So how would we vote?

[Mr Creosote]

I know most of us here are just onlookers but based on this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732

I would go for Gravel just ahead of Edwards. For the republicans it surprises me too find that the one I dislike least is Giuliani - in fact in a Presidential race between him and Hillary - based on these issues - I'd be torn.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Gravel is a bit of a loose cannon

He's in favour of abolishing Income tax, and replacing it with a sales tax.

http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=fair_tax

It just won't work as being 'progressive', according to any figures I've seen. He's certainly not taken seriously by any pundit, and DU gave up him taking seriously too, a few months ago.

Giuliani is mad about the 'war on terror', and looks very aggressive in his foreign policy - his advisers are some of the leading hawks who encouraged the Iraq disaster:

Mr. Giuliani’s team includes Norman Podhoretz, a prominent neoconservative who advocates bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible”; Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps; and Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has written in favor of revoking the United States’ ban on assassination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/us/politics/25giuliani.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Giuliani is also far worse than Clinton on health care. There's no contest - he'd be very, very bad. None of the Republicans looks acceptable - Paul may be anti-war, but he's a far right nutter on just about everything else - libertarian, with dubious views on race.

[non sociopath skin]

3. Many thanks for that excellent piece of kit, Mr C ...

... which I've bookmarked and sent to Mrs Skin who has an actual vote in November.

Kucinich would have been my man for all the reasons he'll never be America's (sigh).

Of the existing runners, I think Edwards would get my vote though there are things I like about Obama. Voting for Hil would be rather like voting for Bliar and for much the same reasons.

As for the Repugs, I think McCain strikes me as the closest thing they have to a human being.

The Skin

[Mr Creosote]

4. I think in the real world

I'd actually vote for Edwards. McCain I like a little bit - apart from the slavish devotion to war - did you read the Al Francken book? I also suspect that his pro-war stance might be window dressing - generally those who have experienced the horrors of war are less hawkish than, for example, draft-dodging cokeheads.

[enlightenment]

16. I'd agree with your assessment of McCain

Mr. C., if it weren't for his age. Oddly, it seems like the older some career military men get the more likely they are to revert to earlier hawkish thinking, even if they had become quite opposed in earlier years.

I've been watching the phenomenon with my father, who at 85 saw both WWII and Korea up close and personal. He retired after 32 years and after that became quite the "dove." Not any more though. sad that.

[Henny Penny]

2. I think I'd go for Edwards on the basis of him being more interested in doing something

for ordinary workers wrt the economy. Then Hillary and last of all Obama.

Obama for me is like Jimmy Carter. A really great, probably genuine and gifted individual with absolutely no experience and consequently at the mercy of his advisers.

Carter was a very weak president (despite his own great ability) and his presidency was a total disaster.

Chief amongst Carter's advisers was Zbigniew Brzezinski and this is the bastard that came up with the idea of fostering Muslim fundamentalism as a bulwark against Russia. And guess what. He's back. Right there at Obama's right hand.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/03/a_new_brain_for_barack_obama.cfm

When the next president is finally chosen I think America (and by extension the rest of us ) is going to be in an absolute mess and the thought of power resting ultimately in the hands of someone who thought starting the Russian-Afghan war was a morally sound thing to do in order to "give Russia her own Vietnam"; and encouraging the Muslim extremists in Iran etc, for similar, ends was equally acceptable, frankly scares the shit out of me.

This guy is like a neo-con with a brain who instead of targeting the oil rich countries directly will instead be focussing on his old bete noir: Russia. And that means more war. And lots of it.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Mmm, I think in this case all the Dems are at least much better than all the Republicans

It's hard to tell in advance who would be better as *president*; it's often quite different from who would be better as *candidate*.

While Hillary isn't as left-wing as I'd like, I don't think any of the other Dems are either. Unusually, I find it hard to pick one of them - and in any case, the candidates whom I like are rarely those who get elected (former one-woman 'Dukakis Fan Club of Great Britain' speaking here!) I would quite like Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer, but realistically neither would get elected.

I really don't have a 'preferred' Republican; perhaps if they extended the ex-First-Lady choices and picked Betty Ford, I might not mind her too much; but she must be close to 90 by now anyway! But all the Republican contenders are awful in one way or another. I think Giuliani *might* not be as bad for American domestic policy as the other choices, but he would possibly be even worse for foreign policy, and after all, that's what affects the rest of the world most!

[T_i_B]

6. Typically...

...the one I liked the look of the most (Bill Richardson) has already pulled out.

The amusing thing at the moment is watching the freepers grumbling about their own candidates, especially now that Fred Thompson has pulled out. I might well enjoy seeing how that lot would react to John McCain being selected as the GOP candidate

[fedsron2us]

7. Edwards

Hope he can stay in the race as long as possible even if it is only to ensure that the other candidates have to address the issues he has raised.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

8. Edwards

I agree with him the most on the issues. If like it seems it will be between Obama and Clinton then I don't know. I am not sure which one is the most progressive out of those two.

I'd still prefer any Democratic candidate over any Republican though.

[Nihil]

9. Edwards would be my preference.

I hope he can survive the final media onslaught in favour of the
the other two though.

(Would have gone for Kuchinich but never mind!)

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. And unfortunately, Edwards has just announced he's quitting

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3161808

[Mr Creosote]

11. Which is a terrible shame

particularly as it looks like Obama and Clinton might carry on tearing lumps off each other whilst the others unite behind mccain

[T_i_B]

12. Have you been on freeper boards of late?

The wingnuts dislike McCain almost as much as they dislike us. They might just get behind Rommney but McCain would face quite a bit of internal bitching from the American right, who consider the man something of a "RINO".

That said, if McCain does get the nomination he is still quite likely to pick up quite a few votes that a regular GOP man wouldn't so he would still be a fairly electable choice IMHO.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. This poll is worrying - though how reliable, I don't know

There is bad news for both Democratic candidates, however, in a Rasmussen poll published today.

When matched up against John McCain, both Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama would be defeated, according to the poll - Mrs Clinton by eight points and Mr Obama by six.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7218627.stm

I think I have seen accusations on DU that Rasmussen polls favour Republicans - though accusations on DU about polls aren't worth much.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. "though accusations on DU about polls aren't worth much"

:rofl:

So true!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

15. I uttered "Aww fuck-sticks" when I heard the news

I don't know who to pick between Clinton and Obama. I like Obama better on foreign policy (or perhaps he just talks the talk about withdrawal?), but there doesn't appear to be much separating them elsewhere.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. There's another 'find out how closely you agree with candidates' site here

http://glassbooth.org/

Remember, it's just a bit of fun. It's believable at a high level - I was 70-85% with all the Democratic candidates, and 35-50% with the Republican one.s

[LeftishBrit]

18. Just looked at it...

Was at around 80% with all Dem candidates; 41% with McCain (huh?), and lower with all other Republicans, with Tancredo and Hunter (now not running) the lowest.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. McCain may have scored something with you on, say, global warming

He was taking it seriously in 2004: http://www.alternet.org/story/18283/

and got Schwarzenegger's endorsement yesterday, partly for that: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-goptrail1feb01,1,2705718.story

[Mr Creosote]

20. Of the candidates still running

I am closest to Gravel - 80%, although with Kucinich I am 91%. Among the repugs I am 65% with Paul - because he shares my views on Iraq and Civil Liberties and because I have no opinion on abortion. Interestingly (for me anyway) the site I found showed similar matches with Giuliani and Clinton - but on this one I am 76% Clinton, 35% Giuliani.

[non sociopath skin]

21. Few surprises ...

I got:
Kucinich 98
Gravel 90
Edwards 81
Clinton 79
Obama 71

Bit surprised about the last one. I suspect it's his iffiness on the death penalty ...

The Skin