DNC 2008 Thread

[Bando]

Aug 28, 2008 10:59:15 GMT -5 Boz said:

Aug 28, 2008 10:37:53 GMT -5 Bando said:

It's the Lincoln Memorial. Today's the anniversary of the I have a dream speech.

Also, considering what Bush accepted the nomination at in 2004, I wouldn't talk.

Except that Bush was actually, you know, President at the time.

EDIT: More disturbing than the backdrop is the opening act. Bon Frickin' Jovi? Reason enough not to vote for him.

Hey, he easily wins the Tombs vote with that choice.

[Bando]

Aug 28, 2008 11:13:06 GMT -5 @cam said:

Non-partisan side comment:

Politics is (are?) truly baffling. The guy's trying to win what is essentially the biggest popularity contest in the world, and his popularity is problematic.

Mind-boggling.


Okay - back to our regularly scheduled bickering...

Politically, it wasn't a bad attack angle for the GOP. Like in 2004, they decided to go after their opponent's biggest strength rather than his weaknesses. I mean, it might not work this time and I find stupid, as you do, but as political strategy, it has merit.

[HealyHoya]

Aug 28, 2008 11:14:46 GMT -5 Bando said:

Aug 28, 2008 11:13:06 GMT -5 @cam said:

Non-partisan side comment:

Politics is (are?) truly baffling. The guy's trying to win what is essentially the biggest popularity contest in the world, and his popularity is problematic.

Mind-boggling.


Okay - back to our regularly scheduled bickering...

Politically, it wasn't a bad attack angle for the GOP. Like in 2004, they decided to go after their opponent's biggest strength rather than his weaknesses. I mean, it might not work this time and I find stupid, as you do, but as political strategy, it has merit.

It does have merit. In fact, so much so that the Dems have adopted the same strategy. McCain's experience (foreign relations, military, legislative, bipartisanship, etc.) is clearly his most marketable theme and yet his age has been attacked by the Dems.

You're experienced but too old.
You motivate and engage the masses but you're too popular.

Again, nothing (and I mean nothing) is new in these campaigns.

[EasyEd]

Gallup now has Obama up by 6, Rasmussen has him up by 1.

[hifigator]

I fugured that Obama would get a bump after the convention. If that's all it is and doesn't go up anymore today or tomorrow, then I think it will be a dead heat at worst after the RNC.

As I've said before, McCain's VP selection could be one of the most important in history.

[Bando]

Aug 28, 2008 13:38:34 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I fugured that Obama would get a bump after the convention. If that's all it is and doesn't go up anymore today or tomorrow, then I think it will be a dead heat at worst after the RNC.

As I've said before, McCain's VP selection could be one of the most important in history.

The names I keep hearing are Lieberman and Romney. Which are, from my perspective, great news. I'm hopeful, but I can't really believe that McCain would be stupid enough to pick anyone other than Pawlenty.

[Elvado]

I for one hope he has the stones to select KB Hutchison.

[hifigator]

In all honesty, Romney would almost certainly be the best choice, if elected. But the question is whether his Mormon background would turn off enough voters, to not get elected. I honestly like the Lieberman pick. That would be a ticket that is legitimately moderate, but again the question is electability. The question is will the draw from the moderates and legitimately undecides offset the losses of the uninspired far right that decide to stay home. I would hope not, but you never know. Basically, Perot being in the election some 16 years ago, (wow, was it really that long ago???) siphoned off much of those moderate votes, and that put Clinton in the WH. I think those people would probably vote for a McCain-Lieberman ticket, but might choose Obama-Biden over McCain-Romney.

[hifigator]

Elvado, I think that would be a great move. I think that would probably be the most electable ticket of the bunch.

[Bando]

Aug 28, 2008 14:05:17 GMT -5 hifigator said:

In all honesty, Romney would almost certainly be the best choice, if elected. But the question is whether his Mormon background would turn off enough voters, to not get elected. I honestly like the Lieberman pick. That would be a ticket that is legitimately moderate, but again the question is electability. The question is will the draw from the moderates and legitimately undecides offset the losses of the uninspired far right that decide to stay home. I would hope not, but you never know. Basically, Perot being in the election some 16 years ago, (wow, was it really that long ago???) siphoned off much of those moderate votes, and that put Clinton in the WH. I think those people would probably vote for a McCain-Lieberman ticket, but might choose Obama-Biden over McCain-Romney.

I think Lieberman and Romney are both losers for McCain. Joe's pro-choice stand and Mitt's Mormonism are going to roundly anger the one group McCain has had most trouble with: evangelical Christians. It seems like they've finally decided to bite the bullet and vote for him, but selecting either of these would just be a slap in the face.

Furthermore, neither of them really brings in any voters to offset these losses. Anyone who was part of Romney's base is already in McCain's camp. Plus, as the "7 houses" meme is working fairly well right now, bringing in a guy richer than McCain would not be prudent. And if you think those McCain ads showing Biden and Clinton dissing Obama were bad, get ready for the same thing with Romney trashing McCain.

Lieberman has burned all the bridges he ever had on the left, most Dems view him as a traitor. I don't see how he brings anyone with him from there.

[Elvado]

So a Kay Bailey Hutchinson selection might trouble you?

Remember the GOP put Sandra Day O'Connor on the Court and KB Hutchinson would be the first female VP candidate with a chance to win, nooffense to Mrs. Ferraro who was a gutsy sacrifical lamb in 1984.

Funny how the party of rich old men promotes women better, huh?

[Jack]

Except that nobody outside the people on this board seems to be mentioning Hutchinson even in the running. I have seen Palin and Fiorina mentioned as outside shots, but no one takes them seriously. Overall, very progressive stuff.

[Bando]

Aug 28, 2008 14:39:40 GMT -5 Elvado said:

So a Kay Bailey Hutchinson selection might trouble you?

Remember the GOP put Sandra Day O'Connor on the Court and KB Hutchinson would be the first female VP candidate with a chance to win, nooffense to Mrs. Ferraro who was a gutsy sacrifical lamb in 1984.

Funny how the party of rich old men promotes women better, huh?

Um, what? The Democrats currently have the first female speaker of the House and the first serious female presidential candidate. The GOP has years of anti-woman legislation and a hypothetical VP pick that hasn't even happened yet, and might not happen at all. This is poorly reasoned, even for you.

[hifigator]

Actually, I heard Hutchinson's name come up on Hannity and Colmes just a couple of days ago. But she is certainly a darkhorse at best. Personally, I really like the choice. I think it is one of the few picks that can help with electability and with actual production, should the ticket win.

[Elvado]

That first credible female candidate for President just lost to an empty suit. Madame Pelosi was elected.

Republican President Reagan appointed O'Connor. Hutchinson, if selected, would be picked by one of the old rich men you decry.

[DFW HOYA]

Kay is out of the race, she says.

elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/28/texas-senator-says-shes-out-of-mccain-veepstakes/

[HealyHoya]

Pawlenty or Romney.

The Lieberman talk is political strategery to keep certain demographics involved. As I have said before, Lieberman makes no sense. None. Zero.

The interesting dynamic with Obama-Biden is that although the Obama campaign has steadfastly insisted that Obama is ready to lead, has foreign policy experience, is not too young to serve as CinC, their VP selection addresses those shortcomings.

Will McCain follow the same pattern? If so, he would lean toward a VP who addresses his perceived weaknesses -- domestic economic issues, (relative) youth and vigor, oratorical abilities. In short, Romney.

To involve '04, many criticized Kerry-Edwards for a lack of executive experience. With Obama-Biden the Dems have the same issue (I'll leave it for others to call it a problem).

With McCain, whether he goes for Pawlenty (6yrs Guv of Minn) or Romney (Bain, Olympics, Mass) you have considerable executive experience.

My conclusion, 60/40 for Romney.

Final observation -- if I were going to announce my VP tomorrow, I would have him in Denver early in the week pushing back on the Dems and then pull him off the public speaking circuit to begin the strategizing and roll-out discussions. That's Romney's schedule from this week. I would not have my VP selection in Denver today giving react. That's Pawlenty.

[hifigator]

It looks like it's Pawlenty ...

[thornski]

Right now, intrade.com (which got the Biden pick right starting 3-5 days out) has Romney at about 66% and Pawlenty at 30%, and Ridge/Lieberman/Hutchinson/Portman/all the rest with 4%. Think that makes sense. So Healy, very nice work on the odds.

Romney seems to be the safest pick, and honestly would remind me a lot of the Biden pick in several ways in terms of shoring up weaknesses, esp economically (although the point about nominating someone worth $200m+ after making that housing gaffe is well taken) and to combat the age issue.

Pawlenty is OK I guess, but he reminds me of Kaine a bit in a way. Other than putting MN in play, I really don't see what he brings to the table. He doesn't seem to be the most exciting guy, and he doesn't have much name recognition around the country. And if the main concern is putting states in play, I would argue that Romney might do just as well with putting MI more in play (it's more in play now arguably than MN) and securing NV for the GOP.

My guess is it's Romney.

[Boz]

I like Kay-Bay, but she is God-awful on television.

It sucks that this matters, but it does.

It won't be her. (yay, now you get to watch me be wrong again!)

Regarding Romney:
1. I don't think his wealth will be a problem. I don't think people have a problem with wealthy candidates. They have a problem with elitist candidates, and there's a difference. I disagree with Bando that the "7 houses" thing is really getting any solid traction anywhere except on the left. But I could be wrong.

2. I think the "Evangelicals hate him because he's Mormon" argument is vastly overblown. There are a small, vocal minority sounding this call, but nothing substantive - that I have seen anyway - to indicate that there is any widespread objection to him from Christian conservatives.

3. Very good executive experience. Can (and I think would) bring in Michigan. Shores up McCain on the economy. Excellent on television and pretty good in debates.

Those are the reasons why McCain can pick Romney. But there is a big reason why he possibly can't:

Romney, for whatever reason, had huge negatives in the primaries, like Hillary Clinton. People aren't even really sure why because they were high long before people really even got to know him. Maybe I'm wrong and it WAS his Mormonism, or maybe it was his "conversion" on abortion and gay marriage, or maybe it was just that George Hamilton look he's got going.

OK, and possibly a second reason that McCain doesn't really like him that much.

I don't think those are deal breakers for McCain, but I think it makes Romney problematic. I still think he'd be a good pick. As I said before: not great, but good. There's not a lot of "great" going around this year - on either side - for the veep choice.