patrick.net

Pat, just throwing this out there (re hate), but for what its worth, had McCain stayed the McCain of the early 2000's time frame, I could have seen myself voting for him. If Romney had not done a 180 from the guy he campaigned as in MA, again, could have seen myself voting for him. I find him likable actually (I can relate to his 'impersonality').

The base sucked both of those candidates so far to the right that they lost all credibility. Had Romney been able to get the Republican nomination without deviating from his MA positions, we'd be talking about how bad Obama is going to get creamed instead of how close it its going to be.

I like McCain, especially his attempt at campaign finance reform.

And I agree -- Mitt would have more credibility if he'd admit his own health care plan in MA is pretty much like Obamacare.

CaptainShuddup says

He post charts and politcofact references.

So try to prove them wrong.

CaptainShuddup says

What's the matter we aren't allowed opinions and arts and craft?

Opinions are great. The problem is that they are not very useful when not supported by facts or reasoning, and they get really tedious when repeated over and over without trying to understand the other side or even explain your own side well.

gbenson says

The base sucked both of those candidates so far to the right that they lost all credibility.

There is a lot to that statement. I'll admit that I too thought Mccain had some promise. I still think he is a fairly well-balanced, intelligent politician. But his choices- in particular his choice of VP- made me lose trust.

But getting back to this notion of "the base". I know these people. I have an experience most in this country don't: I grew up in the rural South and now live in a major Metro in the SF Bay. I've gone from a super conservative to a super liberal area. Thus I've had some observations that come from real personal experience.

Basically, where I grew up has been the same forever. Many families had lived there for well over 100 years with some dating back to the revolution. Most families stayed even within the same region. People there do not like change because things have stayed the same forever and they aren't about to entertain the idea of changing anything either. The last time I visited I was amazed. It looked the same as it did when I was in high school almost 20 years ago. The houses, yards, and everything looked as though it were in some sort of capsule. The same families lived in the same houses. In some ways I admire this. While many people seek out meaning by traveling the world and looking for home, many back where I'm from are home and never left it. But at the same time this is the only world they know. Despite the news and internet, this doesn't make up for lack of having real world experience dealing with issues and people from totally different backgrounds. To me this is probably why those who make up a lot of the base- of which many are in rural areas- lean the way they do politically. The idea of being conservative- ie- where nothing changes- is appealing because where they live is for all practical purposes also conservative- ie... nothing ever changes.

After having lived in a major SF metro for 12-13 years Ive seen a totally different way of living. People in major metros are transient. They move every few years by either renting or buying house after house. They like the latest gadgets and toys. They buy new cars more often. They are around people of many different backgrounds and jump from job to job to job. Its totally the opposite of where I grew up. Whereas the typical person back home might have worked for the same company for 20-30 years, most in the Bay Area are at the same job for maybe 2-3 years. Everything happens at warp-speed. There is competition for everything: competition for waiting in long lines at the grocery stores, getting tickets for concerts, driving to work on crowded freeways and of course- as related to this site- competition to buy houses and pay more for it especially if it means perfect schools. So for people like these change is what they know and change is what happens in their world.

So its these two totally different environments that in my opinion creates what seems to be an increasingly wide delta between conservatives and liberals. I'm not saying this because I am in fact a liberal and freely admit my own bias, but I think Democrats are in a better long-term position in this respect. Like I said- where I grew up hasn't changed hardly at all. For Republican politicians it means having to please this group of voters who refuse any change while those Republicans who aren't in the base move on. So in the end Republicans are going to need to evaluate exactly how important their base is and whether at some point they can decouple themselves from it. If so, then the differences between the two parties will become less outwardly apparent and that in the end would be better for people in general because when we have less differences between similarities we can focus on issues with greater effectiveness and understanding.

Capt. If the intent was to show what Patrick was talking about, the Obama hate was much stronger with Republican respondents latching on to words like Failure or Incompetent. If your intent was to somehow compare one candidate against the other, then you should reconsider.

You can't compare the two diagrams since the basis was not the same. For example 'President' consumed 27% of the responses that would have gone elsewhere for Obama had that not been a choice. The bubble chart also indicates that Romney is more Honest than he is Rich? (He's a politician, even you must admit that one doesn't pass the sniff test.) Besides, sum up Romney's Liar, Dishonest, Distrust, Crook, Phoney, and they are considerably higher than his honest rating, its the same thing split up over multiple terms. Obama's are the same way, so there aren't many valid conclusions you could draw.

Most here are missing the point I was trying to make. Forget which side you "root" for and put aside for just a moment -- if possible -- the fact that this storm was a terrible disaster.

Christie wants to be president. He made the calculated decision that either he wasn't ready or that he wouldn't beat Obama. He also looked at the doofus Romney and saw him as a likely loser. So, wisely, he turned down Mitt's VP offer. (That's not public info, yet.)

All of a sudden Mitt is looking like he has a chance, a good chance. Now 2016 is looking like it may have to be 2024!

But then Sandy comes to the "rescue". Now I know most people would say that I am being cynical and that Obama and Christie are just doing their jobs. How dare I inject political motivations into something where people have died.

And that is what makes this so perfect for both Christie and Obama. It is the right thing for them to work together and to praise each others leadership. The fact that it will help Obama win next week and free up the Republican ticket in 2016 is, I guess, the mysterious ways of God.

I thought God sent the hurricane because there were gays in New England...

You know, a fat president would represent the American people better than a thin one.

You know, a fat president would represent the American people better than a thin one.

Combine Christie's obesity with Bush's ignorance and you have the perfect president in terms of representing the common American.

rooemoore says

Combine Christie's obesity with Bush's ignorance and you have the perfect president in terms of representing the common American.

their experience as governor far outweighs Obama's 2 years as senator...
and the last 4 years as president will go down no better than Jimmy Carter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB4b11_LREA

thomaswong.1986 says

rooemoore says

Combine Christie's obesity with Bush's ignorance and you have the perfect president in terms of representing the common American.

their experience as governor far outweighs Obama's 2 years as senator...

and the last 4 years as president will go down no better than Jimmy Carter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB4b11_LREA

So you think GW was a good president, huh. I wonder why he wasn't invited to the Republican National Convention?

rooemoore says

o you think GW was a good president, huh. I wonder why he wasn't invited to the Republican National Convention?

better than Obama... yes.. much better!

thomaswong.1986 says

rooemoore says

o you think GW was a good president, huh. I wonder why he wasn't invited to the Republican National Convention?

better than Obama... yes.. much better!

Better than Clinton?

rooemoore says

Better than Clinton?

Clinton was lucky, he was able to surf the wave from the 80s Reagan/Bush economic revolution, no foreign treats, saw the tech boom on a vast scale, see his policies were curbed and work with GOP Congress, and his ability to market himself ... "taking the country into the 21st century (which doesnt work well today).

Clinton was lucky... but he doesnt apply today, and frankly was more concerned with his legacy... Bush didnt care about legacy... do whats necessary for the nation !

So yes, Better than Clinton and certainly Gore....

and i didnt even mention Monica!

Obama better win. I've made my third donation.

I'm not pro-Obama. I'm anti-Chickenhawk. (Mitt)

thomaswong.1986 says

So yes, Better than Clinton and certainly Gore...

Gore was never a president and yet GW was better president than Gore.

tool

rooemoore says

So yes, Better than Clinton and certainly Gore...

Gore was never a president and yet GW was better president than Gore.

tool

had Gore been president ... yes i would throw in Gore and Lurch ( Kerry ) as well.

Clinton and Gore were arrogant pricks.