[besson3c]

I just wanted to be the first to call it to give a boost to my MacNN street cred.

The polls show beyond the margin of error that if either Obama or Clinton ran, they would beat the Republican frontrunner Gulliani:

WH2008: General

Also, that same page suggests that an unnamed Democrat would beat an unnamed Republican handily.

I'm not trying to be partisan here, but we do have a history of a political pendulum that swings back and forth. It seems pretty clear now that that pendulum has swung away from the Right, for better or for worse.

While the polls showed Kerry ahead of Bush at times, it was never this clear - especially before primaries.

[Dork.]

Don't blame me, I'm voting for Kodos!



Seriously, though, a lot can happen between now and then. The Red Sox are the best team in baseball right now, but that doesn't mean the Angels can't take them in a seven-game series in October....

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Don't blame me, I'm voting for Kodos!

I voted for Kang. I liked his position on eating the homeless and he promised a flying saucer in every garage by 2012.

[osiris]

That's like ancient history. 2012 has come and gone, move on with your life.
You Kang supporters.

[Dakarʒ]

You're lucky Kodos enacted that death ray ban or I'd vaporize you this instant.

[macintologist]

I definitely agree. 2008 is the Democrat's to lose.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

You're lucky Kodos enacted that death ray ban or I'd vaporize you this instant.

What death ray ban?

[BRussell]

Shocking, anti-conventional-wisdom prediction there besson. Next you're going to predict that Giuliani gets another divorce and Alberto Gonzales lies again before Congress.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by osiris 

What death ray ban?

The PL Denizens are actually responding seriously, I take my leave of this thread now.

[osiris]

Early prediction: The Democrats will find a way to screw this up. I don't know how, who, etc..., but some stupid issue irrelevent to most of our lives will convince the populace to not vote for a Democrat. The Republicans will of course lead this parade down into the toilet.

Late prediction: (tin foil hats on!) There won't be an election.

over and out.

now, where is that death ray? I can never find it when I need it most.

[Rumor]

I wish there was more than two viable parties. Neither of them are worth a ****, IMO.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The polls show beyond the margin of error that if either Obama or Clinton ran, they would beat the Republican frontrunner Gulliani:

Also, that same page suggests that an unnamed Democrat would beat an unnamed Republican handily.

depends who is on the ticket.
Clinton - Edwards in some combination would win.
Clinton - Obama loses by a lot
Obama - Anyone loses by ~10 electoral votes as Southerners won't go for him being the lead name on the ballot

its also way too early to claim Rudy is a lock for being even on the GOP ticket. The field of names is way too open for the republicans. But i will say that i don't think a Mormon would be able to win the presidency.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I wish there was more than two viable parties. Neither of them are worth a ****, IMO.

The Democrat field is pretty strong, actually. Better than the last two elections, certainly. The Republicans are just stale, though. McCain has transformed himself in exactly the wrong way.

[ebuddy]

My prediction;

- any ticket with Hillary first will not win. When she speaks, she loses ground. She'll not be able to speak any less than she is currently. She will come off as an angry and bitter partisan shill unwilling and unable to work with the other side of the aisle. Obama would be the more likely guy IMO, but unfortunately he'll be counting on the votes of white Democrats which statistically will not go well for him.

The current Republican ticket is even more abysmal. The nominees for both parties are likely not even in the race yet. They are watching, waiting, and their announcement will turn this election-selection on its head.

IMO, the American public is not moving away from the right or moving further left. There are a host of polls with record-low approval ratings of Congress to show this. They are simply tired of stubborness, an inability to communicate effectively to them, corruption, and partisan bickering. They are not anti-right, they are anti-Bush. Historically, they will want a Republican Administration to match this dominantly Democrat hill, but they have no Republican to choose from yet.

[besson3c]

ebuddy:

The American public is apolitical, and there are more non-ideologue/swing voters than there are ideologues. We are not firmly rooted in being either right or left wing, which explains why historically our political compass has swung back and forth. It has nothing to do with ideology, but simply a longing for a change in leadership, the desire to try something else.

It also has to do with the lobbies and political marketing, which also has little to do with ideology. I'm making my prediction now, because the Democrats seem to have the upper hand in the marketing thing, the benefactors of a public wanting change and thinking they will get it from the Democrats.

Take a look at this:

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy:

The American public is apolitical, and there are more non-ideologue/swing voters than there are ideologues. We are not firmly rooted in being either right or left wing, which explains why historically our political compass has swung back and forth. It has nothing to do with ideology, but simply a longing for a change in leadership, the desire to try something else.

History shows they've also indicated favor for the checks and balances of our system. I agree with your entire summary above, but it has been popularly stated that the 2006 elections for example were a referendum on Conservatism and I've disagreed. The American public feels lied to (for good reason), they feel this Administration has been wrought with corruption (for good reason), and they want change. Question is, who gives it to them and exactly what change do they want? IMO, the public is more mixed on this than any polling result could illustrate. I believe the American public wants signs of victory in Iraq or all-out withdrawl of troops. I believe some bits of information showing signs of improvement in Iraq could significantly change the American public's views on Iraq in short order. (which understandably gets the lions-share of opinions and importance.)

It also has to do with the lobbies and political marketing, which also has little to do with ideology. I'm making my prediction now, because the Democrats seem to have the upper hand in the marketing thing, the benefactors of a public wanting change and thinking they will get it from the Democrats.

I also agree with these points and that's why I brought up the low Congressional approval ratings. IMO, the American public believes they're not getting change from either party on this one. They may feel that the Democrat platform more accurately aligns with their personal views, but if they can't produce... I believe it's an open game right now and that poll results will not reflect polling-place results in 08. I think the American public will again vote for checks and balances. This is all part of the prediction game though and I'll concede the polling results today certainly show favor towards a (D) (more specifically, HIllary) for President. I just don't think the sentiment will hold when it comes to actually pulling the lever. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by tie 

The Democrat field is pretty strong, actually. Better than the last two elections, certainly. The Republicans are just stale, though. McCain has transformed himself in exactly the wrong way.

Neither side is strong. It's all a bunch of hot air. They will say anything to get themselves there, then fail to deliver on more than 70% of thier promises.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They are not anti-right, they are anti-Bush.

Even the right is becoming anti-Bush, though there are still a few zealots out there.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

History shows they've also indicated favor for the checks and balances of our system. I agree with your entire summary above, but it has been popularly stated that the 2006 elections for example were a referendum on Conservatism and I've disagreed. The American public feels lied to (for good reason), they feel this Administration has been wrought with corruption (for good reason), and they want change. Question is, who gives it to them and exactly what change do they want? IMO, the public is more mixed on this than any polling result could illustrate. I believe the American public wants signs of victory in Iraq or all-out withdrawl of troops. I believe some bits of information showing signs of improvement in Iraq could significantly change the American public's views on Iraq in short order. (which understandably gets the lions-share of opinions and importance.)


I also agree with these points and that's why I brought up the low Congressional approval ratings. IMO, the American public believes they're not getting change from either party on this one. They may feel that the Democrat platform more accurately aligns with their personal views, but if they can't produce... I believe it's an open game right now and that poll results will not reflect polling-place results in 08. I think the American public will again vote for checks and balances. This is all part of the prediction game though and I'll concede the polling results today certainly show favor towards a (D) (more specifically, HIllary) for President. I just don't think the sentiment will hold when it comes to actually pulling the lever. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

I have to give you a . You debate in a very rational, non-hostile manner and have no qualms about admitting when you are wrong (not saying you are). Kudos.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

History shows they've also indicated favor for the checks and balances of our system. I agree with your entire summary above, but it has been popularly stated that the 2006 elections for example were a referendum on Conservatism and I've disagreed. The American public feels lied to (for good reason), they feel this Administration has been wrought with corruption (for good reason), and they want change. Question is, who gives it to them and exactly what change do they want? IMO, the public is more mixed on this than any polling result could illustrate. I believe the American public wants signs of victory in Iraq or all-out withdrawl of troops. I believe some bits of information showing signs of improvement in Iraq could significantly change the American public's views on Iraq in short order. (which understandably gets the lions-share of opinions and importance.)


I also agree with these points and that's why I brought up the low Congressional approval ratings. IMO, the American public believes they're not getting change from either party on this one. They may feel that the Democrat platform more accurately aligns with their personal views, but if they can't produce... I believe it's an open game right now and that poll results will not reflect polling-place results in 08. I think the American public will again vote for checks and balances. This is all part of the prediction game though and I'll concede the polling results today certainly show favor towards a (D) (more specifically, HIllary) for President. I just don't think the sentiment will hold when it comes to actually pulling the lever. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

I agree with everything you've said here, although maybe just like Howard Dean Hillary won't be the candidate picked from primaries? We'll have to wait and see.

Personally, I prefer Obama to Hillary so far.

[shinji]

Originally Posted by tie

The Democrat field is pretty strong, actually

Not to me and many Americans. It seems like with either party you just get a centrist wobbling back and forth who breaks campaign promises and life goes on. I completely agree with Rumor there ought to be more than two viable parties.

I can't see voting for any of the Democratic candidates, and I don't want to vote for Giuliani. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way.

[Big Mac]

It has to be stated that any American who thinks the Democrats do a better job with the economy is a grade-A moron.

Either way though, the White House will remain Republican after 2008. The top two Democrats are so far away from ever being electable it's a huge joke.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by shinji 

Not to me and many Americans. It seems like with either party you just get a centrist wobbling back and forth who breaks campaign promises and life goes on. I completely agree with Rumor there ought to be more than two viable parties.

I can't see voting for any of the Democratic candidates, and I don't want to vote for Giuliani. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way.

I'd be happy to see a real centrist run. All the current canidates play partisan politics.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It has to be stated that any American who thinks the Democrats do a better job with the economy is a grade-A moron.

Either way though, the White House will remain Republican after 2008. The top two Democrats are so far away from ever being electable it's a huge joke.

I centainly hope not.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It has to be stated that any American who thinks the Democrats do a better job with the economy is a grade-A moron.

Either way though, the White House will remain Republican after 2008. The top two Democrats are so far away from ever being electable it's a huge joke.

I love you guys!

In the face of the realities that are the pretty clear and lopsided polls, your bluster and wishful thinking prevail!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It has to be stated that any American who thinks the Democrats do a better job with the economy is a grade-A moron.

Republican dictionary.

grade-A moron: Someone who accepts clear facts, e.g., that Democrats do a better job with the economy (see: economic growth, deficits, unemployment, etc., throughout modern American history). cf biological evolution, creationism.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It has to be stated that any American who thinks the Democrats do a better job with the economy is a grade-A moron.

Where do you get this from? Comparing Bush to Clinton? LOL.

[tie]

Originally Posted by shinji 

Not to me and many Americans. It seems like with either party you just get a centrist wobbling back and forth who breaks campaign promises and life goes on. I completely agree with Rumor there ought to be more than two viable parties.

There are important issues where there are huge differences. Like Iraq, for example. If you don't really care about Iraq, then maybe the parties look pretty similar -- but then why are you voting in the first place? (But what do I know? The current situation in Iraq was completely predictable at the last election, and Bush was reelected.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I'd be happy to see a real centrist run.

What, just for the fun of knowing who's going to lose the whole time? Partisan bullshit is the new pink, baby.

[BRussell]

They're all centrists from what I can tell.

[besson3c]

Looking at my graph:



I'm surprised that people feel better about Republicans when it comes to moral values and homeland security in light of all of the political scandals and wiretapping stuff.

[Sky Captain]

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary

This is why people feel better about Republicans.
Or should I say, are scared of the two socialist/Marxists running.

Gulliani is a Democrat masquerading as a Republican.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Looking at my graph: I'm surprised that people feel better about Republicans when it comes to moral values and homeland security in light of all of the political scandals and wiretapping stuff.

I kinda thought the same thing on the moral values thing and in light of the Homeland Security issue, it should be noted that most Americans do not oppose the current measures of tapping phone calls and emails between Americans and "suspected terrorists".

The fact that Americans truly feel the Democrats would do a better job with taxes and immigration just proves how disappointed the public was at the failures of the dominant Republican House and Senate the past several years. These latest poll results have changed substantially since 2002. I'm more inclined to believe the American public hasn't a clue who to trust anymore.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm more inclined to believe the American public hasn't a clue who to trust anymore.

That's an easy answer. None of them. They will say whatever it is they think they want the public to hear in order to gain favor. Once they get into the position of power, they default on the majority of thier promises for "change".

[Sky Captain]

After the democrats took control of congress, I thought for sure the Patriot Act would end.
It didn't.
I'm sadly disappointed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

After the democrats took control of congress, I thought for sure the Patriot Act would end.
It didn't.
I'm sadly disappointed.

Both Democrats and Republicans are restricted by the votes they get or don't get. At this point, it seems impossible to get certain things done so long as politicians are playing games and sticking to their guns for purely political purposes.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

After the democrats took control of congress, I thought for sure the Patriot Act would end.
It didn't.
I'm sadly disappointed.

Same here. The Patriot Act was a load of crap.

A lot of things were promised, but with all the partisan crap going on, it's hard for either party to follow through (if they ever intended to in the first place).

[besson3c]

Sky Captain:

What don't you like about the Patriot Act, just out of curiosity? You've always come across as very pro-war hawk, maybe I read you wrong?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sky Captain:

What don't you like about the Patriot Act, just out of curiosity? You've always come across as very pro-war hawk, maybe I read you wrong?

There are aspects of the Patriot Act that shouldn't be construed as "pro-war hawk" and were actually very necessary, but the entire Act itself is a bit of an abuse IMO. For example;

- easing restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States. (good)
searching telephone and email communications including those not involving foreigners. (not so good)

- Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. (good)
Regulating financial transactions of those not involving "suspected" foreigners and searching medical and financial records of strictly US citizens. (not so good)

- Defining terrorism. (good)
Potentially very loose definitions of domestic terrorism. (not so good)

As I understand it, there were some important provisions made to better connect intel between the CIA and FBI. This is a good thing, but was the Patriot Act necessary to make this connection? Not so much.

[BadKosh]

The dem's will put their big dirty doggy-doo coated foot in their collective mouths within 3 weeks of election time and ruin their chances.

OPTION 2 - they will win, and be found to have been selling us out, and will be impeached, and removed, and moderates will be in charge. Muslim extremists will test/attack the new leadership and the moderate dems will fail the test. They will never hold office again.

OPTION 3 - a large meteor will strike earth, killing everybody, and we won't have to suffer thru any more Democratic presidencies.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sky Captain:

What don't you like about the Patriot Act, just out of curiosity? You've always come across as very pro-war hawk, maybe I read you wrong?

Even I don't want my home searched without notice or be labled a terrorist for some of my hobbies.
Imagine being labled suspicious because you purchased a small container of gunpowder to reload cartridges.

I am for a strong military. I did my time. I did my part in GWI.
But I know when something erodes my civil liberites.
I do not want my country to become a big brother state.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by osiris 

Early prediction: The Democrats will find a way to screw this up. I don't know how, who, etc...,

I can tell you how. They should have had both election in the bag. But they tried to put in a stiff puppet that no one liked the first time (Gore) and the second time, they got too cocky thinking "People will vote for anyone than Bush" and attempted to support a Congressman that had a history of very liberal voting.

In other words, they shot themselves in the foot. Instead of putting someone in there that the PEOPLE wanted, they attempted to put someone in that THEY wanted in.

(We all know whoever the main backers push, usually get it, The dems did their own spin with the Dean scream)

The reason Bush got into office for 8 years was not because he was such a great leader, like say Reagan. It was because the choices the Dems gave were CRAP. People figured they'd rather vote for the evil they know, than the evil they don't.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I certainly hope not.

What if he or she was a good republican president? I don't care who is what. I just want another good president. One that can actually speak his mind.

The last one we had was Reagan.

Clinton was just a spinmeister. I even voted for his ass. :/

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

Where do you get this from? Comparing Bush to Clinton? LOL.

Clinton had little to do with the economy.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I definitely agree. 2008 is the Democrat's to lose.

And boy are they up to that challenge! Yes, that's sarcasm. But the Dems have a long track record of being split over two major candidates and thus blowing any real opportunity to do something worthwhile. Frankly, while Obama is a new face, he hasn't really come up with new ideas, just some old ones that haven't gotten much past any convention in decades. Hillary is a harridan, and I think there's still way too much anti-Clinton sentiment in the country to get enough people behind her to get her elected on name and reputation alone (and that's good as far as I'm concerned). I'm not saying the Reps have anyone worth voting for by any means, but they may not have any real competition if the Dems wind up arm wrestling over who "their" candidate is the way they tend to do. It's very disappointing that so much marketing goes into the process and so little actual thought about what the process is all about.

Rumor said he's love to see a centerist candidate run. I second, third, and fourth that! Holy cow, has there even been a credible candidate that wasn't working on being more polar in the last 20 years?

[Def_ears]

RON PAUL, is the only man who can save this country!!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Def_ears 

RON PAUL, is the only man who can save this country!!

He's not electable. He is so attached to his ideology that he comes off as angry, abrasive, argumentative, and confrontational. For example, when asked what he thought about those who believe he's unelectable, he says;

"I'm not placing any bets, but to argue that I'm not electable is just trying to dismiss someone they don't want to hear from. It's more rhetoric than anything else."

Thanx Ron, but you're wrong and it's a good thing you're not placing any bets. On the contrary; I like hearing a lot of what he has to say, but feel he's unelectable because he's too argumentative, abrasive, angry, and confrontational. He's got two mouths and one ear. This will not work. While he might be a good candidate for his own talk show (as are most who like the sound of their own voice), he's not a viable candidate for President. If I even vote at all this time around, I'll likely not be wasting it on Ron Paul.

This would've been an excellent opportunity for him to show otherwise. He failed and will continue to fail in spite of his faithful online support here and abroad. Why? Again, one ear and two mouths.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Clinton had little to do with the economy.

... and everything to do with the current Iraq war, I'm sure you'll say. (Do you even call it a war? Aren't you the one person who defends Bush's Mission Accomplished speech?)

Clinton balanced the budget.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

... and everything to do with the current Iraq war, I'm sure you'll say. (Do you even call it a war? Aren't you the one person who defends Bush's Mission Accomplished speech?)

Clinton balanced the budget.

There are more than enough partisan talking points to go around. "Mission Accomplished" was not about the entire Iraq campaign. This has been explained six ways from Sunday. Have you read the speech yet? With so much to critique regarding this Administration, why people seize on this "Mission Accomplished" speech is beyond me.

It should also be noted that Newt Gingrich et. al have as much to do with having balanced the budget as the Clinton Administration. Republicans had submitted a plan to balance the budget in 7 years and were countered with a mediscare campaign. (interestingly, when tax cuts were proposed, there was a Social Security crisis. That is... until Bush Jr. tried to make the same claim.) Clinton submitted 5 budgets before finally matching the Republicans proposal and in fact the budget was balanced in four years. Why? Partly due to .com boom, the ending of the savings and loan crisis, and the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars in social spending proposals under Clinton were rejected. Of course, this is a good thing as the budget deficit came in over $600 billion below the Clintonomics proposed baseline. In 1993 he opposed the bipartisan Penny - Kasich plan to cut $100 billion from the budget. In 1994 he opposed the bipartisan Andrews - Zeliff A to Z spending-restraint plan. Early in 1995, the Clinton Administration lobbied Democratic Senators to oppose the Balanced Budget Amendment. Along with this were substantial military cuts, but also some welfare reform which took a lot of courage, but to give Clinton sole credit for having balanced the budget while denying the GOP contribution through the "Contract with America" and other items showing the push of Congress behind this issue is to either show a woeful lack of long-term memory or speaking only to those 25 and under.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

... and everything to do with the current Iraq war,
I'm sure you'll say.

Nope, though he did say that was what needed to be done. Why would I blame Clinton?

(Do you even call it a war?

Of course I do. Why wouldn't I?

Aren't you the one person who defends Bush's Mission Accomplished speech?)

No, I am one of the many people that knew what he meant. And not one of the handfuls that tried to spin it. I'f you'd like to talk about that instance make a new thread and I'd be glad to talk about it.

Clinton balanced the budget.

By cutting military and intelligence spending. w00t. Anyone could have done that. But most people would have known that would be a stupid thing to do. Esp after the first WTC attack.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are more than enough partisan talking points to go around. "Mission Accomplished" was not about the entire Iraq campaign. This has been explained six ways from Sunday.

Indeed it has.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No, I am one of the many people that knew what he meant. And not one of the handfuls that tried to spin it. I'f you'd like to talk about that instance make a new thread and I'd be glad to talk about it.

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended

A link to the transcript. If people actually read it they would realize that he was speaking about ending the Sadam dictatorship when he said "Mission accomplished." He also stressed in the SAME speech about the difficult times ahead in Iraq.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.)