LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Perot didn't run until 1992, so he could not have been included in a presidential debate until such time. Again, never mind the facts.

While I basically agree with both the sentiment and the premise of this topic, I still get surprised occasionally when I tune in to watch a debate and actually hear issues being discussed and real debating going on -- or at least something closely resembling it. Last night's CNN/YouTube debate amongst the GOP Presidential candidates was fun to watch, was fairly informative and actually served to differentiate the candidates pretty clearly. At the least it was the best debate I have watched in ages, and at the worst it was still great political theater. Ronald Reagan's "11th Commandment" (Never speak ill of a fellow Republican) is no longer in force, and the gloves are coming off.

I opined in a different thread a few weeks ago that Sen. Clinton would trounce either Gov. Romney or Mayor Giuliani in a landslide of Reagan over Mondale proportions. One poster publicly challenged me to actually wager on this, and I never responded -- because like Vegas sports books I won't take a bet on a contest that might not ever be played. If it comes down to one of these two contests, I will gladly accept the bet. My personal opinion is that either Romney or Giluliani would be atrociously bad Republican Presidential nominees and will indeed get whupped by any of the three Democrat front-runners in this particular election. Mitt and Rudy might both be intelligent men and good campaigners, but they each carry so much baggage that they make even Hillary look like Mother Theresa. I revel in the thought of the campaign against of either of these men, and Fred Thompson gave last night us a small appetizer of what the attack ads against the flip-flopping Romney will start with. More and more disastrous facts about Rudy are coming to light every day, including yesterday's revelations about his using taxpayer dollars to fund his secret trysts with then-Mistress Judith while still married. If awarded the nomination I believe much more will come out during the general election and the GOP base will abandon Giuliani in droves.

But if the Republicans are smart they will nominate Sen. McCain or Gov. Huckabee and have a real chance to hold the White House. While I disagree with McCain's politics, he has earned my grudging respect over the years for being a true man of principle and he is "real" and eminently presidential. McCain will truly reach across the aisle (not "isle" folks, this isn't Survivor) and partner with Democrats who he agrees with on specific issues and work in a bipartisan manner. For those who have seen "Primary Colors", it's like that great line by Billy Bob Thornton (playing a thinly-veiled James Carville) who says after a debate "Did you see another President up there? We're the whole show." McCain may not get the nomination, but if he does he will be the GOP's best hopes to capture independent voters and win next November.

Huckabee is equally compelling. While I have always been extremely uncomfortable with most "Christian Conservatives" who seem to want to impose their religious beliefs on all of us and make the U.S. into an evangelical nation, Minister Huckabee is a cat of different color for sure. I disagree with the man on most issues, of course, and could not conceive of actually voting for him. But he is genuine, he truly is compassionate and has found a way to balance right-wing doctrine with genuine compassion for the poor and the dispossessed of society instead of disdaining these people as unworthy. Gov. Huckabee seems to "get it", that America is not a monolithic, Caucasian nation. He would be a tough nominee to beat, because he doesn't just spout slogans use handy wedge issues to rally his base. He also could actually win the Presidency IMHO, and would be tough to run against because he's not an "empty-shirt". His answer to the question "Why don't blacks vote for Republicans?" last night was spot-on. I actually like this man, he's hard not to like.

I am not a religious man of faith, I will confess. But I will pray that the GOP in it's mass stupidity will nominate Rudy or Mitt and hand us dysfunctional Dems an election that even we can't blow.

Dan Wishengrad wrote: Anybody care to bet me that the Democratic nominee will therefore win the popular vote, and in a landslide of at least 10 percentage points?

I took the bet, and asked for a wager.

Dan Wishengrad wrote:I opined in a different thread a few weeks ago that Sen. Clinton would trounce either Gov. Romney or Mayor Giuliani in a landslide of Reagan over Mondale proportions. One poster publicly challenged me to actually wager on this, and I never responded -- because like Vegas sports books I won't take a bet on a contest that might not ever be played.

How Clintonian of you to alter the debate on the fly when you are challenged on an issue. You were concrete in your convictions just a couple of weeks ago and now you're hedging your bet with qualifiers and nebulous standards. Figure how out you want to nuance the wager and let me know. I'll probably still take it.

As for the debate last night, despite the fact that CNN had Clinton staffers planting questions, it was enjoyable. It became clear, to me at least, that there are three types of candidates right now: three true presidential candidates (Romney, Guiliani, McCain), four running for VP (Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, Huckabee) and one fringe, Kucinich-esque moonbat (Paul). The only one who I could conceivably see moving up to the varsity is Huckabee, who acquitted himself fairly well (although the "Clinton to Mars" comment was a little too hokey for my tastes).

Jac:

Welcome to the fray. Now on to business.

1. It is not a Clintonian trait to change the topic - it is a basic lawyer device. We lawyers - of all polical beliefs - do that every day. Any effective person will answer what he/she wants to answer when questioned -- unless put under oath and effectively cross examined. And that never happens in a political debate.

2. Dan W did not waffle - in the line right after your quote he notes that he'll accept the waiver IF the contest actually happens, and I quote,

If it comes down to one of these two contests, I will gladly accept the bet.

.

3. At this point, I think Huckabee will be the Republican Nominee. Romney was incompetent last night. McCain is too far behind from a $$ perspective last time I heard... Rudy is too vulnerable.

Whether Huckabee will win depends upon too many variables that cannnot yet be quantified. But I'll try

In no particular order:
First, who do the Dems nominate?
Second, is there a noticible change in the standard of living for the average american. Spoke with a retailer yesterday - Macy's internal marketing survery notes that the 2007 holiday consumer is using CASH, and that once that's gone - it's gone. They've interpreted it as meaning that people are NOT confident about future growth in income and do not have any more Home equity to tap.
Third, Energy Price Spike- this is a required fixed cost - who will be blamed if prices continue to escalate?
Fourth, Illegal Alien debate - noone is quite sure what side will get them the most votes.....
Fifth, The Iraq War - stabilized? Not? Can the Republican candidate turn this to his advantage? Can the Democrat use it to his/her advantage given prior statements/votes?
Sixth, the unexpected event - Terror attack? Scandal?
Seventh, Iran - if the current administration does take an aggressive step (bombing etc), I cannot see a Republican candidate winning.
Eighth - if Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate - from whom will he take the most votes?

Obvioulsy there are more issues....

Thanks for standing up for me Rob, but Jac Coyne DOES have a valid point -- I should not have offered a wager on the faulty premise that we Democrats would face either our "dream" opponent (Rudy) or our "wet dream" opponent (Mitt). I should have been a little more careful in my wording before offering the bet.

But if it comes to pass that either Giuliani or Romney gets the GOP nomination I will gladly make and take a public wager with you on either the popular or electoral vote, Jac -- okay? But a McCain/Huckabee ticket would be very, very tough to beat, although what is happening in Iraq next November will still have alot to do with the mood of the American electorate and hence affect the ultimate outcome.

PS Great analysis Rob, but you left out one crucial question:

Who will be on the ticket as the Democratic VP candidate? This could actually matter alot, and damned if I can figure out who Hillary or Barack might ask.

Dan Wishengrad wrote:I should not have offered a wager on the faulty premise that we Democrats would face either our "dream" opponent (Rudy) or our "wet dream" opponent (Mitt).

Why is Mitt your wet dream opponent, just curious?

Beta wrote:

Dan Wishengrad wrote:I should not have offered a wager on the faulty premise that we Democrats would face either our "dream" opponent (Rudy) or our "wet dream" opponent (Mitt).

Why is Mitt your wet dream opponent, just curious?

Did you see Fred Thompson's attack ad last night, Joe? We will have so much footage like that of Romney making pro-choice proclamations and pro-gay rights beliefs etc. etc. that the anti-Mitt ads will almost write themselves. He can state all he wants that he was wrong and that he has changed his mind. But Romney will still be distrusted by the GOP base and will have votes taken away for not being a "true believer". Republicans scored huge points by portraying Kerry as a flip-flopper last time around, and Mitt is far worse because he clearly will say and do anything to get elected. Then there is the whole issue of his Mormon faith, which I wish sincerely would never be made into a campaign issue but definitely will. When a Romney nomination puts the Church of Latter Day Saints into the bright glare of the spotlight it will scare away alot of independents and evangelical (Protestant) conservatives, who will move in droves to support anybody else.

Please understand me here, people -- I am NOT criticizing Mormonism by any means, and it would not influence my own vote either way. I'm just stating my belief that it will play a big political role because there is an underlying bias that will always be in play in this country whether some folks dare to publicly admit the bigotry they hold in their hearts. Same goes for an anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Semitic or even anti-woman bias that some people will never shake themselves free of.

Rob, enjoying being here. Hope all is well.

Dan, sounds good. We'll reevaluate after the conventions.

Everyone of the candidates (on both sides) has holes, it just happens that Huckabee's holes are important to a majority of the Repulican electorate. Same with McCain. Romney and Guiliani are more in line, but could go either way right now.

Concerning Rob's variables:
First, who do the Dems nominate?
-- I think it's a two-horse race (Edwards is a pretender). Although I think all of them are fatally flawed in a general election.

Second, is there a noticible change in the standard of living for the average american. Spoke with a retailer yesterday - Macy's internal marketing survery notes that the 2007 holiday consumer is using CASH, and that once that's gone - it's gone. They've interpreted it as meaning that people are NOT confident about future growth in income and do not have any more Home equity to tap.
-- Eh, I'm not sure if those dots connect.

Third, Energy Price Spike- this is a required fixed cost - who will be blamed if prices continue to escalate?
-- This type of issue will always be blamed on the party in office, but I'm not sure how many people will base their vote on this.

Fourth, Illegal Alien debate - noone is quite sure what side will get them the most votes.....
This is the big one and will ultimately determine the Rep. nominee.

Fifth, The Iraq War - stabilized? Not? Can the Republican candidate turn this to his advantage? Can the Democrat use it to his/her advantage given prior statements/votes?
-- Yup, the next six months are key. If Al Qaeda/insurgents implement a comprehensive Tet-style offensive in Iraq illustrating instability, it would be a huge blow to the Reps. If improvements continue, I think it would be a push.

Sixth, the unexpected event - Terror attack? Scandal?
-- Romney appears to be airtight in regards to scandal while Guiliani has holes. Romney's LDS affiliation will scare some people.

Seventh, Iran - if the current administration does take an aggressive step (bombing etc), I cannot see a Republican candidate winning.
-- If Iran is attacked, it will be by Israel, not the U.S. How it proliferates from there (reaction by Russia, Syria, etc.) will likely make the '08 election the least of our worries.

Eighth - if Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate - from whom will he take the most votes?
-- I've thought about this, along with the possible Bloomberg run as an independent. Any Rep who would vote for Paul will vote Dem if he's not on any ticket, so I'm not sure if it will make a difference. I think Bloomberg would hurt the Dems, but not to the Nader/Perot level.

Jac Coyne wrote:Eighth - if Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate - from whom will he take the most votes?
-- I've thought about this, along with the possible Bloomberg run as an independent. Any Rep who would vote for Paul will vote Dem if he's not on any ticket, so I'm not sure if it will make a difference. I think Bloomberg would hurt the Dems, but not to the Nader/Perot level.

I do believe Paul has said he will not run as a 3rd party candidate in any shape or form, as he did in '88 on the Libertarian ticket. He's one of the few politicians who's word I'll take at face value, even if I don't agree with a lot of his stances. Even if he is pretty Libertertarian, his views seem to hit on more traditional conservative values than most of the other candidates.

being of the same faith as him, i really hope that mitt romney doesn't get the nod. i am of a small percentage out here in utah, (at least ouside of salt lake county) that is a mormon and a democrat. it's unfortunate that mitt will probably win in a landslide out here if he is indeed given the presidential bid. that will happen simply because he's a mormon. i have met quite a few fellow members of the church that think it's terrible that i wouldn't vote for him. there was a terrific article in the salt lake tribune, i believe, that analyzed this situation. the moral of it coincided with my feelings exactly. i don't have any problem with his religion. i have a problem with his politics. vote on the latter, not the former. it is terribly sad to me that elections truly are popularity contests, especially now with the way our two party system is.

I would imagine the same is true for Clinton & Obama, with a lot of women voting for Hillary because she's female and black people voting for Obama because he's black.

So rather than bemoan why people vote like a popularity contest, what things could we institute at the community level to better inform the voters and get them to the polls?

It's not community-level, but I certainly think that first and foremost, congressional & presidential elections should be national holidays.

As for the debate last night, despite the fact that CNN had Clinton staffers planting questions, it was enjoyable.

I've thought about this a lot. Why does it matter who's asking the question? What if the same exact question was asked by a citizen Joe off the street? What if they placed his name and affiliation at the bottom of the screen when asking the question? Could you imagine the questions if the candidates were continually allowed to ask each other questions?

This is the colossal discussion on the news. Why? What about the responses to the questions? The questions as we all know are always silly anyway, and require 10 second replys anyway. Hannity, "numerous democratic operatives were able to infiltrate the debate". Grappling hooks and ropes were used right? Give me a break. The talking heads keep saying that so and so is a (insert name here) "supporter". We all have a couple of dogs in this race whether we state it openly or not.

The whole debate result is decided by a room full of people with dials in their hands dictating a response output. Focus groups and polling data control everything, except for a couple of candidates that have the tenacity to speak their minds.

Seventh, Iran - if the current administration does take an aggressive step (bombing etc), I cannot see a Republican candidate winning.

This is the real wild card!

Are the GOP candidates really so weak and timid that they can't answer a question from a Democrat? I haven't heard any Democrats complaining about having to answer tough questions from Republicans in their debate audiences or out on the campaign trail. If Sean Hannity (and others) are so bent out of shape and making such a big deal of this for having a Democrat ask a fair question directed to his buddy Rudy Giuliani, or to Mitt Romney, or to any other GOP Presidential candidate, how can he expect these men (if they become President) to ever answer a tough question from a hostile world leader from North Korea, from Iran or even from Castro or Chavez? Are they only able to think and function when they are lobbed softballs from their own supporters? Frankly Clinton is just as bad when her staffers plant a questioner at a rally to ask her a question she wants and is prepared for. Hillary is tough if she is anything, she doesn't need the softballs either.

Also, in response to Oaks' point, the odd thing is that the latest Zogby polls shows Clinton leading among likely black voters and Obama leading among likely Democrat women voters. Go figure...

I think the point is that you have Democrat staffers and/or activists asking the questions in the Democratic Party debates and being represented as average Joes and then you have then you have Democrat staffers and/or activists asking the questions in Republican Party debates and being presented as average Joes.

You're right, it really doesn't matter who asks the questions but when you have a questioner with an agenda, it is only fair to the viewing public that their agenda be known. The "uproar", at least in my eyes, is not really about who is asking the questions but more about all of the rocks being thrown at FoxNews for being schills for the Republican Party when the likes of CNN are living in glass houses as well. We have now had two debates in a row where the host networks allowed political activists to be portrayed as average Americans. Even Anderson Cooper admits that CNN made a mistake (you can decide if the mistake was intentional or not). Is it really a big deal? Probably not considering these made for TV events are not even real debates in the first place. You can learn a lot more by watching the Sunday morning talk shows.

how can he expect these men (if they become President) to ever answer a tough question from a hostile world leader from North Korea, from Iran or even from Castro or Chavez?

A valid point and one that has been made about the Dem hopefuls as well.