Skip to main content

View Diary: McCain Leads Rudy in New York. Big Time. (268 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's Over. McCain is the GOP nominee (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheCrank

    Republicans have found their front runner. It is no surprise that its John McCain because (by coming in second place in the last contested GOP race in 2000) he is highest on the Republican pecking order. Republicans always nominate the candidate highest on the pecking order. Last time they did not was back in 1964.

    •  Exactly. Definition of Conservatism (0+ / 0-)

      is not really liking anything new, so they'll default to the candidate with the highest recognition factor every time.

      I actually think  the long vaunted McCain-Clinton matchup seems most likely still, but I think it's our worst matchup for the general election. We'd have to have a Bloomberg in the race to win in that case (following Bill's electoral formula, which counted on Perot to siphon off a certain strategic portion of the vote in key states.)

      Call me any ugly name you choose --
      The steel of freedom does not stain.
      -- Langston Hughes

      by TheCrank on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:17:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bill would still have won (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        milton333

        You've been hearing too many right-wing talking points.

        It would have been a little closer and he definitely wouldn't have won states like Georgia and Montana, but do you really think that voters who were enamored by Perot's pro-choice and anti-free trade stance were Republicans?

        As for the "he didn't get 50% so he's illegitimate" talking point: Reagan wouldn't have been able to get 50% in a 3-way race with Mondale and a 19%-drawing Perot.

        "You want to live in this world the way it is? No? Then do something about it!" --Celes Chere, Final Fantasy VI

        by BlueEngineerInOhio on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:48:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  probably, but the problem (0+ / 0-)

          was in taking the election with a plurality. Clinton moved in his natural direction, which was towards a middle redefined over on the right side, which speaks well of his political savvy but not his essential political strength. The GOOP takeover in '94 in Congress had a lot to do with the nature of the '92 election, which was all about being pissed off. (And the economy in mid-boom in '96 helped, of course.)

          Third party candidates attract people who want to vote against something, not for something. This is where candidates with high negatives as party nominees can get dangerous. Only because Bush I and Dole had seriously high negatives, personally and politically, did this translate into a winning formula for Bill C., who, after all, was among our most likeable Presidents in a century, personally. I wish I could say that for Hillary, but I can't.

          Call me any ugly name you choose --
          The steel of freedom does not stain.
          -- Langston Hughes

          by TheCrank on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 03:23:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, the use of "plurality" as a diminutive is (0+ / 0-)

            a little blunted by the fact that he won 370 and 379 electoral votes on each of the tries, and won by popular vote MARGINS of 6% and 9%, is it not?

            I especially dislike when the '92 and '96 wins are somehow equated/juxtaposed to give the impression of equating with Bush's outright popular vote loss in '00, or even narrow win in '04.

            "You want to live in this world the way it is? No? Then do something about it!" --Celes Chere, Final Fantasy VI

            by BlueEngineerInOhio on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 03:28:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Bloomberg would hurt Clinton (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheCrank

        more than he'd hurt McCain.

        Although if Ron Paul breaks his promise and runs as an independent (or a libertarian), start chilling the champagne...

        There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

        by RoscoeOfAlabama on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 03:20:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Possibly (0+ / 0-)

          it sort of depends on whether he can get national traction or not. I think you have a point based  on Bloomberg's current recognition, which is largely in blue states, but a billion dollars will get you a lot of media time.

          Call me any ugly name you choose --
          The steel of freedom does not stain.
          -- Langston Hughes

          by TheCrank on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 03:25:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site