Campaign 2008

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I think Fred Thompson is being pretty shrewd here. He's biding his time and letting the other candidates self distruct (Giuliani, McCain).

 

As for Giuliani, the fact that his kids hate him, won't vote for him, and barely talk to him at all looks especially bad when you compare to it to Romney and his brady bunch like home life (married to his high school sweetheart for 40 years, five all american sons..etc). Personally, I think the smartest thing Rudy can do right now is get his kids back on his side.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

The media appear to be eating Fred's wife alive right now.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

The media appear to be eating Fred's wife alive right now.

 

 

She's getting off easy compared to Rudy's.

[Timmy8271 0]

What was so great about it?

 

The crowd and the HHH type pop for that Dennis guy.

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

Yea, those Pakistan comments have are ones that Obama is going to have to pay for during the rest of this election cycle.

Bullshit, he won't pay for anything. This guy had the biggest following of college-age idiots before he even expressed a thought. He's got every election locked up from here to next November; bank on it.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Has anyone been following the attempt by California Republicans to change the way California's Electoral College votes are divided up to give the party a better chance in the state? Evidently, they are trying to do the District plan whereby a candidate would win the electoral college vote of the house district they would win on election day based on the popular vote. I then believe the winner of the whole states popular vote would get the two Senate electoral votes. Newsweek wrote a small article about it this week and said that it would give the GOP 22 of California's 55 electoral votes. The piece was a bit biased, though, and was basically accusing the GOP of trying to "steal" the 2008 election.

 

I think this would make California mean little, though, in the general election. Granted, its already solidly Democratic for the presidency BUT the way California's Congressional districts are so gerrymandered would mean that the electoral votes would basically be decided before the election even began.

 

However, I think something is going to be done about California's electoral votes in the near future. The state keeps growing and keeps getting more and more electoral votes at the expense of other states. I have to think that when it gets to the point that California gets to be too sizeable a margin in the Electoral College that other states will try to reign it in and possibly abolish the Electoral College altogether.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yea, those Pakistan comments have are ones that Obama is going to have to pay for during the rest of this election cycle.

Bullshit, he won't pay for anything. This guy had the biggest following of college-age idiots before he even expressed a thought. He's got every election locked up from here to next November; bank on it.

 

So you're predicting that Obama will ride the support of college students all the way to the White House?

 

On another note, what was wrong about his Pakistan comments (not necessarily a question for Czech)?

[Quasar 0]

Yea, those Pakistan comments have are ones that Obama is going to have to pay for during the rest of this election cycle.

Bullshit, he won't pay for anything. This guy had the biggest following of college-age idiots before he even expressed a thought. He's got every election locked up from here to next November; bank on it.

 

So you're predicting that Obama will ride the support of college students all the way to the White House?

 

It sure worked for President Kerry, didn't it?

 

............o wait!

 

[snuffbox 0]

That 'college kids didnt save John Kerry' stuff is dumb. The youth were plenty active & voted even when they had to wait in line for hours. Dont scapegoat them just because the handicapped ran the Kerry campaign & the over-30 voters were led to Bush by '9-11', 'Kerry will tek r guns etc', 'and Kerry wasnt really in Vietnam'.

 

And, I would also like a legitimate reason why Obama's Pakistan comments (and taking nulear weapons off the table) were such terrible things. I don't think such reasoning is forthcoming, though.

[Quasar 0]

That 'college kids didnt save John Kerry' stuff is dumb. The youth were plenty active & voted even when they had to wait in line for hours. Dont scapegoat them just because the handicapped ran the Kerry campaign & the over-30 voters were led to Bush by '9-11', 'Kerry will tek r guns etc', 'and Kerry wasnt really in Vietnam'.

 

You do realize that you and I just made the same point, don't you?

 

 

The college kid demographic isn't nearly enough to win someone the Presidency, there just aren't enough numbers. Keep in mind that not all college kids are Democrats anyway.

 

And if Kerry had a competent campaign staff, we'd be talking about President John Kerry right now. There's no reason that a President with sub 50% approval ratings headed INTO the election year should be taking the oath of office again the following year.

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

Yea, those Pakistan comments have are ones that Obama is going to have to pay for during the rest of this election cycle.

Bullshit, he won't pay for anything. This guy had the biggest following of college-age idiots before he even expressed a thought. He's got every election locked up from here to next November; bank on it.

 

So you're predicting that Obama will ride the support of college students all the way to the White House?

Yes. Obama will win every significant primary, maybe dropping one or two because of a local candidate, and beat any lame duck the Republicans trot out. I'm not entirely sure I want him to, but I'm resigned to the fact that he will.

 

[Quasar 0]

Yea, those Pakistan comments have are ones that Obama is going to have to pay for during the rest of this election cycle.

Bullshit, he won't pay for anything. This guy had the biggest following of college-age idiots before he even expressed a thought. He's got every election locked up from here to next November; bank on it.

 

So you're predicting that Obama will ride the support of college students all the way to the White House?

Yes. Obama will win every significant primary, maybe dropping one or two because of a local candidate, and beat any lame duck the Republicans trot out. I'm not entirely sure I want him to, but I'm resigned to the fact that he will.

 

 

Actually, I think that the real race is between John Edwards and Barack Obama. I can't see Hillary winning any primaries and Edwards has a lot of support in the South. Also, I think that the according to polls, Edwards and Obama are neck and neck in Iowa right now.

 

I wouldn't rule John Edwards out as of yet.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I think Barack's involvement in the race will go down as a huge help to Hillary in years to come. If she'd had just picked up the nomination with ease (like she was set to do before he got involved) people would've resented her for it and she wouldn't have stood a chance against Giuliani or whoever she was up against. But after he announced he was running, she really had to step up her game and, compared to Obama, has shown herself to be extremely serious and competent candidate.

 

It's possible Obama will be president one day, but probably not 2008. The main problem is he's got bucket loads of charisma, but not enough experience and everyone knows it. He's got a lot to work with, and in 8 or so years he can only improve on the qualities he has. I don't know if he'll still want the job a nearly a decade down the line but I wouldn't count him out. Even if he doesn't get the nomination, I doubt we'll have heard the last of him.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Czech and Quasar, look at this table.

 

Obama doesn't lead in a single early primary state. Edwards leads in Iowa, but that's only because he basically never left there after his 2004 campaign.

 

*edit* (Clinton seems to now be leading in Iowa, too.)

 

It is early (at this point in 2003, former Democrat Joe Lieberman led in most polls), but Clinton's lead seems to be large and growing at the moment. And this is coming from someone who would much rather see Obama or Edwards get the nomination.

[Quasar 0]

Of course, you and I both know that John Edwards is the most electable out of the big three right now. Hopefully, Edwards can get the nomination because I'm not feeling the Republicans right now. The thing that the Democrats need to focus on is winning red states and Obama and Clinton will not win a single red state.

 

Look at Obama, no seriously, LOOK AT OBAMA! Most of the red states are Southern and it hasn't even been 50 years since the civil rights movement. Obama/Guiliani would be a nightmare for the Democratic party as it'd be the Mayor during 9/11 against a black man. No way does Obama win a single red state, he's good for maintaining the Democrats in the states that they already have but I can't see Obama winning in the South.

 

Clinton is too polarizing and many in the South cringe at the thought of a woman being President.

 

I think that the Democratic Party needs to stop looking for candidates that appeal to their 49% and look for candidates that appeal to the 100%. I look at Clinton and Obama and think "Blue State Democrat", I don't see someone who can win red states. I see someone who Northern Democrats jerk off to because they're "DIFFERENT!" John Edwards has broad appeal, he's a handsome man from the South, he has lived in the South for his entire life and his campaign actually focuses on helping impoverished people (Whether or not he's genuine is another question). I think that John Edwards has MORE appeal than Obama and Clinton in the South.

 

If it's Clinton/Guiliani or Obama/Guiliani, Guiliani wins with the same margin that Bush did in 2000-2004. If it's Edwards, Edwards COULD possibly take the Carolinas and Georgia to steal the election.

 

Even if Arkansas went to Clinton, it wouldn't be nearly enough to take the election AND I highly doubt that the South would even vote for a former First Lady of Arkansas who decided to become a NEW YORK Senator. Clinton would have a hard time justifying leaving Arkansas for New York. Especially when to the Southern man, New York is seen as the worst place in America, it's the ultimate ANTI-South. What in the hell was Clinton even thinking?

 

If the Democrats want to win this election, they must nominate John Edwards and leave the circle jerked Northern Democrat friendly candidates alone. Get a man who can appeal to the common man. Clinton is not popular enough amongst Southerners to win an election and Obama is not the right race to win in the South (especially considering the low voter turnout of black people historically in the South as a result of the lingering effects of Jim Crow).

[bobobrazil1984 0]

there's very little doubt in my mind that hillary is going to win the primary and probably the presidency - in fact i'm pretty sure i made some declarative statement about it early in the thread. Poll leads can evaporate pretty quickly in primaries (hello howard dean) - but still I think Obama has come across as a bit naive in foreign policy. Frankly i dont pay attention to what people say are 'electable' or not - that's usually just codeword for "i don't like them - thus i dont think they can win".

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Going by the last election, Hillary would only need roughly 60 million votes to win. I think she could get that.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Quasar, when you say Obama can't flip a red state, you are equating the term "red state" with "southern state." There are lots of red states that aren't in the South. Colorado, for example. Ohio.

 

A Democrat could win the presidency without winning a single southern state.

 

Obama gets the states that Kerry got plus Ohio=President Obama

 

Now whether he or Clinton could do that is certainly a matter of discussion. Interestingly, Obama came in 3rd in a recent poll of Iowa REPUBLICANS.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

but still I think Obama has come across as a bit naive in foreign policy.

 

You know that's exactly what Clinton said, don't you?

 

Why do you think that?

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

If Romney got the nomination (not unthinkable at this point) I'd be interested to see whether or not the people in the red states would be willing to vote for a mormon. If he was up against Clinton, they probably would see him as the lesser of two evils. Obama or Edwards might be a different story though.

 

I think if Hillary has any hope of winning any state other than the ones Kerry won, she has to understand that part of her appeal is the idea that Bill will be 'guiding' her if she is elected as president. In essence, they want a third Bill Clinton term. She's been so preoccupied with not being seen as 'soft' or 'weak' because she's a woman, that at this point, she just comes off as too stubborn and headstrong to listen to anyone, even her husband.

[Quasar 0]

You know something? I believe that a Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton would cause a third party to emerge. Southern Republicans will not vote for a liberal Mormon Republican and a Southerner won't vote for Hillary. In fact, it'd be extremely intelligent for a conservative Southern politician to use that as an opportunity to position themselves for the 2012 Republican nomination.

 

The third party would take the South, Romney would win the non-Southern red states but Clinton would take the blue states and ride into the White House.

 

And Gogo, the electoral college is a funny thing, where 60 million votes would put Hillary in the White House. Remember, in 1860, Stephen Douglas came in 2nd to Lincoln in the popular vote but lost the electoral college to other candidates (aside from Abe).

 

EDIT: And there's a chance that neither Hillary, Obama nor Edwards get the nom. Remember how in 2003, we were all talking about Lieberman and Gephardt with some Dean sprinkled in?

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

Romney stopped being a liberal Republican when he stopped running Massachusetts.

 

You know what? Fuck pandering to the South. I'm sick of them. I want a good sensible midwestern moderate Republican. I don't know of any since the beloved Jim Edgar, but that's what I want, dammit. Western states would be tolerable, northeast would be okay, but no more Southerners.

[Quasar 0]

Romney stopped being a liberal Republican when he stopped running Massachusetts.

 

You know what? Fuck pandering to the South. I'm sick of them. I want a good sensible midwestern moderate Republican. I don't know of any since the beloved Jim Edgar, but that's what I want, dammit. Western states would be tolerable, northeast would be okay, but no more Southerners.

 

Doesn't matter, people see "Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney" and think LIBERAL because of the state Massachusetts.

 

 

And if you want candidates to stop pandering to the South, tell people from the Northeast and Midwest to quit moving there and helping them get electoral votes. Seriously, people are moving to the South now because of it having "nice weather" and "good people" and in the process helping them get electoral votes.

[Jingus 0]

Quasar, question: where are you from? Not the South, I assume? You seem to have this view of all Southerners as overall-wearin', scattergun-totin', WASPy "we keep them thar wimmin and darkiez and forners in their place!" type people. I've known quite a few emo kids who go rave-dancin' at the goth & gay bars in downtown Nashville who would disagree with you. Plus the millions of black and mexican folk.

 

Evidently, they are trying to do the District plan whereby a candidate would win the electoral college vote of the house district they would win on election day based on the popular vote.

Personally, I wish EVERY state would do this. It would eliminate the "more people voted for the loser" loophole that happened in 2000 and three times before that. Maine already does it that way, and maybe another state I'm forgeting.

 

However, I think something is going to be done about California's electoral votes in the near future. The state keeps growing and keeps getting more and more electoral votes at the expense of other states.

A district-by-district system would eliminate that problem, too. I just think the current "all or nothing" electoral system is obviously flawed.

[Quasar 0]

Quasar, question: where are you from? Not the South, I assume? You seem to have this view of all Southerners as overall-wearin', scattergun-totin', WASPy "we keep them thar wimmin and darkiez and forners in their place!" type people. I've known quite a few emo kids who go rave-dancin' at the goth & gay bars in downtown Nashville who would disagree with you. Plus the millions of black and mexican folk.

 

Evidently, they are trying to do the District plan whereby a candidate would win the electoral college vote of the house district they would win on election day based on the popular vote.

Personally, I wish EVERY state would do this. It would eliminate the "more people voted for the loser" loophole that happened in 2000 and three times before that. Maine already does it that way, and maybe another state I'm forgeting.

 

However, I think something is going to be done about California's electoral votes in the near future. The state keeps growing and keeps getting more and more electoral votes at the expense of other states.

A district-by-district system would eliminate that problem, too. I just think the current "all or nothing" electoral system is obviously flawed.

 

I'm from just South of the South (Florida) and I agree with you that the youngest generation of Southerners are less abrasive than previous generations, but you remember, we are only 40 years past the Civil Rights movement and all of that BS that took place in the South and a lot of people who came of age during that time period are still alive.

 

I'd say that the Democrats picking up House seats proved that Democrats CAN win in the South, however, the Senate remains very regionalized and thus, the South's electorate (played purely on their past actions, for the most part) are GENERALLY conservative Republican. And hell, to use your example, didn't Harold Ford Jr. get screwed out of the Senate election in Tennessee because of his opponent playing ads that depicting him partying in the Playboy Mansion?

 

But yeah, I think that the South will get more liberal, the whole country is moving left. But the older generation is still more politically active than the younger. To be more accurate, the WHITE older generation is still more politically active than ANYONE. I saw a statistic somewhere that minority voter turnout in the South is significantly lower than in other portions of the country.

 

So, you want Obama to have a chance in the South? Get the youths and blacks to go and vote. Personally, I don't want President Obama nor President Clinton II. I'd much prefer President Edwards or President Richardson.

[Boon 0]

Speaking of Mitt- dude's rich.

WASHINGTON --WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the wealthiest White House contender from either party, is worth as much as $250 million, according to information released by his campaign Monday.

 

The former venture capitalist's wealth -- reported in a range of $190 million to $250 million -- is spread throughout a dizzying array of investments, that include banks, large investment management firms, foreign export credit corporations and real estate.

 

Romney reported the details of his wealth in a personal financial disclosure report filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission and the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Presidential candidates had been required to file such disclosures by May 15, but Romney asked for two 45-day extensions to obtain detailed values of his and his wife's blind trusts.

 

The report offers the most detailed public look yet at the finances of the former Massachusetts governor, who has refused to release his income tax returns, and who previously filed only state financial disclosure forms that described his holdings in the most general terms. His most recent Massachusetts report, filed in May for calendar 2006, was only 10 pages long, compared with the 47-page federal report.

 

The federal report was something of a revelation for Romney as well.

 

His assets have been held in a blind trust since January 2003, but the Office of Government Ethics requires a detailed list of individual holdings. Forced to open his blind trust, the Romneys -- and the world -- discovered precisely which stocks, bonds and mutual funds they own.

 

In the report, Romney underscores his lack of control over the holdings, writing, "In each case, R. Bradford Malt, as trustee, has complete investment discretion over the assets held by these investment vehicles."

 

The report said: "Since Jan. 1, 2003, neither Mr. Romney nor Mrs. Romney has had any control over the assets acquired or disposed of by the vehicles, neither Mr. Romney nor Mrs. Romney has received any reports identifying specific assets held, and the management of the assets has been deemed blind by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission."

 

The report highlights a continuing connection between Romney and Bain Capital, the venture capital firm he founded and which he left in 1999 to assume leadership of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics.

 

Earlier this year, Romney played down any lingering connection after The Associated Press reported Bain Capital and Bain & Co., the management consulting firm where Romney used to work, had links to Iranian business interests or deals despite Romney's campaign-trail call for state pension funds to divest from Iran. At the time, a spokesman highlighted Romney's 1999 resignation from Bain, while Romney himself said his divestment call applied only to future activity, not past dealings.

 

A notation in Romney's filing, however, says that his Bain investments have been in his and his wife's blind trusts and that "neither Mr. Romney nor Mrs. Romney has had any control over the assets acquired or disposed of" since January 2003.

 

A note in the report also states that Romney asked for Bain's underlying holdings, but, like other funds in his blind trust, the fund managers said the information was confidential and declined to provide it.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

but still I think Obama has come across as a bit naive in foreign policy.

 

You know that's exactly what Clinton said, don't you?

 

Why do you think that?

 

the pakistan comments made me think that. I realize the irony - Obama made those comments because hillary said he was naive... and saying them made me agree with hilarry. like it matters what i think though. I dont dislike obama, i like him in fact, but those comments really made me raise an eyebrow.

 

of course the TRUE reality is probably that Obama wouldn't even necessarily do that if he was in office - he just said it so he'd look decisive and ready to 'take action' on foreign policy.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I find it funny that Hillary keeps saying she has the experience to lead and yet her records from her first lady days are going to be locked up until after the election:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1&cset=true

[snuffbox 0]

When did having actual foreign policy plans/ideas become naive? Was it around the time we decided to elect a President who though the leader of Pakistan was 'General, uh, General General'?