hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 14, 2007 12:43:23 GMT -5
I deeply apologize for the egregious error of mis-speaking. Both houses of congress was the intent. I also apologize if that truly confused any of you.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Dec 14, 2007 20:46:09 GMT -5
based on the quiz:
top 3(best first):dodd, obama, gravel bottom 3(worst first):(duncan hunter and mitt romeny tied), (ron paul and tancredo tied) guiliani after that. closest: republican:McCain Worst democrat: bill richardson( but even he's higher than mcCain according to this)
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 15, 2007 12:39:01 GMT -5
based on the quiz: top 3(best first):dodd, obama, gravel bottom 3(worst first):(duncan hunter and mitt romeny tied), (ron paul and tancredo tied) guiliani after that. closest: republican:McCain Worst democrat: bill richardson( but even he's higher than mcCain according to this) You forgot to add "tongue in cheek" to your ratings system. "best" ... "Worst" I think not.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 15, 2007 13:01:23 GMT -5
I took the test and its top two selections were Guiliani and Huckabee. For the record, I'm not on board with Rudy and would not vote for Huckabee under almost any circumstance.
No candidate on either party is appealing at this point. None. Most are either polarizing or completely unelectable (Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Tancredo, Keyes, Hunter, et al.) You can't wipe the slate clean and seek 20 new candidates, but that seems a better option than what faces the US in ten months.
|
|
MassHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,786
|
Post by MassHoya on Dec 15, 2007 13:21:09 GMT -5
I agree that that the issue selection was limited. Where was terrorosm, character, values, and energy? Perhaps a better analysis would be to have the poll takers select a limited number of issues from a larger pool and then weight the issues, as they saw fit. (Perhaps 4 - 6). Probably, no candidate is ideal but I don't think people have a long shopping list of issues a candidate must support. I don't think that a voter supports a candidate's position on all issues and may seek out a candidate for his/her position on just one issue, or a surprisingly small group, accompanied by a specific world view on all other issues (conservative, liberal or whatever). A self defining list of issues defeats this reality.
For the record, I came into the poll wavering between Hilary and Obama. I really like Richardson, but he has about as much chance as Radford beating the Hoyas. The poll told me Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd. No matter how much I weighted, it became Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson. I couldn't shake Dennis. Scary.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Dec 15, 2007 13:32:53 GMT -5
I took the test and its top two selections were Guiliani and Huckabee. For the record, I'm not on board with Rudy and would not vote for Huckabee under almost any circumstance. No candidate on either party is appealing at this point. None. Most are either polarizing or completely unelectable (Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Tancredo, Keyes, Hunter, et al.) You can't wipe the slate clean and seek 20 new candidates, but that seems a better option than what faces the US in ten months. I agree. I thought the election was the Democrats' to lose, since I was thinking that the nation was ready for a change in regime. The Democratic field is weak, so then I began thinking that all the Republicans had to do was put up a viable candidiate, and they would keep the presidency. Well, looks like the Republicans cannot find anyone remotely viable, so the ball is probably back in the Democrats' court. FWIW, my to two were Romney and Hilary. Still scratching my head... I do think a business leader might be a breath of fresh air, so HiFi's Bloomberg stance may not be that crazy.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Dec 15, 2007 13:45:35 GMT -5
based on the quiz: top 3(best first):dodd, obama, gravel bottom 3(worst first):(duncan hunter and mitt romeny tied), (ron paul and tancredo tied) guiliani after that. closest: republican:McCain Worst democrat: bill richardson( but even he's higher than mcCain according to this) You forgot to add "tongue in cheek" to your ratings system. "best" ... "Worst" I think not. Sorry didn't mean to editorialize i just meant best order of finish as in the highest ranked and worst being the lowest ranked. Not perosnal opinion just how they landed on the spectrum.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 17, 2007 15:57:28 GMT -5
One thing is pretty clear: no one seems to be ecstatic with our choices this time around. I really would like to see a more moderate ticket. I would like to see Rudy get the nomination and then maybe select a Lieberman to be his running mate. I doubt it will happen, but I could go for something like that.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 17, 2007 20:11:51 GMT -5
One thing is pretty clear: no one seems to be ecstatic with our choices this time around. I really would like to see a more moderate ticket. I would like to see Rudy get the nomination and then maybe select a Lieberman to be his running mate. I doubt it will happen, but I could go for something like that. Presidential races without incumbents have recently been won in the middle, although the sample size on this is small. 2000 is a perfect example. 1988 is perhaps less of a good example since the "middle" frankly didn't matter, although Bush won in part because Dukakis was out of the mainstream. 1960 is perhaps a good parallel to the 2000 model. In any event, the key is for candidates to stay mainstream IMO this time around. I am reasonably pleased with the options out there and think folks are probably more tired of politics itself than the people in these races. If memory serves, approvals for bureaucratic entities (i.e. Congress) typically underperform the approvals of their occupants. People weren't "pleased" in 2004, but turnout was outstanding in comparison with the historical average. This being said, your pro-war Democrats will probably be more successful in a general election, as it seems to be more of a mainstream position. But, the Republican Party might up the ante by nominating a Christianist in Huckabee. My ideal on the Republican side would be McCain leading the ticket. I disagree with him on many things but find his service in the Senate to be thoughtful and distinguished. And, I think he has tremendous leadership qualities. My hope is that he would bring a return to the traditional, realist foreign policy of the Republican Party and lead us away from this Jimmy Carter With a Gun liberalism.* Ultimately, I think he'd nominate a "true" conservative for VP just to earn his stripes with the loyal Republican voters. * This is not to say I am a realist. It is to say that I think we do better with a true, ideological foreign policy debate. I don't believe we've had that since 9/11 as much as we've had foreign policy liberals arguing with foreign policy liberals, with the result being a relatively thoughtless and irresponsible, though creative, foreign policy.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 17, 2007 20:21:46 GMT -5
Following Jersey's line of thinking, my ideal race looks like
McCain/Huckabee vs. Obama/Biden
with the Dems winning, with an especially massive margin in hifi's district and FL in general so we can watch his melt-down live on the Blue and Gray board.
My quiz results came up: Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Clinton. On the whole, I'm pleased with the field in both parties, especially the breadth of views and philosophies and differences in lifestyles and histories.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Dec 17, 2007 20:22:59 GMT -5
One thing is pretty clear: no one seems to be ecstatic with our choices this time around. I really would like to see a more moderate ticket. I would like to see Rudy get the nomination and then maybe select a Lieberman to be his running mate. I doubt it will happen, but I could go for something like that. Presidential races without incumbents have recently been won in the middle, although the sample size on this is small. 2000 is a perfect example. 1988 is perhaps less of a good example since the "middle" frankly didn't matter, although Bush won in part because Dukakis was out of the mainstream. 1960 is perhaps a good parallel to the 2000 model. In any event, the key is for candidates to stay mainstream IMO this time around. I am reasonably pleased with the options out there and think folks are probably more tired of politics itself than the people in these races. If memory serves, approvals for bureaucratic entities (i.e. Congress) typically underperform the approvals of their occupants. People weren't "pleased" in 2004, but turnout was outstanding in comparison with the historical average. This being said, your pro-war Democrats will probably be more successful in a general election, as it seems to be more of a mainstream position. But, the Republican Party might up the ante by nominating a Christianist in Huckabee. My ideal on the Republican side would be McCain leading the ticket. I disagree with him on many things but find his service in the Senate to be thoughtful and distinguished. And, I think he has tremendous leadership qualities. My hope is that he would bring a return to the traditional, realist foreign policy of the Republican Party and lead us away from this Jimmy Carter With a Gun liberalism. Ultimately, I think he'd nominate a "true" conservative for VP just to earn his stripes with the loyal Republican voters. As to people being tired of politics itself, that seems to be a common point of view these days. Check out www.unity08.com. Seems pretty interesting and someone I know is involved with it. That said, I won't be offended if you aren't buying it. Second, after reading yesterday's NYT Magazine feature on Mike Huckabee (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html) I cannot imagine what would happen if he were elected president. Some of the things he says and some of the things he does not know are really astounding.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 17, 2007 21:52:49 GMT -5
Second, after reading yesterday's NYT Magazine feature on Mike Huckabee (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html) I cannot imagine what would happen if he were elected president. Some of the things he says and some of the things he does not know are really astounding. I don't support Huckabee but you can sense the patrician disdain seeping out of that article. The Times does not understand the world between the coasts and they cater to an audience which has an unusually high opinion of themselves. Never mind the he is derided for eating at a TGI Fridays (perish the thought), but when his background is compared to Bill Clinton ("Clinton...who had worked briefly for Senator William Fulbright and studied the ways of the world at Georgetown, Yale and Oxford — was Prince Metternich compared with Huckabee") it screams a level of institutional elitism. We all know Huckabee's voters aren't reading the Times and aren't going to. But it's easy enough to cut down Huckabee on the issues without resorting to personal slights just because he isn't polished enough to hang around with Punch Sulzberger and the boys.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,219
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 18, 2007 11:41:48 GMT -5
I can't believe there is a chance that the United States, in 2007, could have a presidential candidate that says:
"‘The Holy Bible . . . has truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.’’
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2007 11:48:26 GMT -5
No candidate on either party is appealing at this point. None. Most are either polarizing or completely unelectable (Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Tancredo, Keyes, Hunter, et al.) You can't wipe the slate clean and seek 20 new candidates, but that seems a better option than what faces the US in ten months. Political post of the year. Exactly how I feel... er... have felt for the past decade. If only we had a legit third party in this country...
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Dec 18, 2007 12:09:19 GMT -5
I can't believe there is a chance that the United States, in 2007, could have a presidential candidate that says: "‘The Holy Bible . . . has truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.’’ Yeah, but he does have some good ideas -- Huckabee: women's role in marriage is to "graciously submit" I can't get my wife to buy into that yet, but I am working on it...
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 18, 2007 12:36:44 GMT -5
Biden cannot be a VP candidate. The man is smart, but he is from a small state without many electoral votes and has a bad habit of putting his foot in his mouth. Biden would be a better Secretary of State than a VP anyway.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 18, 2007 16:04:50 GMT -5
coast2coast wrote:
...with the Dems winning, with an especially massive margin in hifi's district and FL in general so we can watch his melt-down live on the Blue and Gray board.
Florida is a bit unusual. Basically there are about 6 solid democrat counties -- the 3 south Florida counties of Dade, Broward and Palm Beach and then the Daytona area (Volusia County), as well as the two big university counties -- Alachua (UofF) and Leon (FSU). By and large the rest of the state is a very red state, but the average population of those handful of blue counties offsets by sheer numbers the 50 or so red counties. The result is an amazingly balanced state overall. Jeb Bush carried the state very easily both elections and his approval ratings were excellent and his support was bipartisan. That was especially impressive towards the end of his tenure, since his brothers was so dismal. He was succeeded by Charlie Crist another "republican," although more than a few have called him the proverbial "Rhino" Republican in Name Only. Still, party affiliations aside, he is pretty much of a moderate.
As for watching my "meltdown," if it hasn't happened yet, it isn't likely to in the near future. I live right here in the liberal nut havenfest knows as Alachua county, featuring the University of Florida. I am very experienced dealing with these kooks and their looney ideas on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 18, 2007 16:29:11 GMT -5
If only we had a legit third party in this country... My feelings to a T. We need at least another legit party, maybe 2 or 3. If you read the actual platforms of the greens and the libertarians -- not just the pejorative soundbites the media and dems/reps feed us -- either or both could fit that bill.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 18, 2007 21:08:48 GMT -5
www.barackobama.com/2007/12/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_37.phpObama gave a fairly vanilla foreign policy speech earlier today in Iowa. Iowa is more isolationist in outlook, so he wisely did not come out with anything too dramatic. Rather, it was more of the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Democratic Party (save the anti-war stance). Focus is put on loose nukes, multilateralism, and international issues like terrorism, climate change, and genocide. At the same time, it is nice to see Professor Lake highly involved in Obama's campaign. I found him to be thoughtful and reasonably independent as a professor.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 18, 2007 23:24:10 GMT -5
We need at least another legit party, maybe 2 or 3. If you read the actual platforms of the greens and the libertarians -- not just the pejorative soundbites the media and dems/reps feed us -- either or both could fit that bill. Greens and libertarians are unlikely to ascend to a national third party status because their platforms are neither pluralistic nor appeal to the vast middle class that is needed to support a third party. Their candidates are, on the whole, vanity candidates instead of serious commitments. The only third party structures I could envision gaining a foothold are a German-style CDU party (morally and fiscally conservative but liberal on social justice) or a center-left party that would draw the support of the largely untapped Hispanic voter base.
|
|