If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
US elections
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Edwards and Giuliani have dropped out.
Any thoughts?
I'm thinking it's pretty bad news for the Democrats. John McCain has an endorsement from Giuliani, McCain is looking strong and prob now favourite to get the Republican nomination...And McCain in polls beats Hillary and Obama.
Since the last two Democrats to actually win the presidency were Southerners (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) I think the Dems have probably made a mistake by driving Edwards out of the race. Hillary isn't fighting this election from the position her husband was in '92, she can't pull on the Southern charm... she's not a Washington outsider, a governor from a small Southern state - more than anyone she's part of the northern Democrat elite and Washington establishment. I'm a bit undecided about Obama - his healthcare plan only aims to 'extend' coverage, Hillary and Edwards plans were universal coverage... Either way, I think the Democrats might live to regret snubbing Edwards. To be blunt - Hillary is hated in large sections of the US, she's epitomises the northern Democratic elite... and I'm not convinced certain parts of the US in a national presidential election will vote for an African American. I hope I'm wrong on the last count and it's true that the few states where that is probably true aren't worth that many electoral votes... but still... if the Republicans record is considered, whoever gets nominations, a Democrat should thrash a Republican in Nov - yet I think it'll be McCain who ends up sitting in the White House.
Any thoughts?
I'm thinking it's pretty bad news for the Democrats. John McCain has an endorsement from Giuliani, McCain is looking strong and prob now favourite to get the Republican nomination...And McCain in polls beats Hillary and Obama.
Since the last two Democrats to actually win the presidency were Southerners (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) I think the Dems have probably made a mistake by driving Edwards out of the race. Hillary isn't fighting this election from the position her husband was in '92, she can't pull on the Southern charm... she's not a Washington outsider, a governor from a small Southern state - more than anyone she's part of the northern Democrat elite and Washington establishment. I'm a bit undecided about Obama - his healthcare plan only aims to 'extend' coverage, Hillary and Edwards plans were universal coverage... Either way, I think the Democrats might live to regret snubbing Edwards. To be blunt - Hillary is hated in large sections of the US, she's epitomises the northern Democratic elite... and I'm not convinced certain parts of the US in a national presidential election will vote for an African American. I hope I'm wrong on the last count and it's true that the few states where that is probably true aren't worth that many electoral votes... but still... if the Republicans record is considered, whoever gets nominations, a Democrat should thrash a Republican in Nov - yet I think it'll be McCain who ends up sitting in the White House.
0
Comments
Tbh, the Democrat campaign has been pathetic. Maybe I'm just not used to American politics, but shouldn't they at least have positive things to say about each other?
I thought the race thing might be an issue, but if I'm honest, I can't see anyone who would refuse to vote for a candidate because he's black, vote anything other than Republican anyway. That's not a condemnation of all Republican voters, but they do seem to be the party that attract the votes of such people. And so I suspect that the Democrats will gain more votes for the idea of the black president than the Republicans will gain in protest of a black president. Similarly with the idea of the first female president (though what a hollow victory for feminism that the first female president is only president because of who she was married to).
I've gotta agree with you though. Everyone (in Britain) seems to think that it's a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will win. But domestic problems have overtaken international problems as the main driving force, and so it might be a lot closer than we think. And with Bush increasing the size of the government in his time and raising taxes, a lot of people will be voting for a smaller government, and that is Republican.
On Obama, I think his policy on healthcare is more to the centre of American politics, and so he'll probably appeal to more people than either Clinton or Edwards. I think he also did a good job of basically isolating and criticising the religious fundamentalists, while at the same time appealing to the large numbers of religious people in America, which is in keeping with a lot of opinion in America at the moment that are fed up with the disproportional influence of the more extreme religious groups with the current government.
Not that I think either will do anything very different if they were to win - they are hardly Lincoln, Roosevelt or LBJ are they?
To be honest though, in my eyes, replacing the a president who's the son of a former president with a president whose the spouse of a former president is disgusting. America needs to look long and hard at how democratic it really is if that happens.
And besides, I think they've blown it again - they already look weak and wishy-washy and when the Republican personal attack machine steps into gear they are likely to crumble again rather than fight back.
Barack Obama is too inexperienced. And I dont think the Republicans have a hope in hell of getting in again.
Again the polls back that.
And to be fair I'm not sure its fair complaining that the US is nepotistic when our cabinet consists of two brothers and a husband and wife team
Personally I think when it comes down to this Obama wins over Hillary but his race will lose him the election.
When Hilary Clinton is asked why she should get the job, her reasoning is "because my husband used to do it". Yeah, and Dubya's dad used to do the job - look at the mess that got us all into! Like Gordon Brown, she has an annoying sense of entitlement, which pisses us all off. We know the only reason she wheels out her horny goat of a husband at every opportunity is to make sure he doesn't shag the nearest intern, anyway...
Barack Obama - the less said, the better. All he promises is "change" - without actually specifying what "change" he wants to bring about. He's effectively the US equivalent of Nick Clegg. God help them.
Personally I dont see any of the big important changes happening with any of the candidates, but a race between McCain and Obama could be interesting.
Yes but this didn't help:
He has lost all four nominating contests so far, from Iowa to South Carolina - his native state - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7218848.stm
less so in the US, given the number of people in Federal Government who are political appointees rather than civil servants.
No surprise really.. Edwards had a fraction of the resources Clinton/Obama had, Edwards didn't take any money from lobbyists and PACs - by contrast Clinton/Obama have been milking lobbyists/PACs to fund their campaigns. Hmm it'll be interesting to see how long he keeps quiet for, he's not endorsed Clinton or Obama so far...
I hope Clinton wins now anyway... against McCain at least she has some credentials, she's qualified and experienced. Obama has only been in national US politics since 2004, before that he was a state legislator. Hmm tbh whether it's Obama or Clinton, against McCain - the Democrats are in real trouble...
Agreed, but niether side are going to make any big changes to the way the government works, how much the spend on the poor vs. how much they spend on the military etc. It will be more of the same fake meritocratic society were if you're poor you deserve it.
I had originally thought Edwards/Barack ticket would work with Barack as Veep due to his inexperience but with no hope of that, I think the Dems will lose tbh.
??? Not sure if that a description of the US or a description of how you want to feel the US is like. The system is the way it is because that's what American's want. It is a very meritocratic society (nothing fake about it - my father in law is the son of poor immigrants - he's a Doctor), much more so than many European countries. And the number of Americans who believe that the poor deserve it is probably lower than in Europe.
The difference is that there is a bigger thing in much of America of friends, churches and communities helping with the poor, rather than the state. Now you can argue (and I'd agree) that this doesn;t work very well in big cities (where incidentally the Federal Government spends Billions on health care, regeneration and social security), but it works extremely well outside it.
It's worked for David Cameron.
From a purely practical point of view that shows that charity works and the state does not. As you say billions spent, and from the results seen, you could say wasted.
Perhaps its just my experience of the US, but I think those occasional tales of poor kid made good just serve to re-inforce the idea that those at the bottom dont work hard enough or are just stupid.
There are massive barriers put in the way of the poor in the US which I think make the claims of a meritocracy not totally false but they certainly dont ring true.
I dont mean to sound totally against the US or its society, there are sections that are great and most of the Americans I have met have been fantastic. Its just there is something very rotten - healthcare, the criminal justice system, schooling - all massively effect those at the bottom.
And let's not even start on the billions of people in the world who don't have access to electricity, running water, education or even the most basic healthcare.
Meanwhile half the entire world's wealth is said to be in the hands of some 350 people.
Charity donations are futile and ultimately useless to the wider problem. And for some, nothing more than an excuse to argue against any form of taxation, because they're simply too greedy to consider giving even a small proportion of their fortunes to help others.
and Thatcher in 1979 :yes:
It works for all oppositions* (and to be fair you can't quite say what you'll do until you get into power and have thousands of civil servants at your disposal, instead of half a dozen back room thinkers)
* or at least those who win elections - it didn't work for Kinnock
Oh I don't know, lost the elction but ended up with the minions of the EC at his disposal and less accountability to his critics than being PM.
Without mentioning any practical things he's gonna do to actually achieve it. Hug a hoodie? Give me a break. He's brought us new levels of bullshit statements with no substance. And let's not forget how long it took us to get this far. I was about 6 months after becoming leader before Cameron said anything worthwhile. Up until that point we had a lot of posturing and a pretty drawing of a tree. Obama isn't even the leader of the Democrats yet.