again because their reforms have stalled.

But as is often the case the Democrat-media alliance creats an echo-chamber with little input from outside. All the dems have to do is to listen to conservative talk radion to figure out why Republican voters are dissatisfied with their party and which drums they should bang. They'll never "stoop" to taking direction from Limbaugh however. Even if the guy put down all he says regarding the Repubs failings on paper and titled it a manual to defeat the Republicans.

Mark my words.

Immigration certainly hurt McCain with the right. His policy on Iraq hurt him with moderates. The poll numbers have revealed this time and time again.

Iraq won't be the only issue that affects Republicans but to dismiss its impact on how people view Bush and the Republican party would be folly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also happen to think that many aspects of the U.S. voting system suck. Not just for Democrats but Republicans too. I was in Florida when the vote count was happening in 2000 and it was just tragic that it came down to and endless count of pregnant and dimpled chads. What a mess.

Twas neither tragic or a mess. Florida alone did not determine the election outcome, and the condition of some ballots was neither severe or unusual compared to other elections. Voters have a right to cast their ballots, but they also have the right to screw them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twas neither tragic or a mess. Florida alone did not determine the election outcome, and the condition of some ballots was neither severe or unusual compared to other elections. Voters have a right to cast their ballots, but they also have the right to screw them up.

I don't know that a dimpled or pregnant chad is the fault of a voter or the fault of the mechanism chosen for the vote. You may not have thought it was a mess but it certainly looked like one.

All I can say is I'm thankful for the voting system mechanism I've used for various elections. It was straight forward and spoiled ballots are fairly easy to determine for those responsible for the count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know that a dimpled or pregnant chad is the fault of a voter or the fault of the mechanism chosen for the vote. You may not have thought it was a mess but it certainly looked like one.

All I can say is I'm thankful for the voting system mechanism I've used for various elections. It was straight forward and spoiled ballots are fairly easy to determine for those responsible for the count.

It's no big deal....ballots are spoiled...we have undervotes...overvotes...voter fraud....and miscounts. Been that way for at least 200 years, but because the election was so close (and Bush prevailed), it was suddenly a huge issue.

Hell, nearly half of eligible voters don't even give a damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's no big deal....ballots are spoiled...we have undervotes...overvotes...voter fraud....and miscounts. Been that way for at least 200 years, but because the election was so close (and Bush prevailed), it was suddenly a huge issue.

Hell, nearly half of eligible voters don't even give a damn.

I wasn't completely focused on Bush. I think the Republicans have a case that an election was stolen from in Chicago. I guess that's okay though. Part of what make thing so great about America.

Edited by jdobbin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't completely focused on Bush. I think the Republicans have a case that an election was stolen from in Chicago. I guess that's okay though. Part of what make thing so great about America.

It is great...many Canadians seek American citizenship to play in the voting game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is great...many Canadians seek American citizenship to play in the voting game.

I guess that's your fallback comment every time. I suppose if you think it is great, I am very happy for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last dozen posts in this thread each repeat the entirety of the previous posts.

Stop re-quoting entire posts.

I thought the concern was when there is several posters being re-quoted and not just when it is a one to one quote.

For example, should I have struck out one of the above sentences from your commentary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last dozen posts in this thread each repeat the entirety of the previous posts.

Stop re-quoting entire posts.

Not quite...this makes it an even dozen.

I suspect the new truncated quoting feature will cause more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess that's your fallback comment every time. I suppose if you think it is great, I am very happy for you.

Taking swipes at Americans and how they vote is only bested by your fascination with their politics. Now why would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking swipes at Americans and how they vote is only bested by your fascination with their politics. Now why would that be?

I am totally fascinated with American politics. I also have an interest in Britain, France, China, Russia, etc.

You seem to think every observation is a swipe and become upset by it. I think the U.S. system mostly runs very well but it has had some very significant incidents over the years where it has been unfair to the voters. I suppose that if you think that the ballot stuffing in Chicago was fair to Republicans then you are a lot bigger perosn than I give you credit for.

Don't take things so personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with respect to the excessive quoting which runs rampant throughout the forum:

I thought the concern was when there is several posters being re-quoted and not just when it is a one to one quote.
Both situations are excessive and redundant quoting.
For example, should I have struck out one of the above sentences from your commentary?
Yes. Quoting should only be used when necessary.

Let me flip your question around, can you not compose a reply which clearly identifies to what post or argument you are replying without repeating the entirety of that post or argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am totally fascinated with American politics.

We are just grab-assing on a forum....nobody is getting upset that I can see. Your fascination or opinions about American elections lost or "stolen" remain just that, and hardly are justification for changing how Americans vote.

That American politics enjoys its own dedicated enclave on MLW compared to the rest of the whole frickin' world speaks volumes. We must be doing OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me flip your question around, can you not compose a reply which clearly identifies to what post or argument you are replying without repeating the entirety of that post or argument?

I often try to shave a bit off here and there but wasn't aware that it was a priority when responding to just one poster. I'll try and focus it a bit more on what I am responding to. However, I can't tell you how many times someone says to another person that they are deliberately shaving off a point in their response when answering their post.

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...