Official Iowa Caucus Thread

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
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.

EdwardsGiuliani28Oct07-28Nov07.png
 
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.
 
More...
Obama +7.3% over Giuliani, +10.4% over Huckabee, +12.2% over Romney, TIED with McCain
 
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.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (the_pestilence @ Jan 4 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>

My bad, I thought you wrote that Edwards dominates all GOP opponents.

Considering the money and time he spent in Iowa, his distant 2nd place finish is seen as pretty dismal. He'll be in the race for another month and that's about it.

I would think the democrat nominee, whoever it is, would be the favorite to win the election, tho raising taxes would be their first agenda item and in a likely time of recession to boot.


A bit of trivia:

1) Name 4 democrat presidents who were elected to two terms in office since 1900.
2) Name 2 who were elected twice with < 50% of the popular vote both times.
 
More trivia:
1) Name 3 senators who were elected President while still in office as senator, and the year of their election.
2) Name the last sitting VP who didn't run for president.
3) Name the last 2 sitting VPs who were elected president.
4) Based upon historical precedent, the two parties' most likely persons to be elected president are Al Gore and Dan Quayle. Why?
 
1. I assume LBJ and Truman do not count, as they both inherited their first term, so Clinton, FDR, and Wilson.
2. Well, FDR obviously got more than 50% the popular vote, so Clinton and Wilson.
3 (1). No idea. This probably goes back 100+ years.
4 (2). Whoever Truman's VP was since Stevenson ran that year.
5 (3). Aitch Dubya and Al Gore (oh, wait...) and Teddy Roosevelt.
6 (4). It worked for Nixon, didn't it?
 
1. There weren't 4 Democrats who won two terms
But you did get the three who did.
2. Clinton and Wilson is correct. Neither got 50% of the popular vote in either their election or re-elections.
3. Last two senators were JFK and Harding. I don't know if there was a 3rd.
4. Alben W. Barkley was Truman's VP from 1949-1952 and he did run in 1952 when Truman quit the campaign. From 1945-1949, Truman served as president without a VP.
5. GHW's victory was a rare thing. I think Roosevelt assumed office when McKinley was assassinated tho... Would you believe John Adams?
6. Righto.
 
Why would Al Gore want to be Vice President when he thinks he should be the head man right now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top