Domenici and Wilson were implicated in the US Attorney's Scandal, which involved them calling the US Attorney before the election wanted him to bring charges against Madrid, or something like that. I don't think that he actually did.

I don't think NM has a record of Republican vote fraud though. It's a thoroughly Democratic state on the state and local level.

She won by like 875 votes, which were pretty legit. In retrospect I guess she doesn't look so good on the attorney thing, but I don't think that influenced the outcome.

dajafi wrote:Yes, that ad was effective--it made Madrid look like an idiot. And it had nothing to do with anything. The premise/question was stupid, and I'd say that Madrid's failing was not blasting back at the questioner for a banal and simplistic approach (a tactic that almost always goes over well, as Fred Thompson proved a few weeks ago).

Again, I'm hating the game here.

That was Wilson asking the question. So she basically made the ad. Madrid said other dumb stuff during the debate, like talking about how lobbyists only give money to get access (in a good way!). She refused to debate Wilson over the whole campaign because she was winning and Wilson is a lot smarter than she is. We were down 10 points when that ad came out. Madrid would have won the election if no debate was held.

It was a race Wilson had no business winning, as she was facing a real candidate in a district Gore and Kerry won in an awful year, but Madrid was just abysmal. That she was even considered to run again for NM-01 when Wilson started to run for Senate was funny.

BuddyGroom wrote:You're talking about the Senate vote? Okay, but people frequently still say, as was said in this thread, that Clinton perjured himself.

Just goes to show, I guess, how incomplete or inadequate an acquittal can be.

Well, no criminal charges were filed.

Here is my 2008 presidential candidate analysis... using the criteria and perspective of the general U.S. voting public (we don't need no stinkin' policies or real issues or all that confusing nonsense). Colorized for your reading pleasure...



The donkeys, in no particular order (actually, alphabetical)...

Joe Biden
U.S. Senator from Delaware
Who? What is this "Delaware"?

Hillary Clinton
U.S. Senator from New York, former First Lady
Presidential sounding last name (mostly because her hubby was president). Loathed by most who have loyalties for the opposing party (again, mostly because her hubby was prez). Plus: The thought of Bill being in the White House again. Minus: The thought of Bill being in the White House again. Wanna bet that if Hillary wins the WH, Bill hopes she gives Kucinich a cabinet position (or VP)?

Christopher Dodd
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Who? Considering a lot of people can't even spell "Connecticut"... is it mathematically possible to have a negative % chance?

John Edwards
former U.S. Senator from North Carolina, 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate
Nice, mainstream, non-ethnic sounding (maybe even presidential sounding) name... "President Edwards". Attractive looking, would look good on TV (not to mention on money or a stamp). Personality and charisma of a used car salesman.

Mike Gravel
former U.S. Senator from Alaska
Who? "President Gravel" sounds like a name for a quarry.

Dennis Kucinich
U.S. Representative from Ohio
Split evenly between "who" and "yeah, right". Only chance is if there's an extremely large "horndogs that want to see his hot wife as first lady" voter turnout.

Barack Obama
U.S. Senator from Illinois
While there may be some in this day and age that will not vote for a black dude, Obama's biggest obstacle is... he has a foreign sounding name. At a time were a top issue (in Iowa, no less) is illegal immigration, will this country elect someone with a foreign sounding name? And a last name that's just one consonant from (gasp) "Osama"? Also, this country has never elected a president with a last name that ends with a vowel (with the exception of a silent "e"... Kennedy doesn't count since "y" is only a part-time vowel).

Bill Richardson
Governor of New Mexico, former U.S. Representative from New Mexico, former United States Ambassador to the UN
Holy carp, thems a lotta credentials! Even though he is of Hispanic heritage, "Richardson" is a mainstream enough name to pass presidential muster... "President Richardson". Although he may be one of the better qualified candidates, doesn't matter because personality wise, the guy comes off like a wet carp. Not a whole lotta presidential charisma. So, split evenly between "who" and "meh".





The elephants...


Rudy Giuliani
former Mayor of New York City
9/11! 9/11! Sure knows how to scare ya! But there's that "name ending in a vowel" thing again. Not only that, but the vowels outnumber consonants 2-1. And he's bald... image is everything you know, a full head o' hair = virility and looks better on TV. At least he ditched that lame combover that wasn't fooling anyone, credit for which goes to his once mistress now wife.

Mike Huckabee
former Governor of Arkansas
Once again, the last name ending in a vowel thing (and two vowels to boot). Even though he may be one of the more qualified, "President Huckabee" doesn't really sound presidential... that "aw shucks" cutesy name ain't scaring terrorists and illegals. Although it's cool that he, like Bill Clinton, is a musician. But bass players don't get the glamour or spotlight or, unlike sax players, the primo groupies.

Duncan Hunter
U.S. Representative from California
Who? Good name... for a ballplayer or your next American Idol.

John McCain
U.S. Senator from Arizona
Name's a bit ethnic, but "President McCain" sounds strong enough (and perhaps a bit Biblical) because of the "Cain" part. But a president isn't supposed to have snow on the roof before being elected to a 1st term (only after the stress of presidency takes it's toll is graying sometimes acceptable in our "image is everything" society). Something Ronald Reagan was well aware of... <cough> Grecian Formula.

Ron Paul
U.S. Representative from Texas, 1988 Libertarian Presidential nominee
Who? The guy has two first names fer cryin' out loud! Not only that, but a name a little too close to "Ru Paul". "President Paul" sounds like a character on a children's show. Evenly split between "who" and "yeah, right".

Mitt Romney
former Governor of Massachusetts
A president named "Mitt"???

Fred Thompson
former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, Law & Order actor
Mainstream, presidential sounding name. And a TV star!!! But he comes off like the crotchety geezer next door that yells at kids to "get outta my yard!" (come to think of it, this may actually work for the "kick out the illegals" crowd). Seems uncomfortable without a script... not much of an improv "thinking on your feet" guy. Not much charisma sans script.





Honorable mention...

Al Gore
former Senator, 2 term Vice President
Although he ain't running in '08, Gore gets an honorable mention because some feel "he wuz robbed" in 2000 as well as wonder how things would have been if he were prez instead of GWB. But alas, we all know the incandescent lightbulb cartel would never allow a Gore presidency. "President Gore" sounds like a character name from a lame post-apocalyptic sci-fi B movie... "The streets shall run red with the blood of my enemies, for I am President Gore! Bwa haa haa!" Come to think of it, the name "President Gore" might be effective in scaring terrorists and rogue nations, especially if he were to adorn Gene Simmons-esque attire (like spiky shoulderpads) and use a human femur as a scepter (if it were Ralph Nader's femur bone, the "Axis of Evil" would cower and crumble).

Eight years ago, a colleague of mine noted that "Bush or Gore" was both the presidential race and the choice he made watching cable late at night.

Another reason to hate American democracy:

A new American Research Group poll in Iowa continues to be an outlier among the various public surveys that have been released this week.

On Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads with 31%, followed by John Edwards and Barack Obama at 24% each.

Key findings: 46% of Clinton supporters say Edwards is their second choice and 23% say Obama. 32% of Edwards supporters say Obama is their second choice, followed by Richardson at 19% and Clinton at 18%. 55% of Obama supporters say Edwards is their second choice, followed by 24% for Clinton.

Emphasis mine. As I've written here, I really like Obama, would be fine with Edwards, and can't stand Clinton. Were there only one of Obama or Edwards, InevitaBillary would have little chance; as it is, they'll blow each other up, she could get pluralities of 30-40 percent in all the early contests, and roll to the nomination despite the fact that clear majorities of *Democrats*--the people who presumably are most open to her candidacy--didn't choose her.

Add in the reality that if she wins Iowa,* that will disproportionately swing the following states, and once again we're counting on a few tens of thousands of cold-blooded, doughy, mostly older, almost all white people to pick the Democratic nominee. Heckuva system, America!

*I'm sure this is true for Clinton, it might be true for Obama, and it probably isn't true for Edwards, who doesn't have the money to go the distance--another charming feature of our fake democracy.

dajafi wrote:Another reason to hate American democracy:

A new American Research Group poll in Iowa continues to be an outlier among the various public surveys that have been released this week.

On Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads with 31%, followed by John Edwards and Barack Obama at 24% each.

Key findings: 46% of Clinton supporters say Edwards is their second choice and 23% say Obama. 32% of Edwards supporters say Obama is their second choice, followed by Richardson at 19% and Clinton at 18%. 55% of Obama supporters say Edwards is their second choice, followed by 24% for Clinton.

Emphasis mine. As I've written here, I really like Obama, would be fine with Edwards, and can't stand Clinton. Were there only one of Obama or Edwards, InevitaBillary would have little chance; as it is, they'll blow each other up, she could get pluralities of 30-40 percent in all the early contests, and roll to the nomination despite the fact that clear majorities of *Democrats*--the people who presumably are most open to her candidacy--didn't choose her.

Add in the reality that if she wins Iowa,* that will disproportionately swing the following states, and once again we're counting on a few tens of thousands of cold-blooded, doughy, mostly older, almost all white people to pick the Democratic nominee. Heckuva system, America!

*I'm sure this is true for Clinton, it might be true for Obama, and it probably isn't true for Edwards, who doesn't have the money to go the distance--another charming feature of our fake democracy.

I linked a story a few weeks ago over at philiesphans noting some idea that some countries use (autralia for one). When voting, people rank their choices and then the candidate with the lowest total gets thrown out and the results are tabulated again adding the 2nd choices of the people who voted for the thrown out candidate. This continues until one candidate gets over 50% of the vote. In this system, people are left choosing their 2nd or 3rd choices out of fear of another candidate winning. For example, people could vote for Edwards as a 3rd party candidate, knowing that if he didn't win, their votes would then be tabulated with their 2nd choice. There are problems with the system, of course, but I think it's definitely preferable to the current system where 3rd party or longshot candidiates have no chance and their supporters are left making the choice of voting their conscience or voting for the candidate they can tolerate that has a chance.


Here's the link

Monkeyboy wrote:I linked a story a few weeks ago over at philiesphans noting some idea that some countries use (autralia for one). When voting, people rank their choices and then the candidate with the lowest total gets thrown out and the results are tabulated again adding the 2nd choices of the people who voted for the thrown out candidate.

A particular form of Proportional Represtentation known as Single Transferable Vote. AKA what I was ranting about earlier. We have it in Ireland, and (I think) we have done since the establishment of the state in 1921. It's a very robust voting system. Although sometimes recounts can go on for a very long time. But it encourages a greater spectrum of political viewpoints, and I don't think either the republicans or the democrats would be interested in including it as a method for voting in either of your two houses, as it would almost certainly diminish their number of representatives. I'd also be very surprised if it was allowed to be used as a method for determining a presidential nominee. Labour has been dragging their heels on introducing it over here in the UK for that very reason - they felt it would threaten their power base built up in the '97 general election - and we only now have it at a local government level in scotland (city and regional councils).

Wizlah wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:I linked a story a few weeks ago over at philiesphans noting some idea that some countries use (autralia for one). When voting, people rank their choices and then the candidate with the lowest total gets thrown out and the results are tabulated again adding the 2nd choices of the people who voted for the thrown out candidate.

A particular form of Proportional Represtentation known as Single Transferable Vote. AKA what I was ranting about earlier. We have it in Ireland, and (I think) we have done since the establishment of the state in 1921. It's a very robust voting system. Although sometimes recounts can go on for a very long time. But it encourages a greater spectrum of political viewpoints, and I don't think either the republicans or the democrats would be interested in including it as a method for voting in either of your two houses, as it would almost certainly diminish their number of representatives. I'd also be very surprised if it was allowed to be used as a method for determining a presidential nominee. Labour has been dragging their heels on introducing it over here in the UK for that very reason - they felt it would threaten their power base built up in the '97 general election - and we only now have it at a local government level in scotland (city and regional councils).

People who have power never want to give it up. I doubt this system will ever happen here outside of more local elections. It will be almost as difficult to get some form of public financing of elections, so we can start to pry our democracy out of the hands of powerful interest groups. I'm not very optimistic about any of it because I think it's a Pandora's Box.


Sorry I missed your earlier post.... didn't realize there was so many political posts since xmas.

If I had to bet in the Iowa Democratic race, it would be on Edwards:

A new McClatchy-MSNBC poll in Iowa shows a statistical dead heat in the Democratic presidential race and a big shift in the Republican race.

John Edwards leads with 24%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton with 23% and Sen. Barack Obama with 22%. Edwards has the momentum since the last poll in early December gaining 3 points, while Clinton lost 4 points and Obama lost 3 points.

Key finding: Mirroring other surveys, Edwards gets the most second-choice support. When Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich supporters are realigned, the poll has Edwards leading with 36%, followed by Obama and Clinton tied at 26%.

I go Biden, Obama, Edwards myself, so I see what you're saying stoned

biden sucks

isnt Biden a plagarist?

20 years ago

I like Biden, and I've liked him more and more as this campaign has gone on. Wish he'd gotten some traction... it's tough out there for a non-celeb like Biden when the press covers the race the same way that metrosexual douchebag covers "American Idol."

He has to get a little more angry every time Hillary Clinton mouths the "strength and experience" platitude. That should be Joe's mantra, but he's not enough of a star candidate even to have a mantra.

Biden might make a good Sec of State or other cabinet post, but he's messed himself more than once in situations where he's been given the opportunity to make a "why I'd make a fine president" statement. Just gave the lamest sort of replies.

Sure, go ahead, ask me for specific instances/quotes, I don't have them. I just watch the games, & know that he's come up short in those clutch situations.

dajafi wrote:If I had to bet in the Iowa Democratic race, it would be on Edwards:

A new McClatchy-MSNBC poll in Iowa shows a statistical dead heat in the Democratic presidential race and a big shift in the Republican race.

John Edwards leads with 24%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton with 23% and Sen. Barack Obama with 22%. Edwards has the momentum since the last poll in early December gaining 3 points, while Clinton lost 4 points and Obama lost 3 points.

Key finding: Mirroring other surveys, Edwards gets the most second-choice support. When Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich supporters are realigned, the poll has Edwards leading with 36%, followed by Obama and Clinton tied at 26%.

After initially liking Obama the most, lately I've been leaning more and more towards Edwards. (although it doesn't matter since I'm not a registered democrat ). I don't think he has the presence of Obama or whatever Hillary is supposed to have, but I like his message the most and I think he is the most electable in a general election.

Warszawa wrote:or whatever Hillary is supposed to have

If you figure out what this is, and if it isn't "two x chromosomes" or "celebrity," please run, don't walk to the computer and let me know.

The problem with Edwards is that he accepted public financing, so if he's facing any of the Republicans except I think Huckabee, and maybe McCain, he'll get pounded and defined during the Buyer's Remorse Primary from February through the conventions.

I'd be happy enough to support Edwards, but I don't think he'd be an effective president--which, we tend to forget in this idiotic culture, is really the point. I'm pretty sure Clinton won't be effective, as I define it--accomplishes a major goal and leaves the country in clearly better shape than they found it. (The only recent successful presidents by this standard are Reagan and probably Bill Clinton.) Obama would have a chance to succeed. Maybe McCain. Nobody else on the Republican side.

On the other hand, the one thing I'm very confident Edwards would do is start to restore some of the balance in the labor market between workers and companies. He'd make the National Labor Relations Board, currently a cesspool of anti-union bile dedicated, like the rest of the Bush administration, to upward redistribution of wealth, actually support workers for probably the first time since at least Carter. His Department of Labor would punish violators of workplace law. He'd push (and probably could win on this) some expansion of access to lifelong education and pensions--measures that won't represent Bolshevism but could help to better position people to earn more and pursue careers, not just low-skilled, low-wage jobs. That's a very big deal to me, and might outweigh his likely struggles to pass major domestic legislation (e.g. healthcare, environment).

Warszawa wrote:

dajafi wrote:If I had to bet in the Iowa Democratic race, it would be on Edwards:

A new McClatchy-MSNBC poll in Iowa shows a statistical dead heat in the Democratic presidential race and a big shift in the Republican race.

John Edwards leads with 24%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton with 23% and Sen. Barack Obama with 22%. Edwards has the momentum since the last poll in early December gaining 3 points, while Clinton lost 4 points and Obama lost 3 points.

Key finding: Mirroring other surveys, Edwards gets the most second-choice support. When Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich supporters are realigned, the poll has Edwards leading with 36%, followed by Obama and Clinton tied at 26%.

After initially liking Obama the most, lately I've been leaning more and more towards Edwards. (although it doesn't matter since I'm not a registered democrat ). I don't think he has the presence of Obama or whatever Hillary is supposed to have, but I like his message the most and I think he is the most electable in a general election.

Is that politico speak for he's a white dude?

Plus he has a drawl. Nothing makes a Democrat electable like a drawl.