Hm. I can't vote in the poll - maybe because I'm a mod? Anyways, I'm not voting for either one of them because I think they are both chumps. I'm voting third party. Probably libertarian. Maybe Green party (Greenspan was green party right) if Greenspan is running again. I think Barack will win. God help us in '08. EDIT: Ok now that I've logged in I can vote. :bang::bang::bang: EDIT X2: Not Alan Greenspan, but Ralph Nader. I had a brain fart.
Yohan, I'm libertarian but I just can't vote for Bob Barr, he's the stereotypical extremist libertarian. I would have voted Ron Paul for sure. We will find out in the wee hours tonight. Polls close at 7PM almost everywhere here in the states. So around 10PM Eastern time they'll start counting votes. I'll be up to 2 or 3 AM tonight, i'm sure.
I think that McCain will win, though this is not based upon any sort of scientific thinking. The American election system seems to me, very confusing. I heard Obama described yesterday as "America's Tony Blair"....
I think Obama's got enough of the swing states to pull it off. I would be surprised at a McCain victory, not saying it couldn't happen. I doubt we'll know until early Wednesday for sure.
I think Obama will win and i really hope he does. He seems to really want to change america for the better and he seems to respect other countries. I want him to win if for no other reason than he wants Brits out of Iraq and more reinforcements in Afghanistan, where as mcain has said he thinks iraq will e ongoing
Obama all the way. Unless the Bradley effect kicks in, it would seem that Obama is already too far ahead in states that have declared him their choice. It's really down to the swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. McCain pretty much has to get them all to stand a chance. I don't see that happening. His campaign crowds in those states suggest he has made an impact there. Apparently we should hear the Florida results around 1-2am and that should give us a good idea of the result. On another issue.... why do other candidates even bother putting themselves on the ballot? They have no chance. In the UK our system makes sense because we vote in a party through MPs rather than a single leader. Has there ever been a US election where the third guy even had a legitimate chance?
I hope Obama wins -for the sake of the planet I think the whole world will breath a sigh of relief if (when!) he does. Isn't that the state where the republicans fiddle the votes?:evil: Excellent point Topher. I find it worrying that a wholly partisan system can have such a devastating global effect. One thing though, most of the planet will be thank whatever God they choose, that Dubya has finally gone! Phew! Unfortunately, his filthy mess still has to be cleaned up.
The election of 1912 where Teddy Rossevelt and the Progressive Party beat the Republican candidate but lost to Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. Since then, third party candidates have only been spoilers such as Ralph Nader in 2000.
You should really look to his history instead of what he says. You can't listen to American politicians for the most part. You have to look at their record. Check out Obama's record. Article: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422 Detailed record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 I don't think there is anything specifically bad about the bills he's co-sponsored and voted on, but his tendency is to spend lots of money. He hasn't sponsored or co-sponsored any bills regarding the economy. If we need any kind of expertise right now in government it's in the area of economics. Obama doesn't talk about economics except to tell us how he's going to lower taxes. His economic policy then goes like this. Spend more, tax the rich and probably the middle class, and subsidize poverty. I take issue with that policy. He's got no focus on economic or monetary policy, and we don't need to bother worrying about global warming, energy, or any of the other myriad problems we are facing if we don't climb out of the current financial hole we are in. As such, I don't think he's going to get the job done. I think he's going to further hamstring the economy making us less able to deal with his "key issues." He is going to win though, and we're screwed either way.
I'll be surprised if Zero doesn't win. I despise Obama, but I've spent too many decades disliking McCain to vote for him either, so I cast a 3rd party joke vote for president and took the rest of the ballot seriously. Somebody Else 2012
LMAO. Between the two, Obama has a far better grip on the economy. McCain knows ziltch about the economy - by his own admission. He just retorts to the capitalist line of tax cuts and markets. Obama will tax the rich (and right he should) but he won't tax the middle class, unless you regard middle class as >$250,000. I certainly don't. It's only the very rich which will loose out. The government should help those in poverty. Not everyone in poverty put themselves in that position. From what I read, in bad economic times like the one we're in, it's far better for government to spend more.
You apparently haven't followed American presidential politics long enough to have learned that what politicians promise and what they actually do are often quite different.
Erm and who got you into that hole? Yes, this is the bedrock of a civilised society. I simply cannot fathom why so many Americans favour not taxing the uber rich. There almost seems to be a serf mentality. Lets face it the Bush administration has brought down America's global standing to the lowest point in modern history. The US's global reputation has been irrevocably damaged and may never recover regardless of who wins.
Well, him and his cronies have been meddling for years. He's relied on the economic expertise of Phillip Gram (big mistake) for his economic policies. What Journeyman said. Additionally, he doesn't even claim 250K or less anymore. His official claims run the gamut from 125k to 250k if I'm not mistaken. Yes they should. Now what is the best way to help them? That is the question. You can subsidize it by giving handouts to the poor, or you can eliminate it by creating policies that will increase opportunities for them. Even when it's already stretch thin and overspent? See above. That's partially because you live in Europe and (it seems to me) that you tout the standard European approach to government. I'm not arguing against that, but squarely blaming the Bush administration is a severe reduction of the issue at hand.
Obama has made a very specific policy here, and I have no reason to doubt it beyond some random pessimistic opinion that politicians are liars. Yes, politicians are often not entirely honest (and when they are not honest they are not usually this specific), but that does not mean Obama is being dishonest with this policy. Your complaint is not a valid argument against the policy; you're not dealing with it, you're just saying he won't do it based on nothing at all!
What I said to him. My research says tax rates will remain the same for those earning under $250k. Tax will be cut for those earning under $200k. Don't know where the 125k comes from. It's not in any official policy. Such as? I couldn't remember where I read or heard it (I think it was on the BBC or Sky News) however this link is close enough: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/10/10/crisis/ Who else is to blame? All the problems like the war in Iraq started under his watch.
