Dem Nominee: A Perfect Mess

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
As I mentioned in another thread, Obama has nothing to run on.

Hellary is just a pain in the a$$ that will get pounded by McCain.

Now we need to focus as much attention on getting the right people in the Senate. I believe their current satisfaction ratings are worse than President Bush’s, but you don’t hear headlines about that every day.

Exactly. I do not like any presidential candidates but we need good congressmen and senators to keep whoever gets elected in line.

Negative because they haven’t ended the war, which would require more and better dems. [/quote]

Most people don’t have the stomach for doing what is right. Nobody likes war, but it seems that it takes Republicans to do the right thing.

It always perplexes me how the Dems take credit for the hard work that the Republican party does. How is it that the Republican party fought for years for Civil Rights, but the Dems lay claim to being the “Civil Rights” party?

War is a tough road to travel in liberty of a nation or group of people, but the Republican party fights on for what is right rather than what is popular. http://www.ccrgop.org/CivilRights.htm

In 10 to 20 years, you will start to see a shift in the Democratic party about how THEY were the brains behind the Iraq liberation.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
pat wrote:
Hell, it looks like if McCain can keep from getting caught in any lies, he might be a shoe in. That would be weird…I was pretty much resolved the the fact that we were going to have a democrat in the oval office.

As I look at the mess that the democrats have made of their primary process I try to think how they can salvage a victory. And…it can be done, here’s how:

  1. Allow Mich. and Fla. to revote so that they are not alienated in the general election.

  2. Whichever candidate ultimately wins the primary MUST choose the loser as his or her VP. That way the losing candidate’s supporters will not feel disenfranchised. Of course I’m not sure that either will be in the mood to run as VP after such a bloody fight.

And for icing on the cake for the dems…

  1. The economy continues to tank and the war in Iraq actually gets worse

If the above three things happen McCain will most certainly lose. If one and two occur he will probably lose as well.

Either one is beating him now. You don’t need any of the 3.

It’s actually close right now, which it shouldn’t be. But my predictions are based on Hillary and Obama continuing their nasty fight into the democratic convention. If this happens you will be seeing a President McCain unless the above two or three things occur.
[/quote]

Mick ~ It doesn’t matter if they keep fighting or not. There is no way either one of them will be elected. Just ask Karl Rove (ha!).

There likely won’t be a revote, but the Dem chair has indicated that they would consider the delegates. This is great and will take infighting to a new level. As for the VP; two wrongs don’t make a right. And, finally, if the economy continues to go toward recession, then the last thing Americans want to see is a bunch of crap about tax and spend for a broken-before-it-ever-began Hellary Health Care program.

McCain hasn’t even begun unloading the arsenal he has against these two. It’s really should be fun for him. Considering that Realpolitics.com has the poll averages and McCain has the current advantage in the general election (tied w/Hellary), I’m not sure where 100meters is getting that either one is beating him now? On what measure?

Ha! Check this out… DNC stance surprises campaigns - POLITICO

More confusion and more infighting…

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Ha! Check this out… DNC stance surprises campaigns - POLITICO

More confusion and more infighting…[/quote]

You have to give them one thing. Nobody loses like them.

To lose even if your opponent lies on the floor, begging you to finish him, takes more than just incompetence, it is almost zen like.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

I’d like to believe you but better judgment tells me otherwise. If Hillary is the nominee and Obama takes the VP slot that will galvanize the democrats against McCain. With that said, do I think that this will happen? No. The reason is that Obama is smart enough to realize that Hillary will have an uphill battle without him and he is young enough to wait four more years. Smart move on his part, I think.

Will Hillary take the second slot on the ticket? No, I highly doubt it. The Clintons are …well they’re different. I think the Clinton machine would sit out the election…not help Obama and in fact could attempt to sabotage his chances.

While Hillary is 60 she may have illusions of running four years later should Obama be defeated. And if you don’t think that a sitting Senator can’t help defeat someone in their own party think again. To this day Jimmy Carter blames his 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan on Ted Kennedy who tore the party in half attempting to wrestle the nomination away from Carter. When it was apparent that Carter would be the nominee Kennedy sat on his hands during the election and in fact there are stories of him actually working against Carter in subtle ways.

There is a very good chance right now that we’ll see a President McCain, but don’t bet the farm just yet.

[/quote]

Hell, the family farm is worthless these days, but I still won’t be betting on anything. [I won’t go into how the government has setup small farmers to flat out fail.] I’m just having fun here, and I think McCain is currently in a great position if these Dems keep screwing around. A few months ago, I was certain we’d have a Dem in the Oval Office. Now, I’m delighted to believe that we will have a Republican in office to finish (and improve) what Bush has started, while also controlling the other elected, limp state officials.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

This effect doesn’t show up in the straight-up polls yet:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/poll-democrats-might-vote-mccain-if-their-candidate-isnt-the-nominee/

If it holds at even half that level, the Dems will be hosed.

100meters wrote:
yes, and clinton and rudy are our likely nominees.

Yeah, except now you’re only a few months away from crunch time, as opposed to a year ahead of the primaries. Not a lot of time to heal those wounds…

ADDENDUM: BTW, you’re pretty confident in those wash polls for someone who thinks it’s too far out…[/quote]

Of course it was only months ago that as I said, Clinton and Rudy were our “likely nominees”. By large margins. (that was my point)

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
As I mentioned in another thread, Obama has nothing to run on.

Hellary is just a pain in the a$$ that will get pounded by McCain.

Now we need to focus as much attention on getting the right people in the Senate. I believe their current satisfaction ratings are worse than President Bush’s, but you don’t hear headlines about that every day.

Exactly. I do not like any presidential candidates but we need good congressmen and senators to keep whoever gets elected in line.

Negative because they haven’t ended the war, which would require more and better dems.

Most people don’t have the stomach for doing what is right. Nobody likes war, but it seems that it takes Republicans to do the right thing.

It always perplexes me how the Dems take credit for the hard work that the Republican party does. How is it that the Republican party fought for years for Civil Rights, but the Dems lay claim to being the “Civil Rights” party?

War is a tough road to travel in liberty of a nation or group of people, but the Republican party fights on for what is right rather than what is popular. http://www.ccrgop.org/CivilRights.htm

In 10 to 20 years, you will start to see a shift in the Democratic party about how THEY were the brains behind the Iraq liberation.[/quote]

Have you noticed any trend in the states that are mostly red and the states that are mostly blue and how they might relate to those fights for civil rights?

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Now, I’m delighted to believe that we will have a Republican in office to finish (and improve) what Bush has started, while also controlling the other elected, limp state officials.[/quote]

Ha…yeah, I am sure that’s how it’s going to go.

The fact of the matter is people voting in the Dem primaries are going to vote for a Dem…no matter who it is. Those that are sick of Bush and all of his Neocon Spawn are going to vote Dem.

There will not be another Republican in the White House for a very long time.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The fact of the matter is people voting in the Dem primaries are going to vote for a Dem…no matter who it is. Those that are sick of Bush and all of his Neocon Spawn are going to vote Dem.

There will not be another Republican in the White House for a very long time.[/quote]

I respect your opinion, but I hope you’re wrong. God help us all if you’re not.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Then again you thought Ron Paul was going to take the world by storm…so…
[/quote]

And he did, just not the neocons…go figure. Hey, the convention is still going to happen and I am hopeful.

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The fact of the matter is people voting in the Dem primaries are going to vote for a Dem…no matter who it is. Those that are sick of Bush and all of his Neocon Spawn are going to vote Dem.

There will not be another Republican in the White House for a very long time.

I respect your opinion, but I hope you’re wrong. God help us all if you’re not.[/quote]

What improvement would you fear? I mean nothing has gone that well the last 7 and a half years either economically or on the foreign policy side of things. Obama certaily would be better on both accounts, and really only somebody like McCain could be any worse.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There will not be another Republican in the White House for a very long time.[/quote]

I don’t know. If Obama wins, he will be another Jimmy Carter. A Weak President, national malase, 4 and out. Then hopefully replaced in 2012 by a far better offering than we’ve had in decades.

[quote]100meters wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The fact of the matter is people voting in the Dem primaries are going to vote for a Dem…no matter who it is. Those that are sick of Bush and all of his Neocon Spawn are going to vote Dem.

There will not be another Republican in the White House for a very long time.

I respect your opinion, but I hope you’re wrong. God help us all if you’re not.

What improvement would you fear? I mean nothing has gone that well the last 7 and a half years either economically or on the foreign policy side of things. Obama certaily would be better on both accounts, and really only somebody like McCain could be any worse.
[/quote]

In my opinion, things have gone quite well; especially considering what our country has faced and had to clean up after the last Clinton was in office. Billy screwed things up so bad that we’ve had to spend the last 7 1/2 years cleaning up the messes he’s made. In addition to cleaning up his messes, I’m damn happy about the latest Supreme Court picks, I’m on board with establishing a democracy in Iraq, I sure did like the tax cuts I received and the LOW interest rate I secured on my home mortgage. My salary has doubled in the last 7 1/2 years, my 401 is doing well, I feel like the government has gotten off their bloated a$$es and addressed security at home and abroad, and I could go on and on. Also, I’m no blue blood, that’s coming from a kid that grew up in a poverty level income home.

What has not gone well exactly? How are YOU doing these days? For that matter, how is everyone on this forum doing? I assume that if we’re wasting our time on a forum like this, we probably have a computer, a job, a roof, food, and a whole lot of other “stuff” that we don’t need but have been able to afford with our good wealth (or your parents’ ~ sorry, don’t know everyone here).

On foreign policy; what’s wrong with having some nads and not just sitting back and taking all the fluff and BS? What is wrong with standing up for the little guy? It’s a damn shame what some of these other countries have done, so what’s wrong with standing up to them and calling it like it is? Dems just blow hot air, while in them meantime, our enemies plot for years to fly planes into buildings.

What is Obama going to do? What experience, scratch that, what SUCCESSES has he had economically or with foreign policy? Send us the list and I’ll take a hard look at it and give him consideration.

[quote]100meters wrote:

What improvement would you fear? I mean nothing has gone that well the last 7 and a half years either economically or on the foreign policy side of things. Obama certaily would be better on both accounts, and really only somebody like McCain could be any worse.
[/quote]

Nothing like an overstated case. The FP will be improved under McCain - and Bush hasn’t been a failure in that area (Note: I refuse to get into another thread rehashing the last 5 years of threads on Iraq, so that’s all I’m saying on that for now); and the economy hasn’t been bad at all: http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php

At any rate, McCain is the best option - but the beauty of it is, he’s not even going to need to convince the majority of that fact, because Hillary and Obama are going to cause the Great Schism 2008. Thunder was right above - if we can avoid a meltdown in Iraq, or on the economy (where the electorate irrationally credits or blames the president), McCain will be in a very good position.

President McCain - sounds more likely all the time…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Nothing like an overstated case. The FP will be improved under McCain - and Bush hasn’t been a failure in that area (Note: I refuse to get into another thread rehashing the last 5 years of threads on Iraq, so that’s all I’m saying on that for now); and the economy hasn’t been bad at all: http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php

President McCain - sounds more likely all the time…[/quote]

That site is very informative. Thanks for the post.

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
In my opinion, things have gone quite well; especially considering what our country has faced and had to clean up after the last Clinton was in office. Billy screwed things up so bad that we’ve had to spend the last 7 1/2 years cleaning up the messes he’s made. In addition to cleaning up his messes, I’m damn happy about the latest Supreme Court picks, I’m on board with establishing a democracy in Iraq, I sure did like the tax cuts I received and the LOW interest rate I secured on my home mortgage. My salary has doubled in the last 7 1/2 years, my 401 is doing well, I feel like the government has gotten off their bloated a$$es and addressed security at home and abroad, and I could go on and on. Also, I’m no blue blood, that’s coming from a kid that grew up in a poverty level income home.
[/quote]

I’m doing great, gotta house (with a nice chunk of equity), gotta truck, gotta a nice start on retirement, gotta job, and even have a decent savings account. My biggest complaint is that Bush just wasn’t able to get it done with regards to Social Security. Not entirely his fault, but as President it falls back to him. The chances for privatization are now becoming very slim.

The one thing I do disagree with you on is the LOW interest rate on your mortgage. Based on your caps, I’m assuming this is very low. This is more thanks to Greenspan than Bush, it was him keeping the fed rates so low that created the opportunity for banks to give such a low rate. It may seem good for you in the shortrun individually, as obviously your mortgage payment is now lower. On the downside, it created artificially high home prices throughout the country, leading to the current real estate bust and credit crunch, which is obviously bad for the economy as a whole.

“Politicians are expert manipulators, and manipulation works best when people don’t think they are being manipulated. That’s Obama’s biggest talent – to make the suckered masses feel good while playing on them like an old banjo. So far there’s no there there at all – no substantive ideas that make Mr. Obama any more interesting than the standard-issue ultraliberal Democrat. Oh yes, there’s the color of his skin. Big deal.”