The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions

Knightwriter
I'm telling you that when it comes time to vote, Clinton will absolutely embarrass Guliani in New York, New Jersey and other blue states. Mark my words.


Marked for the record.

Well put about Ron Paul Darth Karde!

KMJacen Solo
His optimism is boundless and that's endearing to some point, but as E_S pointed out in the last thread, his positions aren't exactly tethered to reality.

Do you even know what his positions are? You and others here say "he's unrealistic" and his positions "are not tethered by reality", but I haven't heard any of you refute his specific proposals. I just read alot of generalising.

 

I really don't want this to come off as being arrogant, but I've got an honest question to ask the Ron Paul supporters here.

Do you believe he's going to get the GOP nod, and if so, do you believe he will be elected to the White House? Should his ticket contain one of the scientific poll's front-runners, or would he run with an unknown?

 

Let's not forget that for all the love Huckabee gets, he hasn't raised nearly the funds that Paul has. Huckabee is moving up in Iowa, but I do believe Paul is doing the same in New Hampshire.

Either way, enough good people support him and his ideas, so IMO they deserve a fair discussion.

 

Answer my question Lane Winree. Can you answer it?

You come off as someone who merely wants to tie his cart to the winning horse, not someone who actually knows what some candidates are about. And yes, your question does sound arrogant, but that's nothing new from you. You've apparently decided to spend your time tweaking supporters of a candidate I have yet to hear you say you know anything about.

 

I really don't think that people understand the intensity of the "get away from Bush" crowd. The sentiment against not only the president, but his policies is so strong, and has been for so long, that that alone will likely provide enough of an edge to whomever the democratic nominee is to win, even Hillary.


This is what I'm thinking too. I haven't been following too closely, but I think it may be difficcult for the Republicans to field any candidate in the wake of W's legacy. It makes me wish that we didn't have to wait another year for elections--he;s finished, most people want to move on--why waste time with all the campaigning?

 

Ender: It isn't just Lexington columns in the Economist that predict an unbeatable Hillary. Why, a couple weeks ago, the ran a leader called (IIRC) "Who will challenge Hillary". Not to mention the front page they gave her and Bill. They're bent on this "unbeatable Hillary" thing.

 

...You asked me a question?

Listen, I'm not trying to attack you right now, and I don't appreciate your tone towards me. I'm honestly trying to figure out this grassroots support Ron Paul has. If I sound annoyed, it's because Paul supporters who have no interest in debate or coherent conversation have taken over several websites that I used to frequent. I admit that I've been extraordinarily short tempered with a lot of Ron Paul supporters. I suppose some of that has to do with some Paul supporters who vandalized my car a few weeks ago.

I don't like Ron Paul because of two things in particular. First is his idea that it's a good thing to withdraw from the UN. Second is that he thinks it's a good idea to withdraw from NATO. Isolation is one thing, but I honestly don't believe that withdrawal from those organizations will help anyone. The UN exists to help facilitate discussions between political and national bodies. His isolationist approach scares me, because I don't believe it is going to do anything to help the free-market economy or foreign relations.

I appreciate Ron Paul's determination, but it's also his refusal to bend that has me scratching my head. To me, he comes off as someone who is so stuck to his beliefs, he won't change his mind no matter what facts are put in front of him. That, in my mind, is the same problem the current administration has. In short, he's so gung-ho it scary.

I honestly haven't decided who I'm going to vote for in the primaries. Right now, I'm torn between Romney and Huckabee.

As for tieing my cart to a winning horse? I should show you how many measures that I voted for failed in my state's last ballot.

 

Ah, thanks. Thought that was directed at someone else.

 

Ho, ho, ho.

Vivec I believe I am still waiting for you to refute my criticisms of Mr Paul's pololololicy platform. I believe you in fact ignored the thread in YJCC and here for some time in the hope it would fade. I was content to let it go but this act of faaaa-aaaa-aaaantastic me-too'ery has prompted me to reawaken it.



Rogue, did you read that piece? If so, you'll recall their analysis was based on polling data from a variety of polls and their conclusion was that Clinton's lead on her opponents made her the one to be challenged. You don't give them enough credit here which is frankly a little disingenuous.

E_S

 

Polling data is well and good, but they're treating it like a done deal way to early for my taste. Howard Dean was supposed to win the last Dem primary about this time. Remember what happened to him? And this cycle has been even more silly/unpredictable thus far, so I say wait and see before you start deluging us with articles declaring victory.

Also, I'm quite surprised at your snide implication that I didn't actually read the article. I thought you'd learned not to pull that with me by now. I'm not some soft-headed Paulite for you to toy with, Ender.

Furthermore, it was uncalled for. I wasn't being hostile, so neither should you be.

 

Lane Winree
I don't like Ron Paul because of two things in particular. First is his idea that it's a good thing to withdraw from the UN. Second is that he thinks it's a good idea to withdraw from NATO. Isolation is one thing, but I honestly don't believe that withdrawal from those organizations will help anyone. The UN exists to help facilitate discussions between political and national bodies. His isolationist approach scares me, because I don't believe it is going to do anything to help the free-market economy or foreign relations.

Okay, you brought up two very controversial stances he has taken for years now. And you can make a good case against both. However, it would help critics of his positions if they merely addressed the "why that would not be good" instead of just attacking his positions using ridiculous rhetoric and over the top accusations.

One of the major things that bothers me lately about free-marketers is their, frankly, ****** job defending their positions and why they work best. Instead they go on the ad hominem and rant and rave about "isolationism!" and "nationalism!". They make the whole philosophy appear weak, which it is not. But maybe alot of its adherents are?




Lane Winree
I appreciate Ron Paul's determination, but it's also his refusal to bend that has me scratching my head. To me, he comes off as someone who is so stuck to his beliefs, he won't change his mind no matter what facts are put in front of him. That, in my mind, is the same problem the current administration has. In short, he's so gung-ho it scary.

Yes, but the current administration has that attitude over a war. Paul would likely have that attitude over privatising the post office. Which would you choose?

Btw, I too like Huckabee. It's really too soon for me. I loathe the idea of Guiliani/Clinton. Guiliani is no friggin conservative and his election would be a continuation of W. IMHO. He's brought in alot of neocon advisors for his campaign, including the father of neoconservatism, Norman Podhoretz. His foreign policy would be very similar to W's.

 

I don't like that attitude coming from ANY politician. If information arises that shows a politician's stance needs to be reworked, I want them to take a cold, hard look at the data. That goes for Bush, Romney, Clinton, and yes, Paul.

 

As an Obama intern, I'm sick of the "unbeatable Hillary" ideas that many are passing around. I really think that Barack has more of a chance at the nomination than many give him credit for. And I'm also not sold on the fact that Hillary could beat some of the Republicans out there.

 

Remember that it's not just Hillary that will be campaigning. It'll be some star advisors, many of them battle-tested from campaigns past (some of which include one or both the 1992 and 1996 victories), and also some nameless people working hard to secure a Democratic victory.

Speaking of that, I think a Clinton nomination would be seen as much as a campaign for the Democrats as a whole than Clinton personally (which is counterintuitive, given her personality), whereas an Obama nomination would create more drive from people to get him in particular into the presidency.

 

Great article in the new TIME about what Hillary believes.

fascinating how so many right wingers absolutely HATE her.

I think she will get the nod, I'm just hoping she has enough guts to pick
OBAMA as her Vice Presidential Candidate.

very cool dream team.

 

bothers me lately about free-marketers is their,



Ron Paul is more of a "free marketer" than any other candidate. He would turn every government function he could over to the free market.

 

I don't think Obama would agree to it. Even Richardson's not willing to be her VP.

And Knight, that's very true. I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

I'm not so sure she won't win. She indeed can win, but that is dependent upon a multitude of factors, including on who her GOP rival is.

Ohio will be a definite battleground State this year, and it's quite possible that it'll go Democratic. I don't personally think Hillary will swing any southern 'Red States', including Florida. She has a good chance in Ohio and certain Southwest States, though. Rudy has decent chances of picking off a few northeastern 'blue States', I think.

Once we get the nominees, we'll get a better idea of where the battlegrounds will be.

However, issues are going to be in play as well as personalities. Just today - as I stated previously in this thread would happen - Clinton Says No to Licenses for Illegals. The position was untenable to a national referendum, so she had to backtrack after Gov. Spitzer's retraction under pressure.

 

I outlined my opposition to his stances including detailed refutations of his stances on NATO/UN (which Lane appears to have adopted near verbatim ). Additonally, I suggested he lacked an understanding for why things like NATO/UN/WTO etc are actually beneficial for the US to participate in.

For example, he claims they violate sovereignty, yet this is the catch cry of the ignorant, idiotic and fearful. If he understood, and I mean understood objectively not understood he's nodding and smiling, how the systems worked he'd not make such an asinine statement.

The UN exists as a means of facilitating engagement. Simple as that, telling you from first hand relevance. NATO exists to ensure the US' strategic agenda is incorporated into a multilateral, like minded strategic entity. That way the US has like minded states supporting the same global strategic position on key geopolitical areas.

He supported the fence, which as I've established is a band-aid solution designed to appeal to inherent prejudice, but prejudice wrapped in self-righteous indignation.

Similarly, personal income tax in the US & Ron Paul - it needs to be simplified since your tax code is stupidly complicated but his radical view that it supposes the state owns your life and labor? 'ss off. Taxs form an implicit contract between the adult and the state; I pay tax in exchange for the provision of goods and services. It's known, understood, and works.

He's pro-life, which is a hilariously inconsistent stance even with his "state level" caveat.

Once you get beyond the sensationalist catch cries and ignorance, he's a mediocre candidate who seems to create an aura of appeal based on the combination of being a maverick and standing for thingspeople who don't understand how politics works nearly as well as they think they do like to "believe in."

E_S

 

I think she could swing Arkansas. Florida will be interesting. It only recently became a battleground state. Clinton won it 1996, with less than 50% of the vote, before that Carter was the last candidate to win there. However, the GOP won't have the luxury of their candidate's brother running the state, who was a popular governor at that. She may not swing Florida, but it will be a battleground. I also think Virginia will be in play.

But as I have stated, IMO the election will be won and lost in the midwest (Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio) and southwest (New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado).

 

Sorry, E_S. Forgot to give you props on the NATO/UN thing. I had known he was sort of a "noninterventionalist" candidate, but when you informed me that he was for withdrawing from NATO and the UN, all sorts of red flags went up for me.

In addition to the NATO/UN policies, I can't say I'm overly fond of his stance on narcotics. His idea of treating drug abuse as a "medical malady" and not a crime doesn't exactly fly in my book. I'd hate to think that if he was elected, I'd have to foot the bill for medical coverage because people decided to get on the drug bandwagon. I know, not a popular internet opinion, but unless it's for a legitimate medical purpose (and I've always questioned the soundness of some of those medical studies), I don't believe narcotics should be legal in this country.

As far as gun-control goes (and this is going to sound extremely odd coming from me), I don't like the fact that he's the one candidate that got an A+ from the Gun Owners of America rankings. The fact that he thinks a "prohibition" on guns leads to school shootings and violence raises even more red flags for me... Well, actually it just makes me question his sanity. The logic doesn't quite flow. According to Paul, because it's hard to get guns, the end result is more violence.

So, there you go, a few more reasons I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul.

 

Rudy has decent chances of picking off a few northeastern 'blue States', I think.

I really doubt this, Dennis. He is most competitive in Jersey because Corzine is currently unpopular, but that support comes mostly from the north of the state, where they could look across the river and see the towers burning on 9/11. I already explained that he won't get PA, and he won't peel off any of the northeastern states.

His best shots outside of NJ are probably Maryland and Virginia. Delaware is out, and even the aforementioned two are going to be very, very tough for any republican candidate, even Rudy. He has as many potential detractors as Hillary, they just haven't been getting equal media play yet.

This all comes back to my assertion that people don't think for themselves; rather, they go with the soundbite of the moment. Any strong look at both Rudy's record and past shows both positives and negatives, and not any less so than Hillary or any other democrat.

On a more general note, Huckabee is a nice guy, but not nationally competitive. Paul is raising a fuss, but that's all he's going to raise. It's Romney, Rudy, McCain vs. Clinton, Obama, Edwards. When it comes down to it, they are where the money is, and of course we all know that money has absolutely nothing to do with american politics .

That's all, folks, .

Peace,

V-03

 

Thank you for that. I was thinking something had to simply be out of place, or something - it seems to be just bad management on part of his website staff. I mean, if you go to see his website and then "Issues - Health Care", all it says is "The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms" with two quotes from USA Today relating to his opinion on the health care system. Not exactly enough to make me vote for him. Anyway, thanks for that.

 

It is reasonable - and justified, though. While I believe in voting for the person who most represents me, I would rather have a candidate that is able to win and that has similar views, but slightly different on some issues, than a candidate that shares nearly identical views to me that cannot win. I'll sacrifice a couple issues for someone who can be president, rather than promoting and backing someone who cannot win the general election, basically. Obviously they have to be close to my views, but not exact is what I'm trying to get at and make people see why it is justifiable.

Ohio, and Virginia are the two states that I see most of the fight happening in. Ohio, like last election, will be close and fought until the last day. Virginia, in my opinion, is the new "swing" state that the parties will be going after. Webb won it by less than a hair, and correct me if I'm wrong, but did Democrats pick up some seats in the State House?