So democrats, who else will be voting republican now?

[MRT144]

dude, really gulliani is a glory hog

[Drake Tungsten]

Hillary

[Drogue]

Re: Re: Re: So democrats, who else may be voting republican now?

Originally posted by Vesayen
For the life of me I do not not why ANY American would vote for Obama except for 1 of 2 reasons. 1. Novelty. 2. Racism-vote for him because he is black. HE is a junior senator with no executive experience! WHAT qualifies him to be president? I ask people if they can name *ONE* poliocy he has enacted or even name *ONE* view he has.... people scowl at me and the conversation ends.

Personal politics. It seems it's more important to most voters that they vote for someone they like, that they respect, and who they want to be in charge of the army and the country. It's not just about what they believe in, it's about what they would do in a crisis.

I don't see what's so bad with a lack of experience either. Far more important what policies he would inact as President.

[Arrian]

I'm not 100% certain which way I'll vote at this point (a little early for such certainty, dontcha think?), but any Republican candidate will have to overcome my very strong desire to continue punishing the Republican party.

-Arrian

[rah]

I'm bothered by his holier than thou attitude.
His house deal was quite shady.
So anyone that buys the, fresh honest image is just fooling themselves. He's just another politician.
And not a special one at that.
But he is likable. But will that be enough.

[Edan]

Truman integrated the military

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Solver
Gee. Is it just me or do American politics suck on some level? I mean, in the end, you only have two candidates to vote for that can win the election. If you don't like your party's candidate, you're stuck voting for someone you don't like, or for a party you oppose.

Besides, I find that I do not fit completely with the Democrats nor Republicans, though my feelings are certainly closer to the Democrats. I guess people like me end up voting independent/3rd party, but these can never win...

Yes, two parties, but look at it this way. How many candidates are running in the Democratic primary? How many in the Republican primary? Probably like 20 all together. That is a lot of choices.

Unlike European systems where if someone runs for a party they vote lock-step with that party. Individual candidates don't matter, you just vote for a party because everyone in that party votes the same. So you've got maybe a dozen parties, only like 3-4 serious (usually just 2-3). So really you only have 3-4 possibilities for Prime Minister.

Whereas we have like 15-20 possibilities for unique view points and policies at president. They may all be condensed into 2 parties, but there are big differences between Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Barrack Obama, John McCain, Guiliani, Richardson and all the rest.

[Solver]

But isn't the difference that, in the USA, you're only left with 2 candidates at the end, even if there are 15 for starters. In Europe indeed, these 4 candidates will remain until the final stage.

I mean, the candidate you prefer for President probably doesn't win the primaries every time. Say you're a definite Democrat and your preferred candidate loses the primaries, which isn't a long shot with like 7 major candidates from the party. So then you're screwed in the final election - you won't vote Republican because you don't agree with their policies at all, but you don't like the Democrat candidate either...

[Jon Miller]

Hillary has roughly the same ammount of experience as Obama. Basically the issue is that senators don't often succeed.

JM
(and I think that Guilani has even less)

[KrazyHorse]

Unlike European systems where if someone runs for a party they vote lock-step with that party. Individual candidates don't matter, you just vote for a party because everyone in that party votes the same. So you've got maybe a dozen parties, only like 3-4 serious (usually just 2-3). So really you only have 3-4 possibilities for Prime Minister.

Party leadership is decided at party conventions, and ordinary members of the party generally have a rather large say in the decision. In Canada the Liberals just had a party convention and there were around 8-10 candidates for leadership. 4 serious candidates. So I don't understand why you feel as though you can count contenders for the nomination of their party in the US, but not contenders for the leadership of their party elsewhere.

[snoopy369]

Re: Re: Re: So democrats, who else may be voting republican now?

Originally posted by Vesayen


For the life of me I do not not why ANY American would vote for Obama except for 1 of 2 reasons. 1. Novelty. 2. Racism-vote for him because he is black. HE is a junior senator with no executive experience! WHAT qualifies him to be president? I ask people if they can name *ONE* poliocy he has enacted or even name *ONE* view he has.... people scowl at me and the conversation ends.

I would vote for Guliani without any hesitation... a lot of the time the best you can hope for is someone who is princapled, and he is. I'm from NY and really like him.

You know what I really want to know ... people all complain about Obama's lack of experience and such. How does Senator Clinton have an advantage over him here? Other than being First Lady, she is far less politically experienced than he is, even. What qualifies her? I hardly believe First Lady is a qualification for President...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Hillary has roughly the same ammount of experience as Obama. Basically the issue is that senators don't often succeed.

JM
(and I think that Guilani has even less)

Hmm, I should read page two before replying

Let's just call my earlier post a giant QFT here

[Ramo]

Hillary will have 8 years in the US Senate by the election, while Obama will have 4 years in the US Senate and 8 in the IL Senate. Both have been pretty productive in terms of producing legislation. Seems like mostly a wash.

What I find interesting is that the experience argument never seems to apply to Governors. Mark Warner was only in office for four years, and experience wasn't an issue for him (while he was in the race). Same thing with Mitt Romney. It's true that they get more managerial experience relative to Senators, but they also get less foreign policy experience.

[Wycoff]

Re: Re: Re: Re: So democrats, who else may be voting republican now?

Originally posted by snoopy369 How does Senator Clinton have an advantage over him here? Other than being First Lady,...

I think that you're dismissing something that's significant. The public perception is that Hillary was a very involved first lady. Whether and to what extent that perception is true is less important than the fact that the public perceives that her stint as First Lady gave her plenty of experience.

Logically her 8 years as First Lady has given her some degree of insight into the daily life and functions of the Presidency that Obama lacks. The important question is how much that time spent observing the President has prepared her to actually be the President. I think that the public believes that her time as First Lady has done much to prepare her for being the President.

The fact that Hilary has been in the national public eye since the early 1990s also helps to create this impression that she's very experienced. We've all known about her for over 15 years. Obama has been on the national scene for 2 years. IMO, that gulf makes a difference in the general evaluation of her experience level vis-a-vis Obama's

[Sava]

I don't like Hillary. It would take a lot for me to vote for her.

Obama