Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2019, 06:34:15 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Tim Saler - 2008 GOP Presidential Primary Projection.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Tim Saler - 2008 GOP Presidential Primary Projection.  (Read 9560 times)
nick
nickshepDEM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,921


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 19, 2005, 09:11:13 pm »
« edited: February 19, 2005, 09:13:13 pm by nickshepDEM »

The most likely Democratic nominee is Bill Richardson.


To much baggage.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,667
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2005, 11:58:34 pm »

The most likely Democratic nominee is Bill Richardson.


To much baggage.

What, the China stuff at Los Alamos?
Logged
nick
nickshepDEM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,921


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 20, 2005, 12:00:18 am »


What, the China stuff at Los Alamos?

Yeah, I think that would be killer.  What are your thoughts on that stuff being replayed over and over in a presidential election?
Logged
Rob
Bob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,292
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 20, 2005, 12:03:18 am »

All right, what exactly happened with that Los Alamos thing? I've heard lots of references to it, but I still don't know what Richardson did that was so horrible.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,667
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2005, 12:07:05 am »


What, the China stuff at Los Alamos?

Yeah, I think that would be killer.  What are your thoughts on that stuff being replayed over and over in a presidential election?


Um, please nominate him Cheesy   I really don't mind if they play it up.  2008 is the Democrats year anyway.  They're going to have to royally screw things up to not win.
Logged
nick
nickshepDEM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,921


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2005, 12:17:29 am »

Bob, here is a link to an article that describes the scandal a little bit.  I dont know a whole lot about it, but from what I do know it, not good at all. 

http://slate.msn.com/id/84864/

Someone correct me if Im wrong.  While Bill Richardson was Sec. of Energy under the Clinton adminstration, a Los Alamos nuclear lab leaked secrets to the Chinese that eventually led to their building of new nuclear weapons and Bill Richardson did pretty much nothing about it before and after.
Logged
Rob
Bob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,292
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2005, 12:22:18 am »

Interesting. I agree, that would kill him.
Logged
nick
nickshepDEM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,921


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 20, 2005, 12:29:00 am »

You know its bad when not only were Republicans in congress calling for him to resign, but Democratic partisan hacks like Robert Byrd were tearing him apart too for his #%#$ up.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,903


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 20, 2005, 12:52:21 am »


Do you really think someone like Bayh, Warner or Richardson would get the nomination?

Yes (see 1992).
Your party keeps moving to the left.

And yours to the right... And I think 2004 has told us that we can't move that way... Deans Chairmanship hopefully won't push us further to the left though.....

This is all such a bunch of bull. They've got us yammering about left and right issues and all the while both parties are using tax dollars and policy to bolster corporate America- big government for big business, neither left nor right really. There is enough check and balance and media and public pressure that left and right are fairly innocuous. Screw ideological labels and the lobbyists that pay for them- give me a real life freakin populist- it's our only hope really.
Logged
PADem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: February 20, 2005, 03:21:51 am »


Do you really think someone like Bayh, Warner or Richardson would get the nomination?

Yes (see 1992).
Your party keeps moving to the left.

And yours to the right... And I think 2004 has told us that we can't move that way... Deans Chairmanship hopefully won't push us further to the left though.....

This is all such a bunch of bull. They've got us yammering about left and right issues and all the while both parties are using tax dollars and policy to bolster corporate America- big government for big business, neither left nor right really. There is enough check and balance and media and public pressure that left and right are fairly innocuous. Screw ideological labels and the lobbyists that pay for them- give me a real life freakin populist- it's our only hope really.

Spoken like a true Tennessian
Logged
ian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,470


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -1.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: February 20, 2005, 01:01:31 pm »

Clinton was not as conservative as Bayh or Warner. Your party keeps moving to the left.

Bayh and Warner are to the left of Bill Clinton on the political spectrum.  Why do you keep calling them conservative?  Because one  opposes still birth abortions and the other was endorsed by the NRA?

In my opinion, both are to the right of Clinton. Anyway, your party keeps moving to the left. The party that picked Howard Dean as their Chairman won't have someone like Bayh or Warner as their nominee.

In case you didn't know, the establishment chooses the DNC Chair, not the people of the United States.  So, don't blame us for that.  And secondly, the DNC chair isn't a political position; his role is to help out every Democrat running for political office in the United States by fundraising and campaigning.  So, even if he is a "far-leftist", it doesn't matter; ideology plays no part in that position.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,703


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: February 20, 2005, 01:02:49 pm »

Clinton was not as conservative as Bayh or Warner. Your party keeps moving to the left.

Bayh and Warner are to the left of Bill Clinton on the political spectrum.  Why do you keep calling them conservative?  Because one  opposes still birth abortions and the other was endorsed by the NRA?

In my opinion, both are to the right of Clinton. Anyway, your party keeps moving to the left. The party that picked Howard Dean as their Chairman won't have someone like Bayh or Warner as their nominee.

In case you didn't know, the establishment chooses the DNC Chair, not the people of the United States.  So, don't blame us for that.  And secondly, the DNC chair isn't a political position; his role is to help out every Democrat running for political office in the United States by fundraising and campaigning.  So, even if he is a "far-leftist", it doesn't matter; ideology plays no part in that position.

The establishment also has a lot of influence in the primary. And how can you say DNC Chair isn't a political position? That just doesn't make sense.
Logged
ian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,470


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -1.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: February 20, 2005, 01:05:06 pm »

Whoever he is, he's an idiot. Roughly everything about his projection is wrong. Actually I'm not sure how you would make it worse... maybe project Don King to win or something.

Calling people names isn't an intellegent way to express feeling.
Logged
ian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,470


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -1.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: February 20, 2005, 01:06:35 pm »

Clinton was not as conservative as Bayh or Warner. Your party keeps moving to the left.

Bayh and Warner are to the left of Bill Clinton on the political spectrum.  Why do you keep calling them conservative?  Because one  opposes still birth abortions and the other was endorsed by the NRA?

In my opinion, both are to the right of Clinton. Anyway, your party keeps moving to the left. The party that picked Howard Dean as their Chairman won't have someone like Bayh or Warner as their nominee.

In case you didn't know, the establishment chooses the DNC Chair, not the people of the United States.  So, don't blame us for that.  And secondly, the DNC chair isn't a political position; his role is to help out every Democrat running for political office in the United States by fundraising and campaigning.  So, even if he is a "far-leftist", it doesn't matter; ideology plays no part in that position.

The establishment also has a lot of influence in the primary. And how can you say DNC Chair isn't a political position? That just doesn't make sense.

And why is that?  Because he writes the platform?
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,703


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: February 20, 2005, 01:10:36 pm »

Clinton was not as conservative as Bayh or Warner. Your party keeps moving to the left.

Bayh and Warner are to the left of Bill Clinton on the political spectrum.  Why do you keep calling them conservative?  Because one  opposes still birth abortions and the other was endorsed by the NRA?

In my opinion, both are to the right of Clinton. Anyway, your party keeps moving to the left. The party that picked Howard Dean as their Chairman won't have someone like Bayh or Warner as their nominee.

In case you didn't know, the establishment chooses the DNC Chair, not the people of the United States.  So, don't blame us for that.  And secondly, the DNC chair isn't a political position; his role is to help out every Democrat running for political office in the United States by fundraising and campaigning.  So, even if he is a "far-leftist", it doesn't matter; ideology plays no part in that position.

The establishment also has a lot of influence in the primary. And how can you say DNC Chair isn't a political position? That just doesn't make sense.

And why is that?  Because he writes the platform?

Uh...because he's the head of a party. That would certainly make it political.
Logged
ian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,470


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -1.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: February 20, 2005, 01:19:32 pm »

Uh...because he's the head of a party. That would certainly make it political.

How HE feels about issues matters not; he is just a tool of the party: that's his job.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,703


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: February 20, 2005, 01:24:27 pm »

Uh...because he's the head of a party. That would certainly make it political.

How HE feels about issues matters not; he is just a tool of the party: that's his job.

It reflects the way the establishment wants to go. The establishment has influence when it comes to primaries.
Logged
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,743
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: February 20, 2005, 06:33:10 pm »

If Dean gets the chairmanship, he has the bully pulpit of the Democratic party.  So he'll have a lot of unofficial power to move the party in his direction.  Yeah, its officially just an administrative job, but so is the Presidency, for that matter...
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,291
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: February 23, 2005, 05:36:33 pm »
« Edited: February 23, 2005, 05:39:00 pm by Michael Z »


Plus, the establishment will likely be on his side.

Do you really think that? Are you sure that the GOP will nominate the most high-profile far-right politician perhaps in the country. Just as the Democrats don't want to be seen as the party of hardcore liberals is that really the direction the party will take?

The difference is that, post-2004, many Republicans believe (rightly or wrongly) that far right policies win elections. This is also bearing in mind that Bush was largely seen as a bit of a whackjob who couldn't win a vote outside of Texas before the 2000 election, which didn't stop him winning.

While I wouldn't say Santorum has the same kind of mainstream appeal (I still think a Santorum Presidency is very very unlikely), I wouldn't write him off completely since stranger things have happened in politics. Also, three years is a long time - I doubt many people in 1965 seriously thought that Nixon would make a glorious comeback at the next Presidential election, just to illustrate how quickly people's perceptions of political figures can change.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2005, 11:32:30 am »

If McCain wants NH again, he has it. He's a perfect ideological fit for the state-- still. And they love his background, too-- still.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC