US Presidential Elections

GAH! NOOOO!

It's Monday where I live. Super Tuesday is tomorrow, but due to timezone differences I will not know the results until Wednesday. The day seems so close yet so far.

I hope the result of it will be a four way race between: McCain, Romney, Clinton and Obama. And that all the long shots: Mike Gravel, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee will drop out.

I hope the two nominations will not be decided so that the exitement will carry on for another few months.

I hope McCain doesn't choose Guiliani as his running mate!

GAH! NOOOO!

At the very least having Nader as a presidential candidate will shake things up a bit. On his webiste he has a list of questions he would like to ask Obama and Hilary during the debates.

"Here are a few questions of my own. “Senator Obama, you have taught Constitutional law. Has President Bush violated the Constitution, federal statutes and international treaties during his two terms of office? If so, please elaborate and tell the American people what you think should be done about holding the self-described “responsibility” President accountable under the impeachment authority of Congress and other laws of the land?”
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1...e.html#extended

This post has been edited by arnoldo on Feb 4 2008, 03:35 PM

The results for Super Tuesday continue to trickle in. Looks like McCain and Clinton are the current front-runners with the most delegates. McCain seems to be nearly untouchable, but Obama is far from out of the race.

GAH! NOOOO!

At the very least having Nader as a presidential candidate will shake things up a bit. On his webiste he has a list of questions he would like to ask Obama and Hilary during the debates.

"Here are a few questions of my own. “Senator Obama, you have taught Constitutional law. Has President Bush violated the Constitution, federal statutes and international treaties during his two terms of office? If so, please elaborate and tell the American people what you think should be done about holding the self-described “responsibility” President accountable under the impeachment authority of Congress and other laws of the land?”
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1...e.html#extended

I take it you think George W. Bush should be impeached, then? Is it possible to do that after he leaves office, or should they hurry up about it, if anyone seriously intends to try?

(I don't know much about impeachment, since that's not something we have in Canadian politics.)

I was listening to the CBC coverage last night, and they included part of a McCain speech -- his voice and accent sound almost identical to GWB, except McCain gets the words in the right order! 0o

How many people would want that voice around as a reminder?

GAH! NOOOO!

At the very least having Nader as a presidential candidate will shake things up a bit. On his webiste he has a list of questions he would like to ask Obama and Hilary during the debates.

"Here are a few questions of my own. “Senator Obama, you have taught Constitutional law. Has President Bush violated the Constitution, federal statutes and international treaties during his two terms of office? If so, please elaborate and tell the American people what you think should be done about holding the self-described “responsibility” President accountable under the impeachment authority of Congress and other laws of the land?”
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1...e.html#extended

I take it you think George W. Bush should be impeached, then? Is it possible to do that after he leaves office, or should they hurry up about it, if anyone seriously intends to try?

(I don't know much about impeachment, since that's not something we have in Canadian politics.)

No, I personally don't believe that but Nader thinks that the executive branch has taken too much power away from the legislative and judicial branch thus upsetting the balance of power prescribed in the constitution.

It looks like Obama's recent poll surge in California was mitigated by early voters and hispanics, but notable is his edge over Clinton with whites. If his campaign can tout this outcome and not have it drowned out by a lazy mainstream media dumbing things down to race and gender, that may work for him. The Kennedy endorsements surely didn't.

In the next few days look for all candidates but especially Dems to enunciate their positions on economic issues, which could break the tie. That will likely be toughest for Obama, who seems bent on avoiding policy speeches, and McCain, who outright admitted he doesn't know much about economics.

Next up is Saturday- 161 Dem delegates, 123 Rep. Clinton and Obama likely head to Washington, McCain will battle Huckabee for votes in Kansas and Louisiana. A McCain-Huckabee ticket is looking ever more likely, which could form a powerful block, and the Dem nominee would have to make a strong case for independent voters to counter it.

Writers' guild picked a bad time (or good time, depending on your perspective) to go on strike, it seems :)

This post has been edited by Duncan Donuts on Feb 6 2008, 09:58 PM

You hear the news? Romney has dropped out of the race.

And all the stubborn long shots are still in including Gravel whom the media have now refused to recognize his candidacy!

I think Gravel will remain in the race until the August Democratic convention where the fool will refuse to recognize Clinton or Obama as the Nominee!

I'm thinking Ron Paul will stay in the race until the Republican convention when he will change his candidacy to the Libertarian party!

Huckabee just needs a few more losses in the coming primraries and caucases. It won't be long until he drops out of the race.

These are all of course just guesses by judging from the pattern so far of this election.

Hm. In Canadian politics, refusal to discuss policy is a sure way to be defeated (that's what did in our first - and so far, only - female Prime Minister).

McCain is running for President, yet doesn't know much about economics? 0o That's a good way to get dependent on lawyers/accountants real fast, who may have their own agenda (it's not as easy to rob the cookie jar if the guy in charge actually can tell when the cookies are disappearing).

Did Romney ever have a realistic chance? I don't get the impression he did.

Romney never had a chance, IMO. Too "Bush-like" in many of his policy aspects and religious ferver. He's tried to distance himself from Bush but his take on the environment, the war, and domestic issues mirror Bush's far too often. We certainly didn't need that and voters seemed to realize it.

I don't think McCain ever said he was unknowledgable on finances. He did mention that that's his weakest platform, but I don't think he said anything outright (like most politicians).

Reading the latest news in my local paper today, there was an AP article on the impressive build-up of money in Obama's coffers. Sounds like he's got a lot of financial interest in his candidacy. They're saying Obama has the money, while Hillary has the name recognition.

Iv'e seen todays primraries and caucases and McCain has just over 800 delegates. He needs 1191 delegates to be the nominee for the Republican Party. Huckabee is trying to slow down his gains so he does not become the nominee before the convention in September. But if he wins before or after the primraries and caucases end in July (gets 1191 delegates), all other Republican candidates will automatically drop out and the only stubborn long shot left will be Mike Gravel on the Democratic side since Obama and Clinton are in a tight race and probably the nominee for the Democrats will be decided during the August convention.

Well Romney just endorsed McCain, so that probably seals it for the Republican side.

I think Obama's got such a wave of support behind him now that it'd be tough for Hillary to stop him.

Does Obama need the same number of delegates' votes? If not, how does that work?

He or Hillary need 2025 delegates to seal their nomination.