On the Iowa Caucuses
Politics January 4th. 2008, 9:07am
Sure, this photo (sent in by a reader) looks photoshopped, but Chuck Norris was in Iowa for last night’s caucus so who knows. We’re not here to browbeat you with opinion or analysis, and truthfully, we tend to shy away from these posts because everyone always gets so damn worked up over politics. So play nice. Mike Huckabee topped Mitt Romney on the Republican side, 34 percent to 25 percent. Clearly, Mitt needs a solid celebrity endorsement. Good read about the Mike and Mitt battle can be found here. The guy we still think will get the nom, Rudy, skipped Iowa and received a few less votes than actor Fred Thompson.
Barry Obama (940) took the Democratic victory, followed by John Edwards (744) and Hillary Clinton (737). Not sure how or why anyone would read too much into this – more people voted for Rudy (4,013) than the five top Dems combined (under 2,500) according to the USA Today numbers. Serves us for not watching it on TV and reading the paper!
We’re probably woefully wrong, but here’s our only opinion: This state didn’t matter. Only three states do – Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. They seem to be the only states that could swing the entire election (Ohio won it for the Republicans last time) due to electoral votes. Maybe you could toss in Virginia and New Jersey, too. But just about every other state has historically voted D or R and will continue to do so regardless of who is running.
118 Responses to “On the Iowa Caucuses”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:12 AM
if you had 5 dollars and Chuck Norris had 5 dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you
Chuck Norris can sneeze with his eyes open
January 4th, 2008 at 9:13 AM
The Democratic numbers are numbers of *delegates selected* not actual votes cast. Republicans list actual votes. The numbers between the two aren’t comparable.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:14 AM
You really have no clue about how the whole caucus process works do you? Or how the Republican & Democrat caucuses are completely different?
January 4th, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Barack found the holy grail of politics – new voters and young voters. Everyone says they can appeal to these groups, no one until now did so.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:16 AM
The Democratic and Republican caucuses work differently. To compare the number of “votes” between them doesn’t work. The Republicans use a “one head, one vote” system. The Democrats use a different system where each precinct has a total number of delegates, sometimes only a few. That is what the USA Today poll is counting as its “votes” So even if a few hundered people show up, only a few delegates will be counted.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:16 AM
TBL, The USA Today numbers are different for each party–the Republican numbers list total votes, while the Dem. results list DELEGATES that the candidate won for the state convention. So your claim re. Rudy and the Dems. is inaccurate.
I live in Des Moines, and at my precinct’s Democratic caucus last night, there were over 200 people (turnout the past 2 elections has been under 100). The Dems. actually brought out over 200,000 voters last night, more than twice the amount that the state’s Republicans had. So Obama’s win was pretty huge, all things considered–especially since Clinton came in third.
I’m not an Iowa native, so I’m not invested in the caucus as others are, but I would argue that it is quite important in that it can offer momentum (look what it did for Kerry in 04), plus Iowa’s track record for picking nominees is pretty solid, from what I remember.
It was an interesting scene, that’s for sure. Grassroots democracy in all its messy glory (and I think that’s a good thing). Any time you can pack 227 people into an elementary school library for 2 1/2 hours to do *any* sort of business, let alone a caucus, there’s some pretty powerful commitment at work.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Yes, correction has been made … would have been nice to see the USA Today numbers on the front of the paper reflect that! Cable went out (resulting in missing a lot of the Kansas game) so I missed it all.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:20 AM
I think Obama has got this thing all locked up for the D’s. Hillary was too cocky for the people in Iowa and I think that a third place finish will be too much to overcome.
I am really curious about who the R’s will go for, but I don’t think that Rudy has got enough support from the “grass root” R’s.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Actually, Hillary (who finished third) had more actual votes than Huckabee, who won on the Republican side.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Chuck Norris’s endorsements win Iowa
January 4th, 2008 at 9:28 AM
On a more serious note: As a 23-year-old who votes, the Democrats would be smart to run Obama. I’ve always leaned Republican in all my votings (except the recent Ohio governorship in which the Republicans decided to run Ken “Kill the gays” Blackwell). If Obama gets the nom, I’m voting for him, regardless of who the Republicans pick.
Actually, the Democratic results were positive to me (Obama, Edwards beating Hilary) while the Republican side scares me (Dear God, another hard right candidate?)
January 4th, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Personally i am excited about Obama, he is a fresh face, young, and tells it as it is. he is the one candidate i actually think is sincere in what he says…i dont trust hillary at all
January 4th, 2008 at 9:30 AM
When Chuck Norris gives you the finger, he’s not just saying ‘Fuck You,’ he’s telling you how many seconds you have left to live.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Your cable went out???…another reason to flip to Dish and you get the hated NFL network!
January 4th, 2008 at 9:33 AM
I think the Democrats would be blissfully happy if Huckabee ends up winning the Republican presidential nomination.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:35 AM
I agree sportsgal
January 4th, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Personally i am excited about Obama, he is a fresh face, young, and tells it as it is. he is the one candidate i actually think is sincere in what he says…i dont trust hillary at all
I don’t want to start trouble, but this is what scares me about this election. People like Obama cause he has a nice trusting face. Well what about his politics? No one ever says they like his ideas, or his ability to lead. Plus he is very young, and very inexperienced. I just hope people educate themselves before just blindly voting for a “nice” guy.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:36 AM
It’s all about Super Tuesday. Huckabee is a non-starter nationally–and I’ve yet to meet anyone the least bit enthusiastic about a Romney nomination. My personal top three is Rudy, Fred, Hunter (not a snowball’s chance in hell).
Thompson, by the way, would give us the first FLILF since Jackie Kennedy.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:37 AM
RON PAUL gets 10%…Chuck Norris says fuck you FOX network!
January 4th, 2008 at 9:43 AM
“President Huckabee…” doesn’t have a good ring to it. But then again, I don’t vote, so who cares?
January 4th, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Romney won’t get the Republican nomination. This guy has only won 1 election in his life. As a Massachusetts resident, I know why he decided to run for president- because he wouldn’t have won re-election to the governor’s seat. I agree w/ Die Eagles Die. Let’s listen to the message, not the speaker. Either way, if Hillary Clinton gets elected, we’re all screwed…
January 4th, 2008 at 9:46 AM
screw norris – who is TV Fitness Celebrity John Basedow endorsing?
January 4th, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Die_eagles_die:
The only part of Obama’s platform that I staunchly oppose is his support of abortion. Otherwise, I support his desire to remove the troops from Iraq. I like his tax plan. I like that he wants to provide national medical insurance (I realize I’ll have to pay for that, but it’s the right thing to do I think).
As for his ability to lead, he had me wanting to vote for him back in 2004 and he wasn’t even running. Yeah, he’s young, and “inexperienced” but he has to be better than Bush in governing. So, there’s the reason I’m voting for him. I like his politics and his personality.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:51 AM
@die_eagles
I don’t think people are choosing Obama because he has a nice face, I honestly feel he’s getting the votes because he represents a complete change from the people running the government now. The Obama supporters see what “experienced” politicians have done to our country in the past 8 years, and they’re backing Obama because they think he can make a difference.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:52 AM
i also love the fact he was the only one to vote against the war in iraq, and in terms of his politics, he is the candidate i am most like, stem cells, abortion, health care etc
i didnt want to go into his politics there but its ok. he is what this country needs, a bring young person with the balls to get things done, but also willing to listen to both sides of the aisle, as i believe he will.
im sorry if i am sick of the religious right running this country based on faith and not on whats right for this country and its citizens.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:53 AM
and i wont voyte fpr obama just because he is a young guy but one who i think will stand for what he believes in and is equally sick of the “politics as usual” as i am
January 4th, 2008 at 9:55 AM
die-eagles, I am voting for Obama because to me, he is the least corrupted individual running. I say least, because they are all corrupt in some form or another. The only other Candidate up there that interests me is Mccain but he won’t go very far, because he isn’t conservative enough for his own party.
Obama’s inexperience is what attracts me to him. He hasn’t been around long enough to become what Hillary, Romney, Rudy, and others have become and that is a corporate puppet. This country needs a new plan, and to me, he is the one to bring it out.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Perhaps before chiding the readers about getting “worked up” over politics, it would pay to do a teeny amount of research on the process. TBL will live and learn, I suppose. More than twice as money Dems turned out last night in Iowa. You’re right that the swing states traditionally determine the election, and the big boys (Calif, Tex, NY) always vote the same way. But there are more than 3 (or 5) swing states.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I truly hope if Obama wins the nomination, he chooses Edwards as his VP. Edwards is the ONLY candidate who hasn’t accepted money from lobbyists and PAC members, and I think he’d offer Obama good guidance.
I think lobbyists are the root of all evil in politics these days.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Ohio’s picked the last 7 or 8 presidents. I hold onto this because everything else is going so badly in Ohio. It’s the only defining characteristic.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Non-Politics Thread Jack: I’ve gone to the website to get the universal icon, but it hasn’t shown up here. Is there anything else I need to do? /Thread Jack
January 4th, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Okay if I wanted to get a summary of all the candidates ideas without watching hours of garbage FOX NEWS/ MSNBC, where would I go? Also, how would I know it isn’t partisan information? I would like to vote for a candidate I find has the same ideals and morals and views as myself, but the trouble is I find it very hard to weed through the vast amounts of bullshit and sided information. It is like we are all on a used car lot and they are trying to sell us something, which I don’t really care for. Shouldn’t thier past actions alone sell the candidates to us? This country is so weird sometimes.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:07 AM
for the record that Norris picture is not photoshopped, he was right behind Huckabee during his victory speech. I am quite surprised Obama won by this much and whoever called young voters the “holy grail of politics” they were right on. IF Obama can continue to get the young kids out he will win this entire thing, and by a whole lot.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:09 AM
CNN has a comparison. Obviously, you can say what you want about the bias of CNN, but I thought it was pretty accurate. You can find it here
January 4th, 2008 at 10:11 AM
w/ regards to bias: I like that all the Democrats are smiling while all the Republicans look like they’re yelling in the pictures accompanying their positions.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:15 AM
i will say that it is sad that the only place people go to get infor about candidtaes is either cnn/fox news. and we all know where those biases lie. It makes it difficult for a person like me who really isnt a dem or a republican.
it also makes me sad that we live in a system that groups with a lot of cash can influence decisions, where regular people are screwed. or that a person from a 3rd party with good ideas can never win, and never really make an impact.
i agree with a former poster that obama/edwards would make an amazing ticket…would love to see it happen
January 4th, 2008 at 10:24 AM
@mmonast: Where else are we supposed to go? The Daily Show and Colbert Report have been off the air because of writers strikes.
Seriously though, unless you’re going around and talking to each candidate, you’ve gotta get your news from some secondary source which always has a bias. Doesn’t matter if it’s 24 hour news, regular TV news, bloggers, or newspapers.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:25 AM
@ Obama Lovers…So he is against the war, wants people to be healthy, and wants to “change.” Ideas are great, plans are better. I want a million dollars, but I guess I should figure out a way to get it. Just because Obama>Bush doesn’t tell me much.
For a good bio on the candidates see wikipedia. I know the problems with it, but generally it is a good source. Just check out things that he has ACTUALLY done versus things he “wants” to do. I am not saying he is wrong, but Huckabee is for “change” too. What does that really mean?
January 4th, 2008 at 10:31 AM
die_eagles_die: you’re just trolling now. Obama has explained a plan for health care. Stop lazily criticizing people and go actually find out about them. You can find it on the link I posted above. Same with taxes.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:41 AM
People say they like him because he is young, and looks nice, and I am the one that is trolling? I think it is easier to judge people based on what they have done vs. what they think they can do. Biden has the only real exit strategy for the war, yet no one cares to consider him because he sticks his foot in his mouth.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:42 AM
i agree BraveSr but even those shows are skewed….however they ask questions that people are afraid to ask and will confront those on their shows…the best way to learn from candidates is to hear them speak, without pundits interfering and skewing what they say.
my mom always told me a story that she got to see bill clinton speak live when he was in cleveland yrs ago…she said she was moved…his speech affected her. i would love to be able to fell that type of reaction from a president or candidate…if obama wins the nom and comes to cleveland i will try like hell to go there.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Richardson also has a “real” exit strategy, die_eagles_die.
Regarding experience vs. vision, I think 2008 is going to be a “change” election (two-thirds of the US thinks the country is on the “wrong track”), so I think whoever can do the “vision thing” best, and in a believable way, is going to do well.
Oh, and watch the long knives come out for Huckabee today/this weekend. The fiscal conservatives (Club for Growth, Grover Norquist) are going to be gunning for the guy.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:46 AM
The “experienced” candidates got totally turned away. Hillary, Biden, Dodd, Richardson & McCain…all “experienced Washington people”. Not a 1st or 2nd between any of them.
People want a change…very, very badly…and are willing to take a chance on guys who can motivate and who have a little experience like Obama and Huckabee. This (and Iraq) will ultimately be Bush’s legacy – motivating more Dems to vote and getting Repubs to vote Dem.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Whomever provided that CNN link to where each candidate stands, thanks. That’s a fantastic link.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:49 AM
@mmonast: I was being facetious about the Daily Show and Colbert. They’re biased like everyone else (still like Colbert a ton though)
January 4th, 2008 at 10:52 AM
So Ron Paul had almost 2.5x the amount of votes as Giuliani, yet Rudy will be in the debate Saturday and Paul won’t?
Fuck you, FOX.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:53 AM
@mmonast: I saw Obama and got to meet him here at an appearance in Des Moines–his talk and meeting him personally had a tremendously powerful effect on me (my wife calls it my man-crush); I haven’t been that energized about a candidate, well…ever, I guess. I think he’s the real deal. Specific policies are important, but what I look for are quaslities: intelligence, compassion, ability to see multiple perspectives on an issue (sadly lacking these days), someone who just “gets it.” I saw that with Obama, and I think it will be interesting to follow his progress this election season–there were a LOT of first-time voters (not just young ones, either) at my caucus last night, and they were all there for Obama. I think he’s got a lot of appeal and top-notch organization.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:59 AM
@prof
im 25 and havent had an opportunity to vote in many elections (although everyone i have been old enough to vote for, i have) i just remember last time with kerry not being enthused but wanted bush out…this time it is different…i actually feel something for this guy, like i feel he is the one to fix whats ales us. from what i read, and the times i have heard him speak on tv, i really like where this guy is going
i will see him live if/when he comes to cleveland
January 4th, 2008 at 11:01 AM
TugnuttsFiveHole – there was another guy who won the new voters and young voters. It was here in Minnesota. Jesse “the Body” Ventura.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:02 AM
@ mmonast-
Good deal–it’s always better to vote *for* something, rather, than just against whomever’s already there. That’s why I like Obama, too. I can actually get enthusiatic about a candidate. I hope you get to see him live; he’s an impressive dude.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:04 AM
@ Chelsea
Hillary experienced? I heard a pretty good metaphor last night about her. It goes something like this…
Brett Favre’s wife is going to suit up for him in the playoffs, but its okay she has been with him while playing for 13 years, so she knows what she is doing.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:08 AM
TBL, I know your site would be characterized as a sports blog, but I appreciate you bringing up the caucuses and the upcoming election in general. I think this year’s election is important enough to be talked about even in non-politcal forums.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:10 AM
@ sportsgal i agree…i like the economics and political stuff you post, along with the sports
@prof i hope i get the chance
January 4th, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Oh boy, more people crowing about what a “nice” guy Obama is, and how he’s such a great “speaker,” and how he’s such an agent for “change” — the guy has zero experience, wants to invade Pakistan (but get out of Iraq! quick!), wants to socialize Health Care, and raise taxes. And yet . . . all this probably still make him the “best” DEM candidate. Yikes. Oh, and all you paranoid about the “religious right” (boo!) might want to take a look into the Church Mr Obama professes faith to. But hey – he’s a good public speaker!
January 4th, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Has anyone noticed that in the latest Total Gym ads, Chuck looks sort of skinny and has a high-pitched voice?
That said, Chuck Norris doesn’t screw anyone–he unzips his pants, and the world turns.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Im pretty much in the middle of this whole debate, I’ve done research on candidates and I’m still undecided but…
one thing I wanted to point out is that a “national health care plan” similar to that of say Canada is a terrible idea. Anyone I’ve ever known from Canada does not like how things work there with their system and they tell you about monthly hospital quotas, hours and hours of waiting in emergency rooms, and numerous other things that I do not want to be apart of.
I realize that these are “stories” from friends/acquaintances but I’d guess if you do any research on a national health care system, you probably won’t find any of this. Take it for what its worth I guess.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:25 AM
@die_eagles_die
Hillary plays up her experience as a reason to support her. You can disagree with that, but that has been her campaign theme and that is why I put her in that catagory.
Seems like she now wants to be considered a “change” candidate, but how can anybody take that seriously? She voted to authorize the war and has been in Washington the better part of 15 years. She *is* the establishment, she is *not* a candidate for change.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:26 AM
chuck norris can kill two stones with one bird
January 4th, 2008 at 11:29 AM
@Mike: I have to look into the “Black Value System” but at first glance, those beliefs seem great actually. Support education, support the community, support family, support work ethic. I fail to see what the problem with those values are. Again, I have to look into it closer, but that seems just fine to me.
@phatjohnsn: the Obama plan, as I understand it, is just about providing medical insurance, not revamping the hospital system. Children would have to be covered and children can stay on their parents plans until 25 (which would have been nice for me).
It’s stuff along those lines, not socializing medicine as a whole. So, not Canadian
January 4th, 2008 at 11:31 AM
@phat i have heard those stories as well, but all i can really say is at least they are covered, maybe those logjams and shortcomings can be worked out, or America can have their own system. i just feel people shpould have some coverage.
@mike nyc me and obama agree on most of my major issues so ya im gonna get excited about him. and in re to the religious right they are the ones telling me what to believe, what i can and cant listen to and watch…just sick of religion and state mixing
sick of it
i really believe that obama is the one candidate republicans really fear…they guy who can motivate people to care about politics, and get people to actually believe politicians. get people motivated for change, which is what we need
January 4th, 2008 at 11:39 AM
@ Mike NYC
Uhh… he is african american… right?
January 4th, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Religion won Iowa for huckabee but he will end up going down like a priest in a confessional.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Heaven forbid people get excited about a guy who can speak in public without sounding like a total fucking idiot! (hello Bush!) Just because Obama has little experience in Washington doesn’t mean the guy isn’t smart or can’t come up with a viable plan for the problems plaguing this country.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I agree with sportsgal116. He does not have ZERO experience. He has very little Washtington experience. There is a difference and that difference is one of the big reasons he won last night. People are sick of the way Washington is run and want a big change.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I agree completely. Let me pose this question to everyone: If Huckabee were atheist, or a Buddhist, would he have won yesterday?
The answer is no. And thus proving the incompetence of our nation. We fuel these candidates to have a religious platform when it’s of no importance to being a good president and has no place in the Oval Office. A president can certainly be Baptist or of any religion, but that’s not why he should win.
Grr. I’m sick of us extolling religiousness. It’s an overrated virtue in this country.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:54 AM
@BottomlessChips: But how else are we going to know if God’s on our side? It’s not like we have the Ark of the Covenant or someth….wait a minute! Let’s get it out of storage in that giant room. We’ll get Harrison Ford to show us how to use it and we’ll be all set.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:00 PM
So if Rudy’s faith expressed: “commitment to the white community,” “commitment to the white family,” “adherence to the white work ethic,” “pledge to allocate regularly, a portion of personal resources for strengthening and supporting white institutions,” and a “personal commitment to embracement of the white value system,” — then nobody would have a problem with it in the least? Please.
Chips you are assuming people voted for Huckabee because of his religion. If you want to make that assumption, then fine. But it’s sort of like saying that people voted for Obama because he is black. (And no, I’d never dream of voting for Huckabee).
January 4th, 2008 at 12:04 PM
If you think healthcare is not a major issue check this
January 4th, 2008 at 12:05 PM
here
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif
January 4th, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Mike, there’s a difference between saying white and black that both exists in connotation and in reality. Connotation, cries for white values and white community has often been the rallying cry of people who support treating other races inferiorly (to put it mildly. Sometimes they support far worse treatment).
The other difference is that whites are the group in power in America. They don’t need extra support and by promoting the white community, there’s a real promotion of preventing others from challenging white control. Also, white values are the default in America as a result of this power. They don’t explicitly need to be mentioned as being white. That’s why when someone mentions “white values” it starts carrying a much different connotation.
Obama’s church’s beliefs are no more radical or frightening that Whitlock’s. Blacks should fix their problems themselves is the basis of the values listed. Do it by promoting family and education. I support that ideal.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Mike NYC,
So, if Huckabee were atheist, or a Buddhist, would he have won yesterday?
In your opinion, of course.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Sportsgal-I agree with every comment you have made on this thread.
Mike NYC-I disagree with every comment you have made on this thread.
TBL-I love a little of the non-sports stuff too. You’re welcome for the Chuck Norris pic.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:36 PM
For a pretty good ongoing analysis of the race for each candidate, Chris Cillizza of the WashingtonPost.com has a blog called ‘The Fix’ and it’s very good and about as unbiased as you can get outside of Stuart Rothenberg or Charlie Cook (their opinions only come with expensive subscriptions).
One thing that has been overlooked a little is that this is the first election cycle since probably 1984 in which no major candidate has any real military experience and that military experience, or lack thereof, has not become an issue. Food for thought considering how badly John Kerry’s campaign was sidetracked in 2004 by questions about his Vietnam service and subsequent actions with a Veterans for Peace group.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:49 PM
The smear campaign on Kerry and its success still baffles me. And I didn’t even like Kerry.
Here’s a thought: You have our Generals who condemn our fast-moving, first-strike policies because no academic, West-Point teachings could ever promote the Bush Doctrine. Then you have the neocons and GOP candidates who are so gung-ho about Iran and doubling Gitmo (hello, Mitt!) while none of them have served. (sans Paul and McCain) And those same people who skipped out on war 5+ times (Cheney and Bush) are the ones implementing this militaristic policy, and there’s a class of future Cheneys and Bushs waiting in the wings. (Huck, Romney, Thompson)
January 4th, 2008 at 12:52 PM
By “main,” I suppose they exclude McCain.
Unfortunately, the good and ugly sides of race and sex will be played up in this elections, which detracts from the true political effectiveness of the candidates. It seems like this election, more than ever, will be about the candidates personality and background versus politics. People shouldn’t vote for or against someone because of their race or sex, but it is going to happen.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:58 PM
it takes Chuck Norris 20 minutes to watch 60 minutes
January 4th, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Making religon a requirement to hold public office is unconstitutional. It is expressly described in Article VI of the Constitution – “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
January 4th, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Yes die_eagles_die I was excluding McCain because, while is the only major candidate with military experience, it has not been a front and center issue like it was in ‘04 between Kerry and Bush (Kerry’s experience, Bush’s lack of experience). I exclude Ron Paul becuase anyone who says he is a major candidate is kidding themselves.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:03 PM
If only more Americans read the Constitution instead of Us Weekly.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:06 PM
According the only voting we’ve had thus far, Paul did get 10%, more than Rudy. we can debate the strategies of Rudy’s campaign, but it’s irrefutable that Paul had more than 2 times the support in the only primary thus far.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:15 PM
And Bill Clinton didn’t win the Iowa Caucus OR the New Hampshire primary in 1992 Chips, but he still won the presidency. It is irrefutable that Ron Paul got twice the votes of Rudy, but it’s precisely BECAUSE of Rudy’s lack of Iowa organization he did so poorly. Iowa, unlike other primary states (note that is a Caucus and not a Primary) is more about organization than anything else. To paraphrase Chris Rock: You will never see Ron Paul as President. When you were growing up, you were taught to ‘never say never’, well I’m saying Never. The way politicians win elections in this country is by holding your base of support and then winning as much of the middle ground as possible (i.e. Independents). Ron Paul can’t even consolidate a Republican base, let alone appeal to Independents. Paul is the type of candidate that people hear about and think it’s cool and appealing to ’support’ him, but upon close inspection of his politics, realize he is pretty far out there in the mist. This is similar to Howard Dean’s levels or support prior to the Iowa Caucus in 2004 where he promptly fell flat on his face. Mark my words, Iowa will be the high water mark for Ron Paul.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:20 PM
I’m not saying, ms621, that I think Paul will win or finish second in future primaries. But he was never given a fair shake by the mainstream media, which is what influences our top 3 in each party going into primaries.
But to be clear, yeah, I’m crazy; Ron Paul won’t win.
And I disagree with Iowa being his high water mark: New Hampshire could be better for Paul than Iowa. Ten percent in Iowa, and I think 10-15% is possible in NH for Dr. Paul. He’s polling at 7-10% right now with the margin of error, so 10+ is possible.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Ron Paul raised nearly $20 million in the fourth quarter of 2007 alone. The MSM notwithstanding, don’t count Paul out just yet…
January 4th, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I do agree with you about the media’s coverage of candidates Chips. Not much we can do about that. Newspapers do a better job of covering most of the candidates, but Ron Paul or Mike Gravel will ever get the same coverage as a Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton.
We will see in New Hampshire. New England states like New Hampshire and Vermont due to like candidates that are more Independent of the party establishment (which explains McCain’s stunning win in New Hampshire in 2000), so I will take back what I said about Iowa being his high water mark. But I really don’t expect him to still be drawing those kinds of numbers by Super Tuesday. He’s claimed he won’t go off and run a his campaign as an independent once it appears he won’t get the nomination, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did just that.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Don’t give me “experience” as a reason not to vote for Obama. Seven of our last eight presidents were elected following Govenorships. I would argue that Obama’s service, while rather brief, in both the state legislature and US Senate shows that he is more than capable of leading our country in the right direction. It is what he has shown in his relatively brief stint in politics that gets people so excited about his candidacy. It’s his ability to work in a bi-partisan manner with his collegues, as he did in passing health care reform in Illinois. It’s his genuine concern for the well-being of all citizens, not just those that happen to belong to the same political party as himself. It’s his ability to bring a refeshing new attitude to the increasingly fickle, trivial culture that has infected Washington.
The President is not the nation’s chief legislator. That’s the House and Senate’s job. The President can help guide them in the right direction, but it is ultimately up to the legislative branch to introduce legislation. It’s the President’s job to see that both Democrats and GOP can come together to serve the common good, not just get themselves reelected. That’s why Obama, regardless of his “lack of experience” is the right man for the job. He’s not the man to say you’re either with us or against us. He’s the inclusive candidate, looking out for our good whether we are DEM or GOP.
And you may be scoffing at me now, and there’s many who are resonably not convinced that his bi-partianship will continue once in office. And you’re skeptical. But why is that? It’s because we’ve become a nation of skeptics, in part because of the current nature of politics. We’ve lived through unkept campaign promises, White House scandals, and partisan bickering over who’s side will get more coin. Our last two presidents have each looked us in the eye and blantantly lied to us. In fact, one could argue that the last great political accomplishment we have had as a country was the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
But I will vote for Obama because I have hope. Hope that we can get away from a culture where the news you recieve is based upon your political affliation. Hope that we can get away from our nation’s unilateral policies, both domestic and foreign, and engage in more multilateral discussion. Leaders aren’t defined by their resumes but by their intangible attributes. It’s a person’s character that directs their actions, not the other way around.
I chose to beileve that our country has another man in the mold of Lincoln, another FDR left in us. That man is Barack Obama. Please vote.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:29 PM
I absolutely mangled that first sentence. It should have said “New England States like New Hampshire and Vermont do tend to like candidates….”
It happens when you think faster than you type.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Obama/Richardson ticket looks promising…
January 4th, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Quin- you like Obama because he tried coke.
Besides that, I love the “hope” reference. His speech last night about hope was amazing.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:44 PM
And you can bet Obama didn’t even right that speech. Obama is not going to the president. His wife looks like a swamp creature and when it comes time to really vote, America is not going to vote for someone with a swamp thing wife. You have to look first lady-esque and she doesn’t. People laughed at me 8 years ago when I said the same thing about Teressa Ketch-up. People might not think about it but I believe it plays into their minds, unknowingly.
BTW who is Tony Little endorsing?
Probably Kucinich.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:50 PM
He didn’t “right” that speech…
Lot of class refering to his wife as a “swamp creature.”
January 4th, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Or…she looks like a normal person. She’s at least as good looking/well dressed as Hilary Clinton and Bill won just fine.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Dornoch, Teresa Heinz-Kerry was nearly the First Lady FOUR years ago, not 8.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:15 PM
A steady stop on my blogroll summed it up best:
http://blog.buckeyepayroll.com/wordpress/?p=1048
And I have to agree with him. Not to get all cliche and shit, but he is a breath of fresh air!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Sorry, I meant four years ago. And yes I meant write, not right.
Lots of class naming yourself Quinn Snyder coke binge. Jesus.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:26 PM
It’s just refreshing to see people genuinly excited about a presidential candidate like Obama. Maybe more people will vote, but I doubt it. Hopefully there will be legislation that will get improve the electoral college and modernize it.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:44 PM
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Oklahoma
January 4th, 2008 at 3:01 PM
After taking a steroids test doctors informed Chuck Norris that he had tested positive. He laughed upon receiving this information, and said “of course my urine tested positive, what do you think they make steroids from?”
January 4th, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Quin- If you read most of Dornob’s post you will realize he is and always will be classless.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:38 PM
It is a daily occurence on this blog to break down the pluses and minuses of hollywood starlets and 240 shorties like Lisa Lampenelli. But it is classless to say something about Barack Obama’s wife? Why is that? Why does nobody care if someone says some ASU cheerleader looks like Mr. Ed but Obama’s wife is off limits?
Cripes, if you are looking for class I think you are in the wrong place. I don’t think TBL is classless but I hardly think this site oozes class and if talking about women in a negative light is classless, lets be consistent and start calling out everyone who does it.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:45 PM
You said Kim Kardashian is ugly and shouldn’t be put on this site.
How can we take your posts seriously???
January 4th, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I was writing to Doornob.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:24 PM
What’s the most comments ever on a post on this site?
January 4th, 2008 at 4:27 PM
To be honest, I’d take your position as class police a lot more seriously if you could do it without name calling.
I don’t think Obama’s wife look first lady-esque. Not sure what the problem is with that. If it went too far and it offended someone, like I said, someone is on the wrong site.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:11 PM
So you would not support Obama because his wife looks like a swamp creature? Awesome.
Is the same posh swamp where the Katrina displaced residents are now living? Otherwise known as the Astrodome.
Just ask that wonderful, hot, non swamp looking first lady Barbara Bush.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Brave, I’m not sure but this is the first time I’ve ever gone back a page strictly to see the discussion, and this post make me (I think) 105.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Here’s why my initial reaction was “classless:” There were 80 some reasonably intelligent posts on the upcoming election. You open by randomly saying Obama didn’t write his speech, which is completely moronic since Obama has written two best selling books and is considered one of the most eloquent candidates we’ve had in sometime. So now we know you obviously don’t know shit about the candidates. Plus, you look like a fool because you used “right” instead of “write”. So it’s obvious that you probably, and hopefully, can’t vote yet. Then from the content of your post and the fact that you hadn’t commented on the post earlier, it seemed like you just typed the first random thing you thought would be funny about Obama. Except there’s nothing funny about referring to the potential first ever African American first lady as a “swamp creature.” That comes across as ignorant and can be taken to be racist. There’s no need to randomly comment on shit you don’t know about, or have an equally ignorant take on.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Quin, everyone has speech writers. Maybe he wrote that speech, but it’s more likely he either wrote a rough draft and had someone flesh it out or picked a theme and had them expand it. Doesn’t change the fact that he’s pretty damn good at speaking.
dornoch:
I just disliked the attack on the wife because it’s irrelevant to the discussion. With the starlets and cheerleaders, they’re on the site for their looks (occassionally for a movie discussion or for legal trouble). Thus, the discussion of their looks, while chauvenistic and meanspirited at least corresponds with the reason there’s a post about them (hell, even why they’re in the positions they’re in). Obama’s wife’s looks have nothing to do with whether she’d be a good first lady or not. that’s what annoyed me about the comment.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said a thing about who I would or wouldn’t support or why. I was making a general observation. I probably jumped ahead because it all depends on who Obama is running against. If it is Rudy I think Obama actually wins the first lady battle because this is like Rudy’s fourth wife.
I just look back at the last election which was very close and I think the difference between Laura Bush and Teressa Heinz was/is enough to swing an election. I would bet anything that Laura Bush influenced more swing voters than Heinz. I actually have not seen all the potential first ladies (except Bubba and a few others) but I honestly think Obama will have a better chance if the Republicans choice doesn’t appear wholesome or just has that non first lady look. He would pick up some major points against Rudy in that regard. But then again so would most of the dems.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:41 PM
B-A-C-K-P-E-D-D-L-E
Dornob: Normally you stick with your ridiculous point of view.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:45 PM
BraveSr, I didn’t speak about her first lady ability, it is her first lady look. Sorry, I think it matters and I am talking about the general public, not myself. I look beyond what the first lady’s look is. But I think a lot of people, mainly women do look at the first lady and let it play into their decisions. But like I said it does depend on the candidates. Maybe Heinz-Kerry would have been a great first lady, I doubt it but maybe. But during the election she didn’t seem like one. She didn’t seem to have a lot of support for her husband and she didn’t look the part. None of it was really questioned at the time but I think it just kind of plays into people’s minds.
I can refrain from making fun of people like Obama’s wife if it is going to cause a stir. Wasn’t my intention. With all the other crap that gets said about women I really didn’t think it would be an issue.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:48 PM
While candidates looks do often factor into people’s decisions they are not the be all, end all for 99.8% of voting Americans. And how a candidate’s wife looks is usually even less of a factor. That’s not to say it doesn’t matter at all. Some voters admitted that Teresa Heinz-Kerry seemed rich and imperious in her appearance and they disliked that about her and that in turn did affect in part their voting decisions. But let’s not overstate the case, Kerry lost because he let himself get hamstrung for two months by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, not becuase of his wife’s appearance.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:55 PM
There is NO FUCKING WAY the potential first lady’s looks can/will/did swing an election. You’re telling me the state of Ohio chose President Bush over Kerry in the last election because Laura Bush is better looking? I mean, I think OSU fans are douche bags, but that doesn’t mean I think every registered voter in Ohio is stupid enough to vote for a candidate based on his wife’s looks.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Oh, and another thing, I don’t think Obama’s wife looks anything like a swamp creature, but I do think Elisha Cuthbert doesn’t look as good as she used to, and Christina Milan looks hot in a bathing suit.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I’m not sure if you’re referring to me or to Dornoch, but all I was saying was that for SOME people the looks of a candidate or even that candidate’s spouse does in fact form a small part of how they formed an opinion of that candidate. That’s not to say that they didn’t include stances on abortion, tax cuts, etc as well. I don’t think anyone here is saying that a candidate’s appearance or his wife’s appearance actually swung any votes, anywhere.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Looks mean a lot in politics, and they have ever since Kennedy. Personally I think that Bill would make a better looking first lady than Mrs. Obama, but whatever.
@ Quin…You apparently have some extreme attraction to Obama. To say that he did in fact write his speech is almost as naive as the points you criticize Dornoch for. I don’t want to hear BS about passion and character making a candidate. I want a candidate that can do the job. The character doesn’t make the actions. It is the actions in the past that build character, and Obama has hardly done anything. Yes he has done some good acts, but he is not ready for the position. He seems like he would be better served in congress, not as the Commander in Chief. Honestly I think that your blind arrogance for Obama has and will cloud your ability to objectively judge his past actions, and future potential.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Everyone is entitled to their opinion in choosing a candidate, but to say Obama has “hardly done anything” is a complete and utter lie. He has served in the U.S. senate for two years, but he served on the Illinois senate for eight years and sponsored over 800 bills. His state voting record reflects the same ideals he’s presenting to the rest of America in his run for the presidency – universal health care coverage, support of stem cell research and abortion rights, banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, etc. I don’t see how his “inexperience” makes him any less capable of being President when his voting record in both the sate senate and U.S. senate is practically identical.
You’ve said Obama’s not ready to be President and his wife is ugly, who do you support? Who do you think can do a better job and why?
January 4th, 2008 at 7:32 PM
@ Die Eagles:
There’s nothing “blind” about my supporting Obama. I’ve read his books, heard him speak, and compared him with other candidates. I then made an intelligent decision, as hopefully most voters will do.
You on the other hand appear to be a deeply entrenched GOP supporter. And now that you aren’t quite aware of the issues or knowledgeable about the candidates, you then start attacking superficial features. This is precisely the type of partisan bickering and mudslinging that has plagued politics. You claim that only people vote for Obama because he is a young face. You claim he doesn’t have experience necessary. Gimme a break. Name your candidate and I’ll tell you why Obama is the better choice. It’s easy to criticize without providing a better alternative.
As far as “hardly done anything:” He voted against the war from the beginning, in one of his early votes in the Senate. That seems like good decision making to me.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:33 PM
@ Quin and Sportsgal (although I have agreed with many of your points, you addressed me, so I must address you.) Obama also voted FOR the large wall to ban Mexicans from crossing the border. As for the vote against the war. I hardly call it being bipartisan when most of congress voted for the war, and you vote against it. I don’t fault anyone that voted for the war. Most of the country felt that was the correct decision at the time. Obviously, you are an Obama supporter, so will only point out his positives, but shy away from his flaws. Obama wouldn’t have won the Illinios Senate unless he had the FOP vote, which he got by changing his stance radically. The largest politics he has actually shown, is a push for Ethal alcohol, and an eternal backing of the police force.
Every politician has their flaws. I am not forced to make a decision at this time anyway. If I had to pick my favorite candidate, it would be Biden, but I am well aware of his flaws, and his inability to win this election. I like how you prejudge me, and list me as a staunch GOP supporter because I don’t like Obama. I just find it amusing how you criticize the opinions of others, but cannot handle it when someone criticizes you.