Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...

[vansmack]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  Be wary of early polls suggesting McCain and Obama are looking at big victories in New Hampshire.  New Hampshire allows independents to vote in either the Republican Primary or the Democratic Primary, but, obviously, not both...But what would an independent voter do when faced with a question regarding Obama or McCain?  

Far be it for me to pat myself on the back, but this was a pretty damn good call on my part.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by vansmack:
  Be wary of early polls suggesting McCain and Obama are looking at big victories in New Hampshire.  New Hampshire allows independents to vote in either the Republican Primary or the Democratic Primary, but, obviously, not both...But what would an independent voter do when faced with a question regarding Obama or McCain?  

Far be it for me to pat myself on the back, but this was a pretty damn good call on my part. [/b]

I suppose we could have a more drawn discussion elsewhere, but this is now being brought up-
 
 A Theory about Independents in NH...   [Rich Lowry]
 
 ...a couple of people have mentioned to me: Could it be possible that independents figured, with the press coverage, that Obama was going to win no matter what, so they decided if they were going to have any effect they should vote in the Republican primary? Therefore Obama suffered the effect that everyone thought McCain was going to suffer of independents going to the other guy? Just a theory with no data to support it.  
 
 and
 
 A question
 
 Did New Hampshire's independents outsmart themselves, believing that McCain needed them more than Obama did, and thus deciding to vote Republican in greater-than-expected numbers... producing a McCain landslide and a Clinton-Obama squeaker?  
 
 personally, i'm more interested in the polling issues leading up to today, or is that a function of independents polling both ways, but only voting one way?

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

My theory regardind Obama's loss...
 
 I blame Edwards for staying in the race. If Edwards wasn't in the race, I think most of his votes would go to Obama.
 
 Just like when Nader handed the election to Bush in 2000, Edwards is going to hand it to Clinton.
 
 Obama's loss  in NH is all Edwards' fault.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  I blame Edwards for staying in the race. If Edwards wasn't in the race, I think most of his votes would go to Obama.

Well, I'm not as convinced that a large enough majority of Edwards votes will go to Obama, after all Clinton is seen as less centrist that Obama and Edwards is father left than any of the three.  Of course, that assumes voters actaully care about the issues and don't have an anti-Clinton sentiment.
 
 However, Edwards was going to stick it out until South Carolina from the very beginning, and when he gets waxed there, he'll bow out and endorse....?  The guy still wants to be VP - a last gasp at a failing politcal career - I'm not sure he'll endorse anyone out as he bows out.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Obama a centrist? But the great political commentator Mankie called his a socialist.
 
 I've been thinking your Edwards wanting the veep theory for awhile. I see him throwing his support to Obama in exchange for veep honors. Though if he though it was better for him to go with Clinton, he'd probably go her way.
 
 I like Edwards' message, I just don't trust the guy delivering it.
 
 

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  I blame Edwards for staying in the race. If Edwards wasn't in the race, I think most of his votes would go to Obama.

Well, I'm not as convinced that a large enough majority of Edwards votes will go to Obama, after all Clinton is seen as less centrist that Obama and Edwards is father left than any of the three.  Of course, that assumes voters actaully care about the issues and don't have an anti-Clinton sentiment.
 
 However, Edwards was going to stick it out until South Carolina from the very beginning, and when he gets waxed there, he'll bow out and endorse....?  The guy still wants to be VP - a last gasp at a failing politcal career - I'm not sure he'll endorse anyone out as he bows out. [/b]

[BookerT]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  My theory regardind Obama's loss...
 
 I blame Edwards for staying in the race. If Edwards wasn't in the race, I think most of his votes would go to Obama.
 
 Just like when Nader handed the election to Bush in 2000, Edwards is going to hand it to Clinton.
 
 Obama's loss  in NH is all Edwards' fault.

i'd blame the media before i blame edwards. new hampshire people like to set the agenda, not have it set for them. everyone wants to anoint obama? not if they have something to say about it. they are fickle. also, caucusing and voting are pretty different. with a bunch of people around it's easy to get swept up in all obamania. but when it's just you and a voting machine, not as easy.
 
 i'm kinda happy, i'd like to see obama earn it if he's gonna get it. he's like a zombie lately, "WE ... WANT ... CHAAAAAAAAANGE!"

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Obama a centrist? But the great political commentator Mankie called his a socialist.

He also called him a Muslim a few months ago....

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  I've been thinking your Edwards wanting the veep theory for awhile. I see him throwing his support to Obama in exchange for veep honors. Though if he though it was better for him to go with Clinton, he'd probably go her way.
 
 I like Edwards' message, I just don't trust the guy delivering it.
 

Edwards is in big trouble.  I don't see either of the front runner candidates embracing him for VP.  After the Iowa Caucaus I called his political career over and I'm going to stand by that, despite his youth.  His message is one of revitalizing the liberal agenda of 1968 and that message no longer resonates with todays youthful voters, half of which were born after 1968.  Clinton's message is similar, but not as strongly worded as the 1968 agenda.  
 
 If Obama wins, he'll need to choose a VP candidate that is seen as having executive experience or a long track record - someone like Richardson or Biden (although I think Biden, with a little work on his Diplomacy, would make a good Secretary of State).
 
 If Clinton wins, she will need to ask Obama to be her VP, but that is not going to be easy.  A lot of that will depend on how they campaign against each other for Super Tuesday and onward, and who the Republican candidate is.  He may turn her down or she may not have the guts to do it.  A second choice would be Richardson.

[ggw]

Edwards is a slimeball.
 
 His "Two Americas" message is contradicted by his establishment of a sham non-profit organization for the eradication of poverty, the proceeds of which he used for his ongoing personal political campaigning.  Best of all, the donors could give whatever amount they wanted and could also remain anonymous.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html
 
 His big talk about the evils of predatory lending is contradicted by his own personal investments in sub-prime mortgages.  He claims he was unaware of these investments, which is beyond the pale of believability since he was a senior advisor to the firm at the time they were making those investments and the fact that he has since given the firm more than half of his vast personal fortune to manage on his behalf.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html
 
 Mankie's right - he's a televangelist:  Preach one thing while practicing the opposite.

[Mobius]

I can't imagine Obama would ever agree to run with Hilary.  Obama has emerged has his own force, and its too late to subjugate that force - especially to someone who does not share his philosophical spirit.  It would be infinitely disappointing to see Obama join forces with Clinton.
 
 Edwards and Richardson are losers.  No one even knows why they are in the race.  The only explanation is they have strong finance teams.  I doubt either Obama or Hilary respect either enough to pick them.
 
 Picking a VP candidate is like making a good boxing match.  Styles and personalities make fights.  When Clinton picked Gore in 92 it was like "oh yeah, nice move."  The ticket worked.  When Gore picked Lieberman it was like "Um, no." You wouldn't buy that card on PPV.
 
 I'm looking forward to a slugfest b/w Obama and Hilary.  Obama's got phenomenal swag right now and Clinton's got the machinery, desire and cash to make it a battle for the ages.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

So who do you see Hillary picking for her veep?
 
 Who do you see Obama picking as his veep?
 
 

Originally posted by Mobius:
  I can't imagine Obama would ever agree to run with Hilary.  Obama has emerged has his own force, and its too late to subjugate that force - especially to someone who does not share his philosophical spirit.  It would be infinitely disappointing to see Obama join forces with Clinton.
 
 Edwards and Richardson are losers.  No one even knows why they are in the race.  The only explanation is they have strong finance teams.  I doubt either Obama or Hilary respect either enough to pick them.
 
 Picking a VP candidate is like making a good boxing match.  Styles and personalities make fights.  When Clinton picked Gore in 92 it was like "oh yeah, nice move."  The ticket worked.  When Gore picked Lieberman it was like "Um, no." You wouldn't buy that card on PPV.
 
 I'm looking forward to a slugfest b/w Obama and Hilary.  Obama's got phenomenal swag right now and Clinton's got the machinery, desire and cash to make it a battle for the ages.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by Mobius:
 
 Edwards and Richardson are losers.  No one even knows why they are in the race.  The only explanation is they have strong finance teams.  I doubt either Obama or Hilary respect either enough to pick them.
 

oh, edwards is easy enough to figure out- if the union's want him in the race, he'll stay in the race. . .once the union's get satisfied with obama (as it appears they may be), then edwards' funding dries up (and since he took federal matching funds, he can't use his own money).  
 
 as for richardson. . .i think it's simply to become VP. . .he's been a rep, governor, ambassador and sec. of energy. . .short of becoming sec. of state or defense (which i doubt would happen), the vp is what's left for him.  oh, and the skirts.

[Brian_Wallace]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  So who do you see Hillary picking for her veep?
 
 Who do you see Obama picking as his veep?
 
   

I don't know but next to the Electoral College, the number one thing that irritates me most about presidential politics is the role of the vice-president.  A ticket should run as a TEAM.  Two people working together to get things done.  Like Batman and Robin.  Or Hall & Oates.  Not Peyton Manning and Jim Sorgi.  I mean, can you imagine if Al Gore had done half of the stuff he said he WOULD have done when he was veep?  President of the United States is a huge enough job as it is.  The vice-president should be working on seperate policies and initiatives (that still have the tacit approval of the Prez.)  Not just being "the backup."
 
 I don't know about the Dems but for the Republicans, if McCain gets the nod (which I think he will) he MAY go with Huckabee to appeal to the base (although, outside of religion/cultural, Huckabee really ISN'T a "base" conservative) but I think he may go with Guiliani.  Sure, that would be an ego hit for Mr. 9/11 but it could set things up well with succession.  Even if there isn't a major terrorist incident between now and Nov. 4th, I think a lot of voters are going to go hawkish.
 
 Would Bloomberg consider being a veep?
 
 Brian
 
 P.S.  I'm wondering why "How Vansmack's wife allows him to go to strip clubs" hasn't been convered in "Things Smackie Thinks You Need To Know."

[Mobius]

really don't know who the dem veep should be.  but obama/hilary doesn't feel right.  maybe its a personal bias b/c i'd see it as mcmurtry getting the lobotomy in cuckoo's nest or something.  or maybe when it all shakes out they will end up being a powerful combination - but one that still doesn't appeal to much of america.
 
 reality aside (since i have no idea who outside the prez candidates are possibilities) hilary/rendell would be interesting - although maybe just in the realm of 'eastern democratic boomer superstars'.  hilary/tipper gore would be a bold move.
 
 i'd like to see obama paired with another sharp progressive thinker. the gore to his clinton (i.e. someone of similar background who solidifies him rather than counterbalances him - i.e. the cheney/bush approach).  but maybe he'd be best served finding a counterbalance - an lbj (experienced shrewd politician, better yet from a big state and of background more traditionally electable background) to his jfk. i don't know who in the democratic party fits that (either) bill. that's why i don't get a thread.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
  P.S.  I'm wondering why "How Vansmack's wife allows him to go to strip clubs" hasn't been convered in "Things Smackie Thinks You Need To Know."

First off, your use of the word "allow" does not compute in our household.  And that's a two way road.
 
 Secondly, Smackette will never participate in this board because she, rightly so, thinks we're mostly retarded.
 
 Thirdly, I will ask her to reveal her thoughts on the issue, but I may or may not post it, for fear that you will all find her much more entertaining than me, and unlike the Sports Guy, my ego could not handle that.