Obama or McCain?

[nichomach]

Also informative is this op-ed piece on his economic skills which I ran across the other day (NYT, registration free but may be required). I'd recommend reading the whole article, but it's worth noting that the current public face of the man's economic policy is *drumroll* Carly Fiorina. Now, do we remember what happened to HP's value under her leadership? I think we do...

[Atomic7]

I think the big question is who will do the most for the American economy. That is the greatest problem asides the obvious foreign policy. I think that restoring America's foreign policy will be high on the new president's agenda so I think it will be down to who can make a difference economically.

[2Cold Scorpio]

frankly, i really can't comprehend a situation where the current breed of mccain would be anything but a disaster. at best it'd be another 4 years of bush policy

'Tis was much better than 8 years of Clinton! We're still feeling the damage his tenure caused. >.< Who put the foolish notion in his head to *downsize* the military? And before anyone even claims Bill helmed a booming economy in the mid-90s (I've heard this claim a lot of Dems), read up on economics and government and you'll see the president actually has very little to do with the economy: more of an influence is Congress and even more so is current market trends. If you want to think someone for the economic boom of the mid-90s, thank Microsoft and the sudden surge of popularity of PCs and the Internet (the latter greatly helped by MS bundling IE with Windows). Clinton didn't do a blasted thing but bleed money into pointless social reform programs and cheat on his wife. Oh, and play the saxophone. lol

Obama would be more of the same...if not worse. Only an idiot raises taxes during a recession and gives it to those who didn't earn it (long-term welfare: i.e. folks who refuse to look for a job) or other pointless social programs that the Democrats are so fond of. Its asinine. Even crazier, people believe this kind of thinking to be *right*!

[Byatt]

'Tis was much better than 8 years of Clinton! We're still feeling the damage his tenure caused. >.< Who put the foolish notion in his head to *downsize* the military? And before anyone even claims Bill helmed a booming economy in the mid-90s (I've heard this claim a lot of Dems), read up on economics and government and you'll see the president actually has very little to do with the economy: more of an influence is Congress and even more so is current market trends. If you want to think someone for the economic boom of the mid-90s, thank Microsoft and the sudden surge of popularity of PCs and the Internet (the latter greatly helped by MS bundling IE with Windows). Clinton didn't do a blasted thing but bleed money into pointless social reform programs and cheat on his wife. Oh, and play the saxophone. lol

Obama would be more of the same...if not worse. Only an idiot raises taxes during a recession and gives it to those who didn't earn it (long-term welfare: i.e. folks who refuse to look for a job) or other pointless social programs that the Democrats are so fond of. Its asinine. Even crazier, people believe this kind of thinking to be *right*!

Is this a troll, or what? I genuinely can't tell anymore.

[mooo]

McCain might do it, thats if he gets the support of the christian right. Obama is a bit too liberal.

[mylaura99]

prefer the young man.

[Washdogg]

well, if they've only got Bush to beat, either of them wud be fine

but Obama is the obvious choice.

[2Cold Scorpio]

Is this a troll, or what? I genuinely can't tell anymore.

No, sir, I just think for myself and speak my mind. And what's on my mind isn't dictated by some editorial writer in the newspaper putting his own spin on issues nor by those who are ignorant of history, politics, and economics. ^_^ I've been on these boards to long to bother to troll (and despise trolls anyways). I'm simply enjoying a good debate with others. Forgive me if my views upset or frighten you. Just because I don't buy into Obama's substance-devoid flowery speeches and that I believe that if he were elected would be the biggest mistake on the American people since the election of Jimmy Carter doesn't make me a troll. Considering I didn't see you add anything of substance to the thread (at least lately, if at all), I'd be tempted to say you, sir, are the loathed troll in question.

[Bossworld]

Hope and think Obama will win, he's got a battle on his hands to win over the bible belt though

[Quack]

Lets just hope Hillary doesn't win! What a scary person.

[shadowmaster]

Lets just hope Hillary doesn't win! What a scary person.

You do know that Hillary is no longer running for president.

[Saracen]

Who do I think will win?

I think I don't know. In fact, I know I don't know.

I also think, and think I know, it'll be a lot, LOT closer than this poll currently suggests .... perhaps because most voting on this poll can't vote in the actual election.

My analysis is this :-

- most Democrats aren't going to even consider voting McCain
- a lot, probably most Republicans won't consider voting Obama
- the undecideds, and/or swings, probably include a lot that wouldn't vote Bush (again)

A very big indeterminate factor is how many that might have voted Republican will punish them for Bush. On the other hand, McCain isn't Bush. So if they're inclined towards Republicans, can they overcome the Bush effect enough to try McCain.

It's just far to unclear to predict how those whose vote actually decided this will go .... or how the Bush effect might affect Republican turnout.


Who I want to win? That's a whole different issue.

[MadduckUK]

i know your dying to.. so.. who do you want to win Saracen?

[Saracen]

To be honest, I don't really know, Madduck.

I haven't studied the candidates in any great detail. Or not in any detail at all, really. I've studied their policies even less.

I'm not by any means convinced by McCain, but there's just something about Obama, from what I've seen, that I just don't trust. He strikes me as just too slick, too polished, too PR-oriented. He reminds me too much of slick-Willy, or for that matter, Blair. It's too early to be sure, but I just don't trust him.

So I'd probably, based on my extensive absence of knowledge, have to go for McCain, but with a marked lack of enthusiasm. Of course, I'm not a US voter so what I think matters even less in this election than voter's opinions usually matter.

As I said in my first post, it's rather like presenting two candidates for running your life and being asked if you prefer Hitler or Stalin. It's not an enviable choice and (though I'm not suggesting these two compare with Hitler or Stalin), my answer would be much the same .... I don't want to start from here. None of the above.

[gold2008]

Obama will be friends of Russia, McCain will be at enmity with Russia. Whether you want war with Russia, whether you want radioactive ashes on the head?

[TeePee]

Obama would be more of the same...if not worse. Only an idiot raises taxes during a recession and gives it to those who didn't earn it (long-term welfare: i.e. folks who refuse to look for a job) or other pointless social programs that the Democrats are so fond of. Its asinine. Even crazier, people believe this kind of thinking to be *right*!

The problem here is one largely of perspective. The British have good welfare programs. OK, they aren't 'Good'. They're inefficient and expensive and have many threads worth of stuff wrong with them. But the US has very bad welfare. They pay about the same in taxes but get little to nothing for them.

Here's a classic example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92592545

Take a look at the financial profile of these poor illiterates. Now, before anyone reacts to the small amounts of money, let me remind you that everything here is cheaper. For benefit of comparison, they spend $250 a month on groceries. Thats about the same as we do, and we live very well with my expensive foreign palate. They also spend $100+ a month on electricity. We spend $40.

So basically we have two utterly useless people paid by the government to sit in front of multiple TV's and eat all day. Suddenly our chilly friend makes a lot more sense with his hatred of welfare, and that's the American perspective. The hopeless are paid by the hardworking to watch TV all day.

Of course, we British would read that story and say, give them a bus pass (or start a subsidised bus route too and from that housing complex) and make them pay rent, so that they have to work. That's our idea of welfare: Providing support so that people can make a life for themselves.

And we could make them have to run for the bus...

They do need a welfare reform. But the democrats are more likely to throw money into providing helthcare for the useless than to reform the system in the way it needs to be. Because that would be 'socialist'.