DVD Talk
2008 Presidential Election (part VIII) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Presidential Election (part VIII)


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

VinVega
01-28-08, 10:10 PM
Let's go for a part eight. -eek-

Previous thread HERE (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?p=8462859#post8462859)

Now let's see if we can really change some minds in this thread. We were so close last thread. ;)

Brent L
01-28-08, 10:16 PM
Someone needs to step up and recap everything that's been said so far.

That would be fun. :p

General Zod
01-28-08, 10:17 PM
My mind was changed last thread. I thought Hillary had a great chance still but now I'm getting more and more doubtful that she will prevail. Obama may not be the better candidate but I think he is liked a whole hell of a lot more than Hillary.. and in the end people vote for who they like.

I hope McCain loses tomorrow..

I don't think anyone can disagree with me. You can go ahead and close the thread since we are all in agreement :up:

Ranger
01-28-08, 10:17 PM
Tomorrow - Florida!

VinVega
01-28-08, 10:18 PM
Giuliani turned out dozens at a rally today. That's pretty impressive for an all or nothing attempt at the state of Florida. :sarcasm:

VinVega
01-28-08, 10:20 PM
My mind was changed last thread. I thought Hillary had a great chance still but now I'm getting more and more doubtful that she will prevail. Obama may not be the better candidate but I think he is liked a whole hell of a lot more than Hillary.. and in the end people vote for who they like.

I hope McCain loses tomorrow..

I don't think anyone can disagree with me. You can go ahead and close the thread since we are all in agreement :up:
Hillary is going to be the Dem nominee. Outwit, outplay, outlast or something like that. She's a survivor. I still seriously doubt she will be able to beat any Republican with a pulse in Nov. though.

X
01-28-08, 10:50 PM
I still seriously doubt she will be able to beat any Republican with a pulse in Nov. though.That's my problem with her getting the nomination. The Republican could always die or something.

I think you have to keep another Clinton as far away from the presidency as possible. Even if it means taking a chance on another candidate who you don't like who could win.

Th0r S1mpson
01-28-08, 11:17 PM
I'm still not counting Edwards out of this. I probably should, but I'm not. My virtual money is still on Edwards / McCain.

Please educate me in this part VIII so I can make better picks. I mean, what has to happen, seriously, for the Dems to end up choosing Edwards?

ukywyldcat
01-28-08, 11:18 PM
She's a survivor.

Very similar to a cockroach, I might add.

bhk
01-28-08, 11:27 PM
Someone needs to step up and recap everything that's been said so far.



http://lucianne.com/routine/images/01-29-08.jpg

JasonF
01-28-08, 11:48 PM
Please educate me in this part VIII so I can make better picks. I mean, what has to happen, seriously, for the Dems to end up choosing Edwards?

Hillary Clinton gets caught in bed with a dead hooker. Barrack Obama gets hit by a bus.

monkeyboy
01-29-08, 12:59 AM
I haven't read the other threads, but I'll just chime in with my thoughts. Edwards has no shot. I think Edwards is also a spoiler for Obama. I'd love to see Obama in the White House, but I think Edwards is sucking up his votes right now and after super Tuesday, when Edwards finally decides to quit, and his supporters move to Obama, it'll be too late. If Edwards wasn't in the race at this point, I'm pretty sure Obama would be beating Hillary in the polls.

I guess I'd support Hillary over any of the Republicans at this point, but I really hate the idea of this country being run by two families for 28 years.

classicman2
01-29-08, 07:49 AM
The 'analysts' are all over the block as to where the evangelical vote is going to go in FL.

Some argue that evangelicals don't trust McCain and will therefore vote for Romney.

Others say they will hold their nose and vote for McCain rather than vote for Romney.

Joe Scarborough (not an analyst but a hack) assures us that the evangelical vote will go for Romney. Of course Joe has been know to be as changeable as the weather. It wasn't 2 weeks ago when he was saying that Guiliani's 'wait until FL' strategy was working.

There's dispute among them where the Giuliani vote will go.

classicman2
01-29-08, 07:52 AM
I guess I'd support Hillary over any of the Republicans at this point, but I really hate the idea of this country being run by two families for 28 years.

That doesn't upset me.

What I'm concerned about is what programs and ideas a president is going to offer & really push for.

classicman2
01-29-08, 08:25 AM
Speaking of Giuliani, have you'll seen his campaign ad in FL where he 'highlights' his lack of endorsements from the media?

I thought it was pretty effective - a little late - but effective.

classicman2
01-29-08, 08:33 AM
I see where Romney states flatly that he won't be the VP in a McCain presidency.

Newflash for Mitt: You won't be invited to join the ticket.

mosquitobite
01-29-08, 08:51 AM
I think McCain will try to pick up Huckabee or another well known social conservative. It's his only shot.


I think the VP choices are going to be more important this year than ever. In fact, it would probably push one or the other over the top if they'd just go ahead and name their choice.
:shrug: jmho

parrotheads4
01-29-08, 09:01 AM
I guess I'd support Hillary over any of the Republicans at this point, but I really hate the idea of this country being run by two families for 28 years.

What specifically do you not like about Ron Paul? I'm curious because I'm undecided (I don't like anyone), but I find myself agreeing with Paul more than anyone else.

General Zod
01-29-08, 09:07 AM
I haven't read the other threads, but I'll just chime in with my thoughts. Edwards has no shot. I think Edwards is also a spoiler for Obama. I'd love to see Obama in the White House, but I think Edwards is sucking up his votes right now and after super Tuesday, when Edwards finally decides to quit, and his supporters move to Obama, it'll be too late. If Edwards wasn't in the race at this point, I'm pretty sure Obama would be beating Hillary in the polls.
As I've been saying for quite a while now - Edwards wants to be Kingmaker and will hold out as long as possible to be in that position.

Edwards eyes a brokered convention

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has his sights set on playing kingmaker at the Denver convention in August, one of his most senior campaign officials hinted Monday.

While dismissing suggestions that this implied Edwards had accepted he was out of contention for the nomination, Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince said the candidate would probably get enough delegates to play a decisive role in tipping the Democratic nomination under party rules.

Party insiders could also give Edwards the nomination at a brokered convention if they judged him more electable in a match-up against GOP front-runner Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). “At a brokered convention, all bets are off,” said Prince.

Prince told reporters in a conference call that in “a worst-case scenario” Edwards would control 20 to 25 percent of the Democratic delegates heading into the convention. He predicted that Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) would each have 35 to 40 percent of the delegates, well short of half the 4,049 needed to win the nomination.

The race could leave Obama and Clinton with nearly the same number of delegates because complex rules would divide delegates evenly among candidates who win more than 30 percent in the congressional districts that make up each state.

Spokesmen for the Obama and Clinton campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.

Many political observers believe that if Edwards had the power to pick the Democratic nominee and could not grab the nomination for himself, he would throw his support to Obama. During a memorable exchange at a Democratic debate in New Hampshire this month, Edwards sided with Obama as a fellow candidate of change and drew a sharp contrast with Clinton, whom he has labeled a candidate of the status quo.

Prince argued that since nearly 800 of the delegates are so-called superdelegates and thus not bound by the results of any state primary or caucus, a candidate would have to get 60 percent of all the delegates in play to be assured of the nomination.

Prince said that Obama or Clinton would have to win nearly 80 percent of the vote in many congressional districts around the country in order to win the nomination outright — a difficult achievement considering how competitive the race has been so far.

Edwards’s campaign manager, David Bonior, said on a conference call with reporters, “We have a great shot to pick up a lot of delegates.”

But he refused to say on the conference call how Edwards would wield his delegates: “We’re not going to talk about how we’re going to use our delegates.”

Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown University who specializes in presidential primary politics, said Edwards could help decide the nomination. “If Obama and Clinton come out even after Super Tuesday and Edwards had 50 delegates, Edwards could make a difference if [superdelegates] are split,” said Wayne. “Edwards is not going to drop out if he can have an impact.”

At the Democratic convention this August, delegates will be allowed to vote freely even if they are already pledged to a candidate, Wayne explained. But he expected that Edwards’s delegates would do his bidding.

Wayne said that Edwards’s delegates have been “hand-picked” because of their loyalty.

“That loyalty would probably extend to the convention, though Democrats have a rule that would not impose loyalty,” he explained.

Wayne, however, predicted that either Clinton or Obama would probably wrap up the nomination before the convention, but conceded “anything is possible.”

classicman2
01-29-08, 09:07 AM
Huckabee would help McCain with the evangelical vote.

Would it be enough?

Iraq & the economy are probably going to decide the election - IMO.

General Zod
01-29-08, 09:09 AM
I think the VP choices are going to be more important this year than ever. In fact, it would probably push one or the other over the top if they'd just go ahead and name their choice.
Nobody votes for the vice president. Especially after the last 8 years where the position has been so marginalized.

classicman2
01-29-08, 09:11 AM
btw: Do you see any reason why the Democrats chose Denver as the place to hold their convention?

I'm certain it was merely a coincidence. ;)

btw: I put a little more trust in what party professionals say that I do some political science professor.

Tracer Bullet
01-29-08, 09:53 AM
Especially after the last 8 years where the position has been so marginalized.

This is a joke, right?

JasonF
01-29-08, 09:56 AM
Prince told reporters in a conference call that in “a worst-case scenario” Edwards would control 20 to 25 percent of the Democratic delegates heading into the convention.

No way. Senator Edwards winds up with 15% of the delegates, tops. Still enough to make him knigmaker if things break correctly, but no way does he have 25 percent.

He also isn't going to end up with the nomination, even in a brokered convention. The voters had their chance for John Edwards and they declined. The party insiders aren't going to turn around and hand the nomination to him due to perceived electability. Odds are that Senator Edwards will line up behind one of the two front runners and that person will become the nominee. If that doesn't happen, the next step will be to turn the Edwards delegates loose and see if they naturally gravitate toward one candidate or the other. In the unlikely event that even then, neither candidate can get a majority of the delegates, at that point they'll start looking for someone other than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

The other big wildcard is that if we head into convention season without a winner, there's going to be a lot of demand for Vice President Gore to throw his hat into the ring of a brokered convention. If Vice President Gore makes noises like he'd accept the nomination, it becomes far more likely that Senator Edwards (and his delegates) refuse to line up behind either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

classicman2
01-29-08, 09:57 AM
Yeah - General Zod, that was a joke, wasn't it?

wendersfan
01-29-08, 10:02 AM
btw: I put a little more trust in what party professionals say that I do some political science professor.Exactly what was it he said that you have such a problem with?

classicman2
01-29-08, 10:09 AM
Exactly what was it he said that you have such a problem with?

I didn't say I had a problem with it.

I haven't heard a party professional who believes that there will be a brokered convention. The professor seems to believe that.

wendersfan
01-29-08, 10:12 AM
I didn't say I had a problem with it.

I haven't heard a party professional who believes that there will be a brokered convention. The professor seems to believe that.No, you just don't know how to read.Wayne, however, predicted that either Clinton or Obama would probably wrap up the nomination before the convention, but conceded “anything is possible.”

classicman2
01-29-08, 10:16 AM
Unlike you - I don't read everything an individual has to say about 'maybes.'

Maybe there will be a draft whoever movement, and he/she will become the nominee.

Let's attempt to stick to the realities on this forum - shall we? ;)

wendersfan
01-29-08, 10:18 AM
Unlike you - I don't read everything an individual has to say about 'maybes.'

Maybe there will be a draft whoever movement, and he/she will become the nominee.

Let's attempt to stick to the realities on this forum - shall we? ;):lol:

I have to conclude that you are just looking for a fight this morning. ;)

General Zod
01-29-08, 10:21 AM
Heck no. Cheney worked behind the scenes and I think if you asked the average American what he did over the last 8 years they would say he shot someone. Bush gets the blame for Iraq. This is all about who people would vote for so public perception is what matters here not what political junkies know what is really happening behind the curtains.

wendersfan
01-29-08, 10:27 AM
Heck no. Cheney worked behind the scenes and I think if you asked the average American what he did over the last 8 years they would say he shot someone. Bush gets the blame for Iraq. This is all about who people would vote for so public perception is what matters here not what political junkies know what is really happening behind the curtains.I'm going to respectfully disagree.

IMO the last two vice-presidents, Gore and Cheney, have each been trend setters in terms of having more of an actual policy role in the government, beyond waiting on the on deck circle and sometimes breaking a tie vote. The 'veeps' who preceded them, like Quayle, Bush, and Mondale, were little more than bridesmaids at a very long wedding.

classicman2
01-29-08, 10:28 AM
You can call John Edwards an empty suit - a number on this forum have - but, you can't deny that he's somewhat intelligent. You can't go from not having a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of to be a multi-millionaire without having some intelligence.

He has to know that a brokered convention is not going to happen.

I don't why he's staying in - maybe just to get my vote on Super Tuesday. :)

classicman2
01-29-08, 10:30 AM
For about 6 months Cheney was the president.

He is/was the most influentia (real policy making - like going to war for example) VP I've seen.

wendersfan
01-29-08, 10:31 AM
He has to know that a brokered convention is not going to happen.

I don't why he's staying in - maybe just to get my vote on Super Tuesday. :)I don't think anyone, not you, me, Edwards, nor Dr. Stephen Wayne, thinks there will be a brokered convention. You know what happened - some reporter asked the professor if a brokered convention was an impossibility, and he replied with, "well, anything's possible." It's totally unrealistic, but it makes good copy.

X
01-29-08, 10:33 AM
You can call John Edwards an empty suit - a number on this forum have - but, you can't deny that he's somewhat intelligent. You can't go from not having a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of to be a multi-millionaire without having some intelligence.... relative to the people you're dealing with. In his case, juries.

wendersfan
01-29-08, 10:37 AM
... relative to the people you're dealing with. In his case, juries.That's one way of putting it. John Edwards is the latest in a long line of American politicians who campaign and appeal to voters on the very simple, very compelling idea that you, (yes you!), deserve more than what you have, and it's not fair that people who work harder and have more and better education get all the breaks in life.

classicman2
01-29-08, 10:39 AM
Maybe Edwards is staying in simply because of pride.

I know folks are critical of him, but I believe he thinks he has ideas that would benefit a large numbers of Americans - I don't know.

Or maybe he feels compelled to stay because of his wife. He (along with her) made the decision to stay in the campaign when it was discovered that her cancer had returned. If he quit now.......................,

I still contend that he would have a better chance of winning in the general election than either Clinton or Obama.

wendersfan
01-29-08, 10:43 AM
I still contend that he would have a better chance of winning in the general election than either Clinton or Obama.Operating with the knowledge that no Democrat born above the Mason-Dixon line has been elected president in 48 years, it's a viable contention.

Venusian
01-29-08, 10:43 AM
No point to quit until Super Tuesday when you've come this far

X
01-29-08, 10:44 AM
Maybe Hillary needs a southerner on the ticket. It worked for him last time.

Venusian
01-29-08, 10:44 AM
Operating with the knowledge that no Democrat born above the Mason-Dixon line has been elected president in 48 years, it's a viable contention.
or no sitting Senator has been elected since...???

classicman2
01-29-08, 10:45 AM
No point to quit until Super Tuesday when you've come this far

Then why did the other Democrats drop out?

wendersfan
01-29-08, 10:46 AM
or no sitting Senator has been elected since...???1960 - the same person, John F Kennedy, was the last northern Democrat to be elected president, and also the last (and only one of two) sitting senator to be elected.

X
01-29-08, 10:48 AM
Then why did the other Democrats drop out?To avoid looking stupid, and no money.

Kucinich doesn't care about looking stupid but he's got problems keeping his current job that he had to attend to.

classicman2
01-29-08, 10:50 AM
Let's not forget, Kennedy had a rather prominent southerner as his VP. ;)

Kennedy had some smarts.

Speaking of John F. Kennedy - I wonder if anyone on this forum believes that the 3 Kennedy brothers shared the same political philosophy?

wendersfan
01-29-08, 10:58 AM
Speaking of John F. Kennedy - I wonder if anyone on this forum believes that the 3 Kennedy brothers shared the same political philosophy?I think that to a large degree they did. I know that's not a popular opinion these days, and we're supposed to think that Jack and especially Bobby were much to the right of Ted, but I think at their core they each believed that it was the role of the federal government to make life better for ordinary working Americans.

Nazgul
01-29-08, 11:10 AM
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan/29/report_sebelius_endorse_obama_today/?breaking

Report: Sebelius to endorse Obama today

Interesting considering the national face-time she had last night.

Does it also say anything that as a woman, she is not endorsing Hillary? Has she betrayed women too? :)

Although I wonder that if "Don't Drop the Soap" gets more national press, it may embarrass her.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/01/28/dont.drop.soap.ap/index.html

JasonF
01-29-08, 11:13 AM
1960 - the same person, John F Kennedy, was the last northern Democrat to be elected president, and also the last (and only one of two) sitting senator to be elected.

Also, he was the last person named John elected? Does this bode ill for the McCain camp?

Not necessarily -- we've never elected a former Olympic Committee chairman, a man named Willard, or a candidate who was caught on video telling somebody their baby had "bling bling," so maybe McCain can secure the nomination after all.

All of this "We haven't elected this kind of president since that year" has some usefulness, but given the remarkably small number of people who viably run for president, I would be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from the data.

classicman2
01-29-08, 11:13 AM
Jack Kennedy was not an idealog. He wasn't a liberal. He had a particular distaste for the media calling him a liberal. He wasn't too fond of the 2 notable liberals of the day - Eleanor Roosevelt & Adlai Stevenson.

Robert & Ted were/are most assuredly idealogs. They were liberal.

In addition to having a penchant for other women, JFK & Bill have another thing in common - they're both pragmatic centrists.

Therefore invoking the name of JFK in an attempt to attack Bill Clinton.........................................

A pragmatic centrist believes if it works, it's good.

An idealog believes if it's good, it works.

One thing the Kennedy brothers did have in common - their lust for women other than their wives. ;)

wendersfan
01-29-08, 11:20 AM
Jack Kennedy was not an idealog. He wasn't a liberal. He had a particular distaste for the media calling him a liberal.Most liberals running for president have that same complaint. :)

X
01-29-08, 11:34 AM
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan/29/report_sebelius_endorse_obama_today/?breaking

Report: Sebelius to endorse Obama today

Interesting considering the national face-time she had last night.

Does it also say anything that as a woman, she is not endorsing Hillary? Has she betrayed women too? :)

Although I wonder that if "Don't Drop the Soap" gets more national press, it may embarrass her.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/01/28/dont.drop.soap.ap/index.htmlWell Maxine Waters endorsed Hillary today. Take that, Kennedy and Sebelius!

Tracer Bullet
01-29-08, 11:41 AM
Well Maxine Waters endorsed Hillary today. Take that, Kennedy and Sebelius!

I'm pretty sure John Waters is gay.

General Zod
01-29-08, 01:10 PM
I'm going to respectfully disagree.

IMO the last two vice-presidents, Gore and Cheney, have each been trend setters in terms of having more of an actual policy role in the government, beyond waiting on the on deck circle and sometimes breaking a tie vote. The 'veeps' who preceded them, like Quayle, Bush, and Mondale, were little more than bridesmaids at a very long wedding.
Fair enough. I'm sticking by my statement though. I think it all comes down to public perception and I don't think the public has perceived Cheney as doing much of anything over the last 8 years.

Well Maxine Waters endorsed Hillary today
Like I needed another reason to root for Hillary's demise :)

Red Dog
01-29-08, 01:13 PM
Fair enough. I'm sticking by my statement though. I think it all comes down to public perception and I don't think the public has perceived Cheney as doing much of anything over the last 8 years.



Really? I thought the public perception was that Cheney was the 'brains' behind the operation and the one pulling the strings of Bush.

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 01:53 PM
Really? I thought the public perception was that Cheney was the 'brains' behind the operation and the one pulling the strings of Bush.
I think that is the perception of the vocal whack jobs. And it is a slightly more informed perception than the average American, I think, in that they acknolwedge his influence and are paying attention somewhat. The way it's interpreted, however... no comment.

Of course, there is also a good segment of America with a decent understanding of the VP's presence but I would not say it is a large segment by any means.

wendersfan
01-29-08, 02:45 PM
So, any word from Florida today? Turnout? Weather? Exit poll numbers?

Anything?

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 03:18 PM
Won't they wait until closer to the closing of the polls? (8EST)

There were reports of a hurricane closing in, but Giuliani gave a speech comparing it to the personal storm of 9/11 and it got bored and left without voting.

Interesting is the amazingly high number of absentee votes, some made weeks ago. I guess that might get Giuliani <i>something?</i>

I'm anxiously awaiting these results as well...

dick_grayson
01-29-08, 03:19 PM
who knows. aren't most old people about to go to sleep for the night about now?

Red Dog
01-29-08, 03:30 PM
who knows. aren't most old people about to go to sleep for the night about now?


Give 'em some credit. Early bird first then bed at 6:30.

StealthStratos
01-29-08, 03:34 PM
So, any word from Florida today? Turnout? Weather? Exit poll numbers?

Anything?

From Bay News 9....

Nearly 1 million Florida voters have already cast their ballots through early voting and absentees -- a sign the state will likely experience a record turnout despite the fact party sanctions have rendered the Democratic contest meaningless.

According to the Florida Secretary of State's office, more than 474,000 Republicans and just over 400,000 Democrats have already voted. Early voting began January 14 and ended Sunday. The nearly 1 million Floridians who have voted early already rivals the 1.3 million total voters who participated in the state's 2000 primary -- the last time both party's held a contested primary.

The record-breaking early turnout is likely a result of the highly competitive races on both sides, and Florida's decision to move its primary from mid-March to late January. But that decision drew strict sanctions from both national parties -- the Republicans barred half of Florida's delegates from the convention while the Democrats stripped the state of its delegates entirely.

TruGator
01-29-08, 03:38 PM
So, any word from Florida today? Turnout? Weather? Exit poll numbers?

Anything?

The weather is beautiful today. Clear skies and a high of 70 in North/Central Florida.

General Zod
01-29-08, 04:00 PM
who knows. aren't most old people about to go to sleep for the night about now?
:lol: Hopefully the ballot isn't so darn confusing...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/general_zod/floridaballot-1.jpg

JasonF
01-29-08, 04:34 PM
My Florida dream scenario is that Senator Obama winds up winning and Senator Clinton looks incredibly stupid for flying in to have a victory celebration (and starts backpedalling on her "we must seat the Florida delegates" schtick). It won't happen, but it sure would be funny.

MartinBlank
01-29-08, 04:36 PM
My Florida dream scenario is that Senator Obama winds up winning and Senator Clinton looks incredibly stupid for flying in to have a victory celebration (and starts backpedalling on her "we must seat the Florida delegates" schtick). It won't happen, but it sure would be funny.

Sexist -ohbfrank-

JasonF
01-29-08, 04:46 PM
Sexist -ohbfrank-

I'm taking part in a psychological gangbang. I should be ashamed of myself. :sad:

Red Dog
01-29-08, 05:07 PM
Interesting exit poll on MSNBC re: most important issue to Florida GOP voters....

47% Economy
19% Terrorism
17% Immigration

Good news for Romney?

JasonF
01-29-08, 05:16 PM
Speaking of Governor Romney, they showed a picture of him on the Colbert Report last night. Sort of. It was a connection I never made, but it's completely obvious now that it's been pointed out to me.

Here's the picture that they used:

http://images.wikia.com/muppet/images/8/8a/GuySmiley.jpg

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 05:30 PM
Interesting exit poll on MSNBC re: most important issue to Florida GOP voters....

47% Economy
19% Terrorism
17% Immigration

Good news for Romney?

<img src="http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/giuliani_maine.jpg">
<div style="width:280px">"Good news for Romney? Yes, especially if he's planning on sneaking from Cuba into Florida to set off a nuclear weapon like those terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 would like to do."</div>

Mordred
01-29-08, 05:46 PM
All of this "We haven't elected this kind of president since that year" has some usefulness, but given the remarkably small number of people who viably run for president, I would be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from the data.Thank you for saying what's pissed me off for the last 8 years or so.

Red Dog
01-29-08, 06:24 PM
So what's the deal with results coming in already? I thought they were supposed to not do that in Florida anymore when the panhandle polls are still open?

classicman2
01-29-08, 06:36 PM
Does anyone believe that the Florida Democrat delegates will not be counted at the Democratic National Convention in Denver?

classicman2
01-29-08, 06:38 PM
Did anyone see Sen. John Kerry being interviewed this afternoon on MSNBC?

I think Ted had been slipping his bottle a little too much to John. ;)

parrotheads4
01-29-08, 06:47 PM
So what's the deal with results coming in already? I thought they were supposed to not do that in Florida anymore when the panhandle polls are still open?

That's what I thought. cnn.com has McCain w/ 33%, Romney 32% with 7% reporting

TruGator
01-29-08, 06:53 PM
From Drudge (so far):
ROMNEY 33.4%
MCCAIN 33.9%
GIULIANI 14.1%
HUCKABEE 13.7%

Wow, Florida doesn't disappoint again. :lol:

NCMojo
01-29-08, 07:33 PM
Operating with the knowledge that no Democrat born above the Mason-Dixon line has been elected president in 48 years, it's a viable contention.
Wow, that's a really small sample, isn't it? There have only been three Democratic presidents in that span... sort of a disappointing post from our resident statistician...

:sad:

classicman2
01-29-08, 07:39 PM
McCain is ahead about 22,000 votes when I last looked at the results.

Chuck Todd thinks it's looking pretty for good for McCain, because some of the counties that he is expected in is slow in reporting.

Now it's 24,000.

McCain's lead is now about 30,000.

If he wins Florida, he'll probably receive some help from some deep pocketed Republicans.

MartinBlank
01-29-08, 07:56 PM
If he wins Florida, he'll probably receive some help from some deep pocketed Republicans.

You are just full of knowledge, aren't ya? :lol:

Pharoh
01-29-08, 08:05 PM
McCain is ahead about 22,000 votes when I last looked at the results.

Chuck Todd thinks it's looking pretty for good for McCain, because some of the counties that he is expected in is slow in reporting.

Now it's 24,000.

McCain's lead is now about 30,000.

If he wins Florida, he'll probably receive some help from some deep pocketed Republicans.



I probably would have given Mr. McCain, (the nominee in waiting), some money myself, but since my money does not equate with my ability to speak freely, I guess I will be saving that couple of bucks.

Pharoh
01-29-08, 08:16 PM
Over in Florida. Mr. McCain the winner.

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 08:17 PM
Alright, I 'm ready to call this for McCain. I'll let CNN and MSNCB know. I'm sure CBS called it yesterday.

How will Huckabee and Giuliani respond?

Pharoh
01-29-08, 08:18 PM
Now I just wonder if Gov. Huckabee will bow out this week and follow the example of Mayor Giuliani? I think he will, but we will see.

classicman2
01-29-08, 08:22 PM
The conventional wisdom is that McCain wants Huckabee to stay in the race to draw votes away from Romney.

McCain and Huckabee have formed a sort of alliance.

Maybe Huckabee is looking ahead toward the VP nomination.

btw: The most embarassed man in town must be Joe Scarborough after this morning when he guaranteed a Romney victory in FL.

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 08:26 PM
btw: The most embarassed man in town must be Joe Scarborough after this morning when he guaranteed a Romney victory in FL.
I don't know... Giuliani might be a close competitor for that title.

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 08:29 PM
You know... I was not excited, even opposed to a Huckabee nomination. Too divisive. But as VP?

McCain-Huckabee has me drooling right now for some reason. That's the first time I can say that this election season. Something very exciting about it...

And looking at the possibilities on the Dem side... what a contrast. This is going to be a matchup for the ages.

classicman2
01-29-08, 08:36 PM
You drool easily. :lol:

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 08:38 PM
Must be a bell ringing. :drool:

classicman2
01-29-08, 08:44 PM
I'll admit it. I'm absolutely shocked. Now it looks like McCain may very well be the Republican nominee.

I never would have thought it.

I've said over and over (in the past) on this forum that McCain didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination.

Hell is beginning to freeze over.

classicman2
01-29-08, 08:56 PM
We shouldn't forget that there was a Democratic Primary in Florida today also.

1,000,000 Democrats voted.

One candidate got more than 50% of the vote.

classicman2
01-29-08, 09:01 PM
It's is being confirmed by the Giuliani campaign. He will drop out tomorrow and endorse John McCain in California.

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 09:29 PM
The Huckabee endoresement will mean far more, but the Giuliani drop and endorsement is still probably a sting to the Romney camp. Wow.

California polls the other day were a surprise as well... this can only magnify them.

McCain can start thinking about a VP. I think you picked him a good one.

The door is still wide open on the Dem camp. This Tuesday is going to be insane. The way things have been going, we can look forward to something unexpected.

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 09:57 PM
The blame is on Giuliani because he botched an opportunity. Just not quite as badly as Thompson.

Had Giuliani not relied on pointing out his role in 9/11 so fiercely and approached this campaign as a leader of today, he might have gotten more points through to the voter. People would have remembered his role in 9/11 no matter what, and probably looked upon it more fondly if he wasn't always holding it up like a medal. Perhaps the press plays a role in that portrayal but he didn't do himself any favors.

McCain on the other hand... a lot of people wrote him off last summer, not just certain members of the forum. His campaign will be looked at hard by future candidates evaulating their strategies early on.

parrotheads4
01-29-08, 10:09 PM
Boy. I really need somebody to tell me the difference between Hillary and McCain. To me it's the difference between Coke, and Pepsi.

Th0r S1mpson
01-29-08, 10:47 PM
Boy. I really need somebody to tell me the difference between Hillary and McCain. To me it's the difference between Coke, and Pepsi.
So it's a win-win?

Or do you go with the generic cola? Blech!

Ranger
01-29-08, 10:51 PM
We shouldn't forget that there was a Democratic Primary in Florida today also.

1,000,000 Democrats voted.

One candidate got more than 50% of the vote.
It's odd how the news are all over McCain's win and not paying much attention to the Dem side.

Thought Obama would do better. Oh well.

wishbone
01-29-08, 10:52 PM
I did a search but it does not look like this has been posted -- it does not have an option to search by username though... ;)http://fundrace.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fundrace_logo_v4.gif

Welcome to FundRace 2008.
Want to know if a celebrity is playing both sides of the fence? Whether that new guy you're seeing is actually a Republican or just dresses like one? If your boss maxed out at that fundraiser or got comped? Whether your neighbor's political involvement stops at that hideous lawn sign?

FundRace makes it easy to search by name or address to see which presidential candidates your friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors are contributing to. Or you can see if your favorite celebrity is putting their money where their mouth is.

FundRace gives you the technology to do what politicians and journalists have been doing for years: find out where the money's coming from, see who it's going to, and solve the mystery of why that crazy ex-roommate of yours is now the Ambassador to Turks and Caicos.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php

NCMojo
01-29-08, 10:57 PM
It's odd how the news are all over McCain's win and not paying much attention to the Dem side.

Thought Obama would do better. Oh well.
That's because, much like Michigan, none of the Florida delegates "count".

NCMojo
01-30-08, 12:07 AM
I still remember a particular member's proclamation that McCain's campaign was irredeemably defunct. Now he might very well end up being the next president of the United States.

I was also told Giuliani didn't stand a chance because he was too socially liberal. He lost alright, but only by the grace of the boundless stupidity of the voting public. Who could have anticipated that the career of one the most brilliant and effective public servant would end because of three numbers and a slash? Giuliani's mistake was he didn't recognize the quality Americans value most is the ability to entertain.
I seem to recall a particular member's insistence that Rudy Giuliani was going to win the Republican nomination, and in turn the 2008 election.

Oops.

And Giuliani's mistake certainly wasn't that he didn't recognize the entertainment value of a good stump speech. It was his arrogance in assuming that his early lead was insurmountable, that he could skip the early primaries and still win. To continue with his soon-to-be-infamous "29 Innings" analogy... it would be as if the Yankees had decided to discount the value of the regular season, take the month of April off, and still win the pennant, just because they are the NEW YORK YANKEES.

As before... oops.

monkeyboy
01-30-08, 02:25 AM
What specifically do you not like about Ron Paul? I'm curious because I'm undecided (I don't like anyone), but I find myself agreeing with Paul more than anyone else.

Ron Paul, as interesting as he is, isn't a realistic option at this point. I would love to see him running as an independent and hear him debate with the R&D nominees, but that won't happen. He's done.

Any chance Edwards drops out and endorses Obama before Super Tuesday....?

I suspect not.

tonyjg
01-30-08, 04:19 AM
Can anyone please 'explain' to this Aussie here what this is/was all about :

"The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its 210 delegates for moving up the primary date."

like... why ?? (gee... I hate that 'like' word !!)



also - can I ask 'why' many over there are voting for a 71 yr old as a candidate ??

classicman2
01-30-08, 06:25 AM
It's odd how the news are all over McCain's win and not paying much attention to the Dem side.

Thought Obama would do better. Oh well.

The media, especially NBC (MSNBC), is trying their best to downplay this. Russert has joined in attmepting to make a point that it doesn't mean anything.

When a candidate receives 50% of the vote in the 4th largest state, tell me that is not, at the least, momentum for Super Tuesday.

In addition - Florida's Democrat votes will most assuredly count come convention time.

Clinton received 50+ % of the votes in a closed Democratic Primary - yeah that means something.

classicman2
01-30-08, 07:04 AM
IMO, the principal asset of McCain is that Republicans know where he stands. They may not like some of the positions that he takes - taxes, immigration, McCain-Feingold, etc. But, at least, they know what they're getting.

They don't know what they're getting in Romney. Are they getting the 'Romney' as he was when he was Governor; or, are they getting the 'Romney' that he portrays himself now?

Romney is a crapshoot - McCain is not. People have a tendency, IMO, to vote for the one they know.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 07:21 AM
Is that your opinion or MSNBC's? ;)

I have to wonder how Romney feels right about now with everyone, particularly the other candidates, falling in line behind a guy who is frequently panned by his own party.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 07:27 AM
The best thing about the Florida primary is the knock-out blow that was delivered to that one-trick pony.

It also goes to show you that national polls taken months before a primary mean jack squat. However, I know that won't stop the media and people from obsessing over them in the next cycle.

mosquitobite
01-30-08, 07:31 AM
Is that your opinion or MSNBC's? ;)

I have to wonder how Romney feels right about now with everyone, particularly the other candidates, falling in line behind a guy who is frequently panned by his own party.

Everyone (well everyone=Republicans) I talk to here in Indiana HATE McCain. I can't listen to Medved on the way home anymore and I've heard others say the same thing.

I can't stand that conservative talk radio is just 'giving' McCain Florida as if it now means he's got the base. PLEASE!

I guess they all forget the news stories coming out since this past summer about Democrats and Independents (who would have otherwise voted D) switching their party registration to Republican since the Democrat vote didn't matter thanks to the delegate stripping.
Here's one blog I found on it:
http://seminoledemocrats.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-florida-dems-should-switch-to.html
I can't find an article with the exact number of switches though.

A Florida win for McCain does NOT mean that he's the base's choice. I don't care if the media claims polls say he'd be the closest to beat the Dems. The Republicans are going to lose in November, and lose big.

Well, hell :lol: in that case, let the nominee be McCain so he can take his ego and shove it.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 07:34 AM
McCain on the other hand... a lot of people wrote him off last summer, not just certain members of the forum. His campaign will be looked at hard by future candidates evaulating their strategies early on.


I don't think one can try to do what McCain did. For one thing, this GOP cycle is rather unique - no presumptive heir-apparent and lots of major contenders. Second, by 'floundering' well before the primaries, it allowed him to fly under the radar and avoid being attacked for months - again too much stock put into polls months in advance, even by the campaigns.

wendersfan
01-30-08, 07:39 AM
I can't stand that conservative talk radio is just 'giving' McCain FloridaI don't understand what you mean by this.

mosquitobite
01-30-08, 07:43 AM
I don't understand what you mean by this.

Sorry. :)

Bill Bennett this morning was making the assumption that this win meant McCain could get the base behind him since FL was a closed primary :rolleyes:

wendersfan
01-30-08, 07:49 AM
Sorry. :)

Bill Bennett this morning was making the assumption that this win meant McCain could get the base behind him since FL was a closed primary :rolleyes:1. Never listen to Bill Bennett about anything - politics, tips on betting the ponies, anything. :)

2. He got slightly more that 1/3 of the vote in a five way race. No one got the base. There are, by my count, at least four components of the Republican base - tax cutters, deficit hawks, culture warriors, and defense hawks. There's not a single candidate who appeals to more than two of them.

mosquitobite
01-30-08, 08:06 AM
1. Never listen to Bill Bennett about anything - politics, tips on betting the ponies, anything. :)

2. He got slightly more that 1/3 of the vote in a five way race. No one got the base. There are, by my count, at least four components of the Republican base - tax cutters, deficit hawks, culture warriors, and defense hawks. There's not a single candidate who appeals to more than two of them.

1) well I listen to NPR once I get to work :lol: does that balance me out?

2) agreed

Red Dog
01-30-08, 08:11 AM
1. Never listen to Bill Bennett about anything - politics, tips on betting the ponies, anything. :)



I was going to say card-counting or chip placement on the craps table, but that works too.

Rockmjd23
01-30-08, 08:14 AM
Edwards dropping out today according to CNN.

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:14 AM
Unless McCain stumbles (badly) - or age finally catches up with him, and he can't campaign any longer, he is going to be the Republican nominee.

He might pull a Bob Dole and fall off the speaker's platform, but I doubt it.

You can talk to the Republican base - however tiny it might be - all you want. The reality is McCain.

I didn't believe that for years - certainly since 2000. I thought the evangelicals would be his downfall.

There has to be some reason he's winning - he's not trusted by a signifcant percentage of the Republican base; his position on immigration is at odds with the majority of the Republican base, I certainly would imagine; his position on taxes is at odds with the Republican base; the Republican base is not enthralled with McCain-Feingold; he still believes that Iraq & war on terror are the principal issus when most Republicans think the economy is; etc.

Why is he winning?

Red Dog
01-30-08, 08:14 AM
I'll say this - the stars are definitley aligned for McCain this year. He got a very divided GOP field w/o a conservative-enough (in the right areas) candidate in the lot and the only opponent he could potentially beat in a general election (the only way he could get conservatives/religious right to turn out for him).

General Zod
01-30-08, 08:17 AM
Edwards dropping out today according to CNN.
Edwards HAS dropped out according to AP but will make a speech about it this afternoon.

So much for him being Kingmaker. I doubt now it will be a brokered convention either. Well.. it would have been fun :)

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:20 AM
I don't believe Red Dog's reason for his winning is the right one.

I believe my wife's reason for him winning is the correct one - which I posted in #105. She kept trying to convince me of that. If finally come to believe her. ;)

btw: My wife is a Republican.

raven56706
01-30-08, 08:21 AM
it will probably be mccain and huccabee or mccain and guiliani

vs

clinton and obama

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:22 AM
Edwards dropping out suprised me. I never thought there would be a brokered convention, as Edwards the king maker.

The question is - who benefits from his dropping out?

I know, but I'll let some of our other members expound on the issue. :)

wendersfan
01-30-08, 08:24 AM
Obama benefits the most I would think.

Venusian
01-30-08, 08:25 AM
i doubt clinton would pick obama as her running mate. I'd have to guess richardson, but who knows

Red Dog
01-30-08, 08:26 AM
I don't believe Red Dog's reason for his winning is the right one.

I believe my wife's reason for him winning is the correct one - which I posted in #105. She kept trying to convince me of that. If finally come to believe her. ;)

btw: My wife is a Republican.


That was MSNBC's reason. :lol:

I didn't know I gave a reason. I don't think you can attribute McCain's success to a single reason.

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:27 AM
Obama benefits the most I would think.

Why?

Th0r S1mpson
01-30-08, 08:28 AM
Wow. Obama or Hillary. I can't fool myself any more into thinking someone else will slip in not that Edwards is out.

What a monumental year for candidates on both sides, but especially for the Dems as it now appears as if a black man or a woman will indeed be taking this nomination. God bless America. :up:

Goldberg74
01-30-08, 08:29 AM
I think that this helps Obama.

I still get the feeling that Edwards will get asked to be his VP; much in the same way that I feel that McCain will ask Guilliani.

wendersfan
01-30-08, 08:30 AM
Why?From what I could tell, both Obama and Edwards appealed more to the anti-war and economic left of the party, while Clinton drew more support from moderates.

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:32 AM
I think that this helps Obama.

I still get the feeling that Edwards will get asked to be his VP; much in the same way that I feel that McCain will ask Guilliani.

1. Why do you think this helps Obama?

2. I don't think Edwards will be asked.

3. I know Giuliani won't be asked. ;)

Pharoh
01-30-08, 08:40 AM
From what I could tell, both Obama and Edwards appealed more to the anti-war and economic left of the party, while Clinton drew more support from moderates.



I think it is probably a wash, with Ms. Clinton certainly drawing additional support from relatively younger white male voters that had previously backed Mr. Edwards.

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:42 AM
If McCain is the nominee - I don't see him selecting any other candidate other than Mike Huckabee.

With Huckabee, he's got at least a chance of a signficant portion of the Republican base turning out for him in November.

Groucho
01-30-08, 08:42 AM
Edwards is out, but Gravel is still going strong! :lol:

Tracer Bullet
01-30-08, 08:44 AM
I think it is probably a wash, with Ms. Clinton certainly drawing additional support from relatively younger white male voters that had previously backed Mr. Edwards.

:hscratch:

I can't figure that, but okay.

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:45 AM
I think it is probably a wash, with Ms. Clinton certainly drawing additional support from relatively younger white male voters that had previously backed Mr. Edwards.

I too think it's close to a wash; but, I do agree with you concerning the relatively younger white male voters.

I also think it might be of some help to Hillary with older union members who supported Edwards.

Pharoh
01-30-08, 08:50 AM
I too think it's close to a wash; but, I do agree with you concerning the relatively younger white male voters.

I also think it might be of some help to Hillary with older union members who supported Edwards.



I was going to include something about Union members as well, but I don't know how strong was Edward's support from that sub-group.

Pharoh
01-30-08, 08:51 AM
:hscratch:

I can't figure that, but okay.



What can't you figure?

Tracer Bullet
01-30-08, 08:54 AM
What can't you figure?

That younger white voters who supported Edwards are going to gravitate to Clinton. I don't think they're going to go overwhelmingly for either Clinton or Obama.

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:57 AM
If they're going to vote for Obama - why didn't they vote for him in the first place?

There must be some reason they 'didn't like' him.

Tracer Bullet
01-30-08, 09:01 AM
If they're going to vote for Obama - why didn't they vote for him in the first place?

There must be some reason they 'didn't like' him.

That makes no sense. You could use the same logic for Clinton. There must be some reason they 'didn't like' her.

FunkDaddy J
01-30-08, 09:12 AM
I think this helps Obama in a big way. And that's more an emotional thing than issue-driven. I think more of Edwards' voters are anti-Clinton than not. Far fewer are anti-Obama.

classicman2
01-30-08, 09:19 AM
There's another reason that I believe it will marginally help Clinton, but I won't give it, beecause I might be labelled a racist or completely out of touch with the modern day world for giving it.

btw: I'm neither a racist nor am I out of touch with the realities of modern day America.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 09:25 AM
There's another reason that I believe it will marginally help Clinton, but I won't give it, beecause I might be labelled a racist or completely out of touch with the modern day world for giving it.

btw: I'm neither a racist nor am I out of touch with the realities of modern day America.


I thought that was the reason you were alluding to before. So if racism wasn't the initial reason, what were you alluding to before?

Tracer Bullet
01-30-08, 09:28 AM
I thought that was the reason you were alluding to before. So if racism wasn't the initial reason, what were you alluding to before?

And to be blunt- I think there are more people that would vote for Obama because he's a man than would vote for Clinton. I still hear "she might start a war at her time of the month" comments from older women.

classicman2
01-30-08, 09:31 AM
I thought that was the reason you were alluding to before. So if racism wasn't the initial reason, what were you alluding to before?

I know it will help him in some states - the one I reside in being one.

There are a number (more just a few) of voters who don't like Hillary, but like voting for a black candidate even less. Edwards gave them an option.

classicman2
01-30-08, 09:35 AM
Now if Obama was a former quarterback (or even a star running back) for the Sooners, they might think differently. ;)

Red Dog
01-30-08, 09:36 AM
I know it will help him in some states - the one I reside in being one.

There are a number (more just a few) of voters who don't like Hillary, but like voting for a black candidate even less. Edwards gave them an option.


I'm confused. Were you initially referring to racism as your initial reason or is that an additional reason? If an additional reason, what was the first reason?

classicman2
01-30-08, 09:38 AM
The first reason was that I thought Edwards' departure would help Clinton with the younger (not young) white male vote.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 09:39 AM
Frankly, I don't have an inkling where younger male white voters who supported Edwards would go. Yeah, there are some racists among this segment. But there are probably some sexists too. Then there may be some who prefer someone younger and some who prefer some older with experience.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 09:40 AM
The first reason was that I thought Edwards' departure would help Clinton with the younger (not young) white male vote.


I know that - what is the reason you think this? That's what I'm asking you or Pharoh.

Is it just racism for you?

NCMojo
01-30-08, 09:44 AM
The biggest part of Edwards support was progressives, the "true base" of the Democratic party. That's who contributed to his campaign, that's who rang doorbells, and that's who he was speaking to.

Those people will -- overwhelmingly -- go to Obama.

classicman2
01-30-08, 09:45 AM
My reason is that the older you get (generally) the more concerned about experience in a candidate you become.

Obviously the young tend to believe that 'change the word' nonsense. The older you become the less you believe that any candidate for the U.S. presidency is going to change the world. Reality(ies) tend to set in.

Is it too late for Al to announce? ;)

Red Dog
01-30-08, 09:50 AM
My reason is that the older you get (generally) the more concerned about experience in a candidate you become.



You keep confusing me. We're talking about younger voters. I know - not necessarily young. I'm not sure how this reason supports a belief that Hillary will scoop up more of the younger white male Edwards supporters than Obama will. It actually suggests the opposite.

wendersfan
01-30-08, 09:51 AM
Is it too late for Al to announce? ;)Look, I hate to break this to you, but if a Democrat is elected president this fall, they ain't gonna be a southern white man. It's unlikely that, even if our next president is a Republican, he won't be a southerner either. I know that's a hard thing for you to face, but there it is.

classicman2
01-30-08, 10:01 AM
If! That's a big word, isn't it?

Ulike some of our Democatic members - I want a Democrat to be in the White House come 1/20/09.

I have serious doubts that the 2 remaining candidates left on the Democratic side can win in November.

I'm certainly not a fan of Al Gore, but I think he would have been the Democratic nominee had he chosen to enter the race. I believe Gore would have had at a good chance of beating McCain. We'll never know.

Pharoh
01-30-08, 10:06 AM
You keep confusing me. We're talking about younger voters. I know - not necessarily young. I'm not sure how this reason supports a belief that Hillary will scoop up more of the younger white male Edwards supporters than Obama will. It actually suggests the opposite.



When I suggested 'relatively younger' white male voters, I did not mean, (and I belive C-Man feels the same), to infer twentysomethings or first time voters. Rather, I was referring to folks in the 30 to 50 year old range.

classicman2
01-30-08, 10:11 AM
The 'age cutoff' (according to exit polls in NH - Hillary vs. Obama) showed that the age cutoff was 44 years.

Tracer Bullet
01-30-08, 10:12 AM
When I suggested 'relatively younger' white male voters, I did not mean, (and I belive C-Man feels the same), to infer twentysomethings or first time voters. Rather, I was referring to folks in the 30 to 50 year old range.

That age range is way too broad to be meaningful. A 30-year-old was born in 1978. A 50-year-old was born in 1958. That's a huge difference.

Tracer Bullet
01-30-08, 10:15 AM
The 'age cutoff' (according to exit polls in NH - Hillary vs. Obama) showed that the age cutoff was 44 years.

That seems more correct to me. A baby boomer vs. younger generation conflict.

mosquitobite
01-30-08, 10:18 AM
There's another reason that I believe it will marginally help Clinton, but I won't give it, beecause I might be labelled a racist or completely out of touch with the modern day world for giving it.

btw: I'm neither a racist nor am I out of touch with the realities of modern day America.

C-man, no offense, but Oklahoma is a lot more homogenous in terms of race than say the coasts. I know you like to think your world represents modern day America, but I have to disagree. You're going to have to come out of the box here, because the rest of "modern day America" isn't as afraid of a black man in power as you like to think.

Who's the head of the UN?

mosquitobite
01-30-08, 10:39 AM
National Taxpayers Union Report (http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF)
Study: Presidential Frontrunners Would Boost Federal Budget by Range of $7 Billion to $287 Billion Annually

-Two of the eight candidates proposed sufficient spending cuts that more than offset their new spending plans: Rudy Giuliani (-$1.4 billion) and Ron Paul (-$150.1 billion).

I actually had a guy here at work who is so anti-Paul on the war it depresses me (I guess you could call him a die hard neo-con), but when we were discussing the McCain win in FL today he was even saying he hopes Paul stays in simply for his message against big government Republicans :up:

Red Dog
01-30-08, 10:42 AM
When I suggested 'relatively younger' white male voters, I did not mean, (and I belive C-Man feels the same), to infer twentysomethings or first time voters. Rather, I was referring to folks in the 30 to 50 year old range.


That's a pretty wide range in terms of a group, though (I thought you were basically referring to 30-somethings). I believe race is factor for some of these (and gender is another), but otherwise, I can easily see the younger half of that 30-50 group going in more numbers to Obama and the older half to Hillary.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 10:48 AM
because the rest of "modern day America" isn't as afraid of a black man in power as you like to think.



True - if you mean traditional solid blue states = "modern day America." That's not helpful either. The Democrat could be green and it wouldn't matter in "modern day America" states - not this year anyway.

The question is what do people in states like Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, and NH think about it. I happen to believe that race is still a factor in these states.

A-aron
01-30-08, 10:54 AM
Who's the head of the UN?

Isn't it an Asian man now? Ban Ki-Moon ?

X
01-30-08, 10:56 AM
Who's the head of the UN?http://www.un.org/sg/images/ban_ki-moon_portrait.jpg
Ban Ki-moon

Not that it has anything to do with racial attitudes in the U.S.

classicman2
01-30-08, 10:56 AM
C-man, no offense, but Oklahoma is a lot more homogenous in terms of race than say the coasts. I know you like to think your world represents modern day America, but I have to disagree. You're going to have to come out of the box here, because the rest of "modern day America" isn't as afraid of a black man in power as you like to think.

Who's the head of the UN?

So!

I didn't say the whole United States. You can disagree all you want, I believe the reality is that a signficant number of people will not vote for a black candidate.

I didn't say I 'spoke' for the modern day America, but you don't either.

What in the hell does the UN have to do with what we're talking about? btw: You're a little out of touch - he no longer holds the job.

As Red Dog says - race is a factor in some states.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 10:58 AM
Very nice commentary in the WSJ today about judicial nominations and McCain. This goes back to the discussion I was having with bhk several days ago and how McCain ain't likely to be much 'better' of a nominator than a Hillary or Obama.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120165279221826997.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Judging John McCain
By COLLIN LEVY
January 30, 2008; Page A17

What if campaign finance reform was more important to conservative voters than abortion? If that sounds improbable, have another look at the judicial nomination gauntlet soon to be faced by Sen. John McCain. Despite a pro-life voting record, conservative court watchers are questioning whether he could be trusted to fill seats on the Supreme Court.

The Republican candidates have all said they want judges who will strictly interpret the law. But the conservative base is beginning to mutter loudly about how Mr. McCain's competing priorities could threaten his ability and willingness to push solid nominees past a Democratic Senate.

The issue came to a froth on Monday over a WSJ.com piece by John Fund ("Winging It") that quoted Mr. McCain saying he would be more inclined to nominees like Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts than to Justice Samuel Alito, who "wears his conservatism on his sleeve." Mr. McCain responded quickly, insisting that he was a great supporter of Justice Alito's confirmation, and that he'd like to clone both of the new justices, presumably for use in future vacancies.

The strength of the response attests to the importance of the judges question at this stage in the race. While Mr. McCain has listed the names of justices he admires on the trail before, he has generally steered clear of the courts as a major topic.

In states like South Carolina, he preferred to invoke his pro-life voting record -- and the tactic seems to have paid off. He won the state with around 27% support from evangelical voters, according to CNN exit polling. In Florida, he won endorsements from a coalition of pro-life and value voters, and campaigned hard in evangelical strongholds near the Georgia and Alabama borders.

The problem for Sen. McCain is that the justice train runs straight through the middle of McCain-Feingold, a sore point for many judicial conservatives. The landmark campaign finance law, officially known as Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is one of the Arizona senator's proudest achievements, one he would presumably seek to protect if it was within his power. But the namesake law, which aimed to take the money out of politics, has created restrictions on political speech that most conservatives -- and conservative judges -- find unconstitutional.

Over the past few years, the law has faced challenges at the Supreme Court, most recently before the Roberts court last term. In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Supremes stopped short of overturning their earlier decision upholding the law in the 2003 case McConnell v. FEC. But with Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought to be considering retirement, the makeup of a future court would presumably shift under a "conservative" president in a direction that could prove fatal to Mr. McCain's proud handiwork.

That's a salient question for "values" voters, not because of McCain-Feingold itself, but because of its potential role as a litmus test. Few "strict constructionist" judges would vote to uphold it, so evangelicals who may like Mr. McCain's legislative record on abortion worry nonetheless that his attachment to campaign finance regulation may get in the way of nominating properly conservative judges.

The impression that a President McCain might go wobbly is furthered by the senator's participation in the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of lawmakers who agreed to prevent either party from filibustering judicial nominees except in "extraordinary" circumstances. Mr. McCain has said he is proud of a strategy which helped get many of President Bush's nominees on the bench, and eased the way for the confirmations of new Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito. But the compromise had a price, infuriating many conservatives as an unnecessary and pre-emptive capitulation to Democrats. The great fear among conservatives today is that President McCain would nominate a consensus candidate, in the mode of David Souter or Anthony Kennedy.

At a meeting of the Federalist Society in November 2006, as the presidential campaign engines were heating up, Mr. McCain went out of his way to remind the group of his support for conservative judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown. Before the nomination of Samuel Alito, Mr. McCain also said he was sure President Bush would nominate someone who "shares his conservative philosophy." The question is, how conservative is Sen. McCain's philosophy, when many consider him the legislative equivalent of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Other elements of Sen. McCain's visible judicial philosophy also trouble conservatives, most notably his views on international law. His broad interpretation of the Geneva Conventions set him at loggerheads with the Bush administration back in 2006, as did his outspoken views on interrogation, seen by some court watchers as bespeaking an undue deference to international law and overseas legal opinion.

Certainly, Mitt Romney is not without his own problems. Aside from his mid-term conversion on the abortion issue, he faces his own little-explored set of obstacles stemming from his judicial record in Massachusetts. His appointments as governor, for instance, have yet to get an airing. In 2005, the Boston Globe noted that Mr. Romney had a habit of passing over conservative lawyers for his appointments of judges or clerk magistrates. Of the 36 people he elevated, more than half of them were either Democrats or independents with a habit of donating to Democratic candidates.

Asked about those numbers at the time, Mr. Romney said: "People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away." Fair enough. The criteria for lower court judges can be different than the higher courts, where Mr. Romney has said he would be committed to strict constructionists. But Mr. Romney's tendency to swap principles when politically convenient will leave some judicial conservatives unreassured.

Anyone who doubts the power of the right when offered an undefined judicial candidate need only refresh themselves on the fate of Harriet Miers. President Bush's chief counsel and trusted confidante ultimately withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court after an outcry from conservatives who refused simply to take Mr. Bush's word that she was one of them. Likewise, Messrs. McCain and Romney at some point will have to lay their cards on the table.

For Mr. McCain, the judges issue may even offer an opportunity to start winning back the confidence of a skeptical conservative base. The debate is not exclusively about Roe v. Wade but about several signature "maverick" positions which have alienated Republicans in the past. Most of all, he should say that while he has his own opinion about the wisdom of campaign finance reform, he will go to the mat for strict conservative judges without any McCain-Feingold litmus test.



Thus lies the problem with McCain. You can be sure that campaign finance will be a personal litmus test for him. I can't imagine he will be able to find many judges who are 1) pro-McCain/Feingold, 2) anti-Roe/Casey, and 3) pro-Bush-style war on terror manuverings, even if he was actively looking for such a background (and I'm doubtful of this to begin with). And #1 will certainly trump 2 and 3 for McCain. It is my belief that 2 & 3 trumps for most conservatives.

classicman2
01-30-08, 11:02 AM
I believe any Republican president is going to have some difficulty in getting nominations approved with a almost certain Democratic Senate, since in all probablity the it will be nominees to fill the Ginsburg or Stevens slots.

aside: How about Bill Clinton for the Supreme Court? William Howard Taft did it. What not slick Willie? ;)

I'm tired of all these judges getting the good jobs. Why not an ex-president? :)

JasonF
01-30-08, 11:07 AM
1. Never listen to Bill Bennett about anything - politics, tips on betting the ponies, anything. :)

2. He got slightly more that 1/3 of the vote in a five way race. No one got the base. There are, by my count, at least four components of the Republican base - tax cutters, deficit hawks, culture warriors, and defense hawks. There's not a single candidate who appeals to more than two of them.

I would add a fifth category -- call it Wall Street Hawks. Those people whose chief economic policy concern is creating a friendly environment for business.

The polls I saw showed Governor Romney beat Senator McCain among self-identified conservative. Many seem ready to annoint Senator McCain as the nominee, but I think Governor Romney is going to do better in some of the redder states than he did in Florida.

classicman2
01-30-08, 11:08 AM
I think it would be interesting to have Clinton on the court.

Who knows - maybe the 'old Bill Clinton' would return from the ashes and vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's possible.

wendersfan
01-30-08, 11:12 AM
I would add a fifth category -- call it Wall Street Hawks. Those people whose chief economic policy concern is creating a friendly environment for business.I think they and the deficit hawks are basically the same. I could be wrong about that.

:)

JasonF
01-30-08, 11:12 AM
Edwards dropping out suprised me. I never thought there would be a brokered convention, as Edwards the king maker.

The question is - who benefits from his dropping out?

I know, but I'll let some of our other members expound on the issue. :)

In the short term, definitely Senator Obama. To the extent anyone was paying attention to the Democratic vote in Florida, this changes the focus on the Democratic side.

Longer term, I think Senator Clinton tends to pick up Senator Edwards' blue collar support and Senator Obama tends to pick up Senator Edwards' progressive and minority support. I have no idea how those numbers break down and who is the net winner.

Of course, if Senator Edwards throws his support behind one candidate or the other, that changes the calculus.

JasonF
01-30-08, 11:13 AM
Edwards is out, but Gravel is still going strong! :lol:

It depends on what the meaning of "strong" is.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 11:13 AM
I would add a fifth category -- call it Wall Street Hawks. Those people whose chief economic policy concern is creating a friendly environment for business.

The polls I saw showed Governor Romney beat Senator McCain among self-identified conservative. Many seem ready to annoint Senator McCain as the nominee, but I think Governor Romney is going to do better in some of the redder states than he did in Florida.


I agree but.....1) Romney has to convince such red-staters that Huckabee has no chance and it's a 'wasted' vote that only helps McCain, and 2) he has to do extremely well in such states to offset NY and CA which are sure to go to McCain now - are NY and CA winner-take-all? That's a tall order IMO.


edit: NY is WTA. CA is by cong district.

Other good states for McCain on Super Tuesday: NJ and CT - both WTA.

classicman2
01-30-08, 11:14 AM
Well - I was wrong about Edwards dropping out - but I don't believe Edwards is going to endorse anyone.

Just watch - this afternoon in New Orleans he'll endorse either Obama or Clinton. ;)

Venusian
01-30-08, 11:17 AM
My red stater friends are talking about voting for Romney since they think Huckabee is dead in the water. They think McCain is too liberal. Of course, I haven't gotten any actual reasons for this yet.


I think people have made up their minds about Clinton. If they aren't supporting Edwards anymore, they'll back Obama. I don't think there are enough racists to make a difference like some on here think

Groucho
01-30-08, 11:21 AM
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul has all the racist votes locked up right now. Once he drops out, they'll disperse out for Hillary and the remaining Republican candidates.

classicman2
01-30-08, 11:22 AM
Again - why do you think if they're not supporting Edwards anymore they're just going to jump and support Obama? Couldn't they just as easily jump and support Clinton?

Venusian
01-30-08, 11:26 AM
Again - why do you think if they're not supporting Edwards anymore they're just going to jump and support Obama? Couldn't they just as easily jump and support Clinton?
Didn't we have poll numbers months ago that showed Hillary had a lot of love or hate people? People know her and either love her or hate her...not much in the middle. I think Obama has more middle ground.

JasonF
01-30-08, 11:27 AM
I think they and the deficit hawks are basically the same. I could be wrong about that.

:)

I see the deficit hawks as wanting to cut spending to the bone, come hell or high water. I see the Wall Street hawks as being more concerned with creating a regulatory environment favorable to big business -- tort reform, not raising the minimum wage, that sort of thing. There's definitely some overlap and some synergies, but they seem like two distinct branches of the modern GOP to me.

classicman2
01-30-08, 11:28 AM
I think there are voters who vote for experience. Some of those voters just maybe were Edwards supporters. Do you think they're going to turn to Obama? Maybe you think Obama is more experienced that Hillary?

JasonF
01-30-08, 11:30 AM
I think there are voters who vote for experience. Some of those voters just maybe were Edwards supporters. Do you think they're going to turn to Obama? Maybe you think Obama is more experienced that Hillary?

Because clearly Senator Edwards' one full Senate term makes him the candidate of experience as comapred to Senator Obama's half of a Senate term, let alone Senator Clinton's term-and-a-year (plus whatever experience she picked up being married to the President for eight years, though I'm still not exactly sure what kind of experience that gives you).

Red Dog
01-30-08, 11:31 AM
Venusian does have a valid point. I don't know the extent of it numbers-wise, but it was a good response to "if they didn't already support __________, why would they now?" question.

JasonF
01-30-08, 11:35 AM
Venusian does have a valid point. I don't know the extent of it numbers-wise, but it was a good response to "if they didn't already support __________, why would they now?" question.

"If they didn't already support Clinton/Obama/Gravel/whoever, why would they now?" is the dumbest question I ever heard. The answer is "Because they were supporting Edwards. Edwards is no longer a choice. Now they have to make a new choice."

It's like asking someone who drives to work every day "If you didn't have a car, how would you get to work?" and then, when they tell you they'd take the train, objecting that they must be lying becuase if they would take the train, why aren't they already taking the train?

wendersfan
01-30-08, 11:38 AM
Or it's like asking people who wanted Gore to run why they're bothering to vote for someone else. You make your choice among the possibilities you're given. Sometimes those possibilities change.

BTW, here's the breakdown of the SC Democratic primary exit poll:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226006

I couldn't find any decent pattern in who supported Edwards compared to Clinton or Obama, so my (barely) educated guess is that Edwards dropping out probably won't help either Obama or Clinton more than the other.

classicman2
01-30-08, 11:56 AM
'Mudcat' Saunders, Edwards' campaign chairman, said just a couple of minutes ago that Edwards will not endorse anyone else - at least not now.

He spent most of his time being critical of the media. His contention was that the media hadn't devoted the time to Edwars' campaign that he deserved.

couldn't find any decent pattern in who supported Edwards compared to Clinton or Obama, so my (barely) educated guess is that Edwards dropping out probably won't help either Obama or Clinton more than the other.

That's the same conclusion that 2 Democratic strategists I heard a few minutes on MSNBC reached. (I only tuned in to watch Nora O'Donnell. ;) )

wendersfan
01-30-08, 12:06 PM
OK, here's one thing:
Regardless of how you voted today, which one of these candidates do you think would be most likely to beat the Republican presidential nominee in November?
Category % Total Clinton Edwards Obama
Hillary Clinton 36 68 11 21
John Edwards 15 6 73 21
Barack Obama 48 4 8 88

Regardless of how you voted today, which one of these candidates do you think is most qualified to be commander in chief?
Category % Total Clinton Edwards Obama
Hillary Clinton 35 72 8 20
John Edwards 19 4 79 16
Barack Obama 46 4 2 94I got this from the SC exit polls, and I removed Kucinich from the numbers because they were all zero anyway. It seems to indicate that Edwards supporters, at least in SC, considered Clinton to be more qualified, and a slightly stronger candidate, than Obama.

:shrug:

Venusian
01-30-08, 12:11 PM
Do we know who the 2nd choice was for Edwards supporters in Iowa in caucuses where he wasn't viable?

wendersfan
01-30-08, 12:18 PM
OK, here's one thing:
Regardless of how you voted today, which one of these candidates do you think would be most likely to beat the Republican presidential nominee in November?
Category % Total Clinton Edwards Obama
Hillary Clinton 36 68 11 21
John Edwards 15 6 73 21
Barack Obama 48 4 8 88

Regardless of how you voted today, which one of these candidates do you think is most qualified to be commander in chief?
Category % Total Clinton Edwards Obama
Hillary Clinton 35 72 8 20
John Edwards 19 4 79 16
Barack Obama 46 4 2 94I got this from the SC exit polls, and I removed Kucinich from the numbers because they were all zero anyway. It seems to indicate that Edwards supporters, at least in SC, considered Clinton to be more qualified, and a slightly stronger candidate, than Obama.

:shrug:Actually, I read the crosstabs backwards. -ohbfrank- It looks like Edwards supporters were far more favorable to Obama than Clinton.

JasonF
01-30-08, 12:18 PM
OK, here's one thing:
Regardless of how you voted today, which one of these candidates do you think would be most likely to beat the Republican presidential nominee in November?
Category % Total Clinton Edwards Obama
Hillary Clinton 36 68 11 21
John Edwards 15 6 73 21
Barack Obama 48 4 8 88

Regardless of how you voted today, which one of these candidates do you think is most qualified to be commander in chief?
Category % Total Clinton Edwards Obama
Hillary Clinton 35 72 8 20
John Edwards 19 4 79 16
Barack Obama 46 4 2 94I got this from the SC exit polls, and I removed Kucinich from the numbers because they were all zero anyway. It seems to indicate that Edwards supporters, at least in SC, considered Clinton to be more qualified, and a slightly stronger candidate, than Obama.

:shrug:

One of us is reading this chart wrong (probably me).

I read the rows as being the supporters and the columns being their answers. Thus, for the first question, 73% of Edwards supports said Edwards is the most electable, 21% said Obama, and 6% said Clinton (and similarly, on the question of most qualified, Obama beat Clinton 16% to 4% among Edwards supporters).

I think you have to read it that way because if you assume the columns indicate who people voted for and the rows indicate their answers, then the percentages don't add up -- Obama is well over 100 for both questions.

Edit: Crossposted. Turns out I wasn't reading the chart wrong. :banana:

classicman2
01-30-08, 12:18 PM
Obama, in a speech in Denver, has used the term 'other America' 3 times already. I have a feeling I heard another candidate use that term before. ;)

JasonF
01-30-08, 12:21 PM
Don't get too excited. He was talking about who he would nominate to be his Secretary of Fashion and Style.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/America_ferarra.jpg

classicman2
01-30-08, 12:23 PM
To show how different folks see things rather differently - I just heard 2 more analysts discussing the impact of Edwards' withdrawal on the race.

One said in area of economics that it would help Clinton.

The other one said just the opposite.

I now have a definitive answer. It's a wash. :)

Robertwoj
01-30-08, 12:26 PM
Now that Edwards and Guliani both dropped out, are the delegates they already earned lost forever? Will those delegates still go to the national convention and cast their votes for them?

Venusian
01-30-08, 12:32 PM
One of us is reading this chart wrong (probably me).

I read the rows as being the supporters and the columns being their answers. Thus, for the first question, 73% of Edwards supports said Edwards is the most electable, 21% said Obama, and 6% said Clinton (and similarly, on the question of most qualified, Obama beat Clinton 16% to 4% among Edwards supporters).

I think you have to read it that way because if you assume the columns indicate who people voted for and the rows indicate their answers, then the percentages don't add up -- Obama is well over 100 for both questions.

Edit: Crossposted. Turns out I wasn't reading the chart wrong. :banana:


The left side is the answer to the question. the top is the vote.

So 36% of people said Hillary would most likely beat Rep. Of those, 11% voted for Edwards.

That's how i read it based on the other q and a's.



what about these:

No matter how you voted today, how would you feel if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination:Category % Total Clinton Edwards Kucinich Obama
Satisfied 77 35 16 0 49
Dissatisfied 23 1 33 0 66

No matter how you voted today, how would you feel if Barack Obama wins the nomination:Category % Total Clinton Edwards Kucinich Obama
Satisfied 83 23 14 0 63
Dissatisfied 16 51 47 0 2

Venusian
01-30-08, 12:33 PM
Now that Edwards and Guliani both dropped out, are the delegates they already earned lost forever? Will those delegates still go to the national convention and cast their votes for them?
if its like 2004, they'll release their candidates to whoever the winner is. iirc, kucinich didn't in 04

X
01-30-08, 12:37 PM
Good timing, Edwards. I don't think I could listen to one more routine of your shtick without getting ill.

classicman2
01-30-08, 12:43 PM
I don't believe it's shtick to discuss the realities of this country?

I believe there is 2 Americas?

I believe 37 million people live in poverty?

I believe that 40-50 million Americans have no health insurance?

I believe that a number of our priorities in this country are screwed up.

I believe we can do better.

Perhaps some of our folks don't.

Venusian
01-30-08, 12:44 PM
I don't think there are 2 Americas :shrug:

classicman2
01-30-08, 12:45 PM
Then you're not getting out enough. :lol:

X
01-30-08, 12:46 PM
Edwards has been channeling dead politicians from the 1930s now instead of the dead babies he used in the past.

Red Dog
01-30-08, 12:49 PM
You could say there are 2 Americas on almost any single issue.

wendersfan
01-30-08, 12:58 PM
I don't think there are 2 Americas :shrug:Most of the time I don't, but sometimes I do.

Last weekend I visited some friends and family in West Virginia. While picking up my wife's great aunt at church on Sunday, we drove through an area so poor it's hardly recognizable as being in the United States. I'm talking, if not Third World-level poverty, something unrecognizable as belonging to the wealthiest nation on Earth. Families who live in two room shacks, whose backyards are railroad tracks. These are people who probably don't vote, don't read newspapers, and, if they watch news coverage on television, it's only for sports and weather. I don't know if their world is a different America than mine, but I certainly don't recognize it very easily, even if I grew up 20 miles away.

grundle
01-30-08, 01:02 PM
A precinct in Florida had a voter turnout of 109%.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961985/posts

Tracer Bullet
01-30-08, 01:06 PM
Most of the time I don't, but sometimes I do.

Last weekend I visited some friends and family in West Virginia. While picking up my wife's great aunt at church on Sunday, we drove through an area so poor it's hardly recognizable as being in the United States. I'm talking, if not Third World-level poverty, something unrecognizable as belonging to the wealthiest nation on Earth. Families who live in two room shacks, whose backyards are railroad tracks. These are people who probably don't vote, don't read newspapers, and, if they watch news coverage on television, it's only for sports and weather. I don't know if their world is a different America than mine, but I certainly don't recognize it very easily, even if I grew up 20 miles away.

They have two rooms? Real poor people have one room. :rolleyes:

wishbone
01-30-08, 01:08 PM
Don't get too excited. He was talking about who he would nominate to be his Secretary of Fashion and Style.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/America_ferarra.jpgShe is America after all. :shrug:

Venusian
01-30-08, 01:17 PM
but that's WV. We already know parts of Appalachia are like 3rd world countries from Jane Fonda ;)

Th0r S1mpson
01-30-08, 01:39 PM
A precinct in Florida had a voter turnout of 109%.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961985/posts
Only 109? Everyone these days is always telling us to give it 110%. :mad:

classicman2
01-30-08, 02:03 PM
On any given night there are 200,000 veterans who are homeless. More than 400,000 are homeless over the course of the year.

More than 67% served our country for at least three years and 33% were stationed in a war zone.

Veterans account for nearly 1/4 of all homeless people in America.

Shouldn't the greatest nation on the face of the earth, which claims to honor its veterans, with its priorities straight, be able to do something to alleviate that?

Th0r S1mpson
01-30-08, 02:08 PM
Yes.

MartinBlank
01-30-08, 02:10 PM
On any given night there are 200,000 veterans who are homeless. More than 400,000 are homeless over the course of the year.

More than 67% served our country for at least three years and 33% were stationed in a war zone.

Veterans account for nearly 1/4 of all homeless people in America.

Shouldn't the greatest nation on the face of the earth, which claims to honor its veterans, with its priorities straight, be able to do something to alleviate that?

Source?

Jeremy517
01-30-08, 02:11 PM
How many of those actually try to find employment?

MartinBlank
01-30-08, 02:13 PM
Um....what about the V.A.?

classicman2
01-30-08, 02:17 PM
What about the V.A.

We don't even fund the V.A. enough to provide medical care and benefits (that this country has promised) for those who are not homeless.

But our politicians, both Democrats & Republicans, can stand waive the flag and make speeches to the American people about how much we honor our veterans.

wishbone
01-30-08, 02:29 PM
Study: Veterans more likely to be homeless

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than 25 percent of the homeless population in the United States are military veterans, although they represent 11 percent of the civilian adult population, according to a new report.

On any given night last year, nearly 196,000 veterans slept on the street, in a shelter or in transitional housing, the study by the Homelessness Research Institute found.

"Veterans make up a disproportionate share of homeless people," the report said. "This is true despite the fact that veterans are better educated, more likely to be employed and have a lower poverty rate than the general population."

The president of the institute's parent group appealed Thursday to lawmakers and civilians to help solve veteran homelessness before thousands of U.S. service members return from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We know that veterans don't immediately become homeless after they're discharged, but the difficulties may take years to emerge," Nan Roman, president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said in a news conference about the report's findings.

Ben Israel, a veteran originally from North Carolina's Camp Lejeune, told reporters at the briefing that his "main problem has always been housing."

Israel said he had been homeless in several cities, including Atlanta, Georgia, Dallas, Texas, and Portland, Oregon.

"I slept in my car many a night," he said, "trying to get to a day labor job because I got kicked out of a shelter at 6 a.m."

The states with the highest number of homeless veterans include Louisiana, California and Missouri, according to the research. Washington, D.C., also had a high rate.

About 44,000 to 64,000 veterans are classified as "chronically homeless" -- homeless for long periods or repeatedly.

Other veterans -- nearly 468,000 -- are experiencing "severe housing cost burden," or paying more than half their income for housing, thereby putting them at a high risk for homelessness.

The rates of the burden of housing costs were highest in Rhode Island, California, Nevada and Hawaii, but the nation's capital had the highest rate, according to the organization.

To reduce chronic homelessness among veterans by half, the report concluded housing coupled with supportive services should be increased by 25,000 units, and the number of housing vouchers for veterans should be increased by 20,000.

Veterans such as Jason Kelley find themselves in a Catch-22, not able to find a job because of the lack of an apartment, and not being able to get an apartment because of not having a job, The Associated Press reported.

"The only training I have is infantry training, and there's not really a need for that in the civilian world," the AP quoted Kelley as saying in a phone interview. In addition, he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, he told the AP. Kelley served in Iraq with the Wisconsin National Guard, the news agency said.

A new Gallup Poll released by Fannie Mae showed that nearly a quarter of veterans, or 24 percent, report having been concerned they may not have a place to live. Eighty-six percent of poll respondents believe homelessness among veterans is either staying at the same level or increasing.

In addition, 61 percent of poll respondents believe veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are at least as likely to become homeless as veterans of previous wars.

The poll of 1,005 veterans was conducted September 4-October 17 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/08/homeless.veterans/

Perhaps the military should look into additional job training for personnel not electing to go to college and need job skills once they rotate back to the real world. My father went into the Navy, pre-Vietnam, and learned a trade. He was an engineman on a ship and became a diesel mechanic when he left the service.

General Zod
01-30-08, 03:59 PM
Perhaps the military should look into additional job training for personnel not electing to go to college and need job skills once they rotate back to the real world. My father went into the Navy, pre-Vietnam, and learned a trade. He was an engineman on a ship and became a diesel mechanic when he left the service.
The military was VERY good at helping people transition back to the civilian workplace. They even help place you in a job and they keep you on benefits for a while (in exchange for your being placed on inactive reserve status). I was expecting the big boot out the door but they were VERY hospitable to making sure I was ok.

The problem is that you don't make much while you are in the military so it is really hard to safe up enough money to afford a home when you get out. Also, quite a lot of time, your job is specific to the military and there isn't anything that really matches it in the civilian world so there is a shortage of jobs that really match your specialty. However, if you take advantage of the GI Bill and attend the schools that they offer you can easily learn a very valuable trade once you get out. If you party every night when you are off duty and think when you get out you'll get a nice job shooting people - you're in for a disappointment.

JasonF
01-30-08, 04:03 PM
January 30, 2008
Nader takes steps towards another White House bid
Posted: 04:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate who was blamed by many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential election, launched an exploratory committee Wednesday for another White House bid, and told CNN he is likely to get in the race if he can put the resources in place.

"John Edwards, the banner of Democratic Party populism, is dropping out, and Dennis Kucinich dropped out earlier, so in terms of voters who are at least interested in having major areas of injustice, deprivations, and solutions discussed in a presidential campaign, they might be interested in my exploratory effort," Nader said.

Nader has launched an official exploratory committee Web site, and said he will formally make a decision in about a month. He said he is certain to get in the race if he can demonstrate the ability to raise $10 million and recruit enough lawyers to deal with ballot access issues. He has yet to formally file paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission, though he does not need to until he officially becomes a candidate, according to the FEC.

Nader said he finds Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both unacceptable candidates, and he said whichever wins the party's presidential nomination will not have an impact on his decision to run.

"They are both enthralled to the corporate powers," Nader said of the two leading Democrats. "They've completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they've ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don't talk about a living wage."

He expressed particular disappointment with Obama, whose senate record he called "mediocre, and quite cautious."

"It's not that he doesn't know what the score is, of course he does — look at his background, he knows plenty," Nader said. "But he's censoring himself."

Nader attracted close to 100,000 votes in Florida in 2000 — a state Al Gore ultimately lost to George Bush by approximately 500 votes. He brushes aside suggestions his candidacy this year may ultimately spoil the election for the Democratic Party.

"Political bigotry will be the label on anybody who uses the word 'spoiler,' he said. "Because ‘spoiler’ means minor candidates are second class citizens. Either we have an equal right to run for election, or we are spoilers for each other trying to get each other's votes.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/30/nader-takes-steps-towards-another-white-house-bid/

:hairpull:

classicman2
01-30-08, 04:09 PM
Bill Clinton appeared today at The Univ. of Oklahoma at Norman.

He 'played' before an overflow audience of 6,000. He was a kinder gentler Bill Clinton today.

Afterwards, a fund raiser was held for Hillary. ;)

Groucho
01-30-08, 04:23 PM
Nader takes steps towards another White House bidAnd with that, I think it's now safe to extend congratulations to the Republicans for another four more years in the White House!

Th0r S1mpson
01-30-08, 04:27 PM
I'm hoping for a good, clean campaign from both parties this year. But there are always "those groups" who get nasty about... well, everything.

And one thing I know... it sucks to be the white man running against either a woman or a minority this year. Poor white men. :( The Political Correctness Police are going to have a field day.

Groucho
01-30-08, 04:31 PM
And one thing I know... it sucks to be the white man running against either a woman or a minority this year.Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a river, oppressor!

JasonF
01-30-08, 04:36 PM
tGTJDAAHCnQ

rotfl

Red Dog
01-30-08, 05:02 PM
That's a great commercial.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. It's going to be a nightmare if those are the choices come November. The options that the major parties present just keep getting worse and worse with each cycle.

Tracer Bullet
01-30-08, 07:22 PM
And one thing I know... it sucks to be the white man running against either a woman or a minority this year. Poor white men. :(

I know you're joking, but... come on.

NCMojo
01-30-08, 07:53 PM
Again - why do you think if they're not supporting Edwards anymore they're just going to jump and support Obama? Couldn't they just as easily jump and support Clinton?
As the resident Edwards supporter on the forum, let me answer this question:

No. Almost no one who supported Edwards will vote for Hillary. Just a hunch -- 70-plus percent of Edwards supporters will switch over to Obama.

mosquitobite
01-30-08, 07:58 PM
tGTJDAAHCnQ

rotfl

:lol: LOVE IT!! :lol:

NCMojo
01-30-08, 08:02 PM
You could say there are 2 Americas on almost any single issue.
That misses the point. The disparity between the richest and the poorest in this country has never been greater -- the difference between an upper-middle class suburban family and a lower-income rural or urban family is so extreme, so divisive, that you really can't even compare the two. I am a pro-choice liberal Democrat, and I work with people that are pro-life conservative Republicans... and we can still go out for a few beers after work and find plenty of common ground.

Income and class differences are not just issues... in many ways, they truly define who we are, and what we can become.

Brent L
01-30-08, 08:04 PM
Romney and McCain are about to start throwing punches. :lol:

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:09 PM
As the resident Edwards supporter on the forum, let me answer this question:

No. Almost no one who supported Edwards will vote for Hillary. Just a hunch -- 70-plus percent of Edwards supporters will switch over to Obama.


Just a hunch - :lol: :lol:

You can't be serious.

Mr. Cinema
01-30-08, 08:09 PM
I think Ron Paul could've taken a nap tonight.

TruGator
01-30-08, 08:11 PM
I think Ron Paul could've taken a nap tonight.

I missed the debate. Can you elaborate?

Brent L
01-30-08, 08:12 PM
I think Ron Paul could've taken a nap tonight.

Well he most certainly just woke up. Whoa!

Mr. Cinema
01-30-08, 08:15 PM
I missed the debate. Can you elaborate?
It took about 1 hour and 15 minutes before Paul was asked a direct question. Prior to that, I think he only got in on 2 other questions. Not surprisingly, it's been a McCain/Romney show.

Mr. Cinema
01-30-08, 08:20 PM
I'm a Democrat, but I'm keeping my eye on who the GOP selects. McCain sounds like Bush, a broken record regarding Iraq, which appears to be the only thing he knows and wants to talk about. He continues to have it in his head that Iraq caused 9-11 and that it's our duty to defeat them. And now I'm starting to hear Al-Qaeda as being the "enemy" in Iraq. I don't recall Al-Qaeda bein in Iraq prior to our invasion. Also, I thought I've heard it mention that there are roughly 2% of representation of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

So, according to McCain, that's who we're fighting in Iraq?

Michael Sheridan
01-30-08, 08:26 PM
Im a Democrat, and couldnt care less, but this debate is a pile of crap. Huckabee and Paul might as well leave and catch the last flight home....they ask a question about leadership and the economy, and only let McCain and Romney answer. Seems like the panel couldnt care less that Huckabee and Paul are there...

Doesnt really seem fair to those two...

Red Dog
01-30-08, 08:32 PM
I haven't been watching, but if these are accurate descriptions, Paul may decide to bail after Super Tuesday. I originally figured he'd fight til the end but if he effectively ignored at the debates, he may not see any need to continue and either save his remaining war chest for future Congress runs (which he'll probably need since I assume the GOP will back someone to go after his seat with a vengence in a primary) or for an independent/3rdP run.

Michael Sheridan
01-30-08, 08:35 PM
Ron Paul is starting to sound like a one-trick pony broken record. Just like Giuliani couldnt utter a sentence without mentioning 9/11, or McCain mentioning Iraq, Paul always seems to bring the gold standard and over-printing of money into ANY question (war, foreign policy, etc)

Sean O'Hara
01-30-08, 08:37 PM
Ron Paul: Reagan supported the gold standard! rotfl

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:38 PM
Paul is in no danger of losing his seat if he wants to run for Congress again.

Now if he decides to run on a 3rd Party ticket - that might be something different; but, I don't believe he's going to do that.

Michael T Hudson
01-30-08, 08:45 PM
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will endorse Sen. John McCain for the GOP presidential bid, CNN has learned.

General Zod
01-30-08, 08:47 PM
Wow. I'm surprised he didn't endorse a Democrat.

classicman2
01-30-08, 08:48 PM
Since he's part of the 'Kennedy family (by marriage),' some members of the media were speculating that he would endorse Obama.

Of course, he might switch to Obama when McCain wins the GOP nomination.

classicman2
01-30-08, 09:00 PM
Obama is buying ad time on Boston televison during the Super Bowl.

That probably costs a bit of money.


$250,000 for 30 seconds.

I should think the Kennedys should be willing to come forward and pay for it, since they're such supporters of Obama.

JasonF
01-30-08, 10:24 PM
I should think the Kennedys should be willing to come forward and pay for it, since they're such supporters of Obama.

With each passing day, you make less and less sense. Should Maxine Waters pay for Senator Clinton's ads? Rudy Giuliani start paying for Senator McCain's ads?

classicman2
01-30-08, 10:31 PM
You've been wearing those Obama blinders so long that you no sense on a plethora of your posts on the subject.

Seriously - take 'em off once in a while. You'll be surprised at how different you may look at things. ;)

wishbone
01-30-08, 10:31 PM
And there are nine or so months left to go until the election... there are a lot of days left to pass... :eek:

JasonF
01-30-08, 11:26 PM
You've been wearing those Obama blinders so long that you no sense on a plethora of your posts on the subject.

Seriously - take 'em off once in a while. You'll be surprised at how different you may look at things. ;)

Whatever. You're lapsing into nonsense because Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama. Why does that mean he should pay for Obama's ads. You sound like a petulant six year old. "Oh yeah!? If Ted Kennedy loves Obama so much, WHY DOESN'T HE MARRY HIM!?"

I have no illusions about Obama's chances of securing the nomination. I recognize that at his point, the odds are against him. I also have a realistic sense of his propsects in a general election, which are far, far better than you seem to think.

bhk
01-31-08, 12:15 AM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=24752

GOP to Edwards: How Much For That Concession Speech?
by Ann Coulter (more by this author)
Posted 01/30/2008 ET
Updated 01/30/2008 ET


The Democrats are trying to give away an election they should win in a walk by nominating someone with real problems -- like, for example, a first-term senator with a 100 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and whose middle name is "Hussein."

But we won't let them.

The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.

Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats.

Recently, McCain responded to Mitt Romney's statement that he understood the economy based on his many years in the private sector by claiming Romney had said a military career is not a "real job."

McCain's neurotic boast that he is the only Republican who supported the surge is beginning to sound as insane as Bill Clinton's claim to being the "first black president" -- although less insulting to blacks. As with the Clintons, you find yourself looking up such tedious facts as this, which ran a week after Bush announced the surge:

"On the morning of Bush's address, Romney endorsed a troop surge." -- The National Journal, Jan. 13, 2007

And yet for the 4 billionth time, at the Jan. 5, 2008, Republican debate, McCain bragged about his own raw courage in supporting the surge despite (apocryphal) Republican attacks, saying: "I said at the time that Gen. Petraeus and his strategy must be employed, and I was criticized by Republicans at that time. And that was a low point, but I stuck to it. I didn't change."

A review of contemporaneous news stories about the surge clearly demonstrates that the only Republicans who were so much as "skeptical" of the surge consisted of a few oddball liberal Republicans such as Sens. Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman and Olympia Snowe.

They certainly weren't attacking McCain, their standard-bearer in liberal Republicanism. But even if they were, it was a "low point" for McCain being "criticized" by the likes of Olympia Snowe?

In point of fact, McCain didn't even stand up to the milquetoasts. In April 2007, when Democrats in the Senate passed a bill funding the troops but also requiring a rapid withdrawal, "moderate" Republicans Smith and Chuck Hagel voted with the Democrats. McCain and Lindsey Graham skipped the vote.

But like the Democrats, McCain thinks if he simply says something over and over again, he can make people believe it's true. Thus again at the South Carolina debate on Jan. 10, McCain was proclaiming that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge.

Since he would deny it about two minutes later, here is exactly what Mr. Straight Talk said about the surge: "I supported that; I argued for it. I'm the only one on this stage that did. And I condemneded the Rumsfeld strategy before that."

The next question went to Giuliani and -- amid great flattery -- Giuliani noted that he also supported Bush's surge "the night of the president's speech."

Mr. Straight Talk contradicted Giuliani, saying: "Not at the time."

Again, Giuliani said: "The night of the president's speech, I was on television. I supported the surge. I've supported it throughout."

To which McCain finally said he didn't mean that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge. So by "the only one on this stage," McCain really meant, "one of several people on this stage." OK, great. Now tell us your definition of the word "is," Senator.

I know Republicans have been trained not to go prostrate at Ivy League degrees, but do we have to admire stupidity?

Mr. Straight Talk also announced at that same debate: "One of the reasons why I won in New Hampshire is because I went there and told them the truth." That and the fact that Democrats were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.

Even in the Florida primary, allegedly limited to Republicans, McCain lost among Republicans. (Seventeen percent of the Republican primary voters in Florida called themselves "Independents.")

That helps, but why would any Republican vote for McCain?

At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.

You need little flags like that for Republicans since, as we know from the recent unpleasantness in Florida, Republicans are unalterably stupid.

Republicans who vote for McCain are trying to be cute, like the Democrats were four years ago by voting for the "pragmatic" candidate, Vietnam vet John Kerry. This will turn out to be precisely as clever a gambit as nominating Kerry was, the brilliance of which was revealed on Election Day 2004.

Ann Coulter lets McCain and repubs have it.

MartinBlank
01-31-08, 12:21 AM
Michelle Malkin: I won’t vote for McCain over Hillary

<embed allowScriptAccess="never" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=70b874e8-3c26-4a48-8c1a-8fa51367b171" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="390" height="320"></embed>

<embed allowScriptAccess="never" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=fa45b9d3-06e1-4048-9af6-f5f85457d8e6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="390" height="320"></embed>

MartinBlank
01-31-08, 12:25 AM
Edwards endorses McCain...
(2008-01-30) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards today quit the race for the Democrat presidential nomination, and immediately endorsed Republican frontrunner Sen. John McCain.

“As the presidential field narrows,” Sen. Edwards will reportedly say at an afternoon news conference, “I just didn’t feel there would be room in the race for two white males who favor leniency for illegal aliens, who opposed Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, who fight man-made global warming, who support limits on so-called free speech in political campaigns, who have worked to hinder approval of conservative judicial nominees, and who stand against the Bush administration’s desire to torture terror suspects with waterboarding.”

Mr. Edwards added that, while he’s young enough to run for president 10 more times, the septuagenarian Sen. McCain “may have only five or six more shots at it.”

While Mr. Edwards played down speculation that he might bring balance to the ticket as Sen. McCain’s running mate, he noted that it would be “a once-in-a-lifetime thrill to team up with an actual Vietnam war hero.”
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2882


:D

bhk
01-31-08, 12:27 AM
Edwards' candidacy was actually test conducted by the Democratic Party to see just how many folks would support a completely insincere, demagoguing, phony hypocrite. The results were better than expected and well received by the party.
His real problem was that not everyone is as stupid as the juries where he made all of his money.

MartinBlank
01-31-08, 01:08 AM
Bloomberg jumping in?

<div><object width="420" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x3cz1u"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x3cz1u" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="296" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3cz1u_gender-bender">Gender Bender</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/bloombergwhitehouse">bloombergwhitehouse</a></i></div>

<div><object width="420" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x3d183"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x3d183" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="296" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3d183_rebound">Rebound</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/bloombergwhitehouse">bloombergwhitehouse</a></i></div>

NCMojo
01-31-08, 01:54 AM
Edwards' candidacy was actually test conducted by the Democratic Party to see just how many folks would support a completely insincere, demagoguing, phony hypocrite..
So you would say that Edwards is the insincere, demagoguing hypocrite... not, say, Mitt Romney, who has completely flipped over from being a moderate Republican to a bastion of conservative purity. Or John McCain, another moderate turned conservative, maverick turned loyal partisan. Or your hero, George Bush, who ran as a "compassionate conservative", promised to reduce greenhouse gasses and cut government spending and derided "nation building"... until he actually came into power. Or "sanctimony of marriage" types like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani.

classicman2
01-31-08, 06:12 AM
What was your general opinion of the Republican debate last evening?

I saw some of it - all of the exchange between McCain & Romney over the time table issue. I didn't believe either candidate did themselves any good with that exchange. Romney was obviously attempting (in vain) to back away from previous statements he had made. McCain should have quit after he made his point. Instead he sat there with that inapproriate smile on his face. It didn't play well for me. I don't believe it played well for a bunch of people.

Did you notice how McCain clumsily tried to deflect the immigration question? It was almost a 'let's move on' response. I wonder if he'll change his position on immigration in the general election?


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0