MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount?

[anitram]

I thought the Republican debate was very interesting. I think McCain threw in one too many unnecessary shots at Mitt, though, who was definetely on the defensive all night.

I don't like Mitt in any sense of the word, but McCain came across as really petty and smug.

I actually liked Huckabee a lot, he sounded like a normal, civilized guy. I can see why he'd get the populist support, because he's likeable, non-threatening and knows when to shut up.

The whole debate was like watching a clown car.

 

[INDY500]

And, as with every single previous debate, about a million mentions of "this administration."

More accurately, "the failed policies of this administration."

 

[phanan]

I don't like Mitt in any sense of the word, but McCain came across as really petty and smug.

I actually liked Huckabee a lot, he sounded like a normal, civilized guy. I can see why he'd get the populist support, because he's likeable, non-threatening and knows when to shut up.

The whole debate was like watching a clown car.

Agreed. I don't think the Republican debate was any better, and in certain parts, it was actually worse than the Democrats.

This might improve Huckabee's numbers here more than I originally thought now.

 

[Anu]

Ron Paul rocked the Republican thing, and I believe McCain was very strong. Huckabee and Romney stayed in it.

My -ugggggh- factor for the Fredhead and Ghoul-ee-oneee could not be greater.

My Dems were less spice and surprisingly nice. Richardson and Edwards regained a bit of space, and I feel Barack and Hillary hit a bit of tie.

Let's see what happens Tuesday, but I am still on Barack and Roll.

And frankly, Kucinich would have made the tiny Dem debate more fun, and -f--- them for leaving him out.

 

[coemgen]

Here's how Time.com rated the master debaters tonight:

Democrats:

Obama A-
Edwards B+
Clinton B
Richardson B-


Republicans:

McCain A-
Giuliani B+
Thompson B-
Huckabee B-
Paul C+
Romney C+

 

[ntalwar]

People can make all the promises they want, but you don't get far in Washington without compromising a lot, and you end up accomplishing a lot less than you originally planned. That pretty much goes for everyone.

Having the same party in the White House, Senate, and House (with decent majorities) will help expedite legislation. E.g. a better energy bill is needed - the last one was too light. The Dems will pass a tougher one.

 

[2861U2]

With good reason.

I don't know about that. I could certainly understand them using "this administration" with the frequency they do if Bush was up for re-election, but he isn't. It just makes them look desperate and quite obsessed, if you ask me.

 

[Infinity]

Are you being paid to promote this guy or something?

Nah. I'm working for free.

 

[2861U2]

McCain A-
Giuliani B+
Thompson B-
Huckabee B-
Paul C+
Romney C+

I think I'd swap Romney and Giuliani. McCain did the best, with Romney right behind him.

 

[Infinity]

Here's how Time.com rated the master debaters tonight:

Democrats:

Obama A-
Edwards B+
Clinton B
Richardson B-


Republicans:

McCain A-
Giuliani B+
Thompson B-
Huckabee B-
Paul C+
Romney C+

Paul definitely won that thing.

 

[BVS]

I don't know about that. I could certainly understand them using "this administration" with the frequency they do if Bush was up for re-election, but he isn't. It just makes them look desperate and quite obsessed, if you ask me.

To be honest, I kinda agree... but for different reasons.

I think it was mentioned way too much. It's a given, almost in both parties, Bush is not liked, he's a failure. Even some of the greatest apologist are admitting this. They were beating a dead horse, I also think they fought too much amongst themselves, so did the Reps...

 

[Strongbow]

Yeah, that's what I said.

He lost in a very embarassing way in 2000, his own campaign had financial issues already this time around, and he's kissing too much evangelical ass...


This doesn't speak well of his experience to me. Experience doesn't automatically make you a leader.

Yet, you still support a Democratic Party that Bush has literally crushed for most of the past 7 years. McCain losing in the primaries in 2000 is one thing, the Dems losing to Bush for most of the past 7 years is another.

 

[Strongbow]

as for the debate right now, it's kind of bah, but Obama hit the question on the "surge" out of the park.

A laughable response in that he just repeated the standard Democratic BS rhetoric in spite of the facts on the ground. All he is doing is trying to find words that will please his base and political fortunes in the Democratic party. He doesn't have a clue about what to do in Iraq. Is he still pushing for the withdrawal of all US combat troops by March 31, 2008 as he was in the beginning of the year or does he still plan to have them there beyond 2013? He has zero background in national security, and his advisors have failed to adequately prepare him on this particular issue. Even though Hillary is now bending over to sound more pro-withdrawal on this particular issue, at least she brought out many points about the difficulties of a withdrawal, something I've never seen Obama go in to much detail about in a debate.

 

[Strongbow]

That kind of deal can only lead one to conclude that McCain is also stupid, because even an idiot could see that Bush's blessing and/or endorsement in 2008 could only serve to hurt you immensely. They can't even mention his name in public anymore.

I think its ignorant to ignore what McCain has been involved in and done in regards to REAL policy issues facing this country and the world over the past 50 years, and simply base his intelligence on something that is actually inaccurate and largely irrelevant when thinking about someone who is best able to handle the most important issues facing this country. Better to have someone that has been on the job for the past half century on these issues and right about most of them, than someone that has only a few years experience and is already shown himself to be wrong and ignorant on the most vital issues facing this country.

 

[Strongbow]

To be honest, I kinda agree... but for different reasons.

I think it was mentioned way too much. It's a given, almost in both parties, Bush is not liked, he's a failure. Even some of the greatest apologist are admitting this. They were beating a dead horse, I also think they fought too much amongst themselves, so did the Reps...

Registered Republicans still approve of the way Bush is doing is job by more than 70%, and most of the Republican candidates still fundamentally support Bush on most of the major issues.

 

[ntalwar]

Better to have someone that has been on the job for the past half century on these issues and right about most of them, than someone that has only a few years experience and is already shown himself to be wrong and ignorant on the most vital issues facing this country.

McCain likely won't have coattails - the trend in Congress is still Democratic as 2006 indicates. If Americans want to continue the inability of Congress to pass legislation, they will elect McCain. Otherwise they will have to elect a Democratic President and Congress. Republicans won't take a majority of Congress because they have been (finally) tainted as catering to business interests at the expense of the electorate.

 

[phillyfan26]

already shown himself to be wrong and ignorant on the most vital issues facing this country.

False.

You just disagree with him.

 

[A_Wanderer]

False.

You just disagree with him.

True

That doesn't mean that his positions aren't bad

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I watched most of the Democratic debate, and some town hall/rally stuff on CSpan yesterday. I saw a Hillary town hall and was impressed with her knowledge and answers. I was impressed by Edwards in the debate. I keep vacillating back and forth, I don't know what to do.

I thought Obama was a little smarmy in his comment "you're likable enough", that's the first time I've ever noticed that side of him.

The debate from yesterday will be replayed tonight on CNN, 7 PM ET. Did anyone see that Bill O'Reilly thing at the Obama rally? What a jerk. FOX actually made it into a news story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5N63JEn7g

 

[U2isthebest]

I watched most of the Democratic debate, and some town hall/rally stuff on CSpan yesterday. I saw a Hillary town hall and was impressed with her knowledge and answers. I was impressed by Edwards in the debate. I keep vacillating back and forth, I don't know what to do.

I thought Obama was a little smarmy in his comment "you're likable enough", that's the first time I've ever noticed that side of him.

The debate from yesterday will be replayed tonight on CNN, 7 PM ET. Did anyone see that Bill O'Reilly thing at the Obama rally? What a jerk. FOX actually made it into a news story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5N63JEn7g

He presents himeself as so ignorant and arrogant that I can't believe he would even be given the time of day as someone with intelligence and insight on politics and world events. I have no words. That's nothing compared to the nonsense he spews every night on his own show.

 

[phillyfan26]

True

That doesn't mean that his positions aren't bad

You can argue that if you want to.

But to say he's shown himself to be wrong and ignorant on vital issues is ridiculous.

 

[Irvine511]

A laughable response in that he just repeated the standard Democratic BS rhetoric in spite of the facts on the ground. All he is doing is trying to find words that will please his base and political fortunes in the Democratic party. He doesn't have a clue about what to do in Iraq. Is he still pushing for the withdrawal of all US combat troops by March 31, 2008 as he was in the beginning of the year or does he still plan to have them there beyond 2013? He has zero background in national security, and his advisors have failed to adequately prepare him on this particular issue. Even though Hillary is now bending over to sound more pro-withdrawal on this particular issue, at least she brought out many points about the difficulties of a withdrawal, something I've never seen Obama go in to much detail about in a debate.

someone's getting nervous.

his central point stands -- the only thing that will get the Iraqis to begin to become Iraqis and take control of their government, which is still nonexistent, is to have the beginning of the withdrawal of American troops instead of the blind, mindless commitment for an indefinite period of time (like, 100 years! says McCain) that the simplistic Republicans want. he was absolutely right about how all the surge has done is return violence to 2005-ish levels and that what actually inspired the tribal leaders in Al-Anbar to do the enemy-of-my-enemy thing and work with the US against the AQI was the election of the Democrats in the 2006 election.

 

[Irvine511]

I think its ignorant to ignore what McCain has been involved in and done in regards to REAL policy issues facing this country and the world over the past 50 years, and simply base his intelligence on something that is actually inaccurate and largely irrelevant when thinking about someone who is best able to handle the most important issues facing this country. Better to have someone that has been on the job for the past half century on these issues and right about most of them, than someone that has only a few years experience and is already shown himself to be wrong and ignorant on the most vital issues facing this country.

McCain is wrong on Vietnam (we woulda won if not for Jane Fonda).

McCain is wrong in Iraq (we can win by 2108).

what kind of experience helps you to make those judgments?

 

[Irvine511]

Registered Republicans still approve of the way Bush is doing is job by more than 70%, and most of the Republican candidates still fundamentally support Bush on most of the major issues.

and nearly 50% of the country STRONGLY disapproves of the job Bush is doing.

his negatives are only comparable to Nixon's.

don't kid yourself. we all know there's about 20% of the electorate that would support Bush even if he drove over their puppy with a Hummer.

but the mainstream of America, all the independents, and any fiscally conservative Republicans have long, long distanced themselves from Bush, especially after he was crushed in 2006.

 

[2861U2]

I watched most of the Democratic debate, and some town hall/rally stuff on CSpan yesterday.

I watched a McCain rally yesterday afternoon on CSpan, and it was pretty impressive.

2 years ago, if you had told me that CSpan would become one of my favorite channels, I would have punched you in the face.

 

[BVS]

Yet, you still support a Democratic Party that Bush has literally crushed for most of the past 7 years. McCain losing in the primaries in 2000 is one thing, the Dems losing to Bush for most of the past 7 years is another.

You assume far too much. How have I supported anything? And how has he "literally crushed" a whole party?

 

[BVS]

2 years ago, if you had told me that CSpan would become one of my favorite channels, I would have punched you in the face.

 

[Irvine511]

You assume far too much. How have I supported anything? And how has he "literally crushed" a whole party?

he squeaked out two elections, one where he lost the popular vote, and the GOP slightly increased their numbers in Congress twice, in 2002 and 2004.

to a mind where Iraq has been a smashing success every single year that we've been there, this akes sense.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I thought Obama was a little smarmy in his comment "you're likable enough", that's the first time I've ever noticed that side of him.

I'm all for how Obama could change the appearance of the US to the global community, which is no small feat at this point and can't be underestimated.

However, I find him disingenuous on a several issues. He presents his health care plan as being universal when as I understand it, it stops short of being universal. It does not guarantee health care for every American. I know it's been talked about to death, and no plan is perfect, but I think a lot of people are still under the impression that he's offering universal healthcare. He is also touting how anti-war he's been when in fact after voting against the war, which was great, he then voted to continue funding the war at every opportunity. And his connections to corporate lobbyists is certainly not The Change I'm looking for (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/). So yeah, I find him a bit smarmy. But they all are in some way or another, and at least they're all lightyears ahead of Bush in intelligence and competence. I'll support Edwards in the NM primary unless something dramatic happens to change my mind, and an Obama/Edwards ticket would be something I could get a little excited about. But I certainly haven't gulped up the Obama Kool-Aid.

 

[Strongbow]

someone's getting nervous.

his central point stands -- the only thing that will get the Iraqis to begin to become Iraqis and take control of their government, which is still nonexistent, is to have the beginning of the withdrawal of American troops instead of the blind, mindless commitment for an indefinite period of time (like, 100 years! says McCain) that the simplistic Republicans want. he was absolutely right about how all the surge has done is return violence to 2005-ish levels and that what actually inspired the tribal leaders in Al-Anbar to do the enemy-of-my-enemy thing and work with the US against the AQI was the election of the Democrats in the 2006 election.

Totally incorrect and the opposite view of the August NIE on Iraq which explained that withdrawal and redeployment as Obama supports would erode all the political, security, and economic gains to date. Iraq does have a government and abandoning it pre-maturely is not how successful nation building works. Some Democrats have supported long commitments to countries like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan facing or that have faced many of the same fundamental problems that Iraq is currently dealing with. Counterinsurgency and nation building take years to succeed and fail when countries withdraw the support and aid needed to early.

The United States military which has been on the ground in Iraq since 2003 reports that violence levels actually resemble late 2003 and early 2004, as opposed to 2005.

What shows Obama's real ignorance is the suggestion that the Sunni tribes all of a sudden did a 180 degree turn the second week of November because of domestic political elections for the US congress which only resulted in an impotent Democratic congress in regards to Iraq policy. The US military has been dealing with and negotiating with Sunni tribes since 2004. If anything 2007 brought a large influx of US troops into the majority Sunni Arab provinces which would of killed any thought by any Sunni(insurgent or Ally) that the United States was going home any time soon and would be more likely to inspire negotiation. But the real reason for political success in gaining more support among the Sunni population was the long and difficult negotiations that had been going on for the past 3 years.