US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Ivan Seeking]

I am talking about the moral responsibility to honor the system and cast an honest vote. If one isn't honest then that argument won't carry any weight.

 

[Astronuc]

You can't cheat unless there is a rule to break and you agreed not to break it and then you broke it. What rule are you talking about?

The rule of ethics - honesty.

If one's vote truly reflects a preference for a candidate, then voting for someone whom one does not truly want for a given office is dishonest.

On the other hand, one could make the argument that a Republican or Independent could vote for Clinton in the primary with the expectation that Clinton is less electable than McCain, and in the general election one could cast the vote for McCain, which is the true preference.

 

[BobG]

Which is worse for McCain - an endorsement from the NY Times or an endorsement from George Bush? It seems the optimal timing for each was reversed. On the other hand, it wasn't a particularly enthusiastic endorsement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23481178/

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Tuesday night. "Of course the president is going to endorse the GOP nominee, which is going to be Senator John McCain."

Bush made morning phone calls to McCain's former rivals Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson to congratulate them on their primary campaigns. He intends to call Rudy Giuliani later.

"He said he appreciated their ability to keep their sense of humor and that he looks forward to working them in the '08 election," Perino said.

Asked about McCain's past disagreements with Bush, she said: "The point of these elections is for the candidate to run as their own person. Elections are about change and going forward, and one of the most attractive things about Senator McCain to the Republican Party is that he has been his own person. He has blazed his own trail and he will have to make the case as to why voters should vote for him."

No congratulations for Ron Paul? No congratulations for Brownback, Tancredo, or Hunter?

And Bush should comb his hair. In the photo of him and McCain shaking hands, Bush looks like he just climbed out of bed.

 

[Evo]

I am talking about the moral responsibility to honor the system and cast an honest vote. If one isn't honest then that argument won't carry any weight.

The rule of ethics - honesty.

If one's vote truly reflects a preference for a candidate, then voting for someone whom one does not truly want for a given office is dishonest.

Members here (I won't name them) have stated that they intentionally vote in a primary for another party's candidate with the intent to further their candidate's chances. Be careful of calling your friends unethical or dishonest.

 

[Math Jeans]

Members here (I won't name them) have stated that they intentionally vote in a primary for another party's candidate with the intent to further their candidate's chances. Be careful of calling your friends unethical or dishonest.

That is correct. For example: if Clinton wins primaries for the Democratic side, then McCain is nearly a shoe-in. Therefore, someone who wants McCain as president could vote for Clinton in the primaries.

 

[lisab]

That is correct. For example: if Clinton wins primaries for the Democratic side, then McCain is nearly a shoe-in. Therefore, someone who wants McCain as president could vote for Clinton in the primaries.

Or they could just be an honest, ethical person...and vote for McCain.

 

[Evo]

That is correct. For example: if Clinton wins primaries for the Democratic side, then McCain is nearly a shoe-in. Therefore, someone who wants McCain as president could vote for Clinton in the primaries.

Funny, I keep hearing Clinton can't win against Mccain on this forum, but the McCain supporters I know (and I know a lot of them in this neck of the woods) feel Hillary is more of a threat.

 

[chemisttree]

Members here (I won't name them) have stated that they intentionally vote in a primary for another party's candidate with the intent to further their candidate's chances.

Absolutely correct. That's no more dishonorable than actively campaigning for a candidate for which one has no intention of voting. Ann Coulter's stated intention to campaign for Hillary is a perfect example. While I think its a bit childish it certainly isn't dishonorable or fraudulent.
Personally, I couldn't vote for Hillary because I was afraid of spontaneously combusting... and South Texas is under a burn ban, after all.

 

[Math Jeans]

Funny, I keep hearing Clinton can't win against Mccain on this forum, but the McCain supporters I know (and I know a lot of them in this neck of the woods) feel Hillary is more of a threat.

It could be because those McCain supporters are seeing Clinton getting votes, and not realizing that it is for McCain's advantage .

 

[lisab]

Funny, I keep hearing Clinton can't win against Mccain on this forum, but the McCain supporters I know (and I know a lot of them in this neck of the woods) feel Hillary is more of a threat.

I hate to agree with Karl Rove on anything, but he's got a point when he says that Hillary's negatives are so significant, it would be easy to beat her. There's a lot of people hate her with white-hot passion.

But then again, some conservative become livid at the mention of McCain's name. They think he's a liberal!

I wonder if the Clinton-haters are the very same people who are the McCain-haters. What are they going to do...stay home and not vote, get so lathered up in their hate that they start to kick their dog around?

(The author of this post does not condone dog-kicking. No dogs were hurt in the writing of this post.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If one's vote truly reflects a preference for a candidate, then voting for someone whom one does not truly want for a given office is dishonest.

So those 'anybody but a Republican' or 'anybody but a Democrat' voters are all dishonest? What rule are you invoking? It seems that people are being tagged as unethical without being told what rule they broke.

 

[Astronuc]

So those 'anybody but a Republican' or 'anybody but a Democrat' voters are all dishonest?

I don't understand the question.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't understand the question.

They don't vote for who they want, they just vote against who they don't want. That would be dishonest according to your definition:

If one's vote truly reflects a preference for a candidate, then voting for someone whom one does not truly want for a given office is dishonest.

 

[lisab]

They don't vote for who they want, they just vote against who they don't want. That would be dishonest according to your definition:

People who crossed over weren't voting against McCain. They were voting to "Pimp" themselves, to "Keep the Chaos Alive" (from RL's website, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022608/content/01125107.guest.html ).

Sometimes, the best reason a voter can find to vote for a person is "because I hate him the least." That's very, very different from using their vote to disrupt another party's selection process.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

People who crossed over weren't voting against McCain. They were voting to "Pimp" themselves, to "Keep the Chaos Alive" (from RL's website, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022608/content/01125107.guest.html ).

Sometimes, the best reason a voter can find to vote for a person is "because I hate him the least." That's very, very different from using their vote to disrupt another party's selection process.

You mean like the majority of the Democratic party who agree with Ralph Nader on every policy issue but are going to vote for the Democratic candidate just to throw chaos into the McCain campaign?

 

[chemisttree]

People who crossed over weren't voting against McCain. They were voting to "Pimp" themselves, to "Keep the Chaos Alive" (from RL's website, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022608/content/01125107.guest.html ).

I hope you don't take that stuff too seriously. After all, Rush and all the conservative talk show hosts railed against McCain and couldn't even convince their own republicans to vote against him. Now you ascribe some mythical power to them to explain Hillary's win in Texas?
Elsewhere in the link you provided, Rush claims credit for derailing Hillary's campaign! (As if someone like Obama couldn't do that himself!) Clearly that's tongue in cheek or delusional. Either way, not worth getting worked up about.

 

[lisab]

I hope you don't take that stuff too seriously. After all, Rush and all the conservative talk show hosts railed against McCain and couldn't even convince their own republicans to vote against him. Now you ascribe some mythical power to them to explain Hillary's win in Texas?
Elsewhere in the link you provided, Rush claims credit for derailing Hillary's campaign! (As if someone like Obama couldn't do that himself!) Clearly that's tongue in cheek or delusional. Either way, not worth getting worked up about.

Mythical, no; Rush is a far cry from mythical everywhere but in his own mind. But given how close this race is, it wouldn't take many votes to sway the result.

As far as getting worked up, I do get worked up when people work to subvert the process, especially when it's done for what seems to be pure amusement. I don't understand why more people don't get worked up!

In an earlier post you asked about thought police - no, of course I'm not advocating that. Each citizen is on his own when he enters the booth and casts his vote; I can only hope that he is honorable and ethical.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding McCain and his meeting with Bush today: Honestly, if McCain made every effort to distance himself from Bush, under the right circumstances I could vote for him. But when I hear of his great affection for Bush, and when he refuses to denounce religious zealots, I lose nearly all respect for him. He may think he's a maverick, but he looks an awful lot like a Bush to me.

I will always respect him for standing up against the use of torture. He gets an A+ for that one!

 

[Math Jeans]

I'm still against Clinton even though she apparently eats hot peppers.

 

[lisab]

Wow - play with this calculator for a while. I can't see how Clinton can overtake Obama, realistically.

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'm still against Clinton even though she apparently eats hot peppers.

Must admit being a liberal, which tends to be far more common over here, I tend to go with Obama for pragmatic reasons. The fact that Republicans consider Clinton to be the antichrist, and even some democrats shy away from her.

Although I can see where here political experience might appeal.

Regarding McCain and his meeting with Bush today: Honestly, if McCain made every effort to distance himself from Bush, under the right circumstances I could vote for him. But when I hear of his great affection for Bush, and when he refuses to denounce religious zealots, I lose nearly all respect for him. He may think he's a maverick, but he looks an awful lot like a Bush to me.

I will always respect him for standing up against the use of torture. He gets an A+ for that one!

Well I'm not an expert, far from it, but do you think that might not be more pragmatism, not being willing to alienate core right wing Christian voters, than any real belief in their issues?

Wow - play with this calculator for a while. I can't see how Clinton can overtake Obama, realistically.

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

Tried putting everything up to 60% Clinton and a couple of 70%. Is that accurate? Well it looks a bit of a foregone conclusion then. Can't see that happening.

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton? Obama? Who Won Texas?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802
Obama Ahead in Texas Caucuses

Hillary Clinton claimed victory in Texas, after winning the state's primary Tuesday. But more than 1 million Democrats showed up at caucuses that followed the primary, and the results are showing Barack Obama with a lead. If the numbers stand, he could come out ahead by just three delegates.

Clinton won the primary with 51 percent of the popular vote to Obama's 47 percent, according to the Associated Press. Those results earned her 65 delegates to Obama's 61 delegates.

But allocating delegates in the Lone Star State takes a "Texas two-step." After the polls closed, more than 1 million Texans also attended caucuses, the results of which determine how about one-third of the state's delegates get awarded.

The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegated to Clinton's 30 delegates. But the official tally of the Texas caucus won't be ready for months.

Now John McCain just needs to sit back and let Obama and Clinton beat each other up.

I'm disappointed in attack adds and negative campaigning because they don't offer insight into how the attacking candidate will address the significant problems facing the US.


Presidential Race Focuses on Wyoming Caucuses
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87974950

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Now John McCain just needs to sit back and let Obama and Clinton beat each other up.

Sounds like a plan. The electorate now has three ways to vote: racist, misogynist, and both.

 

[BobG]

Wyoming caucus

Dem: Obama

 

[Gokul43201]

Obaming.

I think that now, more than any time so far, Obama should keep his gloves on, and stay above the fray that Clinton is desperate to rope him into.

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton, Obama to Face Off in Wyoming
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88006078

Clinton won victories Tuesday in primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, reviving her candidacy. But Obama has prevailed in 12 of the 15 caucuses, which rely on greater campaign organization and voter commitment than primaries. A winner has not been declared in Texas' caucuses; the state held both last Tuesday.

Although - I have heard that Obama won the Texas caucus.


I'll go with Obama to win the Wyoming Caucus.


I hope that Clinton and Obama put a halt to the negative campaigning and sniping. They need to discuss the issues.

 

[BobG]

Clinton, Obama to Face Off in Wyoming
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88006078

Although - I have heard that Obama won the Texas caucus.


I'll go with Obama to win the Wyoming Caucus.


I hope that Clinton and Obama put a halt to the negative campaigning and sniping. They need to discuss the issues.

Some of the sniping is annoying.

I'd be interested in hearing explanations from both about their eperience levels. That's a valid topic to ask of either candidate.

I have a hard time seeing how Clinton gets credit for her husband's experience - especially if she's taking credit for the positive things he did while being able to claim she wasn't involved in the negative things he did (well, I imagine she wasn't involved in at least a few of the negative things he did). Or is she claiming this will actually be a third term for Bill Clinton in practice, if not in name.

Obama's lack of experience is pretty clear cut. It might not be a deal killer, but it's certainly worth hearing how he addresses it.

Silly point since they're just commercials, but how many times do those phones have to ring before they go to voice mail?

 

[Astronuc]

I'd be interested in hearing explanations from both about their eperience levels. That's a valid topic to ask of either candidate.

I seemed to have missed any discussion of experience in the debates.

I have a hard time seeing how Clinton gets credit for her husband's experience - especially if she's taking credit for the positive things he did while being able to claim she wasn't involved in the negative things he did (well, I imagine she wasn't involved in at least a few of the negative things he did). Or is she claiming this will actually be a third term for Bill Clinton in practice, if not in name.

Clinton had some stupid commercial about the Whitehouse Phone ringing at 3 a.m. Who would you rather have answer it? She's no more prepared than Obama or McCain, and I bet neither of them is prepared either.

I do have to wonder how many of the former Clinton administration hope to return. I look at Warren Christopher, Madelline Albright, and Richard Holbrooke and wonder if Mrs. Clinton can do better. According to the Wikipedia article on Holbrooke "He was an advisor to the Presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in 2004. In 2006, Holbrooke joined the Presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and has become a top foreign policy adviser; Holbrooke's name is often referred when speaking of Secretary of State in a Democratic administration and is likely to be a contender for the position." Ick. That right there should be a clear warning sign that Clinton II is not much improvement over Clinton I.

Obama's lack of experience is pretty clear cut. It might not be a deal killer, but it's certainly worth hearing how he addresses it.

According to the Wikipedia article on him, Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, and

He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991. On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive. As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

So he spent 11 years lecturing on consititutional law. Ostensibly, he's familiar with the subject, unlike the current president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#State_legislature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Senate_career

I suppose one could stack up the bills authored/co-authored by McCain, Clinton and Obama and there voting records to see where they stand, or if one agrees with their votes.


I'd like to know more about how the candidates will seek to reduce tensions/hostilities in the world, or will they simply continue with the inflamatory rhetoric and bullying of those who don't necessarily share the same worldview.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well I'm not an expert, far from it, but do you think that might not be more pragmatism, not being willing to alienate core right wing Christian voters, than any real belief in their issues?

Sure it is, but given the circumstances that is no excuse. Either you defend the Constitution or not. Given that he took an oath to defend the Constitution with his life... so much for integrity. He is duty-bound to denounce those who have committed crimes against the nation.

Bush just vetoed the ban on waterboarding. I wonder if McCain still wants to give him a big hug.

I have also heard McCain promoting the idea that "unlike the case of Vietnam", if we lose in Iraq the enemy will follow us home. Apparently he is either so old that he forgets about the Domino Theory, or he is lying.

Frankly, compared to the Russians and their 20,000 nukes, the terrorists are a joke. Of course we want to deal with terrorism head-on, but McCain is either fear mongering or selling out. And given that 2 million people and one elephant followed by a mariachi band have crossed the American-Mexican border illegally since we began the war on terror, why isn't he nearly as worried about our own border? One could probably cross the border in a tank towing a trailer full of nukes, and no one would notice.

Where was McCain when Bush tried to give control of our ports to a foreign nation [with a marginal history wrt terrorism] while we are allegedly at war?

 

[mheslep]

I'd be interested in hearing explanations from both about their experience levels. That's a valid topic to ask of either candidate.

She's no more prepared than Obama or McCain, and I bet neither of them is prepared either.

For some reason McCain's military experience is not mentioned in thread. He retired as a Navy Captain (22yrs) and had been in command of an A7 squadron. He was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross and of course the Purple Heart.