1
   

Iowa doesn't matter

 
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 09:14 pm
okie wrote:
ebrown, I actually think Clinton is right, she would be more electable than Obama, so this presents a quandary to the Democratic Party, will they place their bets on Obama now?


Independent here -- she would like to think she's more electable than Obama, but as tonight demonstrated (with a large influx of independent swing voters) she could very well be wrong.
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 09:19 pm
Hillary has played it safe and it has hurt her.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 09:32 pm
with any luck, this will hold true

Quote:
with the exception of 1980 and 1988, the Iowa Caucus has correctly chosen the eventual Republican nominee. It's also worth noting that the Iowa Republicans have elevated some serious wackaloons and hoopleheads into the top three.


Bob Cesca on Iowa Republican Caucus ... link
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 09:43 pm
ehBeth wrote:
with any luck, this will hold true

Quote:
with the exception of 1980 and 1988, the Iowa Caucus has correctly chosen the eventual Republican nominee. It's also worth noting that the Iowa Republicans have elevated some serious wackaloons and hoopleheads into the top three.


Bob Cesca on Iowa Republican Caucus ... link


The Iowa Caucus didn't support the Republican nominee in 1980 (George H. W. Bush won Iowa, Ronald Reagan won the nomination). In 1988 Iowa supported Bob Dole, but George H. W. Bush won the nomination. Take out 1972 when the Republicans didn't hold an Iowa Caucus and 1976, 1984, 1992 and 2004 when incumbents won the Republican Iowa Caucus, Iowa has supported the eventual Republican nominee only 50% of the time.

Iowa doesn't matter. I think McCain will win NH at this point and Huckabee won't get the Republican nomination.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 11:09 pm
Obama and Huckabee seem to have won.

Obama is a a bit of a surprise and a real blow to Hilary's campaign. Not so inevitable after all, and Obama has the money and organization to ride the Big Mo. You can bet Hilary's War Room is scrambling right now. Looks like she couldn't even beat Edwards.

Huckabee is not so surprising but I seriously question whether he can make much of this win as respects future primaries. Iowa represented a uniquely complimentary electorate (such as the Caucuses actually provide) that is not likely to be duplicated in the next few primaries. Hard to believe the Money Men are now going to jump on his band wagon and if they don't, he's finished.

Romney took a big hit. All of his advantages were at play in Iowa and they didn't work. Look out for McCain in New Hampshire. He is close to tying or taking 3rd in Iowa a state in which his anti-ethanol subsidies positions could not have been welcomed.

Good to see Biden and Dodd have called it quits. What were they runnig for? A Huckabee moment.

I actually prefer Biden to all of the other Dem candidates and Dodd is clearly more intelligent and eloquent than all the rest, but both are Liberals and so good riddance.

Obama could very well be on the way to the nomination.

Huckabee will fade away.

Big Winners:
Obama
McClain

Medium Winners
Huckabee
Edwards
Thompson
Paul

Losers
Romney
Richardson

Big Losers
Clinton
Dodd
Biden
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 11:15 pm
JPB wrote:
okie wrote:
ebrown, I actually think Clinton is right, she would be more electable than Obama, so this presents a quandary to the Democratic Party, will they place their bets on Obama now?


Independent here -- she would like to think she's more electable than Obama, but as tonight demonstrated (with a large influx of independent swing voters) she could very well be wrong.


Either Clinton or Obama are perfectly electable since, none of the Republicans are electable (i.e. they are less electable than either Clinton or Obama). The exception is McCain who can get the independents and some of the more conservative Democrats... but the problem with McCain is that he won't be able to hold the right wing.

It sucks being a Republican this year.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 11:21 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
It sucks being a Republican this year.


That may be true, but it's infinitely better than being a Democrat.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 11:28 pm
Hillary is not electable.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 11:31 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
It sucks being a Republican this year.


That may be true, but it's infinitely better than being a Democrat.


Oh yeah? Well, my dog could beat up your dog!!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 11:33 pm
Synonymph wrote:
Hillary is not electable.


Hope not.

She's like fingernails on a chalkboard.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 12:03 am
Synonymph wrote:
Hillary is not electable.

Haven't we seen the polls posted by nimh showing Obama less electable?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 02:13 am
Ebrown's ignored opening post is spot on. Ask Joe Biden if Iowa matters...

Anyone who thinks Obama or McCain is unelectable... is wrong. Both have potential to earn the most important vote there is (mine). (Figuratively, I mean because I'm independent.) Frankly; use of the word unelectable is pretty foolish when you consider where Bush's popularity sat, before John Kerry was chosen.

Nice assessment Finn. Well done.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 07:25 am
Synonymph wrote:
Hillary is not electable.

This is an interesting statement. To a Republican, Clinton should look like the best Democrat, on paper at least. She is not vehemently anti-war and she is pro-business. She's backed the foreign policy views of the last two presidents with respect to refusing to have a dialog with Iran or Cuba. She's put her campaign organization together to mirror Bush's success with a strong underpinning of business interests and has ignored left wing groups in general. Other than an irrational hatred of the Clinton family, what is there here for a Republican to dislike (compared to the other Democrats)?
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 09:14 am
engineer wrote:
Synonymph wrote:
Hillary is not electable.

This is an interesting statement. To a Republican, Clinton should look like the best Democrat, on paper at least. She is not vehemently anti-war and she is pro-business. She's backed the foreign policy views of the last two presidents with respect to refusing to have a dialog with Iran or Cuba. She's put her campaign organization together to mirror Bush's success with a strong underpinning of business interests and has ignored left wing groups in general. Other than an irrational hatred of the Clinton family, what is there here for a Republican to dislike (compared to the other Democrats)?


You mean apart from her morals and her corruption?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 09:17 am
okie wrote:
Synonymph wrote:
Hillary is not electable.

Haven't we seen the polls posted by nimh showing Obama less electable?


Not really.

Some polls show that Obama is more electable, some polls show that others are more electable, and everything's moving. I think polls will be showing him more electable -- more of them, by greater amounts -- in the wake of this Iowa win, unless he immediately tanks in NH.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 10:16 am
flaja wrote:
engineer wrote:
Synonymph wrote:
Hillary is not electable.

This is an interesting statement. To a Republican, Clinton should look like the best Democrat, on paper at least. She is not vehemently anti-war and she is pro-business. She's backed the foreign policy views of the last two presidents with respect to refusing to have a dialog with Iran or Cuba. She's put her campaign organization together to mirror Bush's success with a strong underpinning of business interests and has ignored left wing groups in general. Other than an irrational hatred of the Clinton family, what is there here for a Republican to dislike (compared to the other Democrats)?


You mean apart from her morals and her corruption?

Once again, that puts her in nice company with the Republicans. She hasn't pardoned violent rapists for political purposes, disregarding letters from victims pleading her not to (Huckabee), used city money for mistresses (Rudy), completely flip flopped on her entire record as governor (Romney) or been ABSCAM'd (McCain). Heck, she's still on her first marriage. So why is she not electable if those people are? Some profits from options and campaign donations for use of the Lincoln bedroom seem like small issues in that crowd. Her stated positions are a lot closer to the Republican side than the other Democratic candidates, yet some Republicans foam at the mouth at the mention of her name. Why is that? Are you assigning her husband's failings to her? I'm not a Clinton fan because I'm not in line with her positions on the issues, but it seems to me if Republicans took one of those surveys matching up your views to the candidates, the top Dem on the list would be the junior senator from New York.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 10:20 am
engineer, to put it simply, she is just not a likeable and trustworthy person. She is abrasive, not a pleasant person. This is a woman that has been known to terrorize her own staff and throw stuff at Bill. Everybody knows this, this is not news.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 10:22 am
okie wrote:
engineer, to put it simply, she is just not a likeable and trustworthy person. She is abrasive, not a pleasant person. This is a woman that has been known to terrorize her own staff and throw stuff at Bill. Everybody knows this, this is not news.


And a "likeable and trustworthy person" among the presidential candidates (of either party) would be?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 10:31 am
I like most of the Republicans, even Ron Paul, but I trust some more than others. I don't like Clinton or Edwards at all, while Obama is likeable and seemingly a nice guy, I just don't agree with his politics and don't see him to possess experience or leadership qualities.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 10:33 am
Iowa matters if only because it prolongs the horse race the media and a large segment of the population craves... just as they want Brittney Spears to remain in front of the news. We have a group rubbernecking mentality here in the good ol' USA and probably in the wqhole world. It's our nature.

If Huckabee had lost last night he'd pretty much be history as would Obama, and New Hampshire would be of only half the interest it will generate now. Bad for ratings.

Everything matters because everything has the potential to generate revenue.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 03:14:53