2008 U.S. Presidential Election

Misty

Misty

oh
is a Top Smogon Discord Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA

So, the first salvo has opened, and the winners are Obama and Huckabee (not won at the time of this posting but enough ahead to virtually guarantee the victory.) So, now what? Are you pleased with this result? Do you think these two could be the eventual nominees, or will this just be a fluke? Do you even give a shit? :O

I'm personally happy to see Obama win, seeing as he's the candidate I feel is really needed in this job - young, charismatic, with wide appeal and the ability to bridge partisan bickering. I've called it a "Kennedy effect" in the past and I stick to it.

For the Republicans... Huckabee could be a fluke, given that he's very unlikely to make a strong showing in New Hampshire - his voting base has mostly been evangelical Christians, who are strongest in the south and midwest. On the other hand, this may hurt Romney quite a bit.
 
Huckabee was the front runner leading in, so it's not too surprising that he won this particular race. I'm thinking Romney will probably win New Hampshire though that's just a guess. Obama surprised me a bit because the last Zagby poll going into it had him a few points behind Hilary Clinton and tied or one point above John Edwards. Now the person who interests me the most is Fred Thompson. He was quoted this past week as saying "I want to be President, I just don't want to do all the stuff before it." and there's also talk of him dropping out. Now that would be fine, except for the fact that he announced his (inevitable) candidacy on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" back in July of 2007. It will be interesting to see how this goes. I don't know who's going to win the Presidency because unfortunately, I don't really see much hope in either of the two party's primary candidates. I'm not expecting perfection, though especially on the right, I'm seeing a lot of people who don't take truly conservative viewpoints. I'm an independent conservative myself, though not a registered Republican, and I'm just really uneasy about who has the best approach.
 
I'm more surprised by Clinton's third place finish than by Obama winning it. I think she would have been much better off pulling a Guiliani and simply not wasting time/money in Iowa. That way she wouldn't really "lose" since she wouldn't be competing, and she could more completely exploit her strength in the North East.

I don't really care about Huckabee, and I'm rather hopeful that he will fade. I'd really like to see Thompson drop out, and see the remnants of his support go to McCain who has been surging in New Hampshire. I'd like McCain to use that momentum to get the nomination, but I don't think that is going to happen... great running mate for the eventual nominee (probably either Romney or Giuliani) though...
 
I was very surprised to see Obama win for the Democrats. I was expecting Hillary. Oh well, I really think Obama would make a good president. For the republicans, I would like McCain.
 
I'm glad Obama won. He's my favorite candidate. I wouldn't mind the other two, but they aren't as progressive.

On Huckabee winning, I really dislike that. Religion =/= government, see the long thread we had on it a while ago. McCain is who I would like to win out of the Republicans, despite his immigrant policy.
 
The Democrats went totally as expected for me. Iowa wasn't a good state for Hilary, and she is also very polarizing (some woman on tv used the term divisive, i like that). I figured either she'd show her dominance and grab first, OR take third (like she did). She just isn't the "second choice" for anyone. Either you like her, or you don't. And like I said, Iowa isn't that good of a state for her, so I figured Obama-Edwards-Clinton.

Now, if she doesn't win NH, then I'd start worrying a bit if I were her. That's the state where she needs to have a big rebound. If she doesn't, she could be as good as out, despite the heaps of money she has. And, I think it'd be VERY interesting to see where her people go. Does the Hilary support go ALL to Edwards? Or ALL to Obama? Or does it get split evenly? I'm curious.


I don't really care about the Republicans. Since I think 90% of that party is dumb. Sorry.
 
GreenPikachu said:
The Democrats went totally as expected for me. Iowa wasn't a good state for Hilary, and she is also very polarizing (some woman on tv used the term divisive, i like that). I figured either she'd show her dominance and grab first, OR take third (like she did). She just isn't the "second choice" for anyone. Either you like her, or you don't. And like I said, Iowa isn't that good of a state for her, so I figured Obama-Edwards-Clinton.

Now, if she doesn't win NH, then I'd start worrying a bit if I were her. That's the state where she needs to have a big rebound. If she doesn't, she could be as good as out, despite the heaps of money she has. And, I think it'd be VERY interesting to see where her people go. Does the Hilary support go ALL to Edwards? Or ALL to Obama? Or does it get split evenly? I'm curious.


I don't really care about the Republicans. Since I think 90% of that party is dumb. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Same here, I never thought of what might happen to her if she looses at NH. If anything, I think it would be split, but not evenly.
 
thinking that either party on the whole is better than the other is pretty high school misinformed pseudo-political analyst isnt it

I really think Clinton got hurt a lot due to how early coverage of the elections started. I think a lot of people were drawn to her right away for really just the novelty of her being the first woman with a legitimate shot of becoming President. Over time novelty wears off.
 
God. said:
I really think Clinton got hurt a lot due to how early coverage of the elections started. I think a lot of people were drawn to her right away for really just the novelty of her being the first woman with a legitimate shot of becoming President. Over time novelty wears off.
Click to expand...

That and the Clinton stigma of "everything has its price, I'm for whoever I'm speaking to at this moment" follows her like stink on shit. She has a lot of positive qualities, but she's not someone I can feel good about endorsing.
 
it's a good thing that no one has said that either party is better than the other party then.

all i said was that 90% of the republican party is dumb. i'd say about 80% of the democratic party is dumb. im not saying one sucks and one doesn't. all im saying is one sucks less.
 
How could any free-thinking human being seriously, seriously support Mike Huckabee? Look up his criticism/credentials for like 5 minutes, it's comical really. (My favorite bit is where he completely destroyed every hard drive in his office before he began his campaign. Using 13,000 dollars from the state emergency funds.)

In response to "God.'s" comment: With a Grade-A candidate like that actually WINNING the Iowa primaries for the Republicans (yeah it's Iowa, but still...), I can totally see how people could think that the members of one party are less intelligent than the members of the other, especially when some clown like Huckabee is being juxtaposed by a competent-looking guy like Obama. Hell, the bullshit political commentators were just riffing on him afterwards; even Pat Buchanan was having his fun. And if Pat Buchanan is making fun of your political aspirations, you probably shouldn't be running for office.


I think I'll end this little blurb with a small seed of knowledge from the great Huckabee himself.

"There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."

GQfeature16v.jpg
 
I was supporting Obama, surprised and glad he won. I don't really understand the caucus thing though, can someone explain it?
 
I am a conservative voter and church-goer, but even I think Huckabee is a tool. My vote is going to Ron Paul and if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate in the national election.

Obama didn't surprise me at all and neither did Clinton. She'll show well in the northeast and maybe the northwest like Oregon/Washington, but she'll lose overall. She is too polarizing. Besides, if she wins this thing, then we'll pass over 20 years where either a Clinton or a Bush was leading the country. Those kinds of dynasties aren't good for a republic.
 
Big Bayou said:
How could any free-thinking human being seriously, seriously support Mike Huckabee? Look up his criticism/credentials for like 5 minutes, it's comical really. (My favorite bit is where he completely destroyed every hard drive in his office before he began his campaign. Using 13,000 dollars from the state emergency funds.)

In response to "God.'s" comment: With a Grade-A candidate like that actually WINNING the Iowa primaries for the Republicans (yeah it's Iowa, but still...), I can totally see how people could think that the members of one party are less intelligent than the members of the other, especially when some clown like Huckabee is being juxtaposed by a competent-looking guy like Obama. Hell, the bullshit political commentators were just riffing on him afterwards; even Pat Buchanan was having his fun. And if Pat Buchanan is making fun of your political aspirations, you probably shouldn't be running for office.


I think I'll end this little blurb with a small seed of knowledge from the great Huckabee himself.

"There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."

GQfeature16v.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah but with Hillary Clinton still as the Democratic National Frontrunner, Huckabee winning one state really doesn't compare too unfavorably where overall party intelligence is concerned. To be fair there are a lot of things to like about Huckabee, but also a lot of things to dislike.
 
They all seem pretty moronic as usual.

my ultra cynical 2 cents

giant douche vs turd sandwhich... :/

Anyhoo, per the winners I'm not excited either way. I haven't really been following the election but the last time I turned on the news I heard one of Obamas advisors laying blame on Hillary for Bhutto's death using some extremely ass-backward logic and also that Obama said Hillary was inexperienced with foreign policy....correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't he have no room to talk in terms of poliitical experience? Being a senator for just 3 years or something...So yeah I kinda lol'd at both of things for obama. But my disdain is hardly just for him, I don't really like any of the candidates, but if I suppose I was forced to pick someone it would be Ron Paul. I don't really know all the much about him, and his ultra-isolationist thinking seems to be a bit naive. Theres a difference between non-isolationism and bombing the shit out of anyone we feel remotely threatened by...although he may just be distancing himself from Bush for obvious reasons.

yeah

</3 politics, i usually dont get involved because people just get pissed
 
Having little foreign policy experience isn't as big of a downside as it's made out to be, as the President has hundreds of extremely experienced advisers at all time.
 
God. said:
Having little foreign policy experience isn't as big of a downside as it's made out to be, as the President has hundreds of extremely experienced advisers at all time.
Click to expand...
That's true, but it was more the principal of insulting her experience when his is extremely limited as well. Negative campaigning is ok, but when theyre obviously grasping for anything and everything to attack the opponent with, it really bothers me.
 
dirtybirdy said:
That's true, but it was more the principal of insulting her experience when his is extremely limited as well. Negative campaigning is ok, but when theyre obviously grasping for anything and everything to attack the opponent with, it really bothers me.
Click to expand...

Was just making a general point. To be fair at least Obama doesn't campaign on some kind of made-up experience that doesn't exist like Clinton does - that's probably what he was calling her out on.
 
josh-ua said:
I don't really understand the caucus thing though, can someone explain it?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The various caucuses that are held are basically designed to "thin the herd" so to speak. Both main parties have their set of nominees, and the caucuses separate those that have somewhat of a chance from those that have no chance at all. Those that do well in the most states are most likely to get the nomination from their respective party. Those that don't either give up and go back to what they were doing previously (in some cases), try and get a job as a possible Vice President or other staff member, or simply go away quietly.
Just as an example for you: Back in 1980, both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were running for President. Father Bush had won a few states and Reagan at one point, wasn't doing so well. Eventually, Reagan changed around his campaign and began winning states, gaining momentum, and eventually won his party's nomination for President and went on to serve two terms. Father Bush became his VP, after not getting the nomination although oddly enough both of them disagreed on quite a bit.
 
Hilary getting third is a big upset to her and her campaign, she is going to try and go on the offensive and try and convince Obama shouldn't be there pick, even though he had done great things, like involving the younger voter's(58% of people 21 and under voted for Obama in Iowa). I have high hopes for Obama and i want him to win,but Hilary will have somthing up her sleve for New Hampsure.


Huckabee was a big under dog surprise for me, but i'm concintrated on the Republicans , so i can't say much about Huckabee.
 
Since I am extremely liberal, I'm very glad Obama won the preliminaries last night. He posesses the qualities of an excellent leader for our country, and I believe he can mend the tremendous financial problems our country is having.
 
What are your guys' opinions on the debate tonight? I only turned in for the last 10 minutes, but it was really eye-opening.

My favorite candidate is still Obama, but Edwards and Richardson made amazing performances. Richardson raised a great point, that for all their talk about knowing what to do with the budget, none of the front runners have experience with it. Edwards hit his main point and ran with it when discussing the economics.

I think my preferred pair for Pres and VP would be Obama and Edwards. Clinton would be nice for some balance and the ability to say black pres and female VP, but that's not a good reason to elect someone.
 
My boy Kucinich didn't get a single vote. =(
Click to expand...

so disapointing isnt it. i think the fact that he
A. claims to have made contact with aliens
B. is a vegan
basically ensures a loss.

VOTE RON PAUL MOTHA FU@K'S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top