I know, I've said it's too early for this stuff, but the way it stands now, it's becoming harder and harder to determine who the GOP can seriously run in '08 for the Presidency.

A look at the major players right now, and the difficulties they have:

1. John McCain. He's been selling out to the far right for the last year, in his quest to get the nomination, but in doing so has been losing support in the middle and among independents. His remarks about safety in Baghdad have flabbergasted many people, and it has put him on the wrong side of most Americans on the war.

Plus, he is divorced, which doesn't sit well with the religious right, who controls the vote in many key states.


2. Rudy Giuliani. He's a favorite of some in the GOP, but how can a anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice Republican wade through the Primaries? Plus, I still don't believe, personally, he'll be able to stand the glare of a national campaign. Plus he has been divorced, and did have an affair, another strike against him in the Bible Belt states.

3. Newt Gingrich. Maybe the smartest of the candidate, insofar his knowledge of government and both domestic and foreign policy. But he himself had an affair, a strike against him, and his remarks about Spanish will get him in loads of trouble in many places.

4. Mitt Romney. Maybe the most viable candidate out there for the GOP. He's been a popular GOP governor in an otherwise pretty liberal state. He's got a clean marriage record. He seems to work pretty well with the opposition. But, despite all that, will the religious right accept his religion, or will they reject him because he's not what one would call a "traditional" Christian, but part of a faith that many Christians see as an abberation of their faith?

5. Fred Dalton Thompson. Hasn't actually entered the race yet. A solid conservative, but not a zealot. Has excellent experience in Congress, and is liked by many on both sides. Yet lately his credentials as a Christian (which, to point out, I think shouldn't amount to a hill of beans to begin with) are being openly questioned by many on the religious right. Plus, he has Non-Hodkin's Lymphoma. And, despite his assurance that he's doing well, would many Americans vote for a many who does have cancer?


Those are the majors. Will we see one of those 5, or will it be someone relatively unknown right now.

Of the two parties in '08, I think the GOP will be the most interesting process to watch.

Your opinions are welcome.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 4. Mitt Romney. Maybe the most viable candidate out there for the GOP.

Agreed, but don't forget he's also a flip-flopper, especially on abortion.

Personally, I think the right wingers need to pay less attention to which Dems are running, and more to their own party, because this list is in sad shape. Of the one's that would actually make it out of the primaries, I don't see any of them beating any of the Dems "big three".

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): I know, I've said it's too early for this stuff

So, why you posting this thread?   

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 3. Newt Gingrich. Maybe the smartest of the candidate, insofar his knowledge of government and both domestic and foreign policy.

And the most frighteneing. Won't get the nod from GOP.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 2. Rudy Giuliani. He's a favorite of some in the GOP,

Great out of the box, can't hang in the long run IMO. Mixed feelings about Uncle Rudy. I think he could hang once elected, but I'd be concerned about some of his policies . . . guns for example (naturally)

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 4. Mitt Romney. Maybe the most viable candidate out there for the GOP.

John Kerry's Republican Flip Flop counterpart. He's saying whatever need be said to get the nod.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 5. Fred Dalton Thompson. Hasn't actually entered the race yet.

Met him before, big guy - hands like catchers mitts. Decent fellow too. Don't think he'll enter the race. Just testing the waters. Not enough support. Although he'd carry Tennessee (unlike Gore    )

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 1. John McCain.

Still gonna get my vote, unless something truly bizarre occurs. Don't like some of the crap he's done of late, but then, if I did I'd be a Neo-Con kiss ass . . . that I'm not.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): I know, I've said it's too early for this stuff So, why you posting this thread?

Because I happened to have been talking about it with my father. So there.  

tonight will be interesting. i will be at the Lincoln Dinner socializing with a great deal of them. they're all expected to speak at some point and time. it will be unique to sit back and watch how they all interact with one another.

those attending are -- Sam Brownback, John Cox, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson.

they're all undoubtedly going to be stepping it up a notch for the August 11th straw poll. I'm already getting invites from John McCain to attend the poll. Let's just say he's not only going nuts on the catering and the beer tent, but he's also chartering buses to bring people in for the event, complete with on board beverage and snack service.

anyway, i can't decide if i want to attempt to get drunk before the event or during. i'll flip a coin later in the day and let you know the results.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): Plus, he is divorced, which doesn't sit well with the religious right,

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): Plus he has been divorced, and did have an affair, another strike against him in the Bible Belt states

correct. yesterday former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee blasted remarks pretty much aimed at Giuliani but can also go right down the pipe of McCain and Gingrich that "conservatives shouldn't be so quick to judge the other party and look at hypocrites themselves and do the same for other members of their party" .... i.e. Bill Clinton.

his comments were made during a taped interview that'll come out sometime over the weekend.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): would many Americans vote for a many who does have cancer?

no.


McCain has turned off a lot of people on. Romney has turned on a lot of people lately. Thompson is turning people on but if he plans on waiting until "a few months out" he'll be missing the boat. Giuliani is still Giuliani.

Giuliani, as of now, is probably the best candidate for the party, but probably not the one most qualified for the job by any means.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): Don't think he'll enter the race. Just testing the waters. Not enough support. Although he'd carry Tennessee

I don't know about that. The weekly political commentators on NPR where talking about Fred Thompson this week. Apparently Fred Thompson's wife is burning up the phones garnering support. She WANTS his to run, and is pushing him to run. While he is still publicly on the fence. All this signaled to them more than just a "toe in the water" so to speak. Additionally and this is my opinion only, I think the announcement that he has cancer is a solid sign he's leaning toward running. Otherwise why say anything about it at all? If you're not going to run why does anyone need to know? If you're going to run then announce it while you can control the press release.

His poll numbers are good too. Which may signal support OR it may be that the rank and file are not satisfied with the current crop of candidates, that's hard to say.

He's a hell of a communicator, which is what the party needs right now. Someone who can explain Republican positions in an effective way. That's been sorely missed since Reagan left the scene. When Republican values are communicated effectively the country swings Republican, poll numbers show this is a conservative country. (Small "c" intended so as not to confuse you with a philosophical Conservative.) And if even Falcon84 can begrudgingly say he's "not a zealot" I think he can pull in a lot of moderates as well as hold on to the base.

This is Newt's problem. He can get the base pretty easily. But he comes off too abrasive to win over the undecideds.

Thompson's real negatives with primary voters are that:
1) He doesn't have much executive experience.
2) He was a trial lawyer at one time.

This is a paraphrase from the NPR guys BTW.

All-in-all I think he and Rudy are the best two candidates, but Rudy has more negatives than Fred. At this early stage I'd put my money on Fred. There is a LONG way to go though.

Quoting B777-700 (Reply 1): I don't see any of them beating any of the Dems "big three".

I disagree. National polls have Rudy in first place well above Hillary and miles over Obama. This has been pretty consistent. But, as the media is always quick to point out whenever that poll is trotted out, Rudy has to win the primaries, to meet Hillary or Obama.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5): But, as the media is always quick to point out whenever that poll is trotted out, Rudy has to win the primaries, to meet Hillary or Obama.

so you would prefer we leave out that fact next time?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5): I disagree. National polls have Rudy in first place well above Hillary and miles over Obama. This has been pretty consistent. But, as the media is always quick to point out whenever that poll is trotted out, Rudy has to win the primaries, to meet Hillary or Obama.

We're essentially agreeing here, hell I'd prolly vote for Rudy over Hillary, but when I said "Of the one's that would actually make it out of the primaries" that was directed towards Rudy mostly. I just dont see the base with him.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 6): so you would prefer we leave out that fact next time?

I was merely pointing out a glaring media bias. Obviously, we know a candidate has to make it out of the primaries, but why focus on Rudy, Hillary has to make it out of the primaries too, what if Obama beats her?

But this isn't the point of the thread and I made a pretty even-handed assessment of the GOP candidates so why don't you comment on that.

Quoting B777-700 (Reply 7):

I misread your first post and missed that part. Given what you originally said, I would only disagree about Thompson. Unless Hillary is the candidate. Hillary as the candidate is such a polarizing figure, unless Republicans ran an ideologue like Newt, who has just as much baggage as she does, I think Hillary loses. Other Democrat candidates have a shot with any other Republican. Obama or Edwards v McCain or Romney for example the Democrats have a shot.

But as I said in my post if Fred Thompson runs, I think he's got the best chance to win. He pulls in the undecideds with a good message and communication skills. Skills the likes of which Republicans haven't seen since Reagan. And he's strong with the base. I think he'll beat any Democrat they have now.

That's a coalition that beats the Democrats everytime.

Besides he's even played the President before!

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 8): But as I said in my post if Fred Thompson runs, I think he's got the best chance to win. He pulls in the undecideds with a good message and communication skills. Skills the likes of which Republicans haven't seen since Reagan. And he's strong with the base. I think he'll beat any Democrat they have now.

I would have to agree he currently has the best chance.

And don't underestimated the fact that he has been out of politics for several years now since he left the senate. And people have seen him on TV and in films without the political eye on him. I think that both are good things.

What might slow him down, particularly if Clinton wins the nod for the communists, is that he was chair of the panel that handled Monicagate. So look for her to try and throw that back in his face. I personally think he got the job because he number got picked.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 8): But as I said in my post if Fred Thompson runs, I think he's got the best chance to win.

Agreed. Damn, what is that 3 for 3 now?  

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): He's been a popular GOP governor in an otherwise pretty liberal state.

Believe me, he wasn't that popular. He's a smooth-talking, very intelligent social and fiscal conservative. Massachusetts is far better without him, and so would the Whitehouse.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 8): I was merely pointing out a glaring media bias. Obviously, we know a candidate has to make it out of the primaries, but why focus on Rudy, Hillary has to make it out of the primaries too, what if Obama beats her?

what media bias? the one you're making up ... again?

captain obvious, the focus is on Rudy because he is the front runner.

the poll on candidate approval are inter-party pollings. the polls being published comparing party candidates against specific party candidates haven't been done yet.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 8): But this isn't the point of the thread and I made a pretty even-handed assessment of the GOP candidates so why don't you comment on that.

then don't footnote to begin with.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 9): And don't underestimated the fact that he has been out of politics for several years now since he left the senate. And people have seen him on TV and in films without the political eye on him. I think that both are good things.

True, it gives him a combination of experience while maintaining the look of an outsider.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 9): is that he was chair of the panel that handled Monicagate. So look for her to try and throw that back in his face.

Do you really think she'd open that can of worms. The only group that message would have any traction with would be her base. She wouldn't want undecideds to be reminded that Bill might be back in the White House.

Quoting B777-700 (Reply 10): Agreed. Damn, what is that 3 for 3 now?

Who the hell are you and what did you do with B777-700's body? 

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 13): Do you really think she'd open that can of worms.

She probably is smart enough not to, but look for some outside liberal propaganda groups line Move-on.org and/or George Soros to bring it up.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 13): She wouldn't want undecideds to be reminded that Bill might be back in the White House

undecideds liked Clinton.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 9): if Clinton wins the nod for the communists

now that's brilliant.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 12): what media bias? the one you're making up ... again?

 

Quoting STLGph (Reply 12): the polls being published comparing party candidates against specific party candidates haven't been done yet.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Poli...Ups/Giulianivs.Clinton20070223.htm

Oh, and look CNN did a national poll too.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/presidential.poll/index.html

So much for your not being published assertion.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 14): She probably is smart enough not to, but look for some outside liberal propaganda groups line Move-on.org and/or George Soros to bring it up.

Why would they? It would still hurt Hillary. The source of the information doesn't change it's affect.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 4): Duncan Hunter,

I heard a radio interview with him two days ago with a local libertarian talk show host and he was pretty impressive. I can't say that I agree with all of his positions but he seemed more in touch with the real world than any of the others as far as I could tell.

Rudy has been down here a lot lately and seems to be very popular. This is the Bible belt but he's leading the polls here. If he can get the nomination, he'll be tough to beat. The interesting part will be NY. If he's up against Hillary, it will be very close. If it's Obama, then he'd easily take NY and it would be very difficult to see Obama making this up elsewhere.

If Romney could deliver MA it would also change the dynamics a bit but I think there's still enough prejudice and fear of the unknown regarding Mormons to realistically keep him from getting the nomination. Personally, I have a hard time understanding their beliefs but have always found Mormons to be very sincere and hard working and not dedicated to shoving their religion down the throats of others. Based on what I've seen, it's not at all an issue for me but I can't speak for others. In reality, his poor performance trying to straddle a few political fences here lately will do him in independantly of his religion.

I can't make up my mind on McCain. On some days I like him a lot and on others he seems like a mega version of Jeremiah Denton; well deserving of respect for what he did during Vietnam but not at all worthy of political respect.

I don't see Newt running as he's the only Republican I can think of who's more polarizing than Hillary and GWB. That said, he's the only prospective candidate on either side who I think you could count on to do exactly what he campaigned to do if elected. He has a good track record of setting an agenda and sticking to it.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5): 1) He doesn't have much executive experience.

Some would see that as a plus as well.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5): 2) He was a trial lawyer at one time.

He worked mostly as a prosecutor when practicing law. His work as a lobbyist could be an issue in the general election if he gets the nomination though. One thing that could help him a lot with crossover voters is his track record in fighting corruption in government, having played major parts in bringing down Nixon and a very crooked parole board in TN.

Brownback will get the nomination the day hell freezes over.

I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for but I don't think he has a realistic chance.

Pataki's another one who could make it interesting.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 16):

yeah, i thought so.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 16): So much for your not being published assertion.

i never said they're not being published. i was going for the point where they're not being finalized.

they haven't gotten into specifics such as Obama vs. Giuliani, Obama vs. Romney, Brownback vs. Dodd, etc. this year there are too many candidates to get into it. the CNN poll doesn't discuss Giuliani vs. Clinton in the race ... just the path to the nomination. the Rasmussen takes to the Giuliani nomination right after he announced and was getting support and momentum. for now it's fluff and won't be put down into point-counterpoint punch discussion by anybody until we get through the August straw polls. except yourself, of course.

of course since we at the "biased media" recognize the time and effort needed for platforms, town halls, and rallies to "spread the message" and let opinions form over time, we generally leave immediate polls right where they are.

here's today's Zogby email.

Zogby Poll: Giuliani, Clinton Hold Wide Leads in Nevada
Giuliani leads Republicans with 37% support and Clinton tops Democrat rivals at 35% as other major candidates lag behind
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has surged to a double-digit lead over his Republican rivals, and Hillary Clinton enjoys a significant lead over her fellow Democratic challengers among likely Nevada caucus-goers, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

Their leads track what is happening nationally in polling, perhaps a reflection of name identification, as candidates just begin their efforts to build campaigns in Nevada, which has moved near the front of the line in the state–by–state presidential sweepstakes and represents uncharted waters for the 2008 election process.

Pollster John Zogby Comments on the Nevada Numbers! Video and Audio available for television and radio stations – at www.zogby.com

Giuliani leads among Republicans with 37% support, while Senator John. McCain from neighboring Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney trail behind, tied at 15% support.

The race is somewhat tighter among Democrats, although Clinton maintains a sizable lead with 35% support. Obama lands in second-place with 21% support while Edwards is in third at 15%.

The telephone survey of 505 likely Nevada Republican caucus–goers and 500 likely Nevada Democratic caucus–goers was conducted April 11-12, 2007, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percentage points.

The top Democratic candidates enjoy a slightly greater intensity of support than their Republican counterparts – 96% of those who would vote for Obama said they strongly support him, compared with 92% for Clinton and 89% for Edwards. Among Republicans, 89% of likely Giuliani voters said their support for him is strong, compared to 85% for McCain and 80% for Romney.

Democrats
Nevada
N.H.
Iowa


April 12
April 3
March 26

Clinton
35%
29%
25%

Obama
21%
23%
23%

Edwards
15%
23%
27%

Richardson
5%
2%
3%

Biden
2%
2%
3%

Kucinich
<1%
1%
1%

Dodd
<1%
1
1%

Gravel
<1%
<1%
<1%

Not sure
19%
18%
15%


Among Democrats, 44% said they are seeking a moderate nominee, while 30% would favor a candidate who was more liberal and 16% want someone with more conservative leanings. Republicans, however, overwhelmingly want a conservative nominee (60%), while 31% would favor a more moderate standard–bearer.

Republicans
Nevada
N.H.
Iowa


April 12
April 3
March 28

Giuliani
37%
19%
25%

Romney
15%
25%
11%

McCain
15%
25%
19%

Fred Thompson
7%
6%
7%

Brownback
1%
<1%
3%

Huckabee
1%
1%
2%

Hunter
1%
1%
<1%

Paul
1%
2%
<1%

Tancredo
1%
1%
1%

Hagel
<1%
1%
1%

Tommy Thompson
<1%
<1%
5%

Not sure
15%
17%
22%


Republicans are more likely (79%) than Democrats (70%) to say they would favor a candidate in the caucus who stands by what he or she believes regardless if they can win the general election. Democrats (20%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (15%) to say voting for a candidate who can win is what matters most.

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Please click the link below to view the full news release:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1285


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 States—8 polls—4,000 completed telephone surveys—in the next 30 days

The longest presidential campaign in history could be over before you know it!

Is America ready for another actor in the oval office?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edited 2007-04-14 20:53:12]

Quoting STLGph (Reply 15): undecideds liked Clinton.

We'll see.

I doubt the undecideds want another 4 years of Bill.

NPR had a poll that backed me up on this too, but I can't find it on thier website. Argh.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 18): Gravel <1% <1% <1%

Wow a poll that actually included Mike Gravel. Even the people up here think he is a loon.
  

Quoting STLGph (Reply 18): Democrats (20%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (15%) to say voting for a candidate who can win is what matters most.

I don't know if I would call 5% slightly. I think that is playing loose withe the poll numbers in order to guide the conclusions. But it is scary that a fifth of Democrats would put their party ahead of the good of the country.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 1. John McCain. He's been selling out to the far right for the last year

Doesn't seem to be doing anything for him....behind in fundraising and the polls. If he fares badly in the early primaries, he's toast. If Iraq suddenly changes for the better, he might be untouchable.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): Plus, he is divorced

Really? I thought he was married...Cindy McCain?

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 2. Rudy Giuliani. He's a favorite of some in the GOP, but how can a anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice Republican wade through the Primaries?

I don't know what his numbers are in the south, but if he can pick up enough moderates elsewhere, he may not have to worry about it. 2008 could very well be the year someone wins without carrying the South.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 3. Newt Gingrich. Maybe the smartest of the candidate, insofar his knowledge of government and both domestic and foreign policy. But he himself had an affair, a strike against him, and his remarks about Spanish will get him in loads of trouble in many places.

He's a milder form of Don Imus. He won't go anywhere, probably just stir up the waters during the primaries and election.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): 4. Mitt Romney. Maybe the most viable candidate out there for the GOP.

Could be. He can at least say he's been faithful to his wife, fiscally conservative, and believe in conservative causes. The others, besides Fred Thompson, sure can't. I don't like the fact he's Mormon, but I may look past that and vote for him anyway. If it's him vs. Billary, then he'll get my vote.

Quoting B777-700 (Reply 1): I think the right wingers need to pay less attention to which Dems are running, and more to their own party, because this list is in sad shape. Of the one's that would actually make it out of the primaries, I don't see any of them beating any of the Dems "big three".

If it's Hillary/Obama, then I think they'll win.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 4): Giuliani, as of now, is probably the best candidate for the party

He could switch parties and win the nomination and election in a landslide. For the GOP? Maybe. Personally, I see him as a Democrat in GOP clothing.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 20): I don't know if I would call 5% slightly.

in essence of polling, it's an error of 4 percent plus or minus.
when playing with the numbers, slightly is the better term.
it would be
24 vs. 11 -- democrats
16 vs. 19 -- republicans
16 vs. 15 -- democrats
20 vs. 19 -- democrats

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 19): I doubt the undecideds want another 4 years of Bill.

they elected him from 8.

then again Bill is far away from his wife's campaign. unlike the opposite of when he was running when she was right there in the limelight the entire time.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 22): then again Bill is far away from his wife's campaign.

Again, he is bright enough, when there isn't a piece of poon around, to figure out that he is a polarizing figure, and that is the last thing that he needs to do to her campaign....polarize it.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): John McCain

Here's my problem with McCain, even though I've liked the guy over the years, and think he's been the victim of having less than spectacular advisors around him. If he's a war hero, and been over to Iraq a number of times, how in the HELL can he pull such nonsense out of his ass about what's going on over there. Putting him in the WH will only further insulate him from reality. McCain needs to sit down, bring himself up to speed, and fast, then start flapping his lips. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the first anti-McCain ad moveon.org does is a voiceover of McCain saying Petraus goes outside of the Green Zone in an unarmored Humvee while the video of the suicide bomber in the Parliament building plays. He's finished as a serious candidate.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 4): anyway, i can't decide if i want to attempt to get drunk before the event or during.

Just order Brandy Alexander's for the entire table, and when they all look at you kind of strangely once the drinks arrive, just say, "oh, did you want something else?", then line the glasses up in front of you and have at it.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 18): they haven't gotten into specifics such as Obama vs. Giuliani, Obama vs. Romney, Brownback vs. Dodd, etc. this year there are too many candidates to get into it. the CNN poll doesn't discuss Giuliani vs. Clinton in the race ... just the path to the nomination. the Rasmussen takes to the Giuliani nomination right after he announced and was getting support and momentum. for now it's fluff and won't be put down into point-counterpoint punch discussion by anybody until we get through the August straw polls. except yourself, of course.

Factual, unbiased, and sets the record straight. Kudos.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 24): Factual, unbiased, and sets the record straight. Kudos.

it's true. the Rasmussen poll came out RIGHT after Giuliani announced his nomination. of course he was America's mayor so people were all moist at the thought of having Rudy back in their lives.

now that he's a few months out, the steam is dying off and what he's losing is essentially going straight to Fred Thompson.

it seems to be that there is this magical 5% that keeps going ... first it was swimming in McCain's favor before he announced, then it was swimming towards Giuliani, now it's making it's way to Fred Thompson who has yet to announce anything.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 18): they haven't gotten into specifics such as Obama vs. Giuliani, Obama vs. Romney, Brownback vs. Dodd, etc. this year there are too many candidates to get into it.

Actually Time and the LA Times did national polls that ended last week comparing the top three Dem and Rep candidates head to head. It's clear that Obama is the strongest candidate for the Dems and Rudy for the Repubs.

I've found realclearpolitics.com to be a great tool for keeping up with polls, they stay amazingly up to date. Beyond that use though, the site is best used as a sedative.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 24): Just order Brandy Alexander's for the entire table, and when they all look at you kind of strangely once the drinks arrive, just say, "oh, did you want something else?", then line the glasses up in front of you and have at it.

I think I speak for the peanut gallery when I say "We want video!"

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 26): It's clear that Obama is the strongest candidate for the Dems and Rudy for the Repubs

it's nothing new. it comes right on the heels of the finance reports. it'll change by Monday as there's no real consistency.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 26): the site is best used as a sedative.

sometimes it's hard to sleep at night so i log on... ;p

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 26): It's clear that Obama is the strongest candidate for the Dems and Rudy for the Repubs.

And the results are Giuliani slightly ahead of Clinton, McCain and Clinton in a virtual dead heat, Guiliani slightly ahead of Obama (very slightly), Obama ahead of McCain (by 5-8 points), McCain and Edwards in a virtual dead heat, Clinton with a strong lead over Romney, and Edwards with an even greater lead over Romney.

While interesting, it doesn't really tell us that much other than Romney isn't faring well against the front-runners on the Democratic side, and Obama does slightly better against McCain than the other Demos.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 26): "We want video!"

$19.95 plus S&H can get you almost anything these days.  

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): Plus, he has Non-Hodkin's Lymphoma. And, despite his assurance that he's doing well, would many Americans vote for a many who does have cancer? Besides Thompson, you can add McCain and Rudy to that list. [quote=AeroWesty,reply=24]Here's my problem with McCain, even though I've liked the guy over the years, and think he's been the victim of having less than spectacular advisors around him. If he's a war hero, and been over to Iraq a number of times, how in the HELL can he pull such nonsense out of his ass about what's going on over there. Putting him in the WH will only further insulate him from reality.

I agree with your comments, but I wonder why the press continues to play McCain as a war hero? Including the plane in which he was shot down, he crashed two others. His military career was under the radar, until he was captured. I had an instructor in my graduate program (also was a Republican State Senator) who was held in the Hanoi Hilton for 7 plus years, and quite frankly he didn't have much good to say about him especially about his time at the Hilton.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 20): But it is scary that a fifth of Democrats would put their party ahead of the good of the country.

That's not at all what those statistics mean. I'd rather have Kucinich as president than Clinton or Obama, but I'd rather have Clinton or Obama than any of the Republican candidates. So if I vote for Clinton or Obama in the primary, it would be because I want someone whose views are at least pretty close to mine as president (since Kucinich has next to no chance of winning), not because they are Dems.

And as far as Romney goes - as Jon Stewart pointed out, he's a patrician flip-flopper from New England. I think that model has been tried before, and we all know how well that turned out.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 28): While interesting, it doesn't really tell us that much other than Romney isn't faring well against the front-runners on the Democratic side, and Obama does slightly better against McCain than the other Demos.

Well, that's a good question to ask them when I see all of the G-O-P candidates in another hour.

I'll be back later to interrupt the Limbaugh re-run.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 29): His military career was under the radar, until he was captured. I had an instructor in my graduate program (also was a Republican State Senator) who was held in the Hanoi Hilton for 7 plus years, and quite frankly he didn't have much good to say about him especially about his time at the Hilton.

Interesting. All accounts have glorified McCain's service to his country, and while I'm not one to be in a position to criticize his sacrifice, this makes me wonder if there's more to the story. He could end up being just as vulnerable as Kerry was to swift-boating when it comes down to the nitty-gritty.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 31): Well, that's a good question to ask them when I see all of the G-O-P candidates in another hour.

Don't forget the Brandy Alexanders!

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 30): And as far as Romney goes - as Jon Stewart pointed out, he's a patrician flip-flopper from New England. I think that model has been tried before, and we all know how well that turned out.

Just for you:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):3. Newt Gingrich. Maybe the smartest of the candidate, insofar his knowledge of government and both domestic and foreign policy. And the most frighteneing. Won't get the nod from GOP.

Gingrich will be the first "big name" republican to bow out.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):2. Rudy Giuliani. He's a favorite of some in the GOP, Great out of the box, can't hang in the long run IMO. Mixed feelings about Uncle Rudy. I think he could hang once elected, but I'd be concerned about some of his policies . . . guns for example (naturally)

Guiliani will be the GOP nominee unless something comes up from his past or a new "unknown" steals the show.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):4. Mitt Romney. Maybe the most viable candidate out there for the GOP. John Kerry's Republican Flip Flop counterpart. He's saying whatever need be said to get the nod.

Not only is he a flip flopper, his Mormon beliefs will cost him. This isn't a knock on the Mormon Church, it's more a comment on the fact that I believe that the electorate is tired of strident religious beliefs, and Mormons are regarded as pretty devout.

Look at it this way - Rudy has been divorced how many times, and he's a leading candidate.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):5. Fred Dalton Thompson. Hasn't actually entered the race yet. Met him before, big guy - hands like catchers mitts. Decent fellow too. Don't think he'll enter the race. Just testing the waters. Not enough support. Although he'd carry Tennessee

  

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):1. John McCain. Still gonna get my vote, unless something truly bizarre occurs. Don't like some of the crap he's done of late, but then, if I did I'd be a Neo-Con kiss ass . . . that I'm not.

McCain is having fund raising problems. Not sure he's going to make it this time either.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5): Quoting B777-700 (Reply 1):I don't see any of them beating any of the Dems "big three". I disagree. National polls have Rudy in first place well above Hillary and miles over Obama. This has been pretty consistent. But, as the media is always quick to point out whenever that poll is trotted out, Rudy has to win the primaries, to meet Hillary or Obama.

It's WAY too early to tell who will beat who.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 15): Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 13):She wouldn't want undecideds to be reminded that Bill might be back in the White House undecideds liked Clinton.

undecideds like BILL Clinton. Hillary is a different matter.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 32): He could end up being just as vulnerable as Kerry was to swift-boating when it comes down to the nitty-gritty.

No chance. You can't even compare the two. There is no comparison. None. Zero.

Kerry's service - the few months he spent in Vietnam - cannot even compare, in the most remotest sense to the years McCain spent in combat and as a prisoner. There's no disputing his wounds - way too much video footage (courtesy of the NVA).

Show some footage of Sen. Kerry in combat? Hell show me ANYTHING about Kerry in Vietnam except his Purple Heart citations?

Simply no "Swift Boating" to be done where John McCain is concerned.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 35): Kerry's service - the few months he spent in Vietnam - cannot even compare, in the most remotest sense to the years McCain spent in combat and as a prisoner. There's no disputing his wounds - way too much video footage (courtesy of the NVA).

AirCop's comment that I was responding to was that McCain's performance had been under review. While there's no question as to the combat experience between the two, my point was that if these allegations are true, it could leave McCain vulnerable. Politicking is nasty business. I wouldn't put it past other candidates, even within his own party, to capitalize upon any weakness they saw for any purpose.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 9): What might slow him down, particularly if Clinton wins the nod for the communists

   Cheap insult. Always a sign of someone who is a clueless patrisan hack.

Quoting B777-700 (Reply 37): Always a sign of someone who is a clueless patrisan hack.

I would like to ask that we keep this conversation civil. Calling someone a "clueless partisan hack" doesn't advance or contribute to the discussion, and leaves other readers believing that the poster has resorted to cheap insults against other members absent something intelligent to say.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 38): and leaves other readers believing that the poster has resorted to cheap insults against other members absent something intelligent to say.

Absolutely, it is a way to minimize a comment made by somebody else, when you have no decent counterarguement.

But the fact is that I have no reason to support somebody who would destroy a good health care system in the name of nationalization.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 39): But the fact is that I have no reason to support somebody who would destroy a good health care system in the name of nationalization.

Thank you for clarifying your position. That could have been stated early on in this thread, without making cheap generalizations of your own.

Fred Thompson and Tommy Thompson as VP.
That way they can be called the 'Thompson Twins'  

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41): That way they can be called the 'Thompson Twins'

Ha Ha Ha.

They could use an AC/DC song for their campaign theme

T&T-They're dynamite

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 36): AirCop's comment that I was responding to was that McCain's performance had been under review. While there's no question as to the combat experience between the two, my point was that if these allegations are true, it could leave McCain vulnerable. Politicking is nasty business. I wouldn't put it past other candidates, even within his own party, to capitalize upon any weakness they saw for any purpose.

   Understood.

Rather like BUsh did to McCain back when . . . .

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41): That way they can be called the 'Thompson Twins'

T-N-T . . .   

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 43): T-N-T . . .

You got to admit that it will appeal to younger voters....

Rock the vote my arse!!!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41): That way they can be called the 'Thompson Twins'

That ticket would be about as appealing as that drivel they called "music."  

Quoting L-188 (Reply 42): T&T-They're dynamite

More like that big Thompson Twins hit 'Lies, Lies Lies".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x3TMBeX-ws

The President came to Yuma, Arizona last week for a follow-up of visit one year ago. Subject was the Border Security and Immigration. Who was missing in action: Senator John McCain. Our other Republican Senator (Kyl) was there, as was both Republican and Democratic Congressmen and State Officials..Of course McCain switch from R-AZ, to R-Media back in 2000. Not appearing with the President in a "red"state is not helpful to his chances, and with the large Mormon population, McCain might not even win the Republican primary here.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 32): All accounts have glorified McCain's service to his country, and while I'm not one to be in a position to criticize his sacrifice, this makes me wonder if there's more to the story. He could end up being just as vulnerable as Kerry was to swift-boating when it comes down to the nitty-gritty.

There isn't much of McCain's story to glorify.

His plane was responsible for the Forrestal fire. He was badly burned himself when Zuni rockets misfired and hit his plane. I think, but I'd have to verify, that it was his first cruise, so he was pretty green.

He was taken State-side to recover from his burns. When he did recover he was excused from returning to Vietnam. He volunteered to return and was shot down on his first combat sortie back in Vietnam. Then the 5 and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton.

Counting the plane he crashed in training, he lost three planes, someone could say he was a bad pilot, or at least unlucky, but "Swift-Boating" him would be difficult, since what he was involved in was investigated to nth degree especially the Forrestal incident.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41): Fred Thompson and Tommy Thompson as VP. That way they can be called the 'Thompson Twins'

But the Thompson Twins where a trio!

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 48): His plane was responsible for the Forrestal fire. He was badly burned himself when Zuni rockets misfired and hit his plane. I think, but I'd have to verify, that it was his first cruise, so he was pretty green

I can't go that far. The rocket came off an F-4 on the opposite side of the deck. His plane was just spotted in an unfortunate place and loaded with 25 year old WWII surplus bombs.