Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008?

[JPhillips]

Arles: I'd agree that they'll be close on general election funds, but McCain has to use primary funds until after the convention. If he wants to do much over the summer he'll need to raise money now and currently he's not doing that well. I think the March numbers will be critical in showing if he's picking up momentum. If the Dem nomination goes to the convention it likely won't matter, but if Obama starts going after McCain in July and August with 200 million or more to spend it may bury him deep enough that he can't get out in time. That's essentially what happened with Kerry.

Another part of this is McCain's reputation as a less than stellar fundraiser.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, I tried to be as clear as possible out of respect for the liberal majority, I guess some need boldy parts to help them limp along in the conversation.

Classy as always, Dutch

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Classy as always, Dutch

SI

Not nicely played.

[JPhillips]

Perhaps not that important, but I just read this and I thought I'd share. It's been two centuries since some more than an inch shorter than the national average has been elected President.

Average U.S. Male Height- 5'9.2"

John McCain's Height- 5'7" (I had no idea he was that short)

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: I'd agree that they'll be close on general election funds, but McCain has to use primary funds until after the convention. If he wants to do much over the summer he'll need to raise money now and currently he's not doing that well.

Again, I don't know what he could do until the end of July that hurts Obama or Clinton more than what they are doing to each other. All he can really do is better define himself - but most know who he is. Even if he tried to kick either Obama or Clinton while they are down now with more ads, it would probably backfire. So, in some ways, having less money is good as he's less tempted to do something that may hurt him in the long run.

I think the March numbers will be critical in showing if he's picking up momentum. If the Dem nomination goes to the convention it likely won't matter, but if Obama starts going after McCain in July and August with 200 million or more to spend it may bury him deep enough that he can't get out in time. That's essentially what happened with Kerry.

I don't see Obama doing that with Hillary on the offensive. It's hard to fight a campaign on 3 different fronts (Wright issue, Hillary and McCain). He's got to wrap up the first 2 before he goes after McCain - and I don't see that happening until August. And, by then, McCain will have run a few targeted Pro-military exp ads and have enough money to run for the final 3 month stretch.

Another part of this is McCain's reputation as a less than stellar fundraiser.

In either 2000 or 2004, this may be an issue. But, given this battle between Hillary and Obama won't end until the convention (as it seems they are running away from Breseden's idea), McCain won't need much money until August. And, by then, he should have enough. Think of it this way, McCain has spent about 1/10 of the two dem candidates and he's moving up in the polls over the past 2 months. This is a perfect storm for McCain and he knows it. Heck, I would be surprised if he offers to fund a revote in Florida just to keep it going longer.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Forgot about that. Besides, with flere so hostile against (R), I wonder why he said what he did.

What does me not being a big fan of the Republican party have to do with my guesses as to running mates? I'm honestly curious.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think there's a decent chance the veep is Huckabee, in fact I think he's actually the most likely name right now - not that I think he's particularly likely, just more likely than anybody else you could think of.

That's basically what I was thinking as well. Same for Romney, in my mind, as well.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Undoubtedly in recent years the country has moved somewhat to the left, but how far to the left?

I think it's more that the Republican party has fractured a good amount in the past 7 years and that this shift we've maybe seen in the past few years to the Democratic side of the ticket is more a function of disillusionment in the Republican party with people thinking the "wrong people" are running the party. Where "wrong people" is defined as social conservatives, neocons, or whatever.

[JPhillips]

Arles: You are a master at making lemonade out of lemons. I particularly like the idea that poor fundraising is a plus. McCain may win, but his anemic fundraising right now is his Achilles heel. He needs to do something to shore that up or he'll be outspent by a large margin come summer.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: You are a master at making lemonade out of lemons. I particularly like the idea that poor fundraising is a plus. McCain may win, but his anemic fundraising right now is his Achilles heel. He needs to do something to shore that up or he'll be outspent by a large margin come summer.

That may be But, I doubt Hillary has the funds to keep contesting the primary and go after McCain. And, do you really see Obama running ads in June and July for himself, against Hillary and against McCain? I think August is when the candidates funds will come into play and that's when McCain should have enough to compete.

Also, don't forget the 3rd parties. The conservative side will get some assurances by July in some manner from McCain - then I would expect to see pro-McCain and anti-Obama ads out shortly. The conventional thinking is that McCain will refrain running anti-Obama ads, but I think you could see some groups start that fight in mid-July.

[Young Drachma]

Story

Army Staff Sergeant David Bellavia introduced John McCain at Vets for Freedom Rally today with this unfortunate line, linking Barack Obama with golfer Tiger Woods. But not in a good way:

"Fortunately, I have the privilege, the distinct privilege today, of introducing a true American hero who defies political norms in Washington," Bellavia said. "Sen. John McCain has spent a lifetime in service to our nation. His example of unwavering courage is a model for every American. Rest assured that men like Senator McCain will be the goal and the men that my two young boys will emulate and admire. You can have your Tiger Woods, we've got Senator McCain."

[flere-imsaho]

McCain also again mistakenly said that Al Qaida were Shi'a, not Sunni, while questioning General Petraeus today.

[Zelig]

Is it too late to vote in this thread?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Zelig

Is it too late to vote in this thread?

Not at all!

[flere-imsaho]

The guy at Electoral-Vote has some pretty interesting stuff today. He's taken the ratings of all senators from seven liberal interest groups (NARAL, ACLU, SEIU, etc...) and averaged them out to then rank the senators from liberal to conservative.

The conclusion of the numbers is that Obama & Clinton are among the least liberal, while McCain is among the most conservative. Obviously there are a good # of caveats, but it's interesting nonetheless. I'm wondering what a ranking from the other end (i.e. seven major conservative interest groups) would look like.

[ISiddiqui]

Nice map on Electoral-Vote.com... which also shows, quite clearly, Hillary Clinton's argument. Look at Florida and Ohio's polling (especially FL, which shows Clinton beating McCain, but Mccain BEATING Obama handily).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Nice map on Electoral-Vote.com... which also shows, quite clearly, Hillary Clinton's argument. Look at Florida and Ohio's polling (especially FL, which shows Clinton beating McCain, but Mccain BEATING Obama handily).

I think that the biggest boon to the GOP if Obama runs is that Florida almost certainly stays red. They will have to spend less money and time defending Florida against Obama than against Clinton.

Overall, I think that Obama is still the best bet for the Dems, but he does come with some major upsides for the GOP.

I do think that, for as similar as Obama and Clinton are policywise, they would each end up having very different elections against McCain, both in terms of the electoral map and in terms of style.

[miked]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Nice map on Electoral-Vote.com... which also shows, quite clearly, Hillary Clinton's argument. Look at Florida and Ohio's polling (especially FL, which shows Clinton beating McCain, but Mccain BEATING Obama handily).

I don't understand. It also shows Obama winning WA, OR, NY, CA, MD, NJ, IL, and doing better than Hillary in TX, WI, MN, and others. But because she's winning in FL and OH her argument holds water? I don't understand this fuzzy math. I don't really see how either could use that stance. But every day, it seems as if there's a new metric for why she should be the nominee and I just don't know what's next.

On a side note, why is it every time a supporter of a candidate says something bad about the opposition, there has to be some apology? I was reading that McCain and his people were pissed that Obama didn't personally apologize for the comments of Jay Rockefeller, even though Obama was neither present or backed the comments. Meanwhile, somebody introducing John McCain says we don't need another Tiger Woods and nobody seems to care much. I just don't understand this apology-based campaigning.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by miked

I don't understand. It also shows Obama winning WA, OR, NY, CA, MD, NJ, IL, and doing better than Hillary in TX, WI, MN, and others. But because she's winning in FL and OH her argument holds water? I don't understand this fuzzy math. I don't really see how either could use that stance. But every day, it seems as if there's a new metric for why she should be the nominee and I just don't know what's next.

The argument is that there are certain states which really are going to be in the red or blue camp based on history, etc, etc... and there are certain states that are always going to be the "make or break". In the last two elections, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania showed themselves to be those states and Clinton does much better in those states than Obama does.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The argument is that there are certain states which really are going to be in the red or blue camp based on history, etc, etc... and there are certain states that are always going to be the "make or break". In the last two elections, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania showed themselves to be those states and Clinton does much better in those states than Obama does.

How does Pa qualify? The winner of PA has lost the last two elections.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How does Pa qualify? The winner of PA has lost the last two elections.

PA is always close and has a good number of electoral votes (more than Ohio). It's a bellweather state... but doesn't mean that the winner of it will necessarily win the election.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How does Pa qualify? The winner of PA has lost the last two elections.

They didn't lose the election because they won Pennsylvania, did they?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

They didn't lose the election because they won Pennsylvania, did they?

No, but I was responding to the assertion that it was a "make or break" state. It clearly didn't "make" anything for the last two winners of the state.

[Warhammer]

The problem the democrats are going to have regardless of who gets the nod, is if they gain Ohio or Florida and lose Michigan they could still possibly lose.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

No, but I was responding to the assertion that it was a "make or break" state. It clearly didn't "make" anything for the last two winners of the state.

But if Kerry got Ohio and lost PA, he'd still have lost. Not getting PA would have broke Kerry regardless of Ohio's status.

[larrymcg421]

I would actually say PA is a "break" state for the Democrats. The state has clearly been trending blue lately, and if the Dem nominee loses it, they have very little hope of winning. The Republican can lose it and still win, as evidenced by the last two elections.

[JPhillips]

The Electoral Vote map doesn't mean much because the majority of the results are from polls that are weeks old and many of the losses/wins are statistically irrelevant.

Take Michigan, where Obama losses to McCain 42-43 in a poll conducted March 25. Or Nevada, where Clinton beats McCain 44-43 in a poll on March 19. They also weigh polls equally even though there is a huge performance disparity in polling outfits.

It's a close election regardless of who wins the Dem nomination, but state by state projections like this at this point in time don't tell us much other than they will likely be close come November. They certainly don't provide much ammo to either candidate claiming they are more electable.

[flere-imsaho]

This article is a bit scary.

In the best case, McCain comes off as a grumpy man with a vindictive streak. In the worst case, he's a belligerent and aggressive prick.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

McCain comes off as a grumpy man with a vindictive streak.

Hmm ... and I was about to say that reading the article was probably the most kinship I'd ever felt with the man. Take that for what you will

[flere-imsaho]

[Young Drachma]

McCain heads to the Lower 9th ward of New Orleans

He also told reporters he was not sure if he would rebuild the lower 9th ward as president.

“That is why we need to go back is to have a conversation about what to do -rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is,” he said.

So much for the hype about the ownership society in the GOP. Saddens me that the party can't get their act together, yet it hardly surprises me. So we have the victimization party of the Dems and the GOP who are so sorely behind the times.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

McCain heads to the Lower 9th ward of New Orleans

He's got no shame.

President Bush's lackadaisacal response to the Hurricane Katrina crisis is pretty much a truism by now. But John McCain's cameo role in the mess may soon make it into the highlight reel as well.

As the deadly storm system moved ashore almost three years ago, sending fatal floods through New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, Bush was in Phoenix, on a tour aimed at boosting participation in what was then the administration's new Medicare prescription-drug plan. McCain had opposed the bill, but showed up to meet Bush at the airport anyway, along with other Arizona lawmakers. It was Aug. 29, McCain's 69th birthday, and on the tarmac, Bush presented his old political rival with a cake. The two posed, holding the cake up for cameras, and within seconds, went their separate ways. The cake, melting in the 110-degree Arizona heat, was left behind, uneaten.

Perhaps a more seasoned leader would have taken the opportunity to counsel the President that his attention needed to be fully on the biggest domestic crisis since 9/11. Oh well.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

So much for the hype about the ownership society in the GOP. Saddens me that the party can't get their act together, yet it hardly surprises me. So we have the victimization party of the Dems and the GOP who are so sorely behind the times.

McCain's record since losing the nomination in 2000 shows that he's solely interested, at this point, in doing & promising whatever he can to be President. How else does one explain his major shifts on policy?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

McCain's record since losing the nomination in 2000 shows that he's solely interested, at this point, in doing & promising whatever he can to be President. How else does one explain his major shifts on policy?

And that's different from the other candidates how?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

McCain's record since losing the nomination in 2000 shows that he's solely interested, at this point, in doing & promising whatever he can to be President. How else does one explain his major shifts on policy?

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And that's different from the other candidates how?

Flere's not talking about the "do anything" part, the difference between McCain and the other candidates is the "major shifts on policy" part:

Abortion
Creationism in science class
immigration
intervention abroad
tax cuts for the wealthy
civil unions
a Martin Luther King holiday
the Confederate Flag
the Christian Right
Bob Jones University
whether Rumsfeld did a good job
whether Dick Cheney is doing a good job
whether President Bush is an honest man
a Patient’s Bill of Rights
global warming
campaign finance reform in general
public financing of campaigns specifically
lobbying reform
whether the War in Iraq would be “easy,”
whether Sunni and Shiite are working together
whether “Iraqi blood should be traded for American blood,”
military readiness
how many troops are necessary for the surge to succeed in Iraq
ethanol subsidies
the continuing existence of a minimum wage
closing the gun-show loophole
healthcare for children

That's all the policies McCain has taken both sides of the issue on that I could find and cut-n-paste (thank you C&L).

[Young Drachma]

[path12]

I love Jon Stewart.

[miked]

Man, fear, gutter politics.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - McCain: ‘It’s very clear who Hamas wants’ in the White House « - Blogs from CNN.com

Vote me because Hamas wants Obama.

[flere-imsaho]

This guy illustrates how McCain's flip-flopped twice on getting troops out of/leaving troops in Iraq.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This article is a bit scary.

In the best case, McCain comes off as a grumpy man with a vindictive streak. In the worst case, he's a belligerent and aggressive prick.

Christopher Hitchens wrote an essay on this article - http://www.slate.com/id/2190109/

Completely worth it just for his description of former NH Senator Bob Smith.

Leahy was able to recruit the views of former Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., who opined that McCain's rage quotient "would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger." I once went on a TV panel with Smith and passed some green-room time with him, and I can assure you that premature detonations of any kind would certainly not be his problem. He combines the body of an ox with the brains of a gnat.

[JPhillips]

It can't be easy to be a staffer for McCain when he says things likethis:

"I'm sure that I can give you a list of projects the Mafia funds, and they would probably be good projects. But I can't give you a justification for the Mafia."

[CamEdwards]

You know, at this point, unless McCain is caught on camera eating the liver of a newborn baby, I'm thinking he's still a much better option than Obama or Clinton. I apologize for not trying to rebut or dispute these comments, but I just don't care. McCain is who McCain is, and I'm not a huge fan, but I'll be voting for him come November.

Plus, the Republican side of the race just lacks the soap-opera drama on the Democrat side.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Completely worth it just for his description of former NH Senator Bob Smith.

LOL is it what - and it doesn't end with just that quote of yours either. Say what you want about Christopher Hitchens, but you can't ever accuse him of holding back nothin'.

[JPhillips]

You're going to vote Republican? Shocking.

As for the comment I just imagine it's hard work trying to keep McCain from saying dumb shit in public. From Shia/Sunni stuff to 100 years in Iraq to stuff like this it's a tough life if your job is trying to keep him on message.

[Buccaneer]

I think Clinton and Obama have been doing a great job, along with McCain, in saying dumb shit things in public. Par for the course, considering the candidates in the past 3 elections.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You're going to vote Republican? Shocking.

As for the comment I just imagine it's hard work trying to keep McCain from saying dumb shit in public. From Shia/Sunni stuff to 100 years in Iraq to stuff like this it's a tough life if your job is trying to keep him on message.

LOL. I can think of a few Democrats I'd vote for over McCain, but they're not running for president. And I did vote for a Democrat in my last local election. But hey, it if makes you feel better to think of me as a Republican stooge, feel free.

[JPhillips]

I wouldn't say you're a stooge, but come on, was there any real doubt that you'd vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama?

[Toddzilla]

Seriously Cam, McCain could eat the liver of one of *your* children and that wouldn't stop you from pulling his lever over Clinton's or Obama's.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You're going to vote Republican? Shocking.

As for the comment I just imagine it's hard work trying to keep McCain from saying dumb shit in public. From Shia/Sunni stuff to 100 years in Iraq to stuff like this it's a tough life if your job is trying to keep him on message.

Originally Posted by McCain

"I'm sure that I can give you a list of projects the Mafia funds, and they would probably be good projects. But I can't give you a justification for the Mafia."

So what was so bad about this quote? Is it the fact that he knows some projects might be mafia funded? It seems like a reasonable enough quote to me...unless I'm missing something obvious.

I also enjoy the 100 years in Iraq comments...especially when people leave out the parts comparing it to Germany and Japan. I'm thinking that having a base in Iraq for 100 years would be a good thing...assuming there isn't actual fighting going on.

[CamEdwards]

Well, there's always the Libertarian party, or simply not voting for President (which I actually considered for a coupel of days).

[st.cronin]

I'm with Brian D. Huh?

[JPhillips]

I think talking about the positive aspects of the mafia is always a bad idea for a presidential candidate.

As for the 100 years thing, the entire problem is that it will never be like Germany or Japan. So we're left with the idea that we'll stay in Iraq as long as it takes to stop taking casualties so that we can stay in Iraq without taking casualties. The question McCain is going to face in a general election debate is how long is he willing to take casualties on his way to a hundred years without casualties. My guess is the answer is basically one hundred years.