What’s Guiliani’s plan for the budget? “I survived 9/11”
What’s Guiliani’s plan for global warming? “I survived 9/11”
What’s Guiliani’s plan for Iraq? “I survived 9/11”
Like Bush, he can’t order from a menu without bringing up 9/11. That dog ain’t gonna hunt.
Yes, waaaaaaaaaaay too soon to say, and the identities of both the GOP and Dem candidates will obviously make an enormous difference, but all things being equal (which they never are)… my SWAG is that the Republicans have about a 45% chance of hanging onto the White House.
Going for the GOP: The Electoral College favors them overall, in terms of the red state/blue state balance. They tend to be more formidable fundraisers (although that seems to be changing, of late). They’re the incumbent party. The Dems tend to shoot themselves in the foot. The Republicans have a better, more-experienced cadre of presidential-campaign operatives.
*
Going against the GOP:* The Iraq war. The Iraq war. The growing divide between the Religious Right and the rest of the party. The Iraq war. The soft economy. Bush’s personal unpopularity. The American public’s customary desire for a changing of the guard after any party holds the Presidency for eight years. And the Iraq war.
:dubious: Cite? I’m reading his website, and this doesn’t seem to be what he’s saying. Perhaps YOU haven’t read it yet?
You are probably right…of course, you are using a strawman, so you were bound to be.
I’m no fan big fan of Rudy, though I can think of worse people who could be president. But seriously, this kind of uninformed BS on your part really shouldn’t be in GD. Does Rudy have fully fleshed out answers to your questions on what he plans to do about the budget, global warming and Iraq? Nope. Basically just light weight political mouthings at this point. Neither, afaict, does anyone else at this point however. Its still early days after all.
What he DOES have though doesn’t mention surviving 9/11 at all. Feel free though to back up your assertion with a cite or two. You might want to start here…at his website.
-XT
That’s one of my 20% scenarios. Hillary gives the GOP base a whole new reason to come out, and the Dems a whole new reason to stay home. I’ve said it all along–no one on either side really wants Hillary Clinton to be President.
I’ve been to his site. Ho-hum. 9/11 of course is played up prominently. At both debates he played up 9/11. I haven’t seen a TV appearance he’s ever made without bringing it up. When he can go an entire debate or even a single speech without waving the bloody flag of 9/11, I’ll stop dwelling on his dwelling on it. Then maybe he can talk about how a mayor that refuses to speak to one of the borough presidents has the diplomatic skills it takes to be president.
I agree with this. As Bill Clinton has noted, the most optimistic candidate always wins. And you can’t sound optimistic by attacking a lame-duck president.
This is why I like Obama’s rhetoric. It is optimistic and forward-looking. Not as negative as the other Democratic candidates.
Do you think Obama can win the primary? I know its too early to tell, but Hillary is going to be tough to beat (in the primary) unless she screws up big time between now and then. Of course, we are talking about a lot of time between now and then…
-XT
I believe he can. I don’t think many people are tuned in right now. Just us political junkies. I think as we get closer to the elections, more people will pay attention, and (I think) will be drawn to Obama’s message. Right now, I think a lot of Hillary’s polling lead is just name recognition.
For that matter, Edwards or Gore could still pass both of them. Edwards, in particular, since he (last time I checked) has a polling lead in Iowa, and an early victory there could propel him as it did Kerry.
Well, if Gore decides to run ( :dubious: ) then all bets are off. His stock seems to be rising. I was just reading this article about the man in Time…very interesting.
-XT
The number of people who are going to vote for him because they went to his website and read his position papers is on the order of 0.01% (no cite). I haven’t missed any election (including school board) in about 20 years, am as web savvy as they come, and I have never been to a candidate’s website in my life.
The fact is, he does bring up 9/11 all the time in public appearances, and he will continue to because that is the only “big issue” he is in the front on. He’s the only one with a direct tie to 9/11 and he won’t let us forget it. The problem is, it doesn’t have the gravity it once had. When’s the last time you heard of a change in the terror “color” status?
I do. He has almost as much money as Hillary, and he will crush her in debates. While she has experience and knowledge of politics, she comes off as the opposite of her husband. She’s Michael Dukakis in a skirt.
I would be happy if this is true, but for the general public I think Iraq anger comes and goes in waves. The Republicans have been at a low point recently, but right now the public is seeing the Democrats can’t do anything about the way the way is going - so that doesn’t translate into a big gain for Democrats. Who knows, with the proposed deadlines coming up next year and the surge wearing on, maybe people will be worked up at that time, too.
Meanwhile, I’m putting the odds at 40 percent. I don’t think Republicans at large are excited about their crop of candidates, so I see the potential for division or a conservative third-party there. I don’t think any third-party candidates are going to hurt the Democrats.
Actually, based on the added last chapter in the new edition of Greg Palast’s Armed Madhouse, I’d be much more concerned about new laws restraining voter-registration drives; improperly rejected voter registrations; improperly rejected absentee ballots, provisional ballots and “spoiled” ballots; “caging lists” of predominantly black/poor/Dem voters who may have changed their addresses; another round of purges of “felons” from voter rolls in states where that matters; another round of purges of voters for other reasons (e.g., having the same name and birthdate as a voter in another state); demands for photo ID at the polls; unlawful election-day voter challenges by Pub operatives; a strategically planned shortage of voting machines in heavily Dem precincts, as in 2004 in Ohio; and computer glitches of the sort that skew the results but don’t constitute provable fraud, as in Florida’s 13th District in 2006. Plus Diebold.
Does the “dubious” smiley mean you don’t expect him to announce, or that you’re getting impatient for him to do so, or what?
Why those regions in particular? Is it because he’s from Chicago, or is it the race thing?
Couldn’t he win California in the general?
They always ask for a photo ID when I go to vote. Am I being repressed?
If California goes to the GOP I think it’ll signal the opening of the zombie attack. I don’t know about the SW. But I agree with pkbites that Obama will have a lot of difficulty with the South, just due to his race IMO. I pointed out the specifics some time before but, basically, Clinton won a ton of Southern states and Kerry/Gore didn’t, so they lost. If Obama can’t win any Southern states it seems to me he’s screwed unless the Dems can turn the Western states blue.
No joke. Plus, the 9/11 aura around him isn’t reasonable since it actually makes him look pretty bad. He was good at making speeches afterward but on the facts he fails. I mean, the entire reason he was wandering around the streets with everyone else after the attacks was due to the fact he didn’t listen to his experts and move his command HQ after the first WTC bombing back in the 90s.
I’m always confused by the people who point out that Rudy is not going to be real popular with the Republican base as a determining factor in the general election. I do believe that you have a point WRT the primaries, I’m not sold that he can win the nomination, but if he does get it, what does it matter? Do you think they are going to stay home on election day, especially if HRC is the Democrat’s nominee? I seriously doubt it. Guiliani may not motivate the Republican base to vote for him, but HRC sure as hell does motivate that base to get out and vote against her, no matter who the Republican nominee is. The same would be true for Obama or, God forbid, Kucinich. Edwards might have a chance to make them stay home, or Gore, if he runs, but I see Rudy beating any other Democrat handily.
All he has to do is get the nomination.
I consider Hillary and Obama both unelectable. Why? Because the woman/Clinton support or Black support is already active and tends towards the Democrats. If Clinton or Obama get nominated, I predict many “I don’t care” voters will turn out to vote AGAINST the woman/Clinton/Black candidate.
Giuliani won’t win because Republicans historically nominate the person that best represents the Republican ideals that have swung to the right with the rise of the religious Right instead of nominating the person most likely to win a general election. Say what you want about Democrats, but they seem to understand that the country doesn’t want a conservative or a liberal but a moderate and always seem to pick a candidate that appeals to the country as a whole. Incidently, that is why I think Hillary or Obama will not be nominated as president but do have an outside chance of getting a VP nomination depending on who the Republican nominee will be.
McCain would make a very good president for those of us that favor stronger local control, but at his age, how many voters fear he’ll be like Reagan (was perceived) was and lose it over the course of his term? I see Mitt Romney as being the Rep candidate if for no other reason, he has a history of being able to clean up messes (Jane Swift’s and the SLC Olympics to name two). For the Dems, it will be John Edwards simply because Hillary and Obama won’t be.
Odds: Romney over Edwards at 3:2.
Key States (Northeastern Conservative v. Southern Liberal)
New York: VP choice (Clinton or Guiliani) may make the difference.
Florida: How much support will Romney get from Jeb if he starts trashing (oops - distancing himself from) G. W. Bush?
I think having some leadership experience is very important. Do I think someone who has served for 20 years in the Senate is more qualified than someone who has served 18? No, not really.
Do I think someone who was a general is necessarily qualified to win a country? No, not necessarily. However I think to be the President you should be able to lead. A General, a CEO, a governor, these are all relevant pre-Presidency leadership positions.
Pure legislative experience isn’t very relevant, but some people are natural leaders. Lincoln never held executive office prior to being elected. The truth of the matter is the Presidency is both about leading and consensus building. When it comes to the latter, legislators are usually much better. LBJ had much more success getting bills through congress because he understood how it worked, he was considered a master in the Senate. Kennedy on the other hand had difficulty working with Congress despite the fact he was elected from the Senate. He was in the Senate, but was relatively aloof, never got his hands dirty, and was often absent from the chamber (moreso than most Senators because of multiple back surgeries that kept him sidelined through much of the 1950s.)
The ideal candidate is probably someone who combine military leadership and legislative experience or someone who combines legislative and executive experience. Those candidates are rare, Theodore Roosevelt combined all military, executive, and legislative leadership and IMO was one of our best Presidents because he had become familiar with the most important aspects of governing.
We’re not necessarily talking about what makes a great President we’re talking about candidates and how likely they are to be elected. It’s one of the sad truths of our system that the people who might make great Presidents often make poor presidential candidates. The American people have shown in the past they are hesitant to elect the inexperienced, I don’t really see how that has changed significantly as it hurt Edwards significantly in the primaries last time around.
Yeah, Obama lacks widespread national electability, just in my opinion. I actually like Obama as a person, vaguely disagree with some of his domestic policies and strongly disagree with his foreign policy. I almost definitely wouldn’t vote for him, but I wouldn’t be terribly upset if he was elected, I think he could be a good President.
I actually think his collapse in the primaries will have little to do with race. If anything his race could help him significantly in the South, some of the Southern states have very sizeable black populations. Although I’ve heard some indication that Obama actually polls better with middle class whites than he does with blacks. It will mostly boil down to other candidates ripping his stature apart as the primaries progress, it’ll be very easy to paint Obama as an inexperienced idealist who isn’t fit to lead.
For better or worse he was perceived as a successful, two term governor in the country’s second largest state. The Texas governor is relatively weak, but State governor’s across the board tend to be strong within their states, so the Texas governorship often suffers unfairly in the comparison. Technically speaking the U.S. Presidency is fairly weak within the Federal government by design, but the President has traditionally wielded greater powers due to strong influence on Congress and control of the military (which is mostly a non-issue at the state-level.)
When talking about experience, it’s not so important how experienced someone actually is, but how experienced people view them as. Most Americans don’t really know the State constitutions of every State, many Texans don’t know their own State constitution. Governors are universally viewed as the leaders of the State they govern, just like mayors are seen as the leaders of the cities they govern (although in many city political systems the governor is little more than a “first among equals” on the city council.)
It’s easy to paint the picture of a two term governor being very experienced. It’s downright hard to pain the same picture of a two-year Senator and very easy to paint such a person as inexperienced. If you need proof, look what happened to Edwards in 2004.