Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Some Iowa Thoughts
Jesse blogged last night about the one group of Iowa Caucus voters that Paul won: independents. That comforted some of the Paul people I talked to, but it would have been warmer comfort if, say, Hillary Clinton had won the caucuses. The belief around here is that there is an angry, mobile vote for "change," You hear it on talk radio, too, pissed-off voters who voted for Buchanan in 1992 and 1996 and McCain in 2000 who believe in "the establishment" and want very dearly to burn it down. If Obama didn't look viable they might vote for Paul: They see both candidates as unnaturally honest and straightforward. But Obama is viable, and these voters see a chance to both 1)make a difference instead of a statement and 2)end the craven Clinton campaign. (On the drive to Manchester's Elm St you can see a frightening Soviet realist billboard for Hillary, a glamorous profile of the candidate and gigantic letters spelling "READY.")
The Paul people whose canvass lists include independent voters say they're finding more and more support for Obama and precious little for Clinton. They're of two minds about this. They like the idea of Clinton going down, obviously. But most of them say she's the easiest Democrat to beat, a poll-driven Frankenstein who's taken the wrong position on the war. And, as stated above, they want every angry voter in the state to discover Paul, feeling that once they do they'll be locked in.
The network and bloggy coverage of Iowa has been completely fatalistic about Clinton. I'd normally call that silly: This was the first caucus, she's going to retool her campaign, Obama has to face frontrunner heat for the first time. But I'm startled at how many events that were supposed to boost Clinton completely failed to. The Des Moines Register endorsements actually boosted McCain more than it boosted her. The hostage situation was supposed to refocus attention on her. The resilience of the "Obama's a Muslim" smear was supposed to help her. The Bhutto assassination was supposed to help her, too, but most Iowans who said it was "somewhat" or "very" important voted for Obama. If endorsements and events that were supposed to move the ground for her didn't, what kind of campaign tactics will bring her back? Blistering attack ads? I'd believe that if Romney's blitz against Huckabee hadn't just failed so humiliatingly.
Edward|1.4.08 @ 8:12AM|#
"If Obama didn't look viable they might vote for Paul:
That's like saying if steaks weren't available, they might eat
shit. Jesus, you Paulites need to get a grip. He's merely a vehicle
for spreading the libertarian message (except for his stand on
immigration, his denial of evolution, and his weird belief that the
founding fathers envisioned a "robust Christian nation"). He's not
much, but apparently he's all you've got.
|1.4.08 @ 8:28AM|#
I'm glad Hillary lost. I hope this is only the first of many dominoes to fall for her. I don't want her to be the nominee. That's too close for comfort. I know lots of Republicans want her to win because they feel she will be the easiest to defeat. But what if we have a stock market crash and a severe recession this year. The Republicans will be blamed because they occupy the White House and the public will turn to the other party which means a Hillary presidency if she's the nominee.
|1.4.08 @ 8:39AM|#
"Huck v. Obama in a general = we all lose"
Huck v. Obama v. Bloomfield = we still all lose.
|1.4.08 @ 8:39AM|#
Obama can enjoy his day in the sun. He might even win in NH and SC, but HRC will be the Dem. candidate. SHE CAN'T POSSIBLY LOOSE. She has too many people that matter in her handbag.
|1.4.08 @ 8:40AM|#
"Obama can enjoy his day in the sun. He might even win in NH and
SC, but HRC will be the Dem. candidate. SHE CAN'T POSSIBLY LOOSE.
She has too many people that matter in her handbag."
I hope you're wrong Warren.
|1.4.08 @ 8:54AM|#
I still have yet to figure out what "change" Obama is offering...If anyone's figured it out, please fill me in. Don't get me wrong, it's very catchy. I just don't know what it means (policy-wise).
adrian|1.4.08 @ 9:00AM|#
Amber: $9.50 minimum wage and higher social security taxes from what i can tell. Yippee!
|1.4.08 @ 9:01AM|#
The comedy website Something Awful is responsible for Mike
Huckabee's popularity.
In the pomo subforum of their political forum, currently called
"Laissez's Fair: Baruch Obamawitz" is the
following:
TLDR Version: SA creates Chuck Norris facts, Chuck Norris facts
make Chuck Norris mega-popular, popularity gets Mike Huckabee
popularity because of his endorsements, Huckabee's popularity will
get him elected president.
And wasn't it a goon that asked about the Bible or Jesus in the
YouTube debates? That debate was when Huckabee really became
popular. So I guess the question and Chuck Norris both played a
role.
|1.4.08 @ 9:04AM|#
Amber,
He's part black. Think how awesome it will be having the same
failed policies shoved down our throats by a minority for a
change!
Regarding attack ads, remember that Iowa Caucus voters are very
much stupid children. Beyond their pathetic record of handing
strong showings to total losers (Bush over Reagan, Gephardt over
Clinton, 2nd Place for Pat Freaking Robertson), they are also
notorious for their hatred of so called "negative" politics. They
just can't stand it when candidates point out differences between
each other. One of Hillary's State Political Leaders even switched
sides because she couldn't stand how much Hillary was comparing and
contrasting. Other states aren't like that.
|1.4.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Thanks Adrian. I like to be on top of these things. Indeed, significant "change" there. Doubt we'll even recognize the country in Feb '09.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 9:07AM|#
. . . . remember that Iowa Caucus voters are very much
stupid children.
Fuck you
stuartl|1.4.08 @ 9:08AM|#
Amber, don't forget he is for fair wages. The government setting our salaries. Yippee!
|1.4.08 @ 9:12AM|#
FatDrunkAndStupid: You bring up a good point. I wonder if Iraqis, Iranians, and (it looks like) Pakistanians will care if a black president bombs them and occupies there countries. I'm sure they'll be cool with it--After all, progress isn't these days. And sometimes thousands have to die to make it come about.
|1.4.08 @ 9:12AM|#
Amber -
I was wondering the same thing last night while Chris Matthews was
talking about how Obama was the candidate of "change," and all the
other pundits and political commenters were all like "today,
Americans chose 'change.'"
Episiarch|1.4.08 @ 9:14AM|#
Obama's all nice and no substance. That will become apparent
soon enough, when Hillary really lights into him.
However, if it's Huck vs. Obama, Obama would be better, since the
Republicans will probably actually do some of the stuff they say to
regain control of the House or Senate and then will shut Obama
down. If Huck wins, he'll push big gov shit that a Dem controlled
Congress will like, and if the GOP controls Congress, they'll go
along with it just like with Bush.
|1.4.08 @ 9:14AM|#
The only way to have a "revolution" in a democracy is to vote
for a younger, fresher face.
Sorry to admit Ron's ain't.
I also noticed Obama's victory speech was the only one that didn't
talk about "I" or "we." He complimented voters by looking at it as
if it were their doing. Which it is!
|1.4.08 @ 9:18AM|#
On the drive to Manchester's Elm St you can see a
frightening Soviet realist billboard for Hillary, a glamorous
profile of the candidate and gigantic letters spelling
"READY."
Coming soon: billboards which say Resistance is
Futile.
|1.4.08 @ 9:23AM|#
Reinmoose: Yeah. Those one-liners are killers in the U.S. Just
give us a good slogan...it's like mass hypnosis.
Ruthless: age ain't nothing but a number baby. Revolutions are all
about concepts. Politics are about policy (or at least they should
be). I don't get the whole Ron is too old B.S. It seems ridiculous
and irrelevant. No?
|1.4.08 @ 9:24AM|#
Can we finally put to bed the tired nonsense about how "the
Clintons own the Democrat Party" and "it's a foregone conclusion
she's going to win the nomination?"
Nobody who knowns anything about the Democratic Party ever believed
that.
Fluffy|1.4.08 @ 9:28AM|#
Better Hillary than Huckabee.
For that matter, better Edwards than Huckabee.
Huckabee has all the negatives of every Dem candidate, PLUS he's a
cracker and a Jimmy Swaggart. Edwards and Huckabee would both pick
your pocket, but I'd rather be forced to listen to Edwards' faux
inspirational mill story for 4 years than listen to Reverend
Huckabee give me that "greeter at a Pat Robertson convention" voice
for even an hour.
Hillary should still go negative. The Romney experience had a lot
of unique factors: Romney was already disliked, Iowans "don't like
negative campaigning", and Huckabee's supporters are not good
targets for negative campaigning because they don't care about any
issue of governance and lined up to back Huckabee just like they
line up to back every other smarmy, lying backwoods preacher who
comes along.
|1.4.08 @ 9:28AM|#
I hope you're wrong Warren.
I'm never wrong. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
heh.
No, it's possible, it's happened before. But how much better off
will we be with president Obama than the other Clinton? Indeed, a
repeat of Clinton getting handed a Republican congress after two
years could be the best of all possible worlds.
|1.4.08 @ 9:28AM|#
I guess not.
Look, the Iowa caucuses are the most undemocratic, insiderish
nomination contests in the country. If the sheer power of
organiztation and contacts was going to deliver any wins to an
establishment candidate like Hillary, it would be in Iowa.
|1.4.08 @ 9:33AM|#
joe | January 4, 2008, 9:24am | #
Can we finally put to bed the tired nonsense about how "the
Clintons own the Democrat Party" and "it's a foregone conclusion
she's going to win the nomination?"
Nobody who knowns anything about the Democratic Party ever believed
that.
Hey joe. Care to make it interesting? Again
|1.4.08 @ 9:33AM|#
P Brooks -
Maybe "Resistance is Useless," a reference to the demented Vogon
soldiers would be a more appropriate reference?
|1.4.08 @ 9:36AM|#
That's like saying if steaks weren't available, they might
eat shit
Edward, you're such a little child and mental midget. Go have Mommy
rub your tummy and make you a sandwich. The adults are
talking.
David, there are quite a few closed primaries too, aren't there?
And Paul's campaign e-mails and reminds people when the
registration closes and such. I guess what I mean here is that
independents aren't going to have a lot of influence in many States
where you have to declare to vote, and I'd like to think
that Rs may just vote their conscience in closed primaries.
I think we're being a tad pessimistic about Paul; also, it needs to
be said that Obama isn't anywhere close to a liberaltarian. He's a
New-Dealer, Great-Society Lover and engages in class warfare. The
differences are sharp and people need to get it out of their heads
that Obama is some kind of breath of fresh air: he ain't.
|1.4.08 @ 9:37AM|#
Ruthless: its ideas that bring about revolution, not someone's
age or face...
If Ron Paul fell under a bus this afternoon, would people still be
talking about his ideas tomorrow? Undoubtedly. Can we say the same
about Obama? No, because he's just an empty vessel.
|1.4.08 @ 9:38AM|#
Huckabee's supporters are not good targets for negative
campaigning because they don't care about any issue of governance
and lined up to back Huckabee just like they line up to back every
other smarmy, lying backwoods preacher who comes along.
Who else here, especially after last night's results, wants to
punch anyone who suggests that Iowans are better at picking
presidential candidates because they take the time to listen to and
drill the candidates? Especially after they all hopped in bed with
Mike Huckabee after only knowing him for a month or so.
|1.4.08 @ 9:39AM|#
I'm game, Warren, but I don't know what the rules should be. I'm
not saying that Hillary won't win, just that it's a competetive
race and note a foregone conclusion. She might well pull it out, if
she runs the best campaign.
What do you suggest?
|1.4.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Look, the Iowa caucuses are the most undemocratic,
insiderish nomination contests in the country. If the sheer power
of organiztation and contacts was going to deliver any wins to an
establishment candidate like Hillary, it would be in
Iowa.
Yup, except that Iowa is a two bit backwater that won't make a
gnats ass difference in deciding the race. HRC spent only as much
as she needed to stay competitive. Indeed Iowa is so
inconsequential, that on the Republican side, front runner Rudy
wrote it (and every other state until Florida) off entirely. That
will likely prove a fatal error. One a puppetmaster like Clinton
shrewdly sidestepped.
|1.4.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Fluffy: "Better Hillary than Huckabee."
Better...pack my goddamn bags and get the hell out of here.
Edward|1.4.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Ayn_Randian
You loony cultists get testy when your saviour loses, don't you?
Did you send Herr Doktor money?
|1.4.08 @ 9:48AM|#
I'm not saying that Hillary won't win, just that it's a
competetive race and note a foregone conclusion. She might well
pull it out, if she runs the best campaign.
Then there's no bet here. All I'm saying, is she will win. It will
appear competitive, because she will only expend as much cash and
clout as is necessary. But she's got ten times the arsenal
available than she's putting in the field.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 9:49AM|#
Huckabee or Romney was going to win the Iowa caucus.
Historically, half the Republicans who attend caucuses are
conservative christians.
The last input I heard from the Iowa Staff for Ron Paul was that it
was important for Huckabee to hurt Romney in Iowa. Huckabee has no
money and no organization. He cannot win the nomination.
McCain will now trash Romney in NH. So Romney is toast. Yet, McCain
cannot win the nomination either. He also does not have enough
money or an organization to run a national program.
The net outcome is a brokered convention. At least, that was the
analysis of the professional organizer working for Ron Paul.
The only real surprise yesterday was Fred Thompson. How did that
zombie pull in 13%?
|1.4.08 @ 9:50AM|#
"it needs to be said that Obama isn't anywhere close to a
liberaltarian. He's a New-Dealer, Great-Society Lover and engages
in class warfare. The differences are sharp and people need to get
it out of their heads that Obama is some kind of breath of fresh
air: he ain't."
I don't agree with his politics, but he is a breath of fresh air
compared to the Hildebeast. He strikes me as being more sincere and
honest than Hillary.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Especially after they all hopped in bed with Mike Huckabee
after only knowing him for a month or so.
You really have no fucking clue what happened yesterday.
|1.4.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Well, Warren, if all that is true, than we expect her to go long
on New Hampshire in order to take back the momentum she's losing.
And, according to your theory, if she does that, she will win the
state in a romp. Right?
BTW, how've I been doing on holding up my end of the bet?
|1.4.08 @ 9:54AM|#
iowan,
But you see, a win a Iowa - and a pretty big win for all of that -
will bring in the money and allow the creation of the organization.
Especially since Huckabee has shown that he can win.
And if McCain kicks butt in New Hampshire, same thing.
Can any Republicans give me any insight into what's going to happen
in Wyoming, and if it's going to matter?
|1.4.08 @ 9:55AM|#
iowan -
I fear for my life that Mike Huckabee gets a serious surge of cash
from so-cons nation-wide.
I think "independents" of any sort are still voting for McCain for
some reason because they remember the McCain of 2000 (which they
romanticize as being some sort of moderate). He may, unfortunately,
get a lot of the so-lib votes based solely on nostalgia.
And the media jack-off to him every night. I didn't realize there
were so many daddy-fetishists out there...
|1.4.08 @ 9:56AM|#
Iowan: You've got me with the Thompson thing...what the hell was
that? This IS bizzaro world. I'd guess it's that Reagan was an
actor, and Thompson is an actor. Thus, idiot kisses idiot and
Thompson winds up in third.
Besides, have you seen the rack on that wife of his?...Nice. God
love democracy!
|1.4.08 @ 9:57AM|#
I didn't realize there were so many daddy-fetishists out
there...
When people see a strong moose and a weak moosew, they naturally
like the strong moose, 'Moose.
BakedPenguin|1.4.08 @ 9:58AM|#
The only real surprise yesterday was Fred Thompson. How did that zombie pull in 13%?
Look at the other R candidates. If you're pro-war (meaning you
exclude Paul), your choices aren't that great. I think he picked up
a substantial portion of the "what-the-f*ck" vote.
|1.4.08 @ 9:59AM|#
BTW, how've I been doing on holding up my end of the
bet?
I don't know joe. Is there some pending house resolution you've
been biting your tongue over? The stakes were indeed very small.
But far as I know you are a man of your word.
|1.4.08 @ 10:00AM|#
@Amber
I still have yet to figure out what "change" Obama is
offering...If anyone's figured it out, please fill me in. Don't get
me wrong, it's very catchy. I just don't know what it means
(policy-wise).
Yeah, it's catchy enough that Democrats have been riding that meme
since JFK. Nobody else has figured it out since then, either. And
the advocates of this "change" have never seen fit to define what's
changing. But it does have a nice ring to it, ain't it?
iowan|1.4.08 @ 10:06AM|#
I saw Huckabee speak for the first time last night during his
accpetance speech. His message to the national audience was
substantially different than it has been to the so-cons that put
him in first place.
If he can keep that new game face on, then there is a real risk he
could pull in votes from the rest of the republican coalition. But,
it appears that the party establishment hates him, and they will
most likely work to promote a more mainstream candidate (which by
elimination winds up being Thompson or Guiliani).
Watching the detailed breakdowns last night, it is clear that
Huckabee has no support amongst the non-religious wing of the
republicans, is very weak with male voters, and has zero support
with independents.
I don't see how he gets anywhere in 4 days in NH.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Iowan: You've got me with the Thompson thing...what the hell
was that?
My wild ass guess is that Thompson picked the rats fleeing the
sinking Romney ship.
BakedPenguin|1.4.08 @ 10:08AM|#
re: change. Considering their stance on Social Security
Privatization, tax cuts, school vouchers, etc., I'd say that
Democrats are the most reactionary political group there is.
Amber - thx, I'm working on my pundit skills. If I could only
f*cking stop swearing, I know there'd be a TV gig for me.
iowan - re: Huckabee, I hope you're right. Huck is the absolute
worst candidate out there.
|1.4.08 @ 10:10AM|#
"a repeat of Clinton getting handed a Republican congress after
two years could be the best of all possible worlds."
As I've said before, Democrats will be making a big mistake if they
nominate Hillary. Republicans will turn out in droves to vote
against her. Not only will Democrats lose the presidency for the
third time in a row, they will lose both houses of Congress and
several governorships and state legislatures.
R C Dean|1.4.08 @ 10:11AM|#
HRC spent only as much as she needed to stay
competitive.
My impression was that Hillary made a pretty sizable late
investment of time and money in Iowa. She has basically three
messages:
"Change" - nobody's buying this from her, especially with Obama
making the same pitch much more credibly.
"Experience" - of course, this conflicts with her Change message,
but its also a tough sell to anyone who thinks for 30 seconds.
Being somebody's wife doesn't really give you experience in doing
their job.
"Inevitability/Electability" - this one just took big hit. If she
loses again in New Hampshire, it will be very hard to sell.
I just don't think Huckabee has the time or money to build a
nationwide organization. This race will be over by the middle of
February.
He needs to win some states that the more or less self-organizing
"values voters" can't deliver to him. New Hampshire will be
something of a test for that, although his bump from the Iowa win
may last the necessary four days to inflate his numbers there.
We'll see.
If Romney loses NH, after being governor of neighboring MA, he will
be in real trouble.
|1.4.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Pig Mannix: Yeah. I think it could be reasonable to say that the
Democratic Party has now become conservative, because it's all
about protecting the status quo. The Republicans, especially since
the invention of the party-hopping neo-cons, are now the
radicals.
Someone needs to tell the Democrats that more of the same does not
equal "change." But, I guess I'd have to side with some lame,
cardboard Dem frontrunner than a crazy neo-con, terror-war kook.
Gross...I don't like my "choices."
BakedPeguin: Don't stop swearing. It's entertaining...It can be
your thing.
|1.4.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Amber,
The change Obama is offering, that people respond to, isn't
"policy-wise."
He's not running a policy-heavy campaign. He's running on his
political style - more hopeful, less angry, more willing to work
across party lines, and less beholden to the interests and
narratives of the Beltway people.
|1.4.08 @ 10:17AM|#
Who else here, especially after last night's results, wants
to punch anyone who suggests that Iowans are better at picking
presidential candidates because they take the time to listen to and
drill the candidates? Especially after they all hopped in bed with
Mike Huckabee after only knowing him for a month or so.
I can see orthodox christians voting for Huckabee, but THOMPSON?
wtf?
BakedPenguin|1.4.08 @ 10:17AM|#
Being somebody's wife doesn't really give you experience in doing their job.
No, but being involved in the hatchet sessions to devise new and
unique ways to destroy your husband's opponents gives you lots of
experience. Of course, this argument only makes me dislike her all
the more. She's experienced in the same way HR Haldeman or John
Dean would have been experienced if they ran in 1976.
Episiarch|1.4.08 @ 10:20AM|#
He's not running a policy-heavy campaign. He's running on
his political style - more hopeful, less angry, more willing to
work across party lines, and less beholden to the interests and
narratives of the Beltway people.
So he's running on Joementum?
ZING
|1.4.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Amber, Penguin,
Did you notice that everything you list to show how the Democrats
support the status quo is about government, rather than about
society?
Fluffy|1.4.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Well, when the electorate and media exclude discussion of issues
and/or governing philosophy - because it's either "wonky" and
"boring" [i.e. Gore] or "mean" and "negative", the candidates have
no choice but to campaign on meaningless catchphrases.
That's why Obama campaigns by repeating shopworn platitudes about
"change" that we've heard in every previous election. What else is
he supposed to campaign with?
In addition, campaigning on "change" says all the negative things
about Hillary he wants to say, but which he can't say because our
discourse is fundamentally dishonest due to its psychological
bounding as outlined above.
|1.4.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Better Hillary than Huckabee.
I concur wholeheartedly.
For that matter, better Edwards than Huckabee.
Note to self: Ensure passports and visas are all current. Check out
Swiss and Grenadan bank procedures. Thank Fluffy for the warning of
possible disastrous confluence of events.
|1.4.08 @ 10:23AM|#
A
fun bizarro-world version of his thread is going on over at
Feministing. Between the unabashed Edwards love (?), the
"Hilary is only hated because she's a she" whining, and the squishy
white guilt support of Obama it's fairly entertaining. (At little
Ron Paul bashing for seasoning...)
The only common denominator? Hatred for Huckabee.
|1.4.08 @ 10:25AM|#
I usually have some optimism for Obama's ability to be different... until I hear him utter words like "change the way we do business in Washington," which is what I've heard SO many times before. Heck, I think even Mitt Romney's used that phrase.
|1.4.08 @ 10:26AM|#
The only real surprise yesterday was Fred Thompson. How did
that zombie pull in 13%?
He's on TV (Law and Order) five times a day at least. Duh.
|1.4.08 @ 10:29AM|#
The change Obama is offering, that people respond to, isn't
"policy-wise."
He's not running a policy-heavy campaign. He's running on his
political style - more hopeful, less angry, more willing to work
across party lines, and less beholden to the interests and
narratives of the Beltway people.
Oh, I see. Obama is running on a variant of the 'outsider' platform
of Bush II in the 2000 election.
Got it.
|1.4.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Joe: God love the "centrists." Let all the criminals bride each
other--look how well we all work together and across party lines.
It is what both parties do on foreign policy, because they both
have dogs in the fight.
I don't want a politician to make me feel warm and fuzzy during
election season. I want to know what kind of shit they're gonna
pull when they get in there.
I would love to feel hopeful about Obama's campaign. But, alas, I'm
at a loss. Actually, I don't even know where he stands. It all
depends on what speech or interview I read--he constantly changes
(Aha! I found the "change" everyone's talking about). I guess
there's some upbeat tone I'm not picking up on. Maybe I'm missing
something here.
This isn't directed at you specifically, Joe, just thinking out
loud. Nasty habit.
Episiarch|1.4.08 @ 10:33AM|#
SugarFree,
Feministing never fails to be amusing when you post a link. What
really surprised me though is that they refer to Edwards as a
"populist" (which he is), but to them that's a good thing.
I don't know if I've ever seen that before. I mean, I've seen
populists, but they usually avoid the actual term if they
can.
Oh, and there was at least one "I will move to Canada if Huckabee
wins" comments. The classics never go out of style--or get
fulfilled.
|1.4.08 @ 10:34AM|#
Joe: "Did you notice that everything you list to show how the
Democrats support the status quo is about government, rather than
about society?"
Shit, I can't tell where one ends and the other begins. Help me out
here.
BakedPenguin|1.4.08 @ 10:36AM|#
joe - yes, I got that Obama is kind of a Reagan-esque, Morning
in America Democrat, in the sense that he's about a positive
message. I'm kind of with Amber about the "warm and fuzzies".
Reagan was positive, but his election wasn't a good morning for
anyone who happened to take substances that the establishment
doesn't/didn't like.
Also, I'm a libertarian. I'm skeptical about a politician's ability
to foment cultural change outside of the political process, and I'm
fearful that a politician trying to do so will ultimately use the
political process, especially if that politician believes in the
process as a way to achieve results.
|1.4.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Warren,
I disagree. Clinton will not win the nomination. I originally
thought Richardson was the dark horse, but he decided to get weird
for the campaign, Ã la Bob Graham.
I have a feeling the senator curse and the lack of experience in
the frontrunners is really going to hurt the Democrats in the
general election, regardless of who gets nominated.
Fluffy|1.4.08 @ 10:37AM|#
I've been soul-searching all morning about the source of my true
distaste for Huckabee, which has been growing constantly, at a
faster rate than Huckabee's poll rise. I've also been thinking
about the visceral Huckabee hatred at places like the Corner. And
I've reached at least one conclusion.
My distaste for Huckabee is amplified by the fact that I am a bigot
against people like Huckabee.
There. I admitted it. It's out in the open.
As a libertarian, I've gotten used to being on the losing side of
political disputes. Quite used to it, in fact. So I'm not
freaking out on Huckabee because he's winning. I'm used to
non-libertarians always winning.
But it was one thing when I had to watch Ivy League technocrats
take over the government to try to tell me what to do "for my own
good" or "for the public good". I could dispute that on a policy
basis, and toss the "c" word around a bit when I got angry about
it, but then accept political reality at the end of the day.
But I simply cannot abide listening to nanny state bullshit coming
out of the mouth of some hick with two years of college and a
cracker jack box prize religion degree that he thinks makes him a
moral authority. I just can't do it.
|1.4.08 @ 10:39AM|#
tarran,
Oh, I see. Obama is running on a variant of the 'outsider'
platform of Bush II in the 2000 election. And Reagain in 1976
and 1980. Yup. Got it.
Amber,
I haven't the foggiest idea where you go "centrist" from, except
for the muddle-headed perception that "centrist," "moderate,"
"bipartisan," "compromise" and "collegial" all mean the same
thing.
Oh, wait, I do know where you got that from - Chris Matthews, Wold
Blitzer, David Broder, Timm Russert, and the Washington Post.
I don't want a politician to make me feel warm and fuzzy during
election season. I want to know what kind of shit they're gonna
pull when they get in there. I used to think like this, too -
vote for the policy wonk. But in our political system, the
president isn't the Editor in Chief of the US Code. Looking at
their political style (in the sense of how they operate in office,
not their branding on the campaign trail) and their values gives
you a better idea of what they will actually work at and accomplish
in office.
|1.4.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Meh. All the candidates we thought would be alive are still
alive, and that's all that matters. You can crush ill funded or
marginal candidates in Iowa and NH, but you can't tell anything
about HRC's fate based on how she does here. My hopes were that
McCain would die and Edwards would be hurt badly just to get two
odious people out of the way, but not so much.
It pains me that Huck has any traction anywhere, but he has zero
chance of being the guy. We're still looking at Hillary, Obama,
Edwards, Romney, McCain, and Rudy.
|1.4.08 @ 10:44AM|#
I'm happy Hillary Clinton lost despite the fact Obama is a Great Society liberal. I just want the Bushes and Clintons out. Gone. Finished. No mas.
|1.4.08 @ 10:50AM|#
"I've been soul-searching all morning about the source of my
true distaste for Huckabee, which has been growing constantly, at a
faster rate than Huckabee's poll rise. I've also been thinking
about the visceral Huckabee hatred at places like the Corner. And
I've reached at least one conclusion.
My distaste for Huckabee is amplified by the fact that I am a bigot
against people like Huckabee."
fluffy-I think that's very refreshing. Last night I actually got to
thinking, after watching both the caucus and the Orange Bowl, about
why dislike Romney so very much more than I dislike Huckabee. After
all, every goofy fundamentalist platitude that falls from Romney's
mouth falls from Hucks too...
I have no better conclusion than: 1. I hate people who will say
anything to get elected and I feel Romney is that (this is probably
why I dislike Hillary so much too) and 2. I like Huck's folksy
delivery style. I realize that such a thing can be faked, but he
comes off like one of my neighbors when I used to live down South,
the kind of guy whose beliefs I think border madness but who is
friendly enough to help you get your dogs when they get out of your
fence...
I know I really should line people up policy wise and vote from
there, after all we elect the ideas not the person (in a sense).
But there is something about Romney's "perfect candidate" thing
that I detest...
|1.4.08 @ 10:51AM|#
...and all the other boomers, too, Cesar.
Hopefully, the toach has been passed to a new generation of
leadahship.
|1.4.08 @ 10:53AM|#
I think you guys should be more optimistic about Ron Paul.
Remember at the beginning of the election the pundits and press saw
him as about as competitive as Duncan Hunter. Fourth place behind
well known names like Huck, Romney, etc ain't bad...
I wonder, can Fox argue he should not be in the debates now (I know
they CAN, they are a shameless bunch of bastards, but can they
honestly do so or convingly-even-to-a-wingnut?).
|1.4.08 @ 10:54AM|#
I hope so too, joe.
Whats really funny is, it could be Obama vs. McCain. One before the
boomers, one after.
Thankfully, one was too young to remember the 60s and the other was
in a prison camp during the 60s.
If Obama wins the boomers will have had like, what, only 16 years
old leadership? Thats kind of sad how quickly people got sick of
them.
BakedPenguin|1.4.08 @ 10:54AM|#
My distaste for Huckabee is amplified by the fact that I am a bigot against people like Huckabee."
If this were 1850, Huckabee would be selling snake oil nostrums and
bees wax salve to rubes.
|1.4.08 @ 10:55AM|#
I think Hillary's best strategy is to say, without all the
apologizing, "There is no way someone like Obama, with his muslim
background, interracial heritage, inexperience, and admited wild
past is ever going to withstand a GOP onslaught. No way. A vote for
Obama is a vote for four more years of war and crazy judges
(good-bye Roe!)".
It's sad so many Americans would hold much of those against Obama,
but enough will...
|1.4.08 @ 10:57AM|#
"If this were 1850, Huckabee would be selling snake oil nostrums
and bees wax salve to rubes."
I disagree. The guy would be that friendly neighbor you might have
had. He really comes off as honest to me...In some ways, that is
scarier...
|1.4.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Joe:
If you want to play symantics, okay, maybe "bipartisan" is a better
term. There.
I don't watch Wolf Blitzer, read the Washington Post, or any of the
other publications/pundits (I assume) that you listed, so I don't
know what you're getting at. But, I definitely sensed some negative
vibes in your response. What's with that Joe?
What label have I been assigned...just out of curiosity. Which
"type" am I?
|1.4.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Obama doesn't fucking have a "Muslim" background. If
you ever read his bio, saying his father was a Muslim is like
calling me a Catholic.
Obama's father was a secular playboy, not a jihadi.
ed|1.4.08 @ 10:58AM|#
I just want it to be over.
I'd vote for Stalin himself at this point if he could guarantee
closure by next Tuesday.
|1.4.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Cesar,
McCain has already played the hippie card. Remember, the right side
of Boomerdom has always defined itself as being consistent with the
slightly older people and those who served in Vietnam.
|1.4.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Can anyone name ONE state that Obama, in the general election,
would win that Hillary would not?
I think though there are states where he would certainly lose where
Hillary would have a better chance (TN, WV, AR)
|1.4.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Cesar-What will count is what people will think, and Barak Hussein Obama will scream MUSLIM BACKGROUND with a great deal of folks...Sure, these people could not tell you the difference between a Sunni or Shia, or for that matter find the Middle East on a map, but in this great nation they can vote too...
|1.4.08 @ 11:02AM|#
I think Obama would do better in those states, MNG.
We've just seen that Obama can pull independents in middle-American
states better than Hillary.
Episiarch|1.4.08 @ 11:03AM|#
You know what would be great? If they would just get honest and actually run a giant douche against a turd sandwich and skip all the bullshit.
|1.4.08 @ 11:03AM|#
My wife's dad is an old school union man who votes Democrat 90%
of the time.
The 10% he doesn't? When the candidate is not white. And he cannot
even PRONOUNCE Obama's name...
It's ugly and stupid, but there it is. I don't think the number of
folks like him are so small as not to make Obama unelectable...
|1.4.08 @ 11:04AM|#
MNG,
There are a lot of Americans who would jump at the chance to vote
for a black guy with a name like that, just to show those
politically correct liberals that they are SO not racist, and will
happily vote for a minority, so long as he's one of the good
ones.
|1.4.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Obama won over Independents and Republicans in one of the
whitest states in America. Thats going to assuage a lot of
fears.
Being from Illinois, he would probably have an easier time winning
places like Michigan, Iowa, and Missouri than Hillary.
|1.4.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Missed the discussion yesterday -- skiing in Utah. WHOO!
IIRC, Ron Paul did better than the MSM polls were predicting --
wasn't he at 7% prior to the polls opening? So perhaps all the
other polls need to be adjusted up 40% - 50% to reflect Paul's
actual support due to no land lines, better turnout, etc.
Still not enough to win -- but we already knew that. But when was
the last time a libertarian got 10% of the vote?
Glad Giuliani got a beatdown, but he's still in it. Glad Obama won
on the Democratic side -- not planning on voting for the d00d, but
he's better than HRC, and she's better than frickin' Edwards (who
is the Democratic Huckabee, with less Bible-thumpin' and a big
heaping extra helping of populist economic idiocy.)
Both nominations are still in play -- none of the major candidates
on either side got knocked out. About the only thing that matters
to people here is that the one wild card -- were the MSM polls
wildly undercounting Paul? -- turned out to be a bust.
I hope I'm totally wrong about Paul, but unless he comes up huge in
NH, I'd say we're left with trying to educate the public about
libertarianism, not to win this bad puppy.
|1.4.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Joe-I'm betting those "independents" are the "leaning Democrat"
independents. And this is at a time when virtually noone is
attacking or has attacked Obama.
Hillary has not messed with him because she does not want to be
seen as racially insensitive or creating bad blood in the party.
The Right has laid off Obama. Why attack the guy now? The Right is
seen as racially insensitive enough, and they know that, and so
they will wait until they have to attack Obama. But when they do,
watch out...It's gonna be bad...
iowan|1.4.08 @ 11:07AM|#
The rule of thumb is that politicians pander to their core
constituents during the primary season, the rush back to court the
middle-of-the-roaders for the general election.
Obama won Iowa by a substational margin by chasing the
middle-of-the-roaders right from the beginning.
His acceptance speech last night was exceptionally polished and
sounded like he was accepting the nomination at the convention, not
taking the first contest.
If he has the legs for it, he can take the nomination and maybe the
white house.
|1.4.08 @ 11:07AM|#
"Being somebody's wife doesn't really give you experience in
doing their job."
Maybe Socks should run. He lived in the White House also.
|1.4.08 @ 11:07AM|#
I am thrilled that Huckabee won last night because it was the worst possible thing for Republicans and that is basically how I am looking at the Republican side, any horrible thing that happens to their voters, candidates, party is wonderful...yeah I'm spiteful after the past 7 years...
|1.4.08 @ 11:07AM|#
But there is something about Romney's "perfect candidate"
thing that I detest...
How's this sound? He's too smooth to be trusted. That's my take on
it. I can't hate him for his policy positions because they are so
malleable. I can't hate him for being a Mormon, because I believe
all religions to be equally lidicrous. Granted it is difficult to
get a true sense of an individual through the campaign and media
lenses, but somehow complete insincerity from Romney cuts through
all of the noise.
|1.4.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Joe-you don't think those types of people were going to vote Dem
anyway in a general election?
Look, I hope you and Cesar are right. I'd rather live in that type
of country. I just doubt it. I saw what happened to such a
candidate in TN...
|1.4.08 @ 11:10AM|#
I think HRC still has this thing locked up. I don't buy for a
minute that people really believe she is the easier candidate to
beat nationally. I don't see an elephant that will beat her
nationally. The odd movement of the war into the background has
made it more interesting, but the Repub field is just bad. I can't
see a Mormon being able to hold conservatives together. I can't see
McCain and his distinctly unpopular set of maverickisms holding
together a coalition. Rudy I could see, but he's looking worse
every day. Too many people seem to feel about Huckabee as I do -
that his faith heavy style is too polarizing.
HRC or Obama could beat the lot of them, and my sense is that HRC's
baggage isn't going to stick.
|1.4.08 @ 11:11AM|#
But can the "look at me, I'm not racist" vote actually outstrip
the "ain't votin' for no darkie" vote? That's the real
question.
I like Obama's personality (or what comes across the media filter)
but, policy-wise, only way I vote for him is as the lesser of two
evils against Huckabee or Romney.
|1.4.08 @ 11:11AM|#
I'm not a smart man Jenny, but I know what politickin is.
Voters in general, don't care much about policy. Dems want to feel
good, and they can about Obama. He makes folks feel comfortable
like Bill Clinton did. Twice. The publicans are lookin for a party
saviour. Huckabee may fit the bill and the moral majority will have
somebody to petition God for the victory.
It ain't rocket science. Just simple sales. Obama and the preacher
happen to be the the best spokesmodels today.
|1.4.08 @ 11:14AM|#
"Being from Illinois, he would probably have an easier time
winning places like Michigan, Iowa, and Missouri than
Hillary."
Hillary's also from Illinois.
|1.4.08 @ 11:14AM|#
MNG,
The Democrats go twice as many independent votes as the Republicans
last night. In 2007, most independents are Democratic-leaning
independents.
Joe-you don't think those types of people were going to vote
Dem anyway in a general election? No, I think people who are
locked into voting for a Democrat in the general election aren't
the ones who feel the need to prove how totally not racist they
are.
|1.4.08 @ 11:14AM|#
I'll vote for anybody to keep Huck from winning anything. Probably the best plausible race for me would be Obama vs. Romney. The worst would be HRC vs. McCain.
|1.4.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Joe:
Also, one more thing, than I will bug you no more. Since the guy
(or gal) will be commander-in-chief of the US armed forces in an
era in which the executive can wage unilateral wars, maybe a
consideration of their views on at least foreign policy is perhaps
relevant. Much more so than a smile, I'd imagine. I would even go
so far as to say that policy and voting record are far more
important than charisma. I can't help it; I've been pushed to the
edge of cynicism and I want to know what I'm getting.
Don't get me wrong. Dating unpredictable people can be quite fun,
but electing them as leaders, not so much.
Either way, best wishes all. It has been fun guys. I'm out the
door.
|1.4.08 @ 11:15AM|#
I think the winning ticket for the Dems is Hillary-Richardson.
Obama-Richardson will be seen as far too ethnic by too many
Americans (meaning it will seem like a cheap ploy to win ethnic
votes and be "politically correct").
On the other side, someone will have to explain to me the hate on
Guliani here. IF (and I have always had a big doubt here)
libertarians really value the social liberties they talk about at
college parties as much as the economic "liberties" they talk about
with small business owners, then Guliani, compared to the other
front runners, is your man, no question. The man is every bit as
economically libertarian as Romney, Thompson or McCain while having
a record that he often still defends that is pro-choice,
pro-seperation of church and state, pro-stem cell research, and
pro-gay rights...Of course you should vote your conscience and if
you are a libertarian you'd be a fool not to vote for Ron Paul, but
among the media darlings Rudy strikes me as the obvious better
choice.
|1.4.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Hillary's also from Illinois.
No she isn't. She's from New York. Or Arkansas. Or somewhere.
|1.4.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Episiarch,
I often flip back and forth through the day. It's hard to resist
the lure of Feministing and its commenters' sloppy logic. It's the
funniest site on the Internet, they just don't know it. I'm going
to push to have the nominated for a Blog award next year in the
humor category.
|1.4.08 @ 11:18AM|#
There is no chance that Huckabee is going to win the Republican nomination...Repubs. are very sorry now that they encouraged democracy within their hierarchical party. Also, I think there is little or no chance that the Republican nominee will win anyway...regardless.
|1.4.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Amber,
That's a nice false dilemma you present, between "a smile" and
"foreign policy views."
I already answered you, by explaining the difference between policy
positions and guiding beliefs/instincts. Agree, disagree, whatever.
Doesn't make me no nevermind, but don't expect me to reply if
you're going to completely miss the central point of what I
write.
|1.4.08 @ 11:19AM|#
MNG:
The sense is that Rudy is a bit fond of heavy handed law and order.
He also doesn't like guns so much.
|1.4.08 @ 11:20AM|#
MNG, Giuliani is also an executive-power hoarding, gun-grabbing, torture-loving, police power abusing, imperialist war-loving, smoke-banning, mafia-connected piece of douche.
|1.4.08 @ 11:22AM|#
All of this judging Hillary vs. Obama's electability based on
demographics and background misses the point.
John Kerry was very electable on paper, he just wasn't very
talented at campaigning. Being a good campaigner is the most
important factor in someone's electability.
I don't think there's much dispute about who the best campaigner on
the Democratic side is.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.4.08 @ 11:23AM|#
If Obama didn't look viable they might vote for
Paul...
I believe that sentiment goes to the so-called divided government
theory that is popular around here, or maybe even it hearkens back
to the anybody but McGovern theme.
I may be naive, but I don't think O'bama fans (sounds like an
Irishman from the south)can cross the divide. I mean, that's like
saying Daily Kos is a libertarian.
|1.4.08 @ 11:23AM|#
"I already answered you, by explaining the difference between
policy positions and guiding beliefs/instincts."
You have to pay off your coalition and you have to stay in office.
I suspect most policy position and most beliefs have little to do
with how one actually governs. I further suspect that the narrative
for any Democrat going into office is 'don't be ideological', so we
will see a return to government by polls.
iowa|1.4.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Guiliani says we need to submit to his authority to be
free.
Guiliani is a libertarian only in doublespeak.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.4.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Huck v. Obama in a general = we all lose
Yes, but in the end:
Anybody v. Pretty Much Anybody Else in a general = we all lose
|1.4.08 @ 11:26AM|#
"Huck v. Obama v. Bloomfield = we still all lose."
Huck v. Obama v. Bloomberg v. Paul = we all win
|1.4.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Clinton is from the Chicago suburbs, originally, so I'd like to know her position on fois gras.
BakedPenguin|1.4.08 @ 11:28AM|#
MNG - maybe "social liberties" means something different to you than it does to us. Giuliani is no friend of the 2nd amendment, legalized gambling, due process, medical marijuana (or teh drugs in general). He was a micro manager of New York, instituting nanny state laws that would have made the worst Democrat proud. He's also one of the biggest advocates of torture. All that outweighs the fact that he's okay with gay marriage.
|1.4.08 @ 11:28AM|#
People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with a muppet rather than the guy that laid them off someone competent.
|1.4.08 @ 11:29AM|#
I agree with JasonL. Policy positins as discussed on the
campaign trail are primarily used, both by the campaigns and by the
voters, as evidence of a candidate's values, beliefs, and governing
style.
The gory details of Barack's health care plan vs. Hillary's health
care plan don't matter much, because neither's plan is going to
survice contact with Congress.
On the other hand, we can be very confident that the differences
we've seen in how Hillary and Bill Richardson speak about issues
and actions actually do represent a difference in, for example,
their ideas about executive power and their capacity/willingness to
play nice with Congress.
|1.4.08 @ 11:30AM|#
"HRC or Obama could beat the lot of them, and my sense is that
HRC's baggage isn't going to stick."
Obama is the only one that defeats all the Republicans in the
latest poll I saw and more handily than does Hillary. Hillary only
beat Guiliani by 1 point and lost to McCain by 5 points.
Hillary lost Iowa and is not doing so well in New Hampshire and
South Carolina because those are the states she has campaigned in.
She is her own worst enemy. If she loses New Hampshire and South
Carolina and when she starts campaining in the other states and
people compare her phony personality to Obama's, she could very
well go down the tubes.
You could be right about one thing, Jason. Her baggage may not
stick in the general election but only because the MSM will get
behind her when and if she becomes the nominee. But there are
plenty of other sources out there that will be bringing up her
baggage. Remember the swift boaters in the last election.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 11:30AM|#
From CNN:
In Iowa, entrance polls of caucus-goers showed that 3 out of
every 5 Republicans were self-described born again or evangelical
Christians. Huckabee beat Romney by better than 2-to-1 in this
voting bloc. Among the rest of Iowa's Republican electorate,
however, Huckabee finished a distant fourth behind Romney, McCain
and Fred Thompson.
highnumber|1.4.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Hillary's also from Illinois.
Meh. We've kind of disowned her. Arkansas and New York can have
her. Besides, I'm not sure that being from Chicagoland is an
advantage anywhere in the Midwest outside Chicagoland.
BakedPenguin|1.4.08 @ 11:36AM|#
highnumber and Reinmoose - send her back to Arkansas. If they're going to inflict Huckabee on the rest of teh nation, they deserve her.
|1.4.08 @ 11:36AM|#
"MNG - maybe "social liberties" means something different to you
than it does to us. Giuliani is no friend of the 2nd amendment,
legalized gambling, due process, medical marijuana (or teh drugs in
general). He was a micro manager of New York, instituting nanny
state laws that would have made the worst Democrat proud. He's also
one of the biggest advocates of torture. All that outweighs the
fact that he's okay with gay marriage."
Doesn't sound much like a libertarian to me. Why does Dondero think
he's so libertarian?
|1.4.08 @ 11:38AM|#
In 2000, the last time there was a contested caucus for both
parties, the Republicans turned out 86,000 people and the Democrats
turned out 59,000.
This time, the Republicans turned out 115,000 - an impressive 30%
increase - and the Democrats turned out 236,000. Doing the math in
my head, that is an increase of sixty bajillion percent.
Iowas vote for George W. Bush twice.
|1.4.08 @ 11:39AM|#
The entire Republican platform and and agenda is about bringing out the absolute lowest part of everyone's character. They want the law of the jungle and cater to the basest instincts at all times...I don't think they are going to win this election because I think that message has gotten a bit tired.
BakedPenguin|1.4.08 @ 11:39AM|#
RJ - because he's a cross dresser, and he supports the War in
Iraq.
Oh, and so does Giuliani.
|1.4.08 @ 11:41AM|#
iowan | January 4, 2008, 11:38am | #
Why does Dondero think he's so libertarian?
Raw Stupidity, perhaps.
nahh. Seems rather refined to me, almost complete.
|1.4.08 @ 11:44AM|#
"Guiliani says we need to submit to his authority to be
free."
Talk about Orwellian newspeak! Authority = freedom.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Iowas vote for George W. Bush twice.From
realclearpolitics:
Wrong:
Results from 2000 Election: Bush 48.2, Gore 48.5, Nader 2.2 (Gore
+0.3)
|1.4.08 @ 11:47AM|#
highnumber,
On the outside chance (in my mind), that HRC wins the election,
they will erect a gaudy statue of her in Park Ridge. Whatever
horrors she perpetrates on our nation will be entirely blamed on
Chicago and Chicagoans.
joe,
Iie, bakasashimi. Wakarimasu ka?
Ali|1.4.08 @ 11:47AM|#
J sub D:
Are there people who will actually vote democrat in MI after the
D's snubbed them? I would imagine many of those MI Dems would vote
for Paul. Or may be not.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Talk about Orwellian newspeak! Authority =
freedom.
doublespeak
You didn't recognize that?
Ali|1.4.08 @ 11:49AM|#
In Iowa, the only three who actually won entire countries were Mike, Mitt, and Ron. No one else.
|1.4.08 @ 11:50AM|#
"MNG, Giuliani is also an executive-power hoarding,
gun-grabbing, torture-loving, police power abusing, imperialist
war-loving, smoke-banning, mafia-connected piece of douche."
Agreed, but the rest of the GOP field is every bit as crazy on
executive power, war and torture (with the exception of McCain on
torture) without being better on abortion, gay rights, immigration,
seperation of church and state, etc. I'll grant you guys the 2nd
Amendment issue, I just don't see how that outwieghs his coolness
on the lifestyle issues (and I am a longtime gun owner). At that
debate where they asked the question about the Bible being
literally true his answer was gold and easily the ballsiest one for
a GOP frontrunner.
You have to consider that Rudy was in NYC for pete's sake, that is
a pretty liberal place (and fun place btw). And unlike Mitt, who
was also in a liberal place, he has not (well, not as much)
p*ssy-like scrambled away from every position he took there. That
stands for something in my book...
iowan|1.4.08 @ 11:50AM|#
I screwed up a simple cut and paste (sigh)
From realclearpolitics:
Results from 2000 Election: Bush 48.2, Gore 48.5, Nader 2.2 (Gore
+0.3)
|1.4.08 @ 11:50AM|#
I love how some HnR posters are dumping on Iowa voters. Come November you're going to see roughly the same level of stupidity from sea to shining sea.
R C Dean|1.4.08 @ 11:51AM|#
But can the "look at me, I'm not racist" vote actually
outstrip the "ain't votin' for no darkie" vote? That's the real
question.
No one can see who you vote for in the privacy of the booth, so
there "look at me" factor doesn't really carry a lot of
weight.
It used to be that black candidates always overperformed in polling
compared to the actual voting outcome. The usual explanation was
that people were unwilling to tell a pollster they wouldn't vote
for the black guy, but perfectly willing to do something different
when it counted.
Dunno how much this is still true.
|1.4.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Talk about Orwellian newspeak! Authority =
freedom.
The slogan is actually FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
And it's doublethink, not doublespeak.
|1.4.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Has anyone pointed out the plus side of a possible Huckabee
nomination - that the Republican "coalition" would at last be blown
into smithereens?
At least I see it as a plus, but I usually vote for the L's, so I'm
probably a goof.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 11:52AM|#
The caucuses are over.
This is the last day for this handle (unless people find new
reasons to insult the glorious state of Iowa).
|1.4.08 @ 11:52AM|#
"Stupidisushi?"
I'm not opposed to rolls, but I really prefer stupid-nigiri to
stupid-maki. It's a texture thing.
|1.4.08 @ 11:53AM|#
joe-You see, many Democrats though Kerry to be very "electable." But that demonstrates how out of touch they were with Americans that do not share their worldview. They thought "oh, Kerry is a war hero and we are in a war, and those country folks like 'em some war hero's." Well, one thing those country folks HATE are war protestors, so Kerry's service was bound to be cancelled out. He was also from Massachussets for God's sake. I like Mass. stands for the most part but it is a state VERY different from, say, West Virginia or Tennessee or Arkansas, all of which could be in play in a Presidential election.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 11:53AM|#
And it's doublethink, not doublespeak.
Oops!
Stayed up to late mourning the 5th place finish of RP ;-)
|1.4.08 @ 11:54AM|#
iowans are in no way stupider than other Americans - it's just that they like corn a whole lot more and make the rest of us eat it too.
|1.4.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Ali,
That's an interesting point. I just read an article locally (in
Florida) about their being a high number of registration
changes--Democrat-to-Independent and Democrat-to-GOP--presumably
resulting from the punishment that Florida is getting for moving
its primary. Personally, I think that is a very stupid move on the
DNC's part, and it may actually affect the outcome of the election.
Or not. Maybe the fourth largest state and the largest "in play"
doesn't really matter in presidential elections.
iowan,
Minnesota uses caucuses, too, right? I'm willing to insult them.
They trash Iowans like crazy, anyway (I lived in Minneapolis for a
year).
|1.4.08 @ 11:55AM|#
MNG,
I don't get this idea that we should support a candidate who has
awful positions just because he's stuck with them and is apparently
sincere. I'd much rather have a flip-flopper who's just parroting
statist positions to get elected (Romney) than one who truly
believes his statist positions (Huckabee, Giuliani).
|1.4.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Stupidisushi?
I don't like this term because, even though I know that's not what
it means, it looks like someone is hating on sushi. I suddenly feel
compelled to defend sushi, as i've been considering it as a part of
my new handle.
|1.4.08 @ 11:57AM|#
iowan,
I might be living in your state when the general occurs...do you
know what the deadline is for voter registration?
(I would be moving there in August if I get a good fellowship offer
from U of Iowa)
|1.4.08 @ 11:57AM|#
joe
Think of the folks who were swayed by the Jesse Helms ad, or the
Willie Horton ad, or the Max Cleland-morphing-into-Osama ad, or
Swift Boat. Are you arguing these would not play in West Virginia
or Arkansas?
Now think of ad's attacking Barak Hussein Obama, interracial
candidate whose father was foriegn and who admitted doing
cocaine.
As I said, hello Iran war, good-bye Roe v. Wade!
iowan|1.4.08 @ 11:58AM|#
I might be living in your state when the general occurs...do
you know what the deadline is for voter registration?
I think the newspaper said yesterday that the law changed to allow
same-day registration (register at the polls). The standard used to
be 10 days prior to the election.
|1.4.08 @ 12:00PM|#
That's Pro Libertate-sama to you, joe-san. Submerge yourself in
a vat of fugu poison for as long as it takes you to come
up with ten haikus pleasing to me.
Baka, incidentally, is stupid or idiot in
Nihon-go, if I understand these things correctly. It's
been a long time since that Japanese class.
|1.4.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Crimethink-one problem is that contrary to public opinion, politicians who make public promises tend to keep them (or make some attempt to keep them), so whether Romney means his goofiness or not is largely irrelevant...In addition, as I mentioned on another post, it could be the case that Romney believes, fervently, every flip and flop. There are people who change positions on major issues, sometimes doing complete 180's, and support their flipped position with some fantacism...That's truly frightening...There is some evidence from his bio that Romney is actually just a very guillible salesmen type of guy...
Ali|1.4.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Pro Libertate-
Yeah, if nothing else I would imagine those dems probably spreading
their vote between Paul and G as the former is staunchly anti-war
and the latter is very "Dem looking".
|1.4.08 @ 12:01PM|#
MNG,
In the polling on election day, Kerry scored very high on "strong
leader" (WTF?), which is best read as a statement that his "strong
enough to be commander in chief" shtick actually worked, and people
weren't viscerally opposed to "the war protestor." War protestors
are not seen as "strong leaders."
The Democrats who voted for Kerry because his record looked
electable were right. He lost because of "flip-flopper" and
"phoney" and other things that went to his ability to articulate
his case and willingness to take stands, not because his background
made him unelectable. It wasn't his record and background that were
the problem.
Somebody with better political skills and Kerry's record would have
won.
|1.4.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Huck also impressed me with his stand against Bush's foriegn policy. In the GOP right now, that takes some balls, and some sense.
|1.4.08 @ 12:04PM|#
I actually prefer the caucus process because it it a lot more participatory than the normal American elite democracy where voters get a chance to endorse the policies of elites every few years.
|1.4.08 @ 12:04PM|#
MNG,
I don't think racially-charged ads are going to work as well
against Obama as they would against other black candidates. He
doesn't seem to set off people's "scary black man" alarms, for
whatever reason.
|1.4.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Baka, incidentally, is stupid or idiot in Nihon-go, if I
understand these things correctly. It's been a long time since that
Japanese class.
Yeah, well, it's been a while since I read Shogun, too.
|1.4.08 @ 12:06PM|#
joe
I'd argue that the flip-flop stuff worked so well on him because he
was, well, a career Mass. liberal (part of his "record") with a
voting record to match who, when considering a Presidential run,
made some contrary votes as well.
I could have sworn polling gave Bush the upper hand on security,
right? That's where that war protestor stuff would come in.
|1.4.08 @ 12:07PM|#
MNG,
Such ads might have a significant effect in the south but the
Democrat isn't going to win there anyway.
|1.4.08 @ 12:08PM|#
"My wife's dad is an old school union man who votes Democrat 90%
of the time."
"The 10% he doesn't? When the candidate is not white. And he cannot
even PRONOUNCE Obama's name..."
"It's ugly and stupid, but there it is. I don't think the number of
folks like him are so small as not to make Obama
unelectable..."
I know people like that myself, but the polls do show that Obama
could beat every Republican candidate and more handily than could
Hillary.
|1.4.08 @ 12:09PM|#
MNG,
Bush lead on security/terrorism, but by a significantly smaller
margin than previous Republican candidates.
iowan|1.4.08 @ 12:10PM|#
I actually prefer the caucus process because it it a lot
more participatory than the normal American elite democracy where
voters get a chance to endorse the policies of elites every few
years.
The issue isn't the caucus. The caucus is a state-level party
function to encourage grassroots development of state-level party
officials.
The "straw poll" for republicans and "preference poll" for
democrats should not mean anything to anyone.
It's not Iowans that turn this into a circus.
|1.4.08 @ 12:11PM|#
crimethink-I see the GOP as a very "groupthink" party right now,
so I admire anyone who can break with the party (McCain on torture,
Huckabee on foriegn policy, Rudy on abortion, Paul on the war) and
despise one who pretty much swallows teh Party Line and
regurgitates it right back (Romney).
In addition, the say-anything-to-win mentality of Romney (and HRC I
would submit) are examples of a mindset wanting power without
principle, and I submit that kind of ambition for power (ultimately
over other people) is scary. As McCain has said when he is asked
about certain strongly held beliefs of his hurting him "I don't
want to be President that bad." Shit, I can admire that more than
"I will say or believe anything to be President."
|1.4.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Us southerners tend to see Obama as a "happy negro what knows the rules" type of fella. I know it is really very wrong, but we tend to be a tad slow here. I must also resubmit my contention that he has the brotherbill Clinton "aww shucks" charisma which is what a lot of unsatisfied (poor) voters are looking for.
|1.4.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Joe, John Kerry really wasn't all that electable on paper. He played up the war hero shtick but he wasn't exactly John McCain. Theres also the problem of his (lets face it) wacky far-left testimony before Congress, throwing his medals away, etc. For baby boomer swing voters that sets off the "damned hippie" alarm.
|1.4.08 @ 12:17PM|#
on the subject of John Kerry:
I know it's really immature but seeing clips on TV of him over the
last week or so reminded me of exactly how dry and hilarious he
sounds. I now say normal phrases in his voice and it absolutely
cracks me up.
|1.4.08 @ 12:18PM|#
MNG,
How has Huckabee "broken with" Bush on foreign policy? Each of the
candidates has criticized some aspects of the
implementation of that foreign policy, but none have
questioned the policy itself. Didn't Huck have that famous "we must
keep honor" back and forth with Paul at the last Fox debate?
|1.4.08 @ 12:19PM|#
James | January 4, 2008, 12:10pm | #
Southern States: PLEASE consider secession...this time we will let
you go."
We cain't get loose from the federal teet long enough to consider
it. Sorry
iowan|1.4.08 @ 12:19PM|#
One of the highlights of the local coverage that you folks
wouldn't have seen was the local sportscaster asking all the
candidates sports related questions.
This year the University of Northern Iowa (Division 1A) went
undefeated in the regular season and lost in the playoffs to
Delaware.
The sportscaster asked Dodd (I think), who played football for
Delaware, if it would have been better for his presidential chances
for Delaware to lose, he responded "some things are more important
than being president".
|1.4.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Are there people who will actually vote democrat in MI after
the D's snubbed them? I would imagine many of those MI Dems would
vote for Paul. Or may be not.
I really don't see a backlash against the Dems for snubbing
Michigan, but I live in Detroit and a Republican can expect to
garner 5% of the vote here. I do detect a growing
appreciation/excitement about Obama's campaign.
IMHO (no research provided or done by me), there is concern, waning
but still large, in the African American community that a black man
cannot win the general election, but HRC can.
Which brings up a question that occured in my convoluted thought
processes during breakfast. Which of the following is the a biggest
negative in the general election?
A white Methodist FEMALE?
A BLACK United Church of Christ male?
A white MORMAN male?
highnumber|1.4.08 @ 12:21PM|#
ProGLib,
Have you ever been to Park Ridge? They don't go for gaudy. It's a
nice, quiet (except that it's near O'Hare), quaint suburb,
especially for how near the city it is.
Here is a fairly typical street scene.
If you grew up in the western suburbs, I could tell you that
Elmhurst is its western analog.
|1.4.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Cesar,
That's just not what the exit polling and elections results
showed.
You don't come closer than any candidate in history to beating a
sitting wartime president, or scoring highly on the "strong leader"
question (again, WFT?) if swing voters see as a soft
far-leftie.
And I think we can all agree that it wasn't any demonstration of
courage or leadershhip on the campaign trail that got Kerry those
results. And it certainly wasn't his record in the Senate, which he
barely metioned. I'm left to conclude that it was his background
and physical appearance.
|1.4.08 @ 12:30PM|#
"IMHO (no research provided or done by me), there is concern,
waning but still large, in the African American community that a
black man cannot win the general election, but HRC can."
They need to see the polls that show Obama more handily defeating
all the Republican candidates than Hillary does.
|1.4.08 @ 12:34PM|#
I just don't know...and I say this as a Liberal Democrat...who the big Hillary supporters are, I mean I work in politics and I know only one or two. Who are these people?! Is is just women? No idea.
|1.4.08 @ 12:35PM|#
I'm left to conclude that it was his background and physical
appearance.
I do have to admit I find it hard to vote for reverse-Centaurs
(body of a man, head of a horse)
|1.4.08 @ 12:36PM|#
The black "civil-rights" establishment doesn't like Obama
because (my God!) he talks about things other than race. He
actually tries to reach out to white people, how dare he!
He should be having a fit over the Jenna Six instead!
|1.4.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Cesar -
Does anybody here watch CSPAN call-ins after debates? They are so
much more entertaining than watching the fat-heads talk about what
happened.
I remember one time a guy called in on the republican line after
the democrats debated and commented on Obama. He said that we
couldn't have a black man as president, and when the proctor asked
him why, he said that he'd pave over the lawn to install a
basketball court and would have all of his buddies over to have a
barbeque, and play loud rap music.
I really think this guy was serious, and I really really really
really hope that people aren't thinking about that sort of thing
when they go to the polls.
|1.4.08 @ 12:45PM|#
They need to see the polls that show Obama more handily
defeating all the Republican candidates than Hillary
does.
Many blacks know American's historical enmity towards blacks and
believe it will show up in voting booths despite the polls. That's
not paranoid thinking, that's experience talking.
|1.4.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Reinmoose-
Around 80% of people who actually call into C-SPAN are psychos,
dipshits, or both. But I do agree its good entertainment to watch
them say inane things. Its even better when its Brian Lamb hosting,
because he actually calls them out on their bullshit.
I live in Virginia, and not NOVA Virginia, the "real world" of
Virginia has George Allen would say. I've had rednecks tell me they
think Obama is an ok guy (something they will not say about either
Clinton) , so I don't think his race will hurt him too much.
GILMORE|1.4.08 @ 12:52PM|#
here's a thought
If you and this magazine werent' so fucking myopic about the RON
PAUL 24/7 COVERAGE EXPRESS!! maybe you'd be less surprised by
Obama's success.
Get a grip indeed. Given the range of choices = "BAD or WORSE!",
many people are going to go for Obama mainly because he's open
ended.
I think people who assume he's a political ideologue who's going to
outspend Bush II or create the final nanny state, I think you have
ask = which candidate *that can actually win* would do the LEAST
damage?
Probably Obama. Paul is nice and all, but he aint winning dick.
Once you get over this, you can choose not to vote at all, or
choose the least of all evils.
I mean, Edward, for all his senseless vituperation, has had a point
from the beginning.
LarryA|1.4.08 @ 12:56PM|#
I still can't believe that Huckabee beat Romney by 9 points.
9 POINTS!
The evangelicals want a Christian government. You can't have a
Christian government with a non-Christian in charge. Mormons aren't
Christian.*
*Their opinion, not mine.
Yeah, it's catchy enough that Democrats have been riding that
meme since JFK. Nobody else has figured it out since then, either.
And the advocates of this "change" have never seen fit to define
what's changing.
Actually it means "hold on to your loose change, cause after we're
done that's all you'll have left."
I don't agree with his politics, but he is a breath of fresh
air compared to the Hildebeast. He strikes me as being more sincere
and honest than Hillary.
Actually, I'd rather have a politician pushing the nannystate
because she wants reelection rather than one who sincerely thinks
the nannystate is good for us. The one who believes he's doing us a
favor will work harder to succeed. The one who wants reelected will
at least occasionally listen to us.
Being somebody's wife doesn't really give you experience in
doing their job.
It does if you did their job for them.
Fluffy|1.4.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Gilmore -
Edward was a Richardson supporter, so he really never had any
grounds for making a "Choose somebody who can win" type of
criticism.
I know the Democrats don't release raw vote numbers, but it looks
to me like more people showed up to caucus for Paul in Iowa than
for Richardson.
|1.4.08 @ 1:18PM|#
highnumber,
Don't give me that. Illinois is still going on about
Lincoln. If Chicago gets someone in office, the gaudy statue will
be the least of it.
joe, I took Japanese in college (in 1985) and went to Tokyo in
1997. My entire range of Japanese by the time I got there was about
that of someone who had just read Shogun. I had to make
little rainy motions to order water. I am so ashamed.
The only useful phrase my Japanese classmates gave me was oki
opai, which means big "bouncy, bouncy". To this day, I have
old college friends who say that.
GILMORE|1.4.08 @ 1:28PM|#
Fluffy | January 4, 2008, 1:05pm | #
Gilmore -
Edward was a Richardson supporter, so he really never had any
grounds for making a "Choose somebody who can win" type of
criticism.
I sit corrected.
|1.4.08 @ 1:47PM|#
PL,
At the very least, you could have graciously greeted Mr. Roboto had
you happened to meet someone with that name.
economist|1.4.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Why the hell does James feel it necessary to clutter up the the
message board with his leftist BS. Here's my responses to
everything he's said.
1. Republicans might have embraced deficits and a psychotic foreign
policy, but Dems invented those things (thanks a lot, FDR).
2. Sure it would be nice to get rid of the southern Baptists who
would elect one of their ministers president, but they provide a
useful counterbalance to stupid northern "union label"
populists.
3. Participatory democracy like the caucus system is stupid. It
just attracts political junkies with an axe to grind. I personally
would be prefer a system where you have one elitist branch of
government with elections every ten years and another that is
populist and has annual elections. That way, they might possibly
balance each other out.
4. If you can't say anything intelligent, then be a good
environmentalist and don't waste our air, m'kay?
Bingo|1.4.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Karl Rove must have been working his hardest to fracture the
Republicans all along. I'm hoping for a Hillary vs. Huckabee
general election now, for the train wreck factor.
Also Obama seems nice but he comes from the Chicago political
machine. New York City has nothing on the shit that goes down in
Chicago.
PSYCHOLOGIST|1.4.08 @ 3:19PM|#
economist | January 4, 2008, 1:51pm | #
Econ = I dont disagree much with anything you say... or rather dont
care or agree with James' sentiments, but also dont mind his POV...
but in particular, I'd mention that ending a post with the
expression "M'kay?" translates into: "I
am a fucking smarmy douchebag who needs to constantly repress
powerful homosexual instincts" to the casual reader.
Tell me about your father.
New Yawker|1.4.08 @ 3:25PM|#
Also Obama seems nice but he comes from the Chicago
political machine. New York City has nothing on the shit that goes
down in Chicago.
Whoa~! But if anything, isnt that *good*?
I prefer dirty urban politics to Washintonian lobbyist-gladhanding
and populist pandering. e.g. Clinton being the DC madam, and Obama
being the southside kid. Maybe he'll have the secret service leave
horses heads in senators' cars if they start to fuck with
him.
Basically, I want a president who isnt afraid to bash a few heads
in with a baseball bat.
economist|1.4.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Psychologist
First of all, if you can't rebutt my views with your own argument,
then shut the hell up rather than coming back with obnoxious ad
hominem attacks. What the hell pissed you off so much!? Also, I'm
not a homosexual. The "m'kay" is a reference to South Park.
Idiot.
economist|1.4.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Psycho,
1 more thing is that if someone makes some bizarre accusation
against someone else out of the blue it says more about them than
the person they're accusing.
If you understand what I'm saying, then you aren't as stupid as I
originally thought.
Edward|1.4.08 @ 3:50PM|#
economist
By reacting so strongly to the suggestion that you might be a
homosexual, you reinforce the impression that you probably are one,
m'kay?
economist|1.4.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Ed
I was simply turning Psycho's snide little back on him/her. And why
don't you just shut up?
engineer|1.4.08 @ 4:23PM|#
I believe that referencing South Park only reinforces the likelyhood of you having latent homosexual tendencies.
R C Dean|1.4.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Southernstrong>New England States: PLEASE
consider secession.... and take California with you.
economist|1.4.08 @ 4:39PM|#
How does referencing South Park "reinforce the likelyhood *sic* of me having latent homosexual tendencies. And how did we get to arguing about this shit anyways?
engineer|1.4.08 @ 4:53PM|#
If you can't say anything intelligent, then be a good
environmentalist and don't waste our air, m'kay?
If nothing else, this indicates that you're a real prick.
coal miner|1.4.08 @ 5:07PM|#
I'm with the fucking engineer on this one dude.
Man who thinks they can come onta'blog and say, "hey, you, shut
up!" is too fucking stupid to actually be an ecomonisticist.
Hey, phychologist, my wife says i fuck too much cause i hate my
mom. Whats up with that?
|1.4.08 @ 5:27PM|#
engineer | January 4, 2008, 4:23pm | #
I believe that referencing South Park only reinforces the
likelyhood of you having latent homosexual tendencies.
says the fella pullin the train...
economist|1.4.08 @ 6:36PM|#
Yeah, I'm not actually an economist, Einstein. And you're probably no coal miner, "engineer" probably isn't an engineer, and psycho isn't a psychologist. And I told Ed to shut up because all his comments are stupid or off topic. Other bloggers here said it, I just said it more strongly. I really am surprised this part of the thread has gone on this long. I've noticed that I've never seen any other posts by you guys, suggesting that you are, instead, James's alter egos.
|1.4.08 @ 9:40PM|#
Hopefully, the toach has been passed to a new generation of
leadahship.
joe, if Obama gets in, the proper phrasing would be "Hopefully, the
toach roach has been passed to a new
generation of leadahship." ;)
GILMORE|1.5.08 @ 6:39AM|#
economist | January 4, 2008, 6:36pm | #
Yeah, I'm not actually an economist, Einstein. And you're probably
no coal miner, "engineer" probably isn't an engineer, and psycho
isn't a psychologist. And I told Ed to shut up because all his
comments are stupid or off topic. Other bloggers here said it, I
just said it more strongly. I really am surprised this part of the
thread has gone on this long. I've noticed that I've never seen any
other posts by you guys, suggesting that you are, instead, James's
alter egos.
Naw dude. it was just some other local beatin you stupid cause its
a good laff when the self rightous come callin.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245