Call it, Friend-o. Who gets the nod for nominations?

[Clinotus]

I'm calling the nominations as follows:

Obama for the Democrats.
Romney for the Republicans.
Paul for the Libertarians.

[sza]

Paul damned well better not run for a 3rd party if he can't hack the Republican nomination. :mad:

[Cyrano 4747]

Paul damned well better not run for a 3rd party if he can't hack the Republican nomination. :mad:

Shit, I hope he does. After the last election I'm refusing to hold my nose and vote for the guy I hate the least any more. This time through I'm actually going to vote for a candidate who's views at least roughly correlate with mine.

If that ends up being some odd ball independent so be it.

[Nitrogen]

The fact that Richardson isn't even in the running PROVES how dumb most Democratic voters are. He's the best choice; he's got the most experience, but nooooooooooo.

[Drav]

Obama
Giuliani

Tickets end up being Obama-Edwards and Giuliani-Huckabee.

[Nitrogen]

Shit, I hope he does. After the last election I'm refusing to hold my nose and vote for the guy I hate the least any more. This time through I'm actually going to vote for a candidate who's views at least roughly correlate with mine.

If that ends up being some odd ball independent so be it.


Obama
Giuliani

Tickets end up being Obama-Edwards and Giuliani-Huckabee.

How do you figure, with Guliani being at the ass-end of polls lately?

[Drav]

How do you figure, with Guliani being at the ass-end of polls lately?
I concede that it could be Huckabee-Giuliani, but they are a great pair for the general election -- since one is a biblical conservative and the other is a new york conservative. They're a good tag team for the national stage. McCaine will probably carry NH today, but he's looking real old these days and he's a senator (they don't tend to have much electorate luck). Notice with Huckabee and Giuliani you've got a governor and a mayor, both executors as opposed to legislators.

[Clinotus]

Paul damned well better not run for a 3rd party if he can't hack the Republican nomination. :mad:

Likely he will have to if he keeps getting media shut outs. The libertarian party has already endorsed him for the most part.

While it would be nice to see his party wake up and take him a bit more seriously and if they choose not to he/we can look at recent past history in consideration of Senator Lieberman who was unable to get his parties vote then changed mid election to run as an independent and won by a landslide.

The independents/third parties are not just names on paper anymore but viable forces.

[MuttonChops]

I don't think that Paul running as an independant will be too detrimental to the Republican party; his attraction seems to be relatively bi-partisan (tri-partisan?)

[Drav]

I don't think that Paul running as an independant will be too detrimental to the Republican party; his attraction seems to be relatively bi-partisan (tri-partisan?)
I hope it's detrimental enough to tank the election for the Republicans, if it goes this way. I want every Republican to know they lost because they wrote off the Libertarian vote -- and maybe next election they'll move back in a Libertarian direction.

[AngryJackal]

I hope it's detrimental enough to tank the election for the Republicans, if it goes this way. I want every Republican to know they lost because they wrote off the Libertarian vote -- and maybe next election they'll move back in a Libertarian direction.

No, they won't. Frankly neither party will move in a libertarian direction because it's not popular and people think they're crazy.

[LoungieMu]

Ideally? Obama/McCain

My luck? Clinton/Giuliani

[Ron Mexico]

i don't care whether it's clinton or obama because either way it's going to piss off a LOT of people and that's awesome

[TheReverend]

You guys know Obama wants to ban semi autos, right?

I know some you will probably respond with "Hurrr single issue voter... hurr" but I don't want to elect someone who thinks that revoking something present in the Bill of Rights is sometimes necessary in the interest of "security".

Richardson, while perhaps not someone I could really support or like, is someone I could at least tolerate. Too bad the voters got rid of whom I thought was the most electable Democrat.


Also I am guessing Clinton/Rommney.

And I am guessing Clinton to win :(

[Cyrano 4747]

You guys know Obama wants to ban semi autos, right?

I know some you will probably respond with "Hurrr single issue voter... hurr" but I don't want to elect someone who thinks that revoking something present in the Bill of Rights is sometimes necessary in the interest of "security".

Richardson, while perhaps not someone I could really support or like, is someone I could at least tolerate. Too bad the voters got rid of whom I thought was the most electable Democrat.


Also I am guessing Clinton/Rommney.

And I am guessing Clinton to win :(

If the democrats put up Clinton they're throwing away another election.

1) she's a woman. I'd love to link arms with you all and circle jerk to how we're a modern enlightened society where that doesn't make a difference, but that's just not the case. There's a fair number of voters out there who won't touch her just because of that, and with how close the last few elections have been that margin just isn't needed.

2) she's a controversial woman who's disliked by a LOT of people because of her stances and policies. My mom is a good example of this. She's an old school feminist who would LOVE to see a woman elected and she's pretty livid about the republicans right now - yet she's said the only candidate the dems could run that would make her vote republican or third party would be Hillary. She just can't STAND her. There's a lot of people like that out there, too.

She's just got way too much political baggage, too many views that are unpopular with the non-coastal liberals, and she's too disliked by too many people.

The democrats don't need to be going for a narrow margin victory right now with a candidate that's going to be hard to sell to a lot of people, they need a slam dunk victory with the sort of non-offensive person who a lot of people in the "red states" could be talked into voting for out of frustration with the current republican administration.

[TheReverend]

The democrats don't need to be going for a narrow margin victory right now with a candidate that's going to be hard to sell to a lot of people, they need a slam dunk victory with the sort of non-offensive person who a lot of people in the "red states" could be talked into voting for out of frustration with the current republican administration.

Yeah but who is that person? Sadly , I think there are more racists than chauvinists in this country. Which is why I predict Hillary :(

[Ron Mexico]

Yeah but who is that person? Sadly , I think there are more racists than chauvinists in this country. Which is why I predict Hillary :(

This country extended suffrage to black males 50 years before it did to white females.

[TheReverend]

This country extended suffrage to black males 50 years before it did to white females.

Sorta.
The 15th amendment did that in theory, but in reality the Jim Crow laws kinda prevented it from being used until about the 1960s. In the 1920s the right for women to vote was socially allowed pretty much right after ratification of the 19th amendment.

[Clinotus]

I'm calling the nominations as follows:

Obama for the Democrats.
Romney for the Republicans.
Paul for the Libertarians.



1 out of 3 isnt bad.

I swore Romney would have locked it up, but alas it was not to be. Wonder if he will take the nod for VP though.

[Clinotus]

Edwards out of no where for the Obama Endorsement.