The Official US President Election Thread

[Insidious Rex]

I didn't think Kerry was the most electable candidate (a stiff Massachusetts liberal!), but the polling evidence is hard to ignore.

Im wondering if he truly is the most electable candidate though. Exit pollings from Wisconsin showed that something like 40% of the voters were actually independent or republican and that Edwards actually pulled the highest percentage of these voters. Well now that’s something. I would think this election is all about getting the middle ground voters. Those independent and disenchanted republicans who find a given democrat palatable enough to vote for (at least to stay home for) rather then vote against. The election is going to come down to tightly divided states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and (of course) Florida and having even a minor migration of conservative voters toward a democratic candidate could prove to be the winning margin.

I agree that the primary season has been a blessing for Democrats.

And Im pretty sure the powers that be in the democratic king making club are pleased with the better showing by Edwards. Not because they necessarily want him to be the democratic nominee but because this makes the competition for the nomination continue on a little longer and thereby keep the focus on them and on trashing the republicans as they have been doing so well for the past few months or so. As long as it’s a horse race, they can attract the countries attention.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

And the latest polls show either Kerry or Edwards with double digit leads over Bush. Helped enormously, of course, with Republican foot-in-mouth disease (poor State of the Union address, waffling over "Where was George?" in the National Guard, numbers of new jobs estimates, economic advisers happy about job outsourcing, etc.
And I'm a totally objective person (not!).

The Vice Presidential pick (assuming Kerry is nominee) will be interesting, and difficult. A number of candidates have different plusses and minuses, including:
Wesley Clark (helps with veterans and South)
John Edwards (dynamic speaker vis-a-vis Chaney in debate, some help in South)
Governor Richardson (New Mexico), helps in West with hispanic voters in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and in Florida
Nancy Pilosi helps with Cal. liberals and women, but California a Democratic lock anyway
Dick Gephardt helps in Midwest and with unions (important in West Virginia and Ohio)

And one guy I like, but is from New York so would be two Northeastern liberals, Charlie Wrangel, personable African-American from New York City.

[Insidious Rex]

Well Nader is officially entering the dance. So what are your thoughts? If you are a democrat are you furious at him? I think it only really matters depending what state you are in. And i seriously doubt he will get even a fraction of the votes he carried 4 years ago.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

He'll probably have little effect. While I like the idea of a Green Party (as in continental Europe) in practice in first-past-the-post electorates like the U. S. and U. K. it's very difficult for third parties. Just look at the lack of representation for The Liberal Democrats in the U.K., much less then the vote % they get.

I also heard a rumor (it may be just that) that in 2000 the Republican Party quietly sponsored some pro-Nadir adds on television. Rather nasty, if true, but not illegal. They might do such a thing in 2004, given the obscene amount of money their chief fundraiser (and when not doing that, part-time president),
George II, has raised, including much $$$ from Cheney's Haliburton.
(And speaking of Halliburton)
------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton faces criminal probe
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, February 23, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon's investigation into allegations a Halliburton subsidiary may have overcharged for gasoline delivered to Iraq last year is now a criminal probe, the Pentagon said Monday.

"The Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of the Inspector General's office, is investigating allegations of fraud on the part of Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), including the potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Baghdad by a KBR subcontractor," a Pentagon statement said.

[Lizra]

Nadar waited too long to be taken seriously. (IMO) I'm a Democrat, but I think most people will just ignore him at this late date. Well, he'll make it more interesting maybe.

[Ben]

I'm proud of Kerry so far. He hasn't let any Bush attack go unanswered, and he's gone on the offensive himself.

Here's some potential VP's I've seen mentioned.
John Edwards - The guy's a great campaigner, but what else does he bring to the table? Naming him would be boring at this point because everyone expects it.

Bill Richardson - Hispanic Governor of NM. He would solidify NM and help in the entire Southwest, and could make the difference in Florida. He has publically declined the position, though.

Mary Landrieu - Senator from Louisiana. Southern, female, attractive, moderate. She could help put Louisiana in play.

Robert Rubin - Clinton's Treasury Secretary would be a symbol of the economic boom during the Democrats' reign.

Eliot Spitzer - NY Attorney General. Famous for getting tough on corporate abuse.

Max Cleland - Disabled former GA Senator. Smeared by the GOP in the 2002 campaign, and compatible with Kerry. But do we need two Vietnam vets?

Wesley Clark - Again, another national security ticket.

Evan Bayh - Popular senator could swing Indiana the Dems' way, but he might be too centrist for some people's tastes.

Bob Graham - Popular in Florida but eccentric and boring. I think Richardson could do more in Florida than Graham. Bill Nelson, the other FL Senator, is a possibility but similarly dull.

Dick Gephardt - Boring! I don't think he guarantees Missouri at all.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by bmilder
Dick Gephardt - Boring! I don't think he guarantees Missouri at all.
_________________________
But he would also help in West Virginia, Ohio, and Florida (esp. with union members, and teacher unions are important in all three states.

But it would be interesting to consider Kerry-Clark or Kerry-Cleland for the subliminal messages sent by two war heroes and volunteers vs. two, shall we say, draft challenged Republicans.
Of course, Cheney has observed he had other priorities then being in South Viet Nam.

But Mary Landrieu is a very interesting candidate.

If Edwards or Clark had the nomination I would have liked to see Charlie Wrangel (New York) as v-p.

P.S. For a read or how deceptive the Republican ad efforts are check this on how they've tried to get tv stations to use commercials as "news" on prescriptions:
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...&_mpc=news%2e6

[Ornelírë Mistë]

As for Nader, I think he just got in the election to divert votes. Gore lost of 500 something in Florida, where Nader got nearly 80,000 or something.

[Insidious Rex]

Robert Rubin?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon's investigation into allegations a Halliburton subsidiary may have overcharged for gasoline delivered to Iraq last year is now a criminal probe, the Pentagon said Monday.

"The Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of the Inspector General's office, is investigating allegations of fraud on the part of Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), including the potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Baghdad by a KBR subcontractor," a Pentagon statement said.

Wow. Isn't it interesting that there's not a cheep about this on network news yet they went bonkers for Monica and Bill?

[Insidious Rex]

Well Halliburton has definitely become quite a joke among americans and in fact Cheney's credibility has really been shaken because of his connections with Halliburton and a few other sleazy things like the fact that he went duck hunting with the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT who may be handling a case against him soon enough and who now refuses to recuse himself from said case. Pretty unforgivible in my opinion and a lot of people here think pretty lowly of him now and theres even been talk of Bush dropping him as VP but I dont see that happening. That would probably hurt Bush even more then just having Cheney as VP if his conservative backers see him as unfaithful or wishy washy. So expect Cheney to remain as a strong symbol of republican corrupt croneyism and special treatment of the well connected throught out the presidential campaign. Its definitely one of the easiest targets the democrats have at this point.

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Well Halliburton has definitely become quite a joke among americans and in fact Cheney's credibility has really been shaken because of his connections with Halliburton and a few other sleazy things like the fact that he went duck hunting with the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT who may be handling a case against him soon enough and who now refuses to recuse himself from said case.

And don't forget Kerry's recent open microphone "gaffe" that upset the Republicans -- when Kerry claimed to some supporters that the President's Republican handlers are a "crooked" bunch. For some reason, Republican leadership got bent out of shape by that remark, but I haven't heard Kerry recant it (good for him!) It's refreshing to have a politician that isn't afraid to call things as he sees them. And Kerry doesn't assume that the general population of the United States is stupid, either!

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
...and a few other sleazy things like the fact that he went duck hunting with the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT ...

I thought he went with Scalia... he's not Chief Justice, is he?

[Valandil]

Seems like most posters here lately have been of the 'liberal / Democrat' variety. I hope I won't subject myself to TOO much abuse if I speak up in favor of the 'conservative / Republican' pov... it'd be a shame if we polarized ourselves over these things every four years.

Just some things to consider though:

honesty / crookedness / corruption / sleaze: What's naive, I think, is to believe that either faction corners the market on this. I acknowledge that the Bush administration has some problems there - and I don't like it. However, the Clinton administration did too. Which was worse? Your answer usually depends on whose 'side' you're on. Some here in Chicago (Kerry's comments were made in my very own neighborhood, btw! ) think it's quite ironic that he would say what he did about the Republicans in a city with an intractable, very corrupt, long-enduring, self-propagating Democratic administration.

negative campaigning: Again, happens both ways. When 'your' side does it, you tend to see it as 'true'... when the 'other side' does it, it's 'negative'... and again, don't go whining if the Bush campaign strikes hard at Kerry after his comments. If you have a web site that shows how bad THEIR side lies, I'm sure there's another that shows how bad YOUR side lies.

wmd's in Iraq: Frankly, I think it's silly to claim that Bush lied to us about this. The Clinton administration was also convinced that Iraq had wmd's (yet wouldn't do anything about it), so did the UN (ditto). If anything, Iraq pretty well convinced the world they had them by their actions. I figure the most likely scenario is that Saddam Hussein even thought he had wmd's... he had a program, but that the scientists on the project had little success, and felt they needed to lie to Hussein and say that they had them... to admit they were having problems would have been... unpopular. Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have been liberated from a horribly oppressive regime and the extremist trouble-makers are occupied in Iraq... instead of over here.

economy / jobs: I think this is 90% cyclical and beyond the reach of a presidential administration or congress. It just happens. Reagan caught an up-turn in the early-mid 80's (EDIT: after Carter had to suffer through the late 70's), Bush Sr. was President during the ensuing downturn, then Clinton caught a nice wave in the 90's. This current downturn had already started before Clinton left office. It was worsened by the Sept 11th attacks, most likely. Recovery is now under way... and it's slow, and jobs lag behind it, but that's part of the pattern. Most employers want to be SURE that demand for their products will continue to rise before they hire more staff... because staffing incurs expenses (Paul Tsongas made a great observation in '92 while running for the Democrats... to the effect that, 'we Democrats have always been pro-employment but anti-employer'). (EDIT: oh - and 'NAFTA' - now a dirty word in Democratic Campaign circles, may well be a mixed bag (not all bad) but remember that it was passed overwhelmingly in about 1993 by BOTH Democrats and Republicans with Clinton signing it into law!)

Frankly, I think the recovery is well along... and that WHICHEVER candidate wins this election will receive undue credit for turning things around.

media: Generally far more liberal-leaning than the population at-large. What, something like 90% of Washington DC media vote Democrat?

ralph nader effect: Turn-about is fair play. Ross Perot sent Bill Clinton to the White House twice. If he hadn't picked up 19% in 1992, Clinton would have faded into obscurity... and President Bush Sr. would have been credited with the following economic recovery.

everything else: I don't know if it matters that much who is our president. Oh... one side will feel better about itself, the other will feel 'ripped off' - but it has all too little effect on your job and your life. Vote, yes... but don't start to hate or look down on those who vote the other way.

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by Valandil
Seems like most posters here lately have been of the 'liberal / Democrat' variety. I hope I won't subject myself to TOO much abuse if I speak up in favor of the 'conservative / Republican' pov... it'd be a shame if we polarized ourselves over these things every four years.

Just some things to consider though:

honesty / crookedness / corruption / sleaze: What's naive, I think, is to believe that either faction corners the market on this. I acknowledge that the Bush administration has some problems there - and I don't like it. However, the Clinton administration did too. Which was worse? Your answer usually depends on whose 'side' you're on. Some here in Chicago (Kerry's comments were made in my very own neighborhood, btw! ) think it's quite ironic that he would say what he did about the Republicans in a city with an intractable, very corrupt, long-enduring, self-propagating Democratic administration.[/B]

Comment by Beruthiel' cat: Of course neither side has an "advantage" here. Humans are prone to corruption in any venue -- politics, the workplace, school -- wherever they are that they are trying to make a mark or advance themselves. Some of the actions of leading Republicans are in the spotlight right now, however, and these actions should be addressed, not excused or swept under the carpet.

_____

[/B][/QUOTE]negative campaigning: Again, happens both ways. When 'your' side does it, you tend to see it as 'true'... when the 'other side' does it, it's 'negative'... and again, don't go whining if the Bush campaign strikes hard at Kerry after his comments. If you have a web site that shows how bad THEIR side lies, I'm sure there's another that shows how bad YOUR side lies.[/B][/QUOTE]

Comment by Beruthiel's cat: Negataive campaigning doesn't do anything to help anyone form informed opinions. It's devisive. And I know both sides engage in it, the classic "he said/he said" mudslinging. I personnally would like to see some action taken to curtail this practice, but that is unlikely, citing First Ammendment rights, etc.
One of the reasons I liked John Edwards was that he tried to take the high road and avoid this. He also has washed out of the running, unfortunately, probably due in part to this philosopy.

______

[/B][/QUOTE]wmd's in Iraq: Frankly, I think it's silly to claim that Bush lied to us about this. The Clinton administration was also convinced that Iraq had wmd's (yet wouldn't do anything about it), so did the UN (ditto). If anything, Iraq pretty well convinced the world they had them by their actions. I figure the most likely scenario is that Saddam Hussein even thought he had wmd's... he had a program, but that the scientists on the project had little success, and felt they needed to lie to Hussein and say that they had them... to admit they were having problems would have been... unpopular. Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have been liberated from a horribly oppressive regime and the extremist trouble-makers are occupied in Iraq... instead of over here.[/B][/QUOTE]

Comment by Beruthiel's cat: There was a lot of mis-information being thrown around about wmd and whether or not Saddam had a program in place and had a stockpile. The Clinton administration didn't take action on the information they had for whatever reason. The Bush administration chose to jump on it because, perhaps, of criticism of Bush Sr's administration not finishing the job during the Gulf War and deposing Saddam at that time. They should have been more thorough in their methods of information gathering. Was there a reason Hans Blix and his UN team were not finding anything? As we have since discovered, it was because there was nothing to find.

____

[/B][/QUOTE]economy / jobs: I think this is 90% cyclical and beyond the reach of a presidential administration or congress. It just happens. Reagan caught an up-turn in the early-mid 80's (EDIT: after Carter had to suffer through the late 70's), Bush Sr. was President during the ensuing downturn, then Clinton caught a nice wave in the 90's. This current downturn had already started before Clinton left office. It was worsened by the Sept 11th attacks, most likely. Recovery is now under way... and it's slow, and jobs lag behind it, but that's part of the pattern. Most employers want to be SURE that demand for their products will continue to rise before they hire more staff... because staffing incurs expenses (Paul Tsongas made a great observation in '92 while running for the Democrats... to the effect that, 'we Democrats have always been pro-employment but anti-employer'). (EDIT: oh - and 'NAFTA' - now a dirty word in Democratic Campaign circles, may well be a mixed bag (not all bad) but remember that it was passed overwhelmingly in about 1993 by BOTH Democrats and Republicans with Clinton signing it into law!)

Frankly, I think the recovery is well along... and that WHICHEVER candidate wins this election will receive undue credit for turning things around.[/B][/QUOTE]

Comment :by Beruthiel's cat The economy is a mess, and I must agree that the downturn started during the previous administration. However, what I see happening now is that the current administration favors Big Business by giving them disproportionate tax breaks, increasing the burden on the rapidly diminishing American middle class. My part-time job has been outsourced overseas, saving the company literally MILLIONS of dollars. Dollars passed on to shareholders. Meanwhile, my community suffers as more and more people become unemployed. I don't see the current administration coming up with any incentives for corporations to hire American workers. If the purpose of tax favors was to stimulate jobs, I don't see it happening. How long must we wait for this "trend" to reverse itself? My community (Rochester, NY) has been suffering this for a great deal longer than most of the rest of the country.

____

[[/B][/QUOTE]b]media:[/b] Generally far more liberal-leaning than the population at-large. What, something like 90% of Washington DC media vote Democrat?[/B][/QUOTE]

Comment by Beruthiel's cat: There's always Fox News. And PBS/NPR if you want REALLY balanced reporting.

_____

[/B][/QUOTE]ralph nader effect: Turn-about is fair play. Ross Perot sent Bill Clinton to the White House twice. If he hadn't picked up 19% in 1992, Clinton would have faded into obscurity... and President Bush Sr. would have been credited with the following economic recovery.[/B][/QUOTE]

Comment by Beruthiel's cat: There are always going to be spoilers. Show me what's so much better about your platform, Ralph, and maybe I'll think about it...

___

[/B][/QUOTE]everything else: I don't know if it matters that much who is our president. Oh... one side will feel better about itself, the other will feel 'ripped off' - but it has all too little effect on your job and your life. Vote, yes... but don't start to hate or look down on those who vote the other way. [/B][/QUOTE]

Final comment by Beruthiel's cat: So, there's my soapbox comments for you. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, as long as we aren't disagreeable about it!

[Valandil]

Poor Kerry... I saw where he just got Howard Stern's endorsement!

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by Valandil
Poor Kerry... I saw where he just got Howard Stern's endorsement!

Well, there goes the neighborhood! LOL!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
Poor Kerry... I saw where he just got Howard Stern's endorsement!

Gah! I can't stand Howard Stern!

[brownjenkins]

i think the president has more power to do harm than good these days... bush is much too confrontational and inconsiderate of the world around him... which is not too surprising given his upbringing

kerry's isn't much better, but hopefully he gained at least a touch of reality from his vietnam experiences

federal debt is also a major issue, no matter how unexciting... and gwb has already proven that he has no concern for it whatsoever... even republicans are upset about this

a democratic president and congress that remains in republican control would be the best solution in my eyes

[Janny]

Aren't the implications of Kerry winning really far reaching?
The Spanish Premier is gone and Blair will go in 2005, the Tories will be rubbish (Michael Hoqward is BAD) but Blair won't make it. If Kerry gets in then the face of international politics changes dramatically towards anti-war. Blair will be isolated and lose (more likely than if Bush wins).
With the major pro-war leaders gone it seems likely that terrorism may slow. However, what will happen if it doesn't? What if, like on Sept. 11, an essentially isolationist government is in power? How can it respond to terrorism which makes no demands? The US wasn't dabbling in middle-east politics (comparitively) in 2001. What will happen with passive governments. What possible action is there besides what the coalition is doing?
What is Kerry promising? Will he just continue spying on Al-Qiada and pre-empting attacks, while avoiding involvment in the Middle East?