On Meet the Press today, polls showed Obama leading in New Hampshire, and Iowa a 3-way toss-up, Edwards, Obama, Clinton.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

for Republicans, McCain gaining in New Hampshire, and underdog wild-card Huckabee stiill running strong in Iowa and South Carolina, while Romney strong but on the bubble should the above win.

A month from now, with the fringe candidates out, still a full half-dozen candidates probably still in the race.

Hold on to your hats !

[ 23 December 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

[ 30 December 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

On the Economic Policy scale :

(L5=Pure Communism R5=Pure Capitalism)

L5/L4/L3/L2/L1/Center\R1\R2\R3\R4\R5

The Dems are a range of R1 to R3, and the Repubs are a range from R2 to R4. Only Kucinich & Gravel are deviant, as L2's.

On the Authoritarian axis (wrt social & foreign policies) :

(A=Authoritarian NA=Non-Authoritarian)

A5
A4
A3
A2
A1
Center
NA1
NA2
NA3
NA4
NA5

The Dems are generally A1-A3, and the Repubs range from A1-A4.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The "horse-race" spectacle, which you are so enthusiastic about, is just a way of creating an illusion that US voters actually have a choice.

---

But I digress.

I haven't followed it much lately, but apparently for the Democrats it has indeed become much more of a race, I believe that Obama's recent lead is the first time Clinton wasn't way out ahead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
.... an illusion that US voters actually have a choice.

As for the "substance", it's minute differences between people whose discourse collectively represents a very narrow slice of the political spectrum ....

---

so, if McCain or Romney is elected President, US federal policies will be pretty much the same as under an Obama/Richardson administration, in areas such as immigration, tax policy, the military, etc

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:

so, if McCain or Romney is elected President, US federal policies will be pretty much the same as under an Obama/Richardson administration, in areas such as immigration, tax policy, the military, etc

-- thanks for the tip!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
apparently for the Democrats it has indeed become much more of a race, I believe that Obama's recent lead is the first time Clinton wasn't way out ahead.
The Republicans seem completely up in the air.

---

you are right, absolutely no front-runner any more on either side; Hillary could be on the ropes in 2 weeks

and despite the world-weary political agnostics above, there are huge differences in policy, ex. on immigration, between the Tom Tancredo-backed Romney and the Hispanic Richardson

And in the USA, millions of Americans on parole, on probation or sitting in private and public prisons, forfeit their voting rights for years no matter how petty the charges against them. Voting is considered a basic human right in over 80 countries except the USSA.

Huckabee plummetting (-9) and Romney stable on top, while McCain jumps but still far from that twosome

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/26/final-preiowa-meet-the-p_n_78305.html

[ 30 December 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

so, if McCain or Romney is elected President, US federal policies will be pretty much the same as under an Obama/Richardson administration, in areas such as immigration, tax policy, the military, etc

---

- Tighter immigration control and tougher rules on illegal Mexican immigrants.

- Tax cuts, more tax cuts, and, oh, more tax cuts, and only for the over burdened taxed to the point of distraction rich.

- More military spending perhaps increasing from 50% of the budget to 75% of the budget paid for through deep cuts to medicare, social security, and education.

- More prisons.

ETA: Actually, I don't see where Obama fits at all. Since you do talk about tax cuts to the rich. And even on foreign policy where Obama has talked about threatening Pakistan [while also unequivocal about out of Iraq]... he has in no way even indirectly talked about things that would increase military spending... let alone another 50% over already unsustainable levels.

I'm not interested in defending Obama per se. I just really hate the losse way people group together anyone they don't approve as just another right wing nut subsatntively the same as the rest.

[ 30 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

I don't see where Obama fits at all. Since you do talk about tax cuts to the rich. And even on foreign policy where Obama has talked about threatening Pakistan [while also unequivocal about out of Iraq]... he has in no way even indirectly talked about things that would increase military spending... let alone another 50% over already unsustainable levels.

---

There is the rhetoric of elections followed by the constraints of governing under a system bought and paid for by vested interests.

Obama's top campaign contributor? Think of a financial institution that "innovated" the subprime mortgage fiasco and bailed, taking huge profits, just in time. Did you think Goldman Sachs?

... the extent to which Democrats and Republicans live in separate moral and intellectual universes.

On one side, the Democrats are all promising to get out of Iraq and offering strongly progressive policies on taxes, health care and the environment. That’s understandable: the public hates the war, and public opinion seems to be running in a progressive direction.

What seems harder to understand is what’s happening on the other side — the degree to which almost all the Republicans have chosen to align themselves closely with the unpopular policies of an unpopular president. And I’m not just talking about their continuing enthusiasm for the Iraq war. The G.O.P. candidates are equally supportive of Bush economic policies.

Why would politicians support Bushonomics? After all, the public is very unhappy with the state of the economy, for good reason. The “Bush boom,” such as it was, bypassed most Americans — median family income, adjusted for inflation, has stagnated in the Bush years, and so have the real earnings of the typical worker. Meanwhile, insecurity has increased, with a declining fraction of Americans receiving health insurance from their employers.

And things seem likely to get worse as the election approaches. For a few years, the economy was at least creating jobs at a respectable pace — but as the housing slump and the associated credit crunch accelerate and spill over to the rest of the economy, most analysts expect employment to weaken, too.

[ 31 December 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

... Romney is at the fulcrum of the Republican race. He’s looking strong in Iowa and is the only candidate who can afford to lose an important state and still win the nomination.

And yet as any true conservative can tell you, the sort of rational planning Mitt Romney embodies never works. The world is too complicated and human reason too limited. The PowerPoint mentality always fails to anticipate something. It always yields unintended consequences.

And what Romney failed to anticipate is this: In turning himself into an old-fashioned, orthodox Republican, he has made himself unelectable in the fall. When you look inside his numbers, you see tremendous weaknesses.

For example, Romney is astoundingly unpopular among young voters. Last month, the Harris Poll asked Republicans under 30 whom they supported. Romney came in fifth, behind Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Ron Paul. Romney had 7 percent support, a virtual tie with Tancredo. He does only a bit better among those aged 30 to 42.

Romney is also quite unpopular among middle- and lower-middle class voters. In poll after poll, he leads among Republicans making more than $75,000 a year. He does poorly among those who make less.

[ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Canada and the USA have the same voter turnout to within a few points. The reason the USA's is normally reported to be ~10 points lower is because they use a more honest reporting method. They divide the number of voters by the number of people who could vote. In Canada, we don't include the ~15% or so who don't bother to register.

A lot of statistics such as voter turnout, inflation, unemployment rate are measured in a riggef fashion, in both countries. In Canada, we just happen to have a dishonest measure of voter turnout. It's really ~52-53%.

---

Well, that is a problem, but it's not really a reporting problem (although that happens too). In Canada people do not register to vote, people are enumerated. Enumeration is supposed to find everyone. The failure to enumerate everyone is a failure of the electoral system. This failure is also not random, there are some pretty obvious biases (fundamentally class) in who does and doesn't get enumerated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

I would suggest that your "don't bother" snark is an attempt to deflect blame from the powerful to the powerless.

---

But the original is incorrect- the percentages in the States are of people registered. When comparisons are of people who 'could' vote, the US is lower.

That said, we're on a downward trend. The bigger drivers of that don't have simple solutions. But doing a better job of enumeration is something we can do. The Chreiten Liberals made the choice of moving to cheaper forms of enumeration, and the provinces one by one have been piggybacking onto the deficient federal system.

And Dennis Kucinich turns out to be a stalking-horse for Barack Obama.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Ralph Nader is supporting John Edwards.My opinion of Nader has just dropped 95%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Endorsing a sociopath (your word, not mine) for President is a responsible act?

On which planet?

---

quote:

---

Democrat Barack Obama surged to a four-point lead over John Edwards in Iowa, with Hillary Clinton fading to third just hours before the first presidential nominating contest, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Thursday.

Obama and Edwards gained ground overnight in the tracking poll, and Clinton fell four points to third place -- a finish that, if it held, would deal a dramatic setback to the one-time Democratic front-runner.

Obama was at 31 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers, Edwards at 27 percent and Clinton 24 percent. No other Democrat was in double digits.

In the Republican race, Mike Huckabee expanded his lead to six points, 31 to 25 percent, over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the one-time leader in Iowa who has attacked Huckabee for his record as Arkansas governor.

---

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0264367920080103

[ 03 January 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Kucinick, though, surprises me. I know, none of the front-runners are "Left" but if Kucinick was going to back anyone I thought it might be Edwards, who does at least talk the most populist game.

---

He did end up backing Kerry for the nomination.

I still respect Kucinich, but I certainly don't think it was a wise idea to back Obama while the race is still technically open. Would it not be better to come out swinging hard, and then crossing the second-balloting bridge when you arrive?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
This is actually Nader going back to his old brand of politics. I'm not going to point fingers. I think he desperately fears another Clinton White House.

---

quote:

---

The corporate media over the last couple of months has been pushing a notion that John Edwards sounds "angry". Are we witnessing another attempt to take down a candidate that threatens the corporate power structure? Do we have a repeat of four years ago when the media made a big deal about Howard Dean shouting over the crowd noise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Ralph Nader is supporting John Edwards.My opinion of Nader has just dropped 95%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Yay - Hillary's losing!

It's quite narrow in between the main three, though.

---

Yes, it seems that Obama is the big winner so far, and Huckabee wins for the Repubs, what a polarization of views expressed in that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

I still respect Kucinich, but I certainly don't think it was a wise idea to back Obama while the race is still technically open. Would it not be better to come out swinging hard, and then crossing the second-balloting bridge when you arrive?

---

The second-balloting bridge was crossed for Kucinich supporters in every single Iowa caucus tonight. Or rather, every caucus where there even was a Kucinich supporter. He hasn't won a single state delegate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
I don't think Dean ever threatened the power structure.

---

Two days before "the scream" ended his presidential bid, Dean was on Larry King talking about the concentration of media ownership.

Two days later, an edited sound bite makes him sound like a loon. Stories begin to circulate in the media about his anger. His campaign falters and dies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Does Edwards really live in a 28,000 square foot house?!? From this article, he sounds more like Dick Cheney...except that Edwards is invested, not in Halliburton (where Cheney was the former CEO, but in Schlumberger, Halliburton's chief rival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:
Here we go again, the "mansion spin" and from same source.

---

quote:

---

I am a story that could only happen in the U.S. of America," he told his cheering supporters. "9/11 is not a way to scare but a way to unite against the common threats of terrorism and nuclear weapons, poverty, genocide and disease. This was the moment when it all began."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
28,200 to be precise. So, what the fuck is the point? Is his message only worth hearing if he walk around in sackcloth and ashes? Probably the biggest economic populist ever to become president, Franklin Roosevelt, was a multi-millionaire aristocrat who lived in a mansion.

---

Moral Relativism: Hypocrisy is evil and immoral...but only if it is a habit of a right-winger.

More pertinently, is that what you want in a leader? Someone who say: ”You should not do A, B, C,…X, Y, and Z...but never mind that I am.”

Isn’t that the type of arrogant hypocrisy that many criticize the USA for?

It’s not a leadership style that inspires people to adopt the ideas the leader publicly advocates while privately ignores.

[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

It's a neat distinction that requires willful suspension of observed reality. While there are certainly issues that separate Republican Huckabee from Democrat Obama, their policies and platforms -- insofar as they have them -- are all too similar. On trade, the economy, energy and the environment, they share an indistinguishable enthusiasm for more government intervention and dumb policy ideas. While they claim to be harbingers of change, they offer little that is new or fresh.

Both men wear their religions on their sleeves, either of the religious right or the religious left, or some motley amalgam of the two. Essentially, Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Obama speak the same language, the language of the Huckobama Nation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Well, does he or does he not live in a 28,000 square foot house??

---

What does he use it for? Does he have secret service people around him who need to sleep at his house? Does he need to have a place to host some of his staff on occasion? Does he need to, at times, host other public figures, who have their own staff, and their own secret service people? Does he need the space for offices and meeting rooms?

It seems to me that while i can comfortably share a small apartment with 2 others, this probably wouldn't be adequate for someone like Edwards.

So if you're going to provide analysis, and talk about the minimum house size that would adequately meet the needs of a US Senator and Presidential candidate, and then compare that to the size of Edwards' house, well then yeah, there's a discussion to be had. But all you're doing is repeating right wing talking points.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Moral Relativism: Hypocrisy is evil and immoral...but only if it is a habit of a right-winger.

More pertinently, is that what you want in a leader? Someone who say: ”You should not do A, B, C,…X, Y, and Z...but never mind that I am.”

Isn’t that the type of arrogant hypocrisy that many criticize the USA for?

It’s not a leadership style that inspires people to adopt the ideas the leader publicly advocates while privately ignores.

[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

That's interesting, Sven. So you are arguing that a wealthy person is incapable of having a social conscience, or in promoting issues of economic and social equality? That by being wealthy they must be greedy and anti-social?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
So you are arguing that a wealthy person is incapable of having a social conscience, or in promoting issues of economic and social equality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Moral Relativism: Hypocrisy is evil and immoral...but only if it is a habit of a right-winger.

More pertinently, is that what you want in a leader? Someone who say: ”You should not do A, B, C,…X, Y, and Z...but never mind that I am.”

Isn’t that the type of arrogant hypocrisy that many criticize the USA for?

It’s not a leadership style that inspires people to adopt the ideas the leader publicly advocates while privately ignores.

[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

That's the dumbest thing you've ever posted. What is he privately ignoring that he's publicly advocating? If he were advocating that people should live in shacks, then you'd have a point. If his house was paid for by a multi-national corporation, then you'd have a point. Neither is the case. So you have no point. Other than to parrot right-wing talking points.

[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
What does he use it for? Does he have secret service people around him who need to sleep at his house? Does he need to have a place to host some of his staff on occasion? Does he need to, at times, host other public figures, who have their own staff, and their own secret service people?

---

When Walter Mondale ran for President (and was in fact the Democratic nominee), he lived in a relatively modest house). I was at a get-together at a neighboring house one night when he was in the process, post-nomination, of selecting his Vice Presidential candidate. Lots of activity. But, he managed just fine in a house that I would guess was about 3,500 square feet.

Have you ever been in a large house before, WZ? I know a guy who is a big money raiser for the Dems here in the Twin Cities. He's had Obama to his house for a fundraiser (and many, many other politicos over the years) and is a very wealthy guy. His house is HUGE and it's "only" 8,000 square feet.

Here's a pic of one of a 39-room mansion built in 1908 (and it's still one of the largest homes in Minnesota). It is MASSIVE (I toured it recently as it is now owned by the University of Minnesota)...and, yet, it's significantly SMALLER than JE's house.

Under no possible circumstances is JE's home "needed".

What's particularly startling is that this is the house of a potential leader who will be trying to convince people to make drastic cuts in their own lives to address global warming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
That's the dumbest thing you've ever posted. What is he privately ignoring that he's publicly advocating? If he were advocating that people should live in shacks, then you'd have a point. If his house was paid for by a multi-national corporation, then you'd have a point. Neither is the case. So you have no point. Other than to parrot right-wing talking points.

---

Who cares how it's paid for? The point is that he's living in an energy guzzler while, at the same time, advocating that people should be environmentally responsible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Oh please! That's not why you, and other right-wingers, are attacking him. Rather, it's the bogus claim that someone standing up against the stranglehold the corporate and wall street crowd have over Washington is somehow hypocritical because he lives in a large house. Energy has nothing to do with it. If energy really were the concern, you and the other right-wingers would stop emiting all your hot air over this non-issue.

---

Put aside, for a tiny instant, the views of right-wingers.

Then, they defend any attacks on his energy lifestyle because they are attacks from the right.

They ignore, at the peril of the policies they favor, the fact that the global warming issue will require the buy-in of the great mass of the average jane and joe. And, that is there the problem will be with JE's house.

All that is required, really, is to think more than beyond the end of one's nose and think about how the issue will be used in the political battle that will inevitably ensure if he becomes president.

It's not that hard.

[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Barak Obama's house. Yeah, it's pretty nice...but it's not the massive and sprawling mostrosity of JE's house.

---

It's come down to house size. How pathetic.

And stop with the Nixonian tactic of saying, "I'm not that concerned about it, but look what the Republicans will do with it."

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
And speaking of the Republicans, how long will it take them to bring up Obama's cocaine use as a young man? Or his middle name? Which goes back to my Jesus example, above.

---

McGovern, Carter, Mondale...I think they all walked the walk and lived principled lives. The political discussions could then focus on the merits of their policies.

Who would like that more, the Republicans who support anti-choice or the pro-lifers when it came to a battle over legislation the Republican wanted to enact?

Is he going to be in a good position to convince people of the correctness of his policy?

No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Yeah, and all three of them lost landslide elections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Have you ever been in a large house before, WZ? I know a guy who is a big money raiser for the Dems here in the Twin Cities. He's had Obama to his house for a fundraiser (and many, many other politicos over the years) and is a very wealthy guy. His house is HUGE and it's "only" 8,000 square feet.

Here's a pic of one of a 39-room mansion built in 1908 (and it's still one of the largest homes in Minnesota). It is MASSIVE (I toured it recently as it is now owned by the University of Minnesota)...and, yet, it's significantly SMALLER than JE's house.

---

Edwards' actual house is 10,400 square feet, comparable to the house of the guy you know. Also since it is almost entirley on one level i am guessing it is much smaller than the mansion you linked to (that site didn't say anything about area).

In addition to the main house there is a recreational facility which is 15,600 square feet. It contains an indoor pool, a basketball court and squash courts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
In addition to the main house there is a recreational facility which is 15,600 square feet. It contains an indoor pool, a basketball court and squash courts.

This seems like a pretty pimped out pad to me. But, what would you have Edwards do? If the guy plays basketball to stay in shape, or to let off steam, or just for enjoyment, where should he play? Can he join a league at the local YMCA?

---

Yeah. I kind of agree. What can a guy do? I mean if a guy likes playing hoops and squash, why not build your own private basketball court and squash court?

Jeez, I wonder what poor Obama does to keep in shape? He probably has to walk, jog, or use a stationary bike.

Poor guy.

ETA: It sure is a good thing that Edwards doesn't like playing hockey.

[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Com'on, you're brighter than that, FM. I know you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Oh! This is about climate change. I see. So you will only be voting for candidates living in inner-city apartment buildings. Good for you! So, who which candidate is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Maybe it was their policies? It certainly wasn't their character.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Who is going to be in a better position to make a straight-faced argument about climate change: Obama or Edwards?

---

The Edwards' house

A guy from Texas once told me he has a house so big it took his wife 3 days to vacuum it.

I said "Yeah, I've got a vacuum cleaner like that too.

[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: jester ]

Lets be honest people, almost every candidate available sucks in some upsetting way.

I dont know why the creator of this thread was so euphoric about American voters' apparent diversity of choice.
Right now theres only 12 candidates left, and most of them are so identical and unattractive, that the most popular ones are a medieval preacher and a symbolic inexperienced racial figure.(Obama's speeches are so fuzzy and eloquent that he truly reminds me of Reagan).

here's a cynical Canadian author's opinion of this circus from the Counterpunch:

quote:

---

January 9, 2008

Pardon My Laughter
Watching the US Presidential Primaries in Canada
By JOHN CHUCKMAN

"Americans are the only people I know who believe their own propaganda."

Deborah Eisenberg, American writer

I think relatively few observers appreciate the severe limits of America's 18th-century Constitution, the document shaping offices which so many now scramble to fill. Change does not come easily, no matter how eloquent the speeches, how worthy the promises, or how great the need. It would be easier to raise the Titanic intact than to make one authentic change of consequence in America.

The only exception is war, a form of destructive change which occurs with about the same frequency as elections in America. Most members of both parties unfailingly vote for it, support it with additional votes, make no apologies, and utter drivel about fighting for freedom. To do otherwise is regarded as unpatriotic and, in many parts of America, as downright dangerous.
..
Good Lord, America is today nothing but corporations. Between its corporations and the countless colonial wars serving their interests, you pretty much have the central story of modern America.

Most American politicians often use the word "consumers" instead of "citizens" when addressing voters today, revealing the mind set. The laws are written in favor of corporations, despite the much-repeated nonsense about the terrible toll of frivolous lawsuits. The national political duopoly, the two political parties, is organized and run much as a pair of hamburger or soft-drink multi-corporations, with a million unfair rules and regulations buried away in every state protecting their privileges. In the economic sphere, the same phenomenon is called "barriers to entry," whose existence in many forms is why you see only two or three companies dominate the aisles of every grocery and drug store in the country. Seats and votes in the Senate the most powerful and least democratic part of the elected national government are largely bought and paid for through an elaborate web of lobbies and special interests.

Senator Edwards' own wealth, which permits him the indulgence of four-hundred dollar haircuts at frequent intervals, was achieved by a vigorous career of making secret settlements with corporations. You might call it a lot of hollering about battling the devil while keeping your eyes riveted on the take from the collection plate, a wealth-building strategy perfected by the likes of Jerry Falwell. Expect only more of the same from this disingenuous man should he win, but thankfully it does appear we are to be spared regular Sunday morning preach-ups from Washington on the subject of blessed spirit of America versus the evil corporations.

---