|
|
#11
10-11-2007, 09:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who would Republican strategists choose for Deomocratic nominee?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Honestly, I think I know who is the the person they'd LEAST want to run, and that is Joe Biden. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're probably right. [/ QUOTE ] I heard he is a racist though. [/ QUOTE ] To many, however, he looks the "part" of president. Regardless, I believe that he the leading candidate to be the running mate of whoever wins the nomination, and I think this might be his motivation for running in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] Do people still care about his lack of honesty that came to light when he ran for president before? 
|
|
#12
10-11-2007, 09:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who would Republican strategists choose for Deomocratic nominee?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Honestly, I think I know who is the the person they'd LEAST want to run, and that is Joe Biden. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're probably right. [/ QUOTE ] I heard he is a racist though. [/ QUOTE ] To many, however, he looks the "part" of president. Regardless, I believe that he the leading candidate to be the running mate of whoever wins the nomination, and I think this might be his motivation for running in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] Do people still care about his lack of honesty that came to light when he ran for president before? [/ QUOTE ] We don't remember. Maybe you should make a BGC-esque OP about it.
|
|
#13
10-11-2007, 09:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who would Republican strategists choose for Deomocratic nominee?
To answer the question which of the Top 3 Democrats Republicans would like to face, you could just go to a site like Real Clear Politics and see respective head to head polls against the GOP front-runners, see which candidate does the worst against the most likely GOP nominee, and extrapolate that's the candidate the GOP power brokers would want to face.
Although it must be said that a Hillary Clinton presidency would probably make Hannity, Rush, and the rest of the conservative media even richer than they already, as right-wingers will undergo 4 to 8 years of tremendous pain under Clinton, and will need Hannity/Rush/et al's books, radio shows, blogs, newspapers, TV shows, etc. as therapy and frustration outlets. You have to think Rush/Hannity can't be hating the thought of a Hillary presidency that much, so there may be part of that cadre that wants Hillary to be the nominee so they have someone to use as a profitable punching-bag for a while.
|
|
#14
10-11-2007, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who would Republican strategists choose for Deomocratic nominee?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Honestly, I think I know who is the the person they'd LEAST want to run, and that is Joe Biden. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're probably right. [/ QUOTE ] I heard he is a racist though. [/ QUOTE ] To many, however, he looks the "part" of president. Regardless, I believe that he the leading candidate to be the running mate of whoever wins the nomination, and I think this might be his motivation for running in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] Do people still care about his lack of honesty that came to light when he ran for president before? [/ QUOTE ] We don't remember. Maybe you should make a BGC-esque OP about it. [/ QUOTE ] This is Biden's second failed run (assuming he doesn't get the nomination). He's essentially a John Kerry lite: a guy the Democratic base doesn't really get enthusiastic about who the GOP can hit over the head with the "Northeastern liberal" stick. He's been one of the most visible Democratic senators in the media for decades now (can't count the number of times this guy has been on MTP) and can't break 5% in primary polls; the only time the guy seems to generate any buzz is when he's doing something dumb or putting his foot in his mouth. All you need to know about Biden's political acumen is that his 2008 President campaign rollout (the big buzz generating event that's supposed to give you a bounce in the polls because it spawns a bunch of vapid puff pieces in the press) only made news because it involved Biden saying Barack Obama was surprisingly articulate and clean for a black guy. I really doubt anyone in the GOP fears him.
|
|
#15
10-12-2007, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who would Republican strategists choose for Deomocratic nominee?
[ QUOTE ]
(unlike John Kerry, who until the day I die don't know why he didn't smear George Bush for avoiding the Vietnam War after those Swift Boat ads.) [/ QUOTE ] I guess you missed all his, "I actually served in Vietnam..." remarks...
|
|
#16
10-12-2007, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who would Republican strategists choose for Deomocratic nominee?
[ QUOTE ]
You have to think Rush/Hannity can't be hating the thought of a Hillary presidency that much, so there may be part of that cadre that wants Hillary to be the nominee so they have someone to use as a profitable punching-bag for a while. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, Limbaugh and Hannity have had it rough since GWB got in...oh wait.
|
|
#17
10-12-2007, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who would Republican strategists choose for Deomocratic nominee?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You have to think Rush/Hannity can't be hating the thought of a Hillary presidency that much, so there may be part of that cadre that wants Hillary to be the nominee so they have someone to use as a profitable punching-bag for a while. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, Limbaugh and Hannity have had it rough since GWB got in...oh wait. [/ QUOTE ] Nowhere did I say they had it rough...oh wait... ...yeah, okay, whew, it's true, I never did say they had it rough. I mean, you'd think since you made that reply that I would have said something like "boy, Rush and Hannity have had it rough since GWB was elected"; or maybe "Rush and Hannity have had it rough since GWB was elected, they really need Hillary to win!" But I've looked a couple of times now, and I didn't say that or anything like it. I mean, I'd rationally expect that you'd understand I was referring to the fact Hillary has provided grist for the profitable right-wing noise machine for quite some time now, and her election would only heighten that:    I added some photos with my own, pretty mouse drawn circles in case you still had some confusion about what I was talking about here. I think I'm pretty good at this "making pretty pictures and using red circles to highlight the important stuff" thing, so let me know if you need more pretty pictures to help you understand what I'm getting at when I say things with alot of words like "the right uses Hillary Clinton as a punching bag to sell things, and if she becomes President, they could sell even more things"...because I see how that can get confused with "Rush and Hannity have had a hard time since GWB was elected", and I want to make sure the pretty pictures clear all that up for you.
|
|
#19
10-12-2007, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who would Republican strategists choose for Deomocratic nominee?
[ QUOTE ]
While I think most GOP strategists would think Edwards is the most beatable, Obama would be my choice. He's the least experienced and thus the most likely to make a campaign faux pas (maybe he already did with his lapel-pin comment). [/ QUOTE ] Faux pas? Then why are almost all of the Republicans also not wearing the lapels now as well? I suppose they are committing the same faux pas?
|
|
#20
10-13-2007, 05:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who would Republican strategists choose for Deomocratic nominee?
Oh my god, I've regressed to High School, where people care about fashion statements like lapel pins. Perhaps the problem is also that he doesn't use enough mousse or toner for the American public.
Obama's inexperience may be the one thing that helps him get elected. He isn't as swayed by the public opinion polls as is Clinton, so he can do 'shocking' things like *gasp* not wearing a lapel pin. Or maybe it's part of his strategy to undo the erratic right wing media. Show how little they care about real issues until people start watching something else..
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
