Which Democrat would you vote for in the primary?

[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?

[Elfdart]

Since the nomination will probably be decided long before my state has its primary, my vote most likely won't matter. That said, I prefer Edwards then Dodd on the grounds that both actually did something to try to stop the Republitards from turning this country into 1970s Argentina. Edwards ran against the Cheney-Bush junta in 2004 and almost won, while Dodd left the campaign trail and used Senate rules to block the telecom amnesty bill (a Get Out Of Jail Free Card to the phone companies for illegal spying) while Clinton, Biden and Obama couldn't be bothered to show up to support Dodd's threatened filibuster. I'm pretty disgusted with the Dems in Congress for not doing anything to stop the war, when they had the means to do it. So at this point if a candidate can't find the time to use his or her power to stop the lunacy, I don't think I'll find the time to vote for them.

[Pablo Sanchez]

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

Oh my God there are two minor exceptions to his stance how will I ever deal with this?

As if I or anybody else actually gives a shit about subsidies to dirt farmers, which amount to less than $10 billion a year and don't really do perceptible harm to the people. Maybe when the agrarian lobbyists become as serious and damaging an influence on the American polity as the medical industry or the military-industrial complex, I'll change my mind, but until then, la-di-fucking-da.

Same to trial lawyers. Recognized, medical malpractice suits and the concomitant, onerous insurance obligations are a serious problem for doctors, and the culture of litigation is bad--but the malpractice suit problem would be part of any universal healthcare solution, and the culture of litigation isn't actually that big a problem nationally speaking, despite its propensity to get people really worked up and outraged at those damn trial lawyers. So I don't really give a shit.

And HOW is Edwards going to dislodge the 30-years-ascendant upper class?

The fact that he is the only serious Democratic candidate that is actually saying word fucking one about the problem is important. The fact is, the 2006 election was a referendum on the Bush administration and, more broadly, twelve years of GOP control in Congress. The Democrats won a huge victory, and followed it up by doing sweet fuckall about the issues that got them elected. I don't know about you, but I consider this a serious problem, and anybody who says they want to fix it has got my attention.

Edwards says he wants to make American political culture more responsive to the will of the people. His plans (as stated on his website) are pretty clear with respect to limiting the power of lobbyists and so forth, but I grant they're hazier regarding the broader political project of putting the demos back in democracy. It's enough for me that he takes the issue seriously, and is the only candidate in the entire 2008 field apart from Ron fucking Paul to do so.

As for Richardson:
If I was going to caucus for the person I found most agreeable, I would probably shoot my vote to Dennis Kucinich, but I would rather send my support somewhere it might do some good. Richardson can poll well but has no real machinery on the ground in any of the early primary states. He'll probably make somebody a very fine VP.

[Noble Ire]

I'm still split between Edwards and Obama, something of a problem considering the fact that I only have eight days left to chose a candidate for my state's primary. I'm slightly more inclined to support Edwards, but I do have my doubts about how effective he could be even if elected, even though I'm strongly in favor of his social stances. Obama is a solid candidate, and I've found myself agreeing with him on most of the issues he's promoted, but again, I'm not sure if his lack of experience will end up being a positive or negative trait. I do wish that Richardson had a chance in this race, but I also want my vote to count for something, and the best I can hope for him is the vice-president's seat.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at just how unpopular Hillary is here. Certainly, she not my first or second or even third choice, but that's simply because there are better candidates out there. I'm not fond of the way she presents hereself, but I haven't had occasion to really disagree with her on many policy points that actually mattered. I still don't know why some people are so opposed to her, often to the point of this "I'd rather vote for a Republican/Nader/Stalin" blather.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Obama is a solid candidate, and I've found myself agreeing with him on most of the issues he's promoted, but again, I'm not sure if his lack of experience will end up being a positive or negative trait.

In my opinion "experience" is a smokescreen that career politicians and their supporters in the media use to influence voters to keep voting for the same assholes. In 1992 people said Bill Clinton didn't have enough experience, and he went on to do quite a good job, and the same was true of JFK. In any case, there isn't really any job that truly prepares a person to be POTUS, because it's such a unique position, and anyway every president leans heavily on his cabinet.

So you should probably just caucus for Obama.

[Guardsman Bass]

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at just how unpopular Hillary is here. Certainly, she not my first or second or even third choice, but that's simply because there are better candidates out there. I'm not fond of the way she presents hereself, but I haven't had occasion to really disagree with her on many policy points that actually mattered. I still don't know why some people are so opposed to her, often to the point of this "I'd rather vote for a Republican/Nader/Stalin" blather.

She's had some unpopular stances, but at least in my case (and for the record, I would still vote for her before any of the Republican field at this point), it has to do with the effect she will probably have on the Republicans should the Democrats hoist her as their candidate.

The Republicans have basically spent 10+ years completely demonizing her into the Antichrist of Liberalism, and that is what worries me. I'm wary of the possibility that she might pump new life into the Republican party in 2008 if and when the Republicans

a)dig up every ounce of dirt on her and Bill Clinton in the general election;

b)use fear of her presidency as a fundraising tool.

Now, the Republicans will probably demonize whoever comes up as the opposition, but they have a major headstart in Hillary Clinton. I'd still vote for her if she had some strong policy factors separating her from her rivals, but she's not that different policy-wise from Obama and Edwards.

[Adrian Laguna]

If I could vote in the primaries, and I probably could have if I hadn't moved half-way across the country, Senator Obama. For a sundery reasons, but I'm only mentioning one here. Of the Democratic candidates I know of (all three of them), he is the one who is the most unlike anything we've ever had in the Presidency before. He's the wild card, the roll of the dice, the crazy bet, the leap of faith, the "here goes nothing". I think it could be interesting. Of course, watching the Republicans react to Hillary would be more interesting, but as I already pointed out, the ability to make interestins things happen is not the only thing in consideration here.

Richardson might have been the guy I'd want to vote for if this thread wasn't the first I've heard of him.

[Metatwaddle]

I'd love to vote for Biden, but he will have dropped out by the time my state's primary happens. I'll have to just vote for him as my Senator instead, and vote for Obama in the primary.

I like Biden because he's good on foreign policy, and I like his Iraq plan. He's also my Senator, and he's tremendously entertaining. Honestly, I wish that Biden, Richardson and Dodd were the three frontrunners instead of Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Richardson is also very good on foreign policy, and Dodd has impressed me in debates and I liked how he led the filibuster of the wiretapping bill. But I like Obama a lot, too. I think we've got a pretty strong field this year.

[Noble Ire]

All right, I'm casting my lot in with Obama. He's consistently impressed me with almost every aspect of his platform, and I've begun to appreciate the potential benefits of his relative separation from the current political establishment.

[ray245]

Obama is leading by ALOT in this forums.

[Darth Wong]

Of course he is. He appeals to young people, and this forum's population is mostly young. He was also against the war from the beginning, while Hillary Clinton has spent the last 6 years trying to prove that she can be just as much of a chickenhawk as any Republican.

[Flagg]

Of course he is. He appeals to young people, and this forum's population is mostly young. He was also against the war from the beginning, while Hillary Clinton has spent the last 6 years trying to prove that she can be just as much of a chickenhawk as any Republican.

Mission Accomplished!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Of course he is. He appeals to young people, and this forum's population is mostly young. He was also against the war from the beginning, while Hillary Clinton has spent the last 6 years trying to prove that she can be just as much of a chickenhawk as any Republican.

Mission Accomplished!

And he takes the vote!

[Durandal]

I'm not one of those people who wants my president to have a winning, folksy personality or anything, but Bill Richardson has all the personality of a box of rocks. Watching the debates last night, he was easily the most annoying of the candidates. He couldn't stop banging the god damn table with his hand, and the mic picked it up, so every other word out of his jowly mouth was proceeded by a "THUD". I hate to say it, but little things matter. The guy strikes me as a behind-the-scenes bureaucrat, not a public figure.

In any case, I was pretty impressed with Hillary's showing early on in the debate. She had an excellent, well thought-out response to the question of dealing with Pakistan that was based on her own merits. It looked like she'd learned from Iowa that going negative was only going to make Obama look better.

Then the moderator decided to set up a pissing contest between her and Obama, and she started showing her true colors. Granted, I'm not a fan of this reality show-style type of conflict staging, but it probably helped Obama. Hillary just doesn't seem to get that people are tired of negative campaigning, and now she's behind in the latest New Hampshire polls. Obama, meanwhile, maintained his composure, didn't go negative and instead used it as an opportunity to talk about change (presumably, change away from Hillary's traditional campaigning style). Then John Edwards fired a shot across her bow by implying that she's an "agent of the status quo". Looks like he's gunning for Obama's running mate spot.

Hillary's problem is that she's campaigning like she's already got the nomination. Attack ads and negative campaigning may resonate well with independent and Republican voters, but she's trying to court Democrats. And by campaigning the way she is, she's telling her primary voters, "Look, we all know I'm going to get the nomination, so I'm going to go and get some votes from over there". That kind of presumption just isn't resonating well with a disillusioned Democratic electorate.

[Durandal]

By the way, did anyone else notice that Richardson referred to Russia as the Soviet Union in last night's debates? He said something like, "Well the first thing I'd do is start talking to the Soviet Union ..." in reference to how he'd control nuclear proliferation.

[Ubiquitous]

Well judging by our poll, America is going to have its first black president for sure. I am shocked by just how large a margin BO is curbstomping everyone else.

[Durandal]

Well judging by our poll, America is going to have its first black president for sure. I am shocked by just how large a margin BO is curbstomping everyone else.

We're hardly a statistically random sample group. Most of the people on this board are young, as Mike pointed out before, which is the group Obama resonates with the most, especially first-time voters. For example, the entire time I've had the right to vote, George W. Bush has been president. He's the president my generation and I have grown up with. And that's left a very sour taste for government in our mouths. Along comes Obama, who not only talks about radical departures from the old ways of doing things, he is a radical departure from the old ways of doing things. He's black, he's relatively younger than the rest of the candidates, and he doesn't have the "virtue" of lots of Beltway experience.

So he gets our attention. Sure, Clinton is a woman, but her campaign has done nothing but paint her as your typical Beltway politician, beholden to large corporations, lobbyists and special interests. She doesn't represent the kind of change my demographic is largely looking for.

[CmdrWilkens]

Its not even just young. Look at the entrnace poll groups that Obama won the support of in Iowa and he was the favorite by every age group under 60, he was the favorite of those with at least a college degree, he was a favorite of self identified independents. Perhaps more notably relevant to this board in Iowa Obama won amongst "Very Liberal," "Somewht Liberal, and "Moderate." So basically this board tends towards young, well educated, and liberal all of which are leaning pretty noticeably in Obama's favor at least where he has the prescence to get himself in front of the electorate.

[Noble Ire]

I saw both Richardson and Edwards speak today (one of the benefits of living in a "battleground" state). Both were impressive, and I'm starting to wish that Edwards especially had more of a chance for the nomination. He made a very powerful case for the need to oppose corporate lobbying, and I can honestly say that I believe he is completely genuine in his convictions, folksy Southern mannerisms aside. Richardson, for his part, raised some points about women's rights and education that certainly deserve more attention than they're getting; I'm still not sure if I like his policy on Iraq (the self-proclaimed center of his platform) more than that of the other candidates.

In the end though, I think I'll still vote for Obama. His policies and the general feel of his campaign are quite similar to Edwards, and his message of hope is probably more uniting and galvanizing than Edwards' more hardline position. Beyond that, he has a far better chance of defeating Hillary in two days, and in the months after. Though I don't like the tone her campaign has taken on in recent days, I still don't have anything in particular against her; I just think, of the three major candidates, she is the one who is most likely to lose in November.

All that being said, I'd be happy to see any one of them as a vice president under Obama (or Edwards, for that matter); Hillary might not take the post, but Edwards and Richardson probably would.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Its not even just young. Look at the entrnace poll groups that Obama won the support of in Iowa and he was the favorite by every age group under 60, he was the favorite of those with at least a college degree, he was a favorite of self identified independents. Perhaps more notably relevant to this board in Iowa Obama won amongst "Very Liberal," "Somewht Liberal, and "Moderate." So basically this board tends towards young, well educated, and liberal all of which are leaning pretty noticeably in Obama's favor at least where he has the prescence to get himself in front of the electorate.

There is also the fact that he's the strongest at using online forms of "campaigning", having the online generation as another of his strong points. (Same as the young really).

The main thing I'm worried about now, is him being assassinated .
As it stands, he's "worse" than JFK and The King combined in the minds of your typical right-tard...

[Metatwaddle]

I'm not one of those people who wants my president to have a winning, folksy personality or anything, but Bill Richardson has all the personality of a box of rocks. Watching the debates last night, he was easily the most annoying of the candidates. He couldn't stop banging the god damn table with his hand, and the mic picked it up, so every other word out of his jowly mouth was proceeded by a "THUD". I hate to say it, but little things matter. The guy strikes me as a behind-the-scenes bureaucrat, not a public figure.

I didn't mind Richardson too much for most of the debate, although I was listening on the radio rather than watching it on TV, which probably contributed to that. Then he said that he thought the President should have the power of line-item veto, which just... no. I mean, he's Bill Richardson and I think he'd use the power responsibly to cut down on pork, but someday we're going to have another Republican in office who'll leave the pork and veto the healthcare for kids, or whatever worthy cause the Republicans are opposing in 2020. Any lingering thoughts I might have had about voting for Richardson on Super Tuesday were eliminated with that one line. Which the moderator didn't call him out on, by the way.

I also noticed that Edwards was trying to be all, "Look! I'm a change candidate too! Obama and I like change!" So I think he's trying to be Obama's veep. It's not quite kissing Obama's ass, but it's close. I actually think Richardson would be a good veep for Obama. Line-item-veto power fantasies aside, he complements Obama well. Richardson's got executive experience and knows a lot about foreign policy, and the upside of having a personality like a box of rocks (as you said, Durandal) is that he's not fiery or mouthy enough to have power struggles with President Obama or go saying things to the press that cause problems for Obama. [size=0]Also I really want Biden to be Secretary of State, and if Richardson is VP, then Biden is more likely to get that spot.[/size]

My favorite part, though, was when the moderator said, "You know, when Bush was campaigning in 2000, he said he was running for change in Washington too." Everyone went apeshit and started talking at once. It was fantastic.

[Durandal]

Edwards supports a line-item veto with some caveats attached, which I think make sense. Basically, the president would have the power to veto earmark provisions and spending not directly related to the bill. Then these vetoed provisions would be given back to Congress, and Congress would have to have an up-or-down vote on each one, individually. So it wouldn't be a matter of gathering a supermajority, and Congress' check on presidential power would remain intact.

At least, that's how I understand it.

[Metatwaddle]

That sounds all right, but I don't know how you get clear enough language so that line item vetoes only work if the provisions in the veto aren't "related to the bill". Other than that, Edwards' idea does sound okay on the surface. I'm not sure what such a limited idea of a line-item veto actually changes, though. What's the point of the president vetoing certain provisions if Congress can push them through with a simple majority? Presumably Congress voted to amend the bill in such a way in the first place. Why would they change their minds?

At any rate, a constitutional amendment would be required for the President to have a line-item veto. Apparently the Congress actually gave President Clinton the power to do this in the 90s (Congress willingly giving up its own power? The mind boggles), and the Supreme Court struck it down, 6-3, for once not on the court's left-right political lines (Scalia, Stevens and O'Connor dissented). Link

[Illuminatus Primus]

The courts would have to settle what exactly it meant, just like everything else.

[Lord Poe]

I was a bit disappointed that not one of the candidates described what they'd do for the city attacked "the day after". All of them were "we gonna git 'em!" No one addressed rescue, relief, what plans to set in motion for the people affected, etc.