Jan 8th - New Hampshire primary -- predictions and comments?

[Caryatid]

I'll go ahead and kick off the next thread, since the last one turned out pretty well. New Hampshire is just five (well, four now) days away. Post your picks!

This is subject to change as the campaigns roll over the next few days, but I'll go with:

1) Clinton -- despite Iowa setback, she's had a strong lead here for a while
2) Obama -- had almost caught up to Hillary until last few days; Iowa will push him back up, possibly overtaking her if he does well (or she doesn't) in Saturday's debate
3) Edwards -- he'll get better than 20%, and will probably do well among conservative Dems but not enough to jump higher

1) McCain -- huge surge in the NH polls lately, and unexpectedly good result in Iowa will bump him higher
2) Romney -- Iowa won't hurt him enough to drop him way down to third
3) Huckabee -- he's been gaining on Giuliani lately, and I think Iowa gives him enough bump to take third, but still only around 10%

Of course, all predictions are null and void in case of major gaffe, breaking scandal or act of God. :-D

[Chana]

I find it highly encouraging that in a caucus in a state that is 95% white, Obama wins! It has renewed my faith in the American people. Perhaps we have come further than I thought.
That said, I think letting 2 over-whelmingly caucasian states (Iowa and NH) have such power is wrong. The primary process should begin with states that are more representative of the faces of America. And the other primaries should be closer on their heels. The fact that I usually only have one choice left by the time the NC primary rolls around is unsatisfactory to me, and disenfranchising to a large part of our country whose states vote late. Our system needs tweaking.

[francejamie]

All primaries should take place on the same day. It's the only way to keep it completely fair.

[Chana]

All primaries should take place on the same day. It's the only way to keep it completely fair.

Agreed!

[chaboard]

All primaries should take place on the same day. It's the only way to keep it completely fair.

Ugh. That would in my view be infinitely worse than the current (bad) system. A single national primary would make it all come down to name recognition and fund raising. It would be Hillary vs. Romney just because they raised a cajillion $$$ and could buy airtime all over the country and everyone else is locked out.

But it really does suck being stuck in a late-primary state and never having any voice in the selection. I like the idea of 4-5 rotating regional primaries spaced about a month apart. Or the same concept without the geographical tiein - just randomly select n states for the first primary day, n more for the next one 4 weeks later, etc.

[MattD]

All primaries should take place on the same day. It's the only way to keep it completely fair.

Agreed!

Then tens of millions of more money would need to be raised and ultimately, the person that could raise the most cash would win.

[kellyc]

All primaries should take place on the same day. It's the only way to keep it completely fair.

Agreed!

Then tens of millions of more money would need to be raised and ultimately, the person that could raise the most cash would win.

Agreed - But it wouldnt be so bad to see the first two primarys rotate around to different states. At least so people in North Carolina might feel like they have a choice in the Presidential Candidates.

[NewHillBilly]

Megalomania at its finest:
Edwards Urges N.H. Voters to Overturn Iowa Results
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/2252573/

The guy has even co-oped U2's Pride in the campaign. Paging Bongo. Ugh.

[chaboard]

Megalomania at its finest:
Edwards Urges N.H. Voters to Overturn Iowa Results
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/2252573/

The guy has even co-oped U2's Pride in the campaign. Paging Bongo. Ugh.

"Megalomania"? What - is everyone that finished second (or worse!) supposed to
just roll over and grovel now?

[Caryatid]

Megalomania at its finest:
Edwards Urges N.H. Voters to Overturn Iowa Results
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/2252573/

The guy has even co-oped U2's Pride in the campaign. Paging Bongo. Ugh.

"Megalomania"? What - is everyone that finished second (or worse!) supposed to
just roll over and grovel now?

No, but telling voters to "overturn" another state's results is somewhat in poor taste. However, I'm noticing in the article that nowhere does it actually quote Edwards as saying "overturn" or "repudiate". Those seem to be the words of the writer. And the version that's out in most other AP writeups lacks that initial paragraph. Maybe it got edited out in later copies as too editorial? I'll be watching to see when the transcript of the speech is available to see if Edwards actually used those terms.

[Caryatid]

From the AP:

McCain was ready with a rebuttal, taking credit for a shift in President Bush's Iraq strategy that has been followed by a decline in violence and U.S. casualties. "I'm most proud of the change I brought about in Iraq that saved American lives," McCain said. "No one else was ready to make that kind of reform. I'm proud to stand here as a person who has reformed and reformed and reformed."

You want to talk megalomania? McCain apparently now thinks he's running the war. :?

I'll never figure out exactly what happened over the last eight years to turn a worthwhile candidate into yet another waste of a suit.

[Caryatid]

I'm revising my initial estimate. I think Clinton didn't handle the debates all that well and a lot of her post-Iowa spin has just looked desperate and blatantly at odds with reality, such as her assertion that she was "never a serious candidate in Iowa anyway".

So I'm picking:

1) Obama -- Iowa bump + genial showing at the debates + Clinton spin machine fizzling + sizable independent base = WIN
2) Clinton -- Despite her missteps, she'll still have a solid base of establishment Dems here. Campaign is starting to go under though.
3) Edwards -- Hasn't been living in New Hampshire for the last three years, and his style of class populism not likely to resonate as well as in the Midwest.

My Republican picks remain unchanged:

1) McCain -- Sizable number of indies is good news for McCain, as is his poll momentum
2) Romney -- Still the establishment and white-collar pick. Shouldn't trail the leader by nearly the margin he did in Bible-thumpin' Iowa.
3) Huckabee -- Gaining ground even in New Hampshire, as he's becoming the Republican version of John Edwards "walked 5 miles to school, uphill both ways" populist. A top 3 finish here and in Michigan could keep him alive as a contender. If he can best McCain in SC, it's going to be a long primary season for the GOP.

[CatherineE]

All primaries should take place on the same day. It's the only way to keep it completely fair.

Agreed!

Then tens of millions of more money would need to be raised and ultimately, the person that could raise the most cash would win.

Hey for Hillary!

[Caryatid]

Early results are in (really early -- only 16% precincts reporting), and the AP is already calling the race for McCain, who's leading Romney 38% to 29%.

Clinton is actually in the lead over Obama. Which is a bit of a surprise, but it's relatively narrow (40% to 36%). Bigger story might be Edwards, who's in distant third with about 17%. A second-place or close third would have been okay. Distant third, not so good.

Turnout numbers so far look to mirror Iowa, around 2:1 in favor of the Democratic primaries. Which in a state which is over 40% independents, signals trouble for the GOP nationally.

[DarylB]

Early results are in (really early -- only 16% precincts reporting), and the AP is already calling the race for McCain, who's leading Romney 38% to 29%.

Clinton is actually in the lead over Obama. Which is a bit of a surprise, but it's relatively narrow (40% to 36%). Bigger story might be Edwards, who's in distant third with about 17%. A second-place or close third would have been okay. Distant third, not so good.

Turnout numbers so far look to mirror Iowa, around 2:1 in favor of the Democratic primaries. Which in a state which is over 40% independents, signals trouble for the GOP nationally.

The trouble for the GOP has already happened, as there are NO CONSERATIES RUNNING. When this election became WHICH liberal is the BEST liberal, it automatically set upon being a Democratic contest, and the Republicans are only vying to be better liberals than their full-feathered breathren. Clearly there are no winners in an election cycle like this, unless you want to watch America fall over the cliff. Hillary, save your tears, America has already "fallen back".

[chaboard]

ok, they just called it for Clinton.

Which, in my opinion, makes us ALL winners......it won't all be over in a one week media stampede, it's actually gonna be decided by real live people in
a LOT of states. Definitely now a three person race into AT LEAST late February.

[Caryatid]

Ever stop to think that maybe that's because your definition of conservative is no longer shared by 95% of America? The pendulum is swinging, and the country is returning back toward center after a decade or more of swinging hard to the right. It's the GOP's choice: follow the voters, or become a marginal party (personally, I'd be more than happy to see the latter).

Y'all brought this on yourself when the Republican Party started supporting corporate welfare, interventionist foreign policy, legislating morality, and larger, intrusive government. In other words, when they stopped being conservatives. And that was long before this election.

[Caryatid]

ok, they just called it for Clinton.

Which, in my opinion, makes us ALL winners......it won't all be over in a one week media stampede, it's actually gonna be decided by real live people in
a LOT of states. Definitely now a three person race into AT LEAST late February.

Three person? Edwards got smoked. Placing distant third isn't much of a shot in the arm for a campaign already playing catch-up. He's going to have place second in at least one of the next couple of primaries to stay competitive, and then he almost has to win SC. If he can't demonstrate that he can win the South, he's not going to snag enough votes come Feb 5.

[DarylB]

Ever stop to think that maybe that's because your definition of conservative is no longer shared by 95% of America? The pendulum is swinging, and the country is returning back toward center after a decade or more of swinging hard to the right. It's the GOP's choice: follow the voters, or become a marginal party (personally, I'd be more than happy to see the latter).

Y'all brought this on yourself when the Republican Party started supporting corporate welfare, interventionist foreign policy, legislating morality, and larger, intrusive government. In other words, when they stopped being conservatives. And that was long before this election.

My greatest fear is that we no longer have a range of voices to choose from at the ballot box, and those kinds of issues tend to be sorted out at the point of a gun. The country is NOT 95% liberal, as you claim, we all know for a fact the country is roughly 50-50. Lacking representation, there are a lot of very angry people who have lost their voice in this election. I'm no Nostrodamus, but I think the Secret Service is going to have their hands full trying to prevent an assassination. We've already got Reid and Pelosi, the supreme court blockages, and now an all liberal Presidential cycle. It doesn't look good for the future of the democratic process of selecting representative leadership by peaceful means.

[Chana]

Tonight Edwards became a contender for Vice President. Go Obama!

[Chana]

"My greatest fear is that we no longer have a range of voices to choose from at the ballot box, and those kinds of issues tend to be sorted out at the point of a gun. The country is NOT 95% liberal, as you claim, we all know for a fact the country is roughly 50-50. Lacking representation, there are a lot of very angry people who have lost their voice in this election. I'm no Nostrodamus, but I think the Secret Service is going to have their hands full trying to prevent an assassination. We've already got Reid and Pelosi, the supreme court blockages, and now an all liberal Presidential cycle. It doesn't look good for the future of the democratic process of selecting representative leadership by peaceful means.[/quote] -Darylb

Daryl, you make me ill. Are you saying that the only option for conservatives is violence? Welcome to the land of the under-represented. I have lived in NC for 15 years without a viable political voice. I have never felt the need to threaten or resort to violence. Democrats lose in 2000, wait 8 years, and continue with the democratic process. Are you saying that a Democratic victory, after 8 years of disastrous Republican rule, must result in violence? How reactionary!!!

[chaboard]

ok, they just called it for Clinton.

Which, in my opinion, makes us ALL winners......it won't all be over in a one week media stampede, it's actually gonna be decided by real live people in
a LOT of states. Definitely now a three person race into AT LEAST late February.

Three person? Edwards got smoked. Placing distant third isn't much of a shot in the arm for a campaign already playing catch-up. He's going to have place second in at least one of the next couple of primaries to stay competitive, and then he almost has to win SC. If he can't demonstrate that he can win the South, he's not going to snag enough votes come Feb 5.

*shrug*

Usually what you said would make perfect sense. But it all goes out the window if there's a wide-open long slog that lasts deep into spring.

If that happens he has three things going strongly for him:
1) as the Rasmussen results Greenwald referred to show, he's the one monotonically rising - the more people see him the more they like him
2) unfortunately the Bush economy is circling the bowl and headed for the sewer. The one candidate with the strong economic message is Edwards. That message will only resonate more as the economy heads toward deep recession
3) the longer it goes on, the more people will start thinking about "electability" - and that's Edwards big advantage over the other two.

And even if *his* numbers don't start going up themselves, as long as Hillary & Obama stay neck & neck the relative value of his delegates grows and his brokering power keeps increasing...so why in the world would he get out?

I'm predicting right now that he's in until at least May and most likely all the way to the convention.

But I've been wrong before. ;)

[dhyatt]

Ever stop to think that maybe that's because your definition of conservative is no longer shared by 95% of America? The pendulum is swinging, and the country is returning back toward center after a decade or more of swinging hard to the right. It's the GOP's choice: follow the voters, or become a marginal party (personally, I'd be more than happy to see the latter).

Y'all brought this on yourself when the Republican Party started supporting corporate welfare, interventionist foreign policy, legislating morality, and larger, intrusive government. In other words, when they stopped being conservatives. And that was long before this election.

My greatest fear is that we no longer have a range of voices to choose from at the ballot box, and those kinds of issues tend to be sorted out at the point of a gun. The country is NOT 95% liberal, as you claim, we all know for a fact the country is roughly 50-50. Lacking representation, there are a lot of very angry people who have lost their voice in this election. I'm no Nostrodamus, but I think the Secret Service is going to have their hands full trying to prevent an assassination. We've already got Reid and Pelosi, the supreme court blockages, and now an all liberal Presidential cycle. It doesn't look good for the future of the democratic process of selecting representative leadership by peaceful means.

Daryl,
I'll let this post stand because I know you are simply speculating. However, I would ask that you refrain from those sorts of speculations on this board. I have no intention of even tangentially supporting some sort of violence against elected officials or those that support them.

I'll have nothing to do with any conservative (or anyone else for that matter) who thinks the only way to achieve their goal is through violence. We win - or lose - on the merits of policies and ideas. Conservatives are in trouble for one reason and one reason only - most of them talk one game and play the other. We need better candidates with better ideas. We don't need threats.

[DarylB]

"My greatest fear is that we no longer have a range of voices to choose from at the ballot box, and those kinds of issues tend to be sorted out at the point of a gun. The country is NOT 95% liberal, as you claim, we all know for a fact the country is roughly 50-50. Lacking representation, there are a lot of very angry people who have lost their voice in this election. I'm no Nostrodamus, but I think the Secret Service is going to have their hands full trying to prevent an assassination. We've already got Reid and Pelosi, the supreme court blockages, and now an all liberal Presidential cycle. It doesn't look good for the future of the democratic process of selecting representative leadership by peaceful means. -Darylb

Daryl, you make me ill. Are you saying that the only option for conservatives is violence? Welcome to the land of the under-represented. I have lived in NC for 15 years without a viable political voice. I have never felt the need to threaten or resort to violence. Democrats lose in 2000, wait 8 years, and continue with the democratic process. Are you saying that a Democratic victory, after 8 years of disastrous Republican rule, must result in violence? How reactionary!!!
[/quote]

It's a prediction... we are in a very angry cycle of politics, and the conservatives are being kicked to the political curb. All the while, the ills inflicted by Reid/Pelosi ... this in not a good thing. Hitler also came to power in the absence of any real opposition, and look where that went. Keep in mind that we had assassination attempts in those years you speak of, against both Reagan AND Ford. Not our best days. The second attack on Ford was specifically along political ideological lines, and the woman was just recently released (see my recent post on the specifics of her far left reasons for the attempt on his life).

[Caryatid]

Oh good Lord...you're already predicting a return to the angry, frothing Republicans of the Bill Clinton years -- back when Jesse Helms made his famous proclamation that the President better not come down here without a bodyguard, and when various right-wing "militias" fantasized about black-booted BATF stormtroopers and black helicopters (and blowing up Federal buildings).

Oh well, they say hate makes one impotent, maybe being politically impotent breeds hate. Even if you're right, I'm sure you'll continue to support the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, secret detentions, and so on, right? Those darned "conservative" agitators won't prove to be much of a threat when they're all enjoying our first-class, humane accommodations in Gitmo and being "aggressively interrogated".

And I never said 95% of America is liberal. What I'm saying is that 95% of America is more liberal than YOU. Which isn't a sad thing for America, IMHO.

[DarylB]

Oh good Lord...you're already predicting a return to the angry, frothing Republicans of the Bill Clinton years -- back when Jesse Helms made his famous proclamation that the President better not come down here without a bodyguard, and when various right-wing "militias" fantasized about black-booted BATF stormtroopers and black helicopters (and blowing up Federal buildings).

Oh well, they say hate makes one impotent, maybe being politically impotent breeds hate. Even if you're right, I'm sure you'll continue to support the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, secret detentions, and so on, right? Those darned "conservative" agitators won't prove to be much of a threat when they're all enjoying our first-class, humane accommodations in Gitmo and being "aggressively interrogated".

And I never said 95% of America is liberal. What I'm saying is that 95% of America is more liberal than YOU. Which isn't a sad thing for America, IMHO.

Democracy is at it's best when everyone has a seat at the table and a voice in the process, and at its very worst whenever there is a lack of voice for any one group, demographic or faction. We are now headed into one of those periods where democracy is at a very, very low point. I blame George Bush and the conservative wing of the Republican party as much if not more than anyone else for this situation. But that doesn't change my overall opinion that it is not a good thing. Americ has in point of fact been becoming slightly more conservative with time, It will continue to do so. I'm not trying to foment threats or anger, I just see it as an inevitability in view of the present situation.

[Caryatid]

Oh good Lord...you're already predicting a return to the angry, frothing Republicans of the Bill Clinton years -- back when Jesse Helms made his famous proclamation that the President better not come down here without a bodyguard, and when various right-wing "militias" fantasized about black-booted BATF stormtroopers and black helicopters (and blowing up Federal buildings).

Oh well, they say hate makes one impotent, maybe being politically impotent breeds hate. Even if you're right, I'm sure you'll continue to support the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, secret detentions, and so on, right? Those darned "conservative" agitators won't prove to be much of a threat when they're all enjoying our first-class, humane accommodations in Gitmo and being "aggressively interrogated".

And I never said 95% of America is liberal. What I'm saying is that 95% of America is more liberal than YOU. Which isn't a sad thing for America, IMHO.

Democracy is at it's best when everyone has a seat at the table and a voice in the process, and at its very worst whenever there is a lack of voice for any one group, demographic or faction. We are now headed into one of those periods where democracy is at a very, very low point. I blame George Bush and the conservative wing of the Republican party as much if not more than anyone else for this situation. But that doesn't change my overall opinion that it is not a good thing. Americ has in point of fact been becoming slightly more conservative with time, It will continue to do so. I'm not trying to foment threats or anger, I just see it as an inevitability in view of the present situation.

You're conflating "a (political) voice" with "political power". There's a major difference. Virtually anybody and everbody in the United States has a voice. Even the most reprehensible and extremist members of this country have a voice. Membership in groups like the Aryan Nations or the Nation of Islam is not illegal. Those groups are allowed to operate websites, hold rallies, spout whatever godforsaken vitriol they like. That's not likely to change, especially under "liberal" government.

If however, you're crying over the fact that your brand of conservatism is on the verge of losing the massive political power it's enjoyed for the last eight years, then I shed no tears with you. Half this country has been denied real political power for the last eight years. And yet, they never tried to assassinate a man who has become hated across the planet, much less the country. They waited and endured and trusted in the power of democracy to return America to its core principles.

Your attitude (or the attitude that you claim to be predicting on behalf of others...this is starting to sound like O.J. Simpson's book) is the kind of childish mentality I'd expect to see in a Third World backwater. You lot chided Al Gore as a sore loser for trying to pursue a simple vote recount, but it's somehow "inevitable" that jilted conservatives will try to kill the people who best them in an open, popular election?? :evil:

And frankly, it's old rhetoric. All through the 1990's, all you ever heard from the conservatives was how terrible things were becoming, how totalitarian the government was, how there was a War on Christianity, a war on values, a war on the family, a war on civil liberties. All because they weren't in power. Well guess what, they had power for eight years, and they blew it. Now it's time for them to sit down, shut up, and let someone else have a try.

EDIT: Oh sweet Jesus in a handbasket, you and Wup should have a contest to see who can come up with the worst historical hyperbole. He thinks it's the Reichstag and the Bolshevik Revolution rolled into one, and you think it's Fort Sumter. So where does that put you, on the side that "rises up in anger", gets its *** whupped, and lives out its remainder reminiscing about the good old days?