I'm starting to feel pity for McCain.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
I don't think that's very likely, however. It's pretty clear that Obama saw the Senate mainly as a stepping stone to higher office (the WaPo had a good article about this last week), so it makes sense that he would craft a voting record that would be politically advantageous to him in a future run for office. To get a true idea of what Obama really believes and is likely to push for as President, I think you have to go farther back and look at his positions in the Illinois State Senate and his work in Chicago before that. I don't like a lot of what's back there.

While this is possible, I think it's pretty doubtful. As I said, he was representing a poor black district containing a rich white librul elite university. His constituents wanted a certain level of government interventionism, so he gave it to them. He seems more like a pragmatist to me than an ideologue.

[KrazyHorse]

That is based on the identity of his advisors as well as the respect he seems to give them.

[Ramo]

The only losing VP nominees who later got the nomination I can think of are Dole, Mondale (who was Veep, but lost with Carter), and FDR...

[Naked Gents Rut]

As I said, he was representing a poor black district containing a rich white librul elite university. His constituents wanted a certain level of government interventionism, so he gave it to them. He seems more like a pragmatist to me than an ideologue.

He was involved with ideologues long before he ran for office. Maybe he was just using them to get ahead, but it gives me major doubts about his moderate image. He's crafted a very good narrative about himself, but I have a feeling its mostly bull****.

You can be a pragmatic ideologue, by the way. Just pragmatically pretend to be more moderate than you actually are in order to get elected to positions of power that would give you the power to work toward your ideological goals.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


Except for the last eight years, of course. Or 1980-1988.

Reagan won, and Bush "won," because they appealed to multiple GOP constituencies. Palin, on the other hand, seems to be actively driving the non-God-and-guns parts of the GOP away from the party. She may be a player, she may even have an enthusiastic enough following to be a major contender in 2012 -- but at best she would seem to be another Pat Buchanan, not another Ronald Reagan.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo

BTW, since we're in a betting mood lately, I'll gladly throw down $100 for 4-1 odds against Palin actually being nominated by the GOP in 2012 or 2016. Any takers?

I'd give her ~20%, so no.

Doesn't 4:1 = 20%? That'd be an even bet, your $20 to my $100, winner take all.

Hell, to be honest I'd take actually take 1:1 against her running to begin with, and 10:1 against her nomination. Anybody up for $10 to make $100? Not even Drake, who's been arguing for this with such certainty?

[Naked Gents Rut]

at best she would seem to be another Pat Buchanan, not another Ronald Reagan.

She's a hell of a lot more charismatic than Buchanan.

[Ramo]

4:1 = 25%. This is the Ben K thing all over again. I'm not going to spend money on what I think is an even odds bet. And I don't think I have a good sense at all of the odds. I'd be more comfortable making a bet after the election...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Reagan won, and Bush "won," because they appealed to multiple GOP constituencies. Palin, on the other hand, seems to be actively driving the non-God-and-guns parts of the GOP away from the party.

QFT

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


She's a hell of a lot more charismatic than Buchanan.

I'll take your word for it. I can actually stand to listen to Buchanan.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
4:1 = 25%.

False; 3:1 = 25%, i.e. 3 + 1 = 4, 4 + 1 = 5.

Originally posted by Ramo
This is the Ben K thing all over again. I'm not going to spend money on what I think is an even odds bet.

Then:

Originally posted by Darius871
Hell, to be honest I'd take actually take 1:1 against her running to begin with, and 10:1 against her nomination. Anybody up for $10 to make $100? Not even Drake, who's been arguing for this with such certainty?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


He was involved with ideologues long before he ran for office. Maybe he was just using them to get ahead, but it gives me major doubts about his moderate image. He's crafted a very good narrative about himself, but I have a feeling its mostly bull****.

You can be a pragmatic ideologue, by the way. Just pragmatically pretend to be more moderate than you actually are in order to get elected to positions of power that would give you the power to work toward your ideological goals.

God I hope he's more left than he seems, perhaps the US could come out with a REAL leftist party after his administration.


Also am I the only one who notices the irony of such comments being made by a citizen of the PRC (even if not a main lander).

[Ramo]

False.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

As I was saying, I'd feel a lot more comfortable making a bet after the election.

[Darius871]

Fair enough.

What about you, Drake? You seemed a lot more sure of yourself...

[Naked Gents Rut]

What about you, Drake? You seemed a lot more sure of yourself...

I'm sure she's more capable a candidate than you make her out to be. I'm not sure she's going to run in 2012 (2016 would be much smarter) and I'm certainly not sure she would win. I don't even know who the candidates in 2012 would be.

Also am I the only one who notices the irony of such comments being made by a citizen of the PRC (even if not a main lander).

I'm from Hong Kong. We like capitalism there.

Chinese leaders also prefer Republican presidents to Democratic ones. They're better on trade and less likely to hector us about human rights.