View Full Version : On to New Hampshire
The last pre-Iowa New Hampshire polls came in today, from Zogby:
Democrats
Clinton - 32%
Obama - 26%
Edwards - 20%
Richardson - 7%
Kucinich - 3%
Biden - 2%
Dodd - 1%
Undecided - 8%
The shake out here could be pretty impressive. You would think Clinton's number would fall, but I think she'll hold at about 32%, because whatever she was going to lose, she's likely to draw from Biden and Dodd dropping out, and Richardson's awful Iowa showing.
So I would guess she holds pretty steady. Obama should bounce a bit from Iowa by picking up some undecideds. People usually saw Iowa is good for 10%, so I'll say he ends up at around 35%.
Edwards is the wild card. If people think he's viable from his Iowa showing, he could bounce a little. If not, his support could deteriorate rapidly. We should know where he stands by tomorrow
My prediction - Obama 35%, Clinton 32%, Edwards 20%, Richardson 5%, Kucinich 1%, Undecided 7%.
Republicans
McCain - 34%
Romney - 30%
Huckabee - 10%
Giuliani - 9%
Paul - 7%
Thompson - 2%
Hunter - 1%
Undecided - 6%
I think McCain will probably widen his lead a little bit as a result of Iowa as people jump off the Romney bandwagon. Huckabee should get a small bounce out of Iowa, but not a huge one because he's very different from the way New Hampshire usually likes their candidates. Giuliani probably takes a little bit of a hit because of lack of buzz, and the renewed McCain viability. Paul should hold steady or actually jump a tiny bit off a strong Iowa showing. Thompson and Hunter are non-factors.
My prediction - McCain 36%, Romney 27%, Huckabee 15%, Paul 9%, Giuliani 5%, Thompson 3%, Undecided 5%
Those numbers would create an interesting media backlash about the fact that FOX will allow Giuliani in their debate, but not Paul.
Snoogans
01-04-2008, 07:09 PM
sometimes I wish I was able to vote in primaries.
scottinnj
01-04-2008, 07:20 PM
Dems:
Obama 35%
Clinton 33%
Edwards 25%
Others 7%
Reps:
McCain
Huckabee
Thompson
Guiliani
I have no idea the percentages, there are too many in the race. I also predict Guiliani will start floating rumors he is quitting the race in order to get a promise of VP by another candidate for his endorsement when he does quit iin Michigan.
scottinnj
01-04-2008, 07:36 PM
She's getting booed on day one of New Hampshire (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/hillary_booed_at_nh_democratic.html)
ack ack ack ack ackack ackack ack ack ackackackackackack!
donnie_darko
01-04-2008, 07:48 PM
i don't think its safe to count out edwards quite yet....he has the "i'm not hillary or obama" thing going for him.
i don't think its safe to count out edwards quite yet....he has the "i'm not hillary or obama" thing going for him.
Edwards needs Hillary to be finished after New Hampshire to stay viable, which means he would have to finish a strong second.
Edwards is touting himself and Obama as the 'change candidates' and Edwards' message suggests it, but the reality suggests that most of the support he stands to draw is from the Democratic infrastructure (unions, laborers, trial lawyers, party regulars, etc.). Obama's probably got a pretty good stranglehold on the 'change' voter, so it's somewhat of a problem for Edwards.
Iowa aside, if the the status quo of the race holds up, Hillary stands to draw most of the infrastructure while Obama's appeals more to the rank and file and new voters.
So his best bet of staying in the race is the complete collapse of Hillary and absorbing a good portion of her support in collaboration with his current support.
An Obama/Edwards race would be interesting. Edwards is pretty tenacious when he attacks opponents, and could do some serious damage to Obama on being too nice, too inexperienced, and too willing to compromise (an attack he's already started), but in the end, he would be behind significantly in money and organization, so it'd be difficult for him to win under any circumstances.
Not to mention the whole issue that Edwards has opted for federal funding in the general election which would probably put him at a monetary disadvantage against the Republicans as well. It's an honorable thing to do, but it's a strategic disadvantage.
The only scenario I can see where he comes out ahead if all three stay in after New Hampshire is if Obama and Hillary absolutely nuke each other into the ground with attacks and Edwards is the last guy standing by default. But Obama's strategy suggests he won't be drawn into that.
I guess it's possible the head muckity-mucks in the Democratic state parties and some of these Democratic think tanks could get scared of be ousted from power by an Obama run and completely slander the guy into the ground to try and kill his run. It's happened to candidates who run contradictory to the party's power structure before, but even if that meant Edwards came out ahead, it'd weaken the Democrats significantly for the general election to have that kind of viciousness emerge, especially with the race component involved (and if they started slandering Obama, race would be a major factor, which would make the Democratic infrastructure look like enormous assholes).
The Hillary machine holds it together in the first post-Iowa polls.
Zogby (Suffolk WHDH, another poll that came in, in parenthesis)
Clinton 32% (36%)
Obama 28% (29%)
Edwards 20% (13%)
Richardson 7% (4%)
McCain 32% (26%)
Romney 30% (30%)
Huckabee 12% (11%)
Giuliani 9% (11%)
Paul 7% (8%)
Thompson 1% (2%)
That's pretty good new for Hillary, as it suggests her lead has held in both polls. She still has to treat it as a dead heat with Obama, especially since turnout is unpredictable, but she's got a legitimate chance to hold on.
Edwards better hope the Zogby number is right and not the WHDH one. If Zogby's right, he's within striking distance and could work his way into 2nd. If the other is, then he's done.
McCain and Romney are actually split in the two polls, but both are very close. That's good news for Romney. People thought McCain would run away with it, but the fact that Romney's kept it so close is a good sign for him. Giuliani is within striking distance of Huckabee. If he beats him to finish third, it's a great showing for Giuliani and a very tough showing for Huckabee. Conversly, though, Paul is within striking distance of Giuliani. If Paul beat him again and Giuliani finishes 5th, he's in real trouble.
Good news for Hillary and Romney...Obama and McCain have to be a bit taken a back by it. I think people (and I'll admit to being one of them) got so caught up in the Obama win that they thought the wave would trump everything, but Hillary's got an enormous machine in place. She'll be tough to beat. Same goes with Romney.
Most of that Zogby poll was pre-Iowa.
Snoogans
01-05-2008, 07:08 AM
im voting for Ross Perot. Then im gonna throw eggs at his house when he doesnt give me candy on halloween cause he said my costume sucks
Dude!
01-05-2008, 07:09 AM
iowa was edwards strongest state in the entire country
if he couldnt win there he cant win anywhere
he is toast
Most of that Zogby poll was pre-Iowa.
True, but the Suffolk NH poll I put next to it was conducted yesterday, I believe.
So the combination of the two suggests she still has a lead.
Now, the argument can be made that it takes a couple days for the reality of Iowa to be reflected in the electorate, but either way, she's probably slightly ahead at the moment.
True, but the Suffolk NH poll I put next to it was conducted yesterday, I believe.
So the combination of the two suggests she still has a lead.
Now, the argument can be made that it takes a couple days for the reality of Iowa to be reflected in the electorate, but either way, she's probably slightly ahead at the moment.
Well, now it's a little more interesting. Rasmussen has the following poll:
Obama - 37%
Clinton - 27%
Edwards - 19%
Well, now it's a little more interesting. Rasmussen has the following poll:
Obama - 37%
Clinton - 27%
Edwards - 19%
Right now New Hampshire has to be totally interesting. If Clinton is that far behind...expect to hear stories from "political insiders" about the following tactics:
Robocalls
Push Polling
Flyers on cars
New 527s
It could get ugly quite quickly.
Rasmussen has the Republicans:
McCain - 31
Romney - 26
Paul - 14
Huckabee - 11
Giuliani - 8
I really think the republicans could be way more interesting than the democrats from a competitive standpoint.
scottinnj
01-05-2008, 11:29 AM
The Ron Paul factor for us is disturbing to me. He's pulling too many votes away from McCain. "Maverick" republicans like myself who a bucking the establishment leadership are going to McCain, and Paul. It's just that the media has done a poor job outlining Paul's stand on the issues, and where his money is really coming from.
Message to all republicans on this board: Paul is at best pie in the sky hopes for us. Even if he continues to receive the support he is getting, he is in no way going to get the nomination.
You want more of the same? Keep supporting him, while the base of the party hands the mantle from Bush to Romney or Huckabee based on the fact they all read the KJV Bible.
If that happens, not only will we lose presidency, the American people will be so horrified at us for nominating another Bible Thumper we will be decimated in the congress and the senate.
I'm not knocking religion. I AM AN EVANGELICAL TOO. But this country is run by the Constitution, not the Gospel of John.
scottinnj
01-05-2008, 11:31 AM
Right now New Hampshire has to be totally interesting. If Clinton is that far behind...expect to hear stories from "political insiders" about the following tactics:
Robocalls
Push Polling
Flyers on cars
New 527s
It could get ugly quite quickly.
When I first read that I thought you typed "flying cars" HAHA I'm stupid!
When I first read that I thought you typed "flying cars" HAHA I'm stupid!
I'll tell you this: Anyone one of these candidates produces a flying car, even bat shit crazy Giuliani, Hunter, or Kucinich, and I'm voting for them.
scottinnj
01-05-2008, 11:39 AM
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/01/Carscoop_Batman_5.jpg
I hope it runs on hydrogen.
The American Research Group put out their latest poll in New Hampshire (conducted 1/4- 1/5):
Democrats:
Obama - 38
Clinton -26
Edwards - 20
Republicans
McCain - 39
Romney - 25
Huckabee - 14
Link to polling data here. (http://americanresearchgroup.com/)
This is the second post-Iowa poll that has Obama pulling away from Clinton on the Democratic side...with McCain firmly in control of the Republican vote.
scottinnj
01-05-2008, 01:43 PM
Here is a link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html) for some overall looks at the different polls for the Dems in New Hampshire.
I hope the Obama camp is working hard as if the Zogby poll is the right one.
If they have a 10 point spread, work like they are behind 7 points.
MHasegawa
01-05-2008, 02:17 PM
im voting for Ross Perot. Then im gonna throw eggs at his house when he doesnt give me candy on halloween cause he said my costume sucks
Say NAFTA's bad, you get a piece of candy!
Grendel_Kahn
01-05-2008, 02:22 PM
I've said more than once that while I was pulling for Ron Paul I knew he has no shot. I just wanted more open honest debate. And that is what he's done.
Grendel_Kahn
01-05-2008, 02:22 PM
also.....there is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too much Jesus in these here elections.
Here's a collection of all the polls
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/01-06%20NH%20summary%28400%29.png
Here's a collection of all the polls
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/01-06%20NH%20summary%28400%29.png
Only one poll has Hillary up. Two (Rasmussen and ARG) have her getting killed but those two are notoriously spotty in terms of accuracy. If Rasmussen and ARG are right, though, it's even scarier for Clinton because Edwards is within striking distance in that poll.
It's probably safe to say Obama has a small lead with the possibility of stretching it into a significant lead if he gets a record turnout.
If Hillary loses New Hampshire, she has to make a stand in Nevada, because she won't win South Carolina.
I think she's got a good shot in Nevada...it's very establishment oriented in terms of the Democratic party, and very much wrapped up in the different unions, which helps her. If she wins there, she's still in it on Super Tuesday. But if she gets swept out of New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, it's all Obama.
Edwards' only shot is to finish second in New Hampshire, get a lot of endorsements in Nevada that carry him to an upset there, and then hope Hillary drops out, which would give him a boost in terms of money that would allow him to compete on Super Tuesday.
One interesting thing about Rasmussen, is that they do a daily four-day national tracking poll.
Right now, they've got two days that are pre-Iowa, and two post-Iowa days.
The results were:
Clinton - 36
Obama -25
Edwards - 23
Richardson - 2
Obviously, Clinton's national numbers will dip a little bit over the next two days of that poll, and Obama's should boost as a result of Iowa. I find the Edwards number very interesting. If he's really polling 23% nationally, it's quite impressive. If he gets a bounce out of Iowa as well, he could be more of a force in a national campaign than I thought.
I'm very interested to see how he does in New Hampshire this week, but more importantly, in Nevada. Nevada should be more of an indicator of how these candidates will do on Super Tuesday.
NewYorkDragons80
01-06-2008, 01:28 PM
The Ron Paul factor for us is disturbing to me. He's pulling too many votes away from McCain. "Maverick" republicans like myself who a bucking the establishment leadership are going to McCain, and Paul. It's just that the media has done a poor job outlining Paul's stand on the issues, and where his money is really coming from.
Nah. Ron Paul isn't nearly as strong as he says he is. Remember when he told us Zogby was missing his voters because they only have cell phones? Then it turned out Zogby was just about dead on in Iowa predictions. He won't get enough of the independent vote to hurt McCain. The only thing that'll hurt McCain in NH is if independents go for Romney, which I can guarantee they won't. I think McCain will exceed expectations in NH.
Nah. Ron Paul isn't nearly as strong as he says he is. Remember when he told us Zogby was missing his voters because they only have cell phones? Then it turned out Zogby was just about dead on in Iowa predictions. He won't get enough of the independent vote to hurt McCain. The only thing that'll hurt McCain in NH is if independents go for Romney, which I can guarantee they won't. I think McCain will exceed expectations in NH.
The thing that'll hurt McCain is independents going for Obama.
That's why there's such a discrepency in the polls on both sides, because no one can predict if independents will turn out to put Obama over for the Democrats, or McCain over for the Republicans.
If Obama draws heavily from that pool, Romney could squeeze one out. Conversely, if they decide to line up for McCain, Hillary could inch her way to victory, and Edwards could finish a strong third as opposed to a distant third.
George Stephanopolous had an interesting point last night about the debates. He said that Obama's best friend last night was not Edwards but McCain. Because McCain spent so much time on the hard core Republican issues it could turn off independents who would go to Obama.
It's starting to get ugly in New Hampshire:
Clinton campaign mailer about Obama's abortion record:
The mailer says that seven times during his time in the Illinois state Senate, Obama declined to take a position on abortion bills, while Clinton has been a defender of abortion rights.
During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents.
Source here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080105/clinton-obama-abortion/)
Second source here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7203293,00.html)
Abortion? Seriously? Hillary, I expected better from you.
It's starting to get ugly in New Hampshire:
Clinton campaign mailer about Obama's abortion record:
Source here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080105/clinton-obama-abortion/)
Second source here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7203293,00.html)
Abortion? Seriously? Hillary, I expected better from you.
She's got to grasp for something, I guess.
Her biggest problem is her campaign team. These guys like Terry McAulife are so out of touch with what people like in their candidates that they think shit like that still works.
It's starting to get ugly in New Hampshire:
Clinton campaign mailer about Obama's abortion record:
Source here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080105/clinton-obama-abortion/)
Second source here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7203293,00.html)
Abortion? Seriously? Hillary, I expected better from you.
Really? Because that's EXACTLY what I expected. When you push the Clintons in the corner they'll get dirty, Bush-level dirty.
Really? Because that's EXACTLY what I expected. When you push the Clintons in the corner they'll get dirty, Bush-level dirty.
H-Box...let me clarify. I expected Clinton's team to do this type of stuff, infact I predicted it earlier in this thread.
I just expected it would be dirtier, sharper and done in a method that was much better orchestrated. As KC said, this is from the 1992 playbook, but unfortunately for her it's 2008.
I call lame-o.
Recyclerz
01-06-2008, 03:34 PM
Really? Because that's EXACTLY what I expected. When you push the Clintons in the corner they'll get dirty, Bush-level dirty.
You mean she'll pay somebody to make anonymous calls to the voters in South Carolina dropping the bombshell that Obama has TWO black children? :wink:
Try as one might, it is tough to get Bush-level dirty. But I agree the Clintons and their apparatchiks are no angels.
You mean she'll pay somebody to make anonymous calls to the voters in South Carolina dropping the bombshell that Obama has TWO black children? :wink:
Try as one might, it is tough to get Bush-level dirty. But I agree the Clintons and their apparatchiks are no angels.
She already paid someone to suggest he dealt drugs!
Recyclerz
01-06-2008, 03:45 PM
She already paid someone to suggest he dealt drugs!
It don't make you a bad person. *
The part of this that I find the most amusing is that Obama is using the same exact memes to brand himself - "Change" and "Hope" - that Team Clinton used in '92 to unseat a very experienced, "ready to be President on Day One" incumbent. Now Hilary and her Significant Other are forced into arguing that "Hope and Change don't mean shit." I think that qualifies as irony.
* the dealing part, that is. Slander does make you a bad person.
scottinnj
01-06-2008, 05:03 PM
Really? Because that's EXACTLY what I expected. When you push the Clintons in the corner they'll get dirty, Bush-level dirty.
Where do you think Bush learned dirty politics from? The Clintons were masters of dirty politics, FBI files, etc.
scottinnj
01-06-2008, 05:07 PM
I call lame-o.
So do I. You can't beat the optimist by throwing mud. There is a difference of bringing up differences in policy and trying to dig up skeletons.
I want to know who has been saying Hillary is accusing Obama of drug dealing though? One of her staffers was floating the idea, but she shit-canned him right quick
Where do you think Bush learned dirty politics from? The Clintons were masters of dirty politics, FBI files, etc.
Dirty politicking has been around forever...but the modern godfather of it all was Lee Atwater. I won't exclude the Clintons from the conversation, but Atwater was the grandaddy of them all.
So do I. You can't beat the optimist by throwing mud. There is a difference of bringing up differences in policy and trying to dig up skeletons.
I want to know who has been saying Hillary is accusing Obama of drug dealing though? One of her staffers was floating the idea, but she shit-canned him right quick
He brought it up once. That's all you need.
Hahahahaha...they're doing the stupid Frank Luntz focus-group after the unsanctioned Fox Republican debate tonight, and there's a stream of people in the background marching by the window of the place with Ron Paul signs.
Fox specifically banned Ron Paul from the debate.
Hahahahaha...they're doing the stupid Frank Luntz focus-group after the unsanctioned Fox Republican debate tonight, and there's a stream of people in the background marching by the window of the place with Ron Paul signs.
Fox specifically banned Ron Paul from the debate.
Apparently, Paul ended up buying an hour on local TV in New Hampshire and holding a town hall meeting in response to being cut out of the FOX debate.
I have to say...nothing would please me more than Paul beating Giuliani in New Hampshire. FOX has done everything they can do to prop up Giuliani's candidacy...for Ron Paul to place ahead of him in both Iowa and New Hampshire would be very fitting.
thejives
01-06-2008, 06:27 PM
Apparently, Paul ended up buying an hour on local TV in New Hampshire and holding a town hall meeting in response to being cut out of the FOX debate.
I have to say...nothing would please me more than Paul beating Giuliani in New Hampshire. FOX has done everything they can do to prop up Giuliani's candidacy...for Ron Paul to place ahead of him in both Iowa and New Hampshire would be very fitting.
That's hilarious! I used to love sign wars when I was a campaigner in NH. I got a bradley sign within 5 feet of gore in 2000. What a rush. (and speaking of bradley, he endorsed Obama.)
I'm heartened by what I'm reading of these polls. And I'm really pulling for Obama here, but NH is stark raving mad. Anything can happen.
Well, Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris...John McCain has Wilford F'n Brimley
Dennis Kucinich just showed up on FOX News with his secret weapon:
http://www.electronicbookshere.com/Viggo_Mortensen/Viggo_1.jpg
thejives
01-06-2008, 06:50 PM
Well, Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris...John McCain has Wilford F'n Brimley
Dennis Kucinich just showed up on FOX News with his secret weapon:
http://www.electronicbookshere.com/Viggo_Mortensen/Viggo_1.jpg
As long as he comes as his Aragorn and not his character from The Perfect Murder.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AIsJKRajvKw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AIsJKRajvKw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Chris from TX
01-06-2008, 10:42 PM
The mailer says that seven times during his time in the Illinois state Senate, Obama declined to take a position on abortion bills, while Clinton has been a defender of abortion rights.
During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents..
What the hell is that?? That means they didn't finish the abortion.
What the hell is that?? That means they didn't finish the abortion.
No, that's just a REALLY sloppy birth.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AIsJKRajvKw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AIsJKRajvKw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Boy, if somebody in this race really wanted to set things off, they would challenge Hillary's talking point of "35 years experience of making change"...it's waiting to be tested.
Ritalin
01-07-2008, 04:45 AM
Where do you think Bush learned dirty politics from? The Clintons were masters of dirty politics, FBI files, etc.
OR, perhaps it's worth mentioning that his father was at one time the director of the CIA....just saying.
Furtherman
01-07-2008, 09:20 AM
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/martin_fierro/Clintoons/i_love_country_music_color.jpg
I Love Country Music
I'm watching the C-Span live feed online right now, and they're replaying Bill Richardson's stop at a Dunkin Donuts, turned impromptu press conference, in New Hampshire earlier today.
The more I hear about the guy, the more I find myself starting to like him. I can't really see any viable scenario where he could get back in the race...I guess maybe if he pulled a huge upset in Nevada since he's a southwest guy, but he'd make a nice VP choice for someone.
Snoogans
01-07-2008, 12:59 PM
when is this bad boy, tomorrow?
when is this bad boy, tomorrow?
mos def
Recyclerz
01-07-2008, 01:44 PM
I'm watching the C-Span live feed online right now, and they're replaying Bill Richardson's stop at a Dunkin Donuts, turned impromptu press conference, in New Hampshire earlier today.
The more I hear about the guy, the more I find myself starting to like him. I can't really see any viable scenario where he could get back in the race...I guess maybe if he pulled a huge upset in Nevada since he's a southwest guy, but he'd make a nice VP choice for someone.
That guy is probably buying donuts with the money I sent him. :annoyed:
Last year I thought he would be the strongest candidate in the race - he accomplished some good things working for Clinton(and selling our nuke secrets to the Chinese was not one of them, my Limbaugh-listening friends), has been a pretty good governor in a swing state, is 3/4 Hispanic (everything but the name), has a decent sense of humor for a politician and has a good global view of how to advance America's interests. However he never got traction, fell behind early and has said a couple of dopey things (leaving Iraq "immediately" whatever that means and that we should force Musharaff to resign right after Bhutto got wacked) to try to get attention to climb back in. And yes, he's toast for anything besides VP.
Now I have to decide if Obama is really a (early) Tony Blair figure who can transform the Democratic party into a 21st century coalition who can govern intelligently and responsibly or just some guy who talks pretty.
Furtherman
01-07-2008, 02:12 PM
Romney wins Wyoming caucus
WHY!? WYOMING! WHY!? WYOMING!
That guy is probably buying donuts with the money I sent him. :annoyed:
Nah, some dopie college kid bought him a donut and asked Richardson if the two of them could split it .Then Richardson hit the manager of the store up for a free coffee.
He wasn't going in pocket for anything.
Here's my reassessment of the election and what could happen going forward.
It's quite a long read.
Barack Obama - The media has set the bar high for Obama in New Hampshire, so anything short of winning by at least 6-10% has to be considered a disappointment when it's all said and done. It goes without saying that if Hillary or Edwards somehow pulled off an upset in New Hampshire, it's a whole new ballgame, and all of Obama's momentum evaporates immediately. Assuming the polls hold up, though, Obama needs to keep his chief rival (presumably whoever finishes in 2nd) on the ropes by making a strong push in Nevada, which could be a legitimate toss-up state. It's important that Obama runs the table to Super Tuesday, and all indications are that he will run very strong in South Carolina to the tune of being almost unbeatable there, so Nevada is his biggest goal. If he runs the table, the momentum he amasses should carry him to be competative in the Hillary strongholds of California and New York. If he can grab California, he's a lock for the nomination.
Hillary Clinton - It's almost a foregone conclusion at this point, she's lost New Hampshire. So she needs to make a decision on whether to run in Nevada and South Carolina and try to derail Obama in one of those two states (or both), or concentrate the remainder of her resources on the huge, delegate rich primary states where she presumably still has a solid base. For everyone that's ready to write her obituary, she should still run very competitively in California and New York, either of which would give her about 10 times the delegates Obama would win in Iowa and New Hampshire. Her cause, from a momentum standpoint would be bolstered by a strong second place showing in N.H. (under 5% margin). Realistically, if she gets trounced in New Hampshire, her best deal is to retreat to a last stand on Super Tuesday and let a flailing Edwards take some desperation shots at Obama, which could potentially slow Obama a little.
John Edwards - If he finishes a weak 3rd, he's for all intents and purposes finished. If he finishes a strong 3rd or sneaks into 2nd in New Hampshire, he has some life. His best bet is the highly unionized state of Nevada for a pre-Super Tuesday win, but with Obama probably riding such a high wave of momentum, Obama stands to pick up most of the union endorsements out there. South Carolina is almost a foregone third place finish for Edwards as well unless Hillary pulls out of there completely and Edwards gives it a shot at taking Obama on there. If Edwards gets to Super Tuesday without a win, he's finished. He doesn't have the time or money to run in so many states, and he's almost a lock to be polling 3rd in most place. In addition, look at some of the Super Tuesday states:
-New York (Hillary)
-New Jersey (Hillary)
-California (Hillary or Obama)
-Illinois (Obama)
-Arkansas (Hillary)
-New Mexico (Richardson)
Winning the likes of Oklahoma and Kansas isn't going to cut it.
Bill Richardson - He basically has to hope a few unlikely things happen. First, it would help Richardson for Obama to trounce in New Hampshire, and Edwards to finish second, with a complete and utter Hillary collapse that would knock her from the race. Then, Richardson would need a huge Obama gaffe or slip up which would make people question his viability as a national candidate. If he could get that and an upset victory in Nevada, then he stands to benefit in some of the conservative midwest and southern states on Super Tuesday, and has the potential for a California upset with such a heavy Latino population. Again, all of this seems pretty unlikely at this point.
John McCain - He has to win in New Hampshire or his candidacy is finished. End of story. The good news for him, is that he looks like he's going to do it. Where he goes after that could be a little tricky, though. He almost has to take on a reeling Romney and try to win Michigan immediately afterwards to continue his momentum, and knock Romney from the race for good. A New Hampshire win and a Michigan win should carry him into Super Tuesday in good shape where he would benefit from some Southwest and East Coast primaries (excluding New York where Giuliani should come in), which he should do well in.
Mitt Romney - A New Hampshire win would be awfully nice, but it looks like he's starting to fade. In that case, Romney's last stand is Michigan. If he wins it, he has reason to carry on. If he doesn't, he might as well quite. A Michigan victory would propel him into Super Tuesday where he does fairly well in states like California, Utah (the Mormon thing), Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, etc and could conceivably win. If he doesn't get a win beforehand, though, he'll seem unviable and people will bail.
Mike Huckabee - Huckabee is probably going to show pretty poorly in New Hampshire. It's ok, though, because Romney's expected loss there will weaken him in Michigan and turn that into a three-way Romney-McCain-Huckabee race where the polls show all three as viable. A strong second-place finish there, followed by a victory in South Carolina (expected to go heavily for Huckabee), would propel him at least to Florida as a viable candidate. Florida presents and interesting showdown. Huckabee polls well there and has a legitimate shot, but Giuliani has made Florida a lynchpin of his candidacy. Both would need a victory. Whoever wins will have a lot of momentum going forward. The loser is probably out. If Huckabee does lose, in Florida, he can kiss the big delegate states goodbye, and places like Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas won't be enough to save him.
Rudy Giuliani - He's pulled out of everywhere and concentrated all his resources on Florida. It's pretty simple. He wins, he's got a shot. He would need to parlay a Florida win into a New York win (likely) and California win (up for grabs). He'd probably have to do well in Illinois and win Pennsylvania later in the primary season as well. Basically, he has to run the table on the big states. A Florida loss and he should quit.
Fred Thompson - He polls within striking distance (or at least did, last time polls were taken) in Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. He'd probably have to win two of the three to stay viable. If he could do that, he'd get a huge backing from the Republican establishment, because Thompson really is the most conservative guy in the race, but in all likelihood, Huckabee will draw the social conservatives, McCain/Romney/Giuliani will draw the fiscal conservatives and Thompson will be left with nothing.
Ron Paul - Paul needs at least a third place finish in New Hampshire. That will get him in the news. It's kind of hard to tell where he goes from there, though. Michigan is probably a loss. Libertarianism should play well in Nevada and South Carolina, but his war views and his push for gold standard economics will keep the Republican establishment from supporting him, and I just don't think there's a large enough anti-establishment base in the Republican party for him to do damage. Theoretically, though, for him to win he has to pull an upset somewhere before Super Tuesday, and then he should play decently in the South. Paul's problem is that at best, he could probably go to a brokered convention with some delegates to his name, but everyone else hates his policies, so a wave of scandals regarding the other candidates is his best shot to win the nomination.
thejives
01-07-2008, 07:23 PM
Nice K.C.
Your updates are great.
I'm on the Obama bandwagon totally, but the national polls are disturbing ... can hillary cry her way to a plurality of delegates?
Nice K.C.
Your updates are great.
I'm on the Obama bandwagon totally, but the national polls are disturbing ... can hillary cry her way to a plurality of delegates?
My brother's pretty into this stuff as well and we were talking about Hillary long-term today. It's a mistake to count her out.
When it comes down to all these Super Tuesday states, it's so hard to make campaign stops because there's so many, so a lot of them depends on endorsements and the state parties.
And here's some things that hurt Obama long-term:
1. A lot are closed primaries to Democrats only. Hillary still beats him (in most polls) in Democrat only votes
2. The people in command of a lot of the state parties have been entrenched for a long time.
3. A lot of these people who run these state parties are older white baby boomers (or even older). Whether it's fair or not, it's such an 'old boys' network that they're going to look at Obama and the fact that he's young, and black, and a lot of his support comes from non-party regulars, combined with the fact that most of the party leadership in these states
gained their power during the Clinton terms, will lead them to side with Hillary ultimately.
It's not fair, but unless she completely collapses beyond all hope over the next couple weeks, it's a likelihood.
They'll try to bail her out in the end...it's not to say that it'll work....Obama's momentum may be so strong at that point that it doesn't matter.
thejives
01-07-2008, 07:39 PM
They'll try to bail her out in the end...it's not to say that it'll work....Obama's momentum may be so strong at that point that it doesn't matter.
Yeah... it's just that her crying was very Muskie like.
So I'm hoping for a total implosion in ... oh... 6 hours.
Yeah... it's just that her crying was very Muskie like.
So I'm hoping for a total implosion in ... oh... 6 hours.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OmyrGBw5jFg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OmyrGBw5jFg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Blah. Could she go into stump any sooner after crying.
There is something so vain about this clip.
And if Edwards win New Hampshire instead of being the likeable change candidate she'll be the crusader for the poor. And if Richardson wins something she'll be the experience candidate. And if Gravel wins something she'll attend rallies in a straight jacket.
New Hampshire polls are open!
Dixville Notch, the resident hayseeds of New Hampshire, is the first in the state to cast their votes and close their polls right after midnight.
Republicans
Giuliani - 1
McCain - 4
Romney - 2
Democrats
Edwards - 2
Richardson - 1
Obama - 7
Clinton gets shut out of the first precinct. Unfortunately, Dixville Notch has never predicted the winner of the New Hampshire primary.
So they either break the streak, or it's a bad Obama omen.
Sounds like it's Obama big in New Hampshire.
They've run out of democratic ballots at certain places the turnout is so big
What to watch for tonight:
1) How big Obama wins by
2) The gap between Hillary and Edwards in terms of second and third.
3) The battle for third on the Republican side between Huckabee, Giuliani, and Paul
4) If Huckabee wins third, is it a strong third (20%) or a weak third (11-12%)
Those are good indicators going forward about where the race may be headed.
For those on the anti-Hillary bandwagon, there's a little bit of news beneficial to Obama today. Apparently, Paul Begala, James Carville, and John DiPodesta are all refusing to join the campaign.
Those three are largely credited with Bill's surge in '92. So even the former staffers are distancing themselves.
Watching Bill Clinton today made me realize just how much the Hillary campaign is looking more and more like a textbook Republican campaign. Dirty tactics and now complaining about a biased media? COME ON!
Watching Bill Clinton today made me realize just how much the Hillary campaign is looking more and more like a textbook Republican campaign. Dirty tactics and now complaining about a biased media? COME ON!
I think they've actually got a legitimate complaint in terms of the cable news media coverage.
I've watched a lot of it, and they're pretty intent on taking her down. Obviously, Fox News has done nothing but gloat for the last week about Hillary losing.
On MSNBC, Chris Matthews would have got on his knees and sucked Obama's dick if he had the opportunity. The man was literally seconds away from tears after the Obama Iowa victory speech.
CNN has been a little more impartial.
All in all, it's not an explanation of why she's failing...she did that on her own, but the media has piled on.
She won't be screaming media bias, though, when they try to dissect Obama over the next two weeks, which they will absolutely do to try and keep this thing a horserace.
The dirty tactics are straight out of the Republican playbook, though.
badmonkey
01-08-2008, 12:48 PM
The dirty tactics are straight out of the Republican playbook, though.
Well thank god the Democratic candidates have finally gotten ahold of the Republican playbook so they too can play dirty politics rather than all this happy and polite campaigning with rainbows and butterflies and never having a bad thing to say about anybody. Democrats are just too fucking sweet and innocent and it's about time they stood up to the evil Republicans and used their dirty tricks against them. [/sarcasm]
Give me a fucking break.
Snoogans
01-08-2008, 12:50 PM
when do the polls close
Well thank god the Democratic candidates have finally gotten ahold of the Republican playbook so they too can play dirty politics rather than all this happy and polite campaigning with rainbows and butterflies and never having a bad thing to say about anybody. Democrats are just too fucking sweet and innocent and it's about time they stood up to the evil Republicans and used their dirty tricks against them. [/sarcasm]
Give me a fucking break.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ngjUkPbGwAg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ngjUkPbGwAg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EC9j6Wfdq3o&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EC9j6Wfdq3o&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rx5LNXi5hwg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rx5LNXi5hwg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KIyewCdXMzk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KIyewCdXMzk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Well thank god the Democratic candidates have finally gotten ahold of the Republican playbook so they too can play dirty politics rather than all this happy and polite campaigning with rainbows and butterflies and never having a bad thing to say about anybody. Democrats are just too fucking sweet and innocent and it's about time they stood up to the evil Republicans and used their dirty tricks against them. [/sarcasm]
Give me a fucking break.
Because there are no degrees to anything, you are either scum of the earth or squeaky clean. OK, I get it now.
Well thank god the Democratic candidates have finally gotten ahold of the Republican playbook so they too can play dirty politics rather than all this happy and polite campaigning with rainbows and butterflies and never having a bad thing to say about anybody. Democrats are just too fucking sweet and innocent and it's about time they stood up to the evil Republicans and used their dirty tricks against them. [/sarcasm]
Give me a fucking break.
By the way, you mistook me...I wasn't saying Republicans are evil.
I was alluding to the fact that if memory serves me correctly, Karl Rove literally created a playbook for the 2000 election on how all Republican candidates should run for office, which involved many of the dirtiest tactics in politics.
I'm looking for the article now.
But the point is that what he came up with has become formula for so many conservative candidates, pundits, and show hosts to marginalize people who oppose their ideas.
The Clintons were vicious too back in the day. They absolutely savaged Bob Dole. But generally speaking, it's more widespread among the Republicans who use the Rove strategy, especially in recent years.
Obama camp (at least at the moment): yikes...
It's still early, but it may be much closer than expected.
Fucking great.
McCain wins already.
The fucking great was not for McCain but for Clinton.
Fucking great.
McCain wins already.
The fucking great was not for McCain but for Clinton.
I'd be totally stunned if it holds up to where she wins.
But I do think it'll be 4-5%...and everyone...the Clintons, the media, etc. will spin that as a win for her given how far down she was.
And in reality, it is. EVERYONE was predicting a double-digit loss.
Now, it still may be...only 13% is in...but it's not appearing that way at the moment.
thejives
01-08-2008, 04:18 PM
However... retail politics depends on who's doing the organizing.
Hillary may have had a really good organization in one part of the state giving her this bump.
However, she wins no matter what if it's close. She's managed expectations pretty well.
Bulldogcakes
01-08-2008, 04:29 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OmyrGBw5jFg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OmyrGBw5jFg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Blah. Could she go into stump any sooner after crying.
There is something so vain about this clip.
The spin machine was in full effect this morning. Some reports said it was done "intentionally" to make her seem more human.
If it was unintentional, you have to wonder about whether or not she is ready to handle the worlds largest economy and military with all the weight the office bears. She appears unable to handle a campaign that only affects her own fortunes, much less real decisions that can affect millions.
If it was intentional, then you have to question her judgement. This blew up in her face so badly that anyone who thought this is a good idea is clueless in how to run a campaign. Especially a campaign for a woman, who everyday has to fight the very perceptions this clip just confirmed in the minds of many voters. If this was intentional, it will be played in political science classes for the next 50 years as a lesson on what NOT to do.
I was even more troubled by the "this is personal" line than I even was about the crying. The crying was her in a bad moment, the stuff about politics being personal troubles me much more. I want someone who can make rational decisions, not decisions based on their personal wants/desires. Its just like you wouldn't want a doctor to operate on someone they love, wouldn't let a family member of a victim sit on the accused's jury, or the old saw "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client". Its a recipe for making bad decisions. I found that line to be very geniune, and its a very bad idea that she seems to truly believe.
Bulldogcakes
01-08-2008, 04:34 PM
Fucking great.
McCain wins already.
The fucking great was not for McCain but for Clinton.
I thought you like McCain. I don't get it.
EDIT-Nevermind, now I remember. You used to like him, then changed your mind. You had that "Myth" thread a while back.
Dammit. The gap is getting bigger.
Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul in a dead heat.
It would be a huge defeat for Giuliani if Paul edged him out.
Rudy spent more time in New Hampshire than anyone but Romney
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4105498&page=1
I thought you like McCain. I don't get it.
EDIT-Nevermind, now I remember. You used to like him, then changed your mind. You had that "Myth" thread a while back.
No, I'm pissed about Clinton. McCain's the best the Republicans have to offer.
I guarantee that the moment Clinton secures the nomination, if it happens, all this massive turnout in favor of the Democrats stops. They'll probably still have an edge but these independents are not going to be motivated by Hillary Clinton.
I guarantee that the moment Clinton secures the nomination, if it happens, all this massive turnout in favor of the Democrats stops. They'll probably still have an edge but these independents are not going to be motivated by Hillary Clinton.
If she ends up winning New Hampshire tonight, and they really did have record turnouts, you almost have to make the argument that she played a significant part in turning those people out.
...as hard as it is to believe
The gap is still rising. Fuck you New Hampshire.
I swear to god this is feeling to me like John Kerry all over again.
thejives
01-08-2008, 04:54 PM
I know. it's a nightmare.
Is there a state this fucking opportunist Romney won't bash?
FOX Decision Desk Guy on the Democratic Primary: We don't know what the fuck is going on.
(not in those words, but basically implied)
He just said he thinks Hillary has a 'big possibility' of winning based on the numbers.
OOOOOOHHHH!!! Gap is closing!
This better not be a tease.
Edwards is getting wrecked.
Man, I would like to support McCain, especially if he ended up against Hillary, but he's so damn Hawkish on Iraq. I don't think he'd lead us into anything else on top of Iraq but damn man, I just can't support the stuff he's been saying about and proposing about Iraq. And that he still thinks it was a good idea and so monumentally important can't help but shine a bad light on his judgment.
thejives
01-08-2008, 05:23 PM
Man, I would like to support McCain, especially if he ended up against Hillary, but he's so damn Hawkish on Iraq. I don't think he'd lead us into anything else on top of Iraq but damn man, I just can't support the stuff he's been saying about and proposing about Iraq. And that he still thinks it was a good idea and so monumentally important can't help but shine a bad light on his judgment.
McCain = Darth Vader w/o the helmet
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/ep6/ldvader4t.jpg
Together we can end this destructive conflict.
Bulldogcakes
01-08-2008, 05:26 PM
Man, I would like to support McCain, especially if he ended up against Hillary, but he's so damn Hawkish on Iraq. I don't think he'd lead us into anything else on top of Iraq but damn man, I just can't support the stuff he's been saying about and proposing about Iraq. And that he still thinks it was a good idea and so monumentally important can't help but shine a bad light on his judgment.
In his defense, he was a consistent critic of Rumsfeld way before it became cool to do it. He would have done a lot of things differently from the beginning. But yes, he supported removing Saddam by force. Make of that what you will.
In his defense, he was a consistent critic of Rumsfeld way before it became cool to do it. He would have done a lot of things differently from the beginning. But yes, he supported removing Saddam by force. Make of that what you will.
In a Clinton-McCain contest his stance on Iraq has turned me into think "Oh, I'll vote for McCain" to "I really doubt I can vote for him."
Bulldogcakes
01-08-2008, 05:31 PM
So far I honestly don't support any of these folks. Rudy should be running in the Likud Party, Edwards is too anti-capitalism, Obama has lots of charisma but little experience, McCain is a little too contrarian for me, Ron Paul is nuts and you could put my balls in a blender and I STILL wouldn't vote for Hillary.
I hope Bloomberg jumps in.
Bulldogcakes
01-08-2008, 05:32 PM
In a Clinton-McCain contest his stance on Iraq has turned me into think "Oh, I'll vote for McCain" to "I really doubt I can vote for him."
Hillary supported the war, then critcised its execution. They're actually pretty similar on that.
According to exit polls Clinton and Obama both had 38% of the vote of people who decided in the last 3 days. I guess there was no bounce.
Hillary is leading among women and old people. I'm gonna punch the next old lady I see.
Hillary supported the war, then critcised its execution. They're actually pretty similar on that.
One wants to get out relatively soon. The other is fine with an indefinite stay. Big difference.
The story of the night might be that Hillary's emotional moment yesterday got her a wave of female vote.
Bulldogcakes
01-08-2008, 05:35 PM
According to exit polls Clinton and Obama both had 38% of the vote of people who decided in the last 3 days. I guess there was no bounce.
Hillary is leading among women and old people. I'm gonna punch the next old lady I see.
Fred Thompson is leading among voters who hit the wrong button
The story of the night might be that Hillary's emotional moment yesterday got her a wave of female vote.
If that's really the case I could do without 19th amendment.
Fred Thompson is leading among voters who hit the wrong button
Duncan Hunter is leading amongst people who don't exist.
I can't take this shit anymore. i'm gonna play some Rock Band and when I get back New Hampshire better have its shit together.
thejives
01-08-2008, 05:45 PM
I can't take this shit anymore. i'm gonna play some Rock Band and when I get back New Hampshire better have its shit together.
QFT
I can't take this anymore.
Let's get the college towns reported and find out what actually happened.
Could McCain have given a worse speech?
Talk about shitting the bed when given the moment.
Kevin
01-08-2008, 05:47 PM
Seriously.. When your from Mass, and you can't win NH.. Just give it up.... Like tonight..
Bulldogcakes
01-08-2008, 05:47 PM
Ron Paul has a big lead in the 'legalize marijuana' demographic
thejives
01-08-2008, 05:48 PM
Could McCain have given a worse speech?
Talk about shitting the bed when given the moment.
Yeah.
That was lame.
He was like droopy dog. "I told the people the truth."
Yeah.
That was lame.
He was like droopy dog. "I told the people the truth."
When I was in grad school, I taught public speaking for undergrads. Seriously, that was a textbook example of what not to do.
He read the fucking speech, he stammered three times, dropped it on the ground before he delivered it and clearly wasn't familiar with the details.
John, you get a D for showing up and trying.
thejives
01-08-2008, 05:53 PM
When I was in grad school, I taught public speaking for undergrads. Seriously, that was a textbook example of what not to do.
He read the fucking speech, he stammered three times, dropped it on the ground before he delivered it and clearly wasn't familiar with the details.
John, you get a D for showing up and trying.
Still.
He did a great job compared to someone who's president right now.
Still.
He did a great job compared to someone who's president right now.
So do freshmen with a large fear of public speaking.
TheMojoPin
01-08-2008, 05:56 PM
Goddamn Kucinich voters...HE TOLD YOU TO SUPPORT OBAMA.
Stupid New Hampshire independents. Obama's lead was so big they all went and voted for McCain!
thejives
01-08-2008, 05:59 PM
The difference is still 2%
Is there one county out there that just voted entirely for Obama?
Is that the county that pollers were calling this week?
Let's get the college towns reported and find out what actually happened.
"Wait...election day was today?"
thejives
01-08-2008, 06:02 PM
"Wait...election day was today?"
Totally, but Duram still isn't in according to CNN.
You can make up a thousand votes... if they actually voted.
badmonkey
01-08-2008, 06:02 PM
Goddamn Kucinich voters...HE TOLD YOU TO SUPPORT OBAMA.
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/28500/Obama-Clinton--28668.jpg
They may have gotten confused.
Does the college towns being out mean that Ron Paul can potentially make up his 1,000 vote margin behind Giuliani and take 4th? Hmmm....
badmonkey
01-08-2008, 06:23 PM
I think Edwards is giving the same speech he gave last nite. I know he thinks it's 1934, but doesn't his speech writer realize that the whole country saw it yesterday on modern cable television?
The AP just called it for Hillary.
Bulldogcakes
01-08-2008, 06:35 PM
Russert is killing me. This is a "huge win" for Hillary? Wasn't she supposed to cruise in NH by at least 10 points? And Obama had no shot there, right? I seem to remember the sunday morning gasbags saying that.
Its one thing to hear that from her campaign chair. Its another to hear it from Russert. When the two of them are saying the exact same thing, something is wrong.
Go die in a fire New Hampshire. A big huge fire over your whole lousy fucking state. Die long and horribly and go straight to hell each and every one of you northern fucking hicks.
TheMojoPin
01-08-2008, 06:36 PM
Go eat some fuck, New Hampshire.
I was in such a good mood today, too.
Live free or die?
I choose that they die.
TheMojoPin
01-08-2008, 06:37 PM
Hey, Democrats.
I'd like to finally vote for you assholes in a presidential election.
STOP BEING JERKS.
Oh so now I hear that the reason Obama loses is because a bunch of independents voted in the Republican primary. And these fucking morons think that Hillary is more electable.
Again, John Kerry syndrome all over again. This fucking party is either 1. too fucking stupid to know what they have in Obama or 2. so fucking stupid they think Hillary is more electable. Either way they are a big pile fucking stupid and New Hampshire is so fucking stupid they make Iowa look like geniuses.
Oh so now I hear that the reason Obama loses is because a bunch of independents voted in the Republican primary. And these fucking morons think that Hillary is more electable.
Again, John Kerry syndrome all over again. This fucking party is either 1. too fucking stupid to know what they have in Obama or 2. so fucking stupid they think Hillary is more electable. Either way they are a big pile fucking stupid and New Hampshire is so fucking stupid they make Iowa look like geniuses.
Iowa does have the highest SAT scores & highest percentage of high schoolers going to college in the nation.
I'm just saying.
Now I have to register with these lousy fucks and vote in the primary. FUCK YOU BASTARDS.
Oh so now I hear that the reason Obama loses is because a bunch of independents voted in the Republican primary. And these fucking morons think that Hillary is more electable.
Again, John Kerry syndrome all over again. This fucking party is either 1. too fucking stupid to know what they have in Obama or 2. so fucking stupid they think Hillary is more electable. Either way they are a big pile fucking stupid and New Hampshire is so fucking stupid they make Iowa look like geniuses.
That independent factor is what makes New Hampshire so fucking unpredictable. I swear that state is "independent" and "different", just to be independent & different.
A serious thought: The caucus system is very open. People know who your voting for. A primary is private. You can say whatever you want and then vote for whoever you want without anyone knowing.
Fuck you you stupid racist state of New Hampshire.
The only good thing to come out of this is that now Obama can take the gloves off.
I guess we are destined to always vote for the lesser of two evils. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. ALWAYS.
Kevin
01-08-2008, 07:03 PM
IF YOUUUUUUUUUU SMEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLALALALALALAOOWWWW, WHAT BARAK............... ISSSSSSSSS COOOKIN....
Anyone else notice that Obama sounds just like The Rock?
Oh man I am now convinced this cunt faked the crying.
Tenbatsuzen
01-08-2008, 07:09 PM
So far I honestly don't support any of these folks. Rudy should be running in the Likud Party, Edwards is too anti-capitalism, Obama has lots of charisma but little experience, McCain is a little too contrarian for me, Ron Paul is nuts and you could put my balls in a blender and I STILL wouldn't vote for Hillary.
I hope Bloomberg jumps in.
BDC, let this be a lesson why people criticize you some times. You write off Obama because he has too little experience, but you want Bloomberg to get involved?!
Tenbatsuzen
01-08-2008, 07:09 PM
The only good thing to come out of this is that now Obama can take the gloves off.
Barack as Ike Turner would rule.
I'd take Jimmy Tide over this shit.
TheMojoPin
01-08-2008, 07:12 PM
Damn, even Obama's speech for giving up a state sounds better than everyone else's, win or loss.
Super Tuesday will be his. Oh yes...i will be his.
Tenbatsuzen
01-08-2008, 07:13 PM
I'd take Jimmy Tide over this shit.
I'm currently in the process of explaining this to a friend of mine from Philly who hasn't gotten XM yet. He's rolling.
That's right Hillary. no more invisible Americans!
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/hollow_man/hollow.jpg
That guy was a fucking maniac!
Damn, even Obama's speech for giving up a state sounds better than everyone else's, win or loss.
Super Tuesday will be his. Oh yes...i will be his.
I'd love to believe that but those national polls are rough.
Why is Obama the only one smart enough to use a teleprompter? Can Hillary seriously not afford one?
I can understand people voting for Hllary. I really do. I cannot understand people be excited by her. That exposes some deep character defect.
Tenbatsuzen
01-08-2008, 07:21 PM
Why is Obama the only one smart enough to use a teleprompter? Can Hillary seriously not afford one?
Ego.
You'd be surprised.
She copied Obama during her speech so much it was pathetic, right down to all of the "excited" supporters in the background. I can't believe people buy this shit. She blatantly copied everything Obama did in Iowa and it worked because New Hampshire is full of gullible morons. I can only hope the rest of the country isn't but I'm not holding my breathe.
Hillary: "I've found my own voice."
Yeah, you found it in Obama's Iowa acceptance speech you unoriginal hack.
She copied Obama during her speech so much it was pathetic, right down to all of the "excited" supporters in the background. I can't believe people buy this shit. She blatantly copied everything Obama did in Iowa and it worked because New Hampshire is full of gullible morons. I can only hope the rest of the country isn't but I'm not holding my breathe.
Hillary: "I've found my own voice."
Yeah, you found it in Obama's Iowa acceptance speech you unoriginal hack.
Pretty much.
New Hampshire, you pricks are on notice with me.
This is from exit polls and its telling. If Bill Clinton were on the ticket Obama beats him 72 to 28. If he's against Hillary Bill wins 58 to 42.
BILL ISN'T COMING BACK IF YOU VOTE FOR HILLARY YOU DUMB SHITS!
It'll be interesting to see how Obama handles these results. I think now he can directly or by proxy attack some of Hillary's core messages:
1. Change is "my voice".
2. I've been making change for 35 years.
Seriously, he can go after her for being a cheap version of him. He can claim that she never cared about change until she lost Iowa.
And this 35 years claim, making her "ready on day one"....well that's just waiting for somebody to drive a truck through.
Somebody needs to raise the point that she can't continute to take credit for what her husband did.
Somebody needs to raise the point that she can't continute to take credit for what her husband did.
Hence the hole in the "35 years" claim. Unless Bill wants to admit it was a co-presidency publicly...she can't take credit for it.
When she's asked about what Bill's role would be...she claims like any other presidential spouse. So that would mean that she was a normal presidential spouse. Sorry Hillary, you can't have it both ways.
ShowerBench
01-08-2008, 08:46 PM
If it was unintentional, you have to wonder about whether or not she is ready to handle the worlds largest economy and military with all the weight the office bears. She appears unable to handle a campaign that only affects her own fortunes, much less real decisions that can affect millions.
If it was intentional, then you have to question her judgement. This blew up in her face so badly that anyone who thought this is a good idea is clueless in how to run a campaign. Especially a campaign for a woman, who everyday has to fight the very perceptions this clip just confirmed in the minds of many voters. If this was intentional, it will be played in political science classes for the next 50 years as a lesson on what NOT to do.
I might have agreed with that when you wrote it. After tonight, we'd both be wrong. If it was intentional, it could well have been one of the keys to tonight's stunner. In that case, she knew precisely what to do to close a double-digit polling gap in ONE DAY.
It's true she has to fight certain perceptions as a woman but in her case it might have been fighting the perception she was too cold, calculating and unemotional. This is the first time I've ever seen her shed a tear and looks like she picked the exact correct moment to do it.
I saw an exit poll tonight showing that for voters who put "experience" at the top of their list, she beat Obama 71% to 5%. I don't think she has the liabilities most women would have in terms of a perception of competence and experience. So I think the Clintons took that fact and concluded tears would work for her in the same way they usually work for male candidates - something that would seem counterintuitive to people with lesser political aptitude.
Clinton can't be underestimated. What's more, the way this has unfolded since Iowa is the best thing that could have happened to her candidacy. If she sailed into November as the nominee without a challenge she would still carry around the off-putting image of someone who thought they were "entitled" to it and who had a big "machine" working behind the scenes to subvert the system and make her the nominee.
Instead she comes out of this a formidible scrapper with some humility ("You helped me find my voice") instead of someone who expected a coronation. Never count the Clintons out.
ShowerBench
01-08-2008, 08:54 PM
Somebody needs to raise the point that she can't continute to take credit for what her husband did.
Yes she can. Most of her supporters know they'll be getting "Billary" in the White House. That's part of where her huge "experience" advantage comes from. She says the exact same things in debates as he does and she has the same depth and breadth of policy expertise. He said back then voters will be getting "two for one" and she's implying the same thing now.
The candidate was Billary then and is Billary now. His successes and failures belong to both of them.
I disagree. Her speech tonight still dripped with entitlement.
spoon
01-08-2008, 11:31 PM
Andy Reid drips with KFC grease.
My theories as to why Hillary won:
1) Never counts the Clintons out of anything....ever...
2) Backlash to the media piling on her and proclaiming her dead (i.e. Chris Matthews basically offering to suck Obama's dick on national TV).
3) Backlash to the obnoxiousness with which the Obama supporters conducted themselves (i.e. booing Hillary at the New Hampshire Democratic Party dinner, refusing to shake her hand over the last few days).
4) She's backed by the establishment and has a great get out the vote operation.
5) John McCain is extremely popular in New Hampshire, and draws heavily on independents.
6) The polling before the vote suggested Obama had in the bag, and McCain needed help, which would push independents who liked both to vote for McCain.
The bottom line, though, is that it was a tremendous win for her. I'll have my analysis on it shortly.
Andy Reid drips with KFC grease.
And his sons are currently dripping sweat in anticipation of a huge black cock being rammed up their ass.
spoon
01-08-2008, 11:41 PM
And his sons are currently dripping sweat in anticipation of a huge black cock being rammed up their ass.
You sir just won the Turn Kevin on Contest. Congrats on your sweet sweet Albanian prose!
Where we go from here
Hillary Clinton: An amazing win by her. She'll try to pick off Nevada, probably half-heartedly campaing in South Carolina and eventually concede it to Obama, and focus her efforts primarily in California. California, plus the Super Tuesday south equals the nomination for Hillary. She's got a great shot now.
Barack Obama: A devastating loss that bring his momentum to a screeching halt. Nevada is a toss up. Obama at the very least needs to win South Carolina or it's over. If he does that, it's a matter of winning the enough Super Tuesday states to offset Hillary and push the race beyond Feb. 5th.
John Edwards: Hillary winning actually helps him a little. It casts a little doubt on Obama's candidacy and keeps any candidate from gaining momentum. Edwards needs a breakthrough in either Nevada or South Carolina, though, and it seems unlikely he'll get it. He needs a pre-Super Tuesday win for a legitimate shot, which means he's probably going to have to pull something out of his ass to gain buzz over the next two weeks.
Bill Richardson: It's over, johnny.
John McCain: He moves to Michigan where he'll try to take out Romney. A win propels him into Super Tuesday with huge momentum. If Romney makes a stand there, though, it's not the end of the world. McCain's biggest Michigan goal should be to prevent a Huckabee win at all costs. He does that and he's in the game.
Mitt Romney: Win in Michigan or go home. As simple as that.
Mike Huckabee: He'll compete in Michigan, but it'll be tough. He's in good shape to carry South Carolina, though. Huckabee's campaign key will probably be Florida. If he beats Giuliani there, or finishes a very strong second, he's in good shape to do damage.
Rudy Giuliani: If Paul had beat him tonight, it would have been a disaster. He fended it off, though. Simply put, Rudy needs Florida. He wins there, he's in the game. He loses, he should go home.
Ron Paul: It's all but over for Dr. Paul. A poor showing in New Hampshire for him will only push him further to the fringe in the voters eyes. He could play spoiler, but his slim chances at the nomination are over.
Fred Thompson: Win in South Carolina, or go home. Plain and simple.
I disagree. Her speeches EVERY night still dripped with entitlement.
Fixed that for you.
pennington
01-09-2008, 05:24 AM
Oh man I am now convinced this cunt faked the crying.
Expect more "spontaneous" tears welling up next time she's losing.
Snoogans
01-09-2008, 08:54 AM
apparently we should vote for Ron Paul. He wants to legalize and tax and regulate drugs
Well, I've been reading and hearing a lot of the fallout from last night...quite simply put, it's one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in American politics since I've been following, which spans about 15 years.
And this is the final conclusion I've been able to draw on why Hillary beat Obama, despite the polls showing her losing by double-digits.
First, it's foolish to not get that Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate. Personal like or dislike aside, the Clinton family is arguably the second most successful family in American politics (you could argue either way in terms of Bushes vs. Clintons....Kennedys are #1)
So it shouldn't come as some miraculous feat that she won...she's a logical choice for a Democratic Primary voter. Now, why did they turn from Obama?
Mysoginistic backlash. Plain and simple.
Women went overwhelmingly for Hillary last night, which put her over the top. These are some of the incidents of why:
#1 - The coverage after Iowa basically coronating Barack Obama
#2 - The New Hampshire Debate - it was perceived by voters that Obama and Edwards ganged up on Hillary. That sentiment was furthered when the New Hampshire reporter who participated in the debate basically asked Hillary to comment on the fact that people flat out don't like her. She made a playful quip and then said she found Obama 'very likeable.' Obama responded very callously "you're likeable enough, Hillary."
#3 - Chris Matthews - I'll say Matthews, because he was BY FAR the worst of the bunch, but the absolutely brutal hatchet job they did on her brought women to stand up for one of their own and rally around. Matthews basically implied very bluntly that Hillary was only a senator because voters felt sorry for her because her husband cheated on her, and that her only qualification was that she was the wife of Bill Clinton. This was more subtly echoed on FOX and CNN throughout the week, as well.
#4 - Obama supporters booing her at the New Hampshire Democratic Primary Dinner - Huge gaffe for them considering they were running on the theme of 'changing the tone in Washington and the way we conduct our politics.' It was embarassing to watch, to the point of cringe inducing...and it brought people back to her.
#5 - Obama supporters chanting for her to go home and refusing to shake her hand on the last two days of the campaign - like #4, the story had legs and it resonated with people.
#6 - Bill Clinton - Democrats love him. It's a fact. Democratic women love him even more. Again, it's a fact. They dispatched him to young voter heavy places, and to rally younger and middle-aged women throughout the state over the last two days of the campaign and it worked. He still has a lot of pull.
#7 - Obama's poor debate performance - He set a good tone, but he didn't touch on anything particularly substantive in it. Just one thing that put doubt in voters minds, who were trying to decide between the two.
#8 - The Crying Game - Not so much the Hillary moment where she cried, but the mysoginystic backlash to it on how she completely lost all hope of winning when she broke down. Even more so, many pundits (Pat Buchanan for instance) were pummeling the idea that because she was a woman who broke down, it was 10 times worse.
#9 - John Edwards' callous reaction to her crying - He basically said because she cried, she should get out of the race. Again, came across as anti-woman.
#10 - Organization
#11 - McCain drawing Independents from Obama
#12 - Obama's young voter base not turning out as heavy as they expected.
It all added up, and led to her comeback.
On to Nevada...
ShowerBench
01-09-2008, 01:06 PM
The Crying Game - Not so much the Hillary moment where she cried, but the mysoginystic backlash.
Bingo. Great analysis. The media are trying to attribute it to an emotional response to the tears (sympathy). In fact it was an emotional response (anger) to the media trying to bury her prematurely, and attributing her impending loss in NH to the "cry" and other moments.
A vote based on sympathy would have been lame.
A vote based on a backlash against media liars and idiots was not only legitimate but long overdue if you are a Democrat or lean that way - especially given the fact that there is no real difference between the top three Democrats in terms of policy.
Ritalin
01-09-2008, 03:07 PM
What the hell does this mean? Seriously.
"Maybe I have liberated us to actually let women be human beings in public," said Clinton, the former first lady, reflecting on a memorable moment of emotion the day before she gained her own New Hampshire victory.
badmonkey
01-09-2008, 03:31 PM
What the hell does this mean? Seriously.
"Maybe I have liberated us to actually let women be human beings in public," said Clinton, the former first lady, reflecting on a memorable moment of emotion the day before she gained her own New Hampshire victory.
http://nerdapproved.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/broken-heart-robot.jpg
What the hell does this mean? Seriously.
"Maybe I have liberated us to actually let women be human beings in public," said Clinton, the former first lady, reflecting on a memorable moment of emotion the day before she gained her own New Hampshire victory.
Basically, she's saying that a lot of people ended her candidacy the second that first tear fell out of her eye socket, and that her winning in spite of that spin was vindication that people didn't stereotype her as some emotionally challenged, Dr. Phil-watching harpie who was unfit to lead.
Normally, I would have chalked it up as typical of what her and Bill usually say when stuff like this happens (they're always overcoming the greatest obstacle every thrown in front of any human being.)
But the sad part is that she's actually right on this one.
On a related note, Dailykos.com has a pretty good collection of Chris Matthews' greatest sexist hits. It's pretty damning to him.
On another side note, Chris Matthews can't let it go.
He has three people on his show telling him why Hillary won, and he's still 100% convinced that she won because New Hampshire is the most racist state in the history of the world.
Douchebag.
Richardson is dropping out. And then there were three (Kucinich & Gravel don't count).
On another side note, Chris Matthews can't let it go.
He has three people on his show telling him why Hillary won, and he's still 100% convinced that she won because New Hampshire is the most racist state in the history of the world.
Douchebag.
Actually something really interesting came out of that discussion. Jennifer Donahue (who I think is kinda hot) mentioned that New Hampshire was forced to move their primary up so early that they voted while the students were on break.
That is horrible timing for Obama.
On another side note, Chris Matthews can't let it go.
He has three people on his show telling him why Hillary won, and he's still 100% convinced that she won because New Hampshire is the most racist state in the history of the world.
Douchebag.
Richardson is dropping out. And then there were three (Kucinich & Gravel don't count).
Not so fast on Richardson. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22578720/?from=ET)
Good news for Obama though. He's secured the endorsements of the SEIU and the CWU unions in Nevada.
TheMojoPin
01-09-2008, 04:09 PM
Actually something really interesting came out of that discussion. Jennifer Donahue (who I think is kinda hot) mentioned that New Hampshire was forced to move their primary up so early that they voted while the students were on break.
That is horrible timing for Obama.
Wouldn't most of those students be registered to vote in their home states? And those from NH would have just voted back at home, where they're probably still registered?
Not so fast on Richardson. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22578720/?from=ET)
Good news for Obama though. He's secured the endorsements of the SEIU and the CWU unions in Nevada.
From the article on Richardson:
A Richard campaign insider told NBC Political Director Chuck Todd on Tuesday before the New Hampshire results were in that the candidate might “suspend, not end” his campaign soon, meaning he would halt active campaigning but not officially drop out.
When you suspend, you are ending.
Those unions are a pretty big deal in Nevada.
i hope Edwards drops out soon and endorses Obama.
And for all the reasons I've heard speculated about why New Hampshire voted the way it did from being resentful of Obama's coronation or Hillary's crying or the the reaction to that or racist thing or not wanting the race to end quickly or New Hampshire just being contrarian or women rallying behind a woman all of them have one thing in common: It's a really fucking stupid reason to vote for anybody.
Bulldogcakes
01-09-2008, 04:28 PM
BDC, let this be a lesson why people criticize you some times. You write off Obama because he has too little experience, but you want Bloomberg to get involved?!
Absolutely. Bloomberg has built a multi billion dollar business and has run the 17th largest economy on the planet in New York City. Thats more than you can say about any other candidate, most of whom (4 of the 6 frontrunners) have no executive experience whatsoever. Unless you want to count Bill as Hillary's qualifications trump card.
You're right, thats why people criticize me sometimes. They don't have much in terms of background info, so they don't get what I'm saying or jump to wrong conclusions about it. If anyone has any facts countering anything I post, I'm all ears. If they want to debate me on anything I invite them to do so. If they just have personal attacks then they have nothing to offer.
SatCam
01-09-2008, 04:36 PM
Absolutely. Bloomberg has built a multi billion dollar business and has run the 17th largest economy on the planet in New York City. Thats more than you can say about any other candidate, most of whom (4 of the 6 frontrunners) have no executive experience whatsoever. Unless you want to count Bill as Hillary's qualifications trump card.
You're right, thats why people criticize me sometimes. They don't have much in terms of background info, so they don't get what I'm saying or jump to wrong conclusions about it. If anyone has any facts countering anything I post, I'm all ears. If they want to debate me on anything I invite them to do so. If they just have personal attacks then they have nothing to offer.
even tho he banned trans fats?
Bulldogcakes
01-09-2008, 04:40 PM
I might have agreed with that when you wrote it. After tonight, we'd both be wrong If it was intentional, it could well have been one of the keys to tonight's stunner. In that case, she knew precisely what to do to close a double-digit polling gap in ONE DAY..
It's true she has to fight certain perceptions as a woman but in her case it might have been fighting the perception she was too cold, calculating and unemotional. This is the first time I've ever seen her shed a tear and looks like she picked the exact correct moment to do it.
I saw an exit poll tonight showing that for voters who put "experience" at the top of their list, she beat Obama 71% to 5%. I don't think she has the liabilities most women would have in terms of a perception of competence and experience. So I think the Clintons took that fact and concluded tears would work for her in the same way they usually work for male candidates - something that would seem counterintuitive to people with lesser political aptitude.
Clinton can't be underestimated. What's more, the way this has unfolded since Iowa is the best thing that could have happened to her candidacy. If she sailed into November as the nominee without a challenge she would still carry around the off-putting image of someone who thought they were "entitled" to it and who had a big "machine" working behind the scenes to subvert the system and make her the nominee.
Instead she comes out of this a formidible scrapper with some humility ("You helped me find my voice") instead of someone who expected a coronation. Never count the Clintons out.
Oh yeah. I totally misread that one. I was thinking like the center-right voter that I am, but apparently the NH democrat base sees things VERY differently. Given how wrong all of the polls were, it may be the only plausible explanation. The NH/racist angle of voters lying to pollsters (the Bradley effect) hasn't panned out according to them (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2008/01/09). Obama got his voters, Hillary just seems to have had a last minute surge.
I still think it will hurt her in the general election, though. The Republicans will use that to play on uncertainty about electing the first woman prez in a dangerous world. I don't think the independants who swing elections will react as favorably as the base does.
Chuck Todd just confirmed to MSNBC that Gov. Bill Richardson is dropping out tomorrow.
Bulldogcakes
01-09-2008, 04:43 PM
even tho he banned trans fats?
I'm not a one issue voter, but to answer your question
yes :furious:
i hope Edwards drops out soon and endorses Obama.
And for all the reasons I've heard speculated about why New Hampshire voted the way it did from being resentful of Obama's coronation or Hillary's crying or the the reaction to that or racist thing or not wanting the race to end quickly or New Hampshire just being contrarian or women rallying behind a woman all of them have one thing in common: It's a really fucking stupid reason to vote for anybody.
Won't happen until at least after South Carolina.
And even if Edwards endorses Obama, he's supporters aren't likely to break heavily for him. Edwards draws a lot of poorer, labor and union people who when their candidate drops, they tend to move back to the establishment candidate, which is Hillary right now.
Obama's in a tough position right now. He's going to suffer a media backlash, because those assholes will try to do anything to divert attention from the fact that they fucked up in interpreting the polls, even if it means taking him down.
That plus the Clinton momentum, plus the New Hampshire bounce may hurt him.
The Nevada union endorsements helps. If he can carry Nevada AND South Carolina, he'll be in solid shape, but if the split (Nevada to Hillary, S.C. to Obama) and go into Super Tuesday, I like Hillary's chances a lot.
In that situation, there's no momentum behind any candidate, and it comes down to party backing and organization which favors her heavily.
Watching the news tonight, I've noticed two interesting things:
1. The media is now calling the Democratic race a "two horse race", and they aren't playing that comeback kid bullshit.
2. The story of Marianne Young. She's the woman that asked the question to Hillary that prompted the crying. She ended up voting for Obama. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/09/politics/fromtheroad/entry3694146.shtml)
TheMojoPin
01-09-2008, 05:12 PM
Absolutely. Bloomberg has built a multi billion dollar business and has run the 17th largest economy on the planet in New York City. Thats more than you can say about any other candidate, most of whom (4 of the 6 frontrunners) have no executive experience whatsoever. Unless you want to count Bill as Hillary's qualifications trump card.
"Executive experience?" He's been a mayor for 5 years, and a mayor, yes even the mayor of NYC, answers to people above him. That's being a rung on the ladder, not an "executive." And that's the extent of his political career. Obama has been involved in state-level politics for over a decade. Why does that make him less experienced than Bloomberg?
I'm saying Bloomberg is too inexperienced, just that this seems like a total double standard.
ShowerBench
01-09-2008, 05:19 PM
i hope Edwards drops out soon and endorses Obama.
And for all the reasons I've heard speculated about why New Hampshire voted the way it did from being resentful of Obama's coronation or Hillary's crying or the the reaction to that or racist thing or not wanting the race to end quickly or New Hampshire just being contrarian or women rallying behind a woman all of them have one thing in common: It's a really fucking stupid reason to vote for anybody.
I would agree if there were important differences between the three Democratic candidates on policy, but there aren't. They are all moderates in the mold of Bill Clinton, but come in different styles and colors. Therefore, a vote to send a message to the media or on some other tertiary consideration is more reasonable.
It's a lot more reasonable than, in a race where there are significant differences between two candidates, voting for the one you think is "the regular guy you'd like to have a beer with." Which is how we ended up with the current idiot in the White House, and why we'll spend 2 trillion dollars and 4,000 soldiers turning a formerly secular third world country into yet another haven for Islamofascist America haters.
Bulldogcakes
01-09-2008, 05:36 PM
"Executive experience?" He's been a mayor for 5 years, and a mayor, yes even the mayor of NYC, answers to people above him. That's being a rung on the ladder, not an "executive." And that's the extent of his political career. Obama has been involved in state-level politics for over a decade. Why does that make him less experienced than Bloomberg?
First of all, he doesn't "answer" to anyone above him. They lobby Albany and Washington for extra funds, but he's the final word on NYC law.
If you don't consider the Mayor of an almost 60 billion dollar budget an executive, here's why you should. Because an executive like the Mayor has to manage and balance the budget and appropriates every dime, manage the school system, appoint judges, run the city hospitals, Police and Fire departments plus correctional institutions, housing, social services, sanitation, parks, water. Plus handle construction projects and labor contracts for all of the above. Plus a zillion other smaller items from adoptions to street fairs. He is accountable for everything and anything that goes wrong with the city's 250,000 member workforce. The Mayor of NYC is anything but a rung on the ladder.
Obama has been a state senator and a US Senator. Senators take political positions on proposed legislation the only thing they're held accountable for is their voting record. They manage nothing but their own staffs. There's no comparison between the two whatsoever.
TheMojoPin
01-09-2008, 05:43 PM
First of all, he doesn't "answer" to anyone above him. They lobby Albany and Washington for extra funds, but he's the final word on NYC law.
If you don't consider the Mayor of an almost 60 billion dollar budget an executive, here's why you should. Because an executivelike the Mayor has to manage the budget and appropriates every dime, manage the school system, appoint judges, run the city hospitals, Police and Fire departments plus correctional institutions, housing, social services, sanitation, parks, water. Plus handle construction projects and labor contracts for all of the above. Plus a zillion other smaller items from adoptions to street fairs. He is accountable for everything and anything that goes wrong with the city's 250,000 member workforce. The Mayor of NYC is anything but a rung on the ladder.
Senators take political positions on proposed legislation the only thing they're held accountable for is their voting record. They manage nothing but their own staffs. There's no comparison between the two whatsoever.
But what you described is almost completely not the job of the president. So why does Bloomberg's relatively limited national experience as a mayor make him more experienced than Obama? And why does Obama's decade+ make him "not experienced" enough? When he would magically cross the threshhold to "experienced?"
And mayors have to answer to the state government all the time. That's the nture of the beast. Even the mayor of NYC has to suckle the state teet.
Every political office has a degree of "the buck stops here." Again, Bloomberg has had to handle no small task, but it's hypocritical to discount Obama's experience (much of which has been on the national level) and champion Bloomberg's. You can't have it both ways.
Bulldogcakes
01-09-2008, 06:09 PM
But what you described is almost completely not the job of the president. So why does Bloomberg's relatively limited national experience as a mayor make him more experienced than Obama? And why does Obama's decade+ make him "not experienced" enough? When he would magically cross the threshhold to "experienced?"
And mayors have to answer to the state government all the time. That's the nture of the beast. Even the mayor of NYC has to suckle the state teet.
Every political office has a degree of "the buck stops here." Again, Bloomberg has had to handle no small task, but it's hypocritical to discount Obama's experience (much of which has been on the national level) and champion Bloomberg's. You can't have it both ways.
Thats fair, and there are two different styles of running the office. One more hands on (Carter/Clinton) and the other more of delegating authority(GW Bush/Reagan). In both cases they can either work (Clinton/Reagan) or not work (GW Bush/Carter). It really depends on the individual. Bloomberg has shown such a strong track record in running NYC I don't doubt he be a very competant Chief Executive (had to get that in). He's already been one both in his business and as mayor.
Obama has been a US senator for 3 years. We really have no idea what management style he'd have because he's never run anything other than his own staff. There's nothing previous to point at to say who he is except maybe his personal style in dealing with other legislators/senators. I'm not totally opposed to Obama, to be honest I think he's more conservative than most people realize. He's run a inclusive, unifying centrist campaign from day one and has enormous appeal as both a speechmaker and a campaigner. But we have no idea what kind of president he'd be from looking at his track record. At least I don't.
Bulldogcakes
01-09-2008, 06:35 PM
I'm trying to think of the last time we elected a senator. Kennedy is the obvious answer, but here's what their last jobs were for most recent prez
GW Bush-Governor
Clinton-Governor
Bush Sr-Vice Pres
Reagan-Governor
Carter-Governor
Ford-Vice Pres, plus shouldn't count anyway since he wasn't elected
Nixon-Vice Pres (Senator before)
Johnson-Vice Pres(Senator before)
Kennedy-Senator
Eisenhower-5 star General ahhh those were the days
Truman-Vice Pres (Senator before)
We've elected senators, but not in recent years. Kerry lost, McGovern lost. Kennedy beat Nixon, thats the only race of two sitting senators in recent years. If we get McCain/Hillary or McCain/Obama then we have it again. Many Republican campaign strategists think its easier to beat a Senator, but if McCain is the nominee maybe thats off the table.
Oh my fucking god...Chris Matthews has now turned to Stephen A. Smith to prop up his "New Hampshire is the most racist state in the nation" argument.
This guy is out of his god damn mind. He can't get over the fact that he looks like a ridiculous fool after how badly he buried Hillary and how bad his man-crush on Obama was.
He's out tooling O'Reilly ten-fold right now.
I would agree if there were important differences between the three Democratic candidates on policy, but there aren't. They are all moderates in the mold of Bill Clinton, but come in different styles and colors. Therefore, a vote to send a message to the media or on some other tertiary consideration is more reasonable.
It's a lot more reasonable than, in a race where there are significant differences between two candidates, voting for the one you think is "the regular guy you'd like to have a beer with." Which is how we ended up with the current idiot in the White House, and why we'll spend 2 trillion dollars and 4,000 soldiers turning a formerly secular third world country into yet another haven for Islamofascist America haters.
You are discounting what Obama's appeal means. Do you really think that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are as likely to be able to work with Republicans as Obama will be? Getting people to care is something that very few politicians can do and really matters. Getting people to work together is something that Obama has over Edwards and especially Clinton.
Clinton's policies are good. I'd support them. But if she gets elected President with the way Republicans act towards her and the way she acts back we'll have nothing but 4-8 years of the same political backbiting that we've had for the last 7. She'll be able to get nothing significant done. There's no amount of political experience that will overcome the kind of hatred that stands against her and she's shown no ability to get those people to listen and work with her. If she had some kind of experience in THAT area I'd be much more comfortable with her. With Edwards its not as bad but similar.
scottinnj
01-09-2008, 07:26 PM
Jennifer Donahue (who I think is kinda hot)
Shame on you for not letting us all see for ourselves:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1413/532761629_04190a0b8b.jpg
Sorry I've been gone fellow junkies. I've had the flu since Monday, and I've been asked to work 11 hour days because half of the crew at my job has the flu and they are pussies who don't know how to push through. Work and sleep until now. I just had to post.
I'll keep it short: Go Obama, Go McCain. 'Nuff said.
You are discounting what Obama's appeal means. Do you really think that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are as likely to be able to work with Republicans as Obama will be? Getting people to care is something that very few politicians can do and really matters. Getting people to work together is something that Obama has over Edwards and especially Clinton.
Clinton's policies are good. I'd support them. But if she gets elected President with the way Republicans act towards her and the way she acts back we'll have nothing but 4-8 years of the same political backbiting that we've had for the last 7. She'll be able to get nothing significant done. There's no amount of political experience that will overcome the kind of hatred that stands against her and she's shown no ability to get those people to listen and work with her. If she had some kind of experience in THAT area I'd be much more comfortable with her. With Edwards its not as bad but similar.
I'm not sure about that at all. The RNC guys, and campaign strategists, and the Hannitys and Limbaughs and O'Reillys of the world thrive off of killing her, and making everything as devisive as possible.
But when it comes right down to it, a lot of the moderate Republicans senators and congressman like Hillary Clinton a lot. It's one of those dirty little secrets they don't really talk about much (especially during election season), but it's the truth.
She'd definitely be able to put together a good coalition with the moderates of the party like McCain, Hagel, Sununu, Specter and Graham in the senate as well as some on the house side.
And as for the entrenched hardline Republicans...anyone who thinks Obama is that gifted where he's going to sway them is probably kidding themselves.
My main plus for Obama over Hillary is he'd be a better world envoy, which is a huge plus.
Policy wise, they're fairly similar.
Shame on you for not letting us all see for ourselves:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1413/532761629_04190a0b8b.jpg
Sorry I've been gone fellow junkies. I've had the flu since Monday, and I've been asked to work 11 hour days because half of the crew at my job has the flu and they are pussies who don't know how to push through. Work and sleep until now. I just had to post.
I'll keep it short: Go Obama, Go McCain. 'Nuff said.
Sorry I didn't post a pic, but I didn't wanna have to run a batch to a screenshot of a political chick.
ShowerBench
01-09-2008, 07:50 PM
You are discounting what Obama's appeal means. Do you really think that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are as likely to be able to work with Republicans as Obama will be? Getting people to care is something that very few politicians can do and really matters. Getting people to work together is something that Obama has over Edwards and especially Clinton.
Clinton's policies are good. I'd support them. But if she gets elected President with the way Republicans act towards her and the way she acts back we'll have nothing but 4-8 years of the same political backbiting that we've had for the last 7. She'll be able to get nothing significant done. There's no amount of political experience that will overcome the kind of hatred that stands against her and she's shown no ability to get those people to listen and work with her. If she had some kind of experience in THAT area I'd be much more comfortable with her. With Edwards its not as bad but similar.
When I hear Clinton's fellow Senators on the GOP side talk about her it's usually in positive if not glowing terms (and vice versa). Personality wise I think she's as good as anyone at "getting along" with them - on a personal level. As far as getting something done that requires compromise, judging from the last 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton before that, it's the REPUBLICANS who stand in the way of that - and if Obama were to be more successful at it, it would probably mean caving to whatever they wanted. No thanks. Once there is a Democratic president, the Democratic congress will be able to move initiatives like health care along without needing a supermajority in the Senate to overcome a Republican president's veto.
Finally, here are the Senate records of the three Democratic candidates. Clinton has had more bill enacted and has been a more active Senator overall:
Clinton 7 years
Sponsored 350 bills; 2 enacted
Co-sponsored 1706 bills
Missed 6%; 143 votes of 2394
Average attendance relative to peers
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022
Edwards 6 years
Sponsored 81 bills; 0 enacted
Co-sponsored 531 bills
Missed 15%; 311 votes of 2019
Extremely poor attendance relative to peers
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300039
Obama 3 years
Sponsored 129 bills; 1 enacted
Co-sponsored 529 bills
Missed 16%; 177 votes of 1086
Very poor attendance relative to peers
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
By the way, I think Obama is on the ticket however this plays out.
Obviously, if he wins, he'll be running for President. If Hillary Clinton wins, though, I think the current environment in the Democratic Party would make it almost impossible for her to not make him her VP choice.
She would come across as the pettiest of petty people who was only interested in her own personal vendettas if she didn't pick him (assuming he doesn't have some meltdown along the way), and she could basically kiss all the enthusiasm and support surrounding the Democrats because of him goodbye.
So either way, Obama will probably come out a winner. He could conceivably sit as VP and come back in eight years an even stronger candidate.
When I hear Clinton's fellow Senators on the GOP side talk about her it's usually in positive if not glowing terms (and vice versa). Personality wise I think she's as good as anyone at "getting along" with them - on a personal level. As far as getting something done that requires compromise, judging from the last 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton before that, it's the REPUBLICANS who stand in the way of that - and if Obama were to be more successful at it, it would probably mean caving to whatever they wanted. No thanks. Once there is a Democratic president, the Democratic congress will be able to move initiatives like health care along without needing a supermajority in the Senate to overcome a Republican president's veto.
Finally, here are the Senate records of the three Democratic candidates. Clinton has had more bill enacted and has been a more active Senator overall:
Clinton 7 years
Sponsored 350 bills; 2 enacted
Co-sponsored 1706 bills
Missed 6%; 143 votes of 2394
Average attendance relative to peers
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022
Edwards 6 years
Sponsored 81 bills; 0 enacted
Co-sponsored 531 bills
Missed 15%; 311 votes of 2019
Extremely poor attendance relative to peers
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300039
Obama 3 years
Sponsored 129 bills; 1 enacted
Co-sponsored 529 bills
Missed 16%; 177 votes of 1086
Very poor attendance relative to peers
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
That all sounds good in theory but its one thing when you are working with her on bills that most people will never hear about and its another thing when you have to vote on a controversial bill she is endorsing as President and you have to then go back to your own supporters and essentailly defend Hillary Clinton. i don't see that happening.
And the part I bolded is what I'm concerned about most. I don't like this attitude (I've seen it elsewhere, and much stronger) and I think that's what's getting Hillary so much support. I don't want the next 4-8 years just to be our turn with the stick, beating down Republicans and forcing through whatever we can. We'll end up in the Republicans position when her term is over. I want to do something substantial, I want somebody to seriously deal with the problems. And being open to negotiation with Republicans isn't a weakness and doesn't mean he will automatically cave. You are taking Bush's stance toward foreign enemies and applying it towards Republicans. That doesn't work with anybody.
Besides that, they wouldn't need a supermajority to override a veto, just a supermajority to override a filibuster. Because I don't think anyone seriously thinks the Republicans will allow something like a Universal Health Care plan to be shoved down their throats.
ShowerBench
01-09-2008, 09:26 PM
I don't want the next 4-8 years just to be our turn with the stick, beating down Republicans and forcing through whatever we can. We'll end up in the Republicans position when her term is over. I want to do something substantial, I want somebody to seriously deal with the problems. And being open to negotiation with Republicans isn't a weakness and doesn't mean he will automatically cave.
Agree with that, but whether substantial initiatives can be implemented is going to depend in large part on consensus among the electorate, which has been elusive forever to one degree or another. When the electorate is ready for health care reform, it will get done because there will be little tolerance for people like Gingrich and DeLay standing in the way. When the extremes lose their potency ("socialized medicine" memes, etc.) and the public decides there is such a thing as an incremental, moderate solution, problems can be dealt with. Unfortunately that usually never happens until there is a crisis, but in the areas where serious reform is needed like health care, I think there is finally enough consensus that there is a "crisis" so that any of the (D) candidates can bring about change.
My concern is whether they also have the national security/foreign policy chops, and the only one on either side that doesn't make me queasy right now on that front is Billary.
Along the lines of "refighting the battles of the 90s" and whether Obama represents "the end of partisan bickering," a "new tone in Washington," or any of the other promises we've heard from the last several years' worth of politicians, here's Barney Frank on what really happened in the 90's and whether Obama is the answer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/refight-the-nineties_b_80751.html
As a Democratic Member of the U.S. House of Representatives today, I close by noting that there does appear to me to be a strong contradiction between two of the criticisms we sometimes receive. One is the approach taken by Senator Obama, which I have just tried to describe, which expresses distaste for too much fighting and too much anger, with too little effort to govern in a way that bridges differences. But contrary to that, I often hear that we Democrats in the Congress have not fought hard enough, that we have not stood up enough for what we believe in, and have been too prone to conciliate. I personally do not think that either criticism is justified, but I know as a fact that they cannot both be true.
I fully agree with Senator Obama that we should be arguing for the policies we advocate and the values from which they derive in a manner that appeals to the broadest possible segment of the public. His own ability to do that is one of our great assets. But I worry when people on my side underestimate the difficulty of our most important work, and I believe that is what Senator Obama does when he dismisses our efforts to fight the right wing in an earlier period because it suggests to me that he does underestimate the difficulty of the job. I think the best way to summarize my concern is that if you tell people that we should not be willing to refight the battles of the nineties -- including many very important ones that we are far from having won -- and if you tell people to refuse partisanship, you may be inviting people to leave the battlefield to those with whom we have the biggest differences. Racial fairness, reproductive rights for women, an end to discrimination against sexual minorities, universal health care, the right of working men and women to bargain collectively with employers -- these battles we waged in the nineties remain essential to our vision today, and I do not understand why we should either be embarrassed about having fought hard for them, ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, or why we should not be determined to keep fighting until we have achieved success.
What convinced me about Obama is not his his speaking talent of his charisma it was an article I read about his passing of a law he wrote in Illinois. It would made videotaping of confessions in police interrogations mandatory. The Republicans opposed it, some Democrats opposed it, the Police opposed it and the Governor opposed it. It ended up passing both houses unanimously with Police support and the Governor passed it. It was really an incredible story and I wish I could find the article.
TheMojoPin
01-10-2008, 09:13 AM
Looking at the NH voting numbers, I think it's interesting that Edwards and Obama got the percentages that was being estimated of them...simply more people than estimated total came out to vote, and those extra votes were the ones Clinton got to win. Most people were projecting Obama between 35-38%, and tha's right where he ended up.
scottinnj
01-10-2008, 03:17 PM
HOPE
A lot of things can be accomplished because of hope. You give someone hope, and they'll go through hell because they know better things will greet them at the end of their struggle, if not for themselves, but for their freinds and children.
I BELIEVE Obama can reunite this country. I KNOW once he does that we as a country can do extraordinary things for us and the world.
I am TIRED of the politicians bickering and fighting over peanuts and semantics while real people's lives are affected. We need real leadership, someone who will look beyond party lines and lobbyist demands to see what is best for the American People.
Obama is that Democrat. McCain is that Republican. Let's work within our parties to get these two nominated, and if McCain fails, let's crossover as Republicans concerned about America to fight for Obama. I hope you Democrats would do the same, but as always, I can only speak for my party and voice my personal opinions.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ndceu/AmericanFlag.jpg
You can call me corny, or over the top, but I love this country and what it stands for. We are on the verge of showing the world once again, what OPPORTUNITY means here in America.
If there is hope, we can have unity. If we have unity, we'll make change ourselves.
With all three of those things, NOBODY can mess with us.
HOPE, CHANGE, UNITY. It's a rare time we live in, when all three things are being offered to us at the same time. Let's take it!
spoon
01-10-2008, 04:07 PM
HOPE
A lot of things can be accomplished because of hope. You give someone hope, and they'll go through hell because they know better things will greet them at the end of their struggle, if not for themselves, but for their freinds and children.
I BELIEVE Obama can reunite this country. I KNOW once he does that we as a country can do extraordinary things for us and the world.
I am TIRED of the politicians bickering and fighting over peanuts and semantics while real people's lives are affected. We need real leadership, someone who will look beyond party lines and lobbyist demands to see what is best for the American People.
Obama is that Democrat. McCain is that Republican. Let's work within our parties to get these two nominated, and if McCain fails, let's crossover as Republicans concerned about America to fight for Obama. I hope you Democrats would do the same, but as always, I can only speak for my party and voice my personal opinions.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ndceu/AmericanFlag.jpg
You can call me corny, or over the top, but I love this country and what it stands for. We are on the verge of showing the world once again, what OPPORTUNITY means here in America.
If there is hope, we can have unity. If we have unity, we'll make change ourselves.
With all three of those things, NOBODY can mess with us.
HOPE, CHANGE, UNITY. It's a rare time we live in, when all three things are being offered to us at the same time. Let's take it!
I can agree to the change angle, but I'm just not as sold on McCain as you are. If he gets in I hope your right about him as I feel he's been beating down by the repub core and is way past his time for the office. The only repub I can even see myself voting for is Paul, but his chances are almost none. I surely don't love all his policy views, but even if he couldn't get drastic change (just like any other candidate we speak of claiming change), I'd be confident he'd try to buck the system and at least get the country thinking different leading us to change over time. If we go the status quo and accept the same bullshit, we're doomed to be the sloths to progression and change as we have over the last decade. Hell, we've become more then that, we've actually begun to go the wrong direction in soooo many areas.
thejives
01-10-2008, 04:27 PM
HOPE
HOPE, CHANGE, UNITY. It's a rare time we live in, when all three things are being offered to us at the same time. Let's take it!
I admire your sentiments Scott.
And, as is the case with so many of your statements, I wish more conservatives were like you are. However, I think we do have a lot of reasons to be optimistic about the options in this election, and you can bet we'll push hard for the kind of result that will make a real difference.
now let's get back to calling each other queer.
scottinnj
01-10-2008, 04:31 PM
I can agree to the change angle, but I'm just not as sold on McCain as you are. If he gets in I hope your right about him as I feel he's been beating down by the repub core and is way past his time for the office. The only repub I can even see myself voting for is Paul, but his chances are almost none.
You gotta do what your conscience tells you to do, and who to vote for. I'm just hoping for us to be able to rally 'round the winner of this brouhaha, whoever it might be.
If we all can go for our particular favorites based on true convictions, and really push for the issues to be debated, it can be nothing but good for the country.
ShowerBench
01-10-2008, 07:15 PM
http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/mccain_bush-hug-767929.jpg
scottinnj
01-10-2008, 07:23 PM
Two Republicans hugging.
And Crying.
It just makes you Fez!
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.