Vote 2008. Presidential Race

Tools    





Excellent thread I've been doing alot of close watching and reading for this race.

It seems we have several candidates who are plausible as president. I originally had Senator Joe Biden in mind, but he strategically dropped out of the race early (he did this so that he doesn't damage any of the other candidates and thus making him a frontrunner for VP for either clinton or obama...dodd did the same thing)

I think Obama has a good chance of winning the Democratic nomination..but he has to face a hillary that is deeply rooted in this race..she already has 160 delegates while Obama only has 89. Even though she beat him in New Hampshire they received the same amount of delegates from that states (9 a piece).

On the republican side, I think romney (BLAKH) and mcaine will be battling it out. Ideally I'd like to see Ron Paul step out of the race and keep his chances for VP as well.. I dislike romney very much. I think hes a bible freak in disguise.

If I had to project anything happening at the moment...and I'm bound to change this later unless i have incredible foresight...Obama will win the dem nomination and take Joe biden as his VP. Huckabee will likely win the repub nomination and take either mccain or romney as the VP.

We'll see...
__________________
Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.




On the republican side, I think romney (BLAKH) and mcaine will be battling it out. Ideally I'd like to see Ron Paul step out of the race and keep his chances for VP as well.. I dislike romney very much. I think hes a bible freak in disguise.

If I had to project anything happening at the moment...and I'm bound to change this later unless i have incredible foresight...Obama will win the dem nomination and take Joe biden as his VP. Huckabee will likely win the repub nomination and take either mccain or romney as the VP.

We'll see...
Huckabee has a plausible scenario for winning the nomination, but it dpends on how well he does in SC and if he lets that momentum carry him. A Huckabee win would be disastrous for conservatives and the G.O.P alike, although I believe his affect on the party would only be temporary. He would destroy the Reagan coalition. Fortunately, I do not think that he will be the nominee. Unlikely, but politics cannot be an exact science, as we all saw with the Democrats in New Hampshire. Maybe more on how the media got that situtation wrong later.

Romney and McCain are battling out indeed, in Michigan. McCain is hoping for momentum after his NH win, and Romney needs to finish first this time (He's taken silver so far). McCain is surging nationally too.

I am really surprised that you label Romney as a "bible freak in disguise." I think that as far as religiosity goes, he can't touch Huckabee there. His speech on religion at the George H. Bush Library is a must read on the subject, and it should assuage most fears.

I thought that you MoFo's would really enjoy this. A little Hitchcock and politics perhaps? Bill Katz has sporadically written in to Powerline, one of the many blogs I read daily, and in this post he writes about the lessons Hitchcock has for politicians. Bill Katz worked in Hollywood for many years in various venues (including The Tonight Show back in the good ole' days), and counts among his former employers both the CIA and the New York Times.

Originally Posted by Bill Katz, posted on Powerline
I'd been thinking of writing about Alfred Hitchcock, a great film director, and a man who understood more about people than any director I know, indeed any person I know. I kept putting it off but, today, remarkably, I got an e-mail from a reader who has a name close to that of a Hitchcock character -- Thornhill. (Name the film.) That was the omen I needed. So Hitch is on the menu. So is the 2008 election. There is a merger there.

Alfred Hitchcock, known as the master of suspense, was born in England in 1899 and died in California in 1980. Since you are worldly Power Line readers, you probably know most of his great films - "Rear Window," "North by Northwest," "Strangers on a Train," "Vertigo," "The Man Who Knew too Much," "Psycho," "Dial M for Murder," "The Birds," and others. If you are young, and sinking in the muck of today's Hollywood, you can be spiritually saved by renting the DVDs.

Hitchcock's films were known for many things, including a glossy, elegant style. But it was his ability to play our feelings, to sense how the audience would react, that was the spearhead of his success. And it struck me that Hitchcock had quite a bit to teach political candidates, even 28 years after his death. Some political players know these things instinctively. Most do not. Consider what Hitchcock knew, and showed in his work.

LESSON ONE – People love to be scared. We don't like to admit it, but it's clearly true. Hitchcock's career was based, simply, on scaring the audience. He reminded us of our sense of vulnerability, of what he called the "watch out" factor in life. There's a world of difference between fearmongering and understanding what people fear. It's outrageous, for example, when critics accuse President Bush of fearmongering when he discusses terrorism, for it's something Americans legitimately fear. Fear, in many respects, is good. It's the reason we don't put our hand on a hot stove.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: The candidate who understands voters' fears, and who can provide solutions, will have a strong appeal. People want their fears addressed. They don't want them ridiculed or ignored. A parent who fears that her child will be beaten up in school is outraged if her fear is shrugged off as a "socio-economic problem." Both Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, although sunny characters, understood how, with restraint, to use fear. Roosevelt told America, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," but forcefully described, and addressed, the economic despair gripping the nation. Reagan spoke of "morning in America," but visceral fear of crime, and of international defeat, was always on his agenda.
Understand fear.

LESSON TWO – Elegance works. If people are so fascinated by "reality," they can walk down the street, look around at the masses, and save the price of a movie ticket. The people we like to see are those we'd like to be, those we feel are a few cuts above. Many of Hitchcock's characters had a sheen about them. They were well turned out, with style. We enjoyed their company, even if they were the bad guys. Cary Grant, in "North by Northwest," was the most elegant ad man imaginable. Doris Day, in "The Man Who Knew Too Much" was, in her time, a delightful dream.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: Don't fall for the myth that Americans want their president to be "just like them." They want the president to be a little bit better. Yes, warmth is needed, but it must be joined with a certain polish. (I think that's part of Obama's appeal.) Roosevelt could start his fireside chats with the words, "My friends..," but he was a patrician, with a patrician's accent. He pronounced "again" as "agane." People liked it. Harry Truman, who succeeded Roosevelt, was much more "like us," but suffered for it. He lacked his predecessor's finish and elegance. Jimmy Carter thought he could identify with us by carrying his own bags. We didn't care for the practice. We felt that a president shouldn't carry his own bags. Kennedy could get away with a great deal because he exuded class. Clinton didn't, and paid the price.

LESSON THREE – A certain distance, please. This is related to Lesson Two. Hitchcock, especially starting the 1950s, liked to use "cool blondes" in his films – Grace Kelly (later Princess Grace of Monaco), Kim Novak, the aforementioned Doris Day, Eva Marie Saint, Janet Leigh, Tippi Hedren. He explained that they were untouchable, and that the untouchable is fascinating.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: There must be an invisible barrier between public and presidential candidate. These little coffee klatches in New Hampshire or Iowa may have some appeal, but they pass quickly. I suspect many Americans, watching on television, think them demeaning. I once was sitting, with my wife and daughter, two rows behind Ronald and Nancy Reagan at a play in New York. (It was "Crazy for You.") Watching the former president interact with members of the audience at intermission was a pleasure. He was warm, and engaging, and yet there was a certain distance. He didn't fawn over people or slap backs. He was still "Mr. President," and he knew the style. Peggy Noonan has said of Reagan that he knew how to be president, and I certainly saw it that night. Be friendly, candidates, but know when that invisible curtain must fall.

LESSON FOUR – Get rid of problems at the start. In "Strangers on a Train," two men meet during a trip and fall into a casual conversation. Each reveals he has someone in his life he'd like to see dead. Eventually, one of them proposes an agreement – that they murder each other's enemies. No one could trace the crimes. The agreement is sealed, and the plot gets going. Now, it's quite a convenient coincidence that two men with exactly the same problem, requiring a murderous solution, should meet on a train. But Hitchcock, always the student of the audience, explained that people will accept a coincidence at the beginning of a movie, but never at the end.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: Get rid of problems as soon as possible. Voters will accept an embarrassing revelation about a candidate early in a campaign, but never late. There are some well-timed political leaks coming out claiming that Senator Obama has some baggage in Chicago, a town where political baggage is carried around routinely. If so, he'd be wise to get it out now, rather than wait for a bombshell just before a vote.

LESSON FIVE – The better the villain, the better the story. That's a line Alfred Hitchcock used all the time. Drama is about conflict, and you'd better have someone worth conflicting with. He put great stress on building his villains, even if you rarely saw them. In "Rear Window" we got only a glimpse of the villain, played by Raymond Burr. But Hitchcock had built him, in our eyes, into a menacing wife killer.

POLITICAL APPLICATION: Forget all this stuff about no negative campaigning. There's always negative campaigning. You must portray your opponent as someone unworthy of the office, someone to be battled. An election campaign is a story, with elements of mystery, and, often, a surprise ending. You don't have to tear down your opponent, you simply have to make clear all the things that make it noble and worthwhile to defeat him. The better the villain, the better your story.
There are more lessons from Alfred Hitchcock. I may take them up in a later post. He would have been a great political consultant, although, given what happened to some of the villains in his films, he might have carried things a bit far.

ADDENDUM: In the first paragraph I asked you to name the film in which the name "Thornhill" appears. The answer, of course, is "North by Northwest." The character is Roger Thornhill, played by Cary Grant.
__________________
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
T.S Eliot, "Preludes"



obama will win hands down



Good, now that you are the oracle of all things, would you mind passing me the lottery numbers for this week. My family would appreciate it.



Obama has created a great relationship with the younger voters..



Obama has created a great relationship with the younger voters..
Youth don't vote. It doesn't happen, and it's not going to happen. Obama has temporarily caught the well-wishes of the youth, but no amount of his hopeful rhetoric can push enough youth to the polls to make a significant change. Every election is going to be THE election in which youth come out and take responsibility as citizens, or so we are told by Rock the Vote or a special edition of Cosmo, but it never happens. Wise politicians do not rely on the youth--not that they discount them totally, but they do not see them as a reliable voting bloc (although youth are more likely to be registered democrat or independent.)



Youth don't vote. It doesn't happen, and it's not going to happen. Obama has temporarily caught the well-wishes of the youth, but no amount of his hopeful rhetoric can push enough youth to the polls to make a significant change. Every election is going to be THE election in which youth come out and take responsibility as citizens, or so we are told by Rock the Vote or a special edition of Cosmo, but it never happens. Wise politicians do not rely on the youth--not that they discount them totally, but they do not see them as a reliable voting bloc (although youth are more likely to be registered democrat or independent.)

That is not actually true. The youth vote comprises about 25% of the total vote. That is a significant number and that is based on the last election 4 years ago. As i understand it even more are involved this election. Also, the lack of previous interest from the youth is not a reflection of an inherent disability in them but rather a flaw in the candidates. Whose to say that the proper candidate can't sway most of the youth into voting? Never say never, especially in these strange times.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Ok, yankee doodles... What's the difference between caucuses and primaries?
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



Aye boy don't spit in my drink!
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
Ok, yankee doodles... What's the difference between caucuses and primaries?
For a primary you can just cast your ballot at a voting location or through the mail, but for a caucuse you have to a go to a designated place within a district, usually somewhere like a school or a church, in which they will have different areas set up specifically for a certain candidate and people will go into a given area so as to show their support for the candidate that that area represents. If an area has too few people in it, the candidate will be eliminated for that district and the people who were in that group have to into a different area to support a more popular candidate.

Also not every state has a caucus or a primary. I don't know how they decide that.

So umm...I think I got that about right. Maybe. I'm either really close or I'm waaaaay off.



Lost in never never land




I saw the picture up on Yahoo and immediately thought he looked familiar, then I figured out where I had seen him before.
__________________
"As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-From Identity



Yep, and there are only two things worse than a Vampire: A lawyer and a used car salesman.

__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
And sometimes a carcass gets stuck in a primary and if you don't get it removed quickly, you'll end up with a hanging chad, and that causes crap to overflow all over the place.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I had a best friend named Chad, then he went and found God. Do not get me wrong, that is great, but that left me washing windshields all alone. I felt lonely cause of Chad...that bastard.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Huh. I just found out I'm going to Vegas in a couple days as a volunteer for the Barack Obama campaign.
That's nice. "I just found out I'm a volunteer".



I am having a nervous breakdance
Ok, so what do you think so far?

I have to say that I am very impressed by Barack Obama. He's political superstar material, I mean on a global scale. This is the guy who can close the gap between America and the rest of the world.



As some of you already know, I'm a big fan of John McCain. Not just his personal story of heroism (which is tremendous), but the courage he's exhibited throughout his entire political career. He's stood up to the party establishment time after time, and has a remarkable track record of reaching across the aisle to forge compromises.

Most importantly, however, is that of all the candidates in the race, he has the most sterling credentials on foreign policy. He has been consistent (and consistently right) on the most important international issues. You can find, for example, a YouTube clip from 2000 in which he expresses concern about Putin, and where his administration might be headed. He supported the Iraq war, but was among the first to criticize the strategy employed and support the troop surge (and accompanying shift in strategy) which has helped to dramatically reduce violence there.

I have my problems with him, to be sure, but his personal integrity, and his repeated willingness to make independent choices, has completely won me over.

On the Democratic side, I, too, am quite impressed with Obama. I disagree with him on many, many issues, but there's no denying that he is a wonderful orator, and has more personal integrity, than some of his opponents. His steadfast refusal to play the "race card" is politically shrewd, but also the right thing to do. He's taken the high road at almost every turn, and he deserves to be commended for it.

The prospect of a McCain-Obama matchup in the general election has me very excited. I think both men would go to great lenghts to highlight their differences, but I think the campaign would be far more civilized and substantive than we've head in quite awhile.

Of course, as a conservative, the prospect of a McCain-Clinton matchup is exciting as well, but for vastly different reasons. Namely, because it could produce a double-digit margin for the former.