convincible.org

I had a discussion with a friend the other day and realized it might be worth a couple words here.
Obviously, the Democrats and Republicans do have some consistent differences of policy and opinion. And for many, those differences may be critical and might prevent them from considering any candidates from the other party.
But for me, at this stage of the game, I’m looking at the individuals. That is why my posts will contain comments on both party’s candidates. I can pick which party to vote for later, right now I want to work on getting the best candidate from each party to the “finals”, the actual presidential election. Some might argue against that, saying they’d rather have the opposing party select a “sure to lose” candidate… but that’s another discussion. My fear is that neither party will put forward a good candidate!

For California, we have up till January 22, 2008 to register to vote in the primary. My understanding is that independents (”decline-to-state” voters) can vote in the Democratic primary. On the other hand, you have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican primary. So this means, you have up until January 22 to pick which primary you want to vote in!

At this point, it’s not clear to me which primary to vote in. It might depend on how settled the parties are on their candidates. But at the moment it seems to be entirely up in the air! Also, if one felt certain that in the Presidential election one of the parties will win the actual electoral votes from California regardless, one might want to vote in that primary just to have some kind of say in the election! Say you think that California will absolutely vote Democrat in the Presidential election. That might suggest some Republicans might choose to register as Democrats to help select the Democrat they prefer in the primary election! Now, does that make any sense?
Carl

I watched the Republican debate in South Carolina tonight on Fox News. (I should watch more Fox news for balance but it took me a long time to even find it on the TV!)
It WAS very interesting to see the “conservative” candidates debate in front of a Southern audience. There was a much different bend to it than there was in the NH debate.

Fred Thompson: still the best, most reasonable constitutional type candidate.
McCain: Honorable straight up guy. Not a great or charismatic speaker. His support if the war is a bit too adamant for me.
Giuliani: A great speaker, logical, clear, with good direction. But I distrust his moral background. Gaining on McCain for me.
Huckabee: Better than Romney.
Romney: Still a bit slippery for me.
Ron Paul: Somewhere in there he sights a good philosophy. But Paul doesn’t pull it off. And this latest newsletter news does seem like a real problem or at least mistake in his past.

The question is.. how do I compare these to the Democrats now?

Carl

Now… doesn’t that somehow seem in line with my previous post? Kerry always had that elitist feel to me…
Carl

Watched the Newshour tonight.

Amy Walter, editor-in-chief of the National Journal’s political daily The Hotline had this to say about the results from New Hampshire:

The real story, though, I think is — the divide here is on the socioeconomic issues between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And, quite frankly, even though John Edwards running as a populist, he was never really part of the debate for many of these voters, who really thought, if you made less than $50,000, you supported Hillary Clinton.

If you did not have a college degree, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you thought the economy was worsening, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you thought things were going well, you had a postgraduate degree, you were making more than $100,000 a year, you voted for Barack Obama.

And it really almost went exactly down the line as that.

Here’s the full text.

Wow, this really surprises me. I would have thought maybe the reverse! Any explanations out there?

Carl

Convincible has recieved a message from a reader on the debates. We think it’s a fun one!
Mr. Wood writes:

After briefly pondering this topic, I’m inspired to create a new word: “pithable”

Definitions:

A pithable argument (as opposed to a “pithy” argument) is one which has the potential of becoming substantial or weighty by the addition of a small, but cogent insight.

“The candidate’s proposal was pithable, if economic insights were added.”

A pithable argument is also one which can be demolished by stabbing it’s core. As in pithing a laboratory frog.

“The candidate’s proposal was pithable, because it neglected the fact that the earth is round.”

But most importantly, it sounds like “pitiful” with a mouth full of popcorn, and sentences where it is interchanged are also meaningful!