posted
Here is an on the ground view of the Nevada election. The Union endorsements will be important only in Clark County (Las Vegas) The Unions in the North, Washoe County, (Reno) are backing Edwards. But, no one (including union members) has noticed. In Vegas it is not uncommon to change things to allow the casino workers to participate. The Nevada National Guard had one Armor company that drilled mid-week, so they could recruit casino workers who couldn't drill on weekends and keep their day job. The Culinary Workers Union has image(ethics) problems similar to the old Hoffa era Teamsters. Opposition to special caucus' for them would be questioned by the Teachers even without their support for Obama. With it, it guaranteed a challange. Obama has more people on the ground. Calls to my phone run about 20 to one from his supporters. Mostly, this whole process is such an unknown thing, (It is the first one ever.) that no one knows how to call it. EDIT: Oh, by the way I haven't seen any support from the Teachers in our county for Clinton or anyone else. I'll let you know if there is after the meeting on Saturday.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now from the other side of the isle, Republicans did have a really iccky push pole this week. I don't know why they called me, I've always had a big D on my voter card. But, the main question was something like this: "Does it upset you the Senator Harry Ried has proposed that we abandon our troops in the mid-east to be destroyed by the savage Al Qaeda terrorists?" I thought it was a reader, but when I answered, a tape said "please answer yes or no!" The next question was "Does it upset you that all of the Republican Presidential candadates, except Governor Huckabee are supporting Senator Harry Reid in his decision to abandon our troops?" I guess it even made the Republicans mad, because the state party is looking at suing the sponsor. And the Huckabee campaign is denying that they knew anything about it.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the CNN Political Ticker is getting defensive today. A sampling of the article headlines: Bill Clinton Gets Heated with Reporter Romney Loses Cool with Reporter Edwards Takes Aim at Media
posted
lol yeah I saw that. I thought either CNN was getting defensive, or the candidates are all moody today.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was appalled at how many violent crimes with no other interest angle CNN keeps on their front page. I mean, that Marine story I can possibly see, where there is an ongoing manhunt. But a lot of it is just bleeding leads.
But then, I hardly read news normally so I guess I'm not desensitized.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just read this Economist article on the Western states' effect on the primaries. Among other things, the article mentioned how the large Hispanic population will negatively affect Obama's chances. What does Hatrack think? So far, the states who have voted don't have a sizable Hispanic population...
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He still has clout in the party, in the leadership, and on the Hill.
This is the first time I've heard his name in the news for quite some time, but, he hasn't been totally stripped bare by the indictment. You'd think Republicans would be used to it by now. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Just read this Economist article on the Western states' effect on the primaries. Among other things, the article mentioned how the large Hispanic population will negatively affect Obama's chances. What does Hatrack think? So far, the states who have voted don't have a sizable Hispanic population...
It's all going to depend on who actually shows up at the polls. Hispanic populations are large, but like the article says, not all of them can vote, and few of those who can actually do, especially in the primaries. I think whoever does the best job of shoehorning supporters into the voting booths will be the winner. Also keep in mind that, for the Democrats (other than Michigan, whose importance to the Democratic race is dubious) neither of the major contests have had ANY minority populations of anything approaching respectable size. I think the Hispanic vote will largely break for Hillary, even if based solely on racial tension between latinos and blacks (that'll go away in the General I think), but if she can't get them to the polls in decent numbers, then it won't matter.
Tomorrow is all about turnout.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:California's Latinos are frequently pitted against blacks in the zero-sum game of urban politics, which generates broader resentments.
Keep in mind that white women also compete with other minorities for the view out the glass ceiling. Maybe John Edwards will have a stronger showing. I wouldn't project him winning. I'm just not at all certain that against Obama = for Clinton.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Hispanics will tend to favor the Republicans--at least the Cuban exiles in Florida probably will, since Republicans were critical of the Clinton White House for giving Elian Gonzales back to his Cuban father. (Personally, I agree with the majority of Americans that this was the right thing to do, since his father was his only living parent, and politics is not a good enough reason to separate a child from his parent. But that is a past issue and moot point, since Elian is in Cuba now.)
Also many Republican candidates, especially from southern border states, have had close ties with hispanics. President Bush allegedly speaks Spanish, though probably not any better than he does English. Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not nationally Ron. Out west, where the Hispanic vote is most visibly felt, Hispanics have a small but specific list of wants, and the one that's bold, in italics, in size 48 font, is immigration. Right now Republicans are falling over themselves to look tough on it to pander to the base, basically ceding the Hispanic vote to the Democrats, who are largely staying silent, but when they DO speak up, it'll be far more measured. The only candidate from a southern border state is McCain, and he arguably has the best position from the Hispanic point of view on Hispanics, but a lot of people feel if he's nominated, a lot of Republicans won't vote for him anyway, so for everything he gains, he might lose. But in general, Hispanics, like most racial minorities, will go Democratic. Republicans have been pushing them away.
pooka -
White women won't be competing with latinos and blacks in anywhere near the same way as they compete against each other. They have different issues, or at least they focus and tend to vote on different issues. But white women tend to vary more on a state by state basis, whereas blacks and latinos tend to have the same issues across state lines. Racial and gender issues are two different birds.
Edwards, Edwards, Edwards. I'm having a hard time nailing down where exactly his support comes from. Seems to be sucking votes more away from Obama than Clinton, but Clinton is starting to hone in on specifics to help the middle class, where Obama is still talking about larger issues of change. That middle class issue is Edwards' bread and butter, so, if he were to drop out, it's hard to say where his support would go to, but, I think Clinton would get a bump too. He won't win Nevada, he doesn't have the resources to pump up turnout like he needs to, despite some smaller endorsements (virtually unnoted in the press).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nevada's been called for Romney on the Republican side. No news from the Dems yet, or from the Republicans in SC.
Oh, and wasn't somebody (pooka?) looking for state-by-state delegate allocation strategies? I found this link which pretty clearly explains the Republican delegate allocations. Haven't found one for the Dems yet. One point is that NY and FL allocate all-or-nothing, which is probably part of why Giuliani is still in this; a win in both those states locks up a huge number of delegates all at once.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both the AP and CNN are calling Nevada for Romney. Ron Paul and McCain are currently in a race for second place. A second place finish for Paul would be huge.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, here's the report from the middle of the desert. I just got back from our caucus. It was a mess. Someone decided all the Democrats in the County would meet in the same room. (The Republicans were all in the Elementary Cafeteria, and reports are that theirs was even more confused.) It's really not as bad as it sounds as this is a large county with no population. There were lots of kids (probably high school kids from Reno) there with Obama buttons and one older lady with Clinton stickers. There was no sign of any lobbying by teachers or any union. Our precinct had a grand total of 6 citizens, two kids and one alien. Our first canvass, as we stood arround a table, was 4 for Obama, one for Clinton and one undecided. Intrestingly enough, if Richardson had not dropped out, he would have been the first choice of all six. No one wanted to change their vote. The Nevada constitution calls for all tie votes in an election to be decided by drawing cards from a new deck. So the Undecided and I drew cards. I won 9 over 7. It's a good thing too. She has been working in my office all month. So, we are sending two delegates to the state for Obama and one for Clinton. Of course, Clark County is the only one that counts. But, for what it's worth thats what we did today.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone keeps talking about South Carolina for the Republicans, and there is no doubt it is big news historically. What I can't understand is the fact that Nevada has more deligates and almost all the Republicans are ignoring the state. Here is my prediction - The West is the new South and will become critical to the success of the candidates.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's weird: I didn't know Nevada has more delegates. Yet South Carolina has a larger population, according to the census bureau? What gives?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find interesting is that the news makes a big deal about Hilary winning and yet both Obama and Hilary get the the same amount of delegate. Also, Romney is according the to the news, Romney is just barely coming back, but by delegates, he has 3X as many as everyone else.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: That's weird: I didn't know Nevada has more delegates. Yet South Carolina has a larger population, according to the census bureau? What gives?
SC was docked half their delegates by the RNC for moving their primary up without authorization. So were Michigan, New Hampshire, Florida and Wyoming. Also, delegates aren't chosen strictly according to population; the bulk of the delegates (for the Republicans) are unelected and are awarded based on whether the state voted for the President in the last election, whether they have Republican Senators/Congresspersons, etc. Here's a link explaining the allocation.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SC also has this reputation as kingmaker, though it only goes back to 1980- but 1980 marked the birth of the religious right. The logic is that a SC goes, so goes the South. This is significant because in olden times, the South went democrat. But after the cultural revolution of the 60's, when democrats championed civil rights and became identified with women's lib, the bible belt came into play. I think the logic of SC is just that it is the birthplace of the confederacy, perhaps.
McCain had a larger lead over Huckabee than Clinton won NV by, but only 12% of precincts were reporting.
quote:Edwards, Edwards, Edwards. I'm having a hard time nailing down where exactly his support comes from
Union democrats who may not be ready to get behind a minority president. This bloc is very vulnerable to an independent like Bloomberg.
P.S. My numbers came from PBS, CNN only shows a 3 point spread.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN has the percentage totals (on the Rep. side) for Nevada:
Mitt Romney 51% Ron Paul 14% John McCain 13% Mike Huckabee 8% Fred Thompson 8% Rudy Giuliani 4% Duncan Hunter 2%
Two points: 1) Mitt won much bigger than he was polling (he was leading McCain by about 10 points in the polls, but ended up beating him by 38 points). 2) Paul took second, which is pretty good news for him, and somewhat bad for McCain.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With 69% reporting, McCain has over 101K while Huckabee has 88K. If McCain wins this, I think he's going to shore up his lead in Florida and shut the door on Giuliani. Giuliani will still get some numbers on Super Tuesday. Mostly, I think it means Thompson and Huckabee are effectively out. Huckabee will continue to run, though, and be an albatross around Romney's neck.
I think Romney could take California, though. Of the people who are Republican in California, a huge proportion of them will be Mormon. There are more Mormons in California than in Utah, I think.
P.S. The Paul Supporters have to be excited about that. How many delegates does he have now?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's another interesting point on the Romney's Nevada win, courtesy of CNN:
quote:Romney also benefited from his Mormon religion, the poll results show. Romney captured 94 percent of the voters who identified themselves as Mormon, which made up 25 percent of all Republicans participating in the GOP caucuses.
For all the grousing I've heard from Mormons about Evangelicals in Iowa not voting for Romney because of his Mormonism, I think this shows that we're all prone to favor a candidate whose religious/moral convictions match our own.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Here's another interesting point on the Romney's Nevada win, courtesy of CNN:
quote:Romney also benefited from his Mormon religion, the poll results show. Romney captured 94 percent of the voters who identified themselves as Mormon, which made up 25 percent of all Republicans participating in the GOP caucuses.
For all the grousing I've heard from Mormons about Evangelicals in Iowa not voting for Romney because of his Mormonism, I think this shows that we're all prone to favor a candidate whose religious/moral convictions match our own.
This is obviously true, but if Romney was an inactive Mormon and was well known to be so, you would not see nearly as many Mormons voting for him. This is my opinion, but overall Romney is a much more electable candidate then Huckabee. Mormons have already shown a willingness to vote for evangelicals, the opposite has yet to be seen.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm a McCain booster myself. It looks like it's mostly a race between Romney and McCain now. It's hard to know what a southern state would look like without Thompson in the race, but people seemed to think he pulled from Romney. We haven't tossed the term neo-conservative around much in this race, but I think Giuliani and Thompson were the main proponents of that school of thought, and somewhat Romney. I'm not 100% sure what neo-con means, but I'm pretty sure it's not Huckabee.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neo-Con is considered someone who believes in a wider role for the United States in international affairs. They are also considered socially conservative in domestics. None of the Republicans currently running are neo-cons no matter what the press might say(even if they promote the labeling).
The difference SjR between Mormons and Evangelicals supporting their own, as BB pointed out, is that Mormons tend examine more than affiliation. Orin Hatch ran as a Mormon conservative and he didn't get much of any support. For all the grousing about Romney's flip-flopping, he does come out as a genuine Mormon with shared moral and political values. If he had the domestic record of Huckabee, I am sure he wouldn't get that support. The funny thing is, and my own experience and the Nevada primary results bring this out, without Romney in the race it would be Ron Paul getting a large share of Mormon votes - with maybe McCain close behind or slightly ahead.
My point is that yes Mormons support Romney in large numbers, but it is more than a knee jerk reaction. They genuinely, and me included, believe he has the experience, political values, and competence to be President. His Mormonism simply puts him over the edge as it does give a sense of relationship.
As I have said in other places, Mormon don't harp on evangelicals because they support their own. They harp on them because of how clearly they have made it known why they don't support "the Mormon." What happened in Iowa pretty much solidified that opinion by how Huckabee acted toward Romney. Push-polls and mailers with religious provocation don't help matters no matter if Huckabee had anything to do with them directly.
posted
So, for the Republicans, Florida is going to be interesting.
There are between 42 and 57 delegates in play. I'm not sure if, in a winner-take-all primary (which is what FL is), whether they take all of the "Electoral" delegates or the "Bonus" delegates as well. My guess is both. So, anyway, lets say someone walks out of FL with 57 delegates. That's a pretty big deal.
After what appears to be a McCain victory in SC it seems like Huckabee probably won't really play. So it'll be Romney, McCain, or Giuliani. Right now my feeling is it'll probably go to McCain. He's leading, and his bump out of SC has got to be bigger than Romney's out of NV when it comes to FL.
I also think, after the chumminess McCain and Huckabee showed during SC, that we might be seeing the beginning of an alliance. Huckabee declares for McCain, handing him the delegates he already has, along with his Southern, Evangelical support in exchange for the Vice Presidency. If so, and if it happens soon, I think it'll all but seal FL for McCain.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Neo-Con is considered someone who believes in a wider role for the United States in international affairs. They are also considered socially conservative in domestics. None of the Republicans currently running are neo-cons no matter what the press might say(even if they promote the labeling).
:checks Wikipedia, sees neocon = Weekly Standard:
Well, I can tell you the Weekly Standard sure likes Giuliani and Thompson, and hates Romney and Huckabee. They have been strangely silent on the subject of McCain. But I haven't seen anything recent. They break for the holidays, and then I didn't catch last week's issue, so I only read the fallout on Iowa.
I had read an article on Friday about how Rush Limbaugh has been tearing into McCain, but it didn't exactly say who Rush is promoting.
Oh, great, they have a website and daily updates:
quote: Support the one you prefer. But don't work yourself into a frenzy against the others. Let the best man emerge from a challenging primary process. And if there is no clear-cut winner, then the delegates at the GOP convention can turn on the fifth ballot to an obvious fallback compromise candidate, one who would be just fine with conservatives--Dick Cheney!
quote:Neo-Con is considered someone who believes in a wider role for the United States in international affairs.
I believe in a wider role for the United States in international affairs. That's like saying that anyone who doesn't believe in taking a switch to adolescents doesn't believe in discipline.
posted
Just got home from work. I think we'll be hearing pretty soon that Thompson is dropping out. And Duncan Hunter is officially out of it, which is more of a formality than a real announcement. Thompson said before South Carolina that he needed to win there, and that if he didn't he'd drop out, and he came in third. Running as a southern conservative and can't find a victory in South Carolina? You're done.
On the Democratic side, you know, this is why I hate media coverage of the primaries. The delegate counts I see show that Obama actually got 13 delegates and she got 12, but she won more of the state delegates. I don't know how that works, but either he won, or it was a tie. Who cares about the percentage? It's bad reporting, and Obama is doing just fine. For a state he was supposed to get clobbered in by 20 points, he really staged an insurgent comeback, and he's polling way ahead in South Carolina. He's fine. But that had to hurt John Edwards, and I imagine if Edwards can't take second or better in SC, then the only reason he has to stay in the race is to pray he takes enough delegates to make his support a bargaining chip between the candidates, but frankly I think that's selfish. He should drop out and endorse someone.
McCain I think cemented himself as the perceived frontrunner. Romney still has twice as many delegates as McCain, so he's the literal frontrunner, but there's more to it than that. Huckabee is starved for cash. McCain will get money from his status, but Huckabee need money to make a play at HyperTuesday. Giuliani is hoping and praying he can take CA and NY. Without them he's not even a factor, as it looks like he won't capture Florida now.
Paul's delegate count is at 6, putting him just ahead of Giuliani, and waaay behind the frontrunners.
Tonight was muddle results from Nevada. It showed both are strong candidates, and it's going to be a slugging match. If anything, Obama's narrow loss (percentage wise) and equal delegate take I think allow him to claim overall victory. His comeback was stunning. Romney's win wasn't a surprise, he has more support in that area, and he was the only candidate to actually bother campaigning there.
To whoever said that the west is the new south, you're nailing down the thoughts of the Democratic leadership. It's why they moved Nevada up (well, that and Harry Reid being the Senate Majority leader). But it IS why Colorado is hosting the nominating convention. They realize that the West is the fastest growing region, and that the West is also starting to lean a lot more Democratic than it has in the last 40 years. They're not going to cede the region like they used to. I don't think the Republicans are quite on that same page. They still count on the south, in the way the Democrats count on African Americans to vote with them. They take it for granted, and then worry about the swing states, it's almost like trench warefare, but the Dems are venturing into no man's land. It's smart, and it's going to win them elections (the Dems I mean).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like you said, Lyrhawn, the perceived winner of the popular vote is different from the winner in terms of delegates. That is dramatically true in Nevada, where Sen. Clinton supposedly won the popular vote--but only got 12 delegates to Sen. Obama's 13. Obviously it has to do with which precincts were won by each candidate. Obama must have won two smaller precincts, where Clinton won a single larger precinct.
It is also remarkable in South Carolina, where Sen. McCain only won by 3 percentage points over Gov. Huckabee, 33% to 30%. But McCain won 19 delegates, while Huckabee only won five. Again, it must involve the number of precincts won, some perhaps by narrow margins. So it is not quite "winner take all," but almost.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link about delegate apportioning, SenojRetep. I'll study it later. I knew some states were punished for moving up their dates, I didn't know SC was one of those.
Lyrhawn, Ron is right. According to the AP:
quote:The split Democratic verdict in Nevada resulted from the proportional manner in which delegates were awarded. Obama emerged with one more than Clinton because he ran strongly in rural areas.
Overall, Clinton leads the delegate race with 236, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Obama has a total of 136, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has 50.
But Ron, Hispanics will not favor the Republicans this year. That's ludicrous. All that anti-immigrant fervor that was whipped up early this year has consequences, and one is plummeting support for the GOP among Hispanics.
OK, I'll grant your point about the Cubans in Florida, maybe, but they're a unique case.
posted
Everyone talks about the hispanic vote as important to the upcoming election. Frankly, I don't see that at all and I feel pointing to Nevada proves that. Statistics show the Hispanic population didn't have any number big enough to represent a threat. Besides, I feel that the hispanic vote is slim anyway because the majority either don't vote or are not citizens. I even remember (but don't have any links) those who do vote are actually for stricter immigration policy.
Perhaps some statistics instead of rhetorical logic can show one way or another. Too much "I think" going on with the hispanics.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional(y), you're right. I was lazy last night. Hah, the first reporter even uses the same phrase I did: anti-immigrant fervor. Great minds, etc. If Ron produces even one poll that indicates Hispanics support Republicans more than Democrats, I'll eat my hat.
quote:Poll: Hispanics’ support for GOP wanes Brian Tumulty • Washington Bureau • December 7, 2007 WASHINGTON - The anti-immigrant fervor among Republican lawmakers has eroded the party's gains with Hispanic voters and will help Democrats in the 2008 election, according to a study released yesterday by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center.
Hispanics view Democrats as more concerned about their problems, with 57 percent who are registered voters identifying as Democrats and 23 percent as Republicans, according to the survey.
A similar survey by Pew in 2006 showed 49 percent identified as Democrats and 28 percent considered themselves Republicans.
Paul Taylor, acting director of the Pew Hispanic Center, said the 2006 election was the high water mark for Republicans among Hispanic voters.
quote: A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll indicates that Hispanics, by nearly 3 to 1, say they're Democrats or lean that way. Of those, 59% support the New York senator over her presidential rivals — her strongest showing among any major demographic group and a huge potential asset for early contests in Nevada, Florida, California and other states with large Hispanic populations.
One big factor behind the flight from the GOP: a heated debate over immigration in which congressional Republicans' remarks on illegal immigrants have offended many Hispanic voters. The fallout from that battle, shifting Latino loyalties and a changing political calendar have scrambled political calculations made about Hispanics after the last presidential election — and raised the stakes for their role in choosing the Democratic nominee for the next one. [...] Hispanics will be more wary in 2008, predicts her sister, Gilda Lopez, 56, a speech pathologist and reliable Democrat. With a crisis in Iraq and questions at home about the GOP's attitudes toward Hispanics, she says, "I cannot understand how a Hispanic person could vote Republican."
The new survey finds fewer who say they will. Only 11% of Hispanics now identify themselves as Republicans, down from 19% in 2005, while the proportion who call themselves Democrats has jumped to 42% from 33%.
Including independents who "lean" to one party or the other, Democrats lead Republicans among Hispanics 58% to 20%.
In a matchup between the candidates who lead in national polls, Hispanics overwhelmingly support Clinton over Republican Rudy Giuliani, 66% to 27%.
posted
A quote I heard on the radio today: "Guilliani is either a genius and is about to defy the last 50 years of political wisdom, or he's run the stupidest presidential campaign in history."
posted
It's the latter. His national poll numbers have literally plummeted recently. How he can bring them back up while losing one contest after another is a mystery. He might pick up a few delegates on Super Tuesday, but so what? It won't matter.
And I'm glad--his pro-war rhetoric was scary.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
How is Guiliani running his campaign?
IP: Logged |
posted
Because Giuliani and his advisers thought he had little support in New Hampshire and Iowa, they saved their resources for Florida and the 24 Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) states. It was always a very risky strategy, because what traditionally happens is the winner(s) of the early contests get a lift of support.
It had a slim chance if Rudy could maintain support nationally, but as my link shows, his poll numbers have evaporated. I think he's DOA now, but if he does poorly in Florida, that'll be the last nail in his coffin.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he does WELL in Florida, he's betting on the press to give him a big bump in the polls before HyperTuesday.
But at this point, I really don't see that happening. It's have to be one hell of a bump, and it'd have to overshadow the ones McCain is getting, to say nothing of the fact that Romney is still somehow hanging on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If he does WELL in Florida, he's betting on the press to give him a big bump in the polls before HyperTuesday.
But at this point, I really don't see that happening. It's have to be one hell of a bump, and it'd have to overshadow the ones McCain is getting, to say nothing of the fact that Romney is still somehow hanging on.
Still hanging on? He has more delegates then all the other candidates, even if he is no longer seriously contending for president anymore, (which I do not think is true) he can still use his delegates as a bargaining chip in the Republican National Convention. He is not getting all the front runner glitz McCain and Huckabee seem to keep getting from the press but in this election of nobody knows exactly what is going on Romney has just as good a chance as either McCain or Huckabee.
This talk of, "South Carolina has chosen the Republican nominee in every presidential election since 1980" is so ridiculous to me. So what, all of 7 elections? In fact less then that because in the years of Republican incumbent presidents primaries don't even matter.
Though I do agree with you that unless Giuliani has a massive following we just are not hearing from that will vote on Hyper Tuesday, and carries Florida, California, New York, and about 7 other states I don't know how he is going to win this.
The Republican primaries are too crowded. Also I say this as an opponent of Huckabee, he isn't going to get nominated either for president or vice president, (though on the latter he might surprise me) he is only going to weaken the Republican nominee coming out of the convention.
posted
If you don't like Huckabee, you should be touting the conventional wisdom of SC as kingmaker. Though I guess you're more pro-Romney. As I mentioned earlier, it's not so much that SC is kingmaker, it's that it's the first test of Southern waters. And when one looks at Iowa and New Hampshire, one sees a series of primary winners who did not get the nomination.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: If you don't like Huckabee, you should be touting the conventional wisdom of SC as kingmaker. Though I guess you're more pro-Romney. As I mentioned earlier, it's not so much that SC is kingmaker, it's that it's the first test of Southern waters. And when one looks at Iowa and New Hampshire, one sees a series of primary winners who did not get the nomination.
I like McCain alot as well, I wish they'd (McCain/Romney) form a ticket, but I am unsure which I want as president and which as vice president. Though apparently the animosity between McCain and Romney seems greater then between any other set of candidates. I am convinced that had Huckabee not run, Romney would get enough evangelical support to have won Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and make a serious bid at Florida.
Down the road I expect the South to fall in prominence for the Republican party as the West rises. I also think the Republicans take states like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona for granted. I think soon they will start going blue and the Republicans will have to revamp their strategy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the elder Bush was the one who called Reagan's supply side strategy "voodoo economics" and they formed a ticket. McCain is an abrasive guy. He's only nice to Hillary.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This talk of, "South Carolina has chosen the Republican nominee in every presidential election since 1980" is so ridiculous to me. So what, all of 7 elections? In fact less then that because in the years of Republican incumbent presidents primaries don't even matter.
*nod* You're right. We're really talking four elections in early thirty years. Big whoop.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:McCain is an abrasive guy. He's only nice to Hillary.
He's really not, you know. John McCain is by far the Republican candidate who has the most history of bridging political divides and "playing nice" with people on the other side. As much as I hate that he seemed to have given up his principles in favor of taking an easier path to become President, I can't deny that he is the best choice if you want a Republican candidate that is going to try to counter the divisiveness of the current political climate. He's nice to a lot of people.
He's not particularly nice to Romney, but the again, Mitt Romney has taken to making dishonest attacks on him, and I imagine that he's gotten really tired of that in the Republican primaries.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Hah, the first reporter even uses the same phrase I did: anti-immigrant fervor. Great minds, etc.
