Talk Elections

The GOP nominees are Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) and Senator John Thune (R-SD). Who wins? How close or not close?

In Daniels, you have a successful two-term governor of an Obama-2008 state who has some Washington experience, and is seen as conservative but not abrasively so. In Thune, you have a young rising star who is able to excite the conservative base. Thoughts? Criticisms?

I think this could happen:

()

What excites the conservative "base" offends most of the rest of us. After eight years of Dubya, Corporate conservatism combined with xenophobia and Christian fundamentalism will be as hard to sell as Bermuda shorts in Greenland.

()

Eh...I'm not sure how I feel about this ticket. I like Thune, but I don't know enough about Daniels. However, with the way the polls are looking, this duo could do very well.

with MN going Obama

Thune is a neocon Bush-clone. He would sink the ticket.

http://()

This

We really need the 2012 map with the updated EV count.  Anyway, here's a rough prediction (assuming we have a double-dip recession).

()

Being a Bush clone doesnt appear to be a problem for many Republicans running for Senate and Governor this year. 

This is a national election we're talking about, not an election in Utah or Oklahoma.

Daniels has a 8 year record in Indina to run on. He will be compared to Bush very unsuccessfully.

More competent and less corrupt than Dubya -- but much the same ideology.

Competence: Dubya was a good President. The recession was something which had been festering since his father's term in office - I'm not sure he could have done anything to stop it. As for the wars, those were good decisions that I agree with.

Corruption: Explain how Dubya was corrupt.

Bush's corruption of the dignity of the executive branch began before taking office, with the state of Florida in 2000. Add to that the lies, the deception, the no-bid contracts, the outright cronyism, and you explain to me how Dubya wasn't corrupt.

()

Dem: 277
Rep: 261

No you mean Clinton lied and deceived America. What other companies did you want to have bids that could do that caliber of work besides Halliburton? There are no other companies that can do that type of work. Stop drinking the cool aid.

Which is good because alot of ppl in America are conservative especially on social issues.

Not really, If you are talking about people older then 45 yes, but people younger then that aren't conservative on social issues.

you mean 25

No, I mean 45 :P

Stop making things up. If it wasn't for voters under 25 Obama wouldn't have been president. He brain washed a bunch of uneducated college kids who only voted for him because they thought it was the cool thing to do.

The Under 25 category is a very small percent of the total voting population when broken down by age.  You can't "blame" Obama's victory on the college kids.

No I'm blaming his victory on several thing, but without one of those several things he wouldn't have won.

1. college kids
2. the housing market
3. Bush' approval rating

Take away any of these 3 things and McCain would've won. Yes, college kids are a small percentage but if McCain would've picked up 4 points, then he would have won being that he only lost by 6-7. So yes I can blame it on college kids in a way.

That makes no sense, according to your numbers if he picked up those four percentage points he still would have lost by two or three points.

Allow me to explain which I believe I already did! John McCain got 46% of the vote. By picking up 4 points, he receives 50% of the vote. Thank you!

Democrats always accuse Bush of "lying or being corrupt" when facts are facts.

Bush never "lied". A lie is only a lie if it's proven. There is no proof that President Bush ever lied. He may have been incorrect or made a mistake, but a legitimate lie...I think not.

On the other hand, President Clinton said flat out to America "I lied" with proof of it...thus if Clinton or Bush is a liar, it's definitely Clinton.

As far as corrupt, I don't see either Clinton or Bush as "corrupt" Presidents.

Bill Clinton's lies were about his sexual conduct. Dubya lied to get us into wars for the profit of his cronies. You tell me which is more serious. That's before we even start talking about the promotion of a corrupt boom that imploded as it did, his close connections to Enrob Corporation, and Halliburton.

Wasn't Saddam Hussein developing Anthrax?

And who benefited off of the Iraq War?

Yes and the Iraqi ppl benefited.

No Bush never lied. You can't prove that he lied. Name one other company on this planet that can do the caliber and quality of work that Halliburton does. You only say that Bush lied because you don't know how to defend your position.

OBiden

Yes they are both hardcore liberals ^^.

Daniels/Thune wins. But not by much, not powerful enough...

How is Daniels' speaking skills and charisma?

Well, try searching for videos of him speaking on youtube.  Here is one of him speaking against Cap n' Trade about a year ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dktew1-s4V0

While I agree with cap and trade, he does make very good points and is highly articulate and eloquent.

You support cap and trade, Derek?

http://()

After having seen a Mitch Daniels clip and how he relates big government in Washington to intruding on the lives of the little midwesterners, I think he has it.

()

351-187

yea

Yeah, that's the only thing Clinton ever lied about ::).

why?

"Uneducated" college kids? I detect an oxymoron. Ordinarily one has to have above-average learning just to get into a four-year college. Such precludes high-school dropouts. As I recall when I went to college the population on campus was very different from what I recall in high school. I also suspect that youth who don't go to college also voted heavily for Obama in 2008. College does not brainwash people; it frees people to think outside the box -- if of course one attends a good college.

The GOP has done nothing to convince voters then under 25 that they shouldn't vote for Democrats in 2010 and 2012. We shall see how effective the GOTV efforts are in November in both years.

Only in two states (Indiana and North Carolina, both of which Obama won by razor-thin margins) did Obama win because of voters aged 18-21. With such a small margin one can as easily  ascribe the difference to the size of such groups as blacks, Hispanics, Asians, union members, government employees, or gays and lesbians who vote heavily Democratic. Obama would have won Colorado, Florida, Ohio, or Virginia -- any of which would have been the margin of victory -- had the voting age been 25.

 

Don't be so sure.

No, but the Democrats have done plenty to convince voters under 25 that they shouldn't vote for Democrats in 2010 and 2012.

It lowers greenhouse gas emissions. I wrote something about it in March which I'll post later when I'm home.