The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Lol.

Let us start frome here: if the GOP really is "trying" to marginalize Ron Paul it's because he doesn't fit with the party's beliefs. If he doesn't fit in with the party's platform, than it is unlikely the party will support him. It is even more unlikely that the GOP, however disappointed the religious conservatives are with McCain, will choose Ron Paul at the Convention when he does not fulfill any of the areas for which McCain is roundly criticized. Ron Paul is opposed to an amendment against abortion, he is opposed to defining marriage constitutionally, he wants to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, etc. He brings other things to the table but he is not the "Anti-McCain." The only people with incentive to "revolt" at the election are likely to choose Huckabee over any other current candidate.

I agree with what you've said about Ron Paul; I just want to note that it's not just religions conservatives who aren't super-excited about McCain.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Speaking as one of the 19 votes he has, I care. I care because I think McCain is evvvvvvvillllllllll. OH - and W. giving the seal of approval? If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what could!

I agree -- if I were McCain, I wouldn't want W. touching me with a 10-ft pole b/c the guy has the lowest approval ratings ever... but I'm sure they did it for the "good of the party" or whatever.

Paul is crazier than McCain... I think I'd take McCain over Paul if I had the choice... lol

[SWTXBelle]

If Bush and McCain are sane . . . I'll take the crazy man anyday.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

If Bush and McCain are sane . . . I'll take the crazy man anyday.

lol

Well, Huckabee & Romney look like they're out (at least according to CNN)... I highly doubt the Republican party is going to give the nomination to the guy who has 21 delegates (sorry I said 19 earlier, it looks like I was off by 2) vs. the guy who has 1289.

There would be all kinds of pissed off Republicans in this country if that happened!!! lol

[SWTXBelle]

And there's going to be all kinds of pissed off Conservatives (and Republicans, too ) if they don't!

I just want it to be over.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Lol.


Let us start frome here: if the GOP really is "trying" to marginalize Ron Paul it's because he doesn't fit with the party's beliefs. If he doesn't fit in with the party's platform, than it is unlikely the party will support him. It is even more unlikely that the GOP, however disappointed the religious conservatives are with McCain, will choose Ron Paul at the Convention when he does not fulfill any of the areas for which McCain is roundly criticized. Ron Paul is opposed to an amendment against abortion, he is opposed to defining marriage constitutionally, he wants to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, etc.

In other words, Ron Paul won't win the GOP nomination because:

1. The GOP's core values have been perverted by corrupt politicians and Ron Paul would put an end to that corruption (or at least interfere with its progress).

2. Ron Paul is opposed to an abortion amendment and defining marriage constitutionally because it is not the federal government's duty to legislate such matters (as well as a host of other matters), nor was it ever the Founding Fathers' intent for the federal government to legislate such.

In short, Ron Paul is going to lose the GOP nomination because he is trying to bring cleanliness where is is filth, and the dirty folk aren't about to go out quietly.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I'm just tired of picking the least objectionable candidate.

I hear you, loud and clear. I keep saying that I have Electial Dysfunction - the inability to be aroused by ANY of the current candidates. And this from someone who has never missed an election, and is very disgruntled about voting in a state where most of the voters are already disenfranchised.


In all seriousness, though, what do you all (well, the Democrats) think should be done about Michigan and Florida? They broke the rules, only one candidate was on the Democratic ballot - should those delegates be included or not? If there's a revote, who should pay for it - the states, the party/parties, or the candidates? I find this the most fascinating thing about this year's election thus far.

[jon1856]

[quote=honeychile;1614994][quote=SWTXBelle;1614861]I'm just tired of picking the least objectionable candidate.

I hear you, loud and clear. I keep saying that I have Electial Dysfunction - the inability to be aroused by ANY of the current candidates. And this from someone who has never missed an election, and is very disgruntled about voting in a state where most of the voters are already disenfranchised.


In all seriousness, though, what do you all (well, the Democrats) think should be done about Michigan and Florida? They broke the rules, only one candidate was on the Democratic ballot - should those delegates be included or not? If there's a revote, who should pay for it - the states, the party/parties, or the candidates? I find this the most fascinating thing about this year's election thus far.

Well the states, by way of their political leaders(?) did break the rules.
And they knew that they were doing so.
So IMHO the parties which caused the damage/problem should be the parties to pay for the fix.

[nittanyalum]

^^^Co-sign. The state parties should foot the bill.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

By election, do you mean electing the nominee at the Republican Convention? Cause I got to tell you - I hate Huckabee almost as much as McCain.
I'm just tired of picking the least objectionable candidate. Even though I disagree with some of Paul's platform, I believe in his integrity in a way I don't believe in anyone else's. I do NOT know what I am going to do if it is McCain vs. Clinton/Obama. Shudder.

I mean nomination. Yeah. I'm voting for Obama for much of the same reasons you're voting for Paul. And though there are plenty of people who dislike McCain, but aren't Huck fans, they're not the largest "mass" of Republicans, the ones who are most likely to "do" something at the convention. Disillusioned libertarians in the general will vote McCain, cross the party line, or vote third party. They won't affect the nomination. (Not that religious conservatives are likely to either, just sayin)

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I agree with what you've said about Ron Paul; I just want to note that it's not just religions conservatives who aren't super-excited about McCain.

Noted, see above.

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

In other words, Ron Paul won't win the GOP nomination because:

1. The GOP's core values have been perverted by corrupt politicians and Ron Paul would put an end to that corruption (or at least interfere with its progress).

Do you realize you color every post by paragraphs: I doubt it, he just wouldn't get much done. He might be an uncorrupt politician, maybe, but he won't "put an end" to it.

2. Ron Paul is opposed to an abortion amendment and defining marriage constitutionally because it is not the federal government's duty to legislate such matters (as well as a host of other matters), nor was it ever the Founding Fathers' intent for the federal government to legislate such.

Hence why I'm voting Democrat. I'm in agreement with you, except that this is not why Paul isn't being voted for in the general public, but why he isn't going to be elected at the nomination. McCain is against the same constitutional amendments, Paul doesn't bring more to the table for the largest group of angry Republicans.

In short, Ron Paul is going to lose the GOP nomination because he is trying to bring cleanliness where is is filth, and the dirty folk aren't about to go out quietly.

No, because he got nearly nothing of the popular vote and exactly how many delegates? He's not going to win the nomination because he lost the delegate count. He's not going to sneak in and overthrow the nomination because MOST people who dislike McCain will not see him as an acceptable alternative.

He's not some martyr, he's unpopular among voters. (Which as Howard Dean can tell you doesn't mean he's unpopular on the internet, but that it apparently takes an Obama to get those supporters to vote for you.)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I hear you, loud and clear. I keep saying that I have Electial Dysfunction - the inability to be aroused by ANY of the current candidates. And this from someone who has never missed an election, and is very disgruntled about voting in a state where most of the voters are already disenfranchised.


In all seriousness, though, what do you all (well, the Democrats) think should be done about Michigan and Florida? They broke the rules, only one candidate was on the Democratic ballot - should those delegates be included or not? If there's a revote, who should pay for it - the states, the party/parties, or the candidates? I find this the most fascinating thing about this year's election thus far.

You can't seat the delegates as is, if you do every state will move up their primary to whenever the hell they want. If they want the delegates seated there has to be a revote of some sort. The states should pay, or possibly the state parties, because even though in Florida for example it was the Republican legislature that moved up the date (Dems didn't protest much), the party had the option to hold a caucus to ensure their delegates counted. They could still do that, and if they want to whine about the delegates being seated they should.

That said I don't think it's disenfranchising anyone not to, it's not a constitutional right to vote in a primary. Either party could decide they want to nominate their candidate from within and *poof* it's done.

[AGDee]

Florida and Michigan have very different circumstances and should be looked at separately.

Florida: The REPUBLICAN state congress changed the date for the primary and the Dems had no choice. Therefore, the Dems there should not be punished. All of the candidates were on the ballot. Therefore, their delegates should be seated as is.

Michigan: A major cluster you know what. The Michigan Democratic Party (MDP from here on out) was extremely childish with it's "We're tired of Iowa and NH getting all the say so we're going to move ours earlier than them!" crap. Here we are, in March, and nothing is decided among the Dems yet so clearly Iowa and NH didn't get all the say. Because the DNC said that it was an "illegal" primary, Edwards and Obama dropped out off of the ballot and we had this stupid "Uncommitted" category. You cannot count the votes from this election because 1) Many people didn't vote at all since their candidate wasn't on the ballot and 2) You can't count the Uncommitted votes because it's impossible to know who they wanted to vote for. You absolutely cannot assume they all go to Obama because some were clearly intended for Edwards and there is no way to know how many. And then there is 3) Some may have voted for Hillary just because she was the only one with name recognition on the ballot (Gravel was also on the ballot). That doesn't mean they didn't really want Obama. For those reasons, Michigan should have a firehouse caucus at this point, paid for by the MDP because they are the ones who screwed up. It's still not right, because if we had a choice back on Super Tuesday, Edwards was still an option and he's not now.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Democratic congress has even lower approval ratings.

Well, W. has been in office waaaaay longer than the Democratic Congress has been there, and he's had bad rating since his FIRST TERM...he's had the chance to bring up his rating.. but so far, no dice!

I don't really think he cares if the people like him or not?

[SWTXBelle]

AGDee - I agree. Poor Florida Democrats - the Republican legislature and governor get to decide your primary dates???

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That said I don't think it's disenfranchising anyone not to, it's not a constitutional right to vote in a primary. Either party could decide they want to nominate their candidate from within and *poof* it's done.

Just so I'm not misunderstood - I have always been upset that I live in one of the last states to hold their primary, when tiny little Vermont and places like that make or break so many candidates. Come on, we have 187 delegates to their 23 delegates! I know that I'm far from the only person who feels somewhat disenfranchised by the lateness of our primary - which obviously spurred Michigan and Florida to push theirs up.

In a perfect world, there would be 5 Super Tuesdays, two weeks apart, with an equal amount of high and low delegates in each match. But it's never going to happen - or not in our lifetimes, anyway.


Another question: If they hold a new primary in Michigan and in Florida, what about the people who have died between January and the new primary?