LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWhere is Pat Buchanan's name?
Condoleezza Rice
John McCaine
Rudolph Guliani
George Allen
Bill Frist
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Al Gore
John Edwards
General Wesley Clark
John Kerry
Mark Warner
Chuck Baldwin
Rebeca Rotzler
Lance Brown
Ventura
It is with great anticipation that I and many other Americans are looking forward, to what promises to be one of the great elections in American History. As this is the first time I will be able to excercise my democratic rights in America, my anticipation is exaggerated. Some may consider it much to early to be posting a thread on an Election two years away, but this is the best time to begin talking of the Election, being as the election is all speculation as of now.
The Election of 2008 will be very exciting, because for the first time in at least 50 years an 8 year President's Vice President will not be running for the office ( so Cheney says). Therefore the Republican nomination is up for grabs, and Democrats (and Third Parties) are salivating at an oppurtunity to make political gains. 2008 may feature an exclusively female race, or a Black candidate, or a major geographical move by a party....who knows?
Here are the list of Candidates I have compiled and my opinions on them
Republican Party:--has to distance its self with President Bush, and stay conservative but elect a moderate candidate
Condoleezza Rice- hasnt expressed desire to run, good candidate to put up if HClinton runs, could bring huge minority votes to Republican party
John McCain (AR)-- has dissented to much from Republican party
George Allen (VA)--Good Conservative to put up against Mark Warner
Rudy Guliani (NY)-Popular, and could swing NY against Hillary Clinton
Bill Frist (TN)--controversies and to conservative
Newt Gingrich (GA)--to traditional, no incentive to nominate
Democratic Party- Has to select a good candidate that will swing moderate conservative voters, and try to select a candidate that can bring electoral votes normally republican
Hillary Clinton- (NY)- Will be hurt by being first lady, too liberal unless Rice runs
John Edwards (NY)- could take NC and provide some modcons votes
John Kerry (MA)- no incentive, already lost once
Al Gore-- who cares anymore
General Wesley Clark (AK)-- oooh very interesting, a liberal military hero....great VP candidate and possible President
Mark Warner (VA)- Perfect Dem Candidate, great record, could pull modcons votes and swing VA to the Democrats
Constitutional Party
Chuck Baldwin- no threat, except pulling a few conservatives if major parties go liberal or moderate
Green Party
Rebbeca Rotzler: could be an issue if major parties go all male
Libertarian Party
Lance Brown-- interesting, could steal some votes here and there
Independents
Jesse Ventura- Strong candidate that could rock the boat a bit, very controversial and very popular, People could follow him because he is strong willed person...best 3party nominee since perot in my opinion
Best Republican choice is to go with Guliani and Allen, both could swing states that are threatened by Democrats, but if Rice runs then she will have to have a strong conservative VP in George Allen. If Rice runs then the Democrats have to run Clinton and vice-versa. Clinton is not likely to win race, but is a good VP candidate. Best choice is Mark Warner who could swing VA, in face of George Allen and pull many other South and West moderate conservatives. If Clark and Warner run together (in any order) then Democrats are a shoe in, even over Rice
There are my thoughts...and yours?
Where is Pat Buchanan's name?
lol...Buchanan has run twice and failed both times....hes too conservative and thus will not win or even get to run unless as an independent...this election is a moderates election not radicals or fundamentalists. Even though Pat has some great ideas but hes to far away from the center.
Why do you believe this?Originally Posted by jdb777
-dale
Why? Have you seen the polls lately, approval ratings? Something like 60% of people would like someone to be president that IS NOT like President Bush, Thats substantial even for a liberal poll. Pres. Bush has lost popular support, the war in Iraq drags on, the spying allegations (impeachment articles have been drawn), and what ever else he does in two years. He is a liability, for the good of the party the Republicans will move away from Bush...to save themselves from falling into the political abyss.
That also means that getting his endorsement brings you closer to 40% of the voters, that's pretty substantial too. I don't put much stock in polls, call a different neighborhood, get different results.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
JDB,
The NSA terrorist surveillance program is a win for the Republicans. Iraq is currently a liability, although it can go either way. In any event, I don't see it playing a huge role given that the Democrats were part and parcel involved in the decision to pass the AUMF vice Iraq. Impeachment articles are a joke. The key is to look at what the center/independents look at when analysing how the election will go.
Also, approval ratings for a second term president are never as high because you will no longer have a chance to vote for or against the guy.
When it comes down to it, national security (a GOP strength) will still be at the top of the list for voters, as will the economy. Without a plummeting economy, I just don't see Democrats picking up a lot of seats, if they even do pick up seats.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
There is truth to what you say, yet I feel the bigger truth is that the media will not allow his candidacy to take on the aura of legitimacy. Which begs the question: who really runs the elections?
The political parties are in charge. I think we should have true public primary elections. Voters in each given a ballot with all candidates on it and can vote for one candidate in each race. If they want to waste their vote voting against a candidate from another party, that's their choice. The top party vote getter wins the nominations. Everything out in the open.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
If we discount jdb777's mutiple votes then it's neck and neck. Goddamn it people can't we organise better than this?
As to my multiple votes...this is a just a very preliminary vote, therefore i voted for Democrat and Republican Pres& VP, i had no intention of using a poll to begin with but thought it would be interesting.
Another thing....Political Parties Are in charge....democracy is failing under the almost tyrranical system of the Republicans and Democrats...who are our only true choice to vote for and thus they have ensured their monopoly over US politics for many many years to come. I agree with Ben's "true primary elections" but I also say that a candidates political party should not be listed by the persons name.
And another thing...the NSA spying program (regardless if its for terrorists or no) is a major pain for Republicans...it may be a win in the political and foriegn diplomicy realms but for the populous (who have been misguided as to the programs true nature) it is a hideous infraction to the "god-given rights." Did you hear Jimmy Carter slam President Bush for the program at Mrs. King's memorial...and the crowd cheered and clapped. And i disagree about the national security being the leading factor in these elections...it will be economy, I've spoken with hard core Republicans who are disgusted with Iraq simply because its pulling money away from the homeland and it seems to be the major focus while the economy is tipsy and unemployment is not dropping.
And to clarify the last thing, Confed, i dont like polls either. They are usually inaccurate from place to place...but nevertheless people look at those polls...and most people believe them and are swayed by them, therefore they are very powerfull
Funny, I don't recall reading about privacy of cell phone calls made into the US from known terrorists overseas in any of Locke's writings. Of course, it's been since high school since I've read any of his works and I haven't read them all - can you point to the "god-given right" against NSA intercepts?
That was a real pro-Republican crowdAlso, Jimmy Carter must be getting old, as his memory is failing him.
What Jimmy Carter does through Habitat for Humanity is great stuff, but when it comes to foreign policy, his performance is a even more of a farce now than it was when he was President, which is tough to beat!http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...0722-2189r.htm
Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies.
"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Mr. Carter said Monday in Nevada when his son Jack announced his Senate campaign.
"And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy
violated under this secret act," he said.
The next day at Mrs. King's high-profile funeral, Mr. Carter evoked a comparison to the Bush policy when referring to the "secret government wiretapping" of civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."
That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.
The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.
Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say FISA guidelines, approved in 1978 when Mr. Carter was president, are the only way the president may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.
Administration officials say the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without warrants in the name of national security. The only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, they argue, is through an amendment to the Constitution.
The administration's view has been shared by previous Democrat administrations, including Mr. Carter's.
Hate to burst your bubble here, but have you noticed the top story the past few days? UAE? Port security? Sounds like national security to me.
As far as Iraq, what is the benefit cost analysis when compared to the containment regime? I'll give you a hint - the money would be spent flying jets over the Southern and Northern no-fly zones until Saddam and his two thug sons died as well as rotating combat brigades through Kuwait. Are you recommending abandoning the current fight with Al Qaeda so that they can establish a sanctuary in Iraq?
Lastly, the economy is nowhere near tipsy. Unemployment just dropped 0.3% down to 4.7%, which is the lowest level since 9/11. I'd have to look, but I believe that this may be the second longest expansion in recent economic history, with only the boom of the 90's being longer. These aren't signs of a tipsy economy, but rather, an economy at full employment (don't woryy, you'll learn in your college econ course about the natural rate of unemployment that is inherent in any market economy).
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Im sure Locke didnt mention cell phones in his writings but when i speak to people of this issue they act as if he did and President Bush is infringing on that right...lol it doesnt matter what the intelligent educated people think its what the populous thinks
And i agree with your statements on Jimmy Carter but his statements are the kind that will influence people....which is a big deal in the close elections we have been having.
And im also well informed of the UAE and port security deal, but this story isnt making too many ripples where I am from, but i give it its due respect and I expect President Bush will knock the deal out of the water, but thats another subject. As far as the stabilitiy and actual health of the economy it irrelevent. It what people feel the economy is, thats what matters. And people are feeling that the economy is bad, they feel that unemployment is too high (especially in my neck of the woods). It not about the facts...its how the people can see the facts (or how the media can construe the facts). Republicans my try to make the 2008 elections about National Security, but if they do they will lose...people have had enough of President Bush's national security. The election will be about the Economy, the economy, foriegn diplomacy and (Providence help us) Social issues.
(When i say people im speaking in generalities and that generality is based on the feeling i get from people when i speak of these issues, and i dont live in a liberal area either....very conservative)
JDB,
It's certainly a fair point that you make - that many if not most Americans aren't well informed on the details of the issues. So, let's take a look at polls that cut across the American demographic.
First, let's look at the Consumer Confidence Index (CCI). It's at it's highest level since June 2002, meaning that it's higher than in the 2002 and 2004 elections.
Next, let's look at the poll numbers for the NSA terrorist surveillance program. The first post is just some commentary on a poll so that you learn to scrutinize polls to determine whether the questions are biased and/or if the conclusions made by MSM articles are errant.http://www.investopedia.com/offsite....er_confidence/
The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Rises Again
January 31, 2006
The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index, which had increased in December, improved further in January. The Index now stands at 106.3 (1985=100), up from 103.8 in December. The Present Situation Index rose to 128.4 from 120.7. The Expectations Index declined to 91.5 from 92.6 last month.
The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households. The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by TNS. TNS is the world's largest custom research company. The cutoff date for January's preliminary results was January 24th.
"Consumer Confidence is now at its highest level in more than three years (June 2002, 106.3)," says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center. "This month's increase was driven solely by consumers' assessment of current economic conditions, especially their more positive view of the job market. "
With a critical review of one particular poll down, I'll just post a link to a site that consolidates poll results.http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/in...rder=1&thold=0
Now let's get to the slanted questions. For example, Question 63 reads as follows:
The poll result says that respondents disapproved by a margin of 50-46%. Perhaps if the question adequately reflected the reality of the situation, it would have mentioned that the "calls in the US" were not only in the US, but rather that one of the people on the call was overseas, and a suspected terrorist. But by using the term "in the US", the respondent could easily take it to mean that the phone calls were purely domestic, and given the fact that only 22% of respondents are paying "very close attention" to the story, it wouldn't be surprising if respondents thought, from the question, that the calls were purely domestic. Even with that the gap in only 4%63. After 9/11, George W. Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants. Do you approve or disapprove of George W. Bush doing this?
When the same question is asked, but includes wording about the reason for the wiretaps ("to reduce the threat of terrorism") people approve by a 7% margin.
But again notice that nowhere is it mentioned that the other caller was overseas or a suspected terrorist.62. After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants, saying this was necessary in order to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve or disapprove of the President doing this?
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
If you scroll through the various polls, you'll find that the NSA program is certainly not a loser whatsoever for the Republicans, because in most polls, there is either a majority or plurality of support for the program. Additionally, because it is a national security related story, it highlights a traditional Republican strength, which is a political loser for the Democrats.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Here's your next pres kids(IMO, of course):
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: