Oct 17 - 46/45 - McCain +01
The Lose to Obama Contest
It has been a while since I last reviewed the 2008 Republican candidates. With Thursday being the first GOP debate, I thought now was a good time for a breakdown of my projections (previous % in parenthesis)......
John McCain: I think his age and overall creepy looks are his biggest problems in the GOP primary. Of course, in the general election, his flip-flops and pathetic stances on the war will doom him. However, I think these headlines about him being behind Giuliani are overhyped. I will stick with him as the front-runner.
Winning Nomination: 31% (40%)
Fred Thompson: As Bill Maher said, Republicans talk about Reagan so much "it is almost gay." Well, Reagan was cited 16 times in the GOP debate. Meanwhile, Fred Thompson is a largely unknown Hollywood actor - sort of like Reagan was (but Reagan was certainly more known). Considering all these other candidates have tremendous baggage, I think Thompson has a great chance of emerging.
Winning Nomination: 29% (n/a)
Rudy Giuliani: Still think he has no chance. However, he stays on top of the polls. That said, I probably want him to be the nominee more than any other person on this list. Democrats will definitely win if he is the nominee.
Winning Nomination: 10% (5%)
Mitt Romney: He looked like a creep in the debate. Plus, after a little more research, I don't think a Mormon has a chance in a GOP primary.
Winning Nomination: 10% (20%)
Newt Gingrich: Doesn't look like he is running, but an immediate contender if he jumps in.
Winning Nomination: 5% (15%)
Mike Huckabee: Too normal and credible for the Republicans. Winning Nomination: 5% (10%)
The Field: Duncan Hunter looks more Presidential than any of these guys, along with crazy stances, so I still think he has a chance. Sam Brownback seems to have no chance, but he is probably the best politician in the bunch. Gilmore, T Thompson and others have no real chance. The Field does include the one person that could pose the greatest threat to the Dems imminent victory: Colin Powell. There are no rumors of him running, but he could mess things up if he got in (even after his disgraceful conduct in the lead up to the Iraq war).
Winning Nomination: 10% (10%)
John McCain: I think his age and overall creepy looks are his biggest problems in the GOP primary. Of course, in the general election, his flip-flops and pathetic stances on the war will doom him. However, I think these headlines about him being behind Giuliani are overhyped. I will stick with him as the front-runner.Winning Nomination: 31% (40%)
Fred Thompson: As Bill Maher said, Republicans talk about Reagan so much "it is almost gay." Well, Reagan was cited 16 times in the GOP debate. Meanwhile, Fred Thompson is a largely unknown Hollywood actor - sort of like Reagan was (but Reagan was certainly more known). Considering all these other candidates have tremendous baggage, I think Thompson has a great chance of emerging.
Winning Nomination: 29% (n/a)
Rudy Giuliani: Still think he has no chance. However, he stays on top of the polls. That said, I probably want him to be the nominee more than any other person on this list. Democrats will definitely win if he is the nominee.
Winning Nomination: 10% (5%)
Mitt Romney: He looked like a creep in the debate. Plus, after a little more research, I don't think a Mormon has a chance in a GOP primary.
Winning Nomination: 10% (20%)
Newt Gingrich: Doesn't look like he is running, but an immediate contender if he jumps in.
Winning Nomination: 5% (15%)
Mike Huckabee: Too normal and credible for the Republicans. Winning Nomination: 5% (10%)
The Field: Duncan Hunter looks more Presidential than any of these guys, along with crazy stances, so I still think he has a chance. Sam Brownback seems to have no chance, but he is probably the best politician in the bunch. Gilmore, T Thompson and others have no real chance. The Field does include the one person that could pose the greatest threat to the Dems imminent victory: Colin Powell. There are no rumors of him running, but he could mess things up if he got in (even after his disgraceful conduct in the lead up to the Iraq war).
Winning Nomination: 10% (10%)
By Chuck - 5/04/2007
27 Comments:
NOTE: I did not actually watch the debate. My DVR has imploded with my recording of every NBA playoff game.
Speaking of, Steve Kerr really does constantly praise DeSagana Diop. Watching the game now, and Kerr always talks about how he is such an asset to Dallas. Well, hopefully Diop won't be enough. Go Warriors!
Warriors Dominate!
Golden State fans were amazing.
(almost like being at a Duke game)
Of course they mentioned Reagan alot..the debate was at his library and Nancy Reagan was in the front row.
I think I may have overestimated Giuliani, but I think you have him a tad too low. But I dont see him doing well in some erly states, which could doom him. He did not have a good performance tonight. I agree on Duncan Hunter. I disagree Romney looked like a creep. I thought he did a good job tonight.
Dont blame you for not watching, I barely watched the Dem version, mostly saw highlights and read about it.
Good win by the Warriors. Surprised me. Wouldnt want to be around Cuban tomorow.
I watched the Republican Debate and it was moderated terribly. Chris Mathews absolutely sucked compared to Brian Williams who the hell was that guy who walked on stage every time he asked a question? It was absurd. Every answer had to be crammed into 30 seconds. "Mayor Guiliani, Ben from Ohio wants to know how you would fix the Iran and Iraq war and what if anything you would have done differently since 2003... 30 seconds."
I thought Rudy's waffling answer on abortion wasn't good at all. Romney wasn't very impressive to me either and didn't seem very comfortable as a presidential candidate. I was impressed by Sam Brownback. That guy knows how to talk to conservatives about family values and being pro-life. I maintain Brownback is the dark horse candidate who can speak to the values base of the Republican party better than anyone else. Huckabee also did a decent job on values.
Colin Powell gave away his soul in 2003. I don't think he would do it again. He has a better chance of running for the Democrats in 2012.
I think you are wrong on Rudy. He has a great chance of beating the Democrats. Hillary would lose big time to him.
clever little Duke reference. dick.
hes the one who condemned innocent people of rape, if he wants to continue harping on it let him, its like the village idiot being proud of their ignorance
Rudy waffled on every single social issue. Answer the damn questions. The guy has way to much baggage. If you haven't noticed, our elections come down to perception of character and pretty much nothing else. The general population isn't watching this shit yet like we are. Anyways, I believe the next president of the US should know more about the mideast than I do. Not a single one of those guys fit the bill. Only that libertarian guy gets it right - we faced down the Soviet's 40,000 nukes and won - and now everyone is a afraid of a third world country that may obtain one nuke at some point. Its insanity. I can't remember which one, but someone actualy mentioned in a list of threats to the US groups like Hezbolah - you don't know anything about Islamic extremism if you think they are a threat to US. Plus - I'm not comfortable with candidates afraid to say they believe in evolution. What a joke - like a single one of them really doesn't. I could go on and on - I still believe that the republican that will win the nomination isn't running yet - at least we better hope he isn't.
Tim, I agree that there is a good change the Republican who will win the nomination isn't running yet.
"President Brownback" just doesn't sound all that cool
Chuck-
Warriors game was amazing.
I yelled the loudest public profanity of my life at the gym when I saw Davis turn the ball over and grab his leg - I can't believe the team was able to make up for his inabilities on defense the rest of the way - Stephen Jackson and Don Nelson deserve emmense credit for the win.
I love watching Cuban get pissed off - I really wish there was a Cuban cam the entire game - I wuld pay roughly $250 for a recording of him last night.
I have noticed a dramatic increase in character assinations here lately.
For the people who post here who do not fall automaticaly in step with the liberal line let me give you some hard earned advice. Some of the well meaning liberals lack intellectual honesty.
Generally the are 4 responses from this "group"(that is what it is all about isnt it--groups).
1. they ignore you
2. they ignore the message and attack the messenger
3. they admit there may be some validity to your point, however they immediately create two groups and your group is worse than theirs therefore the argument is actually an attack on yourself.
4. My personal favorite--the truth is irrelevant because they are morally superior therefore correct.
I spent many hours being saddened and outraged at the extent to which well meaning well educated liberals could be so closed minded. But it is what it is.
Having said that continue to post I love sitting back and watching the fireworks.
Kyle,
Find out what Duncan Hunter's odds are in Vegas. I respect your opinion but that would make the Golden State payout seem small. Hell, I may even throw down a few dollars.
Good insight. I don't care if you're liberal or conservative. What annoys the piss out of me is when someone won't listen to an argument merely because it doesn't fit into their established notions of how things are. If you present them with an alternative argument, instead of thinking about the possibility that maybe there is some validity to it, they automatically disregard it.
Now by no means am I innocent of launching attacks against some of these people, but at the very least I have a strong argument to back up my points.
That is what is most sickening about today's liberalism. In my mind, it mirrors everything they supposedly detest about conservatism. They constantly rail against conservatives about not being open-minded etc. Yet they are guilty of the same damn thing.
It's not about looking at issues through your party's lens, it's about looking at the issues, hearing both sides, and coming to your own conclusion as best you can.
I love the new word "assinations". You just invented a new dance that should be wildly popular at presidential debates:
Everybodys doin' the brand new dance now,
Come on baby, do the Assination...
I know you'll get to like it if you give it a chance now,
Come on baby, do the Assination...
My little baby sister can do it with ease,
It's easier than learnin' your abc's,
So come on, come on, do the Assination with me...
You've gotta swing your hips now,
Come on baby, jump up, jump back...
Well I think you've got the knack,
Woah woah...
Now that you can do it, lets make a chain now,
Come on baby, do the Assination...
A chugga, chugga, motion like a railway train now,
Come on baby, do the Assination...
Do it nice and easy now don't lose control,
A little bit of rhythm and a lotta soul,
So come on, come on, do the Assination with me...
Mencken - as long as you are around to police grammar and spelling the world will be safe... from actual meaningful discussion...
Thank you MENCKEN.
I can always count on you to prove my point.
Kind of reminds me of my cat. Open the door and she immediately heads to her food dish whether she is hungry or not.
Silent, I listen to many arguments that don't fit into my world view.
The reason your arguments are scoffed at on the chief source has more to do with the way you come off. You often twist the words of posters into straw men, before proudly knocking them to the ground. May I ask how old you are? I know it's rude, but your writing isn't exactly mature.
Truth is, you have been given many responses, even after nasty and pointless posts that didn't deserve any response at all.
As for Menckin, I find his posts funny. He's a great deconstructionist, kinda reminds me of Voltaire. If you read closely Fred, there are actually good points hidden in his humor.
Thank you Jeff. Voltaire is high on my most admired list. Very, very astute on your part.
Maybe you know this already, but when Voltaire was on his death bed, a priest was standing over him demanding that he renounce the devil. Voltaire supposedly said to the priest something like, "Now now, my good man, this is no time to be making enemies". Now that is a sense of humor.... something that is sadly lacking in some of the cast and crew around here.
Mike D., tell you what, you can handle the political heavy lifting and the space-time continuum and I'll
just keep trying to make one person laugh each day. Fred's word wasn't just a misspelling... christ there's millions of those every day on the Net; it was a brand new word with all sorts of possibilities.
Give Fred credit for inventing a new word. That's not easy. And stop taking yourself so fucking seriously. Jesus man, you could be dead tomorrow.
But that's just my sophmoric opinion.
jeff is angry,
Ron Paul?
Love,
Tim
Fred,
i don't know who takes your most ire, but i am sure in someway you put me in these groups. well.....
you often ignored my points - especially a few months ago, you would pretty much never respond to my points, just make your own comments.
and you were the guy that loves to bring up small-time bad guys (like a Sandy Berger or a jesse jackson or a william jefferson) to dillute my arguments of GOP hypocrites and corruption.
and when you call someone intellectually dishonest, is that name calling?
but just sit back and enjoy the fireworks. remember, you have never participated in the very things that are supposedly so distrubing to you.
Shoot Chuck, I've asked Fred five times to read up up on the Project for the New American Century just to try an elighten him a little on how and why our foreign policy is what it is, and all I got back was a pocket full of mumbles. I'm guessing he DID read up on it and doesn't want to admit there was some validity to my argument. Then he argues how heartbroken and saddened he is by my attitude or yours for that matter, but can't wait to
sit at the computer in his underwear and "watch the fireworks".
That's textbook intellectual dishonesty.
HappyJeff,
I am sorry that I come off as being so juvenile. I will try to improve. You come off as being a lackey for Mench, and I wish you could realize his arguments (if that's what you call them) are terribly flawed.
However, you attempt to criticize my arguments and my writing style. Point out one argument that has been "nasty and pointless". Honestly, you say all this shit and then never back it up with anything. From TdFitz to Mench, you just attack without any reasoning behind your conclusions.
I dare any of you. Just point out one of my "nasty/pointless" arguments. Thanks guys!!
Silent Majority,
I'd be interested in which one of my attacks isn't backed up. Just start with my critique of the debate on this post. I'll back up whatever you need.
If we want to have idealogical debates here fine - those are just plain differences of opinion. But if we are gonna talk about Bush & Co. he is simply a crook. There is no comparison between the "character assiasination" of Rove to what us "liberals" do here.
You're not worth the trouble.
Chuck,
I beleive I have mentioned Reid's corrupt land deals and Fiensteins illegal actions as a member of the military appropriation committee.
I dont view these two as small potatoes but that is not the issue.
Wrong is wrong is the isssue. Also I did agreee with you that anyone engaged in war profiterring should be taken to court and if found quilty shot(shot was my suggestion not yours).
Also on occasion I have simply stated that I agree with you.
I am not looking to curry favor here merely set the record straight.
Finally Chuck, at least you lay out your beliefs unlike some whose sole purpose in life is to feed their ego by belittling others while addding nothing but tired rancor.
Fredo, some of us are still waiting for an explanation on why the Civil Rights movement is responsible for the increase in single parenthood. All this time I thought it was Murphey Brown's fault.
Post a Comment
<< Home