The point Politico is making, and with which I agree, is that the Hil will yield great results in unrelated campaigns. If the Republicans want to arrest their slide in the House and Senate, a Hillary candidacy will certainly help. She's so divisive, she could potentially hand the Congress back to the GOP.
I trust I am saying this like the leftie, Daily Kos-reading Hillary supporter that you just know I am.
Take a deep breath and relax. For one thing, I don't think you support Hillary. You've made that point repeatedly, and if I remember correctly, you're an Obama man. Second, I believe the Daily-Kos reference is to a post I made in another thread. How about we keep our discussions distinct? Finally, I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but terms like 'extreme far-right' and 'very far-right' get as thrown around way, way, way too much. According to its popular usage among Democrats, I am the extreme far-right (a characterization I take great umbrage with). Now, I will grant you, there is an exact parallel on the Right, calling everyone a liberal socialist. I don't agree with that either. I see a vast amount of daylight between a Dennis Kucinich and a Bill Richardson (whom I was actually considering this fall).
As for the point of your post and link, my point in my reply post (with the exception of the post script) was that you seem to be heralding an event that I have seen for some time. Hell, didn't Sasaki post that bit in 2006 about 'vote for Democrats this fall, and Al Queda would be invading the U.S. by the summer of 2009'? Running against boogeymen is a tactic that seems to go on ad nauseum. Sadly, it's not 'starting' right now as you suggest. I can send you RNC fundraising letters I've received over the past year that talked all about the need to support local Republican candidates to check Hillary's march to power.
12-10-2007, 17:53
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The point Politico is making, and with which I agree, is that the Hil will yield great results in unrelated campaigns. If the Republicans want to arrest their slide in the House and Senate, a Hillary candidacy will certainly help. She's so divisive, she could potentially hand the Congress back to the GOP.
I trust I am saying this like the leftie, Daily Kos-reading Hillary supporter that you just know I am.
You aren't.
And I agree about the Hilldabeast polarizing politics to a point of massive reactionary swelling. I will be using that rational if she wins, but it is not a reason to wish her to office anymore than christians should wish for hell on earth in the end times... so that they can go to heaven. Dread it, but if it happens look on the bright side.
Lets hope that doesn't happen.
(this statement was paid for by friends of Mitt Romney)
I take your point about how Hillary has been used for boogeyman purposes for years. To my knowledge, though, this is the first use of her in a TV spot for the 2008 congressional ... oh, nevermind. I guess it's not very interesting, although I thought it was at the time.
12-10-2007, 17:57
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don
If I remember correctly, you're an Obama man.
He voted McCain in this poll.
12-10-2007, 18:01
Lemur
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
This is extremely encouraging: Huckabee, Paul and McCain are now all on record as unequivocally opposing torture as policy. Yes, that includes "enhanced interrogation methods," to use the Orwellian euphemism of the day.
Mike Huckabee told reporters that waterboarding is torture and that "torture should not be the policy of the United States of America." Although interrogations of enemy detainees should be "thorough," Mr. Huckabee said, "when we go to the point of violating our own moral code, then instead of advancing our country, its safety and our security, we in fact jeopardize it." [...]
"My friends, this is what America is all about," Mr. McCain said. "This is a defining issue and clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America."
I take your point about how Hillary has been used for boogeyman purposes for years. To my knowledge, though, this is the first use of her in a TV spot for the 2008 congressional ... oh, nevermind. I guess it's not very interesting, although I thought it was at the time.
My humble apologies, but I was close. :bow: And yes, you're right, it's probably the first 2008 congressional ad to invoke the evil of Hillary, but probably because it's one of the first congressional ads for 2008 to run. :laugh4:
Seriously, I can understand the Rush Limbaugh's of the world making hay off the evils of Hillary. As an entertainer that panders to a segment of the Republican population that reacts to it, it makes sense. But I find it distasteful and disconcerting that McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson have each spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars to run political ads to do it. Here's an idea... talk about YOU!!! :help:
12-10-2007, 18:12
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
This is extremely encouraging: Huckabee, Paul and McCain are now all on record as unequivocally opposing torture as policy. Yes, that includes "enhanced interrogation methods," to use the Orwellian euphemism of the day.
Mike Huckabee told reporters that waterboarding is torture and that "torture should not be the policy of the United States of America." Although interrogations of enemy detainees should be "thorough," Mr. Huckabee said, "when we go to the point of violating our own moral code, then instead of advancing our country, its safety and our security, we in fact jeopardize it." [...]
"My friends, this is what America is all about," Mr. McCain said. "This is a defining issue and clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America."
I might agree that the government should officially never put anyone in the criminal system to death. That should be for the states to decide. The Feds are the last leg of appeals and if anything went to that level due to questions in procedure, the death penalty's legitimacy is in question in that instance.
I think the Death penalty is a hindrance for justice in some courts. Juries may be reluctant to put a "guilty" verdict in the hands of the judge because he may condemn the accused to death. This may, in their minds, up the ante and reduce chances for a solid conviction.
Life without the possibility of parole is more of an intense punishment anyway and modern prisons are pretty airtight. Possibly, states could reserve the death penalty only for the most heinous multiple murderers who showed signs of extreme mental prowess in overcoming obstacles.
I am no expert, just some ideas.
I am not an expert on this
12-10-2007, 18:16
Don Corleone
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Way off topic, Tuff, but they're only airtight with regards to unplanned departures. The current parole system is entirely too lax and lenient, IMHO. That being said, it shouldn't impact a discussion of the death penalty, it's either morally acceptable for the state to execute somebody, or it isn't (my vote would be no).
And I know, I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this one, but I'd really like to see an 'acceptable' vs. 'unacceptable' list that gets down to brass tacks before we go signing off on limiting the government's ability to interrogate a prisoner. To some, having 1-ply toilet paper is considered torture.
12-10-2007, 18:16
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
My humble apologies, but I was close. :bow: And yes, you're right, it's probably the first 2008 congressional ad to invoke the evil of Hillary, but probably because it's one of the first congressional ads for 2008 to run. :laugh4:
Seriously, I can understand the Rush Limbaugh's of the world making hay off the evils of Hillary. As an entertainer that panders to a segment of the Republican population that reacts to it, it makes sense. But I find it distasteful and disconcerting that McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson have each spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars to run political ads to do it. Here's an idea... talk about YOU!!! :help:
Also, I think hostility toward the Republicans in general is understandable. People are very sore with them right now. As a rather right leaning voter, I feel betrayed by the Republican led congress and Republican President getting very little done. I feel as though pro-life issues and smaller government were used as props to get elected.
I feel like bashing some Republicans often.
(oh crap, I read torture as death penalty. talk about subconscious. What an idiot. I think I'm going retarded. Today I read a phone number's last digits 0800. I copied them as 8126)
12-10-2007, 18:24
Don Corleone
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Oh believe me, nobody could make arguments against the Republican establishment than I can right now. As a fiscal conservative, I'm totally disgusted and generally mistrustful based on how the past 7 years have gone. Ted Stevens should have been thrown out of the caucus, it's not like it would cost us a majority.... But I'd like to see a little more anger about the things they really have done wrong. In many ways, it proves my point... hit the mute button for a second... just based on voting records and spending, can you tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican congress or White House?
12-10-2007, 18:28
Lemur
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
As a fiscal conservative, I'm totally disgusted and generally mistrustful based on how the past 7 years have gone.
Complete and utter agreement. That's why I'm hoping for another divided government. I guess there's no guarantee that will result in a slowdown of government pork and largesse, but it's the best hope we've got.
That said, I'm wide open to any other suggestions on how we can tamp down our government's endless appetite for power and money.
12-10-2007, 18:38
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Another Clinton volunteer asked to resign for Obama smear emails.
Well, whatdya know.TWO grassroots volunteers asked to resign.
:sleeping:
Wake me up when the swiftboating begins.
Quote:
The GOP wastes no time, launches its first attack ad using the Hil. If she's the Dem nominee, I expect to see a resurgence of Republican candidates. If she's elected President, we will see a rebirth and renaissance of the far right.
This will happen with all Dem candidates. The only difference between Hillary and the others is that Hillary has been a high-profile, leading candidate since the beginning. The others, at least the one eventual nominee, merely have some catching up to do. By November '08 half of America will have become convinced the Rep candidate is Adolf Hitler and the other half that the Dem candidate is Satan.
It's the same drill over and over again. Everybody already knows what's going to happen. The Rep candidate will be demonised as being 'evil, big business puppet, close-mided, hick, hateful'. The Dem candidate will be attacked for being 'amoral, big spender, flip-flop, questionable ethics, slick'.
As an aside: If you are so worried about polarisation, then don't fall for it. You are a declared independent. Why repeat the partisan hatred and smear campaigns that make the American political landscape so vile and polarised? Sometimes you are great at exposing the hypocrisy of either camp. At other times, you are dangerously close to just repeating the bile of either.
12-10-2007, 18:38
Don Corleone
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Complete and utter agreement. That's why I'm hoping for another divided government. I guess there's no guarantee that will result in a slowdown of government pork and largesse, but it's the best hope we've got.
That said, I'm wide open to any other suggestions on how we can tamp down our government's endless appetite for power and money.
I think a big start would be to stop paying Congressmen a salary. They didn't receive one in the early days (they were compensated for expenses). This would help to eliminate the professional politician, which is where a lot of this crap comes from.
12-10-2007, 19:04
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I think a big start would be to stop paying Congressmen a salary. They didn't receive one in the early days (they were compensated for expenses). This would help to eliminate the professional politician, which is where a lot of this crap comes from.
I don't know about that.
But, if you feel that way - Vote Romney. He refused his salary as Governor of Mass.
12-10-2007, 19:48
Lemur
Re: Re : Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The Rep candidate will be demonised as being 'evil, big business puppet, close-mided, hick, hateful'. The Dem candidate will be attacked for being 'amoral, big spender, flip-flop, questionable ethics, slick'.
But, if you feel that way - Vote Romney. He refused his salary as Governor of Mass.
As nice as that is, I still won't even consider voting Mitt. I mean, I've heard of flip-flopping before, but this guy's ridiculous. Did you see those two links I posted earlier? I'd trust GWB to follow his word more than Mitt, and that's saying something. Although, to be fair, Mitt at least isn't completely incompetent like Bush.
12-11-2007, 17:30
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
As nice as that is, I still won't even consider voting Mitt. I mean, I've heard of flip-flopping before, but this guy's ridiculous. Did you see those two links I posted earlier? I'd trust GWB to follow his word more than Mitt, and that's saying something. Although, to be fair, Mitt at least isn't completely incompetent like Bush.
That's fair. I don't mind flip-floppers. Who wants people to sit in office and think that they know better than their own constituents (Clinton, McCain, Giuliani). That's what this system is based on - REPRESENTATION. If his ethics are in question that is one thing, but to condemn a person for changing their mind based on personal or constituent opinion is another.
I didn't care when they called Kerry a flip-flopper. I didn't like him because of his constituency and his weak/unconvincing way of changing his opinion. If he flip-flopped in my direction that would have been great.
Mitt has strong opinions, but in the interest of representative government, he knows when to shut up and when to speak up. Find me a successful person in life who doesn't do that. This has nothing to do with ethics - of which I believe Romney has plenty.
Please send me the links in PM
12-11-2007, 17:57
seireikhaan
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Sent.
12-11-2007, 20:27
Kralizec
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
I'm not so sure about Giuliani anymore...
If I could vote again, I think I'd pick Nietzsche.
12-11-2007, 20:59
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
If I could vote again, I think I'd pick Nietzsche.
In the Death of God we Trust? ~;)
12-11-2007, 21:07
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I'm not so sure about Giuliani anymore...
Look more closely at Romney. It is hard to condemn his message and he has a powerful personality.
12-12-2007, 03:52
seireikhaan
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Look more closely at Romney. It is hard to condemn his message and he has a powerful personality.
Wanna bet?~;)
12-12-2007, 14:26
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Wanna bet?~;)
I watched the videos. I don't see anything wrong with him.
Representative government! If I were running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, I would have promised the same things. Did Mitt ever do anything to change Massachusetts abortion laws? No. Does he believe in giving to the less fortunate? Yes. Did he want to return to Reagan era politics? Maybe, but not in Mass, where people wouldn't have readily accepted it.
This is U.S. politics. If you want unwavering beliefs and stubbornness, follow the elections of bishops.
Also, Roe v. Wade is a sham decision that takes away from the legislative process regarding abortion in this country. They found a constitutional right that exists nowhere. Many people believe that it is murder and most believe that it should be more strongly regulated at the very least. Until we overturn that decision, 5 judges in 1973 will have decided that they knew better than the American state or federal legislative processes. You can be "pro-abortion" and want to overturn roe, as it simply puts the rights back into the hands of the various states OR the federal legislative process.
But thanks for the links. Just visual confirmation of what I believe we had all heard. I thought I was going to have a ball dropped on me.
12-12-2007, 14:39
Odin
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Representative government! If I were running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, I would have promised the same things. Did Mitt ever do anything to change Massachusetts abortion laws? No. Does he believe in giving to the less fortunate? Yes. Did he want to return to Reagan era politics? Maybe, but not in Mass, where people wouldn't have readily accepted it.
Tuff is right in this regard. Mass is a unique state, I know I live here. Yes its liberal and there are also socialist leanings here. To Mitt's credit he had a fairly successful govenorship in the sense he did sell some of his ideas to the public.
The legislature here is overwhelmingly democrat he had one hand tied behind his back going in. That kind of expirence might be useful considering where the conservatives stack up in 08. How many senators are retiring?
Mitt's the only guy in the republican field who has dealt with and worked with a hostile majority in the legislature. He wouldnt be my first choice, because he is a CEO and a good one, but CEO's rarely succeed in a democratic situation.
12-12-2007, 14:42
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
TSM:
Nice post.
Odie:
Good point about the CEO thingee.
12-12-2007, 15:11
Kralizec
Re: Re : Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
In the Death of God we Trust? ~;)
Exactly. One of the reasons that I originally picked Giuliani is that he doesn't go out of his way to appear annoyingly pious like some of the other candidates. Vote Nietzsche, the embodiment of der Amerikanische Übermensch :yes:
"I'm Friedrich Nietzsche and I approve of this post"
12-12-2007, 22:53
seireikhaan
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I watched the videos. I don't see anything wrong with him.
Representative government! If I were running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, I would have promised the same things. Did Mitt ever do anything to change Massachusetts abortion laws? No. Does he believe in giving to the less fortunate? Yes. Did he want to return to Reagan era politics? Maybe, but not in Mass, where people wouldn't have readily accepted it.
No, he didn't, but I believe a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that it would have encountered a lot of opposition, as you stated, so it would have been foolhardy to even try such a move in Mass.
Quote:
This is U.S. politics. If you want unwavering beliefs and stubbornness, follow the elections of bishops.
I'm not saying that a candidate has to be unchangeable in their persona. I'm merely saying that he's a complete and utter hypocrite to go on a commercial saying "Republicans should act like Republicans, so vote Mitt." Also that I don't trust much of what he says, on account of the fact that he very well could just be saying it to try and get himself elected, as he seems to have done in Mass. So frankly, I'm not sure that I trust him on much of anything he says.
Quote:
Also, Roe v. Wade is a sham decision that takes away from the legislative process regarding abortion in this country. They found a constitutional right that exists nowhere. Many people believe that it is murder and most believe that it should be more strongly regulated at the very least. Until we overturn that decision, 5 judges in 1973 will have decided that they knew better than the American state or federal legislative processes. You can be "pro-abortion" and want to overturn roe, as it simply puts the rights back into the hands of the various states OR the federal legislative process.
Now this I do very much agree on with you. As for many people believing its murder, well, there are a lot who say its a woman's right as well. A further complication of the matter(at least in my opinion) is that should we forbid abortion, the wealthy will still be able to fly to Mexico or Canada and have an abortion done there, completely legal. If we could convince Mexico and Canada to put laws forth banning abortion, and enforcing them, then I would have less of a problem.
Quote:
But thanks for the links. Just visual confirmation of what I believe we had all heard. I thought I was going to have a ball dropped on me.
Your welcome. It is quite apparent that I will be unable to convince you otherwise of Mitt Romney. BTW, I'm afraid I lack the intelligence or wisdom to "drop the ball" on anyone regarding the coming political election. I can voice my opinion, but unlike others, I'm afraid that I generally lack the supreme political insight to figure it all out before everyone else. Perhaps maybe because this will be my first time caucusing/voting? Ah well.
Disclaimer: I also have a beef against Romney because I get the eery feeling that if he gets elected, I'm gonna end up being drafted.(be it a logical fear or not)
12-13-2007, 04:15
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Your welcome. It is quite apparent that I will be unable to convince you otherwise of Mitt Romney. BTW, I'm afraid I lack the intelligence or wisdom to "drop the ball" on anyone regarding the coming political election. I can voice my opinion, but unlike others, I'm afraid that I generally lack the supreme political insight to figure it all out before everyone else. Perhaps maybe because this will be my first time caucusing/voting? Ah well.
Disclaimer: I also have a beef against Romney because I get the eery feeling that if he gets elected, I'm gonna end up being drafted.(be it a logical fear or not)
A pro-life stance is not the litmus test required to call yourself a republican. I don't believe it should be the litmus test in either party. In the democratic party, a pro-life stance has traditionally barred you from higher office or speech giving (I have seen this change as of late - Murtha, Reid, Casey, etc.)
I believe in overturning Roe v Wade. This will not affect current laws in a number of states (HI, NY, CA, MA...), but other states will have the opportunity to draft legislation that accurately describes the will of citizens with regards to the issue. I don't see how this could be a bad thing - I am content on eliminating as many of what I believe I accurately describe as infanticides as possible. I will, as a New Yorker, continue to lobby against abortion in my State, but in a representative republic, that is all I will be able to do as far as I can see.
Anyway, regarding what makes a Republican - I think it favors businesses, the private sector and self-reliance (individuals and States). This (tends to) include fewer taxes, fewer government bureaucracies and a more strict interpretation of the Constitution. All of those stances have been in question at one point or another within the party, but I believe that they generally apply. (all of that is arguable - again, I'm speaking in generalities.)
Anyway, the pro-life argument was picked up by the GOP because NARAL and Planned Parenthood have pretty much bought up the democratic party under the guise of "womens rights" and "choice". This is a shame - I'd love to have some options in an election.
BTW - You're a smart guy, you have the insight.
12-13-2007, 04:50
seireikhaan
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Well, what you just described as 'republicans' is certainly what the idea of republicans is supposed to be. Hasn't really been that for the last oh, 8 years at least. Anyways, one more commercial of Romney's that just sickens me.
Increasing the military by AT LEAST 100,000? Either he's nuts, or he's just lying his arse off to try and get approval from the republicans with more, shall we say, militant meanings. Also, are Republicans supposed to downsize the miiltary as a part of downsizing government as a whole? Or is the military considered a different entity in itself?
Also, the 'monitoring Al Qaeda calls into America' bit concerns me a bit. Sure, it sounds nice that Al Qaeda won't be calling us. But what about just every day, average joes who're calling their family from a different country and are being monitored by the government just because their last name is "Ali"? Not to mention that by doing so, we're monitoring our own citizens, which I believe to be a violation of of our rights. If we're to base our assumptions of him based on what we hear, which isn't even itself neccessarily true, then Romney will only end up feuling the Islamophobia in our country even more. That is rather counter-productive towards any efforts in establishing good relations with the non-American Islamic community, in addition to giving radicals more ammo with which to recruit followers to said organizations. Also, he seems to be following in GWB's footpaths regarding ignoring the inherent hypocrisy in buying oil from the Saudi Monarchy, which has some of the strictest and most unjust interpretations of law in the world, as well as supporting a military dictator in Pakistan, while condemning Iran and others for what are similar offenses. He might have some agreeable economic policies; however, I cannot support his foreign policy, or the invasion of rights, if he actually does what he says(which as I said, isn't a safe bet). And as for if he does do the opposite of what he says? Well then we can safely know that he's a lying hypocrite who does whatever he can to gain power, not a trait I like having in a Presidency which already is overstepping its bounds of power.
12-14-2007, 16:25
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
I hope this is accurate. I have my fingers crossed.
Obama edges Clinton in poll
Romney well ahead in 'Monitor' survey
By SARAH LIEBOWITZ
Monitor staff
December 14. 2007 12:41AM
Barack Obama has come from behind to turn the Democratic presidential race in New Hampshire into a toss-up, according to a new Monitor opinion poll. The results - which show Obama with a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton - mirror other polls released this week, indicating that Clinton's once-imposing lead has evaporated in the run-up to New Hampshire's Jan. 8 primary.
The poll suggests that the Democratic race could hinge on the turnout of undeclared voters, who aren't registered with either political party. Much of Obama's backing comes from undeclared voters, while registered Democrats make up the bulk of Clinton's support. In New Hampshire, undeclared voters can vote in either party primary, giving them sway in both contests.
"The more undeclared voters that decide to vote in the Democratic primary, the better chance Obama wins," said Del Ali, president of Research 2000, the Maryland-based nonpartisan polling firm that conducted the poll for the Monitor on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. "What Hillary Clinton has to hope is that more of the established Democrats come out to vote."
If the Democratic race is in flux, the Republican race in New Hampshire has remained constant in recent months, with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney continuing to hold a double-digit lead over his nearest competitors.
According to the poll, Romney would win 31 percent of the vote if the Republican primary were held today. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, meanwhile, would earn 18 percent and 17 percent respectively. Although Mike Huckabee is leading some Iowa polls, his campaign hasn't surged in New Hampshire: 9 percent of voters back the former Arkansas governor.
The figures were similar in July, when a Monitor poll showed that 27 percent of those surveyed backed Romney, 20 percent picked Giuliani and 16 percent chose McCain.
Informal interviews with voters yesterday in Concord turned up several leaning toward Obama. Those voters described Obama in much the same way the Illinois senator describes himself: as an agent of change, a new face in Washington.
Charles Shipman, who is registered as undeclared, said that he would support Clinton should she win the Democratic nomination. But Obama "offers sort of a fresh start, more of a clean slate, less baggage," said Shipman of Manchester.
Of the likely Democratic primary voters surveyed for the Monitor poll, 37 percent aren't registered with a political party. When it came to those undeclared voters, Obama trounced his opponents: 40 percent of undeclared voters likely to vote in the Democratic primary backed Obama, compared with 23 percent for Clinton and 13 percent for former North Carolina senator John Edwards.
Clinton, in contrast, won the support of more registered Democrats: 36 percent said they'd vote for Clinton, compared with 27 percent for Obama and 21 percent for Edwards.
For Rhonda Ashley of Contoocook, Obama will be the first Democrat she's supported in a recent presidential election. In 2000, she backed McCain in the state's primary; in 2004, she voted Republican. Obama "has an enthusiasm that I don't see in any of the other candidates," Ashley said. As for Clinton, "I feel like Hillary will go wherever the polls tell her to go."
Apart from undeclared voters, Obama now draws considerable support from women. Of the female, likely Democratic voters surveyed, 34 percent say they'd choose Obama, compared with 32 percent for Clinton. Female voters have widely been considered a key demographic for Clinton, the former first lady and U.S. senator from New York.
"That's where the biggest gains have been made for Obama," Ali said. "That gender gap - right now, he's removed it."
But if some voters have settled on a candidate, others voiced indecision.
Rich Eichhorn of Hopkinton has yet to decide which primary to vote in. "I can go either way; it's less about left or right," said Eichhorn, who voted for McCain in 2000. "We need somebody who can lead people."
And Marilyn Wyzga, a registered Democrat from Hillsboro, is considering voting for Edwards or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. She likes Edwards's "honest and direct approach," but she is also drawn to Richardson's "experience."
Obama, Clinton and Edwards were the only Democratic candidates to win double-digit support in the poll - 32 percent of likely Democratic primary voters surveyed backed Obama, 31 percent chose Clinton, and 18 percent went with Edwards. Richardson followed with 8 percent support. Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd all placed in the low single digits.
The results of the Monitor poll were similar to those of a University of New Hampshire poll released earlier this week. That survey showed Clinton leading Obama by just one percentage point, well within the margin of error.
In the Monitor's July poll, 33 percent of likely Democratic voters surveyed chose Clinton, while 25 percent picked Obama. Edwards won 15 percent of the vote in that poll, while Richardson took 7 percent.
On the Republican side, several voters said that they're continuing to assess the candidates.
Gary Nylen of Bow backed McCain in 2000. Now, he said, "I don't know whether I'll vote for him, Giuliani, Romney or Huckabee." Nylen, who considers immigration and national security the most important issues, cited aspects of each candidate that he found appealing, including Giuliani's leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Nylen is frustrated by political promises that he said were unlikely to come to fruition. "Don't give us rhetoric," Nylen said. "Give us facts.
"I can't make a decision right now, because I don't feel comfortable," he said.
On the Republican side, 13 percent of voters surveyed said they remained undecided about whom to vote for, compared with 5 percent among the likely Democratic voters.
Bill Anderson, who is registered as undeclared, would happily take characteristics of several Republican candidates and roll them into one politician: Huckabee's social conservatism, McCain's emphasis on national security, Romney's managerial abilities.
But without that option, "I'll take any one of them over the inexperienced guy and the person I don't trust," said Anderson, of Weare, referring to Obama and Clinton. Giuliani's stance on abortion - the former mayor has supported abortion rights - led Anderson to rule him out.
It's unclear how many undeclared voters plan to participate in the Republican primary. Of the likely Republican voters surveyed, 19 percent are undeclared. In 2000, support from undeclared voters helped McCain widen his lead over George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.
Research 2000 used randomly generated telephone numbers to interview 600 likely voters. Those interviewed - 186 Democrats (31 percent), 180 Republicans (30 percent) and 234 voters who identified themselves as independents (39 percent) - reflect voter registration numbers. The interviews included 288 men and 312 women. The poll has a four percentage point margin of error, although that figure is higher for subgroups within the poll.
Looking ahead to the general election, the three highest-polling Democrats beat each of the highest-polling Republicans.
In those head-to-head match-ups, Obama fared best among the Democrats, beating Romney, Giuliani and McCain by the largest margins. Although Edwards also wins those match-ups, several of those contests are a statistical dead heat. Clinton lies between Obama and Edwards, leading each of the three Republicans by at least six percentage points.
Of the Republicans, Romney looks to face the toughest general election battles, according to the poll. Obama leads Romney by 12 points, with Clinton and Edwards besting Romney by eight points and five points respectively. For Giuliani and McCain, the margins are smaller.
"I think it's tough for a Republican in New Hampshire," Ali said. "It's the Democrats' state to lose."
I would like to know why McCain isn't getting more press coverage. I mean, the dude is placing third in a lot of polls, tied with Giuliani in Iowa, and yet it's as if he doesn't exist. Why is he getting such a cold shoulder from the media? What do they know that I don't?
It would seem that Iowa and New Hampshire will thin out the second tier, but that likely results (could change, 3-4 weeks is an eternity in nomination politics) show a split between Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani while the Dems will be Hillary and Obama neck and neck. Leaves South Carolina with a lot of looming importance.
South Carolina -- the state that gave us Firm Thurm, Fort Sumter, Secession and John C. Calhoun.
Interesting indeed.
SC is also the watershed for Thompson and Edwards. If Edwards doesn't have 2 2nd places or 1 first after SC, he'd done. If Thompson doesn't appear near the head of the list there, so is he.
Good to know that we'll have a nominee by mid-February. We need to get plenty of mud ready for a long summer.
12-14-2007, 17:16
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I would like to know why McCain isn't getting more press coverage. I mean, the dude is placing third in a lot of polls, tied with Giuliani in Iowa, and yet it's as if he doesn't exist. Why is he getting such a cold shoulder from the media? What do they know that I don't?
They know that Mcain died way back in 2005, at the age of 93. :book:
He's good, McCain, but his moment has passed. He should've been the candidate in 2000.
12-14-2007, 17:17
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I would like to know why McCain isn't getting more press coverage. I mean, the dude is placing third in a lot of polls, tied with Giuliani in Iowa, and yet it's as if he doesn't exist. Why is he getting such a cold shoulder from the media? What do they know that I don't?
They've decided that he's a Veep waiting to happen -- but no more.
McCain doesn't look as young as he did -- so he doesn't film as well. This matters on TV -- they want people to watch. McCain even wears sweaters under a sport jacket sometimes....:shame:
Visual image is all to the one-eyed god, but one eye has trouble with depth perception.
McCain doesn't attack the sacred cows of the Reaganite wing or the Evangelicals as he did before -- which made good copy (and fit with many of their unexpressed personal peeves).
McCain just doesn't "do it" for them, so without an outright winin one of the first three, he's on the media's second tier [as in to be ushered out].
12-14-2007, 17:32
Xiahou
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Interesting.
It would seem that Iowa and New Hampshire will thin out the second tier, but that likely results (could change, 3-4 weeks is an eternity in nomination politics) show a split between Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani while the Dems will be Hillary and Obama neck and neck. Leaves South Carolina with a lot of looming importance.
South Carolina -- the state that gave us Firm Thurm, Fort Sumter, Secession and John C. Calhoun.
Interesting indeed.
SC is also the watershed for Thompson and Edwards. If Edwards doesn't have 2 2nd places or 1 first after SC, he'd done. If Thompson doesn't appear near the head of the list there, so is he.
Good to know that we'll have a nominee by mid-February. We need to get plenty of mud ready for a long summer.
Huckabee is winning pretty much every single poll I've seen for SC right now. He needs to just hurry up and go away. Outside of his social conservatism, he'd make a better Democrat than a Republican- I can't believe his 'Mister Niceguy' image has carried him so far. :shrug:
Don't get me wrong, I think Huckabee is a nice guy, but that in itself is no reason for him to be president.
12-14-2007, 17:45
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Huckabee is winning pretty much every single poll I've seen for SC right now. He needs to just hurry up and go away. Outside of his social conservatism, he'd make a better Democrat than a Republican- I can't believe his 'Mister Niceguy' image has carried him so far. :shrug:
Don't get me wrong, I think Huckabee is a nice guy, but that in itself is no reason for him to be president.
Absolutely. I would rather have Giuliani than Huckabee in office any day. Fortunately, Giuliani's good economic sense and Huckabee's social sense are preserved in the eminently electable bridge builder - Mitt, so hopefully I won't have to make that choice.
12-14-2007, 20:42
Lemur
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Well, if the polls are anything at all to consider, it's looking like Huckbama in Iowa.
Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee hold 9-point leads in Iowa with less than three weeks to go before the Jan. 3 caucuses, according to a new poll conducted for Lee Enterprises newspapers. [...]
The poll also indicated an unsettled electorate, with 23 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Republicans saying they were likely or very likely to change their minds before the caucuses. Only a third of Democrats, 33 percent, and just more than a quarter of Republicans, 27 percent, said they were not at all likely to change their minds. The rest, 44 percent on the Democratic side and 39 percent on the Republican side, said they are not very likely to change.
After forcing Billy Shaheen out of her campaign, Hillary has now pivoted to a "no surprises" argument which at least seems to spring directly from the Obama-cocaine talk--and is certain to keep that talk alive. This also represents an important new campaign theme for Hillary. For most of the past year her candidacy has been premised on her experience. Now she's making electability a central issue.
Intuitively, such a pivot might seem dangerous, given that Hillary's divisiveness has always troubled Democrats. But this week's New York Times-CBS poll found that 63 percent of Democratic voters consider her the most electable candidate--a fact the campaign flagged in a recent conference call. Maybe Team Hillary now sees electability as their path back towards the nomination. Unfortunately for Obama, it could be an ugly one.
12-14-2007, 20:58
Privateerkev
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
I'm writing in "Gah".
I don't like any of them. I hope none of them become our next president. But, due to the two party lock on this system, one of them probably will.
Lets see, I get to choose from a group of pro-capitalists and a group of pro-capitalists.
The more to the left I have moved politically, the more similar the two parties seem.
I'm tired of being forced to choose between party 1.A and party 1.B :no:
12-14-2007, 23:07
Husar
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
May I inquire what you want then? Communism? ~;)
12-15-2007, 03:00
Privateerkev
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
May I inquire what you want then? Communism? ~;)
A left-wing utopia would be slightly more in line with what I want. And to keep it "on-topic", I am not confident that any of the candidates in either party could deliver a left-wing utopia. I remain hopeful that someone will though...
^_^
12-15-2007, 05:12
Ice
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
A left-wing utopia would be slightly more in line with what I want. And to keep it "on-topic", I am not confident that any of the candidates in either party could deliver a left-wing utopia. I remain hopeful that someone will though...
^_^
Keep dreaming. That's one think I'm glad that's one think the candidates agree on.
12-19-2007, 18:46
Lemur
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
John McCain picked up a few endorsements recently. Don't know if it will make any difference at all, but it's nice to see others clueing in to why he would make a good President.
This morning he was endorsed by his favorite former Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which comes on the heels of back to back-to-back endorsements from 3 newspapers over the weekend: The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe and The Portsmouth Herald.
12-19-2007, 20:15
seireikhaan
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
John McCain picked up a few endorsements recently. Don't know if it will make any difference at all, but it's nice to see others clueing in to why he would make a good President.
This morning he was endorsed by his favorite former Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which comes on the heels of back to back-to-back endorsements from 3 newspapers over the weekend: The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe and The Portsmouth Herald.
If the Des Moines Register is supporting him, that's not neccesarily a positive thing. Nearly everyone who reads it knows the newspaper's a piece of junk more often than not, but they don't have any competition anymore, so we're kinda stuck with them.
On health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.
On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these things through a kind of outbreak of good feeling...
Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.
On health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.
On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these things through a kind of outbreak of good feeling...
Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.
This is a bad thing?
Intellectually, no -- of course not. In terms of being in step with one's party -- perhaps. This is the albatross that has kept the Dems from beating a GOP nominee who was anything but a sure thing in either the 2k or '04elections.
The democrat fringe is proportionately larger than the republican cadre of whack jobs and, to those annointed purists, any Dem who is not ready to push hard NOW for an eco-socialist future is part of the problem. They make Hannity seem "nuanced" by comparison....:dizzy:
12-20-2007, 07:00
Lemur
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Seamus, I'd be interested to see if anyone has made a serious attempt to quantify the kook fringe of either party. That would be an interesting exercise.
Ye gods, there's even better stuff further down in the interview. Krugman really hates the idea of anybody thinking about compromise or bipartisanship. How dare they!
When Obama used the word "crisis" about Social Security it gave me a little bit of a sense of, "Hmmm -- I'm a little worried that my initial concerns were more right than I knew."
To have Obama sort of sounding like the Washington Post editorial page really said among other things that he just hasn't been listening to progressives, for whom the fight against Bush's Social Security scare tactics was really a defining moment. Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.
It's a tone thing. I find it a little bit worrisome if we have a candidate who basically starts compromising before the struggle has even begun.
A Democrat talk about dealing with entitlements? Egads! Gadzooks! Martha, quickly, dial 911!
(Footnote: I kinda suspect that the only President who can make headway on entitlements will be a Dem. In much the same way that only confirmed cold warrior Nixon could go to China, ya know? Or in the way that only a liberal heartthrob like Bill Clinton could make meaningful changes to Welfare ...)
12-20-2007, 16:20
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
I'm probably gonna open another thread right before the election to see how opinions in the org have changed. What do you think? Redundant?
12-20-2007, 22:00
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
(Footnote: I kinda suspect that the only President who can make headway on entitlements will be a Dem. In much the same way that only confirmed cold warrior Nixon could go to China, ya know? Or in the way that only a liberal heartthrob like Bill Clinton could make meaningful changes to Welfare ...)
Now THAT, my proto-simian compadre, is an interesting take. My conservative-oriented self has always defaulted to the idea that it would take a Reaganesque leader who established the roll-back of entitlements as his mission in the same dedicated fashion that Reagan set out to end the Cold War. My thoughts on Nixon and China are mixed, but I've always had a deep respect for Nixon's intellect, so your analogy touches a chord. Maybe you can develop it some time.
Meanwhile, it's beginnig to look more and more like a crap-shoot for the big 3 or 4 of both parties. Hard to say who'll emerge on top when IA, NH, & SC are on the books -- for either side! We're in for a horse race, at least at the outset.
12-21-2007, 00:27
drone
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Apparently, Tancredo is bailing out of the race, and endorsing Romney. Whoever voted Tancredo in the poll, it's time to choose another stiff.
DES MOINES, Iowa - Rep. Tom Tancredo officially bowed out of the race for the White House today, declaring a moral victory despite never escaping the bottom rungs of the polls.
At an afternoon news conference in Des Moines, the Colorado congressman also endorsed Mitt Romney, saying he was satisfied the former Massachusetts governor is well-suited to drive many of the same immigration reforms that Tancredo has been pushing on the campaign trail.
Tancredo called Romney "the best hope for our cause."
The Times is absurd. They could attack every leading candidate twice except Hillary - the biggest joke in the race and Huckabee - who nobody on the left wants to stop from butchering the chances of the GOP keeping the white house.
I hate Fox, I don't trust (but I like) drudge, and I think CNN is out of touch but more moderate. TIMES is a fraud when it says it has no allegiances to partisan issues.
12-21-2007, 01:49
GeneralHankerchief
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Apparently, Tancredo is bailing out of the race, and endorsing Romney. Whoever voted Tancredo in the poll, it's time to choose another stiff.
Anyway, since my opinion on the field hasn't changed one iota since last month, I choose Chris Dodd next. Why not?
12-21-2007, 02:14
LittleGrizzly
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
from the little i now on them i can't decide between clinton and obama
12-21-2007, 04:40
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Our little poll here would have Obama squaring off against Ron Paul. While I don't see that happening, I confess that I would find it entertaining....
12-21-2007, 05:20
Lemur
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Both O and P are extremely popular with the under-40 set. The Org skews heavily toward that demo for obvious reasons. Iowa, on the other hand, may well be decided by the over-60 bunch.
12-21-2007, 06:05
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Right. The org skews heavily to the under 30 international set. I was just interested in what everyone thinks, since we are still masters of the universe for the time being.
12-21-2007, 08:23
Ice
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Our little poll here would have Obama squaring off against Ron Paul. While I don't see that happening, I confess that I would find it entertaining....
If I could only be so lucky.
Ron Paul would win in a landslide.
12-21-2007, 13:08
DukeofSerbia
Go Ron Paul!
Voted for Ron Paul. :balloon2: :2thumbsup:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
He's the best solution from Serbian perspective as finally somebody who understands what's going on in Balkan Peninsula. And he’s good for American people, too.
12-21-2007, 13:31
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Go Ron Paul!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
Voted for Ron Paul. :balloon2: :2thumbsup:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
He's the best solution from Serbian perspective as finally somebody who understands what's going on in Balkan Peninsula. And he’s good for American people, too.
This may be the best and most reasonable expression of support I have heard of for Ron Paul. No airy parsiflage or "the systme must be swept away" silliness about it. Good show.
12-21-2007, 16:59
DukeofSerbia
But he won't won, too bad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
This may be the best and most reasonable expression of support I have heard of for Ron Paul. No airy parsiflage or "the systme must be swept away" silliness about it. Good show.
Thank you. ~;)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
US military action taking place in Serbia is unconstitutional, Dr. Ron Paul, March 24, 1999
"As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail. Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the President authority to wage war."
"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses, and undermine our national sovereignty."
"Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent's child's life who will be sacrificed, not their own."
Quote:
Burning bridges: Attacks on Kosovo unjustified, shameful, Dr. Ron Paul, March 29, 1999
"This is not a proud moment for America, as the United States military has been used to invade a sovereign nation that threatened neither our security, nor even the borders of our allies or friends."
"Most importantly, though is the simple fact that meddling in the internal affairs of a nation involved in civil war is quite dangerous. Both sides believe themselves to be correct, and neither side will appreciate the other side receiving assistance."
"Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable, even honorable. But as history shows, ethnic peace is not achieved by outside forces committing acts of war to pick and choose sides in fighting that dates back hundreds of years."
Quote:
Crisis in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, April 14, 1999
"It has been said that we are in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but it is very clear that the goal of the NATO forces is to set up an ethnic state."
"There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO's Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not (a) reason for us to go to war."
Quote:
The Big Lie: NATO's campaign of deception in Kosovo, Dr. Ron Paul, March 13, 2000
"David Ramsey Steele points out that in Kosovo we were told before the bombings that there was mass genocide occurring, the figure of '100,000 or more' was tossed around even though there was no evidence to back-up this claim ... Later after the NATO bombs began dropping, the official NATO claim was dropped to around 10,000 as it became clear no mass graves or killing fields even existed. The actual number of people found in the reported mass-graves totals slightly more than 2,000, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands that we were told originally."
"Steele points out that the stories about Kosovo came not only from NATO officers but also from officials of the United Nations, as well as from our own government ... The sad trail of lies in Kosovo merely reinforces two facts. The first is that our republic depends upon a press that will question the claims of our leaders instead of just accepting them. The second is that Congress has shirked both its Constitutional responsibility to declare war before U.S. troops are sent into battle and its oversight responsibility to closely monitor the administration in its carrying out of foreign policy."
And the latest:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
12-21-2007, 18:03
Lemur
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Pat Buchanan does a pretty good job of handicapping the race. Sadly, my favorite is 6-1. But I've won bets with worse odds ...
So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.
Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.
Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.
And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.
Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen. And isn't that how it usually is? Iowa and New Hampshire choose for America.
12-21-2007, 20:54
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Pat Buchanan does a pretty good job of handicapping the race. Sadly, my favorite is 6-1. But I've won bets with worse odds ...
So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.
Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.
Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.
And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.
Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen. And isn't that how it usually is? Iowa and New Hampshire choose for America.
I was gonna post that. I think it's pretty adept. For some reason the national polls don't favor Mitt against the democrats. Why do you think that is, Lemur?
12-21-2007, 22:37
Lemur
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
I don't really have a clue. I haven't been paying attention to anything but primary polls. Maybe Romney's good points get lost in his obvious fakeness? For me, a little fakery is not a deal-breaker, but for some folks it is. I read there was some kerfluffle recently over Romney claiming his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., when, um, he didn't. Not even vaguely. Unnecessary lies like that will put off a lot of voters. Bad Clinton memories.
What is the problem, exactly? Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and cooperation?
Maybe I'm just sick of the Baby Boomers and their neverending feuds. It's like they want to fight 1968 again every election cycle. I guess that's why my #1 pick is too old to be a Boomer (McCain) and my #2 is too young (Obama).
-edit-
Here's the latest Zogby polls. I'm not sure they mean much of anything a year out from the general election. Nobody's had a chance to slime, slander, Swiftboat or generally malign their opponents yet.
12-21-2007, 23:16
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
What is the problem, exactly? Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and cooperation?
Maybe I'm just sick of the Baby Boomers and their neverending feuds. It's like they want to fight 1968 again every election cycle.
Obama certainly wins cool points with me for this.
I don't want to bore anyone with Sarkozy in this thread, but the above sounds too frustratingly similar to not suggest a comparison to the case in France. The problems are the same - partisan tribalism and the stranglehold of the 1968 generation. The solution possibly too. Sarkozy did exactly what Obama is trying to do: overcoming '1968' partisanship for the precise reason of a radical breach with existing politics. It is quite succesful and refreshing.
Quote:
Sarkozy's "policy of openness," whereby the top man in Elysee Palace wants to bring about a radical all-around renewal of the nation.
In order to achieve this, Sarkozy put together a diverse, 33-person cabinet: Almost a fifth of the ministers come from the left, and one-third are women. Sarkozy gave prominent Socialist Party member Bernard Kouchner the position of foreign minister (more...) and he managed to woo five other left-wing politicians into his cabinet by offering them high-ranking positions, while a politician from the political center was put in charge of the Defense Ministry.
Giving high-powered women prestigious positions such as those of interior minister, economics minister and education minister gives Sarkozy the aura of being a pioneer for equal opportunities.
A "policy of openness"? What the Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung characterized as a "pretty risky personalization of his style of government" is a calculated strategy used by Sarkozy to secure power for himself. The non-partisan distribution of offices to members of a Socialist Party without significant power in parliament provided the head of state with almost unlimited authority -- one who openly describes himself as "a president who wants to govern."
12-21-2007, 23:52
Xiahou
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I read there was some kerfluffle recently over Romney claiming his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., when, um, he didn't. Not even vaguely. Unnecessary lies like that will put off a lot of voters. Bad Clinton memories.
A lot of conservative voters are already worried that Romney is a phony. Stuff like this does not help in the least. I mean, I guess I'd still want him as president instead of Hillary... probably. :sweatdrop:
12-22-2007, 03:55
Ice
Re: Go Ron Paul!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
Voted for Ron Paul. :balloon2: :2thumbsup:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
He's the best solution from Serbian perspective as finally somebody who understands what's going on in Balkan Peninsula. And he’s good for American people, too.
Good to know.
I cast my absentee ballot today at my local town hall.
:balloon2:
12-22-2007, 04:32
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and cooperation?
We need a smiley that's pointing at it's nose for this comment. You have, I believe, brought down the whole thing to one question. Regrettably, the answer is a Yes.
The partisans want to win the fight, conquer the city and hit exterminate. Enslaving for long-term gain might be barely acceptable, but simply living and let living will not do. Ideological blood must be shed.
The last time we were this divided was at the turn of the 19th. Today's parties are every bit as rabidly partisan and vindictive. Jackson then came in, ran roughshod over everybody, and things calmed for a few years until the slavery expansion fight degenerated into bloodshed (reading Kerns Goodwin on Lincoln right now, wonderful book.).
12-22-2007, 04:46
Ice
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The last time we were this divided was at the turn of the 19th. Today's parties are every bit as rabidly partisan and vindictive. Jackson then came in, ran roughshod over everybody, and things calmed for a few years until the slavery expansion fight degenerated into bloodshed (reading Kerns Goodwin on Lincoln right now, wonderful book.).
Civil War, 2030 style?
:beam:
12-22-2007, 09:15
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't really have a clue. I haven't been paying attention to anything but primary polls. Maybe Romney's good points get lost in his obvious fakeness? For me, a little fakery is not a deal-breaker, but for some folks it is. I read there was some kerfluffle recently over Romney claiming his dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., when, um, he didn't. Not even vaguely. Unnecessary lies like that will put off a lot of voters. Bad Clinton memories.
George Romney had a very admirable civil rights record and Martin Luther King knew him. Both of the Romney brothers remember their father saying something about marching with King. I think that they may have misunderstood their father.
I don't fully understand what this row is about.
12-22-2007, 09:17
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
A lot of conservative voters are already worried that Romney is a phony. Stuff like this does not help in the least. I mean, I guess I'd still want him as president instead of Hillary... probably. :sweatdrop:
What don't you like about Romney? Do you perceive him as fake?
Maybe I'm just sick of the Baby Boomers and their neverending feuds. It's like they want to fight 1968 again every election cycle. I guess that's why my #1 pick is too old to be a Boomer (McCain) and my #2 is too young (Obama).
Were I able to contribute, this is the ticket that would most appeal to me. Both candidates appear to have a good level of personal integrity, and Sen. McCain appeals to me as the kind of conservative I understand (and would consider myself to be, but then we have such different definitions across the pond). I think he has made some mistakes (I'm not at all fond of what I read about his campaign finance reforms) but he thinks as though he cares about the United States and her people.
Sen. Obama's ideals excite me but I feel he would benefit hugely from serving as vice-president to someone like Sen. McCain. It might temper some of his more extreme thoughts whilst providing energy and innovation to a conservative administration. He may well then go on to make one of the finest presidents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
What is the problem, exactly? Are these people so completely lost in their tribal identity that they can't see any virtue to compromise and co-operation?
Alas, this seems to be the pattern across Western democracies. As Louis notes, attempts have been made in some places, but it is vanishing as an aspiration. We are guilty of such tribalism even here in this microcosm of the Backroom.
Perchance it is the end result of too much comfort. Despite our governments inventing ever so more creative ways to terrify us into partisanship, the west feels remarkably safe and its people can indulge in yah-boo politics knowing that not much will change. I would characterise the above suggestion as a government of national unity, and they seem long gone.
12-22-2007, 18:36
seireikhaan
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
What don't you like about Romney? Do you perceive him as fake?
Well, yes, I do perceive him as fake. As for the linky, well, here's what I didn't like: Basically the ENTIRE foreign policy, with exception to immigration. Also, I dislike his economic policy, as I get the feeling he's just going to end up like Bush, spending and spending, but not taxing enough, especially the wealthy.
12-23-2007, 03:37
Ice
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Well, yes, I do perceive him as fake. As for the linky, well, here's what I didn't like: Basically the ENTIRE foreign policy, with exception to immigration. Also, I dislike his economic policy, as I get the feeling he's just going to end up like Bush, spending and spending, but not taxing enough, especially the wealthy.
I'm pretty much you with you here.
We probably agree on foreign policy and spending, but differ on taxes.
Mitt would be like George W Lite.
12-23-2007, 06:11
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I'm pretty much you with you here.
We probably agree on foreign policy and spending, but differ on taxes.
If you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You'd add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You'd pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.
Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped.
Romney's main business experience is as a management consultant, a field in which smart, fast-moving specialists often advise corporations on how to reinvent themselves. His memoir is called Turnaround - the story of his successful rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City - but the most stunning turnaround he has engineered is his own political career.
If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core.
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he boasted that he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than his opponent, Ted Kennedy. These days, he makes a point of his opposition to gay marriage and adoption.
There was a time that he said he wanted to make contraception more available - and a time that he vetoed a bill to sell it over-the-counter.
The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he said in 1994, and he cited the tragedy of a relative's botched illegal abortion as the reason to keep abortions safe and legal. These days, he describes himself as pro-life.
There was a time that he supported stem-cell research and cited his own wife's multiple sclerosis in explaining his thinking; such research, he reasoned, could help families like his. These days, he largely opposes it. As a candidate for governor, Romney dismissed an anti-tax pledge as a gimmick. In this race, he was the first to sign.
People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition.
In the 2008 campaign for president, there are numerous issues on which Romney has no record, and so voters must take him at his word. On these issues, those words are often chilling. While other candidates of both parties speak of restoring America's moral leadership in the world, Romney has said he'd like to "double" the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, where inmates have been held for years without formal charge or access to the courts. He dodges the issue of torture - unable to say, simply, that waterboarding is torture and America won't do it.
When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.
Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.
12-23-2007, 20:04
ICantSpellDawg
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Remarkably unfriendly. It is just a summarization of all of the negative press he's had so far. Nothing biting or deep. PLUS, NH is remarkably friendly to Romney in general.
12-24-2007, 00:19
Lemur
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
Interesting bit of polling data: Clinton and Romney have the highest unfavorable ratings nationally. McCain and Obama have the lowest.
12-24-2007, 01:25
woad&fangs
Re: Iowa Caucuses '08
I just recently learned that only 6% of Iowans actually go to the caucases. I assume that the number is roughly the same in New Hampshire and South Carolina sooooo....
You can only go to one caucas so divide that 6% in half.=3%
The winner rarely has more than 1/3 of the votes so divide by 3=1%
And once those three states are done the candidates for each party have virtually been decided.
So let me get this strait. 1% of Iowans, New Hamshirans, and South Carolines decided the democrats nominee for president and 1% decide the republican nominee for president. What the...
Our systems completely :daisy:'d up:dizzy2:
O, and then we get to the general election where we have the electoral college cuz apparently.
