posted
When was the last time you were actually excited about a candidate for public office who
a) wasn't a third party candidate.
and
b) was on the final election ballot?
For me that last time was the 1982 election for House of Representatives in the state of Utah. I was an enthusiastic supporter of Francis Farley who lost by an extremely narrow margin.
For me, its been 25 years since I stepped into a Ballot box during final elections excited about a candidate who I thought might win. I won't say I've always been voting for the lesser of two "evils" because the word evil is too strong. I've seen candidates who were competent even OK on the final ballots but never one who I thought was outstanding who I could really be excited about voting for.
Now I realize that my politics are more than a little left of center so it is perhaps not surprising that main stream candidates don't excite me, but I am surprised at how many people seem to feel the same way.
Every election it seems that half the elegible voting population doesn't care enough about either candidate to even show up to the polls. Of course, that could mean many different things. Perhaps those people simply aren't interested enough in political issues to show up if Jesus was running against Adolf Hitler.
So I'm asking you Jatraqueros, when was the last time you were genuinely excited about a democratic or republican political candidate who made the final election ballot?
Do you think there are any changes in our election system that would be more likely to put exciting candidates on the ballot?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Jesus was running against Hitler, I guarantee that some people would vote for Hitler because "he has more political experience..."
*sigh*
I haven't been excited about any democratic or republican candidates ever since I started voting 5 years ago. I've been sufficiently excited against some of them to vote for the other guy, but that's as far as it's gone for me.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
College. It's been more than 8 years since I've been excited about a candidate for public office. Like KQ says, I've actually been more interested in seeing some candidates losing, than vice-versa.
I was quite content to see our Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, elected and re-elected. I would not say I was actually excited, however. She's just been even-keel and a pleasant change from our last, ahem, governor, Bill Graves.
(And I just resisted name calling there, for which I'm not proud. For what it's worth, that's one of the worst aspects of the political process in this country. Political discourse seems downright dismal in many avenues.)
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am very excited and please with both my Senators and with my Congresswoman. I was very excited to campaign and vote for Obama in his sentate campaign and glad for the opportunity to do both (and donate) for his presidential campaign.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was very fond of Kerry. It helped that it was also the first presidential election where I was old enough to vote, but I really wanted him to win. I was moved by his ability to see shades of gray and think both in details and elegant logic.
I was very upset that more people didn't see his skill as a thinker and world leader just because he lacked "political charm."
I was excited about Obama but that interest is waning. Sometimes he really does suprise me but then I get paranoid that he's just as hypocritical as Clinton, but better at hiding it with smart speeches.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was excited to vote for Jesse Ventura for MN governor, and quite pleased that he won. I would have voted for him for a second term had he decided to run again.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I was excited about Obama but that interest is waning. Sometimes he really does suprise me but then I get paranoid that he's just as hypocritical as Clinton, but better at hiding it with smart speeches.
I would describe Clinton as opportunistic not hypocritical. The OED defines hypocrisy as: the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclinations and opportunism as: the practice or policy of exploiting circumstances or opportunities to gain immediate advantage, rather than following a predetermined plan; the ability or tendency to exploit circumstances in this way. Clinton is an opportunist in the worst possible sense of the word in that she exploits every opportunity to increase her own power with little evidence of any other guiding principle.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Clinton is an opportunist in the worst possible sense of the word in that she exploits every opportunity to increase her own power with little evidence of any other guiding principle."
Wow, harsh. Provide a few examples? I see this accusation and the nods of assent that treat it like it's commonly accepted knowledge, but I really don't see it. Moving to and running in the New York senate race was opportunistic, I'll give you that, but I'm not convinced it was an evil or deceitful act. The people of New York voted for her, twice, so I'm guessing at least a majority of them are okay with it. But what else? I've yet to have anyone explain to me where this feeling is that she's out for power for the sake of power and naught else.
I like both my Senators, but I'm not super excited about either of them. I was very excited though to vote for Governor Granholm. I think she's just what Michigan needs right now, and if the Republicans in the state house don't derail her, she'll get this state back on track.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senatorial race for our neck of the woods turns out to be Ken Salazar v. Pete Coors.
Ken Salazar is obviously good. Pete Coors is obviously worthless. As time goes on more information comes out. Ken Salazar is obviously good. Pete Coors is outright terrible. It's not a battle for the lesser evil. Sadly, I realize that if Coors wins it will grate on me for the next few years. I suck it up and become little mr. idealistic street-team campaigner.
In the end it is a positive thing because it allows me to ignore the utter farce that is the presidential election and I'm going to be glad that Bush wins anyway because it assures Bush an ignominious presence in history!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was excited about Arnold. Not because I thought he would do a good job, just because he's the freaking Terminator! And the Kindergarten Cop!
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I was excited about Arnold. Not because I thought he would do a good job, just because he's the freaking Terminator! And the Kindergarten Cop!
posted
My heart dies a little every time I see the current candidates for both parties that are running. They ALL stink. I can't believe we can't find one decent human being to run for such a high political office. So sad.
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like Obama a lot, but he isn't going to get the nomination, and I can't stand Hillary Clinton. I'm so tired of always voting against candidates, and never voting FOR anyone.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I absolutely cannot figure out is this whole "Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination" crap.
Who coronated her? And why? Who would even consider voting for her in the primary? I haven't met one person in real life who'd vote for her over any of the other Democratic candidates, so where are these people coming from?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I absolutely cannot figure out is this whole "Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination" crap.
Who coronated her? And why? Who would even consider voting for her in the primary? I haven't met one person in real life who'd vote for her over any of the other Democratic candidates, so where are these people coming from?
I completely agree. Who are they polling?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it odd that the declared frontrunners for both parties and the 3rd party "dark horse" Bloomberg are all from New York. I think it's just a media blind spot. I guess we'll see on Super Tuesday.
I'm officially excited about McCain. I remembered finding him very interesting in 2000.
I was not convinced by Hillary's forgiveness of Bill Clinton. It's funny because I was talking to a friend about a historical novel I was writing about a time when a woman would not have automatically divorced her husband for committing adultery. She wondered what possible benefit that would be to anyone today, when any woman with a brain on her would kick out an adulterer. I sense a deep distrust of Hillary among the liberal women I know.
P.S. The news polls I've participated in seemed very biased. I was contacted for one during the '98 fracas and there was no question asked in a way that I could express my deep disapproval of Bill Clinton.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm just a skeptic, but I think that they're (yes, the mysterious "they") putting that out there so that people will think the other candidates don't have a chance and that she's a lock.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was in grade school and everyone was very excited that he won by the biggest landslide in history. The nation was really pumped up at the time; you could feel it.
Too bad he blew it all.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can't believe we can't find one decent human being to run for such a high political office. So sad.
The more I read his papers and see his interviews, the more I am convinced that Ron Paul is a decent human being. His fund raising is moving him to the top tier.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, the more I read about his actual positions, the more I am convinced that Ron Paul is a complete lunatic. He seems like a great guy to have a beer with, but I wouldn't put him in charge of the country if every other presidential candidate committed simultaneous seppuku on the capitol steps.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like both Ron Paul, and also Huckabee. However, I don't feel at this point either of them have a snowball's chance in hades...
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron Paul reminds me of Perot- on paper, at least, with the gold standard thing. I haven't seen him talking.
The media loves lunatics. The primaries are coming, though. I'm genuinely excited by the sporting aspect of it. But how many of these guys are going to wind up like that downhill skier who didn't win any medals?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a funny thing about historical representations of Nixon. I thought he was considered a bit of an amoral opportunist since the fifties, way before the incident. I know we've elevated the hungry, smash and grab, take-what-you-can ethic into a bit of a national virtue, but was Nixon really considered a "good person" throughout the fifties and sixties?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I absolutely cannot figure out is this whole "Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination" crap.
Who coronated her? And why? Who would even consider voting for her in the primary? I haven't met one person in real life who'd vote for her over any of the other Democratic candidates, so where are these people coming from?
I know people who are very excited about Hillary Clinton as a Presidential Candidate. There's a Hillary for President student organization on my campus. They take field trips to NH to canvas and stuff envelopes.
I also attend her alma mater. She came here last week to kick off a campaign to court the college age vote. The house was packed, though not everyone there was 100% for her, they went because it was Hillary Clinton (and profs canceled classes). I went because I was curious and I knew that her going anywhere usually interrupts everything, so I might as well take the gift wrapped opportunity to visit. I was pretty satisfied with her platform.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: It's a funny thing about historical representations of Nixon. I thought he was considered a bit of an amoral opportunist since the fifties, way before the incident. I know we've elevated the hungry, smash and grab, take-what-you-can ethic into a bit of a national virtue, but was Nixon really considered a "good person" throughout the fifties and sixties?
Sure, by all the people who thougth JFK was just a pretty face.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sadly, the more I read about his actual positions, the more I am convinced that Ron Paul is a complete lunatic.
Sadly, the more I see that every other viable candidate will spread this very expensive war that is costing us billions of dollars in debt a month and will allow the Feds to continue printing money that devalues our currency, the more I am convinced they are lunatics.
It seems everyone from Cheney to super models are dropping the dollar, and yet we are on a course to expand our debt and and money supply.
Our current trajectory is lunatic and the fiscal consequences are starting to be felt.
posted
Okay, whatever else we want to say about American politics, doesn't the fact that Cheney isn't running say something not entirely bad?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say it proves he has at least a moderate grip on reality to realize that if he ran, he probably wouldn't even get the nomination.
And I'd love to vote for Obama, and if he were on the ballot even for the primary here, I'd gladly vote for him. But since Hillary is the only democrat on the ballot, I have to vote for her. I'm not sure if you can write in candidates on the primary vote or not, but then it might not even matter if Dean continues to rob me of my vote.
All in all, it's likely that Hillary will be a choice in the general in 08, and I'll vote for her and be quite pleased with the decision. I think she's more than capable, and brings a lot of good ideas to the table.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa, there is no other democratic candidate on the ballot? That doesn't strike me as democracy at all. If more people are running, I'd think that they would at least be required to be on the ballot. Don't you think?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Different states have different requirements to get on the ballot.
I have always had a loooot more choices for every state and national office here in CA than I did in TX-- I think it's much easier to get on the ballot here.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Whoa, there is no other democratic candidate on the ballot? That doesn't strike me as democracy at all. If more people are running, I'd think that they would at least be required to be on the ballot. Don't you think?
To the best of my knowledge, every Democratic candidate except for Hillary has had their name removed from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot. I was going to write Obama's name in, but I've decided I'm too disappointed with him to do that, and Hillary will get my vote. Or I may just not vote at all. This is one of the few situations where I really don't see the point in going through the effort.
Tom -
How many different versions have you heard? And which planks?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a little update for everyone who thinks Paul doesn't have a chance.
So far this quarter he was raised over 8 million dollars.
Q1 almost 64,000 Q2 2.4 Million Q3 5.3 Million Q4 over 8 million so far--after a 4.4 million money bomb in one day on November 5th.
Considering there is another money bomb planned on Dec 16 (Boston Tea Party Anniversary), we can expect to see him easily pass 12 million.
There is every reason to believe the Dec 16 money bomb will raise more money then the Nov 5th fund raiser.
What we see here is momentum...the polls are not far behind. You can't have an average of 40 dollar donations raising that kind of money and not have real support.
The GOP is fractured and demoralized enough that this dark horse could rise. All the other candidates are splitting the pro-war vote. Or as Dr. Paul told Leno, "There is a real risk I could win."
eee...*happy dance*... I am excited about politics for the first time.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The GOP is fractured and demoralized enough that this dark horse could rise. All the other candidates are splitting the pro-war vote. Or as Dr. Paul told Leno, "There is a real risk I could win.
Yeah, and with that money he'll get the word out on what he stands for...at which point people let out a collective "wtf?"
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, everything about this election gives me a crummy feeling. It's like the non-existent "they" have decided who the candidates will be, and since so many people are pessimistic and believe it, it's gonna be self-fulfilling. -_-
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
I mean, I agree with you in princple, she doesn't have a LOCK on the nomination. If or one of the others can take a strong second place showing, or even win, one of the early three or four states outside of Hyper Tuesday, they could get a bit of momentum going into February, and that's all you need.
But Hillary was a favorite even before the election started. Dean was unknown outside of Vermont before the election started. Other than the fact that they were/are both front runners, not much else matches up.
Besides, Clinton had a horrible debate the other day and it was a huge story for a day, then petered out. Hillary is a seasoned national figure, and extremely unlikely to self implode like Dean did. If she loses, I think it'll be because someone knocked her off her perch, not because she gave it away.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would vote for Ron Paul if he didn't have such extreme policies on certain issues. I like his foreign policy and I like the general idea of reducing spending. I don't like the idea of eliminating the Fed, CIA, FBI, IRS, etc. The attacks on the Fed always puzzle me, especially since many of them seem to imply that the Fed is just a massive conspiracy to make money. The Fed progressed a huge amount under Greenspan and has shown that it can effectively control inflation and soften recessions.
EDIT: 2008 will be the first presidential election I can vote in!
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the first time I can vote in a presidential election too, and I am voting for Ron Paul.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I would vote for Ron Paul if he didn't have such extreme policies on certain issues. I like his foreign policy and I like the general idea of reducing spending. I don't like the idea of eliminating the Fed, CIA, FBI, IRS, etc. The attacks on the Fed always puzzle me, especially since many of them seem to imply that the Fed is just a massive conspiracy to make money. The Fed progressed a huge amount under Greenspan and has shown that it can effectively control inflation and soften recessions.
EDIT: 2008 will be the first presidential election I can vote in!
I know what you're saying. There are a ton of Ron Paul's positions that I disagree with. Besides the ones you've mentioned, I strongly disagree with his stance on the funding of scientific research. That said, I still intend to support him. I do believe that the government needs to be reigned in, especially with regards to its recent out of control spending.
More importantly, perhaps, is that I don't actually believe that he will be able to get many of the cuts that he wants. Since his ideas are so far out of line with most of the current government, I expect that there will be a near constant struggle between the him and congress which will serve to curtail the most extreme positions of both him and the mainstream politicians.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My first election I was pretty upset about voting democratic, but considering the alternative... not so upset anymore.
I feel the same way as some of you in that it seems like certain candidates are being shoved down my throat, while others just get brushed under the rug.
So in all of my 1 elections I was exited about none of the candidates . I was exited about bush II before I could vote though. Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What ricree101 just said pretty much covers my perspective of Ron Paul as well. I voted in the last presidential election shortly after turning 18 and had felt very depressed about all of the main candidates. I didn't vote for W.
This time I AM excited. My mom and I contributed $100 each to the Ron Paul money bomb on the 5th. It's also the first time she has ever been excited about a candidate and she has always voted. I just re-registered as a republican so that I can vote for Paul in the primaries. I was previously undeclared.
I am downright terrified of Giuliani winning.
Posts: 81 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. I was exited about bush II before I could vote though. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
