:lol: :lol:

 

[quote="mowman"]

Mowman:

Not true for issue-based candidacies. Consider Tancredo on the GOP side.

"Issue based" candidates like Tom Tancredo (R-Col.) are dark horse candidates, and their survival rate in the primaries is abysmal. They run in order to illuminate an issue. The only three people who really see them as viable candidates are the candidate, the candidate's spouse, and the candidate's campaign manager.

Tancredo is a radical conservative; he won't last long. Unless something very dramatic happens, the winner of the 2008 run for The White House will not be someone who leans hard to the left or right; it will be someone who is very charismatic, and has a cross section of appeal. I believe that this race will not so much be focused upon issues, because that would be a recipie for disaster.

The Republicans can't run based on a record of success based upon the war in Iraq, and the Democrats really do not have anything to offer in the way of an exit strategy. At the same time, I think that the arguement that the Democrats "have nothing to offer in the way of solutions" won't carry the Republicans very far; President Bush, and The Republicans buillt their political base for a "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq on flawed information and flat-out lies.

The Republicans foriegn policy is viewed by most countries throughout the world, as well as many people, and some former Republicans (like me!!) as being a disaster. If we pull out of Iraq immediately, then the door is open for Iran to move into Iraq. If we stay, the situation will continue to deteriorate.

The economy is bumping along, but it isn't doing spectacularly well, and there really isn't much that The Republicans can take gredit for. on the other hand, it isn't bad enough for the Democrats to successfully wage a campaign based upon failed economic policies either. At the same time, The Democrats can rightfully claim that under Bill Clinton, The National Debt was declining, and under GWB, it is now once again at record highs!!

Immigration???

Niether side has had to much to offer. To the Democrats, illegal immigrants bolster their political base. To the Republicans, illegal immigrants mean cheap labor for rich friends in high places.

So, if this is to be an "issue oriented" race, then what issues will it be based upon??

 

In my humble opinion, the top three 'issues' would probably be:

1. The War in the Middle East
2. The Economy
3. Immigration


not sure about the second and third, but I am pretty sure everybody will be talking about the war, and what to do with the troops.

no?

 

 

The jury is still out on ALL candidates, but here are just a few that I can't say that I feel are SCUM:

Rudy Guiliano
John McCain
Barak Obama
John Edwards
Bill Richardson

I'm sure there are others. The problem is NOT so much that there is alot of scum OUT there.... but in the BLIND ignorance of those who vote for those who obviously ARE!

On another forum, WAY back then, I warned against the ambitions and motivations of one George W. Bush. Nearly EVERYTHING I said would happen HAS! I don't KNOW what would have happened if Gore had been elected.... and I didn't like that HE was my only other choice. But, I KNEW what Bush would bring.... and I haven't been surprised in the least.

 

Hillary Clinton has announced today that she is officially in.

:roll:

on her page, she will hold video conferences for an entire week.

here's the address: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/video/

I am not trying to promote her. I don't even like her. I just think this will be an interesting thing to follow.

enjoy!

 

I was a bit surprised to see her announce the formation of an exploratory committee this early in the game. My guess is that Obama's announcements of his intentions, and the positive reception that he has received have something to do with her decision to publicly announce her decision now. I think that she wants to get financing lined up before other groups pledge their financial support to Obama.

If I am correct, (and BTW, I am not a political scientist) then I think that speaks well for Obama. I do believe that short of some debacle, the Democratic nomination is pretty much HRC's for the asking, and Obama would make a an excellent choice to be her running mate. In terms of votes in the Electoral College, New York, Illinoise, and California will easily wind up in their column.

As for Edwards and company, I don't really see them as being relevant in the grand scheme of things. They are just minor leaguers in this game.

 

Useless said:

Don't forget.... Edwards was a CLOSE second ONLY to Kerry for the Democratic nomination in '04!!! I wouldn't call that irrelevant OR "minor league!"

 

The election of 2008 will not be a replay of 2004. In'04, neither Clinton or Obama were candidates. Obama has an extraordinary degree of charisma, and a rather broad base of appeal. Clinton has the hands on experience of not only waging two very successful presidential campaigns, but in fund raising as well.

Edwards seems like a nice enough person, but he has no hope of raising enough funds to defeat her in the primaries, nor does he have the clout with the Democratic political machinery that HRC has. Based upon what I observed in the Vice presidential debates back in 2004, I don't think that he stood up very well against Dick Cheney, nor do I see him as someone formidable enough to win The White house.

Something else that you must bear in mind is that Clinton has decided to forego federal matching campaign funds, so there will be no limitations on what she can spend. She has the luxury of doing that, because both she and Bill Clinton are extremely powerful find raisers. Edwards will have no choice but to accept matching funds, which will limit what he can spend. He can't wage a viable, much less, successful campaign without them. HRC will force him to spend what money he does have, and she will not have to outspend him by a substantial margin in order to win the Democratic nomination.

Geographically speaking, in the Electoral College, Clinton will carry New York and the Eastern Seaboard with ease, Obama will carry Illinois with no trouble at all, and together, California should easily fall into the Democratic Column. My inclination is to believe that they will also carry Ohio, and given the shift in political winds that I am sensing in a very heavily Republican dominated part of Texas, I think that they have a chance of carrying Texas.

The democrats may not carry Florida, but with HRC as their nomine, they should be able to force The Republicans to spend their time and money trying to keep Florida in the Red Column, at the expense of being able to campaign effectively in other critical states.

I do believe that there are enough moderate Republicans in Texas who would be willing to cross party lines and support Obama, although I don't think that at this point, enough of them would cross party lines in order to support HRC. The Democratic Party here in Texas, which was all but dead and buried just a few years ago, is showing some strong indications of rising from the ashes. If the elections were held next month, I believe that Texas would easily go to The Republicans, but the elections are still a little less than two years away. Voters here in Texas are becoming increasingly frustrated and impatient with The Republican Party. Right now, I see Texas as a state that could go to either party.

What I see as a bit of a wild card factor that could work in favor of Edwards as a VP running mate would be that he would be more likely to carry the South in The Electoral College, and particularly, the state of Florida. I do believe that Edwards could help deliver Texas, especially if the Republicans decide nominate a hard line right-wing candidate.

A Republican McCain/Giuliani ticket facing off with a Clinton/Obama Democratic ticket would make this a very interesting race.

 

If the Republicans try to run on any of these issues, or if they are forced to run on any of these issues, then they will have lost before they even get started.