1 of 6
1
Poll
Who is you first pick?
Joe Biden 0
Hillary Clinton 2
Chris Dodd 0
John Edwards 1
Dennis Kucinich 3
Barack Obama 4
Bill Richardson 1
Total Votes: 11
You must be a logged-in member to vote
Who do you want for President in ‘08?
Posted: 05 September 2007 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19

I may be jumping the gun with this topic, but I live in Iowa and candidates are everywhere.  I want to start a discussion about which candidates will best represent the issues we work to exemplify at CFI.  I hope I am not going out on a limb here and limiting my pole to Democratic candidates.  Please make a selection now, we can always make a new poll down the road.

[ Edited: 05 September 2007 04:45 PM by retrospy ]
 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2007 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

Too early for a definite choice, and frankly so many are preferable to the Rebulican alternatives that I’m not likley to be too disapporinted in any of them. For the moment I’m fond of Obama. As the less established politician, he has the leeway to be more direct and challenging in his remarks (for a politician). I used to be a big fan of Clinton, and I still think she’d make a good choice, but I can’t convince myself she’s electable since I think the baggage she carries from Bill’s presidency among moderate/independant voters seems to hard to shake off. And, while I understand the reaosns, I’m a bit disappointed by how her rhetoric has changed since she became a senator and serious presidential candidate.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2007 03:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  195
Joined  2007-07-24

Mike Bloomberg.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2007 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Is it only for one’s theoretical preference or for the one who is likely to win the election?  While I like Kucinich’s statements, I don’t think he has a chance of being nominated or of winning if he was nominated.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2007 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19
Occam - 05 September 2007 03:47 PM

Is it only for one’s theoretical preference or for the one who is likely to win the election?  While I like Kucinich’s statements, I don’t think he has a chance of being nominated or of winning if he was nominated.

Occam

The way I look at it electability is a factor you have to bring into the equation.  If the vote were tomorrow who would you vote for?  If you are casting a vote to make a statement or possibly to make a non-winning candidate look more popular for vice president matierial or some justification - let us know.  I think the number of votes that go to the winning democrat compared to the winning republican will have some sway in the decisions of undecided voters.  That is why I am using my measly 1 vote for the candidate I think stands the best chance.

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2007 04:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19
Alon - 05 September 2007 03:21 PM

Mike Bloomberg.

I’m only posting candidates that have chosen to run, so far.  What is Bloomberg’s possition anyway?  I recall a report a while ago about how he is a threat to run as an independent with the purpose of splitting candidate votes.  Is that right?

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2007 04:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7614
Joined  2007-03-02

I’m an Obama person.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2007 05:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

i chose kucinich but i would have chosen NADER

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2007 08:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19

I would like to know why you make the decisions you do.  Can you pin down what aspects you like about your candidates?  Is there a reason why you dislike the other candidates?

For instance, I decided to vote for candidates with electability.  I think this comes down to Obama & Clinton.  I have no obvious reason to choose either one, just a few minor reasons not to vote for Obama.  I think Obama’s inexperience will be an easy target for the republican opposition, he is a smoker only recently on the patch, he has been stroking the religous faithful and taking the position of “the most faith driven candidate on the democratic side”.  As a possitive side not, Obama has requested to meet with atheists in Iowa to discuss his possition and learn more about atheist views.  I think this meeting has already taken place, I should get more information.

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2007 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

ummm, Kucinich has a more clear plan and consistently outspoken opposition to the War, PATRIOT Act. He is in favor of pushing oil companies to either stop the price gouging or pay higher taxes, he is for a universal healthcare plan that - unlike Obama - doesnt mean catering to insurance companies (how Obama thinks you can have both is beyond me). He has not been an emphatic supporter of Israel to the point of ridiculous apologia like Hillary and the rest. basically, he seems like the most reasonable candidate of those listed in the poll; and seems less like a stooge for capitalism than the other Republicrats. However, I was disturbed by his party politics in 04 when he didnt win the primary.

because i dont live in a swing state I will probably write Nader in even if he doesnt run. i live in Texas. This state will go red, so since im not voting Republican it doesnt matter who I vote for, so mine will be more symbolic.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2007 12:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  195
Joined  2007-07-24
Occam - 05 September 2007 03:47 PM

Is it only for one’s theoretical preference or for the one who is likely to win the election?  While I like Kucinich’s statements, I don’t think he has a chance of being nominated or of winning if he was nominated.

Occam

Kucinich is a nut, independently of his unelectability.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2007 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Yeah, but he’s a nice nut. LOL

Besides, how often have we had not-nuts in the White House?

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2007 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  195
Joined  2007-07-24
retrospy - 05 September 2007 04:23 PM
Alon - 05 September 2007 03:21 PM

Mike Bloomberg.

I’m only posting candidates that have chosen to run, so far.  What is Bloomberg’s possition anyway?  I recall a report a while ago about how he is a threat to run as an independent with the purpose of splitting candidate votes.  Is that right?

His official position is that he has no intention to run. Personally, I buy that less than I buy resignations for family reasons.

But if he runs, he’ll do it to win. He has the money to do it, and even without declaring, he has about 11-12% support. Ross Perot ran first in the polls until he dropped out only to get back into the race; Bloomberg, who unlike Perot has experience in high elective office, won’t be that dumb.

Basically, I support him because,
- He’s more pro-immigration and pro-gay than Clinton and Giuliani, and at least as pro-choice as Clinton;
- He’s strong on urban issues, which Clinton knows nothing about and which Giuliani thinks boil down to crime;
- If I don’t have a civil libertarian in the race, I’d rather have someone whose civil liberties violations are mostly about pragmatic technocracy; and
- With his management experience and business ties, he’s likelier than any Democrat to be able to forge a successful universal health care system (seriously, do you think a lightweight like Edwards will be able to get 218 Representatives and 50 Senators to endorse his proposal without offering massive pork?).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2007 12:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  195
Joined  2007-07-24
Occam - 06 September 2007 12:50 PM

Yeah, but he’s a nice nut. LOL

Besides, how often have we had not-nuts in the White House?

Occam

Continuously since Reagan, for one. Bush is an Evangelist, but he hasn’t changed names of entire departments for some mopey Evangelical reason. And so far his two Supreme Court nominations are both a lot more moderate than the religious right would’ve liked (neither Alito nor Roberts joined Thomas’s concurrence in Gonzales v. Carhart, which called Roe v. Wade wrongly decided). WJC and Bush Sr. are as non-nutty as a President can get.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2007 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2007-09-05

I have to say that I am completely opposed to sacrificing one’s ideals for the sake of the electibility of the candidate. To me that means that what you believe is up for sale to the highest bidder, where the commodity of exchange is vote-getting ablility.

I look at it like this: You believe certain things about important political issues, and, if you are consistent(1) in your application of reason to all aspects of your life, you have good supporting arguments for what you believe. Of the available candidates, A is in agreement with 90% of your values, while B is in agreement with 50%. But B stands a greater chance of being elected than does A.(2) Remember that whoever is elected is going to try to implement their entire platform, even the parts you don’t like, because every candidate believes that the voters endorsed their complete agenda.(3) That means, by voting for B, you are happy to endorse a platform with important components directly opposed to what you believe. For example, Candidate B may be in favor of protecting the rights of every kind of family, but believes democracy can be imposed at the point of a bayonet. When Candidate B wins, then President B will set up polices to send troops to perceived hot spots and topple existing regimes. Why? Because you told B that’s what you wanted by voting for B.

Notes:

(1) I recognize that consistency may not be a virtue: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” says Emerson.

(2) If someone can show me tools for correctly determining electibility, I’d love to see it, then I’d teach my candidates to meet the criteria of electibility and we’d finally have a free Republic.

(3) If nothing else, most voters want their candidate to be consistent and to live up to their promises. You may have voted for B because B agreed with the first half of your list, but someone else (Voter Q) may have voted for B because B agreed with the first half of Voter Q’s list. If President B now comes along and says, “I’ve changed my mind and I’m adjusting my policies to match what Voter Q wanted!” then where are you?

Expanding on note 3: There is the option of ranking one’s issues, where a candidate must be in agreement with certain issues even to be considered. I have applied this to the entire spectrum of candidates and thereby eliminated them all, so this season I am voting for “NOTA.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2007 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19
WattaQuestion - 06 September 2007 01:03 PM

I have to say that I am completely opposed to sacrificing one’s ideals for the sake of the electibility of the candidate. To me that means that what you believe is up for sale to the highest bidder, where the commodity of exchange is vote-getting ablility.

I am not sacraficing my ideals.  I am maxamizing the potential that some of my ideals get instated.  Voting for Michael Shermer for president might be the best representation of my ideals but he doesn’t stand a chance of winning (not to mention he isn’t running).  Unfortuantely I have to evlauate my options and make the lesser of 2 evils.  It is specifically because candidates will not change their platforms that I won’t waste my vote on a losing candidate.  My ideals are not for sale, but my vote is.  I plan to maximize it’s efficiency.

Similiar to the Michael Shermer example, I might like Kucinich & Biden more than Obama & Clinton, but I have seen enough poles and had enough history lessons to know, with a significant degree of certainty, that the front runners are the people who stand a chance.  My priorities are: that any Democratic candidate will be exponentially better than a Republican candidate.  I am concerned with this enough to align my vote with the Democratic candidate that stands the best chance.

I am not decided on which front-runner to support and would love to hear specific examples on voting for or against specific candidates.

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 6
1