US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Evo]

If Obama wins the nomination, he would be far better-off to choose Edwards as a running mate as opposed to Clinton, IMO. She has very high negatives and a lot of baggage, and could easily sink his chances in the general election. He could even show some political savvy and persuade Gore to take the VP slot once again. With Gore's environmental credentials, that pairing would be very tough to beat.

Gore on the ticket would push me to vote for McCain. I think Gore is creepy. Just a gut feeling.

 

[turbo]

Tuesday is going to be a lot more interesting with Edwards out of the race. I expect that many people who would otherwise have voted for him will break for Obama, boosting his candidacy. When people support a candidate in a primary, they may be voting with their hearts, they may be voting strategically, trying to nominate the person who will be most electable in the general election, and they may simply be holding their noses and voting for the least-objectionable candidate. I believe that the Edwards people in the last two categories will end up in the Obama camp on Tuesday and give the Clintons some surprises.

 

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile - As Rudolph W. Giuliani ponders his political mortality, many observers point to the hubris and strategic miscalculations that plagued his campaign.

For Giuliani, a Dizzying Free-Fall
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30giuliani.html

Rudolph W. Giuliani’s campaign for the Republican nomination for president took impressive wing last year, as the former mayor wove the pain experienced by his city on Sept. 11, 2001, and his leadership that followed into national celebrity. Like a best-selling author, he basked in praise for his narrative and issued ominous and often-repeated warnings about the terrorist strike next time.

Voters seemed to embrace a man so comfortable wielding power, and his poll numbers edged higher to where he held a broad lead over his opponents last summer. Just three months ago, Anthony V. Carbonetti, Mr. Giuliani’s affable senior policy adviser, surveyed that field and told The New York Observer: “I don’t believe this can be taken from us. Now that I have that locked up, I can go do battle elsewhere.”

In fact, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign was about to begin a free fall so precipitous as to be breathtaking. Mr. Giuliani finished third in the Florida primary on Tuesday night; only a few months earlier, he had talked about the state as his leaping-off point to winning the nomination.

I think he was a bit presumptuous, and he was not listening to the right people.

 

[Astronuc]

If Obama wins the nomination, he would be far better-off to choose Edwards as a running mate as opposed to Clinton, IMO. She has very high negatives and a lot of baggage, and could easily sink his chances in the general election.

I agree. Bill's influence would be detrimental.

He could even show some political savvy and persuade Gore to take the VP slot once again. With Gore's environmental credentials, that pairing would be very tough to beat.

Yeesh! I hope not. Gore's got baggage, too. I not so sure about his environmental credentials. Call me cynical.

 

[turbo]

I just finished listening to today's edition of Democray Now and Amy Goodman interviewed a Florida journalist and a Giuliani biographer. The fellow from Florida said that Rudy came into the state with great poll numbers, but the more voters saw of him, the less they liked him, and many became alarmed by his pro-war rhetoric. He talked about setting Iran's nuclear program back at least 5 years, and sid if he was President, he would "take out" governments of countries that harbor terrorists. Most people are sick of all the violence in the ME, but not Rudy.

 

[turbo]

Yeesh! I hope not. Gore's got baggage, too. I not so sure about his environmental credentials. Call me cynical.

Well, I'm pretty cynical about politicians, too, which is why I'm an Independent and can't commit to either of the major parties. One thing about Gore, though, is that unlike Cheney, he probably wouldn't hold secret meetings with oil-company execs and lobbyists to set energy policy and environmental policy. I'd put up with a lot to get the oil companies out of policy-making.

 

[lisab]

Both Clinton and Obama would be wise to choose someone like General Wesley Clark as a running mate. Especially if McCain is the Republican nominee.

OK I'll make it official: I'm calling it. Wes Clark will be the VP nominee.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- Former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination on Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

[Astronuc]

An aide said Edwards does not plan to endorse either Clinton or Obama at this time but he may do so in the future.

from the CNN article cited by Ivan. I heard the same news on NPR this afternoon.

 

[DeadWolfe]

Gore on the ticket would push me to vote for McCain. I think Gore is creepy. Just a gut feeling.

You don't find McCain creepy? He's the only candidate who appears to like war.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You don't find McCain creepy? He's the only candidate who appears to like war.

McCain scares the hell out of me in much the same way that Perot did - he seems to be a bit of a loose cannon. I would take him over Bush, but that ain't saying much.

Never hand the reins of civilization to an old man.

 

[turbo]

Yep, a man who says that 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. We need a new kind of administration that doesn't dream up military "solutions" to every situation, with a strong Secretary of State who understands the difference between negotiating and issuing ultimatums. I would like to see a man like William Cohen in that critical job, though Bill Richardson would probably do a good job.

 

[Astronuc]

Is Romney Fighting the Last War?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/isromneyfightingthelastwar

From the start, Mitt Romney had a clear strategy for winning the White House. He would run as the candidate of the ideological establishment, the Republican old-guard, the coalition of Ronald Reagan, with that three-legged stool of social, fiscal and national security conservatism. He would become the inside man in a presidential field filled with outsiders.

So Romney played in nearly every early straw poll, and pandered to each conservative demographic. He joined the NRA. He talked tough on illegal immigrants, and became a crusader against gay marriage. "Strength" was his watchword. With an impressive gallery of high-profile endorsements, he was the only Republican candidate who seemed to be on the right side of nearly every issue for the plurality of the old GOP coalition.

And yet, his candidacy sputtered. His narrow loss Tuesday to John McCain in Florida was just the latest in a series of disappointments that began in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states where he had outspent his rivals and once led in the polls. His failures have many causes, which will be raked over by historians. But they also suggest a broader shift: Romney may be running to lead a Republican Party that no longer exists.

Well - perhaps politicians should stop pandering.

 

[turbo]

The hard-line conservatives in the Republican party will not be well-motivated by either McCain, who often takes positions contrary to theirs, or by Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts seemed to be for everything he is now so vehemently against. If the Dems want to win the general election, they should nominate Obama, who seems to be able to motivate people, especially young voters. Much of the Republican base will not be well-motivated by either of the two front-runners, which could benefit Obama.

If Clinton wins the nomination, conservative Republicans will soon lose their aversion to McCain or Romney and will turn out in droves simply to prevent a Clinton win. The Republican attack machine will swift-boat her with ads about Whitewater, her billing records at the Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster's suicide, Bill's philandering, etc, and turn off as many Democratic voters as possible. Expect the nastiest campaign in US history.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In watching McCain and Guiliani talk today, I can't help but think that when I think of 911, I will indeed always think of Guiliani taking command, not Bush. For that Guiliani will always have my respect.

 

[Astronuc]

With 'change' in mind, voters voice expectations for the next president
By NANCY BENAC and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-change

WASHINGTON (AP) — American voters have a decidedly negative view of how things are going in the country but they are confident that the next president will have the power to change much of what is wrong.

Some things, however, may be too much even for the president to change.

According to a new Associated Press-Yahoo! News survey, large majorities of voters believe the president has considerable sway on issues such as inflation, interest rates, the federal deficit, taxes and more. Fully three-quarters believe the president has at least some influence over health care costs. And 69 percent can see the president making gasoline prices go up or down.

They are less certain, though, about the president's ability to change how things really work in Washington: 55 percent think it's possible; 44 percent are doubtful, no matter who's elected.

Meanwhile - Bush 2009 budget to freeze many programs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_budget

WASHINGTON - President Bush's 2009 budget will virtually freeze most domestic programs and seek nearly $200 billion in savings from federal health care programs, a senior administration official said Thursday. The Bush budget also will likely exceed $3 trillion, this official said.

Perhaps days of austerity approach.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, I would love to see Obama take it, but I think it will be Clinton vs McCain.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Honestly, up until last night California debate watching I was convinced Romney had the lead and best chance for the Republican primaries. After the debate I am convinced otherwise for the Republican party.

Romney answered unexicitedly apprhensive with cautious tone and denial stricken guilt to question or delivered comment. Huckabee jumped the gun on the issues and is advertising heavy. Ron Paul is as plain as white bread. But John McCain has passionate honest sincerity built character challenged by no other candidate.

McCain's highest credintials are Romney's one of two regrets; military service. Was a "foot soldier during the Reagan Revolution", and to me, McCain is Top Gun.

 

[falc39]

What I don't understand in these elections is how the media was able to run away with a story of Ron Paul and his racist newsletters from 20 years ago, and yet be completely silent about another candidate's racism.

I mean John McCain, unlike Paul, has actually been recorded/witnessed with saying racist stuff in the past. Anyone remember his 'gook' comment?
"I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

Then, in a debate during this election, he actually made this comment:
“I don’t want to trade with them. All they want to trade is burkas.”

I mean, come on, how do you even get away with saying this? How can the media be so silent with this?

It's sad, but I can make a game of this. Here is my top five most ridiculous quotes from McCain:

1. "I wish interest rates were zero!"
2. "Make it 100!"
3. "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." (Would be #1 easily if he said it more recently)
4. "I don’t want to trade with them. All they want to trade is burkas."
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06hR2EGpl4o&feature=related"

I'm thinking of adding his http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDuirJaVzS8" somewhere on the list too.

 

[DeadWolfe]

I'm thinking of adding his http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDuirJaVzS8" somewhere on the list too.

His response to every question looks like that. Just like every politician.

 

[JoeTrumpet]

Does anyone else think Bill Richardson would be a great VP candidate for Obama (or Clinton, but I am personally hoping for Obama)? I think his plans were very fiscally responsible, something both candidates need considering their extraordinary plans. Also, his educational plans were very exciting to me, whereas Clinton and Obama don't exactly seem to have a clue about what to do with education other than increase funding--a haphazard solution, if you ask me.

 

[turbo]

Does anyone else think Bill Richardson would be a great VP candidate for Obama (or Clinton, but I am personally hoping for Obama)? I think his plans were very fiscally responsible, something both candidates need considering their extraordinary plans. Also, his educational plans were very exciting to me, whereas Clinton and Obama don't exactly seem to have a clue about what to do with education other than increase funding--a haphazard solution, if you ask me.

I think that he would make a great vice-president, but I would rather see him in charge of foreign affairs. If a Dem wins the presidency, Richardson should be on the VERY shortlist for Sec of State and be given a long leash. Bill Cohen would be my first pick, in this position, but not by any large margin.

 

[mheslep]

I mean John McCain, unlike Paul, has actually been recorded/witnessed with saying racist stuff in the past. Anyone remember his 'gook' comment?
"I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

You would do much better of course after being a POW for 5.5yrs and repeatedly tortured by your captors.

 

[Astronuc]

So Mitt Romney's solution to the federal debt is to expand the defense budget and freeze or lower spending on everything else. Romney apparently wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent.

Well then reduce government spending by 20%.

I think the Republicans believe in less for more, as in reduced government with larger budgets.


Meanwhile in California - Clinton and Obama are making nice.

Clinton, Obama Set New Tone in Democratic Debate
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18599483

Morning Edition, February 1, 2008 · Leaving behind the acrimony that marked an earlier on-stage encounter in South Carolina, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton held a cordial one-on-one debate Thursday at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood, Calif.

The rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination answered questions on health care, Iraq and even the possibility of an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket in the general election.

Obama set the tone with a far warmer approach than the candidates have been using in recent appearances on the campaign trial.

"I was friends with Hillary Clinton before we started this campaign," he said. "I will be friends with Hillary Clinton after this campaign is over."

 

[DeadWolfe]

You would do much better of course after being a POW for 5.5yrs and repeatedly tortured by your captors.

The fact he has an excuse for being crazy doesn't make any better of a president.

 

[mheslep]

The fact he has an excuse ... doesn't make any better of a president.

I don't say that he would be. He's a politician, mock him all you like for his policy positions, I suspect he can take it. I do say that smug posts of 'most ridiculous quotes' regarding the war time experiences of veteran POWs, esp. by those who don't have a clue, are more repugnant to me than what he actually said.

 

[mheslep]

So Mitt Romney's solution to the federal debt is to expand the defense budget and freeze or lower spending on everything else. Romney apparently wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent.

Well then reduce government spending by 20%.

I think the Republicans believe in less for more, as in reduced government with larger budgets.

Could you clarify? He says freeze or lower spending. Where does the 20% number come from? I you mean the tax cuts were 20%, I think that tax revenue correlate much better with economic growth and not tax rates.

 

[turbo]

I you mean the tax cuts were 20%, I think that tax revenue correlate much better with economic growth and not tax rates.

Tax revenue is a function of tax rate AND economic activity, and they cannot be considered separately.

Neocons would have us believe that when we cut tax rates, domestic economic activity surges, and the extra taxable activity offsets the revenue lost through the rate cut. That didn't work when Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy, and it didn't work when Bush did the same. It's simply sleight of hand to hand money to rich people and leave the rest of us to pay off the debt they created. There is very little fiscal conservatism evident in either of the major parties.

 

[mheslep]

Tax revenue is a function of tax rate AND economic activity, and they cannot be considered separately.

See http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart4_lg_1.gif" . There is some rate and revenue correlation but it is obviously small. The correlation between revenue and GDP is obviously large.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Taxes always increase. An effort made toward lowering taxes lowers currently expected tax rates.

Tax rates and budget spending restrict political debate topics concerning economic impact and social change caused by monetary policy. Ron Paul debates most issues as a 'monetary issue' regarding other candidate assertions meaningless unless acknowledgment of 'monetary policy' as being the driving force is made. I think this is what Ron Paul supporters neglect to apprehend; is all economic issues including taxes, spending and defict are all 'monetary issues'. I am not entirely certain why Paul's supporters feel his candidacy strong referenced to his total acknowledgment of 'monetary policy', but we all know it is monetary policy (the issue). Reverberating the obvious is time consuming (wasteful).

The issue of entitlement spending should neither be neglected. By most economists' standards is not calculated into government spending. It is a separate article of spending and therefore contributes nothing to the debt but is one of the government's largest bills by volume.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ron Paul is arguing that we can't continue to spend more than we have - we can't fix all of these problems if we go broke. To a person who is willing to accept the simple truth, it is not that complicated. From there he suggests many radical changes because only radical changes can fix the problems.

Any one of his ideas may or may not make sense, but at least he addresses the core problem - the system is failing.

Consider the irony of giving a tax rebate to stimulate the economy. When the Bush rebates came out, many people likely spent the money on goods produced in China.

Considering that we are borrowing money from places like China in order to pay for these rebates, one scenario is that we are borrowing money from China in order to buy Chinese made goods. These insane practices cannot continue indefinitely, and Ron Paul is the only one honest enough to argue the point.

I often chuckle when I see the other candidates looking at Paul with very confused expressions on their faces. They should be confused because he is way ahead of them and dares to speak the truth.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Financial responsible decision planning motivates economic growth in the US. The inflowing capital stimulates increases in production quotas and increases in the standard of living. If we cut off this source of funds and created a closed economy, isolation will lead toward a system where the production possiblities have limit and have been obtained.

Ron Paul states isolationist policies circumventing traditional and proved economic policy directions. Whether the initial lender is the China or the Saudi kingdom, payment is made back towards the party. This is a loan istelf which works both ways but the exchange of dollars from one party to the next must be initiated by one and then later of course the other follows. This creates no net debt accrued over the time period.

Since a five year treasury instrument taken out now counts towards inflow dollar (no gross debt, gross credit), five years later the same treasury instrument counts towards outfolw dollar (gross debt, no gross credit). In between of course the interest is paid. Adjusted for inflation over the 5 year period, there is no net debt accrued.

 

[binzing]

I'm really suprised how poorly Richardson (my gov. BTW) did. I mean he has(d) the best evironmental policy, IMO, and has had a lot of foreign affairs experience.

 

[BobG]

Tuesday predictions:

McCain pretty much wraps up the nomination. Romney and Huckabee are still competing to be first in line for 2012 or 2016. The loser of a tough nomination fight always becomes the next Republican nominee next time the nomination slot opens up (Bush 43 was a one off experiment in nepotism, but that didn't work out so well).

Republican:

California:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

New York:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Paul

Illinois:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

New Jersey:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

Georgia:
1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

Mass:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Huckabee

Missouri:
1. McCain
2. Huckabee
3. Romney

Tennessee:
1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

Arizona:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Paul

Minnesota:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Paul

Colorado:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Paul

Alabama:
1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

Conn:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

Oklahoma:
1. McCain
2. Huckabee
3. Romney

Arkansas:
1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

Utah:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Paul

West Virginia:
1. McCain
2. Huckabee
3. Romney

North Dakota:
1. McCain
2. Paul
3. Romney

Montana:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Paul

Delaware:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Paul

Alaska:
1. Paul
2. McCain
3. Romney

 

[BobG]

Democrat Super Tuesday

Just because nepotism didn't work for Republicans doesn't mean it can't work for Democrats. They can't know for sure unless they try it at least once.

California:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

New York:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Illinois:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

New Jersey:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Georgia:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Massachusetts:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Missouri:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Tennessee:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Arizona:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Minnesota:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Colorado:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Alabama:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Conn:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Oklahoma:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Arkansas:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Kansas:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Utah:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

New Mexico:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Idaho:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Delaware:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

North Dakota:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Alaska:
1. Obama
2. Clinton