2008 Primaries Thread

http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/d/drumming-emoticon-drum-kit.gif

I'd never sleep with Huck, thanks.

The more I see Obama speak the more I warm to Edwards. Obama says almost nothing but says it gracefully and sincerely, Edwards has much more substance but somehow I don't believe it when he says it.

*sigh* I agree; no matter what Edwards says he comes off as unctuous and douchey/ <trial lawyer,etc>

still going to support Obama...

(I feel unnervingly like my great-great aunt Mazelle who would likely vote for somebody if she liked his hair)

ILE, you sent a message today! A thread of change! On to AAD!

One aspect of this race that has not been given enough notice so far: Obama and Huckabee and Edwards are easily the best public speakers in this race.

Yes! In the rush to pinpoint "big causes" and "sweeping narratives" to the Iowa results, a lot of people have forgotten the most simple, straightforward explanation: The two most charismatic candidates won. That shouldn't be so surprising. HRC has organization and smarts, but Obama moves people. Lots of GOP candidates have something going for them (to GOP voters, at least), but Huckabee sounds like he's talking to you, personally, with an intimacy that makes his rivals look amaturish by comparison.

Now, the best speakers -- the most charismatic figures -- don't always win the primaries. But it doesn't take tortured reasoning to see why these two candidates connected with voters so well in a state that highly values retail politics. We'll see how that plays on 02.05, when organization and money are more important (with so many big primaries taking place on the same day, there's no real way to effectively engage in "retail politics"; by that time, of course, both Obama and Hucakabee will be either the frontrunner or the co-frontrunner, so they'll have a chance to be at least competitive).

The biggest Repub. winner in Iowa last night is Rudy because he never planned to win Iowa anyway

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard a political commentator say. Astounding.

Yes! In the rush to pinpoint "big causes" and "sweeping narratives" to the Iowa results, a lot of people have forgotten the most simple, straightforward explanation: The two most charismatic candidates won. That shouldn't be so surprising. HRC has organization and smarts, but Obama moves people.

I've been saying it for months!

i cant understand rudy's logic in not campaigning in iowa

http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/the-political-brain.jpg http://www.aolcdn.com/ch_bv/hillary-clinton-howard-u-400a062907.jpg

That photo of the black navy guy is mega creepy. Is she trying to channel blackness?

i cant understand rudy's logic in not campaigning in iowa

He knew he wouldn't win there (or in the other early states). Some of HRC's advisors suggested, early on, that she shouldn't compete in Iowa, fearing that she'd do poorly there; obv., she rejected that advice.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard a political commentator say

Oops! I would like to point out that I was incorrect, he didn't say biggest winner he said biggest beneficiary. Anyway.

Rudy Time [Mark R. Levin]
The biggest beneficiary of the Huckabee win in Iowa is not Huckabee, it's Rudy. The biggest beneficiary of a McCain win in New Hampshire would be Rudy. Romney's strategy was to win Iowa and New Hampshire. He has now lost Iowa. R

did anyone see Biden's dropping-out speech? was he in a broom closet?

i cant understand rudy's logic in not campaigning in iowa

Pluses = save the money and time for a blitz of the other states & hopefully gain an early edge there

Minuses = lost early exposure + makes him look kind of like a loser

I wouldn't call it against him yet, and if he can't pull the nom I don't think Iowa will have been a significant factor.

he's just biden his time until veepstakes, xp

Not only did Rudy lose in Iowa, but he lost to Ron Paul in Iowa. Rough.

Fallows:

And Bill Clinton!!! Who managed a wan smile but for seconds on end stood motionless, as if traumatized or stuffed. Better than anyone else in the country he must understand the situation. The young candidate with the sex appeal and the fun and the magic and the sense of the future and the opportunity to shed the old -- Clinton knows the advantages that candidate has. And he knows full well how feeble the appeals to "experience" and "ready from day one" and "competence and responsibility" were when they were issued sixteen years ago by a candidate who really was superbly prepared and experienced: the incumbent president, eight-year vice president, victorious war commander, former ambassador and CIA director George H. W. Bush.

nobody watched the dropout speeches because the coronation of obama was on

Interesting claim from Levin, speaking of him:

I am informed that Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich are helping Huckabee behind the scenes. Morris has been everywhere today promoting Huckabee.

Giuliani is probably dearly wishing he could've run for Pres in 06 (or even 04)

what will those guys do when hill loses the nom?

yeah I heard a bit of southern preacher in Obama's cadence last night - first time I've ever noticed it

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 4 January 2008 20:09 (24 minutes ago) Link

thats not new. he does it better than gore did! i guess people like it?

don't tell him he's got no claim on selma alabama

xp - Morris: toe sucking

lolz @ imagining Bill having to tell Hillary she's not sexy/appealling enough

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSXnQkqYqA4

^^common freestyling at obama's church on nye

ugh I hate Common

one of my (ex)coworkers saw him when she was getting breakfast at some local restaurant the other day.

Oh Powerline, you are to be mocked:

How is it that mainstream conservatives find themselves on the verge of having no viable like-minded candidate early this year? The easy answer is to focus on the flaws of Romney and Thompson. Romney has only recently embraced conservative positions across-the-board. In addition, his religion probably hurts him and he seems to have difficulty connecting with voters. Thompson entered the race late and has failed to show the fire voters apparently are looking for.

But the deeper answer, I think, lies in the perception that Republicans haven't governed very well during the past seven years. If the Republican Congress had performed better in general and if President Bush had handled the war in Iraq better (or arguably if he hadn't launched it), one can easily imagine that George Allen (or perhaps Bill Frist) would be the frontrunner for the nomination right now. The perceived failures of Congress and of the president knocked both of these Senators out of the box, and Bush's lack of popularity has Republicans flirting with non-traditional Republican options.

There's irony here because I would argue that the flaws of the Republican Congress and of the Bush presidency don't stem from adherence to conservative principles. But life is unfair. I've long suspected that the Republican party (which is synonymous in large segments of "the public mind" with "conservative") isn't perceived as having performed well enough to elect a mainstream conservative president this year. It may turn out that it isn't viewed as having performed well enough even to nominate a mainstream conservative.

Because it's all about perception, don't you see.

perception perception perception perception perception perception

i don't get how those guys can be so constantly, perfectly out to lunch. don't they run banks and shit in real life? nothing on that blog ever has a whiff of reality in it.

Coke up Fred Thompson and we've got a horserace.

http://soundboard.com/memberphoto/974211149974389.jpg

george allen knocked himself out the box, he didn't need any help from the perception of congress

http://www.sustland.umn.edu/design/images/colortechniques1.jpg

yah you know i was thinking abt thompson last night and how everyone was trying to hand him the gop nomination on a platter but he just couldnt be bothered to reach out and accept it wtf

did you guys see huckabee on leno? dude is so likeable

no news -- he's charmed the pants off jon stewart for at least a couple of years now (not very difficult, granted)

what will those guys do when hill loses the nom?

Ready their sights on Obama (e.g., "His middle name is Hussain!"; "He went to a muslim jihadist school!"; "He refused to take the oath on a Bible!" "He's a covert Islamofacsist!").

I am informed that Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich are helping Huckabee behind the scenes.

On the one hand, it helps Huckabee to have experienced stategists guiding him now that he's a frontrunner. On the other hand, I don't think guys like Dick Morris and Ed Rollins really mesh well with Huckabee's style. We'll see. . .

The biggest beneficiary of a McCain win in New Hampshire would be Rudy.

This is stupid, too. It assumes that Giuliani's only obstacle to the nomination is Romney, which is now very stale thinking. If McCain wins N.H., he'll become a viable "Nat'l Security GOP" alternative to Huckabee. At that point, what's the basis for Giuliani's candidacy vis-a-vis McCain? That McCain isn't hawkish enough? That Giuliani better mixes nat'l security bona fides with pandering to social conservatives? Neither of those -- or any other rationales I can think of (at the moment -- make sense.

I kind of disagree with that color wheel.

Ready their sights on Obama

dude never revealed their toe-sucking to the world or pwned them in govt-shutdown-showdown

dude never revealed their toe-sucking to the world or pwned them in govt-shutdown-showdown

Wha?

i think in idexed color myself

Contrary to what some bozo erroneously wrote, Giuliani didn’t skip Iowa from the get go. He stopped campaigning there to save him the embarrassment of putting in a fight and losing. Now at least he suffered a spinnable defeat. He has been through worse. 9/11 anyone?

Gingrich has been smart about anti-establishment strategy for the past few years, seems like a good match for Huckabee.

Contrary to what some bozo erroneously wrote, Giuliani didn’t skip Iowa from the get go. He stopped campaigning there to save him the embarrassment of putting in a fight and losing. Now at least he suffered a spinnable defeat. He has been through worse. 9/11 anyone?

-- Jeb

Is this Jeb Bush?

Gingrich has been smart about anti-establishment strategy for the past few years, seems like a good match for Huckabee.

That -- among other things -- is why I didn't mention him in my post. Gingrich is a good match for Huckabee as an advisor, in many ways.

Is this Jeb Bush?

lol

xxxxxxxpost

The GOP woes come in part from the fact that their coalition involves gumming together interests that can't hold for very long. Hardcore evangelicals will no longer tolerate someone who merely pays lip service to evangelical social principals in order to advance "true conservative principals." Huckabee's success suggests that they may not even like those "true conservative principals" much.

Also I thing the GOP has created a monster it can't control with the immigration issue.

Hardcore evangelicals will no longer tolerate someone who merely pays lip service to evangelical social principals in order to advance "true conservative principals." Huckabee's success suggests that they may not even like those "true conservative principals" much.

I don't know about that. At the moment, there's no acceptable evengelical alternative to Huckabee (an alternative that might, for instance, be less populist and more economically conservative), so it's hard to test that theory.

ARG Poll on New Hampshire, taken before the Iowa Caucus:

Democrats:
Clinton 35% (+4)
Obama 31% (+4)
Edwards 15% (-6)
Richardson 5% (+0)

Republicans:
McCain 35% (+5)
Romney 25% (-5)
Huckabee 12% (+1)
Paul 9% (+2)
Giuliani 8% (-1)

and Zogby's NH Poll, also taken before Iowa:

Democrats:
Clinton 32%
Obama 26%
Edwards 20%
Richardson 7%

Republicans:
McCain 34%
Romney 30%
Huckabee 10%
Giuliani 9%
Paul 7%