Upcoming US Elections

[Chucara]

Who is everyone rooting for?

Not being a US citizen, I don't know all the candidates that well. What I have concluded from non-Fox coverage so far is this:

Hillary: He primary qualities being that her husband was president and that she is a woman.
Huckabee: Religious zealot. The web is overflowing with crazy statements from him.
Obama: Seems the most well rounded candidate to me, plays the race card slightly, but doesn't seem to abuse it.
McCain: Slightly anonymous, but sensible by comparison.
Ron Paul: Seems the most sensible republican candidate. Some "extreme" ideas, but seem determined to change the system.
Guiliani: Pretty much tries to appear the hero of 9/11, and has faced serious flack for it. Doesn't seem likely to get elected.

There are obvious oversimplifications, but sum up what I have seen so far. Personally, my vote would go to Obama, as I really think something needs to be done to undo some of the Bush administrations decisions.

Obviously a hot topic, but what is your opinion on the candidates. Feel free to ad candidates not already mentioned.

[Brugdor]

My take on the "conservatives" -

Huckabee - Social moderate, economic lib. Expect tons of spending with little taxing or cutting of other spending to make up for it. Expect the amnesty plan for illegals to go through which is why I rated him a social moderate. He's pro-life and pro-gun ownership though.

Romney - The John Kerry of the political right. He's slick and was for being slick before he was against it. I can't give you my take on his stances as they are subject to change once he gets into office.

Rudy - 9/11. I say that because that's basically all he has going for him. He'll be weak on illegals too.

Thompson - Social and economic con? Probably the closest to an actual conservative in the race which is why he'll go nowhere.

McCain - The Hillary of the right. Very polarizing even to conservatives. Either they love him or hate him and unfortunately for him most hate him. He's way too moderate in all the wrong areas for the majority of conservatives to embrace him.

Paul - Nuttier than a fruitcake which is a shame because I probably agree with more of his stances (outside the war) than the other guys. It will be interesting to see what happens if he decides to run on a 3rd party ticket. Will he steal more votes from the cons or the libs or perhaps most of his supporters are those that haven't voted for either main party? It's hard to tell. Most of his support seems to come from the 9-11 Truthers and I can only say that I don't believe most of those people were Republicans.

As far as the Dems go I can only say that out of them all I'd prefer Obama. Not because I agree with just about any of his stances but because he's the new kid on the block and is less likely to have corporate strings attached. I was very happy to see him pull out a good win in Iowa and that certainly doesn't bode well for Hillary and Edwards since Iowa is something like 95% white. His support should really take off in states with a higher minority population.

[Chucara]

You raise an excellent point on the corporate strings.. As an outsider, it seems the big companies have a huge say in US politics. Which is scary in my opinion. I'm not completely caught off guard here, as it seems to me (an many other Europeans, I expect) that the oil industry has a lot of politicians in their pockets.

I suppose a little of this happens in all countries, but usually it is not is as advanced nations as the US, or it is a lot less outspoken. Here in Denmark, I know there has been a lot of controversy regarding Maersk (huge shipping concern, if you were unware) being allowed to almost veto a few bills by threatening to move their activities to other countries. Sadly, with Maersk being as huge as it is, and Denmark being so small, loosing Maersk would be felt on a national scale.

[A.S.S.R.]

Perspective of a Canuck who's been watching too much US-TV on winter break:

So, what's been going on with Guiliani?

He finished way behind Paul in Iowa and will likely do so in "Live Free or Die" NH (and Paul's candidacy has been exclusively a show-of-force for libertarians, independents and internet loonies for some time). And despite the "focusing on later primaries" story, Rudy seems to have been off of the radar of the networks and the public eye lately. 

Huckabee put on a nice show, but considering he's been exclusively playing the Jesus-card, it's unlikely he'll pull out such a lead in states where evangelicals aren't the core of the local G.O.P.. As Brug said, he's liberal enough on some "social issues" to open himself up to some serious attacks from Romney and co. The religious-right block just isn't what it used to be, and can't be expected to carry someone so lack-luster on many other fronts (although the whole abolishing-the-IRS-and-reforming-taxes thing, which isn't too bad, seems to be lifted straight from the more extreme parts of Paul's agenda).

Beyond that, the GOP candidates all seem to be pretty much the same. Who's more eager to double Gitmo?

Obama seems to have recovered from the past couple of months of dwindling momentum and dreary performances. Kudos for not minding the traditional advice on race and electibility, and running a campaign that actually brought people out. At times a bit too messianic for my tastes, but you can't deny the momentum. Fairly reasonable, slightly left-of-center policy proposals also help.   

Edwards is to the union/working-class-activist crowd what Huckabee is to the religious right. Probably a viable future candidate for a possible socialist off-shoot party of the Democrats, if the U.S. were to go the route of West-Europe/Canada party systems.

I don't feel I can say anything about Clinton that hasn't already been run through the wrung of news talk shows - except perhaps that she's no Bill in terms of charisma. Certainly a polarizing candidate, especially as the retarded 25% of the U.S. populace still believes her husband was some grand evil of cartoonish-proportions.   

If a voting U.S. citizen, I'd go for Obama if he was against Romney/Huckabee/Guiliani, and libertarian/independent otherwise (I'd rather see a viable third party come in than go Paul's way and try to resuscitate the dwindling Republican libertarian block).
 
My $0.02 (which is $0.0199710 USD at the moment. How about that economy?)

[Brugdor]

The sad reality is that one of these crooks and liars will be our next president. I weep for the future.

[Solwyn]

I gotta ask: I've seen so many people say it but I'm not sure if I agree or not.

Why is Ron Paul crazy? By which I mean, what makes you say that he is?

[TK]

I've just read a summary of his politics so I'm a really bad judge but I'd say that he's just too moderate for America, he seems like a good man; he wants to keep American political on a world that really really doesn't want it, kept to less than  inference and dictate but more agreement. The notion that 'you want rid of your unwanted baby? that's cool but just know that it's not the absolute norm' absolutely breathes freedom of choice to me.  He seems like a guy I could get behind unless you have something different.  Unless he danced the funky gibbon and kicked his granny on TV where is he weird?

I'm moderate to the point of anarchy by the way.  I'm a consumate Scot, we believe that a political system should change to meet the prevelence of society.

[Brugdor]

I've just read a summary of his politics so I'm a really bad judge but I'd say that he's just too moderate for America, he seems like a good man; he wants to keep American political on a world that really really doesn't want it, kept to less than  inference and dictate but more agreement. The notion that 'you want rid of your unwanted baby? that's cool but just know that it's not the absolute norm' absolutely breathes freedom of choice to me.  He seems like a guy I could get behind unless you have something different.  Unless he danced the funky gibbon and kicked his granny on TV where is he weird?

I'm moderate to the point of anarchy by the way.  I'm a consumate Scot, we believe that a political system should change to meet the prevelence of society.

His stance on the war is the complete immediate withdraw of our troops which is going to lead to a ton of bloodshed and likely more troop casualties when we'd have to go back. Or perhaps even more casualties since Paul likely wouldn't send them back so the bloodshed could spread to other countries and then eventually we'd be forced back into it. I can understand the desire to withdraw but we have to do so in a manner that wouldn't throw Iraq back into a state of chaos.

Aside from that he's tried to appease the truthers by saying he'll open up more investigations into 9-11. So not only doesn't he distance himself from them, he seems to be embracing them and their beliefs. So that's years more of wasted tax payer money on useless investigations plus validating the truther's beliefs in their minds which is going to make them 1000x more obnoxious than they already are.

[A.S.S.R.]

I gotta ask: I've seen so many people say it but I'm not sure if I agree or not.

Why is Ron Paul crazy? By which I mean, what makes you say that he is?

He's pissed off the idealogical hardcore of the major political blocks.

Socialist-leaning democrats can't bear to think that some Federal institutions will be further dismantled. He's completely out of sync. with them on how to reform healthcare, social security etc.

Neoconservatives are sure the world will fall apart without direct U.S. intervention, and don't appreciate the blunt talk on the Iraq debacle. Plus, despite the fact that Paul's personally pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and believes in the country's "Christian Heritage," he doesn't seem particularly keen on forcing these beliefs onto the general population.

Most of the damage seems to be coming by association to the whole range of internet crazies that's supporting him (the Truthers, Gold-bar folks, militias, pimps associations etc.). The pro-Neocon. blogs seemed to have latched onto the Truthers (because 9/11 changed everything, and cannot be questioned as such). More liberal blogs discount him as being a 19th century, laissez-faire robber baron crossed with a Michigan Militiaman. 

He basically has the misfortune of representing a block of the Republican Party that has been out of the prominence for some time.

[Brugdor]

Some interesting developments on Paul's past if anyone is interested.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/08/audio-tnr-editor-pores-through-the-archives-of-ron-pauls-newsletters/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/09/the-problem-with-paul/

If true it would certainly solidify my opinion of his nuttiness and Paul himself has responded (link is at the bottom of the first link above) saying he takes moral responsibility for what was in those newsletters although he states he didn't know what the content of them was at the time.

[Solwyn]

Personally I agree with most of what Paul has said, and I think that makes me crazy.

I don't agree with the 9-11 truthers, I've done the research and seen that all those conspiracy theories require massive leaps of logic and faith, usually because "better evidence is not available... because they're hiding the truth."

So they have the same amount of evidence as flat earth and moon landing folks.

But I'm libertarian on everything but foreign policy, their policy is a very head-in-the-sand approach. I think Iraq is going to be another Vietnam in America's history, no matter what the outcome. You'd think a country founded by revolutionary guerrillas would know better than to engage in a guerrilla war with the world's largest series of terrorist cells. Al'Qaeda, as it turns out, is not a country. Who knew?

In any case, I agree pulling out right now completely would be a bad move. But going in was a bad move. Staying is a bad move. Democracy, a republic, whatever kind of government we're trying to establish here, is not going to take place in a nation or part of the world that is still very firmly based on theocracy, and if it does it's going to take more time and money than we can afford.

It's just nice to see at least one candidate that isn't for bigger government. Unfortunately, every other candidate wants to take a few more leaps towards 1984.  And it sucks that a majority of the country apparently doesn't want it any other way.

[Doombot]

Mr. Nine Eleven to exit presidential race - Yahoo! News

[Hoopy Frood]

I'll take "Things That Aren't Surprising" for 2000, Alex.

[Night Owl]

well, it now looks to be one of four - Obama and Hillary on one side, and Romney and McCain on the other.

Personally, I think Romney wins that 4-way fight.

[Brugdor]

well, it now looks to be one of four - Obama and Hillary on one side, and Romney and McCain on the other.

Personally, I think Romney wins that 4-way fight.

Personally, I think no matter who wins the fight the country loses at this point.