Amercan Expats In Thailand

[Ulysses G.]

I took that test and came up with Gulliani 1st

I got Gullani too, but I don't really like his personality. Is that a good reason not to vote for him?

[TokyoT]

BTW, Hillary is far from a long shot. She still stands as the mostly likely of all the candidates to take the brass ring.

I did say I could be wrong (I was wrong the first time her husband was elected) - but in a fairly recent Zogby poll (week of Nov 27) where she lost in a heads-up against every single one of the top five Republican candidates. I am certain she has the edge in the primaries; and like I said I could be wrong but I think she is a long shot to win when it counts.

Then again these heads-up type polls can also be misleading as they related more to a popular vote than how presidents are actually elected (the electoral college – state-by-state).

The most interesting thing for me at this stage will be to see how things unfold in the early primary states and how much of a real effect those votes have on the positions of the candidates. It is kind of hard to gauge the nation when one lives on the other side of the globe.

[Jingthing]

It is too early to predict the winner. At this date, Hillary is still the most likely democratic nominee. There is really no most likely republican nominee as yet; thus the logic that she is the most probable future president of this batch. There was another recent Gallup poll totally contradicting the Zogby poll. Like I said, too early for that kind of horse race stuff. The word longshot for Hillary is just wrong though. A longshot means really unlikely, someone like Richardson or Paul would be a longshot.

That said, Hillary's argument that you should vote for me because I can surely win is now much weaker, giving a great opening for Obama.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Jingthing

[PeaceBlondie]

In each party, the presidential candidate who wins the party's nomination at the national convention is given the privilege of naming their vice presidential running mate. We don't know if the final election will be Clinton/Obama against Guliani/McCain, or Clinton/Kunich against Guliani/Paul!

[Jingthing]

PB, yes of course, but i would rate the chances of Kucinich or Paul being on a ticket almost ZERO. They are fringe candidates. On the other hand a Clinton/Obama ticket is possible, but an Obama/Clinton ticket is very, very unlikely (she wouldn't want it).

[Johpa]

3 posts trashing Hilary have been wiped out. I need to research these candidates before I decide. I want a candidate who is the least pro Israel as that is the #1 thing that causes us to be hated worldwide

A wonderful example of the simplistic thinking on both the left and right side of the American political spectrum, or what masquerades as a political spectrum in the US, that leads to the election of like minded simpletons. Not that I disagree totally with some of the noted sentiment, but the one-dimensionality of thought expressed I find offensive.

[kat]

Yes, and in no small part led to the election of the current and most notorious simpleton of all time.

[Jingthing]

Democracy doesn't require any knowledge behind your vote. Who said it was a perfect system? The best part is you can fire your mistakes.

Please no B or C bashing. We now have a chance to stop the bashing and start the voting.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Jingthing

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

So will Ophra backing Obama have muchimpact? I would think some.

[jumnien]

The last guy I voted for was Eugene McCarthy in 1980, I believe. I thought you couldn't vote for President in the United States, directly anyway. You can only vote for a candidate in your state and hope that by some strange backroom machinations your candidate "wins" the electoral college representation. Popular voting has no necessary impact on the outcome. Proposals are being considered to change to a democratic system.

[Jingthing]

Sunrise, that is correct. You vote in your last home state and the winner is determined by the electoral college. The popular vote means nothing. This isn't going to change anytime soon, if ever.

Good old Clean Gene! I was one of his hippie boy youth volunteers. Many doors slammed in my face! Memories ...

Here's a toast to lost causes, of the past:

http://www.slate.com/id/2132129

Edited December 13, 2007 by Jingthing

[NovaBlue05]

, but an Obama/Clinton ticket is very, very unlikely (she wouldn't want it).

Well, why would any candidate with ambition who wishes to distinguish themselves run as Hillarys VP? Clearly, whatever name is attached to hers on the bumper stickers with be the "5th wheel" in the White House as Bubba will be the defacto VP. They are a tag team. Ask Al Gore what it's like to be the 5th wheel in the Clinton Club.

[farang prince]

The last guy I voted for was Eugene McCarthy in 1980, I believe. I thought you couldn't vote for President in the United States, directly anyway. You can only vote for a candidate in your state and hope that by some strange backroom machinations your candidate "wins" the electoral college representation. Popular voting has no necessary impact on the outcome. Proposals are being considered to change to a democratic system.

As I recall, McCarthy ran for President in 1968.

[Jingthing]

As I recall, McCarthy ran for President in 1968.

Indeed.

Obama might go for VP if Clinton is in a position to ask. Not alot to lose for him if he did. If Clinton loses, he could run again in four years. If she wins, he would be in a prime position to take over in eight years and solves his lack of experience problem.

BTW, the Clinton-Obama battle will likely get much nastier, so chances are if she is nominated, she won't ask him anyway!

Edited December 13, 2007 by Jingthing

[Fred Sanford]

The last guy I voted for was Eugene McCarthy in 1980, I believe. I thought you couldn't vote for President in the United States, directly anyway. You can only vote for a candidate in your state and hope that by some strange backroom machinations your candidate "wins" the electoral college representation. Popular voting has no necessary impact on the outcome. Proposals are being considered to change to a democratic system.

As I recall, McCarthy ran for President in 1968.

Our forefathers created the electoral college system so that huge population states couldn't control the country's elections.

[JimsKnight]

Just wondering how lefty/righty the American expats in Thailand are and what our turnout for this big election might be.

Before I even saw the poll results I already guessed there is a major center left/left wing groove to the US TV boys.

Now having seen the results...Come on the Reps!

[Jingthing]

.Come on the Reps!

I beg your pardon?

The House of Representatives isn't going anywhere.

[Tinkelbell]

quoted........"I would like to see Ron Paul run as an Independent just to shake up the two monopoly parties. "

......................................................................

Count me in too.

I was torn between Giuliani and Ron Paul.

Giuliani won me from his solid record.

Lately, after listening Paul debating on broadcast TV. I was taken by his standing on the issues. HE never vote not even once on increasing taxes and secondly, he is the only Republican candidate wants no war in Irag.

[Jingthing]

News flash relevant to this poll/discussion:

Billionaire current New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg now showing strong hints that he might indeed run for president as an Independent. If this happens, the race is completely different in a historic way, because Bloomberg

--- is beholden to no special interests, he doesn't have to raise a dime to run, he can self finance 100 percent

--- can powerfully make the message that BOTH parties have failed to solve the country's major problems (hard to really deny) so they shouldn't be given another chance

--- speaks to the big MIDDLE but also has strong maverick positions appealing to the left (including me) and the right

--- hints are it would be legal to run with massively popular California Gov Arnold Schwartzenegger as his VP, even though the Arnold cannot ever legally be president, which means he probably would win that great state

--- Bloomberg enjoys much higher approval ratings as a New York City MAYOR than Giuliani ever did, and who would know best?

--- If Bloomberg runs, it could be a THREE WAY New York race, Clinton/Giuliani/Bloomberg, truly bizarre

--- Also historic, this is certainly the election year of a new presidential diversity, and that's great, we have a Mormon in top contention, a woman, an African-American, and a Jew (possibly running with an Austrian immigrant who had a Nazi father). As Bloomberg is a short man, might also add short people, don't underestimate the short vote, Thompson has the tall vote.

Bloomberg will not run if he doesn't think he has a credible chance of winning. I think he senses serious weak points for either likely democratic nominee and any republican nominee (because they will be stuck with the poison legacy of being from the party of Bush).

What drama, huh?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...12/wbloom12.xml

Edited December 13, 2007 by Jingthing

[NovaBlue05]

I have been hoping that Bloomberg would run primarily for 2 reasons

He can fund his campaign and be beholden to no one. It currently costs $100M minimum to get elected Prez. The front runners of both parties are bought and paid for. The same Corporations will likely heavily contribute to both nominees to hedge their bet.

The 2 parties we currently have are totally dysfunctional and need a good ass reaming to wake them up to the realization that they were elected to serve ALL the people and not act like two rival college fraternities.

[Jingthing]

I would also strongly consider voting for Bloomberg. His appeal truly runs across the spectrum, left, right, middle.

The pundits are all saying the people are crying out for a CHANGE candidate. A non-democrat, non-republican certainly represents a change, that's for sure.

Look forward to a new expat poll once we know the final candidates.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Jingthing

[Johpa]

I would also strongly consider voting for Bloomberg. His appeal truly runs across the spectrum, left, right, middle.

Pardon me, but I have been on the left for many decades and rest assured Bloomberg has absolutely no appeal for me. Of course nor do most of the other candidates apart from Kucinich have any appeal for me either.

[PeaceBlondie]

The USA only has two political parties; the others are insignificant or, like Perot's old party, transitory. Perot got about 20% of the popular vote in the 1992 cliffhanger vote, depriving George H. W. Bush of being reelected, but Perot got zero electoral college votes, zero.

Being a billionaire, by inheritance, marriage, or one's own achievements is no route to the White House. Ask Ross Perot Sr., Steve Forbes, or John Kerry (who married the widow of Heinz). Even being the sitting vice president is no sure ticket; G W Bush is the only one who did it in over 140 years.

The vice presidential slot is another clever way to get elected as president. If Hilary chooses the right man to run as her VP nominee, she'll do fine. Her husband broke the Boston-Austin idea that the two top ticket nominees had to be from separate parts of the country, and different ideologically. Some real sleepers (Spiro Agnew) have been VP nominees; Ross Perot picked a retired admiral who apparently knew nothing about politics.

This conversation has morphed from "say something nice about your favorite, and no more" to something more like "see if we can talk American politics without bashing anybody."

[toptuan]

In 2001, I toured the US Capitol independently, along with a small group of SE Asian immigrants from my state whom I had tutored in English and had newly acquired their citizenship.

While I was in the capitol rotunda, Senator McCain made a point to walk up to our group and ask if we were enjoying our visit to Washington, and chatted with us for several minutes. He made a point to thank me for assisting my little group to integrate into US society. I don't think he was looking for votes because he never once mentioned his name. Even though we weren't from his district, he offered the services of his office to assist us while were in Washington D.C., jotting down his office phone number on a slip of scrap paper.

Senator McCain, whom I recognized instantly, was quite personable, helpful, and encouraging to our little band of new citizens. After he walked away, I informed our group that this man was Senator McCain who had even spent a significant amount of time in SE Asia (I skipped the part about the years of imprisonment in one of their countries!).

Because of that moment of personal, warm attention from someone who obviously had more important duties that day (and would soon be caught up in the turmoil of 9/11 which occurred 3 days later), I began to follow his career and candidacy very closely. Up to then I hadn't paid much attention. I was pleasantly surprised to find how much of his platform and position I could enthusiastically support.

The personal touch really does make a difference. No wonder US politicians kiss babies. (Still do that, don't they? )

Edited December 14, 2007 by toptuan

[Jingthing]

To address the understandable skepticism that Bloomberg has a real chance to win or would have appeal to more independent voters on the left AND right, consider this:

Bloomberg is no Perot. Perot's personality was grade A crackpot who never held a public office. Bloomberg is the mayor of America's most important city and is more popular and considered more successful in his city than the other New York mayor (running on the exact same experience), Giuliani

The times are different. We have had many more years where the partisan bickering has totally failed to solve our basic problems, for example, health care.

The majority of Americans favor more gun control, but candidates from both major parties will not touch this issue for fear of the NRA lobby. Bloomberg has no such fear. Just one example of how he unlike any other candidate can be a totally independent MAVERICK. Americans like MAVERICKS.

Most Americans are NON VOTERS. Mostly they don't vote because they have concluded nothing ever gets done, its the same old same old republican/democrat fighting. Why bother? A maverick like Bloomberg has the potential to stir up this silent beast.

Bloomberg is not Nader. Nader was a SPOILER. He did give the presidency to Bush because he ran to the left of Gore in 2000 stealing only Gore votes and no Bush votes. Bloomberg would run in the middle, and most Americans are in the middle, but he brings to the table maverick positions appealing to the right (radical tax reform) and left (health care access reform, gay civil rights, increased gun control). He would "steal" votes from the left and right.

How could Bloomberg win? Here is how, I think. By doing so well in the polls that hard core democratic supporters and republican supporters select him as the lesser evil; in other words, if he is polling very well they might conclude their tradtional party vote would be a throwaway vote and if they don't vote for Bloomberg, the party that they really hate will win.

Bloomberg is positioned as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. His specific policy platform on things like foreign policy are not public as he has not (and still might not) announced his candidacy. However, if he does, he will be given ALOT of close attention by people of many political orthodoxies.

Bloomberg is the type of man who will not run unless he is confident he will win. So far in his life people who have bet against him have lost. If he runs, he is a formidable challenger, third party history notwithstanding.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Jingthing

[Rice_King]

I'd like to see a president who thinks the US does NOT have to be the world's policeman.

I second that motion. Wouldn't that be a dream come true. Let some one else take over the overseer duties or no body at all.

That would be Ron Paul (more of a Libertarian than Republican) - I was reading a piece a bit ago about him wanting to bring all US troops home from all US military bases and operations around the globe. No more troops in South Korea, no more troops in Germany, no more troops anywhere except US soil unless a war is declared by Congress or they are on short term training exercises.

The term is referred to as "isolationism" and it was US policy -- up until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor "awoke a sleeping giant." US policy was changed forever. Can we ever go back? Do we want to?

[Scott]

I am a Hillary fan and for reasons mentioned before: 2 for 1. I liked Bill Clinton's presidency and his policies and presume they will pretty much continue. I find them a good team and I think she was quite powerful when he was president and hope it will be vice versa.

I also like Obama and it would be nice to see them on the same ticket--Him as VP and getting some good experience under his belt. Although someone like Hillary and John Edwards would probably be a more electable team.

In all fairness to the republicans, there are a number of good ones. I just want to see some real changes away from the current fiascos in the White House.

[Jingthing]

This fairness to republicans idea is something I just can't relate to. Oh well, chalk one up to tolerance.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Jingthing

[NovaBlue05]

I read somewhere that about 30% of voters vote GOP regardless of candidate and about the same vote Dem regardless of candidate. These people have been programmed and abandoned any concept of critical thought....muppets..sheep..lemmings..whatever you call them. If so, that leaves the remaining 40% that all of the hundreds of millions of $$$ are being spent to campaign for. Currently, polls show that Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush. Bloomberg is no Perot. He would represent the first credible candidate to run (ie: high visibility,well funded and well managed) 3rd party and I think enough people are pissed off with the two parties that he would make an immediate impact.

[Jingthing]

I agree he would be competitive from the outset. He would be on all ballots and would outspend everybody. He figures he bought the mayor's office of New York and he might just be able to buy the presidency. If that sounds nefarious, consider that New Yorkers are quite happy with the arrangement, as has proved to be extremely competent. He is clearly a natural born LEADER. Getting Schwartzenegger on the ticket as VP would be a real coup, and I do think he would need him or some other star power for VP, but Schwartzenegger is perfect.

And also quite a compassionate man judging by his outstanding record of philanthropy especially in the area of caring for sick poor people.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Jingthing