Super Duper Tuesday

[Ellipsis]

So I thought I would beat everyone else to it...

Anyway, what are your thoughts on who will "win" tomorrow...

For me Ron Paul (and maybe Obama) matter most. If Ron Paul fails to get anywhere near "what he wants" I predict that on the 6th he will announce a third party run. If Clinton and Romney turn out to lead...I think Paul might have one of the largest third party runs in a presidential election history. He played the election well... he got his ideas out by being in the debates and snagged some supporters who would have considered him less serous if they met him when he was in a third party.

Potentially if the two candidates turn out to be crap I am estimating maybe a 5-10% vote for Paul. But I think Obama will do well and I have to admit McCain isn't as bad as Mr.Mayor.

[lowtech redneck]

So I thought I would beat everyone else to it...

Anyway, what are your thoughts on who will "win" tomorrow...

For me Ron Paul (and maybe Obama) matter most. If Ron Paul fails to get anywhere near "what he wants" I predict that on the 6th he will announce a third party run. If Clinton and Romney turn out to lead...I think Paul might have one of the largest third party runs in a presidential election history. He played the election well... he got his ideas out by being in the debates and snagged some supporters who would have considered him less serous if they met him when he was in a third party.

Potentially if the two candidates turn out to be crap I am estimating maybe a 5-10% vote for Paul. But I think Obama will do well and I have to admit McCain isn't as bad as Mr.Mayor.

McCain is almost certain to win most of the (winner-take-all) Republican primaries; though the polls this year are unreliable at best, he has almost a twenty-point national lead, and Romney and Huckabee take votes away from each other. The Democratic primaries use proportional representation, and Obama has come within a statistical tie in national (and Californian) polls, so that contest will likely continue barring a nationwide upset of New Hampshire proportions by one of the candidates. If Paul decides to run as a third-party candidate, it will probably benefit the Republicans in the event of a Clinton candidancy, and the Democrats in the event of an Obama candidancy; Ron Paul supporters are largely pissed off about the war in Iraq and want change, and those supporters will find an attractive candidate who has a chance to win in Obama. Clinton will be viewed as a status-quo politician, leading Paul supporters to view her as not very different from the Republican candidate, limiting any remaining backlash vote against the Republicans.

EDIT: It would be more correct to say that Ron Paul would harm Clinton without greatly harming or helping Obama. My bad.

[ajblaise]

don't forget that it won't just be super and duper, there will also be a tsunami as i'm told. quite a day.

[In...TP]

I'm voting for me and everyone else does, I will win

[cdal233]

Ron Paul :)

Not in reality, of course, but in my own world.

I think Romney and Clinton will win, but out of the realistic 5 (Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee), I'd like to see Obama for the Dems, and I can't get myself to even think about liking the other Republicans, so no comment.

[Ferrus]

I don't care, so long as there is a Democratic president in 2009, for the sake of the rest of the world.

[Eli]

For me Ron Paul (and maybe Obama) matter most. If Ron Paul fails to get anywhere near "what he wants" I predict that on the 6th he will announce a third party run. If Clinton and Romney turn out to lead...I think Paul might have one of the largest third party runs in a presidential election history.

Ralph Nader may run too. It would be interesting to see a 3rd and 4th party in the general election.

[Jasz]

it's amazing how popular ron paul is here

[Ferrus]

it's amazing how popular ron paul is here
I know, especially as his libertarian 'utopia' would make matters even worse for the majority of INTPs.

[ajblaise]

it's amazing how popular ron paul is here

I think most of these people would be totally apathetic about what's going on in the political process if it weren't for him. I don't see the support as all that serious. And he's done for ... *checks the current time*

[Bwian]

it's amazing how popular ron paul is here

He's just about the only running Republican that thinks people are smart. We're generally pretty smart here, so maybe we pick up on that more than the average person.

[Lateralus]

it's amazing how popular ron paul is here
I can't speak for anyyone else, but for me, I don't agree with all of his policies. There's no way most of his policies would be implemented, even if he were to win the election, but I do want this country to move a bit in that direction. All of the other candidates are more of the same (crap).

[C.J.Woolf]

Ron Paul is a politician for people who hate politics. He's uncompromising, unlike politicians who get elected and govern and shit. Still, if enough people back Paul or any other fringe candidate, then other politicians will take notice and be influenced.

However -- politicians will not pay any attention to you unless they think you can threaten their jobs by voting for some other guy. I read over and over that young people don't vote because they think politicians don't pay any attention to them. Politicians (if they're being candid) will reply that they don't pay attention to young people because they don't vote. You gotta vote for somebody, even if Ron Paul isn't on the ballot.

[ajblaise]

Supporting fringe candidates that have no hope doesn't help. Supporting Ron Paul or Nader takes votes away from Dems, which is the party that most of those people say is the next best. And they're viable.

[Lateralus]

I recall Ross Perot going on and on about the deficit. Soon after, the budget was balanced.

[ajblaise]

I recall Ross Perot going on and on about the deficit. Soon after, the budget was balanced.

He's one of the richest people in America, and he had a chance or at least enough political/financial power to make a difference and have a chance at winning.

[Lateralus]

He's one of the richest people in America, and he had a chance or at least enough political/financial power to make a difference and have a chance at winning.
He was a fringe candidate who had no chance at winning, but he was loud.

[Ellipsis]

Supporting fringe candidates that have no hope doesn't help. Supporting Ron Paul or Nader takes votes away from Dems, which is the party that most of those people say is the next best. And they're viable.

This is the problem with two party politics...people HAVE to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of what they really believe.

As for those saying Paul is too extreme...I don't think so...He would not totally wipe out everything on the first day...he will start the process...he would implement the "gold standard" only as a competition to the dollar and allow people the choice. Yes, he would wipe out several institutions but he realizes that some people are still dependent on those institutions.

As for the Democrats...I don't know...I just know that even if (I hope he does) Obama wins things for them will not look pretty, congress has proven that.

Also if Paul wins both Republicans and Democrats will be forced to compromise on several issues to get them by Paul...which is a good thing.

[C.J.Woolf]

Supporting fringe candidates that have no hope doesn't help. Supporting Ron Paul or Nader takes votes away from Dems, which is the party that most of those people say is the next best. And they're viable.
Oh, I agree. Support the fringe candidates in the primaries, or between elections by getting involved in politics. But in the general election vote for someone who can win.

[ajblaise]

He was a fringe candidate who had no chance at winning, but he was loud.

That's good. A deficit is bad. But don't waste a vote; getting the best viable prez in office is more important than a single-issue no-hope candidate getting some votes.

[Lateralus]

That's good. A deficit is bad. But don't waste a vote; getting the best viable prez in office is more important than a single-issue no-hope candidate getting some votes.
I disagree. I think the support Perot received forced Bush and Clinton to acknowledge the problem.

[ajblaise]

I disagree. I think the support Perot received forced Bush and Clinton to acknowledge the problem.

With Clinton and Dole, we knew Clinton would win. So Perot wasn't a threat. But in close races, those votes can help your political enemy, like Nader taking Gore votes in 2000.

The more parties you have, the less interests are being represented on the whole.

[Bwian]

Which Clinton and Dole, we knew Clinton would win. So Perot wasn't a threat. But in close races, those votes can help your political enemy, like Nader taking Gore votes in 2000.

The more parties you have, the less interests are being represented on the whole.

And thus the discussion of new voting methods starts.

I would really support instant-runoff voting in the US; however, we can't even seem to count single-choice ballots correctly and consistently as it stands now!

[skip]

I wish we could indicate when we're not voting for a candidate but actually against another.

[oxyjen]

Someone at MSN really hates Giuliani, or especially loves Alan Keyes (http://election.msn.com/RepNomination.aspx). I chuckled. And then went on to ponder who the hell is Duncan Hunter, and where did he pick up a delegate. Weird.

As for Ron Paul...on Sunday I heard one of his reps say that Paul is "definitely not" going to run as a Third Party candidate.

[Ferrus]

Haha, I saw a wonderful article by Mark Steel in today's Independent.


Barack Obama, apparently, has been the symbol of hope. But that could be quite distressing, because his entire campaign has revolved around the slogan "Yes we can." I'm all for keeping political ideas simple, but he's reduced them to Bob the bloody Builder. Maybe he's planning to steal other catchphrases from children's TV characters, so his next campaign adverts will go "Barack Obama – flobalob lob obalob weed."


In truth Obama is even more vacuous than Bob, because he doesn't even say what it is we can, whereas Bob is unequivocal that it's the issue of whether we can fix it. But they're all as ridiculous. A typical John McCain speech went, "I promise I will always put America first – her ideals and her future, before any other consideration." Then his fans all cheered. Because that should trump the candidates who disagree, saying, "Well I won't. I'll put the interests of Austria first. I'm sick of America."

Obama now has a video, in which a variety of celebrities sing the words "vote, change and hope" It would be worth trying to confuse one of his canvassers by saying, "Oh no, I'd rather support someone who's against hope. It only brings trouble, hope does." But perhaps he'll get more ambitious and make whole speeches full of random words, telling the people of Montana, "Brothers and sisters, buttercup Barcelona laminated frog radish but not and never hedgehog."

And then they wave and shriek under all those balloons, as if no political idea is valid in America unless it involves balloons. American anarchist rallies must end under piles of black balloons, and at the end of American surrealist meetings they must drop hundreds of burst balloons.

And yet every candidate is desperate to appear as the candidate of change. So John McCain, despite backing Bush and the war, claims he's the only one who can really change things, which must mean his strategy will be to confuse people. Because his election adverts will have to go, "John McCain is the man who can bring change, as he supported all the things you now want changed. If people like John McCain hadn't supported those things, they may never have happened, in which case you wouldn't be wanting them changed."

But the significance of this is it displays how everyone accepts that Bush and his methods have been a disaster. This is remarkable, when you remember how three years ago it seemed the place was irredeemably behind him. The credit for this must go, at least in part, to all those who've expressed hostility to Bush, globally and in America. It certainly isn't due to official opposition from the Democrats, as they won the mid-term elections largely because of the unpopularity of the war, then almost immediately voted with Bush to continue it.

So they support much of Bush's agenda, but claim to be for change, which means their speeches have to contain nothing specific, just vague meaningless phrases mentioning hope. They're like a builder who's asked for a quote and says, "Where plaster is crumbling, let's make it solid. Where walls are wonky, let's make them straight. Where gaps are showing, let's bring joints together, and together let's show that together we can make this great building the together that you deserve."

This would be more coherent than Hillary's, "If you're ready for change then I'm ready to lead." Change what? Is she planning to replace numbers with shapes? Or to categorise foxes as insects?

One clue might be her speech at the weekend in Texas about immigration, when she said, "Anybody who committed a crime in this country or the country they came from has to be deported immediately with no legal process. They are immediately gone." A crime in the country they came from. So a monk convicted of affray in Burma or a Pakistani arrested by the military police will be sent away. And there'll be none of that legal process nonsense that liberals have been exploiting since it was introduced just after the Stone Age.

So they're better off staying vague, and bellowing, "People of America, let me tell you, someone came up to me this week in Wyoming and asked me 'If you become president, what sort of president will you be?' And I looked him in the eye and I said, 'Sir, I give you my word that I will be a good one.' (Audience cheers). 'Because I believe it's better to be a good president than a shit one.' (Audience screams). 'Because the American people deserve better than shit.' (Audience howls with delight). 'And I can promise you from the bottom of my heart that when I go to Washington I am not going to be shit.'" (Audience wets itself).

[LowEnd]

Haha, I saw a wonderful article by Mark Steel in today's Independent.


So they're better off staying vague, and bellowing, "People of America, let me tell you, someone came up to me this week in Wyoming and asked me 'If you become president, what sort of president will you be?' And I looked him in the eye and I said, 'Sir, I give you my word that I will be a good one.' (Audience cheers). 'Because I believe it's better to be a good president than a shit one.' (Audience screams). 'Because the American people deserve better than shit.' (Audience howls with delight). 'And I can promise you from the bottom of my heart that when I go to Washington I am not going to be shit.'" (Audience wets itself).



Ha, that actually had me laughing out loud (not easy to do).
Nice one.

[stopharian]

He was a fringe candidate who had no chance at winning, but he was loud.

Im not sure how old you are, but Perot actually lead at times by large margins in the polls during the summer preceding the 92 election.

He ultimately won approx 20% of the popular vote( I just looked it up....nearly 20 million people) and nearly took electoral votes in an election that Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote.

In the past 100 years he is the only third party candidate who has been able to gain enough popular faith that he had a chance of winning to allow him to viably challenge the 2 party system.



Ron Paul is a fringe candidate who has no chance at winning.....


How many times has Ralph Nader run for president?

[Eli]

How many times has Ralph Nader run for president?


He ran four times '92, '96, '00, '04.

[Ellipsis]

Ron Paul is a fringe candidate who has no chance at winning.....



Still didn't stop him from getting about 15% in a few races...sure not much but eliminating him of having "No Chance" is part of the reason he has "No Chance" and why many will get "No Change".

[sinnamon]

Still didn't stop him from getting about 15% in a few races...sure not much but eliminating him of having "No Chance" is part of the reason he has "No Chance" and why many will get "No Change".

My hope was that he would get enough votes that it would send a message & that other candidates would eventually adopt some of the same platforms.

[labcat]

if Ron Paul doesn't make it...i'm not voting in the finals. that pretty sad to say i know...but it's a sad situation.

hilary=socialism
obama=jimmy carter
huckabee= i don't trust him
romney=just too pretty
mccain=scares me

there is no "lesser" in this bunch...imo:dieemo:

[Lethal Sage]

I hope change gets a reduction once the election is over.

[C.J.Woolf]

One nice thing about the close Democratic race is that next Tuesday I get to make the first meaningful primary vote in my lifetime. (My first presidential vote was in 1980.)

[jyakulis]

Supporting fringe candidates that have no hope doesn't help. Supporting Ron Paul or Nader takes votes away from Dems, which is the party that most of those people say is the next best. And they're viable.

it's a sad day in america when support the constitution, personal liberty, free markets, and not murdering hundreds of thousands of people around the world puts you on the fringe. you know, all the principles this country used to become the richest nation in the world.

[Ferrus]

it's a sad day in america when support the constitution, personal liberty, free markets, and not murdering hundreds of thousands of people around the world puts you on the fringe. you know, all the principles this country used to become the richest nation in the world.
I think the Swiss would disagree. Well, not so much about the free markets.

[Zergling]

it's a sad day in america when support the constitution, personal liberty, free markets, and not murdering hundreds of thousands of people around the world puts you on the fringe. you know, all the principles this country used to become the richest nation in the world.

Not exactly, various coal mine or other industrial accidents, Indians killed in expansion, two World Wars, government support of some businesses and/or regulation, lots of amendments, and some others that occured during U.S. history might disagree with that. (Plus some decisions made during the time, such as red scares, that did not seem to contribute to U.S. growth and power.)

[kuranes]

I know, especially as his libertarian 'utopia' would make matters even worse for the majority of INTPs.
:theclap:

[Ellipsis]

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0628041520080207

Oh shit...that was unexpected...then again he was killing his personal fortune and not getting very far...

[Karl]

However -- politicians will not pay any attention to you unless they think you can threaten their jobs by voting for some other guy. I read over and over that young people don't vote because they think politicians don't pay any attention to them. Politicians (if they're being candid) will reply that they don't pay attention to young people because they don't vote. You gotta vote for somebody, even if Ron Paul isn't on the ballot.

I was thinking about writing in for "I don't like these candidates."