US Presidential Elections

**OneRedArmy** · 04/11/2008, 4:20 PM

Obama, good for the world, bad for Ireland.

Hilary would've been a much more effective president, but nowhere near as charasmatic (depends on whether you view "the person" as being the important one or "the person behind the person").
I'd still vote for Obama if I had a vote today though. Big shackle off America's back if he wins.

**Angus** · 04/11/2008, 4:47 PM

Originally Posted by jmurphyc

TBH I'm getting really sick of hearing his "change...change...change" manifesto. Instead I'd actually like to hear more about the policies that will help to implement this miraculous change. Surely that's the best way of proving to people that he will be a breath of fresh air. I'm surprised more Americans haven't got sick of hearing the same lines (then again, McCain is much the same). I'm sure he'll help to make America and the world marginally better, but that just isn't enough for me.

Can I respectfully suggest that in fact you don't ? Political parties globally have figured out that giving detailed policies is a one way ticket to losing

Any policy involves winners and losers and pols do not articulate policies without ensuring that the losers are irrelevant - hence the Obama 95% tax cut where the losers are the uber wealthy.

So, platitudes are the order of the day - providing details on policy is a non starter, unless they are populist with no downside

**strangeirish** · 04/11/2008, 4:56 PM

Originally Posted by jmurphyc

TBH I'm getting really sick of hearing his "change...change...change" manifesto. Instead I'd actually like to hear more about the policies that will help to implement this miraculous change.

All you want to know here.
Clear differences in policy.

**jmurphyc** · 04/11/2008, 5:19 PM

Originally Posted by Angus

Can I respectfully suggest that in fact you don't ? Political parties globally have figured out that giving detailed policies is a one way ticket to losing

Any policy involves winners and losers and pols do not articulate policies without ensuring that the losers are irrelevant - hence the Obama 95% tax cut where the losers are the uber wealthy.

So, platitudes are the order of the day - providing details on policy is a non starter, unless they are populist with no downside

Actually, I really, really do. The debates were very interesting for me as it gave me my first proper insight into each candidate's policies. Before then it was difficult to work out what each one stood for. It didn't make me less likely to vote for either one of them (although that was partly due to the fact that I'd already made my mind up. It was the same with Kerry in 2004. During that election the main talking point - from what I can recall - was Kerry's record in Vietnam. That has very little to do with how he would have acted as president of the US.

Every election in the US seems to be a popularity contest. I was in America for much of the last election campaign and all I was hearing was (to paraphrase) "Does Kerry have the character to be the Commander In Chief" or "Kerry is un-American". WTF do either of those things mean? I know of quite a few people who, despite never really having an interest in politics before, seem to absolutely love Obama and will deride you if you don't, when they actually know very little about what he stands for. I personally want to know what each candidates views are. That will show me whether they have the "character" required to be president, not whether they were discharged honourably from a war 30 years ago. I know the GOP are largely responsible for this, but the Democratics are culpable too.

**BohsPartisan** · 04/11/2008, 7:48 PM

For the record, I'd vote McKinney.

**thischarmingman** · 04/11/2008, 8:25 PM

Can't get much more straightforward; there's a table explaining their stances on major issues further on in the article:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...854818,00.html

**Angus** · 04/11/2008, 9:00 PM

Originally Posted by jmurphyc

Actually, I really, really do. The debates were very interesting for me as it gave me my first proper insight into each candidate's policies. Before then it was difficult to work out what each one stood for. It didn't make me less likely to vote for either one of them (although that was partly due to the fact that I'd already made my mind up. It was the same with Kerry in 2004. During that election the main talking point - from what I can recall - was Kerry's record in Vietnam. That has very little to do with how he would have acted as president of the US.

Every election in the US seems to be a popularity contest. I was in America for much of the last election campaign and all I was hearing was (to paraphrase) "Does Kerry have the character to be the Commander In Chief" or "Kerry is un-American". WTF do either of those things mean? I know of quite a few people who, despite never really having an interest in politics before, seem to absolutely love Obama and will deride you if you don't, when they actually know very little about what he stands for. I personally want to know what each candidates views are. That will show me whether they have the "character" required to be president, not whether they were discharged honourably from a war 30 years ago. I know the GOP are largely responsible for this, but the Democratics are culpable too.

Sorry, I said it badly. I meant that ideally, yes, we would all genuinely like to see the actual policies from the candidates on a set of issues and then we could assess their appropriateness.

Firstly, history has shown us that candidates policies are directionally what they actually believe but are not really what they will do.

The other problem is that candidates set the questions - elections are supposed to be about competing answers to questions - in fact the campaigns compete to set the questions - and the media play along.

The Kerry issues you correctly reference were set by Rove and the media played along.

Sorry for the long response - where I end up is that "we" don't actually want detailed policies - I would really love to see them - but it is never going to happen because if candidates did that, the narrative would become about who would lose out as a result of those policies and that would become the story.

The nation generally has no cognitave attention span to actually weigh up the issues and to make a determination - which is precisely why the politicians have no interest in presenting the issues in the way that we would all like.

**ken foree** · 04/11/2008, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Angus

Sorry for the long response - where I end up is that "we" don't actually want detailed policies - I would really love to see them - but it is never going to happen because if candidates did that, the narrative would become about who would lose out as a result of those policies and that would become the story.

The nation generally has no cognitave attention span to actually weigh up the issues and to make a determination - which is precisely why the politicians have no interest in presenting the issues in the way that we would all like.

that's a great post man, i think you nailed it. "framing" they call it, don't they? "framing the debate." vomit. regl'ar americans love narrative, story, romance. weepy string music and wheat fields during insurance adverts, that type of thing. their sports telecasts are constantly cutting away to secondary reporters for sappy human interest angles, nfl, olympics, all their manly sports. it's quite homosexual, really, while being as anti-gay as possible, if that makes any sense.

kerry tried unsuccessfully to stay above the rovian frame-slander regarding his vietnam record (only in america: a rich guy who actually went TWICE gets tarred while his opponent and associated cronies used their connections for every conceivable avenue out of the draft) - in doing so he only came off as "aloof" to the so-called middle american. he should've fired back swiftly and firmly - dick cheney got five deferrments for christ's sake (i think biden did too). this waffling only gave his detractors more ammo, i.e. his character and spine, his very manliness came into doubt. his fiction wasn't as "real" as beer-drinkin' buddy george's. obama has learned from this mistake, i.e. counter-attack and do it QUICKLY and strongly - drill your entire team to remain focused on the central message or theme of the narrative day.

an aside, the better half drove through the town of mattapan down the road today - hundreds of black voters lined up, obama signs everywhere, people in the street, a real vibe, a buzz. she drove past the lines, face upon face waiting to vote and started to lose it a little bit, and then was quickly all torn up with emotion. wonderful. it's already tomorrow in ireland, we in the u.s. have to wait a few more hours for ours.

**dahamsta** · 04/11/2008, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by lofty9

Please respond, rather than making flippant remarks. They are suspicious of his odyssey and rise. They live in a city he was educated in and know a lot more about the judicial and political system there than I do. THEY DO NOT TRUST HIM!! Simple enough?

Simple is a good word. As somebody has already pointed out, the man wrote two books, which explain his upbringing, political career and policies. Serious, level-headed people familiarise themselves with the people they comment on. Serious, level-headed people don't vote without doing so.

adam

**Student Mullet** · 05/11/2008, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Simple is a good word. As somebody has already pointed out, the man wrote two books, which explain his upbringing, political career and policies. Serious, level-headed people familiarise themselves with the people they comment on. Serious, level-headed people don't vote without doing so.

adam

Every different type of person gets to vote, not just those who've read books about politicians. I've often commented on people without having read their biographies.

And reporting the opinion of some friends in America is a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion.

**jebus** · 05/11/2008, 12:42 AM

PA held for Obama which makes this a lame duck of a night. Happy to say I don't care

All Hail President Obama

**dancinpants** · 05/11/2008, 1:02 AM

Originally Posted by jebus

PA held for Obama which makes this a lame duck of a night. Happy to say I don't care

All Hail President Obama

Floridas looking reasonably good too right now.

**thischarmingman** · 05/11/2008, 1:13 AM

Obama takes Ohio. Colorado close.

Game set and match.

**strangeirish** · 05/11/2008, 1:25 AM

Originally Posted by thischarmingman

Obama takes Ohio. Colorado close.

Game set and match.

Pretty much!

**pete** · 05/11/2008, 1:28 AM

Palin-Joe the Plumber ticket for 2012?

RTE get prize for smallest studio - 3 people squeezed onto 2 man desk

**thischarmingman** · 05/11/2008, 1:53 AM

Just a question of the size of victory now. Fox studio like a morgue apparently.

**dahamsta** · 05/11/2008, 2:33 AM

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

Every different type of person gets to vote, not just those who've read books about politicians. I've often commented on people without having read their biographies.

Books aren't the only place people can educate themselves about politicians or issues. In this example, if you put 10 minutes into reading about Obama, you would realise that the opinion proffered by the people the OP claims to know is, to put it plain, ignorant. It's the opinion of people that don't deserve a vote.