2008: Who would you vote for?

h3ndu

So I was watching Mitt Romney on Larry King, and it got me thinking. The only real reason I've been following him is because of a religious connection - I don't really know what the other candidates really stand for. Who do you guys like from the current stock? Who has good ideas, who will change things for the better? Who has a plan for Iraq that might work, what are the plans for social security, etc. Who out there has the countries best minds in interest? Who's out there for publicity?

What are your opinions on the following people;

Democrats
* Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
* Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
* Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
* Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
* Former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska
* Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
* Senator Barack Obama of Illinois

Republicans
* Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
* John H. Cox of Illinois
* Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York
* Representative Duncan Hunter of California
* Senator John McCain of Arizona
* Representative Ron Paul of Texas
* Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
* Michael Charles Smith of Oregon

Constitution Party
* James Gilchrist of California
* Possible candidate - Ralph Nader

Libertarian Party
* Steve Kubby of California
* George Phillies of Massachusetts
* Christine Smith of Colorado

I tend to lean to the conservative side of things, but they rather fucked things up the past eight years, so now I'm leaning more toward the Libertarians.

So educate me; who's good for the country and why?

Edit - Third parties included - I left them out because I figured they had no real chance this election; but who knows?

Edit 2 - Polling Reports for:

Democrats

Republicans

MVMosin

Myself. I am the sole competent ruler.

But, barring me and my spectacularly disproportionate ego which I create to mask my self-loathing, ViolentChemistry. His crap about making the country "wake up" would be nice, and in the case that it is just crap, he'll be too lazy to do any harm.

Everyone that you listed can go fuck his/her/itself.

deowolf

Since Thanatos hasn't announced yet, I'm sticking with Barack Obama because he smokes.

Jragghen

At risk of hijacking the thread before it's had a chance to start, I really don't get why people are so hung up on the '08 election already - it's March of '07. We've got over a year and a half.


That being said, I'd say that of the people on your list, I would likely support Obama at this point, more because I know more about him than any of the others, having read The Audacity of Hope. If you want to get more of what he's about, I suggest giving it a look over - it focuses more on establishing what's wrong than saying what needs to be done, but I find it to be rather to the point when it comes to what's wrong.

Among the others, I can safely say that I wouldn't support McCain (he's essentially shown himself to be spineless and incapable of standing for anything in the past few years), Clinton (regardless of what her politics might be, I've viewed her to exhibit the sort of power-mongering that has made Bush such a nightmare. I can't bring myself to trust her), or Giuliani (too authoritarian for my tastes). I'm negatively predisposed toward Edwards and Romney for reasons I recognize as being more shallow, so I won't write them out of hand.

If Clark throws his hat in the ring, he'll instantly move to close to the top of the pack, and if Mark Warner's "I'm not running for President" turns out to have been a "I don't want to get caught up in the antics this early in the game" and announces that he is running, I will actually hit the streets campaigning for him.

MVMosin

I wouldn't mind Thanatos demolishing our various law enforcement agencies, but only on the condition that he arms each and every citizen with guns and safety/marksmanship courses.

'cause knowing is half the battle.

Go smoke a firecracker, Joe, I knew that already.

h3ndu

I dislike that Obama seems to want to defend social security - his Wiki states that he frowns upon private social security accounts, but supports the current form.

krapst78

I agree with Jragghen. It seems a little premature to get all revved up for the 08 elections. We saw how things can change in a heartbeat with Howard Dean's flameout in 2004. I'm still hoping for Wesley Clark to throw in his hat in the ring.

Nocturne

h3ndu wrote: »

So educate me; who's good for the country and why?

None of the above. You should really add the Green Party to the list.

I voted for Ralph Nader in '04 and would proudly do so again in '08.

Everyone complains about our two-party system and how they are equally as shitty, and yet nobody tries to do anything about it.

MVMosin

I personally think that candidates should be given numeric designations. Their identities should not be known to the public, before or after election, and naturally, public speaking is out of the question in that situation.

I think this would eliminate a lot of the tactics that politicians use to lie and not get caught. Even if you tagged Speech, Good Natures, put CHR at 10, it won't help you if your position is presented to me in a series of answers to questions on a piece of paper/screen. If a question is asked and the text doesn't give me an answer to it, then I know candidate AB-1234 doesn't know what he/she/it is talking about on that issue. None of that "talk for a really long time about something irrelevant so you forget what you just asked me" bullshit.

Eat it You Nasty Pig.

MVMosin wrote: »

I personally think that candidates should be given numeric designations. Their identities should not be known to the public, before or after election, and naturally, public speaking is out of the question in that situation.

Yeessss, because actual interaction with our leaders is doomed to failure.

Anyway, as to the OP:

Biden's a media whore, and the only way to get in the media during the presidential election cycle is to run. I don't like Hillary for a variety of policy and personal reasons. Don't know a lot about Dodd, but I tend to lump him in with Biden.

Edwards has a compelling message, but like 2004, that just seems to be all he's got. He still comes across as an empty suit, albiet a charismatic one with whom I probably agree on a lot of random policy.

I'll probably wind up voting for Obama, which will be okay, because I'll at least get the satisfaction of voting for a real intellectual.

On the Republian side, the only one I could really see myself supporting is Rommey (because I think he's a lot less conservative than people think.) McCain's a media whore, Brownback is just the current vocal leader of the nutbars, and Guiliani's interesting but far too compromised to get out of the Republican primary. Can't say I know much about Cox.

Kucinich/Gravel/Paul/Smith/Hunter: thanks for coming, guys.

Shinto

I like Biden because he has substance. The Democratic Party lacks a coherent foreign policy - Biden provides that. No other Democrat does. I don't even know what Guo is talking about with the media whore thing. When you are a politician getting the media to pay attention to you and what you have to say is your fucking job. When Joe Biden gets on camera it isn't like he sits there with a goofy grin. He says intelligent things about foreign policy. Like, the most intelligent things about foreign policy I have ever heard a politician say.

I have pretty low respect for Dodd. He's not presidential and seems to feel that he is entitled to being a serious candidate. I have pretty low respect for Kucinich also, because the man reeks of self-centered arrogance.

I have pretty high esteem for Clinton and Obama and I would support either. I like Edwards less but acknowledge that in terms of putting together a winning coalition from the various elements of the Democratic base he seems to have a strong sense of what needs to happen.

Voting for third parties is useless. Third parties are completely useless. People who vote for third parties are doing useless things.

H3ndu - I think Guiliani would be a good candidate for you to look into supporting. He's the best candidate for you if you are a libertarian Republican, provided that a strong law and order/defense stance is something that appeals to you.

Eat it You Nasty Pig.

Third parties aren't useless. There are any number of races around the country where third party candidates have been effective and/or won.

The problem is people who try to claim that voting for a third party candidate in a national election is a way to create serious change.

MVMosin

In the early 20th century, a Socialist (Marxist, no less) candidate got 900,000 votes. Far from useless.

Shinto

MVMosin wrote: »

In the early 20th century, a Socialist (Marxist, no less) candidate got 900,000 votes. Far from useless.

No, Eugene Debs and his almost one million votes were pretty useless.

No group at the fringe can make itself the marginal voter in an election.

Shinto

Dyscord wrote: »

Third parties aren't useless. There are any number of races around the country where third party candidates have been effective and/or won.

The problem is people who try to claim that voting for a third party candidate in a national election is a way to create serious change.

I'll agree with that.

Hell, in the local elections here in Boston I vote for anyone but the Democrats. That is only justified by the party monopoly that exists locally though.

Scooter

I follow the Dave Chapelle philosophy: "When I vote...which I don't...but if I did vote, I don't look at their policy, I look at their character."

I'm a moderate liberal, but I'd be happy to vote for a Repub if the Dems were all asses. Right now, however, Obama's my pick. I liked McCain in 2000 but in recent years he's fallen off my list. Sort of interested in Giuliani. Don't like Clinton.

Drez

I'd only vote for three people out of the list in the OP, and I say this as a staunch Bill Clinton supporter:

* Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
* Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York
* Senator Barack Obama of Illinois

Probably in that order, too, depending on availability in the popular election.

Gosling

Feingold and Bayh were my original top two, and according to my original heirarchy I'd vote Green if Gore didn't get his ass in the race.

However, Obama's been striking all the right chords. He's pledged to run a clean campaign. If he can actually do that, I'm sick enough of the mudslinging that that would put him over the top with me. I'm sick enough of mudslinging to show that you can win without mudslinging, and maybe the country will actually start to not be so polarized anymore.

Of course, he has to run a clean campaign. You know the rest of the Democratic Party will gladly do his mudslinging for him (if alpha-dog Guiliani stays out front like I expect he will, they won't be able to stop themselves), so the bigger question will be whether he tries to call them off, turns a blind eye to it, or joins in himself.

Shinto

Scooter wrote: »

I follow the Dave Chapelle philosophy: "When I vote...which I don't...but if I did vote, I don't look at their policy, I look at their character."

I'm a moderate liberal, but I'd be happy to vote for a Repub if the Dems were all asses. Right now, however, Obama's my pick. I liked McCain in 2000 but in recent years he's fallen off my list. Sort of interested in Giuliani. Don't like Clinton.

So you're cool with nice guys who do shitty things?

deadonthestreet

Mitt did a pretty good job of running the state. I don't agree with about half of what he stands for, but then again I don't care for a good deal of what any of the candidates stand for. On pure ability, I don't know that anyone has Mitt truly outclassed here, and in an election where most of the candidates have policy that pisses me off, I may have to go with ability.

But I'm really not even close to ready to make a decision yet.

nexuscrawler

Guilani scared me with how quickly he turned from moderate virtual independent into GOP hack overnight.

Said it before and i'll say it again. We need a Bloomberg third party run in 2008. That'll never happen tho.

For now I'm saying Obama.

Target Practice

THE ELECTION ISN'T FOR 21 MONTHS

...I kinda like Obama, but I kinda want him to lose just for starting this bullshit so early.

At least, I think it was him. To be fair, there was so much "Will he or won't he" in the media about both him and Hillary that I guess they didn't have much choice.

Jragghen

Target Practice wrote: »

THE ELECTION ISN'T FOR 21 MONTHS

...I kinda like Obama, but I kinda want him to lose just for starting this bullshit so early.

At least, I think it was him. To be fair, there was so much "Will he or won't he" in the media about both him and Hillary that I guess they didn't have much choice.

Yeah. I think that we can blame this thing purely on the media. They invented the story themselves.

Target Practice

Nocturne wrote: »

h3ndu wrote: »

So educate me; who's good for the country and why?

None of the above. You should really add the Green Party to the list.

I voted for Ralph Nader in '04 and would proudly do so again in '08.

Everyone complains about our two-party system and how they are equally as shitty, and yet nobody tries to do anything about it.

Er.

You know the Green Party actually refused to make Nader their candidate for '04, right?

He ran as an independent.

As for the "lol two-party system" comment, that is not something that can be corrected by voting for third parties. It can only be corrected by electoral reform.

nexuscrawler

Hialry is alreayd strrting on the right wing conspiracy crap again. I know some of it's true but I'd rather see someone run on a more positive note than OLOL REPUBLICANS

Sentry

For integrity, I'd vote Obama.
For most qualified, I'd vote Biden.
For most likely to win do to experience and willingness to play dirty: Hillary

Of course, if I could go back in time and get McCain from the 2000 election, I'd vote for him.

Edit: Until we have a true representative democracy, one which uses a percentage system instead of this all or nothing crap, no third party candidate stands a chance. Sad but true.

Gosling

Hillary's doing that because her campaign strategy is to skip the other Dems and go right to the general election. She wants to get the idea in Democratic voters' heads that the Democratic primary is effectively over, that her nomination is inevitable, and that you better fall in line if you don't want to get crushed under the wheels.

I think she does that because she realizes she's in the lead and is the most well-known candidate, but is very vulnerable to getting passed, particularly by Obama, if people bother to get to know the other candidates. So she wishes to discourage voters from doing so. The more voters pay attention, the more her lead erodes, and she knows it.

Sentry

mtvcdm wrote: »

Hillary's doing that because her campaign strategy is to skip the other Dems and go right to the general election. She wants to get the idea in Democratic voters' heads that the Democratic primary is effectively over, that her nomination is inevitable, and that you better fall in line if you don't want to get crushed under the wheels.

I think she does that because she realizes she's in the lead and is the most well-known candidate, but is very vulnerable to getting passed, particularly by Obama, if people bother to get to know the other candidates. So she wishes to discourage voters from doing so. The more voters pay attention, the more her lead erodes, and she knows it.

yeah, I wasn't counting that as a negative. It's actually a very strong positive. The Republicans have taken the concept of playing dirty and literally turned it into a masterpiece. They are simply geniuses at it. The dems need someone willing and able to play that game too, and Hillary is the best the dems have.

MVMosin

I don't vote because I feel that I am unrepresented. However, I feel that I may be using this as an excuse, so... Which candidate is least likely to send in a team of stormtroopers to take all my weapons and equipment?

Drez

Man, I don't think Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election. She needs to publicly decuntify herself first.

Hell, if Al Sharpton was running again, I'd still consider Hillary Clinton the most obnoxious potential candidate out of the list.

And I'm a democrat!

Sentry

Drez wrote: »

Man, I don't think Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election. She needs to publicly decuntify herself first.

Hell, if Al Sharpton was running again, I'd still consider Hillary Clinton the most obnoxious potential candidate out of the list.

There's nothing wrong with Hillary. She's been crucified by the right, and somehow their views of her made it into public consciousness.

Gosling

Sentry wrote: »

mtvcdm wrote: »

Hillary's doing that because her campaign strategy is to skip the other Dems and go right to the general election. She wants to get the idea in Democratic voters' heads that the Democratic primary is effectively over, that her nomination is inevitable, and that you better fall in line if you don't want to get crushed under the wheels.

I think she does that because she realizes she's in the lead and is the most well-known candidate, but is very vulnerable to getting passed, particularly by Obama, if people bother to get to know the other candidates. So she wishes to discourage voters from doing so. The more voters pay attention, the more her lead erodes, and she knows it.

yeah, I wasn't counting that as a negative. It's actually a very strong positive. The Republicans have taken the concept of playing dirty and literally turned it into a masterpiece. They are simply geniuses at it. The dems need someone willing and able to play that game too, and Hillary is the best the dems have.

It's a vicious cycle that we need to break ourselves from if we're not to permanently polarize ourselves as a nation. I refuse- REFUSE- to elect, or assist in the election of, someone who is that willing to play dirty. Because if that's what they'll do to get IN office, what the hell are they gonna do when they're actually President?

Drez

Sentry wrote: »

Drez wrote: »

Man, I don't think Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election. She needs to publicly decuntify herself first.

Hell, if Al Sharpton was running again, I'd still consider Hillary Clinton the most obnoxious potential candidate out of the list.

There's nothing wrong with Hillary. She's been crucified by the right, and somehow their views of her made it into public consciousness.

I'm a Bill Clinton supporter and a Democrat and a Liberal and, frankly, I find her frowny outward persona to be obnoxious. Every time I see her or read anything from her, I have this knee-jerk reaction of wanting to punch her in the face.

Target Practice

Man, did you see Hillary's speech at Selma? That was some embarrassing shit.

...also, I liked how when Jon Stewart was trying to make fun of both her and Obama for "trying to impersonate a Southern black guy", all he could find to make fun of in the latter is that at one point he said "y'all".

Drez

mtvcdm wrote: »

Sentry wrote: »

mtvcdm wrote: »

Hillary's doing that because her campaign strategy is to skip the other Dems and go right to the general election. She wants to get the idea in Democratic voters' heads that the Democratic primary is effectively over, that her nomination is inevitable, and that you better fall in line if you don't want to get crushed under the wheels.

I think she does that because she realizes she's in the lead and is the most well-known candidate, but is very vulnerable to getting passed, particularly by Obama, if people bother to get to know the other candidates. So she wishes to discourage voters from doing so. The more voters pay attention, the more her lead erodes, and she knows it.

yeah, I wasn't counting that as a negative. It's actually a very strong positive. The Republicans have taken the concept of playing dirty and literally turned it into a masterpiece. They are simply geniuses at it. The dems need someone willing and able to play that game too, and Hillary is the best the dems have.

It's a vicious cycle that we need to break ourselves from if we're not to permanently polarize ourselves as a nation. I refuse- REFUSE- to elect, or assist in the election of, someone who is that willing to play dirty. Because if that's what they'll do to get IN office, what the hell are they gonna do when they're actually President?

Let's take a look at Bush for a moment.

Yep, that's what.

Gosling

Drez wrote: »

mtvcdm wrote: »

Sentry wrote: »

mtvcdm wrote: »

Hillary's doing that because her campaign strategy is to skip the other Dems and go right to the general election. She wants to get the idea in Democratic voters' heads that the Democratic primary is effectively over, that her nomination is inevitable, and that you better fall in line if you don't want to get crushed under the wheels.

I think she does that because she realizes she's in the lead and is the most well-known candidate, but is very vulnerable to getting passed, particularly by Obama, if people bother to get to know the other candidates. So she wishes to discourage voters from doing so. The more voters pay attention, the more her lead erodes, and she knows it.

yeah, I wasn't counting that as a negative. It's actually a very strong positive. The Republicans have taken the concept of playing dirty and literally turned it into a masterpiece. They are simply geniuses at it. The dems need someone willing and able to play that game too, and Hillary is the best the dems have.

It's a vicious cycle that we need to break ourselves from if we're not to permanently polarize ourselves as a nation. I refuse- REFUSE- to elect, or assist in the election of, someone who is that willing to play dirty. Because if that's what they'll do to get IN office, what the hell are they gonna do when they're actually President?

Let's take a look at Bush for a moment.

Yep, that's what.

Exactly. I'm not letting that happen again.

Sentry

The problem is that simply not voting for someone who plays dirty doesn't do anything to solve the problem. It's the same as voting for a third party candidate. Nothing will change until there is champaign reform... which is brought up every election and then promptly brushed aside when it's over.

Gosling

Sentry wrote: »

The problem is that simply not voting for someone who plays dirty doesn't do anything to solve the problem. It's the same as voting for a third party candidate. Nothing will change until there is champaign reform... which is brought up every election and then promptly brushed aside when it's over.

If the people who play dirty lose to people who do not play dirty, I would say that does something to solve the problem.

Besides, isn't it at least worth trying?

Sentry

mtvcdm wrote: »

Sentry wrote: »

The problem is that simply not voting for someone who plays dirty doesn't do anything to solve the problem. It's the same as voting for a third party candidate. Nothing will change until there is champaign reform... which is brought up every election and then promptly brushed aside when it's over.

If the people who play dirty lose to people who do not play dirty, I would say that does something to solve the problem.

Besides, isn't it at least worth trying?

Maybe I'm just jaded... plus I believe studies show that negative attack ads are more effective then any other kind of ad.

I agree, I wish it was different. The attack ads I heard in that last election made me physically ill. But what happens if you don't vote for someone who plays dirty is that they lose to someone who plays dirtier.

Gosling

And the dirtiest rarely leave on their own terms.

StephenB.2006

So about the Dems and Reps...

Democrats have lost their party focus. The Democrats were once the workers' party. Now the Democrats are the abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration party. Voters aren't looking for that.

Republicans have had a few too many scandals of late due to improper internal controls. Combined with an increasing unpopular president, it's not looking good. Maybe if they actually delivered on their smaller government platform, it'd improve their image.

Now Libertarians, on the other hand, have a lot of electable candidates. It's just too bad they'll always be the pot party.