Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

U.S. Presidential Elections 2008


Recommended Posts

This election is so very important to the US and to the world. Whoever becomes President will either carry on the path that Bush has lead or go off in another direction and hopefully bring peace to the world.

Actually, it's just another American federal election....we have them like clockwork. No matter what happens, it will nt bring peace to the world.

The only thing I wonder is that any time a Dem. comes up for president and if there are "powers that be"" do not want them in the presidency they are killed, at least that what has happen in the past.

Right....assassination attempts on Ford and Reagan were just someone's imagination.

Today, you just have to be friends of the guys who run the computer software for the voting computers and hack it anytime you want. Perhaps a fair and safer way to vote is with a pencil and an"X". Who cares how long it will take to count the votes, at least you know it will be HONEST. Do the voters really feel that way today??

Americans care....we are in a hurry....instant gratification. Besides, I would prefer a pen, not pencil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I honestly think the strongest GOP candidate (the toughest one for the Dems to beat) is Rudy Giuliani. It's true that evangelicals don't like the guy, but he plays to their interests of fighting jihadists and supporting Israel.

Evangelicals will never go for Rudy because he's pro-choice, been married three times, and used taxpayers' money to subsidize his extramarital affairs. Abortion is the key issue among evangelicals and he simply doesn't pass that test. They would sit out rather than commit the mortal sin of voting for abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evangelicals will never go for Rudy because he's pro-choice, been married three times, and used taxpayers' money to subsidize his extramarital affairs. Abortion is the key issue among evangelicals and he simply doesn't pass that test. They would sit out rather than commit the mortal sin of voting for abortion.

The thing about rudy is, while evangelicals (who are a minority) won't vote for him, Democrats will.

Rudy would win hands down. The only thing stopping him is money and a machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about rudy is, while evangelicals (who are a minority) won't vote for him, Democrats will.

Rudy would win hands down. The only thing stopping him is money and a machine.

And momentum and support.

Even though he's considered a social liberal and his anti-terrorism platform crosses party lines evenly, I think there's presently enough basic animosity among self-described Democrats that a Republican candidate will have a hard time drawing support from the other side. Obama, however, is doing very well drawing Republican support.

There was a general assumption before yesterday that Obama was simply too exotic a candidate for Peoria (even though he's the junior senator from Illinois), but those stereotypes are seeming a lot more tired this morning. The sheer number of voters that showed up in this 98% white, mostly rural state to cast a ballot for him shows he has a wider appeal than many, including myself, expected.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a tad ignorant on complicated American Elections, is it possible that if Obama wins, Hilary could be Vice? Thanks in advance for enlightening me, if anybody does.

Yes....Hillary Clinton would have to be nominated as Vice President during the Democratic Convention to make an Obama-Clinton ticket for the general election. She could join any winner of the presidential nomination, including the Republicans!

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes....Hillary Clinton would have to be nominated as Vice President during the Democratic Convention to make an Obama-Clinton ticket for the general election. She could join any winner of the presidential nomination, including the Republicans!

bc, in your opinion do you think Hillary would be inclined to accept such an arrangement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Confident though I am in the Dems' ability to blow absolutely any lead through incompetence and pointless pandering to folks who won't vote for them no matter what...

I don't think any of the Repubs can win against any of the likely Dem winners.

See, McCain and Giuliani just aren't crazy-fundie enough to mobilize the mega-church vote. Also: The southern racists driven off of McCain in 2000 by the Bush campaign unknown campaign's flyers claiming that he had a love child with a black woman -- those folks aren't going to turn out to vote for him in November. Also: photos of Rudy in a dress? The uncontested record of his spending public money on his then-mistress, now-billionth-wife? Nope. Won't happen. The mega-church vote won't go to the Dems, but they'll stay home.

On the other hand, you have Huckabee. He clearly appeals to the hardcore religious right, since he seems to actually be what they thought Bush was: a creationist, theocratic fundamentalist. He'll get the church vote out, but I get the feeling that the more libertarian, competence-oriented, fiscally conservative Repub voters are frankly sick to death of that wing of the party, are happy that Bush has stopped catering to them quite so pathetically, and don't want Chuck "I are a World Nut writer man!" Norris for Secretary of State. So they won't donate or volunteer or vote in quite the same numbers, either -- in fact, they might even vote for a Dem.

Who's left over? Romney. And I just don't think the guy makes anybody happy. He's swapped his principles on the key conservative issues so explicitly and completely that he can't possibly evade the charge of being unprincipled. He's a Mormon, from Massachusetts, so the religious base won't like him. And he's a fee-raising flip-flopper on a scale to make Kerry look like Edmund Burke, so the corporate/libertarian/fiscal sides of the party won't be enamored of him.

Through no obvious virtues of their own, and owing primarily to the nearly unenumerable screw-ups and corruptions of the Bush regime, the Dems seem likely to win it no matter what, is my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bc, in your opinion do you think Hillary would be inclined to accept such an arrangement?

I assume you mean VP candidate for the Democrats....and you're right...it is not a straightforward decision. More seniority in the US Senate may be more appealing than being a second banana afterthought like Al Gore. The Clintons crave power lost, and it would really stick in her craw to accept the veep slot. Plus there is no guarantee it would help the ticket win in the general (e.g. delivering states or a region for electoral votes). Edwards might be a better choice in that regard.

So I think the answer is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you mean VP candidate for the Democrats....and you're right...it is not a straightforward decision. More seniority in the US Senate may be more appealing than being a second banana afterthought like Al Gore. The Clintons crave power lost, and it would really stick in her craw to accept the veep slot. Plus there is no guarantee it would help the ticket win in the general (e.g. delivering states or a region for electoral votes). Edwards might be a better choice in that regard.

So I think the answer is no.

I don't think there is a hope in hell that Hillary would accept the veep slot.

I would be shocked if Edwards gets the nod.

Richardson maybe?

The biggest outside the box name I have heard is Bloomberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloomberg's apparent testing of the waters for an independent presidential bid seems to have died, and there are reports he met with Obama in late November. He's given up his Republican membership and has a whole lot of cash he's apparently willing to spend to self-finance a campaign.

But who knows.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a hope in hell that Hillary would accept the veep slot.

I would be shocked if Edwards gets the nod.....

Well, I think we can agree that she sure as hell is not going to telegraph weakness by hinting at any such thing right now, unlike Edwards, who actually campaigned to get the spot with John Kerry in 2004. The Democratic Convention is always a raucus affair, with "progressives" fighting with "moderates" for control of platform issues. VP choice goes into the same mix. Republican conventions are quite dull in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who think Hilary's got it in the bag forget the baggage she has, and the animosity among republicans which would energize the anyone but Hilary vote. Plus, she's a woman, and that is a a big drag on her momentum in the U.S. of A.

Obama does have a Muslim background, and that alone could torpedo his chances, then he's also black and he's very inexperienced. The American voter is a different breed than a typical Canadian, and these are real issues to them. One of these two will probably win the Dem nod, and it will make for a very interesting race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who think Hilary's got it in the bag forget the baggage she has, and the animosity among republicans which would energize the anyone but Hilary vote. Plus, she's a woman, and that is a a big drag on her momentum in the U.S. of A.

Obama does have a Muslim background, and that alone could torpedo his chances, then he's also black and he's very inexperienced. The American voter is a different breed than a typical Canadian, and these are real issues to them. One of these two will probably win the Dem nod, and it will make for a very interesting race.

You know sharkman, as an outsider looking in, I would say that Americans would elect an African-American male before they would elect a woman President. I can't explain it, it's just a feeling I have. I also think that Hillary's Achille's heel is her husband. IMO his behaviour while he was in the White House, regardless of his accomplishments, overshadows her potential as a viable candidate.

I know it's early in the game and a lot can happen in the months to come. But it is so interesting to watch as it unfolds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many people are also getting tired of being told they aren't ready for a Black president or a woman president, and would like to be given more credit that they don't necessarily consider race and gender to be the most important factors in determining their leader. That fatigue may translate into votes for both candidates.

And you don't get more middle American than Iowa, and Obama did very well yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....I would say that Americans would elect an African-American male before they would elect a woman President. I can't explain it, it's just a feeling I have.....

It's closer to the mark than you might think, and very consistent with American socio-political change to date. Julian Bond was nominated for a VP vote at the 1968 Democratic convention (but was too young to take office even if he had won the ballot). Colin Powell was nearly drafted as a candidate, but declined. Alan Keyes was also a serious candidate for the Republicans. Candidates Carol Braun and Shirley Chisolm never had much success....Barbara Dole faired little better.

Hillary has come the furthest in breaking through the Oval Office glass ceiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many people are also getting tired of being told they aren't ready for a Black president or a woman president, and would like to be given more credit that they don't necessarily consider race and gender to be the most important factors in determining their leader. That fatigue may translate into votes for both candidates.

And you don't get more middle American than Iowa, and Obama did very well yesterday.

That's what I thought about the result in Iowa. It was a convincing win. I am still seeing breakdowns of the vote but Obama won a large chunk of the Independent vote and he split the Christian vote that went Democrat with Edwards. Clinton probably finished behind Edwards because she doesn't get the evangelical or strong Christian vote.

All the Christian appeal will be less important in New Hampshire. That state has pretty anti-government, pro-change attitude. It is the reason why McCain does well there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The presidential election will be an entirely different animal, as we have seen time and again.

The key to presidential elections is how much support one party can absorb from its opponent. In that battle, yesterday also showed significantly more "vote-lending" going from Republican to Democrat.

But it's true that Iowa is but one state and provides an extremely limited view. It does, however, give some insight into trends that may or may not play out nationally.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to presidential elections is how much support one party can absorb from its opponent. In that battle, yesterday also showed significantly more "vote-lending" going from Republican to Democrat.

But it's true that Iowa is but one state and provides an extremely limited view. It does, however, give some insight into trends that may or may not play out nationally.

Sheeple love media - who ever has a billion bucks rules. The presidency is up for sale and has been that way for quite a while. As in all corrupt and spoiled falling empires, they become a rat nest where king rat with the most cheeze gets to occupy the position once refered to the most powerful office on earth - seeing that no one respects this fallen empire - it has now become the lowest and weakest office on earth - Obam? Clinton - fundy wackos? What a pitiful bunch. Who ever is elected will go to that traditional meeting - and be told by a committee of gangsters on how to proceed - and if they do not - the winners life will be in danger along with that of his family - bannan republic ? Naw - it's coco nut colleage and the monkeys are nasty....America has no leader and will not have one - just a leaderless failed empire with money to burn - and even that is running out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes....Hillary Clinton would have to be nominated as Vice President during the Democratic Convention to make an Obama-Clinton ticket for the general election. She could join any winner of the presidential nomination, including the Republicans!

Ah yes, now I remember that process, thanks very much! So much to remember, don't know how you guys keep up with it all. :o I do believe though, that Canadian elections are not near long enough. Everytime a Prime Miinister is elected here who has not been on the political scene for many years, my thoughts are always "Johnny I hardly know ya"!

Edited by Carinthia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
I assume you mean VP candidate for the Democrats....and you're right...it is not a straightforward decision. More seniority in the US Senate may be more appealing than being a second banana afterthought like Al Gore. The Clintons crave power lost, and it would really stick in her craw to accept the veep slot. Plus there is no guarantee it would help the ticket win in the general (e.g. delivering states or a region for electoral votes). Edwards might be a better choice in that regard.

So I think the answer is no.

Because we all know what a powerless "second banana afterthought" Dick Cheney has been, eh? <_<

I think the answer would be yes. I can't see her turning it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
I think many people are also getting tired of being told they aren't ready for a Black president or a woman president, and would like to be given more credit that they don't necessarily consider race and gender to be the most important factors in determining their leader. That fatigue may translate into votes for both candidates.

And you don't get more middle American than Iowa, and Obama did very well yesterday.

I know I'm getting tired of it. I'm also tired of feeling as if we have to vote for one or the other just to prove we are ready; is if it'll prove we aren't ready in the eyes of the world if one or the other doesn't get the nomination. I care first and foremost about the candidate, not their race or gender. I use to really like Hillary, now not so much. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't be upset if she were elected, I think any of the three main Dem contenders would be a huge improvement over what we have now, but she's not my first choice. Neither is Obama. Edwards is my choice, even though I'm more than ready to have a black or woman president.

I will say that Obama taking "white" Iowa was refreshing in that it tells the world we are ready for a black president. I hope it shuts at least some of the 'critics' up. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm getting tired of it. I'm also tired of feeling as if we have to vote for one or the other just to prove we are ready; is if it'll prove we aren't ready in the eyes of the world if one or the other doesn't get the nomination. I care first and foremost about the candidate, not their race or gender. I use to really like Hillary, now not so much. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't be upset if she were elected, I think any of the three main Dem contenders would be a huge improvement over what we have now, but she's not my first choice. Neither is Obama. Edwards is my choice, even though I'm more than ready to have a black or woman president.

I will say that Obama taking "white" Iowa was refreshing in that it tells the world we are ready for a black president. I hope it shuts at least some of the 'critics' up. :P

As a Canadian just looking in, I couldn't agree with you more AMW. I like Edwards, not so much Hilary, as it is not clear to me what she really stands for. She speaks the party line and not much of what SHE thinks. This I don't trust. It's too safe and I think she will have to become categorical about the war and health care in order to win. Her persona over the past few months, has been too confident, arrogant almost. Anthing now, that hints at a lack of clarity about anything will not sell and it seems that more people are paying attention this time around. The jury's still out for me on Obama, although the fact that he won in Iowa is amazing and I certainly enjoyed that.

If a Republican has to take it, I hope it will be Huckabee. The Evangelical part doesn't thrill me, but I like him none the less. I must add that I hope Guilliani's 9/11 fame was his last hoorah and after the next primary, he will not be heard from again.

Edited by Carinthia
Link to comment
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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...