2008 Elections look kind of iffy for the candidates.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:46 am

2008 Presidential Election 2008 Democratic Candidates 2008 Republican Candidates

Suppose this is 100% true and any one of them in that list is going to be a candidate, that is making me quite nervous.

For one, some of them I recognize and I don't like, others I don't know a thing about. Some I don't even want to see as potentially candidates, so this is getting me kind of uneasy.

I will say though, Rudy Giuliani I can at least respect more than any of the ones I know on that list and if he is to be the next candidate for presidency, I would most definitely vote for him. Of course, I would still at least study him and the other candidate(s).

Anyways, simple thread, if any of those were the candidates, who would you vote for and why? (I realize this might turn into a political debate, but lets try and keep this civil with the recent happenings and all)

Dowaco · Post by **Dowaco** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:54 pm

Make that two votes for Rudy G.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:47 pm

I should be president, screw those people.

slade · Post by **slade** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:51 pm

[QUOTE=Magrus]I should be president[/quote]
your votes just went up
[quote="Magrus] screw those people.

[/QUOTE"]

your votes just went back down:laugh:

jippitys preist · Post by **jippitys preist** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:49 pm

John Walsh, good to know he is on your side.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:59 pm

The 2008 elections aren't going to be the interesting ones. It's the 2012 elections which will be the truly interesting ones. 2008 is just going to be stupidity squared in a booth.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:47 am

Me thinks all elections look iffy... All the candidates are - politicians!

When it comes to the US, I'm actually hoping for some more down to earth second amendment action. Here we have a huge civil service bureaucracy that effectively stops any bad political desicions from having any effect... actually I think it stops any decisions from having effect. We're currently exporting this concept on a wholesale basis to the EU.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:12 am

Silur, I never realized I liked you so much.

Honestly. I think it's going to come down to McCain and Clinton with McCain winning by a landslide.

The big shift in Congress is going to make people expect some serious results in 2 years. Two years isn't enough time to get serious results and espescially not under this administration. There will be a very mild anti-dem sentiment and many of the swing voters will go to McCain. McCain's biggest problem(that he doesn't appeal much to fundies and the far right base) will be offset by the fact that no conservative would even pee on Hillary Clinton if she were fully engulfed in flames.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:21 pm

Something like that yes. As Fable has stated before, this shift in congress will amount to nothing, and so nothing will change in the next 6 years besides people becoming more and more upset. Whether people actually do anything in 2012 is the real question. 2008 is going to just be leading to more idiocy and destruction around the world.

Philos · Post by **Philos** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:06 pm

@Mag,

As Fable has stated before, this shift in congress will amount to nothing, and so nothing will change in the next 6 years besides people becoming more and more upset.

That's the most likely scenario to be sure. The Dems will say at first we couldn't get anything done with GWB still in office. The Reps will counter with the typical all the good plans we were trying to complete were undermined by all the new Dems in congress. Whoever is elected for president in 2008 will be more focused on making sure they get two terms and will therefore play it safe (read: make no big changes that might actually do something because it will undoubtedly be jumped on by the other side).

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:08 pm

Philos wrote:That's the most likely scenario to be sure. The Dems will say at first we couldn't get anything done with GWB still in office.

Which is actually true, and which is why I said earlier that the worst thing for them was winning congress this year.

The Reps will counter with the typical all the good plans we were trying to complete were undermined by all the new Dems in congress.

No way. They've been rubberstamping every federal initiative, and they don't want to be associated with albatross-Dubya by speaking about "plans." They'll just say the Dems can't govern, don't know what they want, and betrayed the confidence put in them by the American public. Oh, and that they're immoral and cowards. SOP for the Republicans since Gingrich gave them a line in the mid 90s, really.

Whoever is elected for president in 2008 will be more focused on making sure they get two terms and will therefore play it safe (read: make no big changes that might actually do something because it will undoubtedly be jumped on by the other side).

I beg to differ. Remember, the general perception in the US is that this is a failed presidency. All the polls have said this. So whomever comes in will deliberately try to make a huge splash and change things. The question is only how. In either case, Republicans or Dems, I think it will fall waaay short of what needs to do be done to make the US a representative democracy, a bastion of economic stability, a nation that cares about its poor and elderly, or restore its credibility with the rest of the world. The whole governmental system has to crack wide open before that can happen, IMO, and that will simply never happen.

Philos · Post by **Philos** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:15 pm

No way. They've been rubberstamping every federal initiative, and they don't want to be associated with albatross-Dubya by speaking about "plans." They'll just say the Dems can't govern, don't know what they want, and betrayed the confidence put in them by the American public. Oh, and that they're immoral and cowards. SOP for the Republicans since Gingrich gave them a line in the mid 90s, really.

I see your point, that is probably the more likely course.

I beg to differ. Remember, the general perception in the US is that this is a failed presidency. All the polls have said this. So whomever comes in will deliberately try to make a huge splash and change things.

While I agree with you regarding people seeing this as a failed presidency and that the candidates will certainly "talk a great game" about making big changes, I just don't believe they will really make any concerted effort at making the "big" changes until (IF) they win a second term. Little ones they believe they can make happen and then tout as major accomplishments, sure.

In either case, Republicans or Dems, I think it will fall waaay short of what needs to do be done to make the US a representative democracy, a bastion of economic stability, a nation that cares about its poor and elderly, or restore its credibility with the rest of the world. The whole governmental system has to crack wide open before that can happen, IMO, and that will simply never happen.

Absolutely no argument from me there. It took how long after 9/11 to get "back to business as usual"?

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 am

fable wrote:... restore its credibility with the rest of the world.

Speaking as a representative of the rest of the world, good luck on this one. My French delegate colleague says "Pfff!" ;-)

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:33 am

While I agree with you regarding people seeing this as a failed presidency and that the candidates will certainly "talk a great game" about making big changes, I just don't believe they will really make any concerted effort at making the "big" changes until (IF) they win a second term. Little ones they believe they can make happen and then tout as major accomplishments, sure.

I think what will most likely happen is a lot of phony bipartisanship on unimportant issues (such as the minimum wage) in the first two years to make the president look good, followed by agressive and sweeping changes that will make the president stand out as both a change maker and very different from W. These changes will be part of a plan that stretches into a second term so that the public feels obligated to elect him (or her, I suppose I should say in this case.. [wow, that feels different, not bad, but it's a definite first]) for a second term. The emphasis will go away from that project after the election and will go to making the party look good and promoting friends of the president.

No way. They've been rubberstamping every federal initiative, and they don't want to be associated with albatross-Dubya by speaking about "plans." They'll just say the Dems can't govern, don't know what they want, and betrayed the confidence put in them by the American public. Oh, and that they're immoral and cowards. SOP for the Republicans since Gingrich gave them a line in the mid 90s, really.

This is very true. Only politicians with incredibly conservative constituencies can even risk being seen talking to W now. And that's even being tested in some places(I point to Utah as an example).

I must say that while I don't think they are cowards or immoral, I tend to agree that many of the newest Dems in congress won't know how to govern, don't know what they want(or can't get such lofty goals), and will partially betray that trust by means of not being able to deliver on the unrealistic expectations they set(though this is the way of politicians).

Now that Vilsack is completely in, does anyone have any opinions about him? I'm from Iowa, but I have been out of the state for all but about 6 months of his time in office. A moderate democrat that I know who lives in Iowa now is not thrilled with him, but doesn't seem to hate him. I really know less than I should. Not that I think he has a chance, but I always thought that if someone from Iowa ran, I would vote for him. I'm starting to rethink that now.