http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews…=rss&rpc=22
Here’s hoping it stays this way…otherwise, I won’t have anyone to vote for.
I think it will be Rudy on the Republican side in 2008. We almost don’t have to wait for the primaries, because once candidates reach a certain tipping point in public perception, the money will flow their way and that will be that. It used to be that the party conventions actually chose candidates, then they became rubber stamps for primary elections, which became rubber stamps for a handful of early voting states, and now the whole primary process has been replaced with the money chase, which will follow the snowballing of public opinion in each party’s ideological base. Thanks to the Internet and 24/7 news cycle, the whole thing is all but sewn up within a few weeks of starting. It’s amazing.
One thing I don’t quite understand is why candidates wait so long to choose their vice presidential candidates. Maybe this time, with things being effectively decided so early, we’ll actually see pairings taking place this year, instead of 2008.
I think it will be Rudy on the Republican side in 2008. We almost don’t have to wait for the primaries, because once candidates reach a certain tipping point in public perception, the money will flow their way and that will be that. It used to be that the party conventions actually chose candidates, then they became rubber stamps for primary elections, which became rubber stamps for a handful of early voting states, and now the whole primary process has been replaced with the money chase, which will follow the snowballing of public opinion in each party’s ideological base. Thanks to the Internet and 24/7 news cycle, the whole thing is all but sewn up within a few weeks of starting. It’s amazing.
One thing I don’t quite understand is why candidates wait so long to choose their vice presidential candidates. Maybe this time, with things being effectively decided so early, we’ll actually see pairings taking place this year, instead of 2008.
My political science professor claims that Rudy won’t win the primary, because the people who go to the republican primaries are more conservative, and Rudy is gay-friendly, which they won’t like. Therefore, McCain will win the primary. Let us hope he is wrong.
Thanks to the Internet and 24/7 news cycle, the whole thing is all but sewn up within a few weeks of starting. It’s amazing.
Ohh, I wouldn’t say that. Remember how in 2004 everybody thought the Democratic candidate was going to be Howard Dean? He seemed to have it sewn up… and then it turned out to be John Kerry. People were like: who’s John Kerry? Then everything shifted, and Kerry came out in front because he was perceived to be “safer” whereas Dean was radical.
I’m not sure the same thing will happen here, but it is possible.
Ohh, I wouldn’t say that. Remember how in 2004 everybody thought the Democratic candidate was going to be Howard Dean? He seemed to have it sewn up… and then it turned out to be John Kerry. People were like: who’s John Kerry? Then everything shifted, and Kerry came out in front because he was perceived to be “safer” whereas Dean was radical.
I’m not sure the same thing will happen here, but it is possible.
Beat me to it. Howard Dean was picked to win the whole thing until Kerry pulled ahead in the Iowa polls about a week before the caucus. The “I have a scream” speech (which is the sound my computer plays when I log off of windows) was just the nail in the coffin.
My political science professor claims that Rudy won’t win the primary, because the people who go to the republican primaries are more conservative, and Rudy is gay-friendly, which they won’t like. Therefore, McCain will win the primary. Let us hope he is wrong.
He’s also ahead of him in a poll of conservatives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070303/ap_on_…ives_notebook_1
Granted, that has Romney leading the pack, which I don’t find particularly likely. Don’t forget that McCain will also have problems with conservatives. I’ve long held that McCain would fit better with the Democrats than he does with the Republicans. There’s also McCain’s age…he’s 70. That’s older than Reagan was when he ran. You may say that doesn’t matter and, if so, I think you need to have a little talk with Bob Dole.
Ohh, I wouldn’t say that. Remember how in 2004 everybody thought the Democratic candidate was going to be Howard Dean? He seemed to have it sewn up… and then it turned out to be John Kerry. People were like: who’s John Kerry? Then everything shifted, and Kerry came out in front because he was perceived to be “safer” whereas Dean was radical.
I’m not sure the same thing will happen here, but it is possible.
I agree. John McCain was also seen as the early front runner for the Republican primary in 2000 as well. We all remember what happened then.
I think that this it is too early to be able to accurately predict this Republican primary.
I presently think supporting Rudy Giuliani over the other candidates is one of the best ways to split the religious right away from the rest of the Republican party. Let’s hope that he continues to run a strong campaign.
My political science professor claims that Rudy won’t win the primary, because the people who go to the republican primaries are more conservative, and Rudy is gay-friendly, which they won’t like. Therefore, McCain will win the primary. Let us hope he is wrong.
I’ve heard more “Giuliani can’t win the nomination” remarks from the left than I have from the right. I think there are a couple of reasons for this. One is simple wishful thinking… the left knows that Giuliani would be a formidable candidate in the general election should he get the nomination. The other is that many on the left simply don’t understand the real makeup of the right. They equate it with religious social conservatism, and if that were true they’d be right. Giuliani wouldn’t have a chance. But in actuality the makeup of the right is more complex than that, which means Giuliani has a real shot.
It’s worth noting that Romney only beat Giuliani by 4 points in the recent CPAC straw poll of conservative activists, and that was after a huge amount of organization by Romney’s campaign and none by Giuliani’s. It’s obviously still very early, and a great deal can change, but I think it’s very possible that Giuliani will win the nomination.
At this point, I really hope he does. He looks like the best thing on offer. (He had a line in his CPAC speech I found very refreshing – he said, in the context of national security, “We don’t have to be ashamed for acting in our own interest.” Yes. Thank you.)
The “I have a scream” speech (which is the sound my computer plays when I log off of windows) was just the nail in (Howard Dean’s) coffin (in the 2004 Democratic primary race).
This never gets old. For example, enjoy this YTMND about Howard Dean TIE fighters “taking the White House”. I love the internet.
I still think that Howard Dean could have turned the scream to his advantage if he just kept on doing it at the end of and possibly the beginning of every speech. At first political pundits and voters alike would be confused and irritated. But then over time, the scream would endearingly grown on the general public like moss. Eventually, Howard Dean would have just walked on stage while an assembly of tens of thousands of registered voters would be enthusiastically doing their own version of the “Dean scream”. This would be analogous to how professional wrestlers like The Rock would eventually get entire stadiums attempting to mimic his catchphrases.
But no, Howard Dean mistook this opportunity as a mark of shame. Thus, was the sacrificing of what could have been one of the most electrifying displays of charisma ever to hit the Democratic primary.
I still think that Howard Dean could have turned the scream to his advantage if he just kept on doing it…
You may be right there. Objectively, the scream was perfectly fine. Nothing stupid or unpresidential about it at all. It was all about political pundits spin. A pretty sad tale of how Americans evaluate their presidential candidates. On the other hand, if it wasn’t the scream, it might have been something else that acted as a peg on which to hang a negative view. It’s like when an unpopular woman wears something unfashionable and is branded unfashionable, but if a fashion queen does, it becomes “oh! that’s back in fashion.” Bottom line: it’s not the dress, it’s her. In other words, it probably wasn’t the scream – the scream was just the rationalization. And that, is the really sad part.
I actually found it to be quite unpresidential. A president should be dignified. Imagine if Bush had screamed like that in his first 9/11 speech. It would have, justifiably IMO, made much of the world reconsider its support for the US government’s decision to invade Afghanistan. Such a speech would just make it look like he was happy to have an excuse to go kill the ragheads.
I presently think supporting Rudy Giuliani over the other candidates is one of the best ways to split the religious right away from the rest of the Republican party. Let’s hope that he continues to run a strong campaign.
I think that’s a great point–a victory for Giuliani would not merely be a victory for the next four years, but also a push in the right direction for the next eight and even twelve years.
I’ve heard more “Giuliani can’t win the nomination” remarks from the left than I have from the right. I think there are a couple of reasons for this. One is simple wishful thinking… the left knows that Giuliani would be a formidable candidate in the general election should he get the nomination. The other is that many on the left simply don’t understand the real makeup of the right. They equate it with religious social conservatism, and if that were true they’d be right. Giuliani wouldn’t have a chance. But in actuality the makeup of the right is more complex than that, which means Giuliani has a real shot.
I’ve even heard from one of the 24/7 news coverage channels that almost half of registered Republicans are pro-choice.
This never gets old. For example, enjoy this YTMND about Howard Dean TIE fighters “taking the White House”. I love the internet.
I still think that Howard Dean could have turned the scream to his advantage if he just kept on doing it at the end of and possibly the beginning of every speech. At first political pundits and voters alike would be confused and irritated. But then over time, the scream would endearingly grown on the general public like moss. Eventually, Howard Dean would have just walked on stage while an assembly of tens of thousands of registered voters would be enthusiastically doing their own version of the “Dean scream”. This would be analogous to how professional wrestlers like The Rock would eventually get entire stadiums attempting to mimic his catchphrases.
But no, Howard Dean mistook this opportunity as a mark of shame. Thus, was the sacrificing of what could have been one of the most electrifying displays of charisma ever to hit the Democratic primary.
I think it would be too easy–and accurate–to equate that with Hitler’s rhetoric.
I actually found it to be quite unpresidential. A president should be dignified. Imagine if Bush had screamed like that in his first 9/11 speech.
There’s a time and a place for solemnity and a time and a place for a rallying cry. In my opinion, all the hullaballoo about Dean’s rallying cry was pure spin.
On Guliani, an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal suggests that the Christian right will go along with him. In essence, when it comes down to it, the Christians are playing this game for long term stakes. They realize that the next president might well appoint two SCOTUS justices. If a Democrat president takes the White house, Roe v. Wade stays for quite some time. If Guliani appoints anti-abortion justices, then they’re in the same boat. This, then is Guliani’s trump card: promise the Christians that he’ll appoint judges who give them some hope that Roe v. Wade will be rolled back. (Caveat: That’s my paraphrase of the op-ed. All errors in paraphrase are mine.)
Strikes me like just the kind of thing a pragmatic fellow like Guliani can pull off. That way, he can promise not to do anything anti-abortion; heck, he can even promise to veto any bill that crosses his desk. And, if asked about Chief Justices, he can always say that he thinks textual-ism and original-ism is the conservative way. Of course, in doing this Guliani will do no more than Bush. The difference is that his appointees would tip the balance.
In summary: do not expect support for Guliani to split the GOP. With the right deals, and after weighing their alternatives, the Christians might well rally around him, and he might deliver on his side of the bargain.
There’s a time and a place for solemnity and a time and a place for a rallying cry. In my opinion, all the hullaballoo about Dean’s rallying cry was pure spin.
I’ll agree to that. But that won’t stop me from laughing at him.
On Guliani, an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal suggests that the Christian right will go along with him. In essence, when it comes down to it, the Christians are playing this game for long term stakes. They realize that the next president might well appoint two SCOTUS justices. If a Democrat president takes the White house, Roe v. Wade stays for quite some time. If Guliani appoints anti-abortion justices, then they’re in the same boat. This, then is Guliani’s trump card: promise the Christians that he’ll appoint judges who give them some hope that Roe v. Wade will be rolled back. (Caveat: That’s my paraphrase of the op-ed. All errors in paraphrase are mine.)
Strikes me like just the kind of thing a pragmatic fellow like Guliani can pull off. That way, he can promise not to do anything anti-abortion; heck, he can even promise to veto any bill that crosses his desk. And, if asked about Chief Justices, he can always say that he thinks textual-ism and original-ism is the conservative way. Of course, in doing this Guliani will do no more than Bush. The difference is that his appointees would tip the balance.
In summary: do not expect support for Guliani to split the GOP. With the right deals, and after weighing their alternatives, the Christians might well rally around him, and he might deliver on his side of the bargain.
Why do you say he’s a pragmatist? In the sense that all politicians are pragmatists, I suppose he is, but I don’t think he’s any worse than the others. I have a really hard time seeing the Christian right rallying around a man who is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.
And Christian wackos are not known for their ability to consider the long-term future. I mean, my God, they’ve been waiting for 2,000 years and still haven’t given up.
I actually found it to be quite unpresidential. A president should be dignified.
I did not perceive it as so inappropriate (although not the most dignified display) given the boisterous crowd that he was addressing. Those listening to the soundclip could not hear his audience because of his uni-directional microphone. This was no different than a crowd going wild at a football game, which is what politics essentially is for a lot of partisan voters.
Besides, President Bush’s verbal mishaps are not so dignified either. Although he has improved his public speaking over the past few years in office.
I think it would be too easy–and accurate–to equate that with Hitler’s rhetoric.
This statement does not make any sense to me. What do you mean?
I mean that a person whipping people up into screaming, impassioned, emotional chants is too reminiscent of Hitler’s demagoguery. It both looks bad and is bad. It is bad because, as a tactic, it shows that he can and will lead people by manipulation rather than rational argument.
I mean that a person whipping people up into screaming, impassioned, emotional chants is too reminiscent of Hitler’s demagoguery. It both looks bad and is bad. It is bad because, as a tactic, it shows that he can and will lead people by manipulation rather than rational argument.
I can see your point.
Of course, I envision Howard Dean’s hooting and hollering to be dramatically more lighthearted than the forceful gestures of the furer. But I was being facetitious anyway.
The “I have a scream” speech (which is the sound my computer plays when I log off of windows) was just the nail in the coffin.
And a pretty big nail it was, too.
I think Rudy could win the primaries if he focuses on how he would win the war in Iraq. Republicans do still want victory, as do a sizable number of Democrats. This tactic ought to work, in the primaries, for almost every Republican candidate.
McCain, now, I hope drops out quickly. The man favors way too much government intervention in every aspect of life, not just the economy. And the Democrats don’t hate him (yet). If they keep Congress, they’d be more inclined to support a president McCain <shudder>
The only Democrat I’d vote for would be Joe Lieberman, but he’s not going to run this year.
BTW, Robert Heinlein once said that while one may not want to vote for a candidate, surely there is a candidate one wants to vote against. Despite the implied cynicism, this puts into words how I feel about voting for the lesser evil, which in essence is a vote against the greater evil.
Ideally, I’d like nothing better than a gridlocked government. Had a democratic president rpesented a Republican Congress a plan like Bush’s prescription drug mess, it would have been killed, or severely reduced. As it was, the Republicans supported it and the Democrats wanted to supersize it.