Presidential Election

[Witchiepoo]

It's probably closer to wasting your time (not that this is any different from voting for a major candidate).

So ... coin flip?

[scotths]

Obama...

A number of reasons stand out. First, from a generational standpoint I think there is something to be said for a leader fairly near to the cusp between the idealist and nomad generation. FDR was one year before this cusp, Obama one year after. I think this helps lead to a combination of profit idealism and nomad practicality.

One can make the argument that depression and war are necessary in order for us to move through this period in history. That may be true (though I am having a hard time believing that a world war could occur without nuclear weapons being used, and certainly hope that isn't the end result!).

Consider our countries last depression. Assuming none of what happened was avoidable, I will note that what we did between 1929 and the war in the 1940's was quite important. The infrastructure programs put forth by FDR allowed us irrigate large areas of the west, power our cities and factories, and provide key parts of our transportation system to this day. If we hadn't embarked on these project we likely wouldn't have had the capacity to produce the weapons and other supplies needed in world war 2, nor provide food to the world afterwards. We wouldn't have become the superpower we are today. In the short term these programs were essential to keeping people alive and functioning as the country and the world restructured.

Obama understands the need to direct funds in the direction of infrastructure renewal. We may soon find ourselves facing a peak in world wide oil production. The only way out of this is to find alternative sources of energy; some combination of nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal etc. In deciding how to proceed we need to lay aside our ideologies and make a clear headed decision as to the most effective method of producing the power needed while doing the least damage. Some amount of nomad pragmatism is needed here.

McCain seems problematic in several key ways. He lacks a clear vision for our future in a time when such a vision is essential. In times of market instability a calming voice is needed. McCain darts back and forth in such a way that you are never really sure if he believes what he is saying. Of course leadership can't stop the financial collapse, but it certainly can influence how we climb out of it. A calm steady voice as we patch things back together, akin to FDR as he spoke after his banking holidays when he convinced the nation to trust in the banking system and avoid further collapse is essential.

Palin seems to me an absurdly divisive vp choice for a more moderate Republican. Her views on creationism, abortion, gay right and even birth control are shared only by a minority of the public. While of course that doesn't disqualify her from office, divisive and unpopular stances on social issues are not helpful in a crisis period. In particular her views are at odds with the emerging millennial generation. On social issues they tend to be open minded and accepting, especially of gays and on economic issues tend to take a progressive approach. While we all need to be involved in the selection process, a President whom the millennials get get behind and support seems critically important. They are the generation that will need to be the boots on the ground as we rebuild and in any wars that we may have to fight.

[Witchiepoo]

I decided to go with Nader.

[JimZ]

McCain.

I would love to say "none of the above", but we don't have that option. It will be PAINFUL for me to pull the lever for McCain. But I will. Also, if I use an electronic voting machine, since in New Jersey they DON'T have paper trails (as a former IT project manager I can't believe ANYONE would accept that) God only knows who I will REALLY be voting for.

Obama, in my opinion, is a man of mystery. I don't think we have a clue who he really is. If he is elected I believe we will be horrified to find out who he really is - and we will learn it the hard way.

[scotths]

Obama, in my opinion, is a man of mystery. I don't think we have a clue who he really is. If he is elected I believe we will be horrified to find out who he really is - and we will learn it the hard way.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I am honestly curious about this position. He's given numerous interviews, participated in almost 2 dozen debates with Clinton and other democrats and published details plans on his web site. He's also given detailed speeches on many of his policy position from the economy, to the environment , to foreign policy, to the role of religion in public life. I feel like I know far more about where he stands and how he think than any other candidate.

He's been consistent in his positions when McCain seemed to waver. For instance, he talked about bank regulations 6 months ago when McCain was pushing further deregulation. Suddenly McCain supports better regulations as well. He's talked about open an efficient government and passed laws at the state and federal level that are consistent with that.

Perhaps this is a generational thing, with gen-xers and millennials more likely to accept his perhaps somewhat less traditional path? Perhaps it is a regional thing? I believe that Obama's politics are connected more to the New England region (and places where the descendants of New England have settled) than any other. Consensus building rather than divisiveness is more common in that region. I believe this could lead to Obama looking wish washy on issues to people of other regions when in reality he is a consensus builder who is able to build consensus across disparate groups while not sacrificing the essence of what he is trying to accomplish.

An interesting pattern I noticed about realignments tied into the secular pattern, alternating North and South every cycle as well as liberal then conservative (the conservative movement being a backlash to an awakening based strongly in the other region). The current southern dominated Republican party and the strong religious right movement seems the backlash to the boomer awakening in the late 60's. Now if the pattern holds a northern liberal dominated crisis should result....

1789 Initially a mix of parties, ending in the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party (southern liberalism)
1828 - Jacksonian Democracy (Southern Conservatism) - Simultaneous northern liberal uprising (transcendental etc)
1860 - Lincoln Republican (Northern Liberal)
1896 - McKinley Republican (Northern Conservative) Simultaneous southern populist movement/northern minority worker movement
1932 - Roosevelt Democratic (Southern Liberal [with component of northern minorities])
1968 - Nixon Republican (Southern Conservative) Simultaneous northern liberal uprising (counterculture)
2008 - Obama Democratic (Northern Liberal)

[The Grey Badger]

Obama, because McCain's head is in the past and a Crisis Era is no time for that.

[JimZ]

Dear Scotths,

regarding your reply: "I feel like I know far more about where he stands and how he think than any other candidate."

Since you appear to have been more siuccessful than I have finding info on Obama, I'd appreciate if you could enlighten me as follows:

1. please name 2 or 3 major pieces of legislation he has authored
2. please provide 2 or 3 examples of when he has bucked his own party (since he is "for change" he can't adhere to the "party line" every time
3. please outline his qualifications to be president

Best regards.

[Marshall Kane]

This is an interesting discussion, since an understanding of generational theory does force one to examine politics from a different angle.

I'm a conservative, in that I believe that certain values - both cultural and economic - are essential to the long term survival of this nation (just stating my perspective, I don't visit this board to bicker about political philosophy). I don't believe that Obama shares those values, and I fear he, with a far left congress, would be inclined towards an agenda that would be crippling to this country.

However, after reading John's site for 7 years, I also fear the likelihood the worst is on its way, and our very survival may be at stake. If that is the case, I could see myself accepting a president Obama, in the hopes that 12 years of "moderate" Republican rule will be spared the blame for the coming disaster. Plus, I don't have much faith that McCain would govern as a conservative, and international events will be largely out of his hands once the big war starts. Presumably either president will defer to our generals in the field once the bullets are already flying.

But the point a previous poster made about when the inevitable CoC War comes, a President Obama would be better positioned to rally the younger generation to fight is a compelling notion. Especially if events will be largely out of the next president's control anyway. If there is a depression followed by an epic war it's not as if either party would have much opportunity to follow an ideological agenda - and whatever agenda is followed will likely by driven by an outspoken people.

Also, this time around I presume things will progress much faster than the 30s, so we won't have 9 years of leftist meddling with the economy

"Obama's politics are connected more to the New England region (and places where the descendants of New England have settled) than any other. Consensus building rather than divisiveness is more common in that region."

Consensus building is historically more common in the New England region??? Where do you get that? I'd argue its the opposite. The original settlers were, by definition, anything but "Consensus builders," less than a decade had gone by before you had religious dissenters being banished to settle the other New England states. Then we have the Sons of Liberty, early threats to succeed from the young Republic, all the way down to today, where N.E. is represented by some of the more radical politicians in the nation. Not passing judgement here - hell, I'm all for the Sons of Liberty, and I'm thrilled the Pilgrims decided show up - just questioning the idea of NE somehow being a region of consensus.

[JimZ]

Marshall Kane wrote:

I also fear the likelihood the worst is on its way, and our very survival may be at stake. If that is the case, I could see myself accepting a president Obama, in the hopes that 12 years of "moderate" Republican rule will be spared the blame for the coming disaster.

I have heard this argument before. The concept (I am saying this because I am trying to avoid "personalizing" this discussion) - the concept is incredibly shortsighted. I am more concerned about limiting the damage if it all "goes to hell in a handbasket" than I am with assigning blame. It doesn't do any good to have a great argument against the nihilist democrats when they have complete control of all branches of the government. Via tools such as the "Fairness Doctrine" many people will never get the straight story anyway. (BTW - there is talk of the Fairness Doctrine being applied to Internet sites as well this time around).

[JLak]

Obama...
Obama understands the need to direct funds in the direction of infrastructure renewal.

Holy crap, I keep on seeing this prototype bullshit statement:
"Obama really understands [my personal issue that I think is important] and will make it a priority."

It's like half the electorate thinks they've got this guy on speed dial in their t-mobile fave five.