Iowa Predictions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
coemgen said:
...Most astounding however, [Obama] beat [Hillary] among her core supporters, women, by five points. What more can I say than — in a night of mind boggling statistics — that that’s the stat of the night.

A black man did this. In a state that’s 96 percent white. This is truly a historic night in America.
A lot of pundits seem to be exclaiming this today, and frankly I'm surprised at their surprise. I doubt that Hillary ever had the white female Democratic vote (which seems to be what they're talking about) securely locked up. As long as she looked consistently well ahead of Obama in the polls, then yeah, that constituency was leaning towards her--she seemed to have the savviest machine behind her, and while not anyone's idea of a thrilling candidate, she'd amassed a fair amount of props for projecting knowledgeability, competence and experience. But at the same time, we've been hearing and over and over for months now that "she's just not electable," and as Obama's campaign picked up steam in recent weeks and the base took note of the fact that he seemed to be increasingly appealing to independents, I think a lot of women who'd previously tagged him as "seriously compelling, but too far behind in the polls" started thinking Hey, maybe he can pull it off, and decided to go for it and vote for him. Also, to the extent that this what-a-shocker! analysis appears(?) to assume that race trumps gender when it comes to what voters are hungering for in a Presidential nominee, I disagree with that; I really think the reverse tends to be true.
Romney lost big with Evangelicals. Did his Mormon faith hurt him?
I tend to think that what hurt him in Iowa had less to do with what's "wrong" with him in the base's eyes, than what proved to be irresistible about Huckabee. Even if Romney were, say, Catholic, which (I presume) would in theory be less potentially offputting--still, c'mon, he's going head-to-head with a Southern Baptist minister who's also got that requisite humble-background,-down-home-friendly,-charmingly-witty-yet-earnest act down pat. While I personally wanted to gag while watching Huckabee's speech last night, which to me came across as if he were delivering assorted readings from one of those schmaltzy 'Daily Inspirational Meditations' books, I think it illustrated nicely why he's so compelling to many in that segment of the electorate. I agree with the general consensus that Huckabee will probably have a tough time of it in states where evangelical conservatives play a less critical role in the Republican vote, but I think he'll likely clean up big in much of the South and Midwest.



I'll second (or was that third?) whomever was enthusing that Obama-Edwards would make a fantastic ticket. While Obama definitely confirmed his reputation as the Dems' best orator last night, I did share joyfulgirl's admiration for Edwards' speech--to me it's always refreshing when a candidate skips the gushy platitude-slinging and cuts right to the platform points, and he did just that.

There's a long way to go yet though, and still plenty of room for the present apparent trajectories to change pretty dramatically over the next few months. We shall see.
 
Last edited:
2861U2 said:


NO IT ISN'T!! :banghead:

What religion someone is is not important to me. What is important is their positions on things like abortion, gay marriage or the death penalty, which often stem from principles found in the Bible.

Hmmm, not important to me since I don't consider those issues (save for death penalty) as matters for secular politics.
 
yolland said:

I doubt that Hillary ever had the white female Democratic vote (which seems to be what they're talking about) securely locked up.

I know this is not what you meant....but I know more than one white female Dem who will be voting for Obama just based on looks. Aside from how ridiculous that is...I think there are a lot of women that find Clinton annoying, not just the men.
 
coemgen said:
Obama took the female vote away from Clinton - is this the result of Oprah? If so, how much will she help in the future?

columbiasc12-07d.jpg


40 million housewives in Uggs. Count on it. :ohmy:
 
2861U2 said:


NO IT ISN'T!! :banghead:

What religion someone is is not important to me. What is important is their positions on things like abortion, gay marriage or the death penalty, which often stem from principles found in the Bible.



you really need to stop and take a look at how Bush speaks to evangelicals through coded language -- he's saying, "not to worry, i'm one of you, so vote for me."

Bush's personal faith was put forward as a reason to vote for him in 2000 and especially in 2004. this is wildly different from Ronald Reagan, who never went to church but gave shout-outs to the evangelicals. Bush, by contrast, is saying, "don't worry, i'm one of you."

and Romney's mormonism obviously matters to a lot of voters.
 
[q]Also, to the extent that this what-a-shocker! analysis appears(?) to assume that race trumps gender when it comes to what voters are hungering for in a Presidential nominee, I disagree with that; I really think the reverse tends to be true.

[/q]

on this note, i do find it interesting how conservative pundits are saying that the Obama victory means that racism doesn't exist in America.

[q]While Obama definitely confirmed his reputation as the Dems' best orator last night, I did share joyfulgirl's admiration for Edwards' speech[/q]

what is interesting here is that there's no question that Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee are by far the best orators. and Huckabee has a disarming sense of irony that i actually find kind of appealing, and he used it to rather deftly disrobe Romney -- the best line being about how he's like the guy that people work with and Romney is the guy that just fired them, and the nastiest one about mormons believing that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

this, combined with his total ignorance of international affairs, pretty much means he's the logical successor to Bush.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
on this note, i do find it interesting how conservative pundits are saying that the Obama victory means that racism doesn't exist in America.
I'm sure a lot of voters--including quite a few who might well or will vote for Obama--would like to think that's what it shows, whether they'd come out and say so or not.
what is interesting here is that there's no question that Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee are by far the best orators.
Even though I grimaced all the way through what I personally found his thoroughly cloying speech last night, I agree that Huckabee's got the touch when it comes to showing compelling "presence" and coming off well before a crowd. And while I do find him frighteningly clueless on numerous fronts, I certainly don't think the guy's a dummy. Still, I really do think his appeal is limited.

By comparison, I almost felt sorry for Romney when I saw him making his "silver medal" speech last night--yeah he looks 'presidential,' but as soon as he opens his mouth...
 
anitram said:
I never really got the sense that you were strongly in anyone's corner this time around so I actually didn't think of you when making the post.

Are you decided?

I do not have much respect for Romney.

Of the Republicans, I could live with McCain. I do not find Huckabilly appealing. I am with Deep, though, we could be looking at surprise entry by Bloomberg.


Of the Democrats I am drawn to Obama. He reminds me more and more of Jack Kennedy. Sounds silly but, I recently found out that former Kennedy speech writer Ted Sorenson, has been working with Obama. I could care less about his experience. I think that there is something completely inspiring about him, and I love the fact that the youth of this country seem energized by him. We need the youth to be more active if we 3want to move this country in a new direction.
 
Hillary giving her speech as the person who will bring change to Washington with the same old cast of characters behind her was not believable.

Obama's speech as the voice of change was believable. Obama winning the women''s vote is incredible.

NH being so close to Iowa makes the bounce Obama should get in the polls even more valuable. My past observations of elections are that there was an initial bounce, and then a readjustment. In this case, I think there will be a bounce, but, so few days for the adjustment to occur. Advantage OBAMA
 
Dreadsox said:


I could care less about his experience. I think that there is something completely inspiring about him,

With all due respect, it's attitudes like that that make me fear for the future of the country. Why suddenly is experience not that important? Is it irrelevent just because a guy seems inspiring? When I look at Obama, I see all style and no substance.

We're electing a freakin' president here, not somebody to give a commencement speech.
 
2861U2 said:


With all due respect, it's attitudes like that that make me fear for the future of the country. Why suddenly is experience not that important? Is it irrelevent just because a guy seems inspiring? When I look at Obama, I see all style and no substance.

We're electing a freakin' president here, not somebody to give a commencement speech.

You know, I'm getting tired of you avoiding this issue...

Honestly, tell me how your canidate's experience is better. McCain failed big time. Your former canidate's experience was shit, so please tell me...
 
I wouldn't describe being governor of Texas for 5 years as "shit" (though I'm sure our resident Texas progressives might have some responses ready for that :wink: ), but I do agree it seems a bit odd to bash someone with 7 years' state senate experience and (thus far) 3 years' US senate experience as hopelessly unprepared for the presidency if GWB's resume satisfied you.
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:



Of the Democrats I am drawn to Obama. He reminds me more and more of Jack Kennedy.

I've been thinking the same thing! I mean, I'M excited and I don't usually get excited--in this way--about politics!
 
2861U2 said:


With all due respect, it's attitudes like that that make me fear for the future of the country. Why suddenly is experience not that important? Is it irrelevent just because a guy seems inspiring? When I look at Obama, I see all style and no substance.

Take the time to find out how Obama actually thinks, his approach to politics and policy. . .you may not agree with him, but you won't be able to say he "lacks substance." For one thing, he, along with McCain is definitely someone who will "reach across the aisle" to get things done. Someone mentioned early he'll have the wisdom to surround himself with intelligent, knowledgable people (not just loyalists like the current guy in the White House) who can give him good advice and guidance. Think again of Lincoln, who appointed some of the people who opposed him to his cabinet once elected. I could see Obama doing something like that.

Just because a person has style doesn't automatically mean he lacks substance.
 
2861U2 said:


With all due respect, it's attitudes like that that make me fear for the future of the country. Why suddenly is experience not that important? Is it irrelevent just because a guy seems inspiring? When I look at Obama, I see all style and no substance.

We're electing a freakin' president here, not somebody to give a commencement speech.

Experience can be gained. THe right people around a person can make a world of difference.

Let's look at JFK. His first month was a DISASTER. He had plenty of experience.

Clinton - His start as I recall was plagued by problems.

Carter - Experienced governor, plagued by problems.

Regan - Like him or hate him - had people around him who kept the machine running and had problems

Nixon - Plenty of experience - plagued by problems.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Obama's Speech

[Q]They said this day would never come.

They said our sights were set too high.

They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come. [/Q]

Nice opening

[Q]You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division and make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges we face.[/Q]

The reason Bush won the White House in the last elecation was DIVISION. It was getting Gay Marriage on the ballot in key states. It had NOTHING to do with anything other than energizing a base over a divisive issue. An issue not about inclusiveness, an issue that denies people who love one another rights.


[Q]The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back.[/Q]

I fail to see how anyone can escape the lobbying system. However, the man if I am not mistaken has not taken money from lobbyists. I may be wrong on this, but he seems to be the only credible candidate on this issue.

[Q]The time has come for a President who’ll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who’ll listen to you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know. And New Hampshire, if you give me the same chance that Iowa did tonight, I will be that President for America.[/Q]

I find that reftreshing. IT is what I have admired about McCain in his career, is that he does not tell people what they want to hear. I like it. Even when I disagree with him, I can at least feel like I am being heard.


[Q]I’ll be a President who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois – by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done[/Q]

More credible than Hillary on this issue. Romney may be the only candidate who has actually done it though. I believe all Americans should get health care.

[Q]I’ll be a President who ends the tax breaks for corporations who ship our jobs overseas and puts a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of the working Americans who deserve it.[/Q]

When they needed armor plates for the Hummers in Iraq, there was only ONE company here in America that could provide it. We are in trouble. ONE!!!!!!! We are in trouble. We are losing the economic war.

[Q]I’ll be a President who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.[/Q]

WHen he says this, I believe him. It is time. A long time coming. I find this INSPIRING.

[Q]And I’ll be a President who brings our troops home from Iraq; restores our moral standing; and understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes, but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the twenty-first century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.[/Q]

9/11 has been ABUSED by this president and the Republican party. If they had presented an honest case. Honestly sought international support. And actually listened to our allies, we would have lost less, and been more successful. WE had almost UNIVERSAL worldwide support after 9/11. What the hell happened?

[Q]Tonight, we are one step closer to that vision of America because of what you did here in Iowa. And I’d like to take a minute to thank the organizers and precinct captains; the volunteers and staff who made this all possible.

I know you didn’t do this just for me. You did this because you believed deeply in the most American of ideas – that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.

I know this because while I may be standing here tonight, I’ll never forget that my journey began on the streets of Chicago doing what so many of you have done for this campaign and all the campaigns here in Iowa – organizing, and working, and fighting to make people’s lives just a little bit better.

I know how hard it is. It comes with little sleep, little pay, and a lot of sacrifice. There are days of disappointment, but sometimes, just sometimes, there are nights like this – a night that, years from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in; when more families can afford to see a doctor; when our children inherit a planet that’s a little cleaner and safer; when the world sees America differently, and America sees itself as a nation less divided and more united; you’ll be able look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.

This was the moment when the improbable beat what Washington always said was inevitable.

This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for far too long – when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who’d never participated in politics a reason to stand up and do so.

This was the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism; the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.

Years from now, you’ll look back and say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembered what it means to hope.

For many months, we’ve been teased and even derided for talking about hope.

But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shrinking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it.

Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman in Cedar rapids who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister who’s ill; a young woman who still believes that this country will give her the chance to live out her dreams.

Hope is what I heard in the voice of the New Hampshire woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq; who still goes to bed each night praying for a safe return.

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire; what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause.

Hope is what led me here today – with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. It is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

That is what we started here in Iowa, and that is the message we now carry to New Hampshire and beyond; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can change this country brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand – that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things; because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America; and at this moment, in tthis election, we are ready to believe again.[/Q]

He is pretty damn scary.

With all due respect- I would take him over every Republican other than MCCain at this point in the election process.
 
2861U2 said:


With all due respect, it's attitudes like that that make me fear for the future of the country. Why suddenly is experience not that important? Is it irrelevent just because a guy seems inspiring? When I look at Obama, I see all style and no substance.

We're electing a freakin' president here, not somebody to give a commencement speech.



again: it's not just about experience. it's about judgment, first and foremost.

Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have lots and lots of experience, but have they not been absolute horror shows at their respective jobs?
 
Irvine511 said:




again: it's not just about experience. it's about judgment, first and foremost.

Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have lots and lots of experience, but have they not been absolute horror shows at their respective jobs?

Exactly! Experience, in and of itself, means nothing. That doesn't just go for the job of president or another government official; it can and does apply to any job. There could be a presidential candidate, for example, who's been a governor of his or her state for 20 years, but if their policies have made their state worse off in terms of civil rights, healthcare, the economy, education, etc., why in the world would I support them for president? That's not taking any specific current candidate in mind, it's just a hypothetical example, of someone who clearly has experience, without competency, which is what is plaguing this current administration. It's no different than a teacher who's been teaching 30 years, yet doesn't really impart knowledge to his or her students or challenge to them to think creatively or solve problems. That is the job of a teacher, and I had many "experienced" teachers who did none of that. I also had many young "inexperienced" teachers who I can thank for opening my mind and making me excited about learning. In short, experience can be helpful, but it's nothing compared to real vision, and a passion to keep learning and growing. It's not thinking one has everything figured out because of years of experience, which, once again, seems to be the strategy of the Bush administration.
 
2861U2 said:
With all due respect, it's attitudes like that that make me fear for the future of the country. Why suddenly is experience not that important? Is it irrelevent just because a guy seems inspiring? When I look at Obama, I see all style and no substance.

We're electing a freakin' president here, not somebody to give a commencement speech.

Why is it important for just Obama, but not for someone like Bush? Answer that, and then you can bring the issue up again.
 
yolland said:
I wouldn't describe being governor of Texas for 5 years as "shit" (though I'm sure our resident Texas progressives might have some responses ready for that :wink: ), but I do agree it seems a bit odd to bash someone with 7 years' state senate experience and (thus far) 3 years' US senate experience as hopelessly unprepared for the presidency if GWB's resume satisfied you.

Yes, but he was a failure during those 5 years... believe me I'm a TX resident.:wink:
 
With all due respect, it's attitudes like that that make me fear for the future of the country.

Most of the world and half your citizens have been fearing for the future of your country for 7 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom