's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

ok, let's hear your New Hampshire predictions(44 posts)

ok, let's hear your New Hampshire predictionsgtx
Jan 26, 2004 9:21 AM
Seemed like everyone was making a big deal out of NH a few days ago, now the candidates and others seem to be downplaying its importance and talking more about a long road. But I imagine we'll get at least one good surprise and/or development out of it. Thoughts? Ed?
Who cares.Live Steam
Jan 26, 2004 9:47 AM
No one is talking confidently because their message is hollow. How can one feel confident if they have no convictions about what they are saying? And, even if they did believe what they are saying, the voters aren't easily fooled, and can see right through the political hypocrisy. It's a crap shoot because they all look and sound the same!
This board is a microcosm of what's going on...No_sprint
Jan 26, 2004 9:50 AM
How many of the Dums on this board have been truly supportive of any candidate, well other than Old and Dean. None.

Nobody wants to see any of them in the House.
I think you'll findgtx
Jan 26, 2004 10:06 AM
that the Dems and left on the whole will be much more united in this election than they were in the last two. So it's not about "supporting" any partiuclar candidate or "vision," it's about trying to figure out who has the best chance of beating Bush. Right now I don't care if we have a Ken doll up there (Edwards?) as long as he can win.
There's your problem! You can never win with that mindset! nmLive Steam
Jan 26, 2004 10:31 AM
That is only one of a truckload of problems for them now. nmNo_sprint
Jan 26, 2004 10:37 AM
worked for the Republicans last time nmgtx
Jan 26, 2004 10:39 AM
Mr. GTX, you have got to be kidding...No_sprint
Jan 26, 2004 10:48 AM
right? If you truly think that's what happened, well, I really don't know what to tell you. I won't try to convince you of anything, but I will notify you of this: GW has terribly rabid supporters and a huge lot of them and has had them for decades. If Kerry or Dean or Clark or any of the others had 10 of this type, I'd be really surprised.
Jan 26, 2004 11:04 AM
I think in last primary Bush was the Edwards type--fresh faced, not much experience. Maybe a few more "rabid" supporters than Edwards, and of course he had all of his daddy's scary henchmen. And then you had McCain, kind of like Dean--getting support and excitement from a lot of people who otherwise didn't tend to be too interested (and I think had McCain won the normination, he would have killed Gore in the national election, instead of losing like Bush). But when Bush won the nomination--due less to "rabid" supporters than daddy's scary hencmen, most of the right swung right in behind him, just cause they wanted the Clinton/Gore thing out of the White House. You're gonna see the same thing on the left this time.
GW has had rabid supporters for "decades"?czardonic
Jan 26, 2004 11:10 AM
That must have been one heck of a failed House campaign he ran back in '78!

Or are you talking about those friends of his daddy who have been keeping Jr. flush with walking around money in the absense of an ability on his part to make an honest living?
minimum r&d nm128
Jan 26, 2004 11:47 AM
Not really.Live Steam
Jan 26, 2004 11:03 AM
Last time, the Republicans weren't running against a weak VP of an impeached president. I know the popular vote was close, but look at the number of states your party actually lost. Bush won 60% of the states. A few he lost, such as New Mexico, could have gone either way. NM was lost by less than 4k votes.

The people were ready for change. It showed in the voting, no matter how some here want to paint it. Thank God and the Founding Fathers for being wise and providing for the Electoral College.
Just look at the map!czardonic
Jan 26, 2004 11:12 AM
You can pretty much extrapolate Bush's massive popularity based on the ratio of blue to red.

Let's see someone try to impeach that!
Thank GOD the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom,OldEdScott
Jan 26, 2004 11:30 AM
their infinite wisdom, were prescient enough to create a system which would glorify the Bush family, and install even their slow-witted son in the White House, regardless of what a majority of Americans wanted. Oh thank GOD.
I know to you and the rest of the ...Live Steam
Jan 26, 2004 11:44 AM
liberal gentry, those blue state don't actually represent people, their thoughts, ideals or anything else. That's fly-over country to you. If things were your way, their votes wouldn't count for anything. All you would need to do is pander to the liberals and socially dependant on either coast. Middle America wouldn't have any say in their own gonernance.
LS, sometime you sound like you don't much careBottomBracketShell
Jan 26, 2004 11:50 AM
for majority rule, and when you say things like *socially dependent* it sounds like a code word for *African Americans.* I think sometimes your own postings are the best argument the liberals have.
the kind of guy you'd give a penny for his thoughts128
Jan 26, 2004 11:53 AM
and he'd give you back change.

He doesn't even sound like he really has thoughtsBottomBracketShell
Jan 26, 2004 11:57 AM
you just pop a string and out it comes like some kind of tape in a doll.
LS, sometime you sound like you don't much careJon Billheimer
Jan 26, 2004 11:58 AM
Even a dimwit knows that MORE people voted for Gore than Bush. The issue here seems to be, Steam, that you are so blinded by your rabid partisanship that you no longer care about democracy or democratic principles, only that your chosen ideologue was able to manipulate an admittedly flawed system so that he could gain power.
Jon now you are getting a little nasty ...Live Steam
Jan 26, 2004 12:14 PM
like you always accuse me of doing. You should practice what you preach my good friend from the North. Why is the system now flawed? Because the guy you wanted to win, didn't? It was a fine system for 200 years. Then it finally came into play and did what it was intended to do, and now it stinks. Bush lost the popular vote by one half of one percent. It's not what I would call a mandate. That small amount would require a recount of the entire country if there were no electoral college. Bush could have demanded recounts in a half a dozen states because they were that close. He didn't run in there with all his lawyers like Gore did, and demand a recount of voter friendly precincts. You guys should just get over it. Maybe you'll have a shot in 2008, but not if you put Hillarity up as a candidate. The margin of victory for us will be even bigger than it will be this time around! LOL!!!!!!!!!!
High-Horse Hilarity! (nm)czardonic
Jan 26, 2004 12:17 PM
Jon now you are getting a little nasty ...Jon Billheimer
Jan 26, 2004 12:36 PM
I agree with you that Bush will probably actually win this election. The flawed system that I'm referring to is the electoral college. It's not there, in my opinion, because of the infinite wisdom of the founding fathers. It's there as a check on popular, one person, one vote democracy because some of the founding fathers distrusted that system.

BTW, I didn't have a preference in the last presidential election, knew nothing about Bush, was bored by Al Gore's verbal presentation, etc. What has upset me about this presidency is the man's BEHAVIOUR. I also didn't like Clinton because of the way he demeaned the office by repeatedly, and pointedly lying to the American people about his personal behaviour. So although by U.S. standards my political leanings are slightly left of centre, I'm by no means an ideologue nor am I locked in to rigid party partisanship. What upsets me about some of you extreme rightwing guys is that you dismiss facts and data if they don't conform to your rigid ideological paradigms.

BTW, some of the U.S.'s own inspectors and high officials are now admitting that the masses of WMDs didn't exist in Iraq, which completely undercuts Bush's justification for the invasion. Will the great man ever admit that he was possibly wrong or possibly misled the American people and the world? Not on your life! The justifications continue to morph, ad nauseam under Karl Rove's watchful machinations.
I understood what you were referring toLive Steam
Jan 26, 2004 12:51 PM
The system is in place to assure that each state has equal representation. The Founding Fathers knew that there would be greater concentrations of people in different areas of the country. Our House Representation works the same way the Electoral College works. Each state is given representation based on the number of people residing there. That state's support of a presidential candidate is reflected in the same manner. The Electoral College is a safety valve. It assures that a favorite son doesn't get elected because he comes from the most populated area of the country. What if the system weren't weighted? What if each state received one vote to cast toward the presidential election? Maybe that wouldn't be fair. Or would it? Each state is equal, aren't they?

The ideas you posted in the second paragraph have some validity, but they must then be viewed in context. The US was not the only country making the claims and neither was GWB the only person stating the WMD case. It was a case being made for the last decade. To place the blame solely at his feet is wrong. Each member of Congress that endorsed the war is just as culpable. Each one had the same information to base their vote on. If the intelligence was wrong, who is to blame? It appears that even Saddam Hussayn thought he had WMD. So the hoax was on him. He should have allowed complete access to what ever the inspectors wanted and this wouldn't have happened. It's like the boy who cried wolf. He shouldn't have used the threat of WMD as he did. Like we used to say as kids, put up or shut up. He is now quieted!
Man, its like the blind leading. . .czardonic
Jan 26, 2004 12:58 PM
. . .the sighted.

I just can't figure out how someone with such a nuanced knowlede of our political system could come off as such a know-nothing. Its just really confusing.

And good call on the whole WMD thing. When are damned liberals going to accept the fact that Bush invaded Iraq because some other boys egged him on and he wasn't going to be the chicken?
I understood what you were referring toJon Billheimer
Jan 26, 2004 1:17 PM
I'm aware of the reasoning behind the electoral college. Remember that I was schooled in the U.S.!:)- In addition, the founding fathers had this idea of federalism which included strong, semi-autonomous states, but was also underwritten by a certain mistrust of popular democracy. Hence, also property ownership requirements, literacy and race-related restrictions, etc.

I also agree with you about Saddam's behaviour in frustrating the U.N. Don't know if you remember, but a long time ago, in one of these interminable Iraq conversations, I brought that up, along with the Arab idea of machismo. Too, you're right about virtually everyone else buying into old intelligence and info and being willing to extrapolate from that. However, when the UN inspectors failed to corroborate what the U.S. was alleging, it was Bush and Co. who displayed their utter and complete contempt for those same inspectors, and you and your political ilk who constantly derided them and cast aspersions on their allegiances and competence.

Back to my belief that Bush has no personal or political integrity. He could do the right thing, stand up and say that the info. and the pretext for the invasion was wrong, but that for strategic considerations the U.S. had made a prior decision to overthrow Saddam. He could then try to build a justification for the fact that regime change is good for Iraq, good for the middle east, etc. At that point probably more people internationally would go along with what the administration did. But such political candor is about as likely as an ice age in hell:)-
I am convinced that ....Live Steam
Jan 26, 2004 8:25 PM
hell is cold and not hot. Man I hate the cold. Winter seems interminable here in NY. It must be worse in the Great White North.

I never derided the inspectors. I may not have thought Hans Blix was the best person for the job base on some past ties he had, but I always thought they had an impossible task. Their inspections couldn't have corroborate or refuted anything because they were too incomplete and too fragmented in their implementation - and that was due to how they were allowed to maneuver in Iraq under the conditions Saddam set.

As for Bush making a final assessment of what did and didn't happen and why, I think it's still too early. I think everyone has questions. They may or may not be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Heck it took two years for the Rose Law Firm billing records to show up. I guess anything can happen given enough time :O)
If African Americans is what comes to your mind ...Live Steam
Jan 26, 2004 12:03 PM
when 'socially dependant' is mentioned, then it's you that has a problem, my friend!
Right on. nmNo_sprint
Jan 26, 2004 11:52 AM
. . .said the New Yorker.czardonic
Jan 26, 2004 11:53 AM
Frankly, your deeply phony pretense of middle-American bona fides is the real insult to their intelligence. Whether I grant them thoughts and ideals is a matter of your embarassingly asinine opinion. But what is now inarguable is that you grant them only one thought and ideal -- the GOP party line.

Can't you even kiss-a$$ right? Sheesh. There is nothing more embarassing than Republican faux-populism
Steam, there are a few nearly blown blood vessels here...No_sprint
Jan 26, 2004 12:03 PM
Lofty praise! nmczardonic
Jan 26, 2004 12:06 PM
Yeah I noticed that myself. "They can't handle the truth!" LOLLive Steam
Jan 26, 2004 12:16 PM
Any port in a storm. (nm)czardonic
Jan 26, 2004 12:18 PM
Hmm. Tell me the truth for a change instead of justOldEdScott
Jan 26, 2004 5:38 PM
anti-Clinton, anti-Democrat Sean Hannity vitriol and we'll see how I handle it. You might be surprised.
This board is a microcosm of what's going on...Jon Billheimer
Jan 26, 2004 10:06 AM
Unfortunately, Sprint, I think you have a point. Although I don't get the exposure in Edmonton to U.S. presidential politics that you guys do, my sense is that none of the democratic wannabes a)have a clear vision of how they want to lead nor b)a compelling personal charisma or persona.

With respect to Steam's comment about political hypocrisy though, GWB is the master hypocrite. His post-election behaviour is almost diametrically opposite to his original political campaign positions. This man is a smug, arrogant dissimulator of world class proportions. So when you right wingers start hurling accusations you need to remember that the pot shouldn't be calling the kettle black.
Possible surprises (in order of magnitude):OldEdScott
Jan 26, 2004 10:02 AM
None truly shocking, but the pundits will chew them like bones.

How strong John Edwards is. (I'll say he nails 2nd).

How weak Wesley Clark is. (4th)

How Dean's rehabilitation efforts worked better than anyone could have imagined, keeping him in the game for another round. (Strongish 3rd).

How Kerry fails the expectations game. (Under 30 percent).

How Joe Lieberman gets way more votes than the polls predict (but still not enough to carry him south). (5th, but in shouting distance of Clark).
So Kerry wins?gtx
Jan 26, 2004 10:25 AM
I kind of wish Kerry and Lieberman would go away. I think Kerry has the worst chance against Bush, and I'd have a very hard time casting a vote for Lieberman. I'd like to see it sorted out between Dean, Edwards and Clark.
Well, it's hard to imagine Kerry NOT 'winning,' butOldEdScott
Jan 26, 2004 10:33 AM
it's not hard to imagine him failing to win big. And if he wins 'little' -- such is the expectations game -- he loses, especially if Edwards surges to within a few points, or Dean comes back and almost nails him.

I wish Kerry and poor old Joe L would go away too.

Frankly, it's the Clark meltdown that muddies the picture up there most. WHere Clark voters end up will be the story of NH.
are you ready to count Clark out?gtx
Jan 26, 2004 10:52 AM
I guess he did poorly in the last debate? Assuming Clark fizzles, yes, where will they go? I bet Edwards picks most of them up, with maybe Kerry and Lieberman catching a few. Dean certainly won't get them. What about the Dean voters if/when they lose hope in Dean? Again, I bet Edwards benefits. And I have a feeling Kerry will get beat up bad in SC. Could we ultimately be looking at a situation where Edwards plays Clinton and Dean plays Jerry Brown?
Not counting Clark out yet, butOldEdScott
Jan 26, 2004 10:59 AM
he doesn't have a lot of time. His campaign has just been amateur hour. He's got to win something Feb. 3. And it doesn't look like it will be SC, which was where everyone assumed he would break out if he was going to.

I agree with you that Edwards benefits most from all this.
Nothing truly revealing hereLive Steam
Jan 26, 2004 10:40 AM
I don't think anything would be a surprise with the exception of Kerry not being able to carry 30%. If the Dumocrats are lucky, there will be a clear winner and most of the non-contenders will drop out. This could solidify some sort of voter base and unify the party.

Personally I hope this continues. Nothing better than watching a bunch of hypocritical Dumocrats rip each other! It's almost as good a female mud wrestling!
Hmmm, not bad, Ed ...HouseMoney
Jan 26, 2004 2:24 PM
Methinks you overstate the momentum of Edwards, at least in NH. I'd guess 3rd, with Dean pulling off a mild comeback to 2nd (although Dean had another foot-in-mouth moment yesterday). Clark is toast. As Dandy Don Meredith used to sing on MNF, "turn out the lights, the party's over ...".

I believe Lieberman will wake up Wednesday morning and smell the cappuccino.

Despite remaining smug after winning NH (probably), Kerry will be in for a rude awakening when things head south & west.
You could be right about EdwardsOldEdScott
Jan 26, 2004 5:33 PM
But I have this ... feeling ... about him. Just a gut thing. He's DAMN good as a campaigner. And a friend of mine who's been covering Iowa/New Hampshire for Scripps-Howard tells me he's even better in person than I'm picking up from C-Span etc.

Regardless, I agree that Kerry has a rude awakening coming. As Hancock said, wounded, at Gettysburg: "I will not be moved. This engagement is not yet decided."
Have you ever been at a party when the worst happens....MR_GRUMPY
Jan 26, 2004 1:05 PM
Every few minutes, some clown comes around with a lampshade on his head, saying "LOOK AT ME......LOOK AT ME" ??????
After a while, you begin to wonder what his problem is.
But then again, that would never happen here.