What is it, 21 states voting on one day? Who thought that was a good idea?
Printable View
What is it, 21 states voting on one day? Who thought that was a good idea?
Paul
McCain will win though. I can tolerate that.
I do think its a good one. I'm tired to see US polls with the same to select, the same answer, and no GAH!.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Look at that list of names. Aren't they all a little Gah? Why do you need your Gah spelled out and explicit? Find your inner Gah, and all will be well.
I'm going with Obama, as I have done, and will do. I'm just surprised that Edwards dropped out, rather than play 'kingmaker' as the Drudge Report goes.
I'm torn. I want McCain to be the Repub nominee and Obama to be the Dem nominee. I'm okay with Romney, and Ron Paul would be tremendous fun. The only serious contender I'm dead set against is Billary.
I guess I'll vote for Obama this time, since he's a bigger underdog than McCain right now.
So, from your list, I assume that you assume Rudy and Huck-Chuck are both out before next week?
Yes, I expect Rudy to be out, and Huck has neither the money nor the momentum to do much of anything. The only reason I included Dr. Paul is that his supporters are legion, and he's got plenty of cash to keep going. Can't see him bowing out anytime soon.
Give it up, guys. We all know who's going to win. :knight:
https://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5761/billaryvh7.jpg
Bwa-ha-ha! Were'd ya find that?
You know, Louis, although you may see connections between Hillary and a different , current, President, remember that Billary would say and do anything to become presdient, depending on what they think would work. They mold their positions on the latest polls - they have no real principles.
And Hillary would go down so very hard against McCain.
CR
PS I voted Paul.
lol, nice picture Louis... I'm gonna get nightmares...
New Rasmussen poll in Connecticut:
Obama - 40%
Clinton - 40%
Edwards - 11%
This could be a fluke, but its certainly a nice thought.
Now, what about Edwards dropping out? Who will this help? I would assume that in the South it would help Hillary because she is then hte White candidate, however I think that elsewhere in the US it would help Obama because he can pick up all of the liberals who were following Edwards and want the next-most-liberal choice.
If I remember correctly, Obama said that he would make Edwards his attorney general, so Edwards supporters would most likely support Obama unless Hillary names Edwards as her top choice for either that or VP.
McCain seems to be in the lead for the republicans so I'd vote Obama.
Did anyone see the videoclip of Romney saying "Who let the dogs out, who, who." during a photo-op with black voters in Florida? That was pretty sad to see a gaff from such a smart guy.
Since there's no "Gah", I'll do the next best thing and lodge a protest vote for Paul.
I posted it in the "funny politica pictures" thread"Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
The latest poll-smokings ...
Obama Edges Closer To Clinton, McCain Atop Republicans
Read the full Gallup poll
Gallup’s daily report on the presidential race show Barack Obama continuing to close the gap nationally with Hillary Clinton and John McCain still comfortably atop the Republicans, with Mitt Romney’s recent advances having stalled out, at least for now. The poll was conducted Jan. 26-28. It included part of the period after Sen. Edward Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama and was conducted before McCain’s victory last night in Florida. Gallup said its interviewing yesterday initially indicated that the Kennedy endorsement did not have a “dramatic effect,” but it will be interesting to see if that changes in later polls.
McCain leads Romney 31 percent to 19 percent with Huckabee at 17 percent and Rudy Giuliani at 13 percent. Exit polls in Florida yesterday showed that Giuliani tended to take moderate voters from McCain while Huckabee took conservatives from Romney, so that may be a clue to what will happen if Giuliani drops out after his poor showing in yesterday’s primary.
On the Democratic side, Clinton leads Obama 43 percent to 34 percent, with John Edwards - who is expected to drop out today – at 14 percent. Clinton’s lead is down 17 points since Jan. 24. Again, if past history provides any clue, polling during the campaign in some states indicated that Obama was the second choice of many Edwards supporters.
The margin of error was 3 percent.
-edit-
I hadn't thought about it, but this makes sense ...
Also from Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104044/Ga...tion-2008.aspx
It has this particularly attractive graph:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/...dateGraph2.gif
Internet P*oll
*aul
Oh yes, thanks Louis for making me soil myself.
Last night's debate was the last straw.
McCain is incompetent. I think that he may be moderately retarded. His inability to answer simple economic questions without naming other, smarter people who are supporting him is infuriating. His topic changes when he doesn't want to answer to criticism makes me grind my teeth. I have never loathed a Republican this much.
I will vote for him ONLY in the eventuality of a Clinton nomination. I now believe the G.O.P. and it's constituency to be a dying breed in this election.
The only thing that would drive me to vote for McCain is his more likely appointment of strict constitutionalist judges. I'm approaching a realization that Obama would be even better for our economy than that windbag codger. This is a sad turn of events, even more sad for the Republican party. Romney is finished and so is my flirtation with the G.O.P. for the next 4 years.
McCain belongs in a museum, not the White House. Same with the G.O.P. this round.
The GOP is not dead -- it's just swinging over to the blue-blood CC wing again. There is no articulate and passionate leader for true conservatism at the moment. G.W. Bush, whatever his strengths as a leader, is -- at least when the rubber hits the road -- a big government Republican in the mode of Ford or Nixon or his Father. Since we lack a Goldwater or Reagan to take up the gauntlet, the "establishment" GOP -- a group reasonably similar to old-style JFK and pre-JFK Democrats in goals and methods -- are going to select the nominee. These "establishment" types tend to linger in positions of power, build compromise, go along to get along, trend toward the liberal side in social issues (though not econ or fopo), accept the primacy of the federal government etc., and so they are the more consistent representation of the GOP unless someone wakes up the more conservative but more quiescent base and takes up the role of standard bearer. Nobody fits that bill this time, and so....Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I agree. DEAD is a strong word. Dormant is probably better. McCain will be a good fall guy in this election, then we don't have to hear from him again 4 years from now.
I wish things went better for Romney. I firmly believe that he is the best choice to lead the country, but I see his campaign as having made almost unavoidable errors (such as the pro-life issue) and others that were much more avoidable.
The American voting public in general doesn't seem to know their asses from their elbows. The G.O.P. is literally going to nominate a testament to their old, failed, ignorant caricature painted by the left in: John McCain.
New ideas? Smart ways out of old problems? Thems lefty ideauhs.
Romney is a smart business man. He would be well served to jump ship now or at least stop contributing to his own campaign. Leave Huckabee and McCain to get nasty with each other and further cement their impending doom.
Being "out of the jurisdiction" I won't sully the vote, however, I'd like to ask opinions on Rudi bombing out, and how his campaign "strategy" appeared to you folks over the pond?
From my perspective, when I heard that his great plan was to ignore the early States and pitch it all on Florida, I thought "That's a sure-fire recipe for failure" - it comes across as though he was telling one lot they didn't really count, and the others he was taking for granted. I have no opinions on his policies etc, I haven't followed them, just his strategy - which seemed to be extremely dumb. Anyone else agree?
Completely; especially with our attention span. You can only play on 9/11 for so long. You can only play cheap if you play smart. After a while we were all saying: Rooty who?Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Inflatable '80s Action Hero Update
So Schwarzenegger is endorsing McCain, and Hulk Hogan is an Obama man. I would feel a lot better if I knew where Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren stood. The public has a right to know!
You missed it? Stallone was on Fox and friends when he endorsed McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Here's a fun article about McCain
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Levin may be a good guy but on his radio show he reminds me of a NAZI propagandist. Different message, same tactics. He's a real big troop supporter though. :2thumbsup:
Yes,we get it, you like Mitt Romney.
By the way, Reagan wasn't a real conservative. He was a neoconservative. Real conservatives don't cut taxes without cutting spending. Real conservatives don't increase the federal debt by 2 billion dollars.
Edit: I found a wiki of Romney and I found this excerpt:
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call increasing the tax burden by .7% a real conservative move. The only conservative move I can see here is cutting spending.Quote:
Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including raising fees for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[44] Romney increased the state gasoline tax by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional tax revenue.[45] Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years.[45] The state legislature with Romney's support also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[46] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63%.[45] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget. All of those vetoes were overturned by the legislature.[47]
The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship.[45] According to the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8% in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3%), and 10.5% in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8%).
Did you listen to the debate in Cali? Or any other debate over the past 5 months when this was brought up? He explains the fee increase and why it was different than a tax increase. In MOST cases the fees that the government charged for things like road signs hadn't been increased in a decade - he brought them up to market prices so that the government didn't lose money on the deal. Either way, fee hikes are not the same as tax increases when they are for unnecessary government services. If you look at it like that, then only a few of the fees for necessary things were increased (driver's licenses, marriage licenses). He left Mass with positive job and business growth (up from the previous governors negative job and business growth), eliminated the deficit and left a 2 billion dollar surplus in the form of a rainy day fund.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
When you hear about the "tax burden" what they really mean is average tax burden - taken as the state income divided by state citizens - not an accurate way of seeing what the average citizen paid.
AND he cut spending. He found a way for nearly everyone in the state to get affordable health care, raised fees to make sure that the government was competing with the market (a conservative move because any government that keeps it's fees artificially low destroys private competition), eliminated the deficit and create a surplus in the billions. ALL WITHOUT RAISING THE TAXE BURDEN OF THE EVERYMAN.
Give me a break
Even liberals in Mass realize that he helped the situation. Somehow an intelligent, successful, conservative governor of Mass is being overlooked in favor of a Senator who bungles everything he touches.
Raising fees, and especially the gas tax is bad. But closing loopholes in the tax code- if they truly are just loopholes- is reasonable. And obviously, all the cuts seem pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Well, as governor of California, his endorsement should be worth more than a bunch of other washed up celebrities. However, to me, a Schwarzenegger endorsement is a net negative if anything. As governor, he's been a textbook RINO who's only succeeded in making an even bigger mess of CA's budget. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Less than 2 weeks ago, my Guv-a-nator said "I will not endorse anybody.". Rudy bailed, and now, all of a sudden, a week before the Cali primary - he endorses McCain.
What changed?
Maybe the prospect of finding another (appointed) poli job after this one, say the local wagging tongues. He's not likely to win another term here.