CDarwin Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 My predictions were off Mine weren't! Woot. I will be sure to make sure everyone I know knows this.
DrDNA Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 Edwards is trying to be his VP already. That is interesting. I wonder if Obama would get a bigger boost in the primaries if Edwards just dropped out altogether. And in the general elec especially, Edwards on an Obama ticket might hurt a lot more than he would help. He is at least percieved to be much further left of center than most of the other dems. That could serve to drive away many indies and "centrist" republicans.
ecoli Posted January 9, 2008 Author Posted January 9, 2008 I find Brazile's remarks " as an African American" to be racist. She is the only person to bring up race at all. I think Obama is still probably going to win because the media just piles on Clinton. Even in victory, they look shell shocked, trying to figure out what "went wrong". They try to say it is women or sympathy - imagine them doing that with Obama!! I hope this polling crap gets turned on its head more and more. It will be good if Obama has to fight something, because the media and other candidates sure are not going to do it. Edwards is trying to be his VP already. I noticed that even Fox was being biased against Hillary yesterday; which was strange, because she's arguably the most hawkish of the dems. That is interesting. I wonder if Obama would get a bigger boost in the primaries if Edwards just dropped out altogether. And in the general elec especially, Edwards on an Obama ticket might hurt a lot more than he would help. He is at least percieved to be much further left of center than most of the other dems. That could serve to drive away many indies and "centrist" republicans. Edwards may be further left... but that's definitely not of center. Except for Gravel and Kucinich, all the Dems are right of center.
DrDNA Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 DrDNA - I sure wish you'd start speaking to the merits and qualities of the candidate you support instead of wasting so much time with your hard on for Hilllary. So many of us here have been discussing that issue of attack, and how it's hurting our society, so please see my comments to you as a friendly nudge. Cheers dude. Well, I ordinarily wouldn't take it as being friendly, but I'll take your word for it in this case and accept it as such. Edwards may be further left... but that's definitely not of center. Except for Gravel and Kucinich, all the Dems are right of center. I agree that is probably correct, and it is why I underlined "percieved". I might also add that their locations on the left.....center.....right line, curve, circle......or whatever geometric form that lying tool of the pundits, the media and the powers that be is....... are pretty much mute at this point. Unless they do something dramatic, like light themselves on fire and run through a caucus screaming their positions, Gravel and Kucinich have reached the point of not mattering anymore in this election season. One might say that we are now left with the chore of wading through a much more homogenous pile of goo.
Pangloss Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 Even in victory, they look shell shocked, trying to figure out what "went wrong". They try to say it is women or sympathy - imagine them doing that with Obama!! I hope this polling crap gets turned on its head more and more. It will be good if Obama has to fight something, because the media and other candidates sure are not going to do it. Edwards is trying to be his VP already. I agree. I think what may have gone wrong for Obama during the last few days of the New Hampshire campaign is that he (or his campaign, really) became more focused on crowd-pleasing events and cheerleading. I didn't see a single issue point raised in a single sound bite for those whole four or five days. I kept waiting for "GIVE ME AN O!" It was kinda awful. But of course that's what leaders do in races, and it's interesting that both Obama and Clinton were doing what you normally do in their positions (Clinton's pro-forma action being to go on the attack). But I thought it actually HURT both of the candidates. In Clinton's case I guess it just hurt less than it did for Obama. I would have guessed the opposite, because her attacks really didn't seem to resonate at all, but I guess I was wrong. Of course New Hampshire is notorious for its contrarian nature, and there may be nothing more to it than that. But my my, those Obama crowds were so huge, it just seemed like he HAD to win. I guess that goes to show you that you can't always believe what you see on TV.
iNow Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 I was glad to see that, despite his lack of first place, he was only about 2% points behind.
Douglas Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 I noticed that even Fox was being biased against Hillary yesterday; which was strange, because she's arguably the most hawkish of the dems. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
ecoli Posted January 10, 2008 Author Posted January 10, 2008 Next: Michigan Primary: Jan 15, Nevada Caucus: Jan 19, S. Carolina ®: Jan 19, S. Carolina (D) Jan 26.
Douglas Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 I agree. I think what may have gone wrong for Obama during the last few days of the New Hampshire campaign is that he (or his campaign, really) became more focused on crowd-pleasing events and cheerleading. I didn't see a single issue point raised in a single sound bite for those whole four or five days. I kept waiting for "GIVE ME AN O!" It was kinda awful. I guess the same thing could be said of Hillary...
Pangloss Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 I guess the same thing could be said of Hillary... Normally I would agree, but in this case the usual right-wing typecasting of Hillary didn't apply. She seemed to be going out of her way to break the usual mold. Obama would pop into events, cheerlead for 20 minutes, and scamper. Clinton would sit there for HOURS, even taking questions from people for hours at a time, almost unheard-of in modern campaigns. That having been said, she was still way too focused on attacking Obama, and I think that hurt her. But what I think may have happened was that after the anti-Obama sound bites were out of of the way, she would settle in at those events and talk to New Hampshire voters about the issues. For hours. That kind of direct, personal attention has a huge influence there. In fact it would have a huge influence on anybody. But of course it's impossible even in most primaries. It will be very interesting to see how the two campaigns handle the next few weeks leading up to Feb 5th.
Douglas Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 Normally I would agree, but in this case the usual right-wing typecasting of Hillary didn't apply. She seemed to be going out of her way to break the usual mold. Obama would pop into events, cheerlead for 20 minutes, and scamper. Clinton would sit there for HOURS, even taking questions from people for hours at a time, almost unheard-of in modern campaigns. That having been said, she was still way too focused on attacking Obama, and I think that hurt her. But what I think may have happened was that after the anti-Obama sound bites were out of of the way, she would settle in at those events and talk to New Hampshire voters about the issues. For hours. That kind of direct, personal attention has a huge influence there. In fact it would have a huge influence on anybody. But of course it's impossible even in most primaries. It will be very interesting to see how the two campaigns handle the next few weeks leading up to Feb 5th. Grin, yes, she *did* go out of her way to break the mold, with her "Hillary has a heart" crying jag. What I'm really interested in, is South Carolina, and how the Black vote will be divied up. Does the Clinton machine have enough clout with the Black leaders to swing the majority in her direction? Yup, South Carolina should be very interesting.
john5746 Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 If Obama wins SC, it is because he is great, blah blah blah. If it is real close, or if Hillary wins, it is because of racism. The media is already typing it up.
DrDNA Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 Call me jaded, but I'm convinced it was the "tears" that did it for her.
Douglas Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 If Obama wins SC, it is because he is great, blah blah blah. If it is real close, or if Hillary wins, it is because of racism. The media is already typing it up. Hmmm, would that be the "Michael Steele" sort of racism, or the SC redneck sort of racism?....I.E. Black against Black, or White against Black..... Call me jaded, but I'm convinced it was the "tears" that did it for her.Among men, I'd say, NO... But among women, I gotta give it a, YES.
CDarwin Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 Next: Michigan Primary: Jan 15, Nevada Caucus: Jan 19, S. Carolina ®: Jan 19, S. Carolina (D) Jan 26. And then of course Super Tuesday, February 5th. That will decide the nominations. Call me jaded, but I'm convinced it was the "tears" that did it for her. Or maybe the fact that she is a strong candidate with an efficient campaign apparatus in a state where "nice" doesn't matter as much as it did in Iowa. I will join in the cynicism a bit and comment that McCain drawing so many independents away from the Democratic primary might have had some effect in swinging the vote to Clinton. Obama does much better among independents than any other Democrat and they constituted a solid portion of his voters in Iowa. Clinton does better among the party-faithful Democrats.
Douglas Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 I will join in the cynicism a bit and comment that McCain drawing so many independents away from the Democratic primary might have had some effect in swinging the vote to Clinton. Obama does much better among independents than any other Democrat and they constituted a solid portion of his voters in Iowa. Clinton does better among the party-faithful Democrats. The problem with the above argument, is that it's not likely that an independant who would vote for McCain, would have voted for Obama.
CDarwin Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 The problem with the above argument, is that it's not likely that an independant who would vote for McCain, would have voted for Obama. That's quite true. And most "independents" aren't really independents, they're just Democrats or Republicans who didn't check the box. McCain and Obama also appeal to pretty dramatically different age groups. Hmm. I think my argument just died.
Riogho Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 I would vote for both McCain and Obama. If it came down between those two it would really matter what the VP was. Especially on Obama's side... because I could see the VP having to take office there. And Hilary took those questions for HOURS because she is a politcal machine, both of the clinton's are. They will say and do exactly what needs to be done to win. You wouldn't get out what they really thought if they were on their deathbed
iNow Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 I would vote for both McCain and Obama. If it came down between those two it would really matter what the VP was. Especially on Obama's side... because I could see the VP having to take office there. Are you suggesting that assassination is more likely because he's black? It's okay if you are, but I want to be clear. Reminder: The year is 2008.
Pangloss Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 And Hilary took those questions for HOURS because she is a politcal machine, both of the clinton's are. They will say and do exactly what needs to be done to win. You wouldn't get out what they really thought if they were on their deathbed Would it say something more positive if they mouthed platitudes for ten minutes and ran off to another site? Come on, if that's not a damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't position I don't know what is. If you're going to be a partisan, fine, but don't pretend it's objective analysis.
ecoli Posted January 15, 2008 Author Posted January 15, 2008 Michigan Primary tonight, stay tuned for details.
DrDNA Posted January 15, 2008 Posted January 15, 2008 I would vote for both McCain and Obama. Your votes will carry more weight if you vote for the same guy twice.
ecoli Posted January 16, 2008 Author Posted January 16, 2008 Michigan Results Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Giuliani, Thompson
Saryctos Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 Michigan Results Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Giuliani, Thompson Oddly enough I saw a significant # of Romney TV ads, some rare McCain ads, and absolutely none of the others. Kind of fits the trend eh?
ecoli Posted January 16, 2008 Author Posted January 16, 2008 Oddly enough I saw a significant # of Romney TV ads, some rare McCain ads, and absolutely none of the others. Kind of fits the trend eh? I think Paul had some radio ads running up there.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now