Edwards is out. That Onion video probably finished it for him ...
Printable View
Edwards is out. That Onion video probably finished it for him ...
Personally, I blame Iowans. It's because of them that Huckabee was able to give a false impression of electability. :soapbox:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Anyone ever see the "Douche and Turd" South Park episode? That's this election. :yes:
Assessment that will make Lemur happy:
McCain will be the GOP nominee.
His win in FL gives him a small lead, but the real story is in the breakdown of the polling numbers.
Romney wins, hands down, in two categories (income 100-150k, self-described "very conservative"s) McCain wins modestly or big-time in all other sub-groups. Hispanics voted for McCain over Romney by nearly 4 to 1 and Romney polled behind Giuliani in that group -- and Giuliani will endorse McCain. Please note, in one week, the 2/5 primaries feature Cali and NY as the biggest plums and McCain is crushing among Hispanics and will win the popular NYC mayor's endorsement.
Romney's case is not hopeless, but it's 4-1 McCain at this point.
A second assessment that will make Lemur happy:
While still the likely nominee, Clinton is no longer "safe." One or two screw-ups between now and 2/12 and Obama will pass her -- recent trends show a nearly perfect 50-50 split between them and only her entrenched organization is giving her the edge. If Obama takes a real lead against her, she'll start shedding superdelegates like leaves in the Fall and Obama will take enough of a lead to ensure his win.
If it gets down to McCain v Obama, Obama takes it by a modest though consistent margin.
And a McCain v Billary contest = ? in your estimation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
I swear that Hillary will be the next president. McCain has a Bi-polar relationship with the G.O.P.
Very, very, painfully, y2k-type close.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Hillary goes in with the advantage of being a Democrat de jure as well as de facto. But she's the person the right loves to hate.
McCain -- who may as well be a pre-Kennedy Democrat --would have some conservatives sitting home or voting fringe. If all of them held their noses and voted McCain (admittedly a good man on nat sec and probably on fopo), Hillary would lose. If lots stay home, hill wins.
In the context of a conventional left-right two party contest, I've never really bought the argument that the hardcore (conservative Republicans in this case, but you could say left wing Labour in the UK or whatever) will stay at home if a moderate is selected. It just seems that however much the hardcore dislike the moderate their party has selected, they will detest the opposition candidate even more. For some reason (hard to fathom for this left-wing Euro), this detestation will apparently go double if the Democrats select Hilary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The opposite argument always seems more convincing - that a moderate candidate will pick up more popular support than a hardcore one, by appealing to the uncommitted ("independents") and even some natural opposition supporters. At least that's how Clinton won and how Blair won - by being significantly more conservative than their own hardcore. Perhaps a charismatic conservative - a Reagan or a Thatcher - could appeal to natural opposition supporters too, but that seems rather rare. Plus to an outsider, it is McCain who has the charisma, not Romney.
Fighting for the middle ground just seems a no-brainer if you want to win a close fought two party election.
It does, I agree. But the past 3-4 campaigns have been marked more as flanking actions squeezing in toward the middle ground. Anyone initially staking himself out in the middle has been eliminated early on.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
@Seamus: were you ever in the military? "Nat sec", and "fopo" are the kind of shorthand we had to use in 70's & 80's -era electronic messaging. We used them so much when I worked at Readiness Command, that guys started using them in everyday speech, too. Funny to see it here.
p.s. Thanks for your estimate. Gives me more confidence in placing that $20 bet I wanna make. :)
Point taken - appealing to the core to get selected by the Party and then changing tack to win the popular vote makes sense. I guess what sometimes negates that is if the party is so desperate to win - usually due to a string of defeats - that it chooses someone with a wider appeal from the start rather than going for ideological purity. At least that's what seems to have happened in the UK, when the Labour Party chose Blair and more recently when the Conservatives chose Cameron.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
~:confused: We use those terms all the times in Speech and Debate, though not formally...Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I think McCain is very capable of beating both Billary and the Obamination. He is in a far better position to carry the independents than either one of the Dem candidates. As much as I respect Bill Clinton, I will not be voting for his wife, and Obama is just wrong on too many levels. So, myself, a (Bill) Clinton-style liberal will be voting for McCain in November, provided that Romney doesn't pull a miracle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'd prefer Romney over Obama, but not Over Hillary.
Better Hillary than Obama.... :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Big fan of dynasties?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
No. But I'm even less of a fan of candidates who run exclusively on BS platitudes and ignore the issues. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Hillary has a longer, and much better senate record than Obama. Obama's been nothing buy an empty suit on the campaign trail- no substance. All that leaves to judge him on is his record and it's one that's far more liberal than Hillary's.
On a different tangent, let's contrast the AP's coverage of Edwards' dropping out of the race to Guiliani's:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
'Fess up, Xiahou. I expect you prefer Hillary for two reasons:
- She will unite and inspire Republicans in the November election.
- She will damage the Democratic party.
In other words, she is the ideal candidate for a Republican to face in the general election. If anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's Billary. Not to mention that her election will put the seal on sixteen (perhaps twenty) years of dynasty. What a joke.
If you believe the issue papers and statements, Billary and Obama are nearly identical. But for anyone who relishes hard partisan warfare, there's one clear choice.
You guys are too young to remember, but the same exact things were said about both JFK and Reagan by pundits of the time. "Empty suit" brought it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Some truth ther Lemur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
However, the "dueling dynasty's" needn't stop there! After 8 years of Hillary, either of the Bush twins would be old enough to take a try at the Oval as would Chelsea Clinton. Plus Bush sibs Jeb, Neil and Doro would all be in their early 60s. We can keep this thing going for a while!!!!! :devilish:
Maybe this is why we should sterilize politicians....
Oh please. I prefer her because I think she would make a much better president than Obama. The only upside I can think of to an Obama presidency is that the "new" would almost certainly wear off in the first term and would allow a decent GOP candidate to hopefully knock him off in 4yrs. Hillary, otoh, would probably get re-elected which would mean it would be a full 8yrs before we get another chance at a real conservative. Of course, if McCain or Romney win it would mean the same thing- at least 8yrs til we can try for a real conservative (it wouldn't matter if they get a second term or not as they'd be unopposed for the nomination).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Your accusations are based on the premise that I actually care if McCain or Romney win- I don't really. I am completely uninspired by all the candidates- they're all very flawed. I can't believe a word Romney says- he has a record of taking whatever the politically expedient position is. McCain is good on pork and on Iraq- and that's it. Obama is a liberal who's dodging the issues. Hillary is a comparatively moderate Democrat who's been tougher on defense and foreign policy than Obama.
Kind of off topic, but what did JFK accomplish? Sure, the Cuban missile crisis- but I don't think he did anything different than any other prez would've who isn't completely incompetent. He also cut taxes, which is good. What other accomplishments did he have? I wasn't alive then, but in retrospect he seems fairly unremarkable.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
A) He didn't exactly get two full terms, now did he?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
B) Hmm, Cuban Missile crisis was kinda important...you know, avoiding a nuclear holocaust with the USSR, I dunno, it wouldn't have been that bad if the entire planet had been vaporized. :rolleyes:
Sorry to have mentioned Kennedy and Reagan in the same sentence. :beam:
I meant to draw a parallel between them and Mr. Obama, vis-a-vis the pundits' critique of their soaring, inspirational rhetoric, held in high esteem by americans of all camps, despite their lack of concrete details on governance itself.
JFK and Reagan both 'hired well', in my opinion. If Obama gets america's nod, I hope he follows suit.
I hope he doesn't imitate the other thing they had in common: getting shot.
Didn't Lewinski claim that this is what she was trying to do? :wink: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
I've been watching some live CNN for a little while now. Obama and the woman are discussing, answering questions and such. Well, what should I say about it...? Hilary (with one or two Ls?) is talking rubbish. She also seems to get lots of applause. Obama seems to get cut off as is the applause he receives.
Well, whatever.... I think Obama is to be the one.
Hillary (With 2 l's) continues talking even when her time is up. She has gone overtime by about half a minute a few times. I think that Hillary has scored a few points so far, but so has Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Wolf: "Senator Clinton, why can't you just say you were wrong now about what you did before, blah blah blah...?"
Clinton: "Well, Wolf (<-- oh please.....) [big whole story of many different stuff]
Wolf: "So,..." [gets cut off]
Clinton: "blah blah blah"
Wolf: "So what I'm hearing is that you were naive and trusting....?" [gets cut off]
Clinton: "Nice try, Wolf."
[the whole original question is almost forgotten]
[Wolf repeats]
Clinton: "blah blah blah, nice try, blah blah blah"
My thoughts? Sensationalist talk from the woman and a nasty attitude. Instead of directly and properly answering a question she talks too much and is able to easily distract. She is also too personal when she responds to a question giver, calling them by their first names in such a way that almost makes me cringe. What the hell does that matter? She wants to show that she's nice and... "human?" Get the hell outta here and just answer the damn question directly. She also has the tendency to let the audience applaud pretty long with which she is wasting valuable time. I bet she enjoys the applause.
Obama at least answers more directly and gets to the issue fast. He also appears more trustworthy. He also doesn't let the audience nicely finish their applause as he doesn't waste time. Obama jokes around a bit, but he does it in such a good way.
There is also too much noisy applause from the audience and too much joking around generally.
Well, whatever.... Hillary must not be president. Obama must be. His fresh unspoiled character that reeks of proper leadership qualities will bring good.
Well, if Bijo supports it, he must have looked at it objectively and considered all possible viewpoints.
A vote by Bijo is worth ten of mine.