Huckabee and Obama Triumph in Iowa

[richlevy]

Just remember that Iowa is different from most primaries and elections in that the Democratic ballot is not secret. I thought the Republican wasn't, but it appears I am wrong about that.

This means that the Obama vote may be skewed by peer pressure but not the Republicans.

However, the caucuses require a large block of time so they may be skewed by people who could not take 2 or more hours off from work.

It could be interesting in that a number of Republicans are unhappy with the last President to play to the religious base and may not want a repeat performance. Bush and the Republicans promised 'family values', floated all kinds of Constitutional amendments that had no chance of succeeding, and basically raped and pillaged the economy and environment in order to cozy up to the business lobby. Huckabee talks like a populist, but he will be held to task by moderates who want to get past vague talk and hear specifics.

I don't think his campaign will survive the scrutiny.

[ZenGum]

As an outsider, I am startled by the difference between the numbers of voters for the two parties. Over 100,000 in the Republicans, and under 3,000 for the Democrats. 3,000 seems a tiny number of people for what seems to be a fairly important first test.
Would anyone care to explain this difference to me?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Yeah, it kind of freaks me out when Radar goes and says something I agree with. It's just so... unexpected...


EDIT:

"That is not true. I am no longer illiterate..." [/Mayor Quimby]

I've got to do it once in awhile to keep you on your toes. Otherwise you wouldn't read anything I post.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

As an outsider, I am startled by the difference between the numbers of voters for the two parties. Over 100,000 in the Republicans, and under 3,000 for the Democrats. 3,000 seems a tiny number of people for what seems to be a fairly important first test.
Would anyone care to explain this difference to me?

I think they messed those up because the articles states that about two or three times as many Democrats voted than Republican. I am assuming that you have to add two zeros to the end of each number on the Democratic side.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

As an outsider, I am startled by the difference between the numbers of voters for the two parties. Over 100,000 in the Republicans, and under 3,000 for the Democrats. 3,000 seems a tiny number of people for what seems to be a fairly important first test.
Would anyone care to explain this difference to me?

I thought the number of Democrats voting was 244,000, mostly college kids on winter break.

[ZenGum]

Thanks guys, now it makes sense. relatively

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Just remember that Iowa is different from most primaries and elections in that the Democratic ballot is not secret. I thought the Republican wasn't, but it appears I am wrong about that.

Wouldn't that skew toward Clinton? She's the one with the machine behind her. I heard the Hillary excuse train rolling at work, but I'm guessing a lot of voters just don't want to hear that voice scolding them for the next 8 years. (If Bush was re-elected, I'm thinking they all will be barring economic collapse.)

[bigw00dy]

Originally Posted by Radar

Of course he won't. He wants to actually change things. Those in charge would never allow him to be elected. Republicans and Democrats have worked a long time to keep those out who don't follow the program of violating the Constitution, attacking civil rights, stealing from Americans, etc.

I share the same feelings as you do. But i know one thing, he is the reason that I, at 25 years old, will be voting for the 1st time ever. I think that is the case for others as well.
Kinda like 'rock the vote' just with less p.diddy aka puffy aka puff daddy aka sean combs...etc....

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by glatt

Of all the Republicans, Huckabee is the very last one I would want as president.

I dunno, I think that is a toss up between Huckabee and Rudy "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" Giuliani.

Of course, if we don't elect Giuliani, we'll be attacked again.



Oh, and: 9/11!

[Shawnee123]

The man seriously frightens me. I mean, he wants us to be frightened, he's counting on it, but for much different reasons than the reasons why he frightens me. Fear tactics, still riding 9/11...are people really going to fall for this tack, in the long run?

[piercehawkeye45]

What I don't like about Giuliani is the fact that he will benefit off a terrorist attack. I mean, it seems like he is actually hoping for one to happen just to say "I told you so".

And yes, people do buy into his crap, which is why he is doing it, but I don't think that number is too large.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Fear tactics, still riding 9/11...are people really going to fall for this tack, in the long run?

People can only live in fear, live in a heightened state of anxiety over their safety, for so long before they either stop believing it or emotionally burn out. I was really happy to hear Obama say in Iowa, "[I understand] 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 21st century." Hearing a politician not push the "you're all going to DIE" sound bite button was refreshing.

A Giuliani presidency would turn us into a culture permanently entrenched in irrational fear. Nothing good can possibly come of that.

[Undertoad]

Obama's statement is much more reassuring than Edwards' gaffe "The war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan". I'd vote Giuliani over Edwards, and damn right I'd feel safer for it.

What I don't like about most Ds is the fact that they will benefit off the loss of the Iraq war. It doesn't seem like they are actually hoping for it... except when they say things like "the Iraq war is lost" and "the Iraq war is unwinnable" and "the surge will certainly fail" and etc.

[melidasaur]

Normally, I don't care about politics that much. Personally, I feel let down by any elected official, whether I voted for them or not. However, recent events (ie the ABC/facebook debate) have changed my mind for one reason - I HATE MITT ROMNEY!

He needs to keep his mouth shut. Everytime he opens his mouth, he makes himself look like an arrogant ass. He is not a likable person - not to say that you have to be likable to win office, but it certainly helps. Al Gore is more likable than Mitt Romney. I enjoy watching Mike Huckabee go after Romney because everytime Romney responds he just makes himself look like an utter jerk.

Don't even get me started on Mitt Romney being mormon!!!!

I am surprised (and glad) to see Hilary loosing steam. Makes me realize that my fellow citizens may not be as stupid as I think they are.

Go everyone but Mitt!

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What I don't like about most Ds is the fact that they will benefit off the loss of the Iraq war.

Not a surprise. If we were to lose, what person would say, "We just lost a war encouraged by a party that has been in political control for years under the policies they wrote, agreed upon, and implemented. You know what we need in the next election? More of the same!"

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It doesn't seem like they are actually hoping for it... except when they say things like "the Iraq war is lost" and "the Iraq war is unwinnable" and "the surge will certainly fail" and etc.

Why is it that so many people equate those who are critical of the war with people that "hope for loss"? What an utter disaster the US would be in for if we waged war and everyone agreed in lockstep that the policies and strategies being implemented could result in nothing less than a spectacular success and should not be questioned, picked apart, or criticized. Chopping it up into sound bites doesn't assist matters, either. Reid said "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week. ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically" because he not only recognizes that we can't just bomb a nation into a successful democracy, but that we must be cautious, especially given what history has taught us:

But Reid drew a parallel with former US president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.

"Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam," Reid said.

...and a lot of people are going to be angry, seeing that statements like this are almost entirely political in nature. Every terrorist attack, every step into and through this war, and every step out of this war is going to be political. But saying, "See what these idiots started? We're in deep shit because of their actions!" does not equal, "With the death of every US soldier, I can feel the might of my campaign growing! I'm really hoping for a big car bomb, tomorrow!"

So, anyways, how many political ads have you seen aired by the Ds that state another war is going to start if the GOP is elected, again? Now, how many ads have you seen for Rs that seem to indicate your children are going to be eaten by wolves/blown up by terrorists if you vote for the opposition?