<p>Hmm...so you won't vote Edwards because he's white? or that Obama/Hilary failed to get the nomination? So does it mean you're only voting for Obama because he's black...</p>
<p>Oh, on a side note. I wouldn't count Ron Paul out already, he got more votes then Guilani did in Iowa. While he's different, he could possible win the Republican nomination. Thompson, will probably drop out at some point...he really has no enthusiasm. If Hucakbee could do moderately well in NH and win SC he probably could be the GOP candidate.</p>
<p>2-iron, I definitely sit left, but I completely agree with your evaluations of the GOP hopefuls. On the one hand, it blows my mind that Giuliani only snagged 4% of Iowa, considering where he fell earlier in the campaigns. On the other hand, so many weak moves have been made (or not made) that I was fully expecting him to get beat.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What if the democratic party decided to "Play it safe" this election and just continue the WASP-y legacy with John Edwards. (As they can choose whoever they want right?)
[/quote]
Frankly, I would hardly consider that playing it safe. It looks just as shady as you think it looks. I definitely consider myself an Edwards supporter, but, despite being an Asian female, I'm excessively paranoid about coming off as intolerant or old-school.
I know more people who are supporting Obama just because he's black or Clinton just because she's a woman than I do people who are against them for the same reasons. Either way it's disappointing reasoning, really.</p>
<p>I suspect Obama is the most liberal (most socialist economically) of all the the major candidates. If Edwards/Hillary win the nomination I suspect the Dems will have the White House easily. By electing Obama one is actually giving the Republicans a chance. If it's Guiliani versus Obama I think Guiliani wins easily.</p>
<p>If you look at where they stand on the issues, Obama and Clinton agree 95% of the time, socially, economically, and foreign policy...ly. Obama is slightly more economically liberal and Clinton is slightly more socially liberal (see Obama's personal disapproval of gay marriage)...but these differences are negligible.</p>
<p>The difference comes down to character between these two. One is fresh, youthful, and different...the other is a Clinton. :)</p>
<p>I still can't figure out why the heck 13% voted for Thompson? He's so unappealing!</p>
<p>If the Democrats choose Clinton, they will lose. Theres too much anti-clinton sentiment, and most people who support obama/edwards hate hillary so Hillary would have 60% of the national vote against her.</p>
<p>If Obama is chosen, some hillary-ites might convert, and lots of republicans respect him, and so he stands a good chance against the divided republicans.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the Democrats choose Clinton, they will lose. Theres too much anti-clinton sentiment, and most people who support obama/edwards hate hillary so Hillary would have 60% of the national vote against her.</p>
<p>If Obama is chosen, some hillary-ites might convert, and lots of republicans respect him, and so he stands a good chance against the divided republicans.</p>
<p>In short,</p>
<p>Clinton = Lose
Obama = Dem. Win
Edwards = Lose
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In summary, you believe that the most liberal candidate (lets not even bring up the fact that he's black) has the best chance for bringing the Democrats to the White House. Yeah, that's wrong.</p>
<p>The most centrist candidates have the best shot.</p>
<p>This means Edwards and Giuliani or McCain are most appealing.
Clinton and Romney are mainstream enough to have a pretty good shot.
Huckabee and Obama may be too extreme.</p>
<p>And yes, I do generally believe what politicians say, because I have nothing else to go by. I listen and take it with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>I think it's dumb how much power NH and Iowa have in selecting our president.</p>
<p>It really ****ed me off when I would see people in Iowa talk about how they were unsure of who they were going to vote for because they "couldn't get a feel for any of the candidates."
I mean, they've seen them 4 or 5 times... IN PERSON!!!! The rest of the nation is lucky if a single candidate comes to a city near them once in the entire process!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suspect Obama is the most liberal (most socialist economically) of all the the major candidates. If Edwards/Hillary win the nomination I suspect the Dems will have the White House easily. By electing Obama one is actually giving the Republicans a chance. If it's Guiliani versus Obama I think Guiliani wins easily.
[/quote]
Although most people are pretty moderate, I think very few people would really like to identify that way. I highly doubt established democrats and even many left-leaning moderates would see the difference between Obama and, say, Edwards as being so great, or at least the generally underinformed population. Especially since a lot of people are just burnt out over the Bush mess. And let me reiterate that: so many people are done with the Republican party. If anyone, I think Giuliani may be the most likely to swing over Democrats, but I doubt he's going to have enough steam to inherit the elephant's nod anyway. And the stronger hopefuls? I can't get a read on McCain, but I think Huckabee and Romney are spending too much time trying to badge themselves as Jesus Jrs to get their own party's votes, and eventually each candidate's greed for the party nomination will kill their chances at the bigger prize.</p>
<p>omg, if ron paul becomes president... many people will probably move to canada... (not that there's anything wrong w/ canada; i like it, personally).</p>
<p>You won't get much support for Ron Paul on this site. There are far too many children of immigrants on here...and Paul is against birthright citizenship.</p>
<p>Not that anyone cares, but the things that make me the most riled up about Ron Paul are these positions:</p>
<p>-He defers to private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention.</p>
<p>-Paul defers to states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not directly found in the Constitution. Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life," "an unshakable foe of abortion," and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."</p>
<p>-Paul advocates for the elimination of federal involvement and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to drop due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.</p>