OT: 2008 Elections

[wco81]

Didn't realize how much the Iowa Caucuses lacked transparency, especially on the Democratic Party side.


http://www.slate.com/id/2181008/

http://www.slate.com/id/2181096/


Some pundits believe a win in Iowa would be the best way for underdogs to derail the inevitability of the frontrunners in both parties, as a win could enhance prospects in later primaries.

The Iowa Caucuses won't go away because it's a way for a small state to wield greater influence than it otherwise would have. (If it weren't for the Iowa Caucuses, we might not have corn ethanol mandates for gasoline, for example.)

If it went to a primary system, there's a greater likelihood of some other state leapfrogging it as being the first.

[dbdynsty25]

This thread is a bad idea. Politics = good times at DSP.

[RobVarak]

Some pundits believe a win in Iowa would be the best way for underdogs to derail the inevitability of the frontrunners in both parties, as a win could enhance prospects in later primaries.

Interesting articles, but I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion. History is replete with candidates who win Iowa but still fade. There have even been "Iowa specialist" who were either suited or inclined to succeed there only to fade in the light of day.

[Rodster]

None of the candidates on both sides inspire me. In fact I wouldn't let any of those cats with the exception of the dude pimping the fair tax, run a kwiki mart.

[wco81]

OTOH, then front-runner Howard Dean saw his candidacy crash and burn in Iowa, even before his post-election scream.

This year, it's not so much that winning Iowa guarantees later success so much as giving the winner momentum in the next two contests.

For Republicans, Romney was counting on winning Iowa and NH and building up a lead while frontrunner Giuliani is counting on FL and other bigger states.

For Democrats, Obama winning Iowa could translate to momentum in NH and SC. Hilary was leading in all 3 states for a long time.

About a couple of weeks ago, Huckabee was surging but now, Romney may have come back.

[pk500]

About a couple of weeks ago, Huckabee was surging but now, Romney may have come back.

All because of attack ads that Romney started to run around the holidays in Iowa, which shows how stupid the American electorate really is.

Super Tuesday is still the pivot point of the primaries. But like Rodster said, I haven't seen a more depressing group of candidates in both parties in my lifetime.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

None of the candidates on both sides inspire me. In fact I wouldn't let any of those cats with the exception of the dude pimping the fair tax, run a kwiki mart.

First time in a long time we haven't had a sitting president or vice president running.

Also heard that it was unprecedented to have so many candidates in both parties polling in the double-digits. Clinton and Rudi had had some big leads at one time but that has closed.

Either that reflects excitement about several candidates or the lack of a dominant frontrunner.

Finally, we may have a viable woman and a black man as candidates -- Elizabeth Dole didn't last long and Jesse Jackson and Sharpton were never serious threats.

That may inspire some voters to turn out to support them but it may also inspire voters to turn out to stop them.

[johnvon314]

All the candidates change their message and position so much, and it's not even so much to do with the different audiences. That and the likelihood party voters will fall in line within a month for a ceratain candidate are what depress me the most.

John

[JackB1]

I haven't seen a more depressing group of candidates in both parties in my lifetime.

Take care,
PK

I disagree PK. I really like Obama. He comes off as "real" as a politician possibly can to me. Much more so than any of the other candidates. When he speaks, he seems to make a lot of sense and he's very intelligent....both of which would be a nice change of pace for us

I cringe at the thought of Hillary running this country. If it weren't for Bill, I don't think she would have a chance. Also, I don't see how any Rep. candidate could possibly win. Rudy has so many skeletons in his closet, it's like a bone yard in there and Huckabee is trying to win the Evangelicals, but they have been burned too many time before and are probably gunshy. Romney doesn't seem to have a chance and the only Rep. candidate I wouldn't mind in office....McCain seems to be too old to appeal to the masses.

My favorites are:
Dem:
Obama
Edwards
Clinton

Rep:
McCain
Huckabee
Romney

[Inuyasha]

I like some of the candidates this year since they seem to be outsiders, mainly Huckabee, Obama, and Paul. With the others imo you get more of the same.

[Rodster]

I haven't seen a more depressing group of candidates in both parties in my lifetime.

Take care,
PK

Thank you my thoughts exactly. I'm listening to the radio factor and they have Rudy G. as he's taking about his chances in Iowa. Here's a guy who's claim to fame is putting a handkerchief over his mouth as 9-11 unfolded.

[seanmac31]

I was hoping for Al Gore to run, but clearly he's not going to. That said, I like John Edwards quite a bit, and I'll happily support either Obama or Clinton.

My big issue is with the arcane election process we have. It's painfully clear that we should have a national primary voting day, rather than allowing the preferences of a tiny number of people in a few non-representative states to drastically impact which candidates end up winning their parties. (If they must have state-by-state primaries, then the earliest should be held in California, New York, Texas and Illinois, a.k.a. where a majority of the country actually lives. But obviously a simultaneous national primary is a superior option.)

And once we take care of that, all we have to do is abolish the electoral college and all Diebold voting machines and we'll be in fine shape. Oh, and get people to vote. Although then again.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

maybe we should skip that last part.

[XXXIV]

Two words

Wayne Gretzky.

[pk500]

I disagree PK. I really like Obama. He comes off as "real" as a politician possibly can to me. Much more so than any of the other candidates. When he speaks, he seems to make a lot of sense and he's very intelligent....both of which would be a nice change of pace for us

What does Obama stand for, other than the abstract sound bite of "change?" The hell if I know, although he'll milk his anti-Iraq War vote until that teet is dry.

I'm just sick and tired of hearing Obama talk about a "fresh start" and "change," with nothing concrete to support that. I don't want to vote for a slogan; I want to vote for a leader.

Obama doesn't fit that bill for me. Plus I just get the feeling that Clinton and Obama are both over-spun and over-handled, even by the ridiculously low standards of American politics. Nothing they say or do seems the least bit genuine to me, which is saying something in a group that includes the biggest phony of them all, John Edwards. You know, the son of a millworker who gets $400 haircuts.

I cringe at the thought of Hillary running this country.

No doubt. As a resident of upstate New York, I've seen what Hillary Clinton has done for this part of the state. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. She is so full of sh*t that her eyes are turning brown.

As Joe Biden said, Giuliani can't say a sentence that doesn't include this construction: Noun, verb, 9/11. His entire platform is fear. People also forget that New Yorkers wanted his ass on a platter just before 9/11, as he was incredibly unpopular.

Romney is a phony, flip-flopping on issues left and right. Huckabee stands for nothing other than he's the religious right's choice, plays a mean bass guitar and lost a lot of weight. Sorry, I'll pass.

As a libertarian, I like Ron Paul. But America is too comfortable with the status quo to even consider someone like Paul.

That leaves McCain. He's about the only hope, because he's the only one who seems to give even a rat's sh*t about the problems facing this nation. But he reminds me too much of the same, Bush in different clothing with a lot more intelligence.

A sad, sad lot of candidates. I hope Mike Bloomberg decides to run.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

Didn't realize how much the Iowa Caucuses lacked transparency, especially on the Democratic Party side.


http://www.slate.com/id/2181008/

http://www.slate.com/id/2181096/


Some pundits believe a win in Iowa would be the best way for underdogs to derail the inevitability of the frontrunners in both parties, as a win could enhance prospects in later primaries.

The Iowa Caucuses won't go away because it's a way for a small state to wield greater influence than it otherwise would have. (If it weren't for the Iowa Caucuses, we might not have corn ethanol mandates for gasoline, for example.)

If it went to a primary system, there's a greater likelihood of some other state leapfrogging it as being the first.

First of all, the Hitchens article is completely wrong, like most of his writing. I wish I had answered the Slate ad for "Wanted: constantly sauced egomaniacal d*****bag to write blithering political commentary. Lazy English accent preferred." His whole point is "blah blah blah Huckabee moron caucus bad blah." He has that tone of thinking anyone from a state between the Mississippi and the California border is a moron, when Iowa has a highly educated and politically balanced population.

Second, the power of the Iowa Caucus is blown way out of proportion by the media. It's gotten worse because, with more news outlets than actual news, these people need something to obsess about. In reality, the Caucus tends to be a reflection of the national election race, a race that starts way before January of the election year. Look at the winners of the Iowa Caucus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus#Past_winners

There aren't many earth-shattering results. Most of the time the caucus either annoints someone who was a frontrunner or picks someone like Harkin (an Iowan) or Gephardt who don't win. It's hardly a definitive kingmaker process. Granted, it can give someone momentum, but PK is right, they have to nail Super Tuesday to get the nomination.

The problem with a national primary is that it would favor super rich candidates. The current system allows a campaign to focus its resources and build momentum, then raise more funds along the way. Politics is already a rich man's game, but having to advertise nationally before all the primaries would leave politics to the super rich or super funded. I think you would see less diversity among the candidates.

[JRod]

Brando, I think you are right on Iowa any other year. But due the parties basically moving everything up and having so many states holding primaries that might count.

Any win is going to give a good push those candidates that do well.

I was reading the money numbers spent in Iowa by Obama, Edwards and Clinton. They are staggering.

It somewhat sickens me that our level of discourse isn't improving this time around.

PK is right, all I hear from Obama is change. What the hell do you want to change and how. Clinton, I think people are just voting for her to bring Bill back. Everyone loves bill.


As for the Republicans, if they could answer the question, "Is our country going to be better with another Republican in the White House?" I don't think anyone of them can.

Honestly, I think Edwards is going to get the nod on the dem side. And beleive it or not, I think McCain will be it. Surely Romney is going to be discovered for a total fraud that he is. I wouldn't mind a presidential campaign hearing from McCain and Edwards.

[Rodster]

I hate to say it and I cringe at the thought but get ready for a Clinton/Obama ticket which will probably win in Nov.

[JackB1]

I wouldn't mind a presidential campaign hearing from McCain and Edwards.

Niether would I........Neither would I.

[kevinpars]

This is one political thread where I think we can avoid any major fights. It is hard to get excited about any of these candidates.

[Rodster]

This is one political thread where I think we can avoid any major fights. It is hard to get excited about any of these candidates.

I think we'd need to suck down 12 bottles of Viagra before we got excited about any of these doofesses running for office.

[wco81]

This is one political thread where I think we can avoid any major fights. It is hard to get excited about any of these candidates.

What happens if Hilary is the Democratic nominee?

[RobVarak]

What happens if Hilary is the Democratic nominee?

Sandy Berger is gonna need to buy some bigger pants???

[XXXIV]

What happens if Hilary is the Democratic nominee?

Sandy Berger is gonna need to buy some bigger pants???

We all move to Canada to live with Alec Baldwin....

[FatPitcher]

I haven't seen a more depressing group of candidates in both parties in my lifetime.

Take care,
PK

I disagree PK. I really like Obama. He comes off as "real" as a politician possibly can to me.

You know you've got a crappy lineup when simple forthrightness counts as a huge accomplishment. I don't like any of the candidates, but I think Obama, McCain, and Paul could all be tolerable. And of course it's not hard to improve on the current politician-in-chief.

[pk500]

This is one political thread where I think we can avoid any major fights. It is hard to get excited about any of these candidates.

What happens if Hilary is the Democratic nominee?

The apocalypse is upon us.

Take care,
PK