Well, we're a year and a half away, but the 2008 election is already congealing.
I pose a question to everyone:

Question:
Who do you think will win the 2008 presidency? (Not who you want to win, who you *think* will win.)

Choices:
Hillary Clinton
Rudy Giuliani
Barack Obama
John McCain
Other

 

I think Hillary will win cos the US loves a little dabble in family lineage...(still missing the monarchy guys?)

Other.

If I had to pick from this lot, I'd like Obama to win. But I personally don't think many parts of America are... 'ready' to vote for a woman or a black man. If the voting field were widened I'd go with Gore, who I think would win easily. (Hey, he already did it once.) But since he's not in the race, I think it will be someone we don't expect at all. Remember Howard Dean? In my opinion, the same thing's happening to the two Democratic frontrunners. It's going to be someone who isn't in the spotlight just yet.

I'm actually scared of Hillary winning the primary... I just don't think she can win an election. I mean, she is hated by sooooo many people here, it just seems unlikely. Practically everybody who doesn't hate her would have to vote for her to have a chance. I can't think of a more divisive leading presidential candidate in my lifetime.

Here's the thing, if it's Hillary vs. Guiliani, do you really think Hillary would win? I mean, Guiliani has enough moderate appeal that he could draw in fence sitters. I think he would have a tougher task keeping the religious right, but when they get to the polls, they're going to take him over Hillary.

I think Obama would win if he wins the primary. I believe that would be HUGE for drawing out the black vote and the younger vote. I must say though, I'm concerned about both Obama and Hillary because they're senators. It seems to me that being a senator is pretty much suicide when it comes to the president race. I'm still looking for a dark horse to come out. Unfortunately my favorite, Mark Warner, broke my heart by dropping out a while ago.

I think you're right on the money in several catergories, chewy nut guy. I think a big problem with the US electoral system is the primary system. The primaries fairly guarantee that the candidates have to appeal to the extreme wings of their parties in order to win the nomination. Moderates have a very hard time making it out of the primary season. Then, come the general election, they have to scramble to position themselves as centrists in order to win the independent and crossover voters. Very screwy.

I think that the current system gives us a very high likelihood of seeing Clinton in the general election, and, regardless of my personal feelings about her and her policies (generally positive, btw) I think she is unelectable. She is far too polarizing a figure. Even more than the current moron-in-chief. I think that either McCain or Giuliani could beat Clinton in the general election.

I also agree that Obama, barring any unpleasant revelations or career ending gaffes (always a risk in the US political arena, especially in the youtube era) could energize sections of the electorate that would not otherwise participate.

I, too, was looking forward to supporting Warner. I wonder why he didn't run? He seems like almost a perfect Democratic candidate. Young, attractive, moderate, and from a generally conservative southern state. And clean, too. There has to be something going on to keep him out. Does he see a better opportunity in 2012? He's young enough to be able to look toward 2016, but that's an awfully long time to defer gratification.

I don't understand Warner's choice - especially when it looked like he had the vote of both Democrats and Republicans. However, the office of president is not for everyone (I daresay it's not for Bush ).
That said, I think Giuliani's several scandals might be his undoing. I vote Nader.

Just kidding!

There was a story on CNN the other day about the possibility the current NYC mayor, Michael Bloomberg, throwing his hat into the ring as a third party candidate. If he did enter the race, I think he could turn into a conservative Ralph Nader, getting a lot of votes that would've otherwise gone Republican, which would be terrific news for anyone the Dems put up.

The funny thing though is this - when Ralph Nader gets up in the morning - does he honestly think he's going to win? If I were in his position, I wouldn't expect to win. In fact, I would be taking votes away from people I'd prefer to be in office by running. I don't really understand Nader's logic running year after year.
That would be a good thing, though, about Bloomberg. I wouldn't want to see Giuliani as our president.

On Warner, I heard a rumor that there was some dirt that could become public if he stayed in. Now, I have nothing to back that up, but that's a rumor I heard from a friend of mine(certainly not the strongest of sources). I can't really think of another good reason though. That disappointed me, because I thought he did an amazing job in VA. He really salvaged a complete mess from our previous governor, and worked with Republican delegates to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
I don't really understand Nader's logic running year after year.

I understand you're looking at Nader as a spoiler, but there is some rationale for third party candidates running. They're putting forth a point of view that isn't being represented by the two major parties. It's not that they expect to win, but they expect to get some issues on the table.

Personally, I think the two-party system sucks. I'd love to see the minor parties be represented at the debates. When Perot ran in '92, and we saw three person debates, that was interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Personally, I think the two-party system sucks. I'd love to see the minor parties be represented at the debates. When Perot ran in '92, and we saw three person debates, that was interesting.

What I can't stand about the 2 party system, is the primary process. The Republicans and Democrats will spend the next year doing their best to be as far left or right as possible to win caucuses and primaries. If you're in the middle, you're toast. Primary voters want nothing to do with a moderate, which is where the majority of the population falls.

That's why people mysteriously change views after the primaries and caucuses to much more moderate views to win the hearts of the general election. My fear is that Clinton will win the nomination, but won't change her views once she is the sole candidate, and we'll get another republican.

"It's not those who vote that count, it's those who count the votes" - Joseph Stalin

I'll wager dollars to donuts Hillary will be president in '09. Bush Sr. has gone on record as saying "yeah, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton." The election has been decided long ago, like many before it. If a miracle happens and say, Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination, and he's so wildly popular we see through the bullshit of him losing and call the system on it, things might be different. But then he'll probably be assassinated like every other president that's stood up to the Fed. Clinton will win simply because she's a Clinton and their family has an evil blood tie to the "capitalist, industrialist scum-fucks that [will get] her in." I could rant forever but I'll save you all. Ron Paul/Zombie Goldwater '08.

For the record, it's a one party system, there's no choice in a fascist State. Both parties are in the pockets of big business and the evil Federal Reserve bank, and it's an admitted fact from those in the know, U.S. presidents, senators, representatives, governors, etc. etc. Don't let things get out of hand.

Might one of you USA types illuminate me on how Native Americans vote?

Are they pursued, wined and dined by either of the major parties?

Are there any significant Native Americans in the government? As an outsider, I hear and read a great deal on the white/black/latino divide, but the plight and position of the traditional natives is ignored in my experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:
Might one of you USA types illuminate me on how Native Americans vote?

Are they pursued, wined and dined by either of the major parties?

Are there any significant Native Americans in the government? As an outsider, I hear and read a great deal on the white/black/latino divide, but the plight and position of the traditional natives is ignored in my experience.

Well, for starters, the plight of the natives is pretty much ignored. They have their own "reservations" that are at least in theory self governing. That's why you hear a lot about casinos(which are illegal in most states) on Indian reservations. I would guess that if you live on a reservation, in theory you aren't exactly a citizen of this country, so you probably aren't allowed to vote. Hopefully somebody else can confirm or deny this.

My guess is that the ones who do vote would be much more likely to vote Democratic, as they have a tendency to attract groups who can claim victimhood. Unfortunately, neither side has much to offer the natives though. We came so close to completely annihilating them that there isn't much one can do to set it right, aside from offering their land back and going back to Europe. I doubt that idea will gain too much steam though.

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
I don't really understand Nader's logic running year after year.

It doesn't have anything to do with having a chance to win. Like eric said, he's presenting a view that neither Dems or Republicans show. I've never voted for Nader, but I've never faulted him for running.

People have a tendancy to think that Nader shouldn't run for the sake of the Democrats. Why? Nader has nothing to do with them, and probably has just as many qualms with their policies as the Republicans. Nader is most certainly not going to back out for the sake of one of the two big parties, and he shouldn't. Just remember - the Green Party is not closely related to the Democrats.

Good point, eric and L_S. I probably should have researched his platform a little more before saying that . Nader does get his votes from more liberal people, though - and his views are probably more in line with someone running for the Democratic Party than the Rebublicans.

quote:

there isn't much one can do to set it right, aside from offering their land back and going back to Europe.

I'd be glad to go back to Europe, and I feel it's more sophisticated than the U.S. (at least until Eurovision comes along! )

I think the Nader situation is somewhat unfortunate, and I do believe he actually hurt his cause by running, in particular against Gore. Gore would have won if Nader wasn't in the race. I understand Nader's perspective, and I appreciate his attempt to throw a wrench in the two party system(which I hate), and I would've probably supported him over the Democratic candidates.

That said, I think his running can only be viewed as a failure for his causes. He failed to get environmental issues on the table, the rich are richer and the poor are poorer, we're in lose-lose situation in the middle east, our government is still riddled with corruption, if anything he strengthened the two-party system, and he turned many liberals off to his party by playing a role in the election of our current president. Say what you want about Gore, but ALL of these situations would be in better shape if he were president... dare I say much better shape? He's clean(in the non-corrupt sense), he's an environmentalist(admittedly nobody was sure about this when he ran), he wouldn't have fabricated an utterly retarded war in Iraq, and he wouldn't have slashed taxes for the wealthy.

Now, I realize I don't think anybody expected the current administration to be THIS much of a disaster, but is anybody really surprised? Also, I should clarify that I think that he made a good point that there's no reason at all the Democrats shouldn't have been able to run a campaign good enough to defeat Bush(in either election). That's why I don't blame Nader or resent him(and I certainly have the utmost respect for his ideals), but I do think that an objective look at his candidacy would reveal that he's hurt his cause.

Good point, MN. Nader probably has hurt his stance as a politician. I'm sure it's occured to him before. I'd imagine it's a tough question to deal with. Should you run and most assuradly piss off a lot of Democrats that could have a lot of the same views as you and could one day support your party, or not run and appear to lay down to the two-party system? That's not a decision I'd want to making.

Did he make the right choice? It's hard to say. I do think, after the 2000 election, that less people (let's face it - less left-minded people) are likely to vote third-party. However, I can see why he wouldn't want to give the impression that he was doing what the Democrats wanted him to do by not running. Like I said, he really has no loyalty towards them. He could have risked losing the trust of his closest supporters by not running.