The coffee party lady sounds really thoughtful in this interview on 538.

Just a quick update since I've mentioned it here before but I actually did submit my paperwork to be listed as a School Board candidate in my town. Turns out that one of the incumbents decided not to run so I am running unopposed with the remaining two incumbents.

Obviously nothing is official until the votes are counted (I would hope I am not THAT unpopular but I could potentially lose to a write-in candidate) but I certainly appreciate all the input I received here regarding ideas, campaigning, etc.

traderdave wrote:Just a quick update since I've mentioned it here before but I actually did submit my paperwork to be listed as a School Board candidate in my town. Turns out that one of the incumbents decided not to run so I am running unopposed with the remaining two incumbents.

Obviously nothing is official until the votes are counted (I would hope I am not THAT unpopular but I could potentially lose to a write-in candidate) but I certainly appreciate all the input I received here regarding ideas, campaigning, etc.

Well I guess wishing "good luck" isn't really necessary ("no calamities" ? , "no meteors striking you on the way to your oath of office" ?) but I'm sure there'll still be nerves on election day and I hope everything goes well. Congratulations to you for being willing to take on this tough and often thankless job.

Biggest issue today in the Republican primary in Kentucky? Rand Paul is a Duke fan (got his MD there). His opponent has released an ad about it.

Really

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLpi7JOv7pQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

VoxOrion wrote:It was a preview of the 2008 Republican field!

For the same reason as the Dems in 2004. When the conventional wisdom is that your party doesn't stand a chance in an election, strange things happen. The best often don't run, or focus on positioning themselves for the next election. The fringes of the party are inordinately powerful in such elections. If we can't beat the other party, we can at least beat back the apostates in our own camp.

allentown wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:It was a preview of the 2008 Republican field!

For the same reason as the Dems in 2004. When the conventional wisdom is that your party doesn't stand a chance in an election, strange things happen. The best often don't run, or focus on positioning themselves for the next election. The fringes of the party are inordinately powerful in such elections. If we can't beat the other party, we can at least beat back the apostates in our own camp.

It explains how Bill Clinton got the Dem nom in 1992--none of the quality candidates wanted to run against Bush in the post Desert storm after glow.

allentown wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:It was a preview of the 2008 Republican field!

For the same reason as the Dems in 2004. When the conventional wisdom is that your party doesn't stand a chance in an election, strange things happen. The best often don't run, or focus on positioning themselves for the next election. The fringes of the party are inordinately powerful in such elections. If we can't beat the other party, we can at least beat back the apostates in our own camp.

Though I don't think the fringe's candidate won in either primary. Kerry and McCain were "pragmatic" selections. Based on discussion here I'm pretty sure I'd be considered fringe, and I was completely shocked by the fact that McCain won. Though I suppose he would have been much more competitive against Hillary, and probably wouldn't have sought someone like Palin as his running mate in that case. Either way, I've never pinched my nose so hard when voting for someone and I'll never do that again. I'll write in if I have to just so someone somewhere knows I showed up to vote.

I fairness, it was a weird field for the Republicans. I still can't believe Romney didn't win that nomination. I had to have been the Mormon thing combined with his "impurity" on abortion.

I'm good friends with a few former Romney staffers. They're all convinced Huckabee staying in the race after South Carolina and Florida and not letting Romney face McCain one on one on Super Tuesday cost him the nomination. I'm less convinced, and think McCain was going to be the nominee anyway once he won South Carolina and Florida, though I think Mitt's going to be the nominee in 2012.

As to your point about the fringes, we nominated the least fringe candidate possible. Kerry was pragmatic as well. He won the nomination because Democrats thought he would be appealing to swing voters. I never really understood why they thought that. If a liberal senator isn't naturally appealing to a liberal primary base, why is he going to appeal to independents? Of course at the time I thought the Dems should have nominated Edwards. Lol.

jerseyhoya wrote:Of course at the time I thought the Dems should have nominated Edwards. Lol.

Damn, imagine two Democrat presidents in a row dealing with sex scandals? That's one thing, no matter what Obama deals with or what his legacy brings, we don't have to worry about. He just doesn't seem the type (and Lord knows Michelle wouldn't stand by her man if he did).

The irony is that Obama probably would have become president in 08 anyway. Considering the timing of the Edwards scandal hitting, he wouldn't have been running for re-election.

I think Romney is a terrible candidate. I don't understand why conservatives have such huge problems with McCain either--his been strongly pro-life, for one, there's the military hero bit, he's fiscally responsible, and is no squish on defense. Finally, had he not saved the filibuster as part of the gang of 14, we'd be having a very different conversation on health care right now.

The demonization of McCain really shows the savagery of the right.

jerseyhoya wrote: I think Mitt's going to be the nominee in 2012.

If this happens, I think it will be evidence that the inside the beltway really do run the Republican party, and it will cost them big time.

TenuredVulture wrote:The demonization of McCain really shows the savagery of the right.

This is a ridiculous statement. The guy is a liberal Republican (a 63 rating from the ACU in 2008) and a complete goof-ball. He earned an 80 in 2007 and a 60 in 2006.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think Romney is a terrible candidate. I don't understand why conservatives have such huge problems with McCain either--his been strongly pro-life, for one, there's the military hero bit, he's fiscally responsible, and is no squish on defense. Finally, had he not saved the filibuster as part of the gang of 14, we'd be having a very different conversation on health care right now.

The demonization of McCain really shows the savagery of the right.

McCain's biggest political issues over the past decade have been campaign finance reform, which all types of conservatives oppose, immigration reform, which most average conservatives oppose, and opposing pork barrel spending, which many conservatives support. McCain clearly has no time for the Christian conservative base of the party and thinks they're lunatics. Whether or not you think he's right in that assessment, the demonization of McCain by members on the right is a two way street. He hates them too, and his pet issues hardly line up with the conservative base, despite the fact that he votes well on most things.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: I think Mitt's going to be the nominee in 2012.

If this happens, I think it will be evidence that the inside the beltway really do run the Republican party, and it will cost them big time.

a) We're probably not going to win the election in 2012 no matter who we nominate, and if we are going to win, it's going to have less to do with the nominee than with Obama

b) Romney is smart and can speak plausibly on the economy

c) What did you eat/drink tonight that made you so hyperbole prone?

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The demonization of McCain really shows the savagery of the right.

This is a ridiculous statement. The guy is a liberal Republican (a 63 rating from the ACU in 2008) and a complete goof-ball.

Romney may have talked a conservative game, but his record as governor of Massachusetts puts him to the left of McCain. Squish at best on abortion, passing Romneycare.

It's also important to look at where McCain's ratings came from--he's a solid conservative on fiscal issues and defense. He loses points with the ACU for campaign finance reform and immigration. Oh, and not believing that cutting taxes will solve every problem ever.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/ ... tings.html

I don't know exactly what you're referring to by calling him a loon.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: I think Mitt's going to be the nominee in 2012.

If this happens, I think it will be evidence that the inside the beltway really do run the Republican party, and it will cost them big time.

a) We're probably not going to win the election in 2012 no matter who we nominate, and if we are going to win, it's going to have less to do with the nominee than with Obama

b) Romney is smart and can speak plausibly on the economy

c) What did you eat/drink tonight that made you so hyperbole prone?

Hey, it's your party, nominate who you want. I still think you guys will end up doing something really interesting like nominate Michele Bachmann.

Romney will piss off the rank and file base.

TV, you're evaluating McCain through a prism that leans left and see a guy who looks good to you (which means he's a reasonable and responsible person). That doesn't make him a good candidate for conservatives and it certainly doesn't equate to savagery to point that out.

FWIW I disagree with jh on both the prediction that Romney wins the nom and that Obama can't be beat in 2012. I feel certain about two things:

1. The person who wins the nomination will not be someone who has sought nomination before.
2. That individual will be declared to be the most right-wing monster to ever run for president in American history.

I won't pretend to be a conservative, but I think the reaction against McCain had more to to with his unwillingness to toe a party line rather than actual ideological differences.

JH points out how important CFR is to many conservatives, but I have a hard time seeing how that's really a conservative issue, unless we're really at the point where conservative means little more than a desire to increase the influence of big business on public policy.

On spending, defense, and most social issues, McCain is conservative. I see how the evangelicals don't like his religious style, but they're not gonna like Romney any better on that.

So, really, what it comes down to aren't so much McCain's position on most issues, but his problems getting along with the conservative establishment. And because he refused to do that, they made him into some kind of moderate.

I even wonder if the ACU ratings didn't reflect some cherry picking to depress McCain's ratings.

TenuredVulture wrote:I even wonder if the ACU ratings didn't reflect some cherry picking to depress McCain's ratings.

They do. My college roommate interned there, and their president hated McCain at least back then. Don't know if it's the same guy. He said they went out of their way to screw him in the ratings.

That doesn't mean he isn't a moderate, though, especially based on what issues he personally emphasizes as important.

Yes, McCain is conservative. But what part of the conservative base is really in his corner? The campaign finance reform coalition? He doesn't excite the religious right. Most national Republican figures have supported neo-conservative foreign policy principals, so McCain support based on defense is neutered by the internal "consensus" (outside of Ron Paul). And his fiscal conservative credentials are tempered by his love of defense spending.

Plus, at this point, he's an old senile-ish white guy. No bonus points there.