U.S. 2008 Election

Here is the results from "Super Tuesday". It appears that McCain is the clear Republican winner, while it is still a toss-up between Clinton and Obama.

My personal feelings on the matter is that whoever wins the Democratic primary is gonna be the next president. Even though I am a Republican, I don't think they will win. The nation is fed up with President Bush, and they will take it out on his party. The people want change, and want to look to outside forces. Its history repeating itself.

Look at Nixon's Presidency. After he resigned due to Watergate, Ford took over. When Ford ran for re-election, he lost to the peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, because many people connected Nixon with the rest of the Republican party. I feel it will happen again this year.

Dont get me wrong, I will be voting for McCain. But I will be more than happy if Obama wins. I just dont want Clinton winning. Everyone knows I believe she is the anti-Christ. I just feel she is way to ambitious. Shes been planning for this since 1992, and that scares the hell out of me. Im not sexist, and I have no problem with there being a woman President, its just that I have a total disdain for "Hellary". So I am just hoping that Obama has what it takes in the end to take her down...

Kucinich, then Edwards, and now I'm torn between Obama and McCain...

It's a very confusing time for the Rebellion...

I like McCain a lot. Always have. If he'd just tell the right wing of his party and the conservative evangelicals to blow, I'd probably vote for him. Heck, he might do that anyway if and after he were elected, but I don't think he'll make me a promise, so it's probably Obama for me.

I put McCain down, but I still want Barack Obama to go for the Democratic ticket. Once he's got the experience he'll make a good president, IMO, but right now I think he'd be too controlled by the rest of the Executive Branch to make the sort of decisions that need making.

Hillary has taken too much by way of campaign contributions; she's just going to go and open Washington up to corruption moreso than it already is. Ron Paul... I don't like Libertarians. I guess I'm just too liberal at heart. Huckabee: I know that he's said that he won't force his views on the country, but it takes a lot of refution of the evidense to keep claiming that Evolution is a hoax and that the world is really only 6,000 years old when tons of evidense says otherwise. I think he'd get us into some Bush-like situations.

Mitt Romney is actually alright, I don't have much of a beef with him- I just know that McCain is willing to work with Democrats and to come close to center, a skill that is always good to see in the White House.

Tofu and I generally have the same opinion on this matter.

If I might add, though, I rather like Hillary Clinton as a politician, but dislike her for being a politician (or rather, a stereotypical politician). Further, she's too much of a divisive figure to serve the Democrats can true purpose. She is more potentially dangerous in her ability to unify the Republican base against her rather than unify the Democratic base in her favor; indeed, I'm rather certain a large percentage of independents wouldn't so much cast their vote in favor of the GOP as against Clinton. As a Vice Presidential candidate, I have a hard time saying anything other than she would still be potentially dangerous to the electorate and especially the Democratic Party; further, she an extremely strong-willed person who will likely not take being VP very kindly and make hell for anyone who is made the Presidential nominee. As much as an Obama-Clinton ticket might be nice (or at least interesting) to see, I think that would cause too many problems and ought be scrapped.

I don't generally favor Republicans, but among the GOP candidates McCain has my vote. Romney I don't have too much against, but I believe he's a waning power. Huckabee and Ron Paul are both political dangerous, not just for the GOP but for the country as a whole, especially with regard to foreign affairs.

Tofu and I generally have the same opinion on this matter.

I don't generally favor Republicans, but among the GOP candidates McCain has my vote.

McCain is an odd one, I say as an obvious outsider. I read the 'serious newspapers' this side of the pond, so like to think I have probably more of a realistic understanding of potentially the most powerful man on the planet other than what's in the silly papers for the lazy/working class.

What attracts me to him is his apparent 'liberal' edge to Republican politics, ie: not curling up to the various religious lunatics on the right who do stuff like like oppose women's right to abortion, question evolution, justify scum like Al-Qaeda with questionable 'spiritual beliefs' without realizing, and affording neocon's a free reign on diplomatic policy which has reduced the US to the status of a rampant warmonger in the eyes of the rest of the industrialized western world. The very fact his 'conservative' credentials are open to question within the Republican Party warms me to the guy, as it reminds me at what disgusts at so much of the Republican Party stands for.

What disturbs me are things like his comment that North Korea should face extinction, and some song concerning Iran being bombed to the tune of the Beach Boys. Hilarious stuff for a potential diplomatic statesman in command of the most formidable arsenal on the planet. Think how this goes down elsewhere.

As for the Democrats, I think it was a shame John Edwards couldn't build more momentum; from what I read and understood, part of his message was the insanity of all this presidential-campaign funded bollocks, the amount of money spent is insane, and to be be frank offensive all over the place if you think about about, where ever your charitable leanings. But there you go, the Clinton/Obama clash evolves; not entirely sure yet as an outsider, though leaning to Hilary.

My UK five pence

Your five pense? Come, now, Jahled, your European money already outweighs ours- is it really necessary to go pouring in an extra three pense on our discussions as well?

The thing with Obama is that apparently he hasn't been taking lump cash donations- rather, it's a large, working-class base that's been giving small donations (By "Small" I mean anywhere from five to fifty dollars per person). I certainly see what you mean, though, Jahled- the money that our politicians fuel their campaigns with unbalances the election based on matters of economics and encourages money to take the office as opposed to the most skilled person in most cases.

I believe you fellows across the Atlantic have a system where not only can a campaign only spend a certain amount of money, but it can also only campaign for so many hours- it keeps the voters focusing on who the greater good is as opposed to who is the lesser evil.

Granted, this is just me regurgitating what I remember from last year's AP US Government class (We didn't always stick to the subject matter), so I may have some details wrong. McCain has a history of going for election reform, though, which is nice- the McCain-Feingold (sp?) bill called for election reform in one of the houses, though I don't think both. It limited spending on campaigns to what is, unfortunately, still a rather exorbitant amount, but it certainly kept a couple of thousand dollars out of the races and prevented large donations of "soft money."

If he becomes President he no longer has the legislative power of his vote, but he has the ability to toss a call toward the Congress and pressure them to pass that reform bill.

Has anyone noticed that the election is conspicuously silent about the economic ties we have with China right now? We don't seem to have a lot of discussion on how to break those ties so that we can (hopefully) intervene in Africa eventually. Those poor Darfur (sp?) citizens could certainly use some US or, better yet, UN intervention to keep the Chinese from supplying militant groups with weaponry. (I was reading an article another student had written on the situation today, thus my sudden caring about the genocide.)

Please this time elect someone sane, who doesn't try to create another cold war (or any other war).

USA is going to build military base in our country, Russia has already cancelled it's disarming treaties and threatens to aim it's missiles at us. So I'm slowly considering packing my things and getting the hell out of here.

I don't know much about you presidental candidates for this elections, but I sincerely hope your pick will be better than the last one.

Well, this is ironic. I sat down hoping folks from abroad would respond, since I'm very interested in hearing those opinions!

You folks, especially Mori and Max, bring up a point that has (though quietly) been looming over the election. The fact of the matter is, whoever we elect in the U.S. will reflect a certain way of thinking to the rest of the world. You would be amazed at the reaction that Barack Obama, an African-American, can run for President. To much of the world, and especially the Middle East, we are seen as white, racist nation, and the fact Hillary Clinton is running means very little since it's not particularly unusual for women to be among the chief executives of the world (i.e. Margaret Thatcher, British PM in the 80s; Angela Merkel, present German Chancellor). The fact he is a minority has actually, and quite radically, changed many people's views abroad. I know in the USA much of electorate has become jaded with the issue of race in the present election, but what we perceive here is only a drip in the ocean of perception internationally. Indeed, the election of Obama might be enough to change the perception of the United States greatly and perhaps help with rekindling international relations, most of which are in a state of disrepair and rot if only for a lack of upkeep, but also from the totally offensive, unilateral manner of the present Administration. There are greater forces at work in this election that we as U.S. citizens cannot see (being so close to it), but that what we decide will affect. In many ways, I think this goes beyond the best candidate for the job, but instead for the sake of a greater issue: that of the United States image abroad.

Jahled, don't get me wrong, McCain does not have my vote. I was trying to say that if I was forced to choose among GOP candidates, McCain would be my pick, but he is far from being (in my opinion) the best qualified candidate.

Tofu, I've always had this theory that had we not got ourselves involved in Iraq, Afghanistan might be stabilized (seeing as we could have placed the emphasis from Iraq and Afghanistan on just the one country) and might perhaps be helping this UN coalition in Darfur with perhaps a brigade or two of peacekeeping forces. Additionally, we might also be assisting the government of and the European peacekeepers in Chad, along with perhaps even stabilizing Kenya, but of course, only if so invited or requested by the particular country or the United Nations. We might even be helping strengthen associations like the United Nations and NATO rather than weakening them by "going at it alone." It was quite heartbreaking back when the NATO allies wanted to enact Article 5 of the treaty--a bit created with the intention of the United States assisting Europe in the case of war with the USSR--to assist us after September-11, but the Administration turned down the offer. It was an extension of friendship and solidarity, and it was snubbed, which only goes to show how important my earlier argument about strengthening international ties continues to be.

It's interesting, though, to see the Republican base divided in the same, if not extremely similar way the Democratic base was fragmented in 2004...

I've been set on Ron Paul from the beginning. I'm not really opposed to big government entirely, but for the most part it seems less effective and more expensive than the market.

Besides that, all of the candidates are spouting off these massive programs that aren't going to work because the amount of money needed to invest in their success while either paying off a massive debt, or continuing to maintain a massive foreign policy. Not that these programs couldn't be instituted, it's just the degree of expense they require is absurd. Accountability, and management, over and over again to prevent corruption. And without those then you lose money and efficiency to corruption. All that jazz.

So I think a small government is most beneficial at this point until everything is fine and dandy once again.

But, since that's not going to happen I have to either go for Obama or Huckabee- Although Obama seems a little absurd in his ideas to diplomatically talk Iran and Syria into leaving Iraq alone after we've left.

I'm delurking to voice my equally worthless opinion.

Romney suspended campaigning today, so that leaves:

Hillary - but the thought of a redux of the 90's Clinton corruption completely depresses me. Face it: policy wise and by inclination this woman is practically Stalin in drag. No thanks Mrs. C.

McCain - who has proven himself to be as vindictive and egotistical, not to mention as cynical and downright dishonest, as any politician in D.C. Anyone who could proudly author the kind of attack on the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution that McCain-Feingold represents, has no business holding national office. All in all McCain is unfit to be President imho.

Huckabee - the Huckster. McCain light. I'm so sorry that something as cool as the Fair Tax has become associated with this tool. Again, a lying cynical d'bag of a politician. No way he gets my vote, hopefully he'll go back to Arkansas and throw another squirrel on the barbie or the fry baby or whatever it was he was cooking them with in his college days.

Obama - Hillary with a human face. Jimmy Carter politically-reincarnated with a more ambitious (and destructive) shopping list of federal social programs. A naif up against Beijing, Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad (though after campaigning against the Clintons you can no longer call him a total naif). But I'll still be hoping that he wins the democrat nomination since 08 is going to be their year, and a return to Billary is more than I can stomach.

Ron Paul - will ultimately get my vote now. He's probably the only guy in the race who has read and understands the Constitution and has an inkling of how the Framers intended the country to be governed. His foreign policy would be dangerous in war time, admittedly. But I can't not vote, and all of the others are a guaranteed disaster.

I believe 2009 is going to see an acceleration of the US national decline that is so rapid it becomes irreversible. I'm sure if that happens it will gladen some hearts on this forum. Careful what you wish for. A bumbling, arrogant, self-absorbed but largely indifferent capitalist superpower might one day seem like a neighbor you mildly disliked, compared to what might follow.

Woah- McCain-Feingold was hardly a limiting of the first amendment, mate! It evened the playing field out in order to make Congress a meritocracy as opposed to a pecuniaucracy (Rule by money. Not a real word according to Firefox, but it's part Latin, so you're not allowed to dispute it). McCain-Feingold cuts back dramatically on the corruption of politicians with special interests upon entering the office and further reduces the Senate from the "millionaires club" it was in the early nineteen hundreds.

You can argue that, in limiting the amount of campaign money a candidate can spend, his freedom of speech is attacked, but let's be perfectly honest: the candidate is just using that money for television ads, automated phone calls, automated E-mails, and automated regular mail. It's not so much "speech" as "spam." When you compare the amount of money an incumbent member of Congress has to spend on their seat to the woefully tiny amount of money the challenger has, you see just how difficult it is to break in, even if the challenger is a better candidate for the position. In removing that overhanging advantage of money it becomes easier for the more effective legislator to enter Congress.

I'm sure if that happens it will gladen some hearts on this forum.

Why?

I'm sure if that happens it will gladen some hearts on this forum.

 

Why?

Ditto, I was kinda confused by that comment

Are you serious? If TV ads and direct mail flyers aren't political speech, what are they? Have you noticed how the candidates make contact with the voters predominantly Tofu? It's by these same mechanisms you are classifying as spam. In fact, short of Lincoln-Douglas style debates that never happen now anyway, op-ed columns in newspapers, and walking through the borough and shaking hands, these are the only means the candidates, or more precisely the citizens who support them, have of "speaking" to the voters in the electronic age.

POLE DANCING is considered protected speech in this country for God's sake! And while I'm all for pole dancers, if you could ask Madison and Jefferson which form of expression they would most want to see protected I'd guarantee you it would be the political TV ad (well, Madison anyway ).

If you are concerned about the ability of challengers to defeat incumbents, then McCain-Feingold should infuriate you. Under McCain-Feingold you as a citizen can't produce an ad that criticizes the voting record of a named incumbent who is running for reelection within 60 days of the election! McCain-Feingold is a massive incumbent protection act. Why within 60 days? Because that's when people are paying more attention. If this is bad speech, why not ban it altogether? And if it wasn't effective speech, do you think the incumbents who were trying to protect their sorry hides try to restrict it at all? It's a travesty.

If you really want a level playing field, take all the limits off political contributions, and simply require by law that every donation be disclosed. Let the voters decide for themselves if that Phillip-Morris contribution to Sen. Blowhard's campaign influenced his vote to increase tobacco subsidies.

If you are really concerned about corruption in government, there is only one thing to do: shrink the size and power of government. If the two parties of government weren't controlling billions of dollars in government contracts and subsidies you'd see that corporations and powerful individuals took a lot less interest in trying to sway their votes.

By restricting the speech of grass roots activists, McCain-Feingold attempts to extend the near monoply that large media outlets (read: corporations) have on political speech. Period.

I'll make a scientific prediction. Some day someone will invent a time machine, and go back in time and find Alexander Hamilton, then teleport him to Washington D.C. in the year 2002 and introduce him to John McCain, Russ Feingold, and George W. Bush. And when Hamilton finds out about the BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act they just passed into law, he will projectile vomit all over the 3 of them.

If you want to continue this in another thread, that's cool. But this one should probably be returned to the originally intended pumping and bashing of candidates. End transmission!

I'm sure if that happens it will gladen some hearts on this forum.

 

Why?

Because there are people on this forum who (in my opinion) plainly dislike the United States.

First: Only one post is necessary to reply to multiple comments.

Second: Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. McCain-Feingold keeps the playing field even. Want an example?

You have two people lauding two different ideas. They both talk for five minutes on their competing views, and you're interested in both. You want to hear more. Candidate A gets to talk for ten minutes about his idea. Candidate B gets to talk for three hours about his idea. Candidate B is far more likely to convince you of his idea due to his massive unfair advantage due to his extra campaign money. But then, that's "Freedom of Speech" to get to influence the voters more in a manner that the opponent can't hope to effect.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to express views on the government and on the world without someone striking you down and sending you off to prison for it. It's expanded over the years to include a number of things, but it doesn't include nudity in public locations. If it is found to be a disgusting or rude by the people of the community, it must be taken down according to the Supreme Court Decision (I'll have to find that case, but I believe it refers to "Lude and lascivious (sp?) acts")

Now, then, we've established that there are limits on the freedom of speech, though clearly a statue of a nude man and a campaign flier are from two separate schools of thought and are two separate manners entirely. The only thing connecting them is the principle of "free speech."

However, we have proven the limitation of free speech when it breaks from that which is socially acceptable. Is underhanded campaigning socially acceptable to you? Let's face it, the world as it is doesn't pay any attention to politics. Name recognition is at least as helpful as a strong voting record. Leaving the system untouched allows a candidate to tap-dance into office on a floor covered in greenbacks while the other fellow is left behind.

BTW: Those Lincoln-Douglass style debates do still exist. Meet the Press occasionally features them when they're on particularly contested seats in the Senate (During the Midterm election last year I recall seeing at least six scheduled, though I'll admit that I didn't watch them due to the fact that none of the Senators were from my State), and local broadcasting stations including branches of C-Span generally feature candidate debates in many States.

Lastly:The fact that someone expresses differing political views from you does not mean that they hate the United States. It means that they're exercising that Freedom of Speech I talked about earlier. No one here is looking at the election with the idea of "Hmm, who can I vote for to hurt the country the worst?" They look at it with a different outlook from yours and ask who they feel is the best man (or woman) for the job.

Didn't see the other post when I replied to you, but thanks for explaining to me how discussion threads work.

Second, your reply re McCain-Feingold only proves my point. The law claims to balance speech by limiting it. And talking about vulgar or lewd expression is off point. What is being limited by McCain-Feingold is manifestly political speech, not something like a standup comic telling dirty jokes.

But the law does more than seek "balanced" speech, though that in and of itself should be offensive to people who believe in the First Amendment. It outright prevents political speech. Check out the case of Wisconsin Right to Life vs. the F.E.C. The Supreme Court found that the FEC was unconstitutionally preventing the broadcast of issue ads using the BCRA (aka McCain-Feingold) as its basis. Maybe piece by piece the whole wretched law will be overturned.

You can't ration political expression without abridging someone's rights. Suppose one person believes in Proposition A and 10000 people are opposed to it. The Proposition A proponent can only afford one 15 second ad on an AM radio station. Should the opponents of Proposition A also be limited to a 15 second ad to achieve "balance"?

I could go on but I think we're to the point of arguing the color of the sky. You are fine with having a government agency set limits on political speech, I see that as destructive of people's fundamental rights.

Wow, people who don't agree with me don't necessarily hate the US? I guess I had it all wrong! Thanks Tofu, that never occurred to me! Sarcasm aside, I'm not looking to make enemies (except for you Tofu ), and I don't equate criticism of US policies with hatred of the country. If as you say, no one here is looking for the candidate who will hurt the country the worst, then that's a good thing and I stand happily corrected.

Sadly, this election will be a clusterf*ck of republicans stabbing themselves in the back and screwing themselves, Democrats trying to decide who woudl screw up our country less, and Independents liek myself deciding if Harvey Birdman or Skeletor deserves my write-in vote more. And here is why.

Conservative Republicans dislike McCain, for several reasons. So much so, that they are actually talking about running a third party canidate instead of actually trying to win. Why? Because they think that by doing so, they will HELP the Democrats win, and in four years, be able to retake the Whitehouse because they believe that the majority of US voters will by then realise how bad a job Clinton or Obama have done. However, by doing so, they risk losing the conservative majority on the Supreme Court as more than one Judge on the court is due for retirement soon, and they are banking that Obama or Clinton will do a bad job, which they may be wrong about.

On the Democrats side, you have Obama, who while charismatic, lacks the overall experience to be an effective president. Clinton on the other hand, has the expereince, but votes with the Democratic party line so hard that she will struggle to get anythign accomplished other than making herself look like a fool over the course of four years.

In the end, I think McCain will barely win it. But after four years, he will get ousted from the WHitehouse in a easy win for the Democrats when the Republican party tears itself apart trying to prevent him from winning yet again.

Woah- McCain-Feingold was hardly a limiting of the first amendment, mate! It evened the playing field out in order to make Congress a meritocracy as opposed to a pecuniaucracy (Rule by money. Not a real word according to Firefox, but it's part Latin, so you're not allowed to dispute it). McCain-Feingold cuts back dramatically on the corruption of politicians with special interests upon entering the office and further reduces the Senate from the "millionaires club" it was in the early nineteen hundreds.

You can argue that, in limiting the amount of campaign money a candidate can spend, his freedom of speech is attacked, but let's be perfectly honest: the candidate is just using that money for television ads, automated phone calls, automated E-mails, and automated regular mail. It's not so much "speech" as "spam." When you compare the amount of money an incumbent member of Congress has to spend on their seat to the woefully tiny amount of money the challenger has, you see just how difficult it is to break in, even if the challenger is a better candidate for the position. In removing that overhanging advantage of money it becomes easier for the more effective legislator to enter Congress.

Allow me to amend that...Like a candidate at a job interview, the candidate is making selling political service. Again, money helps, but the more effective sale of ability would still win, even if the field involves perfect balance competing over a vacancy.

I really only have one fact bit to add, and that's that members of Congress, both of the House and Senate, have free mail (that is to say, free to them but at the expense of the tax-payer), which has been commonly abused for use in elections. If I remember correctly, McCain-Feingold attempts to put a stop or at least a cap on this.

Because there are people on this forum who (in my opinion) plainly dislike the United States.

First I didn´t wanted to attend to that topic. But after reading this I have to add something.

I'm sure if that happens it will gladen some hearts on this forum.

Nobody in europe, maybe except of some crazed islamic fundamentalists, wants the downfall of the US-Nation in any kind of way. But some kind of criticism should be allowed. If there are people out there who hate your country than ask why. Maybe it´s not the whole US which they are hating, maybe it´s just the administration.

What´s up to me I´m not familiar for what every candidate stands for. Like Moribundus I also wish a peaceloving president. The last terms were a total catastrophy what belongs to international affairs. I would like to wish that the US administrations would stop bossing everyone arround. They don´t like if we interfer in their affairs so they also shouldn´t interfer in ours. If Obama would like to try talking with Syria and Iran, I would say that this could be a very good step forward to a new acceptance in the middle-east, though all that making war through the last years didn´t achieved anything but fat profits for the war- and oil-industry and lots of new young terrorist-recruits for Osama & Co.

Back to the discussion about candidates...

Truth-be-told I'd love to see the British-style system for election- a number of funds are set aside by the government for use in those campaigns, and each candidate is only allowed so long on the air. It discourages candidate-bashing, and it limits the candidates to equal speech on the matter.

We actually already do have a system in place where some of that money can be drawn, it's just that it's so much less than the Bicameral Reform Act's limits that most candidates choose not to grab at it. Call me nuts, but I sometimes think that the Europeans have a pretty darn good system going over there...

Then again, I strongly dislike America