Presidential Race

[hive_king]

Most of us will be voting on Feb. 5, and the primaries will likely be decided by then. This is shaping up to be one of the most fluid and confusing races in recent history. Really, no one knows exactly what to expect.

Who does everyone think the race is going to come down to?

[Dr. Mobius]

Ask me again in October.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Did Edwards withdraw? Not that he's terribly likely to get the nomination at this point, but he's stll a factor to consider.

What troubles me more is Hillary's Florida gambit. Personally, I think she's deluding herself into thinking that she and Bill together have enough clout to bully the DNC into allowing her to campaign there and get the delegates reseated, but in my experience when people make it public how much power they have, it's usually less than they want you to, or they themselves would like to believe.

I think Florida will bury Giuliani, and I've heard Huckabee's campaign is broke even now before Super Tuesday. Romney and McCain are going to butt heads from here out, but McCain seems to be playing better with the Republican base, though I think he's worse suited for the general election than Romney.

[Warmaker]

Romney and Edwards are the only candidates who have impressed me. Unfortunately, I have little faith that either of them will recieve nomination. Edwards has all but withdrawn, and Romney can't compete with McCains primary victories, legitimate military record, and general common man demeanor. McCain is far more electable for conservatives than Romney. On the Democrat side, obviously nobody watches debates or interviews, because people are still voting for Obama over Clinton. Vague, grandiose rhetoric is not a platform, Barrack.

[jotabe]

Just saw this pic in a Spanish newspaper:


Just imagine the possibilities of this image, properly shopped.

[Eddie Pinz]

Is she hailing Hitler or just supermaning that hoe?

[starlooker]

You know, this is the oddest thing:

I support Clinton over Obama, on the one hand, for several reasons that I won't go into here.

But what's most important to me right now is that McCain keep his lead.

Because if he does, from my standpoint at least, come November we will basically have a win/win situation on our hands.

I prefer Clinton, but I'd also be pretty happy if Obama gets the nod. And I desperately want a Democrat in the White House. But come this November, I want my worst-case scenario to be McCain.

Clinton/Obama/McCain -- any of these will be a welcome relief from the current administration and I'll wake up one morning in late January of 2009 saying, "Oh, wow, my country is once again under the control of someone sane."

[anonshadow]

See, McCain scares the s*** out of me, and I really don't want him winning the election. Why do you like him?

[Claire]

You know, this is the oddest thing:

I support Clinton over Obama, on the one hand, for several reasons that I won't go into here.

But what's most important to me right now is that McCain keep his lead.

Because if he does, from my standpoint at least, come November we will basically have a win/win situation on our hands.

I prefer Clinton, but I'd also be pretty happy if Obama gets the nod. And I desperately want a Democrat in the White House. But come this November, I want my worst-case scenario to be McCain.

Clinton/Obama/McCain -- any of these will be a welcome relief from the current administration and I'll wake up one morning in late January of 2009 saying, "Oh, wow, my country is once again under the control of someone sane."

I agree with everything you said to a certain extent, but the thing is...I think that the only scenario in which a republican will win this election is McCain vs. Clinton. I think that several Clinton supporters (like me) would gladly vote for Obama as a second choice, but I think a lot of Obama supporters would choose McCain before Clinton. But I don't have an unbiased view; to me it seems like I'm the only one in the world who supports Clinton because I am constantly surrounded by Obama supporters.

[Warmaker]

You know, this is the oddest thing:

I support Clinton over Obama, on the one hand, for several reasons that I won't go into here.

But what's most important to me right now is that McCain keep his lead.

Because if he does, from my standpoint at least, come November we will basically have a win/win situation on our hands.

I prefer Clinton, but I'd also be pretty happy if Obama gets the nod. And I desperately want a Democrat in the White House. But come this November, I want my worst-case scenario to be McCain.

Clinton/Obama/McCain -- any of these will be a welcome relief from the current administration and I'll wake up one morning in late January of 2009 saying, "Oh, wow, my country is once again under the control of someone sane."

Maybe it says something about our time, but I'm really not happy that my Republican frontrunner is a Democrat. Of course, maybe it also says something about my party.

[eriador]

Actually, if he's a Republican. I dunno if you caught that or not. Otherwise he'd be running as a Democrat. Yeah. And don't try to claim that you were using "democrat" as a pejorative term, because I think that's a ToS violation.

[jotabe]

ok, Romney is out:
http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/200 ... l-bid.html

[Syphon the Sun]

Actually, if he's a Republican. I dunno if you caught that or not. Otherwise he'd be running as a Democrat. Yeah. And don't try to claim that you were using "democrat" as a pejorative term, because I think that's a ToS violation.

For the record, you can label yourself whatever you want. I'm a registered libertarian. I have never voted for a libertarian candidate, though. There are members here that are registered under one party, but consider themselves part of another (and proceed to vote that way). Running as a Republican doesn't necessarily make you one. Nor does it mean that your political beliefs are in sync with the rest of the party. The fact of the matter is that, while he says he's a Republican, he doesn't much act like one.

[eriador]

That's too subjective to post it as truth.

[Syphon the Sun]

That's too subjective to post it as truth.

How about some empirical evidence? Take a look at his voting record, for example. If you don't have time, The American Conservative Union has sifted through the votes themselves and developed a rating system of how often each representative votes conservatively. In 2006, McCain voted conservatively about three-fifths of the time. Ron Paul, on the other hand, voted conservative over three-quarters of the time. McCain's lifetime rating is a moderately high (comparatively speaking) 82%. But, most of that can be attributed to his years in the Senate prior to 1996. His average for those years was 89%, peaking at 96%, with a low point of 83%. Since then, his average has been 74%, peaking at 81% and hitting a low point in the sixties three times. The fact of that matter is that he is one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress. In fact, Richard Shelby, a former Democrat senator that switched to the Republican party in the nineties, has a lifetime rating of 74%.

And nevermind that the pundits (especially the left-wing ones) have been talking about him switching party affiliation for (somewhere between six and ten) years.

And nevermind that one of his top aides initiated talks with the Democrats in regards to his leaving the Republican party.

Whether you want to believe it or not, McCain is hardly a typical Republican and has sided with the Democrats quite a few times (and for many of the times that he has voted liberal, the vote was close and a few votes a different way could have swayed it) and I think that Warmaker has every right to complain that he's too liberal for his tastes.

[eriador]

Yeah, well, luckily he doesn't speak for the Republicans.

I say we drop this. It's only leading to hard feelings.

[anonshadow]

Political debates are always heated. We shouldn't drop all of them just because of that.

On McCain as a Dem--I'm sorry, I don't buy it. He may be far too liberal for you, and that's fine, and I'm sincerely sorry. McCain, however, is not a Democrat. The differences between Baseball Mitt and McCain are much smaller than the differences between McCain and Hills or Obama. McCain wants to stay in Iraq, overturn Roe V. Wade, and make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Come on. He's not a Democrat by ANY stretch on the imagination.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Personally, just a few years ago, a big part of McCain's appeal, at least in my view was that he was capable of crossing the isle, which had made him well known and respected among members of both parties. He was, for a time, what Obama's presenting himself as now, a leader capable of eroding the red/blue lines in Washington and across the country.

Then, at some point, this happened:
http://i25.tinypic.com/2evylit.jpg

I was far less politically aware a few years, ago, but it seemed like at some point, McCain, and looking back if I had to bet, it was the time he decided he wanted to run for president, McCain's entire outlook on the Iraq War, among other things fell much more closely in line with the Republican mode of thought.

http://parocks.com/mccainoniraq.JPG

It looks like, however, McCain is the winner of the primary, but in the general election, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. He'll have a much harder time swaying independents than either of the Democratic candidates, though for different reasons. He'd fare poorly against Hillary because Hillary wouldn't hesitate to launch attack campaigns on a much more massive scale against McCain than she has against Obama. Obama's been skillful about deflecting Hillary's assults and indeed turning them against her by suggesting that party infighting would be the most foolish move they could make at this stage.

Against Obama, whose campaign has been all about uniting the country, McCain has made none of the olive-branch cross party offerings, or invitational requests of the middle ground that Obama has been sewing into the grass since day one.

The Democratic primary is interesting, and at this point, I'd need to look at the state-by-state election procedures to guess at the winner. Hillary's campaign has been on a downslide for quite some time, and Obama being able to more than match Bill and Hillary's $5 Million self-loan with purely spontaneous donations is perhaps more significant than is being commonly acknowledged. Reports that the Clinton campaign workers are not going without pay suggest that her campaign is not so on the ropes as she would like her supporters to believe, and although it's not so much been his style, Obama could easily go for the jugular and call it an attempt to manipulate money/support out of people with false information, the hallmark of the Bush administration, to many who disapprove of it.

[eriador]

Romney's out

Anyway, my point was that, as political debates go, this has no real value. It's bickering.

[anonshadow]

... no s***, Sherlock. That doesn't mean that he and McCain have suddenly stopped being closer policy-wise than McCain and Hills/Obama.

[starlooker]

I didn't say that the country would be under the government of someone I agreed with, or that I would want him to win -- only that it would be under the leadership of someone sane. And that I stand by. And that will be a nice change of pace. Compare him with Bush or Huckabee. I disagree with his platform entirely, but I trust him more on the level of ethics and thoughtfulness than I do any other candidate from that party.

[Luet]

Romney's out

Uh, jota posted that almost 10 hours earlier...

[Rei]

And *he's* in Spain!

[Syphon the Sun]

Eri;
Believe it or not, he's not alone in feeling that McCain is too liberal to be a good Republican candidate. Though, I can't quite say whose feelings are hurt, sweetie.

Anon;
I don't think anyone was sincerely suggesting that he's a Democrat. However, he is one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress.

And sure, you can pick and choose which issues and come up with a different answer depending on what you decided on. He's pushing for helping illegal immigrants, he's in favor of more inflated social programs, and he's raged against opening up domestic oil reserves for drilling, vehemently opposed Bush's tax cuts (though he does think they need to be extended, now that they're in effect), and endorses a more progressive tax system. Those aren't exactly traditional Republican traits.

Not only that, but his voting history has proven time and again that, when he votes along the party line, it's on bills that don't matter. But, when the vote is crucial and one or two votes could swing the momentum, he's no where to be found on the Republican side.

And, because you compared him to two Democrats, maybe we should compare him to a few more? McCain votes conservatively about as often as Thomas Holden, James Matheson, Earl Nelson, Mike McIntyre, and Sanford Bishop, all of whom are Democrats. What's odd, though, is that Robert Cramer, Thomas Edwards, Gary Taylor, and Henry Cuellar (again, all Democrats) vote more conservatively than he does. Oh, and David Boren, Collin Peterson, Charles Melancon, John Barrow, and James Marshall voted more conservatively than he did by about ten percent (give or take a percentage point, depending on the Representative). Lincoln Davis blew him out of the water, voting more conservatively than McCain about a sixth of the time. These are all Democrats. Sure, he's no Teddy Kennedy, but to say that there's such a vast line between him and other Democrats is pretty silly.

[anonshadow]

This is true, and this is also why part of me is glad that he's going to be the Republican candidate...

I just don't want him foisted off on the Dems.

[Noodle]

I think It's a bad thing for the republicans that McCain is basically unopposed in this election. He's too liberal for the Conservatives and too Conservative for the liberals. He's just too darn moderate to get much fervant support when it comes down to him vs. one of the Democrats.

That said, I'm glad he's the candidate, since on a lot of things I could live with him as president.

Personally I'm voting Obama, with Clinton as my second choice. I may sometime post some details as to why I'm voting that way. It's late and I need sleep.

[wigginboy]

what if a candidate who was that moderate is just what your government needs. someone with a bleeding heart, but who drives a hard line. just where each is needed. a sort of balance.

EDIT: Not saying my country's politicians are much better, in fact i think sometimes they are worse. just saying ideally the best leader is one who knows where and how to use his power and does it accordingly. perhaps mccain is the kind of guy that the US govt needs. not that i know or care much about american politics.

[Eaquae Legit]

not that i know or care much about american politics.

Unfortunately, because we should care. If we're sleeping next to an elephant, I want to know who the mahout is going to be.

[edited for spelnig, getting the cliche right, and to say I'm not referring to one party or the other. Just that the US is a lot like an elephant: big, lumbering, generally good-natured but capable of massive destruction, and absolutely impossible to ignore.]

[jotabe]

what if a candidate who was that moderate is just what your government needs. someone with a bleeding heart, but who drives a hard line. just where each is needed. a sort of balance.

I agree. That's why Hillary is my girl.
(well, she'd be my girl if i was in the us. I mean, i'd vote for her, not that i would want to be her boyfriend. On the other hand, if i was, i'd be Bill Clinton, and Bill certainly had a way with the ladies, much better than mine, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But i wouldn't want so much publicity. So maybe no. Or yes?... uh... what was the question?)

[Syphon the Sun]

I agree. That's why Hillary is my girl.

Clearly you haven't learned what "moderate" means, yet.

what if a candidate who was that moderate is just what your government needs. someone with a bleeding heart, but who drives a hard line. just where each is needed. a sort of balance.

I'm a libertarian. McCain is liberal in all of the ways I want a President to be conservative and he's conservative in all of the ways I want a President to be liberal. He's not "moderate." He just floats on both extremes.

Now, it's just a matter of waiting to see if Obama gets the nod or not. Because I'd glady take Obama over McCain, but would rather eat shards of glass than vote for Hillary.

[Claire]

Now, it's just a matter of waiting to see if Obama gets the nod or not. Because I'd glady take Obama over McCain, but would rather eat shards of glass than vote for Hillary.

Why?

[jotabe]

What is a moderate, then, according to you? And who would fit into that?

For me a moderate is someone who doesn't let oneself be bound by preconceived notions (ideologies), and takes decisions out of convenience (either what is best for their polling results, i.e. what people wants, or what is best for the country, so it's win/win).

[Oliver Dale]

I agree. That's why Hillary is my girl.

Clearly you haven't learned what "moderate" means, yet.

what if a candidate who was that moderate is just what your government needs. someone with a bleeding heart, but who drives a hard line. just where each is needed. a sort of balance.

I'm a libertarian. McCain is liberal in all of the ways I want a President to be conservative and he's conservative in all of the ways I want a President to be liberal. He's not "moderate." He just floats on both extremes.

Now, it's just a matter of waiting to see if Obama gets the nod or not. Because I'd glady take Obama over McCain, but would rather eat shards of glass than vote for Hillary.

This most closely represents my current opinion.

[Syphon the Sun]

What is a moderate, then, according to you? And who would fit into that?

A moderate holds political beliefs that fall just left and just right of the center on varying issues. They aren't on either extreme of the spectrum. Hilary Clinton is considered more liberal than about 83% of the other members of the Senate (according to a liberal think-tank). Likewise, (according to a conservative think-tank) she voted conservatively only eight percent of the time. She is not -- in any way, shape, or form -- a moderate. A Blue Dog Democrat is much closer to my idea of a moderate, if you want an example of some in the Democratic Party.

EDIT: According to a non-partisan think-tank, Hillary has voted along the party line 96.7% of the time.

For me a moderate is someone who doesn't let oneself be bound by preconceived notions (ideologies), and takes decisions out of convenience (either what is best for their polling results, i.e. what people wants, or what is best for the country, so it's win/win).

Mmm, Machiavelli.

[Syphon the Sun]

Now, it's just a matter of waiting to see if Obama gets the nod or not. Because I'd glady take Obama over McCain, but would rather eat shards of glass than vote for Hillary.

Why?

She's just as bad as the neo-conservatives with spending, she promotes unfair Affirmative Action plans that even Obama is against, she's extremely liberal in regards to her stance on 'hate crime,' she's pushed for mandated positions of power held by minorities, she's against expanding our domestic drilling for energy, she thinks that calling China out on their human rights violations will make them "respect us," she's rather anti-Israel (though that's been shifting, slowly), she wants to increase our foreign aid output, she's pushing for public financing of campaigns, her stance on gun control is absolutely ridiculous, her stance on healthcare seems too socialist for me, she seems a bit soft of immigration (though, remarkably better than McCain), she's pushing for high taxes and higher rates for those who already hold the vast majority of the tax burden, wants to pull troops out of Iraq in two months, and is entirely too socialist on welfare issues.