Welcome to the new forum
Originally posted by vansmack: I will be shocked if McCain doesn't do one of two things with his choice of running mate: (1) Cater to the Christian Right and pick an evangelical favorite - there are plenty of Southern Governors on that list (the second option here to please the evangelicals is to promise them judges) (2) Make a strategic choice based on the Democratic nominee. For example, choosing a woman like Olympia Snow if it's Hillary. What should he do? He should choose a Governor to end the argument about the lack of Executive leadership and he should choose someone from a swing part of the country to not upset those that chose his moderate stance. If I were McCain, I would choose Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and make the upper midwest very competitive.
Originally posted by pdx pollard: He could probably find a woman running mate who would not alienate the base as much as Snowe would, I am not sure who it would be, but I don't see it being Snowe.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢: Lieberman? No way. He'd get a nice cabinet appointment, at best. Haley Barbour or Mark Sanford if Mccain wants to regain the conservative base and hold on to the South.
Originally posted by vansmack: There's really flashes of brilliance and then moments of utter idiocracy in this thread. What everybody is forgetting is that this nation still has, as Mankie likes to point out, an electoral college system. Every poll about the electability of one nominee vs. another is utter crap because they are all based on popular vote, and we know that means...absolutely nothing. Add to that the fact that none of the candidates have had to go up against a nominee from another party, so on what grounds are we taking polls? Would anyone like to point out the poll numbers from this past summer in the primaries and how off base they were when actually determining the nominee? (well, I guess I just did) So everybody relax.... So, all you so-called experts, kindly take a look at the Electoral College Map of 2000 and tell me which state the Dems won in 2000 that you expect a Democratic Candidate to lose in 2008? The Republicans are much more worried about several states they won in 2000 that either Obama or Clinton can easily win in 2008.
Originally posted by Brain Walrus: I'm no conspiricy theorist but I think the media control the outcome of an election to some degree.....Who's to say their 'polls' aren't just bullshit and a propaganda tool for their chosen candidate? Case in point. I was polled by a Tampa FL television station and the question was, "If the presidential election was today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, who would I vote for?" Like Thompson ever had a prayer of being the republican candidate. That was obviously a poll intended to give Hillary the win. In mankies world polls would be prohibited 3 months prior to any election, and my reason is so people go out and vote instead of thinking, "My guy/gal doesn't have a prayer so what's the point voting. Or...my guy/gal has it wrapped up so doesn't need my little vote" Oh yeah...and the electoral college would be thrown out and all the states would pool their votes so the winner would be decided by the popular vote like a democracy is supposed to work.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer: So are you giving your wife a pole for Valentine's Day? QuoteOriginally posted by Brain Walrus: I'm no conspiricy theorist but I think the media control the outcome of an election to some degree.....Who's to say their 'polls' aren't just bullshit and a propaganda tool for their chosen candidate? Case in point. I was polled by a Tampa FL television station and the question was, "If the presidential election was today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, who would I vote for?" Like Thompson ever had a prayer of being the republican candidate. That was obviously a poll intended to give Hillary the win. In mankies world polls would be prohibited 3 months prior to any election, and my reason is so people go out and vote instead of thinking, "My guy/gal doesn't have a prayer so what's the point voting. Or...my guy/gal has it wrapped up so doesn't need my little vote" Oh yeah...and the electoral college would be thrown out and all the states would pool their votes so the winner would be decided by the popular vote like a democracy is supposed to work. [/b]
Originally posted by Brain Walrus: Who's to say their 'polls' aren't just bullshit and a propaganda tool for their chosen candidate? Case in point. I was polled by a Tampa FL television station and the question was, "If the presidential election was today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, who would I vote for?" Like Thompson ever had a prayer of being the republican candidate. That was obviously a poll intended to give Hillary the win.
Originally posted by edbert: So, is Hillary gonna play the crying card again a day or two before Texas/Ohio primaries? Or is that one spent?
