Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000693

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
You know you want to feed your addiction, and the doctor is in.


Clinton/Obama lose by two percentage points to Guiliani/Huckabee.

Guiliani's proven administrative prowess wins him the nomination and Huckabee's appeal to southern/conservative voters wins him the south and rural areas generally.

Clinton's savvy and conciliatory choice of Obama is not enough to overcome the baggage Bill has saddled her with, and in the privacy of the voting booth not enough people pull the lever for her.

(If Bloomberg runs I reserve the right to revise this, and it's a damn shame Paul probably won't get much traction, if for no other reason than to sway the debate.)

[ 06. July 2009, 14:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
You're assuming Obama will hook up?
 

---

Posted by bc_anglican (# 12349) on :
 
It will be a blowout, Clinton/Obama will win every state except the South.
 

---

Posted by maleveque (# 132) on :
 
Clinton/Obama by a landslide. Or maybe Clinton/Richardson.
Anne L.
 

---

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
As the economy falters, the dollar drops, fuel prices climb, interest rates rise, and the middle class starts to feel the economic crunch the Reps will be blamed for the economic mess and the social issues that feed the Right will diminish in importance and Hillary can run on her husband's mantra, "It's the economy, Stupid"!

Unless there is major reversal of fortune, it's Hillary's to lose.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
I think Clinton's a shoe-in for the Dem. nomination, but I fear for her chances in the actual election. I don't think she'll pick Obama as VP, though. Edwards, maybe, to appeal to a broader spectrum.

(Can I admit here that theres some deep smarmy part of my soul that hopes for Obama-Edwards just cause they look so gosh darned cute together? )
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Clinton 33%, Giuliani 33%, Bloomberg 33%.

Election goes to........

Giuliani, when the SCOTUS screws the Democrats again.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
If the American people elect Giuliani, they have very short memories.

I just checked his campaign web page. It appears that he wants to be Bush's ghost, standing by the status quo with more of the same. Maybe that's honest at least. I like the man's feistiness. But given the level of dissatisfaction and impatience with the incumbent's numerous snafus over the years, I don't see anyone being as electable as you predict without making more of an effort to describe how his administration will differ from its predecessor.

But how different can any candidate sound while remaining a Republican in good standing? Was Bush an unfortunate fluke, or systemic and representative of what you'll get nowadays by pulling the GOP lever? He's not the only one with egg on his face. A whole raft of once-arrogant neo-conservatives are desperately trying to backpedal and make excuses along with him.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
interest rates rise

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Well there are 538 Electoral votes. I'm betting the Dems will pick up 339 electoral votes, the GOP will get 199. It won't be close.

Our national nightmare will finally be over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
But will whoever the U.S. voters want actually be able to occupy the office come January 2009?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Well there are 538 Electoral votes. I'm betting the Dems will pick up 339 electoral votes, the GOP will get 199. It won't be close.

Our national nightmare will finally be over.

---

If Clinton wins the US national nightmare will have just begun: horrible tax increases, national health disaster, surrender to terror. However, not to be picky, but is there a Canadian election next year, BCAnglican? And, I did not know you had an electoral college? So your national nightmare ended a while back when Harper was elected.
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
I won't lay a wager because I'm just not sure yet.

I'm a bit baffled where the love for Hillary is coming from, but I was just as baffled where the ire came from before. I'm just not that emotionally involved with the women.

my dream team?

Obama/Edwards. and I dont give a shit what they look like, they advocate for all the stuff I love.

I admit I have a soft spot (in my head, no doubt) for Guiliani, but I find Fred Thompson pretty revolting.

of course, Mike Gravel would be the best of all possible worlds, but you all voters in the state have no taste of quirky characters.

Gravel Rocks!
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
There is more to getting elected than being organized, smart, and ruthless—although those traits are required of any presidential candidate. There is a very important ability not in this list, and is usually required to some degree.

That is why I am wondering why are you all assuming the Democratic candidate will be H. Clinton?

H. Clinton has the nerves and skill to do the job. What she lacks is the ability to connect to people on a deeply personal level. This connection skill is something her husband could do in spades—as can George W. Bush (which is why I think he still has what support he has).

Obama can connect on that deeply personal level. He honed that skill doing street-level politics in Chicago.

Richardson, as a governor (executive), should have that skill to trot out.

Edwards smiles well and can push our buttons. I'm not totally sure he has that connection skill.

Remember that there is a history of early front runners not making it. Remember Howard Dean?

I think it will be great if H. Clinton does not make it to the nomination. All the Republicans are running as the person to beat Clinton. Without Clinton to run against, they are lost and might have to start talking about the $9 Trillion Republican debt. Would Pat Robertson had endorsed gay- and abortion-loving Rudy except that he is the anti-Clinton?
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
If Clinton wins the US national nightmare will have just begun: horrible tax increases, national health disaster, surrender to terror.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
BTW, who are these people who can't spell Rudy's last name?

So much for any credibility they thought they had.

Dammit.

---

Not to mention, his first name

Let's just make it easier and refer to him as...

'The Next Mr. President'

S-E
 

---

Posted by Off Centre View (# 4254) on :
 
I've heard that Ron Paul has started to make something of a name for himself, raising several million dollars and being one of the most highly searched for names on several search engines.

Being a Brit, I've heard something on most of the frontrunning candidates (Clinton, Obama et al), but this Paul guy seems to be a bit of a political suprise. What are people's opinion of him in the 'states?
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Remember that there is a history of early front runners not making it. Remember Howard Dean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
I would be happy to have Obama continue to be my senator for a very long time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Off Centre View:
I've heard that Ron Paul has started to make something of a name for himself, raising several million dollars and being one of the most highly searched for names on several search engines.

Being a Brit, I've heard something on most of the frontrunning candidates (Clinton, Obama et al), but this Paul guy seems to be a bit of a political suprise. What are people's opinion of him in the 'states?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
If Hillary gets the nomination (and that's still a big "if") she will not choose Obama as a running mate. It would not be a well-balanced ticket. She would go for regional balance (he's a midwesterner and she's sort of a hybrid midwest/eastern), plus someone with experience and a little more gravitas. .

I would be happy to have Obama continue to be my senator for a very long time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
More time as front-runner = more time to stumble and make a fool of oneself.

---

quote:

---

Esterday does not think Clinton got it. "I don't think she understood at all what I was saying," Esterday said. "I mean, nobody got left a tip that day."*

Clinton may have decided not to tip. She was also never given a bill — her meal was on the house. Still, Esterday said Clinton might have left her something: "Maybe they don't carry money. I don't know."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
H. Clinton has the nerves and skill to do the job. What she lacks is the ability to connect to people on a deeply personal level. This connection skill is something her husband could do in spades—as can George W. Bush (which is why I think he still has what support he has).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
I would be happy to have Obama continue to be my senator for a very long time.

---

Don't be selfish, Mama! Share with the rest of the class.

What Bede/New Yorker have said about Hillary's inability to connect is right on. I listen to her talk and she sounds like a robot. very strident, but you can just hear in her voice it's all a show. she's not a natural leader, not charismatic. it's a playact for her.

not that an election should be chosen based on someone's charisma, but it often is. Frankly, I think one of the stupidest things the Dems ever did was eliminate Dean for Kerry. Dean was charismatic and energetic, Kerry died years ago and no one has yet told him. people don't vote for constant compromise and even keel.

while Hillary isn't so much even keel, she is all about compromise. some things I don't want a compromise on, some things require some commitment, some spine.

to me, she is just too much of a political game player. i want to see her up there, not who she thinks we all want to see.

I haven't seen hillary yet. I've just seen a well-managed game face. When does she go on a night show and play sax in sunglasses for us?

Now, I just heard (over lunch with the boss, discussing this thread) that Obama has not said he will bring the troops home. I'm pretty dissappointed about that. because I like him, I want more detail before I wish to write him off - maybe he has some sense behind that. but for now, that smacks of the "compromise" tactic that really pisses me off.

When there are people dying, it's not the time to prevaricate and placate the hawks.
 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
If Hillary gets the nomination (and that's still a big "if") she will not choose Obama as a running mate. It would not be a well-balanced ticket. She would go for regional balance (he's a midwesterner and she's sort of a hybrid midwest/eastern), plus someone with experience and a little more gravitas. .

I would be happy to have Obama continue to be my senator for a very long time.

---

Actually, H. Clinton is from Chicago. You can't balance her out with Obama.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
If Hillary gets the nomination (and that's still a big "if") she will not choose Obama as a running mate. It would not be a well-balanced ticket. She would go for regional balance (he's a midwesterner and she's sort of a hybrid midwest/eastern), plus someone with experience and a little more gravitas. .

I would be happy to have Obama continue to be my senator for a very long time.

---

Actually, H. Clinton is from Chicago. You can't balance her out with Obama.

---

Constitutionally at least, they could be on the same ticket since Hillary's current state of residence is NY. (For those of you outside the US who may not know this, the President and VP have to be from different states.) If we're talking birthplaces, Obama was born in Hawaii anyway. Remember in 2000 Dick Cheney changed himself overnight from a Texan back into a Wyomingite (Or whatever people in Wyoming call themselves) so he could run with Dubya? At any rate, while I think it would be a strong ticket I don't think H would pick my man Barack as her running mate and I don't think she would take VP.

My guess is Hillary and someone not running in the primaries such as Mark Warner (former Virginia governor, popular there) or Tom Vilsack (Iowa gov). If Richardson isn't on the ticket I think he should become the Sec. of State. I have to hope beyond hope that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, wins because almost all the Republicans scare me to death. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee seem like decent guys, although I disagree with both of them ideologically. I'll predict Romney/Huckabee as the Republican ticket. I think Giuliani will prove to be too liberal on social issues and too horrible a person to win the nomination. Win goes to the Democrats.
 

---

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
I know Hillary has a huge lead in the polls... But I can't figure out who they're polling, since everyone I've talked to thinks her candidacy and/ or presidency would be a disaster. But then sometimes I think we get the presidents and celebrities we deserve.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for an Edwards/ Obama ticket.
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Pakistan is gripped with civil war. India takes advantage of the discord to invade Azad Kashmir. China moves 200,000 troops into Aksai Chin to protect their interests. US diplomatic efforts collapse in a paroxysm of political ineptitude. Musharraf uses tactical nuke on Indian troops in the north. China increases troop concentration to 750,000 and moves south towards Islamabad just as the capital is vaporized by Indian nukes. China declares war on India.

Turkey invades Kirkuk to quell Kurdish PKK. Iran pushes across Iraqi border into Basra to support Shiite heartland. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is assassinated by Al-Qaeda insurgents. Civil war breaks out as US airlifts troops to protect oil interests in the kingdom.

Dome of the Rock at Haram Ash-Sharif is destroyed.

President George W. Bush declares national emergency and cancels presidential election. Riots break out in major US cities. Bush declares martial law and suspends civil liberties. Hundreds of thousands of protesters incarcerated as militant combatants.

Astronomers discover massive asteroid on collision course with Earth due to impact December 21st, 2012. Millions convert to Christianity in last ditch effort to make the "rapture" cut.

Roaches, ants and spiders inherit Earth; institute Hive Mind Party.
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
you have such a way of cheering me up, Gortling.
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
I live to serve.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Gort, you optimist you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
If Clinton wins the US national nightmare will have just begun: horrible tax increases, national health disaster, surrender to terror.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
Gravel Rocks!

---

As a geologist THAT was really
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
Dome of the Rock at Haram Ash-Sharif is destroyed.

President George W. Bush declares national emergency and cancels presidential election. Riots break out in major US cities. Bush declares martial law and suspends civil liberties. Hundreds of thousands of protesters incarcerated as militant combatants.

---

Some days, I worry that Dubya is trying to start Armageddon, so that Jesus will return soon and be proud of him.


 

---

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:


Clinton/Obama lose by two percentage points to Guiliani/Huckabee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Off Centre View:


I've heard that Ron Paul has started to make something of a name for himself ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
"First Gentleman", of course. Though Hillary has evidently mentioned having him do ambassadorial work; not sure if that would be on an official level.

---

that's it! she's running for president so she can legitimately send him away to another country!

our governor's husband is known as the "First Dude" it started as a joke, but it stuck. even the papers address him that way. ol' Bill could be a first Dude.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Comet,

Yes, I've wondered about the "sending him overseas" bit myself.

He could also be called "First Bubba". IIRC, Bubba is one of his nicknames.
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
Gravel Rocks!

---

As a geologist THAT was really

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
He could also be called "First Bubba".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
You're obviously insane.

---

Can't really argue but give me credit for having the guts to make a prediction.


Interesting there's been little or no mention of third parties. The last two elections I finally decided voting my conscience is no waste: W is not my fault, and Hillary (or whoever) won't be either.


And my take in 1992 was that Perot siphoned off enough conservative votes to elect Bill who won with only 43% of the vote. If Bloomberg runs, where do you suppose his votes will come from?
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
President George W. Bush declares national emergency and cancels presidential election. Riots break out in major US cities. Bush declares martial law and suspends civil liberties. Hundreds of thousands of protesters incarcerated as militant combatants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
I know Hillary has a huge lead in the polls... But I can't figure out who they're polling, since everyone I've talked to thinks her candidacy and/ or presidency would be a disaster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Some days, I worry that Dubya is trying to start Armageddon, so that Jesus will return soon and be proud of him.

---

Are you suggesting that there may be reason to doubt this notion?
 

---

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by maleveque:
Clinton/Obama by a landslide. Or maybe Clinton/Richardson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
President George W. Bush declares national emergency and cancels presidential election. Riots break out in major US cities. Bush declares martial law and suspends civil liberties. Hundreds of thousands of protesters incarcerated as militant combatants.

---

What is scary is that there are people who seriously believe things like this. I recall some of my gay acquaintances who really thought that if Bush won the election they would be rounded up and sent to internment counts. I still ask them how they avoided capture. Mostly they just don't answer the question!

---

New yorker, I can assure you, wacky conspiratorial bovine scatology is hardly the purvue of the Left. I have Republican friends that are convinced that Opus Dei, the Shriners, and the Masons are secretly planning to take over the US for (insert nefarious purpose). And don't even ask them about Mexicans and/or China.

Every time they start in, I tell them that the way I know a Conspiracy Theorist is full of shit is that they are breathing. Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy all by himself. 9-11 was caused by a bunch of terrorists called Al Queda. Revelation is about ancient Rome, not the future.

Conspiracy theorists of either stripe need to get out in the fresh air more often and listen to Mozart on their iPods so their hyperactive overimaginative brains can get a rest.

Not that I have strong opinions on the subject or anything.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

Interesting there's been little or no mention of third parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
our governor's husband is known as the "First Dude" it started as a joke, but it stuck. even the papers address him that way. ol' Bill could be a first Dude.

---

I'm thinking "First Stud".
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I have Republican friends that are convinced that Opus Dei, the Shriners, and the Masons are secretly planning to take over the US for (insert nefarious purpose).

---

Yep. I've always figured if you don't like Masons then just can with a different jar.
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
I see little in current US politics or world events that reassures this paranoid. When attempting to consider the '08 presidential campaigns unfolding as some rationally predicable routine, I can't help a sense of foreboding doom. There are too many serious international political and economic events on the table to think our elections will proceed in some comfortable vacuum.

How would the Bush administration react to another catastrophic terrorist attack here one week before the election? His entire executive policy history has been founded on maintaining public paranoia to justify his decisions. What's new to suggest that strategy has changed? The man is a puppet controlled by right-wing, war-mongering neocons. It's difficult to see the bastard going quietly back to cut brush at the ranch. I don't see the cabal that installed him giving up the reign without a struggle.

...my therapist agrees.
 

---

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
If Clinton wins, it will get to the stage that 28-year-old Americans will have known no other President than a Clinton or a Bush. Seems more like dynasty than democracy...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
The media also says that women will vote for her in droves. Yet most - not all - but most women I know here in Manhattan really don't like her and claim that they will not vote for her.

---

Oh, I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination (unless some stellar as-yet unknown candidate magically appears). I'm just not silly enough to think that she represents my interests just because she's a woman (Thatcher, anyone?).

There's too much important stuff that needs to be done to worry about symbolism right now. And I don't think the media or the Republicans will let her get anything done. Not necessarily because she's a woman, but because she's Hillary.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Gort,

I know you automatically have metal on your head, but please remove the tinfoil hat from under it.

The U.S. has been under pressure before. It will again. Even the Neo-Cons wouldn't fuck up the good thing the U.S. has going (no matter how much we kvetch about our favorite going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket theories). Neo-Cons like business. Military Juntas and/or forced takeover by the neo-cons is bad for business.

Now go take a pill, meditate, relax, whatever. 2008 will be here shortly and we will watch the bastards leave. (Unless the election is split and the SCOTUS decides, of course)
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
<wheeew> Thanks, I needed that.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I forgot to add:



To gort.
 

---

Posted by chadevan (# 12786) on :
 
NadGeo:
Amen. I remember in the period leading up to the 2000 election, there were rumours circulating among rightwingers (and no doubt planted by the Bush campaign) that if Gore won he would a.outlaw the Bible and b. confiscate everyone's hunting rifles.
Blinkered paranoia is, alas, all too common on the Left and the Right.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 


Welcome to the Ship Chadevan! And thanks for the complement!

Glad you noticed.

"NadGeo"
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
New yorker, I can assure you, wacky conspiratorial bovine scatology is hardly the purvue of the Left. I have Republican friends that are convinced that Opus Dei, the Shriners, and the Masons are secretly planning to take over the US for (insert nefarious purpose). And don't even ask them about Mexicans and/or China.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Whoever gets into office had BETTER raise taxes, and not to spend more but to pay off GWs idiocies!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse must be riding over Snoqualmie Pass right now.

---

In which direction?
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
People complain about Bush's spending. And they have a point. But don't forget nothing can be spend with Congress okaying it and they are not exactly cheapskates.

---

quote:

---

Yet former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, also the front-runner among Republican candidates for president, rates significantly better than some of his better-known rivals on this question. That includes former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee.

snip

The findings of Gallup’s Nov. 2-4 survey -- which also portrays Clinton six percentage points ahead of Giuliani in a hypothetical election match-up -- suggest that “while Clinton is well respected by Democrats, she runs a deficit among Republicans relative to her Democratic challengers -- one that could have implications for the general election if it persists.’’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chadevan:
NadGeo:
Amen. I remember in the period leading up to the 2000 election, there were rumours circulating among rightwingers (and no doubt planted by the Bush campaign) that if Gore won he would a.outlaw the Bible and b. confiscate everyone's hunting rifles.
Blinkered paranoia is, alas, all too common on the Left and the Right.

---

quote:

---

Lou Dobbs for President? Don't laugh. After months of telling reporters that he "absolutely" would not consider leaving his highly-rated CNN show in which he crusades against free trade and illegal immigration, Mr. Dobbs posted a commentary on his Web site last week predicting a surprise new presidential candidate in 2008. The mystery candidate is an "independent populist . . . who understands the genius of this country lies in the hearts and minds of its people and not in the prerogatives and power of its elites."

snip

His playbook would be similar to that of Ross Perot in 1992, who didn't enter the presidential race until the major parties began holding their primaries but quickly shot up to 25% in many polls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

quote:

---

"the genius of this country lies in the hearts and minds of its people"

---

---

quote:

---

I never heard a. and what I heard about b. mostly had to do with handguns. Some of the local talk radio hosts around here at the time were conspiracy theorists to the max, so it seems we would have heard about that. We did hear that Clinton was having old military bases turned into concentration camps for his political opponents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
You know you want to feed your addiction, and the doctor is in.


Clinton/Obama lose by two percentage points to Guiliani/Huckabee.

Guiliani's proven administrative prowess wins him the nomination and Huckabee's appeal to southern/conservative voters wins him the south and rural areas generally.

Clinton's savvy and conciliatory choice of Obama is not enough to overcome the baggage Bill has saddled her with, and in the privacy of the voting booth not enough people pull the lever for her.

(If Bloomberg runs I reserve the right to revise this, and it's a damn shame Paul probably won't get much traction, if for no other reason than to sway the debate.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chadevan:
NadGeo:
Amen. I remember in the period leading up to the 2000 election, there were rumours circulating among rightwingers (and no doubt planted by the Bush campaign) that if Gore won he would a.outlaw the Bible and b. confiscate everyone's hunting rifles.
Blinkered paranoia is, alas, all too common on the Left and the Right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
Has Guliani named a running mate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
"First Gentleman", of course. Though Hillary has evidently mentioned having him do ambassadorial work; not sure if that would be on an official level.

---

He's no Gentleman
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
So the converse of "she's no lady she's my wife" would be "he's no gentleman he's my husband." Definitely applicable here.
 

---

Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
At least Bill Clinton seems to have a sense of humor about being called Bubba and 'First Dude'.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
And MG: I predict if Hillary is elected that in 2010 you'll see 1994 redux - the repubs will rule both the senate and congress. It's like the American public is somehow collectively savvy about the benefits of gridlock...

who was it that talked about the benefits of being ruled by the first five hundred names in the phonebook?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

Could we actually be heading for our first black president?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Have racism and sexism actually receded that much in the US of A??

---

quote:

---

Huckabee - who raised his hand at a debate last May when asked which candidates disbelieved the theory of evolution - asked this time why there is such a fascination with his beliefs.

"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth," he said at a news conference with Iowa pastors who murmured, "Amen."

"I wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know," Huckabee said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...Ted Kennedy should be in jail for Chappaquiddick ..............

---

quote:

---

......OTOH, the American public is sure pissed off at the Republicans. Even the Republicans are pissed off at the Republicans (GW).

---

quote:

---

...I think Jeb will get it after Hillary/Obama.

---

quote:

---

The litany of new Huckabee revelations makes for uncomfortable reading. In 1992 he said that AIDS sufferers should be “isolated” from society. In 1998 he agreed that a woman should “submit herself to the servant leadership of her husband”. In the same year he told a group of preachers that he had entered politics to “take back this nation for Christ”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
New Yorker,

Face it dude, your guys suck more than the Dems suck right now. Fact. GW has screwed the pooch.

You should prepare yourself and your boys for the electoral reaming you are about to recieve.

Just for fun, I predict the Dems win the general Election by 60% or more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Face it dude, your guys suck more than the Dems suck right now. Fact. GW has screwed the pooch.

---

That's what it's boiling down to, it seems. I can see the advertisements now: "Vote for me, I don't suck as bad as my opponent".

I don't see any of the candidates as being very popular. With approval ratings of congress being dwarfed even by Beelzebush's, it seems sucking at their jobs has become a truly bipartisan effort.

My prediction is that a democrat will win the White House and will serve only one term as a result of being a raging four year disaster.
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
You know, this is starting to remind me of the last Canadian election ... many were desperate to get rid of the Liberals but leery of the Conservatives. OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Well the good thing for Republicans is that there is still a little under a year til the Presidential election, if Bush doesn't do anything more stupid (like invading Iran), the GOP can at least minimize the damage, and hold onto their base, which means they can retain the South (Which won't vote Democratic, even if they resurrect Thomas Jefferson to run on the presidential ticket) and parts of the Midwest (Wyoming and Idaho).

Actually the best thing that could happen is if the Dems take both the White House and Congress, they will screw up in two years (Remember the Healthcare debacle in 1993), and the GOP can find someone decent to run in 2012.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That's what it's boiling down to, it seems. I can see the advertisements now: "Vote for me, I don't suck as bad as my opponent".
.....

.....My prediction is that a democrat will win the White House and will serve only one term as a result of being a raging four year disaster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I guess I'm one of the last die hard W supporters. Too bad Cheney isn't running.

And, just for fun, I predict the Republican candidate will take 48 states in the Electoral College!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
... Let's face it, Bill C. did a pretty [redacted] good job compared to, well, everyone for quite a while now, back to Reagan.

---

quote:

---

Wow.Please pass the weed. You're bogarting the doobie. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Bloomberg loves publicity, and his recent stunt - having breakfast in a New York deli with Barack Obama - fed his ego more than his stomach. But he does understand that many Americans are truly sick of the paralysis in Washington and the game playing on the campaign trail.

He was on the money when he told CBS: "This country doesn't need somebody that's going to say, 'my party versus your party.' This country needs somebody that says, 'I'm going to get the best from both parties.'"

Instead, the debate in both parties has turned nasty and silly. The prize for the most ridiculous comment goes to Hillary Clinton, who must be freaking out over poll numbers that show Obama pulling ahead in Iowa. Her campaign attacked Obama's assertion that he had never dreamed of a White House bid. The evidence: "In kindergarten, Sen. Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.'"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
How in the name of Buddha does Bloomberg think he is qualified to be President?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
How in the name of Buddha does Bloomberg think he is qualified to be President?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Let's face it, Bill C. did a pretty fuckin good job compared to, well, everyone for quite a while now, back to Reagan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
How in the name of Buddha does Bloomberg think he is qualified to be President?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
New Yorker,

Clinton the 1st passed welfare reform, which is pretty much widely credited for many people going back to work, faster.

Your boy increased the socialist spending spree with his Medicare Bill. I'll never forgive him for that btw.
Bill Clinton's economy. GW's economy.

Honestly, that is all I really need to say.

If you are a True Republican™ you should be in favor of lesser government and be fiscally conservative. Clinton delivered that better than Bush did, period.

The weed/doobie/bogarting reference was a (lame) joke. I was saying you must be smoking something with your earlier assertions and not sharing with the crowd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
If Clinton wins, it will get to the stage that 28-year-old Americans will have known no other President than a Clinton or a Bush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

The weed/doobie/bogarting reference was a (lame) joke. I was saying you must be smoking something with your earlier assertions and not sharing with the crowd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
MG, you are correct that a True Republican should be in favor of lesser government and be fiscally conservative. And, Bush has been disappointing on that score - with the help of a Republican Congress that acted like a drunken sailor on payday and now a "reform minded" Democratic Congress that is trying to outdo its predecessor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
MG, you are correct that a True Republican should be in favor of lesser government and be fiscally conservative. And, Bush has been disappointing on that score - with the help of a Republican Congress that acted like a drunken sailor on payday

---

quote:

---

But, on foreign affairs, Bush has been, for the most part, spot on.

---

Smoking weed again are we?

He just kinda unfucked the fuckup that is Iraq through sending the rest of our army there. Talk about a day late and a billion dollars short.....

In addition, he has no foreign affairs, unless you count the entire known world, friend or foe, hating us as "foreign affairs".

quote:

---

Clinton signed the welfare reform that was passed by a Republican Congress. It's not what he wanted.

---

quote:

---

On foreign affairs, he was a disaster. He gave Bin Laden a pass so often Bill should be held negligent for fighting the terrorists.

---

Ummm. Nice try. He was the one that tried to tomohawk strike bin Laden and hit the asprin factory or somesuch thing. Shrub has had the entire world looking for the bastard and can't find him, because he wasted our goodwill after 9-11 and then invaded Iraq when he shoulda been chasing the badguys down holes in Afghanistan.

Oh, and interestingly, Clinton advocated Iraq being invaded due to chemical weapons BEFORE Bush did, he actually just tried to deny that, ironically. So Clinton was actually was out ahead of Bush on BOTH counts. Bush is the guy that lost the best opportunities to kill bin Laden.

Anyway, your boys are going to lose in spades either way, and I'll be here to gloat.
 

---

Posted by n9949y (# 12905) on :
 
As one who’s voted Democrat since ’64, and who believes Bubba’s character and accomplishments are far superior to that of the frat boy, nevertheless…… Don’t tell Mama, I’m votin’ Obama!

[ 17. December 2007, 05:57: Message edited by: n9949y ]
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

The weed/doobie/bogarting reference was a (lame) joke. I was saying you must be smoking something with your earlier assertions and not sharing with the crowd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Eeek.

Apologies to Mr. New Yorker if that came off as a Personal Attack. Absolutely NO intent of one whatsoever was intended, translation or otherwise. I was teasing (or trying to anyway).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribbler:
We watched the inauguration of the first President Bush on a small black and white TV in my kindergarten class. I think it's time for a change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

My own saddish conviction is that mysogyny is a stronger force than racism and that a man - any man - will still be favoured over a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Is there a reason to think the Americans are that different from us?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
just as Dukkakis wasn't the one to be the first non-'Anglo'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
My own saddish conviction is that mysogyny is a stronger force than racism and that a man - any man - will still be favoured over a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
My own saddish conviction is that mysogyny is a stronger force than racism and that a man - any man - will still be favoured over a woman.

---

I think this is too general to be a true statement, if not actually false.

We are seeing women being elected all over the world, and in countries arguably more "macho" than the U.S. Chile for example.

Liberia. Germany.

In one way I hope that Hillary is elected so that I can jump up and down on your statement there and give it the proper burial it deserves.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Giuliani and Romeny are Tied

Clinton in lead.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Bloomberg continues saber-rattling. Man will I be happy if he makes a run for it.
 

---

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
If I were Emperor of the US, I'd make a law abolishing primary elections and forbidding any campaigning until after Labor Day. The Brits can conduct an election in about 6-7 wks. Why can't we.

If I hear anymore election coverage on the TV I'm going to set my hair on fire and leap, screaming, from a first floor window. I just want to make statement, I don't want to hurt myself!
 

---

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
Sorry to hear that Organmeister. I always thought from the other side of the atlantic that the primary system had some merit, as here the general public has no real say in who the candidates for prime minister will be, the party leaders are chosen by the parties. We effectively just get to pick between them.

But why they can't hold all the primaries on the same day I don't know.

I think your process is bound to take longer though, due to the size of the country and federal nature of the government. Many of your candidates come from being state governors, who people at the other end of the country won't know much about without a lengthy campaign.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
....I always thought from the other side of the atlantic that the primary system had some merit, as here the general public has no real say in who the candidates for prime minister will be, the party leaders are chosen by the parties. We effectively just get to pick between them.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
The Iowa Caucuses are virtually meaningless. It is merely a popularity contest in a small relatively inconsequential agrarian state . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Moonlit, Theoretically the primary system is a good thing. It was instituted during the colonial period after the spring planting season. The electorate presumably had the summer and autumn to mull over their vote come the General Election in November (after the fall harvest). Given the state of 18th century American communications, it probably did take that long to spread the word concerning the spring elections. What it has done, in fact, is to lengthen the electoral process so candidates now start campaigning two years prior to the General Election.

---

quote:

---

It requires huge sums of $$$ to conduct that long of a campaign. We are constantly being told that $$$ is the scourge of the American political process, and I do agree.

---

quote:

---

If the period during which one could campaign were shortened, again at least in theory, the amount of $$$ that could be spent in that period of time would be less.

---

On this you are probably right. I simply do not see we can have a free state and stop them from campaigning early. If you want to get right down to it, politicians are always camplainging from the moment they start, till the moment they leave office. Hell, Bill is still capmaigning and he is out of office!

quote:

---

The Iowa Caucuses are virtually meaningless. It is merely a popularity contest in a small relatively inconsequential agrarian state that in no way is representative of the general US population. However, there will be almost as many media people in Iowa this week as there were corn stalks last summer and at the end the pundits will announce that the vote has deduced some profound insite into hearts of American voters. Hogwash!!!!

If we are going to have a system of primaries that make sense they should all be held on the same day and I would suggest that that day be in July. Let both parties have their national conventions in August. (Although I'm not sure why one should even have a national convention other than it would be the final nail in the coffin of American Political parties as meaningful institutions of organizing the body politic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
...But it sucks that Iowa and New Hampshire always get to be up front. I think we should be doing this on a rotating basis so people get a turn at having their primary vote matter, and I think it shouldn't be done on a state-wide winner-takes-all basis. If you win a congressional district, then you should get the vote for that district. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am sure there is room for improvement, but California certainly gets its share of monies after the election, or at least when there is a democrat in office. Dontcha think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am sure there is room for improvement, but California certainly gets its share of monies after the election, or at least when there is a democrat in office. Dontcha think?

---

Last time I saw any figures on it, California's return on money paid in federal taxes was at or below average. And in 2003 Wyoming got $61 per person in federal homeland security grants, Alaska got $58, New York got less than $25, and California got $14. If the Rand Corporation has half a clue, I'm toast if somebody explodes a nuclear bomb at the port (pdf file).

So no, I don't think so.

Edit: And the point of having our votes matter is not to see how much money we can get out of the federal government, but to have a say in where all the money goes in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But it sucks that Iowa and New Hampshire always get to be up front.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But it sucks that Iowa and New Hampshire always get to be up front.

---

Someone's got to go first. Surely its better if its a relatively small state? If it was California and New York that would be that and everyone else could just go home.

---

Read the rest of my post. I also think it shouldn't be done on a state by state basis. Having all of California's electoral votes go to one candidate is ridiculous. It's a federal election, so it should be done by congressional district, and it should be done on a rotating basis so one area doesn't always go first.
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
personally, I'd like it to go vote-by-vote. Alaska has one vote in the electoral college (really, we only qualify for half of a congressman, so we have more than we should in a sense) which makes my usually minority vote pretty much pointless.

that's in the general, of course. we dont have primaries like you lucky ducks do. the party bigwigs just get together over a beer and decide who they'll support. and from what i can tell, it's whoever the national party office tells them to support.



so I just sit here and cross my fingers that the eejit dems don't make such a stupid mistake as they did last time around.

(and it would be lovely if the repubs did! )
 

---

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
Actually, Comet, you have three.

Electoral votes equal your total Congressional Representation. In Alaska's case, that would be one Rep and two Senators. That is, of course, the minimum any state can have.

FWIW, the population of Wyoming is less than yours.
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
thank you Campbellite.

so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.

Alaska is known for being such a "red" state but the votes are always fairly close. you just can't tell from that big splotch of red in the upper left corner of the map.

(and yes, I knew about Wyoming. but our density is thinner!)
 

---

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
Sadly, the electoral college is a winner take all system. There have been many attempts to allot votes in accordance with the individual district votes (and the two extra per the overall state vote).

The advantage of this, of course, is that the end vote would more accurately reflect the will of the people. (The outcome of the 2000 debacle would have been different, fer instance.) It would also entice candidates to spend more time and attention to districts within states where they had a chance to win even if they were sure to lose the state as a whole.

Sadly, I say, because it is unlikely to be changed. As long as Party A controls a given state government, no matter how razor thin the majority, it is to their advantage to require all their delegates to vote en bloc. When Party B takes over, the same advantage applies to them.
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 


some days I really hate our voting system.

I was raised believing we had the best thing going in the world. perfected democracy, etc.

but now as I learn more about other systems, and feel more and more disenfranchised, I get to really be disgusted with our system.

and that makes me very blue!
 

---

Posted by bc_anglican (# 12349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:


some days I really hate our voting system.

I was raised believing we had the best thing going in the world. perfected democracy, etc.

but now as I learn more about other systems, and feel more and more disenfranchised, I get to really be disgusted with our system.

and that makes me very blue!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Off Centre View:
I've heard that Ron Paul has started to make something of a name for himself ...

---

Ron Paul now polls somewhere around 1% (One percent) of the national vote

---

Here's an essay/speech thingie the FG found while trawling around reading up on Ron Paul... It's by Neal Boortz.

Commencement Address
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Thanks, Janine.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Another thing about Iowa going first ... the voter turnout at the last two rounds of Iowa caucuses was less than 7%! Fewer than 150,000 people participated in 2000 and 2004. In New Hampshire the turnout is better since they have primaries, not caucuses, but still a very small number of people are making this decision -- fewer than 400,000 in 2000 and fewer than 300,000 in 2004. (See numbers here.)

I never thought to look into the numbers till I heard the low percentages of turnout in Iowa on the radio yesterday, and the more I consider it the more I am simply appalled that such a small number of people, not to mention such a homogenous group, gets to have so much influence.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I gotta say if the polls turn out to be accurate and Obama wins, with Edwards second, I think I'll be disappointed! Hillary is certainly better than Edwards (Edwards, who?) and Obama really does need to be sent back for some more training before we make him Pres. Please?
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
If Obama wins Iowa, with Edwards second and Hillary third, is she finished?

If Bloomberg enters the race as an independent, who does he hurt more: Democrats or Republicans?
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
If Obama wins Iowa, with Edwards second and Hillary third, is she finished?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.

---

Couldn't you just count all the votes each candidate got across the whole country and appoint the person with the most?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
If Obama wins Iowa, with Edwards second and Hillary third, is she finished?

If Bloomberg enters the race as an independent, who does he hurt more: Democrats or Republicans?

---

quote:

---

Obviously, the Clinton team would rather lose to Edwards than to Obama. Third place would be a near-disaster scenario; second is recoverable. There will be a lot of Friday morning quarterbacking about whether Clinton should have even played in Iowa. It was never a natural fit and because many in the national media know this, there's every chance she'll get a few more primaries to prove herself.

No chance anyone believes she's one or two and done. There's too much history with the Clintons and their ability to come back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.

---

Couldn't you just count all the votes each candidate got across the whole country and appoint the person with the most?

---

That would require a change to the constitution.

---

it would be fabulous!

but the short answer is, no.

[ 03. January 2008, 21:52: Message edited by: comet ]
 

---

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.

---

Couldn't you just count all the votes each candidate got across the whole country and appoint the person with the most?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.

---

Couldn't you just count all the votes each candidate got across the whole country and appoint the person with the most?

---

quote:

---

Christopher C. Hull: Certainly there's a concern anytime so much money is spent in one state at a single time. There are two ways of balancing the process, in my view.

One is to move in the direction of a national primary - whether that is by compressing states into regional contests or by actually allowing all states to compete at once. My serious concern about that is that it eliminates the winnowing process that currently takes place, during which different states learn about the candidates sequentially.

The other way would be to improve the Caucus' process itself. In the book I recommend tying delegates to the percentages, bringing the state in to regulate the process, and eliminating the Democratic caucuses' silly 15% viability threshold.

The return on investment for America, at that point, is to cull out candidates with little support from the grassroots activists of the party.

That may not address your fundamental concern - but we do need to be careful, it seems to me, not to sacrifice the upsides of the current process in our drive to change it.

---

 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
They've just called the Iowa caucuses: Obama and Huckabee. Turnout is reported to be very high.
 

---

Posted by Manda (# 6028) on :
 
Yay Obama! The first politician to be really inspiring in a long time, If I lived in the US I'd vote for him on the title of his book alone (Audacit of Hope, not the one about his father) because of what that says abou him.


Hmm, staying up to follow UK election is one thing, staying up to follow US ones ia not good for sleep levels.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
No kidding. Wow.
 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Hillary and Edwards are in a dead heat for second place -- too soon to call.

The New Yorker asked above whether Hillary will be done for if she loses in Iowa. The answer is No, too soon to tell. It depends what happens in New Hampshire. Now if Obama won NH too, that would totally shake things up.

In other news: I just saw Howard Dean on TV. Dear God. He's lost, I dunno, maybe 40-50 pounds; his face is now long and narrow instead of round. Makes his nose look bigger. Also, his skin looks funny. I suspect botox and/or a too-recent facial peel. Now back to your regular campaign coverage.
 

---

Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
That's not the regular coverage? I must be watching the wrong channel!

I think that there's plenty of time for Hilary to turn around a defeat here, although I guess momentum can be tough to stop. As for the republicans, I must confess I still don't really know who's who (apart from Giuliani).
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Barack! Woooooo!
 

---

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
Yay for Barack in the fight to stop the ICE Princess!



and I would be very pleased if GOP ended up nominating Huckabee. It would be their smartest move since Goldwater in '64

[ 04. January 2008, 03:00: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
 

---

Posted by bc_anglican (# 12349) on :
 
I'm not impressed by any of the candidates. Barack seems naive in thinking that his "vision" can take on Republican operatives. I expect the first commercial ads making fun of his name to begin around next month.

Hillary can't connect with ordinary people. Giulani's record as Mayor is vastly exaggerated and overstated. John Edwards preaches an easy gospel of populism that hides his own establishment past.

I say, just let Canada invade America and place Dion as president.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
I'm not impressed by any of the candidates. Barack seems naive in thinking that his "vision" can take on Republican operatives. I expect the first commercial ads making fun of his name to begin around next month.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manda:
Yay Obama! The first politician to be really inspiring in a long time, If I lived in the US I'd vote for him on the title of his book alone

---

That kind of reassures me given that I would be tempted to vote for Mike Huckabee on the sole basis of his ability to play bass guitar. Pretty good name for a band, too.
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
Big gap between Huckabee and Romney, especially given the latter outspent the former substantially... but assuming it would probably be a mistake to read too much into results from this comparatively middle of the road state I'll go out on a limb and predict things will look differently after the bluer states weigh in.

This chart ranks states by 'color'. And FYI:

3 Jan: Iowa caucuses
8 Jan: New Hampshire primary
15 Jan: Michigan primary
19 Jan: Nevada caucuses; South Carolina primary (Rep)
26 Jan: South Carolina primary (Dem)
29 Jan: Florida primary
5 Feb: some 20 states including California, New York, New Jersey
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
...

I say, just let Canada invade America and place Dion as president.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Comet

so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.

---

I believe that Maine and Nebraska cast their electoral college votes as Comet suggests. Not sure why those two as they don't seem very similar states from this distance.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
In less than a week no one will care what just happened it Iowa. It seems about all that happened is that Obama was able to get some folks to show up to vote against Hillary and Huckabee got some folks from church to show up and vote against a Mormon.
 

---

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
This may be somewhat off the subject but... I watched the Iowa caucus on CSPAN (Democrats) and CSPAN2 (Republicans). The Democrats were 375 people plus media coverage crowded into what appeared to be a high school cafeteria. At the signal they were given 3o minutes sorts themselves into bunches around their preferred candidates. The scene confirmed that "democracy is a messy business". After getting a count from each bunch it was determined that Kucinek, Biden and Richardson didn't have enough people in their bunch to be viable. So they were given 15 minutes to resort themselves into the bunches of the three leading candidates; more shuffling and crowding. then another head count and the results were in. They had to elect delegates and alternates after this but then most people were leaving so that part was up to the pols.

The Republican caucus was a controlled affair with paper ballots and the pols in charge. They concluded about an hour before the Democrats and even had time for a patriotic song in the middle.

A very interesting exposition of the politics and polis in heartland USA.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 


That is beautiful.

So emblematic of the people that compose each of the parties. Or at least the stereotypes of those people.


 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
A very interesting exposition of the politics and polis in heartland USA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In less than a week no one will care what just happened it Iowa. It seems about all that happened is that Obama was able to get some folks to show up to vote against Hillary and Huckabee got some folks from church to show up and vote against a Mormon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I believe that Maine and Nebraska cast their electoral college votes as Comet suggests. Not sure why those two as they don't seem very similar states from this distance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manda:
Hey, can anyone who knows about these things tell me if it's true that both parties have excluded/reduced the delegates to their conventions from various states to punish them for trying to be earlier in the primaries?

What's that about? Why do the national parties mind which order the primaries are in. How decides the dates anyway? Seems slightly unfair on the party members in those states to me, though I may have misunderstood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
<snip>I watched the Iowa caucus on CSPAN (Democrats) and CSPAN2 (Republicans). The Democrats were 375 people plus media coverage crowded into what appeared to be a high school cafeteria. At the signal they were given 3o minutes sorts themselves into bunches around their preferred candidates. The scene confirmed that "democracy is a messy business". After getting a count from each bunch it was determined that Kucinek, Biden and Richardson didn't have enough people in their bunch to be viable. So they were given 15 minutes to resort themselves into the bunches of the three leading candidates; more shuffling and crowding. then another head count and the results were in.<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
A very interesting exposition of the politics and polis in heartland USA.

---

That sounds fun if there was free beer on tap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manda:
Thanks Ruth, now I understand a bit better.

So why would states choose to have their primaries signifcantly after February 5th then? Isn't there a risk that they could end up ignored if a candidate has already got enough delegates? Or are they hoping it's close & they might have the late casting vote & get more attention if their not scheduled with 20 others?

---

The "not wanting to be ignored" is why so many states moved it up, and have been trying to jump ahead of the Feb 5 queue.

California had its primary in June when I started voting. The only time in my memory that it had a significant effect on the primary (beyond, of course, being a Cash Cow par excellence) is when Robert Kennedy got assassinated on Primary Night in 1968 ( ). It got switched to late March, but that still wasn't early enough this time.

It's gonna be nuts, as we have many elections departments still trying to get themselves reliable voting machines. (I used to work with one. They had to hand count paper ballots last time.)

Charlotte
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
A very interesting exposition of the politics and polis in heartland USA.

---

That sounds fun if there was free beer on tap.

---

I heard that serving sandwiches was not allowed under caucus rules, so beer is probably right out.

Punch-n-cookies, however, seem to be legal. Good thing too, it's a long night.

Charlotte

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I just looked at the Secret Service website looking for contact information and found this faq:

>>How long do former presidents receive Secret Service protection after they leave office?

In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection. <<

I didn't know Clinton signed into law that he would be the last to receive lifetime protection. If he really thinks it's such a swell idea he should have held out for lifetime service for those who are in office before January 1, 1992.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
While hoping I'm just needlessly paranoid for the man, I am very concerned about Barack Obama's safety. He's a Christian, but it appears he may have been a Muslim at one time. It also appears that the predominant, if not widespread, belief is that those who leave Islam are to be killed. I'm afraid there might be a terrorist operation against him as a demonstration to others considering leaving Islam that even someone with Secret Service protection can be reached. It may be much ado about nothing, but I hope the Secret Service has considered it in the security plans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
While hoping I'm just needlessly paranoid for the man, I am very concerned about Barack Obama's safety. He's a Christian, but it appears he may have been a Muslim at one time. It also appears that the predominant, if not widespread, belief is that those who leave Islam are to be killed. I'm afraid there might be a terrorist operation against him as a demonstration to others considering leaving Islam that even someone with Secret Service protection can be reached. It may be much ado about nothing, but I hope the Secret Service has considered it in the security plans.

---

I don't see anything in his bio where Obama ever formally was a Muslim. He has a Muslim stepfather and attended a Muslim public school (which had other Christian and Hindu students) while in Indonesia, but there isn't any evidence he joined the faith. Therefore, he isn't an apostate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manda:
So why would states choose to have their primaries signifcantly after February 5th then? Isn't there a risk that they could end up ignored if a candidate has already got enough delegates? Or are they hoping it's close & they might have the late casting vote & get more attention if their not scheduled with 20 others?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
We're all looking for the best leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Biden has pulled out, Campbellite. And who's Gravel?

So did anyone else watch the debates this evening? I blew off the Republicans, since they're not my problem, but I watched the Democrats. I don't think I learned anything I didn't already know. Of the four, I like Richardson the best, but I don't think he has much of a chance. Of the top three, all I know is that there's no way in hell I'm voting for Clinton in February.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not sure that this is true. You and I are, but honestly I don't think all Americans are looking for the best leadership. I think a lot of Americans don't have the first clue what good leadership even is. When I see ordinary people interviewed on the news and they talk in vague terms about how the candidates make them feel instead of about specific issues or criteria, I want to hurl things at the TV.

---

quote:

---

Interesting that you think Edwards would be the most electable of the Democrats in a general election. It's occurred to me more than once that in the first election with a viable female candidate and a viable black candidate, I might end up voting for the white guy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not sure that this is true. You and I are, but honestly I don't think all Americans are looking for the best leadership. I think a lot of Americans don't have the first clue what good leadership even is. When I see ordinary people interviewed on the news and they talk in vague terms about how the candidates make them feel instead of about specific issues or criteria, I want to hurl things at the TV.

---

quote:

---

US news media virtually ignored Romney's victory in Wyoming Saturday as all eyes remained firmly fixed on the crunch contest in New Hampshire on Tuesday that will play a bigger role in shaping the overall battle.

The caucuses in cowboy country took place earlier than scheduled despite the objections of the Republican National Committee, with local Wyoming party officials attempting to drag the prarie state into the spotlight.

But as a result of Wyoming Republicans' decision to advance the date of the contest to Jan 5, the state had its number of national convention delegates slashed by half from 28 to 14.

Twelve delegates were selected in Saturday's county conventions while two more will be chosen at a state convention in May.

---

quote:

---

“It’s been exciting for us,” said Fred Paraday, the state chairman. “It’s our first time out of the shoot.”

---

I could be wrong, NY Times, but I'm guessing he meant 'chute'.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I think more Americans understand the issues than we realize. But there are two other large groups. One who will vote for the candidate who'll give them the most, no matter whether that giving is good for the country. Another group who'll vote for a person for no reason other than race, gender, or where they're from.

quote:

---

I don't know anyone that votes based on who will give them the most financially. No one. I know people who vote on who will give OTHERS the most, as in social programs for the poor, vote the other way because they gave someone else too much (eg the same social programs) but not themselves.

Yes, people also will vote based on race and gender but then white men have been doing that for centuries.

It has been my experience that people vote based on issues more than any other thing, with the possible exception of party line. They vote because they are pro-union, or because they are fearful of terrorism, or because they hate abortion, or because they love the freedom to have an abortion, etc. etc. Issues seem to be the key, to me.

---

Too bad Cheney isn't running.

---

You are so Republican that you are nearly an elephant. I almost think you're taking the piss.

Doesn't it bother you the power grab that Cheney has made? He is nearly a third-world dictator he has tried to grab so much power. Even when I was a hard core Republican I thought power grabs were a stupid idea, from either congress or the presidency, much less a V.P.
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You are so Republican that you are nearly an elephant. I almost think you're taking the piss.

Doesn't it bother you the power grab that Cheney has made? He is nearly a third-world dictator he has tried to grab so much power. Even when I was a hard core Republican I thought power grabs were a stupid idea, from either congress or the presidency, much less a V.P.

---

Mad Geo -

I like Cheney. I don't think he's been grabbing power like the media tries to allege.

Now, pardon moi, but I need to clean my elephant trunk and swab my extra large ears.
 

---

Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 


If the New York Times reported that the sun rises in the east, no doubt some Republicans would claim it to be an example of liberal media bias.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I like Cheney. I don't think he's been grabbing power like the media tries to allege.

Now, pardon moi, but I need to clean my elephant trunk and swab my extra large ears.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:


If the New York Times reported that the sun rises in the east, no doubt some Republicans would claim it to be an example of liberal media bias.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:


If the New York Times reported that the sun rises in the east, no doubt some Republicans would claim it to be an example of liberal media bias.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:


If the New York Times reported that the sun rises in the east, no doubt some Republicans would claim it to be an example of liberal media bias.

---

And the New York Times would say it's George Bush's fault.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
But what do I know? I never worked out how anyojne could vote for some of those people in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
But what do I know? I never worked out how anyojne could vote for some of those people in the first place.

---

I guess it could be a little tough seeing as how your country was trying to hang the men who later become our first four presidents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
But what do I know? I never worked out how anyojne could vote for some of those people in the first place.

---

I guess it could be a little tough seeing as how your country was trying to hang the men who later become our first four presidents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
But what do I know? I never worked out how anyojne could vote for some of those people in the first place.

---

I guess it could be a little tough seeing as how your country was trying to hang the men who later become our first four presidents.

---

First five, surely? As well as Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, was not Monroe also in arms against his lawful Sovereign? Although, as a young man at the time, he might have pled being misled by his elders, and gotten off with probation or a community service order.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:
Thanks for the offer, Firenze, but some of us would like to do that ourselves.

So many Republicans, so few lampposts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right you are, sir, except not one of our presidents have ever raised arms against his lawful Sovereign. Monroe did get winged by British invaders.

---

I thought you were serious until then. Who says the Americans have no sense of humour?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So come on Yankee-watchers! Call it for the New Hampshire primaries! This time tomorrow it'll be too late for us to respect your powers of prediction!

---

quote:

---

Media here assumes McCain will have it wrapped up for Republicans, though maybe that's just because they are looking at last time. They also assume Huckabee will do badly. But that might just be Brit prejudices about US evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
and Romney is starting to look like he's in real trouble, scared even.

---

quote:

---

"If I come in in a second-place finish, that will actually say that I am clearly one of the leading contenders. I will have come in second in Iowa, first in Wyoming, second in New Hampshire. That will mean that I probably have more votes than anybody else in those first three states," he said.

Romney's first stop was the entrance of BAE Systems North America, where he found reporters and camera crews far outnumbered arriving workers. That prompted the former Massachusetts governor to exclaim, "We need some voters."

---

 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:
Thanks for the offer, Firenze, but some of us would like to do that ourselves.

So many Republicans, so few lampposts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:
Thanks for the offer, Firenze, but some of us would like to do that ourselves.

So many Republicans, so few lampposts.

---

In my less charitable moments, there are a number of Democrats I would like to see swinging from the lampposts. Of course, most of them are so big, they'd break the post!

---

quote:

---

For all their obvious stylistic, ideological, and generational differences, both are anti-politicians whose fundamental argument is that our system is broken in ways that only they are capable of fixing. When McCain and Obama proclaim the need for "change" in Washington, it is neither meaningless rhetoric nor a fancy way of saying throw the bums out. They are both focused on addressing flaws in the political process—the power of special interests, unproductive hyperpartisanship, and the habits of reality-avoidance that afflict both sides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I see Hillary has won zero votes in the first NH town to return a result.

---

quote:

---

Clinton had plenty to cry about Monday. Polls showed Obama surging ahead in New Hampshire, and national polls -- always fairly meaningless, but meaning a little more now -- show her national lead eroding, too. Assuming Obama wins New Hampshire -- and I didn't talk to a single Clinton supporter today who challenged that assumption -- he'll likely win South Carolina too. Based on little more than Drudge Report headlines, talking heads on cable were asking much of Tuesday whether she might drop out of the race after a big New Hampshire loss.

Of course there's almost no chance of Clinton doing anything but run hard until Feb. 6, after so-called Tsunami Tuesday, when big states like New York, New Jersey and California, where Clinton still has strong leads, hold their primaries. Clinton supporters and even neutral observers will tell you the game changes there. But a big win for Obama in New Hampshire Thursday could be a different kind of tsunami, sweeping up potential and even committed Clinton supporters in a nationwide wave of enthusiasm for Obama's inspiring-if-vague politics of change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I see Hillary has won zero votes in the first NH town to return a result.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
Politically, though, the Clinton machine has only lost one election in three decades so writing her off is probably premature: they know how to win.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Then I saw Huckabee playing bass on The Tonight Show like Clinton did when he was running for president.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
There's an interesting article on Slate comparing Obama and McCain and claiming that

quote:

---

For all their obvious stylistic, ideological, and generational differences, both are anti-politicians whose fundamental argument is that our system is broken in ways that only they are capable of fixing. When McCain and Obama proclaim the need for "change" in Washington, it is neither meaningless rhetoric nor a fancy way of saying throw the bums out. They are both focused on addressing flaws in the political process—the power of special interests, unproductive hyperpartisanship, and the habits of reality-avoidance that afflict both sides.

---

I'm not sure I'm sold on this, but I'm glad I read the article, as there's link to this lovely little exchange of letters. I'm a little surprised it's on Obama's Senate website. Perhaps he thinks it makes McCain look small; I think it's hilarious and makes Obama look pretty green.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Will Hillary's tears make a difference? I can't imagine a candidate who got that emotional retaining a whole lot of credibility for long, and if she does get the nomination, then how long will it be before the Republican challenger asks if she will cry about anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Then I saw Huckabee playing bass on The Tonight Show like Clinton did when he was running for president.

---

You're really weirding me out here, on several levels: didn't Clinton play saxophone?

(But the more I think about it I've heard both the sax and the bass are instruments of the devil so maybe you're onto something.)

---

Yes, Clinton is a sax man but I didn't realize I had forgotten to specify what satanic tool he was using until it was too late to edit.
 

---

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
I am sorry Hillary Clinton's campaign is unravelling, though she doesn't seem to have many fans on this thread.

She and Guiliani are the two I would feel most comfortable about from a UK viewpoint, not because of policies but because they seem the two who might be ready for the level of responsibility where your decisions affect the whole world not just the USA.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Actually Hillary was growing on me, not unlike a fungus.

I like her more than Obama, or at least I respect her experience more. I don't like any of the politicians frankly, with the possible exception of McCain. I was ready to vote for Hillary (because I'd rather chew my arm off than vote for the Republican Party at this point). Given Obama and some Republican, I may have to vote Independent just so I can say I didn't vote for either.
 

---

Posted by The Lad Himself (# 2073) on :
 
Am I horrible and cynical for assuming Hillary's tears were tactical tears?

My own fault for reading the hell thread "all crying is blackmail" too recently. I'm not actually suggesting she's planning on crying till she gets what she wants, though it'd be an interesting position. I'm just wondering if she's as cynical as I am, that's all.
 

---

Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lad Himself:
Am I horrible and cynical for assuming Hillary's tears were tactical tears?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anna B:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lad Himself:
Am I horrible and cynical for assuming Hillary's tears were tactical tears?

---

That was my assumption as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Drudge is reporting that the turnout in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire is so heavy that some areas are running out of ballots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Drudge is reporting that the turnout in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire is so heavy that some areas are running out of ballots.

Maybe we'll be back to hanging chads?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anna B:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lad Himself:
Am I horrible and cynical for assuming Hillary's tears were tactical tears?

---

That was my assumption as well.

---

I think you have to realise that people can cry for more than one reason. Some are less noble than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lad Himself:
Maybe I'm wrong to call it cynical, I have a real problem with personality politics.

---

Um, isn't debating whether Hillary Clinton was genuinely crying, pretending to cry, tempted to cry and unable to resist, or just plain pooped after a long day, well, pretty much personality politics? OliviaG
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
So what if Hilary decided to let a bit of her exhaustion show in front of a group of supporters (mostly women from the glimpses I've seen)? Is that any more calculating than Huckabee making a big deal of his Christian pastor background in Iowa, only to backpedal it once he hit the more sceptical libertarian shores of New Hampshire? Or whatever Romney's pulled? (I haven't been paying much attention to Mitt - I got to watch him from just a few miles away for the past few years and saw more than enough).

At any rate, I made my little trek down to Town Hall, chatted with the usual suspects, picked my temporary party affiliation, voted, and scurried over to the table where we undeclareds wash off the cooties. The deed is done.
 

---

Posted by The Lad Himself (# 2073) on :
 

quote:

---

Um, isn't debating whether Hillary Clinton was genuinely crying, pretending to cry, tempted to cry and unable to resist, or just plain pooped after a long day, well, pretty much personality politics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I watched the video, and it looked entirely genuine to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I watched the video, and it looked entirely genuine to me. If someone had asked me such a caring personal question when I was exhausted beyond belief, I probably would have just laid my head down on the table and sobbed. I thought she simply looked like a human being.

---

Right. After all the crap she's gotten as "calculated" or an "ice queen," here she has a moment where she gets a little verklempt -- her voice wavers for a second and her eyes seem to fill up, although no tears were actually shed -- and this becomes the lead on all the news channels. And I was appalled when John Edwards played the weakness card yesterday -- some remark about "if you're going to be Commander-in-Chief, you have to be steady." I felt that was a cheap shot, mean-spirited and chauvinistic to the core, worthy perhaps of Guiliani but not of a fellow Democrat.
 

---

Posted by The Lad Himself (# 2073) on :
 
It was a shame. It was desperate, mainly.

(Edwards' comment, I mean)

[ 08. January 2008, 22:30: Message edited by: The Lad Himself ]
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I think that Hilary's tears were both real and ok.

IME, most women can't cry on demand. I watched her face; it relaxed as she cried and talked...which I'd expect with real tears.

It makes her softer and more human...a Hilary that I might actually *like* to have as president, for more than her gender.

Given the macho posturing by so many presidents...who went on to really mess up...are a few tears--in the context of talking about how deeply she feels that the country is in deep trouble--such a bad thing?


BTW, I thought she did a great job of handling the guy with the "Iron My Shirt!" sign who turned up at a different meeting. He caused a disturbance; and she said something to the effect of "he's welcome to stay in here and I'll tell him how to iron his *own* shirt".


ETA: I think Edwards was just nasty about this. I don't like him to begin with. Not enough "there" there...and most of what is there seems nasty.

[ 09. January 2008, 01:07: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 

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."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Autenrieth Road: I think it's the second letter that makes Obama look green, because in it he doesn't seem to get why McCain is so pissed off.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
[Bah, ran out of edit time by pressing the quote button.]

Either way I take it that Obama very much does understand why McCain is pissed off, and either he's given an honest explanation, or he's giving a calculated explanation, but either way he as much as McCain knows what's what.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hmmm....Ms. Clinton seems to be winning but its an intriguing thing if you look at who did what at what polls.

It is the larger centres where Clinton has gained her lead. In many if not most of the smaller centres, Obama is winning.

The triumph of the city based party machine over the rural independent folks more taken by the hype/desire for change?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
...New Hampshire is a small state, and it doesn't have anything like what I'd call a big city. And they're all pretty independent up there -- some 40 some-odd % of them won't pick a political party.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
Hillary won New Hampshire, so did McCain.

---

the strangeness of politics. A few weeks ago, if Hillary had polled these numbers, it would have been considered a disaster as she was way ahead in NH.

As Harold Wilson (of blessed Memory had it "a week is a long time in politics"
 

---

Posted by Foolhearty (# 6196) on :
 
NH has a north-south split too, traditionally. North of the Notches, it's very conservative (but also quite sparsely populated).

The cities in the southern tier are becoming more diverse and more democratic, though only 10-15 years ago, the whole state would have been considered a Republican stronghold.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
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.

But what I heard on the local Public Radio coverage commentary while I was driving home from choral society rehearsal, was that while Hilary had taken the expected blue-collar city constituency, she was also unexpectedly taking the surrounding "college-educated women" demographic in the suburban communities surrounding those isolated spots of blue-collar liberal urbanism here in New Hampshire.

To be honest, I attribute her win here in New Hampshire to all the politically active women we have. I saw a lot of signs, but I also saw a lot of Obama and Romney and Huckabee and Ron Paul signs. But when I went to the poll today, I saw my various elected officials and all the usual unelected volunteers. And as usual, the majority of them were female.

So is it any surpise that most of the signs out front were for Hilary? We have a solid history of strong women politicians here in New Hampshire, at all levels of government.

[ 09. January 2008, 04:09: Message edited by: jlg ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Thanks, jlg -- I was hoping you'd be along to tell us what's what about NH.

What do you make of McCain's win? The NY Times puts his win down to tireless campaigning; the guy running things for him in NH estimates McCain talked to 25,000 people.

I disagree with about 90% of McCain's positions, but I have to say, I like the guy. I believe him when he says he's telling the truth. If he were president I'd yell at the TV a lot when he was on, but I wouldn't feel like hurling things at it the way I do with the current occupant of the White House.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Well I got back from doing pottery tonite, opened up MSNBC, and the Teutonic Goddess and I did a big Happy Dance at the news. Lots of whoopping at hollering at Hillary's win. The thought of Obama winning this one gives me the willies. He really doesn't seem experienced enough the more I hear and see him.

Oh and btw the Teutonic Goddess is from N.H. and the word "Independent" just doesn't quite cut it. It's like describing the Liberty Bell as "just a little ringer".

N.H. is the future home of the Free State Project and they selected N.H. for good reason.

The old saying "You can't herd cats" was first said while pointing at a New Hampshirite.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I found something really, really cool, at least for those of who really are political junkies: http://www.mapthecandidates.com/ . You can see where they all campaigned. It looks like Barack Obama ventured a little further afield from the bigger towns than Hillary Clinton, and nobody but Edwards went north.
 

---

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
This mornings UK papers (at least the early editions) are confidently predicting and Obama landslide, with stories about Clinton considering sacking her aides. Meanwhile the radio and TV news are reporting Clinton's win.

I love it when the press get it so wrong

I'm hoping to see "we was wrong" editorials tomorrow, but experience of the British press tells me that isn't going to happen.

Lots of commentary on the radio as to how Clinton came from behind, and how Obama lost it, but only the briefest mention of McCain also coming from behind to win.

Still it is the first indication I've seen that the Republicans are contesting this election. Can anyone explain the almost blanket coverage of the Democrats campaigns and marginalisation of the Republicans in the UK media?
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
Hmmm:

Hillary Clinton - 39%
Barack Obama - 36%
John Edwards - 17%
Bill Richardson - 5%

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'.

And another 'Comeback Clinton' story in New Hampshire... is there anything new under the sun.


John McCain - 37%
Mitt Romney - 32%
Mike Huckabee - 11%
Rudy Giuliani - 9%
Ron Paul - 8%

Huckabee beat Giuliani who just edged out Paul?

Those NH folks must be a different breed.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

John McCain - 37%
Mitt Romney - 32%
Mike Huckabee - 11%
Rudy Giuliani - 9%
Ron Paul - 8%

Huckabee beat Giuliani who just edged out Paul?

---

And all three of them together not equalling the second-place candidate!

Its hard to imagine Giuliani being in the race for much longer.

Actually, with that lot in the list, its easy to imagine it going to the convention and them choosing someone who isn't even standing yet.

I love elections. They are my sport. I love them the way some people love football

[ 09. January 2008, 11:04: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:
Can anyone explain the almost blanket coverage of the Democrats campaigns and marginalisation of the Republicans in the UK media?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:
This mornings UK papers (at least the early editions) are confidently predicting and Obama landslide, with stories about Clinton considering sacking her aides. Meanwhile the radio and TV news are reporting Clinton's win.

I love it when the press get it so wrong

I'm hoping to see "we was wrong" editorials tomorrow, but experience of the British press tells me that isn't going to happen.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
To me both the Democratic and Republican primaries have narrowed. For the Democrats, Hillary and Barack will slug it out.\

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
...the electibility factor in the General Election will loom large in the debates between the 2 of them.

---

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.

---

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. ]
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
It's the little piece of paper, not the quote marks, idiot!
 

---

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 

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'.

---

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 ) and coniving. I don't think she could win a general election, though she's very capable.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

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).

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
What are the main reasons why some would not consider her electable ?

---

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.

---

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
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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).
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
ISTR John Major was elected by the Parliamentary Labour Party when Margaret Thatcher resigned.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

3) She's a woman. Which may also turn out to be why she is unelectable. We'll see.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

5) She has liberal street cred. That's the sound of a BUNCH of democrats checking her ballot box.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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..."

---

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. ]

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 

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.

...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There shouldn't be any crying in politics, just like in baseball.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
If only he wasn't a stereotypical southern fundamentalist...

---

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.

---

quote:

---

And I note Richardson called it quits.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

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...

---

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......

---

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.
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :
 

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?

---

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?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Going to a sales tax will do two things: it will force the poorest to pay a significant amount more tax, which will force more "poor" people below the subsistence line (which may not matter much in warm states, but is crucial in cold ones); and, it will relieve the rich of a great deal of tax, since they will not pay sales tax on savings or investments or trust funds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Kirke:

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.

---

Yeah, now if he would only be pro-choice.

More seriously, I could vote for McCain. I really could. I love the he is a maverick. But we may have an even better maverick in Bloomberg. He's so maverick he left the party.

If it boils down to Clinton-McCain, I'm voting for Hillary, if for no other reason than to send a message to the Republican party we didn't like your boy for the last eight years. If it's Clinton-McCain-Bloomberg I am almost certinaly voting for Bloomberg just to send a message to BOTH parties we hate you.
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I do not know the details of Huckabee's tax plan or the Fairtax. However, it is my understanding that under this plan the "poor" - however that is defined - will receive a rather large check from
the government each year to ease the "burden" on them. So they will not have to pay more overall. As for the rich, they will pay more since they will not get the rebate.

---

Which makes it an ever stupider plan, unless you run one of those check-cashing businesses that charge an arm and a leg to people without bank accounts. And how would the government send checks to homeless people? And why should the poor have to loan their money interest free to the government for the year? OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
And it would still mean having to have the whole bureaucracy dedicated to going over your income statement to see whether you qualified, so there would be no reduction in government officials.

IOW, absolutley no reason to think of the idea as a "plan" at all.

Except that it would allow all the self-righteous to identify the "poor" more clearly, and then to be rude about "all them people livin' off the gummint" in a more focussed way.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I am against the Huckster's tax plan. His plan will actually fall harder on the middle class (or so I read) than on the target, the rich. I am not necessarily against a flat tax, but I would make it an income tax, not a sales tax/VAT. It also doesn't help my opinion that the tax is included FIRST. So an item that costs $100 now would cost $130 then, not $123. And there is debate as to whether 23% would get it done. It might be 40%.

As much as I despise and spit on taxation, I am leery of pie-in-the-sky revamping as I think us taxpayers would get screwed worse in the end. I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

If they created a sales tax/VAT of 23%, I am pretty sure I'd start a small scale smuggling operation out of Mexico. I would also barter services for goods A LOT.

I personally would NEVER talk a salesperson into taking cash for a high dollar item such as jewelry in order to avoid the 8.25% sales tax in California. No. That would be illegal. Not me. I would NOT do that....
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...If it's Clinton-McCain-Bloomberg I am almost certinaly voting for Bloomberg just to send a message to BOTH parties we hate you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Going back to the comments about Huckabee and the single sales tax:

Income taxes are set up so that people who are on the edge financially aren't burdened by an additional tax. There's a minimum level below which people don't pay income tax. The rates of tax are then on a sliding scale, so that the people who can afford a bit of slack (i.e. the millionaires) pay a higher rate than people in the "middle class".

Going to a sales tax will do two things: it will force the poorest to pay a significant amount more tax, which will force more "poor" people below the subsistence line (which may not matter much in warm states, but is crucial in cold ones); and, it will relieve the rich of a great deal of tax, since they will not pay sales tax on savings or investments or trust funds.

In other words, the fundy Christian is trying to get the poor to pay more tax and the rich to pay less.

I can see where MadGeo might approve of this, although I will await his opinion, but I cannot see why a practising Christian would want to make the poor poorer to the advantage of the rich.

Or did that strange guy in some forsaken Holy Land not speak about this sort of thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I'll vote for Ron Paul while I can

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I'll vote for Ron Paul while I can

---

Have you read this New Republic piece?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If it's Clinton-McCain-Bloomberg I am almost certinaly voting for Bloomberg just to send a message to BOTH parties we hate you.

---

quote:

---

A Bloomberg presidential run looked much more doubtful just a few days ago, when everyone, including Clinton herself, thought the charismatic senator from Illinois would run off with the New Hampshire primary. That Obama's tidal wave out of Iowa smacked up against the stone walls of the Granite State means the billionaire mayor's White House hunt is back on track. Yesterday news broke that Bloomberg has been quietly compiling months of polling and voter data to assess his presidential chances. And Doug Schoen, a key adviser and strategist from the mayor's two campaigns, told the Los Angeles Times last weekend, "Bloomberg is going to spend the next two months doing an assessment of his prospects."

Just whom Team Bloomberg has met with about joining the ticket is not known. But Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and former senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) have been mentioned frequently. The vetting is going on because the calendar demands such a bold move.

People around Bloomberg have said that if he were to pull the trigger on an Oval Office run, it would happen sometime around March 5.

---

ISTM Nunn would be an excellent complement to Bloomberg's appeal to northerners: from what I've seen he's well-regarded by both repubs and dems and is a 'centrist' Democrat.

Hagel's an interesting choice because he's been so antagonistic to W.

I'm with MG: this race has great entertainment potential... I keep thinking about Perot getting 19% of the vote and with someone as comparatively normal as Bloomberg this just might be the year a third party could pull it off.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
A view from over here, prior to La Clinton's win in NH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Have you read this New Republic piece?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

Have you read this New Republic piece?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
...Ross, I wonder what you consider "pro-Constitution," but I'm kind of afraid to ask.

---

quote:

---

The only thing missing from the picture of Hillary Clinton during her victory speech at the New Hampshire primaries was a bottle and a baby rattle.

If pouting and whining is the key to the White House, then maybe I should convince my year-old nephew, drool, dirty diapers and all, to join the race, and give Hillary a real pout and about showdown.

We’ll see if America can then decide who truly has the heart for change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by piers ploughman:
I am wondering (cos it's impossible to tell from all the way down here) does Kerry giving the nod to Obama actually help him or not? Apparently Kerry still has an extensive network, but is he perceived generally as a loser whose approval could work against Obama?

---

Some of us can't tell from up here but it reminds me of one of Reagan's better lines: I can't remember which somewhat dubious organization endorsed him which resulted in someone challenging his association with them.

His reply was 'I didn't endorse them; they endorsed me'.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I imagine Kerry's rolodex is the real value there. Though endorsements can also encourage people to open their wallets, and most of the campaigns are scrambling for every dollar they can get.

[ 13. January 2008, 00:27: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
This has got to be one of the dirtiest, low down political tricks I've ever seen.

Please look at this article

The article says "Obama can’t hide his Muslim past". At the end is this:

"At the very least, and however unfairly, this is dynamite material for Republicans as new national opinion polls show Obama cutting Hillary Clinton's lead to single digits."

Do you get that? Obama is running against Hillary right now, but it's dynamite material for . . . those mean ol' republicans!

Maybe someone else might recall articles in early 1979 talking about "Ted Kennedy can't hide the 1967 Oldsmobile with Mary Jo Kopechne's body in it", and how it's dynamite material for the Republicans as Kennedy campaigns against Jimmy Carter for the Democrat party nomination. I don't.

Pound sand, Hillary.

[ 13. January 2008, 04:48: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 

---

Posted by Manda (# 6028) on :
 
Isn't it rather offensive to Muslim Americans that posssible muslim connections in Obama's past are being touted as a 'smear campaign' and something he should want to hide?

Are there not enough of them that they doon't make up enough of a voting block for people to worry about?
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manda:
Isn't it rather offensive to Muslim Americans that posssible muslim connections in Obama's past are being touted as a 'smear campaign' and something he should want to hide?

---

I can with absolute assurance it's offensive to some Christian Americans. I note that article was originally posted last April and only recently dredged up: sounds like a pathetic attempt at getting a broken record to play.


And I'll make another prediction: we're going to hear 'It's the economy, stupid' again before this race is over.

quote:

---

While the Federal Reserve indicates that it will move to spur growth and President Bush and Congress consider stimulus packages, economic worry has already forced the presidential candidates to retool their messages. Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani proposed a new tax-cut package yesterday as rival Mike Huckabee prepared to take his populist message to economically distressed Michigan with a major address today. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who did best among New Hampshire voters worried about the economy, plans to unveil today what her campaign calls a "plan to jump-start America's ailing economy."

---

 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
'I can say' but I can't write...
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manda:
Isn't it rather offensive to Muslim Americans that posssible muslim connections in Obama's past are being touted as a 'smear campaign' and something he should want to hide?

Are there not enough of them that they doon't make up enough of a voting block for people to worry about?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
they can be insulted with political impunity in most plarts of the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
This has got to be one of the dirtiest, low down political tricks I've ever seen.

Please look at this article

The article says "Obama can’t hide his Muslim past".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
This has got to be one of the dirtiest, low down political tricks I've ever seen.

Please look at this article

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
... when Ron Paul tried to inject some sanity...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
... when Ron Paul tried to inject some sanity...

---

You are joking, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
... when Ron Paul tried to inject some sanity...

---

You are joking, right?

---

In comparison to the other clowns, yes. Shocking, I know. You had to hear it to believe it. OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manda:
Isn't it rather offensive to Muslim Americans that posssible muslim connections in Obama's past are being touted as a 'smear campaign' and something he should want to hide?

Are there not enough of them that they doon't make up enough of a voting block for people to worry about?

---

The people behind the smear campaign are likely trying to play on 9/11 fears...i.e., Muslim = terrorist.

If Muslims pipe up and say, "most of us aren't terrorists!", they're apt to be disbelieved--at best. And since Islam is reportedly the fastest growing faith group in the US, and there are so many (perceived) differences between Islamic and US cultures...there are many ripples of disturbance, I think, even among people who *want* to love their neighbor.

It's a mess. American elections can be pretty weird. Add in the last 2 presidential "elections" and the fallout, 2 wars and rumors of a 3rd (God help us all ), problems in the economy, de facto class war, lots of free-floating anxiety and paranoia, stir gently...and you've got something very volatile.

Anyone else want the next train out of Dodge?
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
<snipperoo>
Anyone else want the next train out of Dodge?

---

quote:

---

Clinton and her husband spent the weekend defending things they said in the hard-fought New Hampshire campaign. Sen. Clinton said her remarks about the role of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson in passing civil rights legislation were in response to Obama comparing himself to King and President John F. Kennedy and in no way meant to diminish King's historic role. Former President Clinton said his "fairy tale" comment referred to the Obama campaign's assertion that the two candidates had different records on the Iraq war in the U.S. Senate.

---

quote:

---

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

---

Yeah, well, maybe Mike has dug himself a hole. Who was it that suggested he had a chance?


But South Carolina hasn't weighed in yet...
 

---

Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
It's just the primaries. That's to motivate the base. You won't hear such stark terminology in the general election campaign.

Whatever his chances, scarily enough Huckabee has quite a good chance of getting the Republican nomination.
 

---

Posted by Mary the M (# 13167) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choirboy:
Whatever his chances, scarily enough Huckabee has quite a good chance of getting the Republican nomination.

---

Hopefully, in that case, enough people will have the good sense to vote Democrat, whoever ends up being their nominee.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
The problem is, there are many people who agree with Huckabee.


 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
The problem is, there are many people who agree with Huckabee.

---

After a few beers........
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
No, stone-cold sober. Folks who think we were originally a Christian country, under God's hand, and we got away from that...basically, they want a theocracy.
 

---

Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
Could someone please explain to a confused Aussie to whom US politics look Byzantine what happened to the Democrats in Michigan. I understand that 'due to a dispute between the Michigan Democrats and the national party' no delegates will be awarded but that Clinton won. What does it all mean
 

---

Posted by Quercus (# 12761) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
A view from over here, prior to La Clinton's win in NH

---

Clinton and Obama each received 9 delegates from NH.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Could someone please explain to a confused Aussie to whom US politics look Byzantine what happened to the Democrats in Michigan. I understand that 'due to a dispute between the Michigan Democrats and the national party' no delegates will be awarded but that Clinton won. What does it all mean

---

quote:

---

In Michigan, with most precincts counted, Romney won convincingly, with 39 percent of the vote while his nearest rival was McCain with 30 percent. Huckabee was third with 16 percent. No other Republican reached double digits.

snip

Neither Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama nor John Edwards campaigned in Michigan, where party officials defied the Democratic National Committee by holding the primary so early in the campaign season.

As a result, the election was a bit farcical, because Clinton was the only major candidate who entered the race. She faced competition principally from the 'uncommitted' line on the ballot, an option that Obama and Edwards urged their supporters to take.

With most precincts counted, Clinton had 56 percent of the vote, much more than the 39 percent for uncommitted delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
The problem is, there are many people who agree with Huckabee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swish:
Could someone help me out and explain the appeal of Romney in regards to the other candidates?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swish:
Could someone help me out and explain the appeal of Romney in regards to the other candidates? I initially thought that he was running a strong 'moral conservative' campaign and thought that Huckabee would take away much of the votes that he would have got for that - and for all his faults it seems to me that Huckabee has been a lot more consistent than Romney. What is Romney running on? All a bit confusing from the other side of the Atlantic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
(My personal take on this: another example of Romney saying whatever it takes to get votes.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
A Democrat who thinks Clinton or Obama too liberal <snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
As others have said (and that's a pretty darn good summary, ken), Romney appeals to the pro-business voter because he has actually run a successful business, and he can leverage that experience against the others who have basically made politics (or acting) their careers.

With regards to the results in Michigan, there was a key difference in how Romney and McCain addressed that state's dire employment situation (what with the American automobile industry being in terrible shape): Romney told them that he knew how to do business turnarounds and that he would fight for them (quote) to get the jobs back. McCain took the approach of supporting retraining to develop skills for new and different jobs, and apparently that didn't make any unemployed auto workers very happy. (My personal take on this: another example of Romney saying whatever it takes to get votes.)

---

quote:

---

Republican John McCain holds a 6-point lead over rival Mike Huckabee in South Carolina three days before the state's crucial presidential nominating contest, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

McCain, an Arizona senator, leads the former Arkansas governor by 29 percent to 23 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was in third place with 13 percent.

snip

In fourth place among Republicans was former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson. Texas Rep. Ron Paul trailed with 6 percent and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had 5 percent.

---

quote:

---

Contrary to potential misinterpretations that could possibly arise from a recent statement from the Romney campaign, Bob Jones University has never officially endorsed political candidates and that policy has not changed. In late October, Dr. Bob Jones III expressed support for Governor Mitt Romney for president. In endorsing Romney, Dr. Bob Jones III spoke as a private citizen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
[QUOTE
I'm surprised Jones endorsed a Mormon: it was only eight years ago the guy revoked the university's prohibition against interracial dating.

---

quote:

---

....One Nevada brothel owner has even offered customers backing Paul two women for the price of one.....

---

quote:

---

Someone asked Hillary Clinton if she'd like to be on "American Idol". She said she'd rather be on "Dancing with the Stars". Bill said he'd rather be on "The Bachelor".

---

Well, I thought it was funny.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I love Craig Ferguson.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
I guess Bill Clinton is going to show up in Nevada to endorse Ron Paul.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I tried for a couple of minutes to find the article I read a year ot two back about this, but more than half of foreign name brand vehicles sold in the US are now made here. The question they need to ask is why can others come to America and make a profit building cars, but American car companies have trouble?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I tried for a couple of minutes to find the article I read a year ot two back about this, but more than half of foreign name brand vehicles sold in the US are now made here. The question they need to ask is why can others come to America and make a profit building cars, but American car companies have trouble?

---

The foreign car companies have built brand-new state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities in non-union, low-average-wage parts of the US. The American car companies are stuck in Detroit with aging infrastructure, the United Auto Workers, and are carrying the huge expense of extremely large numbers of retired workers entitled to cushy pension and healthcare benefits left over from the Good Old Days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I guess Bill Clinton is going to show up in Nevada to endorse Ron Paul.

---

At the start of this race I didn't think Obama could overcome Clinton's substantial campaign experience but I'm beginning to think he has a real shot at the nomination.

Race, Sex and the Battle for the Democratic Nod

quote:

---

Clinton's advantages in national polling, which basically evaporated in the new poll, relied on overwhelming support among women. Now, a week and a half before the South Carolina primary, the new poll finds a gap emerging between white women and black women.

It's a divide that may prove critical: African Americans made up nearly half of the Palmetto state's Democratic primary voters in 2004; black women made up 29 percent.

A month ago both white and black women favored Clinton by wide margins, but there's been a big shift. While white women continue to favor Clinton (though by a diminished margin), black women have jumped to Obama, now preferring the Illinois senator by 24 percentage points.

Notably, the change is not a broad indictment of Clinton, but an improved outlook on Obama.

Ninety percent of black women view Clinton favorably, the same as for Obama. But some of the shine is off: 57 percent have "strongly" positive views about Clinton, down from 72 percent in early November.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
(My personal take on this: another example of Romney saying whatever it takes to get votes.)

---

You think he's unique in this regard?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I thought so. Mr. Paul really does need to get help. He's nutty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
(My personal take on this: another example of Romney saying whatever it takes to get votes.)

---

You think he's unique in this regard?

---

No, not hardly. But with Mitt it somehow seems more blatant. (A cartoon featured in Newsweek a few weeks ago showed Mitt at prayer, with the voice of God calling down, "Quit pandering, Mitt!")

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I thought so. Mr. Paul really does need to get help. He's nutty.

---

Why, because he wants to end the war and change our system of taxation to something fair? Yeah, that's pretty crazy.

Ross

---

No. Because he wants to bring the troops home without seeing the task through and because he blames America for all the ills of the world.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Ron Paul's positions:

Nonintervention. Nice thought. Crazy as a shithouse rat in a global economy and interconnected world.

Withdraw from UN Probably a crazy thought. I like it, but then I'm crazy sometimes.

Withdraw from NATO Shithouse rat crazy and stupid to boot.

Withdraw from International Criminal Court I'm in. Also crazy.

Stay out of Iraq/Iran/Darfur/Sudan Hell No (Crazy), Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Free Trade I'm all In.

Immigration and End to Automatic Citizenship to those born here. What an asshole.

End Cuba Embargo. All In.

Smaller Government All In.

Lower taxes. Only if we cut like hell and pay off the debt first.

National Sales Tax. Don't think so. More unfair than the current system.

Eliminate U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the US Department of Commerce, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service Batshit crazy on some of those, but I like the thought on others.

Gold standard or similar... Batshit fucking stupid ass hell no crazy. Tuesday 1929 anyone? Vote Paul.

Freedom to keep and bear arms and stopping other federal violations of liberty All In.

End Eminent domain and affirmative action All in.

Pro-Life Fuck You.

Capital Punishment to the state level Okay.

Against Same Sex marriage and Unwed adoption. Fuck you and what an asshole.

Medical Marijuana and legalize drugs ALL IN.

I love some of his ideas. Hate his guts on others. He's batshit crazy though.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Int'l Criminal Court:

Um, as I understand it, the US isn't a member. Folks were afraid someone might actually charge us with something.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Ah, Nevada, The most unionised state in the Union,

Y'all have seen this, right? (Or even left)
Political Compass opinion on primary contenders
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Mad Geo, I don't like all of his positions, but where is there a candidate who's going to be 100% right?

We're going to end up with candidates devoid of principle in any case, people who will fall all over each other to sell out our posterity in their stampede to pander to every possible special interest group -- but I might as well vote this time for the guy who gets the most things right. Things like abortion aren't going to be decided by the president in any case.

Ross
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The president appoints Supreme Court justices, so he/she can have a lot of effect on which way we go on the abortion issue. And voting for someone who has a few positions you don't agree with is one thing -- voting for someone who is indeed batshit crazy is quite another.

[ 17. January 2008, 15:43: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[QB] Mad Geo, I don't like all of his positions, but where is there a candidate who's going to be 100% right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
He's batshit crazy though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Y'all have seen this, right? (Or even left)
Political Compass opinion on primary contenders

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[eta: Mere Nick, would you prefer to be written in on the Republican or Democratic ballot?]

Ross [/QB]

---

Neither. The democrats piss me off and the republicans rarely pass up opportunities to disappoint. Therefore, it is only right and reasonable for me to be declared Emperor For Life. After I shuffle this mortal coil, folks can then decide if they want another emperor or just some president. The lady at the convenience store didn't object when I told her about it, so, support for the idea is certainly growing.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Oh, Mad Geo, you closet Republican, you!

Going back on the gold standard would be a good curb on inflation.

Opposing same-sex marriage and adoptions is just stupid.

Ross
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
What actually is a 'primary', and what actually is a 'caucas' ?

(Brit stupidity here, so were anyone kind enough to explain it with UK political similies here it would be a great help.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Ken, you probably know more about the US political system than many of those who will vote in our elections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Oh, Mad Geo, you closet Republican, you!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Smaller government and fiscal responsiblity being two HUGE deals for me. But it was Clinton (Bill) that did those things lately, not the Repuglicans.

---

quote:

---

Bear in mind that polls are just snapshots and that it's actual votes that really count. But, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee "are neck and neck heading into Saturday's Republican primary in South Carolina, where the outcome could hinge on a bloc of undecided evangelical voters, according to a new McClatchy-MSNBC poll." The survey, by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, found Republican voters dividing along these lines: McCain, 27%; Huckabee, 25%; Mitt Romney, 15%; Fred Thompson, 13%; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 6%; former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, 5%; Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, 1%; undecided, 8%. Each result has a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points.

---

If I've followed the polls accurately the squirrel eater is gaining ground in SC.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Although I haven't said it much during this election, the last election I was SCREAMING for gridlock. Gridlock is our best friend. The only thing worse than two party government is ONE party government

Mad Geo said, "I was listening to a political podcast this morning and they said that Obama has THE most liberal voting record in the Senate, even more liberal than Ted Kennedy."

A Conservative Friend replied "I wonder if Obama has killed anyone...."

Mad Geo replied "He hasn't got enough experience to do that yet...."

[ 18. January 2008, 15:36: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Thanks explanatory folks.

Presumably you can stand as an independent - if you do, can you get the cash the state didn't spend on your primary as a campaign fund ?
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Thanks explanatory folks.

Presumably you can stand as an independent - if you do, can you get the cash the state didn't spend on your primary as a campaign fund ? Or rather can the eqivalent spend be divided between all independent candidates in that state - if you can presnt a list of more than x proposers ?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Presumably you can stand as an independent - if you do, can you get the cash the state didn't spend on your primary as a campaign fund ? Or rather can the eqivalent spend be divided between all independent candidates in that state - if you can presnt a list of more than x proposers ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...Libertarian isn't such a good fit anymore. The more I look at it, the less I see it working in the real world. I really have moved toward Independent as of late....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wish California would go back to open primaries. You can vote for any candidate from any party, not just your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wish California would go back to open primaries. You can vote for any candidate from any party, not just your own.

---

Isn't that what the general election is for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
I have heard on our big NPR megastation that the parties have opened up their primaries to Decline to States here

---

Just the Democrats and one "minor" party (I think American Independent). The Republicans, Greens, et al. do not allow it in their primaries here. Too bad for them, but I will probably infilitrate the Dems anyway.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
The Clintons are said to have won the Nevada caucus, even though Obama received one more delegate than Hillary. In fact, through the first three states of the Democrat Party primaries, Barack Obama has either received more or the same delegates as Hillary, yet it is reported she won two of them.

It seems Huckabee is about done. Since Iowa, he has picked up 8 delegates while Romney and McCain have picked up 52 and 32, respectively.
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems Huckabee is about done. Since Iowa, he has picked up 8 delegates while Romney and McCain have picked up 52 and 32, respectively.

---

There was some entertainment value.


Does Paul beating McCain in Nevada (which is adjacent to McCain's home state Arizona) indicate Romney will be the nominee?

(Or was it just the hooker offer that put Paul on top, so to speak? )

And I wonder how long Edwards will stick it out.

quote:

---

NEVADA CAUCUSES, Saturday

DEMOCRATS

Clinton, 51 percent; Obama, 45 percent; Edwards, 4 percent, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.

REPUBLICANS

Romney, 51 percent; Paul, 14 percent; McCain, 13 percent; Huckabee, 8 percent; Fred Thompson, 8 percent; Giuliani, 4 percent.

___

SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY, Saturday (Republicans only)

McCain, 33 percent; Huckabee, 30 percent; Thompson, 16 percent; Romney, 15 percent, with 93 percent of precincts reporting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
How many Superdelegates (or party hacks) does Hillary have compared to Barack?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
I'd like to hear people's thoughts regarding the opportunity in this election to break the racial and gender barriers that have elected white men to the presidency since this country's founding. Does the fact Clinton and Obama represent the first viable candidates with a strong possibility of ending the white male monopoly on the White House outweigh their other qualities?

Personally, I'm gender and race neutral on the question of who should be elected, but I have a nagging suspicion that this election may be the last opportunity for decades to change the presidential stereotype.

---

quote:

---

At this point, with all other considerations set aside (such as Obama's lack of experience and Clinton's "dynasty" question)

---

Ok, this is a bit of a sideline, but whatever. The whole "dynasty" schtick bothers me as a misuse of the word: two extraordinarily talented and extraordinarily ambitious individuals meeting and marrying each other is different from "my grandfather was a Senator and my father was President". The Bushes are a dynasty, the Clintons aren't (Bill, in particular, came from dirt poor nothing). If Miss Chelsea were interested in political life, we might talk, but all indicators are that she really isn't.

With that being said, I might have missed my chance to re-register, so I might be voting in the other party's primary where it's White Guys All The Way .

(in other news, NPR seems to have finally issued a memo on how to properly pronounce "Nevada" ... just in time for them to stop talking about it.)

Charlotte
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
... The Bushes are a dynasty, the Clintons aren't...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
... The Bushes are a dynasty, the Clintons aren't...

---

OK, I'll accept that but what about the gender factor? Is it historically important enough to influence your vote or should we act on our principles and ignore gender? (and race?)

---

I'm going to give you my personal answer:

All other things being equal between two candidates, I would tip my vote towards a less-represented group. But all other things really rarely are equal.

I'm not a yella-dawg Democrat any more, but you can see it from where I am. I'm certainly not above "voting against" someone else, especially in the general. The primary is where I tend to get my druthers out of my system.

Like Ruth*, I may have voted for the white guy, 'cause he inspires me (ok, there is a woman involved in this, because I think his wife rocks with one steady roll). I was a Richardson fan, but not because he's a Latino. The fact that he is a Westerner and has substantial relevant experience carries more freight with me.

California's been majority minority since the 2000 census, but I was living in Oakland in 1990, which was ahead of the state curve . We've had two female senators since 1992. So it's a big "whatever" for me.

* Ruth may still do it, but I seem to have missed a deadline, as I said. So I'm on the Straight Talk express, baybee. I voted for him in 2000 but it didn't count .

Charlotte
 

---

Posted by wombat (# 5180) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
I'd like to hear people's thoughts regarding the opportunity in this election to break the racial and gender barriers that have elected white men to the presidency since this country's founding. Does the fact Clinton and Obama represent the first viable candidates with a strong possibility of ending the white male monopoly on the White House outweigh their other qualities?

Personally, I'm gender and race neutral on the question of who should be elected, but I have a nagging suspicion that this election may be the last opportunity for decades to change the presidential stereotype.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Going back on the gold standard would be a good curb on inflation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
... I was a Richardson fan, but not because he's a Latino. The fact that he is a Westerner and has substantial relevant experience carries more freight with me...

---

quote:

---

So I'm on the Straight Talk express, baybee. I voted for him in 2000 but it didn't count.

---

quote:

---

..Obama, however, could change America's understanding of itself and indeed radically rehabilitate the world's image of America.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:

quote:

---

..Obama, however, could change America's understanding of itself and indeed radically rehabilitate the world's image of America.

---

This is becoming an increasingly important factor for me. Lord knows we need a radically different approach on the world stage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wombat:
The gold standard did nothing at all to save us from the last big nasty attack of inflation, the stagflation of the seventies. But historically speaking, the gold standard has deflationary effects which favor creditors over debtors. Given that Americans are massively in debt, going on the gold standard would bend most Americans over a barrel.

---

And you can always print more paper money.

Somehow that does not fill me with confidence.

Ross
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I plan to vote for Hillary in the primary. In the fall, I'll vote for whoever the Democrats run...but I really want to send a message that it's time for a woman president.

I don't think Obama has enough experience, and he seems to have been given a messiah's mantle by the crowds. That's a really heavy mantle to wear. He also seems to be much more inspirational than practical.

[ 21. January 2008, 05:52: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
The Americans on the Ship tend to be Democrats with a smidgen of Libertarians! So, from the Conservative side of things, I'm just not sure what to do. I was a Thompson supporter, although lukewarm. He's gone nowhere. It looks like Romney, McCain or maybe Giuliani can comeback. I could vote for Romney or even Giuliani, but McCain will be hard. Still anyone but Hillary or Obama. Maybe we'll have a hung convention and convince Cheney to run. That would be fun!
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
Does the fact Clinton and Obama represent the first viable candidates with a strong possibility of ending the white male monopoly on the White House outweigh their other qualities?

---

Impossible question but I'll try.

ISTM this situation is 'affirmative action' being applied to the presidential election. IMO the analogy applies much more to Obama: would someone with his experience have gotten a fraction of the traction he has, if he was 'white'?

Clinton has much more experience having been associated with a POTUS for all those years and IMO her candidacy is stronger for it.

I can see why some people would vote for them because of their race or sex feeling a desire to rectify past injustices, or to send a message to the world. In the overall scheme of things, I believe those can be legitimate reasons but in a better world they wouldn't be given inordinate weight.
 

---

Posted by bush baptist (# 12306) on :
 
New Yorker, I'm total outsider, when it comes to American politics, though I get the general outlines of the difference between Democrat and Republican. But why would you say:

quote:

---

I could vote for Romney or even Giuliani, but McCain will be hard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bush baptist:
New Yorker, I'm total outsider, when it comes to American politics, though I get the general outlines of the difference between Democrat and Republican. But why would you say:

quote:

---

I could vote for Romney or even Giuliani, but McCain will be hard.

---

Why would McCain be hard for a Republican?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
ISTM this situation is 'affirmative action' being applied to the presidential election. IMO the analogy applies much more to Obama: would someone with his experience have gotten a fraction of the traction he has, if he was 'white'?

Clinton has much more experience having been associated with a POTUS for all those years and IMO her candidacy is stronger for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bush baptist:
New Yorker, I'm total outsider, when it comes to American politics, though I get the general outlines of the difference between Democrat and Republican. But why would you say:

quote:

---

I could vote for Romney or even Giuliani, but McCain will be hard.

---

Why would McCain be hard for a Republican?

---

First, the question should not be why would McCain be hard for a Republican, but why would he be hard for a Conservative. The factions within both parties are mini parties in their own right. I often think that US politics would be better served if we dissolved Republican and Democrat and formed Conservative and Liberal or whatever they would be called.

To answer your question, McCain betrayed me on two key issues: immigration and campaign finance reform. I cannot support amnesty for illegals - who are criminals simply by being here - when untold numbers of immigrants have complied with our laws and followed the rules to come to this country. Campaign finance reform is nothing more than the first step in restricting or ending free speech. Finally, I think McCain is just arrogant. That said, if he is the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. Anyone but Hillary or Obama.

---

Well, there, there New Yorker -- McCain's seeming quite dottery these days anyway. Just a little too old to be prez, even though I think he's the best you guys have got. Not to worry though, we're going to beat your pants off at the general election anyway.
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
As to Hillary having a lot more experience because she was married to a POTUS, ISTM that your notion of "experience' is quite a broad one. Perhaps we should nominate Monica...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
He also seems to be much more inspirational than practical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Huckabee's dying on his feet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
He also seems to be much more inspirational than practical.

---

Isn't being inspirational a good thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Maybe we'll have a hung convention and convince Cheney to run. That would be fun!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wombat:
If I had lived in Britain in the late seventies to the eighties, I would rather have slashed my own throat with a razor than voted for Margaret Thatcher because of what she stood for, revolutionary as it was for a woman to be in a position to become Prime Minister.

---

Possibly more so in the UK than it would be in the US, at least in the eyes of many Brits. America generally is seen as a country where women can Go Places if they choose. Women in the UK haven't really felt that for very long and even now, in certain professions or areas of life, they feel limited or inhibited by structures that go back forever (or so it seems).

Margaret Thatcher wasn't taken at all seriously by the media and many pundits here when she was first running for Prime Minister. Not only was she a woman, but a grocer's daughter (outside of socialism, being working class wasn't seen as a particular benefit) and she was a very strong woman. Just like Hilary Clinton of course (though Hilary Clinton, it has to be said, is a whole lot better on the style front than ole Mags!). The UK had been so thoroughly male dominated and hierarchical for so long that it really came as a shock to many people's systems that we could - and would - actually elect a woman, no less, to run our country. And it cannot be denied, she changed it.

Unless you lived here before Thatcher was elected I think it must be difficult to understand why she sailed on in. But we were in a mess in so many ways (although I just know ken will disagree with me!). When a country is in a mess, or enough people believe it is in a mess, watch out for very strong characters! Especially very strong women!
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Clinton would have fun campaigning against McCain. We'd hear a lot more about the (in)famous joke.

An old man who shoots his mouth off and is cruel to young women? That'll be a gift to the PR people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
so did Reagan and he was the best president in the last 40 years.

---

One word - Reaganomics.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Reagan would have made a nice ceremonial president in a parliamentary system.
 

---

Posted by bush baptist (# 12306) on :
 
Thanks, New Yorker, for your quick answer (I'm slow to say it, but I've been asleep!).
Now I follow that bit, at least, of the debate.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mary the M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
so did Reagan and he was the best president in the last 40 years.

---

One word - Reaganomics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mary the M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
so did Reagan and he was the best president in the last 40 years.

---

One word - Reaganomics.

---

Two words: Soviet Union.

Another two words: Berlin Wall.

More seriously, Look at this. Reagonomics looks like a recovery plan from all four presidents before him!

He doesn't look as good as Clinton does, but then Clinton was benefitting from the Cold War being removed under Reagan's watch....I believe they called it "The Peace Dividend" at the time....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Reagan would have made a nice ceremonial president in a parliamentary system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
it has to be the silliest myth in history that Reagan somehow "won" the Cold War.

The Pope and Gorbachev and the internal contradictions of the Soviet Union (pace Marx) played overwhelmingly the greatest role in ending the Soviet system.

---

And like many myths, there's enough truth in it to be relevant in some cases. Reagan wasn't the only role, granted. But he was a major one. Gorbachev et al were responding to many things that Reagan did (and did not do). Including huge amounts of money on military spending that they couldn't begin to keep up with.

Also, it has to be one of the silliest revisionist tendencies in history to think that he and his actions didn't matter.

Anyway, we digress. I knew I'd cause a stir with that.

[ 22. January 2008, 01:51: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
On the factors of race and gender: a friend made what I thought was an interesting observation the other day -- he said that in the year when we have our first viable female candidate and our first viable black candidate, he feels the white guy has to be pretty special to deserve his vote, and Edwards is just not that special.

However, if I were going just on what they say, their positions, I'd go for Edwards. And if his campaign survives South Carolina, I may vote for him simply because he seems like he's most likely to do something for poor people.
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Maybe we'll have a hung convention and convince Cheney to run. That would be fun!

---

That would make baby Jesus cry.

---