Which Democrat would you vote for in the primary?

[Mr. T]

I'd think that Edward's opposition to nuclear power would be an automatic disqualifier for alot of people here.

My vote is with Obama. The candidates policies are very similar but I give him the edge.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Really, Bill Richardson has impressed me the most of the lot, even though his chances of actually being the democratic nominee are somewhere around the chances of me gaining the ability to cause women's bras to spontaneously unhook with the power of positive thought.

I like Obama the most of the ones who are likely to be nominees.

Well, he remains within striking distance of the Democratic Empty Suit (Edwards), he has actual foreign policy as well as gubernatorial experience (He's pretty much the only democrat with that experience), and of course Martin Sheen just showed up to campaign for him in Iowa. And he has the fourth largest war-chest. Worst-placed people have ended up gaining the nomination before. But he is apt to make big business very, very nervous, which will give him a tough time of it.

Auto-manufacturers, airlines, and the oil industry, after all, have plenty to fear from his plans to aggressively raise the CAFE to 55 mpg in a shorter time-frame than the 35mpg raise that's just been instituted, and to seriously work on large and extensive high-speed regional railroad networks (such as the Denver to El Paso route New Mexico is currently championing) linked by a functional nation system of passenger trains. Probably why he receives no coverage.

[Anarchist Bunny]

I've said it before I'll say it again, even knowing(hypothetically) that Obama was a brainwashed Al-Queda plant I would still vote for him before Hillary.

[Imperial Overlord]

Well, he remains within striking distance of the Democratic Empty Suit (Edwards)

Why do you think Edwards is an empty suit?

EDITED to correct quote tag clumsiness.

[Mange]

I'm not following the American election that closely, but Dodd or Obama.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I like Obama the most of the ones who are likely to be nominees.

Well, he remains within striking distance of the Democratic Empty Suit (Edwards)

Why do you think Edwards is an empty suit?[/quote]

I do not like Obama.

Edwards is an empty suit because his programme is essentially the current party's talking points, and all he really brings to the campaign are supposed good looks (no doubt heavily airbrushed) and a southern accent.

[Durandal]

I think Marina may have a crush on John Edwards.

[Gil Hamilton]

Well, he remains within striking distance of the Democratic Empty Suit (Edwards), he has actual foreign policy as well as gubernatorial experience (He's pretty much the only democrat with that experience), and of course Martin Sheen just showed up to campaign for him in Iowa. And he has the fourth largest war-chest. Worst-placed people have ended up gaining the nomination before. But he is apt to make big business very, very nervous, which will give him a tough time of it.

Auto-manufacturers, airlines, and the oil industry, after all, have plenty to fear from his plans to aggressively raise the CAFE to 55 mpg in a shorter time-frame than the 35mpg raise that's just been instituted, and to seriously work on large and extensive high-speed regional railroad networks (such as the Denver to El Paso route New Mexico is currently championing) linked by a functional nation system of passenger trains. Probably why he receives no coverage.

That's kind of the thing, innit? As a candidate with a strongly ambition plan, he runs afoul of all the people who are currently getting theirs from the status quo. I could believe that Richardson would actually start using the Presidential office to start rebuilding the American railsystem, considering he did it locally as a governor, which interests me because he's approaching some of the problems we'll be facing in the next quarter century without harping on the problems themselves.

The fact is, he's NOT a candidate who's got his beak in the Big Business feeder, which is why I don't think he'll win the nomination. At a certain point, in order to be a candidate, you've got to be more for sale than I believe Richardson actually is, even behind the scenes.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Edwards is an empty suit because his programme is essentially the current party's talking points,

Oh, so having a platform that reflects the aims of the party in general is a weakness, now.

Also, John Edwards's plans for reforming government to reduce special interest influence peddling are the clearest and most aggressive of any Democrat by far. By comparison, Hillary doesn't really plan to do jack shit about it, and Obama has some tall talk about getting the people involved in government again but doesn't actually elucidate all that much on the subject.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Hillary has THREE out of 75 votes... God I hope this reflects on America as a whole

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Edwards is an empty suit because his programme is essentially the current party's talking points,

Oh, so having a platform that reflects the aims of the party in general is a weakness, now.

Also, John Edwards's plans for reforming government to reduce special interest influence peddling are the clearest and most aggressive of any Democrat by far. By comparison, Hillary doesn't really plan to do jack shit about it, and Obama has some tall talk about getting the people involved in government again but doesn't actually elucidate all that much on the subject.

As noted, special interests that don't involve farmers or trial lawyers.

[Jack Bauer]

Also, John Edwards's plans for reforming government to reduce special interest influence peddling are the clearest and most aggressive of any Democrat by far. By comparison, Hillary doesn't really plan to do jack shit about it, and Obama has some tall talk about getting the people involved in government again but doesn't actually elucidate all that much on the subject.

John Edwards may be aggressive in his rhetoric against corporate lobbyists, but he's been pretty vague on exactly how he'll enact that change. Yes, I didn't forget to take into account his ridiculous assertion that he can somehow take away Congress' healthcare if they don't pass UHC legislation by 2009. Its utterly infeasible and borderline unconstitutional.

Between Edwards and Obama, there isn't much difference aside from rhetoric. Hell, even the candidates themselves have admitted as much.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh, so having a platform that reflects the aims of the party in general is a weakness, now.

Also, John Edwards's plans for reforming government to reduce special interest influence peddling are the clearest and most aggressive of any Democrat by far. By comparison, Hillary doesn't really plan to do jack shit about it, and Obama has some tall talk about getting the people involved in government again but doesn't actually elucidate all that much on the subject.

And HOW is Edwards going to dislodge the 30-years-ascendant upper class? How is he going to really curb special interests, when he has his sacred cows too? Richardson is by far a better candidate: he actually explains programs and measures he'll actually pass - and ones we definitely need. As opposed to Edwards' rhetoric that he'll stick it to 'em! Dunno' how! But he'll get 'em!

[The Yosemite Bear]

BTW I'm running as a Write in Canidate.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Obama. I view his "lack of experience" as an advantage. Beltway experience is just a euphemism for knowing how to duck out on doing the work you were elected for to attend a re-election fundraiser.

Indeed. I find "experience" is code for "taint of corruption"

what was that line of Philip of Macedon's about being a barbarian?

[Guardsman Bass]

Were the three frontrunners not locked into a statistical deadheat in Iowa, then I would probably vote for Richardson or Biden in Utah's primary (yes, we actually do have a primary coming up on Super Tuesday - February 5th). As is, I'll probably throw my lot in for Obama. I would rather have Obama in office than either Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

[Executor32]

My vote in the primary will be for Obama, but my vote here was for the only correct choice in a Straha thread.

[His Divine Shadow]

Bill Richardsson seems like my choice (assuming I could vote) for the same reasons glocksman said, I do not know his stance on illegal immigration either, all I know is I want legal immigration and naturalization to become alot easier and cheaper for people. But Barack Obama is probably the only realistic option and I would prefer him over Hillary Clinton.

[Lord Poe]

Lesseee, what would be more fun...a black guy as President, or a woman?

I think Georgia would blow up.

[CmdrWilkens]

Obama, mostly because I think that he has both a chance and the indescribable pulse of the populace. He may give in on issues but he has the populist touch that truly gives me hope that he could pull things off. My uncle is with the Capitol Police and he's mentioned on more than a few occasions the absolutely amazing way that Obama holds a crowd and he's a "Trent was my buddy" Republican.

Honestly my dream ticket would be Obama/Richardson or the other way around (though I think the former is more likely than the later).

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Glocksman pretty much summed up my reasons for supporting Richardson. And Edwards' candidacy only needs to stumble or falter at some critical junction for Richardson to get some traction nationally.

So yeah, Richardson.

[Falkenhayn]

Based on resume and experience, Bill Richardson. I mean...Hillary Clinton

On who I want to win, Obama.

[The Grim Squeaker]

What, no option to vote for a republican? Really, the new bunch are barely fascists (Gulliani) or religious nutters, not both at the same time , and they're rather more competent .

Joking aside, given a chance I'd vote for Obama. Strongest chance after Hillary ("An example that the democrats are a center party") and the most liberal/sensible of the lot from what I've seen. (The lot that have a donkey's chance of getting elected that is ).

[SirNitram]

What, no option to vote for a republican? Really, the new bunch are barely fascists (Gulliani) or religious nutters, not both at the same time , and they're rather more competent .

Thanks for showing you're too incompetent to scroll down to the thread specifically set up for discussing the Republican candidates.

[Mr Bean]

I have stuck both threads until after the New Hampshire polls close in order to see how close board voting went with actual voting.
I have a fair feeling that it will have little resemblance to actual voting patterns but who knows?