View Full Version : U.S. Prez Election: Michigan Primary/Nevada Caucus
Well, I hope nobody minds if we condense Michigan and Nevada into a single thread. As per usual, pick your poison, and the candidates are listed in alpha order. In keeping with the way primaries are usually run, I'm gonna leave the poll anonymous.
To kick things off, Maureen Dowd has a very amusing column (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html?pagewanted=2&ref=opinion) today:
Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: January 9, 2008
When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.
A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the “humanized” Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. “We are at war,” he said. “Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?”
Another reporter joked: “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.” He added dryly: “Crying doesn’t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships.”
Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.
She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters.
Getting brushed back by Barack Obama in Iowa, her emotional moment here in a cafe and her chagrin at a debate question suggesting she was not likable served the same purpose, making her more appealing, especially to women, particularly to women over 45.
The Obama campaign calculated that they had the women’s vote over the weekend but watched it slip away in the track of her tears.
At the Portsmouth cafe on Monday, talking to a group of mostly women, she blinked back her misty dread of where Obama’s “false hopes” will lead us — “I just don’t want to see us fall backwards,” she said tremulously — in time to smack her rival: “But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not.”
There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.
As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”
The Clintons once more wriggled out of a tight spot at the last minute. Bill churlishly dismissed the Obama phenom as “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” but for the last few days, it was Hillary who seemed in danger of being Cinderella. She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. All those years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed by another Natural?
How humiliating to have a moderator of the New Hampshire debate ask her to explain why she was not as popular as the handsome young prince from Chicago. How demeaning to have Obama rather ungraciously chime in: “You’re likable enough.” And how exasperating to be pushed into an angry rebuttal when John Edwards played wingman, attacking her on Obama’s behalf.
“I actually have emotions,” she told CNN’s John Roberts on a damage-control tour. “I know that there are some people who doubt that.” She went on “Access Hollywood” to talk about, as the show put it, “the double standards that a woman running for president faces.” “If you get too emotional, that undercuts you,” Hillary said. “A man can cry; we know that. Lots of our leaders have cried. But a woman, it’s a different kind of dynamic.”
It was a peculiar tactic. Here she was attacking Obama for spreading gauzy emotion by spreading gauzy emotion. When Hillary hecklers yelled “Iron my shirt!” at her in Salem on Monday, it stirred sisterhood.
At Hillary’s victory party in Manchester, Carolyn Marwick, 65, said Hillary showed she was human at the cafe. “I think she’s really tired. She’s been under a lot more scrutiny than the other candidates — how she dresses, how she laughs.”
Her son, David, 35, an actor, said he also “got choked up” when he saw Hillary get choked up. He echoed Hillary’s talking points on the likability issue. “It’s not ‘American Idol.’ You have to vote smart.”
Olivia Cooper, 41, of Concord said, “When you think you’re not going to make it, it’s heart-wrenching when you want something so much.”
Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had “no masculinity to prove.” But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.
Yet, in the end, she had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week whined mightily that the press prefers Obama.
Bill Clinton, campaigning in Henniker on Monday, also played the poor-little-woman card in a less-than-flattering way. “I can’t make her younger, taller or change her gender,” he said. He was so low-energy at events that it sometimes seemed he was distancing himself from her. Now that she is done with New Hampshire, she may distance herself from him, realizing that seeing Bill so often reminds voters that they don’t want to go back to that whole megillah again.
Hillary sounded silly trying to paint Obama as a poetic dreamer and herself as a prodigious doer. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” she said. Did any living Democrat ever imagine that any other living Democrat would try to win a presidential primary in New Hampshire by comparing herself to L.B.J.? (Who was driven out of politics by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire.)
Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.
At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph. Saying that her heart was full, she sounded the feminist anthem: “I found my own voice.”
ICantSpellDawg
01-09-2008, 20:28
Why anonymous? I'll re-post what I just posted in the NH thread.
Link to poll averages (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html)
I was actually surprised by the Republican results last night. McCain was slated for 31.8% of the vote and Romney for 28.2.
In the end, the Voter turnout was record breaking and McCain was given 37% of the vote. You would assume that Romney would be the big loser, BUT he came away with 32% of the vote. This means, obviously that he got a higher percentage of the Republican vote than expected AND way more votes in general. Huckabee lost out by a little over 1 or 2% (or simply had no bounce in NH after Iowa) and Thompson lost half of his polled votes.
Very interesting.
This race has really become a four man show
Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee.
Do you think Thompson and Hunter will bow out right after South Carolina?
PS - Nader said he would probably run if Hildabeast recieved the nomination.
Because that's how real votes work. You pick whomever you want, and you don't have to explain it to anybody if you don't feel like it. Supposedly it leads to more honest voting.
Anyway, that's my thinking. If everybody hates it, I can change it back for the next thread.
-edit-
This (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQ2YzE0MjRhZmI5YzAxNmYxZDJiMWExMGFlODY0ODE=) sort of thing really honks me off. It's the sort of demonization of the opposition that I think is really, truly unhelpful.
Hillary Clinton won the votes of traditional New Hampshire Democrats yesterday. Barack Obama won the new Democrats.
Clinton won every ward in Manchester and Nashua. She won the old industrial cities of Claremont and Berlin and the city of Rochester and large town of Salem. She won the wards where the state's minority voters — black and Hispanic — live. And she won women.
Obama won the far-left, coffee-shop strongholds of Concord, Hanover, Lebanon, Keene, and Portsmouth. He won the Starbucks crowd; she won the Dunkin' Donuts crowd.
Clinton's margin of victory in Manchester and Nashua was more than 5,000 votes.
The Jeanne Shaheen machine and the traditional Democratic Party coalition of blue collar and middle class families carried the day for Clinton while Obama's wealthy, educated, elite Democratic and independent supporters put up a good fight but were left sobbing in their lattes.
So if Dems are working-class or minorities, well, that speaks for itself, doesn't it? And if they are college-educated and/or professionals, they must be effete elites who cry into their Starbucks cups.
Nice. Who says that Edwards and Huckabee have a lock on class warfare?
Is an educated Republican who earns good money an "elite"? I thought they were "successful." God, I can't begin to explain how much this sort of partisan double-standards demagoguery ticks me off.
CountArach
01-09-2008, 21:20
My Kucinich vote is duly put in :bow:
ICantSpellDawg
01-09-2008, 21:24
Nice. Who says that Edwards and Huckabee have a lock on class warfare?
Is an educated Republican who earns good money an "elite"? I thought they were "successful." God, I can't begin to explain how much this sort of partisan double-standards demagoguery ticks me off.
That is exactly what I'm friggin talking about.
Countries who vilify their hard working, intelligent and proud population for populist appeal are doomed economically.
I don't even know who to vote for in my own poll. I'll break it down into tiers.
McCain and Obama are my top tier. Either man would be good for the country. At the moment I honestly can't pick between them. If they ran against each other, I'd have to flip a coin. Then again, if they ran against each other, I would have no worries, since in a very real sense I couldn't lose.
Romney is my second-tier pick. As much as I love Ron Paul, I can't imagine him governing the nation. Romney, on the other hand, has a great track record, and as I've said elsewhere, he bothered to balance a budget. That is a rare and precious commodity in these times.
Edwards, Thompson and Huckabee are all non-starters for me. Edwards is trying to play an amateur game of class warfare, which is just silly. Thompson does not seem to have the energy for the job, nor the charisma to use the bully pulpit effectively. Huckabee does not believe in evolution. Hate to say it, but that's a deal-breaker.
Giuliani and Clinton are in what I like to think of as the "Oh God, please no" category. Giuliani has autocratic tendencies that I distrust deeply. Clinton would be the Democratic version of George W. Bush. I know, I've been comparing her to Nixon, but maybe even that's a little too elevated for her.
I actually donated money to a campaign today, something I haven't done in years. Two campaigns, actually. I'm sure you can guess who they were.
So how do I vote?
ICantSpellDawg
01-09-2008, 21:55
I actually donated money to a campaign today, something I haven't done in years. Two campaigns, actually. I'm sure you can guess who they were.
So how do I vote?
I just did too! I bought 2 mugs for a total of $28!
I just bought pencils for every Romney office in MI!
FactionHeir
01-09-2008, 22:04
With Ron Paul seemingly winning each and every ORG poll on politics, maybe one of you should contact him and make him president of the backroom?
ICantSpellDawg
01-09-2008, 22:05
He lost the last poll to Obama. That's a good idea though.
I don't even know who to vote for in my own poll. I'll break it down into tiers.Honestly, I can't get that excited about any of the candidates for either party. :shrug:
My first choice, obviously, would be Fred Thompson. He's pretty consistent on all the issues I support, and frankly, I think we could really use a more laid back chief executive. He's the only one that I cant feel any enthusiasm at all about- but, I realize his election is pretty much a pipe dream. :shame:
Next would be a tie for McCain/Romney. McCain is good on foreign policy, pretty good on pork, but bad on taxes and hates freedom(IE: thinks the government knows better than us). Romney talks a good talk and has good management experience. I just have a hard time believing him. Paul, Guiliani, and Huckabee... I'm just plain not interested in for various reasons that I've explained many times elsewhere.
On the Democrat side, I would probably rank my choices in order as Hillary, Obama, and Edwards- Edwards being the worst by a longshot.
An interesting metric (at least I think so), is whether I'd rather have the candidate or just keep our current President, who I don't think to highly of either. The only ones I'd rather have over our current nincompoop are Thompson, McCain, and Romney- the point being that I'm really unsatisfied with pretty much all of the possible candidates. :thumbsdown:
woad&fangs
01-09-2008, 23:09
I voted Paul in the last thread but their is no way in ******* **** that Hildabeast should have won New Hamphshire. Now I know my plan for running for president. 1. cry my bloody eyes out. 2. Have my husband spouting off bs lies about the uppity negro(his support of the Iraq war). **** Hildabeast, She'll take Michigan and Nevada over my dead body!!!!:furious3:
O-B-A-M-A FOR PREZ
1. Obama
2. McCain(is it just me or does he seem like he's on his deathbed?)
3. Romney(He makes my skin crawl but I think he'll balance the budget and he'll become very moderate as president.)
4. Paul(Obama is a better use of the **** the GOV vote)
5. Thompson(too conservative for me to really like him but he doesn't seem power hungry at all.)
6. Edwards(too liberal)
7. Huckabee(Too socially conservative and financially liberal)
8. Giuliani(He would be an autocrat but he still wouldnt be as bad as....)
8. Hildabeast('nuff said)
FactionHeir
01-09-2008, 23:10
An interesting metric (at least I think so), is whether I'd rather have the candidate or just keep our current President, who I don't think to highly of either. The only ones I'd rather have over our current nincompoop are Thompson, McCain, and Romney- the point being that I'm really unsatisfied with pretty much all of the possible candidates.
Save your vote for Nader then. He's rumored to run in the actual election. :tongue2:
FactionHeir
01-09-2008, 23:13
2. Have my husband spouting off bs lies about the uppity negro(his support of the Iraq war). **** Hildabeast, She'll take Michigan and Nevada over my dead body!!!!:furious3:
In the comments section of the CNN political ticker page, there was some disagreement whether it were lies or not.
I think there was an arguement that Obama was not even in senate when the vote of invasion was put up, so its easy to say that he was anti war and still is.
Similarly, he said that if the war was approved, that it would have to be seen through (i.e. by supporting the troops) and he voted for legislation authorizing funds for iraq during his term.
So he is flip flopping on that issue really.
Louis VI the Fat
01-10-2008, 00:06
I agree with Tuff that this poll should not be anonymous! I am simply dying to find out who placed that one vote on Romney. :beam:
Hildabeast, She'll take Michigan and Nevada over my dead body!!!!:furious3: B..but Woad, why? Please, won't you reconsider? I am very dissapointed in you now. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Triste/pleure2.gif
Please vote Hillary. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Triste/pleure1.gif
ICantSpellDawg
01-10-2008, 00:37
I agree with Tuff that this poll should not be anonymous! I am simply dying to find out who placed that one vote on Romney. :beam:
B..but Woad, why? Please, won't you reconsider? I am very dissapointed in you now. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Triste/pleure2.gif
Please vote Hillary. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Triste/pleure1.gif
Don't BS me - We all know it was you.:logic:
seireikhaan
01-10-2008, 00:49
I voted Paul in the last thread but their is no way in ******* **** that Hildabeast should have won New Hamphshire. Now I know my plan for running for president. 1. cry my bloody eyes out. 2. Have my husband spouting off bs lies about the uppity negro(his support of the Iraq war). **** Hildabeast, She'll take Michigan and Nevada over my dead body!!!!:furious3:
O-B-A-M-A FOR PREZ
1. Obama
2. McCain(is it just me or does he seem like he's on his deathbed?)
3. Romney(He makes my skin crawl but I think he'll balance the budget and he'll become very moderate as president.)
4. Paul(Obama is a better use of the **** the GOV vote)
5. Thompson(too conservative for me to really like him but he doesn't seem power hungry at all.)
6. Edwards(too liberal)
7. Huckabee(Too socially conservative and financially liberal)
8. Giuliani(He would be an autocrat but he still wouldnt be as bad as....)
8. Hildabeast('nuff said)
:yes: Although i would have Romney waaay farther down my list. Other than that, its either Obama or McCain for me. McCain, at the least, (imo) wouln't completely screw the country over. But he's still a distant second for me from Obama(considering Richardson is all but out of the race).
Save your vote for Nader then. He's rumored to run in the actual election. :tongue2:
:laugh4: No. Nader's even worse. :no:
edit:
In addition who "Who do you want to win?" polls, I'd like to see "Who do you think will win?" polls as well. People who know they're voting for a loser can still prognosticate about who they think will win. :beam:
Richardson is out -- it's anybody's race now!
Paul
or
McCain
I wouldn't mind either.
I don't think I could vote for any democrat when I think about it. Osama has character, but it really stops there. All I ever see/hear from him is a bunch of overblown rhetoric calling for "change".... change... and MORE CHANGE. I mean, it's a joke. What exactly is "change", Obama, and how will you accomplish this?
Hill Dog is a definite no, although it was brilliant how she manipulated last minute women voters. Brilliant.
I'd rather vote for Mike Hukabee (that's saying a lot considering I hate the religious right), than Edwards. He just comes off as an awful commander in chief.
Osama has character, but it really stops there. All I ever see/hear from him is a bunch of overblown rhetoric calling for "change".... change... and MORE CHANGE. I mean, it's a joke. What exactly is "change", Obama, and how will you accomplish this?
Oh for pete's sake, don't blame the candidates for dumbing it down to one-word slogans. If we want detailed position papers, they all have them, usually posted to their websites. Obama has them, most of the other candidates do as well.
Look how well it's going for the one guy who refuses to do anything but talk in detailed, substantive policy. He grabbed a whole 1% of the New Hampshire vote. Wheee!
Besides which, how much of a President's actions really corollate to the planks, platforms and papers they put out ahead of the election? As one blogger put it today:
When it comes to electing a president, I don’t care so much about that. Congress will have a legislative agenda, and they will (or they won’t) implement it. The president’s agenda too often is set by someone else, like al-Qaeda. And when that time comes, I want a measured, principled, reflective president with a rigorous intellect who will capably work with people on either side of the aisle to ensure that the right decisions are made. What I don't want is a partisan warrior for whom political power and public service have become all but indistinguishable. That’s why I’m backing Obama. It’s also why I’ll make McCain the first Republican ever to get my presidential vote if the race comes down to him and Senator Clinton.
-edit-
Another thought: If Obama's change slogan is so inane and worthless, why is every candidate except for Alan Keyes aping him and appropriating the meme? Seems to me he got his idiot-friendly one-word slogan right.
When it comes to electing a president, I don’t care so much about that. Congress will have a legislative agenda, and they will (or they won’t) implement it. The president’s agenda too often is set by someone else, like al-Qaeda. And when that time comes, I want a measured, principled, reflective president with a rigorous intellect who will capably work with people on either side of the aisle to ensure that the right decisions are made. What I don't want is a partisan warrior for whom political power and public service have become all but indistinguishable. That’s why I’m backing Obama. It’s also why I’ll make McCain the first Republican ever to get my presidential vote if the race comes down to him and Senator Clinton.
That comment is its own refutation. If his "change" rhetoric is nothing but political hot air, what is it that sets him apart from any other politician that lusts for power? He's spouting a bunch of empty, feel good rhetoric, and we're supposed to praise him for it? I don't see how we can know he'd be a "measured, principled, reflective president with a rigorous intellect" when all he's doing is blowing smoke up our butts.
Wow, Pindar flashback. "X is its own refutation," etc. Next thing I know you're going to tell me I am "confusing" you.
The comment is not self-contradictory at all. The blogger is saying that he wants a moderate Prez who will reach across party lines and build coalitions rather than another partisan hack. In what way does that contradict itself?
Or rather are you saying that the statement contradicts the "change" mantra? In which case, so what? As I said, we can't really urinate on the candidates because they do some sloganeering. (Except for Thompson, who does no slogans, no catchphrases, and no pithy stuff whatsoever. It's beneath him, I guess.)
In your vein of logic, we should all decry the emptiness of "I Like Ike!" How dare Eisenhower suggest that I like him? What does it mean, exactly? Why won't he engage in real policy? "I Like Ike!" is a vapid, empty statement, and we should all rush to condemn it.
Oh for pete's sake, don't blame the candidates for dumbing it down to one-word slogans. If we want detailed position papers, they all have them, usually posted to their websites. Obama has them, most of the other candidates do as well.
I do blame the candidates for dumbing the issues down. I think it's a retarded populist idea to get votes. Do I understand it? Sure. Do I support it? NO.
Look how well it's going for the one guy who refuses to do anything but talk in detailed, substantive policy. He grabbed a whole 1% of the New Hampshire vote. Wheee!
That's why I like the man so much, actually. I'm sick of candidates lying out their ass and selling their souls to get elected.
Another thought: If Obama's change slogan is so inane and worthless, why is every candidate except for Alan Keyes aping him and appropriating the meme? Seems to me he got his idiot-friendly one-word slogan right.
Populist move
Obama is the new trend.
I do blame the candidates for dumbing the issues down. I think it's a retarded populist idea to get votes. Do I understand it? Sure. Do I support it? NO.:yes: All we're left with is candidates who looks good on TV and can either make people feel good or scare them the most. It seems the issues are irrelevant to a significant chunk of the electorate. Just because everyone else is ignoring the issues and eating up meaningless platitudes doesn't mean we should too.
That's why I like the man so much, actually. I'm sick of candidates lying out their ass and selling their souls to get elected.
I assumed he was talking about Thompson- who got 1% of the vote. Paul got 8%.
The comment is not self-contradictory at all. The blogger is saying that he wants a moderate Prez who will reach across party lines and build coalitions rather than another partisan hack. In what way does that contradict itself?It'd be better to say that he does nothing to make his case. What part of Obama's happy feel good nonsense has any bearing on how he'd govern? The poster is basically saying that he doesn't care a lick about the issues and just wants the candidate that makes him feel good. What nonsense.
It'd be better to say that he does nothing to make his case. What part of Obama's happy feel good nonsense has any bearing on how he'd govern? The poster is basically saying that he doesn't care a lick about the issues and just wants the candidate that makes him feel good. What nonsense.
Xiahou, I'm increasingly coming to the impression that you did not read the quote I posted, 'cause your comments are landing farther and farther from any relationship to what was written.
Nice chatting with you, though.
-edit-
That notorious left-winger, George F. Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902902.html?hpid=opinionsbox1), has this to say on the subject:
The wrong question about Obama has been "Where's the beef?" -- "beef" meaning policy substance. Policy papers in profusion can be ginned up by campaign advisers, of whom Obama has plenty. The right question is whether he is a souffle -- pretty and pleasing, but mostly air and apt to collapse if jostled. Presidential politics is an exhausting, hard, occasionally even cruel, vetting process -- necessarily so, given the stakes -- and now that he has been bumped hard we shall see if there is steel beneath the sleek gray suit.
Xiahou, I'm increasingly coming to the impression that you did not read the quote I posted, 'cause your comments are landing farther and farther from any relationship to what was written.
He said:
When it comes to electing a president, I don’t care so much about that.'That' being their agenda or platform. What part of the comment am I getting wrong?
Xiahou, the blogger stated that he wanted "a measured, principled, reflective president with a rigorous intellect who will capably work with people on either side of the aisle to ensure that the right decisions are made." To you this translated as "issues don't matter, just make me feel good."
Take off your debate hat for a moment and consider what the man actually wrote. It's not idiotic, it's not naive, and it's not silly. If anything it is realistic to the highest degree. How much of George W. Bush's pre-election agenda has actually been implemented? How much of any President's pre-election promises, plans, planks, etc. actually get into law? Despite the evidence of the last seven years, we do have a tripartite government, you know ...
You and Ice are railing off on Obama, claiming that he has no substance. As George Will has noted, the man has published position papers aplenty. Here's the Cliff's Notes (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/), for those interested.
How much of George W. Bush's pre-election agenda has actually been implemented? How much of any President's pre-election promises, plans, planks, etc. actually get into law? Despite the evidence of the last seven years, we do have a tripartite government, you know ...No Child Left Behind? Medicare drug benefit? Many of his plans were understandably waylaid by 9/11, but even still he got much of his agenda thru for better or worse. And if Obama wins, he'll have a Democrat congress to help implement his policy similar to how Bush did in his first term. The blogger is a twit, imo, if he honestly thinks the president doesn't wield tremendous influence on the legislative agenda.
You and Ice are railing off on Obama, claiming that he has no substance. As George Will has noted, the man has published position papers aplenty. Here's the Cliff's Notes, for those interested.Have you read Obama's positions? Do you support them? Most of what he supports (and his voting record backs it up) puts him among many of the most partisan Democrats. He attacks both NAFTA and CAFTA and supports the so called "Employee Free Choice Act" which includes provisions enabling unions to strongarm workers into joining and guts the idea of secret ballots. He also supports further increases of minimum wage... this is all just from economic section. There is little "moderate" about any of his policies, nor is much moderation found in his voting record.
The real point is that he's not campaigning on what he supports. He's campaigning on nebulous "change" while not mentioning any specifics when he can help it. I seriously doubt the majority of his supporters have any real idea of what he supports. This is why we call him the "feel good" candidate. I don't like seeing candidates skate to success on empty rhetoric- I'd lump Huckabee in with this as well.
The funny thing is, the more vehemently you attack him, the more inclined I am to support him. Thanks for helping me!
The funny thing is, the more vehemently you attack him, the more inclined I am to support him. Thanks for helping me!
Glad to help you stake out some of Obama's actual positions behind the rhetoric. I'm sure a moderate like you will find much in common. :wink:
On the bright side, should he win the nomination, we'll get treated to all of this being drug out into the light in the general election- should make for another great time. :beam:
ICantSpellDawg
01-10-2008, 19:36
Obama has been focusing on rhetoric and the cult of personality for the past few states. He will most likely switch tactics now - not from the hope message, but from the pure rhetoric. Now he has people listening and they will be more receptive to the message when he delivers it as his main point. We will see what he believes in as time goes on. I don't believe his campaign to be empty of strong issues. I also don't believe him to be a bridge builder as he says he is. That is fluff to the ears of his constituents. People do like poetry in political speeches, that is just a reality that we have to deal with.
I really don't mind Obama in the ways that I mind Hillary. I would much rather have Obama become president than Hillary. However, Nader says that he would most likely run if Hillary received the nod - which I believe would help to sink the Democratic campaign. I doubt he would run if Obama received the nomination.
Pluses and minuses to both candidacies.
Xiahou, in much the same spirit, I'm sorry your candidate can only pull 1% of the vote in his own party's primary. That's gotta sting. And I'm also sorry you can't vote for a third Bush term.
Xiahou, in much the same spirit, I'm sorry your candidate can only pull 1% of the vote in his own party's primary. That's gotta sting.
It's ok. I already know he can't win. I support him on principle- it is a bit sad to see how well actual conservative ideals fare in the personality-obsessed, media driven electoral process. Sad, but pretty much expected.
And I'm also sorry you can't vote for a third Bush term.I'm not. I only voted for him last time because Kerry was so completely feckless. It's more sad commentary that Bush still could actually look tempting compared to some of our current GOP candidates. :shame:
ICantSpellDawg
01-10-2008, 20:35
It's ok. I already know he can't win. I support him on principle- it is a bit sad to see how well actual conservative ideals fare in the personality-obsessed, media driven electoral process. Sad, but pretty much expected.
I'm not. I only voted for him last time because Kerry was so completely feckless. It's more sad commentary that Bush still could actually look tempting compared to some of our current GOP candidates. :shame:
I liked Thompson's politics - I just didn't think that he was presidential material. Not only because he doesn't "look like a pres", but because his personality seems to relaxed for broad appeal. He also looks really unhealthy.
I felt that Romney had a youthful exuberance (for a 60 year old man in particular) and his history outside of politics was interesting and strong. It is one of the reasons I don't like teachers who went into teaching right out of college. I would rather someone who had gotten things done and THEN gone into teaching. They tend to have more grounded ideas and a more insightful knowledge of the real world that everybody else lives in.
Just me - but I do like Thompson.
The real point is that he's not campaigning on what he supports. He's campaigning on nebulous "change" while not mentioning any specifics when he can help it. I seriously doubt the majority of his supporters have any real idea of what he supports. This is why we call him the "feel good" candidate. I don't like seeing candidates skate to success on empty rhetoric- I'd lump Huckabee in with this as well.
:yes:
Lemur, I never said Obama didn't have a clue what he was doing, nor any ideas for "change".
What I dislike so much about the man is that he never actually talks about this "change". He just keeps spewing it out like it is well known what he is going to do. He takes the extreme populist route instead of actually trying to explain to his followers, on occasion, how he will accomplish change.
Most of the people I ask about Obama say they want "Change". I ask them, what will he "change"? They are usually at a struggle for words at that point.
I'm sure there are many people who whole heartily believe in what Obamba says, but there are also many who are just following Obama for the new "flavor".
ICantSpellDawg
01-11-2008, 05:00
Good Debate tonight. Thompson did very well. Romney did very well.
Huckabee finally got blasted.
If there's one thing this primary needs, it's better rap music. The Huckabee mix (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QJrJbWkF-c) is not-so-good. Ron Paul's mix (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPBj4pzfKA0) is marginally better, but it ain't what the kids would call "kickin." And the Mike Gravel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1PeZDHXgsw&) rap? Scary stuff.
Most disappointingly, I couldn't find a single Mitt Romney rap, which speaks to a real hip-hop deficit in his campaign. The best I could find was the Stormin' Mormon rap (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkaT-9pyf3c), which isn't even about his candidacy, fer Pete's sake.
It's only fair that we demand more, and better rap from our candidates. The time is now. The moment is here. America is strong. Etc., etc., etc.
KukriKhan
01-11-2008, 05:15
Good Debate tonight. Thompson did very well. Romney did very well.
Huckabee finally got blasted.
No offense, but you must have seen a different "debate" than I did. I saw a series of campaign stump speeches, punctuated by a few 'zingers' at Mr. Paul.
I give a nod to Fred for the phrase: "America should be a nation of tall fences, and wide gates...". Nice slogan. :thumbsup:
Crazed Rabbit
01-11-2008, 06:05
The funny thing is, the more vehemently you attack him, the more inclined I am to support him. Thanks for helping me!
Sheesh, Lemur, get a grip. Xiahou's criticisms are sound, and you're coming off like some kid who's supporting Obama just because Xiahou doesn't like him.
Obama spouts the change thing because his positions are solidly left, and change sounds good to nearly everybody. He opposes the biggest free trade agreement, and the union demand for 'fair trade'. He believes climate change is "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation". That the government should retool the factories of the big three automakers. Basically a bunch of far left policies across the board.
But you go ahead and say you're going to support him just because some guy on a forum points out his flaws. I don't see how you can honestly support him and claim to be a moderate and fiscal conservative.
CR
I don't see how you can honestly support him and claim to be a moderate and fiscal conservative.
I could, with rather more justice, ask how you could support a Republican and claim to be a fiscal conservative.
Proletariat
01-11-2008, 06:32
Instead of just bashing right wingers in the backroom, I'd like to hear what policies of Obama you like, Lemur. I haven't been following the election coverage much, so I'm in the dark basically on all the runners positions, but Obama certainly doesn't smack of fiscal responsibility. Hillary seems more financially responsible and I know how you feel about her.
What is it you really like about Obama and McCain? Or just link me where you might've stated it before, I'm not up to speed on most backroom regulars positions since I've been a little busier than usual the last few weeks.
KukriKhan
01-11-2008, 06:42
...Obama certainly doesn't smack...
I think you have something there...
:laugh4:
What I like about Obama and McCain, for the most part, is their personal histories. Both of them have shown a capacity to work with people who disagree with them, a quality that I think is muy importante right now. Neither man shows signs of being a rabid partisan.
McCain has worked extensively with the Dems in the Senate. Yay. Obama convinced the conservative staff of the Harvard Law Review to elect him as editor. Yay. He also had a nine year run at the University of Chicago Law School, where his colleagues and students give him high marks. This suggests, to me, that he's a guy who is comfortable around genuine conservatives.
McCain is a war hero, something that deserves some respect right off the bat. As a man who has been to an actual shooting war, I trust him to handle Iraq rather better than the chickenhawks we've been saddled with for the last seven years. If a man like McCain says we need to do something, I'm going to give it a lot more weight than I would if Bush or Cheney say the same thing.
Obama has two things that are a benefit in a President: Charisma and organizational prowess. His charisma has been dissed and dismissed, but I think people forget that most of what a President does is talk. The ability to sway and convince people is paramount; moral suasion, as the Victorians would call it. When was the lat time you saw a crowd cheering hysterically for the idea of being polite and decent? Also note that his campaign speeches are full of calls for moderation and bipartisanship. And the crowds go wild. Think about it.
His organizational genius has been pretty much overlooked. Here's a guy who built up an utterly impressive campaign machine from nothing in a year. He's out-organized all of his competition so far. Hillary had the national Democratic machine lined up behind her, lest we forget. Obama is matching her, and he makes it look easy. This speaks to a pretty amazing ability to motivate, organize and lead a large, complex group of people. Looks good from here.
As for why I don't give much of a damn about the policy statements right now, I'll lay it on the line: I don't believe much of any of it. All of the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul and Fred Thompson, are massaging their positions to appeal to whatever they think the "base" is. They're in primary mode, and I don't begrudge them, unless they get sloppy. (Mitt Romney's "I'd double Gitmo!" still stands out in my mind as an outrageous bit of pandering.)
Yup, I'm a free-trade kinda Lemur, and the pandering to the Unions bothers me on the Obama side, just as McCain's suggestion that we could reasonably maintain troops in Iraq indefinitely bothers me (the Middle East ain't Germany or Korea, pal). But I'm willing to look past individual policies with which I disagree for both men, because I believe they are sound of judgment. Neither man strikes me as a revolutionary or an ideologue. Both men have given evidence of being competent.
Moderation, sanity, prudence, competence, bipartisanship. That's what I'm looking for.
-edit-
But then again, Roseanne Barr disagrees with me. (http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/01/barak_obama.php)
Strike For The South
01-11-2008, 07:16
I fully am throwing my weight behind Obama. My first vote for president will go to a half black muslim...God bless America:smash:
I want Puall but whatev
Proletariat
01-11-2008, 07:20
Ah, nice write up, Lemur. The bipartisan thing is something I am too wary of, tho. I truly bought, hook line and sinker the 'uniter, not a divider' track record and shpiel GWB pushed in 2000. After getting hosed there, it's no longer something I put stock in.
I just don't know anything about Obama, other than that him being elected would renew South Africans respect for America, and McCain seems like an okay guy. And I think I'm about as forceful as an advocate there is for a CiC with genuine military experience, he still comes across as a maverick looney.
Unfortunately for me, I don't like anyone from this crop. I'm still thinking I'll vote for Hillary just because I'm angry. Angry in the way that running a redlight, bashing one's forehead against a wall, or stubbing a toe can be soothing.
:wall:
Ohoh, this is big. :end:
I mean I just came across a convincing Facebook group about Obama being the antichrist when I noticed someone posted a link to a video and now it's all so clear, Hillary will win.
Yes, basically Bush is the false prophet, he will be followed by the whore of Babylon, Hillary, who will pave the way for the antichrist, Ron Paul. :fainting:
Well, there'a lot of supporting evidence like a number code that turns his name into 666, him being the brother of bush Senior and son of Hitler's successor as well as the prophecies that the world will end in 2012(mayan calendar, remember?) and some kids who were told by aliens what would happen. Not to forget a guy who worked in area 51 and knows the whole conspiracy. :sweatdrop:
And I only watched the first 13 of 30 minutes....
Ah well, anyone who is interested in this ehm, video of truth, can go here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402108357276785069&q=theprophecy2007&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0).
Now we can only hope that Hillary won't win but then we're left with Obama who may be the antichrist as well and if it's not him I once read it's Putin. :fainting:
ICantSpellDawg
01-11-2008, 15:39
Ohoh, this is big. :end:
I mean I just came across a convincing Facebook group about Obama being the antichrist when I noticed someone posted a link to a video and now it's all so clear, Hillary will win.
Yes, basically Bush is the false prophet, he will be followed by the whore of Babylon, Hillary, who will pave the way for the antichrist, Ron Paul. :fainting:
Well, there'a lot of supporting evidence like a number code that turns his name into 666, him being the brother of bush Senior and son of Hitler's successor as well as the prophecies that the world will end in 2012(mayan calendar, remember?) and some kids who were told by aliens what would happen. Not to forget a guy who worked in area 51 and knows the whole conspiracy. :sweatdrop:
And I only watched the first 13 of 30 minutes....
Ah well, anyone who is interested in this ehm, video of truth, can go here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402108357276785069&q=theprophecy2007&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0).
Now we can only hope that Hillary won't win but then we're left with Obama who may be the antichrist as well and if it's not him I once read it's Putin. :fainting:
My money is on Hillary being the anti-Christ herself. Why not? JC was a dude - Hillary is a she-male harpy.
If the glove fits.
I firmly believe Hillary will win. I think I read it in the book of Revelation while I was perusing through it the other evening. She will be here on the last days, why would she not be president in the mean time? Think of all of the souls she could crush!
Armageddon,
Gnashing of teeth '08
P.s.- Kucinich has spent the funds to begin a re-count in NH because he believes that there were serious voter irregularities by Hillary supporters. I would be inclined to agree that it was very strange that Hillary won due to the sheer number of polls that had such a different slant.
I'm just glad a Republican didn't do it!
Crazed Rabbit
01-11-2008, 19:20
I could, with rather more justice, ask how you could support a Republican and claim to be a fiscal conservative.
You'll notice I am very against Huckabee, and support Fred Thompson.
Way to dodge the question though.
I see your reasons for supporting Obama, even if I disagree with them. Organization and the like are nice, but Romney definitely has that, and he's more economically conservative than McCain.
CR
McCain, McCain, McCain. I wanna see a good honest no-nonsense American in the Oval Office.
Giuliani's one trick pony rhetoric is starting to get on my nerves. Yes, I do remember 911. Yes, he did well. No, he was not spectacular.
Romney reminds me more and more of a used car salesman. Untrustworthy.
Huckabee.... raise my taxes AND and beat me with The Bible at the same time? No thanks.
Thompson... I never understood how he got any support to begin with. The guy is absolutely uninspiring and makes an impression of a potential do-nothing president.
Hillary... not a fan of hers by any stretch, but she is the one of the lesser evils.
Edwards is an ambulance chaser. That alone is enough for me to never consider him regardless of what he has to say. Literally, I have never listened to his speeches, and never will.
and finally, The Obamination. IMHO this guy is a loose cannon, and God knows where he might take our foreign policy. I do not trust him one bit and wopuld gladly pick *ugh* Huckabee or *ugh* Thompson over him. Those two sound less harmful.
AntiochusIII
01-12-2008, 05:08
and finally, The Obamination. IMHO this guy is a loose cannonNani...?
seireikhaan
01-12-2008, 06:42
He wants you to explain the "loose cannon" part...
He wants you to explain the "loose cannon" part...
Here's one link to support my claim that Obama is a nutjob.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/rush/070221
AntiochusIII
01-12-2008, 16:24
Here's one link to support my claim that Obama is a nutjob.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/rush/070221You *can't* be serious. A quick look at the article reveals a weak attempt at character assassination with extremely disjointed logic (along the same lines as Clinton's team criticizing Obama's first grade essay if you ask me). A more serious look at the site reveals it to belong to an organization that professes a clear partisan support for Alan Keyes, who's probably the real nutjob here.
You *can't* be serious. A quick look at the article reveals a weak attempt at character assassination with extremely disjointed logic (along the same lines as Clinton's team criticizing Obama's first grade essay if you ask me). A more serious look at the site reveals it to belong to an organization that professes a clear partisan support for Alan Keyes, who's probably the real nutjob here.
I don't care whom the author supports. The only thing that matters is that fact that Obama *does* indeed attend that crazy church. Drawing conclusions from that fact does not depend on the author's opinion.
woad&fangs
01-12-2008, 18:36
Obama's half white. I don't think we have to worry about a black Nazi movement upon his election.
Marshal Murat
01-13-2008, 03:04
Actually Antiochus III, it was his Kindergarten essay.
No, seriously, he's been planning this since Kindergarten...wait...everyone's laughing....HAHAHA, we were kidding. Let me cry.
The site made Ron Paul's fiscal ideas look sane, and it's rabid conservatism is scary. I also don't know if I trust a man whose passion seems to be music and guitar restoration.
I think that McCain might ride his popularity wave through.
Evidently Obama forced the African-American community into outrage. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_obama;_ylt=AsnhGh_r3nrqRq.DkJQp.ZtB5494)
Prediction....
Republican
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee
Democrat
1. Obama
2. Hillary
3. Kucinich
This is the kind of thing I like about McCain:
"I had to give some straight talk," McCain said. "Jobs are leaving the state of Michigan. They have left and will not come back, but we're going to create jobs, we're going to create a new economy. This is the smartest technological place in America. We have the smartest people here. We can do it. We can create jobs here."link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_po/republican_rdp)
His willingness to actually tell people the hard facts is quite refreshing in politics. Similarly, in Iowa, he came out against subsidies for ethanol. In comparison, Romney is promising to somehow restore the domestic auto industry. :shrug:
There's still a lot I don't like about McCain, but he does have some good qualities.
Banquo's Ghost
01-13-2008, 10:49
His willingness to actually tell people the hard facts is quite refreshing in politics. Similarly, in Iowa, he came out against subsidies for ethanol. In comparison, Romney is promising to somehow restore the domestic auto industry. :shrug:
Indeed, this is one of his most appealing qualities to me. (Not of course, that my opinion counts :beam: )
I don't, for example, agree with his views on Iraq, but he has clearly thought the matter through and maintains his viewpoint even in the teeth of volatile public opinion. It would have been easy for him to go with the prevailing hostility last year when his campaign was dying, but he stuck to what he believes.
That's got to be worth a great deal in a president - as long as it doesn't become stubbornness, as in the current incumbent.
ICantSpellDawg
01-13-2008, 15:25
This is the kind of thing I like about McCain:
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_po/republican_rdp)
His willingness to actually tell people the hard facts is quite refreshing in politics. Similarly, in Iowa, he came out against subsidies for ethanol. In comparison, Romney is promising to somehow restore the domestic auto industry. :shrug:
There's still a lot I don't like about McCain, but he does have some good qualities.
That was a political answer in line with his previous answers. "Straight talker" A large portion of people in Michigan know cars. They have built and marketed them for years. Many of them want the industry back.
As Global economies level out and as we can find ways to build cars here more efficiently - many of those jobs may return. It would be in our interest to have a strong vehicle manufacturing center again.
Of course other jobs will be created in other avenues of the economy, but never write one particular type of job off, Especially when people want to do that job and employers want to hire them - The hurdle is the cost of production.
http://www.michigandersforromney.com/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Romney Press Shop (857) 288-6390
Ypsilanti, MI – Today, outside the General Motors Willow Run plant, Governor Romney held a media availability to address the indefinite lay-off of 200 GM workers that was just announced yesterday. Tragically, announcements like this have become all too typical in Michigan today. Below are excerpts of Governor Romney's remarks:
"The reason that I came here today is because General Motors announced today that they are laying-off another 200 people from this facility."
...
"This is not something which is designed just to get things back on track as part of a strategy to re-build and grow. This is instead an indication of a long-term slide in the automotive industry, the domestic automotive industry. America is not buying fewer cars. Instead, we're seeing the domestic automobile industry continue to slide.
"And as year after year goes by, more and more layoffs occur and more plants are closed, the question is, 'Where's Washington?' You hear some say that these are jobs that are just going away and we better get used to it. But where does it stop? Is there a point at which someone says, 'You know, that's enough'? Or are we going to let the entire automobile industry, domestic manufactured automotive industry, disappear and just say, 'Well, that was tough, that's just the way it is'?
"That's not what I believe. I believe it's important to preserve manufacturing in this country and to preserve the automobile industry, including the domestic automobile industry. I will work together with labor, with management, with the leaders of the political structure here in Michigan and in Washington to strengthen the automotive sector, the domestic automotive sector and the state of Michigan. It is inexcusable to me to see these jobs going away again and again and again.
"I do believe that policies to invest in research and technology, basic science and research to develop the products of the future can help stimulate and re-build this industry. I believe also in a savings plan to reduce the burden on the American people so that we can afford products of the future...
"And I also believe that Washington is doing too much anvil throwing. The first CAFE program was a huge burden on the domestic manufacturing of automobiles. The next CAFE program promises to do the same thing, and what help has been associated with it? It's almost like an unfunded mandate – a major change, a major burden on the automotive industry and then Washington saying, 'Good luck Detroit, try to keep up.'
"Likewise, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain proposed a unilateral cap and trade program on carbon emissions. Look, we all agree that there should be a global effort to reduce carbon emissions. But if you place that burden just on the U.S., you make the U.S. less competitive. You make it more expensive to manufacture here, not only automobiles, but everything that we manufacture. And so we need to have policies that are designed to strengthen our economy, strengthen our competitiveness, make sure that America can compete in the automotive industry and in others. And as President, if I'm fortunate enough to have that job, I will not rest while Detroit continues to see layoff after layoff after layoff. My heart goes out to the 200 people who are laid off from this facility or were announced to be laid off from this facility. And I want to make sure that this doesn't just keep on happening year after year and year with Washington saying, 'So what?'"
CountArach
01-13-2008, 22:27
5 new polls released in Michigan. They average out as:
Mitt Romney: 27.2%
John McCain: 26.0%
Mike Huckabee: 16.8%
Fred Thompson: 5.8%
Rudy Giuiani: 5.4%
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jan13.html#news
Interesting that - one would think Romney would be out well in front of that, but if McCain is making deep inroads in Michigan, imagine what is happening across teh country. My new tip: McCain gets the Republican Nomination.
'Cause the polls have been so helpful so far ...
I swear, this election is enough to make me swear off poll-smoking.
KukriKhan
01-14-2008, 01:02
'Cause the polls have been so helpful so far ...
I swear, this election is enough to make me swear off poll-smoking.
Yeah. I watched "Washington Week" on PBS Friday night. Guys from NYT, WP, Wall St Journal, etc., all admitted to being flummoxed; the voters (god bless 'em) are not doing what they apparently tell poll-takers they'll do, so the pundits are getting it wrong, left and right.
So: are the poll-takers messing up with their questions or sampling (or maybe intrusive phonecalls)?
Or are voters deliberately lying?
Or are voters just not deciding until the last minute?
Yeah. I watched "Washington Week" on PBS Friday night. Guys from NYT, WP, Wall St Journal, etc., all admitted to being flummoxed; the voters (god bless 'em) are not doing what they apparently tell poll-takers they'll do, so the pundits are getting it wrong, left and right.
So: are the poll-takers messing up with their questions or sampling (or maybe intrusive phonecalls)?
Or are voters deliberately lying?
Or are voters just not deciding until the last minute?
My guess is mostly 1, a little of 3 and very little 2. It cracks me up to listen to pollsters and pundits try to blame the voters for their polls being wrong. The best excuse I've heard is that many voters are racist and didn't want to vote for Obama, but they lied to the pollsters and said they were voting for Obama because they didn't want to appear racist. :dizzy2:
My uneducated guess would be that their polling samples and models are becoming outdated and inaccurate- but what do I know? :shrug:
woad&fangs
01-14-2008, 02:46
I would have thought that the big change from the polls was obvious. Obama's support mostly comes from younger voters. They probably saw that he had a massive lead and decided that they had other stuff they wanted to do that night and their presence wouldn't matter because their candidate was going to easily win so they skipped the primary. That won't happen again. Hillary's victory all but guaranteed Obama's nomination.
Marshal Murat
01-14-2008, 02:56
So if Obama has all those young votes...
Does that mean a possible Obama-Paul ticket?
ICantSpellDawg
01-14-2008, 03:02
The Iowa state=wide polls were pretty accurate. Rassmusen/zogby/cspan was almost on the money with their prediction.
They predicted that Obama would win by a large margin and Hillary would probably come in 2nd if she was lucky.
On the Rep side they had Huckabee in the lead with a distinct advantage of around 6-9% points.
NH seemed like an anomaly. Rather accurate on the republican side as far as 1st 2nd 3rd went (irrespective of the number that voted)
On the Dem side it was odd. Obama was favored by the hand counted ballots and Clinton was favored by the machine counted ballots. Denis Kucinich has actually paid to have the Machine counted ballots counted by hand because he believes that there was evidence of fraud in Hillary's favor. I can't wait to see the outcome of that.
You also have to remember that many of the people who voted in NH and were supporting Biden and Dodd were not being polled previously without biden and Dodd in the race - The democrats also tend to use first past the post which is more prone to upsets. I bet if they had a system like the G.O.P. it would have been alot closer to the Zogby poll.
Marshal Murat
01-14-2008, 03:29
I heard that Kucinich could've had the votes counted, but I didn't hear that he went through with it.
CountArach
01-14-2008, 03:42
I heard that Kucinich could've had the votes counted, but I didn't hear that he went through with it.
Yes, he is spending his money on it.
KukriKhan
01-14-2008, 14:11
My guess is mostly 1, a little of 3 and very little 2. It cracks me up to listen to pollsters and pundits try to blame the voters for their polls being wrong. The best excuse I've heard is that many voters are racist and didn't want to vote for Obama, but they lied to the pollsters and said they were voting for Obama because they didn't want to appear racist. :dizzy2:
My uneducated guess would be that their polling samples and models are becoming outdated and inaccurate- but what do I know? :shrug:
This Brit blogger (http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/01/more-on-why-hil.html), who also got it wrong, blames The Bradley Effect, and The Sprial of Silence (explanatory links in the story) for the mis-read. Essentially, voters are lying to pollsters - for contextual reasons.
The Bradley Effect is well-documented, so Xiahou's crazy-eyes smiley is misplaced, but I think it's pretty well established that it had nothing to do with New Hampshire's results. The polls for Obama were accurate, they just missed the turnout on the other side.
So nobody was lying to the pollsters; they just got the turnout wrong. Same thing happened in Iowa. The turnout models are all wacky.
The Bradley Effect is well-documented, so Xiahou's crazy-eyes smiley is misplaced, but I think it's pretty well established that it had nothing to do with New Hampshire's results. The polls for Obama were accurate, they just missed the turnout on the other side.
So nobody was lying to the pollsters; they just got the turnout wrong. Same thing happened in Iowa. The turnout models are all wacky.
Wait, so I was right? Does that mean that your 'Xiahou's crazy-eyes smiley is misplaced' was misplaced?
As to a "Bradley Effect" in general, I think it would be pretty hard to decisively finger what reason polling is wrong. I, for one, would never lie in a poll just to seem PC and I don't know of anyone who would. I'm sure there are a few dipsticks who might do that- but enough to make up the vast swaths of voters that would be required to create the effect as described? Call me skeptical. I think there could be many other reasonable explanations.
I think it's safe to say that your assertion that " 'Xiahou's crazy-eyes was misplaced was misplaced' was misplaced" was, in fact, misplaced. The impression I got was that you were saying that the Bradley Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect) is a tinfoil-hat type idea, when in fact it has been observed in the wild. Let's just hope we've grown out of it, eh?
As I said, it looks as though the biggest problem with the polls in Iowa and NH were the turnout models. Opinions were recorded accurately, and they matched with the votes, but the quantity of voters were all wrong.
It looks as though the polling for the Republican side of the fence is much more accurate, but the polls have been pretty useless for the Dems.
ICantSpellDawg
01-14-2008, 20:20
I think it's safe to say that your assertion that " 'Xiahou's crazy-eyes was misplaced was misplaced' was misplaced" was, in fact, misplaced. The impression I got was that you were saying that the Bradley Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect) is a tinfoil-hat type idea, when in fact it has been observed in the wild. Let's just hope we've grown out of it, eh?
As I said, it looks as though the biggest problem with the polls in Iowa and NH were the turnout models. Opinions were recorded accurately, and they matched with the votes, but the quantity of voters were all wrong.
It looks as though the polling for the Republican side of the fence is much more accurate, but the polls have been pretty useless for the Dems.
"There are numerous allegations (substantiated and otherwise) regarding the criminal activity of the Clintons. Among these are the murders of close friends and confidants, the sexual abuse and rape of women by Bill Clinton, and voter fraud."
(Hey, If people can call the current president a genocidal murderer who planned 9/11 and invaded a country for oil - this is a free-for-all)
Personally, I wouldn't put ballot fraud past the Clintons or their cronies.
Anyway, we'll find out a bit more after the recount
File this under YIKES (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx), come again Mr. Huckabee?
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
File this under YIKES (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx), come again Mr. Huckabee?
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
*Sigh*
:thumbsdown:
Onion News: Romney supporters rocked by allegations that Mitt might not hate teh gayz. (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mitt_romney_defends_himself)
ICantSpellDawg
01-16-2008, 01:06
hehehe funny.
"not once has he even acknowledged that he has perpetrated a hate crime against a homosexual"
ITS LOOKING GOOD FOR THE BOYO IN MICHIGAN!
CountArach
01-16-2008, 02:34
File this under YIKES (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx), come again Mr. Huckabee?
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
Its scary to think that there are still people who think this way. Worse yet - there are plenty of people who would support him...
ICantSpellDawg
01-16-2008, 03:33
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSS
The final speech was great, animated and the Mitt that the conservatives have been hoping to see.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-16-2008, 05:22
Interestingly:
McCain lost by 9 %age points -- a good bit wider than he was hoping for this morning. How did McCain do with GOPers rather than indies?
Romney won -- he needed that. How will he do with the conservatives in the South? Still, he had the big package this morning and its even bigger now. What guy wouldn't want that? Delegate package that is.....:devilish:
Paul beat Thompson and Giuliani...combined. To be fair, there was a large Democrats please vote for Paul to *&^% with the GOP campaign going....
Thompson beat Giuliani 4 to 3. Neither campaigned in MI, but Giuliani has been in the news as a potential candidate since 9/12/2001 whereas Thompson was asleep until the last debate a few days ago. Not good apples for Rudy fans.
On the Dem side, Hillary won 3 to 2 over....uncommitted. Dem campaign rule: thou shalt not ascribe less than messianic qualities to the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sure looks as though the front-loaded primaries didn't have their intended effect. At this rate, my vote might actually count for something. Who knew?
I guess we're in for a long slog, with no clear frontrunner on either side. Grab some popcorn.
ICantSpellDawg
01-16-2008, 15:25
Sure looks as though the front-loaded primaries didn't have their intended effect. At this rate, my vote might actually count for something. Who knew?
I guess we're in for a long slog, with no clear frontrunner on either side. Grab some popcorn.
This is an important time for introspection on the Republican side. We can have a long time of tough politics to decide what direction to choose. Do we stay with the Regan coalition? Can we? Or do we need to break up and form new coalitions?
I think that there is one option, but as long as guys like McCain and Huckabee are doing so well, we can't stop the debate just yet.
People need to see Mitt with more "fire in his belly". If he can keep that up, I think that the choice will become more and more obvious.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-16-2008, 17:52
I've been having mixed feelings about the GOP for a while now.
I lived through the Reagan "revolution" and was absolutely thrilled with his Presidency -- especially the first term.
Giuliani and McCain are both good men, but they make me think of Nixon -- not in terms of ethics but policy -- Good on NatSec issues, solid foreign policy, excellent support for military, but hit-or-miss on social concerns and too liberal/big gov is the answer on economics. "Country Club" republicans.
Huckabee has the best tax stance and is solid on the social issues, but a bit more fixated on the religious issues than necessary for me. I'm not sure he knows beans about fopo.
Thompson is also lacking in Fopo experience and wont' take as aggressive a stance on taxation as I'd like but matches a lot of my other concerns well. Still, I'm a Virginian, so we don't get to select a nominee.
Still, I'm a Virginian, so we don't get to select a nominee.
I'm not so sure about that. There aren't any true front-runners so far. We get the Tuesday after Super Tuesday, so it's not that bad. A decent split of votes on Feb 5 and we can make some difference. Both parties may actually have a convention that means something this year.
Wishful thinking, I know...
Proletariat
01-16-2008, 18:20
I've never considered voting in the Virginian primary because I don't think we've mattered in any of the elections since I've become an eligible voter. Can we vote for anyone or just your registered party?
Can we vote for anyone or just your registered party?
From what I gathered here, only as a registered member of the respective party.
FactionHeir
01-16-2008, 18:59
From what I gathered here, only as a registered member of the respective party.
Then how do you explain all those independents voting? :tongue2:
I've never considered voting in the Virginian primary because I don't think we've mattered in any of the elections since I've become an eligible voter. Can we vote for anyone or just your registered party?
The Virginia primary is an open primary, so you should be able to place a vote for either (but not both) party. I've never voted in a primary either (same reasons), but this year may be different. I'm registered as unaffiliated, so I will choose whichever party needs a push one way or another.
Then how do you explain all those independents voting? :tongue2:
I don't, simple as that. ~D
I just remember someone saying he couldn't vote as he wasn't a registered member of either party somewhere here in the depths of the Backroom. :shrug:
It's not my fault if every state has a completely different policy on those votes. ~;)
Seamus Fermanagh
01-16-2008, 20:35
How did we end up with a win the first 4 primaries and caucuses system anyway?
I believe it was to take away the ability of a comparative few party leaders to engineer nominations at a convention.
You know, a convention -- where representatives and key players from your entire party -- every state etc -- get together in the same place to select your nominee.
Obviously that's much less representative then letting the party diehards of 6-7 states select a nominee without any real evidence as to her/his support for the party's agreed-upon platform.
Of course, it gives us all this nice media coverage to do it this way too!!!
I just remember someone saying he couldn't vote as he wasn't a registered member of either party somewhere here in the depths of the Backroom.
I know for a fact that in New York State you're not allowed to vote in any primaries if you're an independent. Hateful policy.
Why would anyone want to register for a party anyway? Isn't voting there so you can vote for someone else instead of voting for the same party all the time? ~D
I know for a fact that in New York State you're not allowed to vote in any primaries if you're an independent. Hateful policy.
It kind of makes sense to me. Shouldn't it be the members of a party that get to determine its direction via the primaries? The truly open primaries- where any party can vote in either party's primary -makes no sense at all to me.
How did we end up with a win the first 4 primaries and caucuses system anyway?
I believe it was to take away the ability of a comparative few party leaders to engineer nominations at a convention.
You know, a convention -- where representatives and key players from your entire party -- every state etc -- get together in the same place to select your nominee.
Obviously that's much less representative then letting the party diehards of 6-7 states select a nominee without any real evidence as to her/his support for the party's agreed-upon platform.
Of course, it gives us all this nice media coverage to do it this way too!!!I'd rather have delegates from every state choose instead of seeing all the candidates pander to the narrow interests of the first few primary states. Personally, I think I'd like to see more states agree to a common primary date. :shrug:
It kind of makes sense to me. Shouldn't it be the members of a party that get to determine its direction via the primaries? The truly open primaries- where any party can vote in either party's primary -makes no sense at all to me.
I think the best system is the semi-closed method. Voters registered to a particular party can only vote in their party's primary, but independents can choose which one to vote in. Allows the independents a say, and keeps the sabotage to a minimum.
According to senate voting records (http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm), Obama is the most liberal candidate running for president. Hillary is actually one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate...
Broken down more, you can see that Obama and Hillary are close on social liberalism, with Hillary having a very slight edge. The huge differences are on economic and foreign policy where Obama is far more left than Hillary. This reinforces what I've said previously- If we're going to be saddled with a Democrat, I would rather have Hillary Clinton than Barak Obama. :yes:
*Note, these are based on votes in 2006. If anyone can find 2007 data, I'd like to see that as well.
CountArach
01-17-2008, 23:25
I thought that this (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/an_emerging_republican_consens.php)would interest some of the Republicans on here. It concerns an emerging Republican concensus on McCain. It looks at polling treds nationally and in various states.
ICantSpellDawg
01-17-2008, 23:27
According to senate voting records (http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm), Obama is the most liberal candidate running for president. Hillary is actually one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate...
Broken down more, you can see that Obama and Hillary are close on social liberalism, with Hillary having a very slight edge. The huge differences are on economic and foreign policy where Obama is far more left than Hillary. This reinforces what I've said previously- If we're going to be saddled with a Democrat, I would rather have Hillary Clinton than Barak Obama. :yes:
*Note, these are based on votes in 2006. If anyone can find 2007 data, I'd like to see that as well.
Their general temperament is what is important to me. I wouldn't mind a president who bungled our system of government and services out of a genuine attempt to help or reform as much as I would mind a nasty totalitarian despot.
Their relative ideological position isn't very important to me. A "more radical" candidate will do worse and return us to power in 4 years. A "less radical" candidate will break things even longer and do more damage in the long run - 8 years. If that less radical candidate is Hillary, maybe even longer - like the rest of her life.
Also, That is kind of like saying "I would rather have a guy who has sunken 12 companies over the guy that has sunken 15 companies as my CEO"
I don't think it matters that much. Both of them will ruin your company if you hire them. Will one make you go bankrupt worse?
seireikhaan
01-18-2008, 00:11
Their general temperament is what is important to me. I wouldn't mind a president who bungled our system of government and services out of a genuine attempt to help or reform as much as I would mind a nasty totalitarian despot.
Their relative ideological position isn't very important to me. A "more radical" candidate will do worse and return us to power in 4 years. A "less radical" candidate will break things even longer and do more damage in the long run - 8 years. If that less radical candidate is Hillary, maybe even longer - like the rest of her life.
Also, That is kind of like saying "I would rather have a guy who has sunken 12 companies over the guy that has sunken 15 companies as my CEO"
I don't think it matters that much. Both of them will ruin your company if you hire them. Will one make you go bankrupt worse?
:inquisitive: So basically you're saying that any kind of democratic candidate will automatically screw over the country, while any kind of republican candidate will do much better? Interesting, as I'd say that GWB has done a pretty awful job as president...
ICantSpellDawg
01-18-2008, 00:24
:inquisitive: So basically you're saying that any kind of democratic candidate will automatically screw over the country, while any kind of republican candidate will do much better? Interesting, as I'd say that GWB has done a pretty awful job as president...
I'm not sure of what this country needs right now. I assume that it is smart fiscal and monetary policy. I don't believe in the Democrats. I don't mind Obama and if the G.O.P. is going to lose, I'd prefer that they lose to Obama.
Clinton will be bad for this country. She would be bad as a mailwoman. Not because she is a woman, but because I sense a nasty nature about her. A fakeness and ego above even the normal fakeness and ego in Washington. She is not the kind of person that I think any country should have leading it.
I had been wondering why National Review was so doggedly pro-Romney. Now we have a possible explanation (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/0081773):
Romney has also used his personal PAC—the Commonwealth Political Action Committee—to contribute lavishly to several national pro-life groups, the Federalist Society, the National Review, and the Heritage Foundation, among others.
Good for Romney, making use of his fortune to boost his conservative cred. But if this is true, it's very, very naughty of NR to take his money and not cop to it. I can think of any number of ways they could have defused this little conflict-of-interest, and I don't see that they've taken any such steps.
Verdict: Romney very clever. NR very naughty.
-edit-
Using NRO's search engine (http://search.nationalreview.com/), I can't seem to find a list of donors anywhere. I guess they aren't required to list them. What do Orgahs think? Should magazines and bloggers disclose who's giving them money?
KukriKhan
01-18-2008, 18:41
I know for a fact that in New York State you're not allowed to vote in any primaries if you're an independent. Hateful policy.
Out here in Cali, the Dems will let anyone vote in their primary, the Repubs are closed to all but registered Repubs.
However, there is one hurdle: if an Indy wants to vote in the Dem primary, he/she has to request that specific ballot, ahead of time. Otherwise, if unrequested, Indies get a "no-candidate, issues-only" ballot.
My opinion? Let the parties decide for themselves who their candidate will be, by whatever means they wish - as long as that process doesn't cost me, Mr. Independent Taxpayer, money. I dislike immensely that my state's entire election apparatus gets used by parties to make their decisions, to the tune of millions of tax-dollars.
Why can't the parties get the lists of declared party-members, mail out ballots on their own dime, tally them and commission their delegates to their conventions?
What made the NY policy so irritating was the fact that everything in my district was Democrat. No other party would even place, and often the Dem would run unopposed. So if you wanted to have any say at all in your representation, you had to do it in the primary.
This all led to the lemur not voting a lot during his time in NYC.
Louis VI the Fat
01-18-2008, 19:51
According to senate voting records (http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm), Obama is the most liberal candidate running for president. Hillary is actually one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate...
Broken down more, you can see that Obama and Hillary are close on social liberalism, with Hillary having a very slight edge. The huge differences are on economic and foreign policy where Obama is far more left than Hillary. Ah, thanks for the numbers. :2thumbsup:
See, this is why I know Hillary is my gal. Socially liberal. Economically erm..conservative if you're American / liberal if you're European. And an assertive and self-assured foreign policy. What more could you ask for? Except, maybe, for a firm grasp of dossiers and a sophisticated mind - which, as providence has it, she both possesses as well.
A progressive, slightly left-of centre moderate. And this is the hate-candidate? The one who must be stopped at all costs? The one who is going to plunge America into a totalitarian dictatorship?
In other news, Romney steps in it again (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW7iOIh-W4k) and a reporter calls him out on it. The best part is when his PR guy dresses down the reporter for being argumentative and unprofessional.
Sorry, like I said, I think Romney is full of crap. Why does he feel the need to keep making false and/or misleading statements? Wounds like that are completely self-inflicted.
I really hope Thompson pulls off a miracle in SC. :sweatdrop:
ICantSpellDawg
01-18-2008, 21:01
In other news, Romney steps in it again (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW7iOIh-W4k) and a reporter calls him out on it. The best part is when his PR guy dresses down the reporter for being argumentative and unprofessional.
Sorry, like I said, I think Romney is full of crap. Why does he feel the need to keep making false and/or misleading statements? Wounds like that are completely self-inflicted.
I really hope Thompson pulls off a miracle in SC. :sweatdrop:
What he said was that lobbyists don't run his campaign. The reporter could only name one guy, who worked as the RNC committee man in Massachusetts and was a personal friend of Romney.
Beth Myers was his gubernatorial chief of staff in Mass and she effectively runs his campaign. Countless other people work for his campaign with long political histories. Give me a break.
Romney has pure ambition and overwhelming pride, causing him to seek the nomination for his own ego. In his effort to realize the dream of his father and his own greedy cronies he will spend a large portion of his families massive fortune making people like him. He worked as the Governor of Mass. for no pay and was the CEO of the winter Olympics and donated his earnings and severance IN WHOLE to charity because he is a bad person who was using that pretext to earn our respect.
Upon entrance into the white house he will instantly betray his constituency and unload the U.S. treasury into his own coffers - all while legalizing Gay marriage and mandating abortions.
In all honesty - he is saying the right things, has a record of doing the right things, is very bright and is not a life-long politician. He also has "the most knowledge of Business and Economy of anyone I've ever seen" -(MAD MONEY's Kramer), which would probably be helpful in the serious recession ahead.
I don't believe he will win the nomination, though. Too many people have polarized opinions against him now. Part of this is his own doing, most of it isn't. I probably won't vote in November.
ICantSpellDawg
01-18-2008, 21:23
In other news, Romney steps in it again (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW7iOIh-W4k) and a reporter calls him out on it. The best part is when his PR guy dresses down the reporter for being argumentative and unprofessional.
Sorry, like I said, I think Romney is full of crap. Why does he feel the need to keep making false and/or misleading statements? Wounds like that are completely self-inflicted.
I really hope Thompson pulls off a miracle in SC. :sweatdrop:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_primary-233.html
It would be a miracle if he came in third. He's showing downward momentum the day before the primary (this week it almost looked like he might break the top 3)
Some home turf...
We are going to lose SO hard in November. Did anyone in the Conservative trenches realize that Thompson would come off as Ugly, lazy and cigar smelling?
I can't believe people would put money on a broken down jalopy in a car race. Even if the crapped out old engine was a Rolls Royce, it boggles the mind.
I'm sorry, TuffStuff. I know you have been pulling hard for Romney. Still, the vote's aren't cast or counted yet, and this election has been full of surprises, so don't give up right away, eh?
ICantSpellDawg
01-18-2008, 21:36
People who know about politics here are calling him a corrupt liar. What is everybody else going to think? He'll probably win Nevada, but he is polling nationally at around 14.5 2 weeks away from the big primary day.
I'm pissed that I might have to vote for a candidate that I have absolutely no confidence in. Every election it turns into this, dying ideological republicans pick crappy candidates with no vision to make us look even worse.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3207017.ece
For what it's worth, here's the best one-liner (http://www.tonywoodlief.com/archives/001312.html#001312) I've read about the state of politics in '08:
Both parties are convinced that government is exceptionally skilled at doing things they want more of, and entirely incompetent when it comes to things they don't like.
ICantSpellDawg
01-18-2008, 21:46
For what it's worth, here's the best one-liner (http://www.tonywoodlief.com/archives/001312.html#001312) I've read about the state of politics in '08:
Both parties are convinced that government is exceptionally skilled at doing things they want more of, and entirely incompetent when it comes to things they don't like.
That's pretty accurate. I like that he also realized "harpy" is the single best word to describe Hillary.
CountArach
01-18-2008, 22:02
Someone's been push-polling against Romney...
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/nh_investigation_continues.php
Ahhh, one has to love the world to dirty politics and its ability to step in the way of Democracy.
EDIT:
And McCain...
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/common_sense_its_not_a_survey.php
Push-polling? Can't say I'm surprised. Even more interestingly, the recount of the NH primary is turning up all kinds of miscounts and wrong numbers. What's really freaky is that the Diebold machines were totaling incorrectly for very small counts, districts in which less than a thousand people voted. This blog (http://www.bradblog.com/) is doing a pretty good job of keeping track of the train wreck.
Here's just one sample:
Manchester, NH, Ward 5
Diebold count: Clinton 683, Edwards 255, Obama 404
Hand count: Clinton 619, Edwards 217, Obama 365
In other words, in a place where 1,201 people voted, the Diebold machines added 141 nonexistent votes. That's an almost 12% margin of error. Yikes! Somebody yank these boxes out of circulation, and quick.
What he said was that lobbyists don't run his campaign. The reporter could only name one guy, who worked as the RNC committee man in Massachusetts and was a personal friend of Romney.The reporter didn't finish letting Romney step in it, so he had room to weasel his way out. He said "I don't have lobbyists running my campaign. I don't have lobbyists tied to my..." and was cut off. Had he let him say "campaign" again before butting in, Romney wouldn't have been able to back out of it like he did. Regardless, it's splitting hairs- by Romney's revised definition the only way he could have a lobbyist running is campaign would be if one was his campaign manager.
I'm sure that other candidates have lobbyists in their campaign staff as well. But, the problem, once again, is Romney needlessly saying something that's false/misleading.
It would be a miracle if he came in third. He's showing downward momentum the day before the primary (this week it almost looked like he might break the top 3)First of all, he's not trending downwards- look at the polls. Second, I've repeatedly said I don't expect Thompson to win. I don't know why people think they can somehow hurt my feelings by pointing out what I already believe to be true.
We are going to lose SO hard in November.We probably deserve to lose. :shrug:
Don't forget the one person who can save the G.O.P. this fall: Hillary Clinton. Even if she wins the election, her presence on the ballot will bring out the Republican base like nobody else could, which will punish the Dems in state and local elections. Could even push the Dems into some serious losses in the House and Senate.
ICantSpellDawg
01-18-2008, 22:25
Don't forget the one person who can save the G.O.P. this fall: Hillary Clinton. Even if she wins the election, her presence on the ballot will bring out the Republican base like nobody else could, which will punish the Dems in state and local elections. Could even push the Dems into some serious losses in the House and Senate.
That's a stretch. I'll keep that on my optimism back table, hoping that I'll never have to use it to get myself out of bed.
Romney and Clinton won Nevada. Details on the Dem contest here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/19/politics/main3731581.shtml). It really does seem to be a generational split:
Obama won the support of younger voters, while Clinton won among older voters. Voters under age 45 broke for Obama over Clinton 48 percent to 34 percent, while those over 45 chose Clinton over Obama 54 percent to 33 percent.
-edit-
Interesting, Romney absolutely dominated in Nevada, taking 57% of the delegates, with the runners-up far behind; Mcain and Ron Paul both at 13%. By contrast, the Obama/Clinton contest was tight, tight, tight: Clinton 51%, Obama 45%.
Why was Romney so dominant in NV? Was he the only one campaigning?
ICantSpellDawg
01-20-2008, 01:14
Romney and Clinton won Nevada. Details on the Dem contest here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/19/politics/main3731581.shtml). It really does seem to be a generational split:
Obama won the support of younger voters, while Clinton won among older voters. Voters under age 45 broke for Obama over Clinton 48 percent to 34 percent, while those over 45 chose Clinton over Obama 54 percent to 33 percent.
-edit-
Interesting, Romney absolutely dominated in Nevada, taking 57% of the delegates, with the runners-up far behind; Mcain and Ron Paul both at 13%. By contrast, the Obama/Clinton contest was tight, tight, tight: Clinton 51%, Obama 45%.
Why was Romney so dominant in NV? Was he the only one campaigning?
Because he is awesome. The right choice. I think these past states won have put more fire in his belly. I think he is coming back.
He would have won handily even if every Mormon stayed home and didn't vote.
Why was Romney so dominant in NV? Was he the only one campaigning?
I'm pretty sure he was, yes. The interesting thing to me was Paul's 13%.
Productivity
01-20-2008, 06:38
Lets see, Romney has won three states. Two which the other candidates chose not to contest, of which one has a substantial population of Mormons, who are expected to vote in high numbers for him. The third is arguably one of his home states due to his upbringing there.
Hardly a sign of awesomeness - he's managed to win three states which if he didn't win there would be panicing because they are so heavily favoured to him.
Looks like McCain squeaked past the Huckster to a victory in NC. Every time Hillary wins, McCain does that just to cheer me up.
ICantSpellDawg
01-20-2008, 07:09
Lets see, Romney has won three states. Two which the other candidates chose not to contest, of which one has a substantial population of Mormons, who are expected to vote in high numbers for him. The third is arguably one of his home states due to his upbringing there.
Hardly a sign of awesomeness - he's managed to win three states which if he didn't win there would be panicing because they are so heavily favoured to him.
Michigan was hotly contested. Romney would have won Nevada by a landslide even if every single Mormon stayed home. I'm an Irish Catholic in New York who has approximately 10 friends voting for Romney when the primary comes. He is a great candidate who has quite a bit of appeal. I hope everybody else figures this out before it's too late. If they don't, they don't - oh well.
Productivity
01-20-2008, 07:23
Michigan was hotly contested.
Did I ever deny that? However, you cannot deny that there was a strong factor influencing people to vote towards Romeny in Michigan.
Romney would have won Nevada by a landslide even if every single Mormon stayed home.
Of course - no other candidate contested it. I fail to see how this is some huge acheivment. Come back when he wins a vote where he has people contesting and it isn't in his backyard.
I'm an Irish Catholic in New York who has approximately 10 friends voting for Romney when the primary comes.
If I was your friend and you talk about him anywhere near as much in real life as you do hear, I'd agree to vote for him just to shut you up tbh.
He is a great candidate who has quite a bit of appeal. I hope everybody else figures this out before it's too late. If they don't, they don't - oh well.
From my relatively apathetic point of view (I'm interested in the process but I don't care who actually wins), he seems like a horrible candidate. He's willing to turn on his own values to get votes, he's willing to turn on conservative values to get votes. Basically, if it brings him votes he'll do it. Hardly the sign of someone of particularly strong moral character. If that appeals to you, go for it, but I think you're letting yourself get blinded by the spin - to me he says what people want to hear (look at the crap that he spun for the auto-workers in Michigan).
ICantSpellDawg
01-20-2008, 08:08
He's willing to turn on his own values to get votes, he's willing to turn on conservative values to get votes. Basically, if it brings him votes he'll do it. Hardly the sign of someone of particularly strong moral character. If that appeals to you, go for it, but I think you're letting yourself get blinded by the spin - to me he says what people want to hear (look at the crap that he spun for the auto-workers in Michigan).
I am attempting to get into the spirit of propping up a candidate an learning about as many policies as I can. I'm not, however, listening to recordings while I sleep.
I see the signs of very strong moral character. Let me go down the list:
-Wealthy; It is likely a sign of certain discipline to amass a vast amount of wealth on your own merit. (not always a sign of moral character, though :inquisitive: )
-One Wife; Has been married to one woman and has never been accused of infidelities.
-Large and devoted family; If he was a scumbag, I'm sure at least one family member, acquaintance or co-worker would have spoken up or wouldn't be at every single rally
-History of Pro bono executive positions; He took no pay as Massachussets Governor and donated the entirety of his pay and severence as the CEO of the winter Olympics to charity.
-Religious when it is not politically beneficial; A member of a minority church that is mistrusted by many.
-Adheres to formative philosophies and disciplines; Does not Drink, Smoke or Curse - regardless of your position on the acceptability of those things, you have to admit that it takes discipline.
-Experienced; successful businessman who is not a lifelong politician
These things simply highlight the probability of a strong character - there are many other awesome things about the other aspects of what he brings to the political table.
Looks like McCain squeaked past the Huckster to a victory in NCSC. Every time Hillary wins, McCain does that just to cheer me up.
It's somewhat reassuring that Huckabee couldn't win in the first southern state primary. On the other hand, independents could vote, which probably helped McCain and also the large military population probably helped him as well.
I was surprised that Hillary was still able to win after the shameless lawsuit that attempted to stop culinary union members from caucusing at their workplaces. I expected that would've pushed some people towards Obama, despite her campaign's denial of having anything to do with it.
FactionHeir
01-20-2008, 10:56
Could someone please explain the delegate assignment?
I'm rather confused when I look at the comparison between Obama and Clinton:
Clinton: 51% -> 12 Delegates
Obama: 45% -> 13 Delegates
According to CNN (which seems heavily biased in this election) the higher your popular vote, the higher the delegate count. But in this scenario, obviously Clinton has a higher popular vote than Obama but why does he get 13 delegates compared to her 12? Those are all pledged delegates, not superdelegates btw.
The short answer is: caucuses are undemocratic...
Iirc, it has something to do with the weighting of the various caucus sites- how many delegates each caucus will get is assigned ahead of time before they know what the actual turnout will be. Also, I believe in Nevada, delegates were weighted more heavily towards rural areas in general. :shrug:
GeneralHankerchief
01-20-2008, 16:46
Hillary won in the more populated areas (Vegas, Reno) and thus won the popular vote. But Obama took more of the rural areas, and a greater portion of the state geographically.
Not unlike Gore taking the popular vote in 2000 but Bush winning the E.C.
I was surprised that Hillary was still able to win after the shameless lawsuit that attempted to stop culinary union members from caucusing at their workplaces.
Apparently the lawsuit was the least of it (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573). (Just for you, Xiahou: my first-ever link to a blogger at Kos. Give the hated enemy a moment of your time, though, he has some interesting firsthand observations.)
Apparently the lawsuit was the least of it (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573). (Just for you, Xiahou: my first-ever link to a blogger at Kos. Give the hated enemy a moment of your time, though, he has some interesting firsthand observations.)
This further shows that caucuses are undemocratic. Also imagine how it was for Hillary supporters that wanted to vote for her at their place of work when their union heads have publicly endorsed Obama(culinary union). I'm sure there was some implicit, if not explicit intimidation there too. A simple secret ballot would've solved many of the problems alleged at the Kos. (I read the Kos on occasion- it can be "informative". :bow:)
The other problem, voters from out of state, ect could also be easily solved by asking the voters for ID- something which Democrats are vehemently opposed to.
Hillary won in the more populated areas (Vegas, Reno) and thus won the popular vote. But Obama took more of the rural areas, and a greater portion of the state geographically.
Not unlike Gore taking the popular vote in 2000 but Bush winning the E.C.Yes, but the 2000 popular vote was a near statistical tie. In Nevada, there was a 6 point swing with the loser still getting more delegates.
I'm pretty sure he was, yes. The interesting thing to me was Paul's 13%.
I was pretty surprised that Paul beat out McCain for second, and then I thought about it. Libertarian candidate + Vegas = good showing. :laugh4:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.