I think Hillary remains the favorite, but Obama is closing on her. The one thing keeping Edwards alive in my mind is that the turnout in IA caucuses is generally pathetic -- 11 percent of eligible voters in 2004 which was a big year. Since a lot of Edwards voters jave attended caucuses before and thus are more "reliable" caucus-goers, I think that is an advantage.

I read that a lot of Obama's support in IA comes from younger voters. Younger voters are notoriously unreliable. See entries for Kerry, John and Gore, Albert for further information.

I came across this great post the other day on a different messageboard regarding why Hillary Clinton is so unpopular, it pretty much sums up why I'm worried about her chances in a general election should she win the nomination.


This is why I'm hoping that somebody defeats her for the nomination, and I'm starting to think it might actually happen.

That's the point. Some point to specific polls to back up their arguments while ignoring other specific polls because it doesn't make their arguments.

Through my work I have the opportunity to meet many interesting people. One such person had worked in various capacities with a lot of big name US politicians and presidents. Over drinks we were getting the down and dirty on a lot of the presidents in particular. He had nothing but good things to say about the Bush family (as people he had to work for, not as politicians), said Bill Clinton was 'OK, for a politician', and when someone asked him for his opinion on Hillary, he described her as 'the single worst human being [he] ever had the displeasure of meeting', and gave more than enough examples to prove his point.

Though I don't tend to think it really matters all that much who becomes the next president, as an outsider I think I'd rather see Obama than anyone else.

I think Hillary will win the nomiantion and the general, and I am saying this as the resident Political Science professor who specializes in things like elections (and legislative politics).

Remember, this just happened in Argentina, when Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was elected after her husband left office. Going from First Lady to President is an event that has already been charted in recent electoral politics. You think the Clinton campaign didn't carefully review the Kirchner campaign to see how to make a former First Lady into a realistic, winning candidate?

Elizabeth Dole ran as a republican in 2000 as well. This stuff happens. America is ready for a woman president. She will get just as many votes because she is a woman as she gets against her for the same reason. (This same phenomenon has been observed in gubanatorial elections arpund the country. For example, I present West Virgina Charlotte Pritt where studies show that auto votes for and against cancelled each other. OIther studies show similar trends)

You think there won;t be Republican women jumping the fence to vote for her? You think there won;t be Democrat voters jumping to vote for a non-woman the Repubs nominate? Of course it will happen, and America is ready.

What America is NOT ready for is a non-White President. Polling data nationally on non-White candidates is rough.

-Abe

Who the fuck cares?

Nearly everyone, including experts and specialists, still can filter opinions and thoughts through a bias or perception, esp. if they personally desire to see a particular outcome (whether for or anti).

Personally, here are my desired outcomes:

1. I strongly wish for a libertarian-minded Executive AND a libertarian-majority Legislature.

2. Knowing that appears to be an impossibility since too many are stuck in the narrow red/blue spectrum, the next highest desirable outcome would be to have a gridlock Executive/Legislature. Having a Democratic Executive on top of a Democratic Legislature would be the worst outcome possible (just as a Rep Exec/Leg would be as well).

3. If it was possible to have a Rep Legislature, then a Dem president would be ok (unless he/she becomes stupid about military/intelligence/security). The same holds true that if a Rep would be in Executive, then I would wish for the current Legislatures to remain.

More Parrallels between Kirchner and Clinton:

Kirchner was a Senator from 1995 to 1997, then from 2001 to 2003 when her husband was elected President and she became First Lady. She was a member of the lower house (Chamber of Deputies)from 1997 to 2001. She was a lawyer for years before that. So was Clinton, although Clinton went from First Lady to Senator, Kirchner went from Senator to First lady.

To be fair, Kirchner is well loved, winning with one of the biggest margins in Argentinian history. She's also highly respected as a capable and intelligent woman. However, she blazed a trail that Clinton could easily follow.


EDIT: Another difference, and this is key, is that Nestor Kirchner was a very popular sitting President while Clinton was popular in some areas (economy) but not in others and he had notoriously soft high ratings.

My own bias is to see Ron Paul President, but that doesn't stop me from reading the tea leaves for Clinton, who I don't like at all.

It's not because people are stuck in a red/blue spectrum, Buc. The overwhelming majority of people don't agree with Libertarian policies.

I call bullshit.

That might be true, but I don't think think that that means that they still aren't stuck in a red/blue spectrum. I think that spectrum is comfortable for the vast majority of the intellectually lazy, short-sighted people that make up the voting public. And a lot of FOFC.

Not only that, I also don't think they even know why they disagree with liberatarian politics.

The world, and specifically the US, is becoming real-life sequel of "They Live".

It is possible to be attracted to libertarian principles and still disagree with libertarian policies.

That's pretty much how I feel about "democracy".

Fixed.

Your sig is apt.

Well put.

I won't argue with the merits of libertarianism, that's for a different day, but you're just plain nuts if you think eliminating Social Security/Medicare, federal education spending, agricultural subsidies, arts funding, etc. are positions that have anything but minimal support. And a true Libertarian, ala Paul, is going to drastically cut military spending and pull troops home from all parts of the globe.

I don't care whether you support Libertarian policies, but at be honest enough to realize that the majority of the country doesn't like what would happen if a true Libertarian were in charge. What's Paul polling now? Answer = 3%.

You, like most others, are still confusing Libertarian (big "L") and libertarianism (small "l"). One is a political party, which I do not believe in (or any political parties to be clear), while the other is a way of thinking. There have been many libertarian-minded politicians, including in Congress, that said the emperor has no clothes.

But I believe you are wrong in voter's views of libertarianism. Most knowledgeable voters will decry the wastefulness of taxpayer's dollars, whether building a bridge to nowhere to corruption in nation-building to many excesses we have seen to expanding the powers of the federal govt in the name of security. We used to have a Golden Fleece Award to highlight such things.

The key is to reverse the trend. It would be silly to think of wholesale eliminations or drastic changes but all we are promoting is to ask the right questions, question the unwritten rules and to not build more on top of too much. Those are things that all can accept unless you really do favor more socialism in your federal govt.

But cutting wasteful spending isn't the end all of libertarianism. Hell, I'd agree with most of the pork you want to cut and could probably add billions to the list. That sort of pain free cutting of the budget does have a lot of support.

However, you know as well as I do that the goal of big L or small l libertarians is to radically cut the size of government. Right now that's simply wildly unpopular. Paul's a bit of a phenomenon, but it's highly unlikely that he could even command a quarter of the population to say they support him and if he gets a fifth of that to vote for him I'll be surprised.

You may be right that over time you can persuade people, but my point is that currently there is almost no support for the big goals of libertarianism. To argue that point seems asinine.

Would this be a fair, albeit general, question to ask?

When it comes to fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending, and business regulation, are you politically conservative, moderate, or liberal?

With regard to fiscal issues, what do these labels even mean anymore?

Taxes and government spending probably moderate with business regulation probably liberal. Although I'd argue that the level of regulation I'd be happy with is only liberal because the country has moved to a more conservative position. During a large portion of the twentieth century I'd be a fairly clear moderate in business regulation.

I don't, however, see the point of the question. Regardless of my own views, the national popularity of the larger goals of libertarianism is currently very small. Can you really argue that? If so, show me some proof that big chunks of the country want a government the size Paul is advocating.

As a Republican, I feel betrayed by GWB and the Congresses of the 2000s for pulling this fiscal crap. We were the party of fiscal responsibility, and for all of his faults, you'd never see leadership under Newt pull this pork spending spree crap.

Something simple from Cato


There is also the trend that there is an increasing movement this year towards independent voters away from Rep or Dem. Part of the disillusionment that needs to be kept up.

Those don't answer your question because saying "country want a government the size Pail is advocating" is a straw man. One has to be a voice from that end in order just to get people thinking differently.

You're basically arguing what I'm saying. Currently there is, in business terms, little market for the libertarian brand. Maybe you're right and five or ten or whatever years down the road things will change. That has nothing to do with my post, though. You said people don't vote libertarian because of the red/blue spectrum and I said they don't vote libertarian because they don't like the policies. You just said, in effect, the same thing.

Exactly. The Republican Party is in shambles and that's why they are going down next year. They've turned into big government war mongers, and the only one running against that is Ron Paul so it is a perfect climate for him to run with conservatives pissed at the neo-conservative Bush Administration. There also might be some Democrats upset with Congress about the war and civil liberties who switch to Paul. He actually has a better record on those two issue than all Democrats running except Kucinich. I'll be voting for Paul in the Iowa caucus and I won't vote for any other candidate currently running, but overall I think it'll be tough for him to gain a lot of traction because people like the government taking care of them. Although, the Iowa Independent predicts a 3rd place for him in Iowa, and he's gonna have a ton of money to spend. Not sure if he can pull this off, but I'm really interested to see how he does in Iowa, a state that you wouldn't think he'd fair too well.

How do we get there five to ten years down the road when 1) all we hear in the media is the polar opposites red/blue myth and 2) certain popular candidates exposing a much greater expansion federal govt through "national [fill-in-the-blank]" and "War on [fill-in-the-blank]" and 3) people are not willing to learn what liberty means and how it applies to local, state and federal governmental roles? People ignore or mockingly cast dispersions on libertarianism out of self-interest, playing anti-X politics and flocking to herd mentalities. We can get there five to ten years from now IF we stop supporting those advocating the opposite of libertarianism.

So if we all become libertarians we'll be libertarians?

The problem is that people don't agree with libertarian policies. I'm sure herd mentality plays a small role, but the bigger problem is the larger goals of libertarianism aren't popular. I'm not mocking libertarianism, I just don't think very many people want to vote that way.

I'm a liberal, but there's a lot of social libertarianism I agree with and a lot of spending I'd cut out of the government. However, my problem with ideas like Paul's is that I honestly don't think they're the best ideas for the country. I'm sure you disagree, and that's fine, but don't act as if everyone who thinks different than you is some mind-slave of the political elite.

When I was 18 I would have voted Democrat. Shortly after that I found both parties suck balls and are crap IMO.

I lean much more towards libertarian views now. Having lame government regulation screw with me/my industry for almost 10 years now may have something to do with that.

But they will cry far worse when you try to take the benefit of those tax dollars away from people, either through cutting direct subsidies or cutting services. In theory, smaller government is wildly popular. In practice, it is wildly unpopular.

LOL, basically ;). That's kind of what I'm getting from Buc's posts. If we all decide to become libertarian minded, then we'll be libertarians ;).

Most people just don't share the libertarian point of view. They think a few things (like eliminating government waste) are good, but others, going farther, (like eliminating the Department of Labor) not so good. Problem for libertarians is that just going on the surface (ie, cutting government waste but keeping most of the bureaucracy) isn't going to fly. And the American people won't want to go much further.

For real?

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

Well put.

Actually, yes. Here's the vision. The big fallacy that the Libertarian Party has been making, as well as what liberals attack, is that such policies cannot and should not be implemented top-down. In other words, you do not make wholesale changes at the federal level and then let the chips fall where they may. The implementation must start at the grassroots levels (starting at a personal level), then working its way up. That, in turn, will allow for me accountability and resources available at a more local (however you want to define local) level. Consequently, more taxation would have to occur at the local level to fund the added (i.e., constitutional) mandates. It would be the hope that as more is taken care at the level where it can do more good, the less reliance (and taxation) would be needed at the federal level. The courts get involved in enforcing the constitutional federal limits of power. This vision also implies strong non-governmental entities to do what they have been charted to do. This means churches, ministries and other charitable agencies doing for themselves and more for their communities and spheres of influence. Practically, it begins with you and those around you, acting and participating as concerned citizens. By thinking globally and acting locally (as the cliche goes), changes can get percolated up to where we wouldn't have to look to Washington DC for all of our needs, whether real or perceived.

I'm not seeing him getting the press and attention of any of the frontrunners, but I wish more attention was being paid to Bill Richardson. He has the best resume I've ever seen for a presidential candidate, and it'd be nice if we picked somebody by qualifications for once. I don't agree with all his politics, nor do I agree with all of anyone's politics, but he certainly should be able to handle the job as he's already experienced international politics, federal level politics, the Congress, and running a state.

Plus I think if he could get the attention he would run better against the Republicans then any of the front runners.

I think you have to poll in the double digits before the media starts paying attention.

Well, it's the chicken and the egg. People don't have any reason to choose candidates until they find out something about them, something that for most Americans happens through the media. So, while you're correct, it doesn't mean it should be that way.

Richardson is a terrible campaigner. No way in hell he could win the general.

Buc: I'm not going to argue the merits of economic libertarianism with you as we've threadjacked enough already. If you can make it work, good luck. I honestly think that you'll put your money where your mouth is unlike a lot of libertarians who only see it as a way to keep more money in their pockets.

I am a 1000% behind you.

What you describe is what made America great in the beginning.

AF: I don't know if you're purposefully changing history or are just ill informed. But at no time in American history have things operated as Buc describes. The poor were left to starve and freeze in the cold. The indigent were left to die alone or if they were lucky in a hovel filled with other dying people. The orphans were herded into warehouses and forced to work before they were teenagers. And those with dark skin were beaten, enslaved or killed.

That didn't happen to everyone, but it was the general rule until the twentieth century. It may have been better for those on top, but those on the bottom were treated far worse than they are now.

I think Richardson was looked at as a potential top tier candidate by the press coming into the race, but then he showed up for the first few debates and sounded like a complete idiot and no one has paid him much attention since.

I like Obama, and I like Hilary, but we need the Clintons in. They have the experience and that is what will be needed to clean up this 8 year mess (if it even can be repaired.)

Au contraire. This "fiscal crap" and "pork spending spree" started under Gingrich. Gingrich opened the Departments of Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, the largest domestic spending bill, to earmarking for the first time. Same to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, although that one is comparatively tiny.

Granted, wild earmarking was refined into an art form under subsequent leadership, but the trend was gleefully started by none other than Newton Leroy Gingrich.

I think significant portions of both parties like and respect libertarian ideals. I know I do. But I think many in those same segments also recognize that the real world needs safety nets, because those ideals ignore those folks on the bottom end of the spectrum. History shows quite clearly that the rich and powerful won't take care of the folks on the bottom tier unless someone makes them do it.

The tough part is finding the right balance, and that is what most of the arguing is over.

Update the week before Christmas, and Obama's continuing to make inroads on Clinton. There's also a mooted possibility of Edwards taking Iowa, which would shake things up a bit.

It's unclear to me whether Obama's "surge" is real, or is wishful thinking, despite what the polls say. As of now, I still think it's Hillary's to lose, and I expect her to exit Super Tuesday with 2/3 of the delegates as opposed to Obama's 1/3.

I'm not sure I agree with this. What is Warren Buffet doing with his fortune? What did Bill Gates do with a good chunk of his fortune? These are the two highest profile examples, but not all rich people need to be forced to help the poor.

Heck, for the sake of argument, why should the rich help the poor?

That's so simple a truck driver could figure it out. Though there are so many reasons individual people do the things they do and usually it's a combo of many things. The simple, general reasons are that tossing the poor enough bones once in a while keeps them happy enough not to organize, rise up, and revolt. The other reason is that most people in my eyes like to help other people, either to make themselves feel better or simply to help. Also, helping raise the poor enough creates new markets for business, creating more money for the rich. Three general ideas, usually it's a combo of all of those I would say.

I'm no professor though.

The plural of anecdote is not data. There are a number of studies from the past 10 years or so that the working poor give a greater percentage of their income to charity, for example, than the rich.

Do the rich, as a whole, tend to not give as much as they could to charity unless they're forced to do so (be it through taxes, tithes, etc...)? A look at history tends to indicate "yes", but the answer also depends on your defition of "as much as they could", I suppose.

An historical look at that question would, I suspect, not provide a coherent answer. Different societies have had wildly different philosophies of generosity and philanthropy.

Wonderful things these two guys are doing. Both fortunes combined don't pay for Social Security or Medicare for very long. And for every rich person that dedicates him/herself to philanthropy, I'll show you 1000 greedy bastards that just give money for the tax break.


Seriously? Well, for folks brought up in the Judeo-Christian or Muslim tradition, you should because God's prophets and/or only begotten son said it was the right thing to do. Most other major and minor religions include similar tenets.

For the aforementioned greedy bastards who worship only money, because rich people don't have enough feet to keep on everyone's throats in perpetuity. Every so often, the poor realize that they have power, too, and it can end badly. Check out wikipedia's entry for the French Revolution.