Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I'll be honest, it seems almost every President has been ignorant towards Canada.

I'm not sure about that. Reagan was pretty plugged in about Canada when he started dealing with Mulroney.

The rest of the presidents, especially the ones that had to deal with Trudeau, Chretian and Martin for the most part treated Canada with a fair shot of distain.

[rubecube]

nm

[MarchHare]

The rest of the presidents, especially the ones that had to deal with Trudeau, Chretian and Martin for the most part treated Canada with a fair shot of distain.

Didn't Bill Clinton and Jean Chretien have a pretty good relationship? This speech Clinton gave to Parliament in 1995 seemed to imply that they were quite friendly:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...31/ai_16989060

It's not surprising that a Republican president would have a better relationship with a Conservative PM and a Democratic president would have more in common with a Liberal PM. That being said, the gap between Liberal-Republican is far greater than the one between Conservative-Democrat.

What your statement really boils down to is the fact that Nixon didn't like Trudeau and Bush Jr. didn't like Chretien and Martin. That's not exactly shocking, since most Canadians have a very unfavourable opinion of Nixon and Bush.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Didn't Bill Clinton and Jean Chretien have a pretty good relationship? This speech Clinton gave to Parliament in 1995 seemed to imply that they were quite friendly:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...31/ai_16989060

It's not surprising that a Republican president would have a better relationship with a Conservative PM and a Democratic president would have more in common with a Liberal PM. That being said, the gap between Liberal-Republican is far greater than the one between Conservative-Democrat.

What your statement really boils down to is the fact that Nixon didn't like Trudeau and Bush Jr. didn't like Chretien and Martin. That's not exactly shocking, since most Canadians have a very unfavourable opinion of Nixon and Bush.

Well it might feel good as a Canadian to dismiss the Nixon-Trudeau divide as 'Nixon being an unethical republican crook', but with the economic pyscho-babble coming out of Trudeau's mouth at the time combined with his communist sympathies in the middle of the Cold War and it's hard not to hold a good portion of the blame on Trudeau as well.

[mykalberta]

Just to add to this, on MtP on Sunday, they said Obama is raising 50mil/month.

At the moment the Dems are dwarfing the Reps on campaing fund raising.

McCain has to hope for a stong Hillary push so that the Obama money train slows down else he will simply have no hope and it will be the 92'/96' elections all over again.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I might be wrong, but the whole primaries campaign between Clinton and Obama has been based around optics more then actual issues and debates on the issues.

As have all the primaries for either party. Suggesting otherwise is either a joke or a comment made by someone who did not witness a single of the Republican debates. The Republicans spent every debate talking about terror and Iraq and protecting America from the boogeyman. The only guy that talked actual issues was Ron Paul, and he got shouted down. This is all about appearances of being a good leader, nothing more, and that applies on to both parties.

Clinton has tried to soften her image via tears, and portraying hurt but real feelings to dispel the notional that she's an emotionless fembot.

Yeah, and John McCain and his handlers refuse to allow cameramen to photograph him from a distance or show him walking without his flock of handlers and body guards. They are well aware of his advanced age and the fact that he doesn't get around too well and they know it would make him look weak. It works all around. Its all a creation for the media and well orchestrated.

Obama has stolen right out of the Kennedy handbook and spoken in generalities in terms of change and vision and reconciliation over partisian politics and party boundries, but has offered little in the way of substance.

Last I checked, your belief in evolution was not a substantive issue, yet was front and center at the Republican debates. Same with terror and 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Talk about zero substance. I'm like you, I'm dying for real issues to be discussed, but this is not the time. That is not how American politics work.

My guess right now is that Clinton or Obama might get slaughtered during the actual election process if they don't actually start to devise actual hard policies.

I'm sure those policies are just as hard as the next candidates. Again, this is not the time to be discussing policies. Until they get the nod, they cannot speak for their party, so they really cannot discuss any policy position. I haven't heard anything from McCain about his policy position, and he is the de facto nominee.

Frankly, I will be surprised if McCain can carry the pressure of a Presidental election. He's historically pretty soft on many issues, and he's going to get ravaged by his own party for making some of the choices he has. Its bad enough to be battling against the Democrats and the undecideds, but when you have to battle against your own as well, its an amazing amount of pressure. The one really good thing for McCain, is that Nader has thrown his hat back in the ring, possibly splitting the vote against the Republicans again. The bad thing there is that the hard core Republicans might burn their votes on Nader this time.

It reminds me so much of Paul Martin during the last federal election where he kept mentioning a nebulous plan, but never divulged anything in the plan, and he got slaughtered by a better prepared Harper.

Good point. There has to be substance from a candidate at some time. It will be interesting who discusses something of substance first.

I don't think Obama or Clinton can just magically switch gears in mid flow when they actually have to go after the American general public as oppossed to going after hardened democrat votes.

But McCain can after going for the hardcore Republican votes? The majority of the country still aligns itself with the liberal perspective more than the conservative perspective. The secret will be whether the Democrats can get that majority to the polls, something they have been terrible at doing in the past. If they can activate the female, youth, and minority vote, it will be 1964 all over again, and that didn't play out well for the candidate from Arizona.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

But McCain can after going for the hardcore Republican votes? The majority of the country still aligns itself with the liberal perspective more than the conservative perspective. The secret will be whether the Democrats can get that majority to the polls, something they have been terrible at doing in the past. If they can activate the female, youth, and minority vote, it will be 1964 all over again, and that didn't play out well for the candidate from Arizona.

.

If that were the case then why doesn't the Democratic Party win every election with ease? If the latter group doesn't care enough to show up on voting day then clearly their opinion doesn't matter. Their absence is endorsement of the status quo.

As far as getting out the vote I'll give Obama credit, his campaign of "Hope", "Change" and other non-substance platitudes has been more charismatic than Hillary's non-substance platitudes and stands a better chance of getting typical non-voters out to vote.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

.

As far as getting out the vote I'll give Obama credit, his campaign of "Hope", "Change" and other non-substance platitudes

Considering who is currently running the show, "Hope" and "Change" are substantive enough.

Hell, if he was asked what he was going to do and said "Well, I'm not entirely sure, but it will be better than these current guys", some people might think that's good enough. I might.

Kinda reminds me of the last federal election in Canada. Everyone but the died-in-the-wool card carrying Liberals knew that it was time for them to go. I'm a leftie myself and even I couldn't stand the thought of another run with that crowd, knowing full well that meant the Conservatives would take over.

The Yanks do seem to be different though. It is going to be a real contest.

I personally don't get why anyone would want to give the Republicans another few years to screw things up even more, but they are obviously out there.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

.

If that were the case then why doesn't the Democratic Party win every election with ease? If the latter group doesn't care enough to show up on voting day then clearly their opinion doesn't matter. Their absence is endorsement of the status quo.

You said it yourself. The vast majority of Americans don't give a rip about politics and don't know a damn thing about it. That is why these elections are waged on personalities and BS issues that don't matter. That is the only way the average American can be reached.

As far as getting out the vote I'll give Obama credit, his campaign of "Hope", "Change" and other non-substance platitudes has been more charismatic than Hillary's non-substance platitudes and stands a better chance of getting typical non-voters out to vote.

Now when you say "non-substance platitudes that stands a better chance of getting typical non-voters out to vote", I would assume that you would also be refering to the standard Republican fair from the past six years of "9/11", "terror threats", "gay marriage" and "religion/prayer/intelligent design in schools" in that category as well? And we can't forget the best of all, one McCain is already using, "protecting America from attack"!

Yup, politics sure is a funny beast. One side gets lambasted by the other for doing pretty well the exact same thing. Oh gawd, please let the primaries end and get on to some actual politics that matters.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You said it yourself. The vast majority of Americans don't give a rip about politics and don't know a damn thing about it. That is why these elections are waged on personalities and BS issues that don't matter. That is the only way the average American can be reached.

How does one have a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' perspective when one doesn't care enough to formulate their perspective? If you can't determine the non-voter's leanings then how can a statement like "the majority of the country still aligns itself with the liberal perspective more than the conservative perspective." be made?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If you can't determine the non-voter's leanings then how can a statement like "the majority of the country still aligns itself with the liberal perspective more than the conservative perspective." be made?

Simple, you observe their actions. Though they may not identify with a particular side, their actions reveal them to operate in one mind-set or another. A glance through the most popular American television shows, list of bestselling books, and the general behavioral trends of the populace will reveal whether you are dealing with a progressive or conservative population far better than any polls or election ever could.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I'll be honest, it seems almost every President has been ignorant towards Canada.

Meh, more or less.

Its cool to hate Canada, but deep down they need us oh so much.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by driveway

Simple, you observe their actions. Though they may not identify with a particular side, their actions reveal them to operate in one mind-set or another. A glance through the most popular American television shows, list of bestselling books, and the general behavioral trends of the populace will reveal whether you are dealing with a progressive or conservative population far better than any polls or election ever could.

That, and there have been studies completed on values of Americans and they tend to be more liberal than conservative.

[Nehkara]

Delegate update!

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1268
Obama 1365 (97 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1031
Obama 1184 (153 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 237 (56 ahead)
Obama 181


Obama gains 5 superdelegates, Clinton loses 1.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by driveway

Simple, you observe their actions. Though they may not identify with a particular side, their actions reveal them to operate in one mind-set or another. A glance through the most popular American television shows, list of bestselling books, and the general behavioral trends of the populace will reveal whether you are dealing with a progressive or conservative population far better than any polls or election ever could.

So what is the conclusion?

This is the current NYT bestseller list:

HARDCOVER FICTION
Top 5 at a Glance
1. THE APPEAL, by John Grisham
2. 7TH HEAVEN, by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro
3. DUMA KEY, by Stephen King
4. A THOUSAND SPLENDID SUNS, by Khaled Hosseini
5. STRANGER IN PARADISE, by Robert B. Parker




HARDCOVER NONFICTION
Top 5 at a Glance
1. IN DEFENSE OF FOOD, by Michael Pollan
2. RECONCILIATION, by Benazir Bhutto
3. REAL CHANGE, by Newt Gingrich with Vince Haley and Rick Tyler
4. AN INCONVENIENT BOOK, by Glenn Beck and Kevin Balfe
5. I AM AMERICA (AND SO CAN YOU!), by Stephen Colbert, Richard Dahm, Paul Dinello, Allison Silverman et al.




The inclusion of a book by Glenn Beck tells me something, but I won't bother saying what that is. The rest of it though doesn't tell us much. Or does it?



Who likes American Idol? Liberals or conservatives? Or people who don't vote?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who likes American Idol? Liberals or conservatives? Or people who don't vote?

Let's just say that if they could do it by dialing 1-800-IDOLS-MCCAIN they'd vote 900 times.

[RougeUnderoos]

Speaking of, William F. Buckley died.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...bit/index.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Considering who is currently running the show, "Hope" and "Change" are substantive enough.

Yeah.

I suppose it was good enough for Carter too to tell everyone how he was going to change America.

Look at how that turned out.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah.

I suppose it was good enough for Carter too to tell everyone how he was going to change America.

Look at how that turned out.

Considering how things are going down there, hope is rather desperately needed. Change is an absolute necessity. If he can do either, just a bit, then it's an improvement.

You can pick the name of any President you want and say "look how bad he was" and I can say "well, he was better than George W., and he's the current Republican President, so..."

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah.

I suppose it was good enough for Carter too to tell everyone how he was going to change America.

Look at how that turned out.

You know, you might not remember a certain charismatic guy who ran on a platform of hope, change, optimism and bipartisanship. He didn't make a lot of concrete proposals, but he looked good, and people sure liked him. In the end, he wasn't a great president, but he was a lot better than the guy he replaced, and that was enough.

His name was Ronald Reagan.