* No incumbent party has ever held the White House after an unpopular two-term President left office.

Not that times haven't changed or to go too far off topic, but that happened in 1876.

Obama for the Democrats, Huckabee on the Republican side.

Gone down significantly.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE

Nobody wants to interpret this as Bush's ploy to ensure Giuliani elected in 2008? How could you forget that Karl Rove's attack on Hillary's high negatives was really just meant to hurt John Edwards!

I got Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D)89.58% match

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) - 85.42%
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 83.33%
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 75.00%

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) - 75.00%
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 70.83%
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) - 66.67%
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 65.63%
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 46.88%
Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (R) - 46.88%
Businessman John Cox (R) - 39.58%
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 37.50%
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 35.42%
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 22.92%

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 18.75%
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 14.58%
Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) - 14.58%
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 14.58%

Even if this allegedly composed by conservatives, over a fourth of respondents got either Mike Gravel (whom I would have preferred) or Dennis Kucinich. Of the top-tiers, I was starting to support Edwards, since Obama's health-care plan lacks teeth and his foreign policy proposals make him look foolish.

Montana.

You scored as a Cyclops
Cyclops is the team leader of the X-Men, and a skilled one at that. He loves Jean Grey very much. He's a strict and sometimes uptight leader, but he believes in his cause and he knows what he's fighting for... Peace between Mutants and Humans. Powers: Optic blasts

Cyclops        80% 
Iceman         75% 
Wolverine     70% 
Jean Grey     70% 
Beast            70% 
Colossus       60% 
Emma Frost   60% 
Nightcrawler  55% 
Rogue            55% 
Gambit           40% 
Storm             30%

[60]

Clinton vs. Romney: 60-34
Obama vs. Romney: 54-36
Edwards vs. Romney: 54-33

Clinton vs. Giuliani: 58-33
Clinton vs. Thompson: 61-27

Favorable/Unfavorable:

Clinton: 65-34
Obama: 62-34
Edwards: 62-35
Giuliani: 47-51
Romney: 43-55
Thompson: 36-49

Kerry: 43-54

Bush approval:

24% approve
75% disapprove

Pfff, you forgot the write-in option for Naso!

One Mike to rule them all

Assuming the campaign field remains the same but these the following additions, how different would the polls be?

Democrats
Mark Warner
John Kerry
Evan Bayh

Republicans
Dick Cheney
Rick Santorum
George Allen

Discuss...

As dissatisfying as the current candidates are, luckily, none of these people are running.

Ever since my parents divorce in 2001, both of them have had money problems. Checks clearing and overdrawing accounts...putting big checks in and having them get eaten up in less than a day....I hope I never have to go through that.

Join the damn Red Cross if you're so worried about it! Gee, how long did it take you to realize this?

The most conservative candidate, because he satirizes that culture.

Gravel rocks, Biden is an idiot.

Yep.

^^

If anyone has a link to a full video of the debate (I don't have a TV at all anymore), I'd appreciate it.

You can find most of the debate here so far:

http://youtube.com/user/Politicstv

Or if you prefer chronology:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Hobobob10

I like the new format. Sure, some questions were silly, but the vast majority of them were better than anything the "professionals" asked in any debate. In my humble opinion, Edwards started off really well and improved my perception of him. Hillary did alright, but dodged too many questions. Her initial approach to dynasticism was alright, but she turned it into an excuse to elude the question. Richardson improved, he tried to distinguish his executive experience from the others serving in the legislature. I liked his video too. I'm never really sure what to make of Biden. He seemed upset about not receiving any legislative credit, but he continued as by far the most hawkish Democratic. I'm still curious if that might appeal to those trained to deny Democrats' national security credentials, but polls don't seem to show so. I don't mind his passion, nor his take on the gun issue, but he contradicts himself too much. Dodd was clearly given more time to speak, but, even if what he says it all agreeable, nothing he does stands out. Kucinich also received more time than usual. But, as usual, Gravel was sidelined. He got the silly questions and he repeated everything I had heard him say before. However, his furious "The only thing that's worse than a soldier dying in vain, is more soldiers dying in vain" was a TRUE highlight! Obama did alright. He seemed particularly concerned about Gravel's fundraising charges. I thought he produced the best video--by far--as well.

If Mitt Romney was a Democrat and been a Democrat his whole career, and he had been the Democratic Governor of Massachusetts for the one term, and if he had the campaign he had when he ran for Governor, would he be a viable candidate for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination.

Please discuss.

It's an interesting question. Are we to assume that Romney's 1994 campaign was a failed challenge to Kennedy for the Democratic nomination?

To my knowledge, the Clintons's friends are Bayh, Clark, and Richardson. Richardson has fallen out of favor recently, and while Southwestern governor sounds good, Hillary won't jeopardize her presidential ambition by running alongside another minority. Clark is a tried loser and he might interefere with Hillary's national security credentials ego. That leaves Bayh, a rather conservative choice, but someone whom Bill Clinton says might "be president someday."

The serif in Hillary's doesn't convey openness--on the contrary, it reflects the "almost literary" motives more so than Obama's! However, I like the assessment of her choosing her first name to distance herself from the Clinton "dynasty." On the other hand, in my experience, she's better known as Hillary by those who hold an unfavorable view of her.

Obama has the most artistic bumper. His rounded letters actually express the sense of openness lacking in Hillary's stiffness. The "O" symbolizes the rising sun seems overinterpreted to me, but the road paved by the American flag does feel like a new horizon. It slightly reminds me of Bush-Cheney '04, though.

The green in Edwards's is something unqiue--but not necessarily good. His shade blends in with the other colors well, but I think he should have chosen a lighter hue to distinguish  better from green's more ill-conceived connotations. The url also seems misplaced, but that's Democratic assymetry.

Giuliani's, not McCain's, looks the most militaristic. Round letters rigidly in place with a patriotic star in the middle, not too much, not too little, it really is a good design. However, while the almost static positioning convey decisiveness, I think the roundness allows for some openness--perhaps a play at Rudy's social liberalism?

McCain's is no winner. Not only are his proportions all wrong, it always seemed to me like he plagiarized this company's logo: http://www.thomson.com/

Romney's is terrible. You would think with all that money he spends on make-up, he could hire some better graphic artists.

He's got the most money on hand now by far, and he's leading in Iowa and NH, probably as a result of that. Wins there would gain him momentum. Right now the best chance for stopping him would be Fred Thompson, but he's waiting too long to get in. That'll leave him low on money, and with the suspicious his delay is deliberate because he wants to avoid debates as long as possible, his campaign could easily deflate after getting in.

So despite the hangups some would have with Romney's Mormonism, that doesn't leave anyone as a real alternative to him. McCain's campaign is the equivalent of a brain-dead patient still on life support, and those who have issues with Romney's Mormonism sure as hell aren't going to see Giuliani as a valid alternative. That leaves Romney with the momentum and the money that no one else has, and he could take the nomination be default.

How likely do you think this is?

I've been saying since March of this year that that's exactly what's happening!

I'm not going to suggest that Romney is a strong general election candidate, but people do underestimate him. Moral fingerpointing aside, he is a skilled executive. From nothing, he led the endorsement and fundraising races and polls ahead in the early primary states. He has yet to raise his national profile, but writing him off because of his religion is unfair. The flip-flopping is an admittedly more serious issue--how is he going to explain his opposition to gay marriage when unions were granted under his governorship--but this video shows he has his move to the right covered too:

http://www.romneyfacts.com/

My love of Sen. Joseph McCarthy is rooted a hatred of the greatest enemy of libertarians, communism.  Therefore, admiring Joseph McCarthy is very libertarian.  Some of his principles were contrary, but his message of kill the reds was right in step with that philosophy.

I thought libertarianism was non-interventionist...

I've been saying it since January of this year: Romney will be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008.

Nothing.

The Republicans actually made an unusual effort to campaign in Hawaii in 2008.

I remember so well!  2008, what a year that was.

Sorry, wasn't paying attention. Fixed it.

The Republicans actually made an unusual effort to campaign in Hawaii in 2004. But the state hasn't gone Republican since 1984, and wont do so in 2008.

Feingold and

Gore