Not really too many surprises in these results. The only real one maybe being that Clinton didn't do a little better. Huckabee's decisive win over Romney is a blow for the latter; he's apparently spent a fortune on campaigning already, much more so than Huckabee.

I'm much more interested in the democrats though, who I naturally gravitage to. From what i've seen and read so far, I think it will be a race between Obama and Clinton, despite Edwards beating her in Iowa. Obama has the advantage of a relatively clean slate whereas Clinton is mired by her Husband's presidency and the health care scandal that she was at the heart of.

Not that i'm American, but I think i'd lean towards Obama.

Well now, you had to go and start this thread. Like dangling catnip in front of a cat.

I don't get to vote until February 5. That's when New Jersey has its primary. And I'm not sure who is going to get my vote yet. I'll vote in the Democratic Primary. So I'll probably be choosing among Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

I could vote for any of those three and be comfortable. But Clinton is the most centrist of that group. Obama and Edwards are a bit farther to the left--which makes them a bit more attractive to me.

It's interesting though, because I'm really torn. I would love to see a woman elected president. It would be incredible. And I wouldn't be upset if Clinton won. But I really don't think she can. Not because she's not qualified or blah, blah, blah. But because the Republicans did such a good job of demonizing her when she was First Lady, that there are a lot of people who just HATE her. Just blind hatred. And if you ask them why, they don't even have a reason. They're just determined to NOT vote for her, regardless. So although she does well with the Democratic Party regulars who vote in primaries and caucuses, I think she'd lose in the general election. I could be totally wrong--and maybe I am. But I just think the Republicans would also have the long knives out for her and they'd tear her to shreds.

I'd also love to see the US elect its first black president. That would also be thrilling. And I like Obama on a lot of the issues, too. But--and I hate to say this--he wouldn't win in the general election either. We've come a long way in this country as far as race is concerned. But we've got a long way to go. And I just don't see this country electing a black man as president. Again, he can win primaries, because the people voting are basically liberal Democrats--people who are most likely to not allow race to be a factor. And, with Iowa being just about the whitest state in the Union (I think 93 percent of the people of Iowa are white), it was really wonderful to see them choose Obama. So yeah, there are a lot of Americans who will vote for Obama based on the issues, and won't see race. And that's great. But in the general election, I think there will be a lot of other people who will step into that voting booth and will not be able to vote for a black man in the White House. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

That leaves Edwards. I really do like Edwards. I like what he has to say on a lot of issues. And he is probably the most electable in a general election because he's a white male. Hey, I'm just being a realist. But Edwards doesn't have very much money at this point. And if he doesn't win in New Hampshire, I don't know that he can go on with his campaign because he might not have the funds.

I don't really care which Democrat is nominated. That person has my vote. My fear is that they will nominate someone who can't win. And then--lordy, lordy--we'll have another Republican in the White House. And then I'll have to beg the Canadians to take me in, cause if the Republicans are left in charge for another four or eight years, it'll be a disaster. I don't even want to think about it.

Sandia - I have a question for you. Who votes in caucuses and primaries? Can any one in the state vote for both candidates or is it just registered members of each party who vote?

I'd like to see Obama elected (based on what very little I know about the candidates!). As you say, there may be reasons why some people wouldn't vote for him, but perhaps that might not be an issue amongst the more liberal voters who the democrats would be looking to target? Clinton strikes me as being similar to Margaret Thatcher - a very strong woman who is very much a love/hate figure. She also seems to be the most conservative of the three main candidates, would would be ironic seeing as she's probably the most reviled amongst Republicans. I don't know much about John Edwards. He seems fairly charismatic, but he might struggle in a election if he comes up against a well-known candidate such as Rudi Giuliani.

On the Republican side I think that Giuliani is the candidate who would be palatable to anyone left of centre. He's a well known figure who is a leader rather than a puppet (compare his handling of the aftermath of 911 to Bush's, for example) and, for a Republican, his views are pretty liberal. Perhaps for this reason he may struggle to get their nomination though.

---

by DJ Billy
Sandia - I have a question for you. Who votes in caucuses and primaries? Can any one in the state vote for both candidates or is it just registered members of each party who vote?

---

You have to be registered as a member of a party to vote in the primaries or caucuses. But in some places, you can register the day you vote.

In New Jersey, you have to "declare yourself" either a Democrat or Republican, and you have to be registered in advance.

You're right DJBilly, the fact that Obama is black or that Clinton is a woman won't be as much of a barrier in the primaries. Because in the primaries, only Democrats are voting for them. And in general, a lot of of the most liberal elements of the party tend to vote in the primaries and caucuses.

I like Hillary Clinton. She's a moderate, and I wish she was a bit more progressive in some areas. But she's good on a lot of the issues.

I like Obama a lot. He's fairly progressive. He's not a product of the Washington establishment, and he has a different way of looking at some things. I think we could use that.

Edwards is someone I like, too. He's a millionaire now (as they all are), but he grew up in a lower middle class family in South Carolina. His dad was a blue collar laborer in a mill. And although he's now wealthy, he remembers where he came from. He tends to emphasize the need to help the ordinary middle class person who's having a really hard time now. He also wants to make poverty in the US a major part of his work. And I think that says something, because there are absolutely no votes for him in doing that.

Rudy Giuliani. Oh, where do I begin. Yes, his views are liberal for a Republican. That's because he's a New York Republican. Republicans in the northeastern part of the United States are always liberal on social issues. They'd never get elected in this part of the country with some of the radically conservative views that George Bush style Republicans have.

Also, as mayor, yes Giuliani was tough. But he was a bully. He was stubborn. He was arrogant. He was divisive--always looking for a fight when compromise would have been much better. (Reminds me of Bush.) That style might work for a while, but it gets old pretty fast. By the time his term as mayor was over, he had alienated a lot of people. Most people were eager to see the back of him.

Plus, there was this whole circus of personal stuff that was swirling around him that kind of made him a joke toward the end of his terms. Just to illustrate, take the whole Judith Nathan affair. He was rumored to have had a couple of affairs while in office. But they were never splashed on the front pages. But after he met Judith Nathan, he apparently asked his wife for a quick and quiet divorce. She wouldn't give it to him. So, he started going out in public with his mistress. I mean, they would be seen walking on the street together, eating together at restaurants. They went out to The Hamptons (wealthy beach communities on Long Island where many of the New York elite spend weekends in the summer) for weekends together. His atttitude was, OK don't leave. (I think he had also asked her to move out of their official residence.) I want to be with someone else and I will be no matter what you do. And all this was going on while he was still mayor--and with his two kids watching it all.

Then, he finally decides to file for divorce and force the issue--but he doesn't tell his wife. Somehow, reporters get hold of the news that he was going to do this, and someone contacted Giuliani's wife, Donna Hanover. She's like, "What are you talking about?" I guess she hadn't received the papers yet when they contacted her. But anyway, within a few hours, his wife is out on the front lawn of Gracie Mansion (New York mayor's residence) telling reporters what a cad he had been and how he hadn't even told her, and painting herself as the victim of his callous behavior. The flashbulbs are popping and TV cameras are bringing this spectacle into the living rooms of everyone in New York City and northern New Jersey. I won't go on. I mean, I personally don't care about his divorce or his mistress. But it had become ridiculous. So half the city hated him because of his political actions, and the other half thought he was a joke. Then 9/11 happened. And everything was forgotten. He became St. Rudy--at least to people outside of the New York City area. We know who he is.

Wrote another novel, didn't I?

Thanks Sandia. It sounds like Giuliani would split opinion if he became the Republican candidate. He might appeal to wavering voters who only know him for the post-911 stuff, but not to others who remember some of the things that you mention above. It would also be interesting to see how his past personal life and his views on abortion would go down with traditional Republican voters on he religious right.

It always amazes me how people's personal lives have so much impact. If you look at the statistics the majority of people will either cheat on their wife / girlfriend / husband / boyfriends at some point in their lives or get divorced (or both). It has nothing to do with their political views leadership style or their capability to lead.

---

He tends to emphasize the need to help the ordinary middle class person who's having a really hard time now.

---

Ah the politically forgotten group as they are not poor enough so you can show off by giving the money and definitely not rich enough that taxing them more will make you seem as a modern day Robin Hood. Strangely enough politicians seem to forget that's where the majority of the voters are. That's probably also why they are the forgotten group as doing something for this particular group is always very very very expensive (as although you help them a little it still costs a lot because there are so many of them). And of course there is always the left that try and make helping the middle class political suicide by make arguments like "with that kind of money you can help the poor way more and makes a bigger impact" or the right "that money is better spent on tax relief for businesses or of course the military".

(Edited by Chambler 05/01/2008 17:58)

---

by Chambler
It always amazes me how people's personal lives have so much impact. If you look at the statistics the majority of people will either cheat on their wife / girlfriend / husband / boyfriends at some point in their lives or get divorced (or both). It has nothing to do with their political views leadership style or their capability to lead.

---

I agree, which is why I didn't turn against Bill Clinton when it was revealed that he was fooling around with Monica Lewinsky. I don't think having a mistress or cheating on one's spouse demonstrates good personal character, and I thought it was monumentally stupid of Clinton to do what he did in the White House. But it had nothing to do with his job as president. So I was able to separate his personal behavior from what he did as president. I figured, that's between Bill and Hillary.

But then again, Clinton wasn't going around preaching about "family values" to everyone who would listen.

Giuliani isn't either--that I know of. And I have to give him credit for the fact that he was one of the few major Republicans that didn't pile on and attack Clinton for what he did. But the problem Giuliani has is that he's running as a conservative Republican, and a big part of the base of the Republican Party right now are conservative Christians. And the fact that he had a mistress and was squiring her all around down while he was still married is not going to sit well with them--when they find out about it, if they don't already know. And it would be a bit hypocritical of Giuliani to run on that old "family values" line that Republicans tend to run on with the background he has. So I want to see how he manages that, if he manages to continue in the race.

But I have to add, I'm just not a fan of Giuliani. I saw too much of him while he was mayor, and I just saw a really petty, arrogant person whose style of leadership was just bullying and confrontation. I just don't think we need that in the White House, cause it's what we have now and it just doesn't work. The whole mistress thing and the circus that surrounded that just adds to the bad taste his administration left with me.

The opinion polls seem to have been extremely wrong once more.... Hillary seems to have won in New Hampshire, with a little margin over Obama (3%) while she was polling way behind. People on TV where already speculating that Obama had the momentum and would therefore win the next couple until they possibly hit New York and California where Clinton is very strong.

So what happened?

---

by Chambler
The opinion polls seem to have been extremely wrong once more.... Hillary seems to have won in New Hampshire...So what happened?

---

I'm glad she won. As I've mentioned, I don't yet have a preference between them. I like them both, along with Edwards. But I wasn't ready for anyone to run away with it yet. I want them all in play for a while longer--and this keeps Obama and Clinton equally in play right now.

Yeah, the pollsters got it totally wrong. Why? I don't really know. But I suspect it was "The Revenge of the Women." When Hillary got emotional the day before, it was so overblown in the media. They had her "crying" and it was on every news program--played over and over and over again. A lot of people--especially men--were kind of making fun of her. "Oh, is that what's she's going to do when she's president. If there's a crisis, she'll just start crying." Oh, they thought it was SUCH a joke. And then it was, "Well, she's finished." blah, blah, blah.

And I know, that as a woman, I was really p*ssed. I'm really pleased that a black man has gotten this far in the race, and that's historic. But I'm equally pleased that a woman has gotten this far. That's historic, too. I could be wrong. But I think that little emotional moment for Clinton not only got her some sympathy, but the ridicule she got for it from some people (mostly men) also pushed a lot of women to vote for her. I probably would have voted for her yesterday if I lived in New Hampshire, just to stick it in the face of all the people who were gleefully writing her off.

Women came out EXTREMELY strongly for Clinton yesterday, and in interviews, I heard some people expressing the same annoyance as I felt. She got a lot of women who made up their minds just yesterday to vote for her. I don't think she got people to vote for her who didn't agree with her on the issues. But I think she got a lot of women who were wavering between her and Obama. I think that emotional moment she had, and the reaction to it, is what pushed a lot of women over to her side. Plus, I don't think they wanted the only female candidate to be out of the race. I think the possibility of the first female president means a lot to many women.

But then again, maybe none of that's true. Maybe they just rigged the voting machines.

Heh, just seen an analyst trying to say that 'technically' their poll was accurate in that it does represent a balanced cross section of the voting public.

Now all they need is a balanced cross section of the public to turn out to vote and they are sorted

It seems that yes the female voter turnout was way larger than the percentage I guess they expected, but also the older voter turnout was significantly larger, and that also skewed things, rather than any last minute change of heart.

---

by Wobag
It seems that yes the female voter turnout was way larger than the percentage I guess they expected, but also the older voter turnout was significantly larger, and that also skewed things, rather than any last minute change of heart.

---

I think it's both. From what I'm hearing and seeing, it seem more and more clear that women were angry at the way the media was trashing Hillary after that emotional moment she had, and many women made a special effort to vote for her as a result--maybe some women who weren't necessarily going to vote in the primary. And you're right, many of these women were "older" women--meaning probably in their 40s and older. That's a large part of her base.

And part of that "trashing" was all the talk about her being out of the race if she didn't win New Hampshire. I think a lot of women said, wait a minute. Not so fast. We're not letting the only woman be pushed out of the race. We're going to vote and keep her in. I think a lot of that thinking became focused for women in the last day or so. And that seems to have given Hillary the votes she needed to edge out Obama.

The weird thing is, I don't know that she would have gotten that narrow win if that emotional moment had not happened. I'm beginning to think not.

This election could end up reduced to identity politics. What the candidates are (female, African-American, etc) seems to carry at least as much weight as what they say.

Hillary Clinton, for example, appears to support torture in some circumstances. Does her gender mitigate that nasty little position? I think not. (And of course, if you jive identity politics, the people being tortured would, like as not, be minorities far more disadvantaged than any presidential candidate.)

Surely judging people by their birth, be it positively or negatively, perpetuates the very attitudes that we seek to oppose?

Oh, and as for my preferred choice of prudential candidate, I really haven't got one. I don't know nearly enough about the internal affairs of the USA, and as I don't got a vote, it doesn't really matter anyway. ('Course, the same could be said of those US Citizens unfortunate enough to live in districts susceptible to ... irregularities.) I support a small-state the respects civil rights and the free market, but also provides comprehensive healthcare and unemployment insurance, so if there's a candidate supporting that little lot, guess I'd be rooting for them.

---

by Byron
Hillary Clinton, for example, appears to support torture in some circumstances.

---

I might have been watching too much 24 but to be honest I can fully understand her reasoning on this point and actually support it. As long as there are proper checks and balances in place I can fully understand that in certain scenario's the needs of the many outnumber the needs of the one. Although I do feel that it's crossing a line and certainly shouldn't be the norm, lines are there to be crossed when the situation asks for it. (just have to be very careful as it is a slippery slope)

Just to get back on identity politics.... To be honest what else can you expect? Politics / economies etc are complex - the general population isn't interested in complex things. So if you are going to vote you are going to vote for someone you like which is based on the way the media portrays this person and a couple of sound bites and 0.01% of their policy agenda which normally ends up being thrown out of the window the moment they are elected.

Recently saw a TV program where they described Obama has 'half black' seeing as (some) black people are saying he's too white to be black and white people are saying he's too black to be white. So if he wins will it actually be a 'black' president

---

by Byron
('Course, the same could be said of those US Citizens unfortunate enough to live in districts susceptible to ... irregularities.)

---

its started already.
remember clinton being way behind obama in the polls?
turns out that in places which had manual, paper voting, the result matched the media predictions perfectly - places which had electronic voting (hello diebold!) varied from predicted result by between 5% and 9%.
even better, on the other side of the political divide, there was one candidate who was recorded as having received 0 (zero) votes in one particular town.
when someone pointed out that they, and all their family, voted for this person, it was announced that, whoops, sorry, we missed them off the final results - you got 31 votes...

looks like its business as usual in american politics then.

---

by Chambler
I might have been watching too much 24 ...

---

Looks like. Moral arguments aside, torture's useless for extracting accurate information: the person being tortured will say anything to stop the pain. The "ticking bomb" scenario is especially unlikely: you'd have to capture not only a terrorist but the exact terrorist responsible for planting a bomb in a very brief window of opportunity. The scenario began as an abstract thought-exercise and was adopted by governments as a legitimizing myth. Once torture's approved it doesn't stay restricted to a "ticking bomb" situation but becomes routine. Let it stay in high-octane fantasy like 24.

So as not to derail the thread, this myth is more thoroughly debunked here.

I agree with you about identity politics though. Like Churchill said: democracy's the worst system of government yet devised ... except for all the others that we've tried from time to time.

---

by Byron
This election could end up reduced to identity politics. What the candidates are (female, African-American, etc) seems to carry at least as much weight as what they say.

---

I think that's true for some people--maybe a lot of people. But not all. Thankfully. I think we're getting better at this as an electorate. For example, the Democratic voters of Iowa had plenty of white candidates to vote for, but Obama came out on top. And until recently (I haven't seen polls in the last couple of weeks), Clinton had more African-American support in some states than Obama, and more Hispanics were supporting Clinton than Richardson.

---

by Byron
Oh, and as for my preferred choice of prudential candidate....I support a small-state the respects civil rights and the free market, but also provides comprehensive healthcare and unemployment insurance, so if there's a candidate supporting that little lot, guess I'd be rooting for them.

---

You'd probably be OK with Clinton, Obama, or Edwards in general on that lot.

---

by Chambler
Recently saw a TV program where they described Obama has 'half black' seeing as (some) black people are saying he's too white to be black and white people are saying he's too black to be white. So if he wins will it actually be a 'black' president

---

Obama's father is a black African from Kenya. His mom is a white American (or was; she passed). So I guess technically, he is of mixed race. But when asked directly how he identifies himself, he states clearly that he considers himself a black man. I don't think people see him as anything other than black.

---

by mad
its started already.
remember clinton being way behind obama in the polls?
turns out that in places which had manual, paper voting, the result matched the media predictions perfectly - places which had electronic voting (hello diebold!) varied from predicted result by between 5% and 9%.
even better, on the other side of the political divide, there was one candidate who was recorded as having received 0 (zero) votes in one particular town.
when someone pointed out that they, and all their family, voted for this person, it was announced that, whoops, sorry, we missed them off the final results - you got 31 votes...

looks like its business as usual in american politics then.

---

Kucinich is challenging based on the fact that the results were so different than the polling. The New Hampshire election authorities are starting the recount. I don't think anything much will come of it.

I don't see an evil plot at work in New Hampshire. It would have had to be an evil plot put together by the Democrats--and you see, right there, you have a problem. Frankly, I don't think the Democrats could have organized themselves to pull off any plot, evil or otherwise. They'd be so busy arguing among themselves about which machines to fix, how many votes to fix them by, who was gonna fix them, who was going to be the lookout, and whose turn it was to go out and get the snacks--believe me, it never would have gotten done. Or they would have been caught while they were doing it, cause they decided to sit down and eat their snacks next to the voting machines they had just fixed.

I did see an evil plot at work in Florida and Ohio. But then, the Republicans had something to gain--and that's all you need for them to set an evil plot in motion. and though they suck at policy and human relations, they're great at evil plots. In fact, I think if you look up "evil plot" in the dictionary, there's a picture of the head of Republican National Committee right there.

All that aside, I do think the electronic voting machines are a real threat though. It has been proven that they can easily be manipulated to give a certain result if you know how to do it. And apparently, it's not that hard. What's more, these machines don't have a paper trail. So there's no way to check. If we can get a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, I hope something can be done about making the result of the vote more secure.

---

by Byron
Looks like. Moral arguments aside, torture's useless for extracting accurate information: the person being tortured will say anything to stop the pain. The "ticking bomb" scenario is especially unlikely: you'd have to capture not only a terrorist but the exact terrorist responsible for planting a bomb in a very brief window of opportunity.

---

The fact that torture creates large amounts of inaccurate information due to the fact that people will say anything to make the pain stop is a well known fact. Of course a real terrorist is never going to say exactly what they did, however they are talking at that point. You don't actually have to catch the actual person that did something though as being given a better idea of how has actually done it by someone who was in a supporting role will also help your enquiry. With modern information systems to back the "torturers" up they have the ability to datamine and cross link many courses of information. You can therefore quickly find out of they are obviously lying and continue the proceedings. A good lie in this scenario would be a lie that contains a hint of the truth as it would match up with the datamining activities going on. What you would be hoping is that in their distress they let something slip that although didn't seem very valuable to them at the time gives a better understanding of what is going on and who is most likely involved based on your datamining efforts.

This is a somewhat more long winded process than you would see in a 24 episode where the bomb is going off in 45 minutes, but does give you an avenue of approach if you are aware some attack is going to take place in the next couple of days due to certain things that are going on, which can also neatly be slotted into the ticking time bomb scenario although the timer is somewhat longer than most people would expect based on the movies / tv series.

And back to the elections again.... Does anyone else find it slightly disturbing that talks about the use of torture and the Presidential elections are going on in one thread. Oh well.

Based on the movie Sicko (okay I'll admit a Mr Moore movie is most likely not one of the most accurate courses to quote from - but certainly an interesting watch) a comprehensive healthcare system as we know it in most of the western world doesn't seem to be on the table in this election. Although Clinton as a First Lady did "fight" for it, it kinda ended out in nothing changing when it comes to the HMO's.

Of course Obama is going to "identify" himself as a black man. In that scenario he might get some extra votes from the large group of voters that don't have an Amy Whitehouse complexion (sorry the "whitehouse" thing too obvious?). And of course other people would not not dare to vote on him if they agree with him as not to be made to feel racists. Where if he had said he felt he was a white man, people would have possibly wondered if he didn't own a mirror or if his eyesight was that bad.

LOL @ Sandia for the evil plan stuff - that so reminds me of the Republican party stuff on the Simpsons

Electronic voting machines can easily be amended to create a paper trail as well luckily. You vote, you verify, it gets stored and you get a print-out of what you voted which you deposit the special bin on your way out of the voting booth. (you do want to check it actually printed what you voted and confirmed). That way you can always check afterwards if the voting machine counted correctly or not. However you would not recount the paper ballets if there wasn't a reason for it as why vote electronically if you are going to recount all the votes on paper anyway?

(Edited by Chambler 12/01/2008 11:32)