Order of Democrat Candidates placce

Obama, Clinton, Edwards	10 votes - 52 %
Obama, Edwards, Clinton	7 votes - 36 %
Edwards, Obama, Clinton	0 votes - 0 %
Edwards, Clinton, Obama (yeah right)	1 vote - 5 %
Clinton, Obama, Edwards	1 vote - 5 %
Clinton, Edwards, Obama	0 votes - 0 %

19 Total Votes

New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thread | 92 comments (92 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 1)

I would like Edwards to win and Clinton to finish third, but you ask for predictions...
Obama 43%
Clinton 24%
Edwards 22%

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 08:13:46 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 0)

Like these numbers, albeit with Obama in the 30s.

by shergald on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 08:35:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 0)

I think that looks about right with an MOE of 3% or so. I suspect Edwards will do worse than people are hoping. He doesn't have the ground game and he hasn't had the media support.

Clintonites will be aiming for a push-back, so whatever support she has will be very active.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:55:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 1)

He doesn't have the ground game in New Hampshire, but he does have a pretty dedicated base of support.

The air is coming out of the Clinton campaign so fast. It may well be that Hillary, not Obama (as conventional wisdom had it), winds up being the Howard Dean of 2008. Fewer people are showing up at her events (only 1/3 capacity for Big Dawg in Bow, NH, per the NYT); her shots aren't landing; she may be running out of money (Trippi may well be onto something there); and it's just been reported that she's pushed her rat-faced chief strategist, Mark "Kill-the-Unions" Penn, out to take over the strategy herself.

Edwards also, as I mentioned the other day, really got to her in the last debate on Saturday. She was further wounded by that, and she made Edwards appear the more poised and presidential -- allegedly Hillary's strong point -- between he and her.

All signs point to Hillary simply having no answer, and imploding.

I figured her campaign would be tough, -- "No Surrender," "Bury Them All" tough -- but there are signs of desperation everywhere. Her lead is disintegrating elsewhere, I'd bet, although I obviously don't have access to the internal polling. You may well be right about Edwards doing worse than I think he will, but right now the Clinton campaign is screaming "Glass Jaw" to me.

Edwards has moved up a bit, but my bet below is on a continuing of Hillary's precipitous decline. Edwards almost doesn't have to move much, and, again, I think there may be some strategic shifting of voters by Obama on the ground. He has a massive lead now, and he could put an end to Clinton by helping Edwards without suffering any damage.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 01:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (4.00 / 2)

I chortle. I laugh in tones of elfen merriness. Tra-la. Tra-la.

Clinton is being bit by the ticks she brung with her.

Too late to change strategy. She wrapped herself in the Inevitability argument and now she's no longer Inevitable that dog won't hunt.

And she doesn't have anything left.

Oh, she can try to play the, "In 35 years I ain't done squat" message, as she did in the debate. That would be really funny to watch.

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 1)

I do feel bad for her, watching her realize that the old guard has led her down the wrong path, and knowing that she's put up with a lot that she didn't deserve over the years. The right wing has spent years saying hideous things about her and her family (most sickening, her daughter, whom they've tried to shield from politics). Her husband humiliated her in front of the entire planet.

But, in the end, it can't be denied that she did this to herself. She supported this hideous war. She didn't back down from that position. Then she ran the most conventional, Washington-ized campaign one could imagine, and, when she began to slip, she allowed her staff to launch some truly disgusting dog-whistle attacks on Obama. And she's going to pay for it by losing her shot at the White House.

So I feel bad for her in some ways, but, at the end of the day, she has only herself to blame.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 02:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 1)

There's that. And Bill.

It was her big mistake to let him out of the bag this summer and during the '06 election cycle. BIG mistake.

The "strategists" shoulda let that dwag lie in fond remembrance.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by MarketTrustee (pbing@estudioinc.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 03:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 1)

This campaign has become one focused almost entirely now on stopping Clinton. It matters little who takes her to task, Edwards or Obama. Still, it is Obama who has the momentum and that's the candidate to go for.

This campaign is not just about relieving the American political scene of this scurge of right wing corporate religious Republicanism. It is also about preventing another dose of Republican Lite centrist pseudoDemocratic Clintonian politics from having another go at it in the Whitehouse.

The era of Clintonian soft Republicanism is over.

by shergald on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 07:41:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (4.00 / 3)

There's no real need to stop her now. She was stopped in Iowa, and she's digging the hole deeper by playing the Rudy Mussolini card on terrorism -- I venture to say she came dangerously close to earning a special comment on Olbermann's show last night -- and going after Obama for wanting to lift the cap on payroll taxes ("a $1tn middle-class tax increase" that only affects the top 6% of earners).

So she's got the GOP fearmongering mixed with the trashing of a more progressive tax structure. That just about covers it all, and now it's just a question of how much she ruins the Clinton name.

Edwards's basic strategy -- and Joe Trippi has been very open on it -- is essentially to "hang around the drain and hope he doesn't get sucked down it." His only prayer, at this point, is for Clinton to get out, and for Obama to screw up. If Obama doesn't screw up, -- and he doesn't seem to be prone to it thus far -- Edwards is left to play for a spot in the administration (Veep, Attorney General, Secretary of Whatever, etc).

The more interesting bit to me now is the GOP side. My thinking is thus: If McCain does not win the nomination, the Republicans lose the White House. He'll probably win tonight, but if Romney somehow pulls it out, it's difficult to see where McCain goes. In my view, he's their only semi-credible candidate, being able to play against Obama on experience. Romney's trying to play the "change" card, but he lacks any credibility.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 08:11:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 1)

Do you seriously think McCain is competitive in the Presidential ? If this is an election to move into the 21st century then McCain is back to Goldwater '64. Maybe even Nixon '60.

This is a man wreathed in the garlands of past failed ideas, there is nothing of the future about him. Even his website smells of mildew.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 11:22:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 0)

All good points. But I'm not sure about them, honestly. Part of the reason I'm not sure comes from the fact that, as you know, the press has produced this huge image of McCain as some kind of maverick. We all know that's not the case, that he's really a hard core militarist, but his base has always been the press, not the Republicans. Needless to say, that's a powerful ally.

McCain can run on experience against Edwards and Obama. I don't think it'd be enough to win the day, because I lean towards the belief that he's ultimately doomed by the war.

Your Nixon comparison is one I've thought of. McCain would look old and tired next to either E or O, and it likely becomes a Kennedy-Nixon thing, but I'm just hesitant to count him out because of the cult built around him by the media.

Certainly against Clinton, I'd worry it would completely ruin us.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 11:46:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 0)

Good job it won't be Clinton then.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 12:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 0)

Well, to her credit, she does poll pretty well in some key states. In some polls, better than both Edwards and Obama. But given the cult around McCain the Maverick(TM) and Hillary the Great Divider(TM), I think we'd run the risk of losing the independents -- not because of a love for McCain, necessarily, but because we'd be fighting to stop McCain from raising her negatives to the point that independents don't show up as we need them to.

I think I'd still bet on Hillary, but I'd worry.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 01:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 0)

I agree with most of what you say, but I do believe that you underestimate the ability of the American public to be snookered by the myth of Reaganism once again. McCain is attempting it and I suggest that it could work. Democrats are already dreading the idea of running against McCain.

by shergald on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 08:45:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary (none / 1)

Good Lord, if you are even close to correct, the Clinton camp will crap a brick. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

When the music's over, turn out the light. Jim Morrison, the doors

by THE Twank (paszeski__aaaaaaatttttt__yahoo.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 02:43:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

The situation is so volatile its like trying to predict the pace of the annual wildebeest migration. Will it snow? Which way is the wind blowing? Who said the voters weren't like sheep? Who said Newhampsters where all flinty eyed rock solid contrarians? The MSM are setting the agenda. Popular frustration is being poured into the Obama template. Clinton has been painted into the old guard corner. Edwards is a nice guy who will do what nice guys do. Obama is the answer - now what was the question?

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 08:49:42 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

Sure, but it's like betting on the oil price on 12/31/2007, without champagne...

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 09:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

Well if it results in the Republicans being voted out in November, I'm sure everyone will be happy to buy their own champagne

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 09:31:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

We could plan a special ET meet-up for the US elections...

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:57:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

That could either be great fun or ultimately depressing

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:09:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

where/when?

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:23:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

It's the first Thursday in November sometime isn't it

(and if it all goes wrong it's depressing just about everywhere)>

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:29:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

The first Tuesday after the first Sunday of November.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

Where?

At Harry's New York Bar in Paris!

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:46:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 1)

Any american themed bar is gonna be crawling with people. Which means that you probably won't get a seat unless you arrive at about 18:00 Paris time.

It might be better ot get in touch with Democrats Abroad : Paris via one of ET's US contingent and finding out where their party will be. Judging by the UK branch it will probably be quite a do with some pretty important local politicians.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 1)

Whut? No, no, no! The only way to do a European US-elections all-night watch thingi is to gather in a private venue and get completely sloshed! I'm not thinking wine here, either. Pure grain alcohol and distilled water only!

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

With whataboutbob providing a bottle of Champagne for the winner of this prediction game?

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

Champagne? Sure, for those who would expose themselves to such reckless endangerment to the purity of essence of their precious bodily fluids.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

Pure grain alcohol and distilled water only

I'm OK if it's Caol Ila...

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

I thought that was a malt? I prefer Lagavulin myself..

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 01:07:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

No (decent) beer : no Helen

I don't like spirits so it would be pretty dull for me. And nobody can spend all night drinking wine.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

I think Geezer's boat would be the most fun.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

hear, hear.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

I was jocking: Harry's New York Bar is the meeting place of the American media correspondents in Paris for the US elections...

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

We could stop by to pelt them with eggs and rotten fruit...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 06:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET special US elections meet-up (none / 0)

This is probably the best solution yet heard. Pie in the face on camera typically condemns a politician to loss and failure. However, it must be a mergaine pie (oh spell it yourself) or else the pie in the face routine will not work.

by shergald on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 08:50:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

Obama 47%
Clinton 26%
Edwards 19%

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 0)

I received a direct shot at my veins yesterday (I was going to post in th open thread this afternoon..).. oh my god!! it turns out that New york adn californai are not first-gets all.. they are among thsoe states that divide proportional....

Oh my god.... then there's is a chance Obama does indeed gets the nomination.... pufff.. with all the media favorotism and the corresponding advantage in the first contests.. if he holds his mark in Super Tuesday at 25% he can keep on and make the follow up in the next states.

Clinton will be next president.. but there is a chance she will not.. which comes to show that I'd better shut up my f_ mouth making predictions.

For N.Hampshire.. probably Obama.. but no freaking clue.

But I do know what is the best "possible" outcome (yes I do think Edwards has no chance of winning the nomination).. that H. clinton gets rid of her Mark Penns and corresponding bazofia, and remakes her team to win the White House....

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 09:39:40 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 0)

You are confusing proportional representation in the allocation of delegates to the Democratic Convention, and the winner-takes-all in the allocation of electoral votes in the Presidential election.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 09:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 0)

there are a bunch of states in the democratic priamry with winner-taks-all.. I assumed New York and california were among them.. oh jebee they are not.. they are like Iowa and N.H :(

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:10:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 0)

Oh Miy god.. now I read an article which sayts that New york is indeed winner takes all... for the GOP only?.. all the states inteh democratic primary ahve proportional representation?

I just do not get it.. and I do not find a list of which states are proportional and whcih states winner takes all...

Oh gee.. this is the reason why people who have no freaking clue should shut up.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (4.00 / 2)

Each party/state combination has its own electoral system for the primaries, and each state has its own electoral system for the allocation of Electoral votes.

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under the Democratic Party's Delegate Selection Rules, delegates are awarded by proportional representation, with a minimum 15 percent threshold required in order to receive delegates. Each state party is required to publish its own state level delegate selection plan and take public comment. The plans indicate how each state will select delegates at the congressional and statewide level, how the delegation will implement the party's affirmative action policy, and how the delegation will ensure an equal balance between women and men. Those plans were adopted at state conventions and forwarded to the national party in mid-2007.

Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike the Democratic Party, which mandates a proportional representation system for delegate selection within a state, the Republican Party has no such restriction. For states with primaries, some states choose to use the "winner-take-all" method to award delegates within a state, while others do winner-take-all within a congressional district, and still others use the proportional process. Unlike the Democratic Party, where pledged delegates support the candidate whom they are pledged, state party by-laws determine whether each delegate is pledged and for how many ballots.

United States Electoral College - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two states do not elect the Presidential Electors as a group. Maine and Nebraska elect two electors by a statewide ballot and choose their remaining Electors by congressional district. The method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1992, though neither has ever split its electoral votes in any subsequent elections.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 0)

Woww..

As I udnerstood ,d emcoratic priamry required at least some proportional representation..

as I read in open left now... http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3106

Most of the pledged delegates will be dished out on a proportional basis and a congressional district basis to candidates who receive more than 15% of vote in a congressional district. For example, only 376 of the 1,688 unpledged delegates to be had on Super Tuesday will be allotted to the winner of individual states.

so.. 376 are winner takes all.. which ones? .. do nto know.. are they those of New York? or not?

I do nto even know if california is completely proportional.

I know nothing.. I am from barcelona..

but all this means.. Obama has indeed a chance to win.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:39:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 1)

In the 1970s the national Democratic Party banned "winner take all" state primaries; all of them must now be based on proportional representation - in some form.

Here in CA that method is very arcane and even I don't quite understand it fully. Something like half the delegates are assigned by proportional representation based on the statewide vote totals, with a 15% minimum threshold.

However - the other half of the delegates from CA are assigned to the winner of the vote in each of our 53 Congressional districts, at 3-7 delegates per district.

Let's assume that Obama wins the next few primaries and wins the most votes in California. Hillary will still have a lot of delegates, maybe even enough to deny Obama an outright majority of delegates before the convention. She could still "lose" the CA popular vote but get just enough delegates to remain viable.

That depends, though, on her willingness to continue being a "loser candidate" - someone who has enough delegates to make it to the convention in August but didn't win many primaries outright. And it's far from clear she will want to do so. The last Democrat who tried it was Jesse Jackson in 1988 and he had actually won several state primaries.

When Americans discuss "winning a primary" they usually refer to the popular vote. The delegate totals are an afterthought. If Hillary doesn't win any, or many, and loses California, she will be seen as having lost, and it will be very difficult for her to defend to the media and the public a decision to fight onward.

And the world will live as one

by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 02:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 1)

Every state has unpledged delegates going into the first round of voting. These are political figures and other Special People. If the pledged bloc is not enough to put a candidate over the top they can swing the election to that candidate.

It was designed that way.

In 2004 there were 802 and since House and Senate Critters are automatically included that means another 30(? My brain is gone) for a total of 832 (?)

A candidate needs 2,209 delegate votes to win the nomination.

It's too soon in the process to start counting delegate votes.

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 03:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 1)

Err. um... Bob, how about Clinton - Edwards - Obama and Clinton - Obama - Edwards?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:04:21 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

A little unconscious acting out...shows my bias, huh?

Half the population is under the age of 18. Tanzania's future is NOW...join the 50% campaign!

by whataboutbob on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:50:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

Obama rockets past Clinton in New Hampshire | Politics | Reuters

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama rocketed to a 10-point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire one day before their showdown in the state's presidential primary, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Monday.
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona also began to pull away from rival Mitt Romney, opening a five-point lead on the Massachusetts governor as what had been tight races in both parties began to open up.
This is the first of the rolling New Hampshire polls taken entirely after last week's caucuses in Iowa, where Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee scored breakthrough wins that left Clinton and Romney reeling.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:11:56 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 0)

I am mosre worried about New york and california...

The way New York pledges the delegates is rather ucmbersome.. it is nto a winner takes all as I thought but it is neither approportional:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/NY-D.phtml

Tuesday 5 February 2008: 232 of 281 delegates to the Democratic National Convention are allocated to presidential contenders based on the results of the voting in today's New York Presidential Primary. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates at either the congressional district or statewide level.
151 district delegates are to be allocated proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the State's 29 congressional districts.
20 CDs with 5 delegates: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.
9 CDs with 6 delgates: 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21.
In addition, 81 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the primary vote statewide.
51 at-large National Convention delegates
30 Pledged PLEOs

Thursday 15 May 2008: The New York State Democratic Committee Meeting

The remaining 49 National Convention delegates consist of
45 Unpledged PLEO delegates:
18 Democratic National Committee members.
25 Members of Congress (2 Senators and 23 Representatives).
1 Governor.
1 Distinguished Party Leader (former President Bill Clinton).
4 Unpledged "add-on"s (selected during the State Democratic Executive Committee).

These 49 delegates and will go to the Democratic National Convention officially "Unpledged".

So, frankly now I do nto know if Obama ahs a chanc eor not of winning the nomination.. I am lost.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 0)

waht does it mean ...

"In addition, 81 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the primary vote statewide."

They will be allocated proportionally too? or the winner takes them all?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:28:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 1)

Well hillary should have at least one vote there.

kcurie:

1 Distinguished Party Leader (former President Bill Clinton).

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:29:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (4.00 / 2)

Not sure...

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - (none / 1)

Well if she didn't get any, the breakfast conversation the next morning would be entertaining.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:16:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

early prediction thread (none / 1)

As Migeru noted, I forgot to add Clinton as a winner, so I kind of screwed up the poll. Oh well. Anyway, I will go out on a limb here and say that Obama wins with 38%, Edwards comes in second with 25.5%, Clinton comes in 3rd with 24.5% and Richardson 4th with 2%.

I also think that Edwards will be praying for another second place finish...and both he and Obama would love to see Clinton pushed out, but as many of the hard core US politics types say, anything over 20% for Edwards keeps him in the game. I do think that Clinton and Edwards will be a lot closer in the final vote than people think.

Half the population is under the age of 18. Tanzania's future is NOW...join the 50% campaign!

by whataboutbob on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:59:52 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 1)

Here is a link with all the polls results: RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - New Hampshire

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:16:59 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

Just seen on Sky News, film of Queues outside the two main candidates meetings, (Edwards ignored as usual) Clinton has a few people, Obama had people queuing round the block, now this might be down to a disparity in start times, or a better ability to get people through the doors, but it does appear significant

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:01:56 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 1)

It's not a disparity, I'm guessing, because it seems to be happening all over New Hampshire to Clinton. The NYT has been reporting on it. My sense is that New Hampshire voters are sensing Obama will win, and probably go on to the presidency, and they're showing up to see him before the general election kicks off. The "Let's take the kids out to see the next president" thing.

Premature, but I think that's their thinking as they line up.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

Hmm, tough call. I have no doubt Obama will win, but I'm seeing Edwards rise and Clinton fall. Momentum matters, so I'll take:

Obama - 45%
Edwards - 25%
Clinton - 23%
Richardson - 6%
Kucinich/Gravel - 1%

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 12:53:08 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

So, are Biden and Dodd below 1%?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (4.00 / 2)

Strategically, I agree, Bob. Obama and Edwards want a third-place finish for Clinton. It might well represent a decapitation of her campaign.

Clinton needs to win. This isn't Iowa, where she was hoping, at worst, to absorb an Edwards win and move on. Now that the kid has a win under his belt, the "Is he for real?" talk is gone, and her inevitability has been completely destroyed. Finishing behind Edwards, which is certainly possible, in her own backyard would be a brutal hit.

Joe Trippi brought up an interesting prospect, thinking that Clinton was beginning to run out of money. His take is that she's likely blowing through $20m per month. She had $35m cash-on-hand in October, and, as she's more reliant on big donations than Obama and Edwards, her donors will max out first. (Obama and Edwards have large bases of small donors.) With the loss in Iowa, the fundraising simply may not be there to carry her to February 5th in strong position.

That's an interesting take, because I thought a year ago the same thing might happen.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

That's an interesting take, because I thought a year ago the same thing might happen.

And, better yet, I think my father owes me a beer if that happens, because he thought I was nuts last year when I suggested it might happen.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What happens then ? (4.00 / 2)

If Clinton really does implode, where does that leave Rahm Emmanuel or the DLC ? Suddenly the horse they backed has fallen and they're left looking like someone let the air out of their tyres.

Won't that be a mjor shift in Democratic Beltway power blocks ?

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 05:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

Suddenly the horse they backed has fallen and they're left looking like someone let the air out of their tyres.

LOL. That hasn't stopped them in the past...

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.

by poemless on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 05:55:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (4.00 / 2)

Yes. A major shift, and that was a major reason for why I wanted Clinton to get beat above all else. (That, and she's undeniably the most conservative candidate in the race.) This is a chance to purge the DLC, which would be rich after they were preaching to us to purge the left after 2004 (when another one of their people lost).

The DLC has been on the ropes for a whilee. Kerry was their guy in 2004. (While Kerry was tanking in the summer of 2003, they got behind Clark briefly in hopes of someone taking down Dean.) Clinton is their girl in 2008. They, literally, have no one left as a viable presidential candidate that I know of. And the biggest gun they had, Al Gore, isn't running and wouldn't align with them anyway.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 0)

I find it very hard to believe that Kerry, one of the most liberal Senators around, was ever a favorite of the DLC.

In fact, I saw that they were doing everything to undercut him. After all, with a Kerry win, Hillary can't run in 2008.

by Upstate NY on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 07:39:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (4.00 / 3)

Emmanuel is a joke anyway. (I'm sure poemless can probably get into far more detail on that than I can, being, I think, from the same state.) He's a halfwit thriving on Howard Dean and the netroots' commitment to running everywhere. Sure, Emmanuel got a few conservative Dems elected where progressives probably would've lost, so we get a slight improvement on a few issues. Good for him. But the electoral success is really due to the grassroots, and the media frenzy around him in 2006 was laughable.

What should come next is a rebellion against the Senate leadership and a few members of Congress. The grassroots needs to pick off some of the sick ones, or force them to the left.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

Emanuel is extremely powerful/influential, locally. I don't think he is going anywhere. Plus, Obama is in leage with him now...

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.

by poemless on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

So Obama will be revealed to be the DLC's stalking horse, after all?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (4.00 / 2)

Would not be shocked...

Though keep in mind the DCCC and DLC are not the same. But Obama and Emanual have made an alliance. Shit. Everyone's made an alliance with Obama around here.

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.

by poemless on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

What should come next is a rebellion against the Senate leadership and a few members of Congress. The grassroots needs to pick off some of the sick ones, or force them to the left.

I get the impression that there is no love lost between the major blogosphere and the DLC/Emmanuel and they'd dearly like to shiv him and his Blue Dog mates with primary challenges over the summer. I just think that, with the distraction of all the Repugnican resignations and the Presidency, blogosphere energy won't be available to try a Lamont vs Lieberman stunt this cycle.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

I just think that, with the distraction of all the Repugnican resignations and the Presidency, blogosphere energy won't be available to try a Lamont vs Lieberman stunt this cycle.

Agreed. And that makes sense, because it's smart to grab the low-hanging fruit. I think we've got a real shot at taking the Senate seat in Alaska, as well as Larry Craig's seat in Idaho. There are others. We're not going to get a filibuster-proof majority on our own. 55 seats is a good goal. But, with that, I think enough Reps can then be scared into cooperating that we'll be able to get the big portion of the platform done with. If they don't play ball, we can offer a credible threat to come after them, because it's obvious the country is shifting to the left, ideologically.

Launching the mini-coups against establishment types works better in midterms, and, if we can pass some of these programs in 2009, I think it'll give us the approval ratings, and the depressed GOP, necessary to take a shot at some of them.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (4.00 / 2)

How many or if House and Senate seats are picked-up this November depends on the Republican nominee. There are a couple of scenarios where the GOP stays home or votes 3rd Party, e.g., Libertarian.

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 07:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

Every GOP candidate comes with the possibility of part of the base staying home except Duncan Hunter, who's, frankly, too ugly to win and would bring the Latinos out in massive numbers anyway. Ron Paul's people might go Libertarian, but I suspect most of those people wouldn't likely be voting for the GOP nominee even if Paul had never got into the race. They're the 10% or so of Republican voters who don't vote for the Republican each time.

That's why the Reps are so screwed, and it's becoming more and more clear how screwed they are by the hour. I caught the polls today out of Iowa and Ohio. The Reps can now essentially write off Iowa, even with Huckabee or McCain. They're losing ground rapidly in Ohio. I suspect they'll lose Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and Iowa; and they might well lose Virginia and Nevada. Other states -- Arizona (depending on McCain), Colorado (hello, DNC convention!), etc -- could come into play.

They're not going to win all of those, but the fact that so many red states are going to be in play, combined with the Reps' fundraising problems and the differences in excitement, 2008 is looking like it may make 2006 look downright kind to the GOP.

We all see it. It's a chance for the Dems to build a long-term majority. The funny thing, as an article I saw today pointed out, is that Karl Rove wanted to achieve political hegemony. He may succeed, except that he'll do it for the wrong party.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 08:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

I'll put it in another, more blunt way. The Republican Party is in a state of contraction. They're being crushed into a party of the rural Deep South: Hating on the Mexicans, rejecting science, and Big Religion. And, worse for the actual candidates, the party as a whole is openly embracing this, because their constituents openly demand it.

This much is clear to me: The Republicans are on the verge of losing 75% of the country. They've probably already succeeded, if these youth voting figures continue to hold, in creating an entire generation of liberal Democrats because of their awesomely stupid war. Seventy five percent of the kids who voted in Iowa self-identified as "liberal". Not conservative, not moderate. Liberal. We haven't seen anything like that for, literally, decades. Probably not since FDR.

If they stay on this path, they won't have enough congressmen and senators left to even put up a fight against all of these Democratic programs we're talking about, and what congressmen and senators left will be too scared to do anything. Atrios keeps jokingly asking, whenever another one retires, "Are there any Republicans left?" And the answer is yes, but maybe not for long.

If anything, they may be in even more trouble than people have previously thought.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 09:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

The GOP is now beholden to the Deep South. Agreed.

They are still competitive in the West: Arizona, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. That's 24 Senators to go with the 22 (I discount Florida and Virginia) from the old Confederacy. In theory they could form a bloc to stifle legislation. We've seen how this can be done in the current Congress.

A deeper problem exists even within this, GOP-optimistic scenario: money.

In order for the GOP to remain relevant they require huge sums from the plutocracy. A typical Congressional campaign needs around $1 million (+/-) and Senate campaign is double that. Money comes into politics on a strict quid pro quo. I give you the bucks and you give me special consideration. Should the GOP shrink in political power the money they can access necessarily shrinks.

Obama has shown it is possible to organize a grassroots organization for a fraction of the seed capital - as it were - of the typical Top/Down money-driven organization. The problem here, for the GOP, is their grassroots are the ones forcing them away from the majority of the country. Huckabee and Paul shows that pretty clearly.

We're at the early stages of the GOP meltdown. 3 years ago, after all, they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Yes, the seeds are there, Yes, their structural problems are huge. They can, however, pull out of their dive depending on what the Democrats do!

And that's where I see the problems. There are enough Conservatives in the Democratic Party to functionally ally with the GOP and become the majority in Congress.

There is the danger.

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

Which is precisely why we need to get rid of those Dems. The Blue Dogs have got to go where possible. It, for example, makes no sense to have a Blue Dog representing Tallahassee and the surrounding areas. That ultra-liberal territory.

Now, the Reps are competitive in the West, but it's slipping. We can take Montana in four years, I'd bet, especially if we can get some meaningful work done. Ending the war and passing a universal health care plan would be a good start, and we could hammer the Reps with it. Grabbing Montana, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico would pretty much lock it up.

Even in the Deep South, the Reps are hurting. Like I said, we can win in Virginia with a good campaign. We can take that senate seat, too, that Warner's vacating. We already have the legislature and governor's mansion, I believe. We've got it turning fast. Tennessee will be ripe in four or eight years. Missouri could turn this year finally. So we've got some inroads even in the Deep South.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (4.00 / 3)

O/T but you'll like this.

I use Capitol Hill Blue as a listening station for the Libertarian/Small Government Conservative wing of the GOP. They have a Presidency Preference Poll up by party:

Democrat - 65% (!)
Republican - 6% (!!)
3rd Party - 14%
None of Above - 7%
Undecided - 8%

From a site that was 60/40 (R/D) 4 years ago!

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 02:16:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 0)

But why should this be surprising? I'm sure drunken sailors would object to being compared with Republicans on spending.

Is Capitol Hill Blue a site for the Liberty Caucus?

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 06:03:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

The magnitude of the difference in preference is surprising. The site is visited by people the GOP needs to win local elections. Hard to tell how representative these things are, and it's only one data point in a trend line, yet combining with other evidence such as the GOP retirement rate -- we could be looking at a 1934-type election.

I have no idea who is paying the bills 'over there' -- Liberty Caucus? wouldn't surprise me.

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 11:38:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 0)

Well, they clearly hate freedom over there, so who needs'em?

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 12:08:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (none / 1)

By the way, did you catch this from Huckabee?

Hi-larious. God love our quiet little neighbors to the North and their National Igloo.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 06:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens then ? (4.00 / 2)

Adding, I'm not in favor of attacking them if it's obvious we're just going to get some GOP nut in their place. If, in a hyper-conservative district, we have the choice between a Blue Dog and (say) Tom Tancredo, then it's best to leave the Blue Dog alone (or try to get the Blue Dog elected) and try to nudge him/her to the left on this or that issue where we can. Fair enough. They need to be surgical strikes. It made sense with Holy Joe in Connecticut, because Connecticut was never going to vote for What's-His-Name the Reps nominated.

Our problem is that we elected a bunch of Joe Liebermans over the years to places in which we could've just as easily elected Russ Feingolds and Barbara Boxers.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 06:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

Gotta get my prediction in:

44% for Obama
27% for Clinton
22% for Edwards
5% for Richardson
2% for the rest

Richardson will have won the expectations game!

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 07:08:44 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

OK - if I have to...

42% for Obama
30% for Clinton
18% for Edwards
5% for Richardson
5% for the rest

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 08:31:18 AM EST

Results (none / 1)

Hey, Whataboutbob! You should update this diary for the results.

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 09:05:32 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (4.00 / 3)

What, no predictions for the Reps yet? I'm gonna try both.

Obama 39%
Clinton 30%
Edwards 19%
Richardson 6%

Sarge 34%
Oily 29%
Beagle Eyes 14%
Carrot Face 9%
Bunny Ears 9%
Wrinkles 4%

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (4.00 / 2)

HALT!

You forgot PruneFace, MobBoss, and Cracker!

Damn librul mediums.

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

Which ones are Carrot Face and Bunny Ears? I'm guessing Paul is the former.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 01:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 1)

Daily Kos: The Republican debates according to a 9-year old (w/Poll)

Here is a list in case you haven't already figured out which nickname refers to which candidate:
McCain = Sarge
Thompson = Wrinkles
Paul = Bunny Ears
Romney = Oily
Huckabee = Beagle Eyes
Giuliani = Carrot Face

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

Bunny Ears for Paul. Hmm. I don't know. I always thought, like Kerry, Paul looked like one of the trees from "The Wizard of Oz".

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 01:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 1)

Okay, I forgot to take a crack at the Reps:

Multiple-Choice Mitt - 33%
St John de Politico - 32%
Reverend Dukes of Hazard - 15%
Ron "Da Souff Will Rise Agyaaaan" Paul - 11%
Rudy Mussolini - 6%
Others - 3%

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 01:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thre (none / 0)

The weather is apparently nice in New Hamster, and, partly as a consequence, turnout is looking very high so far per all the media and people on the ground.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Jan 8th, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM EST

New Hampshire Primary - early prediction thread | 92 comments (92 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Recommended Diaries

Beggar Thy Neighbour
by redstar - Dec 2
16 comments

Did the U.S. 2005 Bankruptcy Reform cause the world financial ...
by NBBooks - Dec 2
5 comments

Friedmanite Folly and the Mugabe Option
by ChrisCook - Dec 2
42 comments

Numbers
by Sven Triloqvist - Nov 29
22 comments

So, Ideology is Dead. So now what ?
by ValentinD - Nov 26
214 comments

Oregon Old Growth and W's Last Minute Timber Deal
by jamess - Nov 30
11 comments

Libya sends 3,000 tons of aid to Gaza SHIP TURNED BACK
by shergald - Nov 28
3 comments

The Famine Of 2009
by SacredCowTipper - Nov 27
23 comments

Recent Diaries

Beggar Thy Neighbour
by redstar - Dec 2
8 comments

Obama commits to Middle East peace
by shergald - Dec 2
2 comments

Friedmanite Folly and the Mugabe Option
by ChrisCook - Dec 2
21 comments

Did the U.S. 2005 Bankruptcy Reform cause the world financial ...
by NBBooks - Dec 2
5 comments

LQD: German surveillance revisited
by dvx - Dec 1
7 comments

Oregon Old Growth and W's Last Minute Timber Deal
by jamess - Nov 30
11 comments

Early Friday Photography Blog No 63
by In Wales - Nov 30
46 comments

Numbers
by Sven Triloqvist - Nov 29
11 comments

Food Market On Tracks
by DoDo - Nov 29
16 comments

Breaking the Bailout
by danps - Nov 29
5 comments

Libya sends 3,000 tons of aid to Gaza SHIP TURNED BACK
by shergald - Nov 28
3 comments

Stimulating whose economy?
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 28
14 comments

US = cheap money?
by Jerome a Paris - Nov 28
102 comments

The Famine Of 2009
by SacredCowTipper - Nov 27
23 comments

Making a new case for Lisbon [Update]
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 27
23 comments

LQD: What is work?
by afew - Nov 27
48 comments

Exit Clement
by nanne - Nov 27
23 comments

Chew and Screw
by Lasthorseman - Nov 27
16 comments

So, Ideology is Dead. So now what ?
by ValentinD - Nov 26
107 comments

Social welfare spending to help the economy
by marco - Nov 26
23 comments

More Diaries...

Debates

Campaigns

Occasional Series