Hey did anyone watch the latest Democratic debate? it aired tonight around 9:30 on ABC.

Basically, Edwards and Obama teamed up against Hillary. Hillary was visibly pissed when she saw how both of them had conspired against her. Edwards was very aggressive and piggybacked on Obama's victory, taking advantage of the "change" theme and constantly attacking Hillary. The Obama/Edwards alliance was a direct contrast to the Richardson/Clinton alliance at the other side of the table. I was surprised by how aggressive Edwards was -- but of course, Obama only welcomed it.

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

Last edited by HardTranceProd on Jan-06-2008 at 06:52

yeah i saw it too...but i thought hillary did a good job of countering their attacks. IMHO she was much more aggressive and assertive in this debate than she has been so far. she had her game face on fo' sho!

i also really liked bill richardson...overall this time im pretty happy with all the democratic candidates

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherWay83 yeah i saw it too...but i thought hillary did a good job of countering their attacks. IMHO she was much more aggressive and assertive in this debate than she has been so far. she had her game face on fo' sho!

No I don't think so. having to justify yourself and bringing the conversation back to "hard work" isn't very inspiring. I thought Obama had a very good moment when he said, "Don't discount the power of words [in building hope and optimism]." That was a very smart thing to say.

quote:

i also really liked bill richardson...overall this time im pretty happy with all the democratic candidates

yeah, i like him too, but he's a relic of a bygone era. That's why Obama/Edwards have the momentum, with the emphasis on Obama.

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo just because it's not a metropolitan, center-of-the-progressive universe doesn't mean there aren't some damn fine and well informed Americans there who care deeply for the well being of their country.

Never said they weren't well-informed. I'm sure Iowa's counting on an Evangelical to lead the country and forward their cause. Just agreeing with Opus that it's a strange choice to set the stage for all the other debates.

I mean, why not start off in a metropolitan, densely populated, modern state, like Florida, Texas or New York? Or even a state that has the most Electoral College votes like my home state of California? Hell, I could even understand if a state like Massachusstts held the first cacaus, being one of the original 13 colonies and all. But Iowa? They only have a puny 7 electoral votes. Who the fuck cares who Iowa votes for? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Last edited by Zharen on Jan-06-2008 at 10:06

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen Never said they weren't well-informed. I'm sure Iowa's counting on an Evangelical to lead the country and forward their cause. Just agreeing with Opus that it's a strange choice to set the stage for all the other debates. I mean, why not start off in a metropolitan, densely populated, modern state, like Florida, Texas or New York? Or even a state that has the most Electoral College votes like my home state of California? Hell, I could even understand if a state like Massachusstts held the first cacaus, being one of the original 13 colonies and all. But Iowa? They only have a puny 7 electoral votes. Who the fuck cares who Iowa votes for? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't necessary believe it's a "strange state," per se. I agree very much with Q here:

quote:

just because it's not a metropolitan, center-of-the-progressive universe doesn't mean there aren't some damn fine and well informed Americans there who care deeply for the well being of their country.

My father's family roots trace back to Iowa where many of my relatives are farmers there. It's remote, it's in the middle of nowhere, but they are still "damn fine and well informed Americans" nonetheless.

But what I do not like is having one state ANYWHERE out of 50 essentially setting the tone for the rest of the country's primary/caucus voting. I don't care if that first state is New York, California, Texas, or Iowa - one state should not have that privilege, followed by two more states (New Hampshire and S. Carolina) that also tend to be influenced so heavily on Iowa and, in turn, influence the tone for Super Tuesday. I don't like the current system, period, but that's not because of Iowa.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen Who the fuck cares who Iowa votes for? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think Iowa and New Hampshire are first in part for this exact reason - so they have a part to play in the process.

And Iowa isn't the evangelical hotbed you are portraying it to be. There are parts of the state that are deeply religious, yes, but moral issues weren't the predominant factors listed by caucus goers.

___________________

Same CNN/WMUR poll, just a day later - a major uptick for Obama in New Hampshire. Last night the poll had Obama and Hillary tied at 33%. Today:

quote:

With two days to go until the New Hampshire primary, a new CNN/WMUR poll out Sunday afternoon suggests that Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has opened up a double digit advantage over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. In the survey, conducted by the University of New Hampshire on Saturday and early Sunday, 39 percent of likely Granite State Democratic primary voters back Obama as the party’s nominee — that’s ten points ahead of Clinton’s 29 percent. Obama is up six points and Clinton down four points from our survey conducted on Friday and early Saturday. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is at 16 percent in the new survey, down four points from Saturday. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is in fourth place, with the support of 7 percent of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio at 2 percent.

Obama up 10%. That falls in line with the Rasmussen poll where he's up 12% on Hillary at 39% to her 27%. Another poll taken after Iowa is American Research Group, where Obama is up 12% on Hillary (38% to her 26%):

http://www.americanresearchgroup.co...nhdem8-716.html

The boy's got momentum right now. Also looks like Edwards is slipping, unfortunately. I'd love to see Edwards pull ahead of Hillary again, but that probably won't happen in NH, if at all from here on out.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Yea...uh...good luck with Huckabee down there...

/yikes!

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Congratulations Canada in preserving your national igloo.

I can't believe the latest polls... It looks like Mccain is going to run away with this thing today...how sad. I think the people of NH are voting for him out of nostalgia rather than what he really stands for. NH was the only state he won in 2000. He may have been a "maverick" back then, but he has since become an old and bitter pro-war neocon. If he gets nominated, the republican party will be obsolete for 50 years.

Last edited by Capitalizt on Jan-08-2008 at 13:29

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt If he gets nominated,

no danger of that happening. thats just NH. they're weird like that.

"the Maverick" has burned the base way too many times for that to ever happen.

he's a crusty old fukker though.

quote:

Believe it or not, the first results of the New Hampshire primary are officially in. The small village of Dixville Notch has closed its polls after 100% of voters turned out, as is allowed under state law, and here are the results: Democrats: Obama 7 Edwards 2 Richardson 1 Republicans: McCain 4 Romney 2 Giuliani 1 That's right, a total of 17 votes. The village has done this in every election since 1960, and since 1996 has had something of an informal competition with another village, Hart's Location, over who will finish voting and report the results first. The results are not necessarily predictive of anything — Wesley Clark won both localities in the 2004 primary, while coming in a distant third overall. One thing that is striking, however, is that more people voted in the Democratic primary in a village that has historically voted heavily Republican for the general elections, and that the crossover votes went decisively to Obama.

Hardly a decent sample, but I think the trend will be that Obama does better than expected (10-12 point win). Giuliani could finish 5th and be on his way out the door.

___________________