2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[kurai]

The Daily Caller has a perfect synopsis of the horror and ignorance of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/th...#ixzz1hKWlTazo

This article is pretty obviously PNAC nonsense. Consider the central thesis: "it is important to remember this: He has absolutely no chance to win the Republican nomination for president. This is largely, though not entirely, due to his foreign policy views."

Such is entirely counter-intuitive to actual polling data:



What of the argumentation?

"America’s military might would no longer be preeminent in the world — and with its decline, America’s influence will undeniably wane." Indeed? How do we explain the present waning influence given the current balance of military power? It is illogical to accept the suggested cause and effect. The balance of the last decade seems to point to the effectiveness of economic hegemony backed by provisional military force, rather than military dominance as the means towards economic success (to say nothing of the inherent intervening military Keynesianism and its wastes).

Take history in its place. World War II-style interventionism? Against which enemy should this now be taken? Cold War build-up, with hot spots of action? No need for this in the current global order. The ascent of China is based on economic growth first, and military build-up second (or third...). The historical moment does not point towards the continued need for massive military spending or decade-long interventions. Paul recognizes this, and given the above polling data, so do Iowan Republicans.

[Dark Sage]

Because I'm on vacation from work, I was able to watch a show that I usually miss: Hardball on MSNBC.

Anyway, Chris Matthews today said that the recent situation in Washington has left the GOP "about as organized as that marching band in the final scene of National Lampoon's Animal House."

I wish I could watch this show more often... I couldn't have agreed with him more.

[Roy Karrde]

This article is pretty obviously PNAC nonsense. Consider the central thesis: "it is important to remember this: He has absolutely no chance to win the Republican nomination for president. This is largely, though not entirely, due to his foreign policy views."

Such is entirely counter-intuitive to actual polling data:



What of the argumentation?

Largely it is true, while his strength may be in a isolationist Foreign Policy view, the American Public by and large are focused on the economy, not Foreign Policy, and even then Republicans by and large do not support isolationist policies.

Now lets look where Ron Paul's support is coming from.

In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul’s supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.

The same New Hampshire survey found that 87 percent of the people who support Romney consider themselves Republicans. For Newt Gingrich, it’s 85 percent.

So who is supporting Paul? In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.

“Paul is doing the best job of getting those people who aren’t really Republicans but say they’re going to vote in the Republican primary,” explains Smith. Among that group are libertarians, dissatisfied independents and Democrats who are “trying to throw a monkey wrench in the campaign by voting for someone who is more philosophically extreme,” says Smith.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...op-race/276751

Only half of his base are Republicans, that will not help him in closed primary states. This could even trigger a backlash among Republicans who feel that those outside of the party are trying to elect a nut to help Obama win.

By the way, as of today the Democrats chances to retain the Senate got a lot harder.

Democrats have no candidate waiting in the wings. They will have to scramble for a candidate who can quickly organize a statewide campaign and raise millions in less than a year, while competing against Republicans who have been in campaign mode for more than a year.

It’s not impossible, but the odds are long. Some Democrats whose names have been bandied about as possible contenders include State Sen. Steve Lathrop and former Lt. Gov. Kim Robak.

For Republicans, the dream of holding all five of Nebraska’s congressional seats and all five statewide offices is now within reach.

Nelson was the lone Democrat to hold a high statewide or federal office in Nebraska. The next highest-ranking Democrat in the state is Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle.

http://www.omaha.com/article/2011122...tedly-retiring

Ben Nelson was probably going to lose anyway, but now the chances of retaining the seat becoming slimmer and slimmer.

[Dark Sage]

In other news, Obama's approval rating has just gotten better. The latest Gallup poll puts it at 47%.

[kurai]

LET'S GET READY TO CAUCUS

[Dark Sage]

It seems to be coming to a photo finish between Romney and Santorum...

And yet, given the voter turnout, Romney seems to be getting pretty much the same number of votes he got last time. Obama AND Hillary each got twice the amount at the Democrat equivalent in 2008.

In fact, with all the name calling and nasty campaigning which is still going on at this moment (espescially from a sore loser with the same first name as a lizard), which is not making the GOP look good at all, it seems the biggest winner here is... President Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

It seems to be coming to a photo finish between Romney and Santorum...

And yet, given the voter turnout, Romney seems to be getting pretty much the same number of votes he got last time. Obama AND Hillary each got twice the amount at the Democrat equivalent in 2008.

In fact, with all the name calling and nasty campaigning which is still going on at this moment (espescially from a sore loser with the same first name as a lizard), which is not making the GOP look good at all, it seems the biggest winner here is... President Obama.

Yeahhh because all the name calling, nasty campaigning, and down right sexism between Obama and Hillary really helped the Republicans come the main election in 2008. By the way if I remember correctly it wasn't Obama and Hillary in Iowa, it was Obama and Edwards.

Really, Romney finishing first, and neither Perry or Gingrich finishing in the top 3, pretty much means Romney will be wrapping up the nomination as Santorum does not have the money or ground game for a prolonged fight. I don't see how you could think a moderate like Romney is a good thing for Obama.

[Asilynne]

Here's what I don't understand, what happens when a candidate like say Santorum, wins the iowa primaries and seems to be close to possibly winning them all, but he isn't on some of the ballots for the states? Virginia only has Romney and Ron Paul on our ballot. I suppose they could do a write in but most people are too lazy lol they just pick one or the other. Not that I have a problem with that since I'm not big on any of the ones who were left out, just curious?

Don't really know all the primary 'rules', can anyone give me a quick lowdown, never really been interested in politics lol

[Dark Sage]

Really, Romney finishing first, and neither Perry or Gingrich finishing in the top 3, pretty much means Romney will be wrapping up the nomination as Santorum does not have the money or ground game for a prolonged fight. I don't see how you could think a moderate like Romney is a good thing for Obama.

I've been saying practically since day one, Roy, Romney is the closest thing to a sane candidate that the GOP has. He's the only one who has a chance of beating Obama. Heck, the fact that he wouldn't outlaw abortion even in the cases of rape and incest is proof of his lucidity, something that the other clowns in this race would do.

Unless Ron Paul runs as an independent. If he does, the GOP can kiss their chances goodbye.

[Roy Karrde]

I've been saying practically since day one, Roy, Romney is the closest thing to a sane candidate that the GOP has. He's the only one who has a chance of beating Obama. Heck, the fact that he wouldn't outlaw abortion even in the cases of rape and incest is proof of his lucidity, something that the other clowns in this race would do.

Unless Ron Paul runs as an independent. If he does, the GOP can kiss their chances goodbye.

Wow.. Dark Sage and I are in complete agreement... freeeeky

By the way can we all admit now that the Ames Straw Poll is absolutely meaningless?

[kurai]

Here's what I don't understand, what happens when a candidate like say Santorum, wins the iowa primaries and seems to be close to possibly winning them all, but he isn't on some of the ballots for the states? Virginia only has Romney and Ron Paul on our ballot. I suppose they could do a write in but most people are too lazy lol they just pick one or the other. Not that I have a problem with that since I'm not big on any of the ones who were left out, just curious?

Don't really know all the primary 'rules', can anyone give me a quick lowdown, never really been interested in politics lol

Okay. The whole process is decided at an almost entirely arbitrary level locally. It's all about allocating delegates towards conventions.

The definition of 'local' varies based on the type of primary.

Yesterday, in Iowa, there was a non-binding caucus. As it is non-binding, the caucus itself is pretty meaningless and does not actually determine the outcome of Iowa's 25 delegates to the nomination convention in August. The state party structure can ultimately direct them to do whatever they like (this won't ultimately happen until perhaps June). If you had watched the proceedings on C-Span or otherwise, local party meetings essentially decided on their own rules and voted for their presidential nominee preference. Caucuses are party-organized local gatherings. In Urbandale, for example, they held an open voting round on procedure before balloting, and set a limit of 15% support to qualify to send a local delegate upwards to the state level.

Next week, in New Hampshire, we will have a semi-closed primary. A primary tends to imitate an election and is significantly more binding on its delegates - it's also organized by the state itself and directly subject to law. It is semi-closed because both Republican party members and undeclared voters can participate in the nominee preference voting process. Entrance to the ballot itself only requires a $1,000 filing fee.

Following this, there is South Carolina, an open primary (no party restriction). Then we have Florida, with a closed primary (total party restriction). This is a 50 delegate, winner-takes-all contest. One month from now, Nevada holds a binding caucus - to get on its ballot, you needed $10,000 and a declaration of your candidacy. They have a precinct caucus to determine delegates for the county convention, which moves to the state convention, which then goes onwards to the final level. In this process, you support the delegates which support the nominee that you prefer, but the delegates aren't really bound until the state convention.

Virginia has an open primary on Super Tuesday. In such a case, it needs a formal ballot process. It follows a proportional method: "Representation shall be based on a percentage of the total number of Republican votes cast in each county and city in the last gubernatorial and presidential election combined. Each unit is entitled to one (1) Delegate Vote for each two hundred fifty (250) votes cast or major portion thereof for the Republican candidate in the most recent elections for President and Governor. Each unit shall be entitled to at least one (1) Delegate Vote." Perhaps your county only gets 20 state delegates, which then aim towards the allocation of Virginia's 50 delegates to the national convention. The national convention will involve 2286 delegates.

Virginia will have 50 of the 438 total delegates available that day, but perhaps it is a particularly expensive media market not worth campaigning in (I would guess this is the case). Santorum is ranked last in fundraising and has essentially only campaigned in Iowa. He will not be able to run his Iowa-style operation in every Super Tuesday state - he has neither the time nor the funds. The aim is to eliminate the competition through withdrawl and concession before this point... because a large amount of the delegates are not going to be bound towards anyone in particular until mid-year! This strategy probably won't work for Santorum, but it is the reason why Romney is the perennial frontrunner. Get money, stay in the race.

[Dark Sage]

By the way can we all admit now that the Ames Straw Poll is absolutely meaningless?

Well, let's see, Bachmann won it this year, only to finish dead last night...

Yeah, I think it's pretty much a farce.

[kurai]

Incidentally,

(CNN) -- Michele Bachmann ended her bid for the Republican presidential nomination Wednesday, hours after a disappointing sixth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

The Minnesota congresswoman suspended her campaign, a legal technicality that will allow her to continue to raise and spend campaign funds.

"Last night the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice and so I have decided to stand aside," Bachmann told a crowd of supporters in West Des Moines. But, she added, "I will continue fighting to defeat the president's agenda of socialism."

"It is safe to say we don't see a viable way forward," a Republican source familiar with Bachmann's campaign told CNN before the announcement.

Keep in mind that she was fourth in total fundraising. Rick Perry has also announced that he was going home to "assess" his campaign, so it's a strong bet that he will be out soon. It's hard to say whether any useful polling will arise with this sort of candidate flux, but there are two debates scheduled for this weekend.

[Dark Sage]

I wish I could say I was sorry to see her go... But frankly, I was sick of her since day one.

I have a lot of other things to say about her... But they might get me booted off the forum.

It's ironic... Feminists have wanted a female candidate for President for years, and when we finally get ones that make serious attempts, we get ones like Bachmann...

[Heald]

It's rather sad that out of the millions of American citizens that are eligible to be nominated as a presidential candidate, and these clowns are the best the GOP can come up with? Obama is a shitty president but as much as I want to see a Republican victory in 2012, I feel, even with Romney playing the straight-man to a cavalcade of idiots, that it is just not going to happen. Bring on Clinton vs Shoe-in Republican 2016.

[Roy Karrde]

It's rather sad that out of the millions of American citizens that are eligible to be nominated as a presidential candidate, and these clowns are the best the GOP can come up with? Obama is a shitty president but as much as I want to see a Republican victory in 2012, I feel, even with Romney playing the straight-man to a cavalcade of idiots, that it is just not going to happen. Bring on Clinton vs Shoe-in Republican 2016.

Well obviously there is no Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie in the group. But I really think the average age of that group is like the mid 40s. To use a Baseball saying, the Republicans have a very good farm team right now, to set them up for the next decade or two.

[Heald]

I just saw Santorum being videoed saying to British journalists that the NHS and other social programs are the reason the British lost their empire. I really hope someone as hopelessly misinformed as this man doesn't reach the road to the White House (aside from his homophobic and anti-scientific views as well). Not that I'm promoting Britain's social programs, but they really aren't the reason why we lost our empire.

[Asilynne]

Okay. The whole process is decided at an almost entirely arbitrary level locally. It's all about allocating delegates towards conventions.

The definition of 'local' varies based on the type of primary.

Yesterday, in Iowa, there was a non-binding caucus. As it is non-binding, the caucus itself is pretty meaningless and does not actually determine the outcome of Iowa's 25 delegates to the nomination convention in August. The state party structure can ultimately direct them to do whatever they like (this won't ultimately happen until perhaps June). If you had watched the proceedings on C-Span or otherwise, local party meetings essentially decided on their own rules and voted for their presidential nominee preference. Caucuses are party-organized local gatherings. In Urbandale, for example, they held an open voting round on procedure before balloting, and set a limit of 15% support to qualify to send a local delegate upwards to the state level.

Next week, in New Hampshire, we will have a semi-closed primary. A primary tends to imitate an election and is significantly more binding on its delegates - it's also organized by the state itself and directly subject to law. It is semi-closed because both Republican party members and undeclared voters can participate in the nominee preference voting process. Entrance to the ballot itself only requires a $1,000 filing fee.

Following this, there is South Carolina, an open primary (no party restriction). Then we have Florida, with a closed primary (total party restriction). This is a 50 delegate, winner-takes-all contest. One month from now, Nevada holds a binding caucus - to get on its ballot, you needed $10,000 and a declaration of your candidacy. They have a precinct caucus to determine delegates for the county convention, which moves to the state convention, which then goes onwards to the final level. In this process, you support the delegates which support the nominee that you prefer, but the delegates aren't really bound until the state convention.

Virginia has an open primary on Super Tuesday. In such a case, it needs a formal ballot process. It follows a proportional method: "Representation shall be based on a percentage of the total number of Republican votes cast in each county and city in the last gubernatorial and presidential election combined. Each unit is entitled to one (1) Delegate Vote for each two hundred fifty (250) votes cast or major portion thereof for the Republican candidate in the most recent elections for President and Governor. Each unit shall be entitled to at least one (1) Delegate Vote." Perhaps your county only gets 20 state delegates, which then aim towards the allocation of Virginia's 50 delegates to the national convention. The national convention will involve 2286 delegates.

Virginia will have 50 of the 438 total delegates available that day, but perhaps it is a particularly expensive media market not worth campaigning in (I would guess this is the case). Santorum is ranked last in fundraising and has essentially only campaigned in Iowa. He will not be able to run his Iowa-style operation in every Super Tuesday state - he has neither the time nor the funds. The aim is to eliminate the competition through withdrawl and concession before this point... because a large amount of the delegates are not going to be bound towards anyone in particular until mid-year! This strategy probably won't work for Santorum, but it is the reason why Romney is the perennial frontrunner. Get money, stay in the race.

Thank you kurai

[Blademaster]

In fact, with all the name calling and nasty campaigning which is still going on at this moment (espescially from a sore loser with the same first name as a lizard), which is not making the GOP look good at all, it seems the biggest winner here is... President Obama.

I had to stop and think for a minute before I got this.

Newt Gingrich, right?

A newt is an amphibian. Lizards are reptiles.

[Roy Karrde]

I just saw Santorum being videoed saying to British journalists that the NHS and other social programs are the reason the British lost their empire. I really hope someone as hopelessly misinformed as this man doesn't reach the road to the White House (aside from his homophobic and anti-scientific views as well). Not that I'm promoting Britain's social programs, but they really aren't the reason why we lost our empire.

I will say this with more certainty than almost any other political analysis. He will not win the Republican nomination. Not just because he doesn't have the ground game to match with everyone else. But because conservatives are already starting to turn on him, take this post from Eric Erickson at Red State.

Rick Santorum has some pent up issues with Jim DeMint.

Just a few weeks before DeMint stood for re-election on South Carolina’s ballot, Rick Santorum showed up in DeMint’s neighborood to tell everyone Jim DeMint was wrong on earmarks. “Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said the Constitution gives Congress control of the purse strings and that he supported earmarks for port deepening while a senator – the opposite of the position that DeMint is taking. But former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia said DeMint has shown “moral courage” in refusing to support any earmarks, including one that the State Ports Authority says is needed to study the deepening of Charleston Harbor.”

Santorum went on John King USA on CNN tonight and again defended earmarks claiming “Jim DeMint did it too” without acknowledging DeMint repented and has since led the fight against earmarks. When asked about what he may or may not have said about black welfare recipients, Santorum defended himself by claiming he got earmarks for a black community in Pennsylvania.

Get ready for conservatives to have to refight this critical fight against the gateway drug to big government spending.

It’s not just Rick Santorum knocking Jim DeMint (!!!) when not hiding behind DeMint to claim tea party bona fides, Santorum is also going to have trouble in South Carolina because of his voting record. He opposed National Right to Work legislation.

In the 104th Congress Sen. Santorum joined all Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995. (“On the Cloture Motion (motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to consider S.1788),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 188, www.senate.gov, 7/10/1996)

During that same congressional session, Santorum also voted to retain the 1930s-era Davis-Bacon Act that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers (“On the Motion to Table (motion to table Kennedy Amendment No. 4031 to S.Amdt. 4000 to S.Con.Res. 57),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 134, www.senate.gov, 5/22/1996)

Santorum supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 helping Specter secure the nomination. Specter went on to cast the 60th vote for Obamacare and then lost, in 2010, to Pat Toomey. Toomey, now in the Senate, is con-sponsoring Jim DeMint’s National Right to Work legislation — the very legislation Rick Santorum filibustered.

Santorum being on the wrong side of National Right to Work and Jim DeMint will do him no favors in South Carolina.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/0...outh-carolina/

This wont help him with the Tea Party or the Republican electorate at large, after having 8 years of a "Compassionate Conservative" that tried to justify big spending, I doubt the Republican party is willing to have another go at it.

[Dark Sage]

Know what I think?

I think that Romney, the most likely nominee, is the same position now that he was last time. He got the same amount of votes as he did last time, and more than likely, the same people voted for him. His agenda is basically the same, except that he's a little more focused on opposing Obama. Other than that, he's the same as before.

The difference is overall, he's the frontrunner, because the GOP simply does not have someone with as much appeal as McCain did this time around. The GOP has the second-best candidate this time because the best they had is no longer running. And that does not make things look good for the GOP.

I may be speaking too soon. Anything can happen between now and November. But still...

[Roy Karrde]

Know what I think?

I think that Romney, the most likely nominee, is the same position now that he was last time. He got the same amount of votes as he did last time, and more than likely, the same people voted for him. His agenda is basically the same, except that he's a little more focused on opposing Obama. Other than that, he's the same as before.

The difference is overall, he's the frontrunner, because the GOP simply does not have someone with as much appeal as McCain did this time around. The GOP has the second-best candidate this time because the best they had is no longer running. And that does not make things look good for the GOP.

I may be speaking too soon. Anything can happen between now and November. But still...

I dont see how you could think McCain was the best candidate. He believed that being a moderate in terms of being moderate on Immigration reform and such would help him with Hispanics when it did not. He was not in anyway handsome like Mitt or Obama. And the military service aspect doesn't matter to voters, unlike Romney's success plan for companies and the Olympic committee.

[Dark Sage]

Maybe I misspoke. McCain wasn't the "best" candidate. After all, he did some pretty dumb things. But he was the one that the most registered Republicans liked. (He won the nomination, didn't he?) Romney may be the frontrunner now, but he doesn't have the same appeal that McCain did last time.

[Gavin Luper]

I think Mitt Romney is the only one of the Republican candidates I can vaguely stomach. But I'd still rather see Obama get in for a second term.

[Asilynne]

I dont see how you could think McCain was the best candidate. He believed that being a moderate in terms of being moderate on Immigration reform and such would help him with Hispanics when it did not. He was not in anyway handsome like Mitt or Obama. And the military service aspect doesn't matter to voters, unlike Romney's success plan for companies and the Olympic committee.

Mitt isn't very handsome I have to say, Santorum is better looking as is his wife, however I sure hope how good a pres looks isn't a major factor in whether they get voted into office or not! (Then again, an acquaintence from high school did say she voted for Kerry/Edwards just because she thought Edwards was sexy *rolls eyes*)

[Roy Karrde]

Maybe I misspoke. McCain wasn't the "best" candidate. After all, he did some pretty dumb things. But he was the one that the most registered Republicans liked. (He won the nomination, didn't he?) Romney may be the frontrunner now, but he doesn't have the same appeal that McCain did last time.

Registered Republicans did not really like McCain, infact most hated him. The only reason he was able to win and not Romney was because A: Romney dropped out pretty early in the race. and B: Huckabee was able to split alot of the anti McCain votes with Romney.

You have to remember Republicans were not enthusiastic at all about voting for McCain the only reason they ended up becoming enthusiastic is because he brought on Sarah Palin as VP.

[Dark Sage]

Eh?

Maybe you recall I said he did a lot of dumb things... Most would agree that Palin was one of the dumbest.

[Roy Karrde]

Eh?

Maybe you recall I said he did a lot of dumb things... Most would agree that Palin was one of the dumbest.

In terms of getting the Republican base enthusiastic, I would utterly disagree. Before the Palin nod, the Republican base was down and out. After it not only was the "I am not voting for McCain, I am voting for Palin" vote coming out, but McCain was leading Obama for the first time. Palin not only got the Republican base behind him, but suddenly got alot of interest in the McCain campaign. Admittedly he had no chance in the end, not because of Palin, but because of the economic downfall. But take that out of the picture, and the choice of Palin probably would have been seen as the thing that saved McCain's campaign.

As proof I give you this from the Washington Post.

Love her or loathe her, the data appear somewhere close to conclusive that Palin did little to help -- and, in fact, did some to hurt -- McCain's attempts to reach out to independents and Democrats. But just because Palin doesn't appear to have helped McCain move to the middle doesn't mean that picking her was the wrong move.

Remember where McCain found himself this past summer. He had won the Republican nomination, but the GOP base clearly felt little buy-in into his campaign. A slew of national polls reflected that energy gap, with Democrats revved up about the election and their candidate and Republicans somewhere between tepid and glum.

Enter Palin, who was embraced with a bear hug by the party's conservative base. All of a sudden, cultural conservatives were thrilled at the chance to put "one of their own" in the White House. In fact, of the 60 percent of voters who told exit pollsters that McCain's choice of Palin was a "factor" in their final decision, the Arizona senator won 56 percent to 43 percent.

For skittish conservatives looking for more evidence that McCain understood their needs and concerns, Palin did the trick. It's hard to imagine conservatives rallying to McCain -- even to the relatively limited extent that they did -- without Palin on the ticket. And without the base, McCain's loss could have been far worse.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz1ibOhHQqT

[Dark Sage]

All I know, Roy, is that when I see this woman making some asinine statement on television (usually on the Fox Network) my heart skips a beat thinking that this was the person who might have been next in line for the highest office in this country.

[Roy Karrde]

All I know, Roy, is that when I see this woman making some asinine statement on television (usually on the Fox Network) my heart skips a beat thinking that this was the person who might have been next in line for the highest office in this country.

And you are a Democrat so no doubt you feel that way. But Vice Presidents making idiot statements really made no difference on the electorate, if it did then Biden who made a ton of stupid statements during the 2008 campaign would have sunk Obama's campaign.

[Gavin Luper]

All I know, Roy, is that when I see this woman making some asinine statement on television (usually on the Fox Network) my heart skips a beat thinking that this was the person who might have been next in line for the highest office in this country.

It still frightens me to think about.

[Roy Karrde]

It still frightens me to think about.

Curious you and Dark Sage are frightened to think of Palin but do you share the same fright for Biden? I mean you had the guy who said things like this during and before the campaign.

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." --Joe Biden, in a private remark to an Indian-American man caught on C-SPAN

"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me." --Joe Biden, speaking at a town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire

"Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." –Joe Biden, apparently unaware that FDR wasn't president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time,

"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs." --Joe Biden, Athens, Ohio

[Dark Sage]

Joe Biden wouldn't have done comedy routines on Saturday Night Live.

Joe Biden wouldn't have let his daughter appear on ridiculous reality TV shows like Dancing With the Stars, which were rigged in her favor.

Joe Biden, basically, would not have made a complete and utter fool of himself and his family, something that Palin has done admirably.

[Roy Karrde]

Joe Biden wouldn't have done comedy routines on The Tonight Show.

"Vice President Joe Biden made his third appearance on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" Friday night and, as usual, he didn't disappoint. "

http://www.politico.com/click/storie...ight_show.html

Joe Biden wouldn't have done comedy routines on Saturday Night Live.

No, but Obama did.

"Oh how things have changed for Barack Obama since he last appeared on "Saturday Night Live.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_125849.html

Joe Biden wouldn't have let his daughter appear on ridiculous reality TV shows like Dancing With the Stars, which were rigged in her favor.

So Biden would have made decisions for his adult daughter for her? Telling her what she could and couldn't do?

Joe Biden, basically, would not have made a complete and utter fool of himself and his family, something that Palin has done admirably.

So your complaints about Palin is that she appeared on the Tonight Show, and "forced" her daughter to do a dancing routine. Neither of these things really do with the 2008 campaign.

[Gavin Luper]

I don't know much about Biden and I wasn't saying Palin is the only idiot whose potential power frightened me. But she was AN idiot whose potential power frightened me.

[Roy Karrde]

I don't know much about Biden and I wasn't saying Palin is the only idiot whose potential power frightened me. But she was AN idiot whose potential power frightened me.

And really when it comes in terms of Gaffs or Stupid statements Biden exceeds her. The difference is that after Biden caused a panic in 2009, he has pretty much been kept locked away from the press.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, check my post again. It was Saturday Night Live.

Palin didn't force her daughter to appear on the God-awful show, but a good parent should have expressed her disapproval. Instead, she was there, cheering her on.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, check my post again. It was Saturday Night Live.

Yes it was after you edited your post, in which I edited my post to show that Obama appeared on Saturday Night Live TWICE during his campaign.

Palin didn't force her daughter to appear on the God-awful show, but a good parent should have expressed her disapproval. Instead, she was there, cheering her on.

You have no idea if she expressed disapproval privately or not. But like a good parent publicly you are going to be supportive of your child in public and the decisions he or she makes. Either way as I said again not only is this a utterly stupid argument but it has nothing to do with the 2008 campaign. If you want to talk about stuff afterwards we can, we can start with Joe Biden's statement which caused a panic when it came to Bird Flu.

[Dark Sage]

Fine Roy. But to tell the truth, no one ever chooses a good running mate. You can bet that Romney isn't going to do the smart thing and choose Chris Christie to be his running mate.

That would be the smart choice for VP, but no-one ever makes a smart choice for a running mate. Not Democrats OR Republicans.

I mean, can anyone remember who Theodore Roosevelt's VP was without looking it up?

[Gavin Luper]

And really when it comes in terms of Gaffs or Stupid statements Biden exceeds her. The difference is that after Biden caused a panic in 2009, he has pretty much been kept locked away from the press.

What the hell are we even debating here? I don't even care about this, you're making it seem like I hold some kind of position in regards to Biden and Palin. I don't give a crap about either of them and I don't really care to know which of them is stupider. All I'm saying is that Palin's potential rise to power scared me.