Actually, Lazio’s entire platform was basically not being Hillary. I remember even conservatives who hated Clinton saying that Lazio was running an issueless campaign. They wanted him to actually take some conservative stands but he figured not being Clinton was enough. If he had been elected, he would have accomplished his entire reason for running - I have no idea what he would have done for the next six years.
As for Guiliani, Clinton was polling better than him when he withdrew. Some have speculated that he used his health problems to cover his withdrawal from an election he knew he was going to lose.
Hopefully this won’t be at all relevant in a week, but, can we assume that votes for “uncommitted” in Michigan were for Obama, and would he in any way have a say on who said delegates were if they’re allowed to be seated?
If so, I think it’s very telling that, even including the Florida/Michigan debacle, and counting superdelegates with announced allegiances, Obama is still up by 40.
Maybe, but there is a real dearth of republican leadership in NY, at least as far as I can see. Lazio was at least a fresh face, even if he was a useless douche. Giuliani was also loathed quite enough by then in NYC to have torpedoed his chance of getting elected. The rest of the country had the opportunity to find out what (almost) every New Yorker already knew: the more you see him, the less you like him.
Oh wow, that’s so cool. I’m very glad I was able to provide what turned out to be valuable information for you. I’m kind of curious, if you can recall, which articles or links persuaded you.
As a non involved Limey who has been forced to endure what seems to be day by day by day coverage of candidate selection can I put in my two cents worth.
Elections are not purely about logic,political or economic sense,but I suspect quite often its a case of "He’s a good looking man"or "He looks just like that bloke who criticised my dog"and other totally irrational criteria.
I’ve always tried to be not guilty of this myself ,I always stick up for Nixon for bringing about detente,for getting the Chinese to talk to the West after years of ignoring us and for bringing to a speedy end the second Cuban Missile crisis without any dramatics in spite of his totally bad body language and lack of any apparent charisma.
But when it comes to Senator Clinton I tell myself she’s got all the experience of being a presidents wife (and he must have talked about crisis’s to her when in office)he can give her lots of advice even now about presidenting ,she’s a woman which would be a good thing for the U.S. but she just comes across to me as being very like Cherie Blair (With whom she is apparently very good friends )and I totally loathe and despise C.Blair so irrational as it is I cant bring myself to want Clinton to win.
On the other side of the fence one of the Republican candidates who I thought that never in a million years would I want him to get elected as he comes across as a mindless,right wing reactionary I found that he was a fighter pilot in Vietnam and survived being a prisoner of the Vietcong which inspires my respect quite a lot .
Saying that in the U.K. we have a senior politician(Paddy Ashdown) who was in the U.K. special forces (but only S.B.S. not the real thing )who is a complete twat.
And before any of you Yanks start saying that its none of us Limeys business what happens in your electoral procedure I’ll just say that whoever becomes tomorrows P.O.T.U.S. affects everyone else in the world.
Well then you should have no trouble participating here.
Interestingly, I feel like I get the best campaign coverage from the Beeb, they have time to think on things, filter, and also report the media coverage for events. I’ve lately been trying to hold myself from consuming political media coverage until it’s time for the Daily show and BBC news.
Actually this was one of them, and it was largely grayhairedmomma’s links in **Phlosphr’s ** thread. I can’t find the other one from the same time period I read, where you supplied some links. I may not have posted in that one.
That SBS are very serious chaps. Not as well known as the SAS but on par with them from everything I’ve heard. I think their motto is better thaN the SAS’s “Who Dares Wins” it’s “By Strength And Guile”. Actually their original one was ever better IMO "Not By Strength By Guile’
Yet, in all of the entire state of New York, against such an allegedly beatable and despised opponent, the GOP could not come up with anyone better (Well, to be fair to them, their previous best candidate possible was Al D’Amato).
Is that a cause or is than an effect of the GOP’s inability to find anybody in the entire state better than that to be their candidate?
At least the Illinois GOP could go recruit Alan Keyes …
The Republicans had six years to come up with somebody to run against her in 2006 and the best they could find was John Spencer.
The problem was that most politicians want to actually win elections and take office. Seeing that Clinton was likely to win most of the big Republican possibilities didn’t want to waste their time and money (and image) running against her when they had a better shot at some other office. So the Republicans had to find somebody who was willing to run in what was seen as a mostly symbolic effort.
And you had, what, three terms of Pataki as governor? It’s only lately that NY’s become the solidly Democratic stronghold it is today, with only 6 GOP Congresscritters.
Hey, ten years ago, West Virginia was considered a safe Dem state. Neither Gore nor Kerry came close to winning it. Things change.
True, but the issue is kind of nuanced. NY is not as solidly democratic as I would like it to be.
There is a tremendous political (and socio-economic) divide between downstate and upstate. This tends to yield divergent statewide politics.
Pataki was unusual in that he was perceived as an upstater by upstate New Yorkers but a downstater by downstate ones, since he was the mayor of a small suburb of NYC, incidentally where I grew up. He was just conservative enough to carry upstate, especially since they loathed Mario Cuomo. He didn’t do fabulously in the city, but he did well enough to defeat Cuomo.
HRC had enormous downstate support due to the machine. Her first opponent, Lazio, just did not get enough traction anywhere to challenge her seriously.
NY is solidly democratic because, well, even our republicans drift left of the median US voter. We could vote for Senator Pothole, who supported gays serving openly in the military in 93, and against Bush with a straight face.
