General Statistics
Total Posts: 277284
Total Topics: 4693
Online Today: 31
Online Ever: 127, on March 13, 2007, 12:56:10 PM
Users Online
Totals
Users: 13
Guests: 18
Total: 31
Poll: Whom do you prefer from these four?
Obama
Hillary
Mitt
McCain

Index Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 87
Gwoo    Topic opened January 26, 2008, 12:07:33 AM
Renown: +131/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,750

These are the final four it appears.  Who do you like.

To follow is my best guess going forward...

McCain and Romney are beating hell out of one another in Florida.  Hillary and Obama and Bill have waged a menage a trois that has gotten downright nasty in South Carolina. 

Being the cynic, I think the Clintons have decided to "Sister Souljah" Obama to make this race about race.  By this I mean they have purposely made race an issue to isolate Obama and rile the redneck vote.  In 1992 they did this when Bill was on a stage with Jesse Jackson and others, played some Sister Souljah lyrics and then launched into a lecture that left the audience speechless and wooed back Reagan Democrats.

This time around it looks like they are ceding South Carolina by making it about race.  It's riled blacks to rally round Obama, but now he is getting all of 10% support from whites in SC.  Blacks are a disporportionate element of the SC registered democrats.  Now they can leave SC and bite their lips and lament the loss in SC was because, sadly, Obama played the race card.  It can explain a loss they realized they were going to endure in racial tones that'll work with blue collar dems in the 20-odd states in Super Tuesday.

Florida is a closed primary so McCain support from independents matters not a damn.  Romney has personal funds and McCain is running on empty.  His campaign has called me several times in the past week for cash, and I am already at the limit.

Romney's a horrible campaigner who sucks ass when attacked.  Kennedy had him so he didn't know whether to shit or go blind when he hauled in laid off workers from firms Bain Capital bought and tore apart for salvage.  He won't stand a chance against Shillary and company.

What I don't know is the number of open primaries on super tuesday that might give McCain a shot.  I could also see this one being stalemated and going to the convention.  I do think Hillary is going to make it on the democrat side, and think Rommey will get it and not know what hit him when he gets to the general campaign.

I think Shillary is the next presdent at this point.

Heaven help us.
Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 05:55:06 AM by phobos, Reason: Goodbye, Hillary... Logged

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Anonymous

"Never negotiate with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room."  -- Winston Churchill

We're not in xF anymore, Toto.
jabbaciv Reply #1 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 26, 2008, 06:28:51 AM
All Klingon in the Pants

Renown: +68/-15
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,288

We can't stop here, this is bat country

Quote from: DailyKos poster
Yes, I'll still vote for Hillary in the fall if she's the nominee, but that's all I'll do.  When Republicans tell me angrily, "The Clintons are liars!" I always used to roll my eyes and dismiss them.  The sad, sad, truth is that yes, they have indeed lied.  They did it in this campaign.  And I can't even begin to tell you how my regard for them has dropped in the last two months alone.

Quote from: me
Could you tell, not just a Republican but anybody, that you knew someone was a liar and you voted for them anyway, and not feel horrible about it?

I could not justify with myself voting for something that I know is wrong. My principles are too strong for that. If someone wants to screech at me that this makes me a closet Republican (when I won't vote for a liar? What?), or somebody who just wants McCain (who I have zero respect for) to win, that's just too bad for them. I can look at myself in the mirror and realize I won't sacrifice what's right for what's politically expedient.

Quote from: DailyKos poster
Given the choice between a candidate who lies in elections, but has basically decent policies, and a candidate who does not lie in elections, but who favors preemptive war, will appoint dreadful Supreme Court justices, is OK with torture, etc., etc., I have to ask myself: which of these things matters more to me? And after thinking about that, I'd vote for the first candidate. Because lying in elections bothers me a lot, but it is not, literally, the worst thing in the world, to me. And regrettably, it's also not the worst thing that a candidate of a major party will endorse.

Right now, we get to choose between two main candidates. One lies a lot; one doesn't lie much at all. One misrepresents the other's views; the other does so only occasionally, and in ways that are a lot less serious. (To my mind, taking Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment as referring to Obama's candidacy as a whole rather than to his antiwar record is both easier to understand as a mistake and a lot less serious a distortion than e.g. claiming Obama is weak on choice.) For that reason, I will now argue as strongly as I can that we should choose the candidate who is basically honest.

But later, we will face an entirely different choice. Personally, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I sat on my hands because no candidate was perfect, the worse candidate was elected, and we got into another war of choice, in which people died; or two new Supreme Court nominations locked in a Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas majority for a generation. I just wouldn't.

Quote from: me

If the lying candidate lies, you don't know what their policies are. They could be lying.

Additionally, it is impossible to defend them in a general election context, or any other context for that matter. It ensures Democratic losses in 2010 and 2012, because we had a candidate that we knew was a liar and a dishonest politician, and we voted for that candidate anyway. That says terrible terrible things about our political party.

I'm not a Republican, I'm not ready and willing to sacrifice the moral high ground for political gain.

That same conversation, with different people, has been repeatedly there frequently. Apparently even though we know she is a lying manipulative corrupt politician, we're supposed to vote for her anyway just because she's a Democrat. Hell with that. If the Democrats nominate her and she wins, it won't be because of a vote cast by me. And I'm not going to spend the next 4 years defending anything she does.
Logged

Don't confuse a position that is both a logically and morally defensible one with dogma.
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." -SCOTUS Justice Kennedy
toranoraneko Reply #2 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 26, 2008, 10:56:46 AM
Genetically Altered

Renown: +38/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,599

A lonely chord, without a song.

Aw, man. I don't think I agree with any of them. I don't want another presidential election to feel like I'm simple choosing the lesser of two evils....although I'm beginning to suspect that is all the election will ever be.
Logged

"Where will I hang up my raincoat when this day is over? Like a leaf without a tree, nothing to cover over me. I'm like a character from a story, I don't exist."
12595_mr._tester.png
Badger Reply #3 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 26, 2008, 11:23:08 AM
Renown: +169/-8
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,548

Swift as a deer, size of a dog, head like a monkey

I don't love love love any of them.  However, what I love love love even less is the constant driving need to explain who you're voting for by trashing the person you're *not* voting for.

Of the four, I think that none of them would be dangerous or incompetent.  They would likely all do things I might disagree with, but I could live peaceably under a Romney or McCain presidency provided I had a Democratic Congress to balance any excesses (I think the country functions best with an oppositional Congress).  Even though I don't personally like Senator Clinton, I think that she would govern competently enough.

I have finally decided who I'm supporting, though.  I looked at all the major candidates, and what sums up my reasoning best is a statement from the man himself:

Quote
I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don't work as advertised. I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers.

All questions of electability and experience aside, Barack Obama admits that some social welfare programs don't work but are necessary, he understands the importance of scientific education, and the man has used the words "I believe in the scientific method," in a public statement (it was in his book).  Will he protect my civil liberties?  Probably as well as or better than any candidate out there.  Will he protect my right to religious, sexual, and reproductive freedom?  I believe so.  Does he have an understanding of the basics of economic theory strong enough to make intelligent choices?  I believe so.

So, no, he's not perfect.  I'd like him to have more experience.  I'd like him to be a little less flash and a little more substance.  But the man says the country needs more geeks, that we need more people concerned with how things work than how to phrase the conversation about them, and that makes him damn all right in my book.
Logged

""We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer
Barefoot Priestess
Gwoo Reply #4 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 26, 2008, 11:50:28 AM
Renown: +131/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,750

I could live with him as well, Badger, but would like a republican congress to curb any of "his" excesses as well.

Sadly, I think he's been "swift boated" or "Sister Souljahed" in South Carolina that will make that a pyrrhic victory for him.  I think he was absolutely correct to call them out on what they have done and really do not think he has initiated the mud nor been as nasty an inaccurate in his counter claims.  The twisting of his words on Reagan were transparent as shit and an insult to our intelligence **IF** you heard his exact words.

But how many of the electorate bother to investigate the words?  That's the sad part.  What passes for dialog punishes those who give a thoughtful, 4 or 5 minute answer to a question when a 20 second sound bite can be lifted out of context to be hung around your neck.  The Clintons mastered this with Newt Gingrich who was a long winded talker.  Newt was far more intelligent and thoughtful on things than ever given credit for and was turned into a cartoon character by these guys in the mid 1990s.  Newt was the best thing that ever happened to Clinton as he had a new punching bag who had a large ego and fell victim to his own hubris when he became majority leader, far exceeding his wildest imagination of how successful the 94 election would be for him.

Man, those people suck.
Logged

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Anonymous

"Never negotiate with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room."  -- Winston Churchill

We're not in xF anymore, Toto.
Badger Reply #5 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 26, 2008, 12:33:13 PM
Renown: +169/-8
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,548

Swift as a deer, size of a dog, head like a monkey

I could live with him as well, Badger, but would like a republican congress to curb any of "his" excesses as well.

*snip*

Agreed.  I really do believe, as a moderate, that we function best with an oppositional Congress (the utter stupidity of the Clinton impeachment aside; I agree with your elsewhere-stated assessment that the entire matter should have been delayed and tried after his tenure in the Oval.  It wasted a lot of valuable time).  I find that my preference stands towards a Democrat President and a fiscally conservative Republican Congress, because I like to see the national focus lean left and its implementation lean right, so to speak.  Democratic Congresspersons are given to excess and getting mired in details, and Republican executives to hawkishness and posturing.

EDIT to respond to the rest of your post:

I'm not so sure I'm counting him out yet.  He's got a *lot* of appeal in places like Texas, where we recognize that the Republicans are likely down for the count and we're scrambling for Anyone But Hillary.  I think that while he is getting the race card thrust upon him, Senator Clinton's unabashed play of the gender card right before New Hampshire pissed off a lot of women, and that ball is rolling.  I think this will go all the way to the convention unless something major shifts.

I'm actually enjoying this primary season more than 04, because I'm hearing a lot more people getting energized *about* their candidates, as opposed to 04 when most of us were just like, "Everyone sucks, just put someone up because for the love of a thousand fuzzy gods anyone would be better than Bush..."
Last Edit: January 26, 2008, 12:38:46 PM by Badger Logged

""We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer
Barefoot Priestess
Gwoo Reply #6 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 26, 2008, 01:21:18 PM
Renown: +131/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,750

What we're experiencing hasn't happened since 1952 in that neither side has a presumptive nominee in terms of a sitting president or Veep looking for the nomination.  As such it is wide open on both sides.

I am not *positive* but I think the last brokered convention was Aldai Stevenson in 1952, as well, and the republican one could come down to a floor fight as well.

What I do NOT know is how many of the 20 in Super Tuesday are open rather than closed primaries.  Open ones play to McCain and to Obama, apparently.

I loooove this stuff and find it fascinating.  I haven't a clue how it is going to play out and will be curious as to the impact of this front loaded primary.  The conventional wisdom I bought into had this sewing it up by february and then leading to a horrificly LOONG national campaign.  But, it could well be that the Republicans will carry the fight through to the convention.  If Hillary locks it up, it could be the closest thing to a presumptive nominee got the advantage.

Who knows.
Logged

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Anonymous

"Never negotiate with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room."  -- Winston Churchill

We're not in xF anymore, Toto.
Major Reply #7 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 26, 2008, 01:32:55 PM
Renown: +46/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,134

I'm actually enjoying this primary season more than 04, because I'm hearing a lot more people getting energized *about* their candidates, as opposed to 04 when most of us were just like, "Everyone sucks, just put someone up because for the love of a thousand fuzzy gods anyone would be better than Bush..."

This year it's "anybody would be better than Hillary."  Frankly, I am disappointed in what I am seeing of her campaign, which seems to consist of "I am Dubya in a skirt.  I am the legacy candidate, so if you voted him in, you should vote me in."  McCain's time has, for better or for worse, passed:  he's too old and tired to be more than a Buchanan.  Romney is the same old Republican white bread.  The candidate who is making this campaign interesting, whether you get to vote for him or not, is Obama.  I was too young for Jack Kennedy to be the candidate for my generation, but JFK was truly the last candidate to stand out so clearly as an alternative to the old tired politics who stood as good a chance of winning.
Logged

"For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost.  For the want of the shoe, the horse was lost.  For the want of the horse, the man was lost.  For the want of the man, the battle was lost, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail.  'Tis a darlin' proverb, a darlin' proverb."  Joxer Daly, in "Juno and the Paycock"
Gwoo Reply #8 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 26, 2008, 08:23:14 PM
Renown: +131/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,750

Maybe it's not a foregone conclusion.  I heard FL Gov. Charlie Crist's McCain endorsement and rumor has it this guy is popular in FL.

I was not expecting that, as supposedly Crist has been passing the tin cup trying to get Presidential candidates to support a government bailout program for catastrophic home insurance in FL.  Guliani supported it, Mitt has been non committal, and McCain had said there was FEMA and 20-odd other agencies, so we didn't need anything else.

I figured that candid commentary would tube any chance of McCain getting this character's endoresement.

I am not sure how much it means, but this thing is supposedly becoming a dead heat, so any little thing helps.

McCain wins FL, and I am far more optimistic about his long term chances against Mitt.

I also think he can handle Shrillary a lot better than Mitt....

Hey Modmeister's ... is there anyway to add a second poll to a thread?  I'd be curious as to whom is the second choice of people in this final four.  Obama has it pretty much locked up, but then whom do people like?  Do they like Hillary, McCain, or Mitt?  (I suspect Mitt gets few mentions, if any, but am curious as to how it breaks between McCain and Hillary if Obama's toast.)
Logged

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Anonymous

"Never negotiate with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room."  -- Winston Churchill

We're not in xF anymore, Toto.
sinic Reply #9 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 26, 2008, 09:39:07 PM
Certified Organic

Renown: +125/-14
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,234

Slack.

Can you not edit you original poll?  I think you should be able to add another four options as well as the ability to cast another vote without wiping the original results.

If you'd rather, though, I can handle it.

I'm curious how Edwards is skewing the Dem vote and Rudy/Huckabee is skewing the Rep vote.  I mean we're down to the presumptive four, but you've still got the trailing thirds Nadering the true tallies.  What effect will this have overall in the long run?  I know Edwards says he's sticking it out to the convention.  Who is this more likely to hurt?
Logged

"When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other." -Eric Hoffer

House has a posse.
Puppy cam is:  Offline

12595_mr._tester.png
jabbaciv Reply #10 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 27, 2008, 01:59:42 AM
All Klingon in the Pants

Renown: +68/-15
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,288

We can't stop here, this is bat country

A lot of people are thinking Edwards is going to broker a deal at the convention where he gives Obama his delegates in return for a VP slot.
Logged

Don't confuse a position that is both a logically and morally defensible one with dogma.
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." -SCOTUS Justice Kennedy
jabbaciv Reply #11 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 27, 2008, 07:36:46 AM
All Klingon in the Pants

Renown: +68/-15
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,288

We can't stop here, this is bat country

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1707277,00.html

Note the headline.
Logged

Don't confuse a position that is both a logically and morally defensible one with dogma.
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." -SCOTUS Justice Kennedy
sinic Reply #12 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 27, 2008, 09:52:45 AM
Certified Organic

Renown: +125/-14
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,234

Slack.



I think that needs to be a motivational poster.
Logged

"When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other." -Eric Hoffer

House has a posse.
Puppy cam is:  Offline

12595_mr._tester.png
Major Reply #13 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 27, 2008, 10:14:31 AM
Renown: +46/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,134

Motivational for whom?  That could be a recruiting poster for the KKK with the appropriate spin.
Logged

"For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost.  For the want of the shoe, the horse was lost.  For the want of the horse, the man was lost.  For the want of the man, the battle was lost, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail.  'Tis a darlin' proverb, a darlin' proverb."  Joxer Daly, in "Juno and the Paycock"
Badger Reply #14 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 28, 2008, 04:55:32 PM
Renown: +169/-8
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,548

Swift as a deer, size of a dog, head like a monkey

So, Ted Kennedy's endorsement.

Political boost or kiss of death?

Sure, he's an influential Democrat with a lot of history, but he's also the ultimate symbol of the ineffectual pork-barrel establishment left.

I'm also amused that some papers are spinning this as the Kennedy 'dynasty' pitting itself against the Clinton 'dynasty'.  I wouldn't have thought there was a Clinton 'dynasty'.  So, you get one Presidency and a Senate seat, and you're a dynasty?  Standards are getting lower on that...
Logged

""We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer
Barefoot Priestess
icicole Reply #15 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 28, 2008, 08:08:28 PM

Renown: +22/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 899

From what I've read, it was Caroline's being inspired by Obama that nailed Ted down.

Caroline Kennedy's endorsement in the NY Times

ETA: I forgot my response to Badger.  I think Ted's endorsement alone might be ineffectual, but I think the collective endorsements from the Kennedy clan might be another matter, especially when comparisons between JFK and Obama are made very frequently, and rightly so.
Last Edit: January 28, 2008, 08:12:06 PM by icicole Logged

Jabba: "I blame Europe for this, for shipping 300-400 years worth of religious nuts over to America. "
S*S: "That was the DEAL, asshole. You get the largest landmass with the best resources and the destiny of the modern age, and we get to offload our religious zea lots."
Gwoo Reply #16 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 28, 2008, 09:32:57 PM
Renown: +131/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,750

That event today will go down in our political history as a truly historic moment, I think.  Hell, I was moved, and I can't stand Teddy.  I love Obama's oratorical skills and can respect him as a person, but I likely will not like his policy specifics at all.

But that damn thing even moved me.  It would be nice to respect the opposition again.
Logged

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Anonymous

"Never negotiate with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room."  -- Winston Churchill

We're not in xF anymore, Toto.
icicole Reply #17 in Down to the Terminal Three — Posted January 29, 2008, 06:44:03 AM

Renown: +22/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 899

And now we see if the race will be about unity or divisiveness.

NOW slams Ted Kennedy for not endorsing a woman

Basically, they are saying that by refusing to back the first viable female candidate in a presidential election, Kennedy has forced the women's movement back many crucial steps.

WTF?&nbs