SFN Elections

[CDarwin]

Only on the Internet...

 

SFN's candidates for President of the United States are Representative Ron Paul of the Republican Party and Senator Barack Obama of the Democratic Party. Call CNN, let's rock Iowa.

 

So! It now falls to you to select which of the two you would rather see elected as President. You may post your choice and argue vociferously why it is superior if you so desire as well.

[Reaper]

Why only 2?

[CDarwin]

Why only 2?

 

Because that is the custom of American Presidential elections. We've already had the primaries in earlier threads to select these particular two, if that's what you mean.

[Reaper]

Oh, ok. I had thought that this implied that they already selected the candidates initially.

[bascule]

If this were the real national election I'd have some thinking to do...

 

I'll withhold a vote for now

 

Update: I voted for Obama. Kucinich endorsed him. And as much as I'd like Paul to try to trim down our federal budget, he's just got too many flaws for me to seriously endorse him as a mainstream candidate.

[ecoli]

Kucinich endorsed Obama? When did Kucinich drop out of the race?

[john5746]

I voted for Obama, because...well he looks like the winner.

[Pangloss]

He hasn't dropped out of the race (yet), he's just asking people to caucus for Omaba if they won't caucus for him. It happens every now and then but it's generally considered poor strategy. You'll rarely see a top-tier candidate do something like that because it more or less acknowledges the fact that they're not going to win, and you want your candidate to not sound defeatist. It will also cost him voters who were leaning in a different direction, such as Edwards.

[iNow]

I'd love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket versus McCain/Hucabee. That'd be the best the current pool has to offer from my POV. I wonder how tomorrow will turn out in Iowa.

[Pangloss]

Now THAT's interesting. That plays right into my reservations about McCain (age and adaptability, which Huckabee could help him with, but his appeal to the far right causes me to hesitate for a third reason). Obama/Edwards is very balanced and broad-based in its appeal, especially if Billary folds its tent pleasantly.

 

A very insightful ticket, IMO.

[ecoli]

I'd love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket versus McCain/Hucabee. That'd be the best the current pool has to offer from my POV. I wonder how tomorrow will turn out in Iowa.

 

I agree, this ticket could be a real possibility, especially if Romney suffers in Iowa tomorrow.

 

I generally like McCain, but I don't know if I could vote for him with Huckabee on the ticket. Though, I'm sure he'd gladly sacrifice my vote for all the evangelicals, and I'm in NY anyway.

 

Would McCain need Huckabee to win the south though? That might just turn off swing states who don't like his religion, and the evangelicals would (presumably) not vote for a democrat anyway.

Actually, I think this would depend on the independents. If Paul runs as an independent, I think McCain (or Guiliani or Thompson) would need Huckabee to get the evangelical vote. Coming from a family of ministers himself, Paul might look attractive to the religious right who care more about labels than the war.

Presumably though, the southern-boy Edwards might draw some of that vote for Obama, though not as much, being a black candidate.

 

I think McCain would be a good choice to lead the republican ticket, but He's probably not going to win in either Iowa or New Hampshire, and that's going to hurt him.

[iNow]

McCain's done alright in New Hampshire, but I agree he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Iowa.

 

 

As per the Obama/Edwards ticket, that really is my dream team this year. I think they both have quite a lot to offer, sensabilities and motivations that align with my own in terms of advancement as a people and a planet.

 

I think Obama's got it, and I think Edwards is very worthy of respect.

 

I can only hope that the people and the democratic party see it the same way I do.

 

On the Republican side, I'm not impressed. McCain I respect, and I like that Paul is bringing up topics that matter, but I don't think any of them have what is needed in the current global socio-religiopolitical climate that is hurting so many of us.

 

 

Whoa... That was more than I meant to type. I'd love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket, and I'd vote for those two in a heartbeat if that ticket were presented.

[CDarwin]

Obama/Edwards would be a good ticket. I don't know how important the geographic factor really is, though. Two "Southern boys" won it in 1992, and does anyone even know where Chaney is from?

 

I don't think being black will hurt Obama in the South as much as being a Democrat, either, really. Harold Ford Jr. came within a hair of winning Tennessee in 2004, you will recall, and only he lost because Corker convinced enough people that Ford was a liberal. I'd say the South is much more ready to elect a black man as President than a (female) Clinton right now.

 

So the ticket might end up being determined more on the basis of Party unity than geography. If Obama wins, he might reach out to Clinton or a Clintonian as a running mate just to pacify that faction.

[Pangloss]

The great thing about an Edwards vice presidency is that it's relatively non-threatening to conservatives and may even calm the far left at the same time. He can champion various causes and even wield a certain extent of constitutional power (breaking ties in the senate) while stopping short of having any influence on the supreme court, signing bills into law, or determining foreign policy -- the things that conservatives are scared about with him. And he's just a damn good spokesman for any Democratic-run government. The freaky thing about your Obama/Edwards ticket, iNow, is that I'm actually MORE compelled to vote for it than I was while considering Obama on his own merits.

 

As you point out it doesn't buy him the moderates, which have been looking more influential in 2008 than in most of the elections I've participated in. But I can't help but think that Hillary's much-decried "high negatives" could prevent her from being picked up for the VP ticket. Plus the fact that I think she might actually not be interested in the post, since she's already a senator with several powerful committee memberships.

 

And of course Hillary becomes even less necessary if Giuliani isn't on the Republican ticket, since he gets New York automatically.

[Physia]

Well, I have not been following the American elections so closely lately because it doesn't matter; the road we're in will not change EASILY, no matter who comes as president, be it a democrat or a republican.

 

But for this matter, I will have to go for Ron Paul between the two suggested candidates, but I am a Giuliani supporter - on the other hand.

[Reaper]

You know, I'm going to try something here.... If it was instead Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, who would you vote for?

[DrDNA]

No on one and yes on two.

 

Well, I have not been following the American elections so closely lately because it doesn't matter; the road we're in will not change EASILY, no matter who comes as president, be it a democrat or a republican.

 

But for this matter, I will have to go for Ron Paul between the two suggested candidates, but I am a Giuliani supporter - on the other hand.

 

Really? Dear Lord man.....why? Big fan of Scarface and/or the Sopranos; are ya?

[ecoli]

And of course Hillary becomes even less necessary if Giuliani isn't on the Republican ticket, since he gets New York automatically.

 

Don't be so sure. Guiliani isn't completely well liked over here. There's a bunch of NYC firemen campaigning against him, saying that he actually didn't do a great job on 9/11... he just showed up for the cameras and left the real rescue workers high and dry.

 

I think that New York could go to Bloomberg, if he ran as an independent. Bloomberg can credit himself with even a bigger decrease in crime than Bloomberg and a lot of New Yorkers seem to realize that Guiliani is kind of a dick in person. At least, people I know who have met him have said that.

[DrDNA]

This whole Rudy/Hillary thing really continues to confuse me.......

I don't see how being mayor of NYC when terrorists flew airplanes into the twin towers makes a person uniquely qualified to be president of the USA.....much like I don't see how sleeping in the Whitehouse for 8 years and 'being a strong woman who stood by her cheatin man' qualifies one for the presidency......

Someone, anyone.......please enlighten me...................

[CDarwin]

Don't be so sure. Guiliani isn't completely well liked over here. There's a bunch of NYC firemen campaigning against him, saying that he actually didn't do a great job on 9/11... he just showed up for the cameras and left the real rescue workers high and dry.

 

I think that New York could go to Bloomberg, if he ran as an independent. Bloomberg can credit himself with even a bigger decrease in crime than Bloomberg and a lot of New Yorkers seem to realize that Guiliani is kind of a dick in person. At least, people I know who have met him have said that.

 

Even if NYC is slightly anti-Guilliani, would the upstate be sufficient to balance the state in favor of him? I'm not really sure. I don't know much about New York politics.

 

He would probably win Tennessee, especially versus Hillary. Certainly versus Hillary.

[Sisyphus]

Even if NYC is slightly anti-Guilliani, would the upstate be sufficient to balance the state in favor of him? I'm not really sure. I don't know much about New York politics.

 

 

I very much doubt it. Upstaters have no particular attachment to Giuliani, and NYC is more than "slightly" against him. He was viewed as kind of a cartoonish villain before 9/11, and he's been using NYC as a punchline in his national campaign, and he's taking ridiculous amounts of credit for things he had nothing to do with, like being some kind of hero on 9/11. Resentment abounds. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, won two state-wide elections here by broad margins, despite all the people who hate her so much.

[ecoli]

Not to mention that NYC is quite liberal when voting in State and National elections, despite voting republicans into the mayorship.

 

Upstate and eastern Long Island tend to be more republican, but they don't generally have to the votes to counter anything NYC does. NY is usually a given for the democratic nominee, so that most candidates don't bother campaigning here.

There will be a presidential debate at Hofstra University after the primaries are over with, though.

[Physia]

You know, I'm going to try something here.... If it was instead Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, who would you vote for?

 

Ron Paul, simple.

 

Hilary Clinton has been getting on my nerves lately.

Read this little article:

 

Demagoging Pakistan's crisis

WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL

December 31' date=' 2007

http://washingtontimes.com/article/2...455751994/1013

 

The identifiable geostrategic consequences of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination are a weakening of President Pervez Musharraf's government and an increase in political volatility which this nuclear-armed nation can scarcely afford. This latter consequence points to the most troubling problem: The consequences simply are not yet known. While statesmen in Washington — Democrats and Republicans alike — try to devise a strategy to prevent the situation in Pakistan from imploding, at least one political demagogue — Sen. Hillary Clinton — has cynically attempted to exploit Pakistan's peril to revive her faltering presidential campaign.

 

Over the weekend, the violence continued. By yesterday, at least 38 died amid the rioting, while reports proliferated of bank robberies, mobs in the streets and government buildings set afire. The key immediate questions are whether Mr. Musharraf will re-impose the state of emergency he lifted two weeks ago, and whether he will attempt to postpone the rapidly approaching January elections, in which Mrs. Bhutto and her Pakistan People's Party were the leading contenders. So far, Mr. Musharraf has given no public sign of enacting a clampdown following the three-day mourning declaration, which ended yesterday. Nor has Mr. Musharraf signaled his intentions regarding the elections. Much depends on the security situation.

 

For now, three consequences seem identifiable. First, the assassination leaves Mr. Musharraf's already precarious government further weakened. Many in Pakistan, especially the opposition, blame him for Mrs. Bhutto's death, while radical Islamist forces seek to capitalize on the confusion to promote further chaos and destabilize the country.

 

Second, the accommodation between anti-Islamist forces in Pakistan which is necessary to build genuine security is now much less likely. With the leading opposition figure, Mrs. Bhutto, out of the picture, the chances of an angry moderate opposition finding common ground with Mr. Musharraf against radical Islamists are significantly diminished. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif before Mrs. Bhutto's assassination had already announced a boycott of next week's elections, and Mr. Sharif called for Mr. Musharraf's resignation just hours after the assassination. It is hardly clear that Mrs. Bhutto's husband and her 19-year-old son, designated yesterday as her political successors, will be up to the job.

 

Third, nations with vital interests in Pakistan, including the United States and neighbors Afghanistan and India, now have little alternative but to look to Mr. Musharraf as the most realistic possibility for partnership in Pakistan. For all of Mr. Musharraf's shortcomings, the question of whether there is a Pakistani alternative to Mr. Musharraf and his government is profound.

 

Of course, the matter of most interest for the United States and Pakistan's neighbors India and Afghanistan continues to be this unstable government's nuclear-weapons arsenal in the context of the ugly flowering of radical Islamist groups, including al Qaeda and the Taliban. With the future of Pakistan's nuclear weapons hanging in this volatile balance, Mr. Musharraf's ability to slow the current crisis itself remains unclear.

 

That brings us to Mrs. Clinton, who has not been shy when it comes to bragging about the virtues of her "experience." In response to a reporter's question, the New York Democrat suggested that Mr. Musharraf could be toppled; called into question the legitimacy of Pakistan's elections scheduled for next week; demanded that Mr. Musharraf agree to an "independent" investigation of Mrs. Bhutto's death; and reminded everyone that she had known "Benazir" for 12 years — in other words, dating back to her second term as prime minister of Pakistan during the mid-1990s, when Mrs. Bhutto was facilitating the growth of al Qaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.

 

Of course, as Walid Phares writes on the facing page, the Benazir Bhutto who was murdered in Rawalpindi on Thursday was a very different person from the prime minister that Mrs. Clinton met 12 years ago: Mrs. Bhutto came to realize that the jihadists could not be appeased, and she hoped to lead her country in a different direction. That's why the Islamists wanted her dead. Mrs. Clinton should have the minimal decency not to exploit her friend's death — especially not in ways that could destabilize Pakistan and give aid and comfort to the jihadists that Mrs. Bhutto was standing against.[/quote']

 

I know what you're getting to, but I don't care anyways.

[DrDNA]

I know what you're getting to, but I don't care anyways.

 

What's that?

[Physia]

What's that?

 

That I only support republicans, and it's nothing to be shy about anyways. Neither parties will be able to change the road the United States is in.