It's a tossup
Which of these two has the best chance of winning in November? They're both so shallow, they make me ill, but I want so badly for the Republican to lose.
Which of these two has the best chance of winning in November? They're both so shallow, they make me ill, but I want so badly for the Republican to lose.
Comments (25)
The whole system makes me ill, so ill I am sorely tempted to start attending local party meetings and take the darn thing over lock, stock, and barrel.
Wait - that's a really good idea!
Posted by Bob | January 22, 2008 2:10 AM
It would be refreshing to hear what big ideas these two have if/when our stock markets go ka-blooey this afternoon.
That would actually give us an indication of their leadership, readiness, yadda yadda.
How much you wanna bet they keep sniping?
(And Bill's becoming a negative, methinks)
Posted by Dave | January 22, 2008 6:19 AM
The dems are their own worse enemy as they rarely seem to select in the primaries a candidate that can win the general election. How many years has a democratic occupied the white house since January, 1969? 12 years? The poor record speaks for itself.
Posted by Travis | January 22, 2008 6:50 AM
I think the question is which one will John Edwards endorse after Super Tuesday when he gets a clear message he's out of the race and not likely this time to get a VP nod from either of "these two."
Posted by Shadow | January 22, 2008 7:00 AM
It looks like the GOP's candidate will be a left/center guy named John. Which will make it difficult for the hard left to put their candidate on the ticket.
Posted by David E Gilmore | January 22, 2008 7:14 AM
I dunno Jack, with this economy quickly sliding into a recession, the prospect of a democrat and the higher taxes that they will bring won't help the economy. I should have changed my label to "Anyone but a Democrat".
Posted by native oregonian | January 22, 2008 7:22 AM
Of those two, I would vote for Obama, but I still think the Dem establishment is going to run Clinton. As for the Repubs, I really dont like any of them, (which is kind-of frustrating for me as a conservative-leaning independent..)
And I think McCain is a bad idea, firstly for his age...isnt he pushing like 80 now?
Posted by Jon | January 22, 2008 7:40 AM
We really have no worthy options, in my opinion. I hope Clinton gets the nomination, as I think she'll be easier to beat in the general, though I can't say I'm excited to elect any of the GOP candidates with a shot at winning the nomination.
Posted by Joey Link | January 22, 2008 7:54 AM
Where's Jeb Bush when he's needed?
Posted by Bark Munster | January 22, 2008 8:18 AM
but I want so badly for the Republican to lose.
Subliminally you've put your own finger on your problem right there. Take it to the bank: all of the repugs save Ron Paul are far better than either of those two. And I'm a nonpartisan unbiased registered independent with no dog in the fight!
Posted by zeb quinn | January 22, 2008 8:30 AM
I disagree that they are "both so shallow." Take a few minutes to go through either of their websites and you'll see that isn't the case. But to answer your question, against McCain, I think Obama might draw the better contrast.
Posted by Pete | January 22, 2008 8:35 AM
Hispanics are not going to vote for an African-American, so why waste any more time giving him anymore attention?
Posted by Don Ghuffer | January 22, 2008 8:40 AM
Where's Jeb Bush when he's needed?
He's sitting at home wishing he had some way to wash the stain off his last name put there by his idiot brother that currently occupies the White House.
Maybe he's planning to get into the 2012 election against a one-term Hillary Clinton with approval ratings in the low teens.
Posted by none | January 22, 2008 9:44 AM
Remind me why this blog is linked from Blue Oregon.
http://blueoregon.com/
Posted by lin qiao | January 22, 2008 9:56 AM
The audacity of hopelessness. My take. Get behind whomever is most likely to stem the hemorrhaging of money on that ridiculous war.
Posted by genop | January 22, 2008 10:30 AM
"Remind me why this blog is linked from Blue Oregon."
Posted by lin qiao | January 22, 2008
---------
I dunno, ... maybe Jack didn't swallow when the Kool-Aid was being passed around?
Posted by Harry | January 22, 2008 11:10 AM
not likely this time to get a VP nod
Nor would he take it if offered.
Posted by Jack Bog | January 22, 2008 11:25 AM
...the prospect of a democrat and the higher taxes that they will bring won't help the economy. I should have changed my label to "Anyone but a Democrat".
Yeah. Remember when Bill Clinton came in on the heels of Bush the Elder's recession, and raised taxes? We immediately slid into, uhm, the longest expansion in our economy's history.
Never mind.
Posted by Pete | January 22, 2008 2:57 PM
the longest expansion in our economy's history
You mean the expansion built by Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and the Dot.bomb economy?
Posted by MikeD | January 22, 2008 3:17 PM
"You mean the expansion built by Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and the Dot.bomb economy?"
Yah I forgot about that. Now exactly again how did Bill Clinton's raising taxes cause Dot.bomb collapse? I thought it had to do with corporate greed and cooking the books.
And if you think the economic boom in the 1990's was caused completely by cooked books or anything government did can I have some of what you're smoking? The truth is it was caused mostly by the almost perfect balance of deflationary influences induced by Chinese imports balancing out the inflationary aspects of the cuts in military spending after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Greg C
PS. And raising taxes had nothing to do with it. Neither did anything Bill Clinton did either. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than right.
Posted by Greg C | January 22, 2008 4:05 PM
So now to the main question.
1. Since no one but us wonks pays any attention to national elections (or candidates) until Labor Day I would say none of us have a clue as to who can beat whom next November.
2. But give the disaster that has been the Bush administration together with what now appears to be a coming economic slow down I would rather be any Democrat come fall than any Republican at this point.
3. Of course I would mostly rather be a candidate that no one knows about who can pretend to be a "compassionate" conservative or a "experienced trustworthy" progressive than some one the electorate thinks they know anything about.
4. But still I'd think I'd rather be almost any Dem than any Repub.
But in Presidential Politics November is a long way off from here. After all didn't George 1st look almost unbeatable at this time of the year in 1992?
Greg C
Posted by Greg C | January 22, 2008 4:13 PM
I do not like ANY of these clowns....and I do mean clowns. Where are the Wayne Morse and Tom McCall types? Where did all the thoughtful, dedicated and inspired leaders go? It is so dismal- I am so dismayed at the paltry and pathetic choices we have. Isn't there a true candidate out there that isn't coming from GREED and EGO?
Aieeee Chihuaja (sp?)
Posted by kathe w. | January 22, 2008 4:17 PM
Aieeee Chihuaja (sp?)
That's dismaying.
Posted by cc | January 22, 2008 4:27 PM
Hispanics are not going to vote for an African-American, so why waste any more time giving him anymore attention?
I'm pleased you're so in tune with the views of all Hispanics! Have you paid any attention to the tenor of the Republican primary? It's been something of a contest to see who can declare their distaste for illegal immigration in the harshest terms possible.
Posted by Todd B. | January 22, 2008 8:37 PM
Democratic Obama Supporters and left leaning independents now see why the Clintons are so despised by so many Republicans and frankly some independents. The Clintons are now targeting a Democrat, not just Republicans, with their lying manipulative campaigning.
This is there way. It has always been there way. For them the ends has always justified the means.
Posted by NeoProg | January 24, 2008 11:47 AM