Printable View
It shows the parties that America is ready for change in the establishment, and that we aren't going to be awed by names or spending. What counts is the candidate, and where they stand on issues like the War in Iraq, Abortion, Illegal Immigration, etc.
I'm personally very happy that Hillary got the biggest shove down into 3rd place, I don't like her one bit. Before it was 'Hillary's gonna be first, whore the other two gonna be?" Now it's wide open, and I hope Obama wins.
Well, back from Caucus, I must say, it was rather, um, interesting. I started off with Richardson, but ultimately didn't get enough people to clear. I thus put my support for Obama. Found out that my precinct ended up with a tie between Obama and Edwards at 98-98, with Hillary coming in third with 72. Due to the mathematical figuring of how delegates were detirmined, we ended up one delegate short of the number we were supposed to be sending as a precinct. In case of this, the extra delegate was given based on who had the most support. In case of the most support being tied between two candidates...we flip a coin!:laugh4: Edwards got the last delegate.
I personally have always supported the scissors-paper-rock Democratic alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Always better than the Soviet "Russian Roulette"
Paul got 10%
And one thing that I thought was rather telling: when the smaller groups who had less than 15% had the opportunity to "revote", Hillary had about 68, Obama had about 86, and Edwards had about 79. What's it tell me? Hillary doesn't have broad appeal, even within non-Hillary fanatic democrats.
I would've thought that those minor votes would break more in Edwards favour, because don't a fair portion of them come from the liberal wing?
I note, with deep and abiding amusement, that Ron Paul caucused better than Rudy Giuliani. Nice, detailed breakdown polls can be poll-smoked here.
-edit-
Depends on how you define the "liberal wing." According to the preliminary polls, the extreme left didn't account for a whole lot in the caucus:Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Democrats
Very Liberal: 18 percent; Somewhat Liberal: 36 percent; Moderate: 40 percent; Conservative: 6 percent
Republicans
Very Conservative: 45 percent; Somewhat Conservative: 43 percent; Moderate: 11 percent; Liberal: 1 percent
Self-definitions, sure, but that's as reliable as anything else, I think.
As I remember, Giuliani didn't try to caucus in Iowa. He went more for my state of Florida.
Romney's campaign is now taking on quite a bit of water. dammit all to hell.
On the plus side, Obama is #1 and Hillary lost big time. Also I am also happy that Giuliani was beaten by Paul. I want to see a 3rd party run for Paul if Romney goes down.
Huckabee is an idiot. I'll say I mind it. Great going America, let's keep leaving it up to Iowa!
:wall:
It isn't up to Iowa. You are just saying that because your guy lost hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
This is phase just phase 1.
Huckabee isn't an idiot, he's a smart guy - I just don't trust him. I'm just tired of shadow smart guys who fake everyman. We had Bush and that tactic won't work again, there is too much cynicism about the Republicans.
Giuliani is a NYC liberal. If you think that is viable once people have the facts in their face, I don't believe it. He may as well be running as a democrat.
He's an autocrat, a small man looking for a balcony from which to address the adoring mob. Giuliani is tied with Hillary in my "Oh God no" list.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
-edit-
Biden and Dodd have bowed out.
Totally. Mayors are autocrats in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I had a friend who said "yay bloomberg". That concept took all of 30 seconds to sink. He's even worse and all it took was to bring up the abortion issue to highlight it.
I don't have a guy, I plan on voting for Hillary for larffs. My post did come across a bit strong, I'm gonna blame it on tonight's wine and the Wii I got for Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Hillary!!!!!!???? NOOOOOOOO
Do the Obama or Paul thing.
PS - you voted for Giuliani in 2 polls now. I thought that he was your guy.
Putting my vote on Obama, i have to admit from what ive heard ron paul has some intresting policys, something for everyone.
Gravel, Biden and Dodd are out.
What's the hold up Kucinich? I understand if Richardson wants to wait until after NH to see viability.
I think Biden should've had a better chance. He's got a level head, experience, and a good policy. I'd rather him than Edwards.
Edwards is no longer a serious contender nationally. He spent every dollar he had on Iowa and came in second. He also accepted Federal matching funds.
Trust me, on the Dem side it's a two-way race.
Bah. Bah. Bah. ~:mecry:
Giuliani is not going to pull it off. Romney is allright, but he panders too much to the evangelical / hard-right wing. Who don't trust him anyway. McCain is a great hero, but a mediocre politician. The others are clowns, or downright imbeciles like Paul or Huckabee.
Yet it is slowly dawning on me that neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to defeat the Rep candidate anyway, no matter which of that bunch of Republican muppets wins. :shame:
Is it me, or do both camps utterly lack a strong field of candidates this time?
You're wrong louis...obama will do very well. He pulled in record numbers in iowa.
Admittedly, the polls don't mean much this far out from the general election, but they show Obama beating every Republican candidate. Hillary beats a few, and by much smaller margins. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.
The only Republican who holds up well against both (beating Clinton and losing by lower margins to Obama) is McCain.
It's interesting that, according to the poll, the more liberal the voters were, the more likely they were to vote Obama, whereas Hillary had the most support from self-described moderates and support faded the more liberal the voters got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I've always said Obama is a liberal in moderate's clothing- look at his vote record. :shrug:
Something tells me Obama will wither under close scrutiny if he gets the nomination. Time will tell, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Hmm, that's a bit of a stretch. In the breakdown, Obama wins among all of those voters. His highest margins are with self-described very liberal and liberal voters, but he beat the Hildebeast among the moderates as well. The only win she had was with self-described conservatives, 22% to 21%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Well sure, he won by a rather substantial margin. My point was and is that his support got stronger the more liberal the voters were. Additionally, I see his support got stronger the richer the voter got. For the ultra-liberal elite supposedly hating him, he ranked strongest among them. Hillary's campaign made it's share of gaffes, but I can't help but think a big part of her problem among the far left was her comparitively hawkish foreign policy stance. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Anyhow, end result- Iowa chose two liberals as their choices for president. Kind of expected from Democrats, but downright disappointing from Republicans.:shame:
Edit: I wonder how much of a spoiler Paul was, if at all? Whose camp did his votes come from? Probably not Huckabee's. I can't imagine their supporters having much in common.
I agree, he did well in the debates. For me it was either him or Ron Paul although I doubt highly I will vote republican this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Louis is correct, there is no "standout" in either field -- at least as yet.
However, this gives Obama the advantage in that he's easily the most charming in either camp at present.
He lacks gravitas, but where nobody is getting any traction or standing out, charisma may well be enough.
Obama sounds good to me, not because I know him very well but he looks intelligent and nice.
Some of the others are also a bit old and they look old as well, aren't they supposed to represent a fresh, young nation? ~;)
I saw that result late last night and lol'ed. Hard. I know Rudy didn't put any effort into Iowa, but still. Double digits for Paul is surprising though. The Dems look to have a 2 or 3 horse race from here on, but the GOP is severely fractured. Interesting results, can't wait to see how New Hampshire turns out.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I read this over at NRO, and found myself in deep agreement:
Romney's loss is basically irrecoverable after spending so much and getting beaten by an under-funded candidate who was an unknown not too long ago by nine points. In the end, the devastating Huckabee line was the one about voting for the candidate who seems like someone you work with rather than someone who laid you off. Both he and Obama rejected their party's establishments and old-style politics. Obama rejected Clintonian triangulation and Edwards-style netroots rage. Huckabee rejected (at least notionally) Rovian zero-sum politics and the Washington GOP establishment. My friend thinks Huckabee has staying power and is going to be strong in South Carolina and Florida. Evangelicals are now fully vested in him, so he has a strong base going forward. Thompson stays in, but is going to have trouble ever eclipsing Huckabee. Rudy is going to have real trouble making the case he can unite the party in general as a pro-choicer after the rise of Huckabee. The advantage McCain has is that he is naturally suited to tap into the Huckabee change message—the call for cross-partisan cooperation and the distaste for the Washington establishment. This is a case where something old can perhaps become new again. But McCain has to make himself acceptable to conservatives and attack Romney from the right. If he makes the kind of mistakes he did in 2000, he creates the possibility of Huckabee winning the nomination. Another problem for Giuliani is that through his ferocious attacks on Hillary, which seemed so shrewd all year long, he has made himself a partisan figure in a way that Huckabee and McCain aren't and roughly identified himself with the Bush-Clinton politics of the past.
Last night was a bad one for anybody invested in deep-fried partisan politics.