I still think Huckabee is a one state wonder. All Republicans know he is un-electable. I think/hope he gets killed in New Hampshire.
Huckabee could be very tough all the way through the So. Carolina primary. He's going to win that one, too, and by a large margin.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 3 2008, 11:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Remember you heard it here first. The press has been using all their power of propaganda to push Huckabee so the Democrat nominee would have to face the least threatening of the republican candidates. So far it's worked </div> John McCain will win New Hampshire. That will piss off a few people.
The most astute observation I heard from a pundit tonight... Obama, a black man (quibble if you must, he passes for one in any case), goes into a state that's 95% white and 2% black population and wins convincingly. For that, I'm actually thrilled.
LOL I actually watched this! I don't like that Edwards dude. my third eye tells me he wouldn't make a good president!
Obama His strength is his youth and message of unity/hope. His weakness is exactly what Hillary's trying to exploit - lack of experience - but she's unable to pin anything on him due to her own weaknesses. Her weaknesses? The name Clinton (Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton doesn't sit well with most, I think). Baggage - remember filegate, cattlegate, whitewater, etc? Who wants to go through all that again? Actually, Edwards is pretty weak, too. Trial lawyer, anti-corporate/anti-capitalist message. Almost no government experience at all. His left-wing message won't sit well with the broad populace, IMO.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Jan 4 2008, 01:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LOL I actually watched this! I don't like that Edwards dude. my third eye tells me he wouldn't make a good president!</div> Your third eye is dead on. I think Edwards is the weakest candidate. I'm thinking he could be defeated in a general election by Huck, Romney, or McCain. It at least might open it up a bit for a Ron Paul or a Mike Bloomberg.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 4 2008, 01:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The most astute observation I heard from a pundit tonight... Obama, a black man (quibble if you must, he passes for one in any case), goes into a state that's 95% white and 2% black population and wins convincingly. For that, I'm actually thrilled.</div> Same here. I might find he himself to be dangerously naive in many respects, but it's still nice to see racial biases overcome, however much.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 3 2008, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama His strength is his youth and message of unity/hope. His weakness is exactly what Hillary's trying to exploit - lack of experience - but she's unable to pin anything on him due to her own weaknesses. Her weaknesses? The name Clinton (Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton doesn't sit well with most, I think). Baggage - remember filegate, cattlegate, whitewater, etc? Who wants to go through all that again? Actually, Edwards is pretty weak, too. Trial lawyer, anti-corporate/anti-capitalist message. Almost no government experience at all. His left-wing message won't sit well with the broad populace, IMO.</div> I personally think Hillary is the candidate the Republicans match up best against because there's such a large animus against her. Poll results show her being the worst democrat in a general election due to the legions of people who wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. Edwards is actually the only democrat who dominates all republicans in head to head polling, and he does so because he speaks in easy to digest rhetoric that the masses eat up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (the_pestilence @ Jan 4 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I personally think Hillary is the candidate the Republicans match up best against because there's such a large animus against her. Poll results show her being the worst democrat in a general election due to the legions of people who wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. Edwards is actually the only democrat who dominates all republicans in head to head polling, and he does so because he speaks in easy to digest rhetoric that the masses eat up.</div> http://hominidviews.com/?p=1194 So, with the caveat that there are relatively few polls and even fewer recent polls, here are the results of 10,000 simulated elections. Edwards wins 437 such elections, Giuliani wins 9,532, and there are 31 ties. If the election were held today (and all the polls were current) we would expect Edwards to have a 4.4% (plus 0.3% for the ties) chance of winning the general election. Giuliani would seem to have a 95.3% chance of winning.
realclearpolitics.com average of national polls has Hillary +1.8 over Giuliani, Edwards +2.7 over Giuliani (just 3 polls since 12/05). The CNN polls heavily favor Democrats (Edwards +9), while the two other polls have Giuliani +1 and a tie.
You fail to mention that Edwards outdoes both his democratic opponents in head to heads against Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Thompson, and outdoes Hillary against Giuliani. The only head to head Edwards isn't the very best in is against Rudy.
All three Democratic candidates talk about change. Obama is the only one I can believe. Edwards you get that feeling somewhat, but he has that seedy lawyer thing going. Hillary doesn't scream change at all. I wonder who Obama would choose as his VP. Edwards seems somewhat likely. Al Gore wouldn't be bad if he's willing to do it.
There are only three reasons why someone would accept a VP nomination: if they are a party hack and nobody else wants to do it (William Miller), if they want to run for President in eight years (pretty much everyone), or if they could basically run the show (Cheney). Otherwise, there is no incentive, as the VP's authority is very, very limited. Gore would just rather earn millions doing public speaking.
