Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JDC

Election '08: Primaries

1639 posts in this topic

It's not as if we're going to accurately predict who will win the nomination with the number of folks on this site, so vote even if you're not planning on voting in the Democratic primary. Keep in mind this is a poll for whom YOU would vote, not necessarily who you think will actually win. :thumbsup:

Admin's Note:I've modified this topic to include both political parties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Of all these candidates, there is only one who represents real change. Kucinich. He's the only one that will stop those Bush wars. He is the only one that you could trust to actually bring health care to all Americans.

The rest of the Dem field are a bunch of right wingers pretending to be moderates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of all these candidates, there is only one who represents real change. Kucinich. He's the only one that will stop those Bush wars. He is the only one that you could trust to actually bring health care to all Americans.

The rest of the Dem field are a bunch of right wingers pretending to be moderates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kucinich is by far my favorite candidate of either party. While I don't think the other Dems are right-wingers, Kucinich comes closest to my own fairly liberal views. I would be happy with either Clinton or Obama, though I question her ties to politics-as-usual and I feel that he needs to clarify his platform and agenda as president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not clear from my signature, I'm casting my vote for Bill Richardson.

I could go on about his experience and his positions on the issues, but I'd rather sum it up with this quote from author, political prognosticator and founder/director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, Larry Sabato:

"He is unbeatable. It is amazing the Democrats haven't recognized that. Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson the election is over."

- Voice of America News, October 26, 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a toss up here for me. I like Biden, I like Richardson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richardson is just the most qualified aside from Kucinich, but that man just has no chance, which is a shame.

It seems like yet another disappointing round of Democrats that will only further alienate much of left-leaning base and their cynicism toward the political process.

I'll vote for Richardson in the primaries, even though he has no chance. In fact, I think he'll even lose here in the Southwest, only due to the hype surrounding the other more mainstream candidates and his own inability to latch on to an issue to gain publicity and stir up the forlorn sea of registered Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleted. don't clip and paste news articles on this site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


^ The other day there was an SNL rerun from '04, with the Democratic field griping about how Dean was stealing all the publicity. It was interesting to be transported briefly back to that time when Kerry and Clinton were backseat candidates, and everyone was assuming that it would be a Dean/Clark ticket. What a difference a year can make...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Obama. Liberals/progressives (like me) can argue all they want for rolling back every Bush policy or a return to the Clinton/90s-era politics, but what this country really needs is someone who can unite the nation behind a fresh, shared national agenda, and I think Obama is the best man to do that. He is smart, is somewhat of an outsider/newcomer, has some top notch advisors, can appeal to a wide audience/electorate, and he is perhaps the only candidate in a generation or more that has shown he can get ordinary people excited about politics.

We have some enormous problems facing our nation (health care, terror, Iraq, climate change, etc) and we have got to be able to create some kind of consensus and move forward on these issues ASAP, rather than succomb to the gridlock we've seen in Congress recently. Obama has the best chance at accomplishing this. Hillary is a capable politician, but I fear electing her would mean just as much, if not more, gridlock in this country... that is something we cannot afford right now.

BTW, Obama is ahead in Iowa 30% to Hillary's 22% IIRC. Here's an interesting NYT op-ed on Obama's recent resurgence, after the race was recently declared "over."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Good points, but the only way a Hillary administration would be gridlocked would be for the Democrats to lose control of the Congress, which is unlikely. The only reason Bush was able to accomplish so much was his party's legislative majority, despite the fact that half the country was marginalised. Regardless of who is nominated, a Democrat-held White House and Congress could accomplish just as much with or without Republican support.

That said, I agree that a consensus is preferable, and that Obama is probably the closest thing to a consensus candidate in either party's field. That said, I don't think many moderate Republicans would be opposed to Hillary's stated position on most issues, which tend to be quite centrist. If she is elected, I suspect that most mainstream opposition will be petty partisanship, rather than real disagreement with her agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is smart, is somewhat of an outsider/newcomer, has some top notch advisors, can appeal to a wide audience/electorate, and he is perhaps the only candidate in a generation or more that has shown he can get ordinary people excited about politics.

Chief JoJo I think you hit on something that the media tends to ignore. Barack Obama is drawing huge enthusiastic crowds at every stop. Reportedly Obama's appearances resemble the gathering of a rock concert. I can't remember this happening since 1968, when Sen. Robert Kennedy ran for president. The American people are mostly apolitical--but Obama obviously has what it takes to wake the people up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^Good points, but the only way a Hillary administration would be gridlocked would be for the Democrats to lose control of the Congress, which is unlikely. The only reason Bush was able to accomplish so much was his party's legislative majority, despite the fact that half the country was marginalised. Regardless of who is nominated, a Democrat-held White House and Congress could accomplish just as much with or without Republican support.

That said, I agree that a consensus is preferable, and that Obama is probably the closest thing to a consensus candidate in either party's field. That said, I don't think many moderate Republicans would be opposed to Hillary's stated position on most issues, which tend to be quite centrist. If she is elected, I suspect that most mainstream opposition will be petty partisanship, rather than real disagreement with her agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Obama is an exciting candidate, especially to young people who otherwise might not be interested. But I've also read that he tends to show up at events, gives his stump speech, takes a few questions, receives wild ovation, and he's gone -- he doesn't stick around and talk with folks one-on-one. I think candidates have to talk with people face-to-face to be successful in New Hampshire and Iowa. Like I say, I've only read this and don't know if it necessarily holds much truth.

Did anyone catch Hillary's recent comments about Obama having started his presidential campaign the moment he was sworn into the Senate? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally stick to the sideline on presidential elections, but I'm more and more leaning towards Obama. I don't like Hiliary Clinton, plain and simple. She is one of the WORST optunist I've seen in my life, and her petty attacks on Obama just shows how pathetic she really is. Even if Obama wasn't in the primary, I most certainly wouldn't be casting a vote for Clinton because I'm tired of lobbyist controlled politics which is the poster-child of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I was an early Hillary supporter but her petty attacks on Obama really annoyed me. I am leaning Obama these days. He better reflects my progressive views on most issues. I love politics but it's hard to get into the primary season when one lives in a completely non-decisive state like North Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Obama, but still wonder if Americans can actually vote for a black man. Sure, they'll say in polls they're fine with it, but once behind that curtain (in the voting booth), can they really do it? I just have those terrible memories of Harvey Gantt and Jesse Helms. All polls suggested that Gantt was going to beat Helms by a fairly good margin, but in the end, he lost by a fairly good margin. People lie to pollsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The candidate in my opinion that would implement the most positive change in government is Obama. However, is America ready for an African-American president? In a close election, every vote counts as we've seen in the last two elections and im sure there are plenty of people that wont vote for Obama just because hes black. Its just a sad world we live in.

Hillary has the backing of Bill Clinton which is a plus for her because many people believe if they vote for Hillary, they are actually voting for Bill Clinton again, however many say shes polarizing and we could see the same electorial map in 2008 that we saw in 2004. Also is America ready for a woman president?

John Edwards is the most electable of the top three even though he is third in the polls. Hes also "Bill Clinton like". John Edwards would also get more support from independents and waning republicans and in a close election and that could make all the difference in the world. Of the three candidates, Edwards would more likely win some of those hardcore republican interior western states like Wyoming. But some say he doesnt come off as a strong candidate and his past association with John Kerry and his youthful appearances could hurt him. For some reason people like candidates that look like they are over 55.

My analysis is that Obama could be the best candidate for positive change in this country but the person that is most electable is John Edwards. The candidate that is most popular isnt always the most electable. Democrats really need to keep that in mind when they rally behind a candidate for the nomination because I dont think we want to lose 3 times in a row and continue down a path that George W Bush has set. Either of the top 3 candidates would make a good president but the one that can win the most republican and independent votes is John Edwards and thats very important because thats exactly how Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996. Remember back in 1992, early on, Bill Clinton was near the bottom in the polls. Just because Hillary is leading the polls now, doesnt mean she will be the democratic nominee. Even in the last election cycle, Howard Dean was the clear front runner for the nomination. Honestly I think the next president will either be John Edwards or the republican nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine a world in which the most qualified candidates are consistently ignored in lieu of three one-term senators.

No need, we're already living in it.

I couldn't be more tired of the media's "narrowing down" of the Democratic field. On MSNBC last night, they listed five Republicans in each poll and only three Democrats. It's one thing to knock off guys like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, who haven't made a blip in any state's polls, but to ignore Richardson and Biden, who have accounted for as much as 12 and 7 percent in recent polls, is ludicrous.

Surely the Democrats aren't trying to win the presidential election in 2008. At least the leading Republicans have some experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The candidate in my opinion that would implement the most positive change in government is Obama. However, is America ready for an African-American president? In a close election, every vote counts as we've seen in the last two elections and im sure there are plenty of people that wont vote for Obama just because hes black. Its just a sad world we live in.

Hillary has the backing of Bill Clinton which is a plus for her because many people believe if they vote for Hillary, they are actually voting for Bill Clinton again, however many say shes polarizing and we could see the same electorial map in 2008 that we saw in 2004. Also is America ready for a woman president?

John Edwards is the most electable of the top three even though he is third in the polls. Hes also "Bill Clinton like". John Edwards would also get more support from independents and waning republicans and in a close election and that could make all the difference in the world. Of the three candidates, Edwards would more likely win some of those hardcore republican interior western states like Wyoming. But some say he doesnt come off as a strong candidate and his past association with John Kerry and his youthful appearances could hurt him. For some reason people like candidates that look like they are over 55.

My analysis is that Obama could be the best candidate for positive change in this country but the person that is most electable is John Edwards. The candidate that is most popular isnt always the most electable. Democrats really need to keep that in mind when they rally behind a candidate for the nomination because I dont think we want to lose 3 times in a row and continue down a path that George W Bush has set. Either of the top 3 candidates would make a good president but the one that can win the most republican and independent votes is John Edwards and thats very important because thats exactly how Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996. Remember back in 1992, early on, Bill Clinton was near the bottom in the polls. Just because Hillary is leading the polls now, doesnt mean she will be the democratic nominee. Even in the last election cycle, Howard Dean was the clear front runner for the nomination. Honestly I think the next president will either be John Edwards or the republican nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for the democrats, this needs to be an election about who can win. I do think any of the top 3 candidates, including a few not in the top 3 are qaulified for the job and would make a great president. Qaulification is not the issue at hand. Its whos the most electable. The other alternative is four more years of the same Bush style policies. We can hoop, shout and scream over the most popular candidate for the nomination like some rock star but all that wont mean a hill of beans if they cant beat the republican candidate. Remember, the person we (individually) would like to see as president might not have the best chance at beating the republican nominee. (example: people voted for Ralph Nader even though they knew he would lose) Many democrats found that out the hard way when John Kerry lost against George Bush and nearly four years later many democrats still have not learned their lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do see what you are talking about with the fact that John Edwards is the most electable. I still have a feeling like I did at the first of the year that it will be an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket come November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.