Stoney Mason
Banned
Cooter said:
Why do you even care then? You're pretty conservative from your posting record. Were you suddenly going to vote for Obama?
Official NH Primary Results Thread
- Thread starter Cheebs
- Start date
- Status
Why do you even care then? You're pretty conservative from your posting record. Were you suddenly going to vote for Obama?
JohnTinker
Limbaugh Parrot
McCain won New Hampshire last time around. Just because he won tonight doesn't mean he's a lock.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
JohnTinker said:
The GOP race is wiiiiide open.
jamesinclair said:
This is 100% what happened tonight. The same independents who responded to democratic pollsters that they would prefer Obama among the democrats heard it was going to be a blowout and went to ensure that Romney and Hucakboo wouldn't be they ultimate alternative.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
JohnTinker said:
Off course. McCain isn't even leading in delegates overall
Andy787 said:
If it's her versus any of the GOP, then count me in. She might be in office until I'm 34 or 38, and she might make some questionable (or downright angering) decisions in that term or two - but her Supreme Court nominees are going to be there when I'm in my fucking 50s or 60s, making decisions on causes I care about year after year after year after...
If it's controversial, it'll end-up before the Court. You know it.
But go ahead and throw your hissy fit. If she differs from Obama 4% of the time, the ***** isn't worth voting for, obviously. /s
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Y2Kev said:
Then the Dem's will win no matter what. I really don't think he can survive the scrutiny of more than half the country.
perfectchaos007
Member
Heres where the 12 delegates in NH went for the republicans
McCain 7
Romney 4
Huckabee 1
McCain 7
Romney 4
Huckabee 1
MSNBC front page has the race tightened up again within 2% with 85% reporting.
If it stays that close, I believe Obama can spin this as a virtual tie and keep the hope alive that each individual state on Super Tuesday will evaluate the candidates separately. Obama already got the momentum he needed to tie up the national polls (which leading up to Iowa were still dramatically in Hillary's favor). If he can keep those numbers up there, he'll have a shot come Feb. 5th to keep pace and keep the race going.
If it stays that close, I believe Obama can spin this as a virtual tie and keep the hope alive that each individual state on Super Tuesday will evaluate the candidates separately. Obama already got the momentum he needed to tie up the national polls (which leading up to Iowa were still dramatically in Hillary's favor). If he can keep those numbers up there, he'll have a shot come Feb. 5th to keep pace and keep the race going.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Cooter said:
If you honestly believe that then more power to you. I don't agree of course but intelligent people are welcome to differing opinions. I'll still state nobody has any idea right now who the candidates will be on either side or who will win if certain people matchup with certain people.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Juice said:
He can easily do it, considering that the delegates are even. But ABC is riding the "Comeback" meme like a freight train. "Stunning victory," "Comeback Kid," etc.
AndersTheSwede
Member
Juice said:
I sincerely doubt this happened in large enough numbers to effect the vote. If your an independent who wants Obama to win why would you give a fuck about ensuring a Romney loss? Having such a scumbag for an opponent in the general election would give Obama more of a chance to win not less.
Obama was defeated, flat out.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Juice said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-08-michigan-primary_N.htm
It's like a friendly agreement not to campaign there to "punish" them. Completely ridiculous if you ask me but whatever.
Cheebs said:
We don't know what Hillary's victory is going to do to the national polls. If it stays even, then this race can continue to be fought state-by-state. If Obama starts sliding again, which I think is likely, we could see Hillary win back her inevitability-factor as she wraps up most of the Feb. 5th states than she otherwise would if the race was still perceived as competitive.
speculawyer
Member
Y2Kev said:
I think flip-flop Mitt is too inconsistent, too sleazy, and too Mormon to win his party's nomination.
BenjaminBirdie said:
The media will look to create a narrative where ever possible because it is the easy way to report stories people care about.
They did the same thing after Iowa with Obama. Let's be realistic--the spotlight being off him is going to hurt, but I think he could be okay.
Edwards is a fucking dunce. He just couldn't stop washing Obama's balls during the debate.
Stoney Mason said:
Of course I believe that. I wrote it. What don't you agree with? You don't think Obama and McCain are people who you can trust for the most part? Obama and McCain are both good people with good hearts. I don't think that is some major revelation.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Cheebs said:
Because they were all running the "she is dead" meme yesterday. With that logic it is absolutely the correct approach for the narrative setting media we have in this country. You can't have it both ways.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Cheebs said:
Well, I've always naively believed in the democratic process. If the party and the country really doesn't want what Obama is proposing, then that's that. I'm not going to pretend that I know what's best for the country if they don't actually want it.
To me, it's Satan's manchowder(Giuliani, et al) to a far lesser evil(Ms. Clinton) to somebody who might actually not fall in the "evil" column at all(Obama).Dreamfixx said:
I'd be very disappointed if Clinton won looking at Clinton/Obama, but I'd be vastly more disappointed if neither won.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Y2Kev said:
Oh he definitely will be.
jamesinclair
Banned
perfectchaos007 said:
Im confused, I thought republican delegates went based on the proportion of votes?
Shouldnt it be:
McCain 5 (4 plus leftoevers for winning)
Romney 3
Huckabee 2
Gules 1
Paul 1
The more I think about it, I really think the entire nomination rides on Edwards. If he stays in it through Super Tuesday, he could very likely Nader Obama by splitting the anti-establishment vote. Worse, he commands more solid democrats versus Obama's overwhelming support by independents. In states that lock out independents, Edwards continued presence will certainly hurt Obama.
If he were to get out now, which his ego and lack of a fallback political career will prevent, he'd probably be handing the nomination to Obama.
If he were to get out now, which his ego and lack of a fallback political career will prevent, he'd probably be handing the nomination to Obama.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Cooter said:
I don't vote for good people with good hearts. That's a wife. Not the president. I vote for people who share my views on how the united states should be and whether they are able to accomplish that. Other people are free to vote however they choose. Also implicit in your proposal is the idea that I don't believe Hilary Clinton is either of those things which on a personal level I feel she is both.
TheKingsCrown
Banned
The one thing I would say is Clinton is strong in these other statesv1cious said:
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Juice said:
But even if he stayed in, doesn't he give his delegates to whoever he wants when he drops out? I'm quite sure he'd give them to Obama.
speculawyer
Member
+1HylianTom said:
Ugh . . . the Supreme court has waaaay too many religious nutcakes like Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.
Stoney Mason
Banned
v1cious said:
People's love of a candidate blinding them to the fact that it is still an election process that hasn't been decided yet and that not everyone shares their opinion.
I'd be interested in a straw poll of Obama-loving GAFfers who would vote for McCain if it came down to a Hillary-McCain showdown in the general.
I think that Obama's magnetism could ultimately amplify a gender war where moderate-to-liberal male voters either refuse to show up or support McCain (I can't see them jumping the fence for any of the other reps) just to keep Hillary out.
I think that Obama's magnetism could ultimately amplify a gender war where moderate-to-liberal male voters either refuse to show up or support McCain (I can't see them jumping the fence for any of the other reps) just to keep Hillary out.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Juice said:
He might do it but only at the last minute.
Juice said:
Hillary over any Republican.
Stoney Mason
Banned
maharg said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=197579&highlight=michigan
Well they weren't supposed to be on the ballot but a couple of candidates are.
speculawyer said:
It's the forgotten issue every four years. "There's no difference!" the Idiots cry.
Stevens was appointed by Ford in 1975. 32 years ago. Still sits on the bench. 86 years old.
These justices are sitting on the bench for a long fucking time, and as healthcare advances go further, it'll only get more significant.
Who do you want sitting on that bench, making decisions on crucial, controversial issues for 32 years? Hillary will be gone in less than a decade. She'll probably be dead while these folks still sit on the bench.
There's no difference? Bullshit.
- Status