Quote from: mhensleyNo matter who is the democrat's nominee, as long as the economy sucks in november, the republicans lose.

As much as I don't want to agree here, I think this is the most logical outcome.

Quote from: Serious PaulI see a lot of people saying this sort of thing, could you quantify your statement in someway? It's not that I necessarily disagree, I'm just not completely sure I agree with you.

It's a play on the line from The Princess Bride - a way to illustrate that I do not agree that Obama is attracting "moderates."

I'm not sure what kind of quantification you mean as it would be tough to pin down the meaning of the word "moderate," which was the reason for using the allusion. I will say that whether right or left, people always see others a bit more towards the center as "moderate," and, well, lets just say that view is tinted by the observer.

Moderate is a funny term these days.

Quote from: James J SkachI will say that whether right or left, people always see others a bit more towards the center as "moderate," and, well, lets just say that view is tinted by the observer.

While I think that's true to some degree, I think that the credibility of the claim can be judged by how much a candidate annoys the extremist partisans on their own side.  That McCain annoys the most conservative elements of the right is telling.  It's also telling that Clinton has be criticized by the most liberal elements of the left while Obama has been embraced enthusiastically by them.  Seriously, do the left-leaning people here really believe that Obama is moderate?  If so, please explain why.

Quote from: James J SkachModerate is a funny term these days.

And why do you think that is?

Quote from: John MorrowI disagree.  Not only did I argue on RPGnet that I thought Kerry had the strongest chance of winning (before he was nominated) but he won the primaries largely on the basis of his perceived electability.

From among the given field, yes.  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

QuoteThe "stand-out candidate" (Dean) was done after Iowa.

Continuing the analogy I've been positing (and don't analogies always fall apart under scrutiny?) Mike Huckabee is John McCain's Howard Dean -- the populist plain-speaker who peaked to early.

For what it's worth, among the Republican candidates fielded this election season, I think McCain has gotten the de facto dub due to the perception that he is the most electable.  Not the most desireable, just the one with the best chances of winning.  In a campaign where emotions are running high, though, playing the odds doesn't seem to generate the enthusiasm necessary to carry the day. It certainly didn't work out for Kerry, who ran a good campaign and almost broke even. But breaking even didn't win him the race.

!i!

Quote from: James J SkachAn Obama/McCain debate will be very interesting to watch.

Quite.  I liked how Bill Maher once phrased it - "YouTube vs. Feeding Tube".

Obama will wipe the floor with McCain in debates.  The old man can't even remember the difference between Iran and Iraq, for goodness sake.

Now, I know debates haven't really influenced elections much in the past few decades, so it may not matter much in the final election.  But I can't see how Grandpa Munster could ever win a debate with Obama.

Speaking of debates, I like how Hillary's whining is now focused on how Obama won't give her a debate in IN.  She now seems to argue that not only does every American have a right to vote in a primary (they don't, and shouldn't - the point of a primary is supposed to be for party members to decide on their candidate) but apparently she believes every state should get its own debate, too.  It's clearly a pathetic attempt to get Obama to take time away from campaigning to focus on yet-another pointless debate (face it, if you haven't been able to make up your mind by this point, after 21 debates, all the debates in the world won't help).

Quote from: James J SkachIt's a play on the line from The Princess Bride - a way to illustrate that I do not agree that Obama is attracting "moderates."

Okay, that makes sense-it's what I thought you were saying, but I figured before I declared I knew what was going on, I'd better confirm I was right.

QuoteI'm not sure what kind of quantification you mean as it would be tough to pin down the meaning of the word "moderate," which was the reason for using the allusion. I will say that whether right or left, people always see others a bit more towards the center as "moderate," and, well, lets just say that view is tinted by the observer.

This is perfect, for what I was looking for. I've just seen a lot of people saying that they disagree on how a term is used with out explaining what they thought the correct definition was to be.

QuoteModerate is a funny term these days.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd why do you think that is?

I'm not sure-because I consider myself a centrist, a moderate person who's opinions fall-generally-between the two major parties, and the two ends of the spectrum. I know I'm not alone out here, but it seems like the two extremes-well not even the extremes I guess, but two points much further towards the extreme than I am get all of the attention these days.

If it is your suggestion Mr. Morrow that there are fewer moderates, then I'll disagree. I pretty much believe most of the world is populated by moderates.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd why do you think that is?

Seriously?

Moderate has been used to offset "extreme" and stand in for "middle of the political spectrum" at the same time.

It then gets applied to the traditional right/left split in the US, as opposed to conservative/liberal - which would at least make a little more sense but is still not quite right.

Sprinkle in the natural bias of the people using the term and a splash of context and you get craziness...

Quote from: jgantsQuite.  I liked how Bill Maher once phrased it - "YouTube vs. Feeding Tube".

Obama will wipe the floor with McCain in debates.  The old man can't even remember the difference between Iran and Iraq, for goodness sake.

Now, I know debates haven't really influenced elections much in the past few decades, so it may not matter much in the final election.  But I can't see how Grandpa Munster could ever win a debate with Obama.

Speaking of debates, I like how Hillary's whining is now focused on how Obama won't give her a debate in IN.  She now seems to argue that not only does every American have a right to vote in a primary (they don't, and shouldn't - the point of a primary is supposed to be for party members to decide on their candidate) but apparently she believes every state should get its own debate, too.  It's clearly a pathetic attempt to get Obama to take time away from campaigning to focus on yet-another pointless debate (face it, if you haven't been able to make up your mind by this point, after 21 debates, all the debates in the world won't help).

Like I said, j, this is exactly how he wins - just by not sucking. If he can do that in the first debate (assuming it's Obama v McCain), the second one becomes very interesting. He can push a little more and try to draw Obama into a more substantive discourse...

At that point, the rhetorical skills, while important, may not be quite as effective.

It's an outside shot, but I wouldn't put it past being the approach of the McCain campaign if/when it comes to that...

Quote from: Serious PaulI'm not sure-because I consider myself a centrist, a moderate person who's opinions fall-generally-between the two major parties, and the two ends of the spectrum.

Do you vote for both Democrats and Republicans in state and national elections?  Are you a crossover voter that could be swayed to vote for either party?

Quote from: Serious PaulI know I'm not alone out here, but it seems like the two extremes-well not even the extremes I guess, but two points much further towards the extreme than I am get all of the attention these days.

McCain is about as moderate as you are going to get from the Republicans in a national election.  Hillary Clinton has also been running as a moderate since the beginning, even before Obama became a problem for her, and is about as moderate as you are going to get from the Democrats in a national election.  And while I don't think Obama is moderate at all, he certainly talks moderate.  So I think moderates have been getting plenty of love in this election, with the most extreme left and right wing candidates being knocked out pretty early.

Quote from: Serious PaulIf it is your suggestion Mr. Morrow that there are fewer moderates, then I'll disagree. I pretty much believe most of the world is populated by moderates.

I agree, which is why I think McCain's moderation is going to be less of a problem with his base than Obama's liberalism is going to be with the swing voters.  All the polls suggest that Obama's support is coming from the most liberal components of the Democrat base while McCain's support often came from moderates and even independents in open primaries.  So what does that tell you about Obama and McCain?

I have voted for both parties in the past, and I have also voted for Libertarian and other party candidates. If I were to see a good candidate from any party I'd consider voting for them.

None of the current candidates accurately represent all of my points of view, and beliefs-not that I expect them to. So I try to find the ones who represent the things I value the most, as accurately as possible.

So I don't know if that specifically makes me a "cross over" voter, but I do consider myself an Independent. I have absolutely no party affiliations. (One of the reasons I refuse to vote in Michigan's primaries is that they require you  to declare a party affiliation, of which I have none, and zero desire to get.)

Quote from: Serious PaulI have voted for both parties in the past, and I have also voted for Libertarian and other party candidates. If I were to see a good candidate from any party I'd consider voting for them.

Then I think you've certainly got a legitimate claim to the "moderate" and "independent" labels.

Of the three people left in the race (and feel free to include others no longer in the race if you want to comment on them), do you think:

McCain is a moderate?
Obama is a moderate?
Clinton is a moderate?

And in each case, what makes you consider them moderate or not moderate?

I am not ignoring your question, but I am off to work. I'll try to get a coherent answer down this evening when I get back-but I am moving from my apartment this week to my new home, so please bear with me.

This is turning out to be a fun discussion.

Karl Rove's advice to Obama in Newsweek here.

Quote from: John MorrowThen I think you've certainly got a legitimate claim to the "moderate" and "independent" labels.

Of the three people left in the race (and feel free to include others no longer in the race if you want to comment on them), do you think:

McCain is a moderate?
Obama is a moderate?
Clinton is a moderate?

And in each case, what makes you consider them moderate or not moderate?

Well, what's interesting to me, and I don't think SP did it to be evasive, is introducing the "Independent" label. I think this is far more accurate wrt political parties than "moderate." I think SP is right if he's saying there are far ore independents. I'm not so sure about moderates.

Because people call me all sorts of label wrt to my ideological leanings - but all of them could be considered independent in that I don't hold to political parties over ideological beliefs. Now it's true that I probably line up more with one than the other - but for some of my leanings I'd get tossed from either party so fast it would make your head spin.

I don't think, in all honesty, that any of the current candidates, nor those they defeated to get this far, are moderates. If I had to choose among the three, I'd point at McCain as being the least towards the end of spectrum with respect to political party platforms.

But that's damning with faint praise and a tepid choice at best...

Quote from: SpikeI wanted the Mormon.

Hey, if you need a religious wacko to run the country, why not get a new flavor?

Of course, it would have been much better if he hadn't made an 'issue' out of it. Not like he was the first mormon candidate...

Uh.. what?

Romney made a speech about his religion only after answering questions incessently, while the subject kept popping up in the debates.

If anyone made his religion an issue, it was the wanna-be journalists of the media circus and the Huckabee campaign.