http://dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl...1001&lead=1

 

We're so damn influential.

 

Romney leads McCain 30-18.

Edwards leads Obama and Clinton 29-23-21.

Means little to nothing right now.

http://dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl...1001&lead=1

 

We're so damn influential.

 

Romney leads McCain 30-18.

Edwards leads Obama and Clinton 29-23-21.

 

Romney vs Edwards:

 

battle of the billionaires with fancy haircuts

Means little to nothing right now.

 

I dunno, I was pretty stunned by Romney doing that well. Of course, he got his name out here before anyone else, starting by attending a college graduation in Cedar Rapids last year I believe.

Romney doing so well doesn't surprise me, but the ambulance chaser ahead of Hilary and Obama shocks me.

I think Romney and Edwards have spent a ton of time in Iowa, so the results shouldn't be totally shocking. Nationally, they both are still getting beat up in the polls though.

 

Edwards '2 America's' and Romney's flip-flopping don't seem to be catching on much.

Romney vs Edwards... The Battle of the Sellouts.

Unfortunately, I have been thinking more and more that Romney v Edwards is precisely what we'll see in November of 2008. Its too bad really.

Unfortunately, I have been thinking more and more that Romney v Edwards is precisely what we'll see in November of 2008. Its too bad really.

That would be absolutely horrible, if that happens. It's way worse then the Goracle vs. Bush in 2000. Neither thrilled me then, and Edwards and Romney are both of the same mold.

Unfortunately, I have been thinking more and more that Romney v Edwards is precisely what we'll see in November of 2008. Its too bad really.

 

That's the worst case senario, thus it's definitely going to happen. I hate politics in this country, whoever sells out the most wins.

Edited May 21, 200718 yr by whitesoxfan101

Unfortunately, I have been thinking more and more that Romney v Edwards is precisely what we'll see in November of 2008. Its too bad really.

 

In all seriousness, if those are the candidates on the major party ballots, it makes the Unity08 thing a done deal, and a major contender.

In all seriousness, if those are the candidates on the major party ballots, it makes the Unity08 thing a done deal, and a major contender.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Somehow, I doubt it.

 

If you put the two most hypocritcal candidates out there for each party, and the most polarizing in regards to common party lines, I have no doubt you will give a third party a golden chance to rush in a sieze the middle.

If you put the two most hypocritcal candidates out there for each party, and the most polarizing in regards to common party lines, I have no doubt you will give a third party a golden chance to rush in a sieze the middle.

It certaintly enhances their chances. But its still a long shot.

 

A lot of people like Edwards - particularly those who see only snippets, speeches and quotes. Edwards is one of the few candidates who consistently attempts a positive tone, even when he is making a snide reference to someone else. And he's got that my-daddy-was-a-coal-miner routine down pretty good. He has some Bill Clinton in him, and he's going to ride that Southern charm all the way to the station. He is the opposite of a Richardson or a McCain, who lack charisma and presence to a fault but who have some political legs to stand on.

 

And as for Romney, I think he wins the GOP just because McCain has worn out his welcome among the GOP faithful, and Giuliani won't be palatable. Rudy is seen as far too liberal socially among the christian coalition types, and once his failings post-9/11 (and in his married life, and in his business dealings) come out, his name trade will turn 180 and become a chain around his ankle. That leaves Romney, who like Edwards, is trying hard to stick to a positive tone.

I'm totally ignorant of the system in which American political parties pick their presidential nominees but my common senses tell me that Edwards could never beat both Clinton and Obama.

I'm totally ignorant of the system in which American political parties pick their presidential nominees but my common senses tell me that Edwards could never beat both Clinton and Obama.

Tell you what. Since that is 2 on 1, if you give me 2-to-1 odds, I'd take that bet on Edwards.

It certaintly enhances their chances. But its still a long shot.

 

A lot of people like Edwards - particularly those who see only snippets, speeches and quotes. Edwards is one of the few candidates who consistently attempts a positive tone, even when he is making a snide reference to someone else. And he's got that my-daddy-was-a-coal-miner routine down pretty good. He has some Bill Clinton in him, and he's going to ride that Southern charm all the way to the station. He is the opposite of a Richardson or a McCain, who lack charisma and presence to a fault but who have some political legs to stand on.

 

And as for Romney, I think he wins the GOP just because McCain has worn out his welcome among the GOP faithful, and Giuliani won't be palatable. Rudy is seen as far too liberal socially among the christian coalition types, and once his failings post-9/11 (and in his married life, and in his business dealings) come out, his name trade will turn 180 and become a chain around his ankle. That leaves Romney, who like Edwards, is trying hard to stick to a positive tone.

 

Just seeing Edwards early positions and platforms, he is the conservatives dream candidate. He has seemingly invoked every sterotype that they throw out about the high tax, over-regulating liberals. I think even if Hillary wins the nomination, the Repubs will have a tougher time beating her, because of the sizable Clinton Machine that is running for her. Edwards has no such apparatus.

 

I think the worst cases for the conservatives are Obama or Richardson winning the nomination.

 

As for the Republician side, they all have huge drawbacks, but I think Guiliani is the most electable, because his positions seem to be the closest to mainstream Americans on most issues. Romney would be dead in the water, and McCain has a huge voting record, and siding with Bush to explain. I really think Fred Thompson jumps in here and wins this side.

Giuliani is going to be Edwards 2004. The more the American public sees him, the less they're going to like him.

Giuliani is going to be Edwards 2004. The more the American public sees him, the less they're going to like him.

That's my feeling on Giuliani as well, but I think Edwards will start to look better as time goes on to the middle of the country. I hope I am wrong.

Why is Edwards a better candidate than in 2004 when he didn't get the nomination, and then lost as VP ? Hasn't he been out of government since, thus negating the 'more experience' needed' argument ?

Why is Edwards a better candidate than in 2004 when he didn't get the nomination, and then lost as VP ? Hasn't he been out of government since, thus negating the 'more experience' needed' argument ?

Because he's the only one who isn't making a complete arse of himself on the war funding.

Why is Edwards a better candidate than in 2004 when he didn't get the nomination, and then lost as VP ? Hasn't he been out of government since, thus negating the 'more experience' needed' argument ?

 

He hasn't had a voting record to get beatdown with since he left the Senate.

He hasn't had a voting record to get beatdown with since he left the Senate.

McCain doesn't have much of a voting record either lately and he's still in the Senate.

He hasn't cast a vote in about 6 weeks IIRC.

He hasn't cast a vote in about 6 weeks IIRC.

 

I thought it was more like 6 months?