...the theory that Governors are in charge, and talk like somebody in charge, as opposed to senators, who are one of a hundred, and therefore talk wishy washy like one of a hundred. Now, some senators rise above this in thier speaking style (Feingold, JFK, Obama), so making this an iron fast rule is very bad, but Kerry is a perfect example of the theory.
As for exerience, this is not any old political position we are talking about. This is President of the Freaking United States
here. It would be nice to know somebody had at least some lower governmental experience, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this.
...survey at this point, the data posted above by everybody does seem to indicate that Edwards may be the strongest canidate on our side at this point in time. Since Feingold dropped out, I am currently canidateless, and, while I like Edwards, his Iraq War and Patriot Act votes, plus his extremely limited government experience (a single senate term, with no other government experience at all such as mayor or state legislature), have caused me pause in the past.
...I would have willingly donated money I didn't have and time I couldn't spare to support your campaign if you had chosen to run for president. But, I guess it was not to be. The rest of the Democratic field, frankly, is rather unappealing to me for one reason or another. Good luck in fighting the good fight in a Democratic-controlled senate.
These seem quite reasonable. But, of course, anybody can make up BS numbers that seem reasonable-however, my gut was telling me that the close race that was not going to go our way was TN, so I'm actually inclined to believe these. AZ was supposed to be close but eventually go to the Reps, so that's correct as well.
Giving you a 10 or 12 point lead for the Dems. Factor in the traditional +5 the Dems normally get in these generic polls, and it looks like a 53/47 Dem lead nationwide is the best guess here (or maybe 52/46/2, with the 2 being for third party canidates).
This is lower than I would want it to be. If there is ever an election where the +5 Dem rule doesn't apply, it's this one. Maybe the lower group of polls are attempting to factor the +5 in, and the higher ones aren't. Dunno.
It's true. There is a small but significant segment of the population who are racists, but don't want to admit they are racists to pollsters, so they say they are voting for the black guy, but when in the voting booth, they always vote for the white guy. Since Ford is down in the polls to begin with, and adding a minus three to five points for this factor, and I come up with the unfortuante conclusion he will certainly lose.
He will control the balance of the senate. If he caucuses with the Republicans, they most likely keep the senate-he will be the swing vote. The Democratic powers-that-be will have to kiss his ass to keep him in line and wearing a D, and he knows it.
...California would love to nominate "liberal" Republicans, because the state voting populous is very anti-tax, although liberal in almost every other way.
However, the state Republican party is screwed, because they keep nominating retarded wingnuts with no funding and no chance. The Dems try to "help out" during the primaries as well (see Gray Davis and Richard Riordan in 2002, where Davis ran attack ads against Riordan, the moderate, during the primary, making sure wingnut moron Bill Simon won the primary, letting Davis cruise to victory in the general (yet get recalled less than a year later)).
Arnie is exactly what a lot of Californians seem to want. But he would never be able to get nominated in a statewide race in a normal primary. But in the crazy 100-canidate recall election, he was a shoo-in, and as the incumbent, he still is.
It's a motivation issue, a get-your-base's-butt-off-the-couch-and-i
nto-the-voting-booth issue. The Republicans are, typically, better at this than we are, hence the reason they get about 4 or 5 points more than we do, comparing the generic numbers vs. the actual results.
This year is quite different. 26 points is possible if their side is really demoralized and ours is pysched up and the Indies all go our way. Now, I think the religious conservatives will always vote (although the notion of closeted gay Republicans (such as Mark Foley) may temper them down a bit, although not as much as we would hope for). However, fiscal conservatives and "mainstream" Republicans and Libertarian-lite folks may all either be demoralized or even be voting our way this time.
If there really is a 26 point swing, we could win a hundred more seats, a blowout much bigger than 1994 even.
This is still all very best-case-scenerio stuff, very unlikely, but it's fun to speculate.
...this Google bombing seems to be failing, possibly due to it happening too late-not enough time for Google to fully digest the links. I searched for several of the canidates in the list of links, and other than some of the Wikipedia links (which regularly show up highly normally), none of the targeted articles showed up on the first page of any of the searches I tried.
..."miserable" is optional. Just using "failure" gets GWB's bio on the White House site. In fact, it works better, since Carter's White House bio is #2 for "miserable failure" (after GWB's), due to counter-Google bombing by conservatives, but Carter doesn't show up under just plain "failure". (Michael Moore's website shows up halfway down the first page in both searches.)
This is pretty impressive, considering that that is a fairly common noun.