On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:19:06 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jan 3, 6:42?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.

Did I call that one right or what?

Tada.....

Too bad about the *other* half of your prediction, however. You didn't
account for the political muscle of the evangelical Christian
contingent.

Yep - that one surprized me that's for sure. What interests me is
that Huckabee would be the ideal Democrat candidate. What he proposes
isn't conservative Republican in any sense of the word. I think he
was selected on the strength of his faith and his pro-life stance - in
ever other aspect, he's a Democrat.

I read an account that said more than half of the Republicans
attending caucus in Iowa described themselves as "born again" or
"evangelical" Christians. Romney actually led among the Republicans
who didn't arrive in a chruch bus, so you weren't completely unfounded
in your Republican guesstimate.

That's a good point and reading through the post mortems this morning,
that one jumped out as an interesting data point.

New Hampshire will be interesting. Personally, I think Edwards is
done - he's seen as a phoney populist - New Hampshire will finish him
off. Romney has some support in New Hampshire and I don't think
Huckabee's approach will play well there. I also think The Fred! will
do well there.

On the Democrat side, it's Mrs. Clinton's to loose. If she comes in
second in New Hampshire, it's over.

It will be an interesting couple of weeks.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.

Did I call that one right or what?

More interesting to me, since I don't care which Dem wins the
nomination, so long as the winning Dem wins the election is this:

The total number of voters in Iowa who came out on a really cold night
to vote for Democratic candidates was well over 200,000, significantly
more than came out to vote for the Republicans. In Iowa, a red state
that Bush carried in 2004.

There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.

I'm not sure about that at all.

I'd argue the point, but it wouldn't change your mind. :)

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:34:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.

Did I call that one right or what?


More interesting to me, since I don't care which Dem wins the nomination,
so long as the winning Dem wins the election is this:

The total number of voters in Iowa who came out on a really cold night to
vote for Democratic candidates was well over 200,000, significantly more
than came out to vote for the Republicans. In Iowa, a red state that Bush
carried in 2004.

There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.

There'd better be a landslide if Huckabee is the Republican candidate. He's
dangerous. He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working. If they see him as more ethical than Bush, he could be a real
problem.

Can we agree to stop using Kristians? It's insulting and not
neccessary.

With pandering, what is politics but for pandering? Come on - he's
attractive to them because he's one of them and based on his largely
Pro-Life stance. What they don't realise is that he's a Democrat in
every other sense of the word - a true Fred Harris style populist.

I do agree with you on the ethics thing, but that works both ways.
Clinton isn't viewed as ethical in any sense of the word and nobody
really knows if Obama is ethical or not.

What bothers me most about the Democrat slate is that none of them,
with the exception of Richardson, is truly experienced enough to do
the job of President.

I'm not persuaded by the argument of either side.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote:


There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.

I'm not sure about that at all.

I'd argue the point, but it wouldn't change your mind. :)


My sense, after seeing the results in Iowa, is that Harry is probably
correct.
The Democrats came out in force (numbers) to support their candidates, much
more so than the Republicans came forth to support theirs in an otherwise
red state.

People have had it with the current state of affairs and are looking for a
breath of fresh air, I think. That includes the "business as usual"
candidates of both parties like Clinton and McCain, so it really only leaves
Obama and possibly Romney. I don't think Romney would stand a chance
against Obama, even if he manages to get the nomination.

Edwards is still a remote possibility however.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote:


There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.

I'm not sure about that at all.

I'd argue the point, but it wouldn't change your mind. :)


My sense, after seeing the results in Iowa, is that Harry is probably
correct.
The Democrats came out in force (numbers) to support their candidates,
much more so than the Republicans came forth to support theirs in an
otherwise red state.

People have had it with the current state of affairs and are looking for a
breath of fresh air, I think. That includes the "business as usual"
candidates of both parties like Clinton and McCain, so it really only
leaves Obama and possibly Romney. I don't think Romney would stand a
chance against Obama, even if he manages to get the nomination.

Edwards is still a remote possibility however.

Eisboch

Oh heavenly father, I pray that Eisboch is wrong. Go Romney

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:11:16 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



People have had it with the current state of affairs and are looking for
a breath of fresh air, I think. That includes the "business as usual"
candidates of both parties like Clinton and McCain, so it really only
leaves Obama and possibly Romney. I don't think Romney would stand a
chance against Obama, even if he manages to get the nomination.

Edwards is still a remote possibility however.

Eisboch

I don't think it's only the current state of affairs. All the way back
to Carter, the winning candidate has portrayed themselves as an
outsider. That would include the consummate insider Bush I, who managed
to run as an outsider. I think there is, and has been, and incredible
undercurrent of disgust with anything Washington. Obama, and perhaps
Huckabee, has tapped into that.

I still think Huckabee may be a long shot. Money and national
organization may be lacking. Of course, that could change with a good
showing in New Hampshire, but that too, may be a long shot.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:19:06 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jan 3, 6:42?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.
Did I call that one right or what?
Tada.....

Too bad about the *other* half of your prediction, however. You didn't
account for the political muscle of the evangelical Christian
contingent.

Yep - that one surprized me that's for sure. What interests me is
that Huckabee would be the ideal Democrat candidate. What he proposes
isn't conservative Republican in any sense of the word. I think he
was selected on the strength of his faith and his pro-life stance - in
ever other aspect, he's a Democrat.


Huckabee is a simple-minded Christian evangelist, sugar-coating his
Ayatollah side in pseudo-populism. He's perfect for about a third of
modern-day Republicans who want to move the calendar backwards. While
anything is possible, it is hard to imagine the Yankees in New Hampshire
going for the Elmer Gantry from Arkansas. On the other hand, the rest of
the Republicans are such a pack of losers, *real* losers, that anything
could happen.

I was surprised but not displeased by Obama's win in Iowa. He's a very
appealing guy, and articulate. My fear is that despite his qualities, in
a general election, whitey isn't going to vote for "the black guy."

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:34:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.
Did I call that one right or what?

More interesting to me, since I don't care which Dem wins the nomination,
so long as the winning Dem wins the election is this:

The total number of voters in Iowa who came out on a really cold night to
vote for Democratic candidates was well over 200,000, significantly more
than came out to vote for the Republicans. In Iowa, a red state that Bush
carried in 2004.

There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in
November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.
There'd better be a landslide if Huckabee is the Republican candidate. He's
dangerous. He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working. If they see him as more ethical than Bush, he could be a real
problem.

Can we agree to stop using Kristians? It's insulting and not
neccessary.

With pandering, what is politics but for pandering? Come on - he's
attractive to them because he's one of them and based on his largely
Pro-Life stance. What they don't realise is that he's a Democrat in
every other sense of the word - a true Fred Harris style populist.

I do agree with you on the ethics thing, but that works both ways.
Clinton isn't viewed as ethical in any sense of the word and nobody
really knows if Obama is ethical or not.

What bothers me most about the Democrat slate is that none of them,
with the exception of Richardson, is truly experienced enough to do
the job of President.

I'm not persuaded by the argument of either side.

I have been talking to my mother about the candidates, and she is like
so many people who will say "I like where he stands on the issues", and
then you ask them where do he stands on issues, and they are clueless.

People vote based upon the candidates ability to come across as one of
them.

HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:19:06 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jan 3, 6:42?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two.
Did I call that one right or what?
Tada.....

Too bad about the *other* half of your prediction, however. You didn't
account for the political muscle of the evangelical Christian
contingent.

Yep - that one surprized me that's for sure. What interests me is
that Huckabee would be the ideal Democrat candidate. What he proposes
isn't conservative Republican in any sense of the word. I think he
was selected on the strength of his faith and his pro-life stance - in
ever other aspect, he's a Democrat.


Huckabee is a simple-minded Christian evangelist, sugar-coating his
Ayatollah side in pseudo-populism. He's perfect for about a third of
modern-day Republicans who want to move the calendar backwards. While
anything is possible, it is hard to imagine the Yankees in New Hampshire
going for the Elmer Gantry from Arkansas. On the other hand, the rest of
the Republicans are such a pack of losers, *real* losers, that anything
could happen.

I was surprised but not displeased by Obama's win in Iowa. He's a very
appealing guy, and articulate. My fear is that despite his qualities, in
a general election, whitey isn't going to vote for "the black guy."



Ok, so Republicans are 33.3% simple-minded Christian evangelist and
66.6% losers. You seem to have them all figured out.

Even though Iowa voted heavily for Obama, you want to play the race card.

wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote:

The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans.

The populace is just tired of the SOS, that is why Hillary tanked too.

It wouldn't break my heart if it was Obama Vs Paul. At least we would
have a different debate. One of these days somebody is going to have
to take a serious look at the $9 trillion dollar debt and the druinken
sailor style spending we have in DC


Be still my heart. There's no way the Repubs would be dumb enough to
nominate Ron Paul, is there? Don't most Repubs consider him a lunatic?


Gawd...Ron Paul leading the GOP ticket. With Zell Miller as his veep
candidate...