[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Didn’t he have a pro-choice record as governor?
[/QUOTE]
Why don’t you go to Wikipedia and look it up?
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Then there are the wild cards: Iraq, and a 3rd party candidacy.
[/quote]
The only third-party candidacy on the horizon is Bloomberg’s. Consider. Nader’s candidacy evoked reactions ranging from “Over my dead body!” to “It’s about time!” So did Buchanan’s. Reactions to Perot were either “WTF?” or “Omighod!” But Bloomberg’s inspires “yawn.”
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Also, I think independents and Democrats (and some Republicans like me) . . .
[/quote]
:dubious: There are no Republicans in Canada.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Another big liability of the Democratic candidates is their wacky ‘base’. They’re farther out there than the Republican base is. And they’re militant.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
If only!
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
…Already, public support for the war has climbed 10 percentage points in the past few months …
[/QUOTE]
Whaaa? Huh? I mean, cite?
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Mitt Romney should be a great candidate. The buzz around him started when he managed the Olympics in Salt Lake City and by all accounts did a superlative job. He’s been highly successful in business and government. He’s good looking, and speaks well. But the Mormon thing… I don’t know. I honestly don’t know if he can overcome that. Also, I think independents and Democrats (and some Republicans like me) are getting really tired of the religious right and their opposition to everything from abortion to stem cell research. His wife is into ‘alternative medicine’, seeks out holistic treatments for her multiple sclerosis. She’s a believer in ‘treatments’ like reflexology. So she’s a bit of a flake.
[/QUOTE]
Romney being a Mormon hurts him, but does it hurt him more than Hillary being a woman or Obama being blackish?
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
the Democrats are working damned hard to discredit themselves now that they control Congress, and they may overtake the Republicans in this regard by the time the election rolls around. I can’t believe how freaking incompetent they’ve been. Congressional approval has dropped 10 points since the Republicans lost power, and they were booted out because the people didn’t like them. Amazing. All the Democrats had to do was follow through with their ‘good government’ reforms and act like adults, and they’d be in the driver’s seat now. Instead, they keep shooting themselves in the foot.
[/QUOTE]
They do have a certain native talent. It’s nothing new, they’ve been working on it for decades and have honed it and refined it until it is quite the precision instrument.
Presidentially, I will confess to some unease about the Fredster. I think he is too little coming in too late and won’t play well, but I could see the Pubbie base embracing him, and he could play well if it weren’t such a poor season to be a Republican who doesn’t stand out as non-standard.
I’ve decided I’d really like to see Clinton take it. I didn’t think she had the chops as a political campaigner, but she’s doing OK. And I think she’ll do a good job once in office. (Again, assuming she’s got the poli skillz to keep from being demonized into ineffectiveness)
[QUOTE=treis]
Romney being a Mormon hurts him, but does it hurt him more than Hillary being a woman or Obama being blackish?
[/QUOTE]
There are more female Americans, and there are more African-Americans, than there are Mormon-Americans. More to the point, there are more Americans who passionately hate Mormonism than there are who passionately hate women or blacks. (No cite, it just seems obvious.)
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Mitt Romney has the second best chance to beat Hillary. But he’ll struggle to keep the base in the Bible Belt, who don’t cotton to Mormons.
[/QUOTE]
There is absolutely no way that whoever the Republican candidate is will not take the bible belt, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or species. Donald Duck would carry the bible belt, if he were the Republican nominee.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
More to the point, there are more Americans who passionately hate Mormonism than there are who passionately hate women or blacks. (No cite, it just seems obvious.)
[/QUOTE]
Maybe more passionate haters in real life, but we’re talking politics here. I personally know five women who insist they will never vote for a woman candidate for president, because they think a woman does not have the character traits needed to do the job well. I think most people don’t even know what a “Mormon” is, though. Isn’t it about that guy who had fourteen wives or something?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It was fatuous when John said it, and you have nothing of substance to add.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you know, I haven’t started my 600,000 thread this week as you have, so its rather more difficult for me to find a cite. I’ll leave you with this thought however…if the US has REALLY gone left of Hillary, why is it that Hillary is the top contender…instead of, say, someone like your boy Dennis The Menace Kucinich? If the US has REALLY gone hog wild to to left why were so many of the Dem’s who won congressional seats considered centrists?
You are living in a fantasy world…but hey, who am I to burst your bubble. Your dreams of a left wing US, as well as constant Constitutional crisis really harm no one but the hamsters…
-XT
For what it is worth, Freedomworks, a conservative activism group chaired by former U.S. House Majority leader Dick Armey, ran a straw poll featuring all 11 potential Republican candidates. Check out who won.
Whoever wins the Dem nomination will do the logical thing and paint their Republican opponent as a Bush-wannabe, Bush-lite, Bush-continued, or whatever. There is a lot of truth behind this – Bush didn’t singlehandedly make the Republican Party the corrupt pack of venal scum it is, and whoever succeeds him will be picking from said corrupt pack of venal scum to staff their administration. Except for getting out of Iraq more pronto than Bush would (but not TOO pronto …) any Pubbie President will likely be a continuation of the Bush Presidency.
Hillary will be seen as a continuation of the Clinton Presidency of course by a large segment of the population. (Remember, they are STUPID, almost half of them voted for Bush TWICE!).
So from the viewpoint of most voters, the election will be Clinton vs. Bush. Who wins there?
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. In a walk. In a landslide. It will not be pretty.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
.. If the US has REALLY gone hog wild to to left why were so many of the Dem’s who won congressional seats considered centrists?..
[/QUOTE]
By whom? I’ve heard Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity say very much the same thing, in pointing out that the conservatives didn’t really lose that election because all the dems elected were really pretty conservative. Really.
But those are the ones I heard, who is your source for this insightful bit of political wisdom?
I think it’s August of 2007 and it’s way too early to call it anyone’s sure thing yet. I feel the Republicans still have a good chance to win.
I think Clinton will get the Democratic nomination. She’s the front runner and she’s organized. She’s not somebody who will make any big mistakes and blow her lead. She’ll run a steady but unexciting campaign.
Bush probably couldn’t get relected again but he won’t be running. The big thing for the Republican candidate is he has to be seen not just as an alternative to Clinton; he also has to be seen as an alternative to Bush. I agree with Lemur - the worst thing any Republican candidate could do would be accept the Vice Presidency. Being seen as Bush’s poodle for a year would sink anyone. The Vice Presidency is only a springboard to the White House if you’re serving under a popular President like Eisenhower or Reagan or Clinton. Nobody wants to see the Bush administration going into extra innings.
Offhand, I think Guiliani is the most winnable candidate. He’s distant enough that he isn’t linked to the current administration’s problems but he’s perceived as somebody who can address the same problems. He won’t scare off moderates and liberals like most of the other Republican candidates would and if he’s running against Clinton he’ll still get the conservative votes by default. I’ll grant you he has a lot of negatives in his background but he knows how to play them. To a lot of voters he’ll seem like a “safer” choice than Clinton.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
But those are the ones I heard, who is your source for this insightful bit of political wisdom?
[/QUOTE]
Well, in the same vein as you, I heard it on the Daily Kos (cited in a thread a few weeks ago to be sure) about how conservative the Dem’s are turning out to be…especially since they won’t impeach Bush! This isn’t the only place I’ve heard about it, mind, but the only one I could think of off hand the way you so dilligently cited those two, um, solid sources. So, I suppose if YOU heard it on Fox (its interesting that you listen to good old Sean…I think he’s a blow hard myself) and I heard it on the Kos it MUST be true! Ehe?
-XT
Just kind of seems you’ve got a wee bit of a contradiction there. On the one hand, you claim that the voting public has not evidenced a dramatic shift leftward. For evidence of this, you define the people that public elected as being “centrist”. But, Shirley, if the public has moved left, so has that center. Kinda buggers the question, don’t you think?
Well…no. If we assume that the US public was right of our collective ‘center’, then a leftward shift would put us…well, right smack in the middle somewhere. Perhaps eventually slightly left of that mysterious ‘center’. However, BG is positing a MAJOR leftward shift into leftwing nirvana (or something)…which, based on both the recent (2006) elections AND based (so far) on what I’m seeing materializing from who are the front runners for the Dem candidates, I don’t think is supported by the evidence. Looking over BG’s, um, cite in his thread I don’t think that the evidence for a major leftward bound shift is there either. YMMV, but I’m guessing that it will be Hillary (or someone of a similar centrist bent) rather than someone like Denis the Menace that will get the nod in 2008…
-XT
Wow, going way out on a limb there, XT. Dennis Kucinich won’t be the nominee? A bold assertion.
How can the US public be to the right of itself?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Wow, going way out on a limb there, XT. Dennis Kucinich won’t be the nominee? A bold assertion.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not the one claiming the US has moved radically left. You want a bold assertion like that, go talk to BG.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
How can the US public be to the right of itself?
[/QUOTE]
No point really in answer this, as you know very well how a political pendulum works. I’m just trying to figure out why you would even ask this question. You know the answer…your statement doesn’t have your characteristic droll snap…
Nope…no idea really.
-XT
I might be politically retarded, but I don’t think Obama or Clinton have a snowballs chance in Hell. I, unfortunatly, do not think “America-at-Large” will vote for them. I just don’t see it happening, no matter how bad the GOP has F’ed up. Edwards is thier only shot, if you ask me.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Didn’t he have a pro-choice record as governor?
[/QUOTE]
And continued to stand by it well after his supposed revelatory moment in late 2004.