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

[Galaril]

Wow, where did all the talk this week about Clinton pulling close and only a slim lead in Wisconsin? Obama looks to win soundly there at least from poll results? I don't see Clinton thrashing Obama enough in Ohio or TX most likely something like 55-45. This is over.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Wow, where did all the talk this week about Clinton pulling close and onlya slim lead in Wisconsin? Obama in a landslide in Wisconsin? I don't see Clinton thrashing Obama enough in Ohio or TX most likely something like 55-45. This is over.

The exit polls that came around 1pm were saying it was going to be a landslide in Wisconsin for him.

It'll be interesting to hear about his speech tonight, because he's been pretty much repeating the same victory speech for a few weeks now.

[Buccaneer]

I don't quite think so, DC. Each precinct/district has a distinct demographics (in my field, it's called market segmentation). Based on previous votes (not polls), they already have a model for how the vote should go. When results come in for a precinct/district, they can match actuals against predicted and notice any deviations from the norm. If, for example, early precincts/districts model a slight advantage for Clinton but the votes show a solid Obama win, then you would predict him to be the winner because the model would already show him winning what he was supposed to win and will likely do so because he won what he wasn't supposed to win. Makes sense?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I don't quite think so, DC. Each precinct/district has a distinct demographics (in my field, it's called market segmentation). Based on previous votes (not polls), they already have a model for how the vote should go. When results come in for a precinct/district, they can match actuals against predicted and notice any deviations from the norm. If, for example, early precincts/districts model a slight advantage for Clinton but the votes show a solid Obama win, then you would predict him to be the winner because the model would already show him winning what he was supposed to win and will likely do so because he won what he wasn't supposed to win. Makes sense?

Thanks for spelling it out.

[Big Fo]

Nine in a row, I'm trying not to get too optimisitc but it's getting harder and harder...

Is Texas the only state to have this combination of primary and caucus?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He lost seven of the first nine.

I know it's irrelevant, but if the primaries schedule were a little more balanaced geographically, it would have been over sooner. The southern states didn't come into play until later, unlike this year , I perceive.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think they're both purposely speaking over each other today. Swapped to FOX to watch it, because I knew they wouldn't show Hillary for that long, giving a stump speech.

Damn, that's a pretty big crowd he's got in Houston.

Hilary's "gang of thugs" political advisors must of hated when the networks cut right in the middle of her speech to go to Obama's

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Hilary's "gang of thugs" political advisors must of hated when the networks cut right in the middle of her speech to go to Obama's

Oh God, Begala probably beat Wolf Blitzer up.

[Young Drachma]

This stump speech is generally the same speech over and over. I guess he has to do that. He throws some stuff in there for the folks who say he doesn't address new themes, but my guess is that if you watch him read off the paper..he's awful at it.

As someone who isn't voting for him, it's tiring to hear the same thing over and over. But from a marketing perspective, it's fun to watch people eating it up. Because man..it's zombies at work, but the zombies are so fervent.

So I think he probably just goes with what works and is saving his "good stuff" for the general, because it's clear to me that he must have some other material that he can work in. But I think all of the polling that proves people don't know him that well, but as he moves into their territory and they get to know him, they like him more. So...I think he's going that way more and more.

It's smart that they're going in for the kill now, because if they don't beat her now or if they breathe life into her campaign, that she'll come roar back and kill them off.

Should be interesting...

[Young Drachma]

His health care plan sounds almost as ridiculous as Hillary telling people that "everyone who wants to work hard should have a job" and "we should increase the minimum wage to $9.15 an hour."

Shit, just promise them cars like Oprah. At least that's easier to deliver on.

[miked]

It's all the same. Hillary isn't bringing new material either. I think it's funny that she's saying she's all action and he's all talk. At this point, what does it say about the action when so many people are getting behind "talk". I voted for Obama because I'm not concerned with what he's stumping for, I'm concerned that Hillary and McCain are more of the same and I don't really want that.

[Young Drachma]

I wish he'd found a way to incorporate "Houston, we have a problem" into his stump speech. That would've been awesome.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

This stump speech is generally the same speech over and over. I guess he has to do that. He throws some stuff in there for the folks who say he doesn't address new themes, but my guess is that if you watch him read off the paper..he's awful at it.

As someone who isn't voting for him, it's tiring to hear the same thing over and over. But from a marketing perspective, it's fun to watch people eating it up. Because man..it's zombies at work, but the zombies are so fervent.

So I think he probably just goes with what works and is saving his "good stuff" for the general, because it's clear to me that he must have some other material that he can work in. But I think all of the polling that proves people don't know him that well, but as he moves into their territory and they get to know him, they like him more. So...I think he's going that way more and more.

It's smart that they're going in for the kill now, because if they don't beat her now or if they breathe life into her campaign, that she'll come roar back and kill them off.

Should be interesting...

DC, I would agree with you. I know this has become a cliche of late but "experience" does mean something. If all you have campaigned for is a local office and a Senate that fell into his lap, he doesn't have much political experience to draw from. But he is getting the support out and that says a lot considering that he is going up against a hardcore political machine in the Clintons.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

As someone who isn't voting for him, it's tiring to hear the same thing over and over. But from a marketing perspective, it's fun to watch people eating it up. Because man..it's zombies at work, but the zombies are so fervent.

I'm not voting for him either, and longtime members in the political threads on this board know that I voted for WJC twice, Al Gore and John Kerry. If Obama was running for game show host, he'd get my vote, but not for President. FWIW, I wouldn't vote for Hillary against McCain, either.

Obama is going to have to come up with some new material for the general election. "Yes we can" and "in the face of change, I believe in hope" isn't going to cut it.

[Logan]

Thanks for the explanation DC.

[Buccaneer]

I have been following the primaries game too closely and do not know if there are any Congressional races this year. Would it be true that Congress would still be Dems-controlled in 2009?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Obama is going to have to come up with some new material for the general election. "Yes we can" and "in the face of change, I believe in hope" isn't going to cut it.

Meh. I'm sure his speech writers are just as good as coming up with presidential rhetoric rubbish as every other politician's speech writers.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I have been following the primaries game too closely and do not know if there are any Congressional races this year. Would it be true that Congress would still be Dems-controlled in 2009?

There is a Senate seat up in New Mexico. The Republican Senator is retiring.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

So I think he probably just goes with what works and is saving his "good stuff" for the general, because it's clear to me that he must have some other material that he can work in. But I think all of the polling that proves people don't know him that well, but as he moves into their territory and they get to know him, they like him more. So...I think he's going that way more and more.

I would predict that the shit will start hitting the fan when he would be asked about Russia, China, Palestine, Gaza, etc. and have to say more than "I will make nice with everyone". Obama has already acknowledged McCain's foreign policy experience so the economy has to be his selling point, unless he plays the class warfare card.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

DC, I would agree with you. I know this has become a cliche of late but "experience" does mean something. If all you have campaigned for is a local office and a Senate that fell into his lap, he doesn't have much political experience to draw from. But he is getting the support out and that says a lot considering that he is going up against a hardcore political machine in the Clintons.

True. But I think the fundamental premise of his campaign -- whether we buy it or not, is irrelevant -- is that the sort of experience that McCain, Clinton and that ilk have is not what America needs and not what Americans want. That the fundamental idea behind government ought to be to help the people who need it most and to provide the country with stability and an atmosphere to thrive and innovate.

I don't think what he proposes is really the blueprint for that, but...you have to admit that if nothing else, the people who are backing him in droves understand this message. They assume that all politicians are fundamentally crooked and flawed people who don't care about them. They feel that Obama cares about them and that he's essentially one of them and that he's "called" to do this thing.

That's where they are, how they feel about it and well....I think it speaks volumes that they've turned this guy from an afterthought to an insurgent candidate. Whether it's all bluster or not isn't really an issue, because if we're being honest..Clinton and McCain aren't much different, it's just their rhetoric isn't the same.

It's been a fascinating year to watch all of this unfold though and I almost want to fast-forward, just to see how it ends, because it's pretty evident (I'm guessing) to all of us that no amount of punditry will really be able to determine the outcome of all of this.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Obama

"It is going to take more than big rallies. It is going to require more than rousing speeches ... it is going to require something more because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die," he said

This can be interpreted at least a couple of different ways.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I have been following the primaries game too closely and do not know if there are any Congressional races this year. Would it be true that Congress would still be Dems-controlled in 2009?

Here is a link to a brief runthrough (from a familiar site to many): http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...s/Feb19-s.html

The Dems have a huge financial advantage at present and have to defend 12 seats, while the Repubs have to defend 23.

I would guess (and he has suggested) that McCain may resign from the Senate to fully concentrate on running for the presidency, even though he is not up for election. I would doubt that Obama or Clinton will resign theirs.

[Logan]

I don't watch many speeches...are they always that long?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would predict that the shit will start hitting the fan when he would be asked about Russia, China, Palestine, Gaza, etc. and have to say more than "I will make nice with everyone". Obama has already acknowledged McCain's foreign policy experience so the economy has to be his selling point, unless he plays the class warfare card.

I think he'll recruit people on his team to brief him on that stuff. To some degree, I feel like they've come this far that they're not going to fall flat at this stage. If they were gonna fail, they would've a long time ago.

Isn't to say that they can't get real-world curveballs or whatever. But...I think they'll prove formidable and as a former law professor, he has enough understanding of how to get information down, that he can be okay in a head-to-head on big issues like that.

I don't think he intends to try to beat McCain on his own turf or to try to create his own brand of what McCain is selling to get voters to sign onto him. I think he's just going to keep it consistent and do what he's done up to now, with maybe some new twists on it.

He could solve world peace and pull of a rabbit out of his ears and the fact that he wants to raise the capital gains tax makes him a non-starter to me, let alone how he intends to pay for ALL of the shit he wants to do. But my suspicion is that his economic people figure that pulling us out of Iraq and repealing the GWB tax cuts and raising capital gains will give them all of the money they need to "help people".

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Logan

I don't watch many speeches...are they always that long?

They've gotten a lot longer. It's free airtime and the channels won't pull away from them and so they've gone from mere victory speeches to faux stump speeches.

[Galaril]

Did Obama say "I love you" at the end of that speech. It's not that there is anything wrong with that just I don't think I have ever heard a politician running for president say it. The guy does come across as sincere and believe s what he says, it's too bad Sauron's Republicans are going to crush him in the general in all likelihood.

[Swaggs]

Man... I think it was JiMGa that said it first, but Obama's voice and the Rock's voice are damn near identical. Now, everytime I hear him speak, I am holding out hope that he says, "Can you smell what Ba-rock is cooking?!?!"

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That's where they are, how they feel about it and well....I think it speaks volumes that they've turned this guy from an afterthought to an insurgent candidate. Whether it's all bluster or not isn't really an issue, because if we're being honest..Clinton and McCain aren't much different, it's just their rhetoric isn't the same.

Puts the whole "words mean things" bit in a little more perspective when, after 6 years or so of the media referring to the guerillas in Iraq as 'insurgents,' I had to think twice about what you were actually saying there.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

True. But I think the fundamental premise of his campaign -- whether we buy it or not, is irrelevant -- is that the sort of experience that McCain, Clinton and that ilk have is not what America needs and not what Americans want. That the fundamental idea behind government ought to be to help the people who need it most and to provide the country with stability and an atmosphere to thrive and innovate.

I don't think what he proposes is really the blueprint for that, but...you have to admit that if nothing else, the people who are backing him in droves understand this message. They assume that all politicians are fundamentally crooked and flawed people who don't care about them. They feel that Obama cares about them and that he's essentially one of them and that he's "called" to do this thing.

That's where they are, how they feel about it and well....I think it speaks volumes that they've turned this guy from an afterthought to an insurgent candidate. Whether it's all bluster or not isn't really an issue, because if we're being honest..Clinton and McCain aren't much different, it's just their rhetoric isn't the same.

It's been a fascinating year to watch all of this unfold though and I almost want to fast-forward, just to see how it ends, because it's pretty evident (I'm guessing) to all of us that no amount of punditry will really be able to determine the outcome of all of this.

Again, I am agreeing with you.

[rhetorically-speaking]There are those that expect nothing good to come out of Washington, those that expect bad things to happen only to them and those that can't name Washington DC as the nation's capital. If only someone would say something that shows they care about ME. Clinton1 made a lot of political hay out of pretending he cared but really didn't. It doesn't matter though, maybe I can start feeling better about myself because someone said that they will do things that will make my life better. If they don't, then we'll blame the opposition.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Did Obama say "I love you" at the end of that speech. It's not that there is anything wrong with that just I don't think I have ever heard a politician running for president say it. The guy does come across as sincere and believe s what he says, it's too bad Sauron's Republicans are going to crush him in the general in all likelihood.

I think it's because his people are always saying "I love you!" in the audience when he speaks and he often will say "I love you back."

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

They've gotten a lot longer. It's free airtime and the channels won't pull away from them...

...unless it's Hillary .

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Puts the whole "words mean things" bit in a little more perspective when, after 6 years or so of the media referring to the guerillas in Iraq as 'insurgents,' I had to think twice about what you were actually saying there.

Yeah, I thought of using a different word, but figured I'd try to bring it back to its original context before it got bastardized.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Logan

...unless it's Hillary .

Well, she was the loser. If it'd been the other way around, they would've done it to him too.

[Young Drachma]

They're showing the part of her speech we missed. I didn't realize she went on that damn long. Maybe it was a purposeful tactic intended to get them to do just this, to give her seeming "double coverage".

She was trumping labour there at the end of that speech and so, I think that's a play back to the Edwards base. I wonder when he'll come out and endorse Obama. He can't endorse Clinton. He won't attach his cart to the loser and given all of the supporters and unions of his that went to Obama, he really only has two choices. Sit it out and endorse no one or endorse Obama and be the one that hammers the nail they're beginning to drive in that coffin Hillary's getting fitted for.

Not that I think if he did go the other way (or even for Obama, honestly) that it'll have an appreciable impact.

I enjoy the whole "not giving up, because America didn't give up on me" angle Clinton is taking despite the licking she's taking. I think Obama will win Texas, which isn't a big surprise given how the numbers continued to close after his wins last week or whenever. But...Ohio is really where I think Hillary has to put up or shutup. I think she looks like a disparate candidate on stage right now.

Her enthusiasm seems artificial (I know, big shocker) and I really wonder what her people are thinking of doing. I've heard for a week or so now that they need a big meltdown and they need to win big the rest of the way out...but it seems more and more than no matter how much engineering they do, their horse is pulling up going down the stretch rather than coming on strong.

I'd be okay with being wrong though, just for the entertainment value of it all.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I have been following the primaries game too closely and do not know if there are any Congressional races this year. Would it be true that Congress would still be Dems-controlled in 2009?

I haven't looked at house races too closely, but in the Senate if anything, by more of a majority. Top 10 races to watch - http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...671716,00.html

[Buccaneer]

Thank you.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It appears that McCain's advisors have already told him to forget about Huckabee and Clinton and start campaigning against Obama. Here's a quote from his victory speech tonight:

"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change."

Which is a damned nice line... and one that'll probably resonate with plenty. After all, McCain was railing for change in Washington when Obama was a state Senator.

[JPhillips]

Bucc: The Republicans also have around fifteen percent of their House caucus retiring and an investigation into improper handling of funds at the RCCC.

On the experience thing, I really don't think it matters. I used to think experience was more important, but over time I've come to believe that judgment is really what's paramount. Since 1960 I think you could credibly argue that the most experienced Presidents have been the biggest failures (LBJ and Nixon certainly, maybe GHWB) It's not that experience is a negative, but experience can too often be seen as a substitute for good judgment.

Any President is going to be surrounded by experience, but what they do with that experience is what's important. Lord knows I'm no GWB fan, but I don't think the problem has been a lack of experience. His advisers had plenty of experience, but IMO his judgment was the problem. If Obama or Clinton or McCain is going to have difficulties in the White House I'd bet that experience won't be much of an issue.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Since 1960 I think you could credibly argue that the most experienced Presidents have been the biggest failures (LBJ and Nixon certainly, maybe GHWB)

Say what? LBJ was alright, but Vietnam sunk him (as it probably would have to any). Nixon was a very good President, who got caught doing dirty tricks that I'm sure every campaign was engaged in at the time, and George HW Bush was actually a good President who got blamed for a recession that was in recovery during the election year.

Not saying they were the best, but the least experienced Presidents since 1960 were worse (Kennedy, Carter).

[JPhillips]

But Vietnam didn't just happen. LBJ made policy decisions that sunk his presidency and embroiled the U.S. in a failed war.

Nixon made disastrous economic decisions, never had a clear policy in regards to Vietnam, hid Kissinger's actions from his own cabinet members and engaged in crimes while in office. He may have had a good side, but the decisions he made led to his resignation. Again, these things didn't just happen.

GHWB is a tougher case as I don't put him in the same category as LBJ or Nixon, but he and Carter are the only two presidents over that time span to only serve a single term. In some sense, even if only politically, he was a failure.

I'll give you Carter as a failure. Kennedy made some good economic decisions and played the Cuban Missle Crisis very well. It's hard to judge him, though, when his term was so short.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But Vietnam didn't just happen. LBJ made policy decisions that sunk his presidency and embroiled the U.S. in a failed war.

Nixon made disastrous economic decisions, never had a clear policy in regards to Vietnam, hid Kissinger's actions from his own cabinet members and engaged in crimes while in office. He may have had a good side, but the decisions he made led to his resignation. Again, these things didn't just happen.

GHWB is a tougher case as I don't put him in the same category as LBJ or Nixon, but he and Carter are the only two presidents over that time span to only serve a single term. In some sense, even if only politically, he was a failure.

I'll give you Carter as a failure. Kennedy made some good economic decisions and played the Cuban Missle Crisis very well. It's hard to judge him, though, when his term was so short.

When Kennedy started Vietnam, it was hard for any President to back out. No one wanted to be the first President who lost a war. LBJ couldn't back out without seeming weak on Communism. His hands really were tied.

Nixon's economic policies weren't that horrid. Sure he made a few blunders in dealing with the oil shocks, but he did take the US off the gold standard, which was major. Ironically enough, he called for a universal health care plan back in the 70s which didn't go anywhere. Besides, he was mostly uninterested in domestic politics. He was a foreign policy wonk, who opened up China and negotiated SALT I. Two historic actions.

GHWB only served one term because he was decent enough to realize that his campaign promise to not raise any more taxes wasn't going to work if he wanted to control the deficit.

And Kennedy was HORRIBLE during the Cuban Missile Crisis! A complete failure of diplomacy. Instead of making a simple phone call to the Kremlin as Ike would have done, the moron decided to escalate it by telling everyone in the US about things!

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I don't quite think so, DC. Each precinct/district has a distinct demographics (in my field, it's called market segmentation). Based on previous votes (not polls), they already have a model for how the vote should go. When results come in for a precinct/district, they can match actuals against predicted and notice any deviations from the norm. If, for example, early precincts/districts model a slight advantage for Clinton but the votes show a solid Obama win, then you would predict him to be the winner because the model would already show him winning what he was supposed to win and will likely do so because he won what he wasn't supposed to win. Makes sense?

Actually, this is not completely right either.

You are right to imply that when an early projection of an election result is made, it is usually not due to the raw results from exit polling. It is a misconception that a projected call without the benefit of much of the actual vote must be the result of exit poll numbers. Some of the modeling does incorporate exit poll numbers, but it is actually quite rare that races are called due to exit polling alone. The technique you are describing is used, but doesn't often yield reliable results until closer to the tail end, where a significant percentage of the precincts have already reported. In the early stages, you can't really project a winner based on actual votes on the few precincts that are in, since (a) you can't be assured that the precincts that are in are representative of the state as a whole and (b) even if you know the demographic/past voting profile of the missing precincts, it is very risky to make call based on past voting on so many precincts. Now, the models are continually updated as more of the vote comes in, so in time, it does become less risky when fewer precincts need to be projected.

But, to get back to the original question--what is the basis for an early call when there is little actual vote in? A significant, but rarely talked about, source of information are actual votes taken from a pre-selected sample of precincts. The precincts in the sample were selected to be representative of the state both in terms of demographics and prior voting record. What makes this sample of votes more projectible than an early raw vote total is the nature of the representative of the sample (or at least the assumption of representativeness) present in the precinct sample that cannot be guaranteed in an early raw vote total.

One other thing to note here is that multiple models are being run concurrently--some creating estimates based on the exit poll, others based on raw vote, others incorporating past race information, and various combinations of the above. The analysts like to see model convergence. So, while it's risky to project a race based on models incorporating only exit poll data, it becomes less risky if the precinct sample models are saying the same thing. In a close race, this is still not enough information to make a call, but in a not-so-close race breaking in the expected direction, the data available at an early stage may be adequate.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Did Obama say "I love you" at the end of that speech. It's not that there is anything wrong with that just I don't think I have ever heard a politician running for president say it. The guy does come across as sincere and believe s what he says, it's too bad Sauron's Republicans are going to crush him in the general in all likelihood.

Maybe. I wouldn't say likely yet. The Republican turnout was still just 40% of the Democratic turnout. McCain and Huckabee together had less votes than Hillary alone, by a fair margin. You could say it's because the Repub race is wrapped up, but it's been like this damn near everywhere, and I don't buy that the difference is Repubs voting for Hillary to keep it close.

[bronconick]

Someone might want to clue Billary in that in a year where a President has a 30% approval rating and Congress is around 15%, trumpeting your "experience" and that you know how things work in Washington probably isn't your best bet.

On second thought, don't. Wait until she actually concedes, then tell her.

[TazFTW]

http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4223/181/

10% in.

Hawaii Caucus Democratic Results:
Total of 26 precincts - Maui and Oahu.

Clinton 666
Obama 2,258

Heh.

[SackAttack]

666, huh?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

True. But I think the fundamental premise of his campaign -- whether we buy it or not, is irrelevant -- is that the sort of experience that McCain, Clinton and that ilk have is not what America needs and not what Americans want. That the fundamental idea behind government ought to be to help the people who need it most and to provide the country with stability and an atmosphere to thrive and innovate.

I don't think what he proposes is really the blueprint for that, but...you have to admit that if nothing else, the people who are backing him in droves understand this message. They assume that all politicians are fundamentally crooked and flawed people who don't care about them. They feel that Obama cares about them and that he's essentially one of them and that he's "called" to do this thing.

That's where they are, how they feel about it and well....I think it speaks volumes that they've turned this guy from an afterthought to an insurgent candidate. Whether it's all bluster or not isn't really an issue, because if we're being honest..Clinton and McCain aren't much different, it's just their rhetoric isn't the same.

It's been a fascinating year to watch all of this unfold though and I almost want to fast-forward, just to see how it ends, because it's pretty evident (I'm guessing) to all of us that no amount of punditry will really be able to determine the outcome of all of this.

Great post, DC. I am with you. Wish we could just fast forward this puppy to November and see how this is going to turn out.

[Neon_Chaos]

He really does sound like The Rock.

"FINALLLLLLYYYYYYY.... BA-RACK.... HAS COME BACK... TO O-HI-O!"

[QuikSand]

I work in politics for a living, and have had similar discussions about Senator Obama's experience with a lot of friends and acquaintances.

What I don't really buy is the notion that at the same time most people will agree that Congress is an inept and corrupt and pointless institution that accomplished basically nothing in most situations (whether this is fair or accurate I set aside for the moment) but then seems to be saying that Omaba only needs more of that to be qualified to be our President. I don't get it. What exactly do we want in terms of "experience" here? Sitting around in the US Senate for 8 more years, introducing the occasional bill, scratching Ted Stevens's or Robert Byrd's back for some project or another, holding some press conference here and a fundraiser there to pander to one group or another? Forgive me for being less than inspired.

I'm not saying that experience is irrelevant. I just think in the political realm, it's tough to simultaneously say that the whole game is useless, but you have to play it a lot to get anywhere.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

When Kennedy started Vietnam, it was hard for any President to back out. No one wanted to be the first President who lost a war. LBJ couldn't back out without seeming weak on Communism. His hands really were tied.

Nixon's economic policies weren't that horrid. Sure he made a few blunders in dealing with the oil shocks, but he did take the US off the gold standard, which was major. Ironically enough, he called for a universal health care plan back in the 70s which didn't go anywhere. Besides, he was mostly uninterested in domestic politics. He was a foreign policy wonk, who opened up China and negotiated SALT I. Two historic actions.

GHWB only served one term because he was decent enough to realize that his campaign promise to not raise any more taxes wasn't going to work if he wanted to control the deficit.

And Kennedy was HORRIBLE during the Cuban Missile Crisis! A complete failure of diplomacy. Instead of making a simple phone call to the Kremlin as Ike would have done, the moron decided to escalate it by telling everyone in the US about things!

This really isn't the thread for this argument, so I won't threadjack further. I do think, though, that my primary argument that experience doesn't equal success stands.