PDA

View Full Version : Iowa Caucuses and Primary News


Jae Onasi
01-03-2008, 09:10 PM
So far, for the Republicans, Huckabee is winning by quite a bit over Romney (with only 25% reporting in so far), with Thompson and McCain in distant third and fourth.

With 50% of districts reporting in right now for the Democrats, Obama is ahead by a hair at 34%. Clinton and Edwards are just behind with 32% each and Richardson's coming in at 2%, Biden at 1%.

Any thoughts on how this might affect the US Presidential election? If Huckabee wins in IA, can he survive in other states, or will Romney? Who seems to be the most viable candidate for the Dems?

jonathan7
01-03-2008, 09:15 PM
For the future of mankind I hope McCain gets in; hes the only candidate with honour; and the first decent presidential nominee America has had since Clinton.

In many respects I wish I could vote in these elections as they are so important to the world given America is the only superpower around at the moment.

SilentScope001
01-03-2008, 09:57 PM
All hail the Iowan Corn Farmers! Leaders of the Free World! Defenders of Truth and Honor!

*bows to their mightiness*

Achilles
01-03-2008, 10:00 PM
Fox has called it for Obama and Huckabee.

SilentScope001
01-03-2008, 10:13 PM
So has Retuers (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSWAT00862320080104). So, looks to me Huckabee won Iowa.

CrisG
01-03-2008, 10:29 PM
A remarkable example of government BY the people in action, i very much enjoyed seeing it all in action.

I wish the new agencies would NOT EVER try to predict or CALL anything, that is none of their business, and all of ours, they are reporters and have no business bending public opinion with their opinions in my humble opinion. I hope that this trend ends and that they return to dong their real jobs.

a fascinating night.

I do think that things are still very open as to who might in the end win, this is very early days and much can happen as the other states have their primaries, Iowa historically is an interesting preable but does not determine the outcome. Huckabee in my humble opinion also, is an anomaly raised up by one small segment of religious support but not overall as hopefull a leader as others, but who knows this early? I can only say it is very interesting and I am so glad we have so many candidates wiling to try.

John Galt
01-03-2008, 11:11 PM
This race is far from over. Any candidate cound conceivably still win on the Republican side, and any of the three frontrunners could probably pull the Democratic nomination. In a race with this many candidates with so much to lose, winning really puts a bullseye on the one in the lead. All it would take to shake this thing up is a little dirt in the right hands. Politics is a dirty business. Stuff like that has happened before, and will happen again.

On the Republican side, the religious right have had a field day, electing one of their own for the first time, with Romney not all that far behind. Of course, Iowa is one of the most religious parts of the country, so how this religious support plays out through the rest of the election is going to be interesting. I expect that Romney will redouble his efforts, and New Hampshire is a whole different ball game, in terms of the voters there. I'd say that Huckabee won't fare nearly as well in New Hampshire, but John McCain and Ron Paul will do rather well in the Live Free or Die state.

On the Democratic side, I suspect Obama will continue to do well, probably continuing to edge out Clinton. Although I could see race as well as sex being an issue in the South, so Edwards still has a shot down there simply due to common predjudices. From what I've experienced of southern politics, you can't count on a supporter to come out and vote for you, but you can be damn sure everyone who's going to be voting _against_ you will turn out.

Both parties still show the potential for a brokered convention, and Bloomberg is likely to be a spoiler of a third-party candidate.

Bimmerman
01-03-2008, 11:48 PM
I sincerely believe electing another christian crusader for preacher-in-chief will do nothing but harm to our country internationally. I truly hope that Huckabee will not win in the other states, and that the christian vote does not doom the country to another four to eight years of forced piousness and cause what little international respect the country has to vainsh.

I hope Republican and independent voters in New Hampshire and other early voting states realize that Ron Paul and John McCain are the only Republican candidates who are not either warmongers or religious lunatics, and are the only ones with a chance of changing international perception of the laughingstock our country has become, Ron Paul more so than McCain.

Seriously, the fact that Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in a large part due to the "born again" christians disgusts me. The leader of our country is not supposed to be voted for because of his religion or his religious beliefs, but because of what he promises to do for the country and the people. What is even scarier is that since the evangelicals have sufficient numbers to swing an election politicians pander to these idiots to get elected, in the words of Reagan's speechwriter Peggy Noonan.

As for the Democratic results from the caucus, I couldn't be happier with the results. Of the three major candidates, not only is Obama the only one who has a shot at changing the way things are done in Washington, but he is also the winner of the caucus. Good times indeed.

I truly hope voters in the other states wake up and realize that we as a country can move forward beyond the past eight years of international ridicule, federal incompetence, unethical conduct on both sides of the aisle, extremely polarized partisan rule, "we don't torture except when we do", and last but not least the extremely unpopular war(I'm not going any further in depth on that one) if only we vote for those espousing change and not those representative of the past.

/rant

Jae Onasi
01-04-2008, 01:16 AM
Apparently the voters liked the message Huckabee had to say on political issues, which is what he campaigned on. Give those of us who are religious a little more credit than voting for a guy just because he's 'born again'. If that were the case, Robertson would have been pres a long time ago. I and many other conservative Christians look at a lot of different issues when choosing someone for such an important office (stance on social issues, health care, the war(s), foreign policy, etc.). I would have preferred McCain, but I knew he pretty much didn't have a chance there, if at all in the Rep race.

I'm delighted Obama won, and I was a bit surprised that Clinton came in third. I predicted she'd edge out Obama and Edwards would be a distant and forgotten 3rd, and now it's Obama/Edwards/Clinton. She's going to have a lot of work cut out for her in NH and the other early-voting states, but if Obama wins NH and then a lot of the early-voting states, I think he'll get a ton of monetary support that would go to Clinton otherwise and he'll end up taking the Dem nomination.

MdKnightR
01-04-2008, 01:18 AM
For the future of mankind I hope McCain gets in; hes the only candidate with honour; and the first decent presidential nominee America has had since Clinton.

In many respects I wish I could vote in these elections as they are so important to the world given America is the only superpower around at the moment.


Nah. I'd replace "McCain" with "Ron Paul" and "Clinton" with "Theodore Roosevelt" in your statement if I'd have authored it first. (of course, Teddy wasn't nominated, he inherited it).

Speaking of Ron Paul, I found this really interesting shirt on CafePress.com. I may get it...

Feeling Hosed By Your Government? (http://www.cafepress.com/buy/ron+paul/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_22253556/opt_/fpt_/c_666/) :D

Achilles
01-04-2008, 02:54 AM
Apparently the voters liked the message Huckabee had to say on political issues, which is what he campaigned on. Give those of us who are religious a little more credit than voting for a guy just because he's 'born again'.Some of us can't help but notice that those conservative candidates who have a stand on issues that is consistent with having been 'born again' tend to fair better than those that don't. I think you are most certainly correct that a causal relationships is mere illusory, but perhaps that illusion is sufficient for the purposes of generalization.

If that were the case, Robertson would have been pres a long time ago. I wasn't aware that he's ever run for public office, let alone President. :)

ADDED BY EDIT: Interestingly, after writing this, I heard someone on the radio mention Pat Robertson's 1988 Presidential bid. Yay me for being wrong! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson#1988_presidential_bid):D

I and many other conservative Christians look at a lot of different issues when choosing someone for such an important office (stance on social issues, health care, the war(s), foreign policy, etc.). I get stuck on this when I consider that Bush was reelected to a 2nd term. The 1st term I'll give you, since he ran on a platform of "compassionate conservatism", but when he ran again for 04, we all knew what he was about.

I'm delighted Obama won, and I was a bit surprised that Clinton came in third. I predicted she'd edge out Obama and Edwards would be a distant and forgotten 3rd, and now it's Obama/Edwards/Clinton. She's going to have a lot of work cut out for her in NH and the other early-voting states, but if Obama wins NH and then a lot of the early-voting states, I think he'll get a ton of monetary support that would go to Clinton otherwise and he'll end up taking the Dem nomination. Here's to hoping, indeed. It'd be nice to see my campaign contributions pay off for once :)

SilentScope001
01-04-2008, 10:05 AM
Both parties still show the potential for a brokered convention, and Bloomberg is likely to be a spoiler of a third-party candidate.

Spoiler? He might...might have a chance of winning. Assuming the stars are in alignment.

I'm delighted Obama won, and I was a bit surprised that Clinton came in third. I predicted she'd edge out Obama and Edwards would be a distant and forgotten 3rd, and now it's Obama/Edwards/Clinton. She's going to have a lot of work cut out for her in NH and the other early-voting states, but if Obama wins NH and then a lot of the early-voting states, I think he'll get a ton of monetary support that would go to Clinton otherwise and he'll end up taking the Dem nomination.

...Or the Edwards momentum would cause him to win NH and thereby takes over the Dem nomination...:)

You can just never tell these days.

John Galt
01-04-2008, 11:12 AM
Actually Iowa DID nominate Pat Robertson once. I think Iowa's becoming disconnected from mainstream America.

Aeroldoth
01-05-2008, 04:48 AM
All hail the Iowan Corn Farmers! Leaders of the Free World! Defenders of Truth and Honor!
"They say the flapping of a corn stalk's leaves can cause a storm in Iraq. That's why I'm proud to be an Iowan, my boy!"

Jae Onasi
01-05-2008, 07:31 AM
Actually Iowa DID nominate Pat Robertson once. I think Iowa's becoming disconnected from mainstream America.

In 1988 Bob Dole won the IA Caucus, and Pat Robertson came in second. Iowa couldn't nominate him at the Republican national convention because he had withdrawn from the race by then.

JediAthos
01-05-2008, 10:59 AM
I'm actually a pretty big Ron Paul fan myself. I really like a lot of what he has to say. I don't agree with everything mind you, but I agree with most of it. I also realize that he's not likely to gain enough support to carry any states which is really sad. I was also surprised that Guiliani didn't make a stronger showing.

On the democrat side....well...I don't particularly care for Hillary. She rubs me the wrong way on a lot of issues. I would much rather see Obama there, but a lot of this for me is simply who scares me less :( which is also sad.

mimartin
01-05-2008, 11:44 AM
I'm actually a pretty big Ron Paul fan myself. I really like a lot of what he has to say. Oh, yea Ron Paul is a very intelligent man. Abe Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War; we should return to the gold standard, companies should dredge navigable waterways. The alternative would be two countries, South Africa and Russia would control our economy and you would have to pay a toll to take a simple boat ride. He is my congressman and I am so proud to have his brilliance on display for the rest of the country to see. He is not against the war he is against anything and everything! He is not against pork barrel spending he is against all spending. If you want to delivery a baby, call Dr. Paul. If you want to run the country contact anyone else. I rather have eight more year of Bush than four years of Ron Paul.

What I found interesting about the Iowa Caucuses was the turnout. It was higher than four years ago on the Democrat side. I also found how everyone is spinning the results to mean what they want it to mean funny. The Caucuses themselves mean very little, but the influence they will have over political contributions will make a difference. I hope that it will also thin the field on both sides and force the candidates to answer real questions that will have a real barring on the direction this country is headed. Instead of the same old song and dance along party lines.

Corinthian
01-05-2008, 11:55 AM
This whole race has been like a waking nightmare for me. I look at the Democrats and shiver. Hilary is crazy, Obama scares me - you ought to read the mission statement for his church. It's down now, but here's the URL. www.tucc.org/about.htm (Trinity Church of Christ, Chicago)

And then on the Republican Side, we've got a delicious collection of no-chancers, loons, no-gos, and milquetoasts like Paul and McCain, who might as well be Democrats. Good times. Fortunately, everything seems to get better if I jam my fingers into my ears and hum quite loudly.

JediAthos
01-05-2008, 02:43 PM
"We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending."

mimartin...that is a direct quote from Dr. Paul's website on his stance on debt and spending...

The comment he made about the Civil War was that he felt that slavery could have been gotten rid of in another way such as other large countries did at the time, and it was in direct response to a question asked by Bill Mahr.

I wasn't able to find anything on the dredging that you mentioned, but you might also read my post again and see that I stated I didn't agree with everything he said.

Web Rider
01-05-2008, 07:43 PM
This whole race has been like a waking nightmare for me. I look at the Democrats and shiver. Hilary is crazy, Obama scares me - you ought to read the mission statement for his church. It's down now, but here's the URL. www.tucc.org/about.htm (Trinity Church of Christ, Chicago)
.

Which I just read and it's really no different than any other church's mission. To create converts, to bring people to Christ, and disregard status and affiliation because they're all people of God. No statements of governmental drives, no statements of wanting to take over the world, no statements against anyone, no statements of conquest or great wealth.

Seems like a pretty benign church in comparason to many, IMO.

Besides, anyone who circulates this forum should know that a individual who is part of a certain organization, does not always hold, support, or agree with all their goals.

Achilles
01-05-2008, 08:16 PM
^^^^

Funny, that's what I was thinking too. Besides his mother was an anthropologist and taught him about a wide variety of beliefs. I don't think he's going to turn the oval office into a bully pulpit.

mimartin
01-05-2008, 08:59 PM
"We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending."

mimartin...that is a direct quote from Dr. Paul's website on his stance on debt and spending...Do you believe all campaign promises? I once believed in the term compassionate conservative too. That did not workout that well for me, or our country.

"The comment he made about the Civil War was that he felt that slavery could have been gotten rid of in another way such as other large countries did at the time, and it was in direct response to a question asked by Bill Mahr. Oh, great idea let us take our time and get rid of that nasty little business someday down the road. I’m sure the slaves wouldn’t have minded waiting another 20-30 years. The Civil War was also about a lot more than just slavery. I did not see it on Bill Mahr, I did see him repeat this nonsense on “Meet the Press.” Also in case some of us did not remember our history what he is accusing a President that died in service of his country of is unfounded. Not only did Lincoln offer to buy the slaves in order to free them, he did it twice and it was rejected twice.

I wasn't able to find anything on the dredging that you mentioned, but you might also read my post again and see that I stated I didn't agree with everything he said. It happened in the 80s. Dow Chemical wanted to allow the Port of Freeport the ability to take larger ships. Therefore, the community went to Congressman Paul to get the support to expand the port. He told them to do it themselves (being unknowledgeable at the time I agreed with him). However, this was an illegal suggestion. This type of work on navigatable waterways can only be done with the Army Corps of Engineers supervision. Something I did not know, something a congressman should have found out before saying no. He voted against the project even after knowing the facts, yet congress did support it. I guess he supports moving jobs offshore too.

Washington Post - Ron Paul's voting record (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/)

Smells like a double standard to me.
Republican + Religion = :halo2:
Democrat + Religion = :dev14:

Corinthian
01-05-2008, 09:30 PM
Which I just read and it's really no different than any other church's mission. To create converts, to bring people to Christ, and disregard status and affiliation because they're all people of God. No statements of governmental drives, no statements of wanting to take over the world, no statements against anyone, no statements of conquest or great wealth.

Seems like a pretty benign church in comparason to many, IMO.

Besides, anyone who circulates this forum should know that a individual who is part of a certain organization, does not always hold, support, or agree with all their goals.
Then there's that whole thing that reads like very poorly disguised Black Supremacy. THAT'S what gives me the creeps. They've more devoted to Africa than America, which smells like divided loyalties to me. A President who doesn't have America's interests held above all others should not be President of the United States.

Achilles
01-05-2008, 11:37 PM
That didn't stop either Bush from being elected.

Corinthian
01-06-2008, 12:00 AM
Charming, but no matter what you think of Bush, you can't really say he cared about any other country more than he cared about the U.S.. Depending on your perspective, that can be either a comment on his patriotism or not.

Achilles
01-06-2008, 01:14 AM
I'll let the pictures of Dubya holding hands with King Abdullah speak for themselves. :D

Web Rider
01-06-2008, 01:23 AM
Then there's that whole thing that reads like very poorly disguised Black Supremacy. THAT'S what gives me the creeps. They've more devoted to Africa than America, which smells like divided loyalties to me. A President who doesn't have America's interests held above all others should not be President of the United States.

I did not see those lines, while I admit that there was a strong sense of "we're Black, we're from Africa(or close to it), and we're proud." I did not get a sense of Black Supremacy.

If you would like to point out the specific lines that gave you such a feeling, please do. You'll get my personal opinional take on them, but from what I did read, I did not read divided loyalties or Black Supremacy.

Achilles
01-06-2008, 12:48 PM
@topic: I read something yesterday which stated that about 360,000 people showed up to caucus. Suspecting that Iowa's population was larger than 400,000 I began to wonder what percentage of citizens actually caucused. According to wikipedia, Iowa's population is just over 2.9 million. So 360k / 2.9mil = 12%

So keeping in mind that the winner of the Iowa caucus typically goes on to win the party nomination, and the caucus turnout was record setting, how does it feel to know that the political process was pretty much decided by a record-breaking 12% of Iowa's population? Hooray civic duty!

SilentScope001
01-06-2008, 03:16 PM
Hooray civic duty!

And for the American Presidental election in 2004, we also had a record-breaking turnout of 60% of registered voters...or about 33% of all of America!!! Which may be a good thing, the higher and more terrible the paratianiship is, the higher the turnout. If we want to deal with the problems in society, we need to have the parties be similar rather than to be so totally different that we have gridlock.

The problem with trying to figure out 'real voters' however is that it doesn't include childern who aren't allowed to either vote, as well as illegal aliens. So, basically, it's all just ballpark estimates just made to insult the intelligence of non-voters. Sorry non-voters.

Anyone going to vote on Super Tuesday? I hope I will.

Jae Onasi
01-06-2008, 07:37 PM
So keeping in mind that the winner of the Iowa caucus typically goes on to win the party nomination, and the caucus turnout was record setting, how does it feel to know that the political process was pretty much decided by a record-breaking 12% of Iowa's population? Hooray civic duty!

What's the percentage of those eligible to vote, though?

Ravnas
01-06-2008, 08:14 PM
Hmm, Let me think, I'm Apathetic towards Romney, Thompsont and the other Republican Candidates And Half the Democratic Candidates cept for Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, Huckabee has a horrible policy, and Giuliani frankly is our September 11th Man(Not A Good Thing)Clinton frankly is unappealing to me. McCain And Paul Seem To know what they're talking about but can't escape their roots. Edwards and Obama are my top two choices though.

Achilles
01-06-2008, 09:37 PM
What's the percentage of those eligible to vote, though?It didn't say (or else I didn't see it if it did). Assuming that the whole "2.2 children per household" thing still applies, we can guess that 1.45 million is probably close (roughly half). Likewise the percentage doubles (because the sample halved), so 24% instead of 12%. Still disheartening. :(

Tommycat
01-06-2008, 09:47 PM
Keep in mind that in many states in order to vote in the primary you have to be registered with a party. I believe that Iowa is one of these states. Also criminals are counted as citizens, but not eligible to vote, but yeah even if we were to take the best possible numbers, it comes down to (significantly)below 50% turnout for the caucases.

I believe the biggest problem with the lackluster voter turn out is the failing of both parties to appeal to the majority of people in the country. Neither party is all that appealing to me. Third parties are a joke currently. Pretty much a throw away vote. Sadly it comes down to voting for who you dislike the least.

MdKnightR
01-07-2008, 12:04 AM
Oh, great idea let us take our time and get rid of that nasty little business someday down the road. I’m sure the slaves wouldn’t have minded waiting another 20-30 years.

Well, Dr. Paul isn't the only one who suspects that slavery would have eventually collapsed as an institution. But, you're right, causing the deaths of 618,000 Americans in 4 years time was better than a 20-30 year wait. [/sarcasm] And people complain that less than 4,000 troops have died in Iraq?

The Civil War was also about a lot more than just slavery.

You are correct, the Civil War was about much more than slavery. But I do agree with Dr. Paul that the war should have never happened. Succession was over states rights as defined in the Constitution. The federal government doesn't like the idea of decentralized control. Sound familiar? Good, because it is still going on today.

Also in case some of us did not remember our history what he is accusing a President that died in service of his country of is unfounded. Not only did Lincoln offer to buy the slaves in order to free them, he did it twice and it was rejected twice.



But don't forget that in his Inaugural Address, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Third parties are a joke currently. Pretty much a throw away vote.

A vote for what you believe is NEVER a throw-away vote. It is that mentality that has burdened us with a "two-party" system that doesn't have a dimes worth of difference between them. One can only hope that the disenfranchised among us will stand up and shout before its too late. What will have to happen before you take action and vote your conscience?

Web Rider
01-07-2008, 12:11 AM
Keep in mind that in many states in order to vote in the primary you have to be registered with a party. I believe that Iowa is one of these states.

Which really only applies to the primaries, since depending on the state, some states only allow you to vote for the candidate of your own party, some allow you to vote for both, and some allow minority party members to vote for any, singular candidate.

California, I think, allows ALL parties to vote for any candidate in the primaries.

When it comes to the real deal, party alignment is irrelevant, democrats can vote republican and republicans can vote Nazi if they so choose.

mimartin
01-07-2008, 12:44 AM
Well, Dr. Paul isn't the only one who suspects that slavery would have eventually collapsed as an institution. But, you're right, causing the deaths of 618,000 Americans in 4 years time was better than a 20-30 year wait. [/sarcasm] And people complain that less than 4,000 troops have died in Iraq?
I guess that all depends if you were a slave or not.

I also see the Civil War as a just war, even though my ancestors (the white ones) were on the losing side. If our nation was willing to tear itself in two, pit families against themselves and allow such slaughter, do you honestly believe the South would have given up slavery so easily?

But don't forget that in his Inaugural Address, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."Yes and that still means Dr. Paul remarks are unfounded. He said President Lincoln should have bought the slaves back. Something President Lincoln tried to do twice. Dr. Paul did not mention Lincoln’s Inaugural Address (at least not on “Meet the Press.”) so I fail to see what another failed promises by a politician has to do with Dr. Paul’s remarks. Guess it proves they all lie, even back then.

MdKnightR
01-07-2008, 02:37 AM
Guess it proves they all lie, even back then.

Ah, but to lie is to be human. Can you honestly say that you've never lied? (pun intended)

Aeroldoth
01-07-2008, 03:05 AM
A vote for what you believe is NEVER a throw-away vote. It is that mentality that has burdened us with a "two-party" system that doesn't have a dimes worth of difference between them. One can only hope that the disenfranchised among us will stand up and shout before its too late. What will have to happen before you take action and vote your conscience?

Seconded!

mimartin
01-07-2008, 11:24 AM
Ah, but to lie is to be human. Can you honestly say that you've never lied? (pun intended)Not in front of reporters or when it is being recorded. :D I just wished I had the flair for lying politicians do. Even when caught red-handed they smile to the camera and use my favorite line, “Well if you look at the tape you will see that isn’t exactly what I said.” Their careful choice of words allows them to slip away, even though they did not correct the “so-called” misinterpretation at the time because it produced the desired effect. Some consider our current President not to be very bright, but he has a PHD in this technique. Even better than his predecessor.

Tommycat
01-07-2008, 08:35 PM
I dunno, redefining what "is" is was pretty good haha...

Though I agree, politicians have a flair for redefining what they said in such a context as to make their comments mean what they say they mean. Though Bush Sr kinda got caught... The infamous "Read My Lips" speech. Bush Sr also had Dan Quayle who would say randomly odd ball things every time there was a major incident. The media would cling to that silliness, and people would ignore the major incident. Bush Jr has many of the qualities of Quayle as far as saying the oddball stuff to divert attention.

As far as my comments of the third parties, I will say only that at current, there isn't a strong enough third party candidate that matches my preferences. Effectively by voting for that candidate I eliminate my vote against the one of the two that I dislike. A good example of this in action was all of the Nader votes that might have gone for Gore in 2000. For the opposite, party, all the Perot votes that took away from Bush Sr getting re-elected. Though with Gore it was a much closer race, so even a percentage of those Nader votes might have meant the difference between a Gore presidency and a Bush presidency. By essentially throwing my vote away, I may help elect somebody I like less.

Jae Onasi
01-08-2008, 12:05 AM
You are correct, the Civil War was about much more than slavery. But I do agree with Dr. Paul that the war should have never happened. Succession was over states rights as defined in the Constitution. The federal government doesn't like the idea of decentralized control.


Secession, not succession. The South seceded. They did not succeed. ;P

A vote is a vote. It's important. If you don't vote for the person you believe in, it's wasted.

MdKnightR
01-08-2008, 12:32 AM
Secession, not succession. The South seceded. They did not succeed. ;P

A vote is a vote. It's important. If you don't vote for the person you believe in, it's wasted.

Oh my, a spelling error! I humbly apologize. :xp:

mimartin
01-08-2008, 03:25 PM
Oh my, a spelling error! I humbly apologize. :xp:Don't apologize...deny, deny, deny. It was a keyboard error. Spell check messed it up. You would never see a politician admit to making such an error without having a scapegoat.

A vote is a vote. It's important. If you don't vote for the person you believe in, it's wasted. Disclaimer: This opinion may not apply within the state of Florida. ;)

Jae Onasi
01-08-2008, 08:36 PM
It's still early in the New Hampshire primary count, but the news channels are projecting McCain as the winner at 37%, with Romney in 2nd at 28% and Huckabee at 12%. It's still too close to call for the Democrats.

mimartin
01-08-2008, 08:48 PM
Finally, some good news, I am not going to vote for McCain, but I could live through of another 4 years of a Republican controlled White House with him at the helm. I believe the Democrats are going to implode in their can’t loose scenario. I don’t care, I will vote for whichever win the party nomination anyway. Bush cured me of voting Republican.

Jae Onasi
01-08-2008, 09:06 PM
I don't care if they're Republican, Democrat, or independent. If I think they're the best one for the job, they get my vote. I'll admit I held my nose as I hit the voting lever in '04, however--I didn't like any of them. :)

MdKnightR
01-09-2008, 01:04 AM
I'll be voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write his name in come November. That is unless the Libertarian Party fronts a good candidate.

Achilles
01-09-2008, 03:19 AM
I was really hoping that Hillary would come in third again so that we could be done with her, but it looks as though her campaign will be reinvigorated after all. :(

On the bright side, her win in NH was by a significantly smaller margin that Obama's win in Iowa. Hopefully that is a prelude to a lot more defeats for her in the not-too-distant future.

Jae Onasi
01-09-2008, 08:14 AM
I think she'll have a tough time in SC--Obama and Edwards both have a lot of support there. A McCain win in NH after a virtually dead campaign last summer is quite a surprise--I prefer him as a candidate over Huckabee and Romney.

Achilles
01-09-2008, 08:36 AM
He was counting on the fact that he did very well there the last time he ran. Apparently it worked.

Jae Onasi
01-09-2008, 10:12 AM
Dr. Paul Green has a politics segment on Wednesday mornings on WGN radio, and he rattled off this site called realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/) this morning. I thought you all might find it interesting--it has a page on polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/) that is pretty extensive, and the site in general has a ton of links to different stories about the candidates. There is a link to Paul Green's podcasts (http://feeds.feedburner.com/wgnradio/paulspod) on WGN radio's site. He speaks a lot about Chicago and IL politics, but he talks a lot about national politics, too, and his witty comments make him fun to listen to.

SilentScope001
01-09-2008, 10:28 AM
I've been a fan of RCP, Jae. Btw, you should know that they predicted Huckabee and Obama would win Iowa, that Clinton would lose Iowa, and that McCain and Obama would win NH. So your comments about you being suprised was, well, ironic, considering that political insiders already suspected what was going to happen. :)

EDIT: Er. Just saw Clinton just won NH, not Obama, so RCP's prediction was proven false. Sorry then. Well, still, political insiders still win 3/4!

Jae Onasi
01-10-2008, 10:17 AM
I wasn't surprised that Clinton would lose--I was surprised that she came in third and was behind Obama by that much in IA. I thought Romney would do better in IA as well--he poured a ton of resources/time into the campaign there.

The pollsters were way off in NH. Should be interesting to see what happens in SC. I'm wondering how the NH win will affect the McCain campaign.

Achilles
01-10-2008, 01:57 PM
Obama just picked up an endorsement from John Kerry. That has to smart for Edwards. I wonder when we'll hear from Al Gore.

SilentScope001
01-10-2008, 05:51 PM
Should be interesting to see what happens in SC.

Because I'm bored...

SilentScope003's Prediction TIME:

*Democrats=John Edwards. John's a southerner. SC is in the South. South also hates Clinton. John Edwards therefore wins.

*Republicans=Huckabee. Huckabee is a Southerner. SC is in the South. South also is Chrisitan. Huckabee therefore wins.

The Political Insiders' View (usually more correct than SilentScope003):
*Democrats=Obama
*Republicans=Huckabee

Pho3nix
01-11-2008, 06:47 AM
I find it pretty disturbing that a presidential candidates religion has so much relevance.

Achilles
01-11-2008, 07:21 AM
^^^^
Welcome to modern U.S. politics. :(

Aeroldoth
01-11-2008, 08:19 AM
You mean, welcome to modern U.S. politics.

Achilles
01-11-2008, 08:24 AM
No, not really. It wasn't always this way/this bad.

Web Rider
01-11-2008, 06:25 PM
Personally I still think the most interesting aspect of the race is the fact that no singular candidate appeals to a sort of general selection of the country, which is why we're ending up with these primaries switching around who's on first.

Achilles
01-11-2008, 07:10 PM
AZ governor Janet Napolitano endorsed Barack Obama today. Political commentators indicated that this might help provide a bump in Nevada's caucus.