Who Would You Like to See Run in 2008?

[Chase]

Who do you think has the best chance of becoming the next president of the United States?

[Ana4Stapp]

Well I voted for Giuliani, but honestly a woman in White House is an interesting ideathese days...

[RMadd]

assuming these are our 4 candidates.... I've got to go w/ either Repub on this one. McCain is fairly moderate, and Giuliani would be a sentimental favorite, since he was mayor of NY during 9/11. I'm not opposed to a woman in office, but I sure as hell don't want HRC to be the first. Yikes. I just might move to Canada. And Kerry, well... I just don't like the guy. He was bad enough a year ago that I voted for Bush over him. To be honest, I'm really not sure who else I'd like to see run for the Dems.

But I think that, in all honesty, the quality of candidates from both parties in the past 2 elections ('00 & '04) has been sub-par. I don't think the country is so politically divided: it's that there's 2 very similar candidates (white, wealthy, Christian, etc.) who may differ significantly on only a handful of issues that the parties and media have drummed up to be the things we, as Americans, should worry about. I would be all for voting for the guy who stands up and says "Fuck party politics! I'll do what I and you think is best for this country, regardless of what a monolithic party ideology says." Well, anyone but Ross Perot perhaps. Unfortunately, our electoral system isn't very conducive to this kind of thinking, speech, or activity. So we're stuck with the idea that there's only 2 lenses through which to view the entirety of the American political landscape. It's very frustrating.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

assuming these are our 4 candidates.... I've got to go w/ either Repub on this one. McCain is fairly moderate, and Giuliani would be a sentimental favorite, since he was mayor of NY during 9/11. I'm not opposed to a woman in office, but I sure as hell don't want HRC to be the first. Yikes. I just might move to Canada. And Kerry, well... I just don't like the guy. He was bad enough a year ago that I voted for Bush over him. To be honest, I'm really not sure who else I'd like to see run for the Dems.

But I think that, in all honesty, the quality of candidates from both parties in the past 2 elections ('00 & '04) has been sub-par. I don't think the country is so politically divided: it's that there's 2 very similar candidates (white, wealthy, Christian, etc.) who may differ significantly on only a handful of issues that the parties and media have drummed up to be the things we, as Americans, should worry about. I would be all for voting for the guy who stands up and says "Fuck party politics! I'll do what I and you think is best for this country, regardless of what a monolithic party ideology says." Well, anyone but Ross Perot perhaps. Unfortunately, our electoral system isn't very conducive to this kind of thinking, speech, or activity. So we're stuck with the idea that there's only 2 lenses through which to view the entirety of the American political landscape. It's very frustrating.

I got it...and i didnt say Id vote for Hilary if I was american...but just that it was very interesting to see the most powerful nation of the world conducted by a woman --(hey man- Im a woman--*almost* a feminist lol) but dont u think that the problem in your counntry is the ellection system ???

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

I got it...and i didnt say Id vote for Hilary if I was american...but just that it was very interesting to see the most powerful nation of the world conducted by a woman

Oh, I wasn't saying that you would. I was just merely pointing out my own thoughts on the matter. She might be tough and such, but she's really a bit too liberal for mainstream America, and I fear that she might be elected solely because she's a woman, and not based on what she stands for

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

but dont u think that the problem in your counntry is the ellection system ???

Yeah, definitely. I think the problem with it is not so much the tallying & counting of votes (as well as how those votes count towards electing the President), as seems to have been the problem in recent years. Truth be told, America is really a republic, not a democracy, so the electoral college is one of the facets of this formulation.
Really, though, my problem is more so with the parties and candidates. First, the quality of candidates of late seems piss-poor. Maybe it's because we know more about them than in the past (whether because of media revelations or accusations by the other party or citizens). Also, the whole process starts wayyyyyyyy too early. I remember, in high school, seeing a statistic that showed how campaigning for the election, even as recently as the '70s, didn't really begin until a couple of months before the election (that would be August, September, even October years ago). Since then, however, it's escalated to the point that, now, one year removed from the last election, we're already discussing candidates for the next President, and sometime next year, politicians will begin declaring their intentions to run and you'll start seeing ads for "____ '08."
Back to the issue of party politics: we've got 2 huge parties right now that, together, represent both views on any number of issues in political and social life. If a new issue gains attention that a "third" party (the Greens, Libertarians, etc) has advocated in the past, the Dems or Repubs will gobble up either side to the issue. Third parties are effectively rendered useless in national elections. It's unfortunate because too many people will say "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat," or adhere to their ideologies (conservative, liberal), and refuse to look at and evaluate each issue for themselves as it presents itself. That produces millions of people who might know where they (and, of course, their party of choice) stands on a particular issue, but they might not quite know why. So I'm essentially stating that our two dominant political parties are making America and Americans dumber in the political realm.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

Quote:

Oh, I wasn't saying that you would. I was just merely pointing out my own thoughts on the matter. She might be tough and such, but she's really a bit too liberal for mainstream America, and I fear that she might be elected solely because she's a woman, and not based on what she stands for

Well, if she a liberal, so I think I would definitely voting for her...lol but seriosly I think that she couldnt be voted because SHE IS a WOMAN...the world, is full of chauvinists...as you know.

Quote:

Yeah, definitely. I think the problem with it is not so much the tallying & counting of votes (as well as how those votes count towards electing the President), as seems to have been the problem in recent years. Truth be told, America is really a republic, not a democracy, so the electoral college is one of the facets of this formulation.

yeah, i know about that, by the way our system here is based in eletronic vote which is not 100% secure, but it reduced the chances of a fraud and accelerated the results.
Its interesting the affirmation you made...very interesting...

Quote:

Really, though, my problem is more so with the parties and candidates. First, the quality of candidates of late seems piss-poor. Maybe it's because we know more about them than in the past (whether because of media revelations or accusations by the other party or citizens). Also, the whole process starts wayyyyyyyy too early. I remember, in high school, seeing a statistic that showed how campaigning for the election, even as recently as the '70s, didn't really begin until a couple of months before the election (that would be August, September, even October years ago). Since then, however, it's escalated to the point that, now, one year removed from the last election, we're already discussing candidates for the next President, and sometime next year, politicians will begin declaring their intentions to run and you'll start seeing ads for "____ '08."

Again , its not an exclusive phenomenon of Americas politics-- everything is going too fast, too early... and statistics --this is one of the problems I see --you knoew that thatare people that avoid to vote in a best candidate just becuase statistics said he doesnt have chances??? Semms like these people dont want to waste thir votes...you beleive in that?

Back to the issue of party politics: we've got 2 huge parties right now that, together, represent both views on any number of issues in political and social life. If a new issue gains attention that a "third" party (the Greens, Libertarians, etc) has advocated in the past, the Dems or Repubs will gobble up either side to the issue. Third parties are effectively rendered useless in national elections. It's unfortunate because too many people will say "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat," or adhere to their ideologies (conservative, liberal), and refuse to look at and evaluate each issue for themselves as it presents itself. That produces millions of people who might know where they (and, of course, their party of choice) stands on a particular issue, but they might not quite know why. So I'm essentially stating that our two dominant political parties are making America and Americans dumber in the political realm.

Im not sure if we here are the same way concerning to the politics views...here we have people voting because the "politician' NOT because the party--even though we have people (like me) who prefers vote in the parties not in that person...and we have A LOT of parties now becauseit was definitely the (good) result of 21 years of dictatorship...

Democracy... I think I live in a(most of the times) democratical country

[Lunar Shadow]

none of the above I would vote Lib as I always do

[RMadd]

Ana: I learned in a Comparative Politics course that most Central & South American countries tend to prefer politicians who have lively personalities, a "cult of personality," if you will. Is this like 100% true all the time, or just a slight majority of the time that people vote in whoever's more charismatic?

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

Ana: I learned in a Comparative Politics course that most Central & South American countries tend to prefer politicians who have lively personalities, a "cult of personality," if you will. Is this like 100% true all the time, or just a slight majority of the time that people vote in whoever's more charismatic?

Well, I dont know ...I think in these days we dont have people interestead in "cult of personality" because there arent many politicians who fills that position, except by our president who is an huge example of charismatic leader, but his popularity is downhill right now...

Certainly we have ignorant and too poor people who just vote in politicians that promises GIVE them things ...(like assistencial cards-not sure how to make it clear to you, sorry) that by the way ,never become true....

[Steve]

Hilary is far too liberal to win over a majority of votes in lots of the red states, and even some of the blue states. If Kerry couldn't pull it off, she's got no chance.

I found a very interesting article regarding Hilary a couple weeks ago (I'll have to find the actual URL) that was pointing out Hilary's voting record in the Senate. Prior to a couple of months ago she was voting against most of the conservative and moderate bills being proposed in the Senate. Then all of a sudden Bill Clinton started making public appearances and giving speeches regarding how Bush screwed up the war and that the troops need to come home. At that same time that Bill started giving these speeches, Hilary changed her voting patterns in the Senate and began voting very moderately. The analyst of the piece pointed out that without a moderate, semi-moderate belief system she probably wouldn't win an election. Seems as if she's preparing herself for a White House run.

Regarding the poll, I think you left out some key people that may be running. I don't think Kerry will win the nomination after his debacle last election. One of the top names being thrown around in the democratic party is Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. Another senator is also being tossed out there but I can't remember his name right now.

[RMadd]

can't forget some governors either... tho i can't really think of any off the top of my head

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

Hilary is far too liberal to win over a majority of votes in lots of the red states, and even some of the blue states. If Kerry couldn't pull it off, she's got no chance.

I found a very interesting article regarding Hilary a couple weeks ago (I'll have to find the actual URL) that was pointing out Hilary's voting record in the Senate. Prior to a couple of months ago she was voting against most of the conservative and moderate bills being proposed in the Senate. Then all of a sudden Bill Clinton started making public appearances and giving speeches regarding how Bush screwed up the war and that the troops need to come home. At that same time that Bill started giving these speeches, Hilary changed her voting patterns in the Senate and began voting very moderately. The analyst of the piece pointed out that without a moderate, semi-moderate belief system she probably wouldn't win an election. Seems as if she's preparing herself for a White House run.

Regarding the poll, I think you left out some key people that may be running. I don't think Kerry will win the nomination after his debacle last election. One of the top names being thrown around in the democratic party is Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. Another senator is also being tossed out there but I can't remember his name right now.

I only put the two front runners from the Republicans and Democrats. There were recent polls done that put Hillary and Rudy as the two contenders in 2008. There are guys like Newt Ginrich, Bill Frist, Mit Romney... and some others who may run. I think McCain is the best choice, but the only issue with him is his age. That may deter him from running. We shall see though.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

I only put the two front runners from the Republicans and Democrats. There were recent polls done that put Hillary and Rudy as the two contenders in 2008. There are guys like Newt Ginrich, Bill Frist, Mit Romney... and some others who may run. I think McCain is the best choice, but the only issue with him is his age. That may deter him from running. We shall see though.

Chase, considering Hillary and Giluliani who d you think will obtain more votes????



PS: Really hoping you can answer me this...because seems you are definitely ignoring my posts...

[Chase]

Well... I happen to agree with Steve's belief that Hillary won't win the South. As the modern presidency has shown, the candidate that wins needs to win the South. You can win the big states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts and still not win the Presidency. This was the case with Al Gore and John Kerry. I think that Guiliani would beat Hillary... however, if for some reason the public is sick of having a Republican in office... they could easily put in Hillary. I just have trouble believing that she will actually get any support from the South.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Well... I happen to agree with Steve's belief that Hillary won't win the South. As the modern presidency has shown, the candidate that wins needs to win the South. You can win the big states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts and still not win the Presidency. This was the case with Al Gore and John Kerry. I think that Guiliani would beat Hillary... however, if for some reason the public is sick of having a Republican in office... they could easily put in Hillary. I just have trouble believing that she will actually get any support from the South.

Thanks for your answer, Chase. To sum it up,these south states are too conservative to choose Hillary, right?