Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I wouldn't call anything inevitable. The national frontrunners probably won't win the early states, but they're also well-funded enough to better compete in the 20-some state Uber Tuesday Feb 5th. The Huckabees (or Richardsons) of this race will probably pull off some early victories, but catching up for such a massive primary day is going to be a struggle after that. I'd say it would be because of a lack of inevitability.
The last time neither the Dems nor GOP had an heir apparent was 1952 when Eisenhower won. Even at that, he was a freshly victorious general who was weakly partisan to the extent he had to decide which party he was going to run with that year. I don't think there's a similarly strong candidate in this particular race.
Not a political science major but a political junkie. (Meg, you should be proud of me. I haven't posted a political thread in 2 months)
I'm like Kucinich but he doesn't have a chance in our corporate state so I'm voting Edwards. He's the only viable populist out there. Edwards has a chance if he can win Iowa and with the Iowa caucus system, where people's second choice comes into play, He could win. Then, like Kerry in 2004, he could build momentum to win it all. More likely is Obama wins Iowa.
If Obama wins Iowa and Edwards drops out fairly early, I think the anti-Clinton vote consolidates with Obama and he wins the nomination. If Edwards and Obama both stay in for a long time, splitting the anti-Clinton vote, I give the nomination to Clinton. My odds are Clinton 50%, Obama 40%, Edward 10%
As for the Republicans, Huckabee has a good chance but the corporate powers don't like him and Murdoch (Fox News) is for Gullianni so he'll have to fight the media for quite a while. The Rep nomination is a 3 way tie IMHO with Romney, Huckabee and Gullianni. I personally like Ron Paul (another non-establishmnet candidate) but Huckabee is the best viable candidate because he's running a more moderate campaign. My odds are Huckabee 36%, Romney 36%, Gulliani 28%
Most voter, especially Republicans, are still open to changing their votes. I saw a poll where more than 50% of NH voters said they could still change their mind. And the majority of Republican voters are not happy with their choices, that's where Huckabee is making headway.
The front loading of the primaries could lead to a split vote with different winners all over. This would stretch out the nomination process and give the big money candidates the advantage.
I have voted for 4 different parties in Presidential elections in my life time but I personally will not vote Republican this year regardless of who the nominees are. I feel a Republican victory is a tacit approval of the Bush policies and I will not do that. The Republicans had total power for 6 years and blew it. Time to let them know we're pissed. (not that I'm real happy with the dems either but...)
Last Edit: Dec 16, 2007 6:45:06 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Post by slorchiepoo on Dec 16, 2007 9:24:27 GMT -5
i am so disillusioned with politicians. i remember being so excited to vote when i turned 18. it just so happened that the year i turned 18 was a presidential election year, and i thought that was so awesome. then the great debacle happened with the state of florida, and the one i had voted for basically got the presidency pulled from under his feet.
i do not feel comfortable with any of the frontrunners of either party. i am very sad to say that unless one of them does/says something that knocks my freakin socks off, i will not vote.
Not a political science major but a political junkie. (Meg, you should be proud of me. I haven't posted a political thread in 2 months)
I actually like your posts - they are thoughtful and thought provoking - they have given me alot of information I would not have otherwise.
troo said:
As for the Republicans, Huckabee has a good chance but the corporate powers don't like him and Murdoch (Fox News) is for Gullianni so he'll have to fight the media for quite a while. The Rep nomination is a 3 way tie IMHO with Romney, Huckabee and Gullianni. I personally like Ron Paul (another non-establishmnet candidate) but Huckabee is the best viable candidate because he's running a more moderate campaign. My odds are Huckabee 36%, Romney 36%, Gulliani 28%
Most voter, especially Republicans, are still open to changing their votes. I saw a poll where more than 50% of NH voters said they could still change their mind. And the majority of Republican voters are not happy with their choices, that's where Huckabee is making headway.
I have to agree with the majority of what you said here and add that the proble Romney is facing is the Morman background - that is really hurting huim in this race.
Mer - personally - I will never vote for Guiliani but I would also never vote for Hillari either - If Obama and Huckabee both get the nods - I will have to do alot of research before deciding who to vote for.
Obama VS Huckabee-Obama because I can not get behind someone that said HIV patients should be quarantined. May be a simple reason to a complex problem, but that is all I need
Post by slorchiepoo on Dec 16, 2007 10:10:07 GMT -5
i cannot and will not vote for huckabee. he is in favor of overturning roe vs. wade, which is something i cannot back, whatsoever, especially when he is a MAN trying to change a woman's right to choose.
Post by chicojuarz on Dec 16, 2007 10:58:05 GMT -5
Right now I feel like Obama is the most viable candidate to take the country in the right direction. Obviously, the environment is a little different since I'm in Chicago but when I picture the world that I want to live in and the policies that I would like to see enacted he is most likely to get elected and to make those strides. I am concerned that he is so very young and new to the federal level of politics but he has a lot of experience at the state level. This, is not unlike many of the governors that have gone on to be president.
Do I wish there were a perfect candidate out there? Absolutely, and in general I think Kucinich is one of the best candidates but I dont think he can get elected. Edwards is not without his charm but I dont think we'll see him make a big dent in Iowa. We need a president that will protect Roe V. Wade and stop many of these issues from coming before our currently conservative Supreme Court. One can only hope that as time passes we'll see a change in perspective from the Justices.
*i like coconuts, you can break them open they smell like ladies lyin in the sun** *Hell I don't even know where I am** *for now I must sit here and ponder the yonder: The herbivores did well cause their food didn't never run** *We listen, if it feels good We shake** *You made a big impression for a girl of your size, Now I can't get by without you and your big brown eyes.**
Post by chicojuarz on Dec 16, 2007 11:24:43 GMT -5
There are states where a woman doesnt have access to choose what she wants to do now. Jane Magazine had a great article about a year before it closed about access to contraceptives and other services in South Dakota. If the state took over, and I dont think this would be unlike other states, women would lose almost all of the services and resources that are extremely valuable. Politics remains a male dominated field and until that changes I dont think we'll see women get fair representation. For instance, why is Viagra covered by so many insurance companies but not birth control?
Post by areyoukind on Dec 16, 2007 11:30:20 GMT -5
good point, but insurance companies should be outlawed as well
and yeah, i like the current situation, and wouldn't like anyone to lose their access (which i probably would living in GA at the time of the election)
*i like coconuts, you can break them open they smell like ladies lyin in the sun** *Hell I don't even know where I am** *for now I must sit here and ponder the yonder: The herbivores did well cause their food didn't never run** *We listen, if it feels good We shake** *You made a big impression for a girl of your size, Now I can't get by without you and your big brown eyes.**
*i like coconuts, you can break them open they smell like ladies lyin in the sun** *Hell I don't even know where I am** *for now I must sit here and ponder the yonder: The herbivores did well cause their food didn't never run** *We listen, if it feels good We shake** *You made a big impression for a girl of your size, Now I can't get by without you and your big brown eyes.**
i cannot and will not vote for huckabee. he is in favor of overturning roe vs. wade, which is something i cannot back, whatsoever, especially when he is a MAN trying to change a woman's right to choose.
well - that just made that decision easy for me - my body - my choice!
There are states where a woman doesnt have access to choose what she wants to do now. Jane Magazine had a great article about a year before it closed about access to contraceptives and other services in South Dakota. If the state took over, and I dont think this would be unlike other states, women would lose almost all of the services and resources that are extremely valuable. Politics remains a male dominated field and until that changes I dont think we'll see women get fair representation. For instance, why is Viagra covered by so many insurance companies but not birth control?
Mississippi is one of those states where a woman basically has no choice - I think we are down to only one clinic in the state that willperform an abortion at all and even then - they have a 24 hour waiting period - you have to go in and be "educated" and then come back - most of the people in this state can barely afford the ride to the clinic the first time
I like the so-called "republican" Ron Paul but he has no shot. Fred Thompson is surprisingly my next choice for the GOP, but he has no chance either. I'm registered independent tho, so no primary voting for me. If i was registered partisan i'd be dem, and in that case i'd prolly vote for obama. not a big fan of edwards or hillary. kucinich, gravel, richardson, etc. are all pretty nutty. Dennis is way too left to have any inkling of a chance.
Post by oysterheadhead on Dec 17, 2007 2:44:46 GMT -5
i think that Obama can actually beat Hillary for the nomination. but its not going to be as easy as just winning the first few states. i haven't decided who i will vote for in the primary yet. of course i like kucinich and i think dodd and biden are very qualified. but none of those guys has a chance to win. im not a huge fan of john edwards. im probably voting for whoever the dems nominee is for president. i think. but i cant discount the possibility that the democratic partly will ultimately blow this election like they did the last two.
most of the repubs that are running make me wanna puke. what a bunch of mis-guided bozos. i don't trust any of them.... except.... i do think that john mccain and ron paul are both good statesman and could be a fine president. but neither of those guys have a chance either.
i personally wish that al gore would run. but that ain't happenin either. he's gotten too smart for that. how many times does a man have to get elected to become president?
what i really hate about the whole process is that in the end it comes down to TWO choices for President. only 2. out of millions of people only 2 have a realistic chance. thats just not right.
I actually like Ron Paul and have voted libertarian in the past. I like the libertarian view on civil liberties but I cannot support their position on complete laissez-faire capitalism.
Today the most powerful entity in the world is the multinational corporation. They are more powerful than governments, using large sums of money to control policy, and therefore the greatest danger to our freedom. An unregulated economic system would lead to more and more disparity of income, fewer benefits and higher taxes for the middle class, and further invasions of privacy. It is also responsible for the lack of true information available through he corporate media and the stagnant average wage over the last few decades.
That is why I have to support an anti-corporate candidate. I feel personal freedom (including a woman's right to choose) are only safe with a affluent and informed population. Edwards is the only candidate constantly saying we must change the system by forcing (not asking) corporation's to be responsible citizens. They must pay their taxes and provide valid wages and benefits to workers. We must limit their influence by limiting media consolidation, limiting corporate campaign donations, and stop the unfair bidding practices that provides inflated contracts to corporate donors and denies them to smaller, cheaper companies.
Corporate influence and the destruction of civil liberties are the two BIG things I'm voting on. Edwards has taken up the banner of both.
ANYONE who is for what one candidate stands for, but repeats the mantra that "they cannot win" should remind themselves that this is NOT a vote for class president. YOUR POPULARITY will not be affected one way or another if you vote for a candidate who does not win.
The primaries are expressly for demonstrating to a party which direction you are in support of them taking.
Don't we think said corporations kick back and enjoy the hell out of dumping money into the laps of the candidates who "can win".
The only way to REALLY WASTE YOUR VOTE is by voting for a candidate who you are told "can win" by the corporate owned press.
Tyranny of the majority is in full effect. And we will only get more and more of the same if we follow the flock. Time to MAKE A DIFFERENCE, not wait for it to happen while bitching about it, all the while voting for so called electable candidates. When you hear that a candidate is "too far left", or "unelectable", or "just can't garner enough votes", you should know that this candidate typically ISN"T FOR SALE, or WON"T BE SPONSORED by the same media/corporate interests that keep us under their thumbs.
TIME TO GET OUT OF LINE for that Bull$hit....
Last Edit: Dec 17, 2007 9:34:27 GMT -5 by snoochie2 - Back to Top
Post by chicojuarz on Dec 17, 2007 18:39:32 GMT -5
Wonderfully put point. The money of the corporation runs a great advertising campaign but all of the execs in the world only get one actual vote. If each person stands by their beliefs and elects the people to lead this country things can change.
You see a lot of this type of thing here in IL. We have very serious political corruption issues in the local and regional governments. However, no one votes to change that and until they do our state government wont ever be able to do what it needs to properly.
So I work for the co-media consultants for the Obama campaign and it's really exciting that he is gaining so much momentum right now. That said, I'm still torn between him and Hillary.
But main reason I wanted to join the conversation, is that I was talking with one of our editors the other day and he said that he wished there would be some candidate who just said whatever he/she wanted to and not what in the media training packet. And I knew that there were candidates right now like that, but couldn't think of the name. Ron Paul. That's it.
But because Ron Paul isn't talked about all that much in the mass media, of course neither of us could remember his name. And name recognition is such a huge part of getting elected.
Of course, Editor Guy is a harcore Democrat so that could be the other reason he wasn't thinking about Ron Paul.
ANYONE who is for what one candidate stands for, but repeats the mantra that "they cannot win" should remind themselves that this is NOT a vote for class president. YOUR POPULARITY will not be affected one way or another if you vote for a candidate who does not win.
The primaries are expressly for demonstrating to a party which direction you are in support of them taking.
Don't we think said corporations kick back and enjoy the hell out of dumping money into the laps of the candidates who "can win".
The only way to REALLY WASTE YOUR VOTE is by voting for a candidate who you are told "can win" by the corporate owned press.
Tyranny of the majority is in full effect. And we will only get more and more of the same if we follow the flock. Time to MAKE A DIFFERENCE, not wait for it to happen while bitching about it, all the while voting for so called electable candidates. When you hear that a candidate is "too far left", or "unelectable", or "just can't garner enough votes", you should know that this candidate typically ISN"T FOR SALE, or WON"T BE SPONSORED by the same media/corporate interests that keep us under their thumbs.
TIME TO GET OUT OF LINE for that Bull$hit....
I agree with this completely, it's the spiral of silence.
but the candidates that I halfway(ron paul and such) like that I said can't win are in the republican party, and if i vote in any primary it will be in the democratic party. too bad paul isn't running third party, I would actually be able to vote for who I want in the real election. I'll vote for Obama if i change my party affiliation from independent to dem.
I would never let the assumption that a candidate probably "can't win" affect my vote, I'm just editorializing here.
^^^^^^In a fairly recent debate amongst democratic candidates, Edwards took the anti-gay position by stating that he believed marriage was intended by God to be between a man and a woman.
Too much dogma and discrimination for me.
At the same debate when asked the same question, Kucinich pointed up at an equal sign on a banner, and said that he didn't believe that sign had any conditions....
Not only does Dennis tell it like it is, his voting record proves it.
Edwards also voted to give Bush a blank check in Iraq originally. An advisor of his says that he urged Edwards to do so for the sake of his political future. Edwards denies this, saying the vote was simply "a mistake".
So yeah, the anti corporate crud sells when you are on the campaign trail. But it doesn't matter if you are stuffing yer coffers with corporate $$$$!
Last Edit: Dec 18, 2007 8:46:53 GMT -5 by snoochie2 - Back to Top