The Last Temptation of Al Gore

[Ming]

In my opinion, neither can get elected. Both of them will easily win the traditional democratic battlegrounds. The real question is, can either of them win in any of the states needed to swing the election.

Probably not.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Obama just reminds me a lot of Dean. Lots of flash in the pan but not really likely to start a fire which can go the distance.

I dunno. I saw him on This Week about a week and a half ago. Stephanopolus was not too gentle with his questions (remember, he's a former Clintonian), but Obama handled those hard questions extremely well. Very smart, very articulate, very even tempered, well thought-out positions.

[bipolarbear]

Originally posted by Ming
In my opinion, neither can get elected. Both of them will easily win the traditional democratic battlegrounds. The real question is, can either of them win in any of the states needed to swing the election.

Probably not.

word.

[Barnabas]

Arent there some states which are close to being half republican half democrat? arizona I think?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming
In my opinion, neither can get elected. Both of them will easily win the traditional democratic battlegrounds. The real question is, can either of them win in any of the states needed to swing the election.

Probably not.

You think that Guiliani is more likely?

JM

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Arent there some states which are close to being half republican half democrat? arizona I think?

Several. They're called battle ground states because the others have been rigged to insure one side wins. America isn't as democratic as is popularly said.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ming
In my opinion, neither can get elected. Both of them will easily win the traditional democratic battlegrounds. The real question is, can either of them win in any of the states needed to swing the election.

Probably not.

They don't have to "get elected." The have to beat the GOP candidate. Given how flawed and dreary that field looks, anything is possible in 2008.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Actually, just to expand on that: as polarizing as Hilary is, and as much of neophyte as Obama is, they are still entiring teh first election in over 30 years where the country seems to have turned against the GOP as a whole. This gives even the most problematic Dem a huge advantage. On top of that, the GOP may well implode over immigration, and could see part of its base (the evangelicals) sit this one out.

Hillary, Obama, even Edwards would have near-insurmountable probalems in a normal political season. But this ain't a normal political season.

[Kuciwalker]

So we get to settle for bad candidates again just because they don't have credible opposition?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So we get to settle for bad candidates again just because they don't have credible opposition?

Yep. And stand in line to whine about that one; I've been voting longer than you've been alive, and I've yet to actually support a presidential candidate I voted for in the general election.

[Jon Miller]

I am wondering why we have no good candidates?

JM

[Dinner]

I imagine it's the system. Party insiders always end up with the nominations and party insiders rarely are the best people just the best connected with the people who decide things in the party.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't really see the problem with the candidates this time around.

[Berzerker]

I am wondering why we have no good candidates?

I've yet to actually support a presidential candidate I voted for in the general election

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I think the GOP actually has good candidates -- it's just that the party itself has become so extreme and ideologically rigid that the candidates are compelled to fit themselves quite uncomfortably into a mold; it doesn't work, and it diminishes what they do bring to the table.

The Dems are in a slightly different position, in that their "second stringers" -- Richardson, Dodd, Vilsack when he was still running -- would make better presidents than their frontrunners; at an earlier moment in party history, they would be running while Obama would be told to wait his turn and Edwards would be told he was yesterday's news (there's no precedent for Hillary, so I won't stretch the analogy).

Edit: Hey! I just became a King!