US Elections 2008 - Speculation and Analysis (Future Election Discussion)

DM

You have an instinctive liking for Democrats, which is understandable. I honestly wish I could support one of them and give them a chance, but it's a patently weak field that your party is putting up.

You really need to stop suggesting that everyone who may lean left is ?instinctive? (or some variation thereof) as if you are impartial. You?re not. Far from it.

The difference is myself, V03 and many others that you accuse of such bias will admit that we lean in one direction, but are certainly far from partisan hacks.

Who said I was defending him as a 'perfect savior'? That's a stretch of the imagination.

You reek of Giuliani love. How else could someone all of sudden not pass judgment on people?s personal lives and then attack Hillary in such a manner. One has to twist themselves into a quite a pretzel to do so.

The GOP is 'down in the dumps' because of their horrendous management of the Federal budget and Congress.

And corruption, and the war, and etcetera.

Not a terror attack on US soil or a US embassy since 9/11. Low interest rates.

Low interest rates? That?s the best you can do?

The housing market would beg to differ. Whose fault that is is best left for another thread, but still.

The not a terror attack on US soil is one of the worst arguments considering there wasn?t an attack on US soil like 9/11...ever (except maybe Pearl Harbor).

And the US embassy argument is just plain wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terrorism_against_Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_embassy_attacks

For the first question, I'd say immeasurably more secure than the 1990s.

Haven?t most official reports indicated that terrorism has increased?

Or do you just feel safer?

For the second question, it is emotive, sort of a Democratic staple: How do you feel?

You pin this on the Democrats, then follow with an emotive statement yourself about bad families and irresponsibility. And your reaction to Hillary generally include the terms ?shrill? and ?phony?, not exactly policy criticisms.

Your answers to V03?s a,b,c questions are straight outta Sean Hannity. a) He said nothing about ?special rights?, and many, many well-qualified people (left and right) have called for closing Guantanamo. b) Likewise, many have said that the sabber-rattling with Iran is a bad move. c) He said nothing about socialized medicine, and in fact has spoken out against it. You are simply taking his criticism and applying the extreme opposite as if that is his answer.

As far as international prestige goes, do we not have friendlier governments in power in countries like France and Germany at this time than previously? I thought so.

Ever think that those people vote based on internal matters that have nothing to do with the United States? Both had serious economic issues that were major factors.

Besides, most every poll suggest that V03 is right.

I don't want legislators on the Supreme Court, which is what Democrats bring. Individuals who place their beliefs over the law, and feel that the bench is a place for social justice (i.e., progressive causes).

Except for medical marijuana, death with dignity, stem cell research and a variety of other causes that conservatives have tried to overthrow via the courts despite the ?will of the people?. In fact, as I?ve posted before, its not always those dastardly Democrats or liberals:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?ex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090&partner=r

It should be the Dems' year, but they're putting up a relatively soft field. They could snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory that would almost be handed to them on a silver platter.

It always ?should be? their year, for whatever reason. But the Democrats have been almost as lame as the Republicans, so I don?t see why this is the case. And again, considering there are

 

At least he attacks the Republicans, instead of his follow Democrats like Obama, Edwards, and Hillary are doing.

 

I'm going to say that DS1977 answered DM far better than I could have .

I'm not going to do a point-by-point dissection of your post, DM, because it's not about "winning". I said what I had to say, and my comments were not entirely directed specifically at you as much as to put 'out there' how I felt about the election in general.

I would like to point out a couple of things:

1) Respectfully, you need to stop painting yourself as both above subjectivity and immune from partisan leanings. You are neither. I am not 'reflexive' in any of my thinking; if you carefully read my post, I vehemently spoke out against reflexivity, whilst providing what makes me unhappy about where America is now and why I am more willing to give the democrats a chance than the GOP in '08.

2) To accuse the democrats of appealing to emotion is just silly. Both campaigns are doing this. 9/11? Fear of Hillary? Terrorism? Democrats support terrorists, depending on which republicans you talk to. As far as my comments about being better off now than eight years ago, that was the tagline of none other than Ronald Reagan, back in 1980. Also, you know I stand against socialized medicine. I have never been for it, but we have to do something. It doesn't have to be a government takeover, but things need to, and are going to, change. I'd rather have a say in that change than throw my weight behind the crowd that will resist it at all costs, simply because it is something different.

My overall point here is that I want to see results, not soundbites. It's not about who is more clever, or more right, or more wrong. Both sides have their positives and their negatives, but what I am looking for is substance. Your dissection of my post exemplifies knee-jerk reactions.

You are not the only person here who is guilty of that, but right now, you are the most obvious.

Peace,

V-03

 

Who said anything that everyone who leans left has instinctive liking for Democrats? V03 is an unapologetic Democrat, and he's going to be more sensitive to their candidates even if he disagrees with certain policies (as he elaborated on above).

I never have denied my own biases, but I'm not an ideologue. I support candidates that I don't always agree with on certain issues, as is the case with Rudy.

I never implied you and V03 are partisan hacks. I hope it wasn't the impression I gave, because I don't believe it so.

You're misunderstanding what I've said. Giuliani's spouse (nor any of the other candidates) does not have political motivations, unlike Hillary does with Bill.

I don't care about their personal affairs, and I didn't when Bill Clinton got his fellatio episodes from portly women. I care when the personal gets into the political.

The Democrats are just as corrupt, and have been in the past. People are fed up with both parties and the earmarks and such.

Besides the morons who got into ARMs, the housing market did astoundingly well. My interest rate on my home loan (30 year fixed) is a damn good one.

Full employment has also been the case.

The few attacks on interests were not comparable to the scale of the 1990s, which led Bin Laden to call us a paper tiger due to the weak response.

Who thought that we wouldn't have another attack on our soil by now since 9/11? No one did.

Go look up the divorce statistics, the unwed births, and so on. This has nothing to do with my emotions, but facts on the ground. People are fed up with the perverse entertainment culture as well with its influence on youth.

True, but her policy of opportunism was shown clearly in the last Democratic debate.

Getting a little personal here, eh, DS77? Do I ever imply that you get your talking points from MoveOn.org or Air America Radio?

I do not have a liking for Sean Hannity. He's boorish. I loathe Rush Limbaugh as well.

Granting illegal combatants legal counsel in US courts or otherwise is granting special rights that they do not deserve.

As opposed to Obama's 'no frills' diplomacy that will emasculate us? Since when do you come to the diplomatic table with enemies of our State from a position of weakness?

Hillary's position is better in this regard, but her Iraq statements are muddl

 

Who said anything that everyone who leans left has instinctive liking for Democrats?...I never implied you and V03 are partisan hacks. I hope it wasn't the impression I gave, because I don't believe it so.

I misread you and made a mistake. My apologies.

The Democrats are just as corrupt, and have been in the past. People are fed up with both parties and the earmarks and such.

Which is why I think the notion that the Democrats ?should? win is bunk. Their leadership has been really bad.

The few attacks on interests were not comparable to the scale of the 1990s, which led Bin Laden to call us a paper tiger due to the weak response.

But again, these attacks were worse in the 1980s, and again, terrorism as a whole has gotten worse.

Who thought that we wouldn't have another attack on our soil by now since 9/11? No one did.

I?m not so sure. Immediately after, perhaps because people were in a state of shock. But again, what people thought/felt has little to do with the fact the severity of the attack was never seen before 9/11 either.

Getting a little personal here, eh, DS77? Do I ever imply that you get your talking points from MoveOn.org or Air America Radio?

I do not have a liking for Sean Hannity. He's boorish. I loathe Rush Limbaugh as well.

I wasn?t saying that you got your talking points from him, rather that the response sounded just like it...but fair enough, Hannity was a low blow.

But your response was over the top, especially considering who you directed it to.

Besides, that?s not personal. Personal would be to comment on a family member, your appearance, hygiene, etcetera.

Regarding Iran...Its not black and white, Obama v. Rudy, rather as you suggested, a middle-ground where *gasp* you actually commended Hillary.

No, he's recently made statements that he's leaning for it when he used to be opposed. Perhaps he can clarify here.

I?ll let him answer, but my understanding is that the only candidate proposing ?socialized? medicine is Kucinich. In fact, weren?t you one of the people who praised Romney?s health care plan in Massachussettes? Because it is very similar to Hillary?s plan.

Sure, there are economic factors, but the previous candiates tried to capitalize on the anti-Americanism that is present and failed.

I don?t think it failed more that again, people in other countries have higher priorities than us.

The problem is that true secular-progressivism is very unpopular if stated plainly as is. This is still a traditional country. Even most Democrats are traditional people, but the far-left is what I'm referring to.

Neither is true religio-facism, or whatever the stupid opposite of the stupid term secular-progressivism is.

According to wiki...your boy Jindal supports a complete ban on abortion, no exceptions. He has an ?A? rating from the Gun Owners of America...which basically thinks that the NRA are a bunch of wussies. That may fly in the deep south, but it wouldn?t nationally.

The country is in the middle on social issues, and I?m still not sure what you mean by ?traditional?.

The GOP don't govern like conservatives, though. They've governed like they claim of the Democrats when they were in full control... wasteful spending, fiscal irresponsibility, etc.

Agreed.

Oh really. Like what? On Iraq for example? Most of it has involved bashing the Bush Administration without substantive retort.

Removing troops from Iraq, depending on the candidate depends on how and when. Tax reform, health care reform, etcetera. Feel free to read their policy proposals. You may despise them. But they are there.

She was basically co-President for 8 years

So that just means she?s got a lot of experience. And she admits failure on health care and has a new proposal, which again, is similar to Romney?s.

You're making this personal.

No, again, you didn?t insult me personally, so I didn?t take it as su

 

Thanks V03

Why are you and DS77 getting personal here?

It's not personal. When you make such comments as ?reflexive? and that we are using talking points (as you did with Biden), we are going to take you to task for it.

If we are wrong, fine. But don?t play the victim.

And if BOTH of us see it, perhaps there could be a grain of truth? Its not that we don?t love you man, but that love includes tough love.

Have not the Democrats trotted out children as human shields for sCHIP? Or, minorities for Affirmative Action, or the elderly for this and that program?

And Bush/Republicans haven?t? Trotted out children for stem cell research, or minorities to oppose affirmative action. Bush uses the troops for photo ops practically every day. Using people for emotive response is done on a regular basis by both parties.

And fear is the main thing the Republicans have run on (especially Rudy) since 9/11. The spectacle of fearsome acts. There is nothing to fear, except Democrats, terrorists and the boogeyman.

I also disagree with Democrats who see terrorism as simply a police and law enforcement matter only.

But again, that?s a silly oversimplification that a vast majority of Demcorats don?t agree with.

99% of Democrats voted for going into Afghanistan. I am certainly for military incursions when necessary, but I say the ?Munich? approach IS a good one against an enemy with no real standing army.

I wasn't in it to 'win' the discussion, but it seems you and DS77 are raising your feathers by getting a bit overly perturbed.

We?re not perturbed, rather we just disagree with your statements. If you are going to make such denunciations, people are going to respond in kind my good friend.

 

But the answer to the question that everyone is curious about...

I had McDonalds for dinner last night. I haven't had McDonalds in a long time. I had chicken nuggets, fries, a coke, some cookies...it was delicious.

Except I am a complete idiot and forgot to destroy the evidence. I planned to throw it away in the garage trash can. I didn't even leave it in the trash can in the kitchen. I left it on the counter in the kitchen. I am officially a moron.

 

You're getting personal here and relativizing. You made points which I addressed.

Of course I'm not. I wasn't referring to you, but to the national political process in general. People fall in line with that type of thinking when they pawn off media-driven perceptions as their own, but I never intended to attack you personally.

Peace,

V-03

 

McDonald's?



That's a one way ticket to the toilet for me. Extreme assplosions after eating that crap.... I haven't had McDonald's in years.

===

The process does suck, V03. But, people can't get enough of the negativity. It works.

Political passions are going to go off the charts towards the middle of next year.

I always like having conversations with you guys, even if we disagree. You and DS77 have always represented civility and good discourse.

 

Long time, no posts, but I just wanted to share this.

As an Iowan registered as a Democrat, I just received a call from someone identifying themselves as a polling company asking questions about the upcoming caucus. They asked the standard "Who are your first and second choices?" (Full disclosure: I picked Obama and Richardson) The next question threw me - What concerns you the most about Barack Obama: A. His lack of experience, or B. his unelectablility as a national candidate. Then they asked the same about Edwards. Are you more concerned about A. His inexperience or B. the fact that he and wife Elizabeth continued to campaign ofter discovering her reoccourance with breast cancer (questions are paraphrased). Then they asked generic questions about illegal immigrants and drivers licences and if there were teachers and or union members in my household. End of call.

I'm no pollster, but these seem like loaded questions to me. Both the questions gave a hobson's choice of negatives between Hillary's top opponants. The call may have been paid for by a private group, but it still put me off and seemed fishy. Arg, sometimes this process frustrates me.

 

DM

Political passions are going to go off the charts towards the middle of next year.

I always like having conversations with you guys, even if we disagree. You and DS77 have always represented civility and good discourse.

Yes, yes. It is NEVER personal.

Thats why this is my main place for political discourse. Like you, one of my closest friends and I have different views politically, especially on the surface, but in the end we remain good friends, probably even better friends, because we learn quite a bit from each other. One of the things we learn is that despite our heated arguments, there are a ton of things we agree on and that neither party is really addressing in a reasonable manner...along the lines of what Sellars was talking about, how elected officials just lose touch.

That's a one way ticket to the toilet for me. Extreme assplosions after eating that crap.... I haven't had McDonald's in years.

Um, thanks for sharing.

Speaking of, there was article in the LA Times about a ?Snack Tax? as opposed to always picking on smokers:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dupuy12nov12,0,2161930.story?coll=la-home-commentary


MB

I'm no pollster, but these seem like loaded questions to me.

Sounds like you received a push-poll.

Tell me, why is that V03 and I are highly intelligent, incredibly savvy, political stalwarts with bright futures while DM is always wrong? Is it a) Because he has yet to use a thesaurus for the word ?shrill? b) He speaks of ?secular-progressivism? as if it is a disease uncurable by stem cell research or c) He?s from Louisiana.

 

I think recent polls have Hillary dropping a few points in Iowa and NH.

According to Time, ES's favorite magazine, political insiders from all the Democratic campaigns agree that if the Iowa caucuses were today, Edwards would win. Hillary is still the frontrunner, but I am more convinced that the nom is far from locked up.

On the GOP side, Fred Thompson received the endorsement of the Right To Life committee. Will that help him?

 

I'd actually stake money on Hillary being the next US president, DS. There's an air of inevitability to it, I think, politically.

E_S

 

Yes, yes, DM, we are good buds!....and I appreciate the compliments. The same goes for you as well.

Ender, I think Hillary will be the nominee, but, I am concerned that the primaries will so damage her that Giuliani (if he wins the GOP nod) will wipe the floor with her. I think the dems should be slamming the republicans, not each other.

It would not be the first time that the primaries had so weakened an 'obvious' candidate that they lost in the general election. While I think that Hillary would be a good leader, she does have detractors, she will face more attacks in a general election than any other candidate, and she will have a tougher struggle to the White House. Her opponents in the party are not helping her by ripping her apart. She can use this to try and project herself as above the fray, but it's hard when the republicans are already treating her like she is the nominee.

Now, if they knock her out and someone else wins, this could backfire on them in a general election, but I don't see that happening. I see a weakened Hillary getting creamed by Giuliani/Huckabee if it comes to that.

Also, in terms of polls, people tend to say one thing in the United States when it comes to voting and do another. This election cycle will be no exception.

Peace,

V-03

 

V03

The Democrats formed a circular firing sqaud? So what else is new?

We always tend to do that, and I do think it weakens our candidates to a degree, but it is nothing that the Democrats haven't dealt with before. The Clintons, as is their custom, are going to stop being 'above the fray' now that her poll numbers are slipping, and will strike back like the Clintons always do. That is a main reason why a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket would not 'cream' Hillary by any stretch. If the press doesn't actually scrutinize Giuliani, one better believe the Clintons will.

ES

Perhaps, there could be a 'bandwagon' effect, similar to one the Bushies talked about in 04...that the size of the 'machine' will be too overwhelming. But Hillary doesn't have a united party behind her...with that, I wonder if Nader will run again, and further wonder if he would have an effect.

Anyway, it seems like McCain is doing better lately. Out of the GOP candidates, IMO he would probably be the best President.

I still wonder what the GOP race would be like if George Allen hadn't lost his Senate seat.

 

I'd actually stake money on Hillary being the next US president, DS. There's an air of inevitability to it, I think, politically.

Lexington and the rest of The Economist crew seem to want you to think that.

I think only the Democratic primary has an air of inevitability. For the rest of it, I feel like anything can happen.

The cynic in me would point to all the Ron Paul bull we've been forced to endure as evidence of the special character of the American electorate's stupidity: boundless in its scope, and unpredictable in its specific character from one moment to the next.

 

I'm glad Lexington thinks that; I rarely read Lexington's column as I'm not enamoured with the US, Rogue.



E_S

 

At 3000 posts this puppy is pretty large - can somebody start a new one for me?

E_S

 

Interesting that after attacking Bill Clinton for using the term "swift boating" in regards to attacks on his wife, Barack Obama today goes out and does the same thing. He said he would not be "swift-boated" in this campaign, that he would "hit back hard". He was responding to an ad questioning both his patriotism and accusing him of secretely being a muslim (yes, someone in the US actually put this ad together and marketed it, to my shame).

So where are the media headlines denouncing him? The accusations of flip-flopping for having criticized Bill and Hillary just a few days before?

The media is curiously silent on the subject this time around.

Seems rather fair, don't you think?

It's this kind of behavior, of nonsense, that I have been railing against. It's not a problem unless it's "Hillary". What a load of crap.

Peace,

V-03