People said the same things about McCain...

Regardless, it seems like we have this lady who's been around for god only knows how long who's acquired a reputation as a polarizing figure, who ran a presidential campaign perceived as nasty by many....dunno, she could always make a shot, but it seems as though the same tired old faces would have less success running in the Democrat party than the Republican party, whose core ideology hasn't really changed all that much since the 1980s, other than to give rise to more irresponsible spending.

On the subject of Smith, I think he made a mistake with his earlier ads. While Oregonians may not like  high taxes very much, they also don't like personal attacks, which is why that incompetent Kulongoski won reelection because Saxton was an idiot. Of course, Merkley has reciprocated that treatment and more, but the fact that Smith was the first to launch attack ads makes me think he gave a rather negative impression of himself. At this stage, I'll call Merkley for the win, largely because Oregon has a high amount of registered Democrats and it would seem that they would have higher turnout than the Republicans in this election cycle. And the ads show the Dems have more ammunition than the Repubs in my opinion.

Also on a recentad, fearmongering
 can be a double-edges sword. If used correctly, it could plant enough doubt in the voter's minds, since there are a fair percentage of Dems who are concerned about letting the bad guys go free. On the other hand, it was an attack ad with a somewhat nasty character.

His biggest mistake was fathering that child with the black woman.

That hateful lie sure ed him over in South Carolina. Would he have lost by such a large margin otherwise?

This is stupid.

McCain already said that this was Kissinger's position during the debate. Surely Kissinger doesn't need to clarify it?

Historically, there has been no case of a candidate winning the presidential election while losing all three top bellwethers: Missouri, Nevada, and Ohio. Nev. was the last of the three to join the union, and get the vote, in 1864.

While Republicans and Democrats have squred off since 1856, the late-1800s saw some winners prevail in only one of the three states (GOP William McKinley won Ohio in 1896 and 1900; no Republican president has ever won election without the Buckeye State). Since 1908, the last 25 elections saw Mo. back the loser in 1956, Nev. going for the 1908 and 1976 runners-up, and Ohio did not picking the winners of 1944 and 1960. Agreeing as a trio in 20 of the last 25 elections—for 80 percent—Mo. has been right 96 percent, and Nev. and Ohio both 92 percent.

Mo., Nev., and Ohio are each included in the states that I predict in this year's election—one that I believe will show Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) prevailing in the Electoral College.

Since Sam credits Obama with Nevada, I just wanted to present this for anyone else finding it worth consideration.

While Nevada's demographics may be changing once again, they are not, nor will they ever be, in my mind a "bellweather." Their population will remain fairly low for one thing, even with the rapid growth of Las Vegas.

 Ohio's a better choice, but it was on the losing Republican side in '48. Missouri is more of a true bellweather since it's always had an effective mix of demographics that can predict the election. There's this one book I read that said Missouri was almost like two different states when it camt to it's regional makeup. But here, it appears the blue-collar moderate conservative vote has more influence there than in more liberarian Colorado, methinks. Exactly why it's that way when it went for Obama in the primary is beyond me, but that's how it goes. sometimes.

There's just no way that she'd run again if Obama has two fairly successful terms as president. She'd be too old and she would be yesterday's news. The newer generation would take over like xfactor said.

Obama(R) by a small margin, since I don't think he has a chance in Missouri or Virginia.

Though Opebo does  make a point by making certain states like Ohio go for McCain. Colorado is still a tossup at this point.

It appears that I'm part of the consensus. Neither side really gained or lost ground. Yeah, Obama was a touch light on specifics, and yes McCain didn't look his best, but they both defended themselves when the other tried to make a claim about something.

I'm not even going to list the first 2 parties as it isn't worth going through a couple of guys for each. Why's this thread resurrected anyway?

Whigs
Millard Filmore(I still don't think the FSA was necessary, but then, I'm not up on the debates, apart from the fact that Taylor wouldn't compromise

Democrats

Woodrow Wilson. Pierce is slightly behind somewhere


Republicans

George W. Bush seems easy, but remember that Grant and Harding were also incompetent, even though we never got in any major wars under them(I'm thinking Latin interventions of the 20s here, which weren't exactly wars per se, except maybe in a few places like Nicaragua with Sandino)

1. No one. God, you would not believe just how much I hate McCain. He's no longer the maverick he was in 2008 I'd almost say Obama, but to me, he's increasingly not looking up to the job. Blow my ing brains out right now. That's how I feel about our choices.


 


2.   Is there a reasonable chance that this could change by November?

3.   If you had to predict which candidate will win, whom would you choose?  If you choose wrong in this scenario, you die! Obama

4.   Which candidate has run a better campaign overall?McCain

5.   Which candidate’s campaign has been less ‘negative? Obama. Debatable, but that one ad poking fun at Obama's celebrity

6.   Which candidate is more intelligent? Obama,

7.   Which candidate’s presidency term would be less likely to contain a major war?
Obama

8.   Assuming identical physical condition, which candidate would be more likely to run into a burning house to save your baby? How would I know? They both seem like they would,

9.   If someone your age had his current personality, which candidate would be more likely to be your friend?  Dunno. Probably Obama.

10.   On a scale of 1-10, estimate the amount of respect you had for the candidate you prefer not want to win.  What was it before the primaries began? 6
 
 
 

I am beyond tired of it, but as it stands, the evangelicals command a large amount of influence in the Republican party. The Republicans will have a heck of a time trying to adjust to the changing demographics, even though they probably realize certain sectors of the population(like the younger evangelicals) are becoming more liberal.

The whole traditionalist factor of a lot of their base casts doubt on their ability to change though. I feel I will probably go independent in 2012 if the next nominee after McCain decides to do more pandering to the religious right, especially if he(or she) is some warmongering oaf like our current President.

Methinks that I would have never found anyone like me.

Honestly, I've always known Goldberg as this far-right guy from the two years I've known of him. Nobody cares, dude. We don't need to hear about how Obama's nominees will propagate the nanny-state mentality. Though I lack confidence in Obama, I usually just ignore stuff like this as soon as I see it.

My prediction is 52-47 Obama for New Jersey.

It seems rather doubtful that Hillary could win NC. If she blows out Pennsylvania, then the race could be tightened up slightly in NC, but it's highly doubtful she would quite reach 30 delegates, though she might come close.

Exit Polls

Clinton 56%
Obama 44%

Geez, I am so sick of people wanting to push Gore. If the guy wanted to run again, he would have announced in sometime in 2007. I've already said my piece on this, so I'll wait another couple of weeks before I get more vierolic about this

I don't get it. Forgive me for my ignorance of Bhutanese history, but why does the king want to make his country more democratic? It seems like they were just getting along fine  with the way they practiced for 500 years.

Thanks. A direct link to results would have been appreciated when it comes to the Elections Canada website. I'll look these over more when I have time.

No, I think not.

I'm unsure if this would actually make things better. It seems to me that if the wrong candidates came out on top after both of their cases were made, then people would still end up feeling bitter. This would especially be the case if either of them refused to endorse the other.

This drop in the polls is only temporary, but the margin is significant. However, If Hillary gets behind Obama if he wins the nomination, then there's a good chance that Obama could win this state. I think that if Obama doesn't win Pennsylvania, states like Missouri, and certain western states like CO and NV could be what puts him over the top. But if Obama doesn't win Missouri, it could all be for nothing.

Well, this is pretty damn hard being as my whole county pretty much leans conservative. But this one little town called Williams is notorious as a haven for hippies, even though I think they only make up like 15-35 percent there. The Illinois Valley area, to the SW of GP might also be said to be slightly more liberal. In the election for sheriff, they voted for the guy who promised to change things rather than the old stalwart, so that probably says something. But they're still majority conservative, like the rest of my former lumber county.

Yes, and we also have a Fred Meyer! Our town barely has any services, but we're not exactly superdinky either.

I don't drive to many extra places these days. If I go out for food, I do it mayeb once every couple of months.