|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 30, 2008 13:50:31 GMT -5
The other was Romney keeping the race close -- who actually likes Mitt Romney? I just don't understand how he's doing moderately well in this race. I could ask the same questions about Hillary...and she's winning.I think that since Hillary and Obama are more or less identical candiates on the major issues, people have bought into Clinton's experience/"best candidate to deliver change" argument. Personally, I don't think it's a good argument -- most of her "experience" didn't come as an elected official -- but exit poll voters are citing experience as a major factor in their decision-making. The Clinton campaign has determined that voters don't have to like Hillary, they just have to think she can "deliver change" (whatever that means). Romney, on the other hand, I don't get because first of all, he comes across as a total phoney, IMO. Secondly, he doesn't have much of a record to run on -- the only things he can point to are that he cut taxes in Massachussets and he saved the SLC Olympics. Third, unless you're really into "defending America's borders," he's essentially the same candidate as McCain. Unless he's getting votes based on that issue alone (unlikely since he lost Miami, Tampa, and Orlando last night) I just don't see any reason people would vote for him. |
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Jan 31, 2008 14:22:25 GMT -5
Giuliani's campaign will live in infamy as the worst run sham ever to appear in American politics. It was plain stupid simply to ignore the first several states. Even losing those states seems an acceptable price to pay to avoid completely falling out of the national media conversation. For the last month all the airwaves have been talking about on the R side is McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. Rudy had no chance to get his word out when people actually started paying attention, and he paid the price of a huge flame-out. Unfortunately, Mr. Rubb is dead on. I don't really have a horse in the Republican race, but MAN would it have been nice if Giuliani's strategy had worked well and politicians could stop spending so much time pandering to the small pockets of Iowonians/New Hampshirese/South Carolinites that effectively decide the race. I can honestly say I am already not looking forward to 2012: Iowa Decides. |
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jan 31, 2008 15:44:58 GMT -5
I think Rudy is running for VP now.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Jan 31, 2008 16:30:42 GMT -5
I think Rudy is running for VP now. ...or AG at the least. If a GOP nominee wins in November, he's going to have some serious big-tent issues to work through. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 1, 2008 12:01:59 GMT -5
Giuliani's campaign will live in infamy as the worst run sham ever to appear in American politics. It was plain stupid simply to ignore the first several states. Even losing those states seems an acceptable price to pay to avoid completely falling out of the national media conversation. For the last month all the airwaves have been talking about on the R side is McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. Rudy had no chance to get his word out when people actually started paying attention, and he paid the price of a huge flame-out. Unfortunately, Mr. Rubb is dead on. I don't really have a horse in the Republican race, but MAN would it have been nice if Giuliani's strategy had worked well and politicians could stop spending so much time pandering to the small pockets of Iowonians/New Hampshirese/South Carolinites that effectively decide the race. I can honestly say I am already not looking forward to 2012: Iowa Decides. As much as I hate to say it, I agree with bubbrubb as well (shock ... duck incoming lightning !!!) .... I was pulling for Rudy although as time went on, it was clear that his "strategy" -- if you can even call it that -- was doomed to failure. I wonder deep down if he really wanted to be president. Now I am left to choose between 4 candidates that I really don't like. Romney would probably be the "best" choice in that he would run the Country like a company and therefore most likely bring us our best financial fortune. Hillary is just so unlikeable. I mean, can anyone really see her sitting down at the table with the leaders of Iran and Korea and accomplishing much of anything? Obama is energetic and enthusiastic, but in all seriousness, does he have much at all on his resume' worthy of being the President of the United States? And as for McCain, I just don't know what to think. Everytime he says something profound, he counters it with utter nonsense. Looking at his record as a senator, what is clear to me is that he has misplaced priorities. It isn't so much that what he has done has been wrong, but that he has spent so much time and energy on things that simply aren't that important on the National scale. Given that track record, I am leery as to whether that would ever change. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 1, 2008 12:14:50 GMT -5
Peggy Noonan mentioned the other day on Stewart that she thinks people will be writing books about Giuliani's failed campaign.
Obviously, people write books on just about anything these days, but her point being, this failure is worth historical notice.
I have to say, and I think someone above said it already, that I don't have as much problem with Giuliani's strategy as I do with the system. It's insane that pandering to these little early states determines if you can succeed on a national level. I'd much rather see some version of a national primary.
However, the system is what it is, and Giuliani should have known that.
John McCain's honeymoon in the mainstream media will end soon, if it hasn't already. Obama's is still lounging on the polar bear rug with the pink champagne and the magic fingers).
(yes, I get my honeymoon ideas from Superman II)
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 1, 2008 13:24:39 GMT -5
I gave money to Giuliani's campaign, so I'm biased.
However, I'm not really sure that the book idea works. Giuliani is pro-choice.
Let's state that again - Giuliani is PRO-CHOICE.
In a state that was won by someone who DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, Giuliani was going to get creamed. South Carolina wasn't going to help, either. NH is right next to Romney's base of operations and McCain won it in 2000. Do you show up and kiss lots of babies and know that you're not going to win?
So what do you do? What's someone who's running for the Republican nomination who thinks that corn-based ethanol is a stupid idea going to do? Why are these gates set up when the candidate, all other things being equal, would do very well in most of the U.S.?
The primary system is fundamentally flawed, and it's keeping good candidates from even having a chance at the nomination.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 1, 2008 13:53:26 GMT -5
As exorcist said, Giuliani lost because he is "pro-choice" and mainstream Republicans are not ready to nominate a "pro-choice" candidate. As soon as the word started making its way into the minds of Republicans, he was doomed. Good riddance!
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Feb 1, 2008 14:14:51 GMT -5
I gave money to Giuliani's campaign, so I'm biased. However, I'm not really sure that the book idea works. Giuliani is pro-choice. Let's state that again - Giuliani is PRO-CHOICE. In a state that was won by someone who DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, Giuliani was going to get creamed. South Carolina wasn't going to help, either. NH is right next to Romney's base of operations and McCain won it in 2000. Do you show up and kiss lots of babies and know that you're not going to win? So what do you do? What's someone who's running for the Republican nomination who thinks that corn-based ethanol is a stupid idea going to do? Why are these gates set up when the candidate, all other things being equal, would do very well in most of the U.S.? The primary system is fundamentally flawed, and it's keeping good candidates from even having a chance at the nomination. It is true, Giuliani had some major barriers to winning delegates in NH, SC, and IA, but that was not all that was at stake there. By focusing his campaign elsewhere, he also managed to move himself out of the spotlight, and likely lost a great deal of coverage for his events. When all of the networks are in Manchester, your event in Tampa does not reach anyone outside of Florida, your fundraising starts to dry up, and your national viability decreases. At least that is what my political friends tell me. That said, it is not like Giuliani wasn't on the ballot, or he was a total unknown, or he didn't campaign at all in these states (he actually spent a lot of time in NH, for example). The fact that he could not collect even 1 delegate given his high profile tells you something significant about his chances. The system is ridiculous, but Rudy knew that, played it poorly, and had some major flaws that were likely to doom him anyway. God help us if he is AG. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 1, 2008 14:18:45 GMT -5
Once again the system returns a result that I'm happy with (Rudy was probably the Republican most capable of taking middle ground voters, so his loss is good for the Dems), and once again I re-state my view that they system needs to be changed.
If a party wants a candidate who is going to have broad, nationwide appeal in November they need to have a nationwide primary on one day to determine their candidate. Sure it may hurt a lesser funded candidate like Huckabee who won't be able to run from state to state on a shoestring like they're doing now, but in the big picture I think Huckabee has hurt the Republicans by taking attention away from the guy who's going to get their nomination.
My ideal system:
A two-round system of nationwide primaries, pushed way back into the spring and summer to lessen election fatigue. Hold the first round in May, where everybody can run. It'd be a glorified nationwide opinion poll, with no delegates on the line. Set a threshold (like 20% of the vote), and any candidate who gets above that threshold moves on to the next round. Then in August, a week or so before the conventions start hold the 2nd round which determines the delegate split.
Benefits: Each state's voice is exactly proportional to their delegate count. Each state gets the same ballot (unlike now, when Wisconsin voters get fewer choices than New Hampshire voters). Only candidates who can draw in broad appeal get past the first round. Pushing the first round back reduces election fatigue. A far more democratic system.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 1, 2008 14:20:52 GMT -5
Jack:
The problem is that you're spending time and money in NH and IA just to get TV coverage (and have some NBC News wonk show up at your American Legion speech). But that American Legion brunch is time that you could be spending campaigning in Wisconsin or Michigan or Ohio or Florida - especially since you're almost certainly not going to win.
Rudy would be an awful agency head (not knocking him, but his style doesn't seem conducive to dealing with GS-15s) - he might do well as veep.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 1, 2008 16:45:35 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Romney is pro-choice and he's still in it. I mean, I know it's a major philosophical divide that really ties into personal values, but it shouldn't be disturbing at all that he changes his stance every election, should it?
As long as McCain is the Republican nominee, I'll be okay.
|
|
