OT: 2008 Elections

[Naples39]

Huckabee wins by a big margin, which probably means Romney is done.

Obama is projected to win a close race and Hilary is trying to claw into second place.

Definitely a blow to Romney not to win Iowa, but I believe he still leads in NH. If he finishes a solid second in Iowa and wins NH next week, he is far from done.

I am very disappointed, though not very surprised that Huckabee looks to win Iowa. Huckabee is probably the only Rep. candidate I can't ever see myself voting for. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but this could conceivable be the high-point of Huckabee's campaign;

In interviews as they entered the caucuses, more than half of all the Republicans said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, and they liked Huckabee more than any of his rivals. Romney led handily among the balance of the Iowa Republican voters, according to the survey.

Huckabee won't see such welcoming voters elsewhere.

[pk500]

Huckabee wins by a big margin, which probably means Romney is done.

Negative. Romney moves to his backyard in New Hampshire next week. If he is routed there, he's done. If he wins, he's very alive.

Plus Huckabee doesn't have anywhere near the numbers in N.H. that he had in Iowa, and his role as the evangelicals' darling won't carry anywhere near the weight in New England that it does in the Midwest.

Giuliani is very much in trouble. He finished dead last in Iowa and has turned his attention to Super Tuesday. But that may backfire, as he could be so far out of the spotlight by then. He also has very little infrastructure in New Hampshire. No great loss to the race -- Rudy is a useless candidate running on fear and images of him wearing a cotton mask on Sept. 11, 2001.

Obama is projected to win a close race and Hilary is trying to claw into second place.

And of course, the Clinton campaign will depict that as a solid showing, when anyone who pays any attention to this process realizes it's a big blow. Clinton had a 20-point lead over Obama two or three months ago.

People in Iowa saw Hillary as an opportunistic political animal who can't relate with anyone who can't help her in her march to power, and they rejected her. Let's hope the rest of America follows suit.

Iowa did seem to sift the wheat from the proverbial chaff in both parties. Looks like a three-horse race for the Dems, with Obama, Clinton and Edwards. The GOP appears to be a two-man showdown between Huckabee and Romney.

Paul, McCain and Thompson all are treading water in the low double-digits and teens for the GOP. But they remain key players in the GOP race because whomever can get their supporters' votes when they drop out this month will have the inside edge on Super Tuesday.

Take care,
PK

[FatPitcher]

Huckabee is a moderate liberal, which I guess is the same thing as "compassionate conservative." He actually believes in his religion, which gets him votes in some places but will not go over well everywhere. I hope he loses, because he's the anti-libertarian.

Obama would be an incredibly weak president. The cabinet and appointees would run the show. Even though I disagree with most of the policies he advocates, I would still support him if he could make politics about doing the right thing instead of about scoring political points.

Some people discount career legislators and suggest people who were governors (being executives) are better prepared. Yet is being governor of Arkansas or Massachusetts really like being at the top of the federal executive branch?

If experience was paramount, Dodd, Biden and Richardson would be faring better. Same with McCain.

Your argument assumes that the most qualified people are the most popular. That is almost never the case.

[pk500]

Your argument assumes that the most qualified people are the most popular. That is almost never the case.

Exactly. Alan Keyes comes to mind as a recent example of that. I still believe that man is much too smart to be president of the United States.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

Could you imagine 20 years of two families in the white house.

We've already got 20yrs (28 if you count Bush as a VP with Reagan).

4 yrs with Bush
8 yrs with Clinton
8 yrs with Bush part deux

Ya, I was thinking from Day 1 of Hilary's first term. But you are right.

[wco81]

Huckabee may get some bounce in NH. When he first shot up in the polls, he had jumped to second place among Republicans in the national polls.

But it could be McCain who beats Romney in NH. Everyone is talking about how much more money Romney spent than anyone else. McCain pointedly said all the money and all the negative campaigning doesn't work.

Whatever momentum Edwards gets from this showing comes to a dead stop in NH. He doesn't have the money or infrastructure to run in all the states.

They're saying turnout played a big role. In 2004, it was 125,000. Tonight it's over 200,000 and it's possible Obama is bringing in the mythical young voters.

But he also brought in a lot of independents to participate as Democrats and some Republicans as well. Some of the latter may be mischief, more voting against Hilary than voting for Obama.

[Smurfy]

I haven't been following this stuff yet.

How's Kucinich doing?

[Rodster]

Your argument assumes that the most qualified people are the most popular. That is almost never the case.

Exactly. Alan Keyes comes to mind as a recent example of that. I still believe that man is much too smart to be president of the United States.

Take care,
PK

Wow i'm glad someone brought up the name Alan Keyes. I've watched some of his speeches and lectures and he is very inspiring. This nation of idiots (of course i'm not referring to anyone on DSP ) are not ready for someone like Alan Keyes he's much to smart for them.

[FatPitcher]

But he also brought in a lot of independents to participate as Democrats and some Republicans as well. Some of the latter may be mischief, more voting against Hilary than voting for Obama.

Republicans want Hilary to win, because there's no way she can win the general election. If there's one thing that could mobilize dispirited Republicans, it's Hillary.

[JRod]

No I think this is Obama's to lose. The momentum will take him through New Hampshire and into Nevada and South Carolina.

The only way he will lose if he pulls a Howard Dean and does something really stupid. Untested campaigners often do this no matter how promising they look. Sometimes they make really stupid mistakes. Some of those are like the makaka statement by Sen. Allen, or it's organizational issues we can't see.

I think Hilary is done because she could finish 3rd. If she does, what does that do to John Edwards. Can he challange Obama?

And the polls in NH have McCain in the lead or deadheat with Romney. I think Huckabee with South Carolina. McCain gets Nevada and then the big states come up.

[wco81]

Keyes is scary, angry, loopy.

It's not an accident that he's a fringe figure.

[pk500]

Keyes is scary, angry, loopy.

It's not an accident that he's a fringe figure.

So you're happy with the mainstream brainpower in the Oval Office now? Bush is a hell of a lot scarier, angrier and loopier than Alan Keyes.

P.S.: Gotta love how Huckabee puts Chuck Norris and his MILF wife right behind him for his victory speech. Classic politics. Huckabee seems genuine and moderate on the stump, a regular guy, but so did Bush in 2000. So I'm very wary of Huckabee. Too much of the same.

Take care,
PK

[ProvoAnC]

P.S.: Gotta love how Huckabee puts Chuck Norris and his MILF wife right behind him for his victory speech. Take care,
PK

well his tears do cure cancer ya know

[ProvoAnC]

P.S.: Gotta love how Huckabee puts Chuck Norris and his MILF wife right behind him for his victory speech. Take care,
PK

well his tears do cure cancer ya know and because you just put Chuck in a negative light, this post is futile. You have already been roundhouse kicked into your grave.

[RobVarak]

Keyes is scary, angry, loopy.

It's not an accident that he's a fringe figure.

Indeed, but he was f'in great in "Borat."

[Brando70]

Keyes is scary, angry, loopy.

It's not an accident that he's a fringe figure.

Indeed, but he was f'in great in "Borat."

LOL, chocolate face.

I was pretty surprised by the results last night. I'm not surprised Obama won, because he does have a pretty strong group of supporters working Iowa. But I'm surprised Clinton finished third.

Neither Clinton nor Romney are finished. NH will be more important to them, but even that's not make or break time. Clinton has more name recognition (good and bad) than any candidate, and I don't think Huckabee will keep his momentum going. Romney is a better national candidate still. But who knows, stranger things have happened. Maybe he's the GOP's Jimmy Carter (enjoy that one).

[JackB1]

Can we really have a President........"Huck-a-bee"???

"Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy......"Huckabee"?


Brings to mind:
"Ruth, Gehrig, Dimagio, Mantle.......Castanza????"

[wco81]

LOL, chocolate face.

I was pretty surprised by the results last night. I'm not surprised Obama won, because he does have a pretty strong group of supporters working Iowa. But I'm surprised Clinton finished third.

Neither Clinton nor Romney are finished. NH will be more important to them, but even that's not make or break time. Clinton has more name recognition (good and bad) than any candidate, and I don't think Huckabee will keep his momentum going. Romney is a better national candidate still. But who knows, stranger things have happened. Maybe he's the GOP's Jimmy Carter (enjoy that one).

Obama edged Clinton among Democrats only 32 to 31%. Where Obama won was with Independents, a small percentage of crossover Republicans and a lot of young voters.

He can get Independents in NH, where they're allowed to participate in either party's primary (which could hurt McCain) but perhaps in other states, where Clinton has the party establishment behind her, it will be more difficult.

Kind of money Romney is spending, he can't afford another second-place in NH. Romney was hoping to build up a big lead before Giuliani could get going. If he stumbles again, Giuliani, who's really at a low point now, could see his fortunes revive as the competitor with the most resources crashes and burns.

Huckabee is the bane to economic conservatives and to grass-roots GOP which wants zero-tolerance on immigration. So his discourse on economic hardships and less than hardline talk about illegal immigrants seem to be burning up the GOP establishment.

Still unlikely that he could expand his appeal beyond the evangelicals but then again, evangelicals won the 2004 election for the GOP and they vote in the primaries. He is better on stage than any of the other GOP candidates, if that counts for anything.

[JackB1]

but then again, evangelicals won the 2004 election for the GOP and they vote in the primaries. He is better on stage than any of the other GOP candidates, if that counts for anything.

Don't you think the evangelicals will be a little "gunshy" after being burned in '04? What did Bush actually do for them during his term? What did he do for their big issues such as same sex marriage & abortion? He did veto stem cell research bills, which I guess they are happy about.

[Brando70]

That's still pretty big for Obama. He's gotten a lot of press, but the Clinton political machine is very powerful.

As others have alluded to, at this point it's as much a personality contest as anything. You don't really get into the issues that much until it gets down to the actual nominations. On top of that, the top three Democrats are fairly harmonious on the issues, with the exception of arguing over supporting the Iraqi invasion. They may differ on the details but ideologically the differences aren't that great over health care, immigration, etc.

The GOP side is where there is a lot of difference. And that's because their base is more divided right now. Pro-business groups supporting working rights for illegal immigrants clash with those who feel worker visas reward illegal behavior. Moderates clash with conservatives over cultural issues like abortion, marriage, and religion in the public sphere. Neoconservative internationalists clash with the traditional isolationist wing of the party. Those are some pretty big conflicts, and what's more, they tend to be geographic in nature. That's what's going to make the GOP primary process so interesting this year.

[pk500]

Don't you think the evangelicals will be a little "gunshy" after being burned in '04? What did Bush actually do for them during his term? What did he do for their big issues such as same sex marriage & abortion? He did veto stem cell research bills, which I guess they are happy about.

Issues don't matter to evangelicals; values do. Nearly all of the evangelical voters surveyed before and after the Iowa caucuses last night listed "he shares my values" as the main reason they voted for Huckabee.

So Huckabee could do nothing as president and still get support from evangelicals because they "share values," whatever the f*ck that means.

Sorry, I'm voting for a leader who can accomplish something, not who shares my values. I'm happy with the pastor of my local Catholic church, and that's the only value vote about which I care.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

What's most ominous to the GOP and what the national media is largely ignoring are the results of the Iowa caucuses if they were a general election.

Obama, Edwards and Clinton got more votes than Huckabee in a largely Republican state. The Democratic candidates are energizing their base and independents to vote, while it appears that the GOP candidates aren't thrilling their constituents or fence-sitters as much.

That doesn't bode well for the Republicans if that trend continues through November, but I think it's unlikely that it will. The Republicans will find some sort of wedge issue -- probably based on values or fear, the most effective current planks in their weak platform -- with which to attack the Democrats.

Plus I think the Democrats can ride the "change" wagon for only so long before substance needs to emerge. The Dems turned over Congress in 2006 on the "change" wave and have done almost nothing with that mandate in the ensuing year, thanks to the neutered leadership of Nancy Pelosi. Remember when Queen Nancy was so gung-ho in November 2006 about ending the Iraq War and cutting off funding, about taking on Bush head-on?

None of that has happened. Status quo reigns in Washington.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Bush gave them two conservative Supreme Court justices, who should be around 40 years.


For all the talk about lack of excitement in these candidates, the turnout was huge, like 50% or more on the Democratic side and double-digit on the GOP side.

Lot of new and young voters for Obama but will they show up in the general, whether or not their man is still running?

Of course, if Obama is the nominee, there may be a different kind of turnout, from people who'll want to stop him because of his race.

[pk500]

Lot of new and young voters for Obama but will they show up in the general, whether or not their man is still running?

Good point. Probably not. Hillary and Edwards simply don't connect with the young or the independents.

Of course, if Obama is the nominee, there may be a different kind of turnout, from people who'll want to stop him because of his race.

Sad, but true. But there is hope, as a surprising amount of white voters supported Obama in Iowa, from what I read.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

I actually think Obama's race hurts him less than Hillary Clinton's gender. I think Americans are more ready for a black male president than a female one. I imagine if he gets the nomination, his drug use and Muslim education will get more attention, but I don't think either of those issues will have a big impact. Bush almost certainly used drugs when he was younger and that didn't stop conservatives from voting from him. I think most people realize that drinking and drug use when you're young doesn't make you an addict. As for the Muslim education issue, it would be more important if he was a practicing Muslim -- and if he was, he wouldn't be a viable presidential candidate.