|
Handicapping Iowa...
"BAR" wrote in message
... wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/ Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating McCain's image. Oh come on, that article was written in 2000. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000? Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush in 2004. Your question, beginning with "Why does slate.com..." is in the present tense, meaning that you think slate.com wants McCain as a nominee NOW, in the present. The article was written in the year 2000. That's why your question got the response it did. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Jan 3, 7:57 am, BAR wrote:
HK wrote: BAR wrote: HK wrote: HK wrote: BAR wrote: HK wrote: BAR wrote: HK wrote: BAR wrote: HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:v82nn3dnv66gafh0uvkn4ufv2i3j620gq9@4ax .com... 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. :) Meanwhile, McCain's the only Republican candidate with a spine. I agree that McCain is the only GOP candidate with any class, and I agree he has a spine, but... I was less than impressed when he caved earlier this year on the torture issue. McCain is a twit and always has been a twit. He should have gone to jail with the rest of the Keating Five. He was crooked then and is crooked now. McCain has done more damage to this country then he could ever do good. Geez...you're such an *angry* little scheisskopf... Not angry just determined to see McCain go down in flames again. Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry? Do you have a problem voting for a guy with ethics and morals? Are you referring to Mike "Mr. Ethics Investigations" Huckabee? Please. "According to The Associated Press: "[Huckabee's] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor's office." And what was Governor Huckabee's response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down." And of course Huckabee is a total numnutz on foreign policy issues. In that, he's certainly following in Bush's footsteps. Hillary and Obama don't have foreign policy bona fides either. Both of them and my favorite pet cat have more knowledge of foreign policy than Huckleberry. If you combine your cat's with Barak's and Hillary's foriegn policy experience I could agree to that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What foreign policy experience does Huckabee have? |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:41:08 -0500, HK wrote:
BAR wrote: HK wrote: BAR wrote: HK wrote: BAR wrote: HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... 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. :) Meanwhile, McCain's the only Republican candidate with a spine. I agree that McCain is the only GOP candidate with any class, and I agree he has a spine, but... I was less than impressed when he caved earlier this year on the torture issue. McCain is a twit and always has been a twit. He should have gone to jail with the rest of the Keating Five. He was crooked then and is crooked now. McCain has done more damage to this country then he could ever do good. Geez...you're such an *angry* little scheisskopf... Not angry just determined to see McCain go down in flames again. Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry? Do you have a problem voting for a guy with ethics and morals? Are you referring to Mike "Mr. Ethics Investigations" Huckabee? Please. "According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down." Uh, Harry. How many 'ethics' complaints and questions about your integrity, ranging all over the place, have been mentioned right here? Now go tell us the source of all those 'ethics' complaints you're referring to. -- Quote of the day: "I did get to use that condom when I was 13, and several more that summer, thanks to a "fast" 14 year old young lady..." (Harry Krause, bragging again!) John H |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:52:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry? Do you have a problem voting for a guy with ethics and morals? The same Huckabee who failed to report gifts received while in public office, as required by the law? That Huckabee? Source? Make sure it's not a liberal, Arkansas newspaper, OK? -- Quote of the day: "I did get to use that condom when I was 13, and several more that summer, thanks to a "fast" 14 year old young lady..." (Harry Krause, bragging again!) John H |
Handicapping Iowa...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:52:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message m... Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry? Do you have a problem voting for a guy with ethics and morals? The same Huckabee who failed to report gifts received while in public office, as required by the law? That Huckabee? Source? Make sure it's not a liberal, Arkansas newspaper, OK? -- Quote of the day: "I did get to use that condom when I was 13, and several more that summer, thanks to a "fast" 14 year old young lady..." (Harry Krause, bragging again!) John H It doesn't matter what source I provided. You'd find a reason to pretend it was wrong. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:54:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:52:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message om... Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry? Do you have a problem voting for a guy with ethics and morals? The same Huckabee who failed to report gifts received while in public office, as required by the law? That Huckabee? Source? Make sure it's not a liberal, Arkansas newspaper, OK? -- Quote of the day: "I did get to use that condom when I was 13, and several more that summer, thanks to a "fast" 14 year old young lady..." (Harry Krause, bragging again!) John H It doesn't matter what source I provided. You'd find a reason to pretend it was wrong. Right. -- John H |
Handicapping Iowa...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:54:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:52:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:SrWdncOfhqHTyuHanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast. com... Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry? Do you have a problem voting for a guy with ethics and morals? The same Huckabee who failed to report gifts received while in public office, as required by the law? That Huckabee? Source? Make sure it's not a liberal, Arkansas newspaper, OK? -- Quote of the day: "I did get to use that condom when I was 13, and several more that summer, thanks to a "fast" 14 year old young lady..." (Harry Krause, bragging again!) John H It doesn't matter what source I provided. You'd find a reason to pretend it was wrong. Right. -- John H That's infantile behavior. When your wife returns from her "tennis lesson", ask her what she thinks about living with a fully grown infant. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:52:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:54:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:52:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:SrWdncOfhqHTyuHanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast .com... Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry? Do you have a problem voting for a guy with ethics and morals? The same Huckabee who failed to report gifts received while in public office, as required by the law? That Huckabee? Source? Make sure it's not a liberal, Arkansas newspaper, OK? -- Quote of the day: "I did get to use that condom when I was 13, and several more that summer, thanks to a "fast" 14 year old young lady..." (Harry Krause, bragging again!) John H It doesn't matter what source I provided. You'd find a reason to pretend it was wrong. Right. -- John H That's infantile behavior. You're right again. Batting 1000. Keep up the good work. -- John H |
Handicapping Iowa...
BAR wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/ Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating McCain's image. Oh come on, that article was written in 2000. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000? Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush in 2004. McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Handicapping Iowa...
HK wrote:
BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/ Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating McCain's image. Oh come on, that article was written in 2000. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000? Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush in 2004. McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him. McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging, oppourtunistic twit. |
Handicapping Iowa...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/ Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating McCain's image. Oh come on, that article was written in 2000. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000? Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush in 2004. McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him. McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging, oppourtunistic twit. Sure, Bertie. Aren't you the guy who dropped out of high school to join the marines and who turned out so incompetent at that you were never sent overseas? What does that make you? Pond slime? |
Handicapping Iowa...
HK wrote:
BAR wrote: HK wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/ Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating McCain's image. Oh come on, that article was written in 2000. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000? Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush in 2004. McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him. McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging, oppourtunistic twit. Sure, Bertie. Aren't you the guy who dropped out of high school to join the marines and who turned out so incompetent at that you were never sent overseas? What does that make you? Pond slime? Do you really want to start the personal attacks again Krause? Or, are you happy being the laughing stock of the newsgroup? I have never lied about my education. Can you say truthfully that you have never lied about your education? I have never lied about my employment record. Can you say truthfully that you never lied about your employment record? I have never lied about personal accomplishments. Can you say truthfully that you have never lied about your personal accomplishments? I learned long ago that lying only makes your look the fool when you are found to have lied, not if you are ever found to have lied. |
Handicapping Iowa...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote: BAR wrote: HK wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/ Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating McCain's image. Oh come on, that article was written in 2000. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000? Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush in 2004. McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him. McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging, oppourtunistic twit. Sure, Bertie. Aren't you the guy who dropped out of high school to join the marines and who turned out so incompetent at that you were never sent overseas? What does that make you? Pond slime? Do you really want to start the personal attacks again Krause? Or, are you happy being the laughing stock of the newsgroup? I have never lied about my education. Can you say truthfully that you have never lied about your education? I have never lied about my employment record. Can you say truthfully that you never lied about your employment record? I have never lied about personal accomplishments. Can you say truthfully that you have never lied about your personal accomplishments? I learned long ago that lying only makes your look the fool when you are found to have lied, not if you are ever found to have lied. Yawn You should have stayed in high school -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:32:05 -0500, HK wrote:
BAR wrote: HK wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/ Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating McCain's image. Oh come on, that article was written in 2000. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000? Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush in 2004. McCain ran for the nomination, but the Bushcrappers slimed him. McCain only has himself to blame. He is a camera hogging, oppourtunistic twit. Sure, Bertie. Aren't you the guy who dropped out of high school to join the marines and who turned out so incompetent at that you were never sent overseas? What does that make you? Pond slime? Do you have to resort to that **** to 'win' your argument, Harry? -- John H |
Handicapping Iowa...
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? |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. :} -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Handicapping Iowa...
JimH wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... 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? You are indeed a genius..........and you beg others to acknowledge that every day at this obscure NG to make you feel better. Yes Tom, you are a legend in your mind. JimH, Are you talking about Harry? |
Handicapping Iowa...
"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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. 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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. :) |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"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 |
Handicapping Iowa...
"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 |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
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." |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com