2008 Election

[Hinata]

So the runners are starting to throw their hats in. . .Obama from Illinois is running as is Hillary (doubt she'll get it though) and the governor of New Mexico is running. . .at least for the Democrats

Anyone know the runners for the Republicans? I haven't heard anything there. . .

Any opinions about them? Being in New Mexico I've been hearing a lot about Richardson (the governor) he seems pretty cool and even has a website. I do like Obama though. He's young and not tainted by the puppet shows we've been having. Not to mention he has a distinct advantage in getting America to be diverse like we all claim it to be. Clinton. . . she should withdraw now and save herself some embarassment. I mean, New York doesn't even like her how she expect to get anywhere with that?

[dreamer]

I'm just mad that we don't have a law that says how soon they can enter the race, like a MONTH before the election, and another law that says how much they can spend. How much worthless spending goes on during any election is just mind-boggling. If they just put that money to GOOD use instead of spending it trying to get elected, I might have more respect for them. They could try feeding the poor and building houses for those who have lost theirs, that would show me what kind of a candidate they are. And now they start almost 2 YEARS before the next election!!! AARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

I heard somewhere that Hillary doesn't have the chance Obama has because nobody hates him to start with!! Personally, I think that anyone who thinks that the killing of unborn babies who are as defenseless as they come is just fine and that it should be someone else's decision doesn't deserve to be in a public office.

[Hinata]

Dreamer, you realize that the primaries are in a year. They have to start companing now so that they have even a resemblence of a chance in the primaries. I agree that Money is a huge issue about it, but that's what this world looks at. How much can they throw away on slandering the competition. It's just the way the world works.

[Gwalchmai]

I'm just saddened...

Now I have to prepare myself for another year of a republican prez... I'll still vote and what not (democrat) but the democrats, in my opinion just don't have their act together enough to pull through this year. And Hillary should know at very least not to run this year for the simple point of her being a woman. I'm sure thats going to make enough people out there a little wary to sink her straight out. What she needs is to through whatever support she has now to get some sort of reasonable democrat in the office for this season and have him sort of pave the way for her to at least have a chance next round.

Personally, if I was on the campaign trail, I'd spend all the money on charties here and there and to make sure all the money went toward bettering america than my standings in the polls, which I would think sends a much stronger message to voters than meet and greets.

[Hinata]

I think Hillary's greatest challenge is so many people strong dislike her and the way she functions. I don't think she'll make a strong candidate at all and the Democrats need a strong team if they are going to get anywhere. I think an Obama and Richardson ticket (either way would work) is going to be the strongest they could go. Of course, I don't have any strong platform from either one of them, so it'll be interesting to see how it all develops.

[twyrch]

I've always wondered about a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket... I wonder if that would be enough to sweep the elections?

As for the Republicans, I have heard that Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are going to run... If I were going to vote for a Republican, I think I'd vote for McCain because he's as moderate as they come these days.

What we really need is another Abe Lincoln. Someone who's willing to be honest with you and wasn't raised with a silver spoon in their mouth, or not someone who makes politics a career. Unfortunately, I don't think Lincoln would stand a chance of being elected if he had been running in the 2008 elections. Nobody would know a lowly lawyer from Illinois who had never been in politics and he wouldn't have a lot of money to campaign with.

[Gwalchmai]

Well he didn't have any money when he ran back in the day anyway. All he did was tag along with his adversary and made a speech everywhere he went... if i recall correctly.

[twyrch]

gwalchmai said:

Well he didn't have any money when he ran back in the day anyway. All he did was tag along with his adversary and made a speech everywhere he went... if i recall correctly.

Man! You remember those days? You must be older than Dred.

[dreamer]

The key phrase was that "the primaries are in a year", Hin. A YEAR!!!!! Why in the world do we have to listen to them for an entire year to pick who we want to vote for in the "real" election? As I said before, all the millions, or perhaps billions, of dollars could be used for such better causes.

As for who will be elected, we will probably get who we deserve, not who we need.

[Hinata]

actually, the primaries are pretty low key. Since most states don't permit you to vote in the primaries unless you're within the party, they keep it lower than the actual run. For example, we won't see propaganda against Obama from Clinton. They just put their platforms out there quietly and tour and see if they can get enough from their parties to have their support. So all in all, outside of the official announcement and unless you follow closely to politics, you won't hear anything at all about the primaries until it's closer to voting time.

[dgan]

The problem with Obama is he has to overcome 50 years of history...there has not been a Senator elected President since Kennedy. Or more importantly, since the prevalence of news media. Senators have such an obscure voting history because of the nature of the system that it is very difficult to show a record of policy...something very important when running for President. Look at John Kerry...his voting record killed him.

And Obama hasn't even been in the Senate long enough to have much of a record. He's going to get torn to pieces, as his Hillary, for both political and personal reasons. Giulianni has more skeletons in his closet than a dinosaur museum, and McCain is eventually going to be hurt in the war debate.

In short, this is the worst set of candidates we have seen in a long time. I already feel like throwing up and we have two years to go.

(Richardson will probably be a non-factor, Hin, because he is very opinionated about illegal immigration - which unfortunately is something that is political suicide in nearby California and many other urban areas of the country. And the rest of his policy is extremely liberal, which will cause many moderates to look at Obama, Giulianni, or McCain.)

[twyrch]

I think I'm going to vote for Sen. Lesser.... You know... Lesser of the two evils.

Let's see... Saddam or Hitler.... Satan or Laviathan.... Hillary or Obama.

McCain or Guiliani are both a better choice to what the Democrats are offering us....

[jontattz]

It's really interesting watching this unfold this side of the Atlantic. As someone who enjoys following the US political system, I find it so interesting that everything is divided into just 2 choices...democrat or Republican.....and there seems to be a set rule of thumb as to what policies go with that.

In recent years, Bush has not been popular over here, especially amongst Christians who feel he is a bad advert for Christianity. Clinton was very popular, as he seemed to genuinely have a heart for the poor.

I think the main problem, already commented on in this thread, is the fact that the life is being sucked out of politics by over-saturation. The waste of money & more importantly, time, over the next 1 or 2 years is putting people off.

[dgan]

jontattz said:

I find it so interesting that everything is divided into just 2 choices...democrat or Republican.....

Isn't it something? In America, if there is one thing we understand, it is winning. Idealism, cooperation, collaboration, and the sharing of ideas...all come in second to winning. Let me break down the logic for you...

Let's say I wanted to vote for Dred because he shares the same ideals and policies that I do. Now I could vote for Dred...I'd be the only person to vote for him, though...so my vote is essentially worthless. It will not help determine a winner. This may allow someone I absolutely do NOT want to get elected to win...let's say, John Edwards, just as an example.

Therefore, to make my vote effective, I need to vote for the person that has the best chance to beat Edwards, even though they may not be my favorite candidate. The idea again is to win...or at least not to lose...so you cannot afford to cast your vote for the person you like the best.

Perot was the best recent example. Many Republicans had to choose between Bush and Perot. Had those who voted for Perot voted for Bush instead, Clinton (Bill...not Hillary) would not have won that election. So did those Republicans do the right thing by voting for Perot? Sure, they voted for the guy they liked best, but they knew he had no shot to win. In the end, they allowed Clinton to get elected when they certainly would have preferred Bush over Clinton.

In most races, this is what drives the voting to Republican/Democrat. You have to consolidate support to have the best chance of winning.

It actually is entirely logical...in fact, it is difficult to comprehend why people in other countries continually vote for people who, while they may represent their interests, will never have an opportunity to represent them in office anyway. It is a concept Americans find difficult to grasp.

If you know 40% of the population was going to vote for Hitler tomorrow, what would the other 60% do? Hopefully, they would all vote for the same person so that someone -- ANYONE -- other than Hitler gets elected. That is the way the Democrats and Republicans view it. They will go to any lengths to keep the other party out of office, even if it means voting for someone they don't entirely agree with.

Essentially it is lowest common denominator in each party. The one person everyone in the party can most closely agree with, that is the person that gets the votes. All in an effort to keep the other party out of office. The candidates know this, of course, so they try to cater to the largest sum of people rather than actually have their own IDEALS and CONVICTIONS.

In short, the best thing about democracy is that it is almost impossible to get anything done. So while we may be going down the slow road to hell, at least it won't happen overnight!

[twyrch]

Hinata, what do you think of Mitt Romney? Gov of Mass... he's also LDS... Do you think people in the US can put aside religious intolerance for an election like this? They did for JFK when they elected the first Catholic into office...