Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[hectorberlioz]

Nurv, you gotta look up my link to the Hillary music video a few pages back. It's set to the music of some Jackson Five song. VERY amusing.

[The Gaffer]

Nader is at it again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7261670.stm

The odds on McCain just shortened.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

what an idiot

[hectorberlioz]

I don't get it. He had endorsed John Edwards. Obama isn't THAT much different... what's his problem?

Oh well, this can only help McCain, however marginally (and I'm thinking he's even more marginal this cycle).

[The Gaffer]

From what I read (second hand evidence therefore), Obama and Clinton are both significantly to the right of Edwards, or Nader indeed.

Still, McCain will be sniggering into his cornflakes this morning.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

From what I read (second hand evidence therefore), Obama and Clinton are both significantly to the right of Edwards, or Nader indeed.

I think that depends upon how you define "right". But, in general, you are correct.

The Nadar effect is too small to matter, as I think it was in 2004 and 2000 as well.

[Haradrim]

yeesh... Ralph Nader, as Obama has said, is a seminal figure in american politics. He is in fact partly responsible for Gore's loss in the 2000 election. For those who are curious Nader ran as a Green Party candidate. I mean seriously... I think Gore is probably Greener than the Green Party. Ralph Nader is one of the most arrogant and egocentric of all modern day policticians. I just cant respect a man who, while proclaiming to speak up for the small issues, is clearly out for only his own fame and recognition. Nader has always pretended to be the guy who is against politics as they are but in my opinion he's even worse.

Ive recently been working for the Obama campaign and I just have to say the stereotype. Its a refreshing change of pace. Its very centered around that they need every employee. Everyone is important in the campaign and everyone gets thanked at the end. Ive worked for a couple campaigns and its just awful. Obama brings something very new and very different. ive worked for Edwards, McCain, Clinton, Obama, and Romney and I just have to say that on a ground organizational level Obama has really got something going. As a note the reason i work for all these campaigns is I care less about who gets elected and more about everyone going out and voting.

[Mari]

Just read the article on Nader and I noticed that he is using the exact same words as the politicians in the opposition here concerning the current government: that they listen too much to the corporate world and don't care enough about "the people". Do you suppose they (the politicians uttering these words) think this will win "the people" for their cause? I don't know too much about American economics, but here the economy is finally getting better again.

[Haradrim]

I think what most of them are talking about are lobbying groups and other corporate companies which lobby congress towards passing laws that benefit only the companies instead of thinking about people. The thing is companies pretend they cant make their cars or plants more eco-friendly or create more jobs, but they have enough money where these things are possible. But the companies nickel and dime everything so they can afford to basically pay off congress to not pass laws against them. Im a big fan of big business but im not a fan of big business dictating my government.

[Nurvingiel]

For added context Mari, the American economy is in recession right now. (One might argue it's just heading into recession, but either way it's absolutely in the toilet.)

I don't think it's Ralph Nader's fault that Al Gore lost. If someone chooses to vote for someone other than you, it's your fault for not being good enough. I don't think I've ever heard Gore blame Nader, correct me if I'm wrong.

Hector, who do you like now in the race? You had such a great run-down of the candidates at the beginning of this thread I'm interested to hear you like/still like now.

[The Gaffer]

It's just too much of a coincidence that when Ross Perot ran as an independent rightwinger, the Republicans lost (Clinton vs Bush Sr was it?), whereas when Nader ran as an independent left-winger, the Democrats lost.

But people seem to be saying that he won't attract the same amount of support this time.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

For added context Mari, the American economy is in recession right now. (One might argue it's just heading into recession, but either way it's absolutely in the toilet.)

We'll see...I've heard a lot of about recession as well. But we can turn it around still...

I don't think it's Ralph Nader's fault that Al Gore lost. If someone chooses to vote for someone other than you, it's your fault for not being good enough. I don't think I've ever heard Gore blame Nader, correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually it is his fault. Not that I'm sad about it or anything...

Hector, who do you like now in the race? You had such a great run-down of the candidates at the beginning of this thread I'm interested to hear you like/still like now.

McCain, for sure. Huckabee was really ticked me off...I don't know what it is about him. Perhaps his frivolity. He jokes WAY too much. He's more like a commentator than a Presidential candidate. McCain is the better of the two, by a lot.

Among the Dems, I'm over my "let's bash Hillary" phase, and I'm in my "let's stop Barack" phase. I really would prefer her as President than Obama. This adulatory swooning over Obama is really becoming insane. We had Michelle Obama telling us that "Barack will never let you get back to your lives as normal", that he'd "heal our souls"...it is kind of funny, but it's also aggravating. And it's not even possible: nobody from the political spectrum can heal ours souls, spiritual souls or political souls. It's one thing to pander on economics...but does anyone here seriously believe that Barack Obama, a human being who went to Harvard Law School (and incidentally was described as "a cold fish" by fellow HLS student Carol Platt Liebau) can unite the country in temperament, ideas...we're all going to be swaying our arms singing kumbaya?

No thanks. Give me Nixonian HRC any day. She may not be experienced herself, but at least she has a husband who was POTUS, and knows the ropes.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's just too much of a coincidence that when Ross Perot ran as an independent rightwinger, the Republicans lost (Clinton vs Bush Sr was it?), whereas when Nader ran as an independent left-winger, the Democrats lost.

The independent thing is actually more of a symptom then a cause. You tend to see independents run when there is discontent with the current state of the party (generally of the sitting president but not always). Because theres more discontent for Republicans then Democrats this year Im sure Nader's candidacy will be meaningless. And the radical shift of a McCain candidacy might be enough to keep an independent from popping up on the conservative side.

The real cause of the demise of Gore was not Nader necessarily but the many many democrats who were turned off by Clinton and/or who bought into the “compassionate conservative” nonsense and voted for Bush. So to blame Nader for Gore’s loss (despite it being technically true in Florida) shows a sense of denial. Clinton and the swing democrats demand more of the blame.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

We had Michelle Obama telling us that "Barack will never let you get back to your lives as normal", that he'd "heal our souls"...it is kind of funny, but it's also aggravating.

If he doesn't get to president, there's a bright future for him as a TV preacher, then.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You tend to see independents run when there is discontent with the current state of the party (generally of the sitting president but not always).

Sounds like the stage is really set for a stalking horse Republican spoiler candidtate. Clueless and inept incumbent, controversial front-runner not liked by conservatives.

Hector, you doing anything next November?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sounds like the stage is really set for a stalking horse Republican spoiler candidtate. Clueless and inept incumbent, controversial front-runner not liked by conservatives.

Hector, you doing anything next November?

Only if you run for Official Jester of England.

[Haradrim]

The reason i believe Nader to be the reason Gore lost is he was running as a Green Party Candidate whose primary objective is to be environmentally friendly.... and seriously folks when you think environment i guaruntee Gore is in the top 3 if not first person you think of. He wasnt running because he thought a candidate didnt support the right issues, he was running because he is Ralph nader and is an egotistical moron. Sure he did great things years ago but since then he has actually hurt the same causes he pretends to be supporting. And if Nader hadnt run Ill bet you good money Gore would have recieved at least 954 more votes than Bush in Florida.


Also lets not forget that Gore won the popular vote. So its not a matter of people being more upset with the Democrats that year, it was a matter of the electoral college and Nader made it so that Florida, a very green state, was not won by the man it should have been won by.

I've always thought personally there should be two rounds of elections. One to find the top two candidates and then a second round where there are only two candidates. That way one of those two does get the majority share and consituiences cant be split in two by egomaniacs.

I will say that Gore brought a lot of negativity on him by associating himself so much with Clinton. he should have pushed farther away than he did and relied on what he did as a vice president. He was a fantastic VP and it saddens me to this day that he did not get the opportunity he should have to be the president of this United States.

To the election at hand I have to say that our country does need cleansing in its political systems and even if Obama cannot clear the corruption the mere fact that we have a president who is willing to try is a great step for us. We need to bring optimism, and a search for a better state of living back to this country. Right now we seem more inclined to accept what we have and deal with it. But thats not right. We shouldnt deal with corruption, and deceit. We need to help the helpless, and bring order and unity to our country and, with the help of other foreign nations of course, the rest of the world. I mean seriously, people in Darfur die in Genocide, something we pledged to stop from happening, and yet we do little to nothing to try and prevent it. What happened to our moral compass. If Barack Obama wants to try and find it again, even if he can't, I welcome that change.

[Nurvingiel]

Haradrim you make some very good points. I think it's a shame Gore didn't get to be president either. (I mean, look what happened. )

Originally Posted by Haradrim

He wasnt running because he thought a candidate didnt support the right issues, he was running because he is Ralph nader and is an egotistical moron.

Giant ego aside, people generally seem to hate Nader because he has the nerve to run for election in a two party system. What exactly is wrong with that?

Originally Posted by Haradrim

Sure he did great things years ago but since then he has actually hurt the same causes he pretends to be supporting.

Why doesn't the Green party choose a leader who isn't, as it seems, universally loathed?

Originally Posted by Haradrim

Also lets not forget that Gore won the popular vote. So its not a matter of people being more upset with the Democrats that year, it was a matter of the electoral college and Nader made it so that Florida, a very green state, was not won by the man it should have been won by.

In this case, why not change the electoral system so that the President is elected by the popular vote? It would still be democratic, of course.

Originally Posted by Haradrim

I've always thought personally there should be two rounds of elections. One to find the top two candidates and then a second round where there are only two candidates. That way one of those two does get the majority share and consituiences cant be split in two by egomaniacs.

This is also not a bad idea. I still think the Democrats should have let Stephen Colbert run in his home state.



Obama does seem like the guy to give your political system a much-needed shot in the arm.

[The Gaffer]

Good stuff, Haradrim.

One thing one might say in Nader's defence, from this distance, it does (or did) seem as if there is not really much to choose between the Dems and the Repugs. Both are pretty much centre-right parties, or were, before Bush and Cheney lurched into neo-con territory. So if you are a proper left-winger, there is no-one to vote for.

The "green vote" is a bit of a fickle one, I think, a bit like the fundy Christian vote. Those who are motivated by it generally have quite a sophisticated understanding of the issues. A lot of them thought (and still think) that Kyoto was watered down and insufficient. So Gore didn't necessarily appear as much of a "green" choice for them.

We have to remember that there was far less wide acceptance of climate change back then, and Gore hadn't made his transformation into Mr Environment.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Only if you run for Official Jester of England.

Deal. Since Screaming Lord Sutch died there has been a vacuum at the heart of British politics.

Actually, I think the job's already taken

[hectorberlioz]

Lord Sutch eh? Sounds like a comedian's name alright...

An interesting opinion on George H.W. Bush.