Print

[Total Members Voted:]

Hillary

9 (50%)

Obama

5 (27.8%)

Edwards

3 (16.7%)

Other

1 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Voting closed: January 03, 2008, 07:15:35 AM

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[LosingNow]

Let's see..what the DG thinks. Vote away.

[dextrous]

im supporting edwards. his economic message strikes a cord with me. i can't really stand obama, who is like a typical ivy league jock, except he happens to be black. doesn't seem genuine to me. hillary...eh, only reason id support her in general elections is bc of bill.

im really sad gore isnt running.

[justforkix]

Edwards will win in Iowa, but prolly lose out eventually.

[Cover Point]

I would have voted for Edwards but cant afford $400 haircuts. And I dont want to be called racist by not voting for Obama.

Another reason not to vote for Edwards is that he has the same number of letters in his name as another politician.

G a n g u l y
E d w a r d s

[ruchir]

The choice here is pretty simple - Hillary. Edwards is the biggest slime ball I have ever heard of. I will not be confused by his economic messages. He is one of those lawyers, who sues a shop because some one slipped on wet floor inspite of wet floor sign being present. I have not faith in him. Obama is an unknown entity. And US being in many crisis that it is in, I wouldn't put my eggs in an unknown basket.

Having said that, I would not vote Democratic because they are very very soft on illegal immigration, their foreign policy is terribly confusing, they are very very soft on conservative and family issues, and they will probably increase taxes.

[natty]

The choice here is pretty simple - Hillary. Edwards is the biggest slime ball I have ever heard of. I will not be confused by his economic messages. He is one of those lawyers, who sues a shop because some one slipped on wet floor inspite of wet floor sign being present. I have not faith in him. Obama is an unknown entity. And US being in many crisis that it is in, I wouldn't put my eggs in an unknown basket.

Having said that, I would not vote Democratic because they are very very soft on illegal immigration, their foreign policy is terribly confusing, they are very very soft on conservative and family issues, and they will probably increase taxes.

I agree that Hillary is the best option from the Dems side.. Which is why I think she is pretty certain to wrap up the nomination..

I think Romney has the best chance to go one on one with Hillary.. Else, we will see the clintons back in WH for at least 4 more years.

[arjunah]

Oh and I guess it will be easier to vote for the republican candidate with the brilliant track record over the last 8 years and the most damaging foreign policy to the US and rest of the world, most domestic issues not even paid any attention to other than big hue and cry over illegal immigration (although no real solutions there) and in the meantime country going down the toilet.

[dextrous]

The choice here is pretty simple - Hillary. Edwards is the biggest slime ball I have ever heard of. I will not be confused by his economic messages. He is one of those lawyers, who sues a shop because some one slipped on wet floor inspite of wet floor sign being present. I have not faith in him. Obama is an unknown entity. And US being in many crisis that it is in, I wouldn't put my eggs in an unknown basket.

Having said that, I would not vote Democratic because they are very very soft on illegal immigration, their foreign policy is terribly confusing, they are very very soft on conservative and family issues, and they will probably increase taxes.

Right, that's what the evil evil trial lawyers do. Breaking err...news...from Fox news!

I hope Christ is brought back to the American foreign policy...and family values...

[ruchir]

Arjunah --

Don't expect a perfect candidate from either Dems or Repubs. No one is perfect and no one candidate will satisfy all that you are looking for in a presidential candidate.

What Bush has done should not be held against entire Republican party. Remember, most of the current Republican presidential aspirants are against most of what Bush has done. So it's not like they will replicate what Bush has been doing.

[ruchir]

The choice here is pretty simple - Hillary. Edwards is the biggest slime ball I have ever heard of. I will not be confused by his economic messages. He is one of those lawyers, who sues a shop because some one slipped on wet floor inspite of wet floor sign being present. I have not faith in him. Obama is an unknown entity. And US being in many crisis that it is in, I wouldn't put my eggs in an unknown basket.

Having said that, I would not vote Democratic because they are very very soft on illegal immigration, their foreign policy is terribly confusing, they are very very soft on conservative and family issues, and they will probably increase taxes.

Right, that's what the evil evil trial lawyers do. Breaking err...news...from Fox news!

I hope Christ is brought back to the American foreign policy...and family values...

If you don't even know what you are talking about, why bother?  Do you want Christ in foreign policy? I don't. I gave opinion on Edwards and the reason for that opinion.

[arjunah]

Ruchir, I am just trying to take baby steps from this current farce that we seem to term as the Bush presidency. And, why only blame Bush for it?  IMO republicans will pay the price for it. I have no qualms about either party and also know that the presidency is finally about the candidate and his/her vision. I still haven't seen the candidate that I think can take this country forward but harder for republicans with the unfortunate legacy behind them.

Also, christ in foreign policy? Isn't Christ everywhere? Welcome to the Jesusland

[dextrous]

The choice here is pretty simple - Hillary. Edwards is the biggest slime ball I have ever heard of. I will not be confused by his economic messages. He is one of those lawyers, who sues a shop because some one slipped on wet floor inspite of wet floor sign being present. I have not faith in him. Obama is an unknown entity. And US being in many crisis that it is in, I wouldn't put my eggs in an unknown basket.

Having said that, I would not vote Democratic because they are very very soft on illegal immigration, their foreign policy is terribly confusing, they are very very soft on conservative and family issues, and they will probably increase taxes.

Right, that's what the evil evil trial lawyers do. Breaking err...news...from Fox news!

I hope Christ is brought back to the American foreign policy...and family values...

If you don't even know what you are talking about, why bother?  Do you want Christ in foreign policy? I don't. I gave opinion on Edwards and the reason for that opinion.

No, no, you see...I'm not bothering...I'm bothered by you maligning trial lawyers using Fox News rhetoric 

[ruchir]

Ruchir, I am just trying to take baby steps from this current farce that we seem to term as the Bush presidency. And, why only blame Bush for it?  IMO republicans will pay the price for it. I have no qualms about either party and also know that the presidency is finally about the candidate and his/her vision. I still haven't seen the candidate that I think can take this country forward but harder for republicans with the unfortunate legacy behind them.

Also, christ in foreign policy? Isn't Christ everywhere? Welcome to the Jesusland

Agree with you. There is no single candidate on both sides, who can induce confidence of being a good president.

[ruchir]

The choice here is pretty simple - Hillary. Edwards is the biggest slime ball I have ever heard of. I will not be confused by his economic messages. He is one of those lawyers, who sues a shop because some one slipped on wet floor inspite of wet floor sign being present. I have not faith in him. Obama is an unknown entity. And US being in many crisis that it is in, I wouldn't put my eggs in an unknown basket.

Having said that, I would not vote Democratic because they are very very soft on illegal immigration, their foreign policy is terribly confusing, they are very very soft on conservative and family issues, and they will probably increase taxes.

Right, that's what the evil evil trial lawyers do. Breaking err...news...from Fox news!

I hope Christ is brought back to the American foreign policy...and family values...

If you don't even know what you are talking about, why bother?  Do you want Christ in foreign policy? I don't. I gave opinion on Edwards and the reason for that opinion.

No, no, you see...I'm not bothering...I'm bothered by you maligning trial lawyers using Fox News rhetoric 

Fox News Rhetoric - that's what you don't understand. I don't know why you think I parrot Fox News. 

The thing is, Edwards is the most easily beatable guy by Republicans. So, if Fox News is Republican mouthpiece, they should be building up Edwards, so he wins Democratic nomination and Republicans win the 08 election.

Anyways, my opinion of Edwards has formed hearing him in 2000 and in the debates now, and on the programs that he has appeared on. Add to that what I have read about his cases (something that has not been refuted).

[LosingNow]

Looks like Obama and Huckabee are separating themselves from the pack..

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=8862.msg177613#msg177613

[WicketView]

When you guys talk of voting you are talking about the vote on the DG right? Or will you guys actually be voting ... ?

[Cover Point]

When you guys talk of voting you are talking about the vote on the DG right? Or will you guys actually be voting ... ?

I will be voting .... though by the time illinois primaries come around everything is already decided.

[LosingNow]

12 hours to go.. come on DGians.. let's find out what you think...vote in this poll

[LosingNow]

The latest exit polls show .. Obama win followed by Edwards and Hillary finishing 3rd!!

[ruchir]

Yeah... that's what they were expecting in a Des Moines Register opinion poll yesterday.

[dextrous]

The latest exit polls show .. Obama win followed by Edwards and Hillary finishing 3rd!!

i wouldnt go by any exit polls for iowa. it isn't one person, one vote. it is a very ridiculous process of making little groups--then if your candidate doesnt have 15% of ppl in the room, you end up joining the group of someone else in the room. all this really hurts hillary whose supporters are a lot of older ppl who can't possibly spend the whole day standing around for this ridiculous process to take place.

in some ways iowa democratic party results are quite meaningless and its a tragedy that it comes first. america seems to have an aversion to real democracy--one person, one vote concept. caucus, electoral system, etc. make the whole process farcical. other than my political addict friends, ive not met a single american who understands how iowa caucus works...democracy in action!

[LosingNow]

Obama wins it .. with Edwards and Hillary a close 2/3

[ruchir]

The latest exit polls show .. Obama win followed by Edwards and Hillary finishing 3rd!!

i wouldnt go by any exit polls for iowa. it isn't one person, one vote. it is a very ridiculous process of making little groups--then if your candidate doesnt have 15% of ppl in the room, you end up joining the group of someone else in the room. all this really hurts hillary whose supporters are a lot of older ppl who can't possibly spend the whole day standing around for this ridiculous process to take place.

in some ways iowa democratic party results are quite meaningless and its a tragedy that it comes first. america seems to have an aversion to real democracy--one person, one vote concept. caucus, electoral system, etc. make the whole process farcical. other than my political addict friends, ive not met a single american who understands how iowa caucus works...democracy in action!

Yes, Democratic party really has a weired system for preliminaries.

They have a 15% vote threshold. If you get less than 15%, your votes don't count. Then, those who voted for you can go back and vote for their 2nd choice candidate. Really weired system . It was being said that Edwards was topping the list of 2nd favorite candidate. No wonder he came 2nd.

[dextrous]

obama win will be disastrous in general elections for democrats!

[ruchir]

obama win will be disastrous in general elections for democrats!

Absolutely correct Dex. There is only one democrat that Republicans can't beat - Hill Cill.

[LosingNow]

Totally agree.. I said it in the main presidential polls thread.

The democrats are day-dreaming again

[LosingNow]

212K turnout for democrats... wow!!

Barack got the youth to turn-up to caucus.

[dextrous]

212K turnout for democrats... wow!!

Barack got the youth to turn-up to caucus.

cnn showing they voted 5:1 for obama...that's the problem with caucus...youth have a lot of time to waste 

[dextrous]

after listening to all three speeches...obama is clearly the best speaker, even if he really doesnt touch on any substantial points and the speech is full of niceties...he still has a gift for speaking and i wont be surprised if he goes on to win the democratic nomination

[LosingNow]

after listening to all three speeches...obama is clearly the best speaker, even if he really doesnt touch on any substantial points and the speech is full of niceties...he still has a gift for speaking and i wont be surprised if he goes on to win the democratic nomination

He is a good speaker, alright. Unfortunately, the shortened primary season doesnt allow for in-depth scrutiny..and the Dems are committing hara-kiri, as usual.

[openforum]

obama win will be disastrous in general elections for democrats!

Absolutely correct Dex. There is only one democrat that Republicans can't beat - Hill Cill.

If anything, I think Obama has the best chance of beating a republican. With HC 45% of the voters will never vote for her to start off.

I also think, no matter who is the dem nominee, they will win (because of the independents leaning democrat and obama pulls in a lot of those indies).
As of now, NH is the key.. if obama wins there he will win SC(nevada might go to HC) and it will be impossible to stop the momentum going into feb 5.

The republican race is wide open - it is anyone's game till atleast NV/SC. That will be an interesting poll to bet on..

[LosingNow]

If anything, I think Obama has the best chance of beating a republican.

Disagree.. I would love to share your enlightened view of middle-america.

In a general election, a black man with Hussein has his middle name will not be voted by the large swath of America that is between the left and the right coasts. That is the unfortunate reality of America!

In any case, I think he is all fluff and will be found out .. if not in the primaries, definitely in the general election.

[openforum]

If anything, I think Obama has the best chance of beating a republican.

Disagree.. I would love to share your enlightened view of middle-america.

In a general election, a black man with Hussein has his middle name will not be voted by the large swath of America that is between the left and the right coasts. That is the unfortunate reality of America!

In any case, I think he is all fluff and will be found out .. if not in the primaries, definitely in the general election.

What you said is right about the south (GA, SC, to AR ) and probably south west(NM,CO, TX, AZ). But these are red states anyway and will go  'R'. All the blue states will go 'D' and the leaves Florida the midwest (IA, KS, IL, OH..).
He just needs ohio or florida or (IA+IN) based on last election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG

If today is any indication people in IA (and by extension the midwest) which is predominantly white will vote for him.

I am not pitching for him and what you said about him being fluff is probably right (i think everyone of the major candidates is that). I am just saying as things stand now he has an advantage over the others(mainly independents) and the talk about HC being the only viable option does not hold water.   

[dextrous]

i've grown up all across the united states--most of the states ive lived in are pre-dominantly blue states (CA, NY, MA) and racism/distrust based on race goes far beyond political ideologies, esp. when it comes to blacks, in my experience. iowa results are pretty surprising in that respect. this guy speaks like a minister in a church and is quite dramatic so im sure that helps. but im very confident that if hillary gets the nomination, the clintons will leave no stone un-turned to win. hillary needs to speak with PASSION like bill used to do. she may not even have the voice or the skills but that's the only way she can counter obama. of course, if she loses NH, she's out for all practical purposes IMO.

[ruchir]

Let me say this. In this race, Iowa, NH and SC caucuses may not have any impact. Look at the national situation for Dems (after Iowa caucus):

Democratic Presidential Nomination
RCP Average: Clinton +21.2%

Hillary Clinton       45.2%
Barack Obama   24.0%
John Edwards   13.8%

Nationally, Hillary has nearly double lead over Obama. It does not matter who wins the first three caucuses. Ultimately, the winner is decided when all caucuses are done nationally. Hillary can lose all three initial caucuses and still win the Dem nomination.

Unlike India, in US results of one state need not influence results of other states. And what WN says is the ultimate truth. No matter how much US wants to change, a black man with Hussien as middle name has no chance of becoming president even if he wins Dem nomination. If he does win Dem nomination, Dems would have shot themselves in the foot.

[dextrous]

Ruchir,
Mathematically what you say makes sense but strategically to be a viable candidate she needs to win one of the early states--momentum, enthusiasm among supporters, etc. all come into play big time. Of course, Bill Clinton is called the comeback kid for coming from behind..however, before that he wasn't leading, so he built a momentum. Whereas HIllary is coming in as the favorite, expected to win, and if she keeps losing, people will grow disenchanted esp. bc one of her main themes is electability

[ruchir]

Dex -

Agree about momentum. What I am saying is that in US, loss in one state doesn't mean possible loss nationally. Inspite of losing in Iowa, she maintains a huge national lead.

Actually, Fox New is still calling her the Dem nominee  . They are saying that she can lose in 2 of the 3 early states and still it will not make a dent in her national standing. Now, it is universally accepted that only Hillary is the viable Dem candidate. So, inspite of that if Fox is saying what it is, then I personally feel there must be some truth to it. If Fox were to build up a Dem candidate, they would rather build up Obama or Edward, who have no chance even against someone like Duncan Hunter.

Now don't say I am parroting Fox. I am quoting Fox because Fox is usually considered Pro Republican and in this general election they seem to be siding with Hillary on the Dem side. Probably they are seeing that in the light of Bush failures, Repubs probably don't have a chance in '08.

[openforum]

Dex -

Agree about momentum. What I am saying is that in US, loss in one state doesn't mean possible loss nationally. Inspite of losing in Iowa, she maintains a huge national lead.

Actually, Fox New is still calling her the Dem nominee  . They are saying that she can lose in 2 of the 3 early states and still it will not make a dent in her national standing. Now, it is universally accepted that only Hillary is the viable Dem candidate. So, inspite of that if Fox is saying what it is, then I personally feel there must be some truth to it. If Fox were to build up a Dem candidate, they would rather build up Obama or Edward, who have no chance even against someone like Duncan Hunter.

Now don't say I am parroting Fox. I am quoting Fox because Fox is usually considered Pro Republican and in this general election they seem to be siding with Hillary on the Dem side. Probably they are seeing that in the light of Bush failures, Repubs probably don't have a chance in '08.

Ruchir,
I think we have to see the next few national polls (polled today and tomorrow) to conclude that.
 Here is one : http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
 HC has 12 point lead (down from 17 yesterday)
The national polls are irrelevant:
    Kerry went from 7% to 29% after IA and to 50% after NH in the national polls (dean dropped out of course which helped).
   source: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm
 
The case is different with HC because the organization is much stronger but all it will is take 6% swing in votes to erase a 12 point deficit. So If obama wins NH, he will likely win SC and there will be no national leader at that point...

There is a theory why fox promotes HC: nothing energizes the 'R' base more than HC on the opposite site.

 

[LosingNow]

Agree with OF.. the IA,NH primaries create a momentum that can change national polls...

See NH these polls after IA .. (sorry for the formatting!).. the numbers in the brackets are the previous poll numbers. Dramatic change.

Candidate   ARG (1/3)   Rasmussen (12/18)
Obama   38 (31)   37 (28)
Clinton     26 (35)   27 (31)
Edwards   20 (15)   19 (18)
Richardson   3 (5)   8 (
Kucinich   1 (2)   3 (3)
Gravel   3 (1)   1 (0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/5/163910/1798

The trends have shifted away from Hilary towards Obama.

[ruchir]

Not entirely true, WN.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/06/nh.poll/index.html

With the New Hampshire primary fast approaching, it's dead even in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are tied, with each grabbing the support of 33 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in the Granite State, according to a new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire presidential primary poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is in third place with 20 percent, according to the poll, which was released Saturday afternoon, three days before the primary.

"Both Obama and Edwards appear to have benefited from the Iowa caucuses. Each picked up three points in New Hampshire. Clinton lost one point, since our last poll taken before the caucuses," said CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loss of one point.... let's see on the caucus day. 

BTW, Hillary ripped into Obama in the Jan-05 ABC debate. I watched the entire replay. Obama was hamming (SRK style) to answer Hillary's points. He was forced to say 'Let us not indulge in personal attacks', rather than forcefully refute Hillary. In fact, Edwards had to come to his rescue.

Entire Dem debate: http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/01/06/video-abc-news-democratic-debate-from-new-hampshire-1508/

Entire Rep debate: http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/01/06/video-abc-news-republican-debate-from-new-hampshire-1-5-08/