[Archived] American Presidential Elections

[Cheshireblue]

From what I have seen it is largely irrelevent who the Democrats put up for election. At the end of the day, I don't believe that America will vote for either a woman or a black man for president. It's getting closer, but I just can't see it happening this time round.

[American]

she tried to sort out healthcare and she's married to Bill, plus she's a women and a democrat.

Appeard to be the concensus on the radio yesterday.

American, who would you rather have in charge of the economy, Clinton or Obama?

This whole election doeas appear to be following the last series of the West Wing, doesnt it?

Obama.

Matt, I've already stated reasons before. She tried to sort out healthcare under a shroud of secrecy. Whenever Congressional appointed committees do the same, they turn over records of what they did and what they spent to do it. Billary refused. They've also refused to release other documents regarding what she did at the White House.

She won't do what is right for the World, she will do what is best for Israel.

[1864roverite]

its as interesting as the superbowl, a big load of bullshite

egos being pushed in the media whilst wasting millions of dollars, its like brown v cameron over here a waste f everyone time, effort and money

[USRoverME]

small list of reasons I'd be scared to death if Bilary wins:

1) she runs on "experience" as one of her main atributed, yet she's only a year or so into her second term as a senator. I guess being first lady is supposedly a political position these days. I can't wait for Laura Bush to run for president *shudder*

2) She supossedly tried to fix healthcare, but failed (even though at the time the house and senate were both controlled by the Dems), and later managed to get her hubby and Teddy Kennedy (who interesting backed Obama this year)to push through SCHIP, which, although a good theory, was another redundant medical insurance plan (targeted for children), which amazingly now also covers parents of children, and also "double covers" with medicaid and other programs. It is also starting to cause "isseus" with health care coverage as people aer realizing its better and cheaper to drop private coverage for their children and put them on SCHIP in many states. Which irks me when I'm paying for the healthcare of a kid whose parents could afford their own care.

3) Whitewater, nothing like a lawyer whose files go missing just before a subpoena to be yolur president. Admittedly they were cleared, but the whole deal was shady enough to make me worry.

4) Lying to investigators about "Travelgate", that little known nepotism scheme she orchestrated to get her friends the job to organize all their travel. I stillr emember that finding, somethign along the lines of "we have sufficient evidence that she lied to us and that the organized the firings, but we have insuffiecient evidence to charge her with anything."

5) There were rumors and an investigation intot the fact that she somehow got illegal access to FBI files on former White house workers from the previous president staffs. Again they found "no evidence of wrongdoing", but still shady.

6) She's a native of Illinois, lived in Arkansas with her husband while governor, and somehow she's a senator in New York, her "home" state? I have the same problem with Mitt, for him its Utah-Michigan-Massachusetts.

7) She has yet to take a consisent stand on Iraq. At some points calling for immediate withdrawal, some times admitting that we'll be there for a while. My personal view is that, at this point, a quick pull out is a disater waiting to happen, but I've got no fundamental issue with peopel wanting to get our troops out of harm's way. But I do have an issue with a "flip-flop" on such a fundamental issue to be address by the next president.

8) The clintons are the edification of the political divide between the Reps and the Dems. The notion that she would somehow bring "bipartisan" effort to anything, is laughable, and I'm gettign very frustrated with Washignton doing little when action is needed, simply because the red and the blue have to stake positions and then be bribed across the color divide.

9) I still love the former quote of hers, that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, despite the fact that she was born 5 years before his climb. She has of course retracted that statement... but I still laugh about that when it crosses my mind.

Those are the ones off the top of my head....

[speeeeeeedie]

Hillary is very divisive because she is married to Bill and an A1 politician (i.e. she can cheat, lie, and make connected friends with ease). The left in America love Bill Clinton, the right hate him, Hillary affords the same because of the direct association.

McCain is the definite front runner. The evangelical nutcases and McCain's crew (in places where he had no chance) like Huckabee but the other right wingers know he won't win so they put their money on Romney the Mormon whilst slating McCain at every opportunity. This hedging has backfired as McCain had no-one voting to spite him. They will now have to start singing McCain's praises.

In truth, they all have loads of dirt on each other, once the nominations are set the gloves are off it will all come out.

George Bush may not have been the worst as there have been over 40 of them but he's in the top echelon. Gulf War II on faulty intelligence, hurricane Katrina, budget deficits, dirty politics, silly education policies, a daft healthcare proposal, immigration ball$ ups, and jobs for the boys will be his legacy. He got in the 2nd time by the combination of a woeful opposition and a very clever strategy involving trumpeting issues close to redneck hearts; God, guns, and gays.

It should be a crime to vote for a Republican this time, but as Cheshire says, too many people think that you can't let in a black man or a woman (any colour). Those Republicans are some of the luckiest people alive if this theory pans out..

Did anyone know that Canada will probably have elections in March?

[USRoverME]

What? You aren't for real are you? Have you checked the numbers of people turning out for the primary/caucuses and the numbers of votes Obama and Bilary have? If the Dems get that same turnout in the general elelction, and the party lines stay fairly similar, then McCain has no shot against either Bilary or Obama.

But in reality, with McCain being the nominee, voting Rep is much less a crime this time. McCain is about as moderate a Republica as you'll ever see get any party support. If he wins, he'll have common ground with the Dem controlled congress on quite a few things, the environment and immigration being 2 biggies.

[Rovermatt]

Interesting article about McCain's struggle with the party's, ahem, 'traditional' elements here.

Romney's bowed out now as well, though not before spouting a lot of invective at the Conservative Political Action Conference that makes McCain look like Martin Luther King. Oh well, the world will have to do without Mitt.

[Flopsy]

Did anyone know that Canada will probably have elections in March?

No, but when they become the supreme economic, military and social power in the world, then I'll give a toss.

[Cheshireblue]

What? You aren't for real are you? Have you checked the numbers of people turning out for the primary/caucuses and the numbers of votes Obama and Bilary have? If the Dems get that same turnout in the general elelction, and the party lines stay fairly similar, then McCain has no shot against either Bilary or Obama.

But in reality, with McCain being the nominee, voting Rep is much less a crime this time. McCain is about as moderate a Republica as you'll ever see get any party support. If he wins, he'll have common ground with the Dem controlled congress on quite a few things, the environment and immigration being 2 biggies.

A big IF.

The simple truth is that there are a significant number of people in the US, as in every other country that put sex and race above party politics. It's the same in the UK. Labour failed to oust the Tories for 15 years. As soon as they put up an "English" candidate, instead of a Sheep worrier, Sweaty or Mick, they got in. Brown will lose the next election and in my view that will be partly down to the fact that he is a Sweaty and the xenophobic section of English society will not vote for him, despite being staunch labour followers.

I suspect that there are a good number of traditional Democrats, not just in the south of the US, that would rather vote Republican that vote for either of the democrat candidates. It does not need to be a huge number, as elections are won and lost around the margins.

Only time will tell, but I'd be amazed if I am wrong.

[Flopsy]

and even when you are, you'll ignore it and have us all taken care of.

Or claim the election was rigged

[Cheshireblue]

Perhaps I should run for president?

[Flopsy]

nah, even the Yanks arent that right wing

[speeeeeeedie]

What? You aren't for real are you? Have you checked the numbers of people turning out for the primary/caucuses and the numbers of votes Obama and Bilary have? If the Dems get that same turnout in the general elelction, and the party lines stay fairly similar, then McCain has no shot against either Bilary or Obama.

But in reality, with McCain being the nominee, voting Rep is much less a crime this time. McCain is about as moderate a Republica as you'll ever see get any party support. If he wins, he'll have common ground with the Dem controlled congress on quite a few things, the environment and immigration being 2 biggies.

I agree that the Dems should walk it, but I do wonder how many rednecks will turn away just like they did last time. The fact that the Reps will have a middle of the road candidate is another lucky stroke, however McCain's own party will turn away from him because of his 'moderate' views.

I heard about a poll of 2004 voters based on their state's average IQ, the top 10ish all voted for Kerry and the bottom swath all went for Bush. I like that one, if true of course.

[speeeeeeedie]

What? You aren't for real are you? Have you checked the numbers of people turning out for the primary/caucuses and the numbers of votes Obama and Bilary have? If the Dems get that same turnout in the general elelction, and the party lines stay fairly similar, then McCain has no shot against either Bilary or Obama.

But in reality, with McCain being the nominee, voting Rep is much less a crime this time. McCain is about as moderate a Republica as you'll ever see get any party support. If he wins, he'll have common ground with the Dem controlled congress on quite a few things, the environment and immigration being 2 biggies.

I agree that the Dems should walk it, but I do wonder how many rednecks will turn away just like they did last time. The fact that the Reps will have a middle of the road candidate is another lucky stroke, however McCain's own party will turn away from him because of his 'moderate' views.

I heard about a poll of 2004 voters based on their state's average IQ, the top 10ish all voted for Kerry and the bottom swath all went for Bush. I like that one, if true of course.

[Hypo-Luxa]

I agree that the Dems should walk it, but I do wonder how many rednecks will turn away just like they did last time. The fact that the Reps will have a middle of the road candidate is another lucky stroke, however McCain's own party will turn away from him because of his 'moderate' views.

I heard about a poll of 2004 voters based on their state's average IQ, the top 10ish all voted for Kerry and the bottom swath all went for Bush. I like that one, if true of course.

I like that poll..that means I am top 10ish in IQ.

But I think McCain isn't the prime choice for most Rep.s and anathema to others (the hard liners) he's still a better choice than Hillary or even Obama in their eyes. They won't be voting for anyone else and I seriously doubt Rep.'s will abstain from voting. The big thing for the Rep.s is that I think a lot of swing votes will go McCain's way.

And in all actuality, as a person who historically votes Democrat and probably will this go 'round, I wouldn't be all THAT bothered to have McCain voted in. He has his warts as does every other candidate but he's not a raging Rep. who can't see anything other than the party lines.

[broadsword]

Ouch

[philipl]

I think this article in the (London) Times is an excellent analysis of how America is recoiling from the awfulness of Bush in the current Presidential round. Stunning wins for Obama yesterday by the way.

Irwin Seltzer on the fall out from the American Presidential election on the rest of us. What is unwritten, is that were a global emmergency to occur anywhere else now, America cannot afford to act and politically would be unwilling to do so. In two terms, Bush turned the USA from World's only global superpower into a toothless edifice desperately dependent on the despised UN and Europeans and bankrolled by the Chinese and Saudis.

[USRoverME]

re: phil's articles.

On the first, not too bad, and there's a ring of truth there, but I think the ending "point" is the most important. Be it Bush or Bilary. I really think the frustration of the past 20 years of having to decide left or right, with no credible middle ground has worn people down and caused this season's surprises. To my eye, there's a small minority (but potentially the vocal majority) of the population firmly entrenched in the far left and right, with the majorty of the population sitting somewhere in the middle, unable to agree fully with the ultra liberal or conservatives. Especially in McCain's case, I feel it was a case of Republicans looking at the ultra right Huckster and being sick of being definde by teh religious right's desires, looking at Romney an wondering why he was a modereate in Mass, out of necessity, and a newly born conservative in this race and saying, I want someone who will do the right thing, not someone who will do that his party wants, and that defines McCain.

I think the swing to Obama for the Dems is the same thing, as the writer notes, Dems are the party that seeings itself as the "public defender" and are looking for Obama to "change" Washington, as opposed to the Bilary tactic of continuing the blue-red divide. In my head, I'm wonding if this is the elelction where we finally get a "purple" moderate party.

I think the second is a decent byt very limited summary of the major issues at stake. But like anything, trying to summarize canddiates on basically 2-3 issues is difficult at best

Based on the far right reaction to McCain (see CPAC and Huckster's wins before the most recent primaries), don't surprised to see the far right try to get someone in to the race as a third party, be it Bloomberg, Huckster os someone in that mold.

[blue phil]

In two terms, Bush turned the USA from World's only global superpower into a toothless edifice desperately dependent on the despised UN and Europeans and bankrolled by the Chinese and Saudis.

Prejudiced nonsense as per usual .

You'll be telling us next that his impeachment is a nailed on certainty ......

[philipl]

It would be if he tried another Bush/Chenney initiative like the joke "war on terror".

[Bazzanotsogreat]

It would be if he tried another Bush/Chenney initiative like the joke "war on terror".

Try again pip- the people behind the War on terror were the likes of Gaffney Jnr, Richard Perle,Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol . Bush & Chenney were just the puppets.

As for your comment on relying the US having to rely on the UN & European states. Don’t make me laugh, apart from the UK the rest of Europe has retreated into a soft-power only, apologetic, shadow of its former self.

Without the US the UN would cease to exist.

[blue phil]

It would be if he tried another Bush/Chenney initiative like the joke "war on terror".

You mean the war in Iraq which only the terminally naive supported ?

You were all in favour of that weren't you ?

There were many of us in the real world who could see right from the start what a fiasco it would be .......

Nothing like hindsight for you , though , is there ?

[Eddie]

Try again pip- the people behind the War on terror were the likes of Gaffney Jnr, Richard Perle,Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol . Bush & Chenney were just the puppets.

You are amazingly naive if you seriously believe that the president of the United States was a mere puppet. Bush certainly isn't the brightest person around and like all previous and future presidents his cabient and advisors played an important role in the decisions he made, but you don't get to that level of political power if all you do is allow yourself to be manipulated by others or even be a yes man.

[blue phil]

It's strange , though , Eddie , that the USA's foreign policies are always directed against the enemies of Israel .

The next President of the States - be they Democrat or Republican ; white , black ; male , female ; gay or straight - will continue that trend I can assure you .

[adopted scouser]

I can just see Obama after he wins, waving to the crowds as a bloke on a grassy knoll looks back from the cross hair and says to his mate "He won't stand still"