I didn't see anything about those on here so I wanted to get some discussion going on the two debates. Who did you like? Who did you not like? Who seemed just plain retarded etc.From the democrats I liked Kucinich the most but he's definitely way too liberal to ever get the nomination. Hilary did pretty well and i'm pretty much convinced that she would tear any of the Republican candidates apart in a debate. The two most logical candidates are probably Obama and Edwards from sheer likability. Judging by track record I like Obama the most... I didn't like that Edwards and Obama were throwing each other under the bus though just because I would love to see them run together. Gravel was an idiot. Richardson got some bad questions IMO and tried avoiding them big time.From the Republicans my favorite by far was Paul. He's like an isolationist libertarian essentially. I really liked that he wasn't afraid to just tell it like it is against the bigger candidates. Romney has the face to win it but he really avoided questions that were basically set up for him to give the right answer. I hated Giuliani because he hangs his hat on one stupid issue. The rest pretty much scare me with their policies.
Edwards - Obama ticket is still who I favor. Edwards in office for 8 years with Obama as his VP, then in 2016, Obama can run as the top of the ticket and have the experience he needs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Jun 6 2007, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Edwards - Obama ticket is still who I favor. Edwards in office for 8 years with Obama as his VP, then in 2016, Obama can run as the top of the ticket and have the experience he needs.</div>That's what i'm going for as well. I just don't think America is ready for a black president JUST YET, moreso the south. He would make a perfect Vice President and would probably tear up anyone the republicans put in there in Vice Presidential debates (unless it was Ron Paul which won't happen). Edwards has the energy, charisma, and face to be the leader of America. I thought he did pretty well in the last debate and seems to have stepped up his game in the last two years. I honestly don't see any of the republicans winning an election right now other than Romney. Giuliani doesn't have the experience, McCain is a psycho war-monger, the rest are basically nobodies. In the end I see it being-Edwards- Obama Vs. Romney- Giuliani. I just don't know if I can take another minute of Giuliani saying things like "I was mayor in a post 9/11 new york" and "that would make sense in a pre-9/11 society". He basically hangs his hat on that one issue and harps on it throughout the debate.
Guliani danced around that one debate issue because of the dumb mic losing a little connection. I forgot the issue, what was it?
I think Obama is ready to run for President. With his speech at the 2004 Convention, he got a national base. He has a good shot at getting in. He (as any other democrat does) has the entire northeast (sans Pennsylvania and New Hampshire), Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, California, DC, Oregon, and Washington. If he runs with a Southerner like Edwards, he might be able to steal a state or 2 in the South. Running with Edwards might also swing Florida and Ohio in his favor, and that ought to be enough to do it. If a democrat can get Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, AND steal a state or 2 in the south, (like North Carolina, where Edwards is popular), he wins. If a republican gets Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, it's his.In short, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the keys to winning
I don't mean this to come racist, but he's black, and America is not ready at all for a black President. There is still a lot of racism, and to be honest, he probably wouldn't win. The south would most likely be completely against him, which is pretty crucial. Either way, I don't see him winning the nomination anyway. I think he needs to wait to see what happens in this election, if all goes smooth and Edwards happens to win the nomination and becomes President, then he should wait for maybe a 2nd term for Edwards, if of course Edwards gains some popularity in office. I think he could be a good and effective leader, but America isn't up to it yet to have him in office.
Obama doesn't have a track record. He's served most of his career in the state senate and just recently made the U.S. Senate. The only reason people think he's a viable presidential candidate is because he won by a landslide for the Senate seat. And yeah, I agree with Comeback about how the country isn't ready just yet. Maybe in 8 years at the earliest... 20 to be realistic (by then the segregationists of the 60s and 70s would be dead [no mean to sound cynical]). Considering the Confederate flag is still flown around the South, yeah... no way Barack takes the South.That being said, I think Vice President is a possibility. Honestly, I think he should be the President pro tempore. Then become VP, then Prez in the span of 12-20 years. It would give him national experience, show leadership, and etc.I don't like Hillary but she has the demeanor that the United States president needs. I think a problem with Bush is that he's too light-hearted and tries to much to connect with people. Hillary would bring fire and tenacity back to the Presidency. And well, she knows what a President does by being the First Lady. She's seen what the job requires and has more inside track on the dealings than any other candidate. But, I think this country is LESS prepared for a female president than a black president so I don't think she has a legitimate shot.Edwards is the favorite in my eyes. He's had quite a few years in the US Senate, he already has the experience of a campaign trail, he appeals to all regions and could go back to Kerry for support in the New England area. As long as he doesn't have a Howard Dean meltdown, he should win the primary.Outside of Hillary, Edwards, and Obama... I don't see a candidate right now that can win. But then again, John Kerry made a huge surge that won him the primary.For the Republicans, I agree that Giuliani relies on one issue. But I have to give him credit for how he dealt with 9/11. I think few could have done as good a job as he did in leading NYC back from the tragedy. And I think with the whole terrorism thing being constant threats, he might have a strategy. He's had experience with handling terrorism so he really could be an expert on that. I just don't think he has enough draw to win the presidency or primary. If I were a Democratic president, I would overlook party lines and appoint him the Secretary of Homeland Security.But then again, you have Mitt Romney... who not to be prejudicial... is Mormon. If we have such a reservations with a Catholic president, I really don't know how we'd respond as a country to The Church of Latter-Day Saints. It's really weird to many of us. While many of us can say that we're educated and know that polygamy isn't the only thing, the fact that it's a religion that is quite unknown to the general public is one factor of a candidate that people will reserve from placing their vote for him. You really can't say religion won't be a factor. That being said, he has the similar qualifications as Bill Clinton. Therefore, he probably is the front runner. Either way, I really can't see the country as a whole electing Romney. He'll win Utah but what about winning the Protestant and Catholic vote? That's a huge hump to overcome.No matter what, I can't vote in the 08 election. Too young by a month for the sign-up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Jun 6 2007, 06:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think Obama is ready to run for President. With his speech at the 2004 Convention, he got a national base. He has a good shot at getting in. He (as any other democrat does) has the entire northeast (sans Pennsylvania and New Hampshire), Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, California, DC, Oregon, and Washington. If he runs with a Southerner like Edwards, he might be able to steal a state or 2 in the South. Running with Edwards might also swing Florida and Ohio in his favor, and that ought to be enough to do it. If a democrat can get Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, AND steal a state or 2 in the south, (like North Carolina, where Edwards is popular), he wins. If a republican gets Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, it's his.In short, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the keys to winning</div>I've read Obama's 2nd book, The Audacity of Hope. He's too wide eyed and idealistic to run the show.
Oh, and on the Republican side of it, both the front runners have multiple divorces and therefore will lose values voters. The people they need to win elections.
Chang, to be president pro tem of the senate, you have to be the longest serving member of the majority party.
I don't know about Obama. I definitely think he has the best policies and is the smartest of all the candidates. I agree that the US might not be ready for an african- american president, all racism aside. I live in a place where people DO fly their confederate flags and don't really understand how much that hurts other people. The democrats will get the black vote anyways so it won't really win them anything. I think whoever gets the presidential nomination, he'll get the Vice presidential and will do a good job with it. I just see an Edwards-Obama ticket as the most effective come election time.I just want the war to stop regardless of who our president is. The only candidate on the Republican side that wants to end the war is Paul due to his isolationist policies. I think Edwards-Obama gives us the best chance for that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PurplePeopleEaters @ Jun 8 2007, 06:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know about Obama. I definitely think he has the best policies and is the smartest of all the candidates. I agree that the US might not be ready for an african- american president, all racism aside. I live in a place where people DO fly their confederate flags and don't really understand how much that hurts other people. The democrats will get the black vote anyways so it won't really win them anything. I think whoever gets the presidential nomination, he'll get the Vice presidential and will do a good job with it. I just see an Edwards-Obama ticket as the most effective come election time.I just want the war to stop regardless of who our president is. The only candidate on the Republican side that wants to end the war is Paul due to his isolationist policies. I think Edwards-Obama gives us the best chance for that.</div>The big problem for Edwards is getting a good start. Obama will carry Iowa, the first caucus. The first primary is New Hampshire, where Hilary will carry easily. However, if Edwards can survive the start, Florida and South Carolina is the next deciding step, and if he's a distant third he still won't get the win there. If he's a close third or even 2nd, however, he'd be poised to take the lead based on Florida and South Carolina where his favorability factor is high. In the end, the big decider is traditionally California (if a clear favorite has not already been established). And out there, Obama has all the support of Hollywood who absolutely loves him and will campaign for him. If Edwards wants to run the show, he is going to have to have resounding victories in both South Carolina and Florida and convince Obama to be his VP nominee. Going head to head with Obama in California will be tough, and while (if he goes into it with a lead) Edwards might still win overall, a California shootout will weaken a national campaign. Edwards did fairly well in Iowa in 2004, but fell on his face in New Hampshire. Obama will win Iowa, his favorability is way too high for him not to. Edwards needs to beat Hilary in Iowa, because he's not going to do well in New Hampshire without performing better than expectations in Iowa. Hilary can be the big spoiler in Edwards' campaign. She'll weaken him in New Hampshire obviously, but the Clinton name carries weight in the south. And while Edwards is a beloved figure in the Carolinas and most of the south east, sending Bill on Hilary's behalf could trump any advantage he holds over the other candidates in the South.In any case, if the ticket is Edwards-Obama, they win. Obama carries the fly-over states, and likely wins them California. Edwards gives them a strong showing in the South, more than likely carrying Florida. As everyone knows, here are essentially 7 states that decide the election. California, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, and New York. Obama will likely take Illinois, Ohio, and California for the Democrats. Edwards more than likely wins Florida and Pennsylvania for the Democrats. And Texas and New York will both be in contention for them. But if they win those 5 of 7, there is no way the Republicans can win.
Vilma: You got it wrong. Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the keys. Illinois, New York, and California are all very liberal states. Texas is conservative. Democrats have the entire northeast. Republicans have the entire southeast.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Jun 8 2007, 10:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Vilma: You got it wrong. Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the keys. Illinois, New York, and California are all very liberal states. Texas is conservative. Democrats have the entire northeast. Republicans have the entire southeast.</div>First off, you just agreed with me. I said California was going to go to the Democrats and Texas would be in contention, but it's a tough win there. So thank you for saying I'm wrong then agreeing with me.Secondly, California is home to a Republican Governor, Two Democratic Senators, and a 28/20 split in the U.S. House of Representatives. It leans left, but it's by no means a sure-thing for any liberal. Third, you can't make broad statements like "Democrats have the entire northeast. Republicans have the entire southeast." That's simply not true. Clinton won many southern states, and G. W. Bush won New Hampshire of all places (a traditionally Democratic State). Maine, Conneticut, Vermont, etc have all gone Republican from time to time. You can't pain the country in broad strokes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Jun 8 2007, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Vilma: You got it wrong. Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the keys. Illinois, New York, and California are all very liberal states. Texas is conservative. Democrats have the entire northeast. Republicans have the entire southeast.</div>If Rudy gets nominated, I think New York would become very much a swing state as he's beloved here. No other Republican would stand a chance of getting NY though, you are right on that one.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Jun 9 2007, 06:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Jun 8 2007, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Vilma: You got it wrong. Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the keys. Illinois, New York, and California are all very liberal states. Texas is conservative. Democrats have the entire northeast. Republicans have the entire southeast.</div>If Rudy gets nominated, I think New York would become very much a swing state as he's beloved here. No other Republican would stand a chance of getting NY though, you are right on that one.</div>If Rudy gets nominated, I think taking New York would be enough to win. If he can get Pennsylvania as well, he got it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Jun 7 2007, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Chang, to be president pro tem of the senate, you have to be the longest serving member of the majority party.</div>By custom... but you can still be elected pro tempore. And I really doubt that a party wouldn't vote for a possible presidential candidate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Jun 9 2007, 04:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Jun 8 2007, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Vilma: You got it wrong. Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the keys. Illinois, New York, and California are all very liberal states. Texas is conservative. Democrats have the entire northeast. Republicans have the entire southeast.</div>If Rudy gets nominated, I think New York would become very much a swing state as he's beloved here. No other Republican would stand a chance of getting NY though, you are right on that one.</div>Rudy carries 0 weight in the south though, and Values Voters will stay home if he's the nominee. You pit Rudy vs Edwards and you'll end up with Rudy taking NY and maybe a couple more of the New England states, but Edwards would likely sweep the South East with his southern Charm. He's more liked now in the South than Bill Clinton was prior tohis first run at presidency, and if you don't give Values Voters a reason to go to the polls for the Republicans, you can guarantee that losing NY will more than be made up for in the South.In the book, "What's the Matter with Kansas" it does a very good job of breaking down how Republicans have constantly won the South despite having bad economic policies for the south. And in the largest majority of voters they get to the polls are the Values Voters. People who vote based soley on what candidate they feel has the best values as a person. Christian morals, no blemishes on their record, etc. Edwards, far and beyond any other democrat, polls very highly with Values Voters. You pit someone with low favoribility among the masses in the south like Rudy Giuliani, who has had 3 marriages and 2 mistresses (that he was caught with) under his belt; who admittedly has fun crossdressing at parties; and who has many homosexual friends (including his two room mates that he moved in with after leaving his wife for his mistress), and you'll end up losing all the southern support that Republicans count on.Right or Wrong, that is the reality of the voting American Public.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Jun 9 2007, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Jun 9 2007, 04:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Jun 8 2007, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Vilma: You got it wrong. Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the keys. Illinois, New York, and California are all very liberal states. Texas is conservative. Democrats have the entire northeast. Republicans have the entire southeast.</div>If Rudy gets nominated, I think New York would become very much a swing state as he's beloved here. No other Republican would stand a chance of getting NY though, you are right on that one.</div>Rudy carries 0 weight in the south though, and Values Voters will stay home if he's the nominee. You pit Rudy vs Edwards and you'll end up with Rudy taking NY and maybe a couple more of the New England states, but Edwards would likely sweep the South East with his southern Charm. He's more liked now in the South than Bill Clinton was prior tohis first run at presidency, and if you don't give Values Voters a reason to go to the polls for the Republicans, you can guarantee that losing NY will more than be made up for in the South.In the book, "What's the Matter with Kansas" it does a very good job of breaking down how Republicans have constantly won the South despite having bad economic policies for the south. And in the largest majority of voters they get to the polls are the Values Voters. People who vote based soley on what candidate they feel has the best values as a person. Christian morals, no blemishes on their record, etc. Edwards, far and beyond any other democrat, polls very highly with Values Voters. You pit someone with low favoribility among the masses in the south like Rudy Giuliani, who has had 3 marriages and 2 mistresses (that he was caught with) under his belt; who admittedly has fun crossdressing at parties; and who has many homosexual friends (including his two room mates that he moved in with after leaving his wife for his mistress), and you'll end up losing all the southern support that Republicans count on.Right or Wrong, that is the reality of the voting American Public.</div>Well, thats why you have to pair Rudy with someone who will be Mr. Values, to try and win some of them back. Plus, I tend to think most of the South is heavy republican to begin with, so you'll get people who vote for him simply because he's the Republican Nominee (Just remember, 50% of America isn't bright and probably shouldn't be voting because they are doing so for a stupid reason). Plus, I really don't see Edwards getting the Democrat Nomination to begin with....It'll probably be Obama IMO, and I think Edwards is too stubborn to take a Vice President role this time around after losing with Kerry.
[quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='94156' date='Jun 9 2007, 12:21 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='94146' date='Jun 9 2007, 10:07 AM'][quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='94132' date='Jun 9 2007, 04:08 AM'][quote name='DevinHester23' post='94122' date='Jun 8 2007, 09:50 PM']Vilma: You got it wrong. Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are the keys. Illinois, New York, and California are all very liberal states. Texas is conservative. Democrats have the entire northeast. Republicans have the entire southeast.[/quote]If Rudy gets nominated, I think New York would become very much a swing state as he's beloved here. No other Republican would stand a chance of getting NY though, you are right on that one.[/quote]Rudy carries 0 weight in the south though, and Values Voters will stay home if he's the nominee. You pit Rudy vs Edwards and you'll end up with Rudy taking NY and maybe a couple more of the New England states, but Edwards would likely sweep the South East with his southern Charm. He's more liked now in the South than Bill Clinton was prior tohis first run at presidency, and if you don't give Values Voters a reason to go to the polls for the Republicans, you can guarantee that losing NY will more than be made up for in the South.In the book, "What's the Matter with Kansas" it does a very good job of breaking down how Republicans have constantly won the South despite having bad economic policies for the south. And in the largest majority of voters they get to the polls are the Values Voters. People who vote based soley on what candidate they feel has the best values as a person. Christian morals, no blemishes on their record, etc. Edwards, far and beyond any other democrat, polls very highly with Values Voters. You pit someone with low favoribility among the masses in the south like Rudy Giuliani, who has had 3 marriages and 2 mistresses (that he was caught with) under his belt; who admittedly has fun crossdressing at parties; and who has many homosexual friends (including his two room mates that he moved in with after leaving his wife for his mistress), and you'll end up losing all the southern support that Republicans count on.Right or Wrong, that is the reality of the voting American Public.[/quote]Well, thats why you have to pair Rudy with someone who will be Mr. Values, to try and win some of them back. Plus, I tend to think most of the South is heavy republican to begin with, so you'll get people who vote for him simply because he's the Republican Nominee (Just remember, 50% of America isn't bright and probably shouldn't be voting because they are doing so for a stupid reason). Plus, I really don't see Edwards getting the Democrat Nomination to begin with....It'll probably be Obama IMO, and I think Edwards is too stubborn to take a Vice President role this time around after losing with Kerry.[/quote]And just who, oh wise one, is the viable VP candidate who is also "Mr. Values"
