VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:Very strong Edwards anti-Hillary ad: "The Politics of Parsing"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo&eurl=http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/edwards_campaign_goes_after_hillary_with_attack_youtube.php[/youtube]

At least in her favor, it can't be boiled down to a catchy sound bite like "I voted for the war before I voted against it".

I'm not really a Hillary fan and can't see myself voting for her unless forced to by even less appetizing alternatives, but I can't really see anything objectionable to what she says even in these carefully selected sound bites. I thought being able to see the complexities of an issue was supposed to be a plus, especially after what we've been through the past seven years?

She wants to end the war in Iraq, but realizes we've inextricably tied ourselves to its future, and might (probably will) need troops to protect an embassy or to be based there to pursue terrorist camps.

She doesn't want to advocate a specific SS plan until it can be responsibly related to the operation of the rest of the budget

She can understand why one would want to grant drivers licenses to illegal aliens, but doesn't think the specific plan brought up is the best for everyone.

Honest question, what's wrong with any of that?

swishnicholson wrote: I thought being able to see the complexities of an issue was supposed to be a plus, especially after what we've been through the past seven years?

I get you here. [I'm not certain that's what is happening but I'll run with it] Even if this is evidence of her dealing with complexities, I think it's important to send a message that one can deal with them and communicate them successfully to the American people. She shouldn't need you (or anyone) to explain the nuance - that much I'm certain she wasn't clear on. Being this discerning or analytical also comes across as pandering or trying to put off committing to an opinion until the polls are out (something her husband, fairly or unfairly, was regularly accused of). If you are right, she still needs to do a better job at it.

There are much more important things to vote for, but part of me just wants a president who is capable of explaining himself. With a few exceptions, the last 7 years have been pretty grating on that count.

jerseyhoya wrote:If Rudy is still in the race, he's going to win the NJ primary in a walk. The NJ GOP changed it to a winner talk all format back in June to help out the Mayor.

http://www.politicsnj.com/giuliani-campaign-scores-big-victory-n-j-procedural-vote-9505

Not to hurt your feelings by saying your vote doesn't matter (assuming you're a Republican, though I think the same applies for Hillary).

I don't know what a Republican is anymore, but that's what I'm registered as, and unless Ron Paul wins the nomination, I'll probably end up pinching my nose and going GOP for president. I was going to say that I expected Rudy to run away with NJ, but I thought someone would challenge me on it and I was too tired to look into it.

If Rudy does get the nomination, I was wondering how interesting it could be for him compared to other Republican candidates since Reagan - he would probably, actually have a shot at winning NJ's electoral votes.

Bush 41 carried NJ by 14% in 1988 over Dukakis (won nationwide by 8%), and Clinton actually only won it by 2% in 1992, while he was winning nationwide by 5.5%. So NJ being reliably Democratic is really just these last three cycles.

But yeah, Rudy would seem to have a really good shot at winning the state. He's led Clinton in early polls - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1106

I guess if McCain got the nominee, he might have an outside shot at winning New Jersey, but I can't see Thompson or Romney pulling it off unless they're winning nationally in a landslide...which is about as likely as the Mets announcers making it through a broadcast at CBP without complaining about how easy it is to hit homeruns there.

jerseyhoya wrote:Bush 41 carried NJ by 14% in 1988 over Dukakis (won nationwide by 8%), and Clinton actually only won it by 2% in 1992, while he was winning nationwide by 5.5%. So NJ being reliably Democratic is really just these last three cycles.

But yeah, Rudy would seem to have a really good shot at winning the state. He's led Clinton in early polls - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1106

I guess if McCain got the nominee, he might have an outside shot at winning New Jersey, but I can't see Thompson or Romney pulling it off unless they're winning nationally in a landslide...which is about as likely as the Mets announcers making it through a broadcast at CBP without complaining about how easy it is to hit homeruns there.

You simply can't compare Bush 41 to the Republicans of today. He didn't campaign on an ideology of anti-tax, anti-gay, anti-Muslim fanaticism (granted, Rudy's only on board for the first and third). In the case of NJ, they also had a warmer and fuzzier view of Republicanism by virtue of an effective and nonideological governor, Kean, whom today's Republicans probably would want to burn at the stake.

Giuliani's big problem, and the reason I don't think he'll play in the "solid blue states," is that he's not running as the non-ideological technocrat he portrayed in his first mayoral term; he's running as the guy who will torture terrorists (and maybe Democrats) and make Grover Norquist's fondest economic dreams come true.

Mid-1990s Giuliani could have won New Jersey; I don't think 2008 Giuliani can, no matter how awful NJ's Democrats are.

RALF NADAR

This thread's prolly the best place to put this...

All heck's breaking loose in Pakistan (or on the verge of).

Musharraf declares martial law, suspends Pakistan's constitution, expells their supreme court's chief justice, arrests some judges and lawyers, all media (but state-run) taken off the air.

NJ is now solidly Democratic due to population shifts. That's all there is to it.

pacino wrote:NJ is now solidly Democratic due to population shifts. That's all there is to it.

Explain?

Is it just me or is there something kinda iffy (election law-wise) about being assigned a polling place at the Richard J. Codey Arena, with Richard J. Codey on the ballot?

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:NJ is now solidly Democratic due to population shifts. That's all there is to it.

Explain?

People moving into SJ from Philly and people from NYC moving to North Jersey, plus a good amount of immigration where the majority are more economically-liberal have led to more of a Democratic dominance.


I voted today, woo

pacino wrote:People moving into SJ from Philly and people from NYC moving to North Jersey, plus a good amount of immigration where the majority are more economically-liberal have led to more of a Democratic dominance.

I voted today, woo

I'd argue that Jersey's political transformation has more to do with rich, white suburban people who've lived there all along becoming more Democratic because they're turned off by the Southern/moralistic dominance of the modern GOP. I imagine people coming into the state haven't helped much though, I guess.

There are still decent sized pockets of the state that are Republican even on the national level. It's easy to forget Bush lost the state by less than seven points in 2004, given how unpopular he is now.

Good for you on the voting. I don't even think I'm registered to vote at the moment, which is somewhat pathetic. Although living in DC leaves one with so little motivation to vote.

who voted besides that socialist pacino? i just didnt see the point.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:NJ is now solidly Democratic due to population shifts. That's all there is to it.

Explain?

People moving into SJ from Philly and people from NYC moving to North Jersey, plus a good amount of immigration where the majority are more economically-liberal have led to more of a Democratic dominance.


I voted today, woo

Actually, I believe that a large influx of people from South Jersey are migrants from North Jersey. The housing explosion increased the value of houses of the average blue collar worker to like 400,000K in many North/Central Jersey towns. A lot of these people cashed in and moved South. To Vineland.

I'm pretty sure nothing of import changed in NJ politics tonight. Pretty much a total status quo election. Though there might be something to Stu's theory, as the Dem pickups were in far South Jersey. GOPers did better picking things up in the middle of the state.

dsp wrote:who voted besides that socialist pacino? i just didnt see the point.

I usually vote in non-presidential elections because the local stuff affects your wallet more than the federal stuff. Unfortunately I was traveling yesterday and I forgot to get an absentee ballot.

I voted all republican yesterday just to spite the liburl intelligencia. Actually that's a complete lie, I've just always wanted to use the phrase librul intelligencia. You know, those who practice intellectual dishonesty, which seems to be another popular talk radio phrase with zero meaning

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm pretty sure nothing of import changed in NJ politics tonight. Pretty much a total status quo election. Though there might be something to Stu's theory, as the Dem pickups were in far South Jersey. GOPers did better picking things up in the middle of the state.

How closely do you follow these things? I was a bit surprised to learn that Ellen Karcher lost. I thought she was one of the good ones.

TenuredVulture wrote:How closely do you follow these things? I was a bit surprised to learn that Ellen Karcher lost. I thought she was one of the good ones.

I read politicsnj.com some, which is really a good website. I think it had been leaning Republican for the last month or so. She was up against Jen Beck, who was an assemblywoman from the district.

It's a GOP seat. The only reason Karcher won it originally was John Bennett, the former state senate president, was corrupt (I think he was the town attorney for a number of towns in his own district on the side, and his firm was caught double billing them), so she beat him. She was always going to have a really hard time holding the district as it was drawn.

I think the Asbury Park Press and Star Ledger both endorsed Beck, so that helped her a good bit. Ledger endorsement - http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1193809252226530.xml&coll=1

The Asbury Park Press specifically has been on a big anti-Democrat kick recently, and it's the paper of the district. So Karcher had a lot working against her.

Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani

I wish I could claim credit for this line, but I can't:

It seems we've finally come full circle. The pro-choice, gay-rights-backing 'hero' of 9/11 (Rudy) endorsed by the TV preacher (Robertson) who said 9/11 was God's punishment for America's culture of sin.