|
06 Apr 08 - 10:36 PM (#2308704) Subject: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Bearded Bruce asked a while ago why there wasn't more serious debate here instead of Name calling. On Meet the press Today Rendell and Casey debated this. Meet the Press Casey v Rendell They both made some good points. But I think they left out one crucial point, the ability to run a campaign. I think that if Clinton gets the nomination and runs as poor a campaign against McCain as she has against Obama, she will be unlikely to win. I think that if Obama runs as well as he has, McCain will be in trouble. Also no one is talking about the gorilla in the room. The Clinton baggage that will bring out the Republican base, which is very demoralized this time, like no other factor can. What do y'all think? What are their relative merits, what are their drawbacks? What counts more? Experience as first lady or ability to run a campaign? |
|
06 Apr 08 - 10:55 PM (#2308711) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Amos There has been, in the past anyway, a considerable undercurrent of resentment against the CLintons, some of it reasoned, some of it dubious, some of it ludicrous. But whatever is still out there latent waiting to be fired up again by nasty assertions and innuendo will be used. The baggage of the CLinton years will require a lot more momentum to overcome than the few vulnerabilities Obama has. If in addition they dissipate their resources, manage their campaign sloppily -- as they've done so far -- it will be a very weak show indeed. She could offset a lot of this if se found a Patton to replace Penn. Don't see it a slikely. A |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM (#2309548) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Donuel Diebold has a better chance of electing the next president than any candidate's performance in debate or general disposition. The most proposterous* propoganda (*the more proposterous the more effective) out there is that McCain stands a 50 50 chance of winning. ITs more like 70 30 hate the spin love the spinner. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:09 PM (#2309557) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Rapparee These things are two heads talking past each other. They are NOT debates, nor are they conversations. Sorry, but I ignore them. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:26 PM (#2309588) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Bill D They MUST have these conversation to justify their own existence. (The one I really want to hear is "Do news programs use too many rhetorical questions?") |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:52 PM (#2309617) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Rapaire, Sorry to hear that you ignore these threads! When does that start? Bill, My existence is justified just by basking in your profound wisdom. |
|
07 Apr 08 - 07:59 PM (#2309625) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Little Hawk Snort! (My goodness, we are getting catty, aren't we?) I have been basking in Bill's profound wisdom, yea, all these years, Jack, and we still disagree about certain quite fundamental things. C'est la vie. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 06:48 PM (#2310629) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Riginslinger McCain could really shoot himself in the foot by making a bad pick for VP. The speculation now is Condoleeza Rice. If that happened you would have two foreign policy wonks, and no one watching the economy. I think that would be a death warrant for McCain. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 08:17 PM (#2310687) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Genie Some Republicans may figure that putting Condi on the ticket would draw the pro-black and pro-woman votes away from Obama or Clinton. But the people who'd be likely to vote FOR a candidate for being female or minority are probably mostly Democrats or centrist-to-liberal independents -- not too likely to support right wingers like McCain or Rice. If anything, the Republicans, by putting a black woman on the ticket - to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency - would LOSE some prospective voters who otherwise might have been drawn to the polls specifically to vote AGAINST an African American or woman. And if the Dems ran the right ads, reminding people of Rice's incompetence or duplicity as National Security Advisor before 9-11-01 and in the months following it, the bloom would be off that rose pretty quickly. [[Also no one is talking about the gorilla in the room. The Clinton baggage that will bring out the Republican base, which is very demoralized this time, like no other factor can.]] Heck, I've been talking about it for some time now. Nothing would probably energize the disillusioned far-right-wing this year MORE than having Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee. [[Diebold has a better chance of electing the next president than any candidate's performance in debate or general disposition.]] That's exactly why Obama has a better chance of beating Hillary. I think the BEST Clinton can hope for is a ca. 51/49 percent popular vote split - and similar wins in some swing states. That's way too close a margin to prevent the election from being tampered with again (by electronic voting tampering, caging, and other tricks to prevent Dems from voting). Obama might possibly lose by a bigger margin than Clinton -- if there are a lot of voters who base their vote on racism and if the new prospective voters Obama has inspired don't show up at the polls -- but he has a good shot at a landslide victory over McCain. [[The most proposterous* propoganda (*the more proposterous the more effective) out there is that McCain stands a 50 50 chance of winning.]] Ah, but the talking heads on the mass media have so much control over our information feed that they can make that preposterous bit of propaganda into reality, I fear. They can make the real winner of a debate look like the loser, by their camera angles, etc., and by selective editing and running their chosen clips over and over while hardly anyone gets to see the rest of the debate again. They can help McCain come off as lovable and avuncular by throwing him softballs and touting his amiable, trustworthy "maverick," "centrist" image (and the facts be damned). Research shows most people's votes are based more on emotional connection than on how well a candidate's stance on the issues represents theirs. That's a major reason why a charismatic, cool (not hot-headed), down-to-earth, attractive, tall young man with a gift for inspirational speeches has a much better chance than someone who often comes off (in public appearances) as stiff, programmed, cold, or hard. Hillary probably does get a bad rap where some of that image is concerned, but it's there nevertheless. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 08:26 PM (#2310699) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Amos The experience button is a non-hunting dog. Clinton's vast experience apparently is riddled with false memories, so I don't think it is actually reliable, and on close inspection, it isn't vast, either. Obama's ability to run a campaign seems to have given the actual measure of useable skill compared to Hillary's. A |
|
08 Apr 08 - 08:27 PM (#2310700) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Bobert Interesting point, JtS... If we think about how a presidential candidtate might do as president by looking at their campaigns then Obama wins hands down... Clinton's campaign has been a mess and in turmoil all along... Kinda reminds me of her husband's administration... No discipline... Chaotic... No real consitent message... An inability to to mange people or money... McCain, while I give him some credit, hasn't raised much oney and he seems to be un-coachable... Not really a well run campaign and the only reason that he is the Repub nominee is because no one else on the Repub side had a clue... They all shot themselves in the foot... Now Obama has raised lots of money... His campaign is syuper disciplined... His people show all the amkings of a great team... He stays on message, is consitent and draws big crowds... This is the way I see it and I think that campaigns are a reflection of how thse candidates would perform as president... Obama/Richardson '08 B;~) |
|
08 Apr 08 - 09:47 PM (#2310743) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Riginslinger "Obama's ability to run a campaign seems to have given the actual measure of useable skill compared to Hillary's..." When a campaign has virtual unlimited capital resources, they could make mistake after mistake and still come out smelling like roses. Those of us who have tried to compete in business with heirs of great wealth know very well what that's like. An argument could be made that Obama was wise and personally camptured the fund raising resources of MoveOn.org, but in the beginning, I think there was competition for that resource. If that fund raising resource came to Obama through something he did, then that argument is stronger. But if it came to him simply through who he was, I think it is less so. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 09:50 PM (#2310746) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Amos The campaign is about who he is, Rig; the whole question of the election is who these candidates really are. While he could have made as many mistakes as HIllary, he did not do so. The efficiency of his operation is not just a function of his funding. And his funding came to his campaign on the strength of his apparent strengths, intelligence, character, and willingness to reject the Bush party line. A |
|
08 Apr 08 - 09:54 PM (#2310748) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Riginslinger Okay, the campaign is about about who he is. I'll buy that, and who he is will not carry much weight with blue collar workers and independants in November. He's headed for a plane crash. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 10:01 PM (#2310754) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Amos Varlet, you lie!! :D Seriously, I think you will find that who he is lies at the core of what he can do and how he will do it, and there will be no crash at all, except in Hillary's facial lines. A |
|
08 Apr 08 - 10:46 PM (#2310773) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Yeah Riginslinger, Blue Collar workers are going to vote for a war that is paupering the country, failed economic policies and tax cuts for the rich because they like John McCain better. Its the economy ______! |
|
08 Apr 08 - 10:51 PM (#2310775) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Genie [[If that fund raising resource came to Obama through something he did, then that argument is stronger. But if it came to him simply through who he was, I think it is less so.]] Huh?? Obama's fundraising is largely through relatively small donations that keep coming in from lots and lots of different donors. The fact that he has been and keeps drawing that kind of popular support - because of who he is -- is probably the best indication that he'll do quite well in November. McCain and Clinton are having a much harder time getting people to open their wallets for them. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 11:15 PM (#2310781) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Because of who he says, because of what he says, because he is the best choice for president for ordinary people. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 11:25 PM (#2310791) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I saw Clinton this morning. He was asked why McCain was ahead of him in Pennsylvania. He basically said, because he is running against Hillary now. I liked that answer. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 11:28 PM (#2310796) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Riginslinger "The fact that he has been and keeps drawing that kind of popular support - because of who he is -- is probably the best indication that he'll do quite well in November." Yes, he will continue to do well with college kids and elite Democrats, unfortunately for him there is the rest of the country to consider. |
|
08 Apr 08 - 11:45 PM (#2310803) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor He is winning independents as well. And when he runs against McCain he will draw on Hillary's base in the Democratic Party as well as Republicans and Independents who want to end the war or those who are most concerned about the economy or both. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 12:36 AM (#2310823) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: Genie It's not just the college kids Obama is drawing out to vote and campaign for him. (The "elite Dems" didn't need to be drawn out; they already vote.) He's inspsired and energized a lot of young people who aren't in college plus not-so-young lower-income and minority people who haven't bothered to get involved in politics before. d And why should that be a surprise? McCain's policies certainly don't represent ordinary working-class folks very well. And Clinton's don't any better than Obama's. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 06:38 AM (#2310923) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: kendall I'd like to make another prediction. There will be debates between Obama and McWar. In those debates, Obama will wring his neck like a chicken, and he will throw him flopping to his erstwhile supporters. |
|
09 Apr 08 - 09:41 AM (#2311034) Subject: RE: BS: Debate: Best against McCain From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Jon Stewart wrung his neck Jon Stewart wrung his neck |