• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theBishop

Banned
I was talking to a friend about Obama the other day, and I realized something. He's not as progressive as I'd like, he has disappointed me in some cases ("Not Voting" on Kyl-Lieberman), and he's to the right of the average Israeli on Israel/Palestine.

When it comes down to it, Obama's greatest strength is that he talks about and lives in the same universe as me. We disagree on many issues, but we are both working with roughly the same set of facts about the world.

John McCain talks about this insane parallel dimension where the richest nation in the world is facing an existential threat by cave-dwellers thousands of miles away. He exists in a universe where the US is still the moral compass for the rest of the planet, and where an unfettered Free Market doesn't lead to drastic income inequality.

So I am enthusiastic about Obama's style and his call to American's to get involved in government. But when it gets right down to it, my biggest reason for supporting Obama is because he meets what should be a bare-minimum requirement: he lives on the planet Earth.
 
A

Azih

Member
avatar299 said:
No, it simply is. It's proponents have tried to turn it into many things, including an extension of the first amendment, but it is mainly about who is paying the bills for the development of the hardware behind the internet.
Click to expand...
Bull, *Consumers* always pay for the development of the hardware behind the internet.

Right now this is done through telco fees that provide the ability to send and receive information through the internet. That's it. This means an extremely low barrier of entry for new service and content providers.

Telcos now want to be able to discriminate between service and content providers and give preferred quality of service to those who pay them. This will raise the barrier of entry and make it harder for a new Google to get startup financing as the cost of doing business would now include fees to pay off the telco companies to give them the equivalent quality of access that the incumbent heavyweight search engines can pay for. It would hamper the ability of a new Facebook to emerge as a Rupert Murdoch backed Myspace would be paying for a smoother and better experience that a less well funded startup cannot compete with based purely on financing not quality of concept or technology.

It's a huge conflict of interest in any case as telcos are moving into the realm of service and content provision especially in the case of services like VOIP.

You seem to be repeating the arguments of ridiculous websites like 'hands off the internet' which go on and on about the evils of Google and Yahoo and Microsoft but conveniently enough don't even mention AT&T etc.
 
C

CowboyAstronaut

Banned
:lol CNN just ran a story about how there are all these people calling Republicans asking how they can help John McCain.

I was worried at first, but the reality of the matter is they wont even make much of a difference in the end and the large majority of them are the kind of people that wouldn't have ever voted for someone like Obama anyway.

They can go ahead and do whatever they want. None of them will be too densely populated in any one area of the Country to make any significant difference in this election. Their bark is louder than their bite. If their bite was anything to fear, then it would be Hilary who would have this nomination. The more bitter supporters, who despise Obama, can, by all means, settle with the reality for this election that they failed Hilary.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Zeed said:
Jindal scares me, and even though I doubt he'd help McCain, I don't even want the possibility of him becoming VP. His stances on creationism, abortion, and nearly every other evangelical issue are just terrifying.

I'd love to meet a Hillary supporter bitter enough to vote for a ticket with Jindal on it.
Click to expand...
He scares me too, but will he really be able to perform well outside of southern states that McCain will get anyway? I don't think so. He certainly would not encourage traditional blue states to perhaps go red. He's too conservative. He's the Indian George W. Bush. Like I said, the country is going back to the center. If the Democrats do a good job of letting everyone know where Jindal stands should he be the VP nominee, I hope he will end up being a non-issue for us, even if he's young and charismatic.
 
S

ShOcKwAvE

Member
SO awesome:

McCain in Ad:

“Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war…I know how terrible its costs are. I’m running for President to keep the country I love safe.”
Click to expand...

http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/06/mccain-to-air-first-major-tv-ad-of-the-general/


Bush to soldiers:

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/13/bush-envious-of-soldier_n_91455.html
 
F

Farmboy

Member
The baseline electoral math is looking very good for Obama.

ecmapln3.jpg


Looking at current polling (BIG caveat: polling this far away from the election is risky), Here's this is the electoral map of where the race is right now. Granted, IN and ND are longshots for Obama, but there has been polling (even from SUSA) showing Obama winning them. I think Florida is solid red at this point, although if Clinton is sincere about doing whatever is asked of her, it couldn't hurt to dispatch her there.

If Obama has any sort of unity-bounce in the coming weeks, MI, PA and CO should become safely blue (and FL might become contestable). See here (note that I've given up on ND and IN turning blue on that one, and haven't put FL into play). That would put Obama within 6 EVs of the presidency. He'd only need one of the following: MO, OH, VA. Or: either NV or NM coupled with either NE-1 or NE-2. Or: NH coupled with both NE-1 and NE-2.

In addition, Obama could score 'upsets' not only in IN and ND (and FL), but also in any of the Southern states with high % African-American population, especially NC. The only thing I'd call an upset in favor of McCain is if he wins at least two out three in PA, OH and MI. There has been some talk of McCain having a shot at New Jersey, but I sincerely doubt it.

Can anyone come up with a reasonable losing scenario for Obama, based on that baseline?
 
T

typhonsentra

Banned
I think he could win Florida. When was the last time a polling agency did a head-to-head for the two of them down here? The last poll for the state had him ahead by only 4 points, and that was before he started visiting, the delegates were given back, and Hillary lost officially.

There are supposedly polls which but Georgia and North Carolina in play too.
 
L

Love To Love You Baby

Member
An article on why Montana governer Brian Schweitzer is someone for Obama to look into for VP:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/on-brian-schweitzer-as-vp.html

On Brian Schweitzer as VP
Last night, Senator Jon Tester impishly threw Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer's name into the ring as a potential VP choice. That set off a bunch of thoughts, because I have a closer perspective on Schweitzer than most bloggers. Without going into too much detail, I've worked a short while in Montana politics, enough to feel relatively confident in the following analysis.

The first time I heard Brian Schweitzer speak, I thought: "This guy is going to be President." That is not a common reaction on my part to politicians. I've listened to hundreds and hundreds of Democratic politicians speak, and I've only had that reaction twice in my lifetime. The first was Barack Obama, the second was Brian Schweitzer.

People have asked me what it was that made me feel so strongly in reaction, and the way I'd put it now is that Brian Schweitzer and Barack Obama are the two "new Democrat" styles that are extremely effective in the post-Clinton era. Both emphasize solutions over partisanship. Both are suspected by Republicans of talking a good game of bipartisanship and hewing to traditional Democratic Party ideology. Both are great communicators, but with different rhetorical strengths. Obama rose from an mainly urban and intellectual background; Schweitzer's breakthrough is probably the single best example of why the Democrats chose Denver as the convention site this year.

In addition to being a strong speech-giver, Schweitzer is a gifted quote-machine. He regularly delivers the glib, funny ways of both explaining his position on policy and mocking his opponents for their unreasonableness. It's hard to think of a more effective way of developing popularity among voters who think of themselves as uncomplicated common sense types. His most notable one-liner is actually a counterpose to the legacy of national Clinton branding of the Democratic Party: "Gun control is you control your gun and I'll control mine." It's glib, it's memorable, it communicates exactly where he stands, it's populist.

It matters when you can give voters lines like that, because the real sell-job is one regular voter to another. When one guy in the barber shop says, what do you think about this guy Schweitzer, is he one of those Democrats who want to take away everyone's guns? The other regular guy remembers that line and repeats it, and now the first guy just learned Schweitzer's position even if he's a low info voter. Low info voters are the voters with whom Obama has the most trouble. None of the names bandied about in the VP talk are in Schweitzer's league when it comes to this ability.

This way of speaking is not accidental. Schweitzer has made an amateur study of right wing radio, to understand how to turn the effective glibness those toxic hosts use for their own benefit into his advantage. Schweitzer is a hell of a smart guy. A soil scientist and rancher, he spent 6 years in Saudi Arabia working on irrigation projects. He speaks fluent Arabic and has an intuitive grasp of the region based on real life experience. Certainly that would open him up to the sleazy email "Manchurian Candidate" stuff, especially as the radical Islamic Hussein Osama's running mate. But I have a feeling, knowing Schweitzer, he'd be asked about it and his response would have people slapping their foreheads in laughter with, "Yes! That's the perfect reply!"

As far as other stats, Schweitzer is one of Al Giordano's Catholic governors. He is known for energy policy, which aligns with Obama's comments about wanting to find a running mate with executive experience and energy policy expertise.

He's young (52), and if Obama were to somehow lose the presidency this year, I would immediately look into a futures bet on Schweitzer. In my mind, Schweitzer would be the clear front runner for 2012, regardless of whether he'd been on the ticket this time or not.

Now, here are a few halts on the idea. First, I've talked directly to family members who seem to honestly be saying Schweitzer doesn't have these national ambitions. I take those things seriously, but I also know that being asked to be VP would almost certainly be accepted, as Jon Tester said last night. Things change when it's real, when it's right there in your lap.

Second, Schweitzer, for all the attention and high profile he's gotten from Stewart, Colbert, 60 Minutes, the Candy Crowleys and Joe Kleins, as well as his hero status in the Democratic political blog world, Schweitzer actually doesn't have a big resume. He's only been governor of a small population state for 4 years. As a good friend who has extensive experience with both Schweitzer and Obama has pointed out, this would not necessarily be the best way to fend off the "inexperience" charge that will be leveled at Obama.

My reaction to that argument is that I take Obama's confidence at its face value - he is looking for quality people period, and willing to do battle on the attack ground of inexperience if necessary. If the truth is that this X is the right candidate, then Obama picks X and relies on his ability to meet that argument head-on and win. Moreover, I don't think the mood of the country really cares about length of resume right now. They want people with solutions, and incumbency starts out having to prove itself as a valuable quality rather than part of the problem.

Another argument against Schweitzer, the one I have long thought most persuasive, is that while most have tended to think Montana is undergoing a blue revolution, the Democrats in Montana have a much thinner bench than most realize and his departure to run on a national ticket would hurt Montana Dems badly. Take Schweitzer out of the governor's mansion, his Lieutenant Governor is a Republican. There's no obvious replacement. If Schweitzer chooses to accept a VP offer, he knows he's going to leave a mess and some unhappy allies who are negatively affected.

Now, if Tester says he'd probably take it, he'd probably take it. You notice he hesitated a bit, and I can assure you that the hesitation is all about what the ripples would be back home. Schweitzer is very popular in Montana, he came out of the 2007 Legislative Session debacle looking far better than his Republican counterparts did (in no small part because of his gift for producing quote after quote about the situation that made him look sane, reasonable and the bigger man). But a valid criticism is that Schweitzer's roster of drafted Dems to run for legislative seats in 2006 was weak at best. Montana had the only state legislative chamber that flipped blue to red in the 2006 wave. The 100-member House had been barely blue, and by 3 votes in Laurel, Republicans took back the chamber, leading to a nightmarishly confrontational Session. (Ironically, the field staffer assigned to Laurel was one who Schweitzer's brother had to be talked down from demanding his dismissal for a harmlessly-intended but poorly executed joke in a local meeting just weeks before the election.)

Montana Republicans have it in for Schweitzer. They want his head on a platter. They hate his popularity. They were willing to go nuclear in 2007's Session to undermine him. Ironically, while Schweitzer will win easy re-election against the painfully nasal Roy Brown, it's an uphill battle to hold the 26-24 Senate, much less take back the 51-49 House (one of those is a Constitution Party member who caucuses with Republicans). Particularly if Schweitzer's candidate drafting ability does not dramatically improve. If Republicans have both chambers in the 2009 Session, the #1 agenda will be to thwart Schweitzer from having any legacy after 8 years to go national.

The upshot of the Montana situation is that if Schweitzer grasps that (and I think he's savvy enough to see all the angles which are more numerous and complex than I've outlined), he might just take an offer from Obama if it comes. It's risky, because he might leave behind an ugly state situation in a vacuum and I do think he cares about that.

Will an offer from Obama come? I am probably the only poker player who has the mp3 of this year's Mansfield-Metcalfe Obama speech on his iPod shuffle. When I hear that speech, it's clear from Obama's reference to Schweitzer that he has great admiration for the governor's skill. "And how about this guy?" is how he starts out. It's obvious Obama has great appreciation for Schweitzer's talent. Obama clearly sees Schweitzer's gifts. You know Obama's thought about him as VP.

But from my reports, which well could be incomplete, is that Schweitzer had not exactly embraced Obama. I don't know why, and again I stress that this is from people I trust who have proven to have great feel for Montana politics in the past, but I cannot guarantee its accuracy. Without going into the personal, I know at least one person very close to Brian who had flirted with the Clinton camp from the early going. It adds up to there being something less than the enthusiastic support offered by Kaine, Sebelius, Richardson, Napolitano, etc.

One big advantage of adding Schweitzer to the ticket would be his ability to play the perfect VP role of constantly tweaking John McCain in the language that would reach the so called "working class white vote" that has the collective punditocracy up in "Oh Noesville!!1!!11!" Tweaking John McCain from two different rhetorical angles would resonate on a much wider platform. And tweaking thin-skinned John McCain drives John McCain out of his mind with rage. All you have to do is quote the guy accurately and he snaps. Brian Schweitzer would keep his cool. He's very hard to rattle. When Mike Lange memorably went on an end-of-session, profanity-laced diatribe against Schweitzer, Schweitzer played it masterfully by not taking the bait and emphasizing Mike Lange in a bad moment was not the Mike Lange he knew. Game, set, match.

The ultimate question: do I think Schweitzer will be offered the job? No. Barely. Gut sense. Perfectly content with being wrong.

Do I think Schweitzer would take it if offered? Yes. I was beginning to go that way, and Tester's hesitating yes pushed me there last night.

(By the way, Jon Tester is just a tremendous human being. He is also the only Senator who, if I ran into him tomorrow, my first instinct would be to give him shit. He's that real of a guy. I'm honored I got to help him. Quick story: A few days before the election, I asked him if he could do anything what would he want to do right after it was over. I believed him when he said he'd want to put on a fake beard for about three days and just go drink at a bar. I love that guy. I digress.)

Still, if I'm Obama, I'd look at Schweitzer long and hard. I do think the Clintons are determined for it not to be Richardson (I have been hearing all the zipper rumors too, and if those have any truth you can be sure that the Clintons know what they are and will have no remorse about submarining Judas with that info, unlinked to them of course).

Like a lot of you, I'd been thinking about a female choice but it does make Obama look like he had to pick "a woman" and not "the most qualified" even if Obama deems Sebelius to be the most qualified. He'd be open to that annoying, nagging charge regardless of its truth. I hadn't thought of how Clinton would react to Obama picking a woman that wasn't her, but it makes a certain kind of sense that Clinton would find it unacceptable. If she has any future chances to be the nominee, it's important to her that she still is the first. (Again, I think there is absolutely no chance of her ever being president. That's just my opinion, now that half her own party feels about her close to the way they feel about Joe Lieberman and Republicans still galvanizingly hate her. But I realize that she may be oblivious to this and will react badly if Obama picks a woman VP for this reason.)

Brian Schweitzer is a noted early morning devourer of political blogs; let's hope he's found his way over here to 538 and posts something in the comments to steer me back on course where I've erred in the analysis (ha ha). I'd also love to hear Sirota's take on the whole idea, because he knows Schweitzer's world far better than I do.
Click to expand...
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Mercury Fred said:
So if someone were to make fun of Obama's appearance, say the consistency of his hair or the shape and color of his lips, that wouldn't be racist it would just be "childish"?
Click to expand...

Yes its childish not racist. Its true that Obama does have some black ass lips. Smoking does to some people. But to say that doesn't make you a racist.
 
V

vitaflo

Member
Farmboy said:
Can anyone come up with a reasonable losing scenario for Obama, based on that baseline?
Click to expand...

If McCain picks Tom Ridge as VP, he has a very good possibility of taking Penn. Try that map without Penn, it makes it very hard for Obama to win. This is why I'm convinced McCain will pick Ridge as VP.
 
S

sangreal

Member
Some more info on last night's meeting:
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California got the call from Hillary Rodham Clinton Thursday afternoon: Could she, would she let Mrs. Clinton use her home in Northwest Washington for a little sit-down with a certain senator from Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States?

Mrs. Feinstein had made the offer before and it was still good. And so a few hours later, at just about 9 p.m., Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama arrived for a face to face chat. No staff. No spouses. Just the two of them in Mrs. Feinstein’s living room.

The California senator had set up two chairs facing each other. She served them water. Nothing else. Two aides were sent to Mrs. Feinstein’s study. And Secret Service agents stayed outside.

And so it happened, The Meeting, that Democrats knew was inevitable, but for a long while thought would never come. It lasted about an hour.

And Mrs. Feinstein said she did not ask what was said. But in an interview outside the Senate chamber she said she hoped the two candidates had gotten some time to decompress and discuss the road ahead.

Mrs. Feinstein also said that she hoped the conversation would lead to greater party unity, and that Mrs. Clinton was intent on respecting the views of her supporters and looking out for the interests of her staff, as the general election unfolds.

“I can speak, I think, for Senator Clinton. She wants to do everything she can to bring the party together,” Mrs. Feinstein said. “She wants to do everything she can to see the people who voted for her have their voices heard and that’s reflected in credentials, platform. And she wants to have a working relationship with Senator Obama, and I think it’s a very positive thing.”

Reporters in the Capitol pressed for every last detail. “They talked for about an hour,” she said. “Just them. No staff. There were no press, no staff. They had one person from each campaign that was in my study separately and I guess the security people outside. They got along very well.”

She was asked whether she heard any shouting. “No, they got along very well.”

Mrs. Feinstein said she got the call from Mrs. Clinton in the late afternoon and that she did not need to make any preparations at her home near American University.

She said she had been in regular communication with Mrs. Clinton and was sensitive to the New York Senator’s feelings at a tumultuous time.

“We had obviously talked several times and, you know I lost, as you know, a campaign for governor, and I know you have to talk,” Mrs. Feinstein said. “And it was, they want this opportunity privately, you know. You all know what it’s like, I mean, you go out, you have to make a statement, and there are press, and everybody is critical of it. And they just want an opportunity to meet together alone. And you know, this is a deeply personal time too. You are sorting out your feelings. Hillary’s is going to be giving a big speech tomorrow. Barack is trying to put things together for a major presidential campaign. So, there are a lot of decompression, nerve-endings, all these things that need to kind of come together and I think the opportunity to sit down, just the two of them, have an hour together was positive.”

Mrs. Feinstein said she did not need to urge Mrs. Clinton to hold a meeting. “I didn’t urge anybody to do anything. I know it’s a natural instinct. People, particularly in this case because Hillary represents a very large block of voters — the largest ever for anybody that has come in No. 2, and has the popular vote. She is I think desirous of protecting the issues that she cares about to the extent she can, seeing that the people are represented in this administration and certainly in the convention. And also to help with the ticket, and I know she feels that way because we have talked about this.”
Click to expand...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/the-obama-clinton-meeting/index.html?hp
 
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
vitaflo said:
If McCain picks Tom Ridge as VP, he has a very good possibility of taking Penn. Try that map without Penn, it makes it very hard for Obama to win. This is why I'm convinced McCain will pick Ridge as VP.
Click to expand...

Matthews has it right. If it's close, Obama loses. He has to make this sort of state by state back and forth irrelevant by really redefining the map and winning big.
 
S

syllogism

Member
It is indeed sometimes okay to make fun of consistency of hair

fran%20powers.jpg


NY-13: Francis Powers, the son of the likely Republican nominee Frank Powers, who is planning to run against his dad on the Libertarian party ticket. Starting to sound like a guaranteed D pickup.
 
C

Cheebs

Member
syllogism said:
It is indeed sometimes okay to make fun of consistency of hair

fran%20powers.jpg


NY-13: Francis Powers, the son of the likely Republican nominee Frank Powers, who is planning to run against his dad on the Libertarian party ticket.
Click to expand...
He admitted he isn't running to win but just to mess things up to confuse people so his dad doesn't win since they have the same name. :lol
 
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
syllogism said:
It is indeed sometimes okay to make fun of consistency of hair

fran%20powers.jpg


NY-13: Francis Powers, the son of the likely Republican nominee Frank Powers, who is planning to run against his dad on the Libertarian party ticket.
Click to expand...

That has to be a picture from 1986. There's no possible way that is recent.
 
S

sangreal

Member
vitaflo said:
If McCain picks Tom Ridge as VP, he has a very good possibility of taking Penn. Try that map without Penn, it makes it very hard for Obama to win. This is why I'm convinced McCain will pick Ridge as VP.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is unreasonable:
map.gif

Thoughts?
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
sangreal said:
I don't think this is unreasonable:
map.gif

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
McCain: i am not running on the third term of a Bush presidency. now let me introduce my running mate - former Secretary of Homeland Security and close friend of George W. Bush, Tom Ridge!

..yeah. not going to happen.
 
S

sangreal

Member
scorcho said:
McCain: i am not running on the third term of a Bush presidency. now let me introduce my running mate - former Secretary of Homeland Security and close friend of George W. Bush, Tom Ridge!

..yeah. not going to happen.
Click to expand...

There is actually a much better chance of Rendell being an Obama running mate
 
C

CowboyAstronaut

Banned
I hope Obama doesn't avoid picking Sebellius for the simple fact that he might be accused of pandering because he has trouble with female voters.

Nor should take into consideration any possibility that Hilary might be opposed to it for fear that she would lose a prominent part of her role in the Democrat Party as first woman should Obama win with Sebellius on the ticket.

What's more, Obama must also be aware of the fact that he would be able to easily defend the decision by pointing to what makes Sebellius qualified for the position.

Even if people wont admit it now, there would be a lot of women that are absolutely ecstatic about the choice and wouldn't leave McCain much chance of truly beating out Obama in the female vote come November. Everyone sees Rice as the perfect McCain counter, but as much as I hate to admit it, Sebellius being white and Rice being black would make such a VP match-up play heavily in Obama's favor.

Sangreal, I definitely don't think a Rendell is remotely possible as a VP candidate now after this whole foreign offer of up to $13 billion made on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Rendell is in support of it. Such an aggressive offer coming from outside of this Country would open up a can of worms that would lead to far more serious issues for Obama with out of state organizations trying to buy up strategically important American properties becoming far more prevalent. That is a major national security risk especially with the recent attempt to purchase a vitally important railroad here in the USA that has significant ties to our military.
 
A

adamsappel

Member
I think it would be a mistake, even if only a superficial one, for McCain to pick Jindal. I don't think it's a prerequisite to be racist to qualify as a Republican (and we've certainly seen that Democrats can be racist with the worst of them), but I just can't see the typical Republican voting for someone named "Piyush" (no matter what the banner or bumper sticker says, his real name would be brought up by unscrupulous Democrats, racist conservatives or just the MSM looking for a story). Conversely, I don't think Obama would have gotten as far if he was still hiding behind "Barry" (conservatives would have had a field day with "His name is really 'Barack,' sounds Muslim to me").
 
C

CowboyAstronaut

Banned
Giuliani is such a fool. Had he not run such an idiotic race, he would definitely be the Republican party's nominee and New York, of all places, I suspect would potentially be in play for Republicans this November.

I also see mentions of a possible Mike Bloomberg choice. He also has tons of money. That would make an alliance with both he and Obama very dangerous.
 
N

NewLib

Banned
CowboyAstronaut said:
I hope Obama doesn't avoid picking Sebellius for the simple fact that he might be accused of pandering because he has trouble with female voters.

Nor should take into consideration any possibility that Hilary might be opposed to it for fear that she would lose a prominent part of her role in the Democrat Party as first woman should Obama win with Sebellius on the ticket.

What's more, Obama must also be aware of the fact that he would be able to easily defend the decision by pointing to what makes Sebellius qualified for the position.

Even if people wont admit it now, there would be a lot of women that are absolutely ecstatic about the choice and wouldn't leave McCain much chance of truly beating out Obama in the female vote come November. Everyone sees Rice as the perfect McCain counter, but as much as I hate to admit it, Sebellius being white and Rice being black would make such a VP match-up play heavily in Obama's favor.
Click to expand...

You honestly think people are going to be like, "Well I hate Black People, but Obama's VP is a white women so everything is okay now." They still wont vote for Obama.

Picking Condi Rice for VP would be the worst decision McCain could make because he will make 1) Zero inroads on the AA vote, because many see her as a race traitor and 2) He will cause many of his racist supporters to stay home.

Democrats should pray he takes Condi Rice, because then the entire South comes into play.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
NewLib said:
I wouldnt trust any polling right now. Poll has McCain up in Michigan.

A Republican isnt winning Michigan.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm dubious of most polling right now.

(Also: Obama will take Iowa. Bank on it.)
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
while i find a lot of Jindal's views repugnant (standard social/religious conservative orthodoxy), what he represents is the essence of America's multiculturalism. i would give McCain immense respect for the implicit tactical decision to throw yet another roadblocks for blatant and subliminal racists this election.
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
CowboyAstronaut said:
Giuliani is such a fool. Had he not run such an idiotic race, he would definitely be the Republican party's nominee and New York, of all places, I suspect would potentially be in play for Republicans this November.

I also see mentions of a possible Mike Bloomberg choice. He also has tons of money. That would make an alliance with both he and Obama very dangerous.
Click to expand...
pockets of Giuliani supporters abound in the five boroughs, but he is far, FAR from being universally loved. he would've made NY's vote a bit more interesting, but there's little chance he would've converted it red.
 
B

BotoxAgent

Member
CowboyAstronaut said:
Everyone sees Rice as the perfect McCain counter, but as much as I hate to admit it, Sebellius being white and Rice being black would make such a VP match-up play heavily in Obama's favor.

.
Click to expand...

Oh man, I would be happy if he picked Rice, then he definitely can't run away from the "Bush 3rd term" mantra.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
tanod said:
Having lived in Iowa for 26 years, I'm absolutely sure the state is going blue this year.
Click to expand...
<3

I was born and raised there, moved away in '04. Was so disappointed we went red last cycle. But I'm confident my home state won't let me down.
 
F

Farmboy

Member
Cheebs said:
Schweitzer is a rising star in the party he'd be a good pick
Click to expand...

Schweitzer:
+ Great speaker, with a populist tinge that could complement Obama's more soaring style well
+ Populist, one-liner-driven style should connet well with 'low info voters'
+ 'Gore choice': reinforces the message
+ Popular governor in Big Sky region, could bring Montana in play
+ Rising star in party that could be well-positioned for a 2016 run
- Doesn't add foreign policy experience, or much other experience
- 'Gore choice': doesn't balance the ticket
- Taking VP could leave Dem state operation in disarray

CowboyAstronaut said:
I also see mentions of a possible Mike Bloomberg choice. He also has tons of money. That would make an alliance with both he and Obama very dangerous.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg:
+ Economic expert in an election that's about the economy, stupid
+ Good relationship with Obama
+ Very popular with independents
+ Will help with Jewish vote in PA and FL
- Black/Jewish ticket may be too much rainbow for crucial blue collar voters
- Adding a billionaire to the ticket does little to combat elitism claims (and Obama doesn't really need the money), not a 'blue collar' guy
- Doesn't add foreign policy experience

:D Come on, do a list, both of you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SCHiM | Review Thread
Analysis Review
7
807
Eiknarf replied
Sand Land | Review Thread
Opinion Analysis Review
16
2K
adamsapple replied
Sexualizing
Opinion Drama Science 2
62
6K
Raonak replied
[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
3K
sharp weiner replied
Helldivers II | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
128
15K
splattered replied
Top Bottom