Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?
 

We're about a month away (or less) from the first primaries, so I thought it might be fun to revisit this.

First, links to the previous (2) threads:

March, 2006
October, 2007

Again, it's who will, not who should.

Although it pains me, as an Obama supporter, to do this, I'm still going to have to go with Hillary, who also won our last two polls in a landslide. Obama's definitely surged in the past couple of months, but it still looks like Hillary's to lose. At this point she probably needs a Dean-like meltdown for Obama or Edwards to sneak in. I don't think any other Democratic candidate has a hope of getting the nomination.

I'll probably be wrong, but I think Obama is going to get Iowa and finish a very close second in NH. From there things will start to break his way especially after Edwards drops out.

Hillary. Machine candidates are very hard to beat.

She also will have the support of Republicans, who know that she is the easiest to beat in the general election. In a close race, that kind of media support is hard to discount.

Fixed.

I think once the Republican nominee goes toe to toe with Hillary, they'll find that thinking was wrong.

Fair enough.

My personal dislike of Hillary winning shown through there.

I continue to agree with this.

Hillary vs. Huckabee = Huckabee's "Willie Horton" moment getting full press, and, eventually, a lot of the secularist "center" going with Hillary over Huckabee. I wonder if Huckabee will suffer in the general election by wearing his faith so openly on his sleeve like Bush (and his low approval rating) does. Remember, when things aren't going well, the electorate just likes change, and Huckabee doesn't seem, to me, to be much of a change from Bush.

Hillary vs. Romney = The Clinton campaign doing to Romney what the Bush campaign did to Kerry, starting with the flip-flopping. The evangelical "base" still hasn't made up their mind about him, and a lot of the centrists don't trust him. If the Clinton campaign keeps pushing a message of "Remember 1995-2000", it'll be very tough for Romney.

Hillary vs. Giuliani = Lowest % turnout in general election history. Half the Democrats stay home and all of the Republicans do (except those who turn out to write in Ron Paul). The Giuliani campaign starts to die on the 9/11 anniversary when he's savaged by the NYPD & NYFD and then the election as a whole dies out completely in October when the Giuliani campaign crumples under the nonstop unearthing of scandals by the New York tabloid press.

McCain could probably beat Hillary, but only if his campaign gets a lot more professional & rich, a lot faster.

Huckabee's more likable than Hillary and would beat her.

Obama. He will win Iowa and ride the resulting momentum to the nomination as Democrats across the country slowly realize they just don't like Hillary Clinton all that much and that her nomination is the one thing that could possibly galvanize a reeling Republican Party. [wishful thinking/]

America will not elect a black man or a woman. I don't think we're ready for that yet.

It's over. Hillary will win and she will be our next President, God help us all. A pro war Republican has no chance against a Democrat in this election, even Hillary. People don't want another George W. Bush. McCain is a washed up version of himself in 2000, Romney is the only person who flip flops more than Hillary, Huckabee is an economic liberal and an ultra social conservative who would scare away too many people, and Giuliani is an authoritarian war monger. Whoever is elected from this bunch, get ready for more of the same old crap!

Agree 100%

The ONLY way a republican gets back into office in 08 is if Hillary wins the democratic nomination.

Yep. It amuses me how people seem to forget that Hillary Clinton was the main advisor to that other Clinton who absolutely schooled the Republicans for most of his administration (the first two years were a mess, but once he settled in, he whipped them). It's like they think that Hillary has no idea what she's doing.

She's already completely transformed her image from first lady to Senator. Why do they think she won't be able to adapt deftly in a Presidential campaign?

Probably the right way to think about this is to look at candidates other than Obama and Clinton and try to guess who they would back if they felt they had to give up. I believe Richardson would back Clinton, but I don't think he has a lot of support. Would the other candidates flock to one of those two, or would they consolidate behind somebody else (like Dodd, maybe, who I think would be a very strong GE player).

I don't know the answer.

I basically think it's a toss-up between Clinton and Obama. Whoever gets the early momentum will steamroll right through.

Didn't Oprah come out and back Obama? That should swing about 10 million female voters, surely...

I should add that I basically don't have a vote in this matter. The DNC decided to punish the Michigan Democratic Party for making its primary too early (Jan. 15) by making it so the state can't send any delegates to the convention. Florida was given the same punishment.

I can't speak for Florida, but the candidates all agreed to not even campaign here, and several big names (Edwards and Obama among others) won't be on the ballot. Their supporters are urged to vote "uncommitted" in hopes that our delegates can be "free agents" at the convention. So if I was a Hillary supporter my vote would go for her in the primary and there'd be no representation at the convention if she won. If I was an Obama supporter my vote would go toward freeing up Michigan delegates to vote for anyone at the convention. So essentially I get to vote for either no one or anyone, in terms of its impact in the convention. Awesome.

Not only does this discourage loads of people from actually taking interest and participating, but I really don't understand how not campaigning in two crucial swing states makes any sense for the party whatsoever.

IIRC, the Republicans are also punishing Michigan and Florida, so it'll be wash as far as not campaigning in a crucial swing state.

Don't worry, whichever candidate wins will reinstate all your delegates for the convention.

On the Oprah thing I was listening to a story tonight that said every person at the Oprah events gave contact info to the Obama campaign. In SC two thirds of the attendees were new to Obama's list. Oprah could end up being the difference.

Democratic boycott could benefit Republican nominee

I can't figure out what (if any) punishment has come down from the RNC, but according to this article, all the Republican nominees will be on the ballot in Michigan, and "a number of the front runners are expected to campaign in the state."

Republicans didn't punish as hard as the Democrats did. As a voter in Michigan, I was leaning towards voting for the Democratic candidate in the general. However right now I will NOT be voting for any Democrat. So right now I'm leaning heavily towards voting Independent, will leaving my options open for the Republican candidate.

I believe the Republicans are docking half the delegates or something like that, but everyone is still on the ballot.

I love how offended that article is. Heaven forbid if the parties want to run their nominating process themselves!!!

It wasn't that long ago that Democrats were getting all high and mighty about voter disenfranchisement. Now they're taking away my vote in the primary process to punish the state party. I guess it's about equal parts offensive and just plain dumb.

But I don't mean to get the thread so far off track, so I'll leave it at that.

I really disagree. I think the one thing that could really get the right fired up about this election is if Hillary gets the nod. If the Democrats want to win, they should nominate either Edwards or Obama. That would be a landslide. Hillary will be more the same of the last two elections.

One cannot argue with someone so biased as Squiddy in his support for Hillary. Everything, in debating the election, is filtered through that.

They can run it however they like. However if they don't want to include me in the process they aren't getting my vote in the general election.

Kucinich ftw

Notreally. What kiled the Democats in the last two elections is the failure to respond. Hillary won't fall for that trap. If they attack her, they better be ready for the same tenfold.

Also, there isn't a single poll that supports this notion that Hillary is an obvious loser against anyone in a heads up matchup.

Of course they could not do anything and in 20 years we'll have the primary, January 1st... of the PREVIOUS year to the election. Where does it exactly stop? Blame the greedy ass state parties.

As for "bias", Bucc. I can easily say the same thing for those biased against Hillary.

As larrymcg alluded to, Hillary's willingness to fight back and not be a Gore-like or Kerry-like punching bag may actually get the LEFT fired up about this election.

Edwards has gone ridiculously populist and can't even win his own state, while Obama is a black man which hardly any record.

Those that are living by the polls still cannot ignore Hillary's very high unfavorable ratings and despite having been a clear frontrunner, she could only manage to be statistically even with some of the Reps.

The New York Republican Party also thought those high unfavorable ratings would lead to an easy defeat for her. Woe be the candidate that underestimates Hillary. Remember she was the primary advisor to the President who went from the debacle of the 1994 midterm election to the the landslide of 1996.

I truly think Dole had something to do with that. ;)

There's a slippery slope. And I've never said they shouldn't do anything about it. In my opinion they should come up with a fair system like a lottery that decides the order or something rather than Iowa and New Hampshire going first for no good reason. That's beside the point, though, as I'm sure they could've come up with a short term solution that didn't involve Michigan and Florida voters being left out entirely.

Perhaps... but Clinton made Dole seem like a doddering old man, when Dole was anything but the sort. There is a reason Clinton is considered such a great "politician". His team played the game beautifully.

Those same polls that show her with high unfavorables also show her winning head to head matchups. If anything, that tells me the high unfavorable ratings won't hurt her. I posted a comparison poll in another thread that showed only 44% planned to vote against her. That's essentially the same % as for Edwards and Obama. However, the % of people that plan to vote for Hillary is higher than any other candidate in both parties.

I do not see that (according to Rasmussen). She is still at 55%, 10 points higher than Edwards and her favorable is lower than Obama and Edwards.

Bucc, you can't argue against us by saying polls are bunk in one post and then argue against us by quoting polls in another post! ;)

Anyway, I think it bears reminding that most of the Republican front-runners have unhealthy unfavorables as well.

I am in the same boat with the other Michigan voters. I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. I would have voted for Obama, but I wont get that chance.

That said, unlike Greyroo, there is no way in hell I am turning my back on the Democratic party in a general election. I will not allow my vote to be wasted. Not after the crap we've had to suffer through over the last 8 years...

I have to agree with those that feel Hillary could struggle in a general election. She's a polarizing force and will motivate the Republican base to get out and vote against her and I think she'll turn off a number of swing voters as well.

Is it officially too late for Al Gore to get in the race?

The mistake is in assuming that unfavorables will automatically vote against. There are probably alot of Democrats that hate Hillary, but they sure ain't voting for Huckabee. Furthermore, the Dem base will be mobilized byt he GOP attacks on Hillary. She was at her highest historical rating after the Lewinsky affair. The negative GOP attacks could backfire.

Here's a Rasmussen poll I posted earlier. It measures the people committed to Voting For/Voting Against a candidate:

Clinton 32/44
Obama 23/44
Edwards 22/41

What a bizarre point to make. How could that possibly have any significance to either the primaries or the GE?

I'm talking about how she was seen as a victim. If the GOP comes out with guns blazing, she can play off that same perception once again.

Regardless, this perceived polarization that Hillary has is completely invisible. It hasn't been measured by any poll. The same polls that show her with high unfavorables also show her still winning head to head matchups.

I think its a lot easier to look like a victim as a first lady than as a Presidential candidate.

She's always been seen as a Presidential candidate.

You think she was seen as a Presidential candidate during Blowjobgate? :confused:

I think she was seen as a Presidential candidate since 1992.

Regardless, I think by 1998 most people had figured that she was going to run for Senate, at the very least.

I think Edwards has a legitimate shot. The election is still far enough away that Obama and Clinton could destroy each other in the press and voters will look for a third option which right now seems to be Edwards. When you look back at history it's pretty common for the early front runners to get knocked off before the end since everyone is gunning for them. That might not happen this time, but I do think it's a possibility and Edwards seems to me to be the most likely to benefit from that.

I would much prefer an Edwards candidacy to Hillary or Obama. Honestly, I think Obama may be preparing to turn the corner and rally in the early states, then start winning the southern Black Democrat votes that he'll need to take to the convention. I voted for Edwards last time in the primary and will do it again even if he looks like a sure loser.

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.