|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems McCain did better than expected and Obama less. Maybe a pretty good number of independents who were going to vote for Obama figured he was going to win easily and decided at the last moment to vote for McCain.
I don't know, but that approach to voting impresses me as very strange.
Really?
Ah, the fun of being an Undeclared in the New Hampshire primaries!
jlg wanders off, whistling innocently.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems McCain did better than expected and Obama less. Maybe a pretty good number of independents who were going to vote for Obama figured he was going to win easily and decided at the last moment to vote for McCain.
I don't know, but that approach to voting impresses me as very strange.
Really?
Ah, the fun of being an Undeclared in the New Hampshire primaries!
jlg wanders off, whistling innocently.
[ETA: When I asked for a Republican ballot, the Town Moderator announced in a loud voice "News Flash! Jennifer's voting Republican! World will end tomorrow!". Ya gotta love small towns. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) It's the little piece of paper, not the quote marks, idiot!
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
What are the main reasons why some would not consider her electable ?
It seems from far away that she combines an association to the general competence of the Clinton presidency with not being the one who had affairs and then lied about it.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Is this a surprise for Edwards given he was essentially tied with Clinton in Iowa? I'd have thought he'd do better in the 'East'.
The typical Democratic caucus goer in Iowa is more liberal than the typical voter in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. Part of that is that independents are allowed to vote in (one of) either primary in New Hampshire, but caucus goers are usually fairly committed Democrats.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
What are the main reasons why some would not consider her electable ?
It seems from far away that she combines an association to the general competence of the Clinton presidency with not being the one who had affairs and then lied about it.
She's seen by many, even some Democrats, as strident (women are supposed to be meek I guess ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ) and coniving. I don't think she could win a general election, though she's very capable.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems McCain did better than expected and Obama less. Maybe a pretty good number of independents who were going to vote for Obama figured he was going to win easily and decided at the last moment to vote for McCain.
I don't know, but that approach to voting impresses me as very strange. I do think that the Republicans would be crazy to run anyone other than McCain -- he's the only one of their candidates who would have national appeal and could reliably attract a large number of cross-over voters (IMO of course).
New Hamphsire seems to run their primaries like North Carolina, which is also currently occupying West Carolina, where I live. I'm registered as non-affiliated, which means I can vote in either primary. Since NC's government is dominated by the party of Governor Sleasley, the real general election often really happens in the primaries, so that's one reason many folks vote in one particular party's primary but vote for the other party in November. As for how much this played out in New Hampshire, it beats the snot out of me. Of course, some of us also vote in the primary of the party we will probably not support in November in the attempt to hurt the chances of the assumed nominee we don't want to see elected president. Strange in the realm of sanity, yes. But this is politics.
You appear to more right in what you say about McCain than anyone ever saying the same thing about Huckabee. It seems maybe Giuliani could do it, and maybe Romney. But then, you couldn't boil a Hillary vote out of me.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
What are the main reasons why some would not consider her electable ?
It seems from far away that she combines an association to the general competence of the Clinton presidency with not being the one who had affairs and then lied about it.
Could it be that she has all the personal charm of Cherie Blair?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
What are the main reasons why some would not consider her electable ?
As far as I can tell, this is because a large number of people have an unfavorable opinion about her. In national opinion polling, when asking whether some has a very favorable, favorable, unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of each candidate (in a random order), H. Clinton's unfavorable or worse ratings are about 45% compared with most other candidates in the mid 30s. Obviously a lot of those 45% are Republicans (her approval rate in the same poll among Democrats was something like 88%), but the difference among independents between her and other Democratic candidates gives her a tougher row to hoe in terms of getting elected in the general election.
This is, in a sense, stupid as it is based largely on perceived personality rather than policies. If anything, her policies are more closely related to Republican policies than those of her Democratic rivals. But perceived personality seems to make a difference to those who identify as independents. And she surely would bring out the Republican vote, which is fairly dispirited right now.
One such polling snapshot may be found here.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I'm sorry -- that was flippant of me, though I do myself perceive and feel about these two in much the same way. It's actually difficult to answer your question (for me) in thoroughly rational terms. Maybe my own gut-level reaction is telling, especially since I am a liberal democrat who is probably very much to the left of most Americans. Others, no doubt, will do a better job of reflecting on the long history that has made Hillary so problematic (some of which is not her fault, but rather attributable to what she herself called a vast right wing conspiracy).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems McCain did better than expected and Obama less. Maybe a pretty good number of independents who were going to vote for Obama figured he was going to win easily and decided at the last moment to vote for McCain.
I don't know, but that approach to voting impresses me as very strange.
Well from this side of the pond, the idea as being registered as a whichever party party voter strikes me as weird. Being undeclared and voting tactically seems a good answer to that (even though tactical voting is often very complicated).
Can someone explain the whole being registered as a democrat voter/republican voter thing to me? How does it relate to party membership? Over here, one only gets a say in candidates/party leaders if one is a member of the party and maybe not even then -- ISTR John Major was elected by the Parliamentary Labour Party when Margaret Thatcher resigned. The recent LibDem leadership election was conducted via a postal ballot of members. I get the impression being registered as a `whatever' is different but I've never been entirely sure. Is it a matter of public record? What effect does that have on the idea of a secret ballot at the General election stage?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I misread this quote and answered in the positive:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
What are the main reasons why some would....consider her electable ?
1) She's got experience.
2) She's a Clinton. We can pray to the gods that she is as moderate as her hubby turned out to be in retrospect.
3) She's a woman. Which may also turn out to be why she is unelectable. We'll see.
4) She's acts like a hawk (although we WILL see). That's the sound of some moderate Republicans and scared soccer mom's checking her ballot box.
5) She has liberal street cred. That's the sound of a BUNCH of democrats checking her ballot box.
etc.
Now, why would some consider her unelectable:
1) Hillarycare. I used to hate her FILTHY GUTS for the bullshit move where Bill appointed her queen because he was voted in king and appointed her to a closed door committee that tried to implement Socialized medicine for all. Time and changing from a Republican to a Libertarian to an Independent have softened that an amazing bit. Not to mention how completed fucked our medical system has become.
OTOH, I still chafe at the appointment, just because she was sleeping with the king. And before anyone says anything, yes, I will be pissed if Bill gets appointed in similar fashion to something. We do not vote in the husband/wife, even if they really do have the president's ear. We vote in who we vote in, godsdammit. If they want to set up a monarchy, I want a Constitutional Convention, dammit.
2) She's a woman. Abusrdly stupid issue, I know.
3) She's possibly a closeted liberal. Average Americans really do hate liberals.
4) She acts like a hawk. That's the sound of a bunch of liberals leaving the room with Peace First signs.
5) Obama is a Big Swingin' Dick and he's sexy. That's the sound of a bunch of younger women voting for him (or so I hear from the Iowa cuacas). I heard that the young woman demographic voted for him in droves and the older women voted for Hillary in droves. I didn't know whether to laugh or to ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Every state has its own voter registration procedures and some states do not register voters by party affiliation. For example, I used to live in Texas, which doesn't register one by reference to party. Hence, you can vote in either primary election there without reference to party or to being an independent. I presently live in Delaware, however, where I'm registered as a democrat. That's essentially a tag for normal voting preference and doesn't in any way pledge the voter to a particular party. It also doesn't signify any other formal affiliation to the democratic party. When I moved to Delaware and went to get my driving license they asked me if I wanted to register to vote. They then presented me with a little registration form to fill out, on which I ticked off "democrat". That's all there was to it, and voter registration is similarly casual in other states IME (due to voter civil rights legislation passed in the 1960's).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
ISTR John Major was elected by the Parliamentary Labour Party when Margaret Thatcher resigned.
That certainly puts US cross-party voting in perspective.
[ 09. January 2008, 14:51: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Thank you all for your answers.
I can see as Lietuvos sv Kazimieras says that she is not someone you'd want to have a fireside chat with.
But I am a bit surprised after the Bush presidency that competence rather than a nice manner is not a more important factor this time round.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I misread this quote and answered in the positive:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
What are the main reasons why some would....consider her electable ?
1) She's got experience.
Which these days is something of a death knell to the electorate. Still, she seems to be coping by co-opting the mantra of meaningless 'change'.
quote:
2) She's a Clinton. We can pray to the gods that she is as moderate as her hubby turned out to be in retrospect.
I don't think she plans on doing much about Guantanamo or infractions of civil liberties; so I do think a lot of praying is necessary to push her much further to the left.
quote:
3) She's a woman. Which may also turn out to be why she is unelectable. We'll see.
It's not going to be a big factor; if she is the party's nominee, women will turn out in droves for her, but it won't really be a factor in votes of men who would consider a Democrat.
quote:
4) She's acts like a hawk (although we WILL see). That's the sound of some moderate Republicans and scared soccer mom's checking her ballot box.
Cf. point 1.
quote:
5) She has liberal street cred. That's the sound of a BUNCH of democrats checking her ballot box.
She decidedly does not, except in the eyes of the right, which only proves how completely off the spectrum the Republican party has fallen. Clinton's lack of liberal street cred is why there is an Obama phenomenon, not to mention an outside candidacy of Edwards. Nevertheless, Democrats will quite clearly turn out in droves for the eventual nominee regardless, just to avoid the complete whack job who will be nominated by the other side. O.K., to be fair, McCain isn't completely a whack job, but his pro-war stance will still turn out the Democrats regardless of their party's nominee.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
ISTR John Major was elected by the Parliamentary Labour Party when Margaret Thatcher resigned.
That certainly puts US cross-party voting in perspective.
Whoops -- I know the Labour party has become more conservative than socialist of late, but obviously I meant the Parliamentary Conservative Party! My brain and my fingers appear not to be connected.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
...I am a bit surprised after the Bush presidency that competence rather than a nice manner is not a more important factor this time round.
For me, the fact that she voted to let Bush go to war with Iraq if he deemed it appropriate without bothering to come back to Congress for the authorization is shocking. She has Bush's tendency to revere the power of the Presidency over the rule of law AFAICS -- she has steadfastly refused to rein in the imperial Presidency of the current jack-boot in office because she hopes to have the same illicit authority herself.
I think her election would be a disaster for our country. She has the same "I'm the one source of infallibility" that makes Bush such an outrage. I think we can survive Bush's incompetence -- his tendency to undermine the rule of law is a real worry, though. And I honestly don't see Hillary as being a step forward in that regard.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
She has the same "I'm the one source of infallibility" that makes Bush such an outrage. I think we can survive Bush's incompetence -- his tendency to undermine the rule of law is a real worry, though. And I honestly don't see Hillary as being a step forward in that regard.
This reminds me again of Chesterton's idea the only people fit to be elected are the ones who don't want to serve.
All these people who are utterly convinced they're the 'best for the job' scare the bejeezus out of me, but I wonder if our election process allows for healthy self-doubt.
Sigh.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Electability" is one of the oddest arguments imaginable. "Sure, you can't stand me. But other people can, so vote for me for their sake..."
No, its perfectly sensible. If you really think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats (and I have to say that from outside the USA there often doesn't seem to be much of one) then you might very much care which party gets in. And if you care which party gets in, then in the primaries you will want to vote to nominate a popular candidate in order to maximise your party's chances of winning the General Election. There is no point in putting you personal hero up for election if no bugger is going to vote for them.
Or, as I said before, you can sign up for the other party and vote to nominate the unelectable candidate in order to help your own side win the general election.
Also there is the rising tide effect - popular candidates at a national level tend to drag up local candidates with them. So if you have an election coming up for your local government, and you live in a marginal district, you might well want an "electable" national candidate for your party of choice.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
[ETA: When I asked for a Republican ballot, the Town Moderator announced in a loud voice "News Flash! Jennifer's voting Republican! World will end tomorrow!". Ya gotta love small towns. ]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
My friends all did a double-take back in 2000 when I re-registered as a Republican so my vote for John McCain would count.
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[5) She has liberal street cred. That's the sound of a BUNCH of democrats checking her ballot box.
She decidedly does not, except in the eyes of the right, which only proves how completely off the spectrum the Republican party has fallen. Clinton's lack of liberal street cred is why there is an Obama phenomenon, not to mention an outside candidacy of Edwards. Nevertheless, Democrats will quite clearly turn out in droves for the eventual nominee regardless, just to avoid the complete whack job who will be nominated by the other side. O.K., to be fair, McCain isn't completely a whack job, but his pro-war stance will still turn out the Democrats regardless of their party's nominee.
No kidding! Hillary's liberal street cred is exactly zero. Republicans have labelled her a liberal only because the L-word has been such a kiss of political death. She's a moderate, i.e. way too conservative for me, but if she is the Democratic nominee, I will most certainly be voting for her in November.
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
What are the main reasons why some would not consider her electable ?
As far as I can tell, this is because a large number of people have an unfavorable opinion about her. In national opinion polling, when asking whether some has a very favorable, favorable, unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of each candidate (in a random order), H. Clinton's unfavorable or worse ratings are about 45% compared with most other candidates in the mid 30s. Obviously a lot of those 45% are Republicans (her approval rate in the same poll among Democrats was something like 88%), but the difference among independents between her and other Democratic candidates gives her a tougher row to hoe in terms of getting elected in the general election.
This is, in a sense, stupid as it is based largely on perceived personality rather than policies. If anything, her policies are more closely related to Republican policies than those of her Democratic rivals. But perceived personality seems to make a difference to those who identify as independents. And she surely would bring out the Republican vote, which is fairly dispirited right now.
I would add that she and Bill made a lot of mistakes during the 1992 campaign and early in his administration. The whole "two for the price of one" thing did not go over big with a lot of people -- MadGeo and I don't agree on much, but we do agree on this; we elect just the one person, not their spouse. There was the cookie baking remark, when she was very unfairly tagged as having put down stay-at-home moms. Some of the electability issues stem from the general uncertainty about women's roles in our culture, which makes it very difficult for a woman to run for a powerful office. It's still true that lots of people still think, sometimes quite unconsciously, that when a man speaks forcefully he's showing strength but when a woman speaks forcefully she's a bitch; at the same time, no one wants a wimp in the Oval Office. And finally, the main thing most people think of when they think of what Hillary Clinton did in politics before entered the Senate was that she mishandled the healthcare issue, and that was a serious political clusterfuck.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I love elections. They are my sport. I love them the way some people love football
As insane as our primary system is, I still love it because it means there will be lots of elections this year. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Cross-posted with a lot of people]
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
OK then...the triumph of the small town machine over the rural believers then?
Cause looking at the poll by poll data (before CBS scripts killed my firefox) was pretty conclusive...the margin is pretty much all due to larger centres.
What on earth are you talking about? Here in NH our "larger centres" are Portsmouth and Manchester, with Concord, Salem and Nashua straggling along behind. None of them qualify as anything remotely more than a "larger centre" by local standards, which means they're pretty much simply Big Towns (compared to the rest of us), except for Manchester, which "used to be a big manufacturing City, but is now scrabbling to survive". We simply don't do Big Cities.
...
I get that, and didn't think this was a big city thing (I grew up in a place of 60 000 that calls itself a city).
Precint Results
This is the site I was talking about, which seems to be giving my firefox a gasket.
Look at how many precints/towns/counties/whatever Obama actually won.
Manchester was almost half of her margin, both when I typed that last night and when I looked at it just now.
All I am saying is, from a look a this data, this wasn't a consistant win across all of the state for Clinton.
Sure, it doesn't sell soap to look into the details, and the exit polls are a bit sexier to look into. But, if close to half of your margin came from one of the larger (relative) centres, doesn't that say something?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
[QB] Every state has its own voter registration procedures and some states do not register voters by party affiliation. For example, I used to live in Texas, which doesn't register one by reference to party. Hence, you can vote in either primary election there without reference to party or to being an independent.
That Texas way seems the best.
It seems to me that a party that tries to limit who can vote in its primary should have to pay for the primary out of its own pocket. Why should the taxpayers in general have to pay for one party's primary?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
As insane as our primary system is, I still love it because it means there will be lots of elections this year.
You remind me of folks who openly admit to liking NASCAR and/or hockey because they want to see car wrecks and fist fights.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If you really think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats (and I have to say that from outside the USA there often doesn't seem to be much of one)
"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."
P. J. O'Rourke
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Mad Geo
I understand what you are saying about electing the one you vote for, not the spouse as well. But isn't it the nature of the American political system that most of the executive are people the President has chosen, not people you elected.
You didn't vote for Condoleeza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld I believe, they just have to get Congressional approval if I understand correctly. It would be hard to argue that Bill Clinton was not qualified to serve in some way.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
This reminds me again of Chesterton's idea the only people fit to be elected are the ones who don't want to serve.
All these people who are utterly convinced they're the 'best for the job' scare the bejeezus out of me, but I wonder if our election process allows for healthy self-doubt.
Sigh.
That's the appeal I find in Fred Thompson. Whether or not folks agree with him aside, I like his attitude that, yeah, he'd be willing to serve but if folks don't want him, oh well, when's the next filming of Law and Order?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
This is a process thing. The Founding Fathers set up a process that works, which included SecState and SecDefense. It did not include Queen Spouse of America. I do not think it needs to be screwed with. I see what Bill and Hillary did with Hillarycare as circumventing process.
I realize it is a subtle distinction, but I, Ruth, and a lot of other Americans think it's relevant.
I have heard that Hillary was the first First Lady to have an office in the West Wing, where most of the presidential work gets done. I am more okay with that. I have no delusions that First Ladies/Husbands have a lot of say over what happens, but having a say, and being appointed Queen with presidential powers are two different things.
I hope that Bill as First Stud does what he has been very excellent at, raising craploads of money for charity. Sure I hope Hillary keeps him on a short speed dial to ask for advice, but I don't want him to be appointed to jack shit without having to go through congress or an election first....
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
You didn't vote for Condoleeza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld I believe, they just have to get Congressional approval if I understand correctly.
Heck, with the huge use of recess appointments these days, I'm not sure a whole heck of a lot of officials are subject to Congressional approval in any real sense.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Precint Results
This is the site I was talking about, which seems to be giving my firefox a gasket.
Look at how many precints/towns/counties/whatever Obama actually won.
Manchester was almost half of her margin, both when I typed that last night and when I looked at it just now.
All I am saying is, from a look a this data, this wasn't a consistant win across all of the state for Clinton.
Sure, it doesn't sell soap to look into the details, and the exit polls are a bit sexier to look into. But, if close to half of your margin came from one of the larger (relative) centres, doesn't that say something?
I can't get your link to work (it crashes both Firefox and Internet Explorer), but I do look at the detailed breakdowns published in the local papers. Mostly to see how my and my neighboring towns voted. (I am wondering just which person in my town was the only one to cast a vote for Kucinich!)
Since I don't know what data you looked at, I can only surmise.
Hilary won in nearly all of Hillsborough and Rockingham counties, which are the two southeastern counties and which happen to contain nearly half of the entire population of the state (and all of the 'big cities'). So yes, her margin came from the 'cities' (including Manchester) to that extent, but also from the many, many towns.
On the other hand, in pretty much that same bunch of towns and precincts, Romney was the winner and should have had the margin, but he lost overall.
You are quite right that New Hampshire is not (despite its small size) a single monolithic entity. It's an amazing patchwork quilt of individual towns/cities (of greatly varying density of population) all snugged together cheek-by-jowl (no 'unincorporated' places in NH, or even bits which only belong to the county - in NH - and New England in general - you move directly from one town to the next).
It is also true that the southeast corner (Rockingham and Hillsborough counties) contain a disproportionate percentage of the population and also are the fastest growing counties, due in large part to Massachussets folks pouring over the border looking for affordable housing.
But as I said, I can't view the data you looked at, so I'm not sure where you came up with your claim that Manchester gave Hilary her victory (assuming I understood your point)?
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
How do we go about getting our primary system changed, by the way? I don't know about the rest of you (besides Jen), but I don't much like the fact that the Iowans and Shire-folk get to narrow down the field for the rest of us, leaving us to choose from their scraps.
How much money do you think Iowa and New Hampshire pull in every four years as a result of being the Big Ones? And how much does it matter for Kentucky-folk to trudge to their primary election in May??? Sorry, Kentucky. Your votes don't matter.
Is the process so insulated by the brotherhood of politicians that it'll never be touched?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
How much money do you think Iowa and New Hampshire pull in every four years as a result of being the Big Ones? never be
An astonishing amount, I suspect. If the Iowa caucus occured after the Kentucky primary, I very much doubt there would be much money for ethanol.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
LA Times is reporting here that Clinton's message, and sympathy over her tears, won NH for her....
quote:
"These events touched a special nerve and chord -- for every woman who has ever earned less than a man in the workplace, who has ever been denied a promotion or who has failed to receive credit for her work, this struck an important and human note," pollster Peter Hart said in an e-mail titled "Making Sense of New Hampshire." "Suddenly, Hillary Clinton became a vehicle for their lives."
Polls did not catch her last-day surge because most stopped surveying on Sunday, before the debate had sunk in and the tears had welled. But the current of victory was apparent in a survey taken of voters leaving the polls. For several days after Iowa, voters moved toward Obama. On Tuesday, at the last possible moment, the tide turned back to Clinton.
If true, I find that rather amazing.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
LA Times is reporting here that Clinton's message, and sympathy over her tears, won NH for her....
quote:
"These events touched a special nerve and chord -- for every woman who has ever earned less than a man in the workplace, who has ever been denied a promotion or who has failed to receive credit for her work, this struck an important and human note," pollster Peter Hart said...
If true, I find that rather amazing.
I find it rather amazing that anyone would ask a pollster to explain why the pollsters were so totally wrong...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
There shouldn't be any crying in politics, just like in baseball.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Well, today I learned two interesting things about Mr. Huckabee.
First, he apparently wants to replace the federal income tax with a sales tax, and at least one guy thinks this isn't such a horrible idea.
Second, he apparently wants Stephen Colbert to be his running mate.
Damn, this man is weird; yet something about him fascinates me. If only he wasn't a stereotypical southern fundamentalist...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Damn, this man is weird; yet something about him fascinates me. If only he wasn't a stereotypical southern fundamentalist...
Weird, yet fascinating -- not too bad. I've been called worse, and I'm a SSF.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Mirrizin -- it's true. There's something about Huckabee that makes me feel okay about the possibility of him winning, even though it's probably still unlikely he will. I think that our country could use a break from an outwardly Christian + Conservative President, but I'm not sure, and don't really want to bag all Conservative Christians together like that. I'm just so scared, man. Huddling-in-a-corner-rocking-back-and-forth -sucking-my-thumb scared.
What about an Obama/Huckabee ticket*? That's something I could really get behind!
*I know, I know.
[ 10. January 2008, 19:25: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There shouldn't be any crying in politics, just like in baseball.
I think I disagree. Crying is human, there is nothing wrong with it. That Hillary manifested a little humanity is alright with me, even if I end up not voting for her......
Bloomberg is gathering data to see his chances....
I sure hope I get a chance to vote Independent. This election is going to be a blast!
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
If only he wasn't a stereotypical southern fundamentalist...
I hate to sound like a broken record but this guy isn't who a lot of people assume him to be; I still think he can get more traction than the pundits believe.
And I note Richardson called it quits.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
If only he wasn't a stereotypical southern fundamentalist...
I hate to sound like a broken record but this guy isn't who a lot of people assume him to be; I still think he can get more traction than the pundits believe.
Who do you think he really is? And why do you think he'll get more traction?
Honestly, if he is who he has so far appeared to me, it scares the crap out of me that he might be president. And I hate his tax idea. A lot.
quote:
And I note Richardson called it quits.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Now I really don't know what I'll do Feb. 5. I don't like any of the three viable candidates. Clinton seems like the only one remotely qualified to be president, and she's too conservative for me.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Well, today I learned two interesting things about Mr. Huckabee.
First, he apparently wants to replace the federal income tax with a sales tax, and at least one guy thinks this isn't such a horrible idea.
Damn, this man is weird; yet something about him fascinates me. If only he wasn't a stereotypical southern fundamentalist...
His national sales tax plan would penalize the bejabbers out of those of us who have ever saved any money, own a home and want to sell it for something smaller when the kids grow up, or are beneficiaries of a life insurance policy when a parent dies, to name just a few of things that would get hit. If it were passed it would whipsaw the economy as folks stocked up beforehand and stayed away from the stores for a good long while afterward.
It has some upside, but Huckabee ought to try cooking both sides of his hamburger on this.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] There shouldn't be any crying in politics, just like in baseball.
I think I disagree. Crying is human, there is nothing wrong with it. That Hillary manifested a little humanity is alright with me, even if I end up not voting for her......
So's dropping a deuce. Are we going to see that, or at least a candidate answering a question as they are heading into the crapper with a rolled up newspaper under their arm?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Who do you think he really is? And why do you think he'll get more traction?
His record in Arkansas is not one of a hard line conservative but he's smart enough to play on the antagonism many Americans have against the IRS knowing full well the system will never change substantially. He's affable and is very comfortable with self-deprecating humor and as I've mentioned IMO that plays very well in more rural areas; I imagine it also plays well in the big cities.
I can't find the quote but once when he was asked what Jesus would do on a certain topic he replied 'Jesus was smart enough to not get into politics'. That kind of comment can disarm a lot of the kneejerk reaction to his baptist background...
I also think his ability to speak will serve him well assuming he manages to last long enough to be a focus of any debates. Again, the guy learned politics watching Clinton for a long time and Bill is second to very few.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post but in this forum I think it's easy to forget how many people in the US have little or no 'leftist' leanings: given that I think Huckabee has positioned himself (or 'triangulated') fairly shrewdly.
Whatever. Just like the last two elections I'll vote for my third party candidate again and my conscience will rest easy.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] There shouldn't be any crying in politics, just like in baseball.
I think I disagree. Crying is human, there is nothing wrong with it. That Hillary manifested a little humanity is alright with me, even if I end up not voting for her......
So's dropping a deuce. Are we going to see that, or at least a candidate answering a question as they are heading into the crapper with a rolled up newspaper under their arm?
The crying was just a function of Hillbot CL-NT6's latest election software (upgrade 1.8.08, I believe). The upgrade had several patches, including the debate-triggered tear duct release, text for SPEECH #VCTRY00048590945 which was mechanically delivered after winning the NH primary, and an upgraded Smile-Mode and Wrist-Wave Function, also displayed after the NH win.
I expect many more upgrades to be released between now and November, displaying the full technological prowess of Hillbot's latest model.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] There shouldn't be any crying in politics, just like in baseball.
I think I disagree. Crying is human, there is nothing wrong with it. That Hillary manifested a little humanity is alright with me, even if I end up not voting for her......
So's dropping a deuce. Are we going to see that, or at least a candidate answering a question as they are heading into the crapper with a rolled up newspaper under their arm?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
There are a whole lotta uptight emotionally repressed people that focus too much on the logic and not enough on humanity. In lieu of a Deuce, or a tear, I would like to see McCain or Rudy or Obama stand up and go "Yeah, flying all over the FUCKING country and trying to satisfy people is a tough FUCKING job". Quote Unquote. Or similar.
We've had enough hardcore boy's club macho bullshit to last quite a while from this administration alone. A little honest emotional content won't hurt for a change.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
John Edwards told reporters he was unaware of Clinton's emotional reaction and would not respond to it, but added, according to CNN's Dugald McDonnell: "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being President of the United States is also a very tough business. And the President of the United States is faced with very, very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day."
What is "nasty" about that? It obviously wasn't a prepared statement. And what about it wouldn't you agree with? What could he have said, "Ah, we all want to cry at some time or another." Then he would have been accused of being flippant.
Grits, what I saw on tv was a quick clip of him saying about 1/3 of that, in a nasty and flippant way.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Running a political campaign on that scale is very hard on the nerves. Running a political campaign on that scale and seeing yourself lose must be positively hellish.
That said, if he loses his cool over something like this, that's not a good sign. I've not really noticed Edwards so much lately, for some reason (truly a bad sign for his campaign).
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
In lieu of a Deuce, or a tear, I would like to see McCain or Rudy or Obama stand up and go "Yeah, flying all over the FUCKING country and trying to satisfy people is a tough FUCKING job". Quote Unquote. Or similar.
Then McCain is your man, sir. The man shoots straight from the hip, often to the great offense of others.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
