New Hampshire Primaries
- Thread starter Belushi
- Start date
weltweit said:
Polling is only as accurate as your sampling procedure is random, which in most cases, is never.
I think the European media misunderstands the whole primary process, though, the way they've been reporting things. I mean, Monday night they made it sound like it was all over.
Anyway, apparently Hillary cried Monday which swayed a bunch of voters to vote for her, as before they thought she seemed too cold.
kyser_soze said:
It's actually not very common for rivals in the primaries to pair up for the general election, unless there's an unusual reason to do so. If they do pair up, it's almost always the front runner picking up one of the trailing candidates, and not the next one down.
Too much power clashing, and usually the runner up has his/her eyes on the next election by that point.
dilute micro said:
No he's not, this has been his strategy from the beginning. Not wasting money on smaller states. This can backfire in the general election, but for states like IA and NH is probably not an issue.
He's basically moved to Florida, for example, and he's spent fortunes on all the Big Tuesday states.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Right, before this website turns into a US news network with it's 'analysis' of Hilary crying and how that made her seem more 'human'...
She won because more middle aged and older people voted for her, and she got the women's vote in NH, plus some residual 'She's not Bill but she's a Clinton'. Anyone who wants to see how endless discussion of things like the crying game fills the news hours in US electoral coverage at the expense of actual policy discussions, and how this plays to the Republican agenda every single time should read 'The Bush Dyslexicon'...
She won because more middle aged and older people voted for her, and she got the women's vote in NH, plus some residual 'She's not Bill but she's a Clinton'. Anyone who wants to see how endless discussion of things like the crying game fills the news hours in US electoral coverage at the expense of actual policy discussions, and how this plays to the Republican agenda every single time should read 'The Bush Dyslexicon'...
Jografer said:
Or John Edwards...
On the Obama front, we all know that he's not the lefty messiah that some people want him to be and that he won't represent a massive change in policy, but surely just the idea and the effect of a black president would be of tremendous value.
I hear he's got far more cross-party appeal than the other candidates too. Which isn't surprising considering that Clinton is just about one of the worst politicians/electioneers that I've seen.
Diamond said:
Could equally be said of a woman president...
Diamond said:
Not sure that's true, I think that racial segregation is more acute in US than UK & that while people will say they will vote for a black candidate, they won't in practice, sort of like the Tory vote in the 80's/90s....
Diamond said:
Agreed that Mrs C is an awful campaigner, which is strange as Bill C is probably amongst the best ever....
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Good that Billary is back in the race. Can't really imagine the nation that voted in Bush twice being ready for a black President with muslim connections. Mind you, seems like half the country can't stand the Clintons, either. The best hope is if Romney is the Republican nominee. Surely not even the Americans could elect such a nutcase as President. 
Belushi said:
that will be her downfall.
meaning lots of people wont see it as being human (thats how i see it) but will see it as being weak.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
MightyAphrodite said:
I've already heard the exact same commentators who were saying she shouldn't be president because she's cold, now say that she shouldn't be president because she's too emotional. <sigh>
Yuwipi Woman said:
i know, heard some of the same stuff too, theyre fuckin assholes arent they.
Jografer said:
I disagree on that front. Given US history and the continuing insitutionalised and explicit racism in large parts of the US, I'm firmly of the opinion that a black president would be a greater and more valuable change than a female president, both in international and national terms.
Yossarian said:
i said this to someone and they said i was being racist
which i wasnt.
i just thought i was being a realist cause theres some dumb shit redneck idiot that would take him out quick, i firmly believe that.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm amazed, given the history of the UK in the last 30 years, that anybody thinks the gender of a candidate is any way to judge whether you should back them or not.
If you want female and black, you may be able to go for that rabid right-wing fuck Condi Rice some day.
If you want female and black, you may be able to go for that rabid right-wing fuck Condi Rice some day.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
littlebabyjesus said:I'm amazed, given the history of the UK in the last 30 years, that anybody thinks the gender of a candidate is any way to judge whether you should back them or not.
If you want female and black, you may be able to go for that rabid right-wing fuck Condi Rice some day.
We've already had Shirley Chisum.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I like Shirley Chisholm
MightyAphrodite said:i said this to someone and they said i was being racist
which i wasnt.
i just thought i was being a realist cause theres some dumb shit redneck idiot that would take him out quick, i firmly believe that.
A former poster on these here bulletin boards spent years in Alcatraz for plotting to blow up Martin Luther King.
It's obviously a bit of a pessimistic viewpoint, but I think it's fairly realistic and not the slightest bit racist to anticipate that members of the USA's large and extremely well-armed white supremacist lunatic fringe would try to take out Obama if he was to become president.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
Diamond said:
What difference does it make? You'd actually prefer a black President solely because they're black and it doesn't matter of their politics just because it signifies something symbolic? That's a shitty attitude.
I hope Edwards gets the Democratic vote, he may be a white male but his politics are better than that off Clinton and Obama.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
catrina said:
Yeah it's true he could cash in on the big states but I'd be afraid of the media hype giving momentum to other people.
People respond to the hype and vote on impulse at the last second. This morning they were talking about how nearly 30% across the board made up their mind right before going to vote.
A guy working on the Obama campaign up in NH called in this morning and explained why Hillary won. He said Obama was truly in the lead the other week. Then there was some attack on Hillary by Obama's side. Then Edwards jumped in against Hillary and the local media in NH made it a guys beating up the girl thing. Then Bill went around complaining about the media bias. Then Hillary did her sobbing episode and pulled people at the last second. So if that's what happened then Guiliani probably should take note.
lewislewis
Lumumba Cymru
Irrelevant to whose going to win, but Dennis Kucinich is the man. He is the ONLY potential candidate of either of the two parties that I would honestly trust. Here are his Democratic debate replies. All of his replies are sound.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
lewislewis said:
Kucinich is years ahead of his time. Ron Paul is an interesting Repug candidate too (for a repug that is).
But the best candidate may yet be to announce: Nader said he will run if Hillary is selected (or "selected"). That seems likely, she is the elite choice and many NH discrepancies point to rigging of the machines. Quelle chuffing suprise.
N_igma said:
More or less, that's about it. It wouldn't be 'symbolic' in the reductive, pejorative way that you use it. It would be a powerful, meaningful development.
And come on what do you expect?
That Edwards would be electable if he got the nomination?
That's ludicrous.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
Diamond said:
I'm still miffed. Surely the response and popularity he's already got shows that America has put the whole racial thing aside on the whole? Wanting him to become President solely because he's black is a bit disconcerting if you ask me.
Diamond said:
Perhaps not but I'd prefer him to get the nomination over them two any day. As has been mentioned, Kucinich is the most preferable but he'll never get the nomination.
Idris2002
Stay Alive in '25
Here's an interesting piece on the race from the Seattle based Stranger newspaper:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=479775
Last night I was looking at Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72.
It's full of Steadman cartoons depicting Nixon as a bloodthirsty monster. Nixon, of course, would be considered a leftwinger by today's standards. What was significant about him, though, was that he forged a new Republican coalition that has dominated US (and therefore world) politics right up until today.
Could a new Democratic coalition be forming before our eyes, one that will be as dominant as the post-Nixon republican coalition was, and which will prepare the way for more radical policies in the future (just as Nixon's keyneisanism gave way to Reagan's neoliberalism)? I get a real sense of exhaustion from the Republican camp; when your most likely candidate is someone (McCain) who repudiates much of the Bush legacy, it looks like the other side may have regained the upper hand. . .
E2A: Of course, when I say 'more radical policies in the future', I don't mean that the US will be joining the World Federation of Socialist Republics based on worker's self-management. I just mean more radical in the US context - the shafting of the broad masses being somewhat reduced.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=479775
Last night I was looking at Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72.
It's full of Steadman cartoons depicting Nixon as a bloodthirsty monster. Nixon, of course, would be considered a leftwinger by today's standards. What was significant about him, though, was that he forged a new Republican coalition that has dominated US (and therefore world) politics right up until today.
Could a new Democratic coalition be forming before our eyes, one that will be as dominant as the post-Nixon republican coalition was, and which will prepare the way for more radical policies in the future (just as Nixon's keyneisanism gave way to Reagan's neoliberalism)? I get a real sense of exhaustion from the Republican camp; when your most likely candidate is someone (McCain) who repudiates much of the Bush legacy, it looks like the other side may have regained the upper hand. . .
E2A: Of course, when I say 'more radical policies in the future', I don't mean that the US will be joining the World Federation of Socialist Republics based on worker's self-management. I just mean more radical in the US context - the shafting of the broad masses being somewhat reduced.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Idirs - looking at that post, especially the references to the Republican 'project' that goes back to Nixon (Rove, Cheney and all those old bastards were around then), I reckon you'd like 'The Bush Dyslexicon', cos that spends a long time talking about Nixon and how the groundwork was laid for Bush way back in the 70s...
Will read the article later, but I reckon it could be onto something - the GOP really does look like it's run out of ideas at the moment, and it's got such a divisive split in the form of the Xtian right as well...
Will read the article later, but I reckon it could be onto something - the GOP really does look like it's run out of ideas at the moment, and it's got such a divisive split in the form of the Xtian right as well...
Similar threads
