Next US President?

[Wolf]

I know. The sad part is that McCain did run 8 years ago -- he ran against Bush in the Republican primaries and was the runner-up. I don't know about you, but I would trade 8 years of Bush for 8 years of McCain in a heartbeat. And I wouldn't feel bad about it. Ever. The even sadder part is that the GOP came this close to not nominating McCain again, over the summer, remember, the media said that his campaign was dead in the water. He's turned things around, alright. I really think he might be the "country's choice," unpopular with hardcore Republicans, shat on by the media, and reviled by the more-embarassing Democrats... the more I think about it, the more I think that he's our man.

[Megashrap]

I'm more left leaning than right, and I'd prefer to see the democrats get in, but, hoenstly, I don't think I'd pick either Obama or Hillary over McCain right now.

Yea, I wouldn't hesitate at all voting for McCain out of those three.

[Andrew]

The Democrats are going to be so closely tied with either obama or hillary, that once won of them wins the nomination, the losing side will vote for mccain.

[Egeides]

Edric, it's still up to the people of Vermont to decide. In any case, Vermont could declare independence and then join with Canada.

:O

What do you see Vermont having specially to do with Canada, apart from being neighbor? Maybe I'm missing something major as I don't know Vermont, but it strikes me as the oddest thing heard since long.

[nemafakei]

I was paralleling the Kosovo question with the potential that if the economy is too small, they could always join up with Albania.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

I love Vermont in the summer. Anybody been to Manchester, Vermont?  Nice place that is, I like it in the summer time.  They have a nice little classical music venue in that city too.

The canoe shop in Manchester,VT had a clock that had a countdown till Bush's term is up, so I'm guessing most of the people there are Democrats, or just hate Bushies in general. 

short side note: The public in Vermont seems to have a more Canadian view on marijuana, because I was rolling my own cigarettes during my visit and people thinking it was weed would would either ask me for some or politely warn me of cops approaching.  I liked it there ;D

[Edric O]

Here's a little thought that just recently crossed my mind: What if the loser in the Clinton/Obama contest decides to go ahead and run as an independent?

Of course that would mean serving the presidency to McCain on a silver plate, but maybe - just maybe - it would finally fracture the Democratic Party enough to create a 3-party system in the United States. It is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are the biggest stumbling block to genuine progressive politics in the US, since everyone on the left feels obligated to vote for them just to keep the Republicans out (and it usually doesn't even work; notice what happens when you get a candidate like John Kerry in a futile attempt to build the broadest possible anti-Republican coalition: no one likes him because he doesn't stand for anything).

On another note, for those of you who support McCain, I have a question: What do you base this support on? I mean, as far as I can tell, his political platform is basically Bush lite. What does he propose to actually change?

[Acriku]

As far as I know, the loser in that battle may just attach themselves as VP. Hillary doesn't seem the type to accept that alone, however. While I doubt drastic change will come about, it'd be nice for just a new face.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

 

Here's a little thought that just recently crossed my mind: What if the loser in the Clinton/Obama contest decides to go ahead and run as an independent?

Of course that would mean serving the presidency to McCain on a silver plate, but maybe - just maybe - it would finally fracture the Democratic Party enough to create a 3-party system in the United States.

I was just thinking that same thing out loud the other day at a friends house.  That would be awesome.  But many people think that the realistic thing to happen is that the supporters of the losing democrat will be so against the other democrat that they will vote for McCain instead of for the winning democrat.  Dunno if thats plausible, but there is plenty of time left for more things to unfold.

[Mahdi]

As far as I know, the loser in that battle may just attach themselves as VP. Hillary doesn't seem the type to accept that alone, however. While I doubt drastic change will come about, it'd be nice for just a new face.

Both of them are against that, there was a whole week where all the enws was Hillary suggesting Obama would be a good VP and Obama rejecting it.

[Wolf]

Yes, but, Edric, what do the Democrats propose to actually change? Would Hillary or Obama actually pull out of Iraq, knowing full-well that it would do more harm than good? Would they actually tackle the $53 trillion that the US government owes as a result of Social Security and Medicare? Of course not. Both parties are broken. Neither party can do anything. At least McCain is a moderately rational human being whose policies are internally-consistent enough with the existing political structure so as not to cause its collapse. And, if you want collapse? Well, Hillary and Obama will only just be mal-adjusted enough to leadership to botch the job, but enough like the Republicans that things will remain more or less the same. Why do I say this? Simply put, Hillary's a liar and Obama's inexperienced. McCain may be wrong but, ultimately, he's neither of those other things, and this is at a time where I barely believe in "right" and "wrong" as it is.

[Acriku]

Both of them are against that, there was a whole week where all the enws was Hillary suggesting Obama would be a good VP and Obama rejecting it.

Maybe when things are more clear in who is leading the polls will one of them begin to accept the proposition...

Should be an interesting political summer. I wonder if there'll be another Indecision('08) on the Daily Show.

Wolf - How does McCain have more experience in politics enough to be a significant advantage? All three I believe have at least five years of senatorial processes. Obama probably has less experience overall, imo. McCain has the age thing a little too well - which reminds me of a Reagan quote made about Walter Mondale:

I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.

[Wolf]

Uh... how doesn't McCain have more experience?

Barack Obama is the Junior Senator from Illinois, and has served since 1997.

Hillary Clinton was First Lady from 1991 to 2000, and is the Junior Senator form New York since 2001.

John McCain is the Senior Senator from Arizona since 1987. He was in the House of Representatives, again representing Arizona, since 1983. This is the second time he's pursued the presidency, versus the first-timers listed above. He's also the only one of these three people who've co-sponsored/supported bills with members of the opposing party. Hmm, maybe he knows it's all b/s too?

EDIT: But I do want to clarify why his experience is an advantage. That might not have been clear. McCain is the only one of these people to see the Soviet as well as post-Soviet periods. He is the only person to have served in both Houses of Congress. He is also the only war veteran -- which I want to point out is in stark contrast to Bushy's war experiences, though I suppose we shouldn't hold that against Hillary, she, of course, has been on the line of fire too. Ultimately, he's served roughly twice as long in an elected office as his competitors.

[Mahdi]

Policy-wise he may be GEorge Bush light, but that's a hell of a lot better than the even more insane than george bush candidaes he was against in the primaries.  Plus, I see him as being a bit more... ameniable to the democrats and a bit mroe moderate in his views.  I also doubt there will be quite as many  torture scandals if he was president.

And he does have more experience.  Obama coems off as a young go-getter who may crash and burn once the reality of the job hits him.  Hillary seems to me as if she wants to prove herself mroe than she wants to be a good president and that will end up defining her campaign.  I think she may end up being more uncompromising than she should be. 

McCain comes off as experienced, willing to compromised, and, compaired to Bush, moderate. 

And, again, I'd like to stay that in general I'd prefer a Democrat over a republican again, but I don't think I'd prefer Obama or Hillary over McCain.

I do think Obama would have a better chance at beating McCain than Hillary as he does have that young go-getter almost Kennedy like mystic about him.  I really think he should have went for the vice presidency, not the presidency.

I know those opinions are not based on policies, but that's how the candidates themselves are coming off and, lets be honest, most people don't go indepth into a candidates policies.  They vote for the party, and if they don't, they vote for the candidate that gives off the best impression.  And to me, right now, that's McCain.

ButI'm Canadian and still vote Liberal because even with (I admit) a weak leader like Dion they're not hippies like the greens, pinko's like the NDP, or racist religious fanatics who like to bribe independant mps and then sue anyone who asks about it like the Conservatives. 

The liberals are just corrupt.

(Those are gross over-generalisations meant to poke humour at the parties policies and practicies)

[Acriku]

You're right, he has age and experience to boot. But I'll take a less experienced candidate if it means change. Change is what makes America's electoral system worth the bs. Also, it doesn't take a long-time soldier and senator to make a great president. Although I would strongly support one who has that experience. I can't this election because of the similarities McCain holds to Bush. What I'm also afraid of is how little a Democratic president might effect things in his/her term. The ball that is rolling is huge, heavy, and expensive.

[nemafakei]

"hippies like the greens"

Mumble mumble Conscientious-capitalist party which does a disservice to environmental activism everywhere. mumble...

"pinko's like the NDP"

Cough Bourgeois social democrats with half an eye on liberalism. mutter...

"racist religious fanatics who like to bribe independant mps and then sue anyone who asks about it like the Conservatives"

Shrug Actually, bribing MPs is perfectly good free market economics. The racism is also indirectly useful in keeping wages low. They're pretty good at representing their class interests. mutter mutter...

[Wolf]

*_O

I'm afraid to ask, but, what are you driving at, Nema?

[Edric O]

I'm afraid to ask, but, what are you driving at, Nema?

I believe he was giving his opinions on the Canadian parties that Mahdi mentioned. I pretty much share the same opinions, though I would also like to add:

"The liberals are just corrupt."

Mutter mutter Wishy-washy capitalists who like to pretend they have a social conscience and rely on the electoral system to get overrepresented in Parliament. mumble...

Now, with regards to the US elections, I take note of the fact that people here are still not discussing the actual policies of the candidates, preferring instead to focus on vague and ultimately irrelevant points such as "change" or "experience." This is not the fault of anyone here, of course; the fact is that the candidates themselves have gone to such great pains to avoid talking about concrete issues that they give us no choice but to evaluate them based on vague generalities. That is a sad state of affairs in a supposedly democratic country.

Yes, but, Edric, what do the Democrats propose to actually change? Would Hillary or Obama actually pull out of Iraq, knowing full-well that it would do more harm than good? Would they actually tackle the $53 trillion that the US government owes as a result of Social Security and Medicare?

I'm just as skeptical as you are regarding the meaningless cries for "change" coming from the Democratic camp. What the hell is "change?" I don't know - but as far as I can tell, the most important benefit of a Clinton or Obama presidency is that they might-possibly-sort-of-maybe introduce some kind of semi-universal health care system. They might also undo the Bush tax cuts and take steps to reduce the massive budget deficit (which is entirely Bush's doing; Bill Clinton, for all his faults, didn't seem to have a problem finding money for Social Security and Medicare - but that's probably because he didn't cut taxes while greatly increasing defence spending like Bush did).

McCain may be a rational and reasonable guy, but he is not likely to be able to find pragmatic solutions to fix Bush's mess because his own party won't let him. Basically, taxes need to be increased and defence spending needs to be curtailed before it spirals out of control. Also, the health insurance system needs to be radically overhauled; it is already the most expensive in the world and it is facing a crisis because fewer and fewer people are able to afford insurance and the idea of tying a health plan with a specific job just doesn't work any more. McCain will not be able to address any of these issues because it would be political suicide for a Republican to do so.

Of course none of the candidates will do anything about Iraq.

Simply put, Hillary's a liar and Obama's inexperienced. McCain may be wrong but, ultimately, he's neither of those other things, and this is at a time where I barely believe in "right" and "wrong" as it is.

What do you mean when you say that you barely believe in right and wrong?

Yes, Hillary is a liar, but I don't hold that against her. All three candidates are liars; Hillary just happens to be better at it than the other two.

McCain comes off as experienced, willing to compromised, and, compaired to Bush, moderate.

As I said above, it is political suicide for a Republican to adopt pragmatic policies. No matter how willing McCain may be to compromise, his hands will be tied if he cares about his career.

As for experience, I really don't see that as a point in his favour. Where you see experience, I see a man who has been in Congress so long that he has probably lost touch with reality by now.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

As for experience, I really don't see that as a point in his favour. Where you see experience, I see a man who has been in Congress so long that he has probably lost touch with reality by now.

If you mean reality outside of the congressional law buildings, then yes that might be true, but I'm guessing he knows the reality of being an active legislator better than Hillary or Obama, and whatever he decides to get done through congress he will probably be most able to do it.  as to the quality of his legislation that is another matter.

As I said above, it is political suicide for a Republican to adopt pragmatic policies. No matter how willing McCain may be to compromise, his hands will be tied if he cares about his career.

actually, he's so old now, that if he actually becomes president I don't think he'll give a damn about his career after that, unless he actually is foolish enough to want a second term.  I don't know the history books well, but I'm willing to bet that out of all the two-term presidents, they consistently performed their presidential duties best during the first two or three years of the second term.

firt term:  first year or two, noob president.  Just getting used to things

            next year or two:  might be a good productive year.

            fourth year: he's up for re-election (party pleasing and campaign funding gets in way

            of presidential duties)

second term: solid two, maybe three years of good leadership.

              perhaps a year paving the way for the next republican candidate

just speculation, but I would rather have a president for 6 years, no option for re-election.

then you would get 1-2 years warm up, 4-5 years solid performance and maybe the last year tying up loose ends or helping the next party candidate during campaigning season. sounds more efficient to me. But I would first change the party system before I changed the presidential terms.

[Wolf]

Edric: As far as lying goes:

Actually, Hillary's far worse at it than the other two. She was the one who got caught lying about something stupid, and got lampooned for it. And, quite frankly, McCain's too distinguished to lie, and Obama hasn't had the chance yet.

To say that the Dems: "might-possibly-sort-of-maybe introduce some kind of semi-universal health care system" is pretty sad. I mean, what does that mean? Is that how far low we're going to sink? You're saying that we go staking our bets on a party you know to be corrupt, that you know will fail, and you do it all for the moonshot that perhaps some real, live liberal, somewhere in the depths of the party might convince one of the higher-ups of their goals? I don't think so. I'd vote for McCain purely because he's the devil we know over the devil we don't. Bush's changes were meaningless dribble meant to remake the US Federal Government into some bizarre neo-con fantasy, and I think the process of re-making it into some sort of moderate conservative fantasy will be less painful for the country than to make it into the bizarre, mafia-esque cult-of-personality-driven, faux-liberal fantasy the Democrats would desire under either candidate.

Ultimately, Hillary and Obama -- to me -- are just like Bush, but with a different face. McCain, through his earning the ire and eternal enmity of prominent neo-con and hardcore-rightist figures like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, et al., shows me that while he might stand for many of the same things, he's enough of an independent thinker who'll cross party lines often enough where your hopes for a moonshot might actually come to light. Honestly, your chances of getting any sort of healthcare are better with McCain than with the Dems, in all probability.

[Mahdi]

"hippies like the greens"

Mumble mumble Conscientious-capitalist party which does a disservice to environmental activism everywhere. mumble...

"pinko's like the NDP"

Cough Bourgeois social democrats with half an eye on liberalism. mutter...

"racist religious fanatics who like to bribe independant mps and then sue anyone who asks about it like the Conservatives"

Shrug Actually, bribing MPs is perfectly good free market economics. The racism is also indirectly useful in keeping wages low. They're pretty good at representing their class interests. mutter mutter...

I believe he was giving his opinions on the Canadian parties that Mahdi mentioned. I pretty much share the same opinions, though I would also like to add:

"The liberals are just corrupt."

Mutter mutter Wishy-washy capitalists who like to pretend they have a social conscience and rely on the electoral system to get overrepresented in Parliament. mumble...

And out of all that, the liberal's still come off as the lesser of four evils (and by far the lesser of the two that might get elected).  Is there really a deomocracy out there where the voters don't have to choose what they think is the "lesser evil"?

[Anathema]

Hillary's bid for presidency is as good as over. It's extremely unlikely that she'll overtake Obama's lead in pledged delegates, and I don't think enough superdelegates will vote for her to swing the result. Additionally, her campaign chest is nearly spent. I think we're witnessing the end of her political career, unless Obama for some reason decides to take her as VP anyway and she accepts.

[Edric O]

actually, he's so old now, that if he actually becomes president I don't think he'll give a damn about his career after that, unless he actually is foolish enough to want a second term. I don't know the history books well, but I'm willing to bet that out of all the two-term presidents, they consistently performed their presidential duties best during the first two or three years of the second term.

I don't know - I guess a lot would depend on what you consider to be "best performance."

just speculation, but I would rather have a president for 6 years, no option for re-election.

then you would get 1-2 years warm up, 4-5 years solid performance and maybe the last year tying up loose ends or helping the next party candidate during campaigning season. sounds more efficient to me. But I would first change the party system before I changed the presidential terms.

Some countries in Latin America have 6-year presidential terms and a rule that the same person cannot serve two consecutive terms (so after your first term you have to let someone else be president for 6 years before you can run again). I'm not sure how well that works; there are many problems in Latin America that have nothing to do with the electoral system, so it's difficult to tell what effect - if any - their electoral system has on government policy.

As a general rule, however, I think shorter terms are better than longer terms. France used to have 7-year presidential terms, and they were a terribly bad idea because you got stuck with the same president for too many years with no possibility of removing him if he did not fulfil his duties properly. Long terms can turn the presidency into an elective dictatorship.

Edric: As far as lying goes:

Actually, Hillary's far worse at it than the other two. She was the one who got caught lying about something stupid, and got lampooned for it. And, quite frankly, McCain's too distinguished to lie, and Obama hasn't had the chance yet.

Ok, point taken.

To say that the Dems: "might-possibly-sort-of-maybe introduce some kind of semi-universal health care system" is pretty sad. I mean, what does that mean? Is that how far low we're going to sink?

That is how far the two-party system forces us to sink if we are to vote for a candidate with a realistic chance of winning.

I have already said that I would never vote for either a Republican or a Democrat if I were a US citizen. I would vote for a socialist candidate with no chance of winning.

But for the sake of the argument, I am defending the Democrats in this thread because they are less bad than the Republicans and I would vote for them if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two main parties.

You're saying that we go staking our bets on a party you know to be corrupt, that you know will fail, and you do it all for the moonshot that perhaps some real, live liberal, somewhere in the depths of the party might convince one of the higher-ups of their goals? I don't think so. I'd vote for McCain purely because he's the devil we know over the devil we don't.

But he is still the greater devil. A slim chance of progressive policies in health care and other issues is still better than no chance at all.

Bush's changes were meaningless dribble meant to remake the US Federal Government into some bizarre neo-con fantasy, and I think the process of re-making it into some sort of moderate conservative fantasy will be less painful for the country than to make it into the bizarre, mafia-esque cult-of-personality-driven, faux-liberal fantasy the Democrats would desire under either candidate.

How so? That is all very vague. What precisely do you think Obama or Clinton would do wrong that McCain could do right?

Ultimately, Hillary and Obama -- to me -- are just like Bush, but with a different face.

No, because they support different policies. We have to stop judging candidates by their personalities and start judging them by their policies.

Honestly, your chances of getting any sort of healthcare are better with McCain than with the Dems, in all probability.

What? How on Earth could that possibly happen?

And out of all that, the liberal's still come off as the lesser of four evils (and by far the lesser of the two that might get elected).

Hmmm, "wishy-washy capitalists who like to pretend they have a social conscience and rely on the electoral system to get overrepresented in Parliament" are better than "bourgeois social democrats with half an eye on liberalism"?

Hillary's bid for presidency is as good as over. It's extremely unlikely that she'll overtake Obama's lead in pledged delegates, and I don't think enough superdelegates will vote for her to swing the result. Additionally, her campaign chest is nearly spent. I think we're witnessing the end of her political career, unless Obama for some reason decides to take her as VP anyway and she accepts.

Well, if she manages to rebuild her war chest she could still run against McCain in 2012...

[Dunenewt]

Clinton 'heading for the exit'

[Andrew]

She apparently cancelled all her tour events today.