more or less...you are right. I still love how hillary mentions the bush admin. Hello?! you're not running against bush!
i voted against hillary on both counts and for obama on both counts. romney is a douchebag and a total tool, but if i was forced to choose b/t him and hillaroid i vote for him. i would never, ever cast a vote for either of them, but for the sake of the poll i didnt want to leave any unmarked. ill more than likely be voting for ron paul as an independent candidate. but the fixx is in for hillary - she will be the next president - you can bookmark this. "who let the dogs out...woof woof"
If Democrats are smart, they'll choose Obama as their candidate. Hillary can't win. She's been too polarizing for most of her short political career. McCain has the upper hand over her because he's known to cross party lines. Obama is so new (inexperienced) that he doesn't have enough of a political past to haunt him. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. ("I didn't vote for this war" of course not...you weren't in Congress yet.) I do think that the more people know Romney the more they'll like him. At least the moderates will. Unfortunately the Religious Right will campaign against him because he is a morman. I don't give Huckabee too much of a chance to win the General Election because he's a baptist Minister...and there are way too many people that won't vote for him because of that fact alone. McCain vs. Obama would be another close election, but I'd give it to McCain for his history of crossing party lines. Hillary vs. Huckabee would be scary. I'm not sure I'd want either, no good choice for moderates here. Obama vs. Romney - who knows...thats very even, I wouldn't even attempt to call that one.
I tend to agree with this for Romney. My big concern for him is that he appears to be a serial liar/panderer. He's willing to change positions and say whatever is necessary to win. The funniest was recently in must-win Michigan where he said he was going to fix the car industry in Detroit. Isn't he supposed to be for free market competition and all that fun? McCain, on the other hand, took the more logical route - he said that the reality is that there are going to be jobs lost, but let's work on retraining, etc. Romney just hops to whatever position needed, and he seemingly convinces himself that he's always believed that. That disturbs me a bit.
Me too. I could never vote for him. I just think he could be good at running the government. It's too bad for him that that's only part of the job as President. In the other thread, we were talking about how Nixon would have been considered a good President had Watergate not happened. (I don't entirely agree, but that's not important.) I see a lot of Nixon in Romney. He's power-hungry and a bit of jerk, but he's been good at virtually everything that he's done. When you compare him to McCain, he looks even better at leadership and effectiveness.
Seems like this is the same thing you b****ed at republicans for saying 5 years ago with ya boy Forbes Kerry
Two problems here. One was that Kerry wasn't really much of a flip-flopper. There was a lot taken out of context to make that label work. Romney is a different story - he has quite the history of changing positions. But even that is OK - I don't mind someone changing positions if they get more evidence or whatnot. To me, that's a damn good trait. But Romney seemed to change virtually every position he held to fit the "ideal conservative" once he decided to run for President - that's dishonest. Beyond that, he makes up stuff as he goes. He claimed in a debate that his ads never once referred to McCain's immigration position as amnesty - the next day, the media shows his ads that use that exact word. Things of that nature - we're used to distortions, but that's just flat-out complete lying, and it's bizarre. It's sort of like my concern about Bill Richardson and his claim that he was drafted by an MLB team. Why make up something so easily proven untrue?
That's interesting, because even though they never mention his name except to swipe at Huckabee when he says something half-way rational, it sure seems like the Republican candidates are running as Bush.
I don't like any of the Dems or dislike any of the 'pubs enough to vote against my party affiliation.
Some interesting factoids from this race. Turnout (as of 56 total voters): Clinton/McCain: 48 Voters Clinton/Romney: 45 Obama/McCain: 54 Obama/Romney: 48 From this comparison, it seems that Obama & McCain draw out the vote, while Clinton & Romney are vote suppressants. The maximum votes for a candidate was 33 - Obama got that in both matchups, but McCain also got that in the Clinton/McCain matchup. The fewest voters for a candidate was 15 - Romney (facing Obama) and Clinton (facing McCain). Now, we have to consider that this is a highly biased group - both relatively young and educated, which are people that naturally gravitate to Obama (and to a lesser extent, McCain). However, this is a dangerous trend if it holds with young people across the board. The Obama-McCain race (33-21) is probably the "base" race for this board - most liberals & moderate liberals would pick Obama and most conservatives and moderate conservatives would pick McCain. Obviously not 100%, but they are the relatively less-hated candidates by their own parties. So that shows a pretty significant liberal bias in the voting population here. Given that, the fact that Clinton still loses by a 2-to-1 margin against McCain is a huge issue. I expected a definite drop, but I did not expect half of Obama voters to essentially flip to McCain instead of Hillary.
Then you don't understand polls. It has zero predictive value if you try to transpose it to all voters. However, it does have some predictive value on what young, relatively educated male voters may do. The liberal bias was already accounted for in the analysis. Just because you have a limited grasp of analyzing poll data doesn't mean other people do.
