Lisabob Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Well ok since this is the issues and POLITICS section, hey, what about the Iowa results? Last I checked, the numbers looked like this: Democrats: Obama (38%), Edwards (30%), Clinton (29%), Richardson (2%), Biden (1%), Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich (0%). Biden and Dodd have since said they'll drop out of the race. Republicans: Huckabee (34%), Romney (25%), Thompson and McCain (13%), Paul (10%), Guiliani (4%), Hunter (1%). We're about to move on to New Hampshire, South Carolina , Michigan (sort of - not really for Democrats), and Nevada. Whadda ya all think of these folks now, especially if you're in one of the upcoming states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Winger Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Ross Perot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 What scares me is that most voters will vote not on the issues, but on intangibles or on "what will he/she give me". My 75 yo MIL just stated that she would vote for Edwards because he's "pretty". Others will vote for Hillary because she's a woman or because she will provide the most govt handouts. Others will vote for Obama because they like Oprah. My impression: McCain: Most qualified to handle today's issues, but maybe too hawkish. Obama: Too inexperienced ... not ready for the No 1 job. Hillary: No track record of accomplishments...Bill will probably be the shadow President if he can keep his pants zipped. Huckabee: Capable, but not sure we want a cleric as head of state. Paul: Not very "presidential", but I agree with his Libertarian ideas. But now is not the time. Romney: Stuffed shirt...too plastic. He's done. Giuliani: Done. The others never had a fighting chance and just wasted our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwd-scouter Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 This is the first time during an election cycle that I spent time watching (or even paying attention to) the Iowa Caucus. Watched both Republican and Democrat candidates' speeches, even watched the "lesser known" candidate debate. I took vacation from work from Christmas to New Year's and got hooked on politics. What fun! Since I live in South Carolina, guess I'll be paying attention during the primaries here. I am still undecided on a candidate, but I'm not surprised at the results from Iowa, although I really didn't think Ron Paul would do better than Guiliani, except of course that Guiliani didn't do much (any?) campaigning in Iowa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 The abuurd thing is, the pool of candidates starts to dwindle long before half the country gets to indicate support for them. What is the sense for having such small in population states dictate who will be on the ticket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwd-scouter Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 OGE: interesting that you bring that up. Was listening to some of the call ins to CSPAN last night. One guy, I don't remember what state he lives in, called in to say "I don't mean to be disrespectful, but why should a bunch of sod-busters get to decide who the next President will be." I'd hate to hear what he has to say when he IS being disrespectful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Goes to show you that if you are not "for" ethanol, you'll never have a chance to get elected US President. As one late night comedian stated, if the first primary was held in Vermont, the candidates would be pro-maple syrup as the new savior energy source. scoutldr - We live a country that essentially has a two party system. I like McCain, however, he does not endear himself to the Republicans that control the party. Therefore, his chances of getting elected are greatly reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 As usual, my guy (Biden) didn't get squat and now he's out. Oh well, I'm going to have to work on that glass-half-full thing. Wonder who I can jinx next? I don't see Huckabee as having either the experience or personal presence to be a world leader. But he couldn't do worse than Bush. I could live with McCain. Another geezer in the whitehouse anyone? Paul is on some other planet. Romney is made of hollow plastic. Obama is inexperienced and naive but he learns quickly and could do it if he retained much of the current administration intact. TWAJBTW Clinton is divisive but I don't envy our adversaries if she gets it. Edwards is, well, I'm not sure...but he sure is pretty. Giuliani, I could live with as well. He's not out by any means. I have a morbid liking for his way of doing things...it's so....New York. I love NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raisinemright Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Historically, Iowa has only once predicted the eventual winner (Carter), so I'm not real sure how vitally important it was in the big picture. That said, it did do a little bit to winnow out the crowd. Watching the audiences, it was almost a given that Mrs. Clinton would fare poorly. It almost appeared as if her audiences were there under duress with little enthusiasm, unlike the Obama crowds. Given Clinton's propensity to lash out at others (See Emmett Tyrell's book "the Clinton Crack-up") Obama better hire additional security and some food tasters. Her campaign manager promised last night that they were going supremely negative on Obama. If it goes according to my plan, Hillary takes both Obama and herself down leaving it to a fight between silky pony and Richardson. On the Republican side, I'm leaning heavily toward Fred Thompson as the only true and tried conservative in the bunch although Romney or McCain would be acceptable, but with great reservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutDadof5 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Being a resident of Iowa, All I have to say is that perhaps our phones and doorbells will stop ringing now for a while!!! It is amazing the number of call, mail, and people stopping by regarding the different candidates. I was not aware that the R's and D's caucus and count votes differently either. I do now. The R's offer a true vote. The D's funnel things to delegates and the delegates vote...kinda like the electorial college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Michigan (sort of - not really for Democrats) Huh? Did I miss somethin'? What's goin' on over there in Michigan? They doin' caucuses for Democrats but a primary for Republicans or something? (that was really interesting on the Iowa caucuses. Interestin' that it's the Republicans who were more democratic ). I confess I'm havin' a hard time getting excited about anybody in this race. I do sorta like the quixotic libertarian off-planet appeal of Ron Paul. He ain't plastic, and it's just fascinatin' that he has such a young following. There was even a Ron Paul Rally in the World of Warcraft online universe! A bunch of dwarves and elves and wizards and such marching through dungeons for Ron Paul. Gotta love it. I've always felt that young people really appreciate honesty more than us old-timers. Right now, I'm thinkin' Bloomberg. That NY feel for packsaddle, without either Rudy's or Hillary's baggage. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I think Huckabees meteoric rise might scare enough traditional Republicans to boost McCain. Romney will keep sliding. On the other side, I suspect Clinton will come back at Obama with both barrels but Edwards is too nice a guy to rise above second place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Bloomberg...hmmm. Rich. Jew. Businessman. Philanthropist. Eagle Scout. NY-ness. Maybe. But I think he's too far behind the curve, and hasn't got the momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raisinemright Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Hillary is effectively the only D running in Michigan. The Democrat party told the states that no one could have a primary earlier than NH. Michigan wanted to go early and ignored it so the Democrats said that they would not accept the Michigan delegates. Obama, Edwards etc. said that they didn't want to be on the ballott. re: Ron Paul, he's pretty scary. Yesterday on the radio, someone asked him if as President he knew of a shipment of nuclear missiles en route from North Korea to Iran, what would he do. He flat out answered "Nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Beavah, you read my mind regarding Bloomberg. But what smart person would want to take over after the 8-year debacle we've unleashed in this administration? Raisinemright, thanks I almost forgot Fred Thompson. I found him on the web: http://www.cybertronical.com/allsites/starwars/main/aliens/boss_nass/nass.jpg His Hollywood experience is evidently greater than anyone thought.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now