Introduce yourself and your favorite candidate

[Хahar 🤔]

Basically, give your ideology as it relates to your favorite candidate, then state why you like that candidate.

[Lief 🗽]

Obama can build a progressive majority movement, like Reagan did with conservatism and FDR did in the 30s. Historically, the only way to really effect drastic change in the United States government has been to have a solid majority movement behind you. Clinton will end up giving us another 50+1 election that hinges on a very close swing state; Obama has the potential to win the election in a landslide, and form a new coalition devoted to universal healthcare, energy independence, intelligent foreign policy, and strengthening the middle and working class.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Mitt Romney has a conservative economic policy, economic expericence from running his own successful business, a strong foreign policy, he's pro-life, and he's willing to invest in research for alternative energy sources.  These are just the major issues with Romney that I support.

[Frodo]

I like McCain because in many ways he reminds me of myself in relation to my own party.  He is a maverick (though not necessarily a 'centrist' per se) unafraid to stick his own party in the eye with positions that deviate from conservative orthodoxy, whether it be on climate change, immigration, and on taxation, among other issues.  At the same time, he is a budget hawk and is strong on national security, on all of which I agree with him.  It is also no secret that my position on Iraq closely mirrors McCain's, so when you consider everything he stands for, he is my natural candidate. 

[Gabu]

So many politicians in the world are always focusing solely on what they will do when elected, how they will singlehandedly solve all the problems of the universe, talking solely about what they will do for the people.  But beyond all of the politicians and government, one thing that is the most important of all, which is cynically ignored by far too many politicians beyond a means to get into a position of power, is the people who elect them.

Of all the problems in the world, I personally feel that none is greater than voter apathy, the pervasive cynicism among the general public that their vote doesn't matter, that their opinions don't matter, and that the identity of those in government don't matter, because nothing will ever change.  Such attitudes are exactly what leads to a large number of problems in government, as politicians begin to rightly believe that they can get away with things when the population just doesn't give a damn.  Nothing positive ever came from government when the people were not vigilantly watching its actions and offering their sincere input.  For the government to be a positive force, it must be directed by people who truly care and who truly believe that they can make a difference.

Like no other candidate in the race, Barack Obama offers inspiration, not mere statements of policy and what he will do once elected.  Obama talks to people and tells them all what they can do, not what he will do for them.  What is truly desperately needed in government is someone who can actually make the people believe in their government again, can make them actually get involved, and can stop the tide of the ever-growing cynicism of government.

Many people have levelled the claim that Obama is a lot of talk.  In some respects, I would say that these claims might not be entirely unwarranted.  But the question that ought to be asked is whether it is truly the case that talk is worthless.  As hopelessly idealistic as it may sound, I feel that right now, as was the case in 1932, what the people need more than anything else is the ability to actually feel hopeful again, as such things can very well be self-fulfilling prophecies.  Even if the government cannot solve all of the problems in the world, if it can instill hope in the population, it has done more for them than most governments could hope to achieve.  And Obama has truly made me believe that he could do that.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I support Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination and for president because he has made an impression on me not unlike the late Paul Wellstone.  Obama can build a coalition of Americans that focuses on progressivism, which I believe our country desperately needs if it is to remain a major player in the world.

Barack Obama has a positive message to alter permanently the way things are done in Washington.  His progressive message to invest in education and health care as well as seeking to balance the budget on the backs of those that can most afford it appeals to me.  His policies will undoubtedly benefit small businesses and working men and women in our country.

Lastly, he offers hope, which is something dearly lacking in today's political landscape.  He has brought a message of hope to a young generation that, while being the most spoiled generation in history, is set to be handed the reigns of power with our country fundamentally broken.  Barack Obama offers the hope and the inspiration needed to turn the major problems around and start mending our broken government from the policies of those that loot what they want and leave.  He will unite America and younger Americans for a common cause of improving our world and our way of life.

[Хahar 🤔]

the most spoiled generation in history

[Democratic Hawk]

Dave Hawk - Democrat by 'adoption' and ancestry - and as the name suggests a 'hawk'. Ideologically, I'm a moderate liberal populist; overall, I'm center-left on economics and center-right on social issues

First of all, I, initially, endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for Democratic presidential nominee and US President; while I bestowed upon Sen. John McCain 'favored' Republican status

Things have changed since then however. The active participation of Bill Clinton, as a former president, in the Democratic primary, is wrong. He should have kept his neutrality until such time as the Democratic National Convention meets to determine its presidential nominee, then come out swinging in support of his party's nominee on the campaign trail but not until. Furthermore, efforts by Camp Clinton to box Sen. Barack Obama as the 'black' candidate has, after much thought, forced me to withdraw my endorsement of Sen. Clinton. It was a matter of conscience, I had no alternative

Although Sen. Obama is more liberal than I am, I see him as being better positioned among all candidates running to restore American prestige, which has been greatly diminished during the tenure of President George W Bush. Furthermore, when I listen to Sen. Obama I see not a liberal but a man who has that aura, a kind of star quality which only comes around once in a generation, who could potentially transcend the ideological divide and usher in a new progressive era

My own ideological inclinations and stance on the issues has played little part in determining my favorite candidate. I'm looking at the man, and the personal confidence I have in him. Sen. Obama is of my generation

Furthermore, Sen. Obama has the vision, youth and vitality needed to provide effective global leadership in the face of the challenges of our time, which have been sorely lacking these past eight wasted years

Dave

[Jeff from NC]

I am a center-left Democrat.  My chief concern is foreign policy, where I reject the traditional distinction between realists and liberals.  I believe that the United States should seek to execute a moral foreign policy; but this must be blended with pragmatism because blind moralism will only backfire.  My criterion for whether we should use force is whether it would have a good result - thus I don't think the Iraq war was illegitimate, perhaps not even ill-advised, but definitely poorly executed.  I support humanitarian interventions such as the Clinton interventions in the Balkans.  In economics I support a liberalization of trade but would otherwise consider myself a populist, very much like Bill Clinton.  Like Clinton, I think that people who "work hard and play by the rules" should be able to make a good living; I also think the same goes for businesses.  On social issues, the government should be hands-off.  I support gay marriage and oppose national gun-control.

I supported Biden (which shows how much I care about foreign policy).  Biden's expertise in foreign policy goes pretty much unquestioned.  His domestic positions are too liberal for me - but I don't care.  His personal story appealed to me.  Biden, one of the poorest Senators, commutes to Washington so that he can spend time with his family in Delaware.  I have always felt that he was genuine.  Most of his political flaws are because he talks too much, too freely, and chooses his words poorly.  I.e. they are inconsequential to how he would do the job.  Finally, I'd like to have a beer with Biden.  I think that's a stupid way to choose a President, but I think Biden would be able to win broad support.

Now that the race is down to Clinton and Obama, I don't really feel a need to choose.  Clinton's intelligence, experience, and tenacity appeal to me.  Meanwhile Obama understands that the absence of a strong political center is our nation's most fundamental problem, and is committed to establishing one.

[Boris]

I support Barack Obama, because, in my opinion, he is the least bad of all the candidates running.

Although his "Yes, We Can" rhetoric annoys the fcuk outta me.

[Meeker]

I'm supporting Barack Obama because I want to use his popularity to build and strengthen the Democratic party.

I remain cynical and disgruntled however.

[Jake]

John McCain can win. Romney can't.

[MarkWarner08]

John McCain can win. Romney can't.

John Kerry can win. Dean can't. The GOP is lucky the Democrats don't have an incumbent one-term President...

[Jake]

Kerry could've won. Came pretty damn close to winning if you'll check the results on this site. Dean is still considered a joke by the general public.

Sometimes you make little to no sense.

[MarkWarner08]

Kerry could've won. Came pretty damn close to winning if you'll check the results on this site. Dean is still considered a joke by the general public.

Sometimes you make little to no sense.

I'd argue the first point with your tooth-and-nail, but I'm too tired to do that right now. My comparison was meant to illustrate the false premise of  determining electability during the primaries.

No war time President has ever lost reelection. Yet, somehow, Democrats deluded themselves into believing Bush was  beatable.

No party in the modern age has held the White House after an unpopular two-term President has retired.

Will McCain beat Clinton? It's possible, but historically implausible if one looks at the state of the economy, war, and the popularity of Bush.

[Jake]

Sample sizes of presidential elections is way to small to comment on this "war time presidents never lose" nonsense, but John Kerry obviously could've won the election. He came closer to being elected President than any man in the last forty years not named Gore and certainly could've won with really a minute swing in votes somewhere. With the cards stacked against the GOP this year (the war, the economy, GOP malaise, etc.), we don't need Romney's unfavorables, religion, and social darwinism dragging down the ticket.