Electability In '08
Who has it, who doesn't? What do you think?
« The Internet Jihad | Main | Abu Ayyub al-Masri: al Qaeda in Iraq Leader Wounded »
Who has it, who doesn't? What do you think?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c1db69e200d83519e82c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Electability In '08:
The comments to this entry are closed.
Giuliani/Romney win over Hillary/Whoever
But check this site out, its in my favorites
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm
all the most recent polls in one convenient location :)
Posted by: Jeff | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 04:33 PM
I still don't get the swell of support for Hillary. Maybe its because I'm in Texas, but between Edwards and Obama, I don't see how Hillary keeps getting all this support. She is, hands down, the most unappealing candidate in the Democratic primary. Truely the John McCain of the Left.
I just don't get where her popular support comes from.
Posted by: Zifnab | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 04:39 PM
At this point Rudy looks the most electable in the General. Although, as far as I can tell, no one who actually knows his record actually likes him.
Posted by: Legalize | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 04:40 PM
Yes, I'm sure the right-wing will be tripping over themselves to elect the next Drag Queen-in-Chief.
Posted by: Zifnab | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 04:50 PM
Hillary's "popularity" might be better described as "name recognition." She's a retail politician with a lot of power, a lot of money, and about 14 years of being a major figure, both politically and popularly. It doesn't hurt her that people associate her with her husband (well in TX it might). She is more of a product of perceived power. Obama and Edwards say and do what Dems and liberals want to hear and see, but they are not perceived to be as capable of taking on the GOP as Hillary.
I see McCain the same way, except perhaps more despised within teh GOP base than Hillary is within the Dem base. Their both basically retail, high profile, wealthy establishment politicians.
Posted by: Legalize | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 04:58 PM
nooo question- Giuliani-we know what we're getting and it ain't bad. Interesting twist too the war started 9/11 nyc while he was mayor-let it end while he's president-just can't make this stuff up!
Posted by: splashtc | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 05:00 PM
The best thing about Hillary - is that it the thought of her and Bill back in the WH makes the flat earthers insane. If it makes the nuts angry, it has to be a good thing. Mission Accomplished!
Posted by: BobInStamford | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 05:15 PM
I know his record pretty well, and all I can really say is that he appeases the left well, moderates like him, and the right... well... better than Hillary... I think that Hillary will get the right revved up almost as much as Reagan himself, because she is such an... what's the word? idiot...
But on the plus side, with her as president, we could get the furnature back in the White House... And don't y'all love Hillary-care?
And to answer Zifnab about not seeing a huge swell of support, here in New York (suburbs of Buffalo) she is treated like royalty, but I was looking at the voting stats between her and Jim Faso the november and I think that Giuliani might take the state in '08. Imagine a red New York... ahhhhh...
But the suburbs of Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, and pretty close, I think that Giuliani can easily take Buffalo suburbs (where I live), he can take Albany, Yonkers, and probably NYC... NY might be a new battleground state, at least as much as Ohio.
Right now it looks likely that the President/VP will come from very blue states (for both parties), which is good. Gives the Republicans a great chance at winning in '08...
Plus I heard Hillary is Dakakis in a dress.
Posted by: Jeff | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 05:31 PM
McCain is toast.....Rudy and Romney are the only Republicans viable.Sad to say.
Posted by: Darth Malice | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 07:29 PM
Sad to say indeed, I don't really like McCain much though, no more than Giuliani, I think that Giuliani will be tougher on immigration, and tougher on terror... I like Hunter, Tancredo, and Huckabee, but except for a VP slot, I really don't think that they have much of a shot...
Mid February a year and a hlaf before the election and its pretty clear who's running... weird huh? Maybe in 30 years they will announce the day after the election...
Does anyone disgree that Hillary won't get the nomination? I heard the last time the frontrunner didn't get the slot was 1965...
Posted by: Jeff | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 08:31 PM
Hillary will be your new master. Just like the Madam Speaker. You clowns have NO ONE. No one. Rudy is a republican like Anne Coulter is a female and Romney is a member of some looney cult. You've got no one.
Posted by: BobInStamford | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 09:09 PM
Don't feed the trolls!
Posted by: Jeff | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 09:26 PM
McCain is a no-go; I think Mitt will get the Presidential nomination, and if Duncan Hunter plays his cards right, he could get a VP slot out of it, thus setting himself up for a potential run in 2012 or 2016 (depending on how well Mitt does, if elected).
And now, a moment to play with one of the mentally-deficient Kos-sacks (or one of his many, many sock puppets who fills this space with his broken-record litany of stupidity:
Hey Bob-puppet: Romney is a Mormon, not a $cientologi$t. Unless you (a flaming liberal) are content with violating your Political Correctness Prime Directive, and are calling the Church of Latter Day Saints a "looney cult"...?
Also, here's another news flash: Anne Coulter is VP of an organization for people suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, according to the DKospedia (where do you get your info at anyway? Surely Kos would be ashamed of you for such a crass blunder! He might even revoke your certified loony moonbat card!)
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Ann_Coulter
That bit about Ann Coulter "coming out" was a humour piece done by some other group, because she has a larger than average trachea. But think what you like; maybe you want to have a round or two with her, hoping "she" is really a "he" after all.
Oh, heaven forbid a pinko lefy moonbat like you and your 54,323 sock puppet "friends" break with PC traditions... or worse, actually be _wrong_ about something.
Posted by: seekeronos | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 09:30 PM
I think all religions are a bit on the looney side, water into wine, parting the red sea, talking to burning bushes? But Mormons are a special kind of whacko. God translting new books of the bible through a hat? Wow.
Posted by: TheSpartan | Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 09:50 PM
Here's the thing though:
Libs make such a huge flaming stink out of being "politically correct" and "never offending anyone", except...
...If you happen to be so unlucky as to be a white Christian male, then according to the Liberal Prime Directive, you are dogmeat and deserve every bit of nastiness that can be wished upon a poor soul.
Libs are, generally speaking, the worst kind of misanthropists: they play the race-gender-religion card whenever its is covenient for them, but will backstab ye at the drop of a hat for being the wrong skin color (white), gender (male), or religion (Christian).
Meh. At least with some fringe groups like the KKK or the Black Panthers, you know exactly where you stand, and there is no ambiguity about it.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, February 16, 2007 at 03:07 AM
Actually I'm almost never politically correct. It's just that if offended by what someone says I say so. I have no problem whith them saying it, in fact I'd prefer if they did as it makes the morons and bigots easier to spot. I love that Tim Hardaway said what he said about gays, we now know what he is, a bigot. Political Correctness provides too much ambiguity.
Posted by: TheSpartan | Friday, February 16, 2007 at 08:30 AM
Actually if it comes down to a Hillary v Giuliani match I'm wondering if I can suck it up and actually go out and vote again. I too like Hunter and Tancredo, Romney would be good but I'll predict that it's going to be Giuliani and his anti gun, pro abortion, amnesty for illegals and more of the same global corporationist stance makes me wonder exactly what the difference is between him and Hillary notwithstanding Iraq.
Posted by: Buzzy | Friday, February 16, 2007 at 09:23 AM
Buzzy,
Maybe at least with Guiliani we'll get what Spartan mentions above: We will *know* where he stands.
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, February 16, 2007 at 11:58 AM
So, Spartan, by your own system you are a bigot when it comes to religion. Just so we don't get you wrong.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Friday, February 16, 2007 at 12:34 PM
I thought Newt was an entertainng pick until I heard Tommy Franks - that one is priceless. How about Macacawitz? I'm guessing that he has the free time to galvanize the xenophobes out there.
Posted by: Andrew | Friday, February 16, 2007 at 01:35 PM
"So, Spartan, by your own system you are a bigot when it comes to religion. Just so we don't get you wrong."
Depends on your definition of bigot. I don't hate the religious, I just don't understand them. I would never deny someone the right to employment or not rent an apartment to them because of their religious affiliation so I don't think "bigoted" is quite the right word.I consider myself tolerant of all alternative lifestyles including christianity.
Posted by: TheSpartan | Friday, February 16, 2007 at 01:53 PM