A "Realistic" Look At The 2008 Presidential Race

[New Ager]

After reading this board for the last couple of weeks, it has come to my attention that many here don't know what they are talking about, are ill-informed or are just letting their biases get in the way of rational thinking.

So, I thought I would help you out. This will probably be a good thread for those of you in foreign countries who are probably fed a consistent diatribe of anti-Republican and pro-Democrat on your news shows.

Plus, many of your JREF brethren are doing you no favors by consistently overranking the chances of the Democrats in the coming election.

So, here's a good take on the reality of the political race in America.

And I won't waste time on the fringe candidates who are only running to be Vice-President or just want in front of their name, former Presidential candidate....

First up, the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton, while stumbling recently, is still the big favorite to win the Democratic nomination. She is your basic liberal who will appeal to those types. She brings name recognition and her husband with her. She is good at delivering prepared speeches, but is not so good off the cuff. I expect her to turn up the heat in the coming weeks.

Barack Obama brings a nice, easygoing style to the race. He is articulate, good at public speaking and seems good off the cuff. He too is a liberal and doesn't differ with Hillary that much. He has done a good job at making it look like they may have a race.

John Edward is a young looking candidate who was the former VP nominee with Kerry. He will appeal to liberals. He, while a good speaker, doesn't come across that well in debates or tough questioning.

The Dem Outlook: Even though Obama may give her a battle for a while, I just can't imagine the Clinton machine being derailed. Edwards is just around the fun of it and probably has little chance.

Odds on getting the nomination...

Clinton.......85%
Obama......14%
Edwards......1%

The Republicans...

Rudy Guiliani was the favorite and has slipped from that position. Rudy is a very good speaker and has shown himself to be a great leader. He handled a tough city in New York and did a good job. He stance on abortion and gays may give him some problems. I expect him to be around for the long run and could win.

Mitt Romney just looks like a President. He speaks with conviction and stands up for his positions. He has really come on and has to be one of the favorites.

Mike Huckabee is the comeback kid. His performance in the debates has propelled him to be a major player. He also speaks with conviction and is a likeable guy. Will probably do well and could win.

Fred Thompson has created visions of Reagan, but may have entered a little too late and has had his thunder stolen by Huckabee. He is a good speaker, but his old age may be a slight problem.

John McCain is considered to be a player by some, but in name only. He lost his chance at this nomination years ago when he basically sided with the Dems on many issues and went against the President. I expect him to fall out soon.

Odds on the Republican nomination...

Romney.........40%
Huckabee......30%
Guiliani..........20%
Thompson.....10%
McCain............0%

General Election Odds...

Republicans 4-5 points.


"Why The Republicans Should Be Favored?"

It's really easy and something most here aren't telling you or simply don't understand.

We're not starting from square one with this election. Most states are already decided. No, not something underhanded, but in America, we have the electoral college.

States are given electoral votes based on the number of representatives in Congress. The person who gets the most votes in each state win all that states electoral votes. The person with the most electoral votes wins the Presidency.

This was established so candidates wouldn't ignore small states and focus only on large states or cities.

The Republicans only have to win the states they won last election and they win. The Dems have to find a state or states that they can win and hold the ones they won last time.

For example, Texas and Georgia are already decided. They were big conservative states last election and there is no way the Dems could win those this time. Conversely, Massachussetts and California went decidedly Democrat and will go in the Democratic column this time too.

So, there are only a number of states that will be up for grabs.

And for the Dems, not many. Ohio could be one. But, the problem for them is that states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and maybe even Pennsylvania which were close last time could go Republican and then they will have no chance.

Basically, the country is divided politically this way...

The left coast of California, Oregon, Washington, the northeast US and a small part of the midwest lean liberal while the South, and most of the Midwest lean conservative.

"The VP's"

I think Hillary will pick Bill Richardson or someone else who isn't well known. She doesn't want someone who will get in her way like Obama.

I think Romney will pick Huckabee or Thompson. Both could be unbeatable tickets.

"The General Election"

I have to favor the Republicans by 4-5 points for now. I may change that when we get one on one.

If you had to ask me now, I would say it's going to be Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney.

And the next President of the United States...

Mitt Romney!!!!

[Brainster]

Generally a good analysis, but I think you're off on a couple of candidates:

Edwards still has a chance, although I grant you it's probably lower than Hillary or Obama's odds. Remember, neither party has ever nominated a woman or a black to the top spot on the ticket. Edwards is the "electable" candidate; polls have shown him doing better than Hillary or Obama against any of the Republican nominees.

Huckabee and Fred Thompson realistically have very little chance at the nomination, although Huckabee's got a decent shot to take Iowa. Thompson has shown none of the "fire in the belly" that a person needs to win the presidency; his campaign peaked before he actually entered the race. Huckabee's constituency, the Christian conservatives, are an important segment of the Republican party but they are not large enough to get Huck the win once a few of the other candidates drop out.

Romney's biggest advantage is his personal wealth; unlike the other candidates he has a credible operation in every state and could sweep the board if he gets an early win or two in Iowa and New Hampshire. But if he fails to win those states, he'll be in trouble because his campaign depends on that aura of inevitability.

McCain is still in the running; he needs Huckabee to win in Iowa and to pull off the upset himself in New Hampshire; either is eminently possible. McCain's big edge is the same as Edwards: Electability. Polls consistently show him doing better than any of the other GOP candidates in a head-to-head matchup against Hillary, Obama or Edwards.

[MaGZ]

As it stands now I think you are correct the Dems will pick Hillary and Richardson. As to the Republicans, I think the ticket will be Romney and Connie Rice. Romney is now part of the Republican Establishment and they will choose Rice as the VP. I still think there will be a Ron Paul third party and possibility a forth party with Bloomberg.

To soon to say who will win in November.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Generally a good analysis, but I think you're off on a couple of candidates:

Edwards still has a chance, although I grant you it's probably lower than Hillary or Obama's odds.

Well, I did give him 1%. That was only because it is possible that scandal or a big mistake could doom Hillary and Barack, but it's not likely.

Quote:

Remember, neither party has ever nominated a woman or a black to the top spot on the ticket. Edwards is the "electable" candidate; polls have shown him doing better than Hillary or Obama against any of the Republican nominees.

The black or woman thing is pretty much a nonissue now. I doubt there are enough that would vote just on that to make a difference.

Early polls are usually not good barometers. But, using one's political savvy lets one know that Edwards has little chance. I haven't seen one person pick him to get the nomination yet.

Plus, he's a lightweight and would get crushed in the general election.

Quote:

Huckabee and Fred Thompson realistically have very little chance at the nomination, although Huckabee's got a decent shot to take Iowa.

I think you underestimate both. Both are Southerners and well-liked.

Quote:

Thompson has shown none of the "fire in the belly" that a person needs to win the presidency; his campaign peaked before he actually entered the race. Huckabee's constituency, the Christian conservatives, are an important segment of the Republican party but they are not large enough to get Huck the win once a few of the other candidates drop out.

I don't think that's all that are supporting Huckabee and I think he will do well and could win. He's a good talker, he's southern, conservative, and against the IRS.
All that will be popular.

Quote:

Romney's biggest advantage is his personal wealth; unlike the other candidates he has a credible operation in every state and could sweep the board if he gets an early win or two in Iowa and New Hampshire. But if he fails to win those states, he'll be in trouble because his campaign depends on that aura of inevitability.

Oh, I think he could withstand not winning early. But, I do think he's the favorite.

What could hurt would be if Huckabee does real well and gets more money. He is way behind others in raising the cash.

Quote:

McCain is still in the running; he needs Huckabee to win in Iowa and to pull off the upset himself in New Hampshire; either is eminently possible.

I doubt he will win one state, but it won't matter. When he comes South, he will get crushed. He is not respected among many conservative voters. He lost his chances years ago.

Quote:

McCain's big edge is the same as Edwards: Electability. Polls consistently show him doing better than any of the other GOP candidates in a head-to-head matchup against Hillary, Obama or Edwards.

Again, early polls are usually wrong. I don't know any person or pundit who thinks McCain will be the Republican nominee.

He's too moderate, went against Bush too often, sided with the Dems too often and now looks too old.

I'm sorry, but he has no chance.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by MaGZ

As it stands now I think you are correct the Dems will pick Hillary and Richardson. As to the Republicans, I think the ticket will be Romney and Connie Rice. Romney is now part of the Republican Establishment and they will choose Rice as the VP.

I doubt it. I don't think Rice wants to be part of a campaign.

Quote:

To soon to say who will win in November.

Not to early to make a prediction.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by New Ager

This will probably be a good thread for those of you in foreign countries who are probably fed a consistent diatribe of anti-Republican and pro-Democrat on your news shows.

I assume you have some evidence you would like to present to us that supports your assertion that non-USAians are "...fed a consistent diatribe of anti-Republican and pro-Democrat..." I, for one, look forward to reviewing such information. TIA.

[leftysergeant]

Huckabee will pick up a lot of the Christian Right voters who do not like Mormons. McCain's support is mostly from military people and the few really honest patriots in the GOP. I can't see either of those groups going over to Rudy if McCain is knocked out. Thompson and RP are a joke. Keyes is not even a rational possibility. Everyone already knows he's not presidential material. So it's probably between Huckabee and Romney nation-wide, with huckabee holding most of the cards in Iowa. Success breeds success.

Clinton may be partly a media-generated winner. Rupert Murdoch has a vested interest in her victory. If we get a Democratic president, he wants one who will appoint FCC members who will not cut him off at the knees when he tries to buy up more media outlets.

Edwards and Obama are more likely to pick up Kucinich, Biden and Dodd supporters if they do not make the cut. Edwards and Obama are more in line with what rank-and-file Democrats see as the real Democratic party. Clinton is too DLC. Rank-and-filers will be a more important element, compared to party appartchiks this election cycle. Bad news for Clinton.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by New Ager

Well, I did give him 1%. That was only because it is possible that scandal or a big mistake could doom Hillary and Barack, but it's not likely.

We shall see.

Quote:

The black or woman thing is pretty much a nonissue now. I doubt there are enough that would vote just on that to make a difference.

Not in the direct sense. But they may vote on it in the "who's electable" sense. It's one of the oddities of polling that people fairly consistently say they are not personally prejudiced, but that they feel many other people are.

Quote:

Early polls are usually not good barometers. But, using one's political savvy lets one know that Edwards has little chance. I haven't seen one person pick him to get the nomination yet.

We shall see.

Quote:

Plus, he's a lightweight and would get crushed in the general election.

I tend to agree here.

Quote:

I think you underestimate both. Both are Southerners and well-liked.

Thompson is reportedly thinking of dropping out and supporting McCain.

Quote:

I don't think that's all that are supporting Huckabee and I think he will do well and could win. He's a good talker, he's southern, conservative, and against the IRS.
All that will be popular.

I agree, but once they get out of Iowa, you'll see some of the campaigns that have avoided criticizing Huckabee because they need him to win there over Romney will start hammering him.

Quote:

Oh, I think he could withstand not winning early. But, I do think he's the favorite.

Agree on the latter, not on the former. If Romney doesn't win New Hampshire, his neighboring state, he's toast.

Quote:

What could hurt would be if Huckabee does real well and gets more money. He is way behind others in raising the cash.

I agree here.

Quote:

I doubt he will win one state, but it won't matter. When he comes South, he will get crushed. He is not respected among many conservative voters. He lost his chances years ago.

Again, early polls are usually wrong. I don't know any person or pundit who thinks McCain will be the Republican nominee.

He's too moderate, went against Bush too often, sided with the Dems too often and now looks too old.

I'm sorry, but he has no chance.

That's the CW among many conservative bloggers and pundits, but it's just plain wrong according to Rasmussen Polling:

Quote:

McCain is viewed favorably by 66% of Republican voters nationwide, Thompson and Giuliani are viewed favorably by 65%, Romney by 57%, and Huckabee by 55%.

InTrade, the political predictions market, has McCain now at the top spot on the Republican side.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I assume you have some evidence you would like to present to us that supports your assertion that non-USAians are "...fed a consistent diatribe of anti-Republican and pro-Democrat..." I, for one, look forward to reviewing such information. TIA.

Soon as you deny it's not true.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Huckabee will pick up a lot of the Christian Right voters who do not like Mormons.

That don't like Mormons?!? Is that a huge block?

I would think the Christian Right would mostly vote for Huckabee without necessarily disliking Mormons.

Quote:

Clinton may be partly a media-generated winner. Rupert Murdoch has a vested interest in her victory. If we get a Democratic president, he wants one who will appoint FCC members who will not cut him off at the knees when he tries to buy up more media outlets.

The head of Fox rooting for Hillary?!? You liberals come up with the best conspiracy theories.

Quote:

Edwards and Obama are more likely to pick up Kucinich, Biden and Dodd supporters if they do not make the cut.

Yep, all 12 votes.

Quote:

Edwards and Obama are more in line with what rank-and-file Democrats see as the real Democratic party. Clinton is too DLC. Rank-and-filers will be a more important element, compared to party appartchiks this election cycle. Bad news for Clinton.

I hope it is Edwards or Obama. Then, the Republicans can start planning another term. But, I'm not sure Hillary is going to do much better.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Not in the direct sense. But they may vote on it in the "who's electable" sense. It's one of the oddities of polling that people fairly consistently say they are not personally prejudiced, but that they feel many other people are.

Honestly, the Democrats may have no one who is electable.

Quote:

Thompson is reportedly thinking of dropping out and supporting McCain.

He was on TV already denying that story.

Quote:

I agree, but once they get out of Iowa, you'll see some of the campaigns that have avoided criticizing Huckabee because they need him to win there over Romney will start hammering him.

Seems like they've been doing that already.

Quote:

That's the CW among many conservative bloggers and pundits, but it's just plain wrong according to Rasmussen Polling:

InTrade, the political predictions market, has McCain now at the top spot on the Republican side.

Not buying it. McCain has no chance at the nomination.

And not only will he not win, he won't come close.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by New Ager

Soon as you deny it's not true.

It's not true. Now, for that evidence.....

[quarky]

the GOP is dead.

It would be more likely that there will be no election than a republican victory.

If Mitt Romney wins, I'll commit suicide on this forum.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by New Ager

Not buying it. McCain has no chance at the nomination.

And not only will he not win, he won't come close.

InTrade today:

McCain: 34.0
Giuliani: 27.3
Huckabee: 16.2
Romney: 14.4
Paul: 4.4
Thompson: 3.0

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Brainster

InTrade today:

McCain: 34.0
Giuliani: 27.3
Huckabee: 16.2
Romney: 14.4
Paul: 4.4
Thompson: 3.0

Behind Ron Paul, oh, the shame

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by SezMe

It's not true. Now, for that evidence.....

The BBC, CNN International.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by quarky

the GOP is dead.

It would be more likely that there will be no election than a republican victory.

I don't know if you're a blinded liberal or you are out of touch with politics in America.

But, I like overconfident liberals. It will make victory in the fall much more enjoyable.

Quote:

If Mitt Romney wins, I'll commit suicide on this forum.

Well, right now, I'd have to say he's the odds on favorite.

Quarky may be leaving the building soon.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by Brainster

InTrade today:

McCain: 34.0
Giuliani: 27.3
Huckabee: 16.2
Romney: 14.4
Paul: 4.4
Thompson: 3.0

You're having to really reach to support your delusion. This is a site where people buy shares of their candidate, not a real poll.

Try some polls of the people and you won't find McCain ahead in any of them.

Not to worry. Your McCain delusion and McCain will be over by Super Tuesday, if not sooner.

[SezMe]

You have just got to be kidding me. You stated:

Quote:

This will probably be a good thread for those of you in foreign countries who are probably fed a consistent diatribe of anti-Republican and pro-Democrat on your news shows.

So I asked for evidence of this claim of "consistent diatribe" and your response is:

Originally Posted by New Ager

The BBC, CNN International.

That's it? Really? That's all? Naming two TV networks supports your claim? And you're posting on a skeptics board? You think that response meets the standard of "evidence"? You sure you're not a sock of DOC?

That said, thanks for the response. Now all of us can put your posts into our "credibility filter" and judge their veracity accordingly.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by New Ager

You're having to really reach to support your delusion.

Ain't irony a gas?

[New Ager]

[quote=SezMe;3310951]


So I asked for evidence of this claim of "consistent diatribe" and your response is:

Quote:

The BBC and CNN International

Quote:

That's it? Really? That's all? Naming two TV networks supports your claim? And you're posting on a skeptics board? You think that response meets the standard of "evidence"? You sure you're not a sock of DOC?

No idea who that is, but it's laughable you would even challenge my contention.

Europe is all liberal and they don't like conservatives.

The BBC is very liberal as is CNN International. There are more, but please tell us these fairminded news outlets you are listening to.

Quote:

That said, thanks for the response. Now all of us can put your posts into our "credibility filter" and judge their veracity accordingly.

So, you're saying there are fairminded news programs in Europe???! Really?!! Now you're credibility is up for question.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by SezMe

You sure you're not a sock of DOC?

Originally Posted by New Ager

No idea who that is, but it's laughable you would even challenge my contention.

Use the "Members List" tool to get a clue.

Your assertion that it's "laughable" that I would challenge your contention on a skeptics board is, well, laughable.

Originally Posted by New Ager

Europe is all liberal and they don't like conservatives.

I can only conclude that the recent French elections have totally escaped you attention.

Originally Posted by New Ager

So, you're saying there are fairminded news programs in Europe???! Really?!! Now you're credibility is up for question.

I made no such assertion. I have no idea regarding the existence of "fairminded news programs in Europe". In that light, my credibility is not up for question. But your implication is that there are no such programs. Do you any evidence for this assertion?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Brainster

McCain is still in the running; he needs Huckabee to win in Iowa and to pull off the upset himself in New Hampshire; either is eminently possible. McCain's big edge is the same as Edwards: Electability. Polls consistently show him doing better than any of the other GOP candidates in a head-to-head matchup against Hillary, Obama or Edwards.

I find your insights into the future disturbing.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by New Ager

After reading this board for the last couple of weeks, it has come to my attention that many here don't know what they are talking about, are ill-informed or are just letting their biases get in the way of rational thinking.

Nothing you say in your post is anything other than your own, biased opinion. There is no more "rational" thinking in your political views than most anybody else.

Even so, since you are basically offering lukewarm, noncommital statements about candidates that have been repeated in the press uncountable times, it's hard to find any single statement of yours that's "wrong."

Quote:

Hillary Clinton ... I expect her to turn up the heat in the coming weeks.

As opposed to what? Calling it a day and going to see a show?

Quote:

McCain............0%

You give John McCain, the only person to actually win a Republican primary, a zero chance of getting the nomination.

Quote:

And the next President of the United States...

Mitt Romney!!!!

Dewey defeats Truman!

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by joobz

I find your insights into the future disturbing.

Maybe I could apply for the million dollar prize? I don't like to boast, but my first presidential campaign was 1968 (McCarthy). Granted, I was stuffing envelopes as a teenager, but I've had a lot of experience since.

[dudalb]

Someone needs to have their Licence to Make Political Predictions revoked.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Maybe I could apply for the million dollar prize? I don't like to boast, but my first presidential campaign was 1968 (McCarthy). Granted, I was stuffing envelopes as a teenager, but I've had a lot of experience since.

So you seem to be the guy taht I should be asking question to.

1.) Does Obama stand a chance?
2.) What does it mean for Hillary to win NH?
3.) Does the fact that the win was 39% to 37% mean anything or is the win all that matters?

If it goes, McCain-Hillary, Who do you think are likely VPs?

[rtalman]

Originally Posted by joobz

So you seem to be the guy taht I should be asking question to.

1.) Does Obama stand a chance?
2.) What does it mean for Hillary to win NH?
3.) Does the fact that the win was 39% to 37% mean anything or is the win all that matters?

If it goes, McCain-Hillary, Who do you think are likely VPs?

1) No
2) That she sealed the cracks in her aura of inevitability
3) No, she exceeded expectations. Anything better than a 5 point loss for Hillary would have been touted as a win by the Clinton camp, actually winning is frosting on the cake.

Clinton-Biden
McCain-Graham

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by joobz

So you seem to be the guy taht I should be asking question to.

1.) Does Obama stand a chance?
2.) What does it mean for Hillary to win NH?
3.) Does the fact that the win was 39% to 37% mean anything or is the win all that matters?

If it goes, McCain-Hillary, Who do you think are likely VPs?

1. Yes, but he's definitely been wounded. Yesterday, Obama's shares were at 70 cents (to win a dollar if he's the nominee). Today his shares are around 38 cents. He won't get another chance until South Carolina (a week from Saturday), which means ten days of Hillary being the news. Worse still, she declined to pull out of Michigan as the party requested, while Obama agreed, meaning she'll likely get a little bounce there.

2. It means a lot. She was reeling coming out of Iowa and seemed ready for the knockout punch. Now she's the favorite again; not the prohibitive favorite, but more likely to get the nomination than not.

3. Yep, winning is everything, despite the delegate count, despite the argument that some Obama supporters decided to vote Republican because Barack seemed safe. You have to win states in the general election; second place means nothing then.

ETA: McCain was asked the Veep question in a blogger conference call this morning. While he declined to be that optimistic, he did mention Phil Gramm as a potential asset to his campaign. Huckabee is another name that is often bruited about, and McCain is also clearly on good terms with Rudy G. Although ordinarily Rudy would seem unlikely to take second banana, a lot depends on whether McCain would be interested in a second term; most folks think he won't be. That would put Rudy in a very advantageous position going into 2012.

If Hillary is the nominee, I definitely think she'll look hard at Evan Bayh of Indiana or Bill Richardson of New Mexico. The latter's choice might hinge on whether there was any truth to the widely-reported rumor that Richardson made a deal to send his supporters to Obama in Iowa.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Your assertion that it's "laughable" that I would challenge your contention on a skeptics board is, well, laughable.

No, it's laughable when all of Europe is very liberal.

Quote:

I can only conclude that the recent French elections have totally escaped you attention.

I don't concern myself with inconsequential country's elections.

But, France is still liberal no matter who they elected.

Quote:

I made no such assertion. I have no idea regarding the existence of "fairminded news programs in Europe".

So, you don't know.

Quote:

In that light, my credibility is not up for question. But your implication is that there are no such programs. Do you any evidence for this assertion?

As I said, the BBC and CNN International. I have never seen or heard of one fairminded news program ever in Europe. They all criticized the war in Iraq. And you've never heard of any. I rest my case.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Nothing you say in your post is anything other than your own, biased opinion. There is no more "rational" thinking in your political views than most anybody else.

Oh, yes there is. The Republicans are not dead in the general election like some here have claimed. The Dems are not going to win in a landslide like some have claimed. Those are irrational claims.

And my explanation of the electoral college was very rational.

Quote:

Even so, since you are basically offering lukewarm, noncommital statements about candidates that have been repeated in the press uncountable times, it's hard to
find any single statement of yours that's "wrong."

Didn't say I didn't. Arguing a point I didn't make.

Quote:

You give John McCain, the only person to actually win a Republican primary, a zero chance of getting the nomination.

He won a primary 4 years ago too. So.

He has no support among mainstream conservatives. He has no chance. That's rational. Any other thinking is irrational.

Brush up on your politics.

Quote:

Dewey defeats Truman!

I made a prediction. 35% chance. Rational.

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Someone needs to have their Licence to Make Political Predictions revoked.

Some people are getting ahead of themselves.

Originally Posted by jobz

If it goes, McCain-Hillary, Who do you think are likely VPs?

The McCain Kool-Aid is getting around.

It could be a new cult starting.

Oh my.

[joobz]

Brainster Pointed out

Originally Posted by Brainster

InTrade today:

McCain: 34.0
Giuliani: 27.3
Huckabee: 16.2
Romney: 14.4
Paul: 4.4
Thompson: 3.0

To which you replied.

Originally Posted by New Ager

You're having to really reach to support your delusion.

Pardon me if I consider your opinion rather....meaningless.

Originally Posted by New Ager

The McCain Kool-Aid is getting around.

It could be a new cult starting.

Oh my.

??? Why does asking a simple question mean..ahhh never mind.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by New Ager

rational.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Father Dagon]

New Ager & SezMe: Please don't make this discussion more confused than necessary by forgetting the european vs the american usage of "liberal" and "conservative".

[Ocelot]

I find it rather curious that in such a discussion the actual policies of the candidates have recieved so little discussion. I've learnt that the democratic candidates are liberal and the Guilliani's stance on abortion and homsexuality may be problematic but not what that stance is.

Why is that?

I'd be interested to hear what the hot topics of debate are, what the candidate's positions are and how well these are playing with the electorate.

Or is it the case that most candidates are saying as little as possible to avoid alienating voters and relying on glad handing and baby kissing to carry them through?

[Invidious]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

I find it rather curious that in such a discussion the actual policies of the candidates have recieved so little discussion. I've learnt that the democratic candidates are liberal and the Guilliani's stance on abortion and homsexuality may be problematic but not what that stance is.

Why is that?

I'd be interested to hear what the hot topics of debate are, what the candidate's positions are and how well these are playing with the electorate.

Or is it the case that most candidates are saying as little as possible to avoid alienating voters and relying on glad handing and baby kissing to carry them through?

I could be wrong because I've only followed most the rhetoric with half an ear, but it sounds like most candidates (with a few amusing exceptions) are towing their party lines pretty consistently, while simultaneously trying to attack their fellow candidates' political histories (ie. so and so is soft on crime, or raises taxes, or is inexperienced in foreign policy, or supports the opposing party's values not ours, etc ad nauseum).

ETA: New Ager is right when he/she says that most states are probably already decided. The candidates aren't immaterial (as I think Brainster(?) said, some evangelicals REALLY wouldn't like voting for a Mormon) but like the parties in general, the candidates try to be as all-inclusive as possible, while still seeming to take conscientously firm stands against the same old things every year.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by New Ager

Oh, yes there is. The Republicans are not dead in the general election like some here have claimed. The Dems are not going to win in a landslide like some have claimed. Those are irrational claims.

The Democrats are more likely to win than not; that's reflected in things like the Iowa Electronic Markets and Intrade. I certainly agree that it's too early for them to be measuring the curtains in the Oval Office.

Quote:

He won a primary 4 years ago too. So.

He has no support among mainstream conservatives. He has no chance. That's rational. Any other thinking is irrational.

Brush up on your politics.

You've been listening to too much talk radio. Yes, McCain won New Hampshire (eight years ago, not four). He also won Michigan that year. It's certainly true that Bush went on to win most of the rest of the states, starting with South Carolina, but this is not 2000. Defense issues didn't matter much to conservatives in 2000; now they are paramount. There's no solid candidate to the right of McCain. Romney has one more chance to make his case in Michigan or he's cooked. Fred Thompson got 1/6th the votes that Ron Paul did in New Hampshire. So the race boils down to Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani. I like Mac's chances in that matchup.

And it's not just me saying this.

National Review (which endorsed Romney):

Quote:

John McCain’s victory in New Hampshire is a lesson in the power of perseverance. Written off for much of last year, he now seems, to many observers, the most likely candidate to win the Republican nomination.

Michael Barone:

Quote:

McCain, celebrating his win in New Hampshire, gave a speech that was in the nature of accepting the mantle of national leadership, and plausibly so.

Bob Novak:

Quote:

McCain's decisive victory puts him in a commanding position after being counted out for much of the last year.

[steverino]

Here is MY take. Obama is for gay marriage...because he wants to marry Kerry for the money.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Someone needs to have their Licence to Make Political Predictions revoked.

Here's every New Ager post translated for you: "Liberal, liberal, liberal."