BigSqwert Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 The Clinton News Network poll has a dead heat in NH. Both Obama and Clinton at 33%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 03:48 PM) The Clinton News Network poll has a dead heat in NH. Both Obama and Clinton at 33%. Which right now stands as something of an outlier from the other polls out there aside from the tracking polls (which still usually include either small sample sizes or some pre-Iowa days) Edit, you know, I'm not so sure about that now. Right now it looks like there's one population of polls that has Obama up by like 8, and another population with it roughly tied, and then there's 1 poll skewing Pro-Hillary (although with a big 1 day tracking poll bump for Obama yesterday) balancing those out. Edited January 5, 2008 by Balta1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 05:40 PM) Their behavior has strongly suggested they'd love Giuliani. They've done things such as allowing Rudy to freely use Fox News clips in their ads while denying that same right to other campaigns, and we've got the statements by Judith Regan in that lawsuit against NewsCorp alleging that Fox tried to kill the Kerik story to help out the Rudy campaign. yea, Giuliani is Bush 2.0. They'd love another fear mongering war leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 05:40 PM) Their behavior has strongly suggested they'd love Giuliani. FOX seems to have been for Rudy since the start of the campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Ok, what is the deal with Michigan and Florida? are they officially of limits to campaign? i head someone mention that Hillary might do something in Florida and I thought all the candidates agreed not to go there or Michigan because the DNC has pulled their delegates for having primaries too early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 06:49 PM) FOX seems to have been for Rudy since the start of the campaign. Probably an administration talking point. Rudy is very similar to Bush. So, I bet they are pulling for him behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 06:52 PM) Probably an administration talking point. Rudy is very similar to Bush. So, I bet they are pulling for him behind the scenes. I don't know about that. Bush was more of an evangelical candidate/president. I think FOX thought Guiliani was more of a moderate, so some people at the network liked that. Huckabee seems more like G.W. Bush jr. Edited January 6, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 06:48 PM) yea, Giuliani is Bush 2.0. They'd love another fear mongering war leader. And claims that the immediate end of the world is near due to global warming isn't fear mongering? As far as wars, if the Dems win, it's probably just a matter of time before they start one. I have no confidence in them as far as being for peace in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 05:01 PM) I don't know about that. Bush was more of an evangelical candidate/president. I think FOX thought Guiliani was more of a moderate, so some people at the network liked that. Huckabee seems more like G.W. Bush jr. Huckabee uses some of the religious language of GWBush, but aside from a few scraps it's hard to say he's acted on those statements though. Giuliani seems totally on board with the war policy, the torture policies, and the unitary executive/Congress doesn't matter at all policies of the Bush admin, and I think that's why Fox likes him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 07:51 PM) Ok, what is the deal with Michigan and Florida? are they officially of limits to campaign? i head someone mention that Hillary might do something in Florida and I thought all the candidates agreed not to go there or Michigan because the DNC has pulled their delegates for having primaries too early. The Dem party tried to stop the leapfrogging of states to earlier and earlier primaries and caucuses and tried to set a date of Feb 5 as the earliest that most states could have their nominating contest. Exceptions being IA, NH, SC and NV. (NV was given an early date to try to move the initial campaign partially out west and reflect the Latino voting bloc which is large there but small in IA, NH and SC.) Michigan, thanks to a state law, is having its primary earlier than Feb 5 as is the Florida Democratic Party. The DNC has told the states to move their dates back, or they won't honor the contest and strip the state's delegates. Florida refused, calling the DNC's stripping delegates bluff. So the DNC pulled the delegates. Michigan, too... although the state party could have chosen to hold a separate caucus on February 5 that might have gotten their delegates back, but for whatever reason, didn't. At the same time, because MI's primary's balloting laws are relatively lenient, the DNC encouraged viable candidates to pull their names from the ballot. It is my understanding that the only "viable" names left on that ballot are Hillary, Kucinich (who filed the papers but a couple hours past the deadline to withdraw) and Gravel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 07:05 PM) Huckabee uses some of the religious language of GWBush, but aside from a few scraps it's hard to say he's acted on those statements though. Giuliani seems totally on board with the war policy, the torture policies, and the unitary executive/Congress doesn't matter at all policies of the Bush admin, and I think that's why Fox likes him. I think Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani are all in agreement with Bush on water boarding and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Lemon Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) Also, I am watching the Dem debate and earlier Hillary asserted that she opposed the '05 energy bill, while Obama supported it. Do NOT believe it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00158 Why doesn't one of the candidates call a lie a lie? Will this be brought up after the debate? Probably not, but it took me a whole ten seconds to debunk. edit: found the direct quote in the transcript SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's right, he killed it. So we've got to have a plan and a real push to get it through. You know, when it comes to lobbyists, you know, Senator Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies. So I think it's important that all of us be held to the same standards, that we're all held accountable. You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare. Now we're all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill. So you know, words are not actions. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/polit...?pagewanted=all Edited January 6, 2008 by Chet Lemon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Bill Bradley endorses Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 New Rasmussen poll today. Obama 39% Clinton 27% Edwards 18% LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 03:25 AM) Also, I am watching the Dem debate and earlier Hillary asserted that she opposed the '05 energy bill, while Obama supported it. Do NOT believe it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00158 Why doesn't one of the candidates call a lie a lie? Will this be brought up after the debate? Probably not, but it took me a whole ten seconds to debunk. edit: found the direct quote in the transcript http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/polit...?pagewanted=all This is one ad I would want Obama to run to set the record straight. What a pathetic b**** this lady is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 The media headlines are cracking me up. "No More Mrs. Nice" and "Clinton Hits Back" and all this "tough" s***. I hate the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 12:26 PM) The media headlines are cracking me up. "No More Mrs. Nice" and "Clinton Hits Back" and all this "tough" s***. I hate the media. Let the media keep portraying her as a tough old b****. That's the very reason people hate her anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 07:45 PM) Let the media keep portraying her as a tough old b****. That's the very reason people hate her anyway. Yes and no. They are making it look like she's "fighting for America" now. :PUKE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 02:01 PM) Yes and no. They are making it look like she's "fighting for America" now. :PUKE Not to underestimate the Clinton machine, but I believe Obama will be the nominee. In fact, I kind of have my suspicions that Bill doesn't want her to win. Nothing solid to base that on yet, so don't hold me to it. Let's call this a developing situation that I'm still watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 08:07 PM) Not to underestimate the Clinton machine, but I believe Obama will be the nominee. In fact, I kind of have my suspicions that Bill doesn't want her to win. Nothing solid to base that on yet, so don't hold me to it. Let's call this a developing situation that I'm still watching. That's an interesting thought. We all know he likes the spotlight and her being president doesn't exactly fit for him being second fiddle. Of course, neither does her being a Senator from New York. There's a long way to go, but I do agree that Obama seems to have tapped into the "I'm sick of this s***" BFD and Clinton spin machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot7 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 05:07 PM) The Dem party tried to stop the leapfrogging of states to earlier and earlier primaries and caucuses and tried to set a date of Feb 5 as the earliest that most states could have their nominating contest. Exceptions being IA, NH, SC and NV. (NV was given an early date to try to move the initial campaign partially out west and reflect the Latino voting bloc which is large there but small in IA, NH and SC.) Michigan, thanks to a state law, is having its primary earlier than Feb 5 as is the Florida Democratic Party. The DNC has told the states to move their dates back, or they won't honor the contest and strip the state's delegates. Florida refused, calling the DNC's stripping delegates bluff. So the DNC pulled the delegates. Michigan, too... although the state party could have chosen to hold a separate caucus on February 5 that might have gotten their delegates back, but for whatever reason, didn't. At the same time, because MI's primary's balloting laws are relatively lenient, the DNC encouraged viable candidates to pull their names from the ballot. It is my understanding that the only "viable" names left on that ballot are Hillary, Kucinich (who filed the papers but a couple hours past the deadline to withdraw) and Gravel. That's so dumb. Larger states should go first - having primaries in small insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire first is just ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(longshot7 @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 08:24 PM) That's so dumb. Larger states should go first - having primaries in small insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire first is just ludicrous. I really like NSS's idea of a rotation of primary openers. (The post is here somewhere). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot7 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) I really like NSS's idea of a rotation of primary openers. (The post is here somewhere). Why not everyone all on the same day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 QUOTE(longshot7 @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 09:13 PM) Why not everyone all on the same day? Because it's not the general election, it's a PARTY primary and there are national, state, and local implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Because us Iowans are awesome, that's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts