Election '08: Super Tuesday

[Lemur]

What is it, 21 states voting on one day? Who thought that was a good idea?

[Ice]

Paul

McCain will win though. I can tolerate that.

[Caius]

What is it, 21 states voting on one day? Who thought that was a good idea?

I do think its a good one. I'm tired to see US polls with the same to select, the same answer, and no GAH!.

[Lemur]

Look at that list of names. Aren't they all a little Gah? Why do you need your Gah spelled out and explicit? Find your inner Gah, and all will be well.

[Marshal Murat]

I'm going with Obama, as I have done, and will do. I'm just surprised that Edwards dropped out, rather than play 'kingmaker' as the Drudge Report goes.

[Lemur]

I'm torn. I want McCain to be the Repub nominee and Obama to be the Dem nominee. I'm okay with Romney, and Ron Paul would be tremendous fun. The only serious contender I'm dead set against is Billary.

I guess I'll vote for Obama this time, since he's a bigger underdog than McCain right now.

[KukriKhan]

So, from your list, I assume that you assume Rudy and Huck-Chuck are both out before next week?

[Lemur]

Yes, I expect Rudy to be out, and Huck has neither the money nor the momentum to do much of anything. The only reason I included Dr. Paul is that his supporters are legion, and he's got plenty of cash to keep going. Can't see him bowing out anytime soon.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Give it up, guys. We all know who's going to win.

[KukriKhan]

Bwa-ha-ha! Were'd ya find that?

[Crazed Rabbit]

You know, Louis, although you may see connections between Hillary and a different , current, President, remember that Billary would say and do anything to become presdient, depending on what they think would work. They mold their positions on the latest polls - they have no real principles.

And Hillary would go down so very hard against McCain.

CR

PS I voted Paul.

[CountArach]

lol, nice picture Louis... I'm gonna get nightmares...

New Rasmussen poll in Connecticut:
Obama - 40%
Clinton - 40%
Edwards - 11%

This could be a fluke, but its certainly a nice thought.

Now, what about Edwards dropping out? Who will this help? I would assume that in the South it would help Hillary because she is then hte White candidate, however I think that elsewhere in the US it would help Obama because he can pick up all of the liberals who were following Edwards and want the next-most-liberal choice.

[woad&fangs]

If I remember correctly, Obama said that he would make Edwards his attorney general, so Edwards supporters would most likely support Obama unless Hillary names Edwards as her top choice for either that or VP.

McCain seems to be in the lead for the republicans so I'd vote Obama.

Did anyone see the videoclip of Romney saying "Who let the dogs out, who, who." during a photo-op with black voters in Florida? That was pretty sad to see a gaff from such a smart guy.

[Xiahou]

Since there's no "Gah", I'll do the next best thing and lodge a protest vote for Paul.

[seireikhaan]

If I remember correctly, Obama said that he would make Edwards his attorney general, so Edwards supporters would most likely support Obama unless Hillary names Edwards as her top choice for either that or VP.

McCain seems to be in the lead for the republicans so I'd vote Obama.

Did anyone see the videoclip of Romney saying "Who let the dogs out, who, who." during a photo-op with black voters in Florida? That was pretty sad to see a gaff from such a smart guy.

I posted it in the "funny politica pictures" thread"

[Lemur]

The latest poll-smokings ...

Obama Edges Closer To Clinton, McCain Atop Republicans

Read the full Gallup poll

Gallup’s daily report on the presidential race show Barack Obama continuing to close the gap nationally with Hillary Clinton and John McCain still comfortably atop the Republicans, with Mitt Romney’s recent advances having stalled out, at least for now. The poll was conducted Jan. 26-28. It included part of the period after Sen. Edward Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama and was conducted before McCain’s victory last night in Florida. Gallup said its interviewing yesterday initially indicated that the Kennedy endorsement did not have a “dramatic effect,” but it will be interesting to see if that changes in later polls.

McCain leads Romney 31 percent to 19 percent with Huckabee at 17 percent and Rudy Giuliani at 13 percent. Exit polls in Florida yesterday showed that Giuliani tended to take moderate voters from McCain while Huckabee took conservatives from Romney, so that may be a clue to what will happen if Giuliani drops out after his poor showing in yesterday’s primary.

On the Democratic side, Clinton leads Obama 43 percent to 34 percent, with John Edwards - who is expected to drop out today – at 14 percent. Clinton’s lead is down 17 points since Jan. 24. Again, if past history provides any clue, polling during the campaign in some states indicated that Obama was the second choice of many Edwards supporters.

The margin of error was 3 percent.

-edit-

I hadn't thought about it, but this makes sense ...

[CountArach]

Also from Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104044/Ga...tion-2008.aspx

It has this particularly attractive graph:

[Vladimir]

Internet P*oll


*aul


Oh yes, thanks Louis for making me soil myself.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Last night's debate was the last straw.

McCain is incompetent. I think that he may be moderately retarded. His inability to answer simple economic questions without naming other, smarter people who are supporting him is infuriating. His topic changes when he doesn't want to answer to criticism makes me grind my teeth. I have never loathed a Republican this much.

I will vote for him ONLY in the eventuality of a Clinton nomination. I now believe the G.O.P. and it's constituency to be a dying breed in this election.

The only thing that would drive me to vote for McCain is his more likely appointment of strict constitutionalist judges. I'm approaching a realization that Obama would be even better for our economy than that windbag codger. This is a sad turn of events, even more sad for the Republican party. Romney is finished and so is my flirtation with the G.O.P. for the next 4 years.

McCain belongs in a museum, not the White House. Same with the G.O.P. this round.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Last night's debate was the last straw.

McCain is incompetent. I think that he may be moderately retarded. His inability to answer simple economic questions without naming other, smarter people who are supporting him is infuriating. His topic changes when he doesn't want to answer to criticism makes me grind my teeth. I have never loathed a Republican this much.

I will vote for him ONLY in the eventuality of a Clinton nomination. I now believe the G.O.P. and it's constituency to be a dying breed in this election.

The only thing that would drive me to vote for McCain is his more likely appointment of strict constitutionalist judges. I'm approaching a realization that Obama would be even better for our economy than that windbag codger. This is a sad turn of events, even more sad for the Republican party. Romney is finished and so is my flirtation with the G.O.P. for the next 4 years.

McCain belongs in a museum, not the White House. Same with the G.O.P. this round.

The GOP is not dead -- it's just swinging over to the blue-blood CC wing again. There is no articulate and passionate leader for true conservatism at the moment. G.W. Bush, whatever his strengths as a leader, is -- at least when the rubber hits the road -- a big government Republican in the mode of Ford or Nixon or his Father. Since we lack a Goldwater or Reagan to take up the gauntlet, the "establishment" GOP -- a group reasonably similar to old-style JFK and pre-JFK Democrats in goals and methods -- are going to select the nominee. These "establishment" types tend to linger in positions of power, build compromise, go along to get along, trend toward the liberal side in social issues (though not econ or fopo), accept the primacy of the federal government etc., and so they are the more consistent representation of the GOP unless someone wakes up the more conservative but more quiescent base and takes up the role of standard bearer. Nobody fits that bill this time, and so....

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree. DEAD is a strong word. Dormant is probably better. McCain will be a good fall guy in this election, then we don't have to hear from him again 4 years from now.

I wish things went better for Romney. I firmly believe that he is the best choice to lead the country, but I see his campaign as having made almost unavoidable errors (such as the pro-life issue) and others that were much more avoidable.

The American voting public in general doesn't seem to know their asses from their elbows. The G.O.P. is literally going to nominate a testament to their old, failed, ignorant caricature painted by the left in: John McCain.

New ideas? Smart ways out of old problems? Thems lefty ideauhs.

Romney is a smart business man. He would be well served to jump ship now or at least stop contributing to his own campaign. Leave Huckabee and McCain to get nasty with each other and further cement their impending doom.

[macsen rufus]

Being "out of the jurisdiction" I won't sully the vote, however, I'd like to ask opinions on Rudi bombing out, and how his campaign "strategy" appeared to you folks over the pond?

From my perspective, when I heard that his great plan was to ignore the early States and pitch it all on Florida, I thought "That's a sure-fire recipe for failure" - it comes across as though he was telling one lot they didn't really count, and the others he was taking for granted. I have no opinions on his policies etc, I haven't followed them, just his strategy - which seemed to be extremely dumb. Anyone else agree?

[Vladimir]

Being "out of the jurisdiction" I won't sully the vote, however, I'd like to ask opinions on Rudi bombing out, and how his campaign "strategy" appeared to you folks over the pond?

From my perspective, when I heard that his great plan was to ignore the early States and pitch it all on Florida, I thought "That's a sure-fire recipe for failure" - it comes across as though he was telling one lot they didn't really count, and the others he was taking for granted. I have no opinions on his policies etc, I haven't followed them, just his strategy - which seemed to be extremely dumb. Anyone else agree?

Completely; especially with our attention span. You can only play on 9/11 for so long. You can only play cheap if you play smart. After a while we were all saying: Rooty who?

[Lemur]

Inflatable '80s Action Hero Update

So Schwarzenegger is endorsing McCain, and Hulk Hogan is an Obama man. I would feel a lot better if I knew where Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren stood. The public has a right to know!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Inflatable '80s Action Hero Update

So Schwarzenegger is endorsing McCain, and Hulk Hogan is an Obama man. I would feel a lot better if I knew where Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren stood. The public has a right to know!

You missed it? Stallone was on Fox and friends when he endorsed McCain.

Here's a fun article about McCain

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rally for Romney
Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.
link

By Mark R. Levin

I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement — from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.

I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.




Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.

I don’t pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.

Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.

Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.

And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?



As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.



Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.



Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?



But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.



Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.

But wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it won’t be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there won’t be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).

McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon — the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.

— Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.

[Vladimir]

Levin may be a good guy but on his radio show he reminds me of a NAZI propagandist. Different message, same tactics. He's a real big troop supporter though.

[Ice]

Yes,we get it, you like Mitt Romney.

By the way, Reagan wasn't a real conservative. He was a neoconservative. Real conservatives don't cut taxes without cutting spending. Real conservatives don't increase the federal debt by 2 billion dollars.

Edit: I found a wiki of Romney and I found this excerpt:

Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including raising fees for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[44] Romney increased the state gasoline tax by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional tax revenue.[45] Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years.[45] The state legislature with Romney's support also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[46] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63%.[45] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget. All of those vetoes were overturned by the legislature.[47]

The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship.[45] According to the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8% in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3%), and 10.5% in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8%).

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call increasing the tax burden by .7% a real conservative move. The only conservative move I can see here is cutting spending.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes,we get it, you like Mitt Romney.

By the way, Reagan wasn't a real conservative. He was a neoconservative. Real conservatives don't cut taxes without cutting spending. Real conservatives don't increase the federal debt by 2 billion dollars.

Edit: I found a wiki of Romney and I found this excerpt:



I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call increasing the tax burden by .7% a real conservative move. The only conservative move I can see here is cutting spending.

Did you listen to the debate in Cali? Or any other debate over the past 5 months when this was brought up? He explains the fee increase and why it was different than a tax increase. In MOST cases the fees that the government charged for things like road signs hadn't been increased in a decade - he brought them up to market prices so that the government didn't lose money on the deal. Either way, fee hikes are not the same as tax increases when they are for unnecessary government services. If you look at it like that, then only a few of the fees for necessary things were increased (driver's licenses, marriage licenses). He left Mass with positive job and business growth (up from the previous governors negative job and business growth), eliminated the deficit and left a 2 billion dollar surplus in the form of a rainy day fund.

When you hear about the "tax burden" what they really mean is average tax burden - taken as the state income divided by state citizens - not an accurate way of seeing what the average citizen paid.
AND he cut spending. He found a way for nearly everyone in the state to get affordable health care, raised fees to make sure that the government was competing with the market (a conservative move because any government that keeps it's fees artificially low destroys private competition), eliminated the deficit and create a surplus in the billions. ALL WITHOUT RAISING THE TAXE BURDEN OF THE EVERYMAN.

Give me a break

Even liberals in Mass realize that he helped the situation. Somehow an intelligent, successful, conservative governor of Mass is being overlooked in favor of a Senator who bungles everything he touches.

[Xiahou]

I found a wiki of Romney and I found this excerpt:

Raising fees, and especially the gas tax is bad. But closing loopholes in the tax code- if they truly are just loopholes- is reasonable. And obviously, all the cuts seem pretty good.

So Schwarzenegger is endorsing McCain, and Hulk Hogan is an Obama man.

Well, as governor of California, his endorsement should be worth more than a bunch of other washed up celebrities. However, to me, a Schwarzenegger endorsement is a net negative if anything. As governor, he's been a textbook RINO who's only succeeded in making an even bigger mess of CA's budget.

[KukriKhan]

Less than 2 weeks ago, my Guv-a-nator said "I will not endorse anybody.". Rudy bailed, and now, all of a sudden, a week before the Cali primary - he endorses McCain.

What changed?

Maybe the prospect of finding another (appointed) poli job after this one, say the local wagging tongues. He's not likely to win another term here.