Official NH Primary Results Thread
- Thread starter Cheebs
- Start date
- Status
nerbo said:
yes you are.
Can you not read? I said having two families in power for 28 years straight will have caused alot of damage to this country. For anyone with half a brain they will know what I am talking about. Did not say anything about bill clinton causing damage you idiot. After bill clinton there shouldn't have been another bush and there should not be another clinton.
Learn how to read and comprehend.
PhoenixDark
Banned
ndiicm said:
Why? The American people should decide who the next president is, not your dumb name litmus test. :lol
Well because people are basically dogpiling on the last name argument, I just feel like jumping in.
The issue isn't so much whether the presidents have the same last name. I'm willing to accept that it's possible that the characteristics that make good presidents and lead to political success can be extremely concentrated at the highest level in the same family over a short period of time. Sure, it's possible. I think Bobby Kennedy would have made an great president.
So the question is, does the last name have a causal relationship to people deciding to vote for that person?
Answering that definitively is pretty tough. Just to get started you'd have to determine what presidential characteristics are, how thoroughly distributed in the population they are, to what extent having the same upbringing can bring these out, and I'm sure the list could go on for a while.
But, regardless, maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but I'd like to think the ideal at least should be a normal distribution of talent, the meritocratic winner being at the upper end of that distribution, and the likelihood of the 28 year phenomenon being a statistical near impossibility.
I can accept the fact that we don't live in that world (though I'm going to remain a little bitter that electing people named Bush and Clinton sure doesn't bring us any closer). So let's look at the one we do live in.
Hillary Clinton's most important administrative task in her life was a massive failure. One of my most respected economists in the field and a former Clinton advisor has said "there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president." She has taken an unacceptable pro war stance. As a Senator she never displayed the leadership we saw from several others in her own party, and her most memorable moment apparently involve talking about video games. She surrounds herself with some of the worst people in the party, and even held back from her own party's campaigning.
So, I'm going to conclude that to the extent she has had political success, it is more deeply rooted in people's ability to recognize her last name than it is in the idea that she's the best person for the job. And yeah, I think that's bad for democracy, especially given how things turned out the last time a guy's last name was his biggest claim to fame.
Honestly, I wouldn't even say I'm a "fan" of Obama. I'm skeptical that he can really accomplish anything, particularly changing the culture in Washington. I think he's probably a little green on policy. I wish he'd take some kind of important substantive issue to run on and show us where his priorities are.
On the other hand, I like the fact that he seems to inspire a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in politics, that he hasn't spent a ton of time in Washington, and think he's probably genuine, even if too idealistic. When I think about the obstacles anyone going to Washington has to put up with, about the hair-splitting and low signal to noise that usually goes on when tracking voting history, about the similarities we'd see between democratic candidates and the margin in the house and sentate and the mood of the country probably mattering more than whoever ends up in the White House...when I think about all that well, then I think "this Obama's case might be a little thin, but shit, maybe it's enough."
But really, I'm just pulling for him by default.
Gore/Dean 2008.
The issue isn't so much whether the presidents have the same last name. I'm willing to accept that it's possible that the characteristics that make good presidents and lead to political success can be extremely concentrated at the highest level in the same family over a short period of time. Sure, it's possible. I think Bobby Kennedy would have made an great president.
So the question is, does the last name have a causal relationship to people deciding to vote for that person?
Answering that definitively is pretty tough. Just to get started you'd have to determine what presidential characteristics are, how thoroughly distributed in the population they are, to what extent having the same upbringing can bring these out, and I'm sure the list could go on for a while.
But, regardless, maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but I'd like to think the ideal at least should be a normal distribution of talent, the meritocratic winner being at the upper end of that distribution, and the likelihood of the 28 year phenomenon being a statistical near impossibility.
I can accept the fact that we don't live in that world (though I'm going to remain a little bitter that electing people named Bush and Clinton sure doesn't bring us any closer). So let's look at the one we do live in.
Hillary Clinton's most important administrative task in her life was a massive failure. One of my most respected economists in the field and a former Clinton advisor has said "there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president." She has taken an unacceptable pro war stance. As a Senator she never displayed the leadership we saw from several others in her own party, and her most memorable moment apparently involve talking about video games. She surrounds herself with some of the worst people in the party, and even held back from her own party's campaigning.
So, I'm going to conclude that to the extent she has had political success, it is more deeply rooted in people's ability to recognize her last name than it is in the idea that she's the best person for the job. And yeah, I think that's bad for democracy, especially given how things turned out the last time a guy's last name was his biggest claim to fame.
Honestly, I wouldn't even say I'm a "fan" of Obama. I'm skeptical that he can really accomplish anything, particularly changing the culture in Washington. I think he's probably a little green on policy. I wish he'd take some kind of important substantive issue to run on and show us where his priorities are.
On the other hand, I like the fact that he seems to inspire a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in politics, that he hasn't spent a ton of time in Washington, and think he's probably genuine, even if too idealistic. When I think about the obstacles anyone going to Washington has to put up with, about the hair-splitting and low signal to noise that usually goes on when tracking voting history, about the similarities we'd see between democratic candidates and the margin in the house and sentate and the mood of the country probably mattering more than whoever ends up in the White House...when I think about all that well, then I think "this Obama's case might be a little thin, but shit, maybe it's enough."
But really, I'm just pulling for him by default.
Gore/Dean 2008.
ConfusingJazz
Member
harSon said:
Bingo. Al Gore thinks the Clintons squandered the Democratic power-hold they had in 1993 to 1995 that directly, and believes Hillary's unprecedented influence is what launched the failed 1994 Health Care bill, something Al Gore, a "New Democrat," opposed. He believed then that this weakened the Democratic Party so much as to allow the Republican Revolution during the 94 elections.
However, I still don't think I would use the word hate, more along the lines of he finds them slimey.
yep. If the public picks hillary by definition thats democracy in action. Refusing to allow someone to win/run based on their last name is what would be un-democratic.Y2Kev said:
Hillary is not Bill Clinton. Both potentially in a good and bad way. I do not think she'd run the country exactly like him at all.
jamesinclair
Banned
I dont think anybody else is watching it.
Ron aul did excellent right now.
Fox asked all the candidates questions about the economy.
Then asked Ron Paul about 9/11 conspiracies.
He says: "No I dont endorse them, and now let me talk about the subject at hand"
Ron aul did excellent right now.
Fox asked all the candidates questions about the economy.
Then asked Ron Paul about 9/11 conspiracies.
He says: "No I dont endorse them, and now let me talk about the subject at hand"
Stoney Mason
Banned
Y2Kev said:
I like the Romney Booing!
:lol
jamesinclair
Banned
"I dont want to trade with AL Queda, all the way to trade is Burquas" McCain.
What?
What?
Stoney Mason
Banned
I like the Fox trick of always split screening Ron Paul with a smirking candidate as if to say "Ain't he crazy!"
jamesinclair
Banned
Stoney Mason said:
It only made me really dislike McCain
PhoenixDark
Banned
There's a debate going on huh?
jamesinclair
Banned
Fox: "You raised taxes, is this the kind of change you want?'
Hucks: "I raised hope"
Hucks: "I raised hope"
jamesinclair
Banned
Y2Kev said:
I think I heard the audience go "ooooooooooooooooh"
PhoenixDark
Banned
Huckabee just dodged a bullet and knocked it out the park
Stoney Mason
Banned
Huckabee is smooth...
Mr. Paul. Electability do you have any?
Wow.
Mr. Paul. Electability do you have any?
Wow.
jamesinclair
Banned
Fox: "Concerning electebility... "pause, smile "do you have any?"
Fox 2: LOL!
Wow
Fox 2: LOL!
Wow
Stoney Mason
Banned
jamesinclair said:
He owned them again.
maximum360
Member
Stoney Mason said:
Foxowned!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Stoney Mason said:
Yea I'm not Paul fan but that was an awesome response to a shitty question
MassiveAttack
Banned
Holy shit... Ron Paul just fucking OWNED Carl Cameron and Fox News. A total beatdown.
Karma Kramer
Banned
I wish I could watch this... is it streaming anywhere?
Really, the Republicans have been highjacked by the policies of the 20th Century Left, folks like Wilson and FDR, and even when they campaign on traditional conservative policies, now considered paleoconservative policies, they don't stick to these ideas.
So Paul's answer was pure ownage in my book.
He strikes me as a less aggressive, pro-life Goldwater. And that's my perfect candidate, electability or not. As I recall Goldwater didn't do so hot at the polls, either. :lol
So Paul's answer was pure ownage in my book.
He strikes me as a less aggressive, pro-life Goldwater. And that's my perfect candidate, electability or not. As I recall Goldwater didn't do so hot at the polls, either. :lol
Karma Kramer
Banned
Y2Kev said:
Awsome!
and thanks!
Stoney Mason
Banned
LOL. I only watched the last 25 minutes or so of this debate but if they thought Fred Thompson did something special, Republicans are in worse shape than I thought.
thegreyfox
Member
awesome another Text poll. wonder who will win.
Dunno, but I'm voting.
At least 17 times, just for Sean.
Also: Thompson did nothing special. Paul owned up, without being unstatesman-like to his peers, but by slamming back good answers for rude and outrageous questions.
Who won? Oh definitely Thompson. Who lost? Oh definitely Paul. :lol
* * *
Remember folks, these polls are relevant because Hannity remembered Huckabee did kind of well. These polls are also irrelevant because Paul did well.
At least 17 times, just for Sean.
Also: Thompson did nothing special. Paul owned up, without being unstatesman-like to his peers, but by slamming back good answers for rude and outrageous questions.
Who won? Oh definitely Thompson. Who lost? Oh definitely Paul. :lol
* * *
Remember folks, these polls are relevant because Hannity remembered Huckabee did kind of well. These polls are also irrelevant because Paul did well.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Does this fucking streaming thing not show Hannity and Colmes?
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
Ron Paul was treated like absolute shit. He was brought in to be laughed at basically.
maximum360
Member
Fred Thompson as winner? That focus group is laughable at best.
jamesinclair
Banned
I did think that Thompson put it a better show than usual (last debate we all thought he was dieing) but to be the winner by such a big amount?
I wish I were in that room only to say "the biggest loser was Fox"
I wish I were in that room only to say "the biggest loser was Fox"
TheKingsCrown
Banned
Did anyone hear they are about to recount all the ballots in NH?
jamesinclair
Banned
Actually, you know what? I hope Thompson does win the next state. Itll be hilarious.
Tamanon said:
watch this and you will understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
Luntz isn't a real Pollster; his job is to figure out the wording you need to use to get the "right answer" from a respondent
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
The only good thing Thompson did was his huge burn of Huckabee early on.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Tamanon said:
You can't have a good focus group when you are only hunting for a specific answer
- Status