Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008? [Archive]

flere-imsaho

12-10-2007, 02:57 PM

Looking at the previous polls, it's amazing to see Huckabee come out of nowhere for this one. Even in October he got one vote.

It seems like a four-horse race right now. Huckabee's obviously surging, and Romney's got a ton of strength. Giuliani's been hit badly by scandal but is still amongst the runners, and McCain's actually making a bit of a push. Thompson, after being touted as the GOP "savior" is seriously out to lunch.

For now, I cast my vote with Romney. Although Huckabee will likely win Iowa, I think Romney's got enough strength elsewhere to build up a head of steam. Plus, and this should not be discounted, he has more than the necessary cash to spin his results in any state to his advantage, and also keep his name in front.

path12

12-10-2007, 04:10 PM

Aargh. I voted Huckabee, but actually am starting to think that McCain might come on like Kerry did for the Democrats last time.

Jas_lov

12-10-2007, 04:17 PM

Should be Ron Paul because he's the only true small government conservative running. But since he doesn't want to nuke Iran or listen in on people's phone calls, he doesn't have much of a chance. Huckabee would get absolutely destroyed in a general election and McCain was finished the day he put his name on the Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill. I don't like Rudy's strategy of tanking the first 3 states. Fred Thompson isn't bad, but he's a dud. So that leaves flip flopping Mitt Romney who seems to be doing well in all 3 early states. I think he'll end up taking it, and get crushed in the general election.

Crapshoot

12-10-2007, 04:20 PM

Schmidty

12-10-2007, 04:20 PM

Ron Paul is the only one I'd vote for.

path12

12-10-2007, 04:44 PM

McCain is the best general candidate, better than Rudy, and with a sense of honesty that you won't get elsewhere. I have no doubt that he's the one guy who can stop a Dem candidate in what is shaping up to be a very strong Dem year.

I think whoever the Reps put up will get crushed like the NFC in the Super Bowl.

JPhillips

12-10-2007, 05:26 PM

According to today's polls Huckabee has the lead in Iowa and South Carolina and is tied with Rudy nationally.

ISiddiqui

12-10-2007, 05:26 PM

McCain is the best general candidate, better than Rudy, and with a sense of honesty that you won't get elsewhere. I have no doubt that he's the one guy who can stop a Dem candidate in what is shaping up to be a very strong Dem year.

I agree... but I think he's pissed off too much of his base to have a chance. Even if he is pretty electable (especially against Hillary, where the Iraq issue doesn't tend to matter as much).

st.cronin

12-10-2007, 06:15 PM

I think it will be either McCain or Rudy, probably Rudy. Romney is the only one in either field (other than the fringers like Kookooinch) that I would automatically be voting against in a general election.

LloydLungs

12-10-2007, 09:06 PM

Mitt Romney actually has the two qualities that Republicans trashed the last two Democrats for. He's more robotic than Gore and a bigger flip flopper than Kerry. Still, my money's on him to get the nomination. No chance in the general.

Buccaneer

12-10-2007, 09:24 PM

Are all you people that think the Rep will get crushed in the general will be by someone other than Obama or Hillary? If not, just...wow.

sooner333

12-10-2007, 09:49 PM

I think Huckabee sealed Romney's fate. Romney went from the more conservative alternative with a chance against Guliani to the robotic Mormon who has no chance in the general. I think Huckabee will get the bid now because of momentum, but if not, it has opened the door more for Rudi and possibly McCain (if Romney gets desparate and ends up doing worse in NH because of it, which would lead to McCain jumping up and getting momentum).

Buccaneer

12-10-2007, 10:02 PM

No way Huckabee gets the nomination. Way too many fatal talking points against him.

It is sad to so many intelligent people living by the flawed polls. Doesn't most of the previous elections mean anything to you? Take a look at the polls at this same time in the election season and you will see that you make any final predictions from them. Next thing you'll tell us is that you will start believing in exit polls.

JPhillips

12-10-2007, 10:24 PM

Buc: The numbers may not be exact, but the trends matter. Look at Huckabee's line in Iowa, SC or nationally. It's impossible not to see that he's caught fire. He's taking off in the south generally and if he can sweep the south don't you think he can win it all?

And what fatal talking points does he have for the nomination? They'll maybe kill him in the general, but a lot of what he's saying does very well with focus groups. He fits in quite well with one segment of the Republican party.

And are you going to be kind enough to share what you think is going to happen or are you content just to throw stones?

Buccaneer

12-10-2007, 10:42 PM

What I think will happen? The Rep have only nominated one social conservative in the past 48 years (Goldwater). Reagan wasn't one and Bush2 is just a neo-con puppet, which is different than running on a social con platform. This will only play to a small percentage, not the type of candidate that can draw millions of votes nationwide in the key states.

Look, I live in the most socially conservative city in the US and Huckabee is polling badly here (running something like 5th or 6th) - just like in most of the west. Take a big state like Texas and see that he is running 50% behind. Not mention 65% behind in Florida and Ohio.

I don't put much faith in polls or trends, and certainly not in national polls which don't mean much as far as the electoral college. Those pumping up Huckabee in this thread (namely those that are Dems) is just wishful thinking, knowing that he truly would lose to a Dem.

No, the Rep will play it safe because despite any lukewarm response to a particular candidate, it would be far, far more preferable than seeing a Dem, esp. Hillary, win.

Jas_lov

12-10-2007, 10:48 PM

I don't put too much stock into the polls either. The media does though. It's all about getting people to show up. Huckabee can be at 20%, but if people aren't enthusiastic enough about him to go to the primaries then he won't win. Plus, he's only going to raise about $5 million this quarter, which will put him 6th among Republicans. Wouldn't someone taking off raise a little more money than that? Huckabee is being attacked left and right now, and deservedly so. He's an economic liberal. Romney is coming out with attack ads in Iowa and so is the Club for Growth. Tax Hike Mike is what they called him. Also, the fact that he lobbed to let rapists and murderers Wayne Dumond and Glen Green back on the streets doesn't bode well. He gave out more clemencies than the 3 previous Arkansas Governor's combined! He would get clobbered in a general election by any Democrat.

Jas_lov

12-10-2007, 10:54 PM

And the most worthless polls of all are those stupid matchups which pit Giuliani vs. Clinton, Obama vs. McCain, etc. They're completely worthless at this point! So please don't reference those until we actually get a 1 on 1 matchup!

sooner333

12-10-2007, 11:28 PM

Huckabee is catching fire because the alternatives aren't that good. Not quite as bad as Bill Clinton's field in '92, but we're not talking about a group filled with rising stars in the political world.

I think while he's a social conservative, his message might resonate well with the nation. Because of his record in Arkansas, he'll be able to show that he's the candidate that can reach across the aisle and get things done in Washington. People are fed up with Congress not getting anything done and it all goes back to the President. I think if Huckabee can channel Bush '00 and sound smarter, he's got a chance for the same reason Bush went into office.

That being said, it's not looking too hot for any of the Republicans, but Hillary will help any of them. It will also be Obama's first time to actually have to have a position on an issue (let's not forget, he faced the mighty Alan Keyes in his senate victory after the Ryan scandal broke).

JPhillips

12-11-2007, 06:46 AM

albionmoonlight

12-11-2007, 07:53 AM

Back in March 2006, I guessed Mark Warner and Newt Gingrich. Shows what I know.

larrymcg421

12-11-2007, 08:12 AM

Buc: Again you're wrong about my intentions. I think Huckabee is the most likable candidate the Republicans have. Have you seen him in an interview or on the stump? If he wins the nomination he'll be very difficult to beat. If it's all about who I'd rather run against I'd be pimping Romney or Rudy.

His likability is seriously threatened since the Wayne DuMond story came out, and you can be sure that his Dem opponent will make something out of it, not to mention his AIDS quarantine comments.

JPhillips

12-11-2007, 08:18 AM

Yeah, the Dumond thing hurts, but much to my surprise it doesn't seem to have effected his poll numbers at all. It would be a big issue in the general, but to Huckabee's benefit it would be a non-story by the fall unless some new revelations came out.

Huckabee's just fantastic on television. His debate answers are polished, but they have a sort of folky wisdom quality that really draws people. I don't know about his team, but on an individual level I think he's every bit as good a politician as Bill Clinton.

ISiddiqui

12-11-2007, 08:21 AM

Huckabee's benefit it would be a non-story by the fall unless some new revelations came out.

I don't see that happening at all. It'd really blow up on him in the general, I'd imagine. I think the Dems are hoping they go up against Huckabee. The general public would be appauled that he hasn't really backed away from his HIV Quarentine comments (and personally I'm appauled at them).

JPhillips

12-11-2007, 08:32 AM

You may be right. I just think he's so good in person that he could overcome it. I've been afraid of Huckabee for months. The only other Republican I think is as formidable is McCain, but I don't think he recover from losing Iowa, NH and SC.

ISiddiqui

12-11-2007, 08:35 AM

The only way he overcomes it is by saying he made a horrible mistake and now he realizes that people with HIV should not be quarentined. But when he had the oppertunity to do so, he kind of dodged it, which isn't good.

And even then, it may still stick with him. The "base" may not mind, but the moderates would never forgive him for that.

flere-imsaho

12-11-2007, 08:46 AM

I don't put much faith in polls or trends, and certainly not in national polls which don't mean much as far as the electoral college. Those pumping up Huckabee in this thread (namely those that are Dems) is just wishful thinking, knowing that he truly would lose to a Dem.

I don't know if I'm one of those Dems that you view as "pumping him up", but if I am, allow me to clarify. I see Huckabee surging in the polls of selected (yet important) primary states, such as Iowa. I don't think this make him the front-runner (after all, I'm still putting my money on Romney), but he's definitely shown an increase in interest, which can be seen both in the polls and in the media attention paid to him.

Whether or not this translates to victories in some primary states (possibly to probably) or to getting the nomination (possibly to who knows?), is another story.

He's an economic liberal.

I keep seeing this phrase "economic liberal" batted around. What does it mean, exactly? Could you point to some prominent (current or historical) economic liberals?

Back in March 2006, I guessed Mark Warner and Newt Gingrich. Shows what I know.

Agreed. I'm finding some of the changes over time very fascinating. :)

Buccaneer

12-11-2007, 08:55 AM

flere-imsaho

12-11-2007, 09:02 AM

Iowa and NH are not always important, it varies from election to election. Sometimes you can ignore and sometimes you can't. What I don't see is the commanding lead others have over Huck and Romney in many of the big electoral states disappearing overnight just because of Iowa.

Oh I agree. In fact, Iowa's really most important (by a long shot) for Huckabee. If he doesn't win there, then he'll be off the radar since he isn't even in the running in NH and thus will be lost in the shuffle by the time the other states start rolling in. If he wins in Iowa he'll get some more coverage that may likely help him bump up in a few states (though not NH, obviously). Even so, he's still got an uphill climb.

larrymcg mentioned two of the fatals that would turn off even regular Reps.

Unless this gets a lot of press in the next week, though, no one will be paying attention before the Iowa primary, so it only becomes a real factor if he wins Iowa and starts trying to grab a good number of other states. Again, it's definitely an uphill battle for him.

ISiddiqui

12-11-2007, 09:05 AM

This election, though, without a real front runner, Iowa is MEGA-important. Basically it will make or break Huckabee's and Romney's campaigns. Still an uphill climb afterwards, but they have a fighting chance. If, say, by some way, Guiliani wins Iowa and NH, while not campaigning really in either of them, the race is over.

flere-imsaho

12-11-2007, 09:12 AM

If, say, by some way, Guiliani wins Iowa and NH, while not campaigning really in either of them, the race is over.

I'll go out on a limb and say that, on the Republican side, that's about the only certain thing we can say at this point.

JPhillips

12-11-2007, 09:21 AM

But it isn't just Iowa. Huckabee is surging in a number of pre-Super Tuesday states. He probably will get blasted in NH, but he'll probably win in Iowa and SC. So where does he stand in the other states?

In NV he's 6-8 points back and could win, but more likely will finish second.

The latest MI poll has him in a statistical tie for the lead. He'll probably win or finish second.

FL is the one state before Super Tuesday where he's got big problems, but one of the most recent polls has him only 14 points behind(Survey USA Dec. 4) If he wins Iowa, SC, Michigan and second in NV that will give him a big bump going into Florida.

(There are also contests in WY and ME before super Tuesday, but I can't find any polling)

It's quite possible that Huckabee will go into Super Tuesday with wins in IA, SC, MI, NV and a strong second in FL. A few candidates, likely Thompson, Tancredo,Hunter and maybe Romney, will drop out by that point and if enough break his way he'll do fine on Super Tuesday.

Huckabee's rise over the last month is really an incredible story. He doesn't have enough money, enough staff or enough backing from the big boys, but his message is resonating with primary voters.

Blade6119

12-11-2007, 09:35 AM

flere-imsaho

12-11-2007, 09:42 AM

(There are also contests in WY and ME before super Tuesday, but I can't find any polling)

Being from Maine originally (and still having my folks live there), I'm going to say there's no way Huckabee wins Maine (and with 4 electoral votes, it probably doesn't matter). Maine's like a cross between Vermont & New Hampshire. It'll probably go with Romney or Giuliani with a solid showing for Paul.

I believe I've seen where Wyoming goes pretty solidly for Romney, but I could be wrong.

It's quite possible that Huckabee will go into Super Tuesday with wins in IA, SC, MI, NV and a strong second in FL. A few candidates, likely Thompson, Tancredo,Hunter and maybe Romney, will drop out by that point and if enough break his way he'll do fine on Super Tuesday.

Intriguing. For reference, he's the Republican primary schedule:

3 Jan: Iowa
5 Jan: Wyoming
8 Jan: New Hampshire
15 Jan: Michigan
19 Jan: Nevada, South Carolina
29 Jan: Florida
2 Feb: Maine

5 Feb (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia.

Then the rest after these (which I'm not going to type out).

Another interesting note is that all those states with primaries before 5 Feb get penalized half of their delegates by the GOP for having their primaries too early (except for Nevada, because its is non-binding).

Anyway, looking at the list, I could see this:

1. Huckabee gets Iowa, and gets some good initial press from this, with Romney as a close second.

2. Romney gets Wyoming and New Hampshire, and wins some of the press back.

3. No one cares about Michigan because of the primary cluster**** there this year.

4. Romney gets Nevada while Huckabee gets South Carolina. Several other candidates drop out at this point (Tancredo, Hunter, possibly Thompson, possibly McCain).

5. BANG! Giuliani picks up Florida, and it's a 3-horse race going into Super Tuesday (no one cares about Maine), with the plotlines of "Surprising!" (Huckabee), "Competent" (Romney) and "Resurgent" (Giuliani).

After that, who the heck knows? :D

flere-imsaho

12-11-2007, 09:44 AM

Warhammer

12-11-2007, 10:04 AM

I think Huckabee is like Edwards: interesting enough until you start to take a good look at his policies/track record.

But, from a Republican standpoint, the guy who scares me more than anyone on the Democrat side is Edwards for precisely that reason.

Jas_lov

12-11-2007, 10:21 AM

I dont think Huck has a shot in the general, and will be very very suprised if he gets the rep nom. Hes trying to be cute, but i think hes more of a medial darling then actual threat to win the nomination.

Yes! He's currently being propped up by the media! The local shows in Iowa can't stop talking about Huckabee! The national media is all over him as the alternative to the frontrunners. Let's take Huckabee's name recognition and compare it to Ron Paul. Both complete unknowns when this started outside of their own state, and in Paul's case outside of his own district! Now, it's not even close. It's not like Huckabee has had tens of millions of dollars pour in to spread his name around the country. He raised $1 million in Q3 and he'll raise about $5-6 million this quarter. Shouldn't he be raising more if he's catching on and how will he run a national campaign without any money? Meanwhile, Paul raised $5 million in Q3 and he's already got $10 million this quarter and probably on track for $15-20 million overall, but nobody has heard of the guy! Giuliani will get in $10+ million again and Romney can reach into his pocket whenever need be. Huckabee supports a national smoking ban and he's an ultra conservative. He would get crushed in the general.

Huckabee is an economic liberal. He loves taxes and his fiscal policy is atrocious. The attacks are coming here in Iowa! Here's Romney's ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hei8iDK61do

Here's the Club for Growth ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNWoD2mzN04

ISiddiqui

12-11-2007, 10:36 AM

But it isn't just Iowa. Huckabee is surging in a number of pre-Super Tuesday states. He probably will get blasted in NH, but he'll probably win in Iowa and SC. So where does he stand in the other states?

Iowa is the big PR state. You win Iowa, you have the media talking about you as a "winner" and those that lose, especially big, tend to get viewed as "losers". Unless, of course, you can be close to the lead in Iowa and also do well in New Hampshire. If you get blasted in Iowa and NH, usually you can't recover.

JPhillips

12-11-2007, 10:55 AM

In researching polls it seems pretty clear to me that Florida has to be a firewall state for Rudy. If he can't win there I can't see how he has enough momentum to get the nomination.

flere-imsaho

12-11-2007, 12:27 PM

Huckabee is an economic liberal.

I keep seeing this phrase "economic liberal" batted around. What does it mean, exactly? Could you point to some prominent (current or historical) economic liberals?

#2

Edit: You know, I only ask because the concept of economic liberalism was arguably originated by Adam Smith, who put forward the (revolutionary at the time) idea that a free, unfettered market was the ideal economic model. Not to mention that the typical definition of "liberal" (small "L") usually runs along the lines of advocating the maximum possible freedom for individuals (which, in an economic sense could mean individual people, individual states, individual corporations or all three, i.e. "individual actors").

Jas_lov

12-11-2007, 12:41 PM

No, you're right. I used the wrong definition. Economic liberalism would be more like Ron Paul than Mike Huckabee. Populist or statist is probably a better term for Huckabee. He likes higher taxes and more spending like the Democrats do. Of course, the neo-con wing of the Republican party has also been spending beyond control, so we're probably going to get much of the same as we have now either way.

Warhammer

12-11-2007, 12:41 PM

I think what he means is some one who is going to spend liberally. Get down to it, Bush is an economic liberal and that is part of the reason why the right is not thrilled with him.

flere-imsaho

12-11-2007, 12:58 PM

He likes higher taxes and more spending like some Democrats do.

Fixed.

Of course, the neo-con wing of the Republican party has also been spending beyond control, so we're probably going to get much of the same as we have now either way.

Thank you.

I think what he means is some one who is going to spend liberally. Get down to it, Bush is an economic liberal and that is part of the reason why the right is not thrilled with him.

"Spend liberally" and "economic liberal" are not the same thing. In fact, if we take the correct definitions for each, they're almost the exact opposite.

This is what happens when you turn a word, i.e. "liberal", into a catch-all label for "bad". You end up, by association, calling the dominant economic philosophy of the 20th century, the philosophy to which you probably subscribe, ironically, that of free-market capitalism, bad by association.

Here's the answer: Mike Huckabee does not understand fiscal restraint and is happy to raise taxes. George Bush does not understand fiscal restraint, but it adamant about lowering taxes (mostly on top earners).

Sorry to be pedantic.

chesapeake

12-11-2007, 01:09 PM

Huckabee is surging at the right time, but the nasty-grams from his GOP competitors are just starting run on the air. It'll take a little time to see if they stick.

ISiddiqui

12-11-2007, 01:49 PM

On the liberalism debate, it actually is quite fascinating (philsophically speaking) to see where liberalism split from the classic liberalism and the modern (American) liberalism, generally disagreeing on how best to have the individual be truely free:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

By the end of the 19th century, a growing body of liberal thought asserted that, in order to be free, individuals needed access to the requirements of fulfillment, including protection from exploitation and education.

Despite some dispute whether there was an actual laissez-faire capitalist state in existence at the time [1] (http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf), the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression) of the 1930s shook public faith in "laissez-faire capitalism" and "the profit motive," leading many to conclude that the unregulated markets could not produce prosperity and prevent poverty. Many liberals were troubled by the political instability and restrictions on liberty that they believed were caused by the growing relative inequality of wealth. Key liberals of this persuasion, such as John Dewey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey), John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes), and Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt), argued for the creation of a more elaborate state apparatus to serve as the bulwark of individual liberty, permitting the continuation of capitalism while protecting the citizens against its perceived excesses.

Key liberal thinkers, such as Lujo Brentano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lujo_Brentano), Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Trelawny_Hobhouse), Thomas Hill Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hill_Green), John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes), Bertil Ohlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertil_Ohlin) and John Dewey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey), described how a government should intervene in the economy to protect liberty while avoiding socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism).

Contrary to as some say that people like FDR "hijacked" the term liberal, it seems to be a different view on how best to protect individual freedom (which seems to be the underlying basis of liberalism)

st.cronin

12-11-2007, 01:57 PM

I've read some Keynes, and I don't believe that's what he argues for. I admit I am not an economist, however.

ISiddiqui

12-11-2007, 02:24 PM

Keynes definately does see greater government involvement in the economy, especially involving "priming the pump".

Warhammer

12-12-2007, 12:49 AM

"Spend liberally" and "economic liberal" are not the same thing. In fact, if we take the correct definitions for each, they're almost the exact opposite.

The connotation of the term "economic liberal" probably comes from spending freely, as you point out by spend liberally. Denotatively, you're right on the money.

But, at which point does something that was once liberal, become a conservative belief?

Greyroofoo

12-12-2007, 07:33 PM

So did anyone watch the debate?

Buccaneer

12-14-2007, 06:57 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Is Mike Huckabee (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mike.huckabee.html) the new Howard Dean?
That's what one prominent conservative thinks, and he's warning his fellow Republicans not to nominate the former Arkansas governor.

Rich Lowry, an editor of the conservative publication the National Review (which endorsed rival Mitt Romney (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mitt.romney.html) this week), writes (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2007/12/13/huckacide)on the Republican Web site Townhall.com Friday that nominating Huckabee would amount to "an act of suicide" for the party.

"Like Dean, Huckabee is an under-vetted former governor who is manifestly unprepared to be president of the United States," Lowry writes. "Like Dean, he is rising toward the top of polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of his party."

"As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious that it's hard to believe that primary voters, once they focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him," he adds.

Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, has gained ground in several key primary states largely due to his appeal to Republican evangelical voters. Recent polls have suggested he now holds a double-digit lead over Romney in Iowa, and is in front of Rudy Giuliani (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/rudy.giuliani.html) and Fred Thompson (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/fred.thompson.html) in South Carolina.

And in the latest sign Huckabee's campaign is gaining serious momentum, veteran GOP strategist Ed Rollins — the architect of Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide re-election victory — has signed on to help manage the operation.

Not so fast, says Lowry. According to the conservative commentator, nominating a Baptist minister would turn one of the party's assets — its message of social conservatism — into a liability.

"[A] Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it," he wrote. "Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can't be the message in its entirety."

Huckabee's campaign has not returned a request for comment on Lowry's column.

I agree with all of these points, which I alluded to earlier. Huckabee would be the most right-wing candidate since Goldwater, and basically unelectable. The Dems are giving respect to Huckabee because, unless 3-4 other candidates, they know they can beat him easily. The Rep will play it safe and not throw this election away like they did in 1996.

JPhillips

12-14-2007, 08:36 PM

No way I would underestimate Huckabee in the general. He's a better politician than anyone else on the Republican side and probably a better candidate than anyone but McCain. If the Social Cons don't get Huckabee they may very well run a third candidate or sit at home. Do you think the religious voters are going to vote for a guy they think is in a cult or a pro-choice, pro gay rights, serial adulterer? I sure don't.

Give me Rudy or Romney any day. Neither one can motivate the religious voters and once Rudy's ties to a mobbed up cop and a pedophile priest become common knowledge he'll be DOA. Regardless of your paranoid fantasies, I really believe it when I say Huckabee is the guy I fear the most. His skills come very close to those of Bill Clinton.

flere-imsaho

12-18-2007, 12:38 PM

Huckabee now looking more and more likely to win Iowa. Giuliani apparently is giving up on New Hampshire, which should give it, in a landslide, to Romney. I still think it's mostly too close to call, but has to be split between Giuliani and Romney.

The increased press Huckabee has gotten is starting to also shine light on more and more of his skeletons. For instance, his past conservative quotes are getting a lot more airtime. His spendy fiscal "policy" is also getting attention, as well as his "Willie Horton" incident. And lastly, some sources are now picking up the story of his son, while a camp counselor at a Boy Scout camp in 1998, allegedly participating in the hanging of a stray dog. The State Police were asked to investigate, but never did, and there's the suggestion that Huckabee put pressure on them not to investigate. This could be a real problem in our post-Vick world for Huckabee.

McCain is still showing some signs of life, but it has to be too little, too late. No one else is really in the race, though Ron Paul is raising a lot of money.

My current prediction is that Huckabee picks up Iowa, Romney gets New Hampshire and Giuliani gets Florida, but not by quite the margin he expected, robbing him of some momentum going into Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday comes out with Giuliani having a slight lead over Romney and Huckabee out of the race. I'm not sure what happens after this.

I'm still not sure what (realistic) candidate has the best chance against Clinton, Obama or Edwards.

albionmoonlight

12-18-2007, 12:48 PM

I am waiting for Giuliani to say that he is pulling out of Florida and focusing on Super Tuesday.

Until he decides to pull out of Super Tuesday and focus on the general election.

I am hoping that he becomes the first top-tier candidate in history to manage to pull out of every relevant race before the nomination.

RomaGoth

12-18-2007, 01:18 PM

Giuliani should just pull out all together. He and Romney are both flip-floppers and fakes. For that matter, so is McCain.

Cringer

12-18-2007, 01:20 PM

Ron Paul is winning me over I think. And I usually hate Republicans. Democrats too, but usually Republicans more.

Cringer

12-18-2007, 06:12 PM

So as I watch some Ron Paul stuff on YouTube, I am finding that FoxNews really doesn't like him for some reason. Every time he is on there they rip on him more then I would have expected.

watravaler

12-18-2007, 11:15 PM

Is there a site that tracks the number of "positive" media stories verus the "negative" ones? Something like this would tell me who has the best PR, and probably the support of the men behind the curtains...

I think throwing the uberly religious Huckabee on the ticket helps the Republicans in future elections with a certain demographic, and if the Republicans feel they have no chance in 2008, I think they run with that strategy...

Buccaneer

12-20-2007, 08:09 PM

It looks like the predicted fall for Rudy has happened but I believe for a different reason. Voters don't remember details too well and if you ask them about any specifics (like "huge" scandal discussed here), they won't recall that. It seems to be a general feeling, which has always been a key voter motivator, along with being anti-party/other guy-gal/whatever.

McCain is the safe choice I mentioned earlier, since he is known and is basically sticking on-message.

JPhillips

12-20-2007, 09:02 PM

Buc: The general impression of Rudy turned negative in large part because the media found a number of small scandals and Rudy couldn't explain them away. Add to that the real conservative alternative in Huckabee becoming a viable choice, and Rudy's fall is pretty clear.

I agree that McCain may have a chance, but only if it becomes a two man race ASAP. McCain has to in in NH and that has to cause Romney to drop out, which I think is possible if unlikely. Rudy has to continue to fall and needs to be out before Super Tuesday. If it becomes a two man race before Super Tuesday I think Huckabee is in trouble, but he will still remain a major power broker.

Cringer

12-20-2007, 10:27 PM

I don't think anything is close to being decided. Kerry wasn't exactly sitting pretty before the Democratic primaries last time around was he?

sabotai

12-20-2007, 10:36 PM

So as I watch some Ron Paul stuff on YouTube, I am finding that FoxNews really doesn't like him for some reason. Every time he is on there they rip on him more then I would have expected.

They've been doing that since the first or second debate when he wouldn't fall in line with the whole "they hate us for our freedom" nonsense.

Jas_lov

12-20-2007, 10:45 PM

They've been doing that since the first or second debate when he wouldn't fall in line with the whole "they hate us for our freedom" nonsense.

So what you're basically saying is that we should take our marching orders from Al Queda if they want us off the Arabian Penninsula? :p

Cringer

01-05-2008, 11:14 PM

bump

Jas_lov

01-06-2008, 12:33 AM

It's looking like McCain will win NH. Romney was terrible in the debate tonight. McCain wasn't good either, but not as bad as Romney. There's another debate tonight on Fox News, of which Ron Paul has been excluded for no good reason btw, so we'll see how that turns out and if the polls change at all before Tuesday.

Vegas Vic

01-06-2008, 03:16 PM

It looks like the predicted fall for Rudy has happened but I believe for a different reason.

Rudy is a one-trick pony. You ask him about Social Security, and he talks about 9-11. You ask him about the mortgage crisis, and he talks about 9-11. You ask him about health care, and he talks about 9-11........

JPhillips

01-06-2008, 04:59 PM

Rudy actually said coming in sixth in Iowa wasn't as hard as 9/11.

flere-imsaho

01-10-2008, 12:10 PM

Iowa - Huckabee
NH - McCain
Michigan - probably Romney
Nevada - ??
South Carolina - probably Huckabee
Florida - ??

Still anyone's game going into Super Tuesday. I expect Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Giuliani to still be in the race, along with a 5th contender who probably realizes he can't win but can't be bothered to close up his campaign yet (I'm looking at you, Fred Thompson).

sooner333

01-10-2008, 12:19 PM

I wouldn't even give a probably to anyone in Michigan. Two separate polls came out in the past couple of days--Romney is second in both. The only problem is that McCain is first in one, Huckabee in the other. I think McCain will take Michigan. Huckabee takes SC. Anyone could take NV. Guliani takes Florida. And it could be anyone taking Super Tuesday (except Thompson, Hunter, or Paul, obviously).

SFL Cat

01-10-2008, 12:38 PM

No one on the GOP side appeals to me.

Ultimately, I think Romney will win, and pick either Huckabee or McCain as his running mate.

rkmsuf

01-10-2008, 12:42 PM

No one on the GOP side appeals to me.

Ultimately, I think Romney will win, and pick either Huckabee or McCain as his running mate.

Romney and McCain can't stand each other.

flere-imsaho

01-10-2008, 01:00 PM

I'd be a bit surprised if any of the remaining Republican candidates pick each other for Veep when it gets down to it (unless it's part of a deal at a locked convention). But most of this season so far's been pretty surprising, so I'll not rule anything out.

JPhillips

01-10-2008, 01:20 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if McCain chose Huckabee. They are the only two that seem to like and respect each other. The tone between them is very different than between other pairs. It would also be a smart political move as Huckabee shores up McCain's weak areas.

Butter

01-10-2008, 02:02 PM

If McCain wins the Republican nomination, I'll eat my hat.

Honolulu_Blue

01-10-2008, 02:08 PM

If McCain wins the Republican nomination, I'll eat my hat.

Since we all know your hat is exactly like the one the woman below is wearing:

http://www.designboom.com/trash/img/100.jpg

I give that statement a big ole... :rolleyes:

SFL Cat

01-10-2008, 02:25 PM

Romney and McCain can't stand each other.

Politics make strange bedfellows.

Kodos

01-11-2008, 02:56 PM

Hmmm. This thread seems much less popular than its democratic cohort.

Buccaneer

01-11-2008, 05:51 PM

Very simply is that you got a charismatic candidate vs a hated/devisive candidate on the Dem side, while on the Rep side, you simply got candidates.

Bubba Wheels

01-12-2008, 10:55 AM

The only GOP candidate I absolutely will not vote for if nominated is McCain. That would entail a third party choice. And talk about asleep media, wasn't Mcain a member of the Keating Five? Eerily reminiscent of today's exploding subprime mortgage scandal.

BTW, was telephone polled by Rasmussen the other night. Gave the following responses: Excellent...Paul and Thompson...Good...Romney and Guiliani...Fair...Huckabee...Poor...well, who's left?

Schmidty

01-14-2008, 12:15 AM

stevew

01-14-2008, 12:23 AM

After watching tonight's republican debate, I will guarantee one thing: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination, I will vote democrat for the first time ever (unless it looks like Ron Raul has a chance, which is unlikely). The man is a rich, slimey, disgusting, cut-throat career politician who would simpy be George Bush 2. He is rotten and despicable, and I pray that he doesn't get the nomination.

If he wins, I would even vote for Hilary.

Agreed. Romney's pretty much a cumstain, I'd vote for any democrat, or just stay home if he wins the nomination.

Honolulu_Blue

01-14-2008, 08:28 AM

This is a pretty entertaining/clever list for "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" fans.

The GOP Candidates as Buffy villians.

http://www.cogitamu sblog.com/ 2008/01/the- gop-primary. html (http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/01/the-gop-primary.html)

Honolulu_Blue

01-14-2008, 08:30 AM

BYU 14

01-14-2008, 08:47 AM

Since we all know your hat is exactly like the one the woman below is wearing:

http://www.designboom.com/trash/img/100.jpg

I give that statement a big ole... :rolleyes:

Classic

I will vote Dem for the first time ever if Ron Paul can't pull off a miracle!

st.cronin

01-14-2008, 12:51 PM

Agreed. Romney's pretty much a cumstain, I'd vote for any democrat, or just stay home if he wins the nomination.

Plus a million.

Jas_lov

01-19-2008, 06:11 PM

Mitt Romney won Nevada by a landslide, almost 40% was the difference between him and Ron Paul 2nd. McCain got 3rd by a small margin. Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani round out the field. Duncan Hunter has dropped out.

South Carolina results will be out shortly. Looks like it's McCain-Huckabee battle for 1st, Romney-Thompson battle for 3rd. Thompson may drop out tonight if he doesn't get 3rd. Giuliani may be well on his way to another last place finish.

Jas_lov

01-19-2008, 08:22 PM

With 83% reporting, John McCain is the projected winner of S.C. He's already narrowly leading in Florida, so we'll see if this pushes him over the top there and sets him up nicely for February 5th. It will be interesting to see what happens with Thompson and Huckabee after Florida if they finish 4th and 5th there.

JPhillips

01-19-2008, 09:38 PM

Jas_lov

01-19-2008, 10:17 PM

I agree about McCain being the only Republican that could win the general election, but it's not like he was blown out of the water among Republicans according to the exit polls. Huckabee beat him 32% to 31% among Republicans, and of course McCain dominated independents.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#SCREP

And in New Hampshire, McCain lost the Republican battle to Romney 35%-34%. So saying he lost amongst Republicans is correct, but it's not like they're rejecting him in great numbers. I think he can win Florida which will set him up well for Super Tuesday. I definitely think he can win the nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHREP

Buccaneer

01-19-2008, 11:10 PM

McCain is fascinating to me. He's winning primaries, but he's still not seen as Republican enough by the base. In both his wins, he's actually lost amongst Republican voters, but carried NH and SC by getting independents in the open primaries. I think he's easily the most electable Republican candidate for the general election, but can he win the nomination when even in victories he can't get a plurality of Republican voters?

Isn't that like saying there's no way Clinton can win because she doesn't have the black votes? What constitutes as the "base" in either party is different depending where you are. Besides, 60% of voters are the "base" for both parties, split evenly. It's the 40% independents that's going to make a difference, imo.

JPhillips

01-20-2008, 07:33 AM

Buc: I'm not talking about McCain's chances in the general. I'm talking about winning the nomination as he'll only have a few open primaries left.

flere-imsaho

01-20-2008, 11:54 AM

It sounded like Thompson was counting on S.C. a lot, so I wonder if he drops out now that he finished 3rd there. And if so, where do votes in later states go?

At this point I'm also willing to go out on a limb and say that if Giuliani doesn't win Florida then the race is over for him (i.e. he'll have a very poor showing on Super Tuesday).

Dutch

01-20-2008, 12:22 PM

McCain is not very enthralling to the Republican 'base' because he sits on the fence a lot. We would still vote for him as a lesser of two evils, but as far as independents, fence-sitters, and undecideds go, it could make for an interesting election.

Vegas Vic

01-20-2008, 03:49 PM

molson

01-20-2008, 03:55 PM

It's pretty amazing when you look at the CNN polls from just a few months ago:

November 2-4, 2007:
Giuliani: 28%
Thompson: 19%
McCain: 16%
Romney: 11%
Huckabee: 10%

Now, in the most recent national CNN poll from earlier this week:

McCain: 29%
Huckabee: 20%
Romney: 19%
Giuliani: 14%
Thompson: 9%

Alan T

01-20-2008, 03:58 PM

Many republican voters are rallying around McCain, because they are realizing that he might be the only electable republican in the general election. McCain is the only Republican at this point who has a lead over Hillary Clinton in the general election polls.

Republican Nominee vs. Hillary Clinton

McCain +4%
Huckabee -6.5%
Guiliani -8.7%
Romney -12.0%

Source: Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html)

This is probably a smart decision. As an independant voter, McCain is perhaps the only Republican I would vote for right now. If it ends up being HIllary vs Mccain, I would be voting Mccain. I don't think I would say the same about the other Republican choices.

Bubba Wheels

01-20-2008, 04:35 PM

This is probably a smart decision. As an independant voter, McCain is perhaps the only Republican I would vote for right now. If it ends up being HIllary vs Mccain, I would be voting Mccain. I don't think I would say the same about the other Republican choices.

Nothing personal, since many probably think your way. But please do not ever call yourself someone looking for 'change' in Washington. Hillary vs. McCain is just about as status-quo as it could get, so place your bets on it!

Lou Dobbs book Independents Day correctly labels McCain as one of the "Keating 5' who then became 'Mr Reformer' being the only one to survive that S&L scandal (Chairman of Senate Banking Committee Don Reigle from Michigan lost all hope of re-election when it broke). This is the same scandal that Bush's oldest brother Neil got caught up in...

Dobbs further describes how under Reagan the Mike Millikens, etc, started to game the system for personal profits instead of adding real value to the economy and then (God Bless Lou Dobbs!.. no fan of GOP or Dems) talks about how Clinton (co-Presidents, remember? "With one you get both!" Hillary in on camera interview) took that scenario and ramped it up to out-of-control! (Enron!, Global Crossing!) (Hillary makes $100,000 on a $100 investment in commodities).

Vote for either of these two and your as much of the problem as any politician is. IMHO. :rolleyes:

Alan T

01-20-2008, 04:39 PM

Nothing personal, since many probably think your way. But please do not ever call yourself someone looking for 'change' in Washington. Hillary vs. McCain is just about as status-quo as it could get, so place your bets on it!

Lou Dobbs book Independents Day correctly labels McCain as one of the "Keating 5' who then became 'Mr Reformer' being the only one to survive that S&L scandal (Chairman of Senate Banking Committee Don Reigle from Michigan lost all hope of re-election when it broke). This is the same scandal that Bush's oldest brother Neil got caught up in...

Dobbs further describes how under Reagan the Mike Millikens, etc, started to game the system for personal profits instead of adding real value to the economy and then (God Bless Lou Dobbs!.. no fan of GOP or Dems) talks about how Clinton (co-Presidents, remember? "With one you get both!" Hillary in on camera interview) took that scenario and ramped it up to out-of-control! (Enron!, Global Crossing!) (Hillary makes $100,000 on a $100 investment in commodities).

Vote for either of these two and your as much of the problem as any politician is. IMHO. :rolleyes:

If the Republican party puts forward a candidate I will agree with more so then I will vote for them, simple as that. I have never said I was for change, even though some things I do feel should be changed. Change for the sake of change however can be bad. So if all of the things that I like are changed and the things that I don't like aren't changed, why is that better?

Face it, the country is pretty evenly split for the most part with conservatives and liberals so each election is about winning the people who vote like me and who honestly try to find the candidate that best meets their own interests.

Bubba Wheels

01-20-2008, 04:42 PM

larrymcg421

01-20-2008, 05:17 PM

If the Republican party puts forward a candidate I will agree with more so then I will vote for them, simple as that. I have never said I was for change, even though some things I do feel should be changed. Change for the sake of change however can be bad. So if all of the things that I like are changed and the things that I don't like aren't changed, why is that better?

Face it, the country is pretty evenly split for the most part with conservatives and liberals so each election is about winning the people who vote like me and who honestly try to find the candidate that best meets their own interests.

But have you seen what McCain actually stands for? This whole idea that he's some liberal is a fairy tale. Sure, he's willing to speak his mind hwen he departs froma party line position, but he's still far to the right of guys like Giuliani and probably Romney (depending on whether or not you believe his "conversion".) Will you be happy when he appoints more Scalia's to the Supreme Court, effectively spelling doom for civil rights for a long, long time?

Buccaneer

01-20-2008, 05:18 PM

I remember in 2000, many independents (including most in my family/in-laws) would have voted for McCain. We got W Bush instead.

Alan T

01-20-2008, 05:29 PM

But have you seen what McCain actually stands for? This whole idea that he's some liberal is a fairy tale. Sure, he's willing to speak his mind hwen he departs froma party line position, but he's still far to the right of guys like Giuliani and probably Romney (depending on whether or not you believe his "conversion".) Will you be happy when he appoints more Scalia's to the Supreme Court, effectively spelling doom for civil rights for a long, long time?

From what I have seen and read (which may or may not be the entire story), I've seen enough of Romney, that I have no plans whatsoever to vote for him. If it came down to Romney vs Hillary, I probably wouldn't even want to vote. Giuliani is still a wildcard with me, and I guess I should have included him in earlier in my list of possible Republicans whom I would possibly vote for, but he seems to need to get his act in gear or it doesn't really matter.

I don't think that McCain is liberal, I don't really want liberal... I just want someone who is not hardset conservative or liberal, and is fairly moderate at least in regards to the issues that I care the most about. If Obama wins the Democrat nomination, it might all be moot in my mind as I might just vote for him either way, but if HIllary wins the nomination, I will be looking for an alternative.

So I guess my possibly voting for a Republican is less support for Mccain and more a statement that I won't be voting for Romney or Huckabee.

st.cronin

01-20-2008, 05:32 PM

I registered as a Republican this year for the first time in order to vote for McCain in the primary.

Honolulu_Blue

01-21-2008, 12:41 PM

I missed this gem while Huckabee was here in Michigan last week:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Oh dear...

rkmsuf

01-21-2008, 01:00 PM

Jas_lov

01-21-2008, 01:33 PM

And that's why Huckabee scares people. He's dropped about 6-7 points in Florida and I think he's Iowa and done, unless he stays through until Super Tuesday and picks up his home state and a few other south eastern states. Mitt Romney was actually leading the latest rassmussen's post S.C./Nevada poll in Florida by 5 points. Giuliani and McCain aren't too far behind though and it'll be pretty close between them.

sabotai

01-21-2008, 01:59 PM

Buccaneer

01-21-2008, 02:15 PM

Which is why I have been saying all along that there is no way Huckabee would get the nomination.

Coffee Warlord

01-21-2008, 02:24 PM

Oh dear +2.

Now if Huckabee somehow ends up the nominee, I'll be forced to vote democrat....even if it's Hilary....and that makes me feel dirty and depressed.

Remember my thread about not voting?

Yeah, that matchup would force the issue with me.

QuikSand

01-21-2008, 02:33 PM

Well, what invariably happens between primary time and general time is that the parties go out of their way to remind their usually-loyal base that there are things that matter in a Presidential election on beyond the personality or the policies of the actual person in charge. Democrats and Republicans who today bemoan the potential candidate of their party will find themselves reminded of all the things that they dislike about the court appointees and cabinet officials put into office by the other party, as a reminded of why it's important to stick with their party, and most of them ultimately will.

Plenty of Democrats say right now they would rather for McCain than Clinton, and plenty of Republicans say they would rather vote for Obama than Huckabee or Romney. But core issues (most notably abortion) tend to bring a lot of those voters around, and they end up just holding their nose and voting party after all.

Coffee Warlord

01-21-2008, 02:39 PM

Plenty of Democrats say right now they would rather for McCain than Clinton, and plenty of Republicans say they would rather vote for Obama than Huckabee or Romney. But core issues (most notably abortion) tend to bring a lot of those voters around, and they end up just holding their nose and voting party after all.

And then you have the part of the party (more notably on the republican side this time around) who cannot stomach the theocratic nonsense being spouted, and are absolutely terrified of what these crazy religious lunatics could do if they were put in power. Add to that the general disagreement and in some cases sheer hatred of many of the core left ideals, and, well...CW for Emperor?

rkmsuf

01-21-2008, 02:44 PM

And then you have the part of the party (more notably on the republican side this time around) who cannot stomach the theocratic nonsense being spouted, and are absolutely terrified of what these crazy religious lunatics could do if they were put in power. Add to that the general disagreement and in some cases sheer hatred of many of the core left ideals, and, well...CW for Emperor?

Ironically, you'd f-ck it up worse than any candidate out there.

Dutch

01-21-2008, 03:20 PM

Honolulu_Blue

01-21-2008, 03:26 PM

Or at least abstaining or looking elsewhere...If it's Huckabee, Romney, Obama, or Clinton as my choices, I'll just vote for Dick Cheney.

http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/images/2007/08/24/aa_cheney_root_of_evil_2.jpg

path12

01-21-2008, 03:31 PM

Hillary and most any Republican might have me looking to see what Bloomberg's got up his sleeve.

Coffee Warlord

01-21-2008, 04:25 PM

Ironically, you'd f-ck it up worse than any candidate out there.

So I should just pencil you down early for the salt mines, yes? :)

Warhammer

01-21-2008, 04:46 PM

Plenty of Democrats say right now they would rather for McCain than Clinton, and plenty of Republicans say they would rather vote for Obama than Huckabee or Romney. But core issues (most notably abortion) tend to bring a lot of those voters around, and they end up just holding their nose and voting party after all.

Which I think is a shame. I am anti-abortion, but I think voting strictly on one or two issues is part of what has split this country into two ideological camps. While I am against abortion, I think it is important that you do have some laws that protect the rights of people to have one. But, I will spend my energy on a local level to convince minds and hearts to go the other way.

I think that is something that we forget in this country. What makes this country great is our ability to do something unless it is expressly prohibited by the law. Somewhere along the way we forgot that.

ISiddiqui

01-22-2008, 02:28 PM

And Fred Thompson bites the dust:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/us/politics/23thompson.html?hp

Wasn't doing all that well, but a lot of his support probably would have flocked to Huckabee otherwise. This definately helps out Huckabee's campaign, and maybe even Romney's a bit. McCain's campaign is not liking this at all.

Jas_lov

01-22-2008, 03:01 PM

I wonder if Huckabee would have won S.C. without Thompson there. My guess is that he endorses his buddy John McCain, but I think you're right about his supporters going to Huckabee and Romney. Thompson had some decent polling numbers in Florida so we'll see how this will impact that very close race.

albionmoonlight

01-22-2008, 03:07 PM

I liked Thompson. With all the candidates so nakedly ambitious for the job, it was kind of neat to have a candidate say "I want to be president, and I think that I would be a good one, but I ain't gonna shame myself in no dog and pony show. Vote for me if you like me, and don't if you don't. Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over this."

ISiddiqui

01-22-2008, 03:10 PM

I saw that as more like, "I'm running for President, now flock to me like you know you want to". He didn't care to articulate his points to people, he just seemed to think they should vote for him because he resembled Reagan the best.

Arles

01-23-2008, 11:40 AM

I haven't been as involved on a day-to-day basis, but I just checked things out today. Here's what I've found:

1. Romney has almost double the delegates (72-38) that McCain does. In fact, Ron Paul (6-38) is closer to McCain than McCain is to Romney.
2. McCain has done very well with independents and Romney has been very strong with "conservative" and registered republicans in states where he has run. In the open primaries, McCain leads Romney 31-28. In this closed or Caucus primaries, Romney leads McCain 44-7.
3. In the next two weeks, 13 of the 20 or so states voting have either a closed or caucus primary.

Yet, after all the above, McCain is the overwhelming favorite on nearly every website. I'm not following. McCain will probably finish 3rd in Florida (closed primary) behind Romney and Giuliani. Plus, with Thompson out, I expect most of his votes will go to Romney (conservative side) or even Huckabee (southern). I'm not a big Romney guy, but I really can't see how McCain ends up beating him when he could be down a huge amount in delegates after super Tuesday.

JPhillips

01-23-2008, 12:05 PM

A few points.

Delegate count at this point doesn't mean anything as it will take 1190 to win the nomination. Romney desn't even have ten percent of the delegates needed to win. In terms of delegates, this thing hasn't really started.

Florida is a winner take all primary, so a Romeny win would be a big boost. Likewise, a McCain win would also be big. I don't think Giuliani will beat McCain, but second place really doesn't matter in FL.

Thompson's voters are more likely to go to McCain. I saw some number today that had McCain getting over thirty percent of Thompson supporters based on a second choice question. I believe Huckabee was second on that question with Romney third. It's likely that McCain gains over Romney with Thompson out.

I agree that McCain has a real problem with conservatives. He'll be very strong in the general, but at some point he has to rally the base and I don't know whether he can do that.

ISiddiqui

01-23-2008, 12:09 PM

McCain is the overwhelming favorite on nearly every website. I'm not following.

Because the current delegates are tiny compared to those in play the next few weeks. It's really about momentum and PR. McCain winning in New Hampshire put him back into the race. His winning in South Carolina defied all projections and moved him back to the front, especially for Florida and then after that (IIRC, he was polling AHEAD of Guiliani in New York!).

Though the Thompson dropping out could really muck it up for him.

Arles

01-23-2008, 12:18 PM

Because the current delegates are tiny compared to those in play the next few weeks. It's really about momentum and PR. McCain winning in New Hampshire put him back into the race. His winning in South Carolina defied all projections and moved him back to the front, especially for Florida and then after that (IIRC, he was polling AHEAD of Guiliani in New York!).

Though the Thompson dropping out could really muck it up for him.
If McCain wins Florida, I would agree. But McCain losing Michigan is a huge loss, IMO. It was an open primary in a state where democrats were basically told not to vote for a democratic candidate. So, logic would dictate that there were tons of independents/democrats out there for McCain to land. As to South Carolina, it was also an open primary and neither Guiliani nor Romney even campaigned. Who was the favorite in SC if not McCain? Huckabee? Outside of Iowa, he hadn't gotten 17% of the vote in any state.

IMO, for McCain to have a chance he needs to win every open primary, AZ and a couple others. If he goes into an open primary state without Romney even campaigning, it's silly to think he shouldn't be the favorite. Florida is a big state, though. If McCain wins there, he might have enough momentum to pull it out. But, to say he's a clear favorite for the nomination now seems to be more "hopeful" than accurate by the media.

larrymcg421

01-23-2008, 12:21 PM

As others have said, the delegates don't really matter at this point. It's all about momentum.

Also, You're acting like McCain has no hope of winning a closed primary. Sure, independents have put him over the top in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but he only lost by 1 pt. among Republicans in both states.

It's highly unlikely for McCain to finish 3rd in Florida. There are lots of military voters, and he's very popular with the Cuban-Americans. Most recent polls show:

ARG: McCain 29, Romney 22, Huckabee 17, Giuliani 16
SurveyUSA: McCain 25, Giuliani 20, Romney 19, Huckabee 14

Sure, he could finish 3rd, but it would be pretty unlikely. He's also considered the frontrunner because he's held the lead in all national polls over the last two weeks. He's doing very well in many other states, including the big ones. He's actually tied with Giuliani in New York, leads him in New Jersey, and leads everyone in California.

Honolulu_Blue

01-23-2008, 12:26 PM

I think a McCain vs. Clinton general election would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

Arles

01-23-2008, 12:27 PM

I agree with all said above, but my contention is the reason that he's leading is all the positive PR he's gotten in the past 2 weeks. And, I really don't see anything "shocking" in winning NH (carried easily in 2000 over W) and SC without Romney or Rudy running. Yet, Romney got little to no credit for wins in Michigan (big upset after losing NH), Nevada and Wyoming.

If it ends up being Hillary and McCain, why even vote? Unless you are a big social conservative, there will be little difference in their policies. Hillary is moving more to the right and McCain to the left on economy/immigration. Both will want some kind of tax increase on the rich, some form of amnesty, some national health care system, against domestic oil exploration and for global warming/climate legislation.

ISiddiqui

01-23-2008, 12:40 PM

And, I really don't see anything "shocking" in winning NH (carried easily in 2000 over W) and SC without Romney or Rudy running.

You may be the only one who didn't see anything shocking in McCain's win in South Carolina. Everyone thought he'd get trounced in the state that rejected him solidly back in 2000. They thought it was Huckabee's to win. That's also why Romney decided to go for Nevada (though he actually went to South Carolina to campaign the days beforehand).

Unless you are a big social conservative

Or don't like social conservative policies. That encompasses a big part of the electorate.

albionmoonlight

01-23-2008, 12:51 PM

I think a McCain vs. Clinton general election would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

Easily.

ISiddiqui

01-23-2008, 12:53 PM

Let's be honest here, though, a McCain vs. anyone would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

albionmoonlight

01-23-2008, 12:59 PM

Let's be honest here, though, a McCain vs. anyone would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

I agree. And Clinton v. anyone would give the Republicans the best chance.

Put 'em together, and it's like Chocolate and Peanut Butter for the Republicans.

Honolulu_Blue

01-23-2008, 01:01 PM

I agree. And Clinton v. anyone would give the Republicans the best chance.

Put 'em together, and it's like Chocolate and Peanut Butter for the Republicans.

I reached this conclusion, like, six posts ago. :)

ISiddiqui

01-23-2008, 01:04 PM

I agree. And Clinton v. anyone would give the Republicans the best chance.

Put 'em together, and it's like Chocolate and Peanut Butter for the Republicans.

I know the Republicans like to think so ;). She's got a good bit of Comeback Kid in her as well, though.

I actually think that McCain vs. Obama would be MORE advantageous for the Republicans as McCain can hammer Obama on lack of experience, while being able to deflect attacks against the administration.

Bubba Wheels

01-23-2008, 01:22 PM

I think a McCain vs. Clinton general election would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

Then better is Hillary wins. Being so devisive, both houses would go GOP during her term and would dictate policy to her like they did to her husband Clyde...er, Bill.

The other big upside for the GOP, McCain does not become President, and Obama is prevented from becoming the 'transjectory figure' for the Democrats that Reagan was for the GOP and thereby altering elections in the Dems favor for years to come. Actually some good upsides for Hillary prez. :)

ISiddiqui

01-23-2008, 01:30 PM

Um... because Reagan won in his first attempt at running for President? Even if Obama loses, you'll see him again. Especially since he's so young (relatively).

Bubba Wheels

01-23-2008, 01:37 PM

Um... because Reagan won in his first attempt at running for President? Even if Obama loses, you'll see him again. Especially since he's so young (relatively).

Um...(picks nose)...Reagan actually lost his first attempt, vs. Gerry Ford in Primaries 1976. And, not winning now means Obama loses the moment. Not everyone can recover from that (Kerry, Edwards, Gore.)

ISiddiqui

01-23-2008, 01:43 PM

Um...(picks nose)...Reagan actually lost his first attempt, vs. Gerry Ford in Primaries 1976. And, not winning now means Obama loses the moment. Not everyone can recover from that (Kerry, Edwards, Gore.)

Yes... Reagan lost. He did not "lose the moment", whatever that entails. I'm not sure Kerry, Edwards, or Gore had a "moment". And Obama is charismatic and likable enough that he can make his own moments... ie, like Reagan his appeal is not merely subject to events.

Bubba Wheels

01-23-2008, 01:52 PM

Yes... Reagan lost. He did not "lose the moment", whatever that entails. I'm not sure Kerry, Edwards, or Gore had a "moment". And Obama is charismatic and likable enough that he can make his own moments... ie, like Reagan his appeal is not merely subject to events.

Yes, But Reagan's strength was his being the ideological heir to Barry Goldwater. Obama's ideology is not his strength, that would be his personality and lack of a polarizing past. His 'ideology' is not what makes him stand out like Reagan's did.

As Obama waits for his 'next chance' his record will accumulate and his 'freshness' date will be long gone.

ISiddiqui

01-23-2008, 01:56 PM

Yes, But Reagan's strength was his being the ideological heir to Barry Goldwater. Obama's ideology is not his strength, that would be his personality and lack of a polarizing past. His 'ideology' is not what makes him stand out like Reagan's did.

As Obama waits for his 'next chance' his record will accumulate and his 'freshness' date will be long gone.

I'm realizing you have no clue why Obama is thought of so highly. It isn't merely his personality and "lack of polarizing past" (if he hasn't had one in this many years of public service, why would he in the next 4-8 years?). It's his unifying message. Obama, more than anyone, sounds like a unifier. Someone who actually may stop partisan politics. And, of course, he taps into the same vein of optimism and hope that Reagan did.

Bubba Wheels

01-23-2008, 02:00 PM

I'm realizing you have no clue why Obama is thought of so highly. It isn't merely his personality and "lack of polarizing past" (if he hasn't had one in this many years of public service, why would he in the next 4-8 years?). It's his unifying message. Obama, more than anyone, sounds like a unifier. Someone who actually may stop partisan politics. And, of course, he taps into the same vein of optimism and hope that Reagan did.

Well then, your right, I don't get it. Cause Hillary herself, McCain and just about everybody else is pushing the 'unity' thing and not getting anywhere with it.

Arles

01-23-2008, 02:05 PM

You may be the only one who didn't see anything shocking in McCain's win in South Carolina. Everyone thought he'd get trounced in the state that rejected him solidly back in 2000. They thought it was Huckabee's to win. That's also why Romney decided to go for Nevada (though he actually went to South Carolina to campaign the days beforehand).
I haven't really seen the appeal of Huckabee. He's not as strong as Romney on the fiscal conservative side, and he's not as strong as McCain on the social conservative side. He doesn't come off well in most interviews and I doubt he gets 20% in any primary from here on in (save maybe Arkansas). But, Huckabee was tabbed as the projected guy in SC for some reason.

Or don't like social conservative policies. That encompasses a big part of the electorate.
That's true. I tend to look at political candidate from a fiscal policy standpoint - not as much on the social end. So, from that standpoint, I am certainly in the minority. Still, I don't see much of a difference in presidential legislation after 4 years of Hillary compared to 4 years of McCain. Where it gets interesting is Obama v Romney as there you have differing strategies on most issues (taxes, immigration, health care, climate, energy, ...).

ISiddiqui

01-23-2008, 02:16 PM

Well then, your right, I don't get it. Cause Hillary herself, McCain and just about everybody else is pushing the 'unity' thing and not getting anywhere with it.

As you've pointed out, Clinton and McCain are getting no where with unity, because they aren't really that credible on it (well, McCain somewhat is, but he's got problems unifying his own party!).

Obama seems far more genuine on it and has spoken on it for as long as anyone can remember. His 2004 DNC speech was about one America (contrast that to Edwards two Americas).

That's true. I tend to look at political candidate from a fiscal policy standpoint - not as much on the social end. So, from that standpoint, I am certainly in the minority. Still, I don't see much of a difference in presidential legislation after 4 years of Hillary compared to 4 years of McCain. Where it gets interesting is Obama v Romney as there you have differing strategies on most issues (taxes, immigration, health care, climate, energy, ...).

I think this also answers your first response in your post about not getting the appeal of Huckabee. He's the evangelical right's social conservative. McCain holds social conservative positions, but he's also worked across the aisle for "amnesty" and campaign finance reform, which social conservatives just don't like. And he seems somewhat genuine.

In 4 years, I think a Clinton administration would be fairly different than a McCain one on fiscal issues as well. McCain is trying to get cuts in spending as well as taking away the Bush tax cut (balancing the budget first and then do whatever else). I think Clinton will focus more on health care and eliminating the Bush tax cuts. Regardless, I think that absent some incredibly strange Republican landslide into Congress, the Bush tax cuts are dead, but what happens afterwards may be a bit different.

And of course, there may be a slight difference to the Iraq War. I think we'll still be there, but under Clinton, it'll be a far less of a presense than it would under McCain.

Arles

01-23-2008, 02:30 PM

I think this also answers your first response in your post about not getting the appeal of Huckabee. He's the evangelical right's social conservative. McCain holds social conservative positions, but he's also worked across the aisle for "amnesty" and campaign finance reform, which social conservatives just don't like. And he seems somewhat genuine.
That makes sense. Huckabee would be a very worrisome candidate for me. I think he'd end up being the opposite of Rudy (who is more of a match for me). I honestly don't know what he'd do from a fiscal policy stance and his immigration policies are all across the board.

In 4 years, I think a Clinton administration would be fairly different than a McCain one on fiscal issues as well. McCain is trying to get cuts in spending as well as taking away the Bush tax cut (balancing the budget first and then do whatever else). I think Clinton will focus more on health care and eliminating the Bush tax cuts.
Here's how I see it:

Both are against the Bush tax cut. Both will raise taxes on "the rich". Neither will touch social security. Both will introduce climate-control standards. Both will oppose domestic drilling. McCain will spend a ton on immigration-related issues (directly or indirectly). McCain will spend a little on health care. Hillary will spend a ton on health care and spend a little on immigration-type things.

In the end, neither will balance the budget and both will increase taxes. With McCain, we may have a larger emphasis on immigration (even an "amnesty-lite") and with Hillary we will have a shot at changing health care.

But, IMO, both will do almost the exact same thing in Iraq. Despite all the rhetoric, no president wants to be known as the one who lost the Iraq war. So, while Hillary won't appear as supportive, she'll stay just as long as McCain and spend just as much money.

ISiddiqui

01-23-2008, 02:34 PM

Huckabee in the fiscal policy area is no friend of the Club for Growth (who has campaigned against him already). He'll likely BE the compassionate conservative that Dubya said he was (but actually wasn't).

In the end, neither will balance the budget and both will increase taxes.

Well, if those are your criteria, then yes, Clinton and McCain will be similar :D.

Buccaneer

01-23-2008, 06:01 PM

Did I read correctly that all of the Dem candidates conceded that McCain is the the best foreign policy candidate of anyone running?

ISiddiqui

01-24-2008, 06:47 AM

Well, if they did, I do like the honesty. McCain obviously is. He has, by far, the most experience in the foriegn policy realm now that Biden is out (McCain probably has more than Biden, but it isn't by much).

Young Drachma

01-24-2008, 08:34 PM

The GOP debates are so much more tolerable to watch than the Democratic debates. It's a joke to watch Hillary and Obama fight each other and then you have Edwards in this new "role" as a populist, play good cop to their bad cop.

It's a shame none of these GOP candidates are that riveting and all have major flaws. It's also interesting that they're far more "diverse" than the Democratic field was. Politically, the Dems were the same except for Kucinich.

That said, they all sound the same to me, while the Republicans might not be riveting or "diverse" racially, there are clear, distinct differences in what each would do with the country I think. Even if politically they're the same except for Paul.

Though I love how they co opt each other's language. The whole "change" talk by Romney and the whole "Ready To Lead On Day 1" stuff with McCain.

The openness of this race is intriguing and I'm really curious to see what will happen.

Young Drachma

01-24-2008, 08:37 PM

Dola --

And it's great having Ron Paul up there. Just because he's the only one who is clearly an independent thinker. Those other drones just repeat the same talking points that I could see on FOX.

Groundhog

01-24-2008, 08:47 PM

I'd read a little about Ron Paul and was actually starting to kinda like the guy until I learned he was a wacky creationist.

Young Drachma

01-24-2008, 08:47 PM

I really like the whole "ask a question of your opponent" deal. Seems they're taking it seriously and they're not snipping at each other, it's real, substantive debate.

Young Drachma

01-24-2008, 08:59 PM

I'd read a little about Ron Paul and was actually starting to kinda like the guy until I learned he was a wacky creationist.

Yeah, he's about as unpresidential as you can be. And I can't support him, because he's got a few wacky views that I'm not down with. But...he's still more refreshing than the rest of them. But it's REALLY funny how the other candidates don't like him and they clearly roll their eyes when he talks and probably wish he wasn't up there with them.

He tried to get McCain on a detailed financial question and McCain didn't bite, deflecting that he has lots of smart people to advise him.

Paul doesn't handle the spotlight very well, he's too reactive and doesn't have the personality to handle the stage. But..I appreciate his fervor for policy and desire to try to shake things up some.

There seems to be a real dichotomy between the polished politician wing of the GOP on stage and the lolly-pop idealist wing of the party on stage. So you have Huckabee and Paul on one side of that, who Rudy, McCain and Romney are probably wishing would just go away...Rudy who is still acting like he's far more "in this" than his numbers have proven at this point and McCain and Romney avoiding each other rather than treating each other like frontrunners.

But I do think it's more interesting with more of them up there than if it were just the "big three" up there dodging serious questions.

Rudy to me doesn't seem to have the mettle for this national test. I feel like he's just not really showing us enough as a national candidate. McCain looks like he's really poised this time and that he wants to sneak in there and Romney's CEO as President deal to me just doesn't seem like it'll sell nationally and just looking at them up there, it seems McCain has the confidence of a serious contender and that his national experience as a campaign -- albeit an aged one -- will make him the nominee in the end.

I mean, a lot can happen. But I feel like Romney's slickback isn't going to convince anyone he can be President and that beyond the whole "I've been an chief executive of a state and I reformed the Winter Olympics that no one watched," deal that he's going to fizzle out. The Mormon thing won't be the reason, mind you, I think he just have the looks of someone you can trust. Plus, can he win Massachusetts in a battle against Obama or Hillary? I'm not so sure...

Bubba Wheels

01-25-2008, 03:01 PM

I give Romney lots of credit for standing up to the piling-on a front-runner should expect without..boo hoo hoo...crying a river about it like Bonnie and Clyde (Bill and Hill) in the other party. I will almost surely support him now.

Ron Paul's strength, again, has never been his stage presence. Always been his ideas. God Bless him for sticking it out, he needs to be heard and his ideas (which can all be traced back to sound economic policy) will live on long after he is gone. That will be his enduring, and appreciated, legacy.

Toddzilla

01-25-2008, 04:16 PM

Ron Paul's strength, again, has never been his stage presence. Always been his ideas. God Bless him for sticking it out, he needs to be heard and his ideas (which can all be traced back to sound economic policy) will live on long after he is gone. That will be his enduring, and appreciated, legacy.I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Vegas Vic

01-25-2008, 05:26 PM

Romney is making a strong move to be the frontrunner and take this thing down on "Super Tuesday". Florida is now a dead heat, and trending Romney as we head to Tuesday. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_republican_primary-260.html)

Also, keep in mind that only registered republicans can vote in the remaining primaries, so McCain can't count on the support of democrats and independents anymore. In South Carolina, Huckabee actually beat McCain among registered republicans.

flere-imsaho

01-26-2008, 04:49 PM

1. Looking at the poll totals from this thread, it's very interesting to note that we mostly thought Giuliani would win it.

2. I'm pulling for Giuliani in Florida. The entertainment of the Repubs heading into Super Tuesday with 4 candidates having won primaries is simply too tempting.

Vegas Vic

01-26-2008, 06:19 PM

1. Looking at the poll totals from this thread, it's very interesting to note that we mostly thought Giuliani would win it.

Not only here, but all across the country. Early on, Giuliani was high in the national polls without regard to the state by state races, and he had great name recognition but had not yet been scrutinized by the republican base for his stand on the issues.

Jas_lov

01-29-2008, 06:34 PM

With 3% of precincts reporting, Romney and McCain are tied at 31% each. Giuliani at 17%, Huckabee 14%.

Jas_lov

01-29-2008, 06:58 PM

15% in, McCain up by 20,000 votes. Giluiani is a distant 3rd. I wonder if he'll drop out before February 5th so he doesn't get embarrassed in his home state. He surrendered in every state thus far except Florida and still came in 3rd. He has less delegates than Ron Paul. Giuliani should surrender in all of the states tonight.

Jas_lov

01-29-2008, 07:04 PM

Fox News exit polls had Romney at 35%, McCain at 31%. The economy was by far the most important issue, but McCain finished with a higher % among those voters 34% to Romney's 30%.

st.cronin

01-29-2008, 07:16 PM

If Giuliani drops out, who does that help more, McCain or Romney? I doubt his voters will be switching to Huckabee.

larrymcg421

01-29-2008, 07:36 PM

If Giuliani drops out, who does that help more, McCain or Romney? I doubt his voters will be switching to Huckabee.

I gotta think he helps McCain more. Both are seen as moderate Republicans on several issues, but also extremely tough on the terrorists.

However, I think he steps up the attack and tries to win a couple states on Super Tuesday.

molson

01-29-2008, 07:40 PM

I gotta think he helps McCain more. Both are seen as moderate Republicans on several issues, but also extremely tough on the terrorists.

However, I think he steps up the attack and tries to win a couple states on Super Tuesday.

I think Rudy's done tomorrow - his consulting business and image takes a huge hit if he's slaughtered on Super Tuesday (and especially with a humiliating loss in NY)

What a dumb strategy.

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2008, 07:49 PM

What a dumb strategy.

+1

st.cronin

01-29-2008, 07:51 PM

I kind of got the feeling that Rudy G. never really wanted to be President... he just wanted to go through the motions.

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2008, 07:53 PM

I kind of got the feeling that Rudy G. never really wanted to be President... he just wanted to go through the motions.

I think you've got him confused with Fred Thompson.

Jas_lov

01-29-2008, 07:54 PM

46% in and McCain is up by 40,000 votes.

molson

01-29-2008, 07:57 PM

Maybe Rudy's just laying low until the May 27th Idaho primary.

st.cronin

01-29-2008, 07:59 PM

I think you've got him confused with Fred Thompson.

Oh no, I think Thompson WANTED to be President ... I think he just didn't want to run. He was hoping to get appointed.

Jas_lov

01-29-2008, 08:01 PM

Huckabee says he's just getting started. Giuliani to speak soon and rumors on drudge say he will drop out as early as tomorrow and endorse John McCain.

flere-imsaho

01-29-2008, 08:09 PM

+1

+2

I think you've got him confused with Fred Thompson.

+1 And you all know how I hate to agree with Jon.

I definitely think Giuliani wanted to be President, I definitely think he played games with the primary season, and it definitely appears to have bitten him in the ass.

Now the big question: Does a Giuliani endorsement of McCain help or hurt McCain? :)

OK, seriously. Giuliani dropping out probably gives his "tough foreign policy" votes to McCain and his "economic credentials" votes to Romney. I think there's probably more of the former than the latter (that were voting for Giuliani). Of course, if he drops out before Super Tuesday, how many of his supporters just stay home?

Jas_lov

01-29-2008, 08:12 PM

John McCain is the winner of the Florida primary!

Arles

01-29-2008, 08:12 PM

AP just called Florida for McCain

Buccaneer

01-29-2008, 08:16 PM

I had thought it would be a McCain/Thompson ticket but seeing that Thompson is a lazy ass, I'm not too sure. I have to look at how Romney plays in the South to see if he'll help that ticket.

flere-imsaho

01-29-2008, 08:18 PM

Buccaneer

01-29-2008, 08:21 PM

McCain & Romney don't like each other, at all, so that won't be the ticket.

McCain & Thompson, aside from Thompson's laziness, is probably too "old" of a ticket.

If McCain's the nominee, I'd imagine the Veep would be a younger, "warmer" candidate who's good on domestic issues, i.e. a "compassionate conservative." Bonus points if he goes out on a limb and gets a similarly-qualified woman.

I can't disagree with any of that, esp. knowing the bad blood between the two (just like it won't be a Obama/Clinton ticket). I would augment your last statement in picking a warmer, Southern candidate not named Huckabee.

st.cronin

01-29-2008, 08:27 PM

McCain/Rice? Does that make any sense?

Jas_lov

01-29-2008, 08:31 PM

McCain just needs a conservative running mate that will satisfy the conservative base. It won't be Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, or Giuliani. Rudy didn't endorse anyone in his speech, but said he ran a good campaign.

flere-imsaho

01-29-2008, 08:32 PM

McCain/Rice? Does that make any sense?

Rice has never run for the election of anything. You've got to have a somewhat seasoned campaigner as Veep to survive the General.

Besides, this ticket would just scream: "No new ideas."

flere-imsaho

01-29-2008, 08:32 PM

If it's a woman, maybe Christine Todd Whitman? Former Governor?

st.cronin

01-29-2008, 08:36 PM

If it's a woman, maybe Christine Todd Whitman? Former Governor?

That would, imo, be a formidable ticket, and would herald a revolution in the GOP.

SirFozzie

01-29-2008, 08:38 PM

I like this comment from RealClearPolitics, who are liveblogging tonight..

9:30PM - Rudy Giuliani, in his concession (withdrawal?) speech, calls the GOP the "Party of Bush." Those thumping sounds you just heard were NRCC chair Tom Cole and NRSC chair John Ensign bashing their heads against walls in frustration. - REID WILSON

SirFozzie

01-29-2008, 08:40 PM

They're also saying that if Giuliani does drop out tommorrow and endorses McCain, that's pretty much wrapping it up for McCain.

Young Drachma

01-29-2008, 08:40 PM

If it's a woman, maybe Christine Todd Whitman? Former Governor?

Too liberal of a ticket. And I don't know if she's enough to say, convince NJ/NY/PA to swing red. Specifically the home state and PA. He does need a woman and I've heard lots of Condi talk, simply because she'd "balance" some of the spark of what Obama might bring to the Dems were he to outlast the two-headed Clinton monster. And you know Dubya would be all for the idea.

But she's too serious for a gig like that and would be a bad campaigner.

All of the Yankee Republicans who are women are too moderate and basically RINOs. And McCain is considered a RINO by some of the more conservative members of the GOP and as a result, he'll need someone who bolsters his conservative credentials, who isn't scary and who has personality and who is younger.

Man...there's a shopping list.

Young Drachma

01-29-2008, 08:41 PM

That would, imo, be a formidable ticket, and would herald a revolution in the GOP.

Maybe in 2000 it would've.

SirFozzie

01-29-2008, 08:48 PM

terpkristin

01-29-2008, 08:49 PM

My thoughts as a neutral: The conservative base will not be delighted with McCain as the nominee. Too many folks view him as a RINO. This doesn't matter much when he's facing Hilary, there's enough fervor of "oh god, anybody but Clinton" that will get his base behind him solidly, even if they have to hold their collective noses to do so.

If it's Obama, who has cross over potential of his own (arguably greater then McCain).... well.. that base will not be there for McCain, and Obama will win easily, I think

I've been lurkin in this thread over the last day or so. What is a RINO?

/tk

SirFozzie

01-29-2008, 08:53 PM

Something to be serious about when it's charging your ass.

No, seriously, a RINO is a "Republican In Name Only", an epithet hurled by the two of the major groups at Republicans who are not "conservative enough" in either A) Financial Policy (if you're not for tax breaks for business for example), or B) Moral Imperatives (anti-abortion, gay marriage, immigration etcetera).

The two things that McCain falls flat on is A) Immigration (he's the one who proposed to make about 12 million illegal immigrants in this country legal, which sent a certain part of the Republican party into convulsions), and B) His Campaign Finance bill.

Buccaneer

01-29-2008, 08:55 PM

My thoughts as a neutral: The conservative base will not be delighted with McCain as the nominee. Too many folks view him as a RINO. This doesn't matter much when he's facing Hilary, there's enough fervor of "oh god, anybody but Clinton" that will get his base behind him solidly, even if they have to hold their collective noses to do so.

If it's Obama, who has cross over potential of his own (arguably greater then McCain).... well.. that base will not be there for McCain, and Obama will win easily, I think

Win easily? I don't know but you can be assured that all of the Southern and most of the Midwestern states will go red. Will most of the big states (NY, PA, OH, IL, PA) be enough? I predict that, for the first time in a long time, California will be in play. McCain will play very well in Southern Cal and the interior regions.

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2008, 08:56 PM

Man...there's a shopping list.

Might be easier to find a unicorn at this point.

Buccaneer

01-29-2008, 09:01 PM

Too liberal of a ticket. And I don't know if she's enough to say, convince NJ/NY/PA to swing red. Specifically the home state and PA. He does need a woman and I've heard lots of Condi talk, simply because she'd "balance" some of the spark of what Obama might bring to the Dems were he to outlast the two-headed Clinton monster. And you know Dubya would be all for the idea.

But she's too serious for a gig like that and would be a bad campaigner.

All of the Yankee Republicans who are women are too moderate and basically RINOs. And McCain is considered a RINO by some of the more conservative members of the GOP and as a result, he'll need someone who bolsters his conservative credentials, who isn't scary and who has personality and who is younger.

Man...there's a shopping list.

Re-reading your post, I think you are right on. McCain will have to pick a younger Governor that is not part of the current Administration.

Greyroofoo

01-29-2008, 09:02 PM

NBC News is saying Guiliani is dropping out and endorsing McCain.

Young Drachma

01-29-2008, 09:02 PM

My thoughts as a neutral: The conservative base will not be delighted with McCain as the nominee. Too many folks view him as a RINO.

FOX News was talking about this tonight, vis a vis Rush Limbaugh and the fact that they're going to be pissed that McCain has more steam going forward and they speculated that in order to go forward, McCain had to pay homage to the "conservative base" of the GOP to let them know he's "their candidate too" or something. Some on the panel were convinced he'd do it eventually, others were not so sure.

SirFozzie

01-29-2008, 09:06 PM

FOX News was talking about this tonight, vis a vis Rush Limbaugh and the fact that they're going to be pissed that McCain has more steam going forward and they speculated that in order to go forward, McCain had to pay homage to the "conservative base" of the GOP to let them know he's "their candidate too" or something. Some on the panel were convinced he'd do it eventually, others were not so sure.

The problem being, that folks are lining up to fight him on his own side.

From http://thepage.time.com/

Citizens United Political Victory Fund – run by longtime activist Dave Bossie — to hit Fox News Channel Thursday with six-figure television buy comparing McCain to Hillary Clinton.

(From the Commercial) McCain “joined Ted Kennedy to sponsor amnesty for illegals… John McCain — surprisingly liberal.”

It's a last ditch effort to try to throw support on to Romney (who isn't much better, but at least is willing to be a weathervane for his base), but.. ugh.. you have to see it sticking in the minds of some./

Swaggs

01-29-2008, 09:09 PM

Perhaps a stretch, but how would a ticket of McCain/Jeb Bush look?

I think it would work well against Hillary--probably not as well against Obama.

Young Drachma

01-29-2008, 09:10 PM

Re-reading your post, I think you are right on. McCain will have to pick a younger Governor that is not part of the current Administration.

Bobby Jindal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal), anyone?

I just thought about that. Sure, he JUST got into the Louisiana Governor's house. But...he's pretty popular down there, he's a technocrat like Obama and has been rising up the GOP ranks for a lil' while now.

The only problem is, I don't think nationally he'd offer much for them and it's doubtful that he'd take it, preferring to settle in as Governor.
But there's a darkhorse for you. But he's young as hell.

Another idea, though another longshot -- Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle)

Neither of these people are going to overwhelm you with their "conservative credentials", but I think that if we're talking about GOP balance and "inclusiveness" as far as the beancounting media is concerned, both would offer you something in the way of that.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would give him balance too and Alaska is a solidly red state, if distant and far away...

But none of those people really has any national stage experience, so it would be a real trial by fire for all of them and that's not always a good thing. But I'd figure they're desperate this year to offset the Hillary or Obama factor and I'm afraid in the era of American Idol, that policy knowledge and smarts isn't going to be enough.

But it's still early to tell what's really gonna happen, obviously.

Buccaneer

01-29-2008, 09:12 PM

Perhaps a stretch, but how would a ticket of McCain/Jeb Bush look?

I think it would work well against Hillary--probably not as well against Obama.

McCain and Obama would/should do much better than picking someone associated with the last two administrations.

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2008, 09:12 PM

... to throw support on to Romney (who isn't much better, but at least is willing to be a weathervane for his base)

I didn't catch all of it so I'm definitely prone to misinterpretation of information, but if I understood what I heard correctly, McCain narrowly held off Romney in the panhandle area tonight while Huckabee barely managed a ripple. Again, if I caught it squarely, that seemed to indicate that an area which would presumably been ripe for Huckabee may have already been shifting to Romney in order to try to head off McCain.

I think the willingness (apparent? possible?) of social conservatives to back Romney in spite of denominational concerns might signal just how unhappy they are at the prospect of McCain being the nominee.

Young Drachma

01-29-2008, 09:14 PM

The problem being, that folks are lining up to fight him on his own side.

From http://thepage.time.com/

Citizens United Political Victory Fund – run by longtime activist Dave Bossie — to hit Fox News Channel Thursday with six-figure television buy comparing McCain to Hillary Clinton.

(From the Commercial) McCain “joined Ted Kennedy to sponsor amnesty for illegals… John McCain — surprisingly liberal.”

It's a last ditch effort to try to throw support on to Romney (who isn't much better, but at least is willing to be a weathervane for his base), but.. ugh.. you have to see it sticking in the minds of some./

This is the kind of stuff that plays right into the hands of the Democrats. The GOP will kill their own cause by trying to kill him off. And I find it hilarious to some degree. Hell, John Edwards could beat Romney nationally. He has no shot to win, even with his deep pockets. McCain -- despite his age, at least has a shred of credibility left as a maverick and one that his own party can't really stand.

So all of these people out there from Rush Limbaugh's wing of the party who area lining up to discredit him and try to shoot him like a target in the woods are just showing how hopelessly out of touch the party has continued to become over the past decade. It didn't obviously start then, but it's just gotten worse. And I'm not a McCain fan, but objectively, he's the only shot left that the GOP has to beat one of the Dem frontrunners and even that's not really a cinch, but he's got a credible opportunity.

Especially against Hillary.

Young Drachma

01-29-2008, 09:15 PM

McCain and Obama would/should do much better than picking someone associated with the last two administrations.

+1

No way either of them is silly enough to go there.

I just had an Obama thought related to running mates, but I'll put it in that thread.

Easy Mac

01-29-2008, 09:16 PM

This turning into the West Wing race:

ethnic democrat running on the "hope" ticket.

not conservative enough, older Republican, needing a more conservative running mate to grab his party.

Now all we need is Obama to make Ted Kennedy his Veep, Kennedy die, and then grab Mark Warner as his new VP mate.

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2008, 09:20 PM

... he's the only shot left that the GOP has to beat one of the Dem frontrunners and even that's not really a cinch, but he's got a credible opportunity. Especially against Hillary.

I think what you may be missing (or more like underestimating maybe?) is that a lot of us don't feel like there's enough difference between McCain & Hillary to really make it matter much.

The thinking in some circles might well be something along the lines of "we're going to be stuck with a steaming pile of dogcrap in the White House either way, better their POS screws it up for four years than a repulsive RINO POS that screws it up. We'll pick up the pieces in four years"

edit to add: Before anybody gets bent about my choice of words there, the point wasn't to just randomly namecall. I was genuinely trying to boil it down to essence of the perception that could well be driving events on the GOP side over the next several months.

Young Drachma

01-29-2008, 09:29 PM

I think what you may be missing (or more like underestimating maybe?) is that a lot of us don't feel like there's enough difference between McCain & Hillary to really make it matter much.

The thinking in some circles might well be something along the lines of "we're going to be stuck with a steaming pile of dogcrap in the White House either way, better their POS screws it up for four years than a repulsive RINO POS that screws it up. We'll pick up the pieces in four years"

edit to add: Before anybody gets bent about my choice of words there, the point wasn't to just randomly namecall. I was genuinely trying to boil it down to essence of the perception that could well be driving events on the GOP side over the next several months.

No, no, I'm not missing it. I was just hyper speculating and playing politics as a game, versus the real political impacts of it all as it relates to my own personal politics. I'm viewing this race almost as an out-of-body experience politically. None of the candidates politically do much of anything for me, so I'm just looking at the horse race as such.

But you do bring it a very valid point, which is, "it doesn't matter" to most of the people who would otherwise be galvanized to get out and vote and as a result, they'll do what a lot of folks on the left I presumed must have done in '04, which is just sit it out and wait four years.

SirFozzie

01-29-2008, 09:30 PM

This is the kind of stuff that plays right into the hands of the Democrats. The GOP will kill their own cause by trying to kill him off. And I find it hilarious to some degree. Hell, John Edwards could beat Romney nationally. He has no shot to win, even with his deep pockets. McCain -- despite his age, at least has a shred of credibility left as a maverick and one that his own party can't really stand.

So all of these people out there from Rush Limbaugh's wing of the party who area lining up to discredit him and try to shoot him like a target in the woods are just showing how hopelessly out of touch the party has continued to become over the past decade. It didn't obviously start then, but it's just gotten worse. And I'm not a McCain fan, but objectively, he's the only shot left that the GOP has to beat one of the Dem frontrunners and even that's not really a cinch, but he's got a credible opportunity.

Especially against Hillary.

Bingo, DC

SirFozzie

01-29-2008, 09:33 PM

JonInMiddleGA

01-29-2008, 09:52 PM

A) Who do you see four years down the road on the Republican side that will be strong enough in '12?

No idea, one would almost certainly have to emerge. Lord knows, there isn't much this go around. But it's a lot easier to emerge as a strong personality as the opposition than the controlling party.

B) Do you really think it's going to be that easy unseating a sitting president in 2012?

Hillary? Obama? In all seriousness, I'd say it's not much better than 50-50 than either of them would finish their terms. And if they did manage to do so, it would be ripe for an easier victory than defeating Carter was.

Buccaneer

01-29-2008, 10:00 PM

I will likely break my long-standing tradition of not voting for a red or blue President and vote for McCain (I did like him and not Bush in 2000, though). The reason is simple. We will have a Democratic-controlled House and Senate, thus we need a Republican executive to help stem some of the crap that gets debated, passed and signed there. This would be the same if the Republicans controlled Congress, then I would vote for Obama.

JPhillips

01-29-2008, 10:26 PM

I'd say it's not much better than 50-50 than either of them would finish their terms

Are you saying they'll quit or they'll get killed?

And in interesting polling news, McCain again lost among self described Republicans and lost conservatives by ten points. I still think he's the strongest general election candidate, but it's amazing that he's going to be the nominee and still hasn't won a plurality of self described Republicans.

SirFozzie

01-29-2008, 10:27 PM

st.cronin

01-29-2008, 10:29 PM

McCain-Lieberman!

stevew

01-29-2008, 10:31 PM

If Rudy pulls out tomorrow and McCain can surge to key victories next tuesday, this thing can be over quickly.

Romney must be stopped.

st.cronin

01-29-2008, 10:33 PM

Romney must be stopped.

Word. I believe I would rather vote for Hillary than Mitt.

Buccaneer

01-29-2008, 10:49 PM

Are you saying they'll quit or they'll get killed?

And in interesting polling news, McCain again lost among self described Republicans and lost conservatives by ten points. I still think he's the strongest general election candidate, but it's amazing that he's going to be the nominee and still hasn't won a plurality of self described Republicans.

Primaries have always been a time to stake your (voter's) piece of the spectrum pie - it's a way of being heard and relevant come convention time. We've always seen this with non-incumbent candidates from both parties but they will come together when it really matters (unless a candidate in general is a long-shot).

ISiddiqui

01-29-2008, 10:55 PM

It's just hilarious that Rudy got spanked. No one will EVER try that strategy again. Gotta respect the Iowa and NH.

Him backing McCain may have just ended this race, even though Romney will be trying to break that up.

Vegas Vic

01-29-2008, 11:21 PM

It's just hilarious that Rudy got spanked. No one will EVER try that strategy again.

Agreed.

A pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro gun control, public adulterer trying to run as a republican doesn't stand much of a chance.

st.cronin

01-29-2008, 11:37 PM

McCain looks to me like he's putting on weight.

st.cronin

01-29-2008, 11:52 PM

I think what you may be missing (or more like underestimating maybe?) is that a lot of us don't feel like there's enough difference between McCain & Hillary to really make it matter much.

The thinking in some circles might well be something along the lines of "we're going to be stuck with a steaming pile of dogcrap in the White House either way, better their POS screws it up for four years than a repulsive RINO POS that screws it up. We'll pick up the pieces in four years"

edit to add: Before anybody gets bent about my choice of words there, the point wasn't to just randomly namecall. I was genuinely trying to boil it down to essence of the perception that could well be driving events on the GOP side over the next several months.

I think this is very misguided. I think there is almost no difference between any of the candidates of either party in terms of domestic policy. There is a massive gulf between McCain (and Giuliani) and everybody else (Romney included) in terms of foreign policy, especially the Iraq situation.

JonInMiddleGA

01-30-2008, 12:04 AM

I think this is very misguided. I think there is almost no difference between any of the candidates of either party in terms of domestic policy. There is a massive gulf between McCain (and Giuliani) and everybody else (Romney included) in terms of foreign policy, especially the Iraq situation.

I'll defer itemization of why it ultimately doesn't matter much to me (between McCain & Hillary) since I'm under the impression that this thread really isn't meant for that.

miami_fan

01-30-2008, 06:48 AM

I think what you may be missing (or more like underestimating maybe?) is that a lot of us don't feel like there's enough difference between McCain & Hillary to really make it matter much.

The thinking in some circles might well be something along the lines of "we're going to be stuck with a steaming pile of dogcrap in the White House either way, better their POS screws it up for four years than a repulsive RINO POS that screws it up. We'll pick up the pieces in four years"

edit to add: Before anybody gets bent about my choice of words there, the point wasn't to just randomly namecall. I was genuinely trying to boil it down to essence of the perception that could well be driving events on the GOP side over the next several months.

This is the feeling I get from Republicans I talked to here. Most Republicans that I have talked with have resigned themselves to having McCain as their nominee and are struggling with the idea of voting him. The majority say that will vote against Clinton or Obama more than they will vote for McCain. That is if they vote at all. I personally would love to see a McCain/ Clinton race if only because of the potential for heads exploding amongst the extremes in both parties.

lungs

01-30-2008, 09:09 AM

How large is the group that will threaten to sit home if McCain is the nomination? Could it simply be that they aren't as large of a chunk of people as they like to make themselves out to be?

They sure seem to be the loudest, though. So that makes me wonder how large they actually are.

JPhillips

01-30-2008, 09:18 AM

Buc: I'm sure the vast majority of Republicans will unite around McCain. I'm only trying to point out how improbable is his status as the presumptive nominee. Not only was he left for dead just three months ago, with poor numbers and no money, but if you looked at the numbers for Republican voters and conservatives you'd swear Romney was going to win the nomination. If in November you said the presumptive nominee of the Republican party would go into Super Tuesday without having ever won a plurality of self identified Republicans you would have been called a fool at best.

McCain's rise to the nomination is damn near unprecedented.

Toddzilla

01-30-2008, 09:21 AM

I don't think the GOP will rally around McCain so much as they are going to rally around NOT-Hillary. She's the best thing to happen to the GOP nominee since Willie Horton.

Honolulu_Blue

01-30-2008, 09:32 AM

If McCain wins the Republican nomination, I'll eat my hat.

Feeling peckish, Butterman? :)

SirFozzie

01-30-2008, 09:32 AM

I don't think the GOP will rally around McCain so much as they are going to rally around NOT-Hillary. She's the best thing to happen to the GOP nominee since Willie Horton.

But what if it's Obama?

Dr. Sak

01-30-2008, 09:35 AM

How large is the group that will threaten to sit home if McCain is the nomination? Could it simply be that they aren't as large of a chunk of people as they like to make themselves out to be?.

I suspect that group will be as large as the ones that threatened to move to Canada if Bush won in '04.

Mizzou B-ball fan

01-30-2008, 09:36 AM

I don't think the GOP will rally around McCain so much as they are going to rally around NOT-Hillary. She's the best thing to happen to the GOP nominee since Willie Horton.

Agreed. I'd also think that moderate conservatives like me are happy that we don't have to vote for a staunch conservative for once. I'm not too worried about the votes of the party base. They'll vote republican if McCain is the candidate. They just won't enjoy it quite as much as in past years. They can deal with it and would rather deal with it than have Obama or Clinton in office.

Bubba Wheels

01-30-2008, 09:47 AM

I think what you may be missing (or more like underestimating maybe?) is that a lot of us don't feel like there's enough difference between McCain & Hillary to really make it matter much.

The thinking in some circles might well be something along the lines of "we're going to be stuck with a steaming pile of dogcrap in the White House either way, better their POS screws it up for four years than a repulsive RINO POS that screws it up. We'll pick up the pieces in four years"

edit to add: Before anybody gets bent about my choice of words there, the point wasn't to just randomly namecall. I was genuinely trying to boil it down to essence of the perception that could well be driving events on the GOP side over the next several months.

I agree with this, and might even wind up voting for Hillary myself. Then, right after she wins election, I'm going to start up a non-profit organization with the sole mission and purpose of keeping count of the number of times Billary blames others for their failures. Should keep me quite busy.

Honolulu_Blue

01-30-2008, 09:52 AM

I think what you may be missing (or more like underestimating maybe?) is that a lot of us don't feel like there's enough difference between McCain & Hillary to really make it matter much.

The thinking in some circles might well be something along the lines of "we're going to be stuck with a steaming pile of dogcrap in the White House either way, better their POS screws it up for four years than a repulsive RINO POS that screws it up. We'll pick up the pieces in four years"

edit to add: Before anybody gets bent about my choice of words there, the point wasn't to just randomly namecall. I was genuinely trying to boil it down to essence of the perception that could well be driving events on the GOP side over the next several months.

Well, the one encouraging thing about all of this, is that whichever "steaming pile of dog crap" that we will be stuck with in the White House, will be hard pressed to screw things up worse than the "repulsive POS" that has repeatedly shat all over this country, the Constitution, and pretty much the world over the last 8 years.

The bar is low.

edit to add: Before anybody gets bent about my choice of words there, the point wasn't to just randomly namecall. I was genuinely trying to boil it down to essence of the perception that many folks have had over the last several years.

Alan T

01-30-2008, 10:10 AM

As a moderate independant, here is my current voting flowchart:

Is Democratic candidate Obama?
Yes? -> Vote Obama
No? -> Is Democratic candidate Clinton?
Yes? -> See who Republican candidate is.. Is republican Candidate Mccain?
Yes? -> Vote Mccain
No? -> Is Republican candidate Romney?
Yes? -> Stay at home, don't vote and sulk about the president for another 4 years!

Arles

01-30-2008, 10:53 AM

So, it looks like my choices will be Obama, Hillary or McCain. So, regardless who wins, I will have higher taxes, more social spending, some form of amnesty, some kind of climate control legislation, higher CAFE standards, no domestic drilling and a pres who continues to dump a ton of cash into a broken public education system. If it's Hillary/McCain, Iraq will be similar from an overall strategy. Obama might leave a little earlier, but I doubt any president pulls out of Iraq at this point with the surge working. Now, the differences may come down to socialized health care (Obama/Hillary) versus a slightly more conservative social policy (McCain).

As a fiscal conservative (more social libertarian), what's not like about these choices? ;) At this point, I'm more inclined to vote for Obama than McCain as atleast Obama is honest with what he wants to do. McCain is out there saying what a great conservative he is, but there is little doubt to me that he will be as fiscally conservative as Jimmy Carter once he's elected. I'd rather let the democrat try his strategies out in the open and see what happens. Heck, I'm paying more taxes either way. If the economy stays strong, I'll be happy either way. If it doesn't maybe there will be more of an onus for a true fiscal conservative in 2012.

Young Drachma

01-30-2008, 10:55 AM

ISiddiqui

01-30-2008, 11:07 AM

there is little doubt to me that he will be as fiscally conservative as Jimmy Carter once he's elected

Considering the size of the budget deficit under Carter compared to Reagan or Dubya, is that a negative?

Young Drachma

01-30-2008, 11:08 AM

Here's part of a story (http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i21/21a00104.htm) from the Chronicle of Higher Education about Mitt Romney's campaign:

Much has been made of how Barack Obama's lyrical oratories have rallied young voters to his candidacy, and how Ron Paul's steadfast libertarianism has drawn devoted students to his campaign.

But another contender in the 2008 presidential race has come up with a more tangible way to energize young campaign workers: money.

In what appears to be the first program of its kind, Mitt Romney is signing up students to solicit donations and paying them a 10-percent commission if they raise at least $1,000.

Maybe it should come as no surprise that the forces of capitalism are merging with the ideals of student volunteerism at Romney headquarters. The former Republican governor of Massachusetts amassed a personal fortune, estimated to be worth as much as $350-million, working as a management consultant and venture capitalist.

"Governor Romney's always been about innovation and trying something new," says S. Philip Case, one of the two national chairmen of Students for Mitt. Mr. Case, whose sister is married to Mr. Romney's youngest son, is taking this semester off from his studies in international relations at Brigham Young University to work full time for the campaign.

About 400 students from 200 campuses across all 50 states have registered to raise money for the Romney campaign through Students for Mitt, Mr. Case says. In addition to earning cash, the students, who operate as independent contractors, can also collect "cool prizes," like a Nintendo Wii, a Mitt Romney bobblehead, or a foam baseball "Mitt." And "if you raise enough money," the program literature promises, "you can even get your photo with the man himself!"

Mr. Case estimates he's brought in $10,000 to $15,000. He's used his commission to help pay for his tuition, rent, and groceries.

JPhillips

01-30-2008, 11:48 AM

Maybe the structure is different, but fundraising on commission certainly isn't. There was a time I did cold fundraising on the street where I got a flat fee plus commission.

st.cronin

01-30-2008, 11:50 AM

Maybe the structure is different, but fundraising on commission certainly isn't. There was a time I did cold fundraising on the street where I got a flat fee plus commission.

+1, I did that in high school.

flere-imsaho

01-30-2008, 06:35 PM

but I doubt any president pulls out of Iraq at this point with the surge working.

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but given the planned troop rotations, the increasing need in Afghanistan, and the fact that the Army simply can't support the "surge" levels of troops in Iraq, it's possible that "working" turns back to "civil war" in 12 months, at which point your guess is as good as mine as to how the then-president addresses it.

Arles

01-30-2008, 09:45 PM

Considering the size of the budget deficit under Carter compared to Reagan or Dubya, is that a negative?
With that logic, let's go back to Herbert Hoover. His deficit was tiny compared to all the above. The budget deficit under Carter -2.4% of the GDP. For Bush, it's -2.5%. When you factor in interest rates, unemployment, inflation and a top marginal tax rate of 70%, there's not much you can point to under carter that's conservative or successful from a fiscal policy standpoint.

So, given the choice of Carter's 8% unemployment, 9% interest rates, less than 1% GDP growth and marginal tax rates in the 40-70% range OR the "terrible" climate under W that had 5% unemployment, 5% interest rates, 3-5% GDP growth and marginal tax rates in the 20-30% range, I think I'll choose the latter. :cool:

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but given the planned troop rotations, the increasing need in Afghanistan, and the fact that the Army simply can't support the "surge" levels of troops in Iraq, it's possible that "working" turns back to "civil war" in 12 months, at which point your guess is as good as mine as to how the then-president addresses it.
I don't think the goal in Iraq is to ensure no in-fighting ever occurs again. The US will have a fairly major presence in Iraq for the next 4 years regardless of the president. I also think that, regardless of the president, we will see the troop levels decrease by 2009.

Buccaneer

01-30-2008, 10:05 PM

Arles, for shame, obviously Squiddy knows all about the Carter administration and what is was like in the late 1970s. Oh wait (checking birth year).... ;)

ISiddiqui

01-30-2008, 10:38 PM

With that logic, let's go back to Herbert Hoover. His deficit was tiny compared to all the above. The budget deficit under Carter -2.4% of the GDP. For Bush, it's -2.5%. When you factor in interest rates, unemployment, inflation and a top marginal tax rate of 70%, there's not much you can point to under carter that's conservative or successful from a fiscal policy standpoint.

So, given the choice of Carter's 8% unemployment, 9% interest rates, less than 1% GDP growth and marginal tax rates in the 40-70% range OR the "terrible" climate under W that had 5% unemployment, 5% interest rates, 3-5% GDP growth and marginal tax rates in the 20-30% range, I think I'll choose the latter. :cool:

Joke, dude.

Oh, and besides, high interest rates were Volcker's way to bring down the inflation (and it was a smart policy too). And it wasn't like Carter necessarily could control the oil shocks that OPEC was dropping, so its gets difficult to blame him too much for the economic problems. It was only after Volcker's tough love had worked and he could take his foot off the pedal in '83 did the economy recover (people do forget Reagan's first few years were pretty bad economically speaking because of Volcker's policies to end inflation now, to use a Ford saying).

And I always thought that deregulation was a conservative thing?

Arles

01-30-2008, 11:33 PM

I would say that Reagan's 20% tax cut, accelerated depreciation deductions, allowing IRAs, initial reduction on the marriage penalty and a reduction in "profit-based" taxes in 1981 made a big step to get the country on the right path. Not to mention the additional 15% rate reduction and captial gains reduction, combined with the elimination of many tax shelters ended up encouraging on a ton of investment in business in the mid 1980s. No longer could the extremely wealthy simply hide their money in low yield (and non-taxed) options. Instead, it became financially viable to invest in business, get a higher rate of return and also help the economy.

Without those steps that Reagan fought for, we may not have had all that venture capital that helped spur on the tech boom in the 90s. I'm not so sure a democrat would have thought to significantly reducing income taxes, increase investment-based incentives and close some of the tax shelters. In fact, most predicted serious doom and poverty when Reagan forced them through.

ISiddiqui

01-30-2008, 11:52 PM

Arles

01-31-2008, 12:05 AM

Really though, none of that particular mattered until Volcker could get inflation under control. Not saying that wasn't important, but as we can easy in 1981 and 1982, it really didn't do all that much as inflation was being tackled (though Ronnie didn't much like that it was).
I agree here to a point. Some "grin and bear it" policies were needed to handle inflation. Ironically enough, they are very similar to the policies needed to get through this mortgage crunch (not the Hillary "freeze rates/forclosures" policies).

Though, of course, to be perfectly honest, in the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Reagan rescinded a number of his tax cuts in his Economic Recovery Tax Act of 81. That included repealing the accelerated depreciation deductions (which you noted as a key to growth.. only lasted for about a year), 10% withholding tax increase on dividends and interest, and general increases in the tax rate. Hell, Bruce Barlett called it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.
I think you have to take all of the policies from 81-85 collectively as it's hard to know when certain things began and others ended. What we do know is that the recovery had began by the time the 1982 bill was enacted, with economic growth increasing to record levels by the time the bills from 1983 to 1985 were enacted.

I do think that a lot of conservatives fail to give Carter his due for his massive deregulation projects (though his deregulation of the oil industry may have hurt a little bit during the '79 Energy Crisis).
I think Carter certainly took one on the chin for the country (esp from an inflation/regulation standpoint). Still, what needed to change in the late 70s/early 80s was the investment mentality of socking money away in shelters that were not invested in other companies. Now, I agree that some tax increases (esp in eliminating some of these shelters) were needed to change that climate. But, it also needed a focus on improving incentives to invest and reducing the draconion top-level tax rates to allow those investments.

ISiddiqui

01-31-2008, 07:00 AM

I think you have to take all of the policies from 81-85 collectively as it's hard to know when certain things began and others ended. What we do know is that the recovery had began by the time the 1982 bill was enacted, with economic growth increasing to record levels by the time the bills from 1983 to 1985 were enacted.

However, it is true that tax cuts were rescinded by Reagan. He didn't necessarily advance the 1981 cuts as something to jumpstart the economy, but as a moral, philosophical difference on how government should be run. But he seemed to realize that he may have gone a bit too far.

That's kind of why I like Reagan. He was an ideologue, but he wasn't afraid to say, well, that didn't work as well as I'd hoped and change it a bit.

But, it also needed a focus on improving incentives to invest and reducing the draconion top-level tax rates to allow those investments.

On the other hand, I think it would have been hard for Carter to get those things passed even if he wanted to (and as Governor of Georgia he wasn't exactly liberal). Regardless of how imcompetant his staff was (and they were very), he didn't have the mandate Reagan did, and the Dems in power weren't going to necessarily entertain those thoughts.

But yes, my point was what you stated in your first sentance. Carter took one on the chin. We don't really know how good or bad of a President he would have been because he was faced with a really shitty set of circumstances (I say the same for Hoover).

JPhillips

01-31-2008, 09:00 AM

Arles: I may be wrong, but haven't you argued that the economy lags policies by a few years? I know a number of conservatives around here have argued that the Clinton boom was a result of Bush policies taking effect. If that's the case for Clinton, wouldn't the Reagan boom be a result of Carter's policies? ;)

chesapeake

01-31-2008, 09:54 AM

I would say that Reagan's 20% tax cut, accelerated depreciation deductions, allowing IRAs, initial reduction on the marriage penalty and a reduction in "profit-based" taxes in 1981 made a big step to get the country on the right path.

Don't sell Reagan's massive spending increases short, either. Borrowing a couple trillion from your kids does wonders for the economy.

Vegas Vic

01-31-2008, 12:34 PM

Don't sell Reagan's massive spending increases short, either. Borrowing a couple trillion from your kids does wonders for the economy.

There is a lot of short term success with that strategy, but the responsibility of paying down that massive debt gets passed on down the line. The national debt tripled in 12 years under the Reagan and GHWB administrations. In the early 1990's, the mandatory payment on the national debt was skyrocketing and it was having a huge impact on the federal budget.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office states that the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (which consisted of a tax increase on the upper 2% combined with significant cuts in spending) was the primary factor for the reduced budget deficts and eventual surplus in 1998. Ironically, it was a democratic congress and democratic president who were responsible for that legislation. The CBO has concluded that the subsequent republican congress that took over in 1994 has little to do with the surplus. This was somewhat surprising to me, as the conventional dogma is that the republican congress deserves the lion's share of the credit.

Library of Congress link - 1998 Budget Surplus (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp105&sid=cp105AqBYv&refer=&r_n=hr648.105&item=&sel=TOC_627612&)