NationStates Jolt Archive

None of the above (http://fe18.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070717/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll):
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

I can't say I blame the Republican electorate right now. Who do you pick from that crowd? On the other hand, the Democratic voters seem to be fairly satisfied with their choices, with only 13% saying they preferred none of the above. Clinton leads the pack at 36% nationally, while Edwards leads in Iowa and Obama leads in money raised.

And in an unusual turn of events, the Democrats have continued to outraise the Republicans in campaign contributions. Very interesting.

Take the poll

Meh the only good candidate the Republican Party is getting isn't getting the votes he needs to rise to the top. If the Republican Party doesn't nominate Ron Paul, then I'm either going to vote for the Libertarian candidate, or the Democrat one.

It's early yet - we'll get a nominee. ;)

Meh the only good candidate the Republican Party is getting isn't getting the votes he needs to rise to the top. If the Republican Party doesn't nominate Ron Paul, then I'm either going to vote for the Libertarian candidate, or the Democrat one.

Democratic, please. If you can't say the name properly, just don't use it at all.

Edit: I voted for Tancredo. He would lose by the most, IMO.

Meh the only good candidate the Republican Party is getting isn't getting the votes he needs to rise to the top. If the Republican Party doesn't nominate Ron Paul, then I'm either going to vote for the Libertarian candidate, or the Democrat one.

I'd bet dollars to figs that you'll be doing exactly that. ;)

This will all become so much more fun when Condi throws her hat into the ring come March.

Wouldn't it? :p

For the record, I'd be fine with a candidate on the order of a Newt, Fred or Rudy. I didn't think to mention it because I've said so before. :)

This will all become so much more fun when Condi throws her hat into the ring come March.

Private polls? In my NSG?

I'm not surprised, frankly -- remember, for two elections in a row, the best the republicans could come up with was GEORGE FRIGGIN' BUSH.

Not a single candidate who has announced a presidency run to date has even come close to earning any consideration of a possibility of a vote from me. I simply stew in my ire that due to financial constraints that the Republicrats don't have, it'll probably be early next year before any other party or independent candidates can throw their hat in. It's disgusting how much more money and publicity these asshats are getting.

I'm not surprised, frankly -- remember, for two elections in a row, the best the republicans could come up with was GEORGE FRIGGIN' BUSH.

And he STILL beat the "best" that the Dems could send against him. Really makes one wonder about the future of this country.

I really don't care, because America is stupid.

None of the above (http://fe18.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070717/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll):


Meh, I think this is good news for Bloomberg, don't you think so?

I got it right in '96, '00 and '04, so hopefully i maintain my record this time:

My prediction for the result of theprimaries is:
Romney/Guliani versus Obama/Edwards. With Obama/Edwards winning in November.

And when the primaries finish and when November comes and goes i will dig this thread up and everyone will know i'm awesome.

I got it right in '96, '00 and '04, so hopefully i maintain my record this time:

My prediction for the result of theprimaries is:
Romney/Guliani versus Obama/Edwards. With Obama/Edwards winning in November.

And when the primaries finish and when November comes and goes i will dig this thread up and everyone will know i'm awesome.

God save us if you're right.

God save us if you're right.

From what? John Edwards? He may be a self-important, snake-oil salesman, but he can't do too much harm as VP.

Thompson is going to be the leader for the Republicans (as least right now).


My bet on the actual ticket will be something like Guliani/Thompson vs Richardson/Edwards.


As much as it sounds terrible, America, at least in this election, will not elect a woman or a black man, so there goes Hillary and Obama. Edwards doesn't do a whole lot, but he's a good running mate and Richardson has the best chance because of his prior experiance as a governor.


On the Republican side: McCain is fading fast, Ron Paul is far to extreme for any serious voter to really consider him a good option and Guliani has the fame thing going for him. Plus all the 9/11 stuff he can pack in.

This may sound weird, buy Edwards is like a Democrat in a the body of a Republican, I mean look at the suit, the haircut and the accent, I can picture the guy talking about illegal immigration and terrorism yet he is talking about poverty and social justice, it's freaky.


Also, I hope Kucinich gets VP, also Bill Clinton needs to have a job in a Democratic administration, the guy is a champion imo.

God save us if you're right.

Which part of that line don't you like? The entire thing?

Which part of that line don't you like? The entire thing?

Basically. If the Republican and Democrat tickets came out like you said I'd have to boycott this election, or throw my vote away on a third party.

This may sound weird, buy Edwards is like a Democrat in a the body of a Republican, I mean look at the suit, the haircut and the accent, I can picture the guy talking about illegal immigration and terrorism yet he is talking about poverty and social justice, it's freaky.


The correct term is "limousine liberal."

The correct term is "limousine liberal."

That wouldn't be related to 'champagne socialist' would it? a saying we have over here.

That wouldn't be related to 'champagne socialist' would it? a saying we have over here.

Indeed. Except nobody over here uses the term Socialist to favorably describe someone in mainstream politics.

I got it right in '96, '00 and '04, so hopefully i maintain my record this time:

My prediction for the result of theprimaries is:
Romney/Guliani versus Obama/Edwards. With Obama/Edwards winning in November.

And when the primaries finish and when November comes and goes i will dig this thread up and everyone will know i'm awesome.

Are you going to be around after the election, so we can all giggle?

Last election, everyone I wanted to giggle at fled the scene after the results were in. :( I wasn't going to rub it in, honestly.

Thompson is going to be the leader for the Republicans (as least right now).


My bet on the actual ticket will be something like Guliani/Thompson vs Richardson/Edwards.



That would be the best of all worlds, if Newt stays put. I could live with either of those tickets winning, so long as Edwards is kept downstairs with something shiny to play with for four years. :p

I got it right in '96, '00 and '04, so hopefully i maintain my record this time:

My prediction for the result of theprimaries is:
Romney/Guliani versus Obama/Edwards. With Obama/Edwards winning in November.
Dumbest. Prediction. Ever.


Guiliani is losing face like it is leaking out of a tap. His more liberal NY positions are hosing him with the entirety of the pro-GOP voters who vote on "morals."
Romney is the best chance to win in the general election but he is a filthy Mormon and the chance of him getting out of primaries are lower than if Hillary Clinton declared herself a Republican candidate and ran in their primaries.


Thompson will declare himself in the running at the last minute and sweep the polls. Then he will declare some random asshat his VP. Maybe Jeb Bush or Newt Gingrich.


Hillary is likely to win the primaries which will hand the presidency over to whoever wins the Republican primaries because Hillary polarizes the Democratic party itself, a group that is not as dedicated as the Republicans and will splinter to keep her from getting in instead of rallying around her.

Ron Paul. Not because I can stand him--I can't. Because he would carry the Republicans down to a devastating defeat, but in the process weaken the control of neocons and religious crazies over it.

From what? Cheney? He may be a self-important, snake-oil salesman, but he can't do too much harm as VP.


A message from the past? It seems so similar. . .

This will all become so much more fun when Condi throws her hat into the ring come March.

By March the race will be over. Primaries start in January.

Hillary is likely to win the primaries which will hand the presidency over to whoever wins the Republican primaries because Hillary polarizes the Democratic party itself, a group that is not as dedicated as the Republicans and will splinter to keep her from getting in instead of rallying around her.

I think you underestimate the lessons that Democratic voters learned in 2000. Whoever the nominee is will get the full support of the party, including the more left-wing members. There will be few defections to Nader or whoever stands in for him, simply because we've seen the damage someone like Bush can do.

Meh, I think this is good news for Bloomberg, don't you think so?

Only in the sense that it shows there's room on the right for another candidate, for a schism to develop between the business minded Republicans and the social conservatives. I hope he gets in, because it only helps the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.

Only in the sense that it shows there's room on the right for another candidate, for a schism to develop between the business minded Republicans and the social conservatives. I hope he gets in, because it only helps the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.

Bloomberg - a lifelong democrat who switched to the republican side just so he could run in the NYC mayoral election - is now a "business-minded republican"?

It's still early.

Frankly, I'm already tired of the campaigning news.

Although the Democrats should win the Presidency if they nominated a rotting corpse, there's still time enough for them to fuck it up, like they did in 1968.

As you may recall, the ever-lovable and insanely sexy Nixon won at that time.

Bloomberg - a lifelong democrat who switched to the republican side just so he could run in the NYC mayoral election - is now a "business-minded republican"?

That's what he's trying to position himself as--I'm not saying it's an accurate representation, though his governing style seems to be, from an outsider's perspective, to favor business interests and the wealthy over pretty much anything else.

Ron Paul hands down.

Brownback, Hunter, and Huckabee never had a chance in hell with me due to their Christofacists backgrounds.

Romney and McCain have back pedaled away from the positions I liked at Warp 9.

I'm a bit more forgiving of Tancredo's Christofacism because I like some of his stuff, but still, the idiocy of ID brings him to a halt.

The two Thompsons I never liked.

And Rudy's slaved to 1 issue - the war on terror, which he's irredemably linked with Iraq.

Dr. Paul is the only GOP presidential candidate I have any respect for at the moment. Furthermore, while I do have issues with some of his positions, he is the least objectionable candidate I see running for a main party right now.

And unfortunately he's seen as a nut by too many who are locked into the "authoritarian/corporatist to 'liberal'/socialist/welfare-stratist" view of politics.

As things stand I expect to vote for Obama in the primaries.

Who I vote for in Nov. 2008 depends on whether or not the Dems are smart enough not to nominate Billary. :(

Ron Paul hands down.

Ron is a nut because he absolutely believes that Bush planned and executed 9/11.

Ron is a nut because he absolutely believes that Bush planned and executed 9/11.

did he really say that?

ron paul is the most attractive candidate because when he speaks you can tell he believes what he says. thats true of no other candidate.

i dont support the vast majority of his policies so i dont want him as president.

I think you underestimate the lessons that Democratic voters learned in 2000. Whoever the nominee is will get the full support of the party, including the more left-wing members. There will be few defections to Nader or whoever stands in for him, simply because we've seen the damage someone like Bush can do.

And you overestimate the Democrat commitment. As much as all the rightwing crackpots and pundits would have you believe, there is no massive liberal conspiracy, there isn't even the same group think and unshakable base the Republicans have, regardless of anything this White House has done.

Ron is a nut because he absolutely believes that Bush planned and executed 9/11.

Let's be fair: Even if he didn't believe that, he'd still be a nut. :)

Let's be fair: Even if he didn't believe that, he'd still be a nut. :)

he is a libertarian after all.

he is a libertarian after all.

Speaking as a libertarian, most libertarians are nuts. *nod*

did he really say that?

ron paul is the most attractive candidate because when he speaks you can tell he believes what he says. thats true of no other candidate.

i dont support the vast majority of his policies so i dont want him as president.

Yes, he did.

Speaking as a libertarian, most libertarians are nuts. *nod*

the higher one is in the party the greater the likelihood of being a nut.

I want Tommy Thompson to win, just so all news stories sound like a B-Movie.

And you overestimate the Democrat commitment. As much as all the rightwing crackpots and pundits would have you believe, there is no massive liberal conspiracy, there isn't even the same group think and unshakable base the Republicans have, regardless of anything this White House has done.

I don't think so. I spend a lot of time around people even farther to the left than I am, and they're pretty much of the mind that even if Clinton gets the nod--and they will not be happy if she does--she's better than any Republican in the race, and that voting third party is, in essence, voting for a Republican. It's the recent SCOTUS decisions and the abuse of executive privilege that's done it to them--they've become quite pragmatic, surprisingly so, given their history.

The plan, according to them, is to push the Congress even farther left, so that even if there's a moderate Democrat in the White House, the Congress will lead them leftward.

Let's be fair: Even if he didn't believe that, he'd still be a nut. :)

Indeed.

Speaking as a libertarian, most libertarians are nuts. *nod*

As, surprisingly (or not), are most USAmericans.

did he really say that?

I don't think he did. Another smear.

ron paul is the most attractive candidate because when he speaks you can tell he believes what he says. thats true of no other candidate.

One of the reasons I like him. And I trust him more because I've actually met the good doctor.

Yes, he did.

Cite the source for that, please.

Ron is a nut because he absolutely believes that Bush planned and executed 9/11.

do you have a specific incident in mind? or a link to something he actually said?

in my few minutes search online i see that he suggested in a debate the not-insane notion that our actions in the middle east were somewhat responsible for getting us attacked on 9/11 (i dont agree with his analysis but its not nutz) and i see that he has a flirtation with the "9/11 truthers" who do think that its some kind of us govt conspiracy but i dont see paul coming out with a statement that he thinks that "bush planned and executed 9/11" just that he doesnt necessarily believe the governments reports on 9/11.

not an exhaustive search by any means but i would have expected such a crazy position to be splattered all over google if it were true.

so can you link to something?

do you have a specific incident in mind? or a link to something he actually said?

in my few minutes search online i see that he suggested in a debate the not-insane notion that our actions in the middle east were somewhat responsible for getting us attacked on 9/11 (i dont agree with his analysis but its not nutz) and i see that he has a flirtation with the "9/11 truthers" who do think that its some kind of us govt conspiracy but i dont see paul coming out with a statement that he thinks that "bush planned and executed 9/11" just that he doesnt necessarily believe the governments reports on 9/11.

not an exhaustive search by any means but i would have expected such a crazy position to be splattered all over google if it were true.

so can you link to something?

Maybe you should read more about his flirtation with the Truthers. When he speaks to them, he definitely becomes one.

Maybe you should read more about his flirtation with the Truthers. When he speaks to them, he definitely becomes one.

so you dont have a link....

he "becomes one" but never says the words that would put him firmly in the category of 9/11 conspiracy nutcase.

John McCain FTW!

I liked him, until he sprinted for the base and lost all credibility. He would have been a "meh" Republican for me.

John McCain FTW!

John McCain FTW!

I see everyone here likes to back a loser.

pfft...

Putin/Zombie Lenin will win....they got the Colbert Bump...:p

John McCain FTW!

I see Gens Romae is proving his idiocy, as usual.

The only one even vaguely palatable is Ron Paul, and I'm just not going to vote for a Republican on principle.

And I know you guys are choosing Tancredo because he would guarantee a loss, but UGH! STOP VOTING FOR HIM! :gundge:

Rudy Giuliani. His support for social freedoms, while not going off the Libertarian deep end *cough*RonPaul*cough* makes him my favorite.

And, as to the undecided Christian Evangelicals - Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion (Amendment I, US Constitution)... As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion (Treaty of Tripoli, carried unanimously)... thus building a wall of separation between church and state (President Jefferson)... I say they sit down and shut the hell up for the good of the Republic.

Maybe you should read more about his flirtation with the Truthers. When he speaks to them, he definitely becomes one.

So that's a "No, I'm just pulling BS out of my orrifice" answer?

Will you actually back up your claims? or will you sit back and sling BS like most of the dismissable NSG peanut gallery?

John McCain FTL!

Is fixing a troll puppet's post bad?

John McCain FTW!
Exactly:

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/mccainad.png

So that's a "No, I'm just pulling BS out of my orrifice" answer?

Will you actually back up your claims? or will you sit back and sling BS like most of the dismissable NSG peanut gallery?

Why should he start now?

Corrected

So that's a "No, I'm just pulling BS out of my orrifice" answer?

Will you actually back up your claims? or will you sit back and sling BS like everyone else on NSG?

Why should he start now?

Gosh, I backed up my claim about forfeiture, and now you're claiming that PBS is not a valid source...

One of the other white guys

Isn't that interesting...

Isn't that interesting...

Until recently, it was a charge that could often be made of both parties.

By March the race will be over. Primaries start in January.

Wow - I had to go check that, I feel sorry for you guys, that long of an election??

Condi needs to hurry up then.

I'll probably vote Giuliani for President, primarily because his positions are in line with mine on almost all major issues.

I see everyone here likes to back a loser.
Coming from Mr "I would support my drinking buddies for president"...

Probably another powdered up white guy who looks like the Crypt Keeper.

I'll probably vote Giuliani for President, primarily because his positions are in line with mine on almost all major issues.
How can you tell? He's been adjusting them almost daily. I mean, he's the guy who said (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/07/06/giuliani/index.html) "If you agree with us on everything, I'd be really surprised, because I don't agree with us on everything. I agree with us on most things."

I'll probably vote Giuliani for President, primarily because his positions are in line with mine on almost all major issues.

...

"Respect levels have dropped significantly, Captain! I don't think she can take much more!"

"Keep her together...she can handle it!"

EXPLANATION. NOW.

...

"Respect levels have dropped significantly, Captain! I don't think she can take much more!"

"Keep her together...she can handle it!"

EXPLANATION. NOW.

he is way too authoritarian by nature for me, but he does have some interesting economical ideas (I just misused economical right?)

...

"Respect levels have dropped significantly, Captain! I don't think she can take much more!"

"Keep her together...she can handle it!"

EXPLANATION. NOW.

Because I don't seriously believe Obama has a chance, and Hillary scares me more than Giuliani ever could, especially considering a Democratic congress will keep things in line but if she is elected it will be a return to the disasterous one-party era yet again.

Hillary scares me

Why?

Because I don't seriously believe Obama has a chance, and Hillary scares me more than Giuliani ever could, especially considering a Democratic congress will keep things in line but if she is elected it will be a return to the disasterous one-party era yet again.
So does that mean that you would vote for Obama if he was the candidate or that you think he would lose? Because if you'd vote for Giuliani over Obama just because you think that he'd win, well, that's pretty stupid. I mean, saying you'd vote for Giuliani because you think Obama doesn't have a chance isn't exactly a justification.

So does that mean that you would vote for Obama if he was the candidate or that you think he would lose? Because if you'd vote for Giuliani over Obama just because you think that he'd win, well, that's pretty stupid. I mean, saying you'd vote for Giuliani because you think Obama doesn't have a chance isn't exactly a justification.

No, I don't think he'll be the nominee. If he is elected, I will definitely vote for him. However, I just don't feel he will despite the fact that he is better than that awful Hillary...if she wins, I'll vote Giuliani as the lesser of two evils.

But if Obama wins the nomination, he has my vote. He's the best candidate out there by far.

Why?

Because there is nothing likable about her and she has shown her willingness to compromise her positions in order to pander for votes. She just reeks of insider politics and duplicity that goes above and beyond that of any other candidate in the running and I can't trust that kind of person in office.

It is my sincere belief that the next president of the United States is Rudy Giuliani. I think he has name recognition over every other candidate, with the possible exception of Hilary. Name recognition may be the biggest part of American politics, as evidenced by the fact that in California we have a Governator.

Because there is nothing likable about her and she has shown her willingness to compromise her positions in order to pander for votes. She just reeks of insider politics and duplicity that goes above and beyond that of any other candidate in the running and I can't trust that kind of person in office.

You really think she's more duplicitous than Giuliani? Don't get me wrong--she's about number 4 of the Democrats right now for me--but I think you have a seriously misguided idea of how honorable Giuliani is. You do realize how he's flipped on social issues in order to pander to the religious right, don't you?

You really think she's more duplicitous than Giuliani? Don't get me wrong--she's about number 4 of the Democrats right now for me--but I think you have a seriously misguided idea of how honorable Giuliani is. You do realize how he's flipped on social issues in order to pander to the religious right, don't you?

With a Democratic Congress, absolutely. If Giuliani is elected, they will keep him in check, but if she is elected she will more or less have a rubber stamp just like Bush did until his cronies were thrown out of office in the 2006 elections.

With a Democratic Congress, absolutely. If Giuliani is elected, they will keep him in check, but if she is elected she will more or less have a rubber stamp just like Bush did until his cronies were thrown out of office in the 2006 elections.
Yeah, because the Democrats have done such a good job keeping the current authoritarian in check. Giuliani would simply continue the current practice of governing via Executive Order and signing statement. Look at his actual record of governance, and you'll see a person every bit as interested in personal power as Dick Cheney.

Incorrected

So that's a "No, I'm just pulling BS out of my orrifice" answer?

Will you actually back up your claims? or will you sit back and sling BS like everyone else on NSG?

Nope not everyone. Personally, I generally go to some pains to back up what I say.

I take your answer to be an admission that you are BSing w/o backup, and thus are dismissable.

None of the above.

Though Romney will get it.

I voted for "none of the above" on the poll...but after thinking about it, I'd rather vote for my former governor, Tommy Thompson.

A three-legged, one-eyed mongoose could beat him, so the Democrats would have no problem. :p

None of the above.

Though Romney will get it.

Eh. He's not tracking well. Though I'm not sure if anyone's emerging as the guy to beat just yet. ;)

Eh. He's not tracking well. Though I'm not sure if anyone's emerging as the guy to beat just yet. ;)

Trust me, his hair and hatred of brown people make him a shoe in.

With a Democratic Congress, absolutely. If Giuliani is elected, they will keep him in check, but if she is elected she will more or less have a rubber stamp just like Bush did until his cronies were thrown out of office in the 2006 elections.

Actually, Vet, gridlock occurs as often in one-party governments as it occurs in two party governments. It's only in one-party, one-wing governments (like the one from 2002-2006) that what you're talking about happens.

Trust me, his hair and hatred of brown people make him a shoe in.

Eh. I haven't heard about any of that. He's sinking for a variety of reasons though, I suspect, and in some polls is barely breaking 10%, and on his way down.

I voted for "none of the above" on the poll...but after thinking about it, I'd rather vote for my former governor, Tommy Thompson.

A three-legged, one-eyed mongoose could beat him, so the Democrats would have no problem. :p

i was OK with tommy when he was gov of wisconsin but *yeooow* the years have not been kind to him. i really dont want to have to look at that face 100 times a day in the general election season.

Eh. I haven't heard about any of that. He's sinking for a variety of reasons though, I suspect, and in some polls is barely breaking 10%, and on his way down.

At this point, I really think it's largely a money race, and Romney's done surprisingly well at that. Of course, as a Democrat, I've been glad to see my candidates handing the Republicans their asses on the fundraising front this year, seeing as that has almost never happened in my lifetime.

At this point, I really think it's largely a money race, and Romney's done surprisingly well at that. Of course, as a Democrat, I've been glad to see my candidates handing the Republicans their asses on the fundraising front this year, seeing as that has almost never happened in my lifetime.

I think the money is the most intriguing part of this election. Johnny Mac overspent his $3M while Obama and Hillary have $30M each. It seems Obama's grassroots are very green indeed.

I think the money is the most intriguing part of this election. Johnny Mac overspent his $3M while Obama and Hillary have $30M each. It seems Obama's grassroots are very green indeed.

Especially when you look at the breakdown of primary versus general election money, and where Clinton got a chunk of hers. Obama is very front loaded right now, with 250K small donors, lots of money to spend in the primaries, and lots of people he can tap again. Clinton has a larger percentage (though not large overall) that can only be used for the general election, and she transferred $10 million from her Senate re-election campaign early on. She's not quite as neck and neck with Obama as it looks at first glance.

"Look's like you were right, Captain! Respect levels returning to normal!"

Right then, Vetalia. I can't say I agree completely--as Nazz said, Guiliani is even more interested in personal power and gain than Dick Cheney--but now I understand why, and I can respect that.

If I could, I'd be voting for Ron Paul. Even over the Democrats, since I haven't seen anyone I like so far and absolutely DESPISE Hillary C...

No voting until the 2012 elections for me, damnit...