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

[Earnie Shavers]

As I said in another thread, media coverage here for this is unusually huge. US elections don't normally get this kind of attention at this early stage. Not even close. In 2000 there was the usual level of general interest, then of course in 2004 it became something else altogether with almost everyone tuning in with their fingers crossed, but even then it didn't pick up speed until the 'real' campaign kicked in. Obama was on the front page of the 3 daily newspapers here in Sydney the day after his win, and then in the one newspaper I bought, inside there were 2 or 3 full pages dedicated to the Iowa results. Then yesterday, a whole lot more on New Hampshire. Coverage is at least 90% about the Obama/Clinton contest.

[anitram]

Yet, you still support a Democratic Party that Bush has literally crushed for most of the past 7 years.

I am sorry that you have so many religious bigots in your country who flock to the votes when Republicans shamelessly stick gay marriage questions on during a presidential election. It is truly a shame for America, otherwise a country with great potential. The rest of the civilized world really does pity you.

[ntalwar]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl

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.

I think the candidates need to spell out their health plans better - I've heard terms ranging from socialized medicine (use by Republicans derisively) to universal health care to guaranteed health care to mandatory heath insurance.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




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?

McCain was right on Vietnam in the sense that if the United States had not abandoned South Vietnam in 1973, it would be as free and prosperous as South Korea today. The Vast majority of US troops had been withdrawn by 1972, and the South Vietnamese with US advisors and airpower successfully defeated the largest North Vietnamese offensive of the war. Had the United States kept some advisors as well as the flow of military aid going, along with US airpower, the North Vietnamese offensive of 1975 which overran the country would have failed just like the one in 1972, or more likely would not even of been attempted. The sudden abandonment of South Vietnam before it was ready to stand on its own doomed it to being overrun by the North.

Those that understand that history will realize the importance of not leaving Iraq before it is ready to stand on its own. McCain understands that, but a relative juvenile like Obama does not seem to understand that yet.

Again, what Afghanistan needs is no different, yet Obama is not suggesting withdrawal from there. Either ignorance or playing to the anti-war left explains Obama's contradictory policies on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2008.

[anitram]

a relative juvenile like Obama

Wow, you guys are really shitting your pants over this guy!

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




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.

He was not crushed in 2006 as it would have been unusual and another historical milestone for the Republicans to have maintained their majorities in both houses for Bush's entire 8 year term. The vast majority of Republicans still support Bush which is why the Republican candidates avoid to much direct criticism of him and if they do critizise it is directed more at people like Rumsfeld.

Many Presidents including Clinton have had poll numbers as low as Bush's, Truman is still far ahead of Bush in low poll numbers especially during his last two years in office. Hell, President Lincoln had about the same level of support Bush currently has if not worse when you include the entire country in 1864. Long and difficult Wars and doing the right but sometimes unpopular things do not do much for ones approvals at the time, but years later will indeed change the way the President is viewed.

[Axver]

Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
Coverage is at least 90% about the Obama/Clinton contest.

I have to wonder just how many people here think this is the actual election contest and are going to be very surprised when the eventual winner of the Democratic nomination isn't sworn in as President straight away.

[U2democrat]

Originally posted by Axver


I have to wonder just how many people here think this is the actual election contest and are going to be very surprised when the eventual winner of the Democratic nomination isn't sworn in as President straight away.

I've been wondering that too.


So many Americans don't understand the primary-general process, how is this being explained overseas?

I'm really curious.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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

So your saying you no longer support the Democratic Party? Most Democrats claim they won the 2006 elections because of the war in Iraq and that they were elected to end that war and that they would succeed in withdrawing all US combat troops before Bush left office. In fact, the date they all pushed for was March 31, 2008. Instead, they were completely ineffective in accomplishing any of their goals on Iraq and in fact, the President did the exact opposite of what they were trying to do and increased troops in Iraq through the surge.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by ntalwar


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.

McCain has relationships with the other party that most people in either party do not have. He is best positioned to move legislation forward because of this. Probably even more than Reagan, he will have little trouble getting things done without his party in control of congress.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




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.

Again, the first majority of the popular for a President since 1988 was given to George Bush in 2004 in an election with the largest voter turnout in 40 years. Thats huge. The GOP increased their numbers in 2004 which was the first time an incumbent President had done so in half a century. Again, that is significant.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Strongbow

So your saying you no longer support the Democratic Party?

I've never supported the Democratic party. I often vote for a Democrat but not always. I don't supprt political parties.

Originally posted by Strongbow

Most Democrats claim they won the 2006 elections because of the war in Iraq and that they were elected to end that war and that they would succeed in withdrawing all US combat troops before Bush left office. In fact, the date they all pushed for was March 31, 2008. Instead, they were completely ineffective in accomplishing any of their goals on Iraq and in fact, the President did the exact opposite of what they were trying to do and increased troops in Iraq through the surge.

And this is crushing? You really need to take those rose colored glasses off. Democrats were not ALL is agreeance about a date, but you can play your normal revisionists history game all you want.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by anitram


I am sorry that you have so many religious bigots in your country who flock to the votes when Republicans shamelessly stick gay marriage questions on during a presidential election. It is truly a shame for America, otherwise a country with great potential. The rest of the civilized world really does pity you.

The rest of the of the civilized world depends on America to do so many of the things they simply can't or won't.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Democrats were not ALL is agreeance about a date, but you can play your normal revisionists history game all you want.

The vast majority were including the three leading Democratic Candidates. There were several spending bills presented with the stipulation of withdrawing all US combat troops by March 31, 2008 and the vast majority of Democrats supported it.

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally posted by Strongbow
The rest of the of the civilized world depends on America to do so many of the things they simply can't or won't.

I hope you are simply talking about your military, and the power the threat of it's use wields, because if you are talking socially/politically, I'm sorry to break it to you and don't want to sound rude, but....

[phanan]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Again, the first majority of the popular for a President since 1988 was given to George Bush in 2004 in an election with the largest voter turnout in 40 years. Thats huge. The GOP increased their numbers in 2004 which was the first time an incumbent President had done so in half a century. Again, that is significant.

And again, it's even more significant that in the 2000 election, he was the first candidate in over 100 years to win the election without winning the popular vote.

And I'd say that by 2006, the GOP's numbers decreased. So all in all, any significance you claim is offset by those two factors.

[coemgen]

Looks like Obama is going to take New Hampshire:

Poll: Obama opens double-digit lead over Clinton


NEW: Obama leading Clinton 39 percent to 29 percent in recent N.H. poll

McCain is leading the GOP pack in New Hampshire

Romney was front-runner in most New Hampshire polls until last month

New Hampshire holds its primaries January 8

By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Two days before New Hampshire's Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama has opened a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in that state, a new CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday.

Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois who won last week's Iowa caucuses, led the New York senator and former first lady 39 percent to 29 percent in a poll conducted Saturday and Sunday -- a sharp change from a poll out Saturday that showed the Democratic front-runners tied at 33 percent.

Support for former Sen. John Edwards, who edged out Clinton for second place in Iowa, dropped from 20 percent in Saturday's poll to 16 percent.

On the Republican side, Sen.John McCain leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by a narrower margin -- 32 percent to 26 percent, the survey found -- while former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee moved up to third after winning last week in Iowa.

The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, surveyed 341 likely Democrats and 268 Republicans likely to vote in Tuesday's primary. It had a sampling error of 5 percentage points. Watch how the candidates rank in polls »

"The Iowa caucus results have convinced growing numbers of Granite State voters that Obama can really go all the way," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "In December, 45 percent thought Clinton had the best chance of beating the GOP nominee.

But in Saturday's poll, Clinton and Obama were tied on that measure, and now Obama has a 42 percent to 31 percent edge over Clinton on electability."

And CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider said the poll "strongly suggests an Obama surge in New Hampshire." Watch the differences between Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses »

"Obama's gaining about three points a day, at the expense of both Clinton and Edwards," Schneider said. "Obama's lead has now hit double digits going into the home stretch."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson ranked fourth among the Democratic contenders with 7 percent, while Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich trailed at 2 percent. Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel had less than one half of 1 percent support.

The big difference was in third place, where Huckabee -- whose upset win in Iowa came after being outspent by millions of dollars by Romney -- passed former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's.

In Saturday's poll, Giuliani had 14 percent and Huckabee had 11 percent; those numbers were reversed on Sunday.

The results suggest that Huckabee's win in Iowa, which saw him win strong support among evangelical Christian voters, is giving him momentum in more secular, libertarian-oriented New Hampshire, Schneider said.

Anti-war Texas congressman and onetime Libertarian Party presidential nominee Ron Paul was in fifth place at 10 percent in the poll, with Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee both at 1 percent.







Keep in mind, this doesn't include independents, which Obama does well with.

[Axver]

Originally posted by U2democrat
I've been wondering that too.


So many Americans don't understand the primary-general process, how is this being explained overseas?

I'm really curious.

I've had to explain to a couple of friends just what's going on, but most of the people I know are fairly politically knowledgeable, so I can't really provide much of a definite angle on how people in general are seeing this. However, from the coverage, I can imagine people might get the false impression that Obama vs Clinton is the actual race itself, with Obama the centre-left candidate and Clinton the centre-right (which she probably is from a non-US standpoint). The Republicans get much less coverage and appear to be fringe far right loonies really. Especially Huckabee. I imagine that they probably appear to be the equivalent of Family First in both ideology and influence to the average Australian.

[Jeannieco]

Originally posted by Axver


with Obama the centre-left candidate and Clinton the centre-right (which she probably is from a non-US standpoint).

She IS center right ( I call her BUSH light) here in the Northwest part of the states. The NW is very BLUE (Liberal leaning)
and that is exactly why I am not voting for her. Besides she is a sell out and corporate all the way ect, ect...

Good news about the new poll numbers!
I am so excited for Obama!

[Dreadsox]

I trust one pollster and he is currently calling it a tie between Obama and Clinton. Dead Heat.

When his current analysis comes out tomorrow, I will weigh in, but I have to scratch my head when he is projecting a tie and everyone else is projecting a 10% Obama lead.