Incoming Iowa results are backing up the network exit polls (CNN polls here for Republicans and Democrats), which say Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee just benefited from huge spikes in relevant demographics to key their respective victories in the Iowa caucuses. Obama successfully brought out scores of younger, new caucus-goers in what looks to be a truly decisive victory (his turnout operation will be studied in spades by campaign gurus). Huckabee benefited from very high turnout among Evangelicals, flocking to support one of their own.
Several observations:
1) Obama-mania is about to sweep the press, with high volumes of favorable media coverage fanning the flames of the passion he already inspires among Democrats and like-minded voters. Expect the independent voters who have leaned increasingly Democratic in recent election cycles in New Hampshire to come out of the woodwork for Obama. Big, big trouble for Hillary Clinton.
2) The knives are coming out in New Hampshire as I type. Clinton is going to be fighting for her political life, as will Mitt Romney. The latter's battle with McCain is already getting gory, even before two televised Granite State debates in the coming weekend. Meanwhile, it's not any mystery what the Clinton machine will do to people when its back is against a wall.
3) Obama-mania will not help John McCain, pulling vacillating independents into the Democratic primary. But, Mitt Romney is going to be hurt by all the process stories about his 2nd place showing after the time and money his campaign invested in the state.
4) Rudy Giuliani is in free fall. Finishing in 6th behind Ron Paul in Iowa, no matter what the circumstances, is a precursor to another probable embarrassment on the horizon in New Hampshire.
5) If Iowa assumes the same role in 2012, which is an open question given the collective backlash against the insanity of this primary campaign cycle, no one will run even a mild contrast ad in the Hawkeye State again. "Iowa nice" is no joke. The caucus-goers of Iowa like their politics warm and fuzzy, unlike most of the rest of the country.
6) It is entirely possible we will look back on January 3rd and say on this night conservative Evangelicals not so indirectly empowered - whether they meant to or not - the nomination of a Republican for President who called their most public leaders "agents of intolerance" in 2000.
7) If Romney can't quickly pick up a win in New Hampshire or via a long-shot last stand in Michigan, there will be a huge void in the Republican party. MSM pundits rarely grasp the degree to which McCain is persona non grata with many Republican voters - which at best portends a massive enthusiasm gap in November. Meanwhile, Huckabee's now obvious rifts with both economic and foreign policy conservatives seem difficult to bridge. Neither McCain nor Huckabee can actually unite the Republican coalition as it is currently understood. I'm not saying there is anyone else who looks like a great shot to win the nomination that can fill it, just that the vacuum is potentially there. And we know what nature does with those.
9) Related to the point above, with Romney wounded and Iowa behind us, when do McCain and Huckabee start engaging each other? It is bound to happen because of the basic fundamentals of the race as well as the profoundly different bases of support upon which the two rely. How will that contrast unfold when it inevitably happens? Just another reminder that no matter who emerges in the next few Republican contests, the race is incredibly - and even oddly - fluid.
UPDATE: the linchpin of potential Democratic nominee Barack Obama's pitch to undecided men in the general election.
I'm kidding...sort of.
UPDATE II: Here's a sampling of the grassroots angst with a Huckabee v. McCain choice.
UPDATE III: The exit polling linked above shows a striking contrast in both parties:
For Republicans, Huckabee cruised past Romney 46% - 19% among "Born Again or Evangelical" Christians. Among the rest of Iowa caucus-goers Romney was favored over Huckabee 33% - 14%.
For Democrats, Obama smashed Clinton 57% - 11% (with John Edwards at 14%) among 17 to 29 year-old caucus-goers. In contrast, Clinton pummeled Obama 45% - 18% (with Edwards at 22%) among those aged 65 and older.
UPDATE IV: here's the real killer stat from the exit polls for Romney: 36% of Republican caucus-goers said "Religious beliefs of a candidate matter a great deal." Those voters went for Huckabee over Romney 56% - 11%. Brutal.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 03, 2008 07:37 PM | Email ThisHuckabee at this point is running for VP but will prepare to change on a dime if circumstances allow him to. Like Rudy, Huckabee needs Romney to lose in NH so Mike and McCain should be teaming up on him in the next few days. McCain will look for Thompson to endorse him in the next couple of days which will help him win in NH even more. In South Carolina (which would be a naturally good spot for McCain and Huck to go at each other) McCain and Huck will still be cordial to each other as they fight off one last desparation from Romney.
If McCain wins NH, Romney is toast and the other candidates will breathe better.
I was personally shocked at how POORLY Ron Paul did, I guess having to listen to Paulbearers constantly on this site made me think there were more of them out there. Thompson did better than I expected, but he's done.
I do disagree with Eric horribly on his comparison of Romney and McCain, come November. I believe it is Romney that will produce less of a Republican turnout than McCain come election. When it comes to Republicans, credibility matters first, and this result in Iowa shows that.
Posted by: Doug on January 3, 2008 07:40 PMThe Democrats will decide Obama is unelectable.
In November, the election will be between Gore and Bloomberg.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on January 3, 2008 07:49 PM"Paulbearers"... that's funny. Thanks for the chuckle.
Posted by: Mike H on January 3, 2008 07:55 PMLet's agree that you really, really don't like Mitt Romney. Let's agree that you think he would stink in a general election. Fine. But do you believe that that McCain can actually inspire the Republican base after years spent poking it in the eye? Throw aside our opinions of Romney, that's the actual question.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 3, 2008 07:56 PMA month ago it was a "two-man race" by many accounts between Romney and Rudy. Romney's now toast, and this is bad for Rudy?
I'm personally starting to suspect it will definitely be McCain, which will be good for the party and good for the nation. But anyone who dismisses Giuliani before February 5 is just proudly broadcasting their shortsightedness.
On 5 Feb, you have states like DE, CT, CA, NY, NJ, IL voting. These are more urban, moderate Republicans and Giuliani is leading.
The momentum has shifted and polls are quickly changing, but are we supposed to believe that all the declared Giuliani supporters are going to peel off and vote for... Huckabee?
Whoa. Time for some reasoned thinking. Too many people shooting from the hip right now for my taste. :)
Posted by: AD on January 3, 2008 08:08 PMA 5th place showing in NH will probably shut me up. A 5th place 10% showing in NH is not what I wanted to see but not disappointing either. Sorry, I know you all probably wanted to stop hearing from me huh? :)
Posted by: Travis Pahl on January 3, 2008 08:27 PMRelative to Mitt Romney, McCain will inspire the Republican base more in November. Republicans are looking for someone other than Romney to vote for, just as Democrats are looking for someone other than Hillary to vote for. During the primaries there will be a large percentage of the Republican base that will circle the bandwagon around a McCain or a Rudy if they don't see Huckabee as viable.
Iowa is a perfect example. 6 months ago when Huckabee wasn't on the radar and Romney was running away with it, the polls had Romney at 25%. He still got about 25% in the caucuses, but all the undecideds broke away from him. Those polls as has been pointed out before were heavy towards previous Republicans, the base as it were. McCain, the war hero and straight talker, would inspire more come November, when compared with Mitt.
Posted by: Doug on January 3, 2008 08:28 PMI look at it this way:
1) Iowa is not representative of the nation. Lot's of old folks. But Ron Paul supporters are young, urban, and tend to be high-tech geeks or educated professionals. Not as many of these in Iowa.
2) The polls were showing Ron Paul in the mid-single digits in Iowa. The double-digit Iowa primary result proves the polls dramatically (about 40%!) understate Ron Paul's support. If this generalizes to the rest of the nation, Ron Paul will win a few states at least.
3) There is not much difference between Thompson, McCain and Paul's results in this race. It is not far from a statistical dead-heat for third place. Thompson will soon drop out. I see this as almost indistinguishable from a third-place finish for Ron Paul. He is nearly tied with McCain.
4) Ron Paul beat Giuliani.
5) Ron Paul has enough money to stay in the race all the way to the convention, where I think he will be invited to speak. The Republicans want to try to keep his supporters in the party. They have always had a problem attracting young people, and Ron Paul seems to have done it for them. This is a market segment the Republicans need in order to win in November, or at least to undercut Obama's support. Ron Paul is the key to that segment for the Republicans.
6) Ron Paul's best state for donations per capita is NH. I think he will come in second.
7) Ron Paul's poll numbers are still rising. Some of the other candidates have peaked too soon.
In short, it is WAY too early to count Ron Paul out of the race. This is WAY better than most people thought he would do.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 3, 2008 08:32 PMActually, the last Des Moines Register poll showed Paul tied for 4th with 9%. Zogby's last tracking poll likewise had him tied for 4th, with 10% in this case. So no, Paul didn't actually exceed polling expectations.
AD @ 9 -
Hey, anything is possible. But Rudy's free fall has been a long time coming, as I've mentioned here at Sound Politics.
Giuliani was a great potential candidate, whose inherent strengths carried him much of the year. But John McCain is taking voters from him left and right, he had negative momentum even before tonight, and his campaign has shown no ability to successfully interject itself into the campaign discourse of the last couple months.
I wouldn't say Rudy is done given how chaotic this race is. But he certainly hasn't shown the political world much in recent weeks.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 3, 2008 08:37 PMDid you not, JUST TODAY, write this:
27. Ron Paul takes second place to Huckabee. Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 3, 2008 12:50 PM
So... did you, like, expect Huck to get 80% of the vote, with Paul second to that at LESS then "10?"
One of the problems I have with Paulbearers is they're typically absolutely incapable of admitting when they're wrong or delusional.
YOU expected Paul to finish SECOND. And then you actually post that his utterly abysmal disaster of a showing in Iowa today was actually "This is WAY better than most people thought he would do?"
What an absolute crock.
Posted by: Hinton on January 3, 2008 08:47 PMPolls have Paul at around 7 in NH. He might get to 10,but second place, no way. Polls arn't perfect, but they are pretty accurate.
No offense, but I specifically posed the question to you in the context of setting aside thoughts on Romney and dealing with McCain as a stand alone topic. Your response is the opposite of that. So, my question stands: "do you believe that that McCain can actually inspire the Republican base after years spent poking it in the eye?"
I don't think so. He'd be competitive, but I think anyone who doesn't acknowledge that McCain has a huge amount of long-standing baggage with the Republican base isn't being honest with themselves. I agree with you that in a Huckabee v. McCain contest, McCain wins the GOP nod. But that doesn't mean things will be rosy for him after that.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 3, 2008 08:49 PMI thought Ron Paul would come in second. But he came in a statistical dead-heat for third.
Oh, well. Still, that was pretty good in a state full of corn farmers after Ron Paul decried farm and ethanol subsidies, and in a state with no really large urban areas.
But I was right about Huckabee winning.
And Ron Paul beat Giuliani.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 3, 2008 09:07 PMMcCain will inspire the base more than Bob Dole did. Bush2 in his first election inspired 'the base', as it turned out the base was defined then as the same base that it appears Huckabee is inspiring to turn out. There are few as good as McCain in the race who are known for Fiscal Conservatism. If one defines the Republican base as anti-immigration then your point is well taken, he won't inspire that base.
However, last time I checked there is your normal basic pro-life, limited government, pro-military backbone to the Republican Party. If McCain ends up being the nominee he would likely push those buttons for the General Election and yes, he will inspire the true base of the Republican party - not that one that we want to redefine as simply anti-Mexicans.
Posted by: Doug on January 3, 2008 09:09 PM We have tried very hard to convince you that if we live by God's rules, He will bless us. One of those blessings is good rulers. Even the most moderate Republican would like that!
Many Christian ministries travel the world, really truly staying out of politics, just to stay alive and continue to feed the orphans. So, sometimes we may feel politics in America is sort of off-limits, too.
Please help us be .. maybe a better part of your party. You could really help us by teaching us about economics or socialism.
I started reading sites like this a few years ago when I started studying international socialism for a homeschool co-op. It was a real wake up call. One family quit my class because it was 'too conservative'. It is hard for me to talk politics with most other Christians. I'm a piano player. I don't have to know much but chords and keys, so no one wants to talk politics with me.
You 'moderates' out there would do well to listen to the preachers who do talk politics. Hal Lindsey, Grant Jeffreys, Jack VanImpe.
These men know their stuff.
Call on the influence of preachers like these. A true alliance with them could be very important.
Posted by: ljm on January 3, 2008 09:13 PMMcCain will unite and energize the Republican base far more than Huckabee, point blank. I'm looking forward to the McCain-Thompson ticket.
You must be totally out of touch if you think an evangenical preaching former governor has more credibility *during wartime* than a former field grade officer who spent 5 and a half years in captivity and endured things that would make girly man Obama scream for his mama?
"Republicans" must be posivitively STUPID if they think the Huckster or Mitt can overcome Obama or even Edwards - they have nowhere NEAR the charisma. NOWHERE EVEN CLOSE. McCain constitutes the only viable choice to win in Iraq, and I see that as how this is going to play out.
I say this as a small l libertarian with strong Republican leanings. I voted for McCain in 2000 and will do so again this year.
Bruce, I quit the Libertarian party over its steadfast support of abandoning all those Iraqi kids to the terrorists. Apparently it's okay for Americans to die for the freedom of good christian white folk in Britain and France but not okay for the freedom of those dirty brown muslims, right?
Posted by: Aaron on January 3, 2008 09:30 PMI said, "most" polls. yes he got 10 in a couple. But if you look at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html#polls you acn see his average was closer to 6-7 range over the past month.
Posted by: Travis on January 3, 2008 09:32 PMAnd yes, the one person that can and will animate the lethargic GOP is WhoriBILLary... although I think Barry Hussein O might too.
It's a long way to Super Tuesday.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2008 09:40 PMSo you're voting for Obama then? Never picked you for a believer in the "audacity of hope".
McCain can win. Remember that.
Posted by: Aaron on January 3, 2008 09:48 PMMcCain-Fiengold, immigration, taxes. McCain is a GOP nightmare who will divide the party. I will vote third party and send Obama to the White House before I ever support Ted Kennedy's partner John McCain. The only hope for the GOP is Thompson or Romney IMO.
Posted by: AP on January 3, 2008 09:48 PMWWII is not even remotely similar to the wars in the Middle East. Hitler was a conventional military threat backed by a nation-state. Not so, the Middle-east terrorists.
And let's keep it civil, my friend. It is not nice to call anyone a racist for no good reason. My opposition to invading Iraq has nothing to do with the race of the Iraqis. It has to do with what I see as our strategic interests, and the health of the United States. Let's have an honest debate and stay away from name-calling, OK?
And when you can see the difference between WWII and the war on terror, the LP will be here for ya. We'll welcome you back whenever you get sick of the big-government, Medicare drug benefit, no child left behind, police the world Republicans. Until then, keep trying to reform the elephant from within! :)
As a big-L libertarian, I have a majority view within a minority party. While you, as a small "l" libertarian have a minority view within a minority party. Which is better is debatable.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 3, 2008 09:49 PMIt is better to have the GOP in congress united against Obama than to have McCain in the White House working for the Democrats. McCain is a Democrat. Remember that.
Posted by: AP on January 3, 2008 09:51 PMI would like to point out for those paying attention the rich irony of Mitt's handlers now downplaying Huck's "break-out" momentum. Of course, we shall see later in this election whether the IA break-out is dead or not as a theory (I think it always was for Rs) but we now know that it was nothing but boob bait when marketed by brand Romney: but credit him for knowing where to find his gulls.
The talk in coming weeks will be of the three way race between the national poll leader (Giuliani), the likely NH winner (McCain) and the southern conservative (Huckabee). Those pooh-poohing Giuliani's FLA strategy (and it was and is very risky) largely included those who claimed last summer that Rudy's "trend-line" was perpetually downward (a Romney talking point) and Romney's perpetually upwards (and permanent in IA). In the intervening months Giuliani national numbers did trend downward (by 5%) and Romney upwards (by 4%) but Romney's trend line in IA stayed neither upwards nor permanent and he never overcame Rudy nationally as was so often prognosticated by Team Mitt. Bottom line: Mitt was, except for a couple of weeks, never more than the fourth place guy nationally. Too much attention was paid to him especially given the speciousness of his claims to viability. Time to move on to the serious candidates and also time to quit letting a rich guy playing mostly alone (for a time) in a small caucus state distort the dialogue regarding the true state of a national election.
Posted by: Not Declining on January 3, 2008 09:56 PMMoral of the story? Grab for everything and end up with nothing.
Besides, I believe McCain will cut down on unneccesary spending, which will in large part mitigate some of his tax cut stance. On immigration, I think I have a lot more personal experience, what with my wife being a green card holder and both of my two beautiful children having been born outside of the United States.
As for McCain-Feingold, if it's unconstitutional, challenge it in court, it goes away. End of story.
Posted by: Aaron on January 3, 2008 09:57 PMThank you so much for your kind words. However, if you actually read my comments, you'll see I said I agree with Doug that in a McCain v. Huckabee contest, McCain wins. And yes, I would agree that McCain would do better in a general election than Huckabee. Either way, I don't waver from the notion that John McCain has a ton of problems as a GOP nominee. And, if you think the Election of 2008 is going to be about Iraq then we really are on diverging paths.
Doug @ 23 -
Thanks for your answer though I think you're looking at things strictly through the lens of issues rather than the past history voters have with individuals. As Huckabee has most recently demonstrated (as has Obama for that matter), personal connection with a candidate matters.
If McCain is the nominee I think immigration as a stand-alone issue won't be as problematic as some people think, though I think you're painting an overly nativist picture of the GOP base. Yes, there are some bigots among those fired up about immigration. But most people concerned about immigration don't fit that bill. They're actually just concerned about the issue and want it dealt with, which is shown even in recent Democratic polling.
More importantly, McCain's problems with the GOP base go back much further than immigration. Almost the entirety of his 2000 run was spent not just disagreeing with significant portions of the Republican party, but aggravating them. Moreover, the sum of his active affronts over time to GOP orthodoxy on global warming, taxes, judges, campaign finance reform, etc. are a problem...even before you get to immigration.
Yes, McCain will inspire people more than Bob Dole. But that's not saying much. Expecting McCain to achieve the same unity Bush 43 achieved running against 8 years of Bill Clinton seems like more than a stretch. Also, I disagree Huckabee is even comparable to Bush in 2000. 43 was the candidate of the Establishment, including all wings of the GOP. Huckabee is anything but.
Travis @ 27 -
Yes, and the RCP average also had him finishing 5th, which is what happened.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 3, 2008 10:05 PMI didn't call you a name, but I sure did imply. If you honestly think that leaving a broken Iraq (and let's not kid ourselves, that's what we'd be leaving at this critical juncture) better serves our strategic interests, then you seriously need to re-evaluate your position. We will not be off of "Big Oil" for at least two decades simply because of the horrific costs of infrastructure and time to build. Even if clean anti matter power were available tomorrow, do you think we have the delivery system, much less the conflicting interests to work against? Of course not. Even our current infratructure is decaying and we need to dedicate fiscal resources to fix that! You have to broaden out your view somewhat. Iraq as a stable democracy in the mideast serves a major strategic victory; Iraq as desolate poor terrorist breeding ground or Iran-lite does not.
Posted by: Aaron on January 3, 2008 10:06 PMI'd say that overall this much ado about nothing.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 3, 2008 10:06 PMThe entire department of education is unconstitutional. Reagan tried to get rid of it, and failed. Welfare and social security are unconstitutional. Try to get rid of those.
Ultimately, it is popular sentiment that is all-powerful, not the Constitution. When the people began to love their tyranny of the majority more than the constitution, we began our slide away from liberty and our prosperity will not be far behind.
The USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act and McCain Feingold are all unconstitutional, but getting them repealed is much harder than you suggest.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 3, 2008 10:10 PMAt least the GOP will be united against a Democrat in the White House as opposed to work with the Dems. as McCain would. I want McCain out of the U.S. Senate too. I wish the GOP would run someone against him in the Arizona primary.
McCain and Huckabee are not Conservatives, Classic Liberals, or Libertarians. I will vote for a third party if the GOP leaves me by nominating either one of these RINOs.
Posted by: AP on January 3, 2008 10:12 PMjk@25:
Don't underestimate the underhandedness of the Clinton machine.
Not really surprised Clinton did so poorly. Her licensing answer in that past debate was her "Dean moment" akin to the "Dean scream". This has nothing to do with politics but with the media. They love to build em up and knock em down. That is what sells newspapers and advertising.
You point out perfectly why Romney won't win the nomination. "Personal connection with a candidate matters." I do believe polls indicate he is the worst in the field at this. As well as McCain's problems earlier of disagreeing with the President and aggravating fellow Republicans. Romney's attacks on his fellow rivals are backfiring in a big way and he doesn't have 6 years to attempt to fix it like McCain has had.
Here's even a more simplification of the Republican base for you: If they don't feel like they can trust you, they won't vote for you. Read My Lips: There is no other sure fire way to keep Republicans home in November than to act like a politician, change positions, and rationalize it away. That has been the Democrats' realm, a Rudy, Huck or McCain, even if a little left of the base, at least are perceived by them to be straight shooters - and that goes far. So far in fact that they are willing to overlook a couple policy differences to vote for someone they can trust.
Posted by: Doug on January 3, 2008 10:38 PMOn the military comissions act, I don't agree that it's unconstitutional but let me throw this in: We hung the Germans who weren't in uniform. When we didn't shoot them.
The Gitmo detainees enjoy more rights and a better quality of life than any detainees in history period bar none. On the taxpayer's dime, BTW.
Why should any skeptic of Thompson eat crow tonight? He barely beat John McCain in Iowa after going all-in in the state a few weeks back. His campaign is still alive and kicking for now, but essentially moves on to South Carolina on life support...assuming he even stays in the race until then.
Doug @ 43 -
You say, "they are willing to overlook a couple policy differences to vote for someone they can trust."
That's exactly the point with McCain and a not insignificant part of the GOP base. There are more than just a couple policy differences and notable parts of the base don't trust him because of the way he has conducted himself in the midst of those disagreements. I'm not even saying I like that fact, since it may well put a Democrat in the Oval Office in 2009. But it's a real problem for McCain.
Not Declining @ 34 -
You know, I have a name. And if you're going to criticize me I'm more than man enough to have you do so directly.
But, you've tossed out some mingling of your interpretation of what I've said in the past with things you attribute to the Romney campaign so I'm not sure where to start. That being the case, let me just say this: if Mike Huckabee had not found lightening in a bottle with Evangelicals in the past several weeks the odds are pretty high Romney would have won Iowa, invalidating many of the macro factors you now proclaim.
More importantly, when in the past I have said Giuliani was fading it was based on my observation of his campaign, including polls. Giuliani did a nice job of correcting his early summer slide, in no small part thanks to John McCain's summer swoon. But if you don't think Giuliani's current, ongoing slippage isn't significant then I don't know what to tell you. Pick you measure, pollster.com, RCP, whatever. He's been heading south nationally for about two months, falling about 7-10 points depending on when you want to measure it from.
I for one have never said Giuliani's slide would inevitably be followed by a Romney ascent. Heck, until a few weeks ago Giuliani was my 2nd choice in this whole thing. I'm not thrilled to see Giuliani's campaign look this inept, even as you continue to protest the notion that his campaign is failing (though you acknowledge its strategy is risky). I'm just calling it like I see it.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 3, 2008 11:21 PMMcCain's best case scenario was to take third in Iowa and win in NH, his worse case would be to do poorly in each. Huckabee's best case is to win Iowa and do well in NH, his worse case is to not be competitive in either.
Romney's best case is to win both Iowa and NH, worse case is to lose both of them.
Next week we'll see where the campaigns stand, but I only see one campaign that is going to bed worried that they are in a tailspin.
Posted by: Doug on January 3, 2008 11:52 PMWe observed both the Democratic and Republican caucuses. In the D caucus, the Obama supporters clearly stood out and had the best energy. In the R caucus, the Ron Paul folks were most visible and energized. However, Iowa has a large and well-organized evangelical Christian population and they came out in force to support Mike Huckabee.
In both caucuses, there was an almost desperate yearning for a change from the war mongering and corruption that has enveloped Washington, DC. The R's seem to have found that in Paul, who had a stunning performance given his expected showing. He clearly outflanked Rudy, America's mayor. In the D caucus, Obama clearly owned the 'Hope' and 'Change' messages, with Edwards getting the silver medal for change. In the caucus we observed, Hillary did not even have a viable group, so she did not get even 1 delegate. Another thing to note at the Fairfield caucus was that out of 300 attendees at the Democratic caucus, there were only 2 non-white attendees. Yet at the same time, there was truly a love for Obama, not because he's black, but because he is truly inspiring, in a kind of Kennedy-esque way.
Hillary Clinton is clearly wounded as her message of experience and being the establishment figure is clearly NOT what Americans want. And she's staked her entire image on that, an image that is going to be difficult if not impossible for her to remold in the next few days before the NH primary. She's not out but she's certainly down after tonight's loss in Iowa.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on January 4, 2008 12:27 AMHow long has Thompson been in the race and how long had McCain been in it? McCain was a media darling after the endorsements he got.
Regardless, many people wrote Thompson off. Ronald Reagan never won IOWA either.
Hillary-toasted botox, arrogant all knowing nanny
Obama-most Americans have as much experience-loser
Edwards-angry, phony, but nice hair
Richardson-world class foreign policy idiot
None of the above: the ultimate nominee
Rudy-mostly good, vaguely uncomfortable. naaa
Fred-too old, some potential, too old, too old
McCain-really too old, really a Dem, really angry
Mitt-some potential, too pretty, too something, no
The Huckster-media wet dream, really a Dem, phony
Duncan Hunter-great candidate, who? who?
None of the above: the ultimate nominee
Delegates at both conventions may have something to do besides deciding where to get hammered every night. The first brokered conventionS in over 50 yrs.
What fun!!
Posted by: Hank on January 4, 2008 05:34 AMWell, now we agree on something. Though I'd say your comments at 52 are still too optimistic about Thompson. Mccain hardly raised a finger in Iowa after not competing there in 2000. Fred put all his eggs in the Iowa basket a few weeks back and yet for a while didn't even have enough money to run TV ads in that state. That's hardly grounds for optimism.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 4, 2008 06:52 AM1. Yes the caucuses had great turnout, but they still pale in comparison to primary turnouts. Why do parties (like our own state) continue to focus on caucuses instead of letting the people get involved?
2. I see where Romney's not talking to Huckabee camp totally blew his speech last night. On the Democrat side, whether formal or informal, the front-runners all made sure they didn't give their closing speach on top of each other. Romney, in his arrogance, just bulled his way on and thus, since it was the same time as Huckabee, his speech didn't get covered (at least on CNN and Fox News, which I was flipping back and forth through).
3. I am glad that Iowa is over, but recongize that we are in for a month of this circus. Is this really the correct way to pick a president? I really think having regional primaries (not caucuses) is the way to go. There have many good plans proposed, but it is up to Congress to straighten out this mess. The states want to jump all over each other and create more of a mess than what used to be.
Posted by: tc on January 4, 2008 07:50 AMI didn't pick you out for criticism because 1) the "break-out" talking points were clearly coming from the Romney campaign and were circulated in numerous forums, and 2) many commentors on this site were touting them as more plausible than they really were based on an exaggerated sense of early state importance (sure they are important for winnowing out the weak candidates but their impact on the majors remains to be seen). Many blog commentors on this site and elsewhere were making the same claim which is why I referenced the site rather than you. The key point is it was never a solid theory primarily because it rested on the error that early states decide all; a conceit I believe will be decimated for good by the end of this election (but we shall see).
I disagree that Romney would have held on were it not for Huck. Huck simply represented the person who was able to take advantage of a pre-existing vaacum that another (other than Romney) would have leveraged. The key was that Romney remained strong in IA only as long as he was alone in the field. When competitors showed up and started working it he collapsed to the maximum point a candidate with no base and a lot of money can achieve. Apparently, that number is around 23% in a caucus state.
As the race now stands Rudy's theory of the campaign remains intact and Romney's is shattered. The assessment that Rudy is in free fall presumes the excessive importance of early states. It may prove to be the case that early states decide all, but that is only a presumption at this point. And, if Romney can find a base and a theory of the campaign other than "break-out" in coming weeks then perhaps he can stay in it as well (an extreme long shot at best).
Posted by: Not Declining on January 4, 2008 07:57 AMTOO MANY "CHRISTIANS" ARE DUMB VOTERS
By Duane V. Maxey
Once again, professed Christians voters have shown how stupid they are as voters!
In the Iowa caucuses, swooning "Christian" voters swept former Arkansas Governor, Mike "The Huckster" Huckabee to a victory.
True, this is only a small beginning of a long Presidential Campaign, but it demonstrates how gullible Christian Voters often have been, and are.
Mike Huckabee is Pro-Illegal-Alien -- in favor of all sorts of leniency for those in this nation Illegally.
Mike Huckabee was guilty of all sorts of questionable, if not downright illegal, practices during his governorship in Arkansas.
Mike Huckabee's record clearly shows him to be a Liberal, not a Conservative.
Mike Huckabee is "in the hip pocket" of the CFR-Globalist conspirators who are even now building the North American Union. Until Huckabee spoke before the CFR, he was considered to be an unknown dolt, but after he "WOWED" the CFR with that speech, suddenly his political fortune zoomed to the front.
But, BECAUSE MIKE HUCKABEE IS A BAPTIST MINISTER AND PROFESSED CHRISTIAN, NONE OF THESE THINGS MATTERED TO DUPED AND STUPID "CHRISTIAN" VOTERS IN THE IOWA CAUCUSES!
"WE LIKE MIKE!" "WE LIKE MIKE!" "WE LIKE MIKE!" "WE LIKE MIKE!" THEY SHOUTED in the aftermath of his Iowa victory.
And WHY? Because "Mike" is "one of US!" and he will uphold Christian values in America! -- SO THEY FOOLISHLY THINK!
It is high-time Christians and Conservatives of all types got their heads screwed on straight!
If, one more time, professed Christians elect a Mike Huckabee, as they did George W. Bush, they are playing right into the hands of the CFR-Globalists and put a man in the White House, who in reality is a rank liberal who will betray many of their domestic issues and who will betray the sovereignty of this nation!
MIKE HUCKABEE WOULD CONTINUE TO PUSH THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION, THE LAWS OF WHICH WILL SUPERSEDE OUR U.S. LAWS!
"Oh, but Mike will oppose Abortion!"
"Oh, but Mike will oppose Gay Rights!"
"Oh but Mike will oppose anti-Christians!"
OH, BUT MIKE WILL SELL U.S. SOVEREIGNTY DOWN THE DRAIN -- AND THEN THE GLOBALIST POWERS WILL RULE AMERICA -- AND WILL:
(a) Make it illegal to oppose Abortion!
(b) Make it illegal to oppose Gay Rights!
(c) PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS AND PUSH THE AGENDA OF CHRIST-HATERS!
And this will happen if any of the "Top Tier" Republican Candidates is elected: either, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson or Guiliani, or McCain!
Our nation is in the process of being destroyed! LOSE OUR SOVEREIGNTY, AND WE LOSE ALL!
But, those pushing the Globalist Agenda want this fact kept in the background, and they are SO PLEASED THAT SO MANY "CHRISTIAN" VOTERS IN IOWA WERE SO STUPID!
Mark the words of this 70-year-old, retired preacher:
"IF OBAMA, HILLARY, HUCKABEE, ROMNEY (or any of the current, "Top Tier" Candidates) is elected President of the U.S.
(1) Millions of more Hispanics and OTM illegals will continue to flood into the U.S.
(2) The 4 HUGE SPP-NAU Corridors, linking Mexico with the U.S. and Canada will be built and operating no later than 2012-2020.
(3) By 2012-2020, the NORTH AMERICAN UNION BE THE RULING POWER OVER THE U.S.
(4) Those duped voters themselves, their children and their grandchildren will be subject to ALL OF THE EVILS FROM WHICH THEY THINK HUCKABEE WILL SAVE US!
WAKE UP! AMERICANS!
The issue at stake in the 2008 Election will be:
"WHETHER THIS NATION, OR ANY NATION, SO CONCEIVED, AND SO DEDICATED, CAN LONG ENDURE" with the very real threat of a subjugating North American Union just about to conquer us!
Generally, I do not like an email I receive to end with: "If you care about this, Please Pass It On!" This time, I am going to make that request: "IF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT BECOMES OF THIS NATION AS THE RESULT OF THE 2008 ELECTION, PLEASE PASS THIS ON!"
If you are one of those who says: "God will take care of everything quite nicely without my participation," THEN YOU WILL HAVE NOBODY TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF WHEN YOUR RIGHT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL, OR EVEN READ THE BIBLE IN PUBLIC IS GONE.
Just the other day, a Seventh Day Adventist mother who was reading her Bible aloud to her children on a city bus going to church was asked to stop reading it. When she refused, she and her children were forced get off the bus!
MIKE HUCKABEE WILL NOT STOP THE MOVES IN THIS DIRECTION! BY ALLOWING THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION TO OVERRULE U.S. LAWS AND RIGHTS, HUCKABEE WILL BRING ABOUT THE NAU, THE LAWS OF WHICH WILL ADVANCE, NOT DEFEAT, THE AGENDA OF CHRIST-HATERS IN THIS LAND!
The Globalists pushing his candidacy know this, but apparently a number of duped "Christian" Voters in Iowa did not. Do YOU know it?
Isn't it funny watching people in this world kill each other over two gods that don't exist.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 4, 2008 08:30 AMNo, God is concerned with your actions as they relate to other people. The reason all religions deities are concerned with your actions is that they want to know they are letting only the most harmonious and loyal in the gates of paradise. That is the point of religion. In the end God is a communist and heaven, one giant hippie commune. Sorry conservatives. There is no money, greed, class, free enterprise, or condemnation in heaven. It is a land of free healthcare, no borders, no guns, and endless welfare. He doesn't care how you showed up at his doorstep. Weather a suicide bomber or the result years of living poor have brought about your earthly demise, the only question is how well did you follow his rules. It is like Woodstock without the mud.
Many religions are not dissuasive of the leading children with more pleasant ideas. Catholics are not discouraged from teaching children about Satan Clause (oops did my dyslexia screw that word up again?) and/ or the Easter Bunny. The two major pinnacles of Christian faith are the birth and death which lead to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet the catholic church doesn't discourage sugar coating the events with ferry tales. They encourage their children to hold false gods and graven images. A big fat man flying around the world on the backs of enslaved reindeer, breaking into peoples homes, and leaving presents for the ones who he has judged to be worthy. Isn't that "God's" job? Then there is the Easter bunny who lays eggs for kids to find? What kind of LSD laden trip must one be having to come up with that one? How have we broken the Ten Commandments, let me count the way. False witnessing, other gods, graven images are the ones right off the top of my head. Then throw in the "Christmas Spirit" you see at the mall every season and you can knock off stealing, coveting, quite a few times the lords name is taken in vein, and malls are open later on the Sabbath. Respect for parents and adultery seem the only unscathed commandments by the Christmas season.
I think you overestimate Thompson...while he may be billed as the second-coming of Regan he hasn't showed the fortitude or stamina to fill the shoes.
A McCain-Huckabee ticket would be more likely...what McCain lacks is the support of the evangelical wing, it's quite clear that Huckabee can rally the church groups with his populist positions. McCain holds the West and East with his fiscal conservatism, meanwhile Huckabee sews up the South and middle America with his folksy charm and strong conservative values.
Huckabee - Great candidate for the evangelical base that still believe Bush is doing a 'heck of a good job'. But he won't get many of the independent votes from moderates that are tired of the 'gut-thinking' rather self-righteous Bible thumper that has very little demonstrated knowledge of foriegn affairs.
McCain - He's my favorite GOP candidate, but he doesn't energize the evangelicals, and under the new christianist party Rove & Bush created, they are a required voting block now. He might get the moderates, but he won't energize the base.
Rudy - Same problem as McCain, plus some rather unsavory folks that hang around him as well as his little pro-choice thingy... a litmus test with the new GOP base.
Romney - Ha! If you thought Kerry was successfully labled a flip-flopper, just wait. And many from the christianist base will not vote for a morman.
Thompson - Same problem as McCain.
I think y'all are screwed this election, but that's just one person's opinion.
Posted by: Splinter on January 4, 2008 09:46 AMI'm actually quite independent, being fiscally conservative on most issues, and somewhat liberal on some social issues.
But if you need to put me in a box and label me, that's fine if it makes you feel more comfortable. As a matter of fact, I think I wrote you off as a far-right wingnut a long time ago, so I guess it's fair.
Posted by: Splinter on January 4, 2008 10:01 AMSo far, I'm still sticking with Fred!
Posted by: John425 on January 4, 2008 10:13 AMDespite you lib/D types, I happen to think the R field is pretty strong as far as resume goes.
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2008 10:32 AMA. beat any Dem ticket out there like a cheap rug?
B. be better than any Dem ticket in office?
Just asking. Looks like that's where things are headed.
Meanwhile, the D's are doomed - doubly so if Hillary claws her way to the top. I see no reason for despair here - except, I guess, for the people who believe torture is good foreign policy.
Posted by: Lookin' up for R's in 08 on January 4, 2008 10:38 AMHahah, if you were a Democrat you'd want Ron Paul for the GOP nominee. Nothing like a return to those 17th century values.
Michelle is considering Guliani....WOW! There's a stretch if I ever saw one. Sorry Michelle, just don't see you voting for a twice divorced womanizing Mayor who married his second cousin and doesn't go to Church for President of the USA. I don't care how great a leader he is, I just can't see you voting for him. Michelle, please correct me if I'm wrong.
That tells me a lot ... really.
Which part of his administration has been great exactly? The horribly mismanaged war? The biggest new entitlement program since FDR? Embracing torture for the first time in American history? The huge new debts left to be paid by future generations?
And I don't buy your "I would vote for Hilary over Huckabee" line for a minute.
Posted by: Splinter on January 4, 2008 10:51 AMI would agree about the resumes, it's the moral vales part some of the GOP Candidates seem to be having trouble with...like Guiliani. Or maybe it's their past...like McCain/Thompson. Maybe they're too preachy or the wrong darn religion for most folks...like Huckabee/Romney.
Either way the goal is to overcome your past and unite the party towards a common goal. Based on the infighting among folks here that will only happen if Hillary gets the nod for the Dems.
I think the Republican ticket looks pretty good with Huckabee as a VP in that case. If Romney was to lead the ticket it would have to fall on electoral college lines, who would be picked for the 2nd spot. In that case, he would have to look towards someone from the midwest or a Rudy, I doubt he would get along with McCain.
As for P-dog calling Christians "stupid" for voting for Huckabee - well P-dog is an ignorant swine, isn't he. Would he call Mormons ignorant for voting for Romney? Would he call Veterans ignorant for voting for McCain? If a Christian thinks it's most important to vote for another one that shares his belief system, then it would be Smart to vote for that person that they feel shares that. To assume that all Christians (which is what, 95% of the electorate?) are anti-immigration, anti-govt. etc. well, that's a poor assumption. The positions of the Republican candidates are not very far off from each other and chances are when they are President, they would end up governing very similariily - which is why 'likeability' and 'compatibility' and 'trust' becomes the bigger issues in a primary.
The exit polling for the Iowa Caucuses is very interesting, I'm not sure where it was but I saw it at the MSNBC site last night. Great stuff in there, especially about Ron Paul's supporters anger at Bush.
Posted by: Doug on January 4, 2008 11:03 AMYou said:
"I'm sorry Republicans, America is indeed ready for a change and someone has to be the loser."
If a Democrat gets in the loser will be America.
You said:
"If a Democrat gets in the loser will be America."
Actually, if a Democrat is elected the real looser will be the Republicans because Bush and his policies drove the voters of America to change, a change of party affiliation.
Obama has a chance, but is i very slight.
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee have no chance, Thompson's chances are very slim, Giuliani hopes to pick up some big states on Super Tuesday to stay in it but really doesn't have a big chance of getting 50% of delegates, Romney is the favorite, and McCain's chances rest on being the alternative to Romney and Guiliani. And most likely, it will go to convention, where Giuliani, Huckabee, and Paul have no hope whatsoever, and where Thompson's only realistic -- though slim -- chance lies.
Nothing has significantly changed in ... well, several months.
Posted by: pudge on January 4, 2008 12:06 PMA. beat any Dem ticket out there like a cheap rug?
B. be better than any Dem ticket in office?"
I think this would be the worst possible ticket for the Republicans in 2008. If this was the ticket, I would probably vote third party.
McCain should not and WILL NOT be on the ticket. Huckabee could be the VP for Giuliani, Romney or Thompson (although Thompson has a LONG way to go to be able to break out).
Huckabee would be a disaster from a foreign policy perspective (not qualified) and pretty much a disaster from the domestic side (not a conservative). His only redeeming feature would be to help with the Social Conservatives for a Giuliani, a Romney or a Thompson.
McCain? Oh, please! I wouldn't trust him if my life depended on it. McCain-Feingold, immigration, tax cuts, judges, etc.--I don't know why anyone (other than the MSM) is even considering this RINO. He has been right on the war, but that's about it. I could agree to him, maybe, for Defense Secretary, but not POTUS or VPOTUS.
GO FRED! Thompson is really the best conservative in the race (Hunter, unfortunately is not in the race). Giuliani and Romney would be ok, but please not McCain or Huckabee!
What I found fascinating... and celebrated... last night was a total bust for the pro-borts at Emily's list. Emily's List spent two months organizing abortion advocates on WhoriBILLary's behalf.
"A new poll in Iowa not only shows Hillary Clinton losing support to Barack Oabama but it shows female Democrats prefer the pro-abortion Illinois senator over Clinton. The poll results are surprising given the fact that Emily's List, the wealthiest pro-abortion group in the nation, launched a major election effort on her behalf."
Before Emily's List undertook its campaign on her behalf, Clinton was the preferred candidate of 34 percent of women caucusgoers, compared to 21 percent for Obama.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 4, 2008 12:56 PMThat 10% could be the deciding factor in the race, and you and the rest of the GOP blew it because you kept calling them names and discounting their views every chance you got. I gotta give Paul supporters credit for taking the abuse in stride, but come November the Paul folks will be the ones laughing if the Dem's take the White House and the Libertarian candidate gets 5% - 10% of the vote.
If that's the case you should start apologizing now. Also, if you were a true follower of Jesus you would follow the wisdom of Matthew 7:12...
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"
Does anyone know where our dour, grim liberals can get a sense of humor transplant?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 4, 2008 01:31 PMBill, you are no more a Republican than I am as an independent. The only thing I can say with regards to your response is at least your foolish Libertarian bent doesn't mean you foolishly support Ron Paul as your number one choice.
Straight Talk (both McCain and Huckabee) will win out over flip-flopping, let's change my position to which way the wind is blowing Romney and Fred (my wife made me run)Thompson. Ron Paul will continue to spend his money to get his message out to deaf Republican ears.
Actually, I hope the Republicans do nominate Romney. It will suit them well. He will have the same electoral results as the last MA governor to run. Can we talk landside if he has to match up against Obama? His only fighting chance would be if the Democrats lose their senses and actually nominate Hillary.
Posted by: tc on January 4, 2008 01:37 PMAlso, you have to wonder what HC has up her sleave. I bet she has something on Obama. I think those hints earlier about selling coke, doing drugs were meant to warn everyone that some serious dirt will come out about him. I have nothing to base this on but gut feeling.
Would this country elect someone who sold coke? Obviously, we were able to vote for a president that did pot, but sell coke? I wonder.
If something like that doesn't come out about him I do worry about our chances. He is so far left, but somehow no one calls him on it. I also think his charisma would attract more of that middle 10% than any of our guys and that a little white guilt will sway just enough. He would totally be over his head and it would be tragic for us though.
God help us!
You said:
"Actually, if a Democrat is elected the real looser will be the Republicans because Bush and his policies drove the voters of America to change, a change of party affiliation."
Well I am not sure how "loose" the Republicans will be, but if any Democrat gets in the loser will still be America.
Posted by: pbj on January 4, 2008 02:04 PMI think it's too early to predict much about what will happen with the Republicans. We will need a few more weeks for some perspective on that.
In the meantime, the best place to look to get an idea of the party's chances is the Democratic party. Personally, I found Hillary Rodham's dismal showing in Iowa to be astonishing. I don't see her winning New Hampshire either, since that state loves to knock off self-anointed leaders. What does the Obama train mean for Republicans?
Posted by: bananaland on January 4, 2008 03:06 PMThanks,
Public Cowpie
Thr religious right wants us to put Mr.Yuck stickers around the globe.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 4, 2008 03:32 PMHopefully this will help you follow the bouncing ball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Yuk
Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 4, 2008 03:43 PMGo visit Mr. Yuck, brain sickness causes loco slobber.
George Vreeland Hill
There were more than three hundred such letters in newspapers in 2007 alone.
Many of them in New Hampshire.
There are thousands on the Internet.
No lie.
THOUSANDS!
This does not even include articles, ads, radio, TV and other areas where the public takes notice.
In fact, one Republican in California wanted me stopped once, because I was hurting some Republicans in their elections.
I just want to do my part in helping to get rid of every Republican scumbag.
From phone scams to the Union Leader (NH) covering up for Republicans, the garbage never ends.
But the Republican Party will end.
Did you know that George W. Bush once made fun of the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
He did, and in front of some shocked people during a black-tie event in 2004.
He said.... (While looking under a piece of furniture) "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."
Then, while pretending to look out of a window, Bush laughed as he said..... "Nope, no weapons over there."
While he was laughing, there were men and women fighting and dying in Iraq because of WMD.
George W. Bush should be removed from office because of that alone.
Face it, Bill Clinton lied about having sex, and was impeached because of it.
George W. Bush however, did far worse, as he laughed at the very people who are fighting for the United States of America!
That about sums it all up!
(By the way, this Bush/WMD was part of an article and letter I wrote as well.)
This leads us to John McCain.
All he seems to do is attack other candidates.
His Woodstock ad against Hillary Clinton was boring and without the facts.
He tells of Hillary wanting to spend a million dollars on a museum while he (McCain) supports spending more on the war in Iraq.
He wants you to believe that the Democrats are the big spenders, while it is McCain's Republican Party that has spent all the money Bill Clinton left us to a point where Bush had to borrow money from China.
Think about that again.
We owe to China.
That is the Republican way.
Also, it must be noted that McCain even laughed at war.
Remember when McCain changed the words of a Beach Boys song to Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran?
McCain even laughed when he was done.
He thought starting a war with Iran was a laughing matter.
That is the real John McCain.
He just can't be trusted.
He is another George Bush, and you know what we got with him.
The Republican Party is a mess, and getting worse.
People do not trust any of them, and we are all tired of their act.
I am doing my best to make sure that no Republican wins an election.
Thank you for your time.
George Vreeland Hill
I did not ask for 2-for-1 then, nor do I ask for it now. That's just the life-long Clinton strategy that moves Hillary into a position for which she is not qualified.
Every time Bill moves up (Gov of Arkansas), Hillary moves up with him (Attorney General of Arkansas). Bill moves up again (President of the US); Hillary moves up with him (US Senate). See the pattern, women?
Consider what America got with the first Clinton co-Presidency:
• Abuse of the powers of the office of the President
• Granting Presidential pardons to buy Hillary's election to the Senate. As a woman who made it on my own, Hillary's need to ride Bill's coattails and her sense of entitlement (as in "it's my turn and Obama should wait his turn") makes me doubt her capabilities.
• Hillary's long-suffering marriage to Bill, enabling a lifetime of sexual trysts and trying to contain the Bimbo eruptions, gives me a President without the backbone to stand up to a man. Hillary claims to be tough enough to play with the boys when, in fact, she is unable to leave a cheating husband. How will she stand up to other male leaders who see this in "Mrs." Clinton and walk all over her?
• Being married to a former President does not make one qualified to be President.
Hillary has less experience in elected office than Barack. She's held elected office for one Senate term plus one year and has introduced no major legislation during that time. She showed us in the interview about Pakistani elections the extent of her foreign policy experience--she did not know what office the election was for or who was on the ballot! Is this the kind of experience we want in the Oval Office?
I am not a "Hillary hater;" I am an America lover. Please consider very carefully which candidate the Democratic Party puts on the ballot. The future of this country absolutely depends on it.
First of all, I am NOT a self-professed Libertarian, I am a self-professed (small "l") libertarian. Second of all, I never said I was speaking for "true Republicans".
HOWEVER, I will vote Republican this year, if the nominee is Thompson, Romney, or Giuliani (I would also vote if a miracle happened and Hunter was the nominee). Since I do not expect that Huckabee, McCain or Paul will be the candidate, I don't expect to have to make a decision on voting for a third party.
I know you are a McCain fan, but I didn't know you were so sensitive about it...
You also said "Bill, you are no more a Republican than I am as an independent."
Sorry, I don't know what this statement means. Not sure if I am missing the grammar or what? I thought you said you WERE an independent? So does that mean you are a Democrat?
As to Hillary vs Obama. I certainly agree with you that Hillary would be easier to defeat than Obama. However, even though I strongly disagree with Obama on the issues, I would rather he got the nomination and had a 60% chance of winning the presidency than to have Hillary win the nomination and have a 40% chance of winning the presidency. I think Obama is liberal but honest. Hillary is liberal, dishonest, unethical and dangerous...
Posted by: Bill H on January 4, 2008 06:30 PMThanks for elaborating on your thought process.
I agree in part with your thinking on the vacuum in Iowa that needed to be filled. I would argue, however, that had someone like Fred Thompson rather than Huckabee filled it then you wouldn't have had the stark boom in Evangelical turnout which swamped the Romney campaign's turnout models. It was that rare connection that Huckabee forged on the fly which made the ultimate result so profound.
Other than that, we obviously have to agree to disagree on the early state v. late state strategy. I've never been a fan of the latter, but definitely when a campaign doesn't perform well in the weeks leading up to the early state contests that are going to cause them to bleed a bit.
Doug @ 48 -
Maybe "inept" isn't the best word, but they're close. Watching them closely is not a pretty sight. And frankly, the candidate himself hasn't exactly been setting the world on fire even when he's had the chance in the last couple months.
Their performance in NH speaks volumes. After closing the gap with Romney in early September they steadily lost control of their candidate's message until even by the time they were spending millions of dollars on advertising in the state it didn't help.
If anything, his poll numbers went down slightly in the face of the beginning of McCain's Granite State resurgence, the negative press on events during his mayorship, and his own campaign's ineffective messaging. Now, they've essentially cut bait in what was the campaign's best chance to have a strong showing before Florida. Not good.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 4, 2008 06:35 PM"My prediction for Iowa is Romney, Huckabee and Thompson, but I don't know what order."
Posted by: Bill H on January 4, 2008 06:51 PMOtherwise, the Dems may well take it.
Posted by: KS on January 4, 2008 07:55 PMYou said:
"America has a sharper image thanks to the Republicans."
Damn straight it does. Now instead of expecting us to bend over and take it in the shorts when they attack us, terrorist KNOW we will kick ass!
Let's see:
What did the last Democrat president do to protect the country?
WTC bombing, Khobar Towers bombing, Somalia, African Embassies blown up, USS Cole blown up.
The only military action of Clinton was to blow up a baby milk factory and attack camels with million dollar cruise missiles. Oh and the blowing up the Chinese embassy. I guess trying to start WWII with China is something.
Posted by: pbj on January 4, 2008 08:28 PMor not
Hillary Booed at NH Democratic Party Dinner
9/11, welcoming of noted terrorist financier Gen. Musharraf with open arms, British/Spanish train bombings, UN Embassy blown up in Iraq, the return of a socialist dictatorship in Russia ("Pooty-Poot" keeping power as Prime Minister), potential terrorists on the Washington State Ferries, canceling of the Trans-Sahara motorcycle race due to terror concerns.
I for one don't feel a whole lot safer under Bush than I did under Clinton.
1) Creating the department of Homeland Security - something the liberal Democrats did everything they could to stop because they wanted it to be a unionized liberal constituency they could manipulate. Republicans instead wanted a lean, mean organization where slackers could be fired on the spot. Republicans prevailed only after a public outcry over the Democrats scuttle the DOHS.
2) Since 911, no planes have been mashed into sky scrapers on US soil, no US Navy ships have been nearly sunk by terrorists, AQ has lost much of its leadership and they are on the run.
3) The Patriot Act has been successfully used to stop terrorist plots in the US. Liberal Democrats whined and complained, yet the evidence is that America is safer because of the Patriot Act which give authorities the same tools to track terrorists that have have always had to track drug dealers.
4) Although Liberal Democrats will always say they think Afghanistan was a "good front" on terrorism, it telling that the only one to vote against going into Afhganistan was Democrat Barbara Lee. Democrats simply are against defenind America. They feel this nation is that root of all evil in the word and dismatling it as soon as possible in favor of a socialist model is their ultimate goal. Some even have the hubris (Rosie O'Donnel anyone?) to accuse our own government of staging 911 in order to grab power.
The record of Democrat military operations:
Clinton blew up a baby food factory in reponse to terrorism. In the balkans, he blew up the chinese embassy.
And who can forget Jimmy Carter getting bith slapped by Iran? I still remember his military mission to "rescue" the hostages. They crashed in the desert because liberals had so slashed the DOD buidget that all we had was a hollow force, underfunded with faulty equpimant and low moral.
Posted by: pbj on January 5, 2008 03:15 PM"He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week,"
Posted by: pbj on January 5, 2008 03:23 PM