Another Hypothetical 2008 Presidential Election Thread...

[Mike Smash!]

Yes, it's another one of these things. Since there are people already running for president, some who've hinted at it and others in exploratory committee mode, I thought it was time for another poll.

And for the hell of it, potential running mates.

Imagine it's November 4, 2008, Election Day. This is your ballot for President. Who do you vote for?

[StoneGold]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

[ragnarok_2012]

I think Biden is the first mainstream white man who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.

[Alex]

Rudy Giuliani gives me an erection, and he wouldn't legislate against my right to have said erection. If he's on the ticket, i'm voting for him.
Unless he pussies out and says he hates gay people and loves spending tax money on congressmens pet programs.
However, that ticket will never exsist, because this will happen.
No other promising republican candidate will show, the media will say rudy is the star, and following in sean hannity and rush limbaughs curious turn of support to Mccain, he will coast through the primaries with the crazy right wing base support, who will suddenly realize everything they heard about mccain is bs, and he's just as socialy conservative as the rest of them.
The media, who's focus on giuliani somehow mobilized all the Republicans who didn't vote for the last 8 years to get interested, will fail in getting him the nod, because Mccains camp released a bunch of ads pointing out how if you vote for him, 911 will happen again to punish america for it's sins of loving gay rights, this will make the strong "We don't have any real issues, we just hate them fags" voting block to go for mccain.
His advisors will tell him, "You aren't perceived as conservative enough!" and he will chose some noboby from the south to be his running mate.
He will then lose to obama/hilary or hilary/obama.

[Mike Smash!]

Rudy Giuliani gives me an erection, and he wouldn't legislate against my right to have said erection. If he's on the ticket, i'm voting for him.
Unless he pussies out and says he hates gay people and loves spending tax money on congressmens pet programs.
However, that ticket will never exsist, because this will happen.
No other promising republican candidate will show, the media will say rudy is the star, and following in sean hannity and rush limbaughs curious turn of support to Mccain, he will coast through the primaries with the crazy right wing base support, who will suddenly realize everything they heard about mccain is bs, and he's just as socialy conservative as the rest of them.
The media, who's focus on giuliani somehow mobilized all the Republicans who didn't vote for the last 8 years to get interested, will fail in getting him the nod, because Mccains camp released a bunch of ads pointing out how if you vote for him, 911 will happen again to punish america for it's sins of loving gay rights, this will make the strong "We don't have any real issues, we just hate them fags" voting block to go for mccain.
His advisors will tell him, "You aren't perceived as conservative enough!" and he will chose some noboby from the south to be his running mate.
He will then lose to obama/hilary or hilary/obama.

Rudy's biggest barrier will be the Religious Right and the pro-life crowd, who have proven that they'll turn on you and walk away if they aren't appeased -- which is usually why people kiss their asses.

But remember that that's Rudy's barrier within the Republican primaries only. If he'd get the nomination, he'd likely appeal to alot of independents.

Of course, it's a question of whether the GOP party bosses like him or not. If so, they stay out of his way. If they don't don't, they frogstomp him in the primaries. See McCain 2000 and Dean 2004 for examples of that.

And Alex? Statements like this:

Rudy Giuliani gives me an erection.

..are why people question your sexuality. That and your hair. ;)

[Alex]

Rudy's biggest barrier will be the Religious Right and the pro-life crowd, who have proven that they'll turn on you and walk away if they aren't appeased -- which is usually why people kiss their asses.

But remember that that's Rudy's barrier within the Republican primaries only. If he'd get the nomination, he'd likely appeal to alot of independents.

Of course, it's a question of whether the GOP party bosses like him or not. If so, they stay out of his way. If they don't don't, they frogstomp him in the primaries. See McCain 2000 and Dean 2004 for examples of that.

And Alex? Statements like this:



..are why people question your sexuality. That and your hair. ;)

They can question my sexuality all day long, it's the internet. I frequent many gay cyber sex message boards, for reasons entirely seperate from masturbation. (I enjoy the writing, you see.), sometimes i pretend i'm a woman. On one website, i am a 45 year old female who blogs about how Republicans are attempting to destroy the ozone lair, and created Al Gore out of pieces of junkyard waste to talk about Global Warming so we would forget about the ozone lair, which is where the aliens will come from to eat our brains.
where was i again..
But remember that that's Rudy's barrier within the Republican primaries only.
Oh yeah, there, you can stop there.
That will never never never never happen, the Republicans have built a machine designed to keep me from voting for them, they call it the "Under 60 Apathy Agenda"
U6AA for short.

[ragnarok_2012]

Rudy Giuliani gives me an erection, and he wouldn't legislate against my right to have said erection. If he's on the ticket, i'm voting for him.


They can question my sexuality all day long, it's the internet. I frequent many gay cyber sex message boards, for reasons entirely seperate from masturbation. (I enjoy the writing, you see.), sometimes i pretend i'm a woman. On one website, i am a 45 year old female who blogs about how Republicans are attempting to destroy the ozone lair, and created Al Gore out of pieces of junkyard waste to talk about Global Warming so we would forget about the ozone lair, which is where the aliens will come from to eat our brains.
where was i again..


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v374/Ragnarok_2012/Art/AlexDummies1.jpg

Never change, Alex.

[Alex]

Never change, Alex.

I fear change.
And sexual consistancy.

[ragnarok_2012]

I fear change.
And sexual consistancy.

So you change positions a lot?

What a flip flopper.

[Alex]

So you change positions a lot?

What a flip flopper.

It's all a debate tactic. I pretend im gay so if anyone says all conservatives hate gays, i can be like, "Hey, i catch buddy."

[Mac Danny]

What No Obama / Clark? That's the ticket I'd vote for.

[Alex]

What No Obama / Clark? That's the ticket I'd vote for.

Clark isn't a woman, obama is anti women then.

[Clint Barton]

Lindsey Graham/Alan Keyes

Black, a white, an alleged homosexual man, a Catholic, a Protestant, A conservative with a lesbian daughter, a man with a plan for Iraq......

That'd get my vote.

It's better than a sharp stick in the eye.

[ragnarok_2012]

Lindsey Graham/Alan Keyes

Black, a white, an alleged homosexual man, a Catholic, a Protestant, A conservative with a lesbian daughter, a man with a plan for Iraq......

That'd get my vote.

It's better than a sharp stick in the eye.

Alan Keyes disowned his lesbian daughter.

[spoon_jenkins]

Mike, I'm interesting in hearing why you chose the particular Democratic ticket that you did.

Using McCain and Giulani for the Republican ticket seems like a reasonable approach because it pairs the primary candidates who are polling one and two. In contrast, Biden usually tends to poll fifth, sixth, or even worse in Democratic primary polls. Why not, for a consistent approach, pair the two top polling Democratic candidates (which is usually Hillary and Obama)? Or for regional appeal, you might choose Edwards, who is consistently in the top three. Or if you wanted to pick someone with a link to Clinton, you might pick Bill Richardson, who was a Cabinet secretary and ambassador in the Bill Clinton Administration.

I consider you to be someone who is highly unfriendly to the Democratic Party. I question why you pick Biden, who has just been in the news for calling a black candidate "clean" and "articulate", for the Democratic ticket. It seems calculated to help other parties on the left by picking a Democrat who would unpalatable.

[Cephus]

If I had to pick any of them, I'd go McCain/Guliani, they seem to be the most reasonable of the options. Hillary... no way in hell. Most of the others are one-point-wonders, they don't have a comprehensive plan, they just have their particular bullet points and not much else.

[Sam T.]

I'm voting Democrat all the way! Time to get the Republicans out of there!!:D

[Mike Smash!]

Mike, I'm interesting in hearing why you chose the particular Democratic ticket that you did.

Sure. I'd be happy to.

I chose Hillary because she's going to dominate the primaries. She's already raised the most money and got the most press even before she announced her exploratory committee. Her Senate race last year -- which was totally uncompetitive -- was, in effect, the opening salvo of a presidential race and her way of raising more money than any Senate candidate in history even out of state, as a means to send a message to her party leadership and potential rivals.

She will have her husband campaigning for her. She has the backing of the DLC leaders. She has most of the kingmakers like Raum Emanuel backing her candidacy. She even has Rupert Murdoch backing her. The Dem leadership will have no problem with her campaign, so with her money and the DLC backing and her husband, she'll trample alot of her competition.

As for Biden, I chose him because I don't believe that Hillary will chose Obama for a running mate in '08. She's likely to pick a while male for "strategy's sake" and will likely pick a DLC hawk like Biden. Someone who will take the same pro-war tact as her on Iraq, will be to deflect accusations that she's "weak" on security. Among Dem leaders, most of them look to Biden for their stances on war and foreign policy.

Biden may have stuck his foot in his mouth, but within six months no one will likely remember it aside from political nerds like you and I. He's stuck his foot in his mouth before and it's always been a temporary condition at best. I've seen candidates say far worse -- like Trent Lott -- and come bouncing back. I don't think he's become "unpalatable" yet to most voters, who still haven't heard of the statement.

The other thing is that he won't threaten to overshadow her on the campaign trail and I don't think that she or her husband ever wanted that. With Obama, who has a great deal of charisma and is a much greater orator than Clinton, he'd have to either tone it down (and lose the whole thing that draws people to him) or he'd overshadow her.

Back in 2004, apparently Kerry was very close to picking Biden.

And of the candidates running, Biden's pretty much the only one that fit the bill for my armchair mindreading trip through Hillary, in terms of what I thought she'd want in the guy on her ticket.

And yes, I am not a fan of the Democratic Party, but I didn't chose Biden for that purpose. He's the sort that people pick for VP. Remember that in 2000, Lieberman was still fresh from blaming Columbine on Marilyn Manson and his attacks on the music industry. I imagine you might have made a similar accusation of a hypothetical choice of Lieberman for a VP before Gore picked him.

As for the Republican ticket, I intentionally picked the one least threatening to board liberals, just to see how many would abandon Hillary for McCain's campaign. One already has so far. And I wanted to see how many hardline conservatives would turn on McCain and Guiliani, one has as well.

[Matt Algren]

2008 Election Mega-Thread: Because it's Never Too Early To Argue (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=159884&highlight=argue)

Just sayin'.

[Mike Smash!]

2008 Election Mega-Thread: Because it's Never Too Early To Argue (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=159884&highlight=argue)

Just sayin'.

I can't add a new poll to that one.

[Matt Algren]

I can't add a new poll to that one.
So ?

[Mike Smash!]

So ?

Because that was the point of this thread? Putting up a new poll with different candidates at a different point in time?

[Loren]

Because that was the point of this thread? Putting up a new poll with different candidates at a different point in time?

But you're not using different candidates.

Your last hypothetical 2008 election (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=146469) had the exact same Presidential candidates as this poll, with only the Green candidate being different. And your poll before that (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=120532) was the exact same as that one, just with the addition of a Reform candidate.

Repeating the same poll with the same options doesn't do anything other than gauge if those particular candidates have waxed or waned in popularity since your last poll. And since no one's even begun campaigning, any such changes of opinion are pretty unimportant. You don't seem to be open to or interested in the possibility of a 2008 election ballot that *doesn't* have Clinton, McCain, Phillies, and Gilchrist on it.

[Brian Defferding]

Ron Paul for President!

[K'Nort]

Biden may have stuck his foot in his mouth, but within six months no one will likely remember it aside from political nerds like you and I. He's stuck his foot in his mouth before and it's always been a temporary condition at best.

I think you are, as usual, underestimating the voters. Your average person, NOT just political nerds, still associate Biden with plagiarizing the Irish almost 20 years ago. How would they forget this in six months?

[Tommy]

Can't I just vote for Howard T Duck?

[ragnarok_2012]

But you're not using different candidates.

Your last hypothetical 2008 election (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=146469) had the exact same Presidential candidates as this poll, with only the Green candidate being different. And your poll before that (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=120532) was the exact same as that one, just with the addition of a Reform candidate.

Repeating the same poll with the same options doesn't do anything other than gauge if those particular candidates have waxed or waned in popularity since your last poll. And since no one's even begun campaigning, any such changes of opinion are pretty unimportant. You don't seem to be open to or interested in the possibility of a 2008 election ballot that *doesn't* have Clinton, McCain, Phillies, and Gilchrist on it.

Those polls are from April & October of last year. Plus, in this one, Mike's trying to see if these VP picks make any difference. Starting a presidential poll every 5-6 months doesn't seem too bad.

And let's face it. The presidential campaign began a long time ago for pretty much all these candidates, Loren.

[phoenixrising]

I honestly don't know how I'd vote in this race. I don't like any of the options - and that Dem ticket, I have to say, is not even close to realistic.

To say Hillary will undoubtedly roll in the primaries and would pick Biden seems to be set up for the sake of polarizing people like me in this poll. I think Edwards is going to be a candidate to deal with (he's polling at the top, after all) - and I think he'd be her likely first choice of a running mate if she got the nomination to try and shore up the south.

As for McCain/Guiliani - it'd almost get me. I like Rudy a lot and I'd vote for him at the top of the ticket or with some other Republicans....but not McCain. John McCain- who I voted for six years ago - is officially dead to me.

[spoon_jenkins]

I chose Hillary because she's going to dominate the primaries. She's already raised the most money and got the most press even before she announced her exploratory committee. Her Senate race last year -- which was totally uncompetitive -- was, in effect, the opening salvo of a presidential race and her way of raising more money than any Senate candidate in history even out of state, as a means to send a message to her party leadership and potential rivals.

She will have her husband campaigning for her. She has the backing of the DLC leaders. She has most of the kingmakers like Raum Emanuel backing her candidacy. She even has Rupert Murdoch backing her. The Dem leadership will have no problem with her campaign, so with her money and the DLC backing and her husband, she'll trample alot of her competition.
I think Hillary is the favorite, but I doubt she has an easy path. First of all, she's tied for third place in Iowa despite her name recognition. If things stay that way in Iowa, it could give a big boost to the winner and create unfavorable horse race coverage of Hillary. I think Edwards will do better than Hillary in several Southern states. I think you overstate the strength of the DLC in current Democratic politics. For example, Jon Tester knocked off the DLC favored candidate in Montana's Democratic primary. This urban legend has grown up that the 2006 election was a wave of conservative Democrats. In actuality, there were lots of liberals and anti-war candidates who won. Even Heath Shuler, who could be called a social conservative, is an economic populist.

As for Biden, I chose him because I don't believe that Hillary will chose Obama for a running mate in '08. She's likely to pick a while male for "strategy's sake" and will likely pick a DLC hawk like Biden. Someone who will take the same pro-war tact as her on Iraq, will be to deflect accusations that she's "weak" on security. Among Dem leaders, most of them look to Biden for their stances on war and foreign policy.
I think the strategically stupid thing would be to look for a hawk. Right now, a hawkish stance on the Iraq War is outside the mainstream. In fact, although Hillary is more hawkish than other Dem contenders, I think she's drifting in a more anti-war direction (as just about everyone is). And I just don't believe the "most Dems follow Biden on war and foreign policy" stance. To me, it seems that the heavy hitters (Reid, Byrd, Obama, Levin, Feingold, Clinton, etc.) speak their own piece rather than waiting for Biden. Just about the only thing that suggests Biden leading the way is the fact that he chairs Foreign Relations.

Biden may have stuck his foot in his mouth, but within six months no one will likely remember it aside from political nerds like you and I. He's stuck his foot in his mouth before and it's always been a temporary condition at best. I've seen candidates say far worse -- like Trent Lott -- and come bouncing back. I don't think he's become "unpalatable" yet to most voters, who still haven't heard of the statement.
I think it will linger on. There's a big difference between media attention in Presidential races versus Senatorial. And I think some folks underestimate the resonance of stuff like this. I remember when Allen first made his macaca comment and I started a thread on it, several folks downplayed it. Look how the public caught on to that. Nobody wants a VP who is a controversy magnet.

The other thing is that he won't threaten to overshadow her on the campaign trail and I don't think that she or her husband ever wanted that.
But the controversy will cast a shadow. And by that logic, doesn't McCain and Giuliani seem unusual. Wouldn't it be consistent to pair one of those Republicans up with a low-key candidate as VP.

And of the candidates running, Biden's pretty much the only one that fit the bill for my armchair mindreading trip through Hillary, in terms of what I thought she'd want in the guy on her ticket.
Well, I'm glad to see your thought processes; I just agree with it.

As for the Republican ticket, I intentionally picked the one least threatening to board liberals, just to see how many would abandon Hillary for McCain's campaign. One already has so far. And I wanted to see how many hardline conservatives would turn on McCain and Guiliani, one has as well.
So essentially it does squeeze the Democrat ticket. In the same way, you could put together a Brownback/Tancredo ticket or a Romney/Gingrich ticket.

[spoon_jenkins]

John McCain- who I voted for six years ago - is officially dead to me.
Somewhat similar feelings here. Back in 2000, I felt like I'd be willing to vote for McCain in a general election if the Democratic candidate was pretty weak. But he's disappointed me tremendously since then. I feel the maverick thing is a joke. He's perfectly willing to follow Bush around.

[StoneGold]

I'm voting for the Mysterious Congressman.

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Mysterious-Congressman.jpg

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/mysterious_congressman_announces

[Loren]

I chose Hillary because she's going to dominate the primaries. She's already raised the most money and got the most press even before she announced her exploratory committee. Her Senate race last year -- which was totally uncompetitive -- was, in effect, the opening salvo of a presidential race and her way of raising more money than any Senate candidate in history even out of state, as a means to send a message to her party leadership and potential rivals.

Some relatively obvious trivia:

If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, that will make the eighth consecutive Presidential election with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot. You have to go back to 1976, before I was born, to find a Presidential election without one.

[ragnarok_2012]

This urban legend has grown up that the 2006 election was a wave of conservative Democrats. In actuality, there were lots of liberals and anti-war candidates who won. Even Heath Shuler, who could be called a social conservative, is an economic populist.


Nader (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/08/1457249) certainly thinks so. And with guys like Bob Casey Jr, it's hard for me to think otherwise.

Out of curiosity, could you cite a source for your statement?


I think the strategically stupid thing would be to look for a hawk. Right now, a hawkish stance on the Iraq War is outside the mainstream. In fact, although Hillary is more hawkish than other Dem contenders, I think she's drifting in a more anti-war direction (as just about everyone is). And I just don't believe the "most Dems follow Biden on war and foreign policy" stance. To me, it seems that the heavy hitters (Reid, Byrd, Obama, Levin, Feingold, Clinton, etc.) speak their own piece rather than waiting for Biden. Just about the only thing that suggests Biden leading the way is the fact that he chairs Foreign Relations.


"Drifting in an anti-war direction" is a bit of a leap of faith, isn't it Spoon?

Hillary has been very, very hawkish throughout the entire war, and she seems to have led the way in campaign fundraising. Now, maybe it's too much to simply say that war is where the campaign money is, but it doesn't seem to have hurt her fundraising efforts.

[ragnarok_2012]

Some relatively obvious trivia:

If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, that will make the eighth consecutive Presidential election with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot. You have to go back to 1976, before I was born, to find a Presidential election without one.

That does demonstrate a certain consistency in American politics, doesn't it?

[Mike Smash!]

Some relatively obvious trivia:

If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, that will make the eighth consecutive Presidential election with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot. You have to go back to 1976, before I was born, to find a Presidential election without one.

Wow, I hadn't gotten that. I forgot to include Bush Sr. as VP, but yeah...it's been a long time without a Clinton or a Bush.

[Mike Smash!]

I think Hillary is the favorite, but I doubt she has an easy path. First of all, she's tied for third place in Iowa despite her name recognition. If things stay that way in Iowa, it could give a big boost to the winner and create unfavorable horse race coverage of Hillary. I think Edwards will do better than Hillary in several Southern states. I think you overstate the strength of the DLC in current Democratic politics. For example, Jon Tester knocked off the DLC favored candidate in Montana's Democratic primary. This urban legend has grown up that the 2006 election was a wave of conservative Democrats. In actuality, there were lots of liberals and anti-war candidates who won. Even Heath Shuler, who could be called a social conservative, is an economic populist.

The candidates who got the strongest backing from the national party or the Senate and House campaign committees were usually quite socially conservative, very pro-war or pro-life (or all of the above).

And the DLC has considerable power in the party. The last four nominees of the Democratic Party for president have been DLC members. You can even note the difference of tone between Dean as frontrunner and Kerry as frontrunner. It went from "dogpile the leader" to "don't hurt the leader or we'll lose the election" very quickly.

The "urban legend" is a true one. The people that they really go behind as a national party were people like Harold Ford, Bob Casey and others who sided with the Republicans on at least two major issues. Even in states where the more progressive Dem beat the DLC/conservative Dem in the primaries, the party leadership didn't offer any support. Look at the general election in Connecticut.

During the primaries, everyone from the Clintons to major fundraisers came out for Lieberman, but after Lieberman lost the primary and ran as an independent, the same party bosses didn't do anything for Lamont. Not even the ones who pledged to support the winner. Support that largely came in the form of a single press release and then abandoning him.

The only progressive I can think of that Dem leaders gave any real support to was Bernie Sanders in Vermont.

I can give credit to John Edwards for at least having the courage to admit that he was wrong and he seems to be one of the few that seems to be inching leftwards genuinely rather than just marketing DLC stances with populist phrases. He's not nearly progressive enough for me to be able to support him, but at least he seems to be making progress. Not being in the Senate is my theory on that.

But a majority of people polled want out of Iraq and soon. And in my estimate, unless you're taking a stance that mentions bringing our troops home within at least a year, you're just pro-war to varying degrees.

I think the strategically stupid thing would be to look for a hawk. Right now, a hawkish stance on the Iraq War is outside the mainstream. In fact, although Hillary is more hawkish than other Dem contenders, I think she's drifting in a more anti-war direction (as just about everyone is). And I just don't believe the "most Dems follow Biden on war and foreign policy" stance. To me, it seems that the heavy hitters (Reid, Byrd, Obama, Levin, Feingold, Clinton, etc.) speak their own piece rather than waiting for Biden. Just about the only thing that suggests Biden leading the way is the fact that he chairs Foreign Relations.

I agree that it would be stupid strategically as well, but that hasn't stopped the Dems before. But even with the big wins they got in November, the Dems are not pushing to end the war or even asserting the power of the purse to rein Bush in. And while Hillary's rhetoric may sound more anti-war, in practice she's still very much a hawk.

In my experience, politicians like Hillary tend to change the way they market their stances to respond to public opinion polls, but largely vote the same way. Like during the Senate race, she talks tougher against how Bush does the war, not that he's doing it at all.

Immediately after the November elections, she was asked if she could support a "troop surge". She said yes, provided that it "was part of a larger plan". She's now joined the chorus against it, but I have to see some real evidence of action that she's had a change of heart, rather than a shift in her dialogue.

When sentiment turns against the war, she usually responds by attacking the poor execution of the war, not the fact that we're at war at all. When asked about Iraq, she usually answers that she would continue the occupation until things are "stabilized", which isn't much different than the Bush stance, but with a slightly different path of getting there.

As for Biden, I've heard from numerous sources that many Senators in the centrist wing of the Dems go to him for counsel on foreign policy matters. You are correct that Hillary is the most hawkish of the Dem primary lot thus far, though.

Hillary will look for a hawk in practice, but one who criticizes Bush to enough of an extent that some of the rank and file shut up. That's Biden.

I think it will linger on. There's a big difference between media attention in Presidential races versus Senatorial. And I think some folks underestimate the resonance of stuff like this. I remember when Allen first made his macaca comment and I started a thread on it, several folks downplayed it. Look how the public caught on to that. Nobody wants a VP who is a controversy magnet.

I disagree with K'Nort about the power of the plaguarism rep. I base my opinion of average voters based on the people I have spoken to while tabling for the Greens at over 50 street fairs and festivals and conversations with people while gathering signatures in all sorts of places from town centers to shopping malls to the lines to get on the ferry.

Alot of what I've learned is that most people tend to view politics against the way we do in much the same way that they view superheroes to the way we do. That isn't that I look down on them, I don't. I just pay a lot more attention to this stuff than they do. To me, this is like sports.

Alot of people are simply mistaken or assume wronglly on a number of stances of this or that candidate. They assume that a candidate is anti-war when they aren't or that this or that candidate supports same sex marriage when they don't....etc.

But I blame most of that on the media and the fact that it's rarely based on substance, but on fundraising, endorsements and image. You lack one or two of those and you get coverage like Kucinich or Ron Paul.

But the controversy will cast a shadow. And by that logic, doesn't McCain and Giuliani seem unusual. Wouldn't it be consistent to pair one of those Republicans up with a low-key candidate as VP.

Not nearly the shadow that you think. And alot of people will simply choose not to see it when they're on the ticket because they'll focus on how much they hate the "greater evil" as they see it.

I mostly put Guiliani on there on a whim. I know that he would never make it through the Republican primaries. The Religious Right is a hostile and fickle bunch. Just look at the Harriet Miers nomination to see how they get when they aren't appeased.

And the pro-life crowd has proven that they're willing to walk when they aren't tossed a bone.

So I put Guiliani on as VP, which is the only way he'll ever get on the November ticket unless he ran as an independent, which actually might be a smarter move on his part.


Well, I'm glad to see your thought processes; I just agree with it.

I'm sure you mean disagree. Mostly I'm just playing mad scientist and checking how these things change over time and how VPs affect peoples' votes.

So essentially it does squeeze the Democrat ticket. In the same way, you could put together a Brownback/Tancredo ticket or a Romney/Gingrich ticket.

That would be interesting, but I honestly can't visualize either of those tickets being on the November ballot anymore than I can see Kucinich/Gravel or Paul/Tancredo.

McCain/Gingrich maybe... especially now that Gingrich is verbally raping the Bill of Rights in front of audiences and McCain has morphed into super-hawk.

[Fenris]

Some relatively obvious trivia:

If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, that will make the eighth consecutive Presidential election with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot. You have to go back to 1976, before I was born, to find a Presidential election without one.

... Wow. I'd never thought of it that way; but of course, you're right.

Let's see. If Hillary wins two terms, and then Jeb Bush runs and wins two terms, that's sixteen years.

Chelsea Clinton is currently 26; 26+16 = 42, which is seven years older than the minimum Presidential age of 35. So she could certainly run by then; or a term earlier, if it came to that.

This may just continue for the rest of our lives. What a thought!

õ
As far as the poll goes, I voted (predictably) Republican!

[Iangould]

... Wow. I'd never thought of it that way; but of course, you're right.

Let's see. If Hillary wins two terms, and then Jeb Bush runs and wins two terms, that's sixteen years.

Chelsea Clinton is currently 26; 26+16 = 42, which is seven years older than the minimum Presidential age of 35. So she could certainly run by then; or a term earlier, if it came to that.

This may just continue for the rest of our lives. What a thought!

õ
As far as the poll goes, I voted (predictably) Republican!

The Clintons pretty much earned their position - certainly Bill didn't come from a privileged background. Hillary has obviously benefited from being his wife but had a pretty distinguished academic and professional history even before they met.

George HW Bush, demonstrated in World War II and in his subsequent business career that he had genuine ability and character quite apart from his
family connections.

None of the younger Bushes have ever demonstrated much of anything except an ability ot spend their family money to buy political office.

I shudder to think what the next generation will be like.

Paris Hilton comes to mind.

[Cephus]

I shudder to think what the next generation will be like.

Paris Hilton comes to mind.

I shudder to think that the U.S. population would probably vote for Paris Hilton too.