Talk:2008 U.S. presidential election/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Two right-wing parties?[edit]

Two right wing parties? This explains a lot. Lurker 19:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, here in the US we have a far-right corporatist party (GOP), and a center-right corporatist party (Dems). You can see who always wins... The Greens, among others, are actually on the left, but aren't corporatist, so they aren't allowed to play in the big leagues. humanUser talk:Human 21:56, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Thanks, not being from the US I never understood that.
Wait, no, I am from the US, you guys are just really so far left everything looks right. Let's look at your "center-right corporatist" policies for a second: raising the minimum wage (bad for all businesses), support of fair trade (bad for American corporations), "budget discipline" (theoretically bad for corporations, but I'm doubtful any politician can balance the budget), reducing energy subsidies (bad for energy corporations), so on and so forth. Unless you mean by corporatist that they have to work together with the types of people who fuel the entire economy (literally and figuratively, as the case may be) in order to ensure that the individual's utopia doesn't wind up destroying the individual's job? Because if that's the definition of corporatist, show me a major party who doesn't act that way. Only the idealists (Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, and other such third parties) can afford to actually care about the people -- and they don't win many votes while they're at it. Lurker 00:23, 19 November 2007 (EST)
The reason for the two-party structure I wrote up in the politics page...should that be incorporated here as well? Also, by American standards, they are a center-right and a center-left part. That's the sad thing. Researcher 23:56, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Very sad, indeed. Lurker 00:23, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Lurker, Our analysis is fairly real. Look at the rest of the world. "We" are not "far left". I personally run a business, and enjoy "free market capitalism". I also think that the financial tyrants who own the damn economy should be taxed like hell - still rich but - to build "infrastructure" - roads, schools, health programs - for everyday people. That makes me, slightly left of center - by Scandinavian terms, I'd almost be right wing! Repeal the Reagan tax cuts! humanUser talk:Human 00:38, 19 November 2007 (EST)
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have called you far left, but the only thing I have to go off of is what you say. (Interesting but unrelated factoid: your example of the left, Scandinavia, my econ prof used as a "middle" ground. That guy was a socialist.)
Now that that's out of the way, I still don't see how the Dems are "right wing". By any rational standard they are center-left at best, as Researcher has stated. Most scholars would probably place the major parties of all world countries ("sad" as it is) in a pretty small radius of each other. Outside that radius you will find most pundits, talking heads, think tanks, bloggers, Conservapedians, RationalWikiers, and minority parties. Take a look at the pages on Political Compass (this one in particular is rather interesting) and you will see that everyone's pretty much the same in terms of major parties. Well, with the exception of Ireland. Lurker 10:54, 19 November 2007 (EST)
No need to apologise - I am fairly far left - esp. relative to US politics (look at my compass thing). But as far as the Dems, while certainly a haven for real liberals or leftists, the party as a whole acts as a centrist or slightly right of center party (cf. Bill Clinton's presidency). Hopefully this will change as the pendulum swings back from Reagan's influence. The Dems might be able to be more leftist (ie, center-left on the whole) and the GOP could return to its center right roots from the strange place the neocons and religious right have taken it. humanUser talk:Human 15:32, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Personal pet peeve of mine--the word "leftist" has an established meaning that most Americans don't realize--to be a "leftist" means to want to destroy the free-enterprise system in its entirety. Even most European liberal parties aren't leftists for the reason. "Leftism" is the domain of the various kinds of Marxism. That being said--during that period of time, the country as a whole moved in a conservative direction, and Democrats (particularly Bill) were responding to that. To be honest, until the country could be shown that government COULD work (something that consecutive Republican administrations along with Jimmy Carter seemed to want to prove wrong), the country was going to be more conservative. Now, however, there is a liberal awakening within the country, and the more liberal Democrats can have a voice again. (Researcher) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Sorry about that, I did not mean to conflate the two, I just wanted to use more different words ;). Let's say I meant "liberal" in it's modern sense when I said "left". humanUser talk:Human 16:43, 19 November 2007 (EST)

<----(undent) It wasn't directed so much at you, but I've gotten really sick of how conservatives have managed to conflate the two words, so that all "liberals" are actually "leftists", and then you can talk about the radical notions leftists have, and voila!, all liberals are radicals. It's unfortunately seeped into general usage, despite being plain wrong. (I've only recently learned the difference, due to some study I did into American leftism. (Also, sorry about forgetting to sign earlier. Thanks to whomever signed for me.)Researcher 16:53, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Politics terminology is nothing if not vague and confusing. I think it's fair to say that all parties (no pun intended) involved understand the difference, but I know I personally find it easier to use the more colloquial terminology over the more "correct" terminology, especially since the correct way is itself rather vague at times. Honestly, I'm not sure how much is purposeful manipulation and how much is just evolution. Really up until a couple decades ago, it was hard to distiguish "leftist" from "liberal" because politics was thought of as simply a 1-dimensional continuum. Lurker 17:03, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Actually, up until the 60s or 70s, there was a clear distinction between liberal and leftist, based over whether you thought Communism was a good idea or not. That's why there were so many stridently liberal Cold Warriors, such as JFK and LBJ. Researcher 17:13, 19 November 2007 (EST)

The Democrats are far-left. Because, here in America, center is defined as Emperor Palpatine. --Edgerunner76 13:51, 7 January 2008 (EST)

generic header[edit]

Actually, at this point, there are plenty of nations as right-wing (or more so!) than the US. There are real rightist movements afoot in much of Eastern Europe, and even model countries like Estonia are currently run by conservative corporatist types. (Which is actually good for Estonia because it's helped to undo some of the damage of Communism.) Outside of Europe, the left-right dichotomy REALLY breaks down, but you could consider the governments of Myanmar and China right-wing as well. (Particularly China, with an emphasis on nationalism that few to the left of Tom Tancredo could hope to match.) Researcher 11:57, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I'm sure that you citizens of the USA will know more about that than I, but all countries in the European Union - be they presently right or left - have socialized medicine systems of one sort or another. I understand that no party in the USA intends to introduce this. Is this correct?--Bobbing up 12:48, 19 November 2007 (EST)
No one in this country will ever use the phrase "socialized medicine." We prefer "universal healthcare." Some Democrats are supporting some version of this (Clinton and Edwards in particular; Obama has a health care plan but it wouldn't be fully universal). No Republican Presidential candidate will support any change in the status quo (even though Mitt Romney tried to introduce it into Massachusetts all by himself, and did a decent job, he won't say anything about it now). Researcher 12:56, 19 November 2007 (EST)
So far UHC is on a state level. Some national candidates are talking about it, but it's too big a step right now. I'm predicting that sometime within my lifetime I'll be paying for someone else's health care, though. From what I've seen in my own (rather limited, granted) pseudo-poliscientific analysis of the election cycle is that Americans are moving more in a more populist/liberal/leftist direction. Look at all the states that switched to blue in the last congressional election. I don't know about all the states, but my state was largely changed over economic issues. Many states raised their minimum wage, some rather substantially. It's clear that the more economically liberal candidates are winning over the voters.
It's more iffy on social policy, because there haven't been that many huge issues (I'm counting health care as a purely economic issue here). The Iraq war is hardly a dividing line anymore, at least not between "left" and "right". The next biggest issue is maybe immigration, but really I don't feel like most people care all that much. What's left? Most of my pet social issues are non-issues for the majority of the American voters. Lurker 17:03, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Actually, if you already have insurance, then you're already paying for other people's health care. Just like other people are paying for yours. Just a nit-picky point. But, you're probably right, the anti-"socialism" crowd has made UHC little more than a dream for now. Researcher 17:11, 19 November 2007 (EST)
The US seems to be wandering into a federalist approach - states acting as little laboratories like the MA experiment. Also, the major federal programs are funded nationally but administered by the states (I think!), who can do more if they want. (medicare, medicaid, schips) Maybe someday the patchwork quilt will become more centrally administered, but it's really hard to predict. humanUser talk:Human 17:22, 19 November 2007 (EST)
That's supposed to be the glory of federalism, is that we can try things in little chunks before implementing it large scale. (It also allows for greater national stability, in the long run.) However, a problem like health care almost needs national attention, because people with poor health are not dispersed evenly, nor are the rich people needed to fund it. The honest truth is that Mississippi or Kentucky (where I live) will have a harder time implementing it, since we have more health problems and less rich/healthy people to pull from. (This is how all "social security" type programs have to work, whether its an insurance pool or Social Security itself.) Researcher 17:26, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I happen to live in Scandinavia. Am I living in a Socialist Country? The dream of my childhood has come true! Editor at CP 17:41, 19 November 2007 (EST)

According to almost all Americans, yes you do. According to political scientists? Probably not. (Sweden comes closest, but even they aren't really "socialist" in the technical sense. Social democratic, yes. Which I wish to Heidrun we were here.) Researcher 17:46, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Ironically, Denmark has been governed by a right-wing coalition supported by a far-right national-conservative party for the last six years, and Sweden recently elected a centre-right government as well. Seems that only Norway still cares about keeps the Scandinavian socialist social democrat banner flying these days. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:56, 19 November 2007 (EST)
I've heard something about that...but, I have to ask, how far right (compared to the US, if you could) would that "centre-right" party be? (And would that right-wing coalition, over all, be considered rightist? I'm desperately curious. I remember hearing about how one of the new partners for the coalition is threatening to defect if the rightists are given too much control, because the new partner is a mostly immigrant party.) Researcher 18:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Dennis Kucinich[edit]

Is Dennis Kucinich a true liberal? --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 23:50, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Christ, if he isn't then who is? DickTurpis 23:57, 22 November 2007 (EST)
Define true liberal. He hews to nearly every liberal ideal, but is also crazy. And massively hippie-dippie. (The only thing where he deviated from traditional liberalism was that until 2004, he was adamantly anti-abortion rights.) Researcher 12:06, 23 November 2007 (EST)
How crazy is he compared to, oh, an reformed alcoholic who claims God speaks to him? --Gulik 22:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Well, Kucinich has said that aliens speak to him, so... and he wants Ron Paul to be his running mate. So, I'd say almost as crazy as Bush, but not quite. (Seriously, Kucinich is the only candidate the Dems could put up who would make me even consider voting for someone else that election...but I'd have to consider it.) It is too bad that he seems to be the only Democrat with a spine, though. Researcher 23:15, 11 December 2007 (EST)
K. said he had seen a UFO. Which means he saw something in the air he could not identify (and perhaps could not be identified if researched). Not that he talked to aliens, or thought the UFO was an alien ship. Also, the Kucinich/Paul "ticket" is a humorous idea he probably picked up on - to pair the two more extreme, marginalized candidates from each party. I'd still prefer Stewart/Colbert, heck, they're not doing anything these days, they might as well run for president! humanUser talk:Human 15:58, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Dennis Kucinich[edit]

Dropped out on January 24th.

Sad to see you out of the picture, Dennis. humanUser talk:Human

Ick, god...[edit]

OK, so I just went and looked up info on the Greens, the Constitutioners, the Libertarians, the Natural Law people, and the Reform people. I feel a real need for a shower now, because they are ALL CRAZY. (And before you go defending the Greens, yes they are. Just in a humane way.) Researcher 22:26, 11 December 2007 (EST)

And, for you all, I even went to the damn Communist Party USA website. Researcher 22:44, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Also--there are two more Greens running, one of whom only has a YouTube video (which I can't get to at work) and the other who's page was so . . . not serious I decided to leave it off. If someone feels they should be included, the link to the Green Party candidates is: Researcher 22:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Good thing for you we've got sane, sensible people like Alan Keyes in the race, huh?  :-P --Gulik 23:12, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah...the thing is, by comparison to some (like one of the Libertarians and the Constitution party people and the Natural Law people . . . ) Keyes IS sane. Barely, but . . . better than the Constitution people. (Actually, he ought to BE one of the Constitution party people, but whatever.) Researcher 23:16, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Wow good job! Lurker 00:09, 12 December 2007 (EST)
  • doffs cap* Researcher 00:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, thanks for gettin' down and dirty in the weirdo trenches. You know, we have a Consitution Party supporter on-site... humanUser talk:Human 15:59, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Question about McCain[edit]

I'm certainly an "anyone as long as their not a Republican" for President person (though I am specifically for Barack). But, would I be speaking for most people here if I said that we might actually be able to live with John McCain if it had to be a Republican? --Edgerunner76 08:36, 7 January 2008 (EST)

If I had to put up with a Republican, I'd want it to be McCain. He's anti-pork and anti-torture. But he's also painfully in favor of the Iraq War. I would only support him if a Democratic nutjob got the nomination, which does not look remotely likely. Researcher 13:37, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Let me make it painfully obvious that I am talking in an "after the elction and we were stuck with him" manner. I'm also not going so far as to support him. I simply say I could "live with" him. --Edgerunner76 13:46, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah. I'll go that far. I could also quite possibly live with Romney, but I'd rather take McCain. Researcher 14:10, 7 January 2008 (EST)
McCain is also vigorously anti-abortion, IIRC. It's a pity we can't get the 2000 McCain back, when he really did seem to be the maverick the Controlled Media insists upon continuing to paint him as. --Gulik 12:01, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Just shows how clued up we in the UK are: an academic site has McCain down as a Democrat. Scroll down. SusanPurrrrrrr 12:22, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Oh, yes--it also looks like McCain is spoiling for a fight with Iran. Because TWO clusterfucks at once in the Middle East just isn't enough. --Gulik 17:15, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I just wanted to call attention to this section of the Talk page on recent changes because the discussion seems so surreal at this (09:08, 10 October 2008 (EDT)) point in the campaign. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

I remember[edit]

A political cartoon, maybe by Oliphant(?) after the flag-burning amendment (circa 1989?) came up: among the sponsors was Joe Biden, who, in the cartoon, was dressed as a People's Republic of China party member and listed as "Joe Bi Den", which tickled me to no end. CЯacke® 17:46, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Should we Front Page this?[edit]

This is an excellent and entertaining run-n-gun guide to the candidates which deserves wider exposure and continual updating to remain relevant. Should we have it as the masthead of a Main Page portal on the election now that we're into Election Year? RW has a lot to bring to the elections. Goats, for example. DogP 18:13, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I think we should link from the countdown sayings - or add a pair of links to the template, one to here and one to the "new" category I just saw added all over the relevant pages. humanUser talk:Human 20:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

And now, a brief interlude of immaturity[edit]

John Cox... *Giggles* Oh, how can you not see it? Can you imagine his supporters? Out there working voters with signs that say I Love Cox! Oh, oh, if he messes up, do you say that he just Cox everything up? *Unable to contain the sheer badness of his juvenile humor, RA keels over in his chair from an aneurysm* --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:00, 10 January 2008 (EST)

We already have guys in high office named "Bush", "Dick", and "Boehner". I am convinced that the "Real World" actually turned into a bad dystopian sci-fi story sometime in the mid-1990s, and it's just been getting more and more grindingly obvious ever since. --Gulik 17:17, 7 February 2008 (EST)


I'm starting to see some mention of "Superdelegates" in the international press who are starting to predict that the nomination process could continue right up to the convention. Perhaps someone from the US could put something up on this?--Bobbing up 04:58, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I dunno all about it, but I'm beginning to suspect that by the time of the convention, neither party will have crowned a nominee by giving them enough delegates. Then the horse-trading in the smoke filled rooms starts, and we see how well democracy works! Superdelegates are in addition to the elected/caucused ones from the states, I think they are appointed/elected by (or actually are) energetic/high level party workers. The whole primary process makes the electoral college look simple and sensible. humanUser talk:Human 08:41, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Someone left a great link at the forums (under General) that explained exactly who the Dem. superdelegates are. basically it's any Dems who are in congress or are governors, ex-presidents and some other exes, who haven't supported another party's candidate. My congresswoman supports Obama ;) humanUser talk:Human 20:25, 24 January 2008 (EST)
I did look at that link actually, and I'm getting hold of the idea, but it seems quite complicated.--Bobbing up 04:48, 25 January 2008 (EST)
I don't think my Congressman or my governor have said yet...which is fine by me, since our primary isn't even until May. (I'd like to see them support the people's choices, but...) Researcher 21:08, 24 January 2008 (EST)
What a moment! Back up there for a sec'! "People's... choice"?! What is this concept?! Don't you know that the FOUNDING FATHERS were God-fearing men, and gave us a lovely constitutional theocracy? Ann Coulter would call you a traitor! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:43, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Pun time![edit]

A superdelegate is what you get when Superman attends a primary.  :-) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:48, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Or perhaps Howard Dean? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 09:00, 25 January 2008 (EST)


Lyndon LaRouche isn't running? Isn't that the first time in like ten elections? What happened? Ohmy.gif --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe he after forty years of running, he finally realized he had no chance in hell of ever winning? (Sadly, Ralph Nader has not yet come to same conclusion.) :-( --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:37, 25 January 2008 (EST)


It's not as flashy as the Coronation of the New Sun-King, but there's a fair number of Congressional seats up for grabs this year, also--and if the Dems can get a decent majority in both houses of the legislature, that'll make things interesting. (I'm not too worried about the 'marching in lockstep' thing the GOP was up to--Dems SUCK at cooperating.) --Gulik 12:08, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Mitt Romney[edit]

I'd just like to point to my edit just above this portion as a demostration of my precognitive abilities.  :) --Edgerunner76 Buddy christ.jpg 14:36, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Hehe, nice call. And, of course, if mittens had made it much further, his campaign speeches from when he was running for gov. of Mass. would have sunk him. humanUser talk:Human 15:31, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Mike Huckabee[edit]

And, of course, the RationalWiki endorsed Republican candidate is still in the race! --Edgerunner76 Buddy christ.jpg 16:51, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Serious Question[edit]

I've been thinking about this for a day or so, and have been unable to come to a conclusion. Under Mittens McGee (which is a way cooler name, by the way) it says, and I quotheth: "Now firmly pro-life. Pro death penalty. (No, there's no contradiction there. SHUT UP.)" I can not for the life of me figure out if this sentence is waxing sardonic. Lurker 19:13, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Yup. The Catholic Church is one of the few places you can find consistency on those two issues (if you equate them, which not everybody does). humanUser talk:Human 19:16, 8 February 2008 (EST)
I'm glad you added the caveat. Lurker 19:35, 8 February 2008 (EST)

A different serious question[edit]

Why there is no certainty on how many delegates Hillary vs. Obama have at the moment? I'm talking delegates after the vote, not polls. Two days after Supertuesday, every media had a different number of total delegates, with Hillary in the lead in the majority, but not all of them. Is it only because of uncertainty about Superdelegate vote, or is there something else? Slow poll results? Secrecy? Liberal media not good in calculus (sic)? Editor at CPBring TK back 10:11, 13 February 2008 (EST)

I think it's due to projecting incomplete results in different ways. They may also be adding in superdelegates differently, of course. humanUser talk:Human 15:46, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Mrs Clinton[edit]

I shudder with memories of Margaret Thatcher and the way women (me included I'm afraid! Not that I voted for her party.) thought she would be an improvement on a male Premier. She was, arguably, the worst thing that had ever happened to female emancipation since female suffrage. I hope that the same won't happen if Mrs Clinton gets in. The dynastic system that seems to have begun in the US also makes me shudder - are we to look forward to President Chelsea in the future. Susanpurrrrr 22:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Well, I think she is actually more liberal than her husband, so that's a "good thing". The "dynasty" issue, however, is terribly retrograde. Remember, most of America, and American politics, is a hundred years behind the rest o' the West. Pray for us ;) humanUser talk:Human 00:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)
...the worst thing that had ever happened to female emancipation since female suffrage.
Wait. Did I read that wrong, or did you say that female suffrage was bad? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:06, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Err.. ifI'd written "the worst thing .... since the start of the century ... " wouldthat mean the century was bad? No, probably could have been phrased better though. Susanpurrrrr 11:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)#
Susan, I well remember those early Maggie years. Jill Tweedie in the Grauniad wrote a big article about whether women should vote for Thatcher and a feminist friend of mine was seriously considering voting. I told her she was an idiot, you should vote for what they stand for not what they are. The same goes for the US election now, are people going to vote for a "person of color", a woman, or someone that can do the job in a way that agrees with their aspirations? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 12:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
"Not that I voted for her party." Yes. I was never taken in - she had fewer women in her cabinet over the years than anyone since - she outplayed the men at Male Chauvinism. I just don't like the way Hillary's there - is there any doubt that she's gained her position thruogh having been first lady'? Susanpurrrrr 12:10, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Susan, uyou might want to peruse the Wikipedia entry on Clinton. She has been active in liberal social causes and politics since she was a unversity student. That is the reason she is so hated by the right, not because she was a first lady. PoorEd 12:17, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Sorry, I must admit I haven't really looked into her background (There's something about the woman that rubs me the wrong way). I'll try to be more thoughtful in future. Susanpurrrrr 12:24, 7 March 2008 (EST)


I guess we're trying to be serious on this page so I'll put this a-here: CЯacke® 22:38, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
I thought this crew were the ones in there now?


Should this article be updated? I'd do it myself, but I'm too lazy I don't know enough about US politics. Is Obama the unofficial democratic candidate? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 15:05, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, he is the presumptive nominee by a slim margin. Since the superdelegates are only counted so far as they have announced their support, things are technically up in the air until the delegates vote at the convention. If, say, all the supers who have come out for Obama were to change their minds, that would throw the nomination to Clinton. That, however is unlikely absent some sort of enormous scandal or crisis. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:29, 4 June 2008 (EDT)