US President elections 2008.

Sorry Minority_Under_Dog, but it is time. Iowa caucuses are here. Top three Democrats are close. 24% into voting with only hundreds having voted: Edwards 33%, Clinton 32%, Obama 32%. On the Republican side with thousands of votes having turned in already: Huckabee 36%, Romney 23%, Thompson 14%.

For those actually interested, I'm blogging updates and whatnot through the whole thing. here it is

So Huckabee for republic and Obama for Democrat

wasn't expecting that. I will be very worried if Obama gets into office to me he's a candidate that needs to wait another term for some more experiance because the world is way to fragile for someone to come in and learn on the job.

NeoSteph:

So Huckabee for republic and Obama for Democrat

wasn't expecting that. I will be very worried if Obama gets into office to me he's a candidate that needs to wait another term for some more experiance because the world is way to fragile for someone to come in and learn on the job.

I agree with that. I don't believe, though, that Clinton should get the job because she has experience. If a Democrat were to win, I want it to be Edwards. He doesn't have a great foreign policy, but he will focus more on the home front instead of worrying about other countries. I don't think a path of non-intervention should be taken, but taking care of the country's own citizens should be on top of all the candidates' to-do list.

I'm rather disappointed that Huckabee won. I did want Romney to win tonight but second place is not too shabby either. In my opinion, Huckabee's win tonight will not reflect in the rest of the campaign. In New Hampshire, it's all about McCain and I do hope after his win on the 8th, he'll pick up some steam. He was in a tie with Thompson [who should not be running at all since he has stated he's really not interested in it], which puts him in an even better position than before.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, both Democrats, have pulled out of the race. Msnbc's Keith Olbermann has said that Mike Gravel has also dropped out of the race. But according to Gravel's campaign site, he is still very much in. I don't believe that Olbermann has retracted his statement, which was requested by Gravel's campaign; but it's not only him who believes so because in Msnbc's ticker, it says that Gravel's representative said that they have dropped the bid. Why are Kucinich and Hunter still in this by the way?

I disagree. I think Obama's lack of expierence will make him better fit for the job. We're entering a time of uncertainity, and past events won't be as helpful as they once have been. Obama is hopeful for the future, unlike many Republican canidates who are threating 9/11 like conditions if we pull out of Iraq (I think the opposite, the longer we stay, the more likely we will get attacked again. We're just making a mess of everything.) I liked Obama's speech about unity, and how too much focus is put on Red and Blue States.

I think McCain will come in first or second in New Hampishire (he did in 2004 as well). As the data was being shown, it was clear that voters who felt religon was important in a leader voted for Huckabee, so Romney, being a Mormon was probably hurt by this, since there are a large number of born-again evangelical christians. New Hampishire is a different story; much more liberal, and many voters don't find religon as important in a candidate. That's why Huckabee is focusing on his policies and making them more detailed, so he can win over some New Hampshirens.

I like Dennis Kucinich =). He believes in aliens (he's seen them too!)

Also, is anyone else upset that Fox News and ABC have taken Ron Paul out of the debate on Saturday? They said there's "not enough room on the stage," but it's obvious that Fox is uncomfortable with some of Paul's policies and ideas. I know he's not a "big" candidate and most likely won't win, but he desrves to be there.

Obama.

I'm very put out by Huckabee's win. I read an article which quoted statements he'd made years earlier concerning homsexuals. They were very derogatory, and gives me the impression that he's a homophobe. And that is definately someone I don't want anywhere near the White House.

Ol' Blue Eyes.:

Obama.

I'm very put out by Huckabee's win. I read an article which quoted statements he'd made years earlier concerning homsexuals. They were very derogatory, and gives me the impression that he's a homophobe. And that is definately someone I don't want anywhere near the White House.

He's not a homophobe, he's a baptist minister. I don't think he'd make anymore derogatory remarks about homosexuality now, but it's obvious, even without him saying, that he's against gay marriage.

Huckabee has repeatedly said that he's not trying to convert anyone, and I believe him. But what worries me is that his voters, a majority of them religious as seen in Iowa, would eventually pressure him to do so. If he becomes president and his voter base is largely made up of religious individuals, they may ask of him to spread god's message. This is just something I thought about, nothing is fact yet [except that a large number of his supporters are evangelical christians].

Another worrying issue for me is that it does appear that many independents are voting Democrats to show their disapproval of the Bush administration. I wish the GOP candidates would show themselves less Bush-like, not in anyway saying they should bash Bush, and stand for the Republican Party. New Hampshire is made up of mostly independents and if this notion of voting against Bush catches on, even though he IS NOT running, the Republicans are in danger of losing against the Democrats even before they're officially competing.

I also disagree with the debates shafting Ron Paul. He is still a viable candidate and he is one of the few who stands behind his views 100%. It's because Fox disagrees with him and sees him as a threat to the one they want to prop up [Giuliani].

Everyone is looking towards New Hampshire, but isn't the Wyoming primaries tomorrow for the Republicans?

Franny.:

Everyone is looking towards New Hampshire, but isn't the Wyoming primaries tomorrow for the Republicans?

yes, which is why no one cares. It's Wyoming. (no offence to you if you live there. but your state is kinda boring =P.)

I liked how Obama put in his speech yesterday about he was trying to being about hope and change for the future while some try to bring back old fears by exploiting 9/11 like it's an ad for a car.

Minority_Under_Dog:

Franny.:

Everyone is looking towards New Hampshire, but isn't the Wyoming primaries tomorrow for the Republicans?

yes, which is why no one cares. It's Wyoming. (no offence to you if you live there. but your state is kinda boring =P.)

I liked how Obama put in his speech yesterday about he was trying to being about hope and change for the future while some try to bring back old fears by exploiting 9/11 like it's an ad for a car.

Everyone is grasping onto the word "change" now on both sides. Obama started a fad =P 9/11 is pretty much only exploited by Giuliani, and look how well he's doing.

NeoSteph:

So Huckabee for republic and Obama for Democrat

wasn't expecting that. I will be very worried if Obama gets into office to me he's a candidate that needs to wait another term for some more experiance because the world is way to fragile for someone to come in and learn on the job.

I agree highly with this, he is still much too young to be a president. But the best thing about him is that he is afro-american, which will finally show all thos racists that anyone can be president. Although the KKK won't doubt on trying to mureder him

Franny.:

Minority_Under_Dog:

Franny.:

Everyone is looking towards New Hampshire, but isn't the Wyoming primaries tomorrow for the Republicans?

yes, which is why no one cares. It's Wyoming. (no offence to you if you live there. but your state is kinda boring =P.)

I liked how Obama put in his speech yesterday about he was trying to being about hope and change for the future while some try to bring back old fears by exploiting 9/11 like it's an ad for a car.

Everyone is grasping onto the word "change" now on both sides. Obama started a fad =P 9/11 is pretty much only exploited by Giuliani, and look how well he's doing.

Giuliani is also a more "liberal" republican, so in a sence democrats shouldn't mind that he's popular. He was the mayor of new york city, one of the most liberal cities in the country. Personally, I really don't like him. I like McCain or Ron Paul for Republicans, though I doubt if they'll win the nomination.

Wyoming's GOP caucuses: Romney[4 del.], Hunter[1 del.], Thompson[1 del.].

That's about all the info. I can get so far. It does appear that no one cares about Wyoming [caucuses]

Huckabee must go away

Memory Lane.:

Huckabee must go away

I agree. Out of all the Republican candidates, why did he have to win?

Wow things are heating up even more! The Republican New Hampshire debates just ended and man, everyone does hate Mitt Romney. I love him even more now =P Yes, I always root for the underdog [with the most money] I missed most of it, damn football, but the videos are up on abc.com for those interested. McCain is still leading in the polls and Romney in second.

The Democrats are soon to take stage, but I doubt it'll be as fierce. Just like their politics, they're softies. Poor Richardson, I wonder how left out he'll be in this debate. Obama and Clinton are tied in the polls with Edwards not that close in second.

I've studied politics and i still find it difficult to understand the american voting system of choosing the party leader. There is a major difference between prime minister and president. But it just seems less corruptable to choose the party not the leader because the voter is less likely to be swung by race or sex. It just seems odd to me.

NeoSteph:

I've studied politics and i still find it difficult to understand the american voting system of choosing the party leader. There is a major difference between prime minister and president. But it just seems less corruptable to choose the party not the leader because the voter is less likely to be swung by race or sex. It just seems odd to me.

For Canada, we vote for a person representing the party from our area. If that person wins in our area, the candidate and his/her party gets the vote. That's from what I gather so I'm not completely sure if there's anything in between.

In the States, the ballot has the names of the candidates and the people choose which one they wish to vote for. But the vote doesn't directly go to the candidate. It goes to the Electors who then vote for which President and Vice President they represent. So there is a middle ground between the citizen's vote and the President. I didn't know this before and many Americans most likely don't know either. Here's more info on the Electoral College System

This system is really confusing to me though. Like in 2000, Al Gore didn't win the presidency because although he won the majority of the national vote [citizens voting for him on the ballot], he didn't win the majority of the Electoral College. I wouldn't say this system is unfair, but it should be made more clear or else things like that happens and you're stuck with a president that the majority of the nation didn't want.

I think Obama is actually the first ever genuinely good guy I've seen run for President

The Republican debate was designed so the canidates would disagree with eachother. They asked about specific policies. The democratic debate was more what if's and how soons.

i didn't like the questions,
"The day after a major American city is nuked, what would be the one thing you regret not doing?"
how the hell are they supposed to know? It could be a million things. those hypotheticals can be so stupid. One debate early it was asked what the canidates would do if there was a known terrorist in the counrty with wmd's, and he had already caused one attack and was planning another (something like that). Someone (i don't remember who) said, "Call Jack Bouer!"
i also didn't like the one that was like "why is obama doing better than you [Hillary] in the polls? why do people like him better?"
She responded [jokingly] "you hurt my feelings."

I did like the last question, which was the one thing they wished they could take back theat they've said during the debate. Of course Hillary and Obama completly dodged the question. Richardson retracted his endorsement of some dead supreme court justice who was anti-civil rights movement (among other things), and Edward's apologized for making fun of Hillary's jacket.
i wish they gave better answers.

Franny.:

He's not a homophobe, he's a baptist minister. I don't think he'd make anymore derogatory remarks about homosexuality now, but it's obvious, even without him saying, that he's against gay marriage.

Huckabee has repeatedly said that he's not trying to convert anyone, and I believe him. But what worries me is that his voters, a majority of them religious as seen in Iowa, would eventually pressure him to do so. If he becomes president and his voter base is largely made up of religious individuals, they may ask of him to spread god's message. This is just something I thought about, nothing is fact yet [except that a large number of his supporters are evangelical christians].

I don't think that being a minister gives him the right to be so rude towards homosexuals. I know that homosexuality is against their religion, but still. There's no need to make inflammatory remarks.

Also, evangelical christians freak me out, ever since I saw this documentary about them raising their children to be as ready to die for their faith as Muslims are to die for theirs. The idea of them gaining power is absolutely terrifying to me.

Ol' Blue Eyes.:

Franny.:

He's not a homophobe, he's a baptist minister. I don't think he'd make anymore derogatory remarks about homosexuality now, but it's obvious, even without him saying, that he's against gay marriage.

Huckabee has repeatedly said that he's not trying to convert anyone, and I believe him. But what worries me is that his voters, a majority of them religious as seen in Iowa, would eventually pressure him to do so. If he becomes president and his voter base is largely made up of religious individuals, they may ask of him to spread god's message. This is just something I thought about, nothing is fact yet [except that a large number of his supporters are evangelical christians].

I don't think that being a minister gives him the right to be so rude towards homosexuals. I know that homosexuality is against their religion, but still. There's no need to make inflammatory remarks.

Also, evangelical christians freak me out, ever since I saw this documentary about them raising their children to be as ready to die for their faith as Muslims are to die for theirs. The idea of them gaining power is absolutely terrifying to me.

It doesn't give him a right to make offensive remarks towards homosexuals, but when speaking about 'being against homosexuality', it's hard not to offend some people with them. I'm not saying he was right [or wrong] to make those remarks, I'm just saying that because of his position as a baptist minister and his religion, it's understandable that he once had made these remarks. He most likely doesn't speak so harshly anymore, but he still strongly states that he is against gay marriage.

But I don't understand why religion would play a role at all for the candidates. Like Mitt Romney being a mormon. At the beginning, he didn't even want to talk about it because it wouldn't have interferred with his politics, but everyone else wanted to poke and prod.

Does anyone know when the next debates are? Nevada?