The Public Opinion Soapbox

Dave · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 162

Everyone seems to agree that the party's nominees will be decided sometime in February or even after Iowa, NH, & SC.

This is very disturbing. Why do we allow political parties pick their candidates without everyone having the opportunity to vote? Why don't we have a primary election just like other elected offices. Who came up with this plan?

Maybe there is magic in the corn fields of Iowa besides having dead ball players living amongst the stalks.

I think the parties do this to control who they run. Running all of these campaigns in all of the early primary states takes big money. It stretches out the campaign trail. If you can't raise the big money - good bye.

Did the Democrats want to run Edwards - problaby not with the influence the Clintons have in the Democratic party & he lost last time. They want Obama around but not as president. Meanwhile, the Republican party is probably scared that a Rudy win will cause a split with the religeous right.

The system, the way it is, will never allow a nominee that is not hand picked by the party.

We need a change.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 490

why can't we have presidential primaries on the same day across the nation like we do for the general election? I understand why it's not in the Constitution, but it still doesn't mean that we couldn't do it. We should be very upset here since we have absolutely no say in who will be nominated.

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

The PO Online's poll of the day is:

"If comedian Stephen Colbert was a presidential candidate in Pennsylvania, would you vote for him?"

Currently, No's out pace Yeses 14-4.

But of course that's the case; he's a satirical comedian, and the fact that he's "running for president" not only personifies his comedy, but also leaves egg on the faces of everyone taking it too seriously.

The Colbert show truly is excellent; even if you among the most conservative crowd of Daily Show haters. I think that just about everyone can find some of the humor in his over-the-top Bill O'Reilly, et al impersonation.

But seriously speaking; if I walked into a voting booth today and there were three names on the list:

Clinton
Giuliani
Colbert

Well, I'd have a hard time not picking Colbert. Razz

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 2758 Location: Chambersburg

On Larry King live (hides from stones being thrown, I only watched because Colbert was on!!) Colbert, when asked his politics, said "I believe that people should be left alone." paraphrased, of course.
I'd vote for that, in a heartbeat.

Ya' know, I've never been a fan of Hillary, but Guiliani is going down a road that looks like perpetual war. I don't know if it's an act for the primaries or he really is that insane, but we cannot, militarily or financially, afford to be at war with anymore countries right now and I refuse to vote for someone who won't take a breath and think before sending our troops off.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

BTW did anyone else hear about Iowa moving their primaries up to Jan. 3rd?
_________________
I demand euphoria!

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 2758 Location: Chambersburg

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

You won't get any flaming from me; I think you're mostly right on target and I think it's at least a reasonable and responsible presumption that we should probably not go to war with any country until we figure out the ones we're already in. I know for sure that I can't trust the same people who convinced us that going to Iraq because of WMD's and connections to Al Qaeda was a "slam dunk."

In the Middle East, George Bush and America are seen as fighting a war against Islam. As incorrect as this may be, perception is everything, especially when our military and political leaders go on and on about winning "hearts and minds." So even consider taking military action against another Islamic nation could surely put all of us in greater danger at home, even despite the fact that Iran may pose a greater threat to us than Iraq ever did.

But look; I'm not a military strategist or expert on the sociology of Muslims. But I'm glad we live in a democracy where our voices can be heard and we have the right to criticize our politicians. I especially see voting as a license to practice that right. There is one thing I'm sure of though; I would never, ever agree with a government that thinks we should sacrifice any of our liberties or freedoms in the name of national security... ever. And that's happening to us now, and far too many people are tolerant of it.

AnonyMouse · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 405

.45chel said:

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

That certainly does put things in perspective AnonyMouse; I don't mean to hijack or put things in another direction, but there is something else I've been thinking about.

George W., according to much of the media anyway, arguably won the last two elections mostly thanks to a group of voters that are called anything from "compassionate conservative" to "evangelical." It's a huge group, many of whom I assume live right here in Franklin County... which voted, overwhelmingly and more than almost any other PA county, for Bush. I also believe registered republicans out number democrats in the county nearly 3 to 1. A lot of folks are religious people who vote mainly for conservative social stances, or at least against liberal ones. Bush was a lock for that vote considering his long-standing good press with the religious right.

But now what? It seems that the three most religious candidates, Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo have lost most of their credibility by admitting they don't believe in evolution (not to knock anyone's personal beliefs on the subject of course) and basically not standing a chance. McCain really dug himself a hole on the Iraq war thing. So that pretty much leaves Giuliani and Romney as the front runners, especially since Fred Thompson failed to impress anyone at his first debate (although he could certainly surprise us all).

Now to my question; if you're part of that huge, religious right, evangelical voter demographic that so single-handedly won Bush the presidency--twice--who are they going to vote for now?

They can't possibly vote for Giuliani; he's socially liberal on many issues, including immigration, gay rights, abortion and gun control. He's been divorced several times, under unusual circumstances in fact, and doesn't come across as very compassionate or conservative when it comes to the issues many evangelicals care about most.

And then you have Romney. He's a Mormon, which I think many evangelicals (or at least many of those I have talked to) consider a hokey religion or even a cult. The most devout Christians certainly don't see Mormonism as a legitimate branch of their faith. He was also very much socially liberal as the Governor of Massachusetts.

So, the question is; if Guiliani or Romney are on the ticket next November, will evangelicals vote for one of them simply out of spite against Democrats, or perhaps consider an alternative?

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 2758 Location: Chambersburg

I think that is a valid question.
In Georgia, long ago, we had yellow dog democrats, as in "I'll vote for a yellow dog if it's running on the Democratic ticket." Now those ol' dogs have been replaced by the Republican equivalent in Georgia and, it seems, here.

I think that's what killing our political system, our government and strangling our country. We've got congressmen killing bills that would help our country because they don't like who sponsored it and others who will vote for whatever the administration tells them too, for fear of being blackballed or not receiving re-election support.

So, to answer your question Coppy, yes, I beleive you will have people who will vote for a yellow dog before they'll vote for a Democrat, even if he/she is the best choice.
_________________
I demand euphoria!

AnonyMouse · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 405

Dobson and others have said plainly that they will not vote for Guiliani. They have said that if the repubs nominate him, they will find a third party candidate to vote for. I'm not sure if they actually will, knowing that splitting the conservative vote ensures a Democratic win - particularly if that Democrat is Hillary (who they hate with an astonishing passion). I'm not sure if this is a tactic or if they really hold those anti-Rudy convictions stronger than their love of power and having someone in the White House who will respond to their agenda.

AnonyMouse · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 405

Also...

As this plays out, I think Huckabee might be someone to watch. He's got all the credentials for the religious right, and I've read lately that he's had something of a surge recently despite spending little money. Maybe he'll be their man.

walrus1 · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 63

When Hillary wins the next election she will be the favorite for a second term.... with that we will have had almost 30 years of Bush/Clinton, the new American revolving Monarchy. Over half the the population will have known no President not named Bush or Clinton in their life time. After her George P. Bush is being groomed, he is of Hispanic background and with the ground work he is laying he will be a force.... then who? Chelsea? when does it end? out of 300 million people and thirty years we couldn't find someone besides these two familes? If I was a conspiracy nut I would be worried. Heck have a Bush marry Chelsea, coranate them and we won't have to mess with these fake elections anymore.

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

AnonyMouse · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 405

Do you want to know the worst part about life? That even though my candidate walks on water, and it's obvious that this candidate walks on water, some people are too darned stupid to agree! For some bizarre reason, they believe their candidate walks on water, when it so freakin' obvious that no, only mine does.

Mine is the smartest, most experienced, most progressive, most charismatic, most fun to have a beer with, most electable, and most organized. And my candidate does something you think it's stupid, it's really just you who are stupid.

And anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot.

That's the worst part about life.

--found on the internets

Dave · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 162

I guess the biggest dissapointment about elections & politics is that we are all so predictable.

Apparantly, after the corn fed Iowans & "Live free or Die" New Hampshirans & "I'm not sure" South Carlininians vote or caucus or whatever they do, all the pundents will extrapolate the eventual winners.

Maybe my candidate would drop out before I can vote for him. Really depressing when your candidate is in the other party & you can't vote for them. Maybe your candidate will get a little carried away and let out that campaign-ending yeeeeehaaaaawwwww. Or, those pictures will come out with that chick on the yacht.

This is serious stuff with serious consequences.

We need discussions on serious issues. No religious test. Where do these guys really stand on the issues that are important to us? Who will work with the other party? Who will listen to the people.

We need a debate where the questions are relevant & the candidates have time to answer.