Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 20, 2019, 01:06:38 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 125
1  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Long time no talk to!! on: November 05, 2012, 07:22:39 pm
Great to hear you're doing well!
2  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Politico: Christie was Romney's first choice for VP on: November 03, 2012, 11:16:29 am
"In fact, Christie was never the final choice."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83254.html#ixzz2BAnbHmn3

He was considered, and that was known at the time. 


Wow, what a loaded article title. It makes sense, this seems as accurate and plausible as the "Hillary Clinton offered VP slot and rejects" claims that were going around earlier this year.
3  Election Archive / 2012 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL Regions: Mason-Dixon I-4 Corridor: Romney +6; Miami-Dade County: Obama +9 on: October 28, 2012, 05:09:56 pm
Considering it is Mason-Dixon, certainly much better than a Uni Poll and usually considered very balanced unlike Ras, this is good news. Moreover, it follows the other FL polls we've seen recently.

I acknowledge that this is a must win for Romney, that the President does not need the state at all in order to win, and the demos might off (then again, we can usually trust that Mason Dixon knows what it's doing). Still, it's better news than many Republicans have gotten from state polls recently.

Whoa, you're back? Long time, no see!

And I basically agree, fwiw.

Yes indeed, just thought I'd pop in before the elections, I still read the forums every once in a long while I just don't post.
4  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Would Romney have a better chance of winning now w/ Portman as his running mate? on: October 28, 2012, 02:00:05 am
I think it's been a long time since a VP has made the difference in an election. LBJ being the only one that comes to mind. Plus, as much as Portman might help, his ties to the Bush administration might have allowed for an effective line of attack, as has been pointed out.

Thus, although I agree that Martinez followed by Rice and Rubio would have been better picks than Ryan or Portman, I think the jury is really out on whether Portman would have been that much better of a choice that Ryan.
5  Election Archive / 2012 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL Regions: Mason-Dixon I-4 Corridor: Romney +6; Miami-Dade County: Obama +9 on: October 28, 2012, 01:50:57 am
Considering it is Mason-Dixon, certainly much better than a Uni Poll and usually considered very balanced unlike Ras, this is good news. Moreover, it follows the other FL polls we've seen recently.

I acknowledge that this is a must win for Romney, that the President does not need the state at all in order to win, and the demos might off (then again, we can usually trust that Mason Dixon knows what it's doing). Still, it's better news than many Republicans have gotten from state polls recently.
6  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Rendell: Romney victory in Penn a possibility on: October 27, 2012, 05:30:05 pm
LOL, yeah, PA going GOP is POSSIBLE. It's also POSSIBLE for President Obama to win MO. However, both are very unlikely. For a long time now, PA has been the biggest tease when it is considered a "toss-up" for the Republicans in presidential elections and I don't think that'll change. I do think it's fine for Romney to put up a fight there because he seems to have the cash advantage.

    Imagine what fun we'd be having analyzing Pennsylvania if they had gone to the Maine/Nebraska electoral college allocation by district plan. Also, what would the overall electoral calculus be nationally if that were the case.

Yeah, what's even more interesting is to consider how this would effect campaigning. I can imagine the big places to campaign in such a situation would be regions with many swing congressional districts surrounding them.
7  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Candidate of Change on: October 27, 2012, 12:56:35 pm
Remember when Bill Clinton stole Bob Dole's bridge?

I doubt it will hurt Romney. Plus, most campaigns adopt some form of the change theme anyway.
8  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: My honest take on state of race less than two weeks out on: October 25, 2012, 12:15:33 am
My take from early on was that President Obama would be nearly unbeatable. Don't get me wrong, I've been a Romney supporter since he was Governor of MA and he's been a favorite of mine to be the party's presidential nominee for an equal period. However, the President is an icon and is an electrifying speaker. Such excellent politicians rarely lose.

Romney is doing the best he can and, IMHO, better than any of the other candidates that could have been selected. I now think the race is only lean Obama and I don't think I would dare guess who would win. The odds are in the President's favor though. He seems to have a good grasp on OH, unless the polls are wrong (unlikely but then again a lot of them are within the MoE). This makes me concerned that Romney is focusing on Ohio. Then again, PA has been the biggest tease for GOP candidates in recent years and other WI and MI haven't gone GOP for ages.

If Romney takes the lead in OH and gets stronger in FL and VA, I'll start to feel like this is winnable and possibly a lean Romney election. Until then I feel like it's going to be a slim Obama win.
9  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Should the Obama campaign pull out of all swing states and focus on Ohio? on: October 21, 2012, 02:13:50 am
No, this would be a bad idea. As has already been pointed out there are some possible (but not likely) ways that Romney can win without Ohio, so he needs at least protection in those states.
10  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney's Just Getting Cocky on: October 21, 2012, 02:10:13 am
I wouldn't call it "cocky." Let's face it Romney has a lot of funds, he's probably put in as much money as could be useful into Ohio and other swing states. Facing the options of either (1) go after the true swing states and have funds after the election and (2) spend all his funds and try to expand into lean D states and make President Obama consider spending more money in those states and the small chance of swinging one of them, I think the choice would be number (2).

Basically, Romney has very little to lose by going after MI and PA (even though, let's face it PA is not going Republican for a very long time it is the single biggest tease for the GOP every four years and MI isn't likely either).
11  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlasia's list of noun-jectives on: September 16, 2008, 06:48:47 pm
How about noun-jectives are the stupidest part of the forum right above FF/HP polls.
12  Forum Community / Forum Community / What is bugging you? on: September 13, 2008, 08:11:43 pm
I'm sorta of ripping this off of another forum.

Make a post about what bugs you and the next person will post a solution to it and post what is bugging them.

I'll start: ice melting in drinks...
13  General Discussion / History / Re: Revenge of Presidential Survivor : Round fourty-one on: September 12, 2008, 06:58:41 am
These would be my top two choices from the start and the two most deserving and I have a great respect for both men. Still I can't resist rooting for the underdog so I will cast my vote for:

Washington
14  General Discussion / History / Re: Revenge of Presidential Survivor : Round fourty on: September 11, 2008, 09:04:37 pm
TR
15  General Discussion / History / Re: Revenge of Presidential Survivor : Round thirty-five on: September 06, 2008, 12:24:35 pm
TR, again I like him a lot but he already won the first one and he'll win again if given the chance.
16  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Very embarrassing things Joe Biden has done on: September 01, 2008, 08:46:35 pm
I now make the bold proposition that Palin will outdo Biden this year for Gaffe King Queen.

Based on...what exactly? Because her daughter is pregnant? Or is it because she got a speeding ticket once (this attack didn't come out yet)?

Based on her inexperience as a campaigner. It happened to Obama and it's bound to happen to Palin.

Then shouldn't Palin be challenging Obama, and not Biden, for the gaffe king/queen/kiueen title?

No, you're missing the point. Obama has made a couple gaffe's but he learned his lesson. Biden, by most common conceptions, is the gaffe king. Obama knows this and probably plans to keep him on a tight and short leash.

Palin will go through the steps of learning from her mistakes, like Obama did.

Nah, I still don't think she'll take the title for gaffes... maybe scandals/wannabe scandals.
17  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Very embarrassing things Joe Biden has done on: September 01, 2008, 08:40:33 pm
I now make the bold proposition that Palin will outdo Biden this year for Gaffe King Queen.

Based on...what exactly? Because her daughter is pregnant? Or is it because she got a speeding ticket once (this attack didn't come out yet)?

Based on her inexperience as a campaigner. It happened to Obama and it's bound to happen to Palin.

Then shouldn't Palin be challenging Obama, and not Biden, for the gaffe king/queen/kiueen title?
18  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: What do McCain and Obama actually stand for? on: September 01, 2008, 08:23:45 pm
I can describe both in two words:

Strategic ambiguity
19  Election Archive / 2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Where are the post-convention national polls? on: August 31, 2008, 07:51:27 pm
I just heard Wolf Blitzer say that a new CNN poll came out saying Obama 49 McCain 48 and it was taken after Obama's speech and Palin's selection. I still haven't found anything on-line about it though.

Yeah, I also saw that.

Thank goodness I'm not the only one. I thought I was going loco since I have yet to find it on the internets.
20  Election Archive / 2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Where are the post-convention national polls? on: August 31, 2008, 07:44:13 pm
I just heard Wolf Blitzer say that a new CNN poll came out saying Obama 49 McCain 48 and it was taken after Obama's speech and Palin's selection. I still haven't found anything on-line about it though.
21  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States? on: August 31, 2008, 01:25:34 am
Still, the VP is far from the President's only adviser and not all administrations function how we like to think the Bush-Cheney admin. functions. We also all probably know McCain and at the end of the day McCain is going to do what McCain is going to do, regardless of what anyone thinks that is why so many Democrats have liked him in the past. Also, I tend to believe that when you have an inexperienced candidate running for President it is almost necessary that someone with experience is chosen. When the person on the top of the ticket has lots of experience in office he can pick someone with experience or without experience, it isn't a necessity.

Agreed. Smiley Which is a large part of why I think that Biden and Palin were ultimately picked. Each one helps shore up that candidate's weakness.

Quote
Anyway getting back to what I was responding to in your original post I don't see how McCain picking Palin let's Obama off the hook for not having experience. It's comparing an Apple to an Orange, as we have both seemingly agreed upon Palin's inexperience and Obama's inexperience are two different things considering what they are running for.

It doesn't completely let him off the hook, but are you really saying that there is no presumption that the VP is supposed to be someone who is ready to step into the numero uno slot if necessary? In making this pick, McCain is, at least to some extent, denigrating the value of experience within his own judgment. He must feel that, while experience may be a plus, it is not absolutely necessary to have more experience than Palin does.

I will agree. To some, very minor, extent he is lessening the value of experience. But it is far from placing less or equal value on experience than the Obama/Biden ticket does.

Although it is funny that 99% of the time we all agree that the VP means nothing and here we are today having 20+ page conversations about them. Quite amusing.

We are converging toward agreement. The Obama/Biden ticket clearly places relatively more value on change.

Yes, I agree. Though, Biden isn't necessarily the type who screams change due to his vast experience in congress. My biggest issue with Obama is that he always mentions change but I do not see it on his track record. Yes you can point to his work in Chicago. I can point to McCain leading the gang of 7 and his all around Maverick status. Yes, you can point out the success of Obama's campaign and I again can point to the fact that winning elections is no more a good indicator of who will be a good President than flipping a coin as we've seen in previous elections (Carter from my party's perspective and W. the your's).

But all of that is neither here nor there in this thread and I'm getting off topic.

Anyway, glad to see that we pretty much agree or disagree only slightly as the case might be.

The gang of 14 doesn't mean much to me when McCain has said that he would kick off half the current Supreme Court for not being sufficiently conservative, and his models are conservative activists like Roberts and Alito.

As for his all around maverick status, he disagrees with his party on a few significant issues. But he agrees with them 80-90% of the time (and he's had a lot longer to find points of disagreement).

And Obama also disagrees with his party's two other nominees on some important issues, such as faith based initiatives, taxes and health care mandates. To me Obama's change represents a few things (1) change within the Democrats- away from the old interest group politics and the battles of the 60s (2) change within the country- electing a guy who has only been in Washington for 4 years and is still basically an outsider and running on very different policies.

In the end I guess its whose policies you agree with more. You basically have a conservative Republican vs a liberal Democrat. The differences are huge, but I think most Americans are looking for a new direction.

I could write a long response but I don't want to hijack the thread. I will agree with you that it depends on what kind of change America wants.
22  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States? on: August 31, 2008, 01:11:00 am
Still, the VP is far from the President's only adviser and not all administrations function how we like to think the Bush-Cheney admin. functions. We also all probably know McCain and at the end of the day McCain is going to do what McCain is going to do, regardless of what anyone thinks that is why so many Democrats have liked him in the past. Also, I tend to believe that when you have an inexperienced candidate running for President it is almost necessary that someone with experience is chosen. When the person on the top of the ticket has lots of experience in office he can pick someone with experience or without experience, it isn't a necessity.

Agreed. Smiley Which is a large part of why I think that Biden and Palin were ultimately picked. Each one helps shore up that candidate's weakness.

Quote
Anyway getting back to what I was responding to in your original post I don't see how McCain picking Palin let's Obama off the hook for not having experience. It's comparing an Apple to an Orange, as we have both seemingly agreed upon Palin's inexperience and Obama's inexperience are two different things considering what they are running for.

It doesn't completely let him off the hook, but are you really saying that there is no presumption that the VP is supposed to be someone who is ready to step into the numero uno slot if necessary? In making this pick, McCain is, at least to some extent, denigrating the value of experience within his own judgment. He must feel that, while experience may be a plus, it is not absolutely necessary to have more experience than Palin does.

I will agree. To some, very minor, extent he is lessening the value of experience. But it is far from placing less or equal value on experience than the Obama/Biden ticket does.

Although it is funny that 99% of the time we all agree that the VP means nothing and here we are today having 20+ page conversations about them. Quite amusing.

We are converging toward agreement. The Obama/Biden ticket clearly places relatively more value on change.

Yes, I agree. Though, Biden isn't necessarily the type who screams change due to his vast experience in congress. My biggest issue with Obama is that he always mentions change but I do not see it on his track record. Yes you can point to his work in Chicago. I can point to McCain leading the gang of 14 and his all around Maverick status. Yes, you can point out the success of Obama's campaign and I again can point to the fact that winning elections is no more a good indicator of who will be a good President than flipping a coin as we've seen in previous elections (Carter from my party's perspective and W. the your's).

But all of that is neither here nor there in this thread and I'm getting off topic.

Anyway, glad to see that we pretty much agree or disagree only slightly as the case might be.
23  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States? on: August 31, 2008, 12:46:00 am
Still, the VP is far from the President's only adviser and not all administrations function how we like to think the Bush-Cheney admin. functions. We also all probably know McCain and at the end of the day McCain is going to do what McCain is going to do, regardless of what anyone thinks that is why so many Democrats have liked him in the past. Also, I tend to believe that when you have an inexperienced candidate running for President it is almost necessary that someone with experience is chosen. When the person on the top of the ticket has lots of experience in office he can pick someone with experience or without experience, it isn't a necessity.

Agreed. Smiley Which is a large part of why I think that Biden and Palin were ultimately picked. Each one helps shore up that candidate's weakness.

Quote
Anyway getting back to what I was responding to in your original post I don't see how McCain picking Palin let's Obama off the hook for not having experience. It's comparing an Apple to an Orange, as we have both seemingly agreed upon Palin's inexperience and Obama's inexperience are two different things considering what they are running for.

It doesn't completely let him off the hook, but are you really saying that there is no presumption that the VP is supposed to be someone who is ready to step into the numero uno slot if necessary? In making this pick, McCain is, at least to some extent, denigrating the value of experience within his own judgment. He must feel that, while experience may be a plus, it is not absolutely necessary to have more experience than Palin does.

I will agree. To some, very minor, extent he is lessening the value of experience. But it is far from placing less or equal value on experience than the Obama/Biden ticket does.

Although it is funny that 99% of the time we all agree that the VP means nothing and here we are today having 20+ page conversations about them. Quite amusing.
24  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States? on: August 31, 2008, 12:19:55 am
You are right it doesn't let him off the hook, but only if he decides to attack on this subject, which politically speaking, I don't think he will.

Well I'm glad we agree. Smiley

There is a difference considering that Obama committed himself to running for this office and was elected by defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Palin recently commented on what exactly the VP does and at a separate point dissing the VP job.  It seems to me that this pick is a result of republican strategy whereas Obama was a product of America's hunger for change.

Simply running a campaign that beats a prominent figure doesn't mean the person will be a good President (i.e. W. and Carter). I haven't read the context of the Palin remark yet so I'll refrain from commenting for now.


25  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States? on: August 30, 2008, 11:41:33 pm
Governor of one of the least populated states there are..... this thought makes me wonder.

President Bush was Governor of the second most populated state. Would everyone agree that he's been a good President?

True, but a way out of that argument is that the Governor of Texas doesn't really do anything and Bush has always had handlers and mentors to take care of business. The Governor of Alaska does seem to do executive things, it's just on a very small scale.

And for a very brief time. Less than 2 years ago Palin was the mayor of a small town. If McCain wins and (god forbid) must hand the Presidency over to Palin, she may be the new commander in chief next year. Clearly, McCain is not serious when he says Obama doesn't have the necessary experience.

So... Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden all think Obama has enough experience... and John McCain admitted as much as well with this Palin pick.

I'm too lazy to type something new up so here is a quote for you...

Okay let's break this down.

DEMS: McCain picked someone as inexperienced as Obama (who is running for President) to be his VP (to be President-in-training aka that person that doesn't do much unless something happens to the President, and if something did they'd already have a lot more knowledge and experience just by being VP for a while... Are ya'll betting that something is gonna happen to McCain? Who is playing the "politics of fear" card now?).

I like to look at it this way. Lets say we have two football teams. Team #1 has a very experienced and seasoned QB who has played in the pros for 15 years and is an all pro as their starter and a backup who is a rookie.

Team #2 has a QB with one year of experience and a backup with 16 years of playing experience.

So if I'm the defensive coordinator for team #2 I can't go after the QBs of team #1 with a strategy to take advantage of inexperience when  their starter has so much experience.

If I'm the defensive coordinator for team #1 you bet I can take advantage of a guy who has only played for one year.

These two are similar in that the VP or backup does not even do anything much unless something happens to the starter. So in conclusion, McCain can still attack Obama campaign with inexperience.

Maybe I'm just deluded but I can't see how you can call running for the Presidency with little experience and running for the VP with little experience as the same or even remotely similar things.

Sorry wildcard, I didn't see your post before. It's true that running a less experienced candidate at the top of the ticket and as VP are different things.

But it's not as simple as a starting QB and a backup QB. In football, when the starting QB goes up, he is up there doing 100% of the QB work. The backup QB can't help him at all.

But as President, Obama would be able to rely on Biden for advice in making his decisions. He would ultimately use his own judgment and follow his own principles, but when encountering a situation he is unfamiliar with or thinks that Biden's greater experience could help, Biden would be able to assist.

How would Palin be able to assist McCain? This is less clear. She could be a voice of social conservatism within the administration, and a linkage to other outside groups, play political roles. But she's less valuable as VP.

A better (but still imperfect) analogy is that the VP is not the backup QB but rather the offensive coordinator. With Obama-Biden, team #1 has a talented rookie QB with an experienced offensive coordinator with 16 years behind him telling him his plays. Team #2 has a highly experienced QB, but his plays are dictated by a rookie offensive coordinator. The only difference here is that, the QB would ultimately be able to overrule the offensive coordinator and call his own plays when he sees them.

Of course, you probably realize that what you're saying there infers that the VP is more of the brains of the operation and the President is just the muscle. I get what you're saying though. Smiley

Still, the VP is far from the President's only adviser and not all administrations function how we like to think the Bush-Cheney admin. functions. We also all probably know McCain and at the end of the day McCain is going to do what McCain is going to do, regardless of what anyone thinks that is why so many Democrats have liked him in the past. Also, I tend to believe that when you have an inexperienced candidate running for President it is almost necessary that someone with experience is chosen. When the person on the top of the ticket has lots of experience in office he can pick someone with experience or without experience, it isn't a necessity.

Anyway getting back to what I was responding to in your original post I don't see how McCain picking Palin let's Obama off the hook for not having experience. It's comparing an Apple to an Orange, as we have both seemingly agreed upon Palin's inexperience and Obama's inexperience are two different things considering what they are running for.

And in team #2 if the QB gets hurt we are all screwed.

Politics of fear card eh? Wink
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 125


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines