Rudy is trending downward in the polls, because the more exposure he gets, the less Republicans like him.
Thompson is a one-term Senator, career lobbyist, Hollywood actor and self-confessed pussy hound. He doesn’t appear to be doing or saying anything notable to distinguish himself, but he’s holding his own, possibly trending slightly upwards, possibly by default. He’s been courting the voters that run from Rudy, such as conservative firefighters.
McCain has embraced Bush’s war, but oddly can’t seem to get much support from the Bush die-hards. He’s the oldest candidate, he’s broke already, and his campaign staff is in crisis.
Multiple-Choice Mitt, he’s spent the most money campaigning but he’s still in 5th place.
The primaries begin when…? Six months from now? and a quarter of GOP voters can’t find a candidate that they like.
And the democrats have who? Hillary? Wow, the republicans must be fucking jealous. Good Lord, get over yourself. The choices for the 2008 elections are as follows: bad, no good, idiotic, worse, horrible, flat fucking evil, etc. I am going to vote for the least bad of the group. The dumbocrats have no one either, nimrod. They all suck. It’s like gloating to a chicken that you have an egg.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m curious, how does a republican determine that the democrats are fielding poor candidates?
Similarly, how does a democrat determine that the republicans are fielding poor candidates?
Won’t ones own viewpoint automatically make the other teams candidates suck in todays polarized political environment?[/quote]
I am independent but I will vote Republican in this election barring something major.
That is a good point but I have enough objectivity to decide if a candidate sucks or voice a preference.
I think Hillary would be a better president than Obama. There, I said it. Hillary is the lesser of evils in the Democrat field and she has so much baggage that makes her undesireable.
I took polls with a grain of salt until those ridiculous exit polls in 2004 (“Kerry 58%, Bush 29%!”). That proved to be the nail in the coffin for polls, to me at least.
I don’t think Hillary has a snowball’s chance of winning a nation-wide election, yet the polls continue to claim that she is in the lead over everybody.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I wipe my ass with polls.
I took polls with a grain of salt until those ridiculous exit polls in 2004 (“Kerry 58%, Bush 29%!”). That proved to be the nail in the coffin for polls, to me at least.
I don’t think Hillary has a snowball’s chance of winning a nation-wide election, yet the polls continue to claim that she is in the lead over everybody.[/quote]
Another problem with polls is they don’t always reflect the way an electoral map would shake out in the general election. Can Hillary grab any of the swing states, for example, in a general election, knowing she would likely take the True Blue states?
I also suspect the GOP poll will change when Thompson formally announces. May or may not be much, but a formal announcement will grab a few unhappy or unfamiliar GOPers into his camp.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think this shows that many Democrats have their heads up their asses more so than Republicans.
At least Republicans admit their candidates are less than stellar.
The Dems are putting up a very poor crop of candidates and the Democrats are falling all over themselves to give them money.
They all suck. At least the Republicans seem to admit it.
[/quote]
Clinton and Obama are excellent candidates…to democrats. Both have a lot of star power and generally favorable record for those on the democrat side. Even John Edwards is a good candidate, though being on a losing ticket last year hurts him. I don’t see how you can claim to be objective and yet say that the Democrats have a poor crop of candidates this cycle.
Those three candidates all have the democratic base pretty fired up and are all capable of winning a national election. I think that’s a far more objective reading of this poll than “half the population has their heads up their asses and don’t realize their candidates are bad”.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think this shows that many Democrats have their heads up their asses more so than Republicans.
At least Republicans admit their candidates are less than stellar.
The Dems are putting up a very poor crop of candidates and the Democrats are falling all over themselves to give them money.
They all suck. At least the Republicans seem to admit it.
Clinton and Obama are excellent candidates…to democrats. Both have a lot of star power and generally favorable record for those on the democrat side. Even John Edwards is a good candidate, though being on a losing ticket last year hurts him. I don’t see how you can claim to be objective and yet say that the Democrats have a poor crop of candidates this cycle.
Those three candidates all have the democratic base pretty fired up and are all capable of winning a national election. I think that’s a far more objective reading of this poll than “half the population has their heads up their asses and don’t realize their candidates are bad”.[/quote]
All three would make horrible presidents. They may win a popularity contest with half the country but that doesn’t mean they will make good presidents.
The republican candidates are quite the opposite. They will not win any popularity contests with their party base but the fact that they are moderate in many of their stances leads me to believe that a few of them might be able to do the job.
On the democratic side Hillary is doing a good job portraying herself as a moderate and that makes her th emost palatable of that bunch.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
One more thing to add to the discussion: I’m reading that obama and edwards are now promising to fund abortions.[/quote]
No Jeffy, they promise to EAT abortions. They eat dead fetuses! They can’t help themselves, they’re liberals! Other than that, another excellent point as ususal.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
All three would make horrible presidents. They may win a popularity contest with half the country but that doesn’t mean they will make good presidents.
The republican candidates are quite the opposite. They will not win any popularity contests with their party base but the fact that they are moderate in many of their stances leads me to believe that a few of them might be able to do the job. [/quote]
Ah, that must be the “objectivity” that you’ve been bragging about. LOL. Nice!!!
Many of the responses have been hilarious, and exactly what I expected. Thanks!
By the way, there is a corresponding poll for Democrats. Their satisfaction with their crop of 2008 candidates is much higher than their Republican counterparts. If the country is really trending conservative (a claim I see tossed around here all the time) how come you guys can’t find a candidate that you like? Maybe Fred Thompson will fit the bill, if he can do a convincing impression of Ronald Reagan?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
One more thing to add to the discussion: I’m reading that obama and edwards are now promising to fund abortions.
No Jeffy, they promise to EAT abortions. They eat dead fetuses! They can’t help themselves, they’re liberals! Other than that, another excellent point as ususal.
[/quote]
Glad you can make light of abortions(aka. murder)using tax payer money. Funny stuff, haha.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
One more thing to add to the discussion: I’m reading that obama and edwards are now promising to fund abortions.
No Jeffy, they promise to EAT abortions. They eat dead fetuses! They can’t help themselves, they’re liberals! Other than that, another excellent point as ususal.
Glad you can make light of abortions(aka. murder)using tax payer money. Funny stuff, haha.
[/quote]
I’ve decided that the best phrase to use in conversation to make things uncomfortable is “…yeah, but thats like calling abortion murder…”.
[quote]bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
One more thing to add to the discussion: I’m reading that obama and edwards are now promising to fund abortions.
No Jeffy, they promise to EAT abortions. They eat dead fetuses! They can’t help themselves, they’re liberals! Other than that, another excellent point as ususal.[/quote]
Hello, bradley.
That wasn’t remotely funny. In fact, that was horrible.
Again, do you care to argue my point?
I know, it was the truth so it’s time for a bradley deflection.
I’ll reiterate: dems promising to fund abortions will get all Right Wing Conservatives to the polls.
No Jeffy, they promise to EAT abortions. They eat dead fetuses! They can’t help themselves, they’re liberals! Other than that, another excellent point as ususal.
[/quote]
I don’t think the government should be funding abortions. While I feel that a woman has the right to one if she so chooses, its not something that she deserves financial aid for.
Why not taking that potential money, and you know, teach SAFE SEX.
Maybe get to the issue at the source.
Or we can start blaming the immigration problem and lack of military recruits on abortion…
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Glad you can make light of abortions(aka. murder)using tax payer money. Funny stuff, haha.
[/quote]
Well actually I was making fun of Jeff’s irresponsible drive-by comment. (Jeff, I’m hearing Rudy has breast implants. What are you hearing on that?) And speaking of Rudy, he was for government-funded abortions when he was Mayor. It’s not an irresponsible position to take.
Somtimes women get pregnant, who are completely unable to provide for a child. Abortions are not that expensive. If a woman can’t afford to pay for her own abortion, there is absolutely no way she can afford to raise the child, either. So maybe the govenment should help pay, for women in that position. Or maybe abortions are only okay for rich girls?
And if abortion is “murder” should any woman who had an abortion get a life sentence in prison? Tell me, which kooky Republican presidential candidates want to imprison women who had abortions? Premeditated murder, so that would mean a life sentence, I suppose? Which candidates are for locking women up? Maybe Sam Brownback? None of the Above? LOL