Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:41:26 -0500, HK wrote:


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."

Some whiteys, perhaps, but Iowa is 2.5% black. There were a lot of white
people who caucused for him. While I think it's silly, I've heard more
grumbles about Romney's Mormon religion, than I have about Obama being
black, or Hillary being female.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Handicapping Iowa...
 

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:41:26 -0500, HK wrote:


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."

Some whiteys, perhaps, but Iowa is 2.5% black. There were a lot of
white people who caucused for him. While I think it's silly, I've
heard more grumbles about Romney's Mormon religion, than I have about
Obama being black, or Hillary being female.


Well, it will take more than the enlightened white Democratic voters to
put a black man in the top job. You need lots of Independents, too.

I imagine the Republican "swiftboaters" are drooling.

I suppose Romney's Mormon religion is troubling to "Christian" voters
who vote mostly on "faith" issues. I find Romney totally obnoxious and a
flip-flopping panderer. I know next to nothing about the Mormon faith,
have no interest in it, and don't care about any candidate's personal
religious beliefs, so long as they are kept mostly personal. The fact
that the Huckster keeps bring up his brand of Christianity makes him no
different to me than any other religious zealot, and therefore someone
to oppose.


You are so transparently biased and a hypocrite to boot it is becoming
fun to read your prose. Let's see how Harry writes himself into a corner
today.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Jan 2, 8:00*am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

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. *Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. *Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. *:)

Man, you munged that up!

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"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




More than twice as many Democrats came out to the caucuses than Republicans.

That in itself says a lot about the excitement Dems have for their
candidates, and the lack of excitement Repubs have for theirs.

Add in the crazy procedures the Dems use in the Iowa caucuses, and the
time it takes. You have to be motivated to hang around for two hours for
that madness. Contrast that with the Repub caucus procedure...just make
a mark on a paper ballot and go home.

John McCain is too conservative for my taste on several issues, but he'd
be a more than competent president. I do worry about his age, though. I
don't think the Repubs are wise enough to nominate him.

Romney! Ha! Romney has a hairdo, a lot of nice suits, and a lot of
money, but he has flip-flopped on so many big issues, he makes John
Kerry look like a guy wearing concrete overshoes.

My ideal Republican candidate, though, is Mike Huckabee. He's just
perfect for the GOP.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Jan 3, 9:42*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?

No. It was Obama, then Clinton the Edwards. Clinton and Edwards were a
fair distance apart.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


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."




I think your age is showing Harry. Things have changed, and for the better.
The young crowd really don't have the remnants of racial prejudices that
many in our generation still harbor.

BTW ... I snipped the rest of your post, but have a request (that you will
probably ignore, but I'll ask anyway).

How about offering positive points for the candidate or party of your choice
rather than the usual, demeaning, insulting and negative comments of those
you don't support? Your influence would be far more credible.

Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

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."




I think your age is showing Harry. Things have changed, and for the better.
The young crowd really don't have the remnants of racial prejudices that
many in our generation still harbor.

BTW ... I snipped the rest of your post, but have a request (that you will
probably ignore, but I'll ask anyway).

How about offering positive points for the candidate or party of your choice
rather than the usual, demeaning, insulting and negative comments of those
you don't support? Your influence would be far more credible.

Eisboch



I have no problems with any of the Democratic frontrunners winning the
nomination. I've always liked Mrs. Clinton, I think Obama is aces, and I
think Edwards' heart is in precisely the right place.

I see nothing positive in terms of "potential president" in any of the
Republican candidates, with the exception of John McCain. I'm hoping the
Republicans nominate the Huckster, the Paul, or, best of all, the Fred.






--
GOP'ers! Please nominate Huckabee, Paul, or Thompson!

Handicapping Iowa...
 

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

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."




I think your age is showing Harry. Things have changed, and for the
better. The young crowd really don't have the remnants of racial
prejudices that many in our generation still harbor.

BTW ... I snipped the rest of your post, but have a request (that you
will probably ignore, but I'll ask anyway).

How about offering positive points for the candidate or party of your
choice rather than the usual, demeaning, insulting and negative
comments of those you don't support? Your influence would be far
more credible.

Eisboch


I have no problems with any of the Democratic frontrunners winning the
nomination. I've always liked Mrs. Clinton, I think Obama is aces, and I
think Edwards' heart is in precisely the right place.


As I said, most people have no idea where a candidate stands on any issue.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

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."




I think your age is showing Harry. Things have changed, and for the
better. The young crowd really don't have the remnants of racial
prejudices that many in our generation still harbor.

BTW ... I snipped the rest of your post, but have a request (that you
will probably ignore, but I'll ask anyway).

How about offering positive points for the candidate or party of your
choice rather than the usual, demeaning, insulting and negative comments
of those you don't support? Your influence would be far more credible.

Eisboch

I have no problems with any of the Democratic frontrunners winning the
nomination. I've always liked Mrs. Clinton, I think Obama is aces, and I
think Edwards' heart is in precisely the right place.

I see nothing positive in terms of "potential president" in any of the
Republican candidates, with the exception of John McCain. I'm hoping the
Republicans nominate the Huckster, the Paul, or, best of all, the Fred.



Thanks! That's *much* better! :-)

Eisboch