?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Thoughts, worries and recommendations on the primaries - Synchronicity swirls and other foolishness

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> my rpg writing site

January 23rd, 2008


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
01:37 pm - Thoughts, worries and recommendations on the primaries
"Super Tuesday" is coming up in 13 days and is almost certainly when both the Republican and Democratic candidates will be decided. I have no recommendations for the Democratic primary other than a recommendation not to bother voting in it if you live in a state with open primaries. Now that John Edwards is essentially (and from my PoV unfortunately) out of the race, I think Clinton is a better choice than Obama, but from most PoVs, they are essentially identical – moderate centrists who are notably too pro-business for my tastes, but who would both make acceptable presidents.

What I have strong recommendations for is the Republican primaries – these come down to anyone but John McCain, or for best effect, vote for Mitt Romney. This is wholly because I don't think Mitt Romney has a hope in hell of being elected, but it's clearly he has the best chance of beating John McCain. In vivid contrast, John McCain is for some unknown reason a media favorite and does frighteningly well in polls. He's the only Republican who has polled at having any hope of beating either Obama or Clinton and he worries me, because I fear he might win.

For the few of you reading this who have not long ago concluded (like I did) that every Federal level Republican candidate and elected official is a worthless panderer to fundys, bigotry, and well-organized greed, it's worth considering what John McCain as president would mean – not only is he pretty much the only candidate in either party who fully endorses Shrub's policies in Iraq, he is also generally a military hardliner of the sort who would almost certainly go along with Shrub's attempted to attack Iran, which would be considerably more disastrous than even this current and horrible war. He's strongly anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-Christian government (among other things, he supports teaching "intelligent design" in public schools), and is the sort of fiscal conservative who would continue Shrub's disastrous economic policies. The fact that he's one of the few Republican candidates who both admits to believing in evolution is anti-torture merely means he's not a moronic monster, but he's still a hardline Republican and an utterly terrifying choice for president.

In short, if you want to actually make changes in the nation, vote for Mitt Romney and consider volunteering to campaign for Romney (the most credible opponent to McCain). If Oregon didn't have pointlessly late primaries, I might well sign up for a Romney campaign phone bank.
Current Mood: worriedworried

(15 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:maxomai
Date:January 23rd, 2008 09:51 pm (UTC)

Do it anyway

(Link)
There's nothing to stop you from phone banking for Romney from Oregon for a primary in, say, Florida. We Deaniacs used to do that all the time.
[User Picture]
From:slothman
Date:January 23rd, 2008 10:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I prefer Obama to Clinton, but either one would do a far better job than any of the Republicans running. I see McCain as the least-bad of a very bad lot on the Republican side.
[User Picture]
From:rhiannasilel
Date:January 23rd, 2008 10:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I like some of Obama's ideas in regard to technology and think he's a bit better choice than Clinton, but neither really goes far enough in my book and as I've said before I really just wish we'd get a real Labor party. I'm still thinking that maybe Edwards may end up being someone's running mate since he's engaged in far less mud-slinging and he would, presumably, carry the South.
[User Picture]
From:athenian_abroad
Date:January 23rd, 2008 11:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm still thinking that maybe Edwards may end up being someone's running mate since he's engaged in far less mud-slinging and he would, presumably, carry the South.

Hmmmm...didn't we try this once? I don't think it worked.
[User Picture]
From:rhiannasilel
Date:January 24th, 2008 02:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, but I don't know if that had more to do with Kerry than Edwards and I think in some ways people really long for the Clinton years. If you had Hillary with Edwards on the ticket as VP they might think Bill/Gore. I know it's not the same, but they could sell it that way and probably should if they're smart. (Bleh, it's really sad that US politics comes down to who has the best sales pitch, not who has the best ideas.)
[User Picture]
From:kiplet
Date:January 23rd, 2008 10:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Voting tactically in a primary doesn't make much sense, unless you're strongly vested in preventing a candidate from getting the nom. There's no reason at all not to vote for Edwards, no matter his "chances" of "winning" (especially if he steps up on FISA and telecom immunity the way the two frontrunners aren't), as every vote for him is that much more weight dragging the other two further leftward.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:January 23rd, 2008 10:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Voting tactically in a primary doesn't make much sense, unless you're strongly vested in preventing a candidate from getting the nom.

Which is precisely what I'm advocating. I think the most important primary goal should be stopping John McCain. w/o him as their candidate, the Republicans have pretty much no chance of winning.
[User Picture]
From:kiplet
Date:January 23rd, 2008 10:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
How many Super Tuesday primaries are open? I was under the impression open primaries were pretty rare.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:January 23rd, 2008 10:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't know how many of the Super Tuesday primary are open but 19 states actually still have open primaries.
[User Picture]
From:athenian_abroad
Date:January 23rd, 2008 11:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yep. Of course, I've been forecasting a McCain victory all along, so I'm not an unbiased observer. But it does look like the race will break down like this: if the GOP nominates McCain, he wins; any other GOP nominee loses to any Democrat.

Personally, I think there are good reasons to prefer Clinton to Obama -- basically, experience, experience and experience. While far more of her experience is "second-hand" than I'd like, she's probably got a clearer grasp of the day-to-day nuts-and-bolts realities of being President than anyone who's taken the office in a very long time. (Sadly, the only candidate in the field that had anything like the resume I'd prefer to see was Bill Richardson, who promptly went nowhere.)

But in the grand scheme of things, I think your point is spot on: the real action is on the Republican side of the aisle. I go a little farther, and say that the GOP primary will actually decide the outcome of the general election. But I'm prone to extreme predictions.... ;-)
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:January 23rd, 2008 11:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
One of the few hopeful factors is that McCain isn't just several years older than Reagan was when he was elected, he looks considerably older.
[User Picture]
From:kitten_goddess
Date:January 24th, 2008 12:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
That reminds me: I need to get my voter registration card fixed (the morons got my address wrong.)

I'd rather have McCain or Romney than Huckabee. Huckabee is the only person I know who is dumber than Bu$h (as in so dumb he pardoned hardened criminals just because they claimed to have gotten "born again." One of these Christian gentlemen, a former serial rapist, then proceeded to rape again - good going, Huckabee!)

I haven't read much about Romney. I have no problems with him being a Mormon, and he's a flip-flopper. This may mean that if the right people apply pressure on him and keep it there, he may not be as bad as Bu$h should he get elected.

McCain - not as terrifying as Bu$h or Huckabee.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:January 24th, 2008 12:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
From my PoV, the question isn't in any way which would make a better president, since none of the Republicans would make anything other than horrifyingly terrible presidents, so the only important question is who has a good chance at getting the nomination but has no chance of beating the Democrats. That's most definitely Romney.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:January 24th, 2008 12:48 am (UTC)
(Link)
This piece was made in 2004. Since that time, McCain has moved significantly further to the right and has been backing up Shrub's plans for the war, especially against the more recent Democratic challenges to it in Congress. He learned his lesson from the 2000 election and now knows you need to be utterly evil to have a chance of getting the Republican nomination - he's been doing an excellent job of that in Congress.

The Defense industry is (like every other large corporate interest, except the energy industries) giving more money to the Democrats because they assume they are going to win, just like they've been giving more to Clinton, because they assume she will win. No one gave much to McCain, because prior to the first few primaries, he looked like he was completely out of the race.
[User Picture]
From:amqu
Date:January 26th, 2008 06:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm not a Democrat or Republican, and I don't vote. That being said, I tend to be conservative in my general worldview. And looking around at conservative type people who DO vote, they really don't like McCain for the GOP nominee. Also, the media like McCain which means he's obviously the least conservative in the race. Unless you count Huckabee who is a liberal in social conservative clothing. I've been following the primaries pretty closely and I can say with confidence that I have absolutely no idea who is going to win their respective primaries. It's a crazy wide-open race this year.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com