IOWA - Obama & Huckabee

I've breifly skimmed through the past Iowa results to see how they line up with the winners of the parties nomination. I'm surprised how accurate they've been on the Dem side.

The GOP is a little less prophetic, but the system of choosing the candidate is a bit different, perhaps that matters somehow.

So where do we go from here? New Hampshire?

Nope... not for the GOP, actually its Wyoming, tomorrow 1/5/2008, for the republicans, and then New Hampshire for both parties on Tuesday, 1/8/2008.

I suspect we get a different winner for the GOP in NH, I'll say McCain, simply because he once carried the state. I'm not sure who is leading in the polls there since Iowa, but I'll say that Fred Thompson and Ron Paul probably get the biggest boost out of there... the double digit results make them both out to be somewhat viable and since NH is such a different conglomerate of people, there might be a chance to grab the hearts and minds of the rest of the states before super tuesday.


I think Obama's win is huge. Clinton placing 3rd will fizzle her a bit and John Edwards will get a small shot in the arm, yet because he didnt do much campaigning elsewhere I'm not sure if he'll get enough momentum to get him nominated. I'm looking at a Obama Edwards ticket right now.

The GOP needs to narrow its field, when the hell is that going to be? I'm assuming that after the loss yesterday, Duncan Hunter with no $$$, will have to bail, and even though Fred won some support, I dont think he can last without big $$$ and he is already tired, if not dead, physically.

I have a feeling that Michigan, 1/15/08, will be a huge jump off state since its current economic crisis might be an exaggerated model for most of the united states because of the housing crisis. So I'll make this CUTE prediction.... who ever wins Michigan wins the primary for the GOP.

I'd love to discuss... any thoughts?

 

I do realize I'm a RonPaul supporter... and I may be partial, but he does have a message and if its anything it might as well be - antiwar / paleo republic values / constitutionalism.

The "Lone Ranger" description stuffs are dismissals and getting double digits in Iowa, altough discouraging to the young voters only proves he's viable. I mean fox had him coming in third and he only missed that by 3%. He smashed Rudy 9-1-1, who is still the national leader in some polls, and he got real close to McCain, considered a front runner, and Thompson, who although a corpse (at this point) propped up by his 19 year old wife, and campaign manager WeekEnd At Bernies' style, still pulled in 13%.

I agree that the strength of the campaign and its message are important, and with that logic Huckabee and Thompson are dead in the water. Their campaigns are nearly non existent and they are relying on a few key states to put them over. My curiousity is stuck in the $$$$ situation. Ron, Rudy, & Romney are the only ones with cash, wont this matter come Super Tuesday? Wont these guys have the edge when it comes to Nevada, Michigan, & Florida? How is the Huckster gonna afford Jesus fliers to churches with almost no fundraising numbers?

McCain.... ugh... he's having a surge in NH, that could be until yesterday. NH is antiwar leaning with a ton of independents... In an interview last night in NH, he told a crowd that he didnt mind if the troops were in Iraq for 1000 years... if he switches back to Bush's message he's dead in the water.

Ron got the majority of those independent voters in IA and NH is full of those.

 

Young people start singing a different tune once they start working, and they won't out vote retirees come next fall.

I'm glad Obama won and I hope he keeps winning. Hillary shouldn't be elected just because she would be the first woman. No more Bushes and Clintons.

 

I dont see the Huck-ster as all that 'socially conservative'. I aint gonna dwell on his Arkansas 'taxation' record as it was needed; and the tv ad where he supposedly was willing to accept any and all new taxes was taken out of context - he wanted suggestions on HOW to improve state revenue to meet budget shortfalls.

As are his statements about 'giving illegals tuition breaks', taken out of context. THAT was FULLY qualified.

HOWEVER

What bothers me is his -to me- lack of statement about what it is he WILL DO once he gets in office. I suppose he's said something about it somewhere but any hacks he gives Romney about waffling are -to me- specious.

I'm sorry, he's just an empty suit... amazing because I always said I'll pick a fairly successful governor over a Senator any time but I just dont see it in his case.

I'm a realist and I want my pres to be a REALIST first and foremost. I dont, too much, give a F##$ what he -or she- says to get elected, I want some degree of certainty that he will deal with things REALISTICALLY once in office.

Obviously if we're going to have a Dem, not a Republican, that need for me to know differs. If Huck-ster is going to deal realistically, then I want him to prove it.

 

If we are talking about "CHANGE" a NON Hillary candidate needs to get elected.

Its been nearly 30 years since we've been without a Bush or a Clinton in the White House.

 

Expanding on my view of 'realist'.

When Bhutto was assassinated there were two gaffes on the part of major candidates:

Clinton made one when her statement was made on the assumption that Bhutto was 'running against' Mush in the upcoming election

Huck made one when his statement contained 'apologize for' her killing.

To me it's NO CONTEST as to which is more worrying. The idea that the US was somehow culpable for that shows a really bad attitude and is a bad portent as to what our foreign policy might be. Of course those who think terrorists do what they do because of US foreign policy WONT agree with that.

They cant explain everything else that goes on in Islam's war against everyone but SOMEHOW it's always OUR fault.

I dont want a pres who has that attitude.

 

I agree... Obama was doing the same thing in the start of his campaign... simply being a skilled Orator doesnt mean you can do SQUAT in the White House. Once he started contrasting between Hillary and himself and added some substance to his issues and solutions, he started doing well.

I still dont understand how Huck is getting some much recognition, his platform is cardboard at best and HE HAS NO MONEY.

I'm guessing the religious / hope angles plays well during Christmas.

 

RE: Re: RE: IOWA - Obama & Huckabee

I hate to point out contradictions... but how can a voter feel alienated enough to throw money at a candidate, but then revert to feeling comfortable with more of the same McCain, or Thompson, Romney, Rudy, or Huck?

I won't predict whether he wins a primary, but his supporters will support him to the end if they have to, they are VERY commmitted and growing daily. In Iowa a place where he spend very little time, he surged after the Bhutto assassination, and in 3 days nearly doubled his polling.

This a different elecition. There are ideas that some of the candidate aren't touching on. The economy being the most important. Civil rights the other. The more exposure he gets the more supporters & money he gets...

Campaigns cost hundreds of thousands... I hear Rudy is bankrupt, McCain is close too... Ron has the most on hand.

I've heard this time and time again from the MSMedia, hes no Ross Perot, he ran as a independent and Reform party candidate. I believe Buchanan won NH, or was close one year. After Tuesday, where we will get a different winner I'm sure, the race is wide open. RP is just as viable as the rest.

 

Ron Paul, near as I can tell, took ONE precinct in Iowa. No doubt in Ames, IIRC.

Removing my views on his political platform, what have I been saying?!!!

You DONT win a war by pissing everyone else off. Look what's happening in Iraq. Paulians thought they were employing a 'surge' and thought they were winning battles, and they THOUGHT they were doing it like the Marines but they werent, they were doing it like Al Qaeda.

AQI pissed EVERYONE in Iraq off, and while, like Paul supporters, they'll continue nipping at ankles, they're PROBABLY {never say never} done.

People dont want to see phoney trumped up 'victories'. And they dont want 'because' for a reason.

The swarmed internet polls and the phoney MySpace primary which LAUGHABLY supposed the average age of voter to be 29? Are we in some 'rabbit hole' here?
If Paulians DONT see some REAL results, in the REAL world... it will largely be them that stays away and then bitches about the 'establishment conspiracy'

 

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: IOWA - Obama & Huckabee

Don... can you EVER write ANYTHING without preaching from the freaking leftist playbook?

When's the LAST time a union member hired you?

People with money buy stuff... and start businesses.. and invest in OTHER businesses, some of which actually DO SAVE THE PLANET!

 

Heather, I think I have to disagree.

The 'net is not and never will be, the ultimate in campaign strategerie or vehicle. The fact that msot candidates STILL do 'town-hall' shows there's a place for everything.

What the net is good for is for candidates EXACTLY LIKE Ron Paul. We actually GOT his message and the chance to examine it.
Nothing wrong with the paradigm he took, in itself. And I actually AGREE with Don and Smokin on that..

What the net is good for is examining issues. Like waht we doing right here... this is nothing more or less than a 'happy-hour' discussion for sure, but it makes you think and hopefully think about one's own views.

Not to mention the net holds the press accountable... there will never again be a pure 'Cronkhite' ism.. or hopefully Rathergate.
So despite what's said about Murdoch, he doesnt REALLY have a chance of forcing HIS views on anyone who reads the net. If it's wrong it's gonna be contested. And it's up to the net denizen to determine the liar.

 

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: IOWA - Obama & Huckabee

wow where do i even begin here?

smokin, campaigns cost MILLIONS. i want to say hundreds, but lets just settle with tens. nevertheless, its disgusting.

none of these candidates appeal to me because none of them are talking about one of the biggest issue facing this nation, and thats inner city crime. honestly, has anyone addressed how thousands of civilians are getting killed each year throughout the nation? or if they are, are they using anything other than the anachronistic "gang warfare" or "the war on drugs"?

i've said this before, but i really implore you to turn on the wire this coming sunday and see a slice of america that no one addresses. its not people who lost their healthcare, or the squeezed middle class, or corporate huns, or whoever will be hardest on global jihad, or whatever else the hot button topic is. it is the complete absence of civilization on all levels (low[est] class, police, politicians, etc) that is occurring in our own back yards. and no one gives a damn.

 

I'll just be frank and expose myself. I'm over the moon that Obama has won. Honestly I didn't think it would happen but it has its great, perhaps I didn't have enough faith in this country after all. Biden is out so I'm now 100% behind Obama. He aint perfect far from it but for various reasons I feel strongly about him like I don't about anyone else. It’s a for vote rather than an against vote for me. Not surprisingly, I fall into his key support demographic. If you haven't seen his victory speech from last night in full you should, left the others looking amateurish.

On to New Hampshire, there’s a long long way to go.