Iowa Predictions - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-04-2008, 02:09 PM   #321
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:25 PM
What is remarkable, is here are those pinko American-hating French.....with Obama all over the Parisian papers, and complimentary stories inside.

Le Monde for example.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 02:12 PM   #322
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,652
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


However, Obama strikes me as a humble guy who would seek out true voices of wisdom, rather than ideologues with a Middle Eastern axe to grind.
Hmm. I don't think humble people write books about themselves and run for President of the USA. I wouldn't go so far as to call any Presidential candidate humble--not even Nader. Enormous egos and a thirst for power, all of them.
__________________

joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 02:13 PM   #323
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


they mean nothing. Clinton has a double digit lead over Obama. i think McCain is rising, no question, but he's got the south to deal with, and Giuliani has huge margins in Florida, California, and New Jersey, though i do think he's now DOA.


[q]The House of Representitives has been overwhelmingly Democratic since World War II, but its been more equal in the Senate. The House of Representitives is a different ball game than the President of the United States. The majority of Americans cannot even name their Representitive. Also, conservative Democrats in the south helped keep their majority through the years, and although many of them may have been Democrats in name, many were certainly more supportive of Repuplican polices as the "Reagan Democrats" showed.[/q]

this is lame. you might as well argue that the northeast and california is filled with Republicans -- like, say, my former representative Nancy Johnson -- were Democrats in disguise. Congress is more broadly representative of the nation as a whole, and you've completely ignored both voter identification (more Democrats than Republicans and growing) and the fact that the Republican stance on nearly all social issues are trending older and older.

[q]The center is important, and when it comes to Presidential Politics over the past 40 years, the Republicans have solidly held on to that center.[/q]

they've been able to recruit the independents in a presidential forum, but not in Congress. the presidential race is far more about the individual than the party as a whole. when people vote for congress, or even state representatives, that's when party affiliations come out and people will pull all R's or all D's across the board. whereas in a presidential election, the individual candidate matters much more than his party. hence, your term, "Reagan Democrats" -- people who voted for Reagan, yet pulled D's across the board for everything else.

[q]That 18-20 years old vote more Democratic than Republican is nothing new and they continue to disapoint democrats in every election by showing up in such poor numbers. But as they age and become better educated and experienced, many move to the right and vote more. [/q]

considering those with higher educations overwhelmingly vote Democratic, there's really no point here. young people are voting in higher numbers than ever, and they vote Democratic. it is true that as young people begin to acquire capital and their incomes increase, they get swayed by the promises of lower taxes. however, these people have NOTHING in common with cultural conservatives who vote for Republicans solely because of issues like abortion. this is the "coalition" -- fiscal conservatives and social conservatives -- that was held together by Reagan and Bush 2 and that Rove used in his 50.1% strategy that brought him two extremely narrow (and one clearly illegitimate) victories.

and now, with the rise of Huckabee, that coalition has fractured. no one on Wall Street will vote for Huck, and no evangelical will vote for McCain, whereas both might have voted for Bush in 2000 (on the basis of low taxes and christianity) and in 2004 (on the basis of war/fear and hatred of gays).

things are grim for the GOP.

again, karma's a bitch.

If congress was more broadly representitive of the nation, voter turnout for mid-term elections would not be so much lower than for Presidential elections. Plus, during Presidential elections when people fill in the R or the D for congress, its in support of the person their voting for President. Thats why Bush increased the Republicans holdings in congress in 2000, 2002, and the historic increase in 2004. 2004 was the first time an incumbent president was able to increase his party's numbers in congress in half a century. That would be impossible if the political situation in the country and relevancy you give the House of Representitives in all this was true. Having the White House is key, which is has been effectively demonstrated by the impotence of the new Democratic congress and the fact that Reagan and Bush Sr. were enormously effective in pushing through their major policy objectives without having a majority in Congress.

The Republican party of the 80s, 90s, and 00's has more in common with the Democratic party of the 40s, 50s, and early 60s than the Republicans of that era. How any party tends to stand on various issues can change over time so the fact that social issues are trending more and more to the older crowd is not really relevant. John McCain is argueably more representive of the center of the country than any other candidate out there. He holds views that cross party lines which makes him very electable in a general election. Provided the Republican party base starts to recognize these things, they will cast off the issues that make them uncompetitive in capturing the center of the country thus continuing their dominance of the past 40 years or if this takes a while longer, regaining it in one or two Presidential election cycles.

I was not refering to "University Education" when talking about 18-20 years old as they move on in life, but more in a general sense. The fact is, people are across the board more liberal on everything at that age, and grow more conservative as they grow older and learn more and become more esperienced in life. The Hippies of the 60s are just as imbedded in today's society and fill the the churches like their parents did before them.

Bush's victories were both legitamite and significant when you realize that his 2004 re-election saw him gain a majority of the popular vote, the first time that had happened in a Presidential race in nearly 20 years. Just as historic was the increases in both the house and senate for Republicans, the first time and incumbent President had achieved that in half a century.


I wouldn't say things are grim for the GOP in 2008, but they have a big uphill battle to win the Presidency and their not going to win back congress this year. Its hard for any party that has held the White House for two consecutive terms to win another term in the White House and its only happened once since World War II. If the Democrats do win the White House in 2008, it would be better if Hillary Clinton won as she is much closer to the center than Obama and less likely to cause a backlash from middle America as her Husband did in his first two years in office and I might add, the last time that the Democrats held both houses and the White House. The fact that the Republicans hold on all three for 6 years while the Democrats were only able to hold onto it for 2 years just goes to show that this country at the center still has a lot in common with the Republican party and Democrats need to remember that.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 02:16 PM   #324
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
The results of Iowa raise some questions that I don't think are being asked, or asked enough.

Obama took the female vote away from Clinton - is this the result of Oprah? If so, how much will she help in the future?

Romney lost big with Evangelicals. Did his Mormon faith hurt him?


As silly as it sounds, Oprah has a huge influence on Midwestern housewives. If she can convince them to make a book a best-seller, she probably can convince them, at least somewhat, to support a presidential candidate. It's understandable. I'm a fan of Oprah. She's intelligent, charismatic, and well-versed on what's going on in the world. I would certainly never do something as serious as picking a presidential candidate based on her influence, but for the majority of Americans who aren't too concerned with political issues, she can be a major player.

The majority of Evangelicals from my experience view Mormonism as some weird, scary cult that believes the wrong thing about Jesus. I can't say that as a Christian, I agree with Mormon theology, but I could easily support a Mormon candidate as long as I agreed with his or her policies and he or she did not try to use their religion to govern. Most Evangelicals seem to be incapable of actually voting for a candidate for a reason other than religion unfortunately, so no, I'm not surprised that Evangelicals didn't turn out for Romney.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 02:19 PM   #325
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
The results of Iowa raise some questions that I don't think are being asked, or asked enough.

Obama took the female vote away from Clinton - is this the result of Oprah? If so, how much will she help in the future?

Romney lost big with Evangelicals. Did his Mormon faith hurt him?

Sad that they have to be asked though, no?

I for one don't give a flip what Oprah thinks (and I like her most of the time) and I wasn't aware of Romney's spiritual statues (ok, so maybe I'm out of touch, but I guess I never bothered to wonder in what faith each candidate was raised).
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 02:54 PM   #326
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje
I wasn't aware of Romney's spiritual statues (ok, so maybe I'm out of touch, but I guess I never bothered to wonder in what faith each candidate was raised).


but Republicans have been arguing since 2000 that someone's religion matters, that it is a reason to vote for or against someone.

so, yay karma.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:07 PM   #327
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,257
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


but Republicans have been arguing since 2000 that someone's religion matters, that it is a reason to vote for or against someone.

NO IT ISN'T!!

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.
2861U2 is online now  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:14 PM   #328
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


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.
Why is their position on gay marriage important? WHY?!! This is what I don't get about Republicans...

And the death penalty? How does a pro death penalty(which is what most Reps are) stem from a principle in the Bible?

I really think Republicans are given a different Bible than everyone else...
BVS is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:15 PM   #329
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


NO IT ISN'T!!

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.
Yeah, but to many Christians who live by the Bible they're not going to vote for someone who lives by the Bible and some other book that contradicts the Bible. I honestly think it contributed to some of Romney's results in Iowa.
coemgen is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:42 PM   #330
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but Republicans have been arguing since 2000 that someone's religion matters, that it is a reason to vote for or against someone.

so, yay karma.
haha, true that! I guess I am voting against voting for or against someone based on religion, if that makes sense...
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:43 PM   #331
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
Quote:
...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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:43 PM   #332
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


NO IT ISN'T!!

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.
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:46 PM   #333
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

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.
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 04:40 PM   #334
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
Obama took the female vote away from Clinton - is this the result of Oprah? If so, how much will she help in the future?


40 million housewives in Uggs. Count on it.
anitram is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 05:52 PM   #335
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:25 PM


i still say he looks more like a banjo player
deep is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 07:53 PM   #336
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


NO IT ISN'T!!

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.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-04-2008, 07:56 PM   #337
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 10:25 PM
[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.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-04-2008, 08:19 PM   #338
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.
Quote:
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...
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 08:23 PM   #339
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,894
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


i still say he looks more like a banjo player
not Gomer Pyle?
Lila64 is offline  
Old 01-04-2008, 08:37 PM   #340
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
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.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×