Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 25

Author Topic: Primary Wars  (Read 43929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2008, 01:16:57 AM »

I think "Election '08" is too broad.  I liked the idea of a primary thread to last us the next few months and then be followed by a general election thread.  Especially inasmuch as we're dealing with a REAL race this time instead of one whose outcome was predetermined ('00) or decided entirely by Iowa ('04).

And that's not even getting into Congressional elections.  (Short summary: Arizona doesn't have any Senators up for reelection this year.  For Congress, I intend to write in my own name.  Because Mitchell doesn't deserve my vote again.  Frankly I think the Democrats deserve to lose Congress.  It's not that I want to see the Republicans back in charge, it's just that I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference.)

Anyway.  On the subject of primaries.  Most of this is recap for those who know me, but just to get the ball rolling:

I haven't seen the latest Arizona polls (and I HAVE looked) but I'm pretty damn sure now that McCain's back in play he'll take his home state in a walk.  Harder to say on the Democratic side but I'm going to lean Obama; Clinton was up in the last poll I saw, but that was before Iowa; she's not popular here and I see a lot of people voting for Obama simply as not-Clinton.

I think Huckabee winning the GOP nom is the best possible news for the Dems.  He's scary, and his base is scarier still.  George Allen showed us last year that moderate Republicans don't want to be associated with the party's racist fringe; a Huckabee nomination would alienate the moderates, especially if Obama were the alternative.

Clinton, of course, is going to be easier to beat.  I still think she can take Huckabee easily, but in the more realistic case of a matchup against McCain or Romney, she's at a disadvantage.  I think there's a lot of ambivalence toward McCain and Romney in the GOP base, and I think a lot of them are going to stay home in a McCain/Romney vs. Obama matchup -- the racist fringe who will turn out just to vote against Obama is not nearly as big as the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Clinton crowd, who will absolutely turn out to vote against her even if they don't like the alternative.

I think McCain is the way stronger candidate than Romney.  He's seen as more genuine, and the press absolutely loves him.  Plus, he's got this straight-talker, maverick reputation, which is of course undeserved -- he's broken with his party on campaign financing, immigration, and pretty much not a goddamn thing else, and yet is perceived as a moderate.  That's dangerous: a hard-right candidate who the CW holds is middle-of-the-road.  We had one of those in '00.  It didn't end well.

That said, the Christian right doesn't love McCain the way it loved Bush, despite his overtures to the Falwell fringe last year, and the pro-corporate Republicans don't like him because of his stance on campaign finance.  If he's up against Obama, that could make a difference -- and in a country that so desperately wants change, simply being onscreen with someone who looks half his age is going to hurt him.

And the religious base hates Romney because he's Mormon.  Fundamentalists DESPISE Mormons.  Plus, his record as governor of Massachusetts makes him an easy target for all that "flip-flop" stuff they used on Kerry last time.  Plus people are throwing around the "robot" label, so he's got Al Gore's negatives on top of John Kerry's.  Again, I don't see him doing well against Obama, but I DO see him having a shot against Clinton.

Course, it's all hard to say at this point.  Shit, six months ago who would have figured that McCain, Huckabee, and, for God's sake, Ron Paul would be beating Giuliani?  (Hell, Giuliani's abject failure may be as good a sign as we've seen that voters aren't taking orders from Fox News anymore.)

Curious to see what Edwards does from here on in.  Obviously he's going to stick it out through Saturday.  In the likely event that he doesn't take his home state, he's toast, but maybe he'll stick around through Super Tuesday just for the hell of it.

Frankly I'd like him to stick around until they stop letting him into debates.  He now has the role of forcing issues that Clinton and Obama won't talk about.  And somebody needs to do that.  Hell, if Edwards drops out, will there even BE any issues discussed anymore, or will Clinton and Obama just keep calling each other liars?

I heard him say the other day that he won't run for VP again.  Which is fairly disappointing.  I'd say that Biden would be a pretty good pick for either candidate, especially Obama with his perceived weakness on foreign policy.  Biden's only problem is his tendency to say unfortunate things, but I still don't think he could possibly do as badly in a VP debate as Edwards did in '04.

...Oh, another thing: if things stay this close between Clinton and Obama, the issue of delegates is going to be a problem.  As Nevada was initially reported, Clinton was getting one more delegate than Obama; now apparently the reverse turns out to be true.

I don't like that.  I'm big on the whole "one man, one vote" thing and don't like it when the winner doesn't actually win.

I think nightmare scenario is that this goes all the way down to the convention, with Obama in a slight lead, and the superdelegates pick Clinton.  If the party picks Clinton and Obama's actually the guy with more votes, that's going to piss off a lot of Democrats into staying home come November.  And Clinton can't afford to lose support from Democratic voters -- she's going to have enough trouble as it is.
Logged

Arc

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 3703
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2008, 08:56:20 AM »

I think "Election '08" is too broad.

:;-(: You had your chance.

If we have clearcut winners on Super Tuesday, I'll keep the title. If not, it'll revert to Primary Wars.


Frankly I think the Democrats deserve to lose Congress.

Pelosi & Reid can be tossed into the incineration chamber for all I care, but I'm not prepared to dole out punishment to the whole party because of just those two.


it's just that I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference.

That's easy. One is an opposition party, and the other is a gimp with both hands tied behind its back.


Shit, six months ago who would have figured that McCain, Huckabee, and, for God's sake, Ron Paul would be beating Giuliani?

Still trying to wrap my head around his campaign, or more precisely, where the hell did he campaign (outside of the linked above Florida)?


Hell, if Edwards drops out, will there even BE any issues discussed anymore, or will Clinton and Obama just keep calling each other liars?

The issues have disintegrated since Iowa. Now we're into touchy, feely junk that any voter with a quarter of a working brain should've made up their mind on a year ago.


I heard him (Edwards) say the other day that he won't run for VP again.

Link? Torrent? Source? ZOMG ZOMG.

Did he say so directly, or in so many words?


As Nevada was initially reported, Clinton was getting one more delegate than Obama; now apparently the reverse turns out to be true.

It was Iowa in reverse. Obama garnered the rural vote, and Clinton snagged the 'urban' vote. Guh?


I think nightmare scenario is that this goes all the way down to the convention, with Obama in a slight lead, and the superdelegates pick Clinton.

Obama & Clinton will have many of the superdelegates picked up by the convention, so any deciding scenario on their part may not be in the cards. However, Edwards has been given the title of Kingmaker for a reason. Even with his lower estimate of delegates in play, he could still hold a deal of power during the convention, thus pressing the focus back to issues.

Ah, to dream a dream.

Four Minutes Till Midnight.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2008, 12:37:48 PM »

Pelosi & Reid can be tossed into the incineration chamber for all I care, but I'm not prepared to dole out punishment to the whole party because of just those two.

I am.  It's not just a problem with Reid and Pelosi.  The party elected them, and it's the party that has failed to make any meaningful progress on Iraq, civil liberties, or in any way curbing the President's powers.  I'll grant Pelosi's the one who said impeachment was off the table, but she's hardly the only person who feels that way.

For fuck's sake, they caved on SCHIP.  SCHIP.  A bill that passed TWICE, that a clear majority of the country supports.  Not only did they cave on it, they pushed the next vote back to '09 so they can't even use it as an issue this year.

I think the only reasonable conclusion is that they really, really don't want to win.  And I'm more than happy to oblige.

I heard him (Edwards) say the other day that he won't run for VP again.

Link? Torrent? Source? ZOMG ZOMG.

Did he say so directly, or in so many words?

Heard it on NPR when I was driving.  It was windy and I may have misheard, but I thought he gave a flat "no".

Obama & Clinton will have many of the superdelegates picked up by the convention, so any deciding scenario on their part may not be in the cards. However, Edwards has been given the title of Kingmaker for a reason. Even with his lower estimate of delegates in play, he could still hold a deal of power during the convention, thus pressing the focus back to issues.

Ah, to dream a dream.

Hm, could be.  Guess we'll see what happens in two weeks.
Logged

Arc

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 3703
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2008, 01:47:46 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr0MLl-fxuo

Summer... 2007!?


For fuck's sake, they caved on SCHIP.  SCHIP.

:objection: They went ahead with the scheduled vote for January 23rd.

15 votes short. 260 to 152.

218 Democrats and 42 Republicans to 151 Republicans and 1 Democrat.

:mystery: Where were the 13 missing Democrats?

:american: Someone think of the children!
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2008, 01:54:48 PM »

Hum.  Guess my news  was out-of-date, then.  All right, then, I'll give them SCHIP for now.

Everything else I said still stands.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2008, 01:19:19 AM »

Kucinich is out.

I must admit to being a little surprised; he hung on in 2004 well after everybody else but Kerry had dropped out.  I mean, clearly his candidacy is about getting his message out there and not about winning in the first damned place.

Looks like he's got some challengers in his Congressional race.  I like him and I hope he keeps his office, but I think primary challenges to long-term incumbents are a good thing in principle and I'd like to see more of them.  (Frankly I'd like to see congressional term limits, but anything that makes it harder for people to keep their seats indefinitely is a good thing.)

So that's one more reason I'm almost certain to vote Obama at this point.  I was tempted to throw a vote Dodd's way, dropping out be damned, if he filibustered telecom amnesty in the next week and a half, but that may be too empty a symbolic gesture even for me -- and it looks like it won't be necessary anyway.

EDIT: No, wait, that's a BAD thing, it was the NON-immunity version of the bill that got beaten.  I need to stop writing this shit at 2 AM.
Logged

Kazz

  • Projekt Direktor
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65475
  • Posts: 6423
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2008, 09:22:20 PM »

Obama 56%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 18%.
Logged

Burrito Al Pastor

  • Galatea is mai waifu
  • Tested
  • Karma: 10
  • Posts: 1067
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2008, 09:41:09 PM »

This Wired story puts Obama at 55% (a whole point!), but even so he's double anybody else. We don't seem to have any icons corresponding to the old FUKYES.

Edwards failing to place above third in South Carolina probably more or less knocks him out of the race in terms of having any real chance of winning. I'm not sure if I'd like him to concede or not; if he did, where would his advocates go, depending on which (if any) other nominee he endorsed? What are the chances he'd endorse either remaining nominee?
Logged
I'm a heartbreaker... My name... Charles.

Detonator

  • You made me come back for THIS?
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 42
  • Posts: 3040
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2008, 10:09:37 PM »

I see Edwards tipping the scale for either candidate if he were to endorse them directly.  I could see him endorsing Obama, but he might be pissed enough that he'd either stick it out to the bitter end, or say "vote for whoever, they're both good".
Logged
"Imagine punching somebody so hard that they turned into a door. Then you found out that's where ALL doors come from, and you got initiated into a murder club that makes doors. The stronger you punch, the better the door. So there are like super strong murderers who punch people into Venetian doors and shit"

Kazz

  • Projekt Direktor
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65475
  • Posts: 6423
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2008, 02:18:03 AM »

Depends on who he thinks will win, because he may end up being that person's VP.

I know it's been alleged here that he said he wasn't gunning for VP, but I don't think he would have said that he wanted to be a running mate, because it'd amount to a concession so early in the primary process, not to mention awkwarding up the debates.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2008, 06:06:28 AM »

I don't understand what's going on! I always relied on Iron_Mongrel to translate your American political language.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2008, 09:48:42 PM »

Rudy's finally out, endorsing McCain.

Anyone else between now and next Tuesday?

Guess I should probably get that ballot filled out.  Don't think I'll mail it; I'm paranoid enough to actually hand-carry it over to the polling place.
Logged

Burrito Al Pastor

  • Galatea is mai waifu
  • Tested
  • Karma: 10
  • Posts: 1067
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2008, 10:45:14 PM »

And you really think that's more reliable?
Logged
I'm a heartbreaker... My name... Charles.

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2008, 11:13:28 PM »

I know it'll get to a place where it could potentially be counted.  So yes.

Or I could stand in line and punch the card or whatever it is they're doing these days, I guess.
Logged

Arc

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 3703
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2008, 10:50:05 AM »

So it's official. I'm a precinct judge now.

... In March. :oh:
Logged

S D S

  • Who?
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
    • Shawn Struck
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2008, 11:18:00 AM »

I see Edwards tipping the scale for either candidate if he were to endorse them directly.  I could see him endorsing Obama, but he might be pissed enough that he'd either stick it out to the bitter end, or say "vote for whoever, they're both good".

Something tells me that even though he may be coming up third, he'd rather throw his support behind a candidate, too. He kind of becomes an issues kingmaker that way.
Logged

Arc

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 3703
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2008, 12:28:53 PM »

And he's out.

Was gonna link the LifeNews.com article (that ripped the text from the associated press story verbatim) with the headline "Edwards Ends Pro-Abortion White House Bid", but they reverted the standard headliner once Google News started tossing hits their way today.

Best to make an endorsement before Tuesday, Johnny Boy.
Logged

Arc

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 3703
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2008, 09:01:49 PM »

Um, turns out I'm going to be representing the Republican roster. O_o

The Onion's Candidate Rundown is the most accurate yet:

Quote from: Onion
Mike Huckabee

Biggest Secret:
Gay as a summer hat

... When's Nader showing up to this party?
Logged

Royal☭

  • Supreme Court Judge President
  • Tested
  • Karma: 88
  • Posts: 6301
    • View Profile
Re: Primary Wars
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2008, 05:31:25 PM »

The first victory for Obama in Georgia had me feeling good, but the current situation on CNN has 6 states for Clinton and 3 for Obama.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 25