Do they? I'm not sure what the mood is like in the US but over here, we're pretty much only hearing about Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama. Both are Democrats. Do the Republicans stand any chance whatsoever of actually getting in in 2008?

I'm hoping one of those 2 do get in personally - both have quite good policies, particularly on the environment and global warming. It would also be a first for the USA if one of them got in - either the first woman president or the first black/non-white president.

I'd be particularly interested in hearing what Republican voters are thinking right now

Probably, just because many people aren't ready for a non-male, or non-white president over here. (That's the feeling I get, anyway.)

Well it depends on what media source you listen to. If you listen to network television news then you might wonder how the republicans even made it out of high school. But I think they do; more so on which democratic candidate gets the nomine. I think if Hillary gets it then she will be easier to beat than Obama. But judging by the past few days it does not look good for Hillary, she finished third in the Iowa primaries. However I will say she did well in the debates on Saturday.

I am not sure who I will vote for I am still researching the candidates. I do know it will not be Hillary or Obama, and it has nothing to do with their race or gender.

Originally Posted by whym

I'm hoping one of those 2 do get in personally - both have quite good policies, particularly on the environment and global warming.

Well it depends on what media source you listen to. If you listen to network television news then you might wonder how the republicans even made it out of high school. But I think they do; more so on which democratic candidate gets the nomine. I think if Hillary gets it then she will be easier to beat than Obama. But judging by the past few days it does not look good for Hillary, she finished third in the Iowa primaries. However I will say she did well in the debates on Saturday.

I am not sure who I will vote for I am still researching the candidates. I do know it will not be Hillary or Obama, and it has nothing to do with their race or gender.

Not to change the subject of this thread but I did want to comment on this real quick. You say they have good policies on the environment and they certainly do talk a lot about what they would do and on the surface it sounds good for a little while. For instance, a little while ago Hillary said strongly that if she is elected president then gas prices would immidatly drop. (below is a segment that I took from a discussion board here is the link
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/hinton-wv/TE9KRTHUJTGELR2IS )

“Clinton says, oil-pumping countries will lower prices to stifle America's incentive to develop alternative energy.

"I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will drop the price of oil," Clinton said, speaking at the Manchester YWCA. "They will once again assume, once the cost pressure is off, Americans and our political process will recede."

Now that sounds real good until you learn the fact that producers have no say in what the oil prices are. What Hillary is doing is just talk. This is a brief part of why I will not be voting for her.

Originally Posted by whym

Do they? I'm not sure what the mood is like in the US but over here, we're pretty much only hearing about Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama. Both are Democrats.

You would have to refer to my "Does Anyone believe one thing the media has to say" thread. Sadly, until very recently, CNNI (CNN International) has been the only big news outlet based in the U.S. watched internationaly. If most Americans, Democrats included, knew what type of BS the international community was being fed by CNNI, it seems there would be real public outcry. To clarify, CNN's bias is exhibited on a daily basis and most are willing to acknowledge it's existence. CNNI makes CNN look like the Rush Limbaugh show.

Long story short, when you say all you have heard about is Obama and Hillary, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Thankfully, Fox News, teamed with Sky Networks, is now being pumped into many countries previously dominated by CNNI. I'm sure most will not change their views or opinions, especially with the BBC weighing in to the left of CNNI, but at least people will have an alternative news outlet to give some contrast. I always laugh about how aghast non-US folks were when Dubya got re-elected. Case and point really.

/Hijack off

Hilary would be hard to beat by any Republican if she got on the Democratic ticket, woman, lesbian, hermaphrodite, or otherwise. Giuliani would have the best crack at it. Sadly for her, it does not look like she is going to take New Hampshire, and that could spell real trouble for her campaign. Its looking more and more like Obama will be the Democratic candidate.

Thats is good news for Republicans, as Obama will loose against pretty much every serious Republican candidate you put him against, save maybe Hucklebee. Forget the polling numbers, im talking reality. Here is the short list of things the Repubs will nail him to the cross about once the general election ramp up begins

1) Overall Inexperience
2) Age
3) Senate background, rather than Governership background
4) Record of non-performance
5) Full of good intentions and concepts without a real plan
6) The issues
a) Complete withdrawl from Iraq
b) Tax plan


Polling data indicates the majority of Americans will support continued troop presence in Iraq so long as things continue to stabilize, yet every candidate outside of Hilary is talking about a complete withdrawl in a short time. These candidates are out of step with the American public on the whole

Concerns of recession, though perhaps overstated by the media, are very real. Obama, like most Democrats, wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and spend the money on healthcare, which would be disastrous for our economy. Dems and Republicans alike have yet to see what this guy really wants to do about the problemed U.S. economy.

Its funny to watch the primaries where every candidate rattles away with hardcore left and right wing rhertoric, trying to get their party's nomination, only to watch them slam on the brakes in March of election year, in an effort to appeal to the wider audience of the general election.

Obama seems like a charismatic guy and it is great to see a woman, a black with a muslim name, an italian, a mexican, and a mormon running for the U.S. presidency(sounds like the introduction of a joke of some kind). Mitt Romney is a Charismatic guy too, with loads of experience from the business world and running a State. Unlike Obama, both he and Giuliani have real life resumes of success that the American people will likely take into account when casting their vote.

OK CBWM. I personally think that the Republicans have overextended themselves and lost a lot of the trust of many Americans following the Iraq war and a number of scandals. Put on top of this the appaling conditions with healthcare and education that the Republicans seem to have done little about.

If you look at the history of the American presidency, they often swap between Republican and Democrat presidents every few terms. Bush has had his time and I feel that it's likely the Americans will vote in a Democrat this time (and some REAL issues can start being solved).

By the way, I watch the BBC for most of my information which reports (mostly unbiased news) from around the world.

Originally Posted by whym

OK CBWM. I personally think that the Republicans have overextended themselves and lost a lot of the trust of many Americans following the Iraq war and a number of scandals.

I think it would be a mistake to say Bush Untrustworthy = Republicans Untrustworthy. Bush has lost a lot of support, even amongst Republicans, but you don't see card carrying Republicans disowning their party. Rather, the Democrats will be more united than ever, and the Republican nominee probably wont be toting around Bush too much in hopes of winning over the independent vote.

Originally Posted by whym

Put on top of this the appaling conditions with healthcare and education that the Republicans seem to have done little about.

Although I find that comment extremely debatable, in my opinion, even assuming the comment is accurate, those wont be the deciding issues for this election.

Originally Posted by whym

If you look at the history of the American presidency, they often swap between Republican and Democrat presidents every few terms. Bush has had his time and I feel that it's likely the Americans will vote in a Democrat this time (and some REAL issues can start being solved).

You may be right, but I tend to believe that a president is elected for his qualifications, not his party. Although I loathe saying it, I could feasibly vote for Hilary over Huckabee. Whoever is elected will most certainly work on solving REAL issues, just perhaps not the ones that are important to you, or me for that matter.

Originally Posted by whym

By the way, I watch the BBC for most of my information which reports (mostly unbiased news) from around the world.

A man who has only been offered asparagus all his life has no idea he is missing steak, nor what it tastes like.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I think it would be a mistake to say Bush Untrustworthy = Republicans Untrustworthy. Bush has lost a lot of support, even amongst Republicans, but you don't see card carrying Republicans disowning their party. Rather, the Democrats will be more united than ever, and the Republican nominee probably wont be toting around Bush too much in hopes of winning over the independent vote.

The question here, as is usually the case with presidential elections, will be the swing voters. Though I've not exactly taken a poll, I've heard enough moderate Republicans who feel disenfranchised by Bush's domestic polices, especially Homeland Security and handling of affairs after Katrina, but also a feeling of being rooked into having to be present in Iraq long-term. This in a state that has gone to the Republican candidate long as I can remember.

I won't claim that this is representative by any stretch, and I don't see these folks switching sides anytime soon, but if their sentiment is more broadly felt then the Republicans are indeed in trouble. cbwm, I think you're right in saying that the Republican candidate will try to distance himself from Bush's legacy, but I think that'll be hard to do in the minds of the voters. This presidential election, I believe, could be one of the nastiest in history.

Ahh Katrina. Any swing voter who seriously votes anti-republican because he/she faults Bush for Katrina is weak minded and would likely vote for Osama bin Laden if he was dressed in a suit and NBC said he was a good guy. The last mardi gras I went to, a friend hooked me up with the police commissioner's business card with his cellphone written on the back, and instructions to hand the card to the arresting officer if I got myself into trouble. Within 5 minutes I was directing traffic on Canal St.. The best police money can buy, and the whole city is run that way. Louisiana governance is the cause of New Orleans problems on many levels. Them, and god of course. Lets not forget to blame god.

I think you are forgetting how unpopular Bush was going into the second term, not that he was ever very popular. Bush vs. Kerry, and the decision became pretty clear for all those swing voters. All you need is to put someone unelectable as the Democratic candidate, and just watch those swing voters vote Republican, even if it's Huckleberry Hound. I think the perfect unelectable candidate would have to be running on the platform of "Lets raise taxes", want to negotiate directly with Syria, and have a crappy track record from congress, and have an Islamic name while the U.S. wages war on Islamic extremists. Make him a minority, to add icing to the cake, and all the sudden you see people saying, "President Huckleberry".

Originally Posted by whym

Do they? I'm not sure what the mood is like in the US but over here, we're pretty much only hearing about Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

The reason for this is because this is the first time a woman and an African-American made this much progress in a presidential election. It's revolutionary and a first in U.S. history, that's why there is so much controversy and coverage. I still see a lot of Republican articles and news coverage, so all is not lost if you're apart of the GOP.

If voters vote a certain way (which I know they will) because of Bush then what they are saying is that I don’t really know what I believe or what party stands for what, they just know that they think our country has been in bad condition and so it must be the republicans fault. That is an unintelligent way to vote.

Well, you asked for Republicans to reply, but let me chime in if you don't mind. Before Bush I was not in any party, but voted Republican. Since Bush I have switched to a Democrat.

You've asked Republicans, but those who are still Republican in the US will support Bush really no matter what. As evidence, look at the US Congress where the Republicans have backed Bush on just about everything -- no matter the cost. I believe, in fact, that only 2 issues (subjects I can't recall) brought the Republicans to the point where they finally opposed Bush. Also, if you look at the last election cycle the Republicans refused to admit that they would lose the Congress -- they had "faith" in the American people to believe as the Republicans do. Then, after they lost every manner of rationalization was proferred as to why. The missing element? Taking responsibility for their failure to lead.

Now the Republicans are still failing to lead and continuing to lead to failure: every time a Democratic measure is put forth, the Republicans block it. Then, after successfully blocking the entire Democratic agenda they have the nerve to blame the Democrats. A Republican may have a chance in this next election, but it's unlikely in my never-humble opinion. The reason? Religion! The Republicans have been toiling away very hard over the last few years to replace the US Constitution with the Bible and they've done quite well. In fact, just about every Republican candidate is slobbering to try and prove just how religious they are and just how much Christianity they'll make law when in office. While the American populace is fairly religious, our country was not founded on such principles and I doubt that the highly-religious rhetoric coming out of the Republican side will allow them to fair well. Also, it's time to restore a number of constitutional protections to this country and the Republicans have demonstrated a clear distaste for the Constitution as they have argued for years now that the only way to protect our rights is to take them away, under the guise, of course, of taking them away from "others."

I'll be caucusing for Edwards. I like him the best. I doubt he'll win -- it'll probably be Hillary or Obama. I think any of the top 3 Democratic candidates will be able to handily be any of the Republican candidates though, but then again, I'm going by the polls and the Republicans like to say that the "conventional wisdom" as reported via polls is always wrong -- even when the conventional wisdom is shown to be true.

OK, Republicans, go on the attack -- I'm ready. May not respond as I don't want this to be personal, but I'm ready.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Also, if you look at the last election cycle the Republicans refused to admit that they would lose the Congress -- they had "faith" in the American people to believe as the Republicans do. Then, after they lost every manner of rationalization was proferred as to why.

Came as no surprise to me, but I was hopeful . I really have enjoyed the Pelosi lead Democratic congress with approval ratings in the teens. I don't think it will happen this election, but I think you'll see a Republican majority before long.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Now the Republicans are still failing to lead and continuing to lead to failure

Hey! Isn't that leadership?

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

every time a Democratic measure is put forth, the Republicans block it. Then, after successfully blocking the entire Democratic agenda they have the nerve to blame the Democrats.

That sounds suspiciously like politics.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

The Republicans have been toiling away very hard over the last few years to replace the US Constitution with the Bible and they've done quite well. In fact, just about every Republican candidate is slobbering to try and prove just how religious they are and just how much Christianity they'll make law when in office.

You wouldn't have any examples of this, would you? Seriously.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

I'll be caucusing for Edwards.

/Cough Ambulance Chaser /Cough /Cough
Talk about your reasons for high health care costs.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

I think any of the top 3 Democratic candidates will be able to handily be any of the Republican candidates though, but then again, I'm going by the polls and the Republicans like to say that the "conventional wisdom" as reported via polls is always wrong -- even when the conventional wisdom is shown to be true.

I only said forget the polls on the real election because we are a LONG way from November. Hell, Kerry was looking pretty good in the polls for 2004, until practically anyone who ever knew him in the military publicly called him a traitor. There is a LOT of mudslinging and skeleton finding ahead of us.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Ahh Katrina. Any swing voter who seriously votes anti-republican because he/she faults Bush for Katrina is weak minded and would likely vote for Osama bin Laden if he was dressed in a suit and NBC said he was a good guy.

Indeed so, but I'm passing on sentiments I'm hearing. The swing voter is often the "water cooler" voter. And keep in mind people vote with their wallets. Logical or not, those who still don't have their homes will look to the Republican ticket as an easy target for their frustrations. You were thinking that all voters are logical and informed? You're obviously not from Florida. (OK, OK, I'll stop using the cheap bait.)

Originally Posted by LmT

The reason for this is because this is the first time a woman and an African-American made this much progress in a presidential election. It's revolutionary and a first in U.S. history, that's why there is so much controversy and coverage. I still see a lot of Republican articles and news coverage, so all is not lost if you're apart of the GOP.

Oh, agreed. Personally the only electable one I see is Edwards.

Originally Posted by cbwm

All you need is to put someone unelectable as the Democratic candidate, and just watch those swing voters vote Republican, even if it's Huckleberry Hound. I think the perfect unelectable candidate would have to be running on the platform of "Lets raise taxes", want to negotiate directly with Syria, and have a crappy track record from congress, and have an Islamic name while the U.S. wages war on Islamic extremists. Make him a minority, to add icing to the cake, and all the sudden you see people saying, "President Huckleberry".

As I said, this presidential race is bound to be a nasty one. It will put the Helms/Gantt races in North Carolina to shame. I'm not counting the GOP out, but this one will be close and it will be brutal.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Indeed so, but I'm passing on sentiments I'm hearing. The swing voter is often the "water cooler" voter. And keep in mind people vote with their wallets. Logical or not, those who still don't have their homes will look to the Republican ticket as an easy target for their frustrations. You were thinking that all voters are logical and informed? You're obviously not from Florida. (OK, OK, I'll stop using the cheap bait.)

I agree with you here. There is nothing I hate more than voters voting a certain way based on ignorant information. I tend to vote more conservative but do not by any means go and check off the republicans. And I have several friends who are all well informed who tend to vote more liberal, I have no problem with that as long as you have done real research and have solid reasons for why you are voting.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

There is nothing I hate more than voters voting a certain way based on ignorant information.

Then what's gone on in this thread so far must irritate you.

The truth is, Whym, a lot of things would have to come together for any Republican to have any prayer of winning the presidency (that's not even their goal in 2008)

1. Obama's plane would have to crash
2. into John Edwards.
3. Hillary would have to commit ritual suicide in response,
4. the remaining Democrat contenders would split the vote.
5. The Supreme Court would have to order the votes not to be counted, and appoint the president of their choosing. Again.

I suppose #5 could hand the White House to the Republicans even in the absence of #1-4, but most people think only a close race can be stolen. Don't misunderstand - George W Bush isn't the only president who's ever stolen an election. Part of what drive Richard Nixon mad was knowing that he legitimately beat John F Kennedy. Remember JFK got votes from about 80,000 dead people in Chicago. That's just dead people - add in people who didn't live there, voted multiple times and all the other fraud, and Nixon probably won Illinois. Just as the election that delivered George W Bush to power only saw 9 votes cast, 5 of them by Republican appointees.

I think it would be a mistake to say Bush Untrustworthy = Republicans Untrustworthy.

You're right. Republicans are untrustworthy not because of Bush, but because they've proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

Bush's policy has brought America to the brink of ruin. The Republican congress - BOTH HOUSES - rubber stamped every aspect of Bush's policy. Their hands are as dirty as his. Bush didn't use his first veto for about 7 years, until the Democrats reclaimed Congress by the weakest of margins.

We've seen Ted Haggard disgrace himself, his party, and his wear it on your sleeve faith politics. We've seen the American Enterprise Institute and Project for a New American Century cheer on the most abysmally unpopular Bush policies, like the Iraq war and widespread use of torture. We've seen the Republican Party near collapse because they couldn't decide which master (xenophobia or corporate rule) to obey. Jack Abramoff is another example.

Indeed so, but I'm passing on sentiments I'm hearing. The swing voter is often the "water cooler" voter. And keep in mind people vote with their wallets

Which is another reason a Democratic victory is inevitable. When Clinton was president, America enjoyed widespread prosperity. We had a booming surplus instead of a deficit, and used much of it to pay down the debt. The administrations surrounding Clinton's bankrupted America. The dollar was strong under Clinton - under Bush, even China is talking about dumping them as they loose value as we owe more and more and more of them and show no indication of ever being able to repay our public debt.

The Democrats have always been the party that's able to manage the economy responsibly. This is a historical fact, and it's as true with today's crop of tax and spend Republicans as it ever has been.

Obama, like most Democrats, wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts

Republicans hate graphs, because they make facts easily understandable. I predict all kinds of funny objections to this one. The last time I posted one like this, cbwm or Nathan responded "this is the cost we have to pay for our fun in Iraq." It's true that this war of choice is a huge fiscal drain, but it's only part of a horrible fiscal policy that's ruining America.

Anyone remember Enron? Ken Lay had regular sleepovers at George W Bush's house - this is "special access" you or I wouldn't get. Compare the price of Halliburton and Blackwater compared to the US Army, let alone not making war on Iraq. This privatized war business is great stuff if you collect corporate welfare benefits.

The Republican field of candidates looks so anemic this time around because they aren't trying to win the presidency. They know that's impossible. They're focusing their real effort at loosing as few seats in Congress as possible. No amount of Faux News is going to change that.

@Learning Newbie: Superb post. I love the citing of data. You mean that borrowing money and lowering taxes isn't fiscal responsibility? Go figure. I thought the American way was to live off of loans. **** those Democrats -- raising taxes, providing services (yes, using tax money), and lowering the debt! What will they do next? Oh, yeah, restore rights and get us out of Iraq.

Newbie, I thought you burned that graph when I reminded you that it indicates the debt fell under Nixon and LBJ, both Republicans. Oh well, thanks for the reminder!

I'm glad we all, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree the Dems are running on raising taxes as we run on the brink of recession. That should pretty much shore up the swing vote in favor of the Republicans, or that of anyone with more than a third grade education.

Originally Posted by cbwm

...or that of anyone with more than a third grade education.

I have a degree with honors. Let us not have this conversation degrade into such language.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Can agree the Dems are running on raising taxes as we run on the brink of recession. That should pretty much shore up the swing vote in favor of the Republicans, or that of anyone with more than a third grade education.

One really ought to not fear a raise of taxes as much as raising debt for future taxpayers to satisfy. I'm much more a proponent of paying for things as you go than passing the buck. Perhaps if we spent less time borrowing money the value of the dollar might not be falling and a recession would be preventable. Taxes do not imply recession. There are many factors that go into the onset of a recession. Fear of taxation is the only weapon the Republicans have in this election cycle, but I don't know that the collective intelligence level of the US populace will fall victim to that fear technique this cycle.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Newbie, I thought you burned that graph when I reminded you that it indicates the debt fell under Nixon and LBJ, both Republicans. Oh well, thanks for the reminder!

I didn't think anyone could confuse LBJ with being a Republican.

Wasn't he the Texan who escalated that overseas war? Haha. Oops. You have to admit the graph omits Nixon, the Republican who got us out of that war.