Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

U.S. Presidential Elections 2008


Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman

Things are looking better for Edwards:

John Edwards has leapfrogged over his rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and leads the Democratic field in Iowa, according to the latest InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll. Link

:)

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In Iowa tomorrow, I'm going with a three-way split: Obama, Clinton, Edwards. And that'll be interpreted as a win for Hillary.

For the Republicans, it's hard not to see Iowa as anything but a victory for Huckabee. He'll get the headlines.

Now, it's on to New Hampshire.

----

Incidentally, I've been on the road in the US South for the past few days and this is still a hard election to call. People are waiting, watching and thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In Iowa tomorrow, I'm going with a three-way split: Obama, Clinton, Edwards. And that'll be interpreted as a win for Hillary.

For the Republicans, it's hard not to see Iowa as anything but a victory for Huckabee. He'll get the headlines.

Now, it's on to New Hampshire.

Victory for Obama. Victory for Romney. That's my guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huckabee apparently is an idiot. Not that that would be a deal killer.....

DES MOINES — Mike Huckabee used the volatile situation in Pakistan Friday to make an argument for building a fence on the American border with Mexico and found himself trying to explain a series of remarks about Pakistanis and their nation.
When I say single them out I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

He's an idiot, and generally it is bad form to be found out as an idiot before the election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but it's a lot funnier when done by a presidential candidate "front runner".

Yes he is amusing. I've stated my opinion elsewhere on this board. He will sink I suspect.

Tin foil hat time. Sadly for me I haver come to beleive that the media is pushing him for reasons other than the attractiveness of the Dean-like narrative he presents. The same way bloggers on the right wanted Dean tot ake the nomination so they could paint all Dems with his views so doea the MSM want to nail the evangelicals by having the Huck as their whipping boy. Furthermore a strong Huck run, if in the end he loses, will in various people's hopes fracture the Republican coalition.

Fortunately, I suspect, the Huck will be so discredited by the time Feb 5 rolls around that he will not be considered representative of anyone and, I suspect, few hard feelings will be held as he slowly shows himself to be the doofus he is.

My hoped for result then - he is built up just enough that we hgave a debate in the Republican party about various populist dogmas and when he is destroyed these are shelved for another several election cycles. Let the dems have their John Edwardses - do we really need these cloned (in pro-life clothing) in the Republican party?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huckabee is being announced as the Republican victor in Iowa.

I had thought his jump in the polls would not be enough to push Romney out of first. I discussed earlier with in the evening that I thought Romney might not be able to convince the Christian right of his fitness for the job but I thought that might be a problem later rather than sooner. I was wrong.

Obama, as I forecast, is reported to be in first amidst heavy turn-out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22484066/

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won the Republican caucuses in Iowa on Thursday night, turning back a heavily funded effort by Mitt Romney in the first critical test of the 2008 presidential nominations.

Barack Obama took an early lead over Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in early results and entrance polls by NBC News and other news organizations.

Iowans voted in evening caucuses at 1,781 precincts from Adel to Zingle, in schools, firehouses and community centers. Turnout was heavy at many caucus sites. At the Democratic caucus at Westridge Elementary School in West Des Moines, a crowd of 267 registered. In 2004, only 86 Iowans participated there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just read that Obama won. Link

And Clinton and Edwards are tied for second with Edwards holding the edge. I think it is great drama for the Democrats.

I don't know what to make about Huckabee but I do hope that he keeps illegal Pakistani immigration in the forefront of his policy manual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I nominate the Huck as the most likely to melt down.

Huckabee's moment:

On Thursday night he told reporters in Orlando, Fla.: “We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country.”

On Friday, in Pella, Iowa, he expanded on those remarks.

“When I say single them out I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border,” he told reporters in Pella. “And in light of what is happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause as to why are so many illegals coming across these borders.”

NYT

This has the comedic potential to haunt Huckabee.

----

On the Democratic side, Hillary has done better than expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huckabee came in under the radar for me, does anyone know if his comment about illegal immigrants is true about Packistani illegals vs Mexicans? I haven't found anything yet on that.

The numbers on Hilary have her losing by 11 points, I wonder if attack ads on Obama are in the works, followed by 'revelations' of his Muslim background, all released through back channels that can't be traced. I think it could get bloody.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On the Democratic side, Hillary has done better than expected.

Because she had a resounding lead for the past few months, was recently polling even with Obama, and then finished third? Or do you mean she did better than you expected?

It seems to me the big loser is the Bush administration by the clear repudiation of where the country is going. Both parties voted for outsider candidates that represented real change from the status quo. Even Ron Paul's showing of 10% says a lot about how serious the American public is about making some drastic revisions to the way things are currently being done.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to post
Share on other sites
....Even Ron Paul's showing of 10% says a lot about how serious the American public is about making some drastic revisions to the way things are currently being done.

Yes....such drastic revisions....one step in the same nomination process for the same Democrats and Republicans in the same state of Iowa (= American public ?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because she had a resounding lead for the past few months, was recently polling even with Obama, and then finished third? Or do you mean she did better than you expected?
Hillary was always third in all the polls in Iowa. For a variety of reasons, it's not her state.

Barring something major, she'll do well in NH, NV and even SC - and then on Super Tuesday.

She did better than expected in Iowa. It's hard to see how she can lose the nomination now.

It seems to me the big loser is the Bush administration by the clear repudiation of where the country is going. Both parties voted for outsider candidates that represented real change from the status quo. Even Ron Paul's showing of 10% says a lot about how serious the American public is about making some drastic revisions to the way things are currently being done.
Every one talks of real change but no one really means it.

Ron Paul has little signs posted all over the place. IOW, he's a bumper sticker candidate. His 10% in Iowa would translate into about 3% in a general election. Look up fringe candidate in the dictionary and you'll find a photo of Ron Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillary was always third in all the polls in Iowa. For a variety of reasons, it's not her state.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you're wrong. Hillary had a commanding lead in Iowa in September 2007, ahead of Obama by as much as 15+%. This graph shows Obama's steady rise since then and her stagnant numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polli...es%2C_2008#Iowa

Even earlier today, a poll was giving her the edge. http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/arg_...ead_in_iowa.php

Obama has considerable momentum on his side and Hillary appears to have found the glass ceiling in her support.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you're wrong. Hillary had a commanding lead in Iowa in September 2007, ahead of Obama by as much as 15+%.
September 2007 is way out there and even the Wikipedia link shows that Edwards lead in Iowa for most of 2007.

My main point is that Hillary was not expected to do well in Iowa but she did alright. She better perform well in NH, NV and SC. I think she will because she has the money and the organization.

Obama has considerable momentum on his side and Hillary appears to have found the glass ceiling in her support.
Maybe.

----

With all that said, if the Dems pick either Hillary or Obama as their candidate, they'll lose in November. Hillary has too many negatives and Obama is far too inexperienced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
With all that said, if the Dems pick either Hillary or Obama as their candidate, they'll lose in November. Hillary has too many negatives and Obama is far too inexperienced.

As Iowa is a predominently white state, I wouldn't bet on that. If they gave Obama 38%, wonder what the rest of the U.S. will do? Even though the Dems have not performed as hoped (re ousting Bush co.) I believe that they still want change and I doubt the Republicans will have a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As Iowa is a predominently white state, I wouldn't bet on that. If they gave Obama 38%, wonder what the rest of the U.S. will do? Even though the Dems have not performed as hoped (re ousting Bush co.) I believe that they still want change and I doubt the Republicans will have a chance.
The Iowa caucuses are not at all representative of Iowa or the nation. Moreover, the causus process is easily taken over by zealots so it's not surprising that Obama (young, naive first-time voters) and Huckabee (evangelicals) did well.

In Iowa, Obama and Huckabee could easily focus on specific groups. Their strategies have been to get the publicity to overcome their lack of funds when going into NH and SC. NH is a traditional election involving hundreds of thousands of (partisan) voters.

All of this is far removed from a general election before the general population. Bear in mind that Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and NH in 1992. If Obama (and Huckabee) do well in NH, then maybe we'll have to pay attention. I think Huckabee has a better chance than Obama.

BTW, Obama strikes me as glib in his speeches. I expected more substance. John Kennedy deliberately eschewed trite phrases in even his boiler plate speeches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
With all that said, if the Dems pick either Hillary or Obama as their candidate, they'll lose in November. Hillary has too many negatives and Obama is far too inexperienced.

And Edwards has too nice hair. I know.

There were quite a few who predicted that the Republicans would hold the Senate and the House as well in the mid-terms.

The desire for a change is probably not going to met by the present slate of Republican candidates who all come with their own set of negatives.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites

This election is so very important to the US and to the world. Whoever becomes President will either carry on the path that Bush has lead or go off in another direction and hopefully bring peace to the world. The only thing I wonder is that any time a Dem. comes up for president and if there are "powers that be"" do not want them in the presidency they are killed, at least that what has happen in the past. Today, you just have to be friends of the guys who run the computer software for the voting computers and hack it anytime you want. Perhaps a fair and safer way to vote is with a pencil and an"X". Who cares how long it will take to count the votes, at least you know it will be HONEST. Do the voters really feel that way today??

Link to post
Share on other sites
September 2007 is way out there ,,,

I don't know what you mean. Edwards led for a while early in 2007, after which Hillary led until late 2007. She was by no means "always behind" in Iowa like you claimed.

The Iowa caucuses are not at all representative of Iowa or the nation. Moreover, the causus process is easily taken over by zealots so it's not surprising that Obama (young, naive first-time voters) and Huckabee (evangelicals) did well.

Obama did well across all groups--men, women, old, young, even independents and many Republicans. Turn-out was also unprecedented, particularly among young people. The Democratic numbers alone would still set a record turn-out for an Iowa caucus, so it wasn't "taken over" by a few naive zealots.

Experience is important, but the appearance of competence is also important and Obama is extremely well spoken. The U.S. voted for an exceptionally experienced administration with Cheney and Rumsfeld, et al., in the last election and look where it got them.

Bear in mind that Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and NH in 1992. If Obama (and Huckabee) do well in NH, then maybe we'll have to pay attention. I think Huckabee has a better chance than Obama.

Bear in mind that Clinton was an unknown in 1992; in 2008 everybody is well aware of who Hillary is and has formed an opinion of her. In that context, it's apples to oranges.

But Huckabee has little chance in NH because the evangelical vote isn't as strong there. Obama has a much better chance and will likely take it as well.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the big story is the 4% Giuliani got, which is less than half of even Ron Paul's showing. It's true that Giuliani didn't target Iowa, but that was just because he was tanking there. He's still scoring high nationally, but 4% is less than pathetic and indicative of where his campaign has gone since some of his incidents of bad judgement have come to light.

I think the dems would like to see Romney or Huckabee take the nomination, but Huckabee's still very unlikely and Romney's failure to take Iowa despite his best effort may spoil his momentum. That leaves zombie Thompson, whose campaign has been going nowhere, and, by the process of elimination, McCain.

Obama versus McCain would be a tough one for the dems--likely the toughest. And McCain might just be about to get a big draft of momentum from NH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hillary is the nominee...

I don't think McCain can beat her. McCain has alienated the evangelicals way too much and has lost support of any Republican who considers illegal immigrants a major problem. He's just not liked by too many within his own party and I think having certain GOP voters sit out in some states will cost him a few % points in key states (Florida, for example), leaving those electoral votes to Hillary.

Huckabee would carry most of the south against Hillary, but I don't think he'd win a single state north of NC. Assuming the 2004 electoral map is mostly frozen in place, all Hillary would have to do is peel off Ohio (or Colorado and Nevada) and she wins.

Hillary's best shot would be against Romney. Christian voters might stay home opening certain states to her (Virginia, Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida). She'd turn several red states blue if Romney was the nominee.

I honestly think the strongest GOP candidate (the toughest one for the Dems to beat) is Rudy Giuliani. It's true that evangelicals don't like the guy, but he plays to their interests of fighting jihadists and supporting Israel.

If Obama is the nominee...

I don't see any Republican (except Rudy) offering much of a fight against Obama. With Rudy, it would an election of hope v fear. I think hope (Obama) could win, particularly if he inspires southern blacks to finally turn out en masse. I believe something I read the other day: that the powers that be in the GOP would rather retain control of a losing party than lose control of the winning party. With a Huckabee win, both the electoral and institutional power of the GOP would shift from the Beltway and Wall Street types (who are not necessarily social conservatives) to the evangelicals. I think those inside the Beltway would give lip service to supporting Huckabee, but Obama would sew up much of the big money donors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...