Is McCain Dead?

[BPSCG]

His fundraising is in the tank - he barely outraised (is that a word) John Edwards last quarter, he's laying off staff, and there's rampant speculation that he's about to drop out of the race (http://corner.nationalreview.com/).

Dang. They haven't even had a primary or a caucus yet. Even Howard Dean did better than this.

[Cleon]

McCain pretty much doomed himself from the get-go.

Back in 2000, he gained a lot of respect because he refused to toe the Party line. That was why people liked him--he wasn't afraid to shout down the evangelicals, which made him fairly popular with moderate Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, that also sank him in the South.

Lately, he reversed the trend, kissing as much evangelical ass as humanly possible. Which might make him tolerable to some evangelicals, but it made him quite unpopular with a lot of the people who supported him the last time around. People who once admired him for standing up for his principles now just see him as another shill who will say anything to get elected.

So yeah, he's dead, but this isn't a new development.

[firecoins]

He was done in 2000

[Tsukasa Buddha]

:eek: Your title scared me!

Yeah, he had disappointing earnings first quarter, and he didn't make up for it this one.

Personally I think he lost the charm in his Straight Talk Express after he went from maverick status to typical Republican pundit. He started using all of the catch phrases that the rest of them were using to describe Iraq (e.g. Plan for surrender, they will follow us home). But he did try to stand out by, repeatedly, saying that the beginning of the war was "Mismanaged." He just got boring. And he was... less than impressive in the debates ("Follow him to the gates of Hell!" followed by: :D ).

His star faded for me when he went back on a lot of stuff he said about the uber-Christians, and even gave an address at Falwell's Liberty University graduation.

Oh, and he had really mixed civil rights opinions. Kinda flip-flopped a lot.

[corplinx]

Fund raising is hard all over for republicans compared to democrats. Democrats in general have more excitement in their race. Obama and Hillary generate a lot of excitement.

There is no drama in the republican field. They won't start raising big money until one of them wins I imagine.

[Cleon]

Another thing to note: his unwavering support of Dubya's "Make-everyone-unhappy-but-look-like-we're-trying-to-do-something-anyway" immigration "reform" bill did not make him any friends among the conservatives.

[MelBrooksfan]

Obama and Hillary generate a lot of excitement.


I don't know about you, but neither of those two excite me any.

[Upchurch]

Another thing to note: his unwavering support of Dubya's "Make-everyone-unhappy-but-look-like-we're-trying-to-do-something-anyway" immigration "reform" bill did not make him any friends among the conservatives.
Or, perhaps, his support of Bush's war in Iraq. That can't be winning him much support from either side, at this point.

[Cleon]

Or, perhaps, his support of Bush's war in Iraq. That can't be winning him much support from either side, at this point.

Perhaps, but his position is that the war is necessary but "mismanaged." That's a departure from most of the other Republican candidates, who just support it come hell or high water. As far as I know among GOP contenders only Ron Paul has a more critical position on the war.

[rtalman]

It would have been interesting to have a president who has no qualms about speaking his mind.

"Putin, you don't like our anti-ballistic missiles in the Czech Republic? Well F-Bomb you!"

"Ahmadinejad, you want to build nukes? Well F-Bomb you!"

[Solus]

Well he's pretty old, he will likely live another 10 or at best 20 years.

[Puppycow]

I see McCain as a tragic figure. I think he is politically dead, although rigor mortis has not yet set in. I have no doubt that he would have made a much better president than the current incumbant, and maybe the Iraq war would have gone somewhat better if McCain had been CiC. I liked him in 2000, and I sympathize with the unpleasant political necessity to pander without making it too obvious. But I don't see any way he could win now. He holds positions that are anathema to both left and right, as well as center. The left and center will think he's too hawkish, while the right doesn't like his past history with campaign finance or current support for the unpopular immigration bill. I still have great respect for him, and if he drops out, it will make me respect him even more, but I still wouldn't actually vote for him this time. Better to read the writing on the wall and withdraw than stubbornly refuse to acknowledge reality. Maybe the nominee would still want him as VP?

[steverino]

I think McCain had a shot as a VP candidate under Kerry in '04, and they would have won.

At this point, the only sparks of interest are the Obama/Hillary contest, and Fred Thompson. The rest is a borefest. Mitt Romney, Edwards, and the rest just don't make my wee-wee hard.

[Katana]

McCain pretty much doomed himself from the get-go.

Back in 2000, he gained a lot of respect because he refused to toe the Party line. That was why people liked him--he wasn't afraid to shout down the evangelicals, which made him fairly popular with moderate Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, that also sank him in the South.

Lately, he reversed the trend, kissing as much evangelical ass as humanly possible. Which might make him tolerable to some evangelicals, but it made him quite unpopular with a lot of the people who supported him the last time around. People who once admired him for standing up for his principles now just see him as another shill who will say anything to get elected.

So yeah, he's dead, but this isn't a new development.


This is why he lost my support.

[BPSCG]

At this point, the only sparks of interest are the Obama/Hillary contest, and Fred Thompson. The rest is a borefest. Mitt Romney, Edwards, and the rest just don't make my wee-wee hard.Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson give you a hard-on? :yikes:

Dude, you really need to get out more.

[This Guy]

I think McCain had a shot as a VP candidate under Kerry in '04, and they would have won.

At this point, the only sparks of interest are the Obama/Hillary contest, and Fred Thompson. The rest is a borefest. Mitt Romney, Edwards, and the rest just don't make my wee-wee hard.

I was starting to like Thompson. But this morning I heard his remarks about the Libby sentence commuting. It appears his remark was a general praise for Libby's service and what have you. Now, I'm not saying Libby didn't do good at one time, but I'm not sure he has done anything to merit having his prison sentence commuted. And I question the moral standards of anyone that has no problem with this turn of events. I'm still waiting to get a better report on what ole Fred actually said though, before I completely count him out. He is a "Home Boy" after all ;)

As for McCain, there was a time he had some credibility in my opinion. Those days are gone. Between his brown nosing the religious right, and his remarks about how safe a stroll through Baghdad is, I think it's time he planned out his retirement years ;)

[hubbub2]

McCain's not dead, just boring.

As for Fred Thompson, I've liked him since "Baby's Day Out" where he proved he could talk to Congress on their intellectual level when he spoke the classic line, "We're going to the tick-tock to get the boo-boo." :bgrin:

[Katana]

John McCain’s campaign manager and chief strategist are gone from their leadership roles, according to two officials with knowledge of the staff changes.

One official said Terry Nelson resigned as campaign manager for the Republican presidential candidate and John Weaver stepped down from his post of chief strategist on Tuesday. But another official said Nelson was fired.


Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19694088/)

The story is short on details so far, but this certainly doesn't look like a promising development.

[Tricky]

Two more jump ship (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/10/two-more-top-mccain-staffers-resign/). I predict he'll soon withdraw.

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign lost two more senior level staffers Tuesday, hours after it was announced that his campaign manager and chief strategist were leaving the campaign.
Deputy Campaign Manager Reed Galen and Political Director Rob Jesmer are leaving the campaign, a campaign source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, tells CNN. Earlier in the day, Campaign Manager Terry Nelson and Chief Strategist John Weaver

[BPSCG]

Two more jump ship (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/10/two-more-top-mccain-staffers-resign/). I predict he'll soon withdraw.Maybe (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzY2ZDA5ZGFmOTgwOWM3ZmExNzllMWY2NTAyMjk4YjA=). This was written a week ago:
John McCain's campaign has been a disaster — overstaffed, under-thought, and incredibly profligate. Yesterday, the campaign sent out a document comparing McCain 2008 to Reagan 1980, to demonstrate that Reagan was in fundraising trouble in 1979 and slipping in polls etc. But of course Reagan did something else to straighten out his ship — he fired his campaign honcho, John Sears. McCain's campaign manager is John Weaver. Weaver actually left the GOP because McCain didn't win the nomination in 1980 2000. Now he's back. They're clearly very, very close. But McCain is going to have to shake himself free of Weaver if he's to have any shot at coming back. If he isn't prepared to do so, then he might as well quit now.

[steverino]

Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson give you a hard-on? :yikes:

Dude, you really need to get out more.

No, but Thompson's trophy wife does.

[Katana]

No, but Thompson's trophy wife does.


Whoa! She might be pretty, but that is not her most flattering moment. What's up with that dress?

[New Ager]

McCain actually had little chance to begin with. He was not popular in Republican circles and it was only liberals and the liberal media who had touted him as being so strong in this election.

Combine that with some strong competitors in Guiliani and Romney and now Thompson plus his immigration stance have all but doomed him.

I think McCain is just another in a long line that people seem to always tout as being the President, but the reality is that it will never be. John Edwards is another just like that.

[New Ager]

McCain actually had little chance to begin with. He was not popular in Republican circles and it was only liberals and the liberal media who had touted him as being so strong in this election.

Combine that with some strong competitors in Guiliani and Romney and now Thompson plus his immigration stance have all but doomed him.

I think McCain is just another in a long line that people seem to always tout as being the President, but the reality is that it will never be. John Edwards is another just like that.

[Solitaire]

McCain Call Raises An Ethics Question (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/us/politics/12mccain.html?ex=1341892800&en=52092b2713067cdc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

WASHINGTON, July 11 — About 3 p.m. Tuesday, Senator John McCain ducked off the Senate floor, entered the Republican cloakroom and took out his mobile phone. Just hours after accepting the resignation of his two top campaign aides, he was making a conference call to his top fund-raisers to urge them to keep up the fight.

The call, however, may only have exacerbated an already tough week for Mr. McCain. Senate ethics rules expressly forbid lawmakers to engage in campaign activities inside Senate facilities. If Mr. McCain solicited campaign contributions on a call from government property, that would be a violation of federal criminal law as well.


Uh-oh. Will he be forgiven?

[MelBrooksfan]

Whoa! She might be pretty, but that is not her most flattering moment. What's up with that dress?

If that's not a flattering moment, I'd love to see 'er when she's on the top of her game.

[Hamradioguy]

....So yeah, he's dead....

In the words of Dorothy Parker, "How can they tell?"

Sad really- a couple years ago he seemed to have a lot of promise. Just took him a little longer than Dean to self-distruct.

[Puppycow]

Uh-oh. Will he be forgiven?

Huh. Even on a personal cellphone? It doesn't seem so bad to me on a gut level, but I guess these are rules. Do they make sense?

But then there is this:
Mr. McCain was well aware of the rules. Ten years ago he led Republican calls for an independent prosecutor to investigate accusations of violations of the same rules by Vice President Al Gore. Mr. McCain went on to make the episode a cornerstone of both his 2000 Republican primary campaign and his argument for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

So, I guess I can't feel sorry for him.

[BPSCG]

Just hours after accepting the resignation of his two top campaign aides, he was making a conference call to his top fund-raisers to urge them to keep up the fight.

The call, however, may only have exacerbated an already tough week for Mr. McCain. Senate ethics rules expressly forbid lawmakers to engage in campaign activities inside Senate facilities. If Mr. McCain solicited campaign contributions on a call from government property, that would be a violation of federal criminal law as well. Please. Every time a senator makes some overheated speech on the Senate floor, every time he talks to reporters with his little sound bite at the ready, he's campaigning. Floor debate is for the voters back home watching C-SPAN or one of the 24x7 news networks. "Hey, voters back home, here I am! Don't forget to vote for me in November!"

Or does anyone seriously think that senators change each others' minds with floor debate?

[Dr Adequate]

Please. Every time a senator makes some overheated speech on the Senate floor, every time he talks to reporters with his little sound bite at the ready, he's campaigning. Floor debate is for the voters back home watching C-SPAN or one of the 24x7 news networks. "Hey, voters back home, here I am! Don't forget to vote for me in November!"

Or does anyone seriously think that senators change each others' minds with floor debate? And there's also this silly little rule against bribing the electorate, when in fact every politician promises to make them better off.

[brodski]

And there's also this silly little rule against bribing the electorate, when in fact every politician promises to make them better off.

Ah, you can promise all you like- it’s if you actually pay up that you get into trouble. ;)

Not discussing campaign issues/ strategy on Federal property does seem like a bit of an odd rule, especially when it is deemed a criminal act.

When where these rules (and laws) put in place, and what is their rationale?

[BPSCG]

Ah, you can promise all you like- it’s if you actually pay up that you get into trouble. ;)

Not discussing campaign issues/ strategy on Federal property does seem like a bit of an odd rule, especially when it is deemed a criminal act.

When where these rules (and laws) put in place, and what is their rationale?To remove the corrupting influence of money from politics (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=448).

Okay, stop laughing.

[brodski]

To remove the corrupting influence of money from politics (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=448).

Okay, stop laughing.

Well, if you’re not going to answer my questions seriously, Ill ask someone else!


:P

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Apparently, McCain fired some top people because they made him wear "gay sweaters" (http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/07/mccain-unraveled-by-gay-sweaters.php)...

Hark, the Fat Lady sings.

[Cleon]

Apparently, McCain fired some top people because they made him wear "gay sweaters" (http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/07/mccain-unraveled-by-gay-sweaters.php)...

Hark, the Fat Lady sings.

Her voice is a little hoarse at this point.

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

If you ignore Episodes 1, 2, and 3 of Star Wars(which you should), then I find McCain to be a Darth Vader character. Sure, he stood by while that general destroyed the whole planet, and the emperor went insane with power, but I know there is still good in him.

As for firing the people who run his campaign, he looked at a situation that wasn't going well and is trying to adapt to make the situation better instead of blindly repeating that everything is fine. He's clearly not presidential material.

[Dr Adequate]

Apparently, McCain fired some top people because they made him wear "gay sweaters" (http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/07/mccain-unraveled-by-gay-sweaters.php)...

Hark, the Fat Lady sings. Are you sure that's a lady?

http://www.silt3.com/photos/giuliani_in_drag.jpg

[davefoc]

It is interesting that the Republicans and to some degree the Democrats will choose a candidate by selecting the one with the least serious flaws.

Giuliani - three marriages, estranged family, association with Bernard Kerik, somewhat unpopular in NY, dropped out of opportunity to serve on Iraq Study Group to rake in speech money

Romney - Mormon, major flip flopper on social issues

McCain - bad temper, too old, major flip flopper on social issues, looks stupid occasionally like with some of his Iraq shtick

Thompson - trophy wife, support of Libby, lobbyist background

Even without G.W. Bush as the lead in act one would think that this bunch of Republicans would have an up hill battle, but interestingly the Democrats seem poised to nominate one of the few nationally prominent Democrats that might actually lose.

[Ion]

His fundraising is in the tank - he barely outraised (is that a word) John Edwards last quarter, he's laying off staff, and there's rampant speculation that he's about to drop out of the race (http://corner.nationalreview.com/).

Dang. They haven't even had a primary or a caucus yet. Even Howard Dean did better than this.
From news that I follow and his stances on Iraq, I fancy him to think he inherits the neo-con support that got Bush in power.

If McCain's campaign dies, that's good riddance.

Like Bush, he is a male whore to the neo-cons.

[New Ager]

(dave)

It is interesting that the Republicans and to some degree the Democrats will choose a candidate by selecting the one with the least serious flaws.

Giuliani - three marriages, estranged family, association with Bernard Kerik, somewhat unpopular in NY, dropped out of opportunity to serve on Iraq Study Group to rake in speech money

Romney - Mormon, major flip flopper on social issues

McCain - bad temper, too old, major flip flopper on social issues, looks stupid occasionally like with some of his Iraq shtick

Thompson - trophy wife, support of Libby, lobbyist background

Even without G.W. Bush as the lead in act one would think that this bunch of Republicans would have an up hill battle, but interestingly the Democrats seem poised to nominate one of the few nationally prominent Democrats that might actually lose.

(New Ager)

That was pretty nitpicky look at the Republican field and they have many good points, but the bad points of Hillary Clinton would outweigh all them put together.

And could you me tell a Democrat that could win against Guiliani, Romney, or Thompson?

[Dr Adequate]

And could you me tell a Democrat that could win against Guiliani, Romney, or Thompson? I suggest you look at the opinion polls. Last time I looked, nearly every Democrat could beat nearly every Republican, though there were specific pairings where the Republican would win.

[Dr Adequate]

Even without G.W. Bush as the lead in act one would think that this bunch of Republicans would have an up hill battle, but interestingly the Democrats seem poised to nominate one of the few nationally prominent Democrats that might actually lose. Again, I suggest that you look at the actual polls. I take it you mean Clinton: well, according to the last polls I looked at, she wipes the floor with most of the Republican contenders. Not quite so much as Obama does, but she does.

I'm an Obama man myself, but as I'm English my opinions are hardly compelling.

[New Ager]

I suggest you look at the opinion polls. Last time I looked, nearly every Democrat could beat nearly every Republican, though there were specific pairings where the Republican would win.

Opinion polls mean very little at this point. And other than Hillary, I can't think of any Democrat that could beat Romney, Guiliani, and Thompson. And she will have an uphill battle.

Remember, the Dems lost the election last time, so they must figure out a state or states they didn't win last time to do better in.

The electoral college looks better for the Reps than the Dems.

And you haven't seen the conservative vote come out if Hillary is the candidate.

[strathmeyer]

Newseek: Inside the McCain meltdown
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762064/site/newsweek/

With his staff in meltdown, can McCain reclaim the front-runner status he held six months ago? John Kerry revived during the 2004 primaries. But few analysts think McCain can recover. "The retaliation and the fallout is going to sink McCain's candidacy," said another campaign insider, not ID'd when discussing internal matters. "It's the saddest thing I've ever witnessed in politics." For a war hero who endured years of torture and solitary confinement in Vietnam, there have surely been tougher times. But a political recovery is more than a test of courage; it's a test of teamwork—and McCain's team just fell apart.

Yeah, I hate politics.

[MaGZ]

Two more jump ship (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/10/two-more-top-mccain-staffers-resign/). I predict he'll soon withdraw.

McCain’s handlers are probably going over to Fred Thompson. These guys are just mercenaries.

[MaGZ]

No, but Thompson's trophy wife does.

How does Thompson’s trophy wife and Rudy’s divorces play with social conservatives? Are they left with Mitt Romney, a Mormon, which considered by some religious conservatives to be a cult? Will they go with a second tier candidate?

[MaGZ]

From news that I follow and his stances on Iraq, I fancy him to think he inherits the neo-con support that got Bush in power.

If McCain's campaign dies, that's good riddance.

Like Bush, he is a male whore to the neo-cons.

The neocons are going to jump to Fred Thompson.

Cheney’s aid Mary Matalin will be working on the Thompson campaign.

[SezMe]

The electoral college looks better for the Reps than the Dems.
That's a factual statement independent of who the candidates are. It is based on demographics alone.

[SezMe]

Hey, Beeps, you've been studiously circumspect about the meltdown of the McCain campaign in this thread. What are your thoughts on the topic?

[MaGZ]

Opinion polls mean very little at this point. And other than Hillary, I can't think of any Democrat that could beat Romney, Guiliani, and Thompson. And she will have an uphill battle.

Remember, the Dems lost the election last time, so they must figure out a state or states they didn't win last time to do better in.

The electoral college looks better for the Reps than the Dems.

And you haven't seen the conservative vote come out if Hillary is the candidate.

Do you think the conservatives will rally against nominee Obama to the same extent as Ms.C?

[MaGZ]

That's a factual statement independent of who the candidates are. It is based on demographics alone.

Republicans over Democrats in Electoral College ?
I’m not so sure that is true. The big states NY, CA, FL will likely go Democrat. The northeast and west coast are Democrat states.

[SezMe]

Yes, MaGZ, it is a demographic and political fact. Consider these figures which show how many people each seat in the Electoral College represents:

Big States
California: 603,571
New York: 609,677

Small States
Alaska: 223,333
Wyoming: 164,667

IOW, each person in Wyoming has roughly 3.6 times the voting power of a person in California. Combine that with the fact that the small states are typically more rural and conservative than the large states with very large cities and you inexorably conclude that the Republicans have a disproportionate influence on the Electoral College.

PS: As a bonus, you also get out of this analysis why the Electoral College will never be eliminated: The small states will never ratify the necessary Constitutional amendment.

[Schneibster]

Thirty-four states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. Do please realize that the ERA has never been ratified. You most definitely do not want to have a conversation with the Schneibsteress on this subject. Me either for that matter. Welcome to the nineteenth century about sums my attitude on this up.

[Dr Adequate]

Opinion polls mean very little at this point. Then what are you basing your opinions on, besides wishful thinking?

And you haven't seen the conservative vote come out if Hillary is the candidate. I have, however, seen how Americans say they would vote if Clinton is the candidate. Guess what, she wins.

[BPSCG]

Hey, Beeps, you've been studiously circumspect about the meltdown of the McCain campaign in this thread. What are your thoughts on the topic?:) Is McCain's problem the fact that if you walk down the middle of the road, you get run over? I don't know; he's not really "middle of the road." He has one truly conservative position that he's stuck to all along - the war; other than that he's managed to infuriate fiscal conservatives with his lukewarm support of Bush's tax cuts and support of the Medicare drug bill, and social conservatives with his support of McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" (scare quotes deliberate) and the immigration bill that everyone hated. If his support for the war had been Hillary-ish ("we're there, but the war's been mismanaged, etc.") he might make a viable Democratic candidate.

So the Republicans wouldn't nominate him because everyone finds something intolerable, and even if all the other candidates magically dropped dead or were teleported to Planet X, he wouldn't get elected because all the positions he's taken that the Republicans hate wouldn't make the Dems vote for him, because he still supports the war.

The Dems don't have that kind of candidate at the fore. They have only Left and Lefter. Doesn't matter, because a Democratic McCain - say Joe Lieberman? - wouldn't do any better. In fact, last time out, in 2004, Lieberman's primary numbers were consistently in the single digits, along with Kucinich, the candidate from Mars, and Sharpton, the candidate from Saturn.

So 16 months from now, we'll be looking at a conservative Republican trying to prove to everyone he's really middle of the road, running against a liberal Democrat trying to prove to everyone he's really middle of the road.

Pass the popcorn.

[Schneibster]

And the deciding factor may well be the thought, "Well, they had both the White House and the Congress, and they screwed it up. Let's try the Democrats and see if they got any smarter."

A relatively thoughtful post, Beeps.

[New Ager]

(SezMe)

That's a factual statement independent of who the candidates are. It is based on demographics alone.

(New Ager)

No, it's based on the last two elections.

And again, which state is Hillary going to win that the Dems didn't win last time?

(MaGZ)

Do you think the conservatives will rally against nominee Obama to the same extent as Ms.C?

(New Ager)

Probably not quite as much, but it's a moot point. Obama has almost no chance of getting the nomination.

(MaGZ)

I'm not so sure that is true. The big states NY, CA, FL will likely go Democrat. The northeast and west coast are Democrat states.

(New Ager)

Florida has went Republican for quite a while. What makes you think they will win that state? Hillary? I don't see it.

(Dr. Adequate)

Then what are you basing your opinions on, besides wishful thinking?

(New Ager)

Common sense. The election isn't determined by popular vote and people aren't really into the election yet. Let's get the two final candidates and take a look at the polling for each state and that will be a more realistic look.

(Dr. Adequate)

I have, however, seen how Americans say they would vote if Clinton is the candidate. Guess what, she wins.

(New Ager)

I haven't seen this in my area. She is incredibly disliked in the South. Guess what, I don't think she wins.

Again, what state will Hillary win that the Dems didn't win last time?

[New Ager]

(Schneibster)

And the deciding factor may well be the thought, "Well, they had both the White House and the Congress, and they screwed it up. Let's try the Democrats and see if they got any smarter."

(New Ager)

No one votes that way.

[Gurdur]

The Quote and MultiQuote functions are easy to use and a hell of a lot less confusing than the above.

[Schneibster]

Uh huh.

[New Ager]

(Gurdur)

The Quote and MultiQuote functions are easy to use and a hell of a lot less confusing than the above.

(New Ager)

I think the quote features here are more confusing.

It runs the quote and the reply together.

Mine is poster, quote, poster, quote.

Explain how mine is more confusing.

[SezMe]

(SezMe)

That's a factual statement independent of who the candidates are. It is based on demographics alone.

(New Ager)

No, it's based on the last two elections.

No, it's a fact as demonstrated by my analysis above. If you disagree with that analysis, refute it. Anything else is just unsubstantiated opinion from someone who has demonstrated a distinctly biased opinion. IOW, worthless.

[SezMe]

[quote=New Ager;2769980(Dr. Adequate)

I have, however, seen how Americans say they would vote if Clinton is the candidate. Guess what, she wins.

(New Ager)

I haven't seen this in my area. She is incredibly disliked in the South. Guess what, I don't think she wins.[/quote]
Ah, a perfect illustration of my previous post. You live in the South and don't see much support for Clinton. No s***, Sherlock. Then you extrapolate that to the whole election. Good "common sense" eh?

[SezMe]

Explain how mine is more confusing.
It doesn't matter what YOU find confusing. This board has adopted that style of give and take and it is what everyone (well, except one) uses. Thus we ALL find it a consistent, understandable and routine way of communicating.

See, it's just "common sense".

[BPSCG]

It doesn't matter what YOU find confusing. This board has adopted that style of give and take and it is what everyone (well, except one) uses. Thus we ALL find it a consistent, understandable and routine way of communicating.

See, it's just "common sense".Of course, as post # 63 demonstrates, if you don't do it right, it can be even more confusing... :p

Seriously, New Ager, please use the quote feature; SezMe is right - it's very much the standard here. If you need an explanation, click on the dropdown menu just below and go to Forum Help and Member Support/The Tutorials. Thanks.

[SezMe]

Ya, know, Beeps, I came back just in time to fix that little boo-boo but decided to leave it as is. An occasional lesson in humility is useful.

[SezMe]

So 16 months from now, we'll be looking at a conservative Republican trying to prove to everyone he's really middle of the road, running against a liberal Democrat trying to prove to everyone he's really middle of the road.
No doubt, but I fail to see how that will differ from all recent elections. During primaries, the candidates run to the base because that is who votes. During the finals, the candidates run to the middle to try to secure the independent, more centrist vote because without it, a win is almost impossible.

It's not the candidates that create this scenario, it's the system we use.

[Dr Adequate]

Explain how mine is more confusing. Because it is not the local convention. It's like driving on the right versus driving on the left. There may be no compelling reason why people should do one rather than the other, but it is convenient if everyone does the same thing. In the USA, someone who, scorning convention, decided unilaterally to drive on the left, would cause confusion. Amongst other things.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Probably not quite as much, but it's a moot point. Obama has almost no chance of getting the nomination.

Uh yeah, lets just ignore the fact that he gets over twenty percent in polling. Kucinich has almost no chance.

[BPSCG]

Ya, know, Beeps, I came back just in time to fix that little boo-boo but decided to leave it as is. An occasional lesson in humility is useful.I would agree, if I thought I had anything to be humble about.

:scarper:

[corplinx]

Uh yeah, lets just ignore the fact that he gets over twenty percent in polling. Kucinich has almost no chance.

Well, despite an avid core of supporters who send money, Clinton leads Obama in all of the early primary states and has lead Obama in the national RCP average since the race began.

The only advantage anyone had was that Edwards had bet the farm on Iowa and had a lead there hoping to use an early upset to propel his campaign. This lead has evaporated.

[New Ager]

(SezMe)

No, it's a fact as demonstrated by my analysis above. If you disagree with that analysis, refute it.

(New Ager)

Have the states went almost exactly the same way in the last two elections? Yep. I'll take results over projections any day.

(Sez Me)

Anything else is just unsubstantiated opinion from someone who has demonstrated a distinctly biased opinion. IOW, worthless.

(New Ager)

Actually, it's an informed opinion.

[New Ager]

(SezMe)

Ah, a perfect illustration of my previous post. You live in the South and don't see much support for Clinton. No s***, Sherlock. Then you extrapolate that to the whole election.

(New Ager)

No different than you saying Americans will vote for her. That had to be liberal states.

(Sez Me)

Good "common sense" eh?

(New Ager)

It is if you look at the Electoral Map. I guess you didn't think about that.

So, what states will Hillary win that the Dems didn't win last time?

It seems no one can answer this question. I wonder why.

[New Ager]

(SezMe)

It doesn't matter what YOU find confusing. This board has adopted that style of give and take and it is what everyone (well, except one) uses. Thus we ALL find it a consistent, understandable and routine way of communicating.

(New Ager)

America has always been about progress and doing things in a better way. It seems posters here aren't interested in progressing.

Good thing science doesn't think like all of you.

(Sez Me)

See, it's just "common sense".

(New Ager)

Sounds more like stubborness and ignorance to me.

[Cleon]

America has always been about progress and doing things in a better way. It seems posters here aren't interested in progressing.

Or maybe, just possibly, what you're offering isn't "progress."

Sounds like arrogance and rudeness to me.

[BPSCG]

Or maybe, just possibly, what you're offering isn't "progress."

Sounds like arrogance and rudeness to me.I look at it this way: There are a lot of people here whose posts are a pleasure to read, even when I think they're utterly wrong.

And there are people who make me slog through bad grammar, bad syntax, bad punctuation, and confusing formatting.

Who do you think I read when I'm in a hurry?

[Iamme]

His fundraising is in the tank - he barely outraised (is that a word) John Edwards last quarter, he's laying off staff, and there's rampant speculation that he's about to drop out of the race (http://corner.nationalreview.com/).

Dang. They haven't even had a primary or a caucus yet. Even Howard Dean did better than this.

I thought maybe this thread had to do with possibly a full blown tumor going on in his left cheek.

[Iamme]

[QUOTE=New Ager;2769980
(New Ager)

Again, what state will Hillary win that the Dems didn't win last time?[/QUOTE]

She won't win, perhaps, if people catch on that Bill is no longer her "husband". I heard Neal Boortz chuckle the other day on his radio show when he brought up the subject of Bill being Hillary's husband as if that is some kind of joke.

I think the reason people have always wanted Hillary in power is so that it is a quasi way to have the Clinton(S) back in the White House...mainly Bill.

(J.R. rules. :) )

[steverino]

I say McCain is finished, but I want to derail. Does anyone believe there is anything Bill Clinton could do, or might accidently do, to mess up Hillary's current first place standing?

[SezMe]

Nominate Monica as Campaign Chair.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The local news just said that even more people have left his campaign.

I wonder how many other successful politicians dropped top campaign managers, and kept on dropping more...

[Kopji]

:horseshoe
Heeeyyy Lucky horseshoe!
Don't want him to say I never did anything for him.

RIP

[New Ager]

(Tsukasa Buddha)

Uh yeah, lets just ignore the fact that he gets over twenty percent in polling.

(New Ager)

I didn't ignore it. That's why I said he has "almost" no chance.

(TBuddha)

Kucinich has almost no chance.

(New Ager)

LOL!!! No, Kucinich has no chance.

[New Ager]

(Cleon)

Or maybe, just possibly, what you're offering isn't "progress."

(New Ager)

Less confusing and doing things in a better way isn't progress?!? Is this the supposed "rational" Randi board I'm posting on??!

[New Ager]

(Iamme)

She won't win, perhaps, if people catch on that Bill is no longer her "husband". I heard Neal Boortz chuckle the other day on his radio show when he brought up the subject of Bill being Hillary's husband as if that is some kind of joke.

(New Ager)

I think most people know they have a marriage of convenience to further her political career. Why do you think Hillary has put up with all his philandering all these years?

(Iamme)

I think the reason people have always wanted Hillary in power is so that it is a quasi way to have the Clinton(S) back in the White House...mainly Bill.

(New Ager)

Some, but will it be enough to put her over 50%.

(Iamme)

(J.R. rules. :)

(New Ager)

Ahhh, an old J.R. fan.

[Cleon]

(Cleon)

Or maybe, just possibly, what you're offering isn't "progress."

(New Ager)

Less confusing and doing things in a better way isn't progress?!? Is this the supposed "rational" Randi board I'm posting on??!

It's only "less confusing" and "doing things in a better way" to you. To the rest of us, it's an irritating eyesore.

[Lurker]

I think McCain is dead. It will be an interesting race in the GOP. Far right GOP members seem to be yearning for Thompson. Moderates favor Giuliani. Throw in Romney and it looks like fun.

Would Giuliani make NY a race for Hillary? What's the word in NY?

Lurker

[Cleon]

Would Giuliani make NY a race for Hillary? What's the word in NY?

"Drink hearty."

[steverino]

I think most people know they have a marriage of convenience to further her political career. Why do you think Hillary has put up with all his philandering all these years?

I'd thought the "marriage of convenience" bit was to further HIS career. I see their marriage as an inconvenience to her in the next election.

[strathmeyer]

I find it funny that I keep seeing stories about McCain's supporters leaving him. They're not naming names or listing numbers, so I don't know if this is something that happened once or twice and the stories are repeats, or how substantial these defections really are. For all I can tell, the news just hates McCain.

[New Ager]

(Cleon)

It's only "less confusing" and "doing things in a better way" to you. To the rest of us, it's an irritating eyesore.

(New Ager)

Could you explain how separating the quotes instead of running them together is an eyesore?

(Lurker)

I think McCain is dead. It will be an interesting race in the GOP. Far right GOP members seem to be yearning for Thompson. Moderates favor Giuliani. Throw in Romney and it looks like fun.

Would Giuliani make NY a race for Hillary? What's the word in NY?

(New Ager)

Totally agree. I've wondered the same thing about New York. If Hillary can't win New York, then she would have no chance and the election would become a laugher.

(Cleon)

I'd thought the "marriage of convenience" bit was to further HIS career.

(New Ager)

It furthers her career now. She keeps his name.

(Cleon)

I see their marriage as an inconvenience to her in the next election.

(New Ager)

Not at all. She will gain some votes because he will be with her.

[Cleon]

(Cleon)

It's only "less confusing" and "doing things in a better way" to you. To the rest of us, it's an irritating eyesore.

(New Ager)

Could you explain how separating the quotes instead of running them together is an eyesore?

Well, I would, but you kinda proved my point when you completely screwed this part up:



(Lurker)

I think McCain is dead. It will be an interesting race in the GOP. Far right GOP members seem to be yearning for Thompson. Moderates favor Giuliani. Throw in Romney and it looks like fun.

Would Giuliani make NY a race for Hillary? What's the word in NY?

(New Ager)

Totally agree. I've wondered the same thing about New York. If Hillary can't win New York, then she would have no chance and the election would become a laugher.

(Cleon)

I'd thought the "marriage of convenience" bit was to further HIS career.

(New Ager)

It furthers her career now. She keeps his name.

(Cleon)

I see their marriage as an inconvenience to her in the next election.

(New Ager)

Not at all. She will gain some votes because he will be with her.

[Cleon]

Hang on a minute, something just occurred to me.

New Ager, do you see the boxes and indentations around the quoted posts? I'm not asking to be a wiseass--based on your comment about the "quoted posts running together," I almost get the impression that you're using an older (or misconfigured) browser and you may not even see the same formatting we do.

[Cleon]

New Ager,

This is an image of how steverino's post appears to me (and just about everyone else on the forum). Notice how the post steve is quoting (yours) is boxed in, shaded, and indented. If you are not seeing posts this way, you either have a way old browser or (for some reason) you have CSS turned off. PM me and I can help you sort this out.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_173469d8cd3e72a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7072)

[Lurker]

New Ager uses WebTV. I don't know about its capabilities as far as the browser technology.

Lurker

[New Ager]

(Cleon)

Well, I would, but you kinda proved my point when you completely screwed this part up:

(New Ager)

Well, I didn't completely screw it up. All of Cleon's quotes in my previous post were actually done by Steverino.

(Cleon)

do you see the boxes and indentations around the quoted posts? I'm not asking to be a wiseass--based on your comment about the "quoted posts running together," I almost get the impression that you're using an older (or misconfigured) browser and you may not even see the same formatting we do.

(New Ager)

Nope, no boxes and indentations. I do see the name of the quoted poster, but then the reply follows right after it. Hopefully like this....

Cleon..blah, blah, blah,........
Reply, reply, reply.......

[New Ager]

Yep, I have WebTV. It has limitations.

There is nothing else that can be done to help it.

[Cleon]

Hrm.

Well, first, my sympathies for being stuck with WebTV.

Second, I want to apologize--I'd been assuming, like many other people I'm sure, that you were refusing to use the "quote" feature" just to be difficult. Sometimes we get so used to CSS, JavaScript, and the like that we forget there are older or more limited browsers out there that can't handle it.


If I can find the time (har!) over the next couple of days I'll do some research and see if there's anything that can be done to make the forums a little more presentable for you.

At the very least, I'll stop giving you a hard time about not using the "quote" feature. :D