0
   

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 10:29 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
If the party polls better than the candidate; that is pretty clear evidence that the suggestion "they are happy with their choices" is pure nonsense.

How do you figure? If the "generic Democratic candidate" polls higher than any particular Democratic candidate (or all of the announced candidates combined), I don't see how it follows that voters are necessarily dissatisfied with the candidates who are running. Indeed, it might be an indication that voters are satisfied with all of them, and have no reason to express a preference for any of them at this point.

For instance, suppose a voter states that she favors the "generic Democratic candidate" but expresses no preference for any of the announced candidates. That could, of course, mean that she favors someone who is not an announced candidate, but it could also mean that she has simply not decided, among all of the announced candidates, who she will eventually support.

You ascribe the discrepancy between the support for the generic candidate and the announced candidates to voters supporting "none of the above" among the announced candidates, but you have no basis for drawing that conclusion. Rather, it strikes me as more probable that a "none of the above" voter would be dissatisfied with the generic candidate, since that candidate would never end up being the candidate of her choice. It's more likely, then, that the discrepancy is attributable to voters who have not made up their minds, but who are, in general, satisfied with all of the candidates.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 10:48 am
I think OBill is trying to second guess the polls, because he doesn't like what he sees.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 08:08 pm
Embarrassed You had me in your first paragraph, Joe. Please excuse my faulty logic. However; I do not believe the consensus among Democrats is happy about Hillary being their candidate; and the front runner she is... so I can only assume the Dems are not happy with their choices.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 08:14 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I think OBill is trying to second guess the polls, because he doesn't like what he sees.
Contrarily; were I a Republican I'd be very happy about Hill being the Democratic front runner, because I think she's the weakest in the General (compared to Obama or Edwards). So far; I'm hoping for a Giuliani Vs Obama Contest... because I think I could be happy with my next President either way.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 08:21 pm
Naw, Giuliani is a one pony show; just 9-11. Most of the firement in New York hates his guts. Actually, I prefer Hill over Giuliani, but I don't think it's going to work out that way by November 2008.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 08:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Naw, Giuliani is a one pony show; just 9-11. Most of the firement in New York hates his guts. Actually, I prefer Hill over Giuliani, but I don't think it's going to work out that way by November 2008.
Have you seen pre and post Rudy 42nd st and Time Square?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 08:53 pm
No, but I've seen some of these.


Firemen douse Rudy's image as 9/11 hero (The Sunday Times)
Rudy A No-Show At Firefighters Conference (CBS News)
Firemen desert Giuliani over 9/11 search (The Telegraph News)
Firefighters Group in Rift With Giuliani (New York Times)
How to Swift-boat Rudy Giuliani (Salon.com)
Forum Flap Highlights Firefighters Union Rift With Giuliani (Congressional Quarterly)
Firefighters' unsent letter blasts Rudy (The Hill Newspaper)
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 05:11 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I think OBill is trying to second guess the polls, because he doesn't like what he sees.
Contrarily; were I a Republican I'd be very happy about Hill being the Democratic front runner, because I think she's the weakest in the General (compared to Obama or Edwards). So far; I'm hoping for a Giuliani Vs Obama Contest... because I think I could be happy with my next President either way.



Ya, I think Obama is in the best position to almost get elected pres., and I believe he will be the Dem nominee. He creeps me out in some ways...dunno exactly why....but seems to be a thinker. I could be comfortable with him I think as pres. He comes off as weak which may not play well in '08.

Hillary's numbers will stay more or less stagnant, she's been around so long that minds are already set about her. I believe Bill is savvy enough politics wise that he knows she doesn't have much of a chance but he's obligated to play along. Women politicians in America don't do well when there is a war anywhere near...no matter how hawkish she portrays.

The Repubs don't have much of a choice but to nominate Thompson if he becomes a candidate...if he doesn't they have nothing. That is the only scenario I see where Obama could win.

The Right of all stripes would vote for Thompson...even if they have to hold their proverbial nose....and I think he can get the middle. As Bill Maher says...Repubs always nominate the WTF? That guy?...and they usually win. Thompson has a strong persona which America falls for.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 05:16 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Laughing How partisan can a non-citizen be? Hillary is perhaps the least popular front runner in history. Tons of A2K's own Democrats have expressed their disdain for her candidacy (including the one I was arguing with) even as she continues to lead the polls and you want to pretend the Democrats like their choices? Knock it off Nimh. You of all people know better than that.

Huh? You're making some very basic logical mistakes here. I'd even go as far as saying you're just being plain dishonest.

First, about where the dishonesty comes into play. What Cyclo said was "that the Dem party likes the majority of our candidates." You tried to tear him another ass about that, even when the numbers he brought show him simply to be right (you cant get any more straightforward than the question "Are you generally satisfied with the candidates now running for the Democratic nomination for President, or [not]").

Now that you're being called on that, you make a big spiel of how impopular Hillary is, as if that proves anything in regard to what Cyclo actually said and what you tried to rip him another one for. It doesnt, of course. Even if Hillary were hugely impopular, it still wouldnt prove him wrong in any way: Dem voters still "like the majority of our candidates." The people you cite as hating Hillary usually love Obama, and like Edwards, or vice versa.

The whole point of Cyclo's observation is that the Dems have a choice they like - even if there's some one candidate they dont like, there's several they do like, a majority of the ones running even. This is obviously not true for the Republican voters, as is born out from the polls Cyclo and eBeth have quoted right here.

---

As if that's not enough, you then make a very basic logical mistake in trying to illustrate "that Hillary is perhaps the least popular front runner in history" by saying that "tons of A2K's own Democrats have expressed their disdain for her candidacy". I mean, hello? Since when are A2K's Democrats representative of Democratic voters overall?

Yes, Hillary is hugely impopular among a significant strand of liberal Democrats; a strand dominated by young, (upper) middle class, well educated people who are activists or follow the political news intensely. Yep, check those boxes when you go through most of the Hillary-hating A2Kers. But if that strand had been representative of your regular Democratic voters, Howard Dean would have won the primaries in a landslide.

Among those regular Democrats, meanwhile - among working class Democrats, among blacks, among older Dems, among those simply nostalgic for Bill - Hillary is not in the least impopular. In fact, she seems to be appealing to your typical Democrat perfectly fine. She IS after all, as you mention, a convincing front runner in the polls even as there is an alternative with high favourables (Obama) they could have switched to if they were indeed so contemptuous of her.

Note that even the Hillary critics here on A2K worry loudly about how the problem is primarily that Hillary might win the primaries because she is popular among many Democrats, when the trouble is that she stands the least chance of winning the generals because she is NOT popular among independents and possible cross-over voters.

On that note,

you wrote:
If the party polls better than the candidate; that is pretty clear evidence that the suggestion "they are happy with their choices" is pure nonsense.

But as OE pointed out, there's another basic logical mistake here when you use the party's and candidates' standing among the general population as a purported evidence for how the Democrats feel.

EDIT: Just saw JoefromChicago's post - there's a second logical mistake you made here as well, as he pointed out.

Finally, if you do insist on bringing the opinion among A2K Democrats up as proof for anything, remember the point you're arguing - Democrats dont like their candidates - and see that in the first A2K straw poll, 43 out of 54 posters voting the Democratic ticket could find a frontrunner they liked (Obama - 24; Hillary - 11; Edwards - 8), and just 11 (0r 20%) opted for a non-running candidate, an undeclared candidate, or one that doesnt stand any chance. As a sign of greater dissatisfaction among A2K Republicans, the three frontrunners there got just 14 out of 26 votes, with 12 (or 33%) opting for a non-running candidate, an undeclared candidate, or one that doesnt stand any chance.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'd wager neither Democrats nor Republicans have been happy about their choices since Ronald Reagan's name was on the ballet. Can you show me any statistics that show a leading candidate from either party who polled better than his/her party affiliation in general since Reagan? Regardless; I provided sufficient evidence that shows NONE of the current Democratic crop meets this criterion.

I missed that evidence, I think; and in addition, I'll note that "well they are less popular than Reagan" hardly qualifies as evidence of any particular impopularity. Reagan won two landslide victories. Might as well say, "Well, the candidate does worse than FDR, so they must hate him".
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:06 pm
nimh wrote:
Huh? You're making some very basic logical mistakes here. I'd even go as far as saying you're just being plain dishonest.
Rolling Eyes You'd be wrong.

nimh wrote:
First, about where the dishonesty comes into play. What Cyclo said was "that the Dem party likes the majority of our candidates." You tried to tear him another ass about that, even when the numbers he brought show him simply to be right (you cant get any more straightforward than the question "Are you generally satisfied with the candidates now running for the Democratic nomination for President, or [not]").
That's all it takes for you to start calling people liars? I'm 'generally satisfied with pretty much any food that fills my stomach. See where I'm going? If satisfied = liked; PollingReport.com's latest poll shows Republicans are 65% Satisfied 32% Dissatisfied with their choices. Will you now start accusing Cyclops of lying too? You are out of line.


nimh wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'd wager neither Democrats nor Republicans have been happy about their choices since Ronald Reagan's name was on the ballet. Can you show me any statistics that show a leading candidate from either party who polled better than his/her party affiliation in general since Reagan? Regardless; I provided sufficient evidence that shows NONE of the current Democratic crop meets this criterion.

I missed that evidence, I think; and in addition, I'll note that "well they are less popular than Reagan" hardly qualifies as evidence of any particular impopularity. Reagan won two landslide victories. Might as well say, "Well, the candidate does worse than FDR, so they must hate him".
Speaking of dishonest... Nothing I wrote can be summed up by "well they are less popular than Reagan" (My error in logic admission preceded your post).

Oh, and if it makes you happy to pretend Hill is only unpopular with a single strain; enjoy (just stay the hell away from reality).

In the meantime, back in reality; this is the post you chopped in a feeble attempt to make me seem unreasonable.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Are you going to vote for Hillary, cyclops, perish the thought?
...
Did you see the other day that 'none of the above' is currently leading the nomination race for the Republican party? Face it, your candidates all suck.

Cycloptichorn
Sure we can - Barack Obama.

The difference, is that the Dem party likes the majority of our candidates. Any of our top three can win and will receive support from the party. Can't say the same about your candidates.
Dude; have you lost your mind? The Right will back the Right candidate just as surely as the Left will back the Left candidate... and you're really far gone if you believe the Democrats are super-keen on their choices. The unnamed Democrat consistently polls to win a landslide, while not one single name mentioned is even consistently predicted to win. Settle down and sell the truth. There's plenty on your side without this nonsense.
Cyclops suggested that maybe the Republican Party wouldn't back the Republican Primary winner. This idea is absurd; so I commented accordingly. Interesting hack job you did. Rolling Eyes

Aside: I finally caught the latest Debate... and thought Hillary was the winner.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:33 pm
Quote:
Cyclops suggested that maybe the Republican Party wouldn't back the Republican Primary winner. This idea is absurd; so I commented accordingly. Interesting hack job you did.


It is not absurd. The Republican party has relied heavily on the support of Evangelicals to get elected over the last several years. The Evangelicals will not support Giuliani or Romney. They may hold their noses and come out and vote, but they won't work hard to make it happen, bust their asses to promote either one, or donate money.

The Dems have a hundred million dollar advantage when it comes to presidential monies collected for '08. This is a unique situation over the last few decades. The Senate re-election, Dems lead 4 to 1. The House re-election, the Dems lead 10 to 1. There is absolutely no doubt that Dems are donating in record numbers, whereas Republicans are not.

Let's look at two different polls, from Pollingreport, this week:

Quote:
"Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the choice of candidates for the Republican nomination for president this year -- are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?"

Satisfied - 65
dissatisfied - 32


That's the latest for the Republicans. Now for the Dems:

Quote:
"Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the choice of candidates for the Democratic nomination for president this year -- are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?"

Satisfied - 83
Dissatisfied - 16


It's not even close. The Dems are kicking Republican ass in terms of satisfaction with the candidates.

Let's contrast the latest Republican poll, with this one:

Quote:
"Are you generally satisfied with the candidates now running for the Republican nomination for president, or do you wish there were more choices?"
7/9-17/07

Satisfied - 36
More Choices - 60
Unsure


When the wording suggests other choices, dissatisfaction skyrockets amongst Republicans.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick to my original proposition: the Dems are far more satisfied with our candidates, and have a far greater chance of supporting any of the three with strength, and not just reluctantly.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 08:36 pm
How far do you want to move that Goal Line? Nothing wrong with making corrections... though your refusal to abandon a ridiculous contention is, well, ridiculous. However, I'm bored with this and seek only to address Nimh's belated over the top response to my initial reaction. So, for his edification:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Any of our top three can win and will receive support from the party. Can't say the same about your candidates.
Please examine this statement with the same fine-tooth comb you use on what I write. :wink:
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:29 pm
Three weeks is an eternity in a campaign, let alone over a year, so the polls cited by cyclops mean little or nothing.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:40 pm
okie wrote:
Three weeks is an eternity in a campaign, let alone over a year, so the polls cited by cyclops mean little or nothing.


Keep telling yourself that Laughing

I'll take the trends any day.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 05:52 pm
Highlighting this one first:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm 'generally satisfied with pretty much any food that fills my stomach. See where I'm going? [..] You are out of line.

You snorted at Cyclo for daring to suggest that Democratic voters liked their choices. But polls say that Democratic voters are satisfied with their choices. Talking about being out of line, do you really think the difference between "satisfied with them" and "liking them" is significant enough to go around deriding people?

Here, FYI: A new ABC News/Washington Post national survey, conducted 7/18 through 7/21, finds:

Quote:
83% are satisfied "with the choice of candidates for the Democratic nomination for president this year;" 16% are dissatisfied.

Five out of six of Democratic voters are satisfied with their choice; just one out of six is not. And yet you want to make out that Cyclo's assertion that Democratic voters like the majority of their candidates is ridiculous nonsense?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 06:52 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
nimh wrote:
Huh? You're making some very basic logical mistakes here. I'd even go as far as saying you're just being plain dishonest.
Rolling Eyes You'd be wrong. [etc]

You missed my entire point about what I accused you of dishonesty of.

Cyclo said "that the Dem party likes the majority of our candidates." You tried to tear him another one on that, and when he came back with numbers that certainly appear to prove him right, you came back with a big spiel about how impopular Hillary (purportedly) is.

That was the dishonesty I was talking about. Because it involved an elaborate straw man. What Cyclo said was "that the Dem party likes the majority of our candidates" - which can be true whether Hillary were or were not hugely impopular (those who dislike Hillary generally like several of the others, after all). So your whole spiel was exactly that - just a spiel. It didnt involve telling a lie, but yes, it was dishonest.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Oh, and if it makes you happy to pretend Hill is only unpopular with a single strain; enjoy (just stay the hell away from reality).

You may bluster as you wish, but again, I'm not just going on personal observation here. I actually referred to the numbers, whereas to prove your argument you referred to what A2K liberals think. Well, I may not like Hillary; A2K liberals may generally not like her much; but none of that means anything, of course, and you were pretty far off in pretending otherwise.

Instead, go back to the polls and note that Hillary has favourability ratings of between 40% and 57% among the US population as a whole - including Republicans and Independents. Considering that most Republicans hate Hillary with a passion, and she generally meets a lukewarm response among Independents, you can figure out for yourself just how large a majority of Democrats that means likes her, then.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
In the meantime, back in reality; this is the post you chopped in a feeble attempt to make me seem unreasonable. [..] Interesting hack job you did. Rolling Eyes

Dude. You wrote: "and you're really far gone if you believe the Democrats are super-keen on their choices.." Thats pretty clear. I dont need to do any "hack job" here to show that you were insulting Cyclo for daring to suggest that Democrats "like the majority of their candidates". It's right there, and that's what I was responding to.

(The way you turned Cyclo's "the Dem party likes the majority of our candidates" into a purported claim that "the Democrats are super-keen on their choices" was also dishonest - exaggerating the other person's words so as to better try to shoot him down, I suppose.)

OCCOM BILL wrote:
nimh wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'd wager neither Democrats nor Republicans have been happy about their choices since Ronald Reagan's name was on the ballet. Can you show me any statistics that show a leading candidate from either party who polled better than his/her party affiliation in general since Reagan? Regardless; I provided sufficient evidence that shows NONE of the current Democratic crop meets this criterion.

[..] I'll note that "well they are less popular than Reagan" hardly qualifies as evidence of any particular impopularity. Reagan won two landslide victories. [..]

Speaking of dishonest... Nothing I wrote can be summed up by "well they are less popular than Reagan" [..].

OK, let's see. Earlier on, you posited that the fact that the individual Democratic candidates score less well than a generic Democrat proves that Democratic voters dont like their candidates. Then in the post I quoted, you pointed out that the same might well have been true for both parties' candidates since Reagan -- and yet you still maintained that it does prove that the Dems dont like their candidates now. So you're saying that the fact that the Dem candidates are not doing better than either party's candidates have done since Reagan is evidence that Dem voters dont like them.

If I got the above right, I dont see how my paraphrasing of your post is dishonest.

(The original assertion has meanwhile of course become irrelevant thanks to what JoefromChicago pointed out. So I'd be curious to see what you would now base an assertion that the Democratic voters dont like their candidates on.)

OCCOM BILL wrote:
However, I'm bored with this and seek only to address Nimh's belated over the top response to my initial reaction.

Are you kidding me? You lace your posts with laughing-out-loud smileys and rolling-eyes smileys to ridicule the people you're arguing with, boisterously mocking and deriding them, and you call my post over the top? Damn, you're a good guy at heart, but you have no idea how rude you come across, if you think it was my response that was the over the top one.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
So, for his edification:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Any of our top three can win and will receive support from the party. Can't say the same about your candidates.

Please examine this statement with the same fine-tooth comb you use on what I write. :wink:

Reason I left it alone in the first place is that I dont have much of a settled opinion about this.

I have no doubt that any of the three Democratic frontrunners can win, though I wouldnt go anywhere as far as to say they will win. Considering the overwhelming hatred of the Republicans after eight years of Bush (who in one recent poll got a 1% approval rate among Democrats), I also have no doubt that any of the three candidates will get ample support from the party's activists.

Meanwhile, although unlike Cyclo, I think any of the four Republican frontrunners can win (though I'm hopeful that they won't), I do think it is likely that turn out among Republicans will weaken considerably if the candidate ends up being Romney, Giuliani or McCain (rather than Fred Thompson). On the other hand, I doubt that it will weaken anywhere as much as some all too hopeful Democrats make it out. It also depends greatly on who the Democratic candidate will be - Hillary will mobilise the Republicans more than Obama would.

So I just dont know about this, have to wait and see.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 09:22 am
I lack the time and desire these days to go point by point in near meaningless arguments, so there's no way I'm hitting all of that back at you. I do notice that even in a very long post, you still insist on hacking up my statements to highlight the areas you're attacking while obscuring the justification for same. Example: You hacked up the original post, again, even as you denied doing it in the first place... and you think I'm being dishonest? (the accusation that put you out of line and over the top) The simple fact is that much of what you're objecting to was directed not so much at the idea of the Dems being happy, but the ludicrous idea that a Republican Primary winner might have to operate sans party support. You repeatedly cut this out of quotes, evidently because it's obvious to any literate person who reads the quote intact. But I'm being dishonest?

Interesting how you so strenuously object to exaggerating like to super-keen (as if that was an actual attempt to pretend like=super-keen Rolling Eyes); but will boldly continue to pretend satisfied and like are synonymous. As if we wouldn't be reading your objection if a Republican tried that. You also ignored the poll that showed Republicans are indeed satisfied with their choices as well. Does this mean Republicans like their choices? That certainly doesn't sound even remotely like the position you've been defending. Get yourself together, Nimh. I am unaccustomed to seeing you bob and weave in lieu of honest recognition of the available info... it just seems beneath you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 09:25 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I lack the time and desire these days to go point by point in near meaningless arguments, so there's no way I'm hitting all of that back at you. I do notice that even in a very long post, you still insist on hacking up my statements to highlight the areas you're attacking while obscuring the justification for same. Example: You hacked up the original post, again, even as you denied doing it in the first place... and you think I'm being dishonest? (the accusation that put you out of line and over the top) The simple fact is that much of what you're objecting to was directed not so much at the idea of the Dems being happy, but the ludicrous idea that a Republican Primary winner might have to operate sans party support. You repeatedly cut this out of quotes, evidently because it's obvious to any literate person who reads the quote intact. But I'm being dishonest?

Interesting how you so strenuously object to exaggerating like to super-keen (as if that was an actual attempt to pretend like=super-keen Rolling Eyes); but will boldly continue to pretend satisfied and like are synonymous. As if we wouldn't be reading your objection if a Republican tried that. You also ignored the poll that showed Republicans are indeed satisfied with their choices as well. Does this mean Republicans like their choices? That certainly doesn't sound even remotely like the position you've been defending. Get yourself together, Nimh. I am unaccustomed to seeing you bob and weave in lieu of honest recognition of the available info... it just seems beneath you.


On the same question, Dems are 20 points more satisfied then Republicans. Not a difficult thing to see which party is more satisfied with their candidates.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 10:10 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
On the same question, Dems are 20 points more satisfied then Republicans. Not a difficult thing to see which party is more satisfied with their candidates.
Nope. Was that disputed?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 10:15 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
On the same question, Dems are 20 points more satisfied then Republicans. Not a difficult thing to see which party is more satisfied with their candidates.
Nope. Was that disputed?


Guess not. Truce!

On to another topic: The GOP is backing out of the CNN/Youtube debate, b/c they can't face the questions that regular people will ask.

Quote:
Four days after the Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C,. more than 400 questions directed to the GOP presidential field have been uploaded on YouTube -- targeted at Republicans scheduled to get their turn at videopopulism on Sept. 17.

But so far, only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) have agreed to participate in the debate, co-hosted by Republican Party of Florida in St. Petersburg.

"Aside from those two candidates, we haven't heard from anyone else," said Sam Feist of CNN, who's co-sponsoring the debate with the popular videosharing site.

Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both with dozens of videos on their YouTube channels, have not signed up. Neither have the rest of the Republican candidates, including Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), whose "Tancredo Takes" on his YouTube channel draw hundreds of views. Sources familiar with the Guiliani campaign said he's unlikely to participate. Kevin Madden, Romney's spokesman, said the former Massachusetts governor has seven debate invitations covering a span of 11 days in September.

"We haven't committed to any of them yet," Madden said.

In an interview Wednesday with the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, Romney said he's not a fan of the CNN/YouTube format. Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/26/but_dont_ask_him_on_youtube_1.html#more

From a comment on Josh Marshall's blog:

Quote:
One of the thoughts that occurred to me with regards to the Democratic Youtube debate was how weird the questions for the GOP candidates could potentially be. For the Democratic debates, most of the issues that are on the table are pretty mainstream, like healthcare and Iraq and poverty and global warming, and thus its pretty difficult for the standard rank-and-file member of the democratic base to ask them in an amusing viral format like Youtube and still come out as looking too bizarre (unless they happen to be a talking snowman). As far as issues like illegal immigration and "coercive interrogation techniques" go, how does one ask questions like this in a Youtube format in an amusing way? The differences between the GOP base and the political mainstream can seem less extreme when asked by someone like Wolf Blitzer, but if presented from the standard GOP rank-and-file member of the base, it seemed like a great way to show how unhinged the GOP has become on some of these issues. Personally, I'm surprised the GOP ever got close to agreeing to this format, and once the Democratic debate happened and showed the format in action, I didn't see how it could have been pulled off by the GOP.


Giuliani can't face questions from Firefighters...

The GOP can't face regular citizens' questions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.85 seconds on 08/19/2025 at 08:00:23