Who do you vote for?

[gandhithegreat]

Hillary is unelectable. Period.

Sounds good on paper, except for one thing:

When was the last time someone named Clinton lost an election?

Tick-tick-tick-tick . . .

Maybe George Clinton, but he still has the Parliament Funkadelic

 

[Diabeetus]

This is a good sports thread...

I was expecting to see something about the All-Star races here.

 

[Freelance Hack]

I've voted for a third-party candidate in every presidential race since I became eligible. Right now, Richardson is the only major-party candidate for whom I'd consider changing that stance.

[obligatory Simpsons response goes here]

He's moving a little in NH this week.

Actually, he's tied with Edwards for third in New Hampshire, and tied with Obama for third in Iowa.

If you look at the polling from recent weeks, the top three have plateaued. Richardson's the only one making gains, and they're big gains at that.

I've said it countless times on here, but we're more likely to pick the teams playing for the 2009 BCS Championship than we are to pick the 2008 presidential candidates.

At this point four years ago, many people would have bet money that Howard Dean would be the Democratic candidate. Obviously, that didn't happen. Granted, we didn't have a frenzied media cycle back then, but I don't think that'll change the outcomes that much. Candidates that are the big names today easily can find themselves become anonymous afterthoughts by February.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

At this point four years ago, many people would have bet money that Howard Dean would be the Democratic candidate. Obviously, that didn't happen. Granted, we didn't have a frenzied media cycle back then, but I don't think that'll change the outcomes that much. Candidates that are the big names today easily can find themselves become anonymous afterthoughts by February.

Huh?

 

[Diabeetus]

Richardson's my fave, but out of these choices, I'd pick the Democrat every time. If I were a Republican, I'd make a bigger push for Ron Paul.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

I'm just waiting for the dirt to come out on Thompson. He's a Hollywood type, there's got to be something dark and dirty in his past...

Just take a gander of the list of Thompson's lobbying clientele . . . and gag.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

. . . and wait until the whole country gets a load of Fred's wife. Believe he's VERY live for the nomination, still . . . but cradle-robbing truly doesn't play very well, outside of the Solid South . . .

 

[wickedwritah]

Can Bloomberg run a legit, major third-party campaign?

He is willing to toss in $500 mill, but in this election that's a drop in the bucket.

Is a third-party president maybe what the country needs after eight years of President Fredo?

Of course, this all presumes Bloomberg even has the chops for the gig.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

Giuliani vs. Hillary -- Giuliani
Thompson vs. Hillary -- Thompson
McCain vs. Hillary -- McCain
Romney vs. Hillary -- Romney

Giuliani vs. Edwards -- Giuliani
Thompson vs. Edwards -- Edwards
McCain vs. Edwards -- McCain
Romney vs. Edwards -- Romney

Giuliani vs. Obama -- Giuliani
Thompson vs. Obama -- Obama
McCain vs. Obama -- McCain
Romney vs. Obama -- Romney

Don't quote Bill Hicks if you're going to vote this way ... sad and wrong, sir, wrong.

Must be those Obama and Edwards votes that ticked him off.

 

[DanOregon]

O'Reilly and Coulter were trashing Edwards (who according to BOR has no chance) so I think I'm going with Edwards. I hope its not Hillary because I just don't want to go through another period of pseudo-scandals. I want some fresh scandals. Thompson or McCain could get my vote if they can shoot straight on the issues.

 

[Diabeetus]

That's a pretty big if ;)

 

[Freelance Hack]

At this point four years ago, many people would have bet money that Howard Dean would be the Democratic candidate. Obviously, that didn't happen. Granted, we didn't have a frenzied media cycle back then, but I don't think that'll change the outcomes that much. Candidates that are the big names today easily can find themselves become anonymous afterthoughts by February.

Huh?

Wing,

Yes, we've had a 24-hour news cycle for quite some time, but in 2003, the networks did not devote nearly this much time to the presidential election. Maybe it was because we had an incumbent. I don't know.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Giuliani vs. Hillary -- Giuliani
Thompson vs. Hillary -- Thompson
McCain vs. Hillary -- McCain
Romney vs. Hillary -- Romney

Giuliani vs. Edwards -- Giuliani
Thompson vs. Edwards -- Edwards
McCain vs. Edwards -- McCain
Romney vs. Edwards -- Romney

Giuliani vs. Obama -- Giuliani
Thompson vs. Obama -- Obama
McCain vs. Obama -- McCain
Romney vs. Obama -- Romney

Don't quote Bill Hicks if you're going to vote this way ... sad and wrong, sir, wrong.

Don't ****ing tell me I'm wrong jerkoff. You might disagree with me, but I'm not ****ing wrong.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

If Gore doesn't run, I may not vote.

What a pile of **** out there.

Dems a pile of spineless ****.

GOP a pile of psychotic ****.

 

[henryhenry]

i mean, how can one not vote for a GOP candidate?
the obvious reasons to do so:

1. suppress stem cell research - an affront to God - to hell with curing disease
2. lower taxes on the rich - so they can live more comfortably
3. crush gay rights - an affront to God and traditional marriage
4. criminalize abortion - an affront to God
5. 'surge' in Iraq - mccain says its safe to shop in baghdad's open-air market
6. katrina response - helluva job brownie
7. illegal wiretapping - who needs civil rights?
8. firing US Attorneys - Alberto Gonzalez, he's our man
9. $3 gas - what's good for Halliburton is good for America
10. de-regulate business - Charles Darwin, he's our man
11. deport illegal immigrants - unless they work for you at minimum wage or less
12. all white male candidates - no women or people of color need apply
13. pardon Scooter Libby - to hell with the truth about WMD, he lied for his country
14. 9-11 - Clinton's fault, he should have KOed bin laden in 98
15. 2000 election - pat buchanan absolutely got 3500 votes in mostly-jewish palm beach county
16. red state america - real americans - highest rates of illiteracy, obesity, divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism, huntin' and fishin', and church attendance

 

[Mizzougrad96]

i mean, how can one not vote for a GOP candidate?
the obvious reasons to do so:

1. suppress stem cell research - an affront to God - to hell with curing disease
2. lower taxes on the rich - so they can live more comfortably
3. crush gay rights - an affront to God and traditional marriage
4. criminalize abortion - an affront to God
5. 'surge' in Iraq - mccain says its safe to shop in baghdad's open-air market
6. katrina response - helluva job brownie
7. illegal wiretapping - who needs civil rights?
8. firing US Attorneys - Alberto Gonzalez, he's our man
9. $3 gas - what's good for Halliburton is good for America
10. de-regulate business - Charles Darwin, he's our man
11. deport illegal immigrants - unless they work for you at minimum wage or less
12. all white male candidates - no women or people of color need apply
13. pardon Scooter Libby - to hell with the truth about WMD, he lied for his country
14. 9-11 - Clinton's fault, he should have KOed bin laden in 98
15. 2000 election - pat buchanan absolutely got 3500 votes in mostly-jewish palm beach county
16. red state america - real americans - highest rates of illiteracy, obesity, divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism, huntin' and fishin', and church attendance

If you think that sums up all of the GOP candidates, you need to get a clue...

Just because Bush does something doesn't mean he has the sweeping support of the rest of the republicans...

Most republicans can't wait for Bush to get out of office either...

 

[Eagles1 in London]

O'Reilly and Coulter were trashing Edwards (who according to BOR has no chance) so I think I'm going with Edwards. I hope its not Hillary because I just don't want to go through another period of pseudo-scandals. I want some fresh scandals. Thompson or McCain could get my vote if they can shoot straight on the issues.

i love the old "keep telling the world that X candidate has no chance" trick--say it enough times and people start quoting it as if it's fact. Hillary is unelectable--really? why is that? i'm not saying she'll win but why exactly does she (or edwards) stand "no chance"? not a knock on anyone on the board, but it always bothers me when someone states as fact that candidates who have been already been elected to public office, have shown ability to raise large sums of money, etc, stand no chance when it comes to being elected president.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

i mean, how can one not vote for a GOP candidate?
the obvious reasons to do so:

1. suppress stem cell research - an affront to God - to hell with curing disease
2. lower taxes on the rich - so they can live more comfortably
3. crush gay rights - an affront to God and traditional marriage
4. criminalize abortion - an affront to God
5. 'surge' in Iraq - mccain says its safe to shop in baghdad's open-air market
6. katrina response - helluva job brownie
7. illegal wiretapping - who needs civil rights?
8. firing US Attorneys - Alberto Gonzalez, he's our man
9. $3 gas - what's good for Halliburton is good for America
10. de-regulate business - Charles Darwin, he's our man
11. deport illegal immigrants - unless they work for you at minimum wage or less
12. all white male candidates - no women or people of color need apply
13. pardon Scooter Libby - to hell with the truth about WMD, he lied for his country
14. 9-11 - Clinton's fault, he should have KOed bin laden in 98
15. 2000 election - pat buchanan absolutely got 3500 votes in mostly-jewish palm beach county
16. red state america - real americans - highest rates of illiteracy, obesity, divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism, huntin' and fishin', and church attendance

Now that's what I call fair and balanced. Great work. Real substantive analysis there.

 

[crimsonace]

Giuliani vs. Hillary: The Libertarian
Thompson vs. Hillary: Fred
McCain vs. Hillary: The Libertarian or McCain
Romney vs. Hillary: Romney

GOP vs. Edwards: GOP no matter who they run. Edwards is, by far, the most dangerous threat to a free market economy to run for office since LBJ.

Giuliani vs. Obama: Libertarian
Thompson vs. Obama: Thompson
McCain vs. Obama: Libertarian
Romney vs. Obama: Romney

 

[henryhenry]

"GOP vs. Edwards: GOP no matter who they run. Edwards is, by far, the most dangerous threat to a free market economy to run for office since LBJ."


translation: Edwards is a threat to regulate pirate CEOs who plunder shareholder value and leave an empty carcass.