|
United States22883 Posts
On November 10 2008 09:54 shmay wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2008 17:10 Jibba wrote:
Charisma is defined a lot of different ways and none of them help that theory hold any ground. Clinton only had 43%, and won because Perot stole 19% from Bush. You can basically go down the list and see that it's frivolous, and the author is just inaccurately re-interpreting elections to prove his point. Reagan lost the 1976 Primary to Ford and Ford had essentially already lost by pardoning Nixon. Carter just happened to be there.
Kerry might've lost because of it, but Dean lost the nomination by having too much (and he was a pussy.) Charisma is kinda vague, it may be better defined as 'likeable', but the theory largely holds up quite well, as one can usually pick out the more charismatic of the two. I was able to predict Obama over Hillary before seemingly anyone using this theory. And it made the Obama vs McCain election that much more of a joke. I wouldn't say it's flawless, but effective enough to be given a lot of weight when predicting an election. And we all know Dean lost because of "BYAHHH!" Also wanted to post this: An Open Letter to My Friends on the Left
Obama had an infinitely superior campaign organization and strategy. Most people only picked up on Obama because he dominated the caucuses, and that didn't begin because of charisma. We've all seen how much Biden has; it's not a necessary or sufficient condition.
|
hahaha
obama has the coolest secret service code name since kennedy
its 'Renegade'. Michele Obama's is 'Renaissance'
Kennedy's was 'Lancer' or 'Dazzle'
Eisenhower's was 'Scorecard' or 'Providence'
which are all super badass codenames. They sound like some super villain from metal gear solid.
Everyone else's sucks though
George W. Bush - Tumbler or Trailblazer
Bill Clinton - Eagle
Ronald Reagan - Rawhide
which are all pretty lame
also lol
* Todd Palin - Driller[15]
looks like secret service has a sense of humor
|
That article is extremely well written, even if you may not agree with it. I suggest reading this article to every single person on the forum. Thanks for linking to this.
|
|
|
|
|
just a note, thats mildly NSFW
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 11 2008 01:58 fusionsdf wrote:just a note, thats mildly NSFW
Did you get blue or gold?
|
interesting chart i saw in paul krugmans blog that kind of fits into the "center-right" discussion going on here:
Add: BTW savio, RCP is well known to be a conservative website
|
Bush's approval rating is now the lowest of any President in History. In a poll conducted by the national research group, Bush's approval rating was found to be 19% which is 3 points lower than Truman's score of 22%. History has been the judge, Bush is the worst thing thats happen to the United States .
|
On November 11 2008 02:57 aRod wrote:
Bush's approval rating is now the lowest of any President in History. In a poll conducted by the national research group, Bush's approval rating was found to be 19% which is 3 points lower than Truman's score of 22%. History has been the judge, Bush is the worst thing thats happen to the United States .
By that logic, Truman was the second worst. fail
|
i have to say i agree with this article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15462.html
maybe joe biden as a VP pick helped give obama's candidacy credibility, but now that their elected i think he's going to be a pain in the ass. at this point i'd imagine obama would like to lock biden up in a closet somewhere and leave him there for the next 8 years.
hmm after reading the article i'm a bit optimistic, hopefully biden will keep his mouth shut and stick to working the senate
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 11 2008 02:57 aRod wrote:
Bush's approval rating is now the lowest of any President in History. In a poll conducted by the national research group, Bush's approval rating was found to be 19% which is 3 points lower than Truman's score of 22%. History has been the judge, Bush is the worst thing thats happen to the United States .
The average person is a shitty historian.
|
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
|
United States22883 Posts
I don't understand this at all. His appeal in foreign policy is that he had moved away from the neo-realism of the Clintons, not to mention she was an extremely important part of Congress if he wanted to push through health care legislation. I'm really quite shocked he didn't pull Richardson.
|
I think it will still be Obama's overarching views and policies that will guide foreign policy, and hes used to dissenting views.
In other words, since Obama is the architect, having richardson or clinton wont really change foreign policy on a macro level. So the value of the appointment is that its high profile, hes managed to get someone the media tends to view as too good for the job, and he looks like a uniter.
It just gets his presidency off to a good start
|
On November 10 2008 14:13 fusionsdf wrote:
hahaha
obama has the coolest secret service code name since kennedy
its 'Renegade'. Michele Obama's is 'Renaissance'
Kennedy's was 'Lancer' or 'Dazzle'
Eisenhower's was 'Scorecard' or 'Providence'
which are all super badass codenames. They sound like some super villain from metal gear solid.
Everyone else's sucks though
George W. Bush - Tumbler or Trailblazer
Bill Clinton - Eagle
Ronald Reagan - Rawhide
which are all pretty lame
also lol
* Todd Palin - Driller[15]
looks like secret service has a sense of humor
Those aren't their real codenames-_-just what they tell us so we'll go "LOL"
|
United States22883 Posts
Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t certain she would accept the Secretary of State post even if Barack Obama offers it to her, several people close to the former first lady say.
Press reports that portray Clinton as willing to accept the job – once the Obama transition team vets Bill Clinton’s philanthropic and business ventures – are inaccurate, one Clinton insider told Politico.
“A lot of the speculation and reporting is out ahead of the facts here,” said the person, who requested anonymity. “She is still weighing this, independent of President Clinton's work.”
Clinton, the person said, remains deeply “torn” between the possibility of serving in Obama’s cabinet and remaining in the Senate to “help pass health care and work on a broad range of domestic issues.”
That comment jibes with what others close to Clinton have been saying since the Secretary of State chatter began last week: that Clinton is conflicted and the deal far from done, despite screaming headlines in outlets including the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper claiming the offer was made and accepted.
|
If I may say. I think that democrats did something good in letting Liebermann keep his chairmanship. That is the first sign that they may try to govern from the center rather than the far left.
I am not saying Liebermann is a moderate overall, he is actually quite liberal, but on foreign policy (which is what his chairmanship covers), he could be said to be moderate to slightly right.
Anyway, good job dems. And that is coming from ME! 
|
Dont take any offense Savio
But the dems are just more used to governing for the whole than the reps
|
also this is an old topic, but is anyone else creeped out by how this election is mirroring west wing lol?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/hvp.png)
