NationStates Jolt Archive

Well lately I have been kinda following US federal politics surrounding the Presidential elections, mainly through youtube videos, and I kinda had a thought. Most of the Republicans candidates support the war and it's continuation, in fact except for Ron Paul the debate was like Pick for Favorite Neocon™. And that got me thinking, do you think if the Republicans want to retain the White House they will have to have a more centre moderate candidate, someone who wants to end the war and go after the issues that kill the republicans?

You're best off supporting Paul. All the other candidates want to expand the war into your country.

Well lately I have been kinda following US federal politics surrounding the Presidential elections, mainly through youtube videos, and I kinda had a though. Most of the Republicans candidates the war and it's continuation, in fact except for Ron Paul the debate was like Pick for Favorite Neocon™. And that got me thinking, do you think if the Republicans want to retain the White House they will have to have a more centre moderate candidate, someone who wants to end the war and go after the issues that kill the republicans?

Yeah, most of them the war. I, for one the war. Democrats usually the war, too. :p

Seriously though, assuming you mean that they *support* the war, I think it's true to some degree, but also true that whoever the nominee is will be sure to make statements calling for orderly withdrawal, handover of power to the Iraqis, etc. No one's running on the "blank check" platform, in other words. All candidates, Democrat and Republican read the polls, remember. ;)

I actually feel sorry for the GOP this year. The candinates are having to try to distance themselves from Bush as to not piss off the moderates and swing voters who are tired of Iraq and Bush, but they also have to been seen waving the flag and promising to keep on going to apease the bse they need to get nominated.

They're going to have one hell of a time this election.

You're best off supporting Paul. All the other candidates want to expand the war into your country.

That is, unless you want to support someone who has a chance. ;)

It's interesting to read about recent poll numbers - it seems that most Americans want a Democrat in the White House next election, but prefer Republican candidates when asked about potential nominees. Strange world. :p I, for one, am optimistic that we'll have a solid, if somewhat contrite, Republican winning out eventually. :)

I actually feel sorry for the GOP this year. The candinates are having to try to distance themselves from Bush as to not piss off the moderates and swing voters who are tired of Iraq and Bush, but they also have to been seen waving the flag and promising to keep on going to apease the bse they need to get nominated.

They're going to have one hell of a time this election.

Popular opinion of the Republican party is about the same as popular opinion of tetanus shots right now, it's true. But oddly enough people seem to like the GOP front-runners, which makes me more optimistic. :)

Ron Paul is good imo, he's like the Republican version of Gravel. At least he wants to get rid of the US interventionist military policy, and supports individual freedoms.

One of three things is going to happen to the Republicans: They will pull us out of Iraq before the election, they will run the only candidate that wants to pull us out, or they will lose. One of these is a lot more likely than the other two.

That is, unless you want to support someone who has a chance. ;)

It's interesting to read about recent poll numbers - it seems that most Americans want a Democrat in the White House next election, but prefer Republican candidates when asked about potential nominees. Strange world. :p I, for one, am optimistic that we'll have a solid, if somewhat contrite, Republican winning out eventually. :)

Well, the other candidates favor invading, or at least attacking, the country over which the OP presides.

Popular opinion of the Republican party is about the same as popular opinion of tetanus shots right now, it's true. But oddly enough people seem to like the GOP front-runners, which makes me more optimistic. :)
Always depends upon the match up, but honestly, I don't see the GOP being able to overcome the rather large elephant (heh) in the room named George W. Bush. Democracts couldn't shake Clinton as much as they wanted to in 2000 and he was far more popular than Bush.

Having said that, since we're 1 year and 5 months out from the election, a lot can change, but as it stands right now; while people might like Guliani better personally, I think they're going to see that R next to his name and avoid it.

Well, the other candidates favor invading, or at least attacking, the country over which the OP presides.

Eh? Who presides over a country, now? :confused:

What's the chance of Paul getting the nomination?

Always depends upon the match up, but honestly, I don't see the GOP being able to overcome the rather large elephant (heh) in the room named George W. Bush. Democracts couldn't shake Clinton as much as they wanted to in 2000 and he was far more popular than Bush.

Having said that, since we're 1 year and 5 months out from the election, a lot can change, but as it stands right now; while people might like Guliani better personally, I think they're going to see that R next to his name and avoid it.

Yeah, it is getting crazy, just how early we're getting started this time around. I think all involved are determined to see that they spend no less than the last decade's GDP of Guatemala on ads and campaigning before it's over. :p It's hard to call it, but we'll know eventually. :)

What's the chance of Paul getting the nomination?

Less than a chinaman's right now. ;)

Andaras Prime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad) presides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran) over a country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran). ;)

Oh. Neat! :p

Eh? Who presides over a country, now? :confused:

Andaras Prime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad) presides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran) over a country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran). ;)

0.

I'm surprised the government hasn't assassinated him.

Aw, come on now. :p

What's the chance of Paul getting the nomination?

0.

I'm surprised the government hasn't assassinated him.

I'm not sure what to say. All I know is that GWB has served two terms and under normal circumstances that means he will not be president this time around.

All I know is that the war in Iraq is a lot of money and equipment and stuff, not to meantion a life here and there every couple minutes or whatever, that could instead go to protecting your borders rather then occupying another country.

I really dont get it. The training aspect makes sense but the takeover of the the middle east just doesn't seem friendly. Maybe I'm just out of touch. I think lots of asians are nice people, so what is with the genocide and political control of a foreign people? Like a dictator that everyone fears is sorta bad but a foreign occupying army is like 160000 dictators that are actually on the streets instead of using henchmen that maybe don't have a total carte blanche for warcrimes and inhumane treatment.

The US dollar seems to be really lagging, the canadian dollar has almost caught up with it even though it too has fallen to the euro.

I guess I'm just out of sync... I think casting your vote of support ins't enough. If you really care join the party, but otherwise, what do you support? DO you support the war, move on to other issues if you found 10 canidates. Contact them see what they think, or what their supporters think or if they can really be your reprsentative or president or whatever.

Just like you may have a vote you also have a voice, then again you may also have a future.

I think this thing could just be solved by a
CLinton Obama ballot
and a

McCain Guilliani ballot

I honestly think that the dems will take this one. it is just a question of 2/3rds house control if they take it then basically they will pass pretty much anything they'd like short of republican fillibustering.

I could be totally off on this but it honestly feels like the media is hugely supporting dems. And they seem to be leading in the polls but it is pretty much neck and neck but star power seams to be leaning with the dems.
But $1 billion election .. wow... but respectively that is only 4x that of canadian elections even though the US is 8times the size. This is weird it would seem like per capital the election is costing less in the US then in canada.

I think the dems have the bigger chance to win this if they play it right. A 10 year war in Asia? WHy? a 20 year war.. its been going on for a long time.
I really don't get the objective or reasoning but I'm still young.

If there is another republican pres will the public give congress to the dems? if there is a dem pres will they give the dems congress too?

If GOP gets in again then there will perhaps be some people voting next time that can't even remember a dem president.

I think it'll go to the dems but how wrong I could be. It just feels like the point of no return. but it's hard to really tell how a change of face will be a change in america, I geuss i'm just not too aware of actual intentions.


(I still think US govt and global govt needs restructuring and a more representative system)

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12794992']Maybe I'm just out of touch. I think lots of asians are nice people, so what is with the genocide and political control of a foreign people?

Iraqis and Afghans are asians now? I know the British call Indians and Pakistanis asian, but I didn't know it went that far. :p

I actually feel sorry for the GOP this year. The candinates are having to try to distance themselves from Bush as to not piss off the moderates and swing voters who are tired of Iraq and Bush, but they also have to been seen waving the flag and promising to keep on going to apease the bse they need to get nominated.

They're going to have one hell of a time this election.

I do not feel bad for the GOP at all. They've made their bed, and now they can sleep in it. Back in Reagan's day, they made a strange wedding between Christian conservatives and free-market libertarians. Now, the cracks are showing and their party is crumbling.

It couldn't have happened to nicer people.

Aw, come on now. :p

An exaggeration, sure, but the GOP will bring out the mud cannons if he starts gaining traction.

An exaggeration, sure, but the GOP will bring out the mud cannons if he starts gaining traction.

That probably goes for alot of candidates. :p It's a brutal political climate out there, no question.

That is, unless you want to support someone who has a chance. ;)

If we support him, he might just have a chance, or is that not how it works?

I'm afraid that this election will end up being Romney or Giuliani against Clinton, bringing us the exact same sort of crapfest we've suffered through for years.

Iraqis and Afghans are asians now? I know the British call Indians and Pakistanis asian, but I didn't know it went that far. :p

are you joking?...

or have you not noticed what continent Iraq and Afghanistan are on.....

...You are joking, right?....

are you joking?...

or have you not noticed what continent Iraq and Afghanistan are on.....

...You are joking, right?....

In America, as stupid as it is, only the people in the Far East are called Asian. People from the Middle East are called Arabic, and people from India aren't called anything, because they're still trying to separate them from the guys with the feathers.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12794992']
McCain Guilliani ballot

Ron Paul has more of a chance at the Republican nomination than John McCain. Anyone outside the US supporting McCain is even more gullible than anyone inside it supporting him.

In America, as stupid as it is, only the people in the Far East are called Asian. People from the Middle East are called Arabic, and people from India aren't called anything, because they're still trying to separate them from the guys with the feathers.

y'all really need to pick a new name for yourselves. its just silly to use a term that is already taken by locals.

*innocent look*

Well lately I have been kinda following US federal politics surrounding the Presidential elections, mainly through youtube videos, and I kinda had a thought. Most of the Republicans candidates support the war and it's continuation, in fact except for Ron Paul the debate was like Pick for Favorite Neocon™. And that got me thinking, do you think if the Republicans want to retain the White House they will have to have a more centre moderate candidate, someone who wants to end the war and go after the issues that kill the republicans?

keep in mind that we have an odd 2 tier voting system.

to get nominated, the candidate has to appeal to those who bother to vote in the primaries. few people vote in the primaries. they are dominated by the whacko religious right.

so the question is "can a twice divorced catholic moderate like guiliani get the vote of the extreme protestant right?" they would have to get their heads out of their asses and vote for someone who might have a chance to win. people like this seldom do that kind of thing.

all of the nutcase "i dont believe in evolution" candidates are appealing to those very fundamental republican voters. the party has to hope that they split that vote and leave the lead moderate at the time (guiliani, mccain or maybe gingrich *shudder*) with enough of the rest of the vote to win the nomination.

to get nominated, the candidate has to appeal to those who bother to vote in the primaries. few people vote in the primaries. they are dominated by the whacko religious right.

There are also caucuses.
You're right though: the top candidates for the Republicans are all fairly moderate for their party (McCain, Guiliani, and Romney). But now that they're campaigning, they have become very chummy with more conservative ideals. Why? I don't know; assuming every single voter votes a straight ballot and that there is an even split between Republicans and Democrats and there is no third-party candidate, pandering to the most right-wing of Republicans is less than half of the voters. Considering all the assumptions I made in the last sentences were grossly misrepresentative of what actually happens, it doesn't seem like a smart idea.

so the question is "can a twice divorced catholic moderate like guiliani get the vote of the extreme protestant right?" they would have to get their heads out of their asses and vote for someone who might have a chance to win. people like this seldom do that kind of thing.

Because of 9/11, Giuliani is the uninformed rightwing wackjob's messiah.
Which is exactly why that asshat would have a chance at winning as opposed to some one who would be a far better candidate.

There are also caucuses.
You're right though: the top candidates for the Republicans are all fairly moderate for their party (McCain, Guiliani, and Romney). But now that they're campaigning, they have become very chummy with more conservative ideals. Why? I don't know; assuming every single voter votes a straight ballot and that there is an even split between Republicans and Democrats and there is no third-party candidate, pandering to the most right-wing of Republicans is less than half of the voters. Considering all the assumptions I made in the last sentences were grossly misrepresentative of what actually happens, it doesn't seem like a smart idea.

as an added factor..

i was listening to the sean hannity show on the radio the other day (it keeps my blood pressure up but i can only listen for about 5 minutes before im shouting at the radio) and he had an analyst on who suggested that the reason the democrats will win is that they are working very hard to register more of their core voters--single women, minorities and the poor. this guy said that the only reason bush won last time was that the republicans maximized their core constituency--meaning that they cant expand their voter base any more while the democrats have many many millions that they can exhort to get out and vote.

i took it seriously because it was on the hannity show and didnt help boost the republicans.

Because of 9/11, Giuliani is the uninformed rightwing wackjob's messiah.
Which is exactly why that asshat would have a chance at winning as opposed to some one who would be a far better candidate.

yeah thats a good point. he is the hero of the entire party really.

but its hard to imagine a religious conservative voting for him even with that going for him.

hes catholic

hes been divorced twice

he is soft on abortion

those are huge negatives.

One of three things is going to happen to the Republicans: They will pull us out of Iraq before the election, they will run the only candidate that wants to pull us out, or they will lose. One of these is a lot more likely than the other two.


I still think that the Repubs stand a fair-to-middling shot at the White House, depending on the democratic candidate.

Hillary will grab the entire Left (of course) but can she get moderate votes, given the attempt at socialized medicine (socialism!) and a likely tax hike?

And can Obama overcome -- I hate to say this, I really do, we should be past this by now -- the race thing AND his fairly-far-left (a lefty in American politics, anyway) political leanings?

Iraq will be important, of course, but with a fairly strong economy (Dow up, unemployment pretty low -- we've really gotten back on track after 9/11 -- etc.) to sit on (across-the-board tax cuts worked -- got more money into the markets/economy), a fairly moderate Republican can -- and I think probably will -- beat a left-wing Democrat.

If the Dems run a moderate candidate, then the odds shift slightly in their favor probably.

yeah thats a good point. he is the hero of the entire party really.

but its hard to imagine a religious conservative voting for him even with that going for him.

hes catholic

hes been divorced twice

he is soft on abortion

those are huge negatives.
Granted. But look at his real competition.
McCain - lockstep with Bush and pro-more Iraq war
Romney - Mormon
Paul - Too against the Iraq war: empathizes with the "enemy" (aka, uses logically backed statements to oppose the pro-war foreign policy)
Bloomberg went independent and is therefore competing with the Democrats

The only maverick is Thompson who is playing games with committal to run. He is probably going to jump in at the last second so no one can touch him.

What's the chance of Paul getting the nomination?

low, atm. However, he is now in 4th place in money raising. So, there is some hope he can transform all that internet support into general support.

Granted. But look at his real competition.
McCain - lockstep with Bush and pro-more Iraq war
Romney - Mormon
Paul - Too against the Iraq war: empathizes with the "enemy" (aka, uses logically backed statements to oppose the pro-war foreign policy)
Bloomberg went independent and is therefore competing with the Democrats

The only maverick is Thompson who is playing games with committal to run. He is probably going to jump in at the last second so no one can touch him.

there is still newt gingrich. *shudder* he has divorce issues but he was very popular when he was a national leader.

im just glad that the rightwing nutcase candidates arent making any progress. i find them horrifying in the debates. id rather have the republicans run a good candidate that makes the democrats have to work harder than a fruitcake that makes it much too easy for the dems to win.

y'all really need to pick a new name for yourselves. its just silly to use a term that is already taken by locals.

*innocent look*

I know you're joking, but for anyone who thinks you're not, the term was taken from us.

I, and most Americans according to the polls, am very disappointed in the quality and diversity of candidates this cycle.

There was a comment about the last French election which I think applies to the US as well: Candidates run as far out to the sides as they can to get the base in the first round, then tack back for a race to the center for the second.

Primaries see candidates pander hard to the base, because diehards tend to vote in primaries far more than the moderate side, and then they have to turn around and race to capture the moderate voters they turned off during the primaries.

How utterly pathetic and shameful that Thompson is actually looking like the best candidate and he isn't even in the race yet.

I am really going to feel like burying my head in the sand when it comes down to a Clinton/Obama vs Romney/whoever election.

I, and most Americans according to the polls, am very disappointed in the quality and diversity of candidates this cycle.

There was a comment about the last French election which I think applies to the US as well: Candidates run as far out to the sides as they can to get the base in the first round, then tack back for a race to the center for the second.

Primaries see candidates pander hard to the base, because diehards tend to vote in primaries far more than the moderate side, and then they have to turn around and race to capture the moderate voters they turned off during the primaries.

How utterly pathetic and shameful that Thompson is actually looking like the best candidate and he isn't even in the race yet.

I am really going to feel like burying my head in the sand when it comes down to a Clinton/Obama vs Romney/whoever election.

the pathetic thing is for fred thompson to look like the best candidate when he has nothing to recommend him except the role on law and order where he looks wise but only says what is written for him.

I know you're joking, but for anyone who thinks you're not, the term was taken from us.

*hides her ass so it can't be handed to her*

well now, did india ever use the word india or indian to describe themselves before the european invaders showed up?

at the time of columbus "india", "east indies", and "indian" referred to an enormous stretch of land and culture much of which would not be considered indian today.

the pathetic thing is for fred thompson to look like the best candidate when he has nothing to recommend him except the role on law and order where he looks wise but only says what is written for him.

Like I said - shameful and pathetic.

Actually he does have some good points - he seems to be a staunch Federalist.
I would much rather have a president who wants states to decide things individually than one who wants to impose something highly controversial on everyone. Of course, then the next president wants to impose their own controversial thing, and so on and so forth until you end up with a massive national government nobody is happy with.

I'm still not sure Edwards is out yet, but hillary is the safest demwise. Personally, I support Romney and i'm pretty confident he's going to win. He's still leading big in Iowa and New Hampshire, he's got the money and organization, the momentum will head his way nationally when the primaries get closer.

Like I said - shameful and pathetic.

Actually he does have some good points - he seems to be a staunch Federalist.
I would much rather have a president who wants states to decide things individually than one who wants to impose something highly controversial on everyone. Of course, then the next president wants to impose their own controversial thing, and so on and so forth until you end up with a massive national government nobody is happy with.
As much as the crackpots want to believe they are HG Wells, they arn't. The US can't be like "ok, states, here you go, do everything yourself now, all the nationalization was a mistake, sorry." Stuff doesn't work like that. This is one country, not a collaboration of individual countries or principalities - there should be a single entity deciding what is good on a national level for issues that affect all states.

Personally, I support Romney and i'm pretty confident he's going to win.
Win the primaries, or win the actual election?

As much as the crackpots want to believe they are HG Wells, they arn't. The US can't be like "ok, states, here you go, do everything yourself now, all the nationalization was a mistake, sorry." Stuff doesn't work like that.

Why not?

This is one country, not a collaboration of individual countries or principalities - there should be a single entity deciding what is good on a national level for issues that affect all states.

We're a federation, not a unitary state. Of course, there should be certain things that are administered no the federal level, but we don't need everything to be. Personally, I'm sick of giving Uncle Sam my money so he can go throw it away on military adventures instead of spending it on useful things. I say that if we limit his budget and give him less to do it may not be so much of a waste. I trust my state to effectively administer social programs far more than I trust Uncle Sam to do so.

there is still newt gingrich. *shudder* he has divorce issues but he was very popular when he was a national leader.


I think most people can handle voting for someone who has been divorced in the past. Newt's a good guy, and I don't think it will hurt him too much if he decides to run. :)

the pathetic thing is for fred thompson to look like the best candidate when he has nothing to recommend him except the role on law and order where he looks wise but only says what is written for him.

He was a Senator, too, you know. ;) He's charismatic, well-connected, and has some experience. I think he can go far, even if he isn't my first choice. :)

I'm sick of giving Uncle Sam my money so he can go throw it away on military adventures instead of spending it on useful things.
I hate to tell you, but your local government is as equally fiscally conservative as the federal government. Let's not even mention the fact military spending would still be the purview of the federal government. :rolleyes:

I hate to tell you, but your local government is as equally fiscally conservative as the federal government. Let's not even mention the fact military spending would still be the purview of the federal government. :rolleyes:

Apparently you're not using the term "fiscally conservative" the way I know it, as Uncle Sam is in no way fiscally conservative.

However, my state does, with its currently limited funds, fund more social programs than the Federal government requires. We'd like to fund more (subsidizing or buying medical insurance for those who can't afford it) but we don't have the money at the moment, due to the downturn (or collapse if you're a pessimist like me) in the auto industry.

And yes, the military would be the purview of the federal government, but as I said, we should greatly limit the amount of money they get to go off on foreign adventures.

*hides her ass so it can't be handed to her*

well now, did india ever use the word india or indian to describe themselves before the european invaders showed up?

at the time of columbus "india", "east indies", and "indian" referred to an enormous stretch of land and culture much of which would not be considered indian today.

Yeah. But note that Columbus was an idiot with his brains nestled in his silk-covered derriere.

Yeah. But note that Columbus was an idiot with his brains nestled in his silk-covered derriere.

he wore silk?

he wore silk?

Probably.

I think Kuinich and Grave (sp) is the only real decent Democratic candidates.

the pathetic thing is for fred thompson to look like the best candidate when he has nothing to recommend him except the role on law and order where he looks wise but only says what is written for him.


better then what bush can do.



also wasn't fred thompson tenn. senater before?

Apparently you're not using the term "fiscally conservative" the way I know it, as Uncle Sam is in no way fiscally conservative.
You are obviously in some fantasy world where the state is actually fiscally conservative.

And yes, the military would be the purview of the federal government, but as I said, we should greatly limit the amount of money they get to go off on foreign adventures.
Mutually exclusive from national/state power arguments.

You are obviously in some fantasy world where the state is actually fiscally conservative.

Never once did I say it was. However, it is much more so than the federal government, which doesn't seem think any correlation should exist between how much revenue they take in and how much they should spend.

Mutually exclusive from national/state power arguments.

No, it's not. If the federal government's main responsiblity was the military it would be far easier to control how much money they get. Since the democratic process seems to be incapable of keeping warmongers with delusions of empire out of office perhaps the system needs to be changed to make it harder for them to act on those delusions.

No, it's not.
Yes, it is. Since it is the sole purview of the federal government to provide military funding, military spending is mutually exclusive from state power.

Yes, it is. Since it is the sole purview of the federal government to provide military funding, military spending is mutually exclusive from state power.

Specific military funding yes, but not overall funding of the federal government. The problem is that the funding the federal government gets goes far too often to the military. My proposal is that the states take on the tax burden for the social programs and federal taxes be reduced to where they can fulfill their duties in a sensible manner. No more, no less.

In Soviet Russia Republican issues kill you!

What's the chance of Paul getting the nomination?

Something along the lines of nada.

also wasn't fred thompson tenn. senater before?

Yes, he was a senator for a while, though he was an actor first. :)

I do not feel bad for the GOP at all. They've made their bed, and now they can sleep in it. Back in Reagan's day, they made a strange wedding between Christian conservatives and free-market libertarians. Now, the cracks are showing and their party is crumbling.

It couldn't have happened to nicer people.

No, they didn't, they made an alliance between Christian fundies and mercantalist corporatists.

Always depends upon the match up, but honestly, I don't see the GOP being able to overcome the rather large elephant (heh) in the room named George W. Bush. Democracts couldn't shake Clinton as much as they wanted to in 2000 and he was far more popular than Bush.

Having said that, since we're 1 year and 5 months out from the election, a lot can change, but as it stands right now; while people might like Guliani better personally, I think they're going to see that R next to his name and avoid it.

Prediction: the '08 Republican ticket = Giuliani/Rice.

Giuliani: centrist Republican, but will prove acceptable to the conservative base due to foreign policy/national security. More resistant to attacks by the Dems and the dishonest liberal media (DLM) as a right-wing candidate. Pro-choice record + promise to appoint strict-constructionist judges = abortion issue is a wash. Being right on foreign policy and national security issues, 9/11 performance tip balance. Plus, he puts New York, the bluest of blue states, into play, forcing Hill 'o Beans to devote big campaign resources where she otherwise wouldn't have to.

Rice: Three words. Black. Woman. Californian. The Party of Lincoln makes history again in nominating a national candidate who happens to be black. So much for racist attacks by Dems and the DLM against the GOP. The plantation gates are thrown open by Republicans again, and the black vote splits much more evenly or even favors the GOP. Hill o' Beans' control of the women's vote (dubious to begin with, see "security moms") goes out the window as well. So much for anti-woman characterizations by Dems and the DLM against the GOP. Plus, she puts California, the other bluest of blue states, into play, again draining Lady Macbeth's campaign coffers to compensate.

And the outcome: GOP wins big, Congress returns home to the Republicans, Hill o' Beans crashes and burns, Clinton dynasty nipped in the bud, Donkocrats PWNED!

Vote Giuliani/Rice in '08!

Other prediction: B. Hussein Obama will not be the Dems' VP nominee.

He was a Senator, too, you know. ;) He's charismatic, well-connected, and has some experience. I think he can go far, even if he isn't my first choice. :)


He was also Republican counsel during the Watergate hearings.

Mitanni, if the US reeelects a Republican you guys deserve to go down the political toilet, the only thing that can save America is a Kuinich/Gravel ticket.

LOL!

Do you have anything intelligent to add?

Pro-choice, friendly to homosexual rights, not a 2nd-Amendment absolutist = centrist Republican. End of issue.

Giuliani: centrist Republican

LOL!

Mitanni, if the US reeelects a Republican you guys deserve to go down the political toilet, the only thing that can save America is a Kuinich/Gravel ticket.

Kucinich has as much chance being elected President as Richard Nixon has of rising from the grave and returning for a third term, with the fat drunk from Massachusetts as his VP.

We'll do just fine with a new Republican administration. But thanks for your concern.

Do you have anything intelligent to add?

Pro-choice, friendly to homosexual rights, not a 2nd-Amendment absolutist = centrist Republican. End of issue.

He's also an authoritarian, quasi-fascist dickwad who uses scaremongering to win support.

He's also an authoritarian, quasi-fascist dickwad who uses scaremongering to win support.

Such reasoned eloquence defies my ability to respond. :rolleyes:

He was also Republican counsel during the Watergate hearings.

I think he was involved in the decision to choose Sam Alito, too. Fingers in a lot of pies, he seems to have. :p

Such reasoned eloquence defies my ability to respond. :rolleyes:

Are the facts too much for you to handle, NM?

Such reasoned eloquence defies my ability to respond. :rolleyes:

What, you don't believe Giuliani "disappeared" the homeless? :p

Seriously though, I like him - I'd rather see Newt take it, but he's a good guy too.

Are the facts too much for you to handle, NM?

When you state a fact, we'll see about handling it.

Kucinich has as much chance being elected President as Richard Nixon has of rising from the grave and returning for a third term, with the fat drunk from Massachusetts as his VP.

We'll do just fine with a new Republican administration. But thanks for your concern.

First major issue: Every Republican candidate supports the continuation and escalation of the war except Paul, given that the majority of the US people support withdrawal from Iraq, and to a lesser degree a change in interventionist military policy and international brigandage and belligerence, especially in the region and toward Iran, I fail to see how a Republican candidate can win given this.

First major issue: Healthcare issue, in a country when over half of bankruptcies from from healthcare costs/premiums being jacked up by profit-healthcare-companies after more money, and that tens of millions of Americans aren't on healthcare because the profit-companies make it too expensive. Common People in America, regardless of party affiliation, know that the healthcare and social services are in a mess. As Kucinich as proposed, a non-profit public healthcare and social service department/s should be created to deal with this serious issue, the profit-monger companies have proven themselves inept and unable to get the American population on a reasonably priced healthcare system, they have failed.


In conclusion, and even though I am not American I read up extensively on this, the GOP currently stinks because of Bush and the war etc, midterms showed this, regardless of the individual theres a big chance people will simply avoid candidates when they vote when they see the R.

What, you don't believe Giuliani "disappeared" the homeless? :p

Seriously though, I like him - I'd rather see Newt take it, but he's a good guy too.

Newt's a great American, but I'm afraid he has a lot of baggage that'd be hard to overcome. And strategically, I don't think he offers as much potential for inroads into blue states as Rudi does, and his home state is pretty red already. I don't see Hill o' Beans taking Georgia.

Newt's a great American, but I'm afraid he has a lot of baggage that'd be hard to overcome. And strategically, I don't think he offers as much potential for inroads into blue states as Rudi does, and his home state is pretty red already. I don't see Hill o' Beans taking Georgia.

Could be, but I still think Newt's pretty versatile politically. He's clearly well-connected, and an excellent consensus-builder. Whether he can fundraise and keep pace, we'll see. Should be interesting, anyway. :)

First major issue: Every Republican candidate supports the continuation and escalation of the war except Paul, given that the majority of the US people support withdrawal from Iraq, and to a lesser degree a change in interventionist military policy and international brigandage and belligerence, especially in the region and toward Iran, I fail to see how a Republican candidate can win given this.

IMO the reason the war is unpopular is not because the American people want to cut and run, but because they want to achieve victory and don't see a quick one on the horizon. As for "international brigandage and belligerance," outside of the now-defunct Air America and the DLM, I doubt you'll find a majority here who hold that view.

First major issue: Healthcare issue, in a country when over half of bankruptcies from from healthcare costs/premiums being jacked up by profit-healthcare-companies after more money, and that tens of millions of Americans aren't on healthcare because the profit-companies make it too expensive. Common People in America, regardless of party affiliation, know that the healthcare and social services are in a mess. As Kucinich as proposed, a non-profit public healthcare and social service department/s should be created to deal with this serious issue, the profit-monger companies have proven themselves inept and unable to get the American population on a reasonably priced healthcare system, they have failed.


In conclusion, and even though I am not American I read up extensively on this, the GOP currently stinks because of Bush and the war etc, midterms showed this, regardless of the individual theres a big chance people will simply avoid candidates when they vote when they see the R.

Reading will only get you so far, especially if you confine yourself to the DLM.

Socialized medicine has never had anywhere near majority support in this country, and won't for the foreseeable future. Hillary-Care crashed and burned in the early '90's and isn't coming back. Health care is simply not an overriding issue, and will not trump national security concerns. The '08 election is going to be determined in large part by which ticket can best secure the country and defeat the enemies of this country. Security issues almost always favor the GOP.

As for the mid-term elections, historically the party in the White House loses a greater or lesser number of seats in Congress and/or the Senate. In historic terms, the GOP's losses in the House of Representative were not unusual or excessive. And this is with an unpopular war going on. Which means IMO that, had the war in Iraq developed more positively or had victory been secured, i.e., if Iraq hadn't been an issue, the GOP most likely would have retained control of both houses. There is no "mandate" against the war, and the "American people" most certainly did not speak with one voice in favor of waving the white flag.

Well lately I have been kinda following US federal politics surrounding the Presidential elections, mainly through youtube videos, and I kinda had a thought. Most of the Republicans candidates support the war and it's continuation, in fact except for Ron Paul the debate was like Pick for Favorite Neocon™. And that got me thinking, do you think if the Republicans want to retain the White House they will have to have a more centre moderate candidate, someone who wants to end the war and go after the issues that kill the republicans?

Haven't read the whole thread, but the answer is one has to get nominated before running for President. In order to get nominated one has to appeal to the most radical of supporters. In other words they have to appeal to that 30% that thinks Bush is a genius because that 30% is almost 100% of the total of Republicans. On the other hand the Democrats need to appeal to the total crazies on the left. No nomination no chance.

About 36% are Democrats, 33% are Republicans, and 31% are independent. So to get elected one needs to get nominated by your third then try to go moderate to get another 15-20% or so from the middle. Eventually the middle elects the president from the crazy on the right vs. the crazy on the left.

At one time (30 or so years ago) both parties tried to find a moderate to appeal to that middle. That was mostly done with party "bosses" getting together and choosing a nominee they thought could win. Now we have mostly primary elections where only (in most states) the unwashed masses of party members vote on the nominee without regard as to whether s/he can appeal to that group in the middle.

I'm afraid that this election will end up being Romney or Giuliani against Clinton, bringing us the exact same sort of crapfest we've suffered through for years.

I, and most Americans according to the polls, am very disappointed in the quality and diversity of candidates this cycle.

I'm so disappointed, I've already decided who I'm voting for.

I'm taking some pocket change into the voting booth with me. Heads the Green Party candidate gets my vote. Tails, the Libertarian Party candidate.

I'll probably have to keep doing that every four years...I don't see the Dems or Repubs shaping up any time soon.

Health care is simply not an overriding issue, and will not trump national security concerns.

It's only my opinion, but I think you are seriously wrong on this point.

Talk to some people who have problems with health care costs and tell them that it's not an overriding issue. When you have that kind of problem in your family, it's pretty much the only issue...and as more and more Americans find themselves unable to afford decent health care and insurance, you're going to see the issue come to the forefront in a big way.

Maybe not this election cycle...but almost certainly by the 2010 midterms.

I think Kucinich has the best plan for healthcare, as he says the American people are already paying for healthcare, their just not getting it, the greedy corporate bosses are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOB0f3I1AXk

I think what people in America should realize is that the threat of terrorism is minimal to the extreme, the chances of them getting caught in a terrorist attack are infinitesimally small, and the GOP use it to justify international belligerence and aggressive war. People need to understand that the chest-beating militarism and quasi-fascist policies will not return anything to them, you can't argue that the American people would be living much better living conditions, welfare etc if they didn't have to pay for such a massive GOP military policy as well as corporate/wealthy welfare (to keep them happy).

Having read a few more posts I would like to add:

Republican leadership understands Aristotle better than Democratic leadership. Humans vote on emotion not on logic. The Democrats for the last 26 years have tried to run on logic. Republicans for the last 26 years have run on pure emotion.

The swing factor in the last election: Gay Marriage

Have the Feds done anything with gay marriage since the election? No. Has the Republican control of the government done anything about abortion in their 26 years? No. Burning flags? No. Military pay? No. But those issues and other emotional issues have kept them in power. Appealing to the emotions of the masses with no logic whatsoever and no intention of touching the issues after the election. So what have they done over the 26 years? They've sold out the masses that voted for them to the richest of the rich. And they did it with the masses smiling all the way to the voting booth. Not just "What's Wrong with Kansas?" but what's wrong with the "religious" right that had gotten zero out of the deal. Well zero is harsh, they had there emotions stroked but nothing else.

I predict the Republican party will find another emotional issue to throw in the last couple weeks. Not one they intend to do anything about but one that will attempt to swing just enough to keep the oligarchy going.

I think what people in America should realize is that the threat of terrorism is minimal to the extreme, the chances of them getting caught in a terrorist attack are infinitesimally small, and the GOP use it to justify international belligerence and aggressive war. People need to understand that the chest-beating militarism and quasi-fascist policies will not return anything to them, you can't argue that the American people would be living much better living conditions, welfare etc if they didn't have to pay for such a massive GOP military policy as well as corporate/wealthy welfare (to keep them happy).

It's not *all* terrorism, you know. ;) A lot of Democrats, instead of facing the fact that they lost in '00 and '04, and in the midterms of '02, decided to blame a single issue for the defeat, rather than see the whole picture. So it was either fear of terrorism, fear of gay marriage, or the "swift boat" guys that were to blame, but never the Dem candidate him/herself. :p

The truth is, we're not all sitting in our bomb shelters hoping for the best - most people are still concerned with "kitchen-table" issues, I do believe. The wars are unpopular, and the candidates will need to be clear on how they're going to solve it, but it's not all "fear-mongering" to use the over-used term (sorry). :p

Why do people keep saying that So and So (mostly Ron Paul) has no chance winning the election just because that person isn't very popular at the minute or has logical thoughts?

ALL YOU ARE DOING IS SAYING THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH AMERICA AND IT CAN'T BE FIXED! If you like a candidate, vote for that candidate. It might shock the Democrats and Republicans if voters from other parties managed to skew the votes 10%.

Why Ron Paul won't win:
They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.

Why Ron Paul won't win:

True. Which is sad, because it's exactly the reason he should win.