PDA

View Full Version : Rank the opposing party's candidates


clemensol
12-30-2007, 07:46 PM
I think this could be interesting...

If you tend to side with one party try to rank the other party's presidential candidates...

Make rankings based on how much you like the candidate and their message. No other motives such as electability, or other benefits for your party.

My rankings:

1. Paul: I agree with a lot of what he has to say. His crazy views on a few issues would probably prevent me from supporting over the worst democrats such as Clinton, but he's easily the least terrifying option from the Republicans.
2. McCain: I probably respect McCain more then any other candidate from either party. Plus, he seems the least conservative of any major candidate.
3. Huckabee: I hate his socially conservative views and I completely disagree with the notion that he's genuine. However, he seems pretty moderate on foreign policy and the economy.
4. Thompson: Disagree with everything he has to say, but he doesn't seem to be radical on any of his stances.
5. Romney: Complete phony, hate everything about his message. Only saving grace his that I don't know if he really believes the far right message he preaches.
6. 9u11ani: 9/11

SBK
12-30-2007, 11:08 PM
Why, they'd all destroy the country--we can all agree on that right?

sportsman1
12-30-2007, 11:43 PM
1.Edwards: I dont agree with anything he says, but He seems to be the most moderate. Nice to look at.
2.Gravel: Guy is atleast good for a laugh
3.Obama: Is fairly well spoken but scares me about as much as Hillary when it comes to policy (defense and foreign affairs)
4.Clinton: Good god what is there to say? Have mercy.
5.Richardson: He scares me more than Hillary. Anyone whos been to New Mexico knows the liberal policies he has made out there. Guy seems like even more of a socialist than the other Dems.

Saggysack
12-31-2007, 12:54 AM
1.Edwards: I dont agree with anything he says, but He seems to be the most moderate. Nice to look at.
2.Gravel: Guy is atleast good for a laugh
3.Obama: Is fairly well spoken but scares me about as much as Hillary when it comes to policy (defense and foreign affairs)
4.Clinton: Good god what is there to say? Have mercy.
5.Richardson: He scares me more than Hillary. Anyone whos been to New Mexico knows the liberal policies he has made out there. Guy seems like even more of a socialist than the other Dems.

Old enough to vote yet?

SoCalBronco
12-31-2007, 02:28 AM
(I don't like ranking them, I'll just give my thoughts about the opposition)

Clinton- Has several strong assets. She's very bright, very politically shrewd and not unlike her husband, a policy wonk. The likeability deal is and will continue to be a problem, just appears naturally stiff....really needs to ditch that semi-maniacal laugh that occasionally rears its head in the debates, not good for PR purposes. Experience in the Senate is an asset as the skill of legislative deal making is something that will be at the fulcrum of whether she would have a successful domestic policy (certainly has not honed this skill as much as LBJ did, nor did she rise to that level of Senate leadership, but we'll see). Terribly high negatives, could be a drag on Democrats on the lower end of ballot everywhere. Something that people just don't trust about her, its a powerful reality, reflected in negatives over time. Placed in a difficult position of having to appear (far) more hawkish on the surface than she really is due to the female/liberal stereotype, a difficult road to manage for her in that respect, knows significant portion of the electorate would be automatically suspect of her just for those two reasons on defense/security issues, but can't alienate the center-left group too much. Not as polished as one would think in terms of avoiding verbal missteps....re: NY Gov. immigration plans/ Statement that America could not afford all the programs she had in mind (an especially useful statement to use as a weapon given the burgeoning deficit problems).

Obama- Natural charisma his best asset, albeit it does not always show in debates. Does a good job attracting true blue liberals, rather than the DLC/Blue Dog types. Rather shallow knowledge on a number of key topics and it shows from time to time.

Edwards- Gives off an arrogant, snobbish, trial lawyer vibe (hey I'm a lawyer too and this guy still turns me off). Best asset is organization in early states, particularly Iowa. At absolute worst, he has to finish 2nd there. Has tried hard to capture the populist/progressive wing mantle, by incessantly pushing poverty/health care themes but it has not gained traction, his efforts have largely failed. Not impressed with political skill.

Richardson- Comes across well on TV, very knowledgable and caring. Rather surprised at his lack of traction. Certainly very experienced in domestic and foreign affairs. Security issues at labs during his tenure as S of E could become a political football, excellent scare tactic material if he is a VP candidate.

Biden- Like Clinton, terribly bright and experienced. Very good foreign policy credentials. Surprised at his lack of traction, as well. He does come across as fairly arrogant at times, however. He has mastered the art of being angry about something in a way that turns people on rather than scares them.