Obama puts a whoopin' on Hillary

[Sgt Beavis]

Before I start, you should know that the Democrats way of counting votes in Iowa is really jacked up. You pretty much need a degree in astrophysics with a minor in rocket science to figure that shit out. Anyways, Obama is winning with 37% of the vote (less than 900 votes but that goes back to the really jacked up way of counting)

Hillary is in 3rd place with 29% and falling further behind Edwards' 30%.

The Republicans are more straightforward. Each vote is counted as an actual vote (go figure)

Huck is winning 34% (about 31000 votes)
Romney has 25%
Fred has 14%
Ron Paul has 10%
Giuliani is sucking wind with 4%



So my thinking is the Hillary had better win or place 2nd in New Hampshire (which is a real primary with real votes, not this bull shit Iowa calculus.) or she is in deep shit. However GW didn't win Iowa and neither did Bill Clinton, so she shouldn't get in panic mode.

Ron Paul finishing in 4th should get him back into the debates and Fred finishing 3rd was a pleasant surprise. I personally have no love for any of the other GOP candidates. None of them are conservatives. If they are the nominee we might as well vote for Hillary because Huck and Romney are about as liberal as she is on several issues.

So what does this election mean? It only means that we are at the beginning of the end of this primary BS. Thank God its almost over. Its just irritating to me that these people spent millions of dollars for fewer votes than they'll get in Plano, TX all by itself.

[mardyn]

I'm following it as well... while I'm glad to see that fat ankled bitch getting a whoppin' put on her lard ass, I'm still concerned that the GOP really doesn't have a strong enough candidate to face down the dems in the Fall.

mardyn

[Sean88gt]

Nice to see Thompson finish with a 3rd, considering the limited work he did. And Paul finishing 4th was a shock!

Democrats motto: Vote and vote often!

[Sean88gt]

I'm following it as well... while I'm glad to see that fat ankled bitch getting a whoppin' put on her lard ass, I still concerned that the GOP really doesn't have a strong enough candidate to face down the dems in the Fall.

mardyn

The republican candidate will be the Anti-hillary, much as Kerry was the Anti-Bush in 04.

I just hope it isn't Huckabee as he is Bush-light, but not quite as conservative:rolleyes:

[Vertnut]

At this point in time, I don't care for any of them. :o

[Sgt Beavis]

The republican candidate will be the Anti-hillary, much as Kerry was the Anti-Bush in 04.

I just hope it isn't Huckabee as he is Bush-light, but not quite as conservative:rolleyes:


Huck isn't Bush Light. He'll make Bush's spending look conservative. He is liberal on several governmental issues. IMO a Huckabee v. Obama election is an Obama victory. A Hillary v. Huckabee election means a tight race at best. IMO that bitch could potentially beat him.

I hope Fred's 3rd place finish lights a fire under his ass. He should know now that he has a real chance at this. The other outcome of this election is that Ron Paul is for real....

[Sean88gt]

Huck isn't Bush Light. He'll make Bush's spending look conservative. He is liberal on several governmental issues. IMO a Huckabee v. Obama election is an Obama victory. A Hillary v. Huckabee election means a tight race at best. IMO that bitch could potentially beat him.

I hope Fred's 3rd place finish lights a fire under his ass. He should know now that he has a real chance at this. The other outcome of this election is that Ron Paul is for real....

Huck scares me. His stance on handing illegals full scholarships and green cards just flat out pisses me off.

And Paul finishing strong just proves there are crazy people in the world!:D

[mikeb]

I'd rather see hillary winning. Obama is a murky "nice seeming" person to most people who don't know that he is to the left of hillary. Obama is likeable, which is dangerous. A hillary nomination would certainly awaken the conservative voters and get them to the poll. Obama? Maybe not.

I'm no fan of huckaby either. I read that when he was governor of arkansas he pardened a lot of people and spent a lot of money. He seems to me to be a loose cannon.

I still like fred. I hope he steps it up.

[black01gt]

Huck scares me. His stance on handing illegals full scholarships and green cards just flat out pisses me off.

And Paul finishing strong just proves there are crazy people in the world!:D
That's an odd viewpoint considering that Ron Paul is the opposite of Huckabee on immigration. I don't think you've checked his stance on issues or his voting history. If all you've checked is Iraq that would make you a single issue voter. Not good.

He would also beat Hillary or Obama. I just hope he doesn't have to run on a third party ticket. Then it gets dicy.

[White trash wagon]

The Democratic side of this was a non-event, totally predictable. I'm glad Ron Paul did well, but that was also predicted. Biden and Dodd have dropped out, so it begins.

Scott

[Denny]

Paul will go Independant, possibly just waiting on New Hampshire results, maybe slightly later. This early in the race, candidates get more publicity with one of the mainstream parties.

[Sgt Beavis]

Paul will go Independant, possibly just waiting on New Hampshire results, maybe slightly later. This early in the race, candidates get more publicity with one of the mainstream parties.

He won't go Independent but considering that he is still a member of the Libertarian party I could see him getting nominated over there. He could end up being a real spoiler for whatever GOP candidate that wins the nomination.

[Denny]

He won't go Independent but considering that he is still a member of the Libertarian party I could see him getting nominated over there. He could end up being a real spoiler for whatever GOP candidate that wins the nomination.
Dammit! That's what I meant!

<---No Dr Pepper yet this morning :o

[32VfromHell]

Obama is a much stronger contender than Hillary, who polarizes voters. Obama doesnt. I think this could be bad news.

[AL P]

IMHO Obama is unelectable when it comes to the southern vote. It's the whole black muslim Hussein factor. While I don't necessarily agree with all that, for a lot of people it's a deal killer. We'll see how it shakes out but I don't see Hillary or Obama as being electable.

[Sean88gt]

He won't go Independent but considering that he is still a member of the Libertarian party I could see him getting nominated over there. He could end up being a real spoiler for whatever GOP candidate that wins the nomination.

And this is what I was gearing up for. He has support, but only enough to throw an anchor around the neck of the Republican nominee (if he goes independent) and pull a Scott Peterson.

[Mustangman_2000]

I was not the leat bit surprised at the outcome. Obama is quite successfully appealing to the youth demographic and "minorities. He is emerging as the guy to beat. I would have never imagined a candidate being that far to the left to have this kind of following, but it appears as if our culture has made a significant shift in the last few years. We now have a growing number of voters that are embracing a hard core liberal candidate. I think it's a bad sign.

I think a lot of voters in this country are just simply grabbing the coat tails of anyone who is the diametric opposite of George Bush and his ilk. I think it's the Bush Administrations own controversies and dubious actions, perceived or otherwise, that have changed the disposition of the voting bloc's around the country. Just like a lot of people were eager to vote for a Republican candidate after Bill Clinton to bring what they thought would be "integrity" and "morality" back to the Whitehouse. There are historical trends abound regarding this changing of the tides style voting behavior following a troubled Administration.

The irony here is....I guess all of those Obama acolytes don't realize that being too Progressive presents it's own set of pitfalls.

I am going to end up voting for whomever is the closest to the center of the diamond, regardless of party affiliation.

[White trash wagon]

I just hope it isn't Huckabee as he is Bush-light, but not quite as conservative:rolleyes:

Huckabee is a blend of philosophies that are probably the worst possible at this point in time. He's a social conservative, and a fiscal Liberal. The essence of a neo-conservative. The polar opposite of a true Republican. Expect even bigger deficits under Huckabee.....a trillion $dollars per year perhaps?

I prefer the exact opposite.....a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, such as Ron Paul. I'm not too concerned about gay's getting married, but trillion dollar deficits, a worthless dollar, and open borders scare the hell out of me.

Then again Ron Paul & possibly Fred Thompson are the only candidates under the Republican banner who even vaguely appear to be Republicans.

Scott

[exlude]

Unfortunately, Huckabee and Romney are probably my two least liked GOP candidates.

[Sean88gt]

Huckabee is a blend of philosophies that are probably the worst possible at this point in time. He's a social conservative, and a fiscal Liberal. The essence of a neo-conservative. The polar opposite of a true Republican. Expect even bigger deficits under Huckabee.....a trillion $dollars per year perhaps?

I prefer the exact opposite.....a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, such as Ron Paul. I'm not too concerned about gay's getting married, but trillion dollar deficits, a worthless dollar, and open borders scare the hell out of me.

Then again Ron Paul & possibly Fred Thompson are the only candidates under the Republican banner who even vaguely appear to be Republicans.

Scott

Being a financial conservative is a huge deal for me. A guy that wants to actually limit spending and make government accountable for it is key.

I'm much more hands off socially. I don't really give a damn what any one person does (morally speaking) as I'm focused on my life. I just want my guns left alone and a simpler tax code. After reading information regarding our employees and our corporate responsibility I'm fairly certain the tax code is set up to purposely make everyone a violator, just in case they ever need it.

Charge everyone a modest sales tax, flush everything else, limit spending and we'll begin to recover.

[White trash wagon]

Being a financial conservative is a huge deal for me. A guy that wants to actually limit spending and make government accountable for it is key.

I'm much more hands off socially. I don't really give a damn what any one person does (morally speaking) as I'm focused on my life. I just want my guns left alone and a simpler tax code. After reading information regarding our employees and our corporate responsibility I'm fairly certain the tax code is set up to purposely make everyone a violator, just in case they ever need it.

Charge everyone a modest sales tax, flush everything else, limit spending and we'll begin to recover.

Sean, you have the makings of a true Libertarian.

Scott

[Sean88gt]

I know. I'm not fighting it just trying to figure out the best way to right the ship that is heading towards the rocks.

[White trash wagon]

It is interesting how virtually everyone, from the most liberal to the most conservative....all feel we are on the wrong course.....heading towards the rocks.

Scott

[black01gt]

I know. I'm not fighting it just trying to figure out the best way to right the ship that is heading towards the rocks.
Your best bet:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[Sgt Beavis]

Huckabee is a blend of philosophies that are probably the worst possible at this point in time. He's a social conservative, and a fiscal Liberal. The essence of a neo-conservative. The polar opposite of a true Republican. Expect even bigger deficits under Huckabee.....a trillion $dollars per year perhaps?

I prefer the exact opposite.....a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, such as Ron Paul. I'm not too concerned about gay's getting married, but trillion dollar deficits, a worthless dollar, and open borders scare the hell out of me.

Then again Ron Paul & possibly Fred Thompson are the only candidates under the Republican banner who even vaguely appear to be Republicans.

Scott

I don't really consider Ron Paul a social liberal. He is a hard core anti abortion guy for one (loves to brag about how many babies he has delivered as a doctor) He support the so called "protection of marriage" act, not because he is against gays but because the Federal Government shouldn't be involved. He believes it is a State government issue and only the states should decide. Unlike many evangelicals he is very aware of the slippery slope something like that leads down to. He also is against the war on drugs, not because he supports drug use but because he again believes it is a state level issue and the Feds shouldn't be spending Billions on it (which is a failure anyways)

[White trash wagon]

I don't really consider Ron Paul a social liberal. He is a hard core anti abortion guy for one (loves to brag about how many babies he has delivered as a doctor) He support the so called "protection of marriage" act, not because he is against gays but because the Federal Government shouldn't be involved. He believes it is a State government issue and only the states should decide. Unlike many evangelicals he is very aware of the slippery slope something like that leads down to. He also is against the war on drugs, not because he supports drug use but because he again believes it is a state level issue and the Feds shouldn't be spending Billions on it (which is a failure anyways)

I called Ron Paul a social liberal because his attitude on social issues is that it's not the government's business, kinda "hands off", or at least a state issue (not Federal). Most Evangelicals (IE neo-cons) would call this social liberalism, as they seem to want the Fed involved all sorts of social legislation.

Scott

[Sgt Beavis]

I called Ron Paul a social liberal because his attitude on social issues is that it's not the government's business, kinda "hands off", or at least a state issue (not Federal). Most Evangelicals (IE neo-cons) would call this social liberalism, as they seem to want the Fed involved all sorts of social legislation.

Scott

Yea, I acknowledge that point of view but to me, less government is the cornerstone of the conservative movement. Too bad the only President to actually shrink the government (in the last century) was Bill Clinton. IMO Republican politicians should be embarrassed with that fact every time they try to bring it up. So far, only Ron Paul has talked that game (and he has a history of acting on it)

[ayzo]

Its a huge victory for Obama, what surprises me is that 3% of the people who voted for Obama were registered republicans. In swing states like NH,IA,FL, VA, and NV that could be a big problem for republicans. The only hole Obama has is his inexperience, but if he chooses a person like Biden, Dodd, or General Wesley Clark as vice president it probably won't be as big of an issue.

IMO the only hope for republicans is Fred Thompson, but he's been crashing and burning ever since he officially announced he was running. The religious right doesn't like Romney or Giuliani, the hard right hates Huckabee, McCain, and Paul. Most people haven't even heard of Hunter so he's almost out by default. Unless one of these guys can unite the religious conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and pick up a few independents the next president will be a democrat.

[01WhiteCobra]

Its a huge victory for Obama, what surprises me is that 3% of the people who voted for Obama were registered republicans. In swing states like NH,IA,FL, VA, and NV that could be a big problem for republicans. The only hole Obama has is his inexperience, but if he chooses a person like Biden, Dodd, or General Wesley Clark as vice president it probably won't be as big of an issue.

IMO the only hope for republicans is Fred Thompson, but he's been crashing and burning ever since he officially announced he was running. The religious right doesn't like Romney or Giuliani, the hard right hates Huckabee, McCain, and Paul. Most people haven't even heard of Hunter so he's almost out by default. Unless one of these guys can unite the religious conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and pick up a few independents the next president will be a democrat.

LMAO. You are calling the race in January?

[01WhiteCobra]

Your best bet:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

He ain't making it past April.

[Slowhand]

General Wesley Clark as vice president

giggling at this one.

[ayzo]

LMAO. You are calling the race in January?

Well, Even people like Juan Williams, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and many other republican strategists are saying the GOP is screwed in 08 if they can't find the right candidate who can unite all branches of the republican party. Just break down the candidates and see what you get:

Romney and Giuliani: evangelicals (30% of the GOP) really hate both of these guys. If one of them gets the nomination expect a low turnout from the religous right which is enough to destroy the GOP in swing states if just 10% of them stay home.

McCain: The hard right doesn't like him and his push for amnesty, he probably won't even get past SC.

Huckabee: A little too religious for some, appears soft on illegal immigration, fiscal conservatives don't trust him but they like his support for the fair tax. I personally hate him but if voting for him abolishes the IRS then i'll be fine with a bible in every class room and illegal immigration for 4 more years.

Paul: Bill O'Reilly will suck Al Sharpton's dick before you see Paul getting the republican nomination in 08 which is a real shame because without him our financial markets will be screwed.

Thompson: Conservative enough to get the approval of the religious right without putting off independents, he's tough on immigration and fiscal conservatives love his anti-big government pro-fair tax platform. I like his fair tax proposal and libertarian leanings so i'm voting for him. But like I said earlier, he's been on a downward slope ever since he announced. The latest NH poll shows him at 2% vs Ron Paul's 10%

Then look at the stats of the voting in IA

-democrats had 250,000 people show up in IA to vote (vs 124,000 in 04)

-republicans had 120,000 people show up in IA (vs 87,000 in 04)

Both of these numbers were within 10% of the projected numbers and when analysts apply the same projections to other swing states like IA democrats end up winning the nomination.

Of course all of this is speculation, politics in general is a really volatile field and impossible to predict 100% but if current trends hold than the republican party is going to have a problem in 08.

[ayzo]

giggling at this one.

It deserves a giggle or two :D

but I said somebody LIKE Clark, Dodd, or Biden, somebody with either foreign policy or military experience who was a former democratic presidential candidate.

[Vertnut]

He ain't making it past April.
Truism.

Damn! Are you up early, or staying up late? ;)

[black01gt]

He ain't making it past April.
Perhaps...as a republican candidate anyway.

[01WhiteCobra]

Truism.

Damn! Are you up early, or staying up late? ;)

Haha. Up late, was getting back from a poker game and wasn't quite ready to go to bed.

[Sean88gt]

Then look at the stats of the voting in IA

-democrats had 250,000 people show up in IA to vote (vs 124,000 in 04)

-republicans had 120,000 people show up in IA (vs 87,000 in 04)

Both of these numbers were within 10% of the projected numbers and when analysts apply the same projections to other swing states like IA democrats end up winning the nomination.

Of course all of this is speculation, politics in general is a really volatile field and impossible to predict 100% but if current trends hold than the republican party is going to have a problem in 08.

Pre election numbers don't mean much. I wouldn't go out of my way to vote in a primary, where I would in the actual election.

Thompson needs to pull his head out of his ass and get busy.

[32VfromHell]

Paul: Bill O'Reilly will suck Al Sharpton's dick before you see Paul getting the republican nomination in 08 which is a real shame because without him our financial markets will be screwed.





How does withdrawing military support and removing US presence all over the globe not screw our financial markets when investors sense uncertainty and a lack of security abroad. Removing US military presence overseas is one of Paul's goals as an isolationist who doesnt want to get involved in the worlds problems ( a noble cause) but in this interconnected world vulnerable to the slightest disruption, leaving shipping lanes unguarded and rapid crisis response from US military units to an area wont exactly be good bullet points for investment in places like South Korea.

[ayzo]

How does withdrawing military support and removing US presence all over the globe not screw our financial markets when investors sense uncertainty and a lack of security abroad. Removing US military presence overseas is one of Paul's goals as an isolationist who doesnt want to get involved in the worlds problems ( a noble cause) but in this interconnected world vulnerable to the slightest disruption, leaving shipping lanes unguarded and rapid crisis response from US military units to an area wont exactly be good bullet points for investment in places like South Korea.

Our markets will go down sharply regardless of what the military does, what the government does next will be crucial and Paul is the only one who is willing to admit we can't keep stacking the cards by monetizing debt. Right now everybody on wall st is waiting to hear what Bush, Paulsen, and Bernanke will do next to "stimulate" the economy. The problem is that this can't be fixed with a 5% tax rate or 0.25% interest rates, the money that has been lost has to bleed somewhere.

Where it bleeds depends on what the government does, if they did the right thing and allowed the free markets to work it out a lot of investors would lose a lot of money, some major banks would go under, many lenders would go bankrupt and take a few home builders along for the ride. Some jobs will be lost but it will be mostly limited to the finance and investment industry. The good news is that the banks that survive can finally trust each other enough to lend money and it will put an end to the credit crunch. If this was the case we would still go into a recession but pull out of it quick.

If they continue to try and socialize the losses by lowering interest rates expect a weaker dollar which means higher inflation. With more inflation comes reduced spending and that leads to job losses across all industries in a consumer driven economy. Business and personal credit will tighten up and it wouldn't surprise me if GM went bankrupt. In this case, we just delay the recession for a little longer but make up for it by getting hit harder.

The formula used to be that when the US went into a recession the rest of the world would too and investors would flee to the US for safe investments. But if mortgage backed securities keep falling in value and the federal reserve continues to destroy the currency where are they going to store all their money? Well if oil hitting $100 a barrel and gold hitting $875 can tell us anything it looks like they found a new currency to replace the USD. Which is the upside to this, because then the government will be forced to drastically cut spending and we will be able to reclaim a lot of those manufacturing jobs.

I laughed at Peter Schiff when he called for a $150 oil, $2,000 gold, and a 30% decline in the USD but everyday Wall St. keeps backing up his case. He called this big mess from day 1 so if his past record is any indication of his future record than we're all screwed.

[black01gt]

Bill O'Reilly will suck Al Sharpton's dick
With a vibrator in his ass no less. :eek:

[ayzo]

With a vibrator in his ass no less. :eek:

LMFAO Its a shame that lawsuit was settled and we'll never get to hear the tapes :(

[Denny]

LMFAO Its a shame that lawsuit was settled and we'll never get to hear the tapes :(
I have youtube hopes.