jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:My goodness... the Democrats show evidence of spine/testicles.

Perhaps they're realizing that many will face primaries if they continue to bend over every time President 28 Percent wants to wipe himself with the Constitution.

You guys are getting to where we were about 8 years ago when the Club for Growth started zeroing in on folks.

It'll be fun for a few years, heck you'll probably get a lot done, then you'll overreach and a few folks will be shuffled off to jail, and we'll kick the crap out of you in like 2014. The circle of life.

In all seriousness, looking ahead, where will the Republicans get their candidates? Who's an up and comer in Republican circles these days? There's Jindal, to be sure. But your youngish Senator types seem to be a bit on the extreme side in the mold of Santorum, (Maybe Corker?) Norm Coleman can't get nominated, and you simply don't have a very deep or appealing field holding governor's seats right now. Pawlenty? Matt Blunt? Jim Douglas?

TenuredVulture wrote:In all seriousness, looking ahead, where will the Republicans get their candidates? Who's an up and comer in Republican circles these days? There's Jindal, to be sure. But your youngish Senator types seem to be a bit on the extreme side in the mold of Santorum, (Maybe Corker?) Norm Coleman can't get nominated, and you simply don't have a very deep or appealing field holding governor's seats right now. Pawlenty? Matt Blunt? Jim Douglas?

The Democrats are about to nominate someone that no one could have named five years ago and has held an office higher than state senator for all of 37 months. There's time for people to emerge for 2016 yet.

Let's see who McCain chooses to be his VP because that person might become the guy you're looking for. If not, we'll see. The talent pool isn't super deep at the moment, but it doesn't really need to be either. Only one person can get elected president at a time.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:My goodness... the Democrats show evidence of spine/testicles.

Perhaps they're realizing that many will face primaries if they continue to bend over every time President 28 Percent wants to wipe himself with the Constitution.

You guys are getting to where we were about 8 years ago when the Club for Growth started zeroing in on folks.

It'll be fun for a few years, heck you'll probably get a lot done, then you'll overreach and a few folks will be shuffled off to jail, and we'll kick the crap out of you in like 2014. The circle of life.

In all seriousness, looking ahead, where will the Republicans get their candidates? Who's an up and comer in Republican circles these days? There's Jindal, to be sure. But your youngish Senator types seem to be a bit on the extreme side in the mold of Santorum, (Maybe Corker?) Norm Coleman can't get nominated, and you simply don't have a very deep or appealing field holding governor's seats right now. Pawlenty? Matt Blunt? Jim Douglas?

Blunt's gone. Douglas is way too far left. Pawlenty is a comer... but as you've pointed out before, any Republican governor is going to have trouble placating the True Believers, because actually, y'know, "governing" tends to require compromises. IIRC, the Minnesota legislature is at least half-Democratic, so presumably he's "raised taxes" or what have you.

I think this is a weird cycle on the Republican side. Bush is so despised in the country, yet so strong within the party, that everything is distorted. If McCain really can pull off the balancing act of satisfying the TBs--and that pro-torture vote this week and his supine position on taxes suggests he's trying hard--while preserving the "moderate centrist" persona that he needs to win independents, at least in political terms he totally deserves to be president.

Eventually the Republicans are going to have to accept that no candidate is "perfect"--at least, no candidate who can win. Oddly, they were willing to do that with Bush in 2000. Maybe it was the money and name recognition, or saying that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher. But that worked out well for them, if not the country (or conservatism).

edit: it's really amazing to me that the filter still exerts such an impact...

You guys keep talking about how we're going to have to accept no one is perfect.

We just nominated John Fucking McCain. The guy who spent much of his political career attempting to become Tim Russert and the New York Times's best friend. Whoever the Democrats nominate is going to be a hell of a lot closer Democratic orthodoxy on past statements and issues than McCain is to our side.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:In all seriousness, looking ahead, where will the Republicans get their candidates? Who's an up and comer in Republican circles these days? There's Jindal, to be sure. But your youngish Senator types seem to be a bit on the extreme side in the mold of Santorum, (Maybe Corker?) Norm Coleman can't get nominated, and you simply don't have a very deep or appealing field holding governor's seats right now. Pawlenty? Matt Blunt? Jim Douglas?

The Democrats are about to nominate someone that no one could have named five years ago and has held an office higher than state senator for all of 37 months. There's time for people to emerge for 2016 yet.

Let's see who McCain chooses to be his VP because that person might become the guy you're looking for. If not, we'll see. The talent pool isn't super deep at the moment, but it doesn't really need to be either. Only one person can get elected president at a time.

Obama is an exception, and he was recognizable enough that he made a big important speech in 2004. Yeah, a lot can happen in 8 years, but a rise as fast as Obama's is highly unusual.

jerseyhoya wrote:You guys keep talking about how we're going to have to accept no one is HAMELS.

We just nominated John $#@! McCain. The guy who spent much of his political career attempting to become Tim Russert and the New York Times's best friend. Whoever the Democrats nominate is going to be a hell of a lot closer Democratic orthodoxy on past statements and issues than McCain is to our side.

Fair point. Admittedly there's a big difference here between the "you" of Republican/conservative elites and public figures, and the "you" of the actual Republican primary electorate--which seems to realize that ideological abstractions don't always play in the real world.

Then again, McCain has pretty fervently tried to contort himself into a form acceptable to the Norquists, Limbaughs and Dobsons. It's not like he doesn't want their support.

TenuredVulture wrote:Obama is an exception, and he was recognizable enough that he made a big important speech in 2004. Yeah, a lot can happen in 8 years, but a rise as fast as Obama's is highly unusual.

Bush, George Walker?

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Obama is an exception, and he was recognizable enough that he made a big important speech in 2004. Yeah, a lot can happen in 8 years, but a rise as fast as Obama's is highly unusual.

Bush, George Walker?

2 term governor of Texas (which is a big Republican state) and former President's son.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Obama is an exception, and he was recognizable enough that he made a big important speech in 2004. Yeah, a lot can happen in 8 years, but a rise as fast as Obama's is highly unusual.

Bush, George Walker?

2 term governor of Texas (which is a big Republican state) and former President's son.

One and a half terms, and someone who would have been on zero lists in 1992 of potential presidential nominees for the Republicans in 2000, which was my main point.

Yes, his was a unique situation. So was Obama's. Thing is, most situations regarding the election of a president are unique. It hardly ever goes according to form (who would have picked Clinton eight years before his election?), and it's silly to sit here and wonder if the Republicans are in trouble because only two or three governors look potentially viable four or eight years from now.

jerseyhoya wrote: it's fun to sit here and wonder if the Republicans are in trouble because only two or three governors look potentially viable four or eight years from now.

FYP

jerseyhoya wrote:Yes, his was a unique situation. So was Obama's. Thing is, most situations regarding the election of a president are unique. It hardly ever goes according to form (who would have picked Clinton eight years before his election?), and it's silly to sit here and wonder if the Republicans are in trouble because only two or three governors look potentially viable four or eight years from now.

Last bunch of presidents, when they took office, and when they first looked "viable":

GW Bush (2001)--1997 or so
Clinton (1993)--arguably 1987ish, but IMO not really until early 1992
GH Bush (1989)--sometime in the '70s
Reagan (1981)--mid/late 1960s
Carter (1977)--early 1976? Never?
Ford (1974)--n/a
Nixon (1969)--sometime in the '50s
Johnson (1963)--sometime in the '50s
JFK (1961)--1957 or so

So Obama--who was seen as a presidential possibility pretty much as soon as he won his Senate race--looked like a legit contender long before Carter relative to the cycle, and probably before Clinton.

I wouldn't say it "hardly ever goes to form," but dark horses do emerge and win. It's just that the next Republican to do so will be the first in modern times. (Happened a lot in the first half of the 20th century, though.)

jerseyhoya wrote:We just nominated John $#@! McCain. The guy who spent much of his political career attempting to become Tim Russert and the New York Times's best friend. Whoever the Democrats nominate is going to be a hell of a lot closer Democratic orthodoxy on past statements and issues than McCain is to our side.

McCain isn't a checklist "conservative," but in this election year when people hate Republicans because of Bush the only way Republicans can win is nominate someone who the public associates with Bush as little as possible. Someone who would make the right wing happy couldn't get elected this fall. Well, unless Jesus ran.

It's long been said that a candidate needs to run to the right to get the Republican nomination and to the left to get the Democratic nod, but both candidates need to run to the center to win. McCain is already there. Obama being pretty far to the left may become an issue if people start caring about his actual stances on issues. Party line candidates have a lot harder time winning than people in the center.

I was listening to "Left Right and Center" today and Ariana Huffington, who pretends she's in the center, said she liked McCain in 2000 but he lost her when he allowed any torture in the senate bill. I've heard that before. The right dislikes that he is firmly against all torture. So everyone dislikes him on this issue, although Huffington's read of the situation is inaccurate.

Laexile wrote:[
McCain isn't a checklist "conservative," but in this election year when people hate Republicans because of Bush the only way Republicans can win is nominate someone who the public associates with Bush as little as possible. Someone who would make the right wing happy couldn't get elected this fall. Well, unless Jesus ran. .

Jesus is a democrat.

This story on Pawlenty is nice. More please.

In the polls I've seen Obama beats McCain in the popular vote, but here's something interesting. This poll has McCain slightly ahead in the electoral college. Polls between Clinton and McCain are fairly tight, but this poll has McCain way ahead in the electoral college.

Laexile wrote:In the polls I've seen Obama beats McCain in the popular vote, but here's something interesting. This poll has McCain slightly ahead in the electoral college. Polls between Clinton and McCain are fairly tight, but this poll has McCain way ahead in the electoral college.

Not sure how accurate these really are. For one, they have McCain beating Obama in Massachusetts, a state that hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since '84. It also has McCain ahead in Virginia by about 10 percentage points in races against both Clinton and Obama. It may happen, but I'd guess that Virginia is a close race this time around with the inroads Democrats are making in the state with Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, and Jim Webb.

Rahm Emanuel for vice-president?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3c9mREXUE4[/youtube]

I know this isn't the place to ask this question, since I don't believe we have any Clinton supporters here (at least not any who are copping to it). But here's my question anyway:

Even if she wins Wisconsin tomorrow, then takes both big states on March 4 and Pennsylvania in April, how does she figure to win the general election?

Think about this. Poll after poll shows Obama winning states against McCain that Clinton would lose--Colorado, Wisconsin, Oregon, Pennsylvania, maybe Missouri. Clinton's negatives remain close to 50 percent; just under half the country won't even give her a hearing. And at this point there's pretty serious opposition to her within the Democratic Party--millions of Dems potentially won't support her, or at best will do nothing more than pull the lever in November rather than donate, canvass, phone-bank, etc.

It was always going to be tough for Hillary Clinton, the most polarizing political figure in the country, to win a general election. But if she'd locked up the nomination early, as her camp expected, she would have had 5-6 months to try and bring up her "favorables." And if her Republican opponent had been anyone but McCain--the one politician in their party who's at least somewhat hard to tag as "more of Bush" (though the Democrats are trying)--an appeal strictly based on policy choices and running against Bush might have worked. But now she has to:

1) tear Obama apart
2) climb to the nomination over his mangled body, and
3)*then* try to convince independents who already disliked her, and probably liked Obama, to choose her over McCain.

I don't see how it happens. Assuming she wins the nomination--which is still very possible--what's her path to victory in November?

Winning the states Kerry won plus Ohio?

jerseyhoya wrote:Winning the states Kerry won plus Ohio?

I don't think she holds onto Kerry's states. If elections were held today, she wouldn't (see maps in this post), and I don't get how she hopes to change enough minds to turn those polls around.

Unless McCain calls for pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Canada, I think he's set.