Bachmann? Really? The one who just called for the media to investigate both houses of Congress to identify "liberal, leftist, possibly anti-American" members? That statement resulted in $450K being donated to her opponent in the upcoming election. Clearly, she's uniting figure in American politics.
I wish he would have picked this b****. She is can't keep her foot out of her mouth. Maybe she needs to stick something else in there.... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eJIQm_7YAUI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eJIQm_7YAUI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
It's a no brainer. McCain was dead after the DNC. Palin saved him. No other pick would have done more. If not for the economy Mccain was headed for a victory. I know everyone on this board disagrees but Palin has accomplished more in her political Career than Obama. She is not everything she seemed and too right for me but she isn't the idiot most of this board would claim. Definitely smarter than Biden and more honest than Obama. The conservative stuff is an added bonus for the republican party.
He should have picked Crist. He at least would have delivered Florida for McCain and they're definitely a better fit together than McCain and Palin. Plus, what self-respecting Christian would ever vote against Crist?
Yeah, that degree from Idaho is powerful...and her knowledge of Worldly affairs, and so honest, like "I killed the Bridge to nowhere"... You should really try to be more fair OMR....Palin is certainly a good governer of a small populist state with a very unique set of issues. She is very educated on those issues, but for the rest of the 49 states she is clueless. DD
You must live in some alternate reality. How many Republican editorials trashing Palin does it take for you to acknowledge she's out of her league?
I thought Bloomberg was angling for the nomination of that Unity '08 nonsense movement. ("We disagree on fundamental aspects of policy. Surely merely being polite to one another will solve all our problems.") How would his switch to independent have played with moderates vs. the Republican base. Agree with Crist. With Florida, even with some slippage elsewhere, McCain still has/had a good shot at winning. Palin sews up Alaska, which (ridiculously) was in play, but the electoral college is based on population, not acreage. I think Romney would have been more sound than Palin, as well. On first glance he appears to be an answer to the economic crisis, if you ignore the chop-shop + layoff nature of his economic experience. I think there was too much video of them expressing their open hostility for one another to make that work, though. I'm curious, which would have been the more devastating pick: Palin, which we have evidence for, or Lieberman, reportedly McCain's first choice. I think if McCain ran his campaign similarly to his last one, and continued palling around on the back of the bus/plane with reporters w/ Lieberman, he'd be a lot better off right now. Would Lieberman's pick-up of moderates, helped by a media narrative of bipartisanship/country first, offset the lack of motivation of his party by not picking a winger? I don't think so, but it's a fun hypothetical.
Sarah Palin is exactly the right pick. I've been out helping host Republican party rallies, and virtually everyone that comes up, walks in, whatever is really excited about Sarah Palin. The two people that everyone wants to talk about are our Congressman Ted Poe and Sarah Palin. I hate to tell you moderates this, but you don't win elections for Republicans. The last Republican that you helped elect was Richard Nixon. Democrats can win elections by appealing to the center. Republicans have to appeal to their base to win. McCain couldn't do that alone. Let me go through some of the others: Romney - Gag me. The media would have had a field day with it. He's the worst flip-flopper in Massachusetts, and that includes some guy who ran for President in 2004. He governed somewhere between Kerry and Barney Frank on the political spectrum, and now he claims to be a conservative. It would have been a nightmare. Ridge - Pro-choice liberal Republican who would have turned off the base. He would have put Pennsylvania in play. He would have also put Georgia in play. Crist - If he's not gay, he would have been the best pick. He's probably gay. Hutchison - Have y'all heard the woman speak? Boring. And McCain really needed a Governor to run against Washington. Pawlenty - The safest choice. He would have met the requirements, but wouldn't have given nearly as much excitement as Palin. Jindal - Good pick, would have motivated the base, but we'd be having the exact same conversation as we are with Palin. Lieberman - Horrible pick. He would have At the RNC, a few of the Hawaii delegates were wondering why their governor, Linda Lingle, wasn't considered, as she has a similar record, similar astronomical approval rating, and a little more experience. But then Lingle got up and bored the convention and showed everyone why she wasn't considered.
Not knowing all the behind the scenes info, it would seem that Bobby Jindal would be a good choice unless there is something we don't know about him (or about his relationship with McCain) that would preclude such a choice. Here is a guy who seems to have all of Palin's benefits but non of her liabilities. He would have provided a lot of shock/curiousity value as a selection to give the campaign the same kind of bounce Palin gave them. He would bring in the social/religious conservative base like Palin, but his ethnic backgrounad and being a former Hindu (converted to Catholicism) would mean most of the truely bigoted nuts who have been embarassing the campaign would not have shown up at the rallies. Yes, you lose their votes, but I believe these are still a small enough minority of the Republican base that it's best to lose them than to have them shown up and scare the swing voters. Jindal's academic background and-- more important-- the fact that you don't have to be scared about him going on Meet the Press would also mean that you avoid the kind of stuff you've been hearing from the Peggy Noonans, the Kathleen Parkers, the David Frums, etc. of the world (not to mention critics on the left or center part of the spectrum).
I think Huckabee should have been the pick. He brings the same values to the table as Palin, but he isn't a ****ing idiot and can actually come up with some fresh **** every once in a while. **** Sarah Palin.
Don't think so... being a Rhode Scholar means the critics (from all sides of the political spectrum) would have a hard time arguing that he isn't intelligent enough to handle the job. Having watched some interviews with him, I am also fairly confident that he wouldn't have had the Katie Couric moments.
Huh? Obama is very beatable. Kerry could have beat him. Gore could have beat him. And look who beat each of them. I completely agree you can easily knock off the 6% or so just for his color. I personally think Hillary and Obama were bad choices for the Dem. party. This election would be a land slide if it were anyone else. At this point, I almost feel as if McCain is trying to lose this election. While I feel Palin would be a good politican and maybe a good VP years down the line, she is not ready for the big game right now. At this point, Im hoping for a non catastrophic manner for Biden to become president.
He hadn't been governor 9 months at the time, and he's barely done anything. He's shown promise, and he was a popular Congressman, even if he didn't stand out much, but he was the greenest candidate considered (except maybe the eBay CEO). No one who knew Palin or has watched her for her career would have predicted the horrible results of the Couric interview. If you had watched her previous interviews, you would have had the same predictions as you did with Jindal.
Disagree. Look at the way he has run his campaign. The donations, the massive GOTV effort, and the offices he has opened. He is also inspirational, which Kerry and Gore never were. Also, there is still a pretty big chance that this is going to be a landslide.
I would agree about the any other candidate landslide scenario... I think the Dems saw the opportunity to win based on Bush's low performance and approval ratings... and got greedy enough to try and throw it as far left as possible... a ploy to over-correct the skid. It may yet backfire.
I'm talking about actual poling data right now. If Obama is the sure bet, why is the lead not 15-20% in the polls by now? Why is it within margin of error among traditional voters, and within this touted "Bradley effect" 6 % margin? I think a Richardson/Clinton, or even Richardson/Obama ticket would be owning the polls by larger numbers right now. The latter would give Hillary a great shot at the POTUS in 8 years... and could easily turn into 12-16 years of a Dem in the Oval Office. Then, Obama could even tack on another 8... This selection, if it wins, is doomed to a Carter-esque repeat of history (look at the similar details, economy, mid-east climate, energy shortages, etc.)... it's not even fair to Obama to do that to him at such a young age. The Dems are not thinking of building his career, or advancing the careers of those who were "next in line." They went for the kill move... and while it may work this cycle, they are predisposed to a repeat of '76-'80.
About the the polling data. I'd say that the Bradley effect is what is keeping it as close as it is, around 5-6% points. People are less inclined to lie to pollsters these days, so all the racists that would have voted for a white man instead of a black man already are shown in the polls. So if Obama was white, it might be around a 11-16% lead. As for the Carter comparison, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think Obama's much smarter than Carter, and will get the economy and world relations back on track by the end of his first term. Guess we'll just have to see 4 years down the road if he wins.
