Who do you want to win the American election?

Manic Moran

Ponster wrote: »

Bill Richardson I guess.

Correct.

NTM

Tommy T

I'm addicted to this race. I've been watching all the live debates(The ABC two debates in one night was engrossing) and Meet the Press on NBC on Sundays.

Both Democrats are excellent candidates. I think the republicans would rather face Obama as Hillary has faced down an immense amount of attacks down the years and is alive to tell the tale. Obama hasn't been targetted by the GOP machine. He could fold once the muck starts flying.

However the Dem race is really too close to call.

On the republican side Rudy hasd made a fundamental mistake in delaying his entrance into the presedings. He's been nearly forgotton about and in the latest polls he's a distan 4th on 15% while McCain is flying high on 28%(doubling his support in a few months. But the man to watch for me is the Christian Fundamentalist Huckabee. I can see him splitting McCain and romney and taking over.

My call is Clinton V Huckabee and Hill and Bill to take back over the Oval Office. But there's alot of twists and turns before this electoral campaign is over. Sit back and enjoy the ride...

Kev_ps3

Tommy T wrote: »

My call is Clinton V Huckabee and Hill and Bill to take back over the Oval Office. But there's alot of twists and turns before this electoral campaign is over. Sit back and enjoy the ride...

Really? I dont think Huckabee has the cash to go all the way, and you need lots of it to run for president in the US.
I think its going to be either Clinton V McCain or Clinton V Romney.

Tommy T

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Really? I dont think Huckabee has the cash to go all the way, and you need lots of it to run for president in the US.
I think its going to be either Clinton V McCain or Clinton V Romney.

You could well be right mate. Michigan will be make or break for the Mormon, Romney. It's his home State. He should win it. However Hucks is the Fundamentalist Christian candidate so they'll fund him all the way and they're turnout for votes is alwats higher than any other cohort. Also once McCain get a few beatings down South Republicans will go for an Evangalical ahead of a mormon everytime.

Thats how I see it anyhow...

User45701

kickoutthejams wrote: »

McCain for republicans

What?

This is not directed at you, its at you and the other 8. Dont take offensive, if none of you want to answer dont.

Why McCain?

I need to know, please one of you give me a good reason, if possible give me more than 1 reason. Please....

purple'n'gold

Huckabee = think “Tennessee monkey case” he’s just off the wall.

Romney = Morman , too strange

Giuliani = doesn’t sit right as a GOP candidate, would do better if he was democrat. Also carrying a bit of baggage. Divorce , former democrat.

That really only leaves McCain, only thing really against him is his age. But he’s not exactly a doddery old man.

Morlar

purplengold wrote: »

. .. . . .

That really only leaves McCain, only thing really against him is his age. But he’s not exactly a doddery old man.

So Long as he doesnt do a bob dole he is looking like their best option.

User45701

Tommy T wrote: »

McCain is flying high on 28%(doubling his support in a few months. But the man to watch for me is the Christian Fundamentalist Huckabee. I can see him splitting McCain and romney and taking over.

My call is Clinton V Huckabee and Hill and Bill to take back over the Oval Office. But there's alot of twists and turns before this electoral campaign is over. Sit back and enjoy the ride...

Hmmm I think that McCain has an agenda, quite possibly a religious agenda, a religious backed with his loyal service (GOD BLESS THE US ARMY) he can get allot of votes from that, not to mention "those types" who want neither a African american or a woman in office and would vote, not for there preferred candidate but vote to prevent someone they don't want from getting in. McCain has it.

Also i wanted to ask something else. Why are most of the votes for Hillary and Barrack?
Is this because they are the most covered in the news OR do the vast majority of boards voters (75%) really hate the other candidates? Or have they not researched things much?

Based on what the candidates all say i would have expected Ron Paul to get the vote, competing with McCain....

purple'n'gold

“not to mention "those types" who want neither a African american or a woman in office and would vote, not for there preferred candidate but vote to prevent someone they don't want from getting in.”

there are many millions of “these types” in the USA and they all tend to vote.

Tommy T

User45701 wrote: »

Hmmm I think that McCain has an agenda, quite possibly a religious agenda, a religious backed with his loyal service (GOD BLESS THE US ARMY) he can get allot of votes from that, not to mention "those types" who want neither a African american or a woman in office and would vote, not for there preferred candidate but vote to prevent someone they don't want from getting in. McCain has it.

Also i wanted to ask something else. Why are most of the votes for Hillary and Barrack?
Is this because they are the most covered in the news OR do the vast majority of boards voters (75%) really hate the other candidates? Or have they not researched things much?

Based on what the candidates all say i would have expected Ron Paul to get the vote, competing with McCain....

McCain does have Joe (turncoat) lieberman singing his praises on the Christian Zionist circuit but I feel most Bible Belters will go for Hucks ahead of Mac...

FatherTed

I think Bloomberg might run. I will vote Dem but not Hillary. I hate her with a passion. She is a dispicable human being.

Manic Moran

User45701 wrote: »

Hmmm I think that McCain has an agenda, quite possibly a religious agenda, a religious backed with his loyal service (GOD BLESS THE US ARMY) he can get allot of votes from that

Oooh... That's like calling an Irishman 'English'. He's Navy!

McCain never struck me as being the type to let religion get too far in the way of policy.

Also i wanted to ask something else. Why are most of the votes for Hillary and Barrack?
Is this because they are the most covered in the news OR do the vast majority of boards voters (75%) really hate the other candidates?

I've been wondering the same thing on the US National scale. One of the media's obituaries on Richardson as he left the race said "His extensive resumé could not keep pace with his rivals' star power." I thought he was the best candidate of the lot, but there's quite Hillary/Obama divide, with a fair few Richardson supporters instead voting for Obama because they'd rather him than Hillary, and the Media's been telling them that Richardson won't win. this is being reinforced by the media's relentless hammering at things such as "Hillary is reinforcing her position as the 'experienced candidate'" without making any observation such as "This is an utterly daft claim as her political CV is pathetically small compared to Richardson's." It's something of a circle.

NTM

User45701

purplengold wrote: »

“not to mention "those types" who want neither a African american or a woman in office and would vote, not for there preferred candidate but vote to prevent someone they don't want from getting in.”

there are many millions of “these types” in the USA and they all tend to vote.

Sorry i dont understand.

What i was saying was that there are people who want neither a African american or a woman in office. These people might want *random name* to win but because they are so opposed to either a woman or a African american being in office they will vote for someone else who is doing ok/good (in the hopes that people they dont want in wont win), even if the person is not the person they want to win i belive there are many people who would be discrimitive enough to vote based on who they dont want in office instead of who they do want in office.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oooh... That's like calling an Irishman 'English'. He's Navy!

McCain never struck me as being the type to let religion get too far in the way of policy.

Hmm i didnt know that, all i knew was

Party: Republican

Occupation: Military Officer, Politician

Current Job / Position: Senator from Arizona

Web site(s):

John McCain 2008
Sen. John McCain
Sen. McCain's Voting Record

Tommy T wrote: »

McCain does have Joe (turncoat) lieberman singing his praises on the Christian Zionist circuit but I feel most Bible Belters will go for Hucks ahead of Mac...

I get an eerie feeling from him, just watching him, there is something off...
I think he is going to win. There is no other way to explain it... Its in the eyes

Tommy T

FatherTed wrote: »

I think Bloomberg might run. I will vote Dem but not Hillary. I hate her with a passion. She is a dispicable human being.

Where does your hatred for her come from and are you Father Ted from bigsoccer.com...?

FatherTed

Tommy T wrote: »

Where does your hatred for her come from and are you Father Ted from bigsoccer.com...?

I just don't like her, every action she takes has an alterior motive. She says her time in the White House as first lady counts for experience but thats like saying Laura Bush is qualified for Presidency in '12 or '16.

Tommy T

FatherTed wrote: »

I just don't like her, every action she takes has an alterior motive. She says her time in the White House as first lady counts for experience but thats like saying Laura Bush is qualified for Presidency in '12 or '16.

Kind of vague reasons for hating someone in my view. She played a role in Bill's Administration if I remember correctly in Health aswell as being First Lady...

SteveS

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've been wondering the same thing on the US National scale. One of the media's obituaries on Richardson as he left the race said "His extensive resumé could not keep pace with his rivals' star power." I thought he was the best candidate of the lot, but there's quite Hillary/Obama divide, with a fair few Richardson supporters instead voting for Obama because they'd rather him than Hillary, and the Media's been telling them that Richardson won't win. this is being reinforced by the media's relentless hammering at things such as "Hillary is reinforcing her position as the 'experienced candidate'" without making any observation such as "This is an utterly daft claim as her political CV is pathetically small compared to Richardson's." It's something of a circle.

NTM

The media loves Obama. There have been stories on how some reporters admit that they lose any sense of objectivity when dealing with him, which may explain why there isn't much dirt on him. I have some friends that live in Illinois and they are surprised that some of his business hasn't come out on the national front, since the media doesn't usually hold back when there is a "scandal."

It is too bad about Richardson. He was a moderate and did a good job as the governor of New Mexico. He is also very good on foreign policy, which is something we desparately need.

Tommy T

SteveS wrote: »

some of his business hasn't come out on the national front, since the media doesn't usually hold back when there is a "scandal."

.

Thats why as a Democrat supporter myself I hope Hillary gets the nomination. The republicans are licking their lips at the prospect at getting their fangs into Obama. they fear Hillary because all of her dirty laundry's been out in the open for years now and she's still standing firm...

Akrasia

Why are there only 3 democrats on the poll, 5 republicans, and a green who hasn't even announced candidacy yet?

The only person I would like to see in the white house is the democrat candidate, Dennis Kucinich. He out Ron Pauls ron paul in the foreign policy stakes (he was totally against the Iraq war, and voted consistently against funding the war) and he believes America should totally revise its foreign policy, but he is in favour of supporting the U.N. rather than pulling out of it (as ron paul would like to do) You know the U.N. right? That international institution formed after the end of WW2 to provide a diplomatic alternative to global war.


Kucinich is also the only candidate on either side that is in favour of universal free healthcare. Something that Clinton, Obama or Edwards wouldn't dream of implementing.

Out of all the candidates, he is the only one who comes across as being sincere.

Anyone with even a smidgeon of sympathy for socialist ideals should prefer him above any of the leading candidates, and certainly ahead of that free market libertarian wingnut, Ron Paul.

Akrasia

Tommy T wrote: »

Thats why as a Democrat supporter myself I hope Hillary gets the nomination. The republicans are licking their lips at the prospect at getting their fangs into Obama. they fear Hillary because all of her dirty laundry's been out in the open for years now and she's still standing firm...

I reckon Hillary is the preferred opponent of the republicans. She is intensely disliked by a significant proportion of the U.S. population, and is almost a satanic symbol amongst republican sympathisers (this would really galvanise republican support)

Its her public personality that really turns a lot of people off (of course it is, policy has nothing to do with American elections anymore)

Tommy T

While I agree Hillary is hated by the Right all she needs is 50%+1 to get elected and I feel she'd be strong enough to withstand everything the Right throw at her.

Obama on the other hand is an unknown quantity under real attack and is too much of a risk in my view.

BTW all three, Clinton, Edwards and Obama gave assurances they'd introduce universal healthcare if elected on the NBC debate a few nights ago...

Akrasia

Tommy T wrote: »

While I agree Hillary is hated by the Right all she needs is 50%+1 to get elected and I feel she'd be strong enough to withstand everything the Right throw at her.

Obama on the other hand is an unknown quantity under real attack and is too much of a risk in my view.

BTW all three, Clinton, Edwards and Obama gave assurances they'd introduce universal healthcare if elected on the NBC debate a few nights ago...

The CNN debate illegally excluded Kucinich because of his views on these issues (even though they had previously included him)
They claimed that they were allowed to hold an unbalanced debate because of the freedom of speech protections in the constitution. (there is no public service obligation for cable television networks and freedom of speech is often interpreted as freedom to lie and freedom to deceive)

If you look at the proposals, Healthcare was barely mentioned in the debate, only in passing by all 3 candidates.

Edwards wants there to be 'Universal healthcare' by making health insurance mandatory for every family in America.
What a cop out. (and what are the penalties for not being insured?)

One of the biggest problems in the U.S. system is under-insurance, people who have health insurance that doesn't cover their needs. Edwards plan does nothing for these people. It's doing nothing except pandering to the health insurance industry and the private healthcare providers.

Clintons plan for 'universal healthcare' is similar, to provide 'tax credits' to help people buy insurance. That is NOT universal healthcare, and Clinton has a long record of opposing a socialised health provision.

Obama does the same, Universal healthcare by trying to get everyone to buy insurance. He wants to make it mandatory for all children to have health insurance (but won't provide it for them through the state) What is he going to do, jail poor parents who can't afford to insure their children?


These are the kinds of health care proposals that Democrat candidates have been presenting for years, and guess what, there is still a huge huge problem of lack of access to medical treatment in america. Bill Clinton was president for 8 years and nothing was improved for the ordinary working class.

The fact that they are using the term 'Universal healthcare' is a disgusting spin designed to mislead people and take away some of the attractiveness from candidates that do genuinely propose universal free healthcare.

SteveS

Akrasia wrote: »

The CNN debate illegally excluded Kucinich because of his views on these issues (even though they had previously included him)
They claimed that they were allowed to hold an unbalanced debate because of the freedom of speech protections in the constitution. (there is no public service obligation for cable television networks and freedom of speech is often interpreted as freedom to lie and freedom to deceive)

Unbalanced? I would say it would be unbablanced if they were forced to include everyone that wanted to be there. He was excluded because he has little or no support in most places. I realize he has a single electoral vote and the endorsements of Larry Flynt and Viggo Mortensen, but that just doesn't seem to be enough to overcome the vast media campaign to keep him down. :rolleyes:

SteveS

Akrasia wrote: »

(of course it is, policy has nothing to do with American elections anymore)

Your arrogance is astounding. How many US elections have you participated in?

Akrasia

SteveS wrote: »

Unbalanced? I would say it would be unbablanced if they were forced to include everyone that wanted to be there. He was excluded because he has little or no support in most places. I realize he has a single electoral vote and the endorsements of Larry Flynt and Viggo Mortensen, but that just doesn't seem to be enough to overcome the vast media campaign to keep him down. :rolleyes:

There were only 3 people in the debate. One more would not have made it overcrowded. Also, Kucinich was initially qualified to participate (based on his demonstrated support) but at the last minute NBC changed the rules. Kucinich brought them to court and won, but they challenged it based on the first amendment and it was decided that the courts could not force them to limit their freedom of speech. (NBC are owned by General electric by the way, so its not freedom of the press we're talking about, its freedom of one of the worlds biggest companies to corrupt the election process)

Kucinich would have added tremendously to the debate as he would have challenged the trio's half arseed committment to 'universal healthcare' amongst other things.

Akrasia

SteveS wrote: »

Your arrogance is astounding. How many US elections have you participated in?

I've observed 3 elections very closely, and they're all personality contests with hardly any policy being discussed in any real depth

Watch any of the debates, the NBC one is a perfect example. They spent the first 30 minutes discussing the colour of people's skin, the size of their breasts and their 'ability to lead', and then they skirted around a few issues where none of the candidates really said anything (and they all said the same nothing)

SteveS

Akrasia wrote: »

There were only 3 people in the debate. One more would not have made it overcrowded. Also, Kucinich was initially qualified to participate (based on his demonstrated support) but at the last minute NBC changed the rules. Kucinich brought them to court and won, but they challenged it based on the first amendment and it was decided that the courts could not force them to limit their freedom of speech. (NBC are owned by General electric by the way, so its not freedom of the press we're talking about, its freedom of one of the worlds biggest companies to corrupt the election process)

Kucinich would have added tremendously to the debate as he would have challenged the trio's half arseed committment to 'universal healthcare' amongst other things.

I am not familiar with all the particulars of the case. I think he sued under a breach of contract. The "free speech" provision has always been held to include speech from other sources besides the press. There is over 200 years of jurisprudence dealing with this.

Kucinich is out of the CNN debate because he didn't finish in the top 3 in any primary or caucus or get above 5% in any reputable poll. I am not a fan of Kucinich's position on some things, but I agree he would have contributed to the debate. He is intelligent and honest and I respect him.

AckwelFoley

Id like to see the homeboy win it.

Although i would probably vote republican if i was an american, i think a black president would be good for america.

Hillary just annoys me, and most of the republicans running i dont like.

SteveS

Akrasia wrote: »

I've observed 3 elections very closely, and they're all personality contests with hardly any policy being discussed in any real depth

Watch any of the debates, the NBC one is a perfect example. They spent the first 30 minutes discussing the colour of people's skin, the size of their breasts and their 'ability to lead', and then they skirted around a few issues where none of the candidates really said anything (and they all said the same nothing)

I disagree. While there is little depth at the debates, they do discuss policy in depth in other forums, you just have to do a little digging. All the major candidates have websites (though some are better than others). They also give plenty of speeches and write some detailed position papers. I know you don't care for Edwards health plan, but I appreciated how he discussed the funding sources in a few of his speeches. I also liked his views on foreign policy.

The debates are next to useless. I don't even bother watching them. Like you said, they are full of pointless analysis and asinine questions. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people that make decisions based on this, there are plenty more that do not stop there and try to get more information.

moe_sizlak

now that ive just heard that joe lieberman is supporting john mc cain
my whole view of him has come into serious question
liberman is a bigger war hawk than anyone in the white house right now apart from john bolton who is no longer in the cabinet