70c7b489b8d5…

MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 10:29 PM

That’s not what I was taught. I was taught that you’d get one and possible two “servings” (ha!) before it reached concentrations that would net no benefit. But we were taught not to wait until you were completely dehydrated.

I disagree. Your scenario suggests that the man has other options. I think the party is more like a guy stranded in the desert and his only choice is to drink his own piss or die of thirst.

csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Actually ones urine at that point would have such a high concentration of sodium, nitrogen and phosphorus that one would probably die just as soon, maybe even sooner that way.

Hey Eric, we don’t agree often, but I agree with you here. Good to “see” you again! Hope the girls are doing well!

Maths right but your proportions are incorrect…

The unaffiliated voter is now 34% of the electorate… at least here in Colorado… and growing.

Bet its pretty close to that nationaly.

Problem is that a LOT of the unaffiliated voters are CONSERVATIVEs who feel betrayed by the Republican party. The unaffiliated voters are no longer the moderates, but are more stretched across the entire spectrum of the electorate.

Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 6:58 PM

I included those that would either vote Pubbie (or ‘Rat) or stay home rather than vote for the other side in the 40/40. I will say that those that will crawl across broken glass to vote straight-party has gone down, and most of that has happened on the Pubbie side.

We ought to hope that Rudy or Mitt gets the nomination. When was the last time a president was elected who was or had been a Senator? JFK, I believe. For some reason Senators just don’t do well in the presidential election even though they often get the party nomination.

Since the Dems are loaded up with Senators as their candidates, it is a cinch that their nominee will be a current or former Senator (unless the Goracle steps into the race; he has VP experience to trump the Senator background).

Laugh at my pet theory if you must, but mark my words come Nov ‘08.

Snidely Whiplash on October 16, 2007 at 8:18 PM

It is odd that no Senator has been elected President since JFK. And JFK beat the Vice President (Nixon).

However, there is always a time for streaks and records to be broken.

Since the Dems are loaded up with Senators as their candidates, it is a cinch that their nominee will be a current or former Senator (unless the Goracle steps into the race; he has VP experience to trump the Senator background).

Laugh at my pet theory if you must, but mark my words come Nov ’08.

steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 6:34 PM

Maths right but your proportions are incorrect…

The unaffiliated voter is now 34% of the electorate… at least here in Colorado… and growing.

Bet its pretty close to that nationaly.

Problem is that a LOT of the unaffiliated voters are CONSERVATIVEs who feel betrayed by the Republican party. The unaffiliated voters are no longer the moderates, but are more stretched across the entire spectrum of the electorate.

MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 6:22 PM

I disagree. Your scenario suggests that the man has other options. I think the party is more like a guy stranded in the desert and his only choice is to drink his own piss or die of thirst.

Elections in two party systems are all about seizing the middle. You loose when the other side has the middle.
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Seeing elections are 40/40/20, with the 20 being the middle, if you lose even a quarter of the base, you’re toast. Allow me to demonstrate:

Let’s call the party making the leap for the middle at the expense of its base Party A, and the party concerned only with its core turnout Party B. Let’s further assume that Party A gets 70% of the middle. Here’s the vote totals (done out of that 100 listed above for clarity of numbers):

Party A: – 30 votes from the base (40 less 10 that abandoned the party), plus 14 from the middle (70% of 20), equals 45.
Party B: – 40 votes from the base, plus 6 from the middle (30% of 20), equals 46.

Last time I checked, 46 beats 45.

tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM

As I said…. learned nothing.

The many voters felt betrayed by the Bush vote… we bit on the “but the other guy is worse” in 2004 and reelected Bush… who then gave us bigger government, big spending, nothing fixed here (Soc sec, energy policy… nothin)… and a further erosion into more partisan politics.

So, when the Reps in Congress who were big government, big spenders, with poor morals ran in 2006 the Conservative voter stayed home… no one to vote FOR… you ran the same type of “well I’m not good, but the other guy will be even worse” strategy in the campaigns. No new ideas. No promises to FIX things… so many voters chose not to support them.

If you adhere to the same type of strategy, you’ll get the same type of result.

I’ve seen no national agenda of what the Reps are going to do to fix things… Earmark reform, line item veto, Soc Sec plans, making military larger so we can fight this war…

Crap, I could give you a 10 point CONSERVATIVE plan that the voters would go for in a heartbeat IF they could trust you to implement it.

Problem is… you’re not doing that.

If the Republican party is in shambles, it sure as heck isn’t because they’ve been so staunchly conservative- it’s because they’ve favored love of power and campaign contributions over conservative principles such as rule of law, decreasing spending, small government, and everything else the Republican party is supposed to stand for.

But go ahead- nominate Rudy and give otherwise reliable Republican voters who are already upset about the non-conservative Republican governance of late and give them even more reason to just stay home than Bush and Congressional Republicans already have.

Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Well put. The Republican party has become like a man who got sick from drinking some very bad hootch but who in his stuporous state somehow thinks that he will get better if he drinks even more of the same stuff.

Thanks for the answers, but Bill was an unknown, Hillary is not. That’s why her history over the last sixteen years should neutralize her threat, as far as I can see. She has shown that she’s nothing if not corrupt and power hungry. Too many Hsus in her closet…

ScottG on October 16, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Bill wasn’t exactly an unknown in 1996, but still got re-elected. Even with 16 years of Clinton history, Hillary still has a net positive approval rating.

No one can predict how things will shake out between now and November 2008, but it would be foolish to discount Hillary at this point.

About 2 years ago, I told a friend (who was convinced that Hillary would win) that Hillary had a 1 in 6 (16.7%) chance of getting elected- 1 in 2 to win the nomination, 1 in 3 of winning the general. Now I give her a 45% chance- 9 in 10 for the nomination, 1 in 2 to win the general.

Money vs Polls…

steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 5:20 PM

Please pull; upon further review, I stepped over the line.

IF YOU ARE TOO FAR RIGHT THAT YOU START TO LOOSE ELECTIONS, YOU NEED TO MODERATE.

tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Massive earmarks that led to corruption charges and support for amnesty were examples of being “too far right”???

If you look at the Republicans who lost, it was mostly those connected to scandal and “moderates” defeated by Blue Dog Democrats. The NRCC tried your strategy of backing “moderates”, and it backfired horribly.

Nominate someone who’s too close to the Dems on too many issues and the result is a lack of incentive for Republicans to vote. Anyone who thinks that the loss in 2006 was because the Republican party was acting “too far right” simply wasn’t paying attention.

If the Republican party is in shambles, it sure as heck isn’t because they’ve been so staunchly conservative- it’s because they’ve favored love of power and campaign contributions over conservative principles such as rule of law, decreasing spending, small government, and everything else the Republican party is supposed to stand for.

It’s no surprise the Dems won by exploiting Republican weakness on these issues by (falsely) promising earmark and ethics reform.

Did Bush Sr lose because he was “too far right”, or because he broke his promise of “no new taxes”? Did the moderate Bob Dole lose to a vulnerable Clinton because he was “too far right”? Did Reagan win because he became more “moderate”?

But go ahead- nominate Rudy and give otherwise reliable Republican voters who are already upset about the non-conservative Republican governance of late and give them even more reason to just stay home than Bush and Congressional Republicans already have.

Uh….that is the balance of power: the SC does have the final say on whether laws are constitutional.

Did you actually read what I said? I didn’t say anything about who has final say on whether laws are constitutional. The judiciary does not have the right to fabricate constitutional “rights” or to misuse it to do as they please.

It only gets imbalanced when they try to legislate from the bench…so why again do you want to impeach them?

Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Because Roe vs Wade was exactly that: legislation from the bench. Of course it’s too late for impeachment now but I doubt the courts will stop at that. I’d like to see Congress exercise its power over the SC once in a while.

Elections in two party systems are all about seizing the middle. You loose when the other side has the middle.
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM

If we nominate the most conservative, with Hillary’s negative numbers so high (providing she in the nominee) there are going to be a lot of independents and right-leaning democrats that will hold there nose and vote for the Republican nominee, as well as garner the soc-conservative vote.

Check out my observation of Hillary’s negative numbers here.

Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 3:09 PM
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Thanks for the answers, but Bill was an unknown, Hillary is not. That’s why her history over the last sixteen years should neutralize her threat, as far as I can see. She has shown that she’s nothing if not corrupt and power hungry. Too many Hsus in her closet…

don’t know about that. We have a successful governor or two, a successful mayor, a well-known senator and a war hero.

They’ve got a half-term senator and a one-and-a half term senator.

Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Unless that half-term Senator manages to use his $32 million effectively enough to cause that one-and-a-half term Senator to burn through a significant portion of her $35 million, they’ll also have a sizable advantage during the traditionally-quiet time between the early primaries and the conventions. They also have ABCCBSNBCCNNPMSNBCNYTWPLATCTyourlocalpaintcatcher, for which they don’t have to pay, and they’ll have a jump-start on the general (remember, what’s left rolls right over).

McCain isn’t quite bankrupt, at least as long as his debtors are willing to wait until the general-election cycle. Besides, it appears he has converted to a taxpayer-matching campaign, and those funds have not been released yet.

If any campaign is bankrupt, it’s the Tancredo one, followed closely by the Brownback and Hunter campaigns. If Romney isn’t willing to forgive his “massive debt”, add him to the busted list. As for the media’s favorite dark-horse, he’s not exactly in a position to capitalize.

The money pic is indeed very bleak when positioned against the Clinton campaign. Our only hope is that Obama magically does enough with his $34 million to drain the $50 million money pot the Hildabeast has already amassed.

If you nominate a Liberal in a Republican suit, you’ll loose…

The Republican party apparently learned NOTHING from the last election.

Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 4:17 PM

What election are you talking about? POTUS 2004? The Republicans gave you W and won

Are you talking about Congress 06? The candidates were conservative, soco’s and pro-Iraq war. The Dems ran anti-war with many blue-dogs. I do not see how this election proves your point. In fact, I think it proves the opposite. Elections in two party systems are all about seizing the middle. You loose when the other side has the middle. After you loose you need to reevaluate, recalibrate and regain the middle. IF YOU ARE TOO FAR RIGHT THAT YOU START TO LOOSE ELECTIONS, YOU NEED TO MODERATE.

I like his clam and mature demeanor, but he does need to project some level of energy and enthusiasm in running for the highest office in the land.

eanax on October 16, 2007 at 2:56 PM

That would all be fine IF Fred was running in a vacuum that didn’t include his lobbying history, CFR, and advising terrorists. Whe you add the facts in with wishful thinking, Fred is toast in a general and needs to opposed at every turn.

No amount of caterwauling on blogs is going to change the fact that a lot of conservatives (social cons or otherwise) simply won’t vote for someone they percieve to be a pro-choice, pro-illegal immigrant, anti-gun “moderate” candidate. If 5% of voters who would normally vote Republican sit it out or vote 3rd party because they won’t support the nominee’s social views, Hillary almost certainly wins.

Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Well, get ready for another Clinton presidency.

[sarcasm] It’ll be so much fun! [/sarcasm]