I'm voting for POTUS in four weeks?!

Great Debates
1

I just realized (OK, a couple of days ago) that I’m in a Super Tuesday state. Missouri’s Presidential primaries are on February 5.

And since I figure the GOP nom for Prez will have no serious chance in November, that means I may have only a month to pick my candidate, & really, to vote in the election that counts. Erk!

Do I go with the Obamanible One?
HRC, the arguable “safe choice”?
John “Ken-doll” Edwards?

Or do I throw a vote toward Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich in the name of contrarianism? Would that help push toward a brokered convention, or should I back Edwards if that’s what I want? Might a brokered convention nominate Obama anyway?

I wanted Biden or Dodd, you Iowa scoundrels!

2

You may not align politically with the OP, but I don’t think your thread is substantially different from this one: A Republican is preparing to vote for a Democratic POTUS, sell him on your choice.

CA primary absentee ballots go out today, so even though the election isn’t for another month, we get to start voting now. We’ll be seeing lots of those guys (and that one lady) out here real soon!! We’re pretty big on voting by mail out here-- it gets bigger and bigger every election, but I think the last time it was well over 25%.

3

What are we debating, your folly at thinking that the GOP nom has no chance in November? Considering their last two can’t-lose picks did just that, I think you might want to carefully consider who from your side does have a shot at electability, not just assume they are all equally able to defeat the other side.

For example, if you guys pick Clinton, we’ll see a record number of republicans turning up to vote, but if McCain wins our side, you might have a decent chance at pulling people reluctantly over to your side come November - I already have heard republicans say they’d vote for Obama over McCain.

4

Heh.

I think the swing voters might go for McCain or Giuliani, but with a banking crisis & general GOP fatigue, I really see this as an anti-incumbent year.

5

Are you currently registered with a party? After starting the thread that John Mace linked to, I discovered that in New Jersey it takes 50 days to change parties if already registered. So this year, I will vote for one of two Republicans in the primaries and in all likelihood the Democratic candidate in November.

On February 6th I plan to send in my form to become unaffiliated and that will allow me to vote in either primary next time.

Every state seems to have different rules and regulations.

After carefully studying each politician’s position, I found Obama is the one I like the most and I was surprised to discover he is basically a centrist. Edwards is the only one of the three I would note vote for unless he is running against someone like Huck or Romney.

Oh, ignore the pick your candidate surveys, they are all slanted or limited. According to one, Edwards would be my candidate and another had Ron Paul. (Blech!). A deeper study of their positions showed little real common ground.

6

From this search page, I pull these links for you to possibly review. Political positions of Barack Obama - Wikipedia
Political positions of John Edwards - Wikipedia
Political positions of Hillary Clinton - Wikipedia

Additionally you can go much more in depth on the Candidate’s Web Sites.
I find searching for these pages work best by bypassing the front pages and going right to the issues. So in Google I type in the Name and Issues.
Here are the 3 leading Democrats you mentioned in the Op.

http://www.BarackObama.com/issues/

What issues are important to you?

Jim

7

Missouri has open primaries. We don’t have to pick which primary we’re voting in till we get to the polling place. You just have to be a registered voter, but nobody cares if you’re in any party.

8

I don’t think Florida is like that, alas (open primaries).

9

Boy, I think a lot of people are going to be very, very surprised come November.

10

I still remember the SNL sketch during George H.W. Bush’s first term; it was assumed that his lock on the election was so tight that in the skit, the Democrats were each trying to avoid getting nominated so they wouldn’t get their asses handed to them by Bush #1. Lo and behold, Bush #1 gets his ass handed to him by Clinton. So don’t bet against the GOP; things can change a hell of a lot in 10 months. Besides, I saw Huckabee on Leno and he is one charming motherfucker. Since electing a US presidents seems highly analogous to electing a prom queen or senior class president, his charm will carry him a long way with the US electorate.

11

Charming motherfucker? If only he were only a mother-fucker, he might not be so screwed.

GOP will vote GOP, Dem will vote Dem; that gives us a 40-30 GOP-Dem base split, maybe closer now. Among swing voters, the “Throw the bums out” crowd will vote for someone sufficiently far from Bush, preferably not GOP. After eight years of “movement conservatism,” moderates will largely vote Dem to keep the effect of judicial appointments toward the center. This speaks to conservation issues (where Huckabee is not so far right, but his party & its judges are) & abortion (where Huckabee is relatively extreme).

Also, with an economic crisis, a populace tired of war, & a charismatic Dem candidate, what does it matter how charming the GOP guy is? Do the GOP have a lock on charm? Have you heard of Barry Obama?

12

Does this mean you will be voting for Obama?

13

:Sigh: I don’t know.

To expand on why the GOP are toast:

Bush/Cheney/Rove tried to pursue what they saw as the main legs to the GOP stool–tax cutters & business interests; military contracts; & social conservatives. I would argue that there’s a fiscal prudence faction they ran out of the party, but OK, those three are what they kept. The USA PATRIOT Act appealed to some law-&-order conservatives, but alienated civil libertarians (which are found throughout the gamut of left-right); & liberal gun laws (liberal in the literal sense) are… regionally variable, but may be a fourth leg.

Without at least the big three legs, the GOP is in trouble; the country’s split is too close to risk lacking credibility with significant parts of the base. Wait, scratch that; with the loss of the budget-balancer faction, the split isn’t close; it’s anti-GOP, & they need a star to win.

So, what of the new challengers?

McCain appeals to tax cutters, military contractors, social conservatives, law-&-order types, & gun owners. He’s arguably the strongest candidate in this mess, & the one GOP candidate I almost could vote for. But, he’s so Republican the moderates may flinch, while the business establishment have been paying the partisan press to slam him as disloyal for years (presumably over McCain-Feingold). And he’s a true believer in the Iraq war. So he might not get the nomination due to internal politics, & might lose the general for being too right-wing.

Romney is a phony, & loses the giant social conservative leg. They’d as soon vote for Obama or Edwards as for him. On the other hand, he seems a savvy enough businessman to know that he will only win through a combination of massive fraud, & getting enough support for the massive fraud to work & be credible. If he can buy his way to fraudulent vote-tabulation in the primary, he might be able to brazenly fraud it through the general.

Huckabee only really appeals to those social conservatives. He’s not going to get moderates.

Fred Thompson has an appealing manner, & is enough of an actor to win on that alone–some other year. He’s not a political star, he’s a movie actor, & may not be able to overcome a crabby national mood. And he’s in the same position as Bill Richardson–probably not going to be the nominee.

Rudy of the three marriages will have a hard time mobilizing social conservatives. He shows what a good guy Edwards is in his personal life. And Rudy’s pro-gun-control.

Thompson & McCain work with the whole base, but it’s a bad year. Rudy might work with enough swing voters, even now, but loses a big chunk of the base, who might decide they like even far-left John Edwards better. And Romney & Huckabee are practically two sides of a schism in the party.

14

I dunno, foolsguinea. I wish I could share your optimism. But I fear you overestimate the degree to which voters decide based on the political opinions of the candidates. I’m sure most of the people in xtisme’s find your candidate thread were surprised at who their top matches were, and this is a pretty thoughtful bunch.

In fact, although this is just a gut feeling (I’ve got truthiness going on), I would bet that if in 2000, you did an exit poll of people who had just pulled the lever for George Bush, that most of them would not have been able to correctly identify even 1/3 of his important political positions, such as the ones mentioned on the candidate calculator. I think the candidate’s personality is a very powerful determinant of who wins. And like I said, Mike Huckabee is one charming motherfucker. And this is coming from someone (me) who thinks he is the Antichrist.

15

Yeah, but the mass of unwashed goobers don’t want even to think about the election until after the conventions. The primaries are early, some think “too early” this year. So the goobers may be so outnumbered by the more politically active that it won’t matter.

And if Huckabee gets the nom, the Dems have the time & the ammo to expose him as the thin-skinned, self-important ass he really becomes when in a situation he can’t control.

I’m sanguine. Long-term, any of these Republicans winning, while unlikely, nigh guarantees a Dem victory in 2012. McCain 2008, Kucinich 2012!

16

I dunno. I’m sure many in 2000 would have said, “That goober Bush! One thing we can be sure of: Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004!”

17

McCain is the guy to beat this year. He has spent the last eight years trying to be “likable” to Democrats and a lot of people still think of him as a straight-shooter. He seems to be a reasonable guy, he understands the use of military force, he isn’t going to run off from Iraq*, and he isn’t rabid about anything.

McCain is the safe choice for a lot of people. You know he’d never do anything embarrassing while hosting or visiting other leaders. He’s not going to go on tv and say crazy things. He is well-spoken and he is “folksy”.

I don’t like him because he seems very paternalistic and patronizing. But, I know that the persona that he projects is one of “don’t-worry-about-that-i’ll-take-care-of-it” which a lot of people find comforting. Especially if it means we won’t have to face a radical change in our leadership. And by radical I mean, another rich white guy.

He would slaughter Obama in a one-one campaign, just based on the experience issue. He could do it without any sort of negative campaigning - all he has to do is keep talking in his Kindly Uncle voice and shake his head a bit at whatever Obama says to cast doubt on Obama. Anything worded too strongly from Obama’s camp would look like the young fella being disrespectful to his elders.

A Clinton and McCain contest would really give us a chance to compare the two. They would both have to present their case in detail to the electorate. They’re both well known so there isn’t much chance of just dealing in stupid blast-from-the-past scandals. No matter what you think about her formal experience, the fact of the matter is that Clinton is very well versed in every major policy area - as is McCain. It would be tough for Clinton - this is the guy who survived years of torture, how long do you think it would take for an ad to come out comparing that with her “tearing up” the other day? She will have to be extra tough after getting the nomination which will cause even more people to protray her as a cold, calculating bitch.

That said, I plan to vote for Clinton in the primaries and the general election if she gets the nomination.

*Even people like me, who didn’t believe the lies in the run-up to the war and have never supported it, don’t think it’s right to immediately withdraw all troops and leave the Iraqis swinging in the wind.