New Hampshire: Predictions
posted at 9:04 am on January 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Might as well start early. Obama’s up nine or more in almost every recent poll; he’s a lock, so keep your eye on Silky to see just how badly he flames out. He’s averaging 18 points in the RCP tally but the new Zogby has him down to 17 and a poll that came out yesterday put him at 15. If Obama peels off a bunch of his supporters and sends him to an especially humiliating third, maybe that gets him to thinking about getting out soon. Although as Kaus drolly notes, it’s not like he has anything else to do with his time.
I want to pick Mitt to surprise St. McCain, if only because I can’t imagine his early two-state strategy totally collapsing given his money advantage, but all the polls but one have him down and Maverick’s an 83% favorite on InTrade. So let’s say McCain wins narrowly, by two or three. Would that be good news or bad news for Fredheads? It would leave Moneybags especially weak in SC, but you’d also have McCain to contend with and so the anti-Huck vote that Fred’s trying to leverage could split three ways. If McCain loses today he may be out by then, leaving a three-way race — with Romney invigorated and ready to spend Fred into oblivion.
As you ponder, here’s a little Two Minutes McCain Hate from Kaus and See-Dub. And here’s Byron York wondering why Mitt still hasn’t settled on an identity after a year of campaigning and tens of millions of dollars spent.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
By the way MadisonC, I responded to you on the other thread here.
It seems like as good a time as any to bring it up.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 11:09 AM
So you’ve now descended into discussing the number of brain cells I have. You’re obviously better than me. You stay classy.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Certainly. Maybe the senator who would replace McCain would be a pro-enforcement voice in the senate? We will still have Tanc, Hunter, and the rest. I didn’t hear one single voice coming out of the Bush administration that was against the shamnesty bill, so McCain can’t do any better. And I don’t think anyone is supporting McCain of that issue. they will vote for him on national defense and split on illegal immigration. Basically, we’d have a Bush V2.0, but smarter on the use of military might.
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 11:12 AM
As long as Huck and Hillary flame out, I’m content.
Seixon on January 8, 2008 at 11:13 AM
For your own good, read.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Michigan polls are worthless.
Big S on January 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
On the bolded point, what about his aversion to use of torture? He has publicly stated that he would stop the use of waterboarding in any case, which would only make it more clear to the world that we won’t go to the extents we have been going to get the information we need out of terrorists.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM
For those supporting Romney like me.
davenp35 on January 8, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Newsflash to Mr. Gilchrist, Buy Danish and faraway:
All preachers look you right in the eye.
What’s so special about that? So do magicians, dictators, hookers and Rosie O’Donald.
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM
The difference is that after the last one looks you in the eye, you are left without a soul.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM
New Hampshire is a beautiful place, but it has lost it’s relevance.
New Hampshire’s Previous Results:
Carter won, they got this right
They got this one right too. Then NH’s validity starts to slip.
They picked the incumbent. Big deal.
They picked the incumbent’s VP. – - yawn – -
They picked two losers.
They got the incumbent right again.
2 x losers.
Another impressive incumbent pick.
There’s no incumbent in this race. In other words New Hampshire hasn’t meant anything in 27 years. McCain will probably win New Hampsha’ again, and I say who cares. The gloves are coming off and I think Romney will eventually get the nomination and face Obama in a scary presidential race.
cannonball on January 8, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Hopefully the voters were paying attention in the debate, if so Mitt Romney will prevail.
MarkB on January 8, 2008 at 11:24 AM
10:58 pimping allies.
Example: even at this moment, ours is NOT the final say on the approved-but-not-funded fence as the political system has its’ own agenda. Citizens pay for what legislators approve, not visa versa.
Bear in mind, when judges create common law prohibiting citizen’s representation from legislation, “WE, the American people” lose the final say. McCain has a record with Supreme Court nominees.
Should McCain win, the “voice of the people” heard and responded to is that represented by the ACLU. The citizens’ voice is smothered by time/fatigue/disillusionment expended during the ACLU financed/organized rape of our appellate process, and the legislators’ refusal to fund any legislated concessions “meant” to protect citizens’ rights, during which time the ACLU’s POTUS further rigs the political system against the citizen in favor of illegal aliens.
FRED!
maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Mitt by 3 over McNasty
Messiah by 12 over the collapsing Clinton.
Aftermath:
It will be all but over for both the Hildabeast and McNasty.
The huckster will be damaged by his performance and will fall off the national lead. Romney will gain significantly in the national polls. The huckster’s support will begin to drift to Thompson strengthening his bid, but it well may be too little too late. Rudy who?
Charles Martel on January 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Today’s headline news from CANADA proves the REALITY of your point (military failure when domestic policy rules international.
maverick muse on January 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
That is what’s known as a “losing argument”. You’re also doing a very good imitation of a liberal with your “dish it out but can’t take it” routine, but I digress.
You are the one who started this today, not me. You made a statement. I asked you a very simple question and gave you an opportunity to clarify a comment you made. There was nothing condescending about it. Indeed, I could say that your paranoid reaction indicates some obsessive behavior on your part.
But hey, since you have decided that this is how it’s going to be, I have one more question for you!:
Since you object to “jackass”, which do you prefer,
arrogant, smug, elitist prick
OR
arrogant belligerent prick.
Choose or lose!
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I was talking about this initiative, not about the Huckster’s amazing preaching skills.
I agree with that and I think Mitt should say he agrees too!
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 11:41 AM
McCain will carry it, but by no more than 4 percent. Further, we’ll go into the February Super-Tuesday with no clear front-runner. If Feb 5th gives no clear front runner, we’re looking at a brokered convention.
michaelo on January 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I don’t particularly care. You take this personally, I don’t. You’ve dragged this thread into name calling because it means all the world to you. As I said, you stay classy.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
What did I miss?
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Onager on January 8, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Well – that was a rookie poster mistake.
It doesn’t take an amendment, only a court case to clarify the 14th amendment. Note that no child born of a diplomat (to my knowledge) in the US of A has ever attempted to claim citizenship. The reason being, (my view) is they realize the intent of the amendment, which was to make certain the children of slaves were citizens.
Onager on January 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I think that’s a very astute view. I always figured it had more to do with the increasing amount of immigrants in the mid-late 1800s, but you made me think twice.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I don’t care either. My point is that you are a flaming hypocrite, and not a very adept one at that.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM
And you are a hypocrite yourself in calling everyone who says the same about you “paranoid”.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 12:23 PM
You are correct that the intent of the amendment was to recognize slaves as citizens.
However, I’m not sure that the analogy of the diplomat is germane. I don’t know what all the technicalities are of diplomatic status, but Embassies are viewed as a virtual extension of the home country.
For example, when an American embassy is attacked overseas it is viewed as if it were an attack on our soil.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Romney 31%
McCain 29%
Paul 14%
Huckabee 11%
Giuliani 8%
Thompson 5%
Hunter 2%
Obama 40%
Shrillary 29%
Silky 16%
Kucinich 10% (!)
Richardson 5%
SouthernGent on January 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Which would only matter if the diplomat’s child were born in the embassy.
Onager on January 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
How old are you Madison C?
/rhetorical.
I ask because you sound like an incredibly immature child. You constantly engage in personal attacks against other commenters, and you inititiate those attacks. You engage in arm-chair psychoanalysis and then whine when that technique gets thrown back at you.
You took a comment I made which was not personal in the least and decided that it was “condescending”. That was a very childish reaction. You could have addressed the question like an adult, but you chose not to do that, and the result is that you are looking more and more foolish as the day goes on.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM
No, because diplomatic status, and diplomatic immunity (for example) extend past embassy grounds.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM
…sort of like being angry about being chewed out for using profane language?
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 12:50 PM
I told you I was in stage three of the kubler-ross model. I am constantly forgetting about stuff with McCain that bugs me. BUT, I think he is savvy enough on the use of the military, that maybe he will kill everyone of those bastards so we don’t have to ask them any questions?
csdeven on January 8, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Don’t blame me if McCain wins. I voted for Thompson.
ScoopPC11 on January 8, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I agree he has the savvy to use them properly. What bothers me is IF he will. He has shown one side of weakness, and it’s understandable. He went through torture himself, so he’s completely justified in being against it.
The rather unpleasant question to ask is, do we want someone with that kind of personal bias to be making the call as to whether to waterboard punks like KSM?
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Let’s recap. You’ve called me a jackass, you’ve called me an insufferable prick, you’ve challenged the number of brain cells I have, and you’re now asking my age as if it has some bearing on why you think I’m “childish”.
All this because I asked you not to be condescending. The irony is just flying over your head like the Concorde.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I predict that if McCain wins I may just lose some of my
lunchalways bubbly optimistic outlook on life in general and that political in particular.MB4 on January 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM
My prediction is John McCain in the Republican primary and Barack Obama in the Democrat primary. Unlike a number of you, I would welcome a John McCain victory. A critically important part of the Presidency concerns military matters, national security and foreign affairs, and on those subjects no one comes close to John McCain, certainly not Romney, who thinks his sons serve America by working on his campaign and you just need to check with the State Department concerning foreign policy. John McCain was and has been right for years on Iraq because he knows his stuff. When last year Democrats were declaring defeat and Republicans were either hedging their bets (like Senator Lugar) or looking at their shoes (like Romney), McCain was forcefully vocal in supporting the troops under General Petraeus implementing the surge. (Disclosure: my older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant who until last October served a 15-month tour of duty in Iraq as an infantry platoon leader; and yes, I greatly appreciated McCain’s unwavering support for the troops when it was not politically popular.) John McCain has been endorsed by former Secretaries of State Schulz, Kissinger, Haig and Eagleburger. John McCain’s knowledge and experience about the military, national security and foreign affairs would enable him to lead and not just follow, which is what Romney would do, and enable McCain to beat Obama if Obama were the Democrat nominee. Obama versus Romney would mean two guys who don’t know the military, national security and foreign affairs. And for all the crying on this site, John McCain is a pro-life fiscal conservative who is committed to nominating strict constructionist judges to the federal bench and to cutting out of control federal spending and extending the present tax cuts.
Phil Byler on January 8, 2008 at 1:17 PM
I’m with Swami. Mitt might not be as Conservative as I would like him to be but I would also vote for him.
UnEasyRider on January 8, 2008 at 1:20 PM
I heart Mitt
Richard Bushnell on January 8, 2008 at 1:23 PM
MadisonConservative and Buy Danish, are you married?
Geronimo on January 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
My prediction?
Rampant stupidity on the part of at least 85% of the New Hampshire voters, both Democrat and Rino.
(The two dozen actual conservatives in NH will vote sensibly.)
LegendHasIt on January 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I think McCain is a hero as do most other people but that doesn’t mean he’d be a good POTUS. I like Mitt accross the board and I’m actually kinda dumbfounded as to how he isn’t doing better than he is.
I know it’s still early but I’m holding my breath for a win.
Geronimo on January 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Isn’t securing our borders part of national security? You left that part out.
He voted against the original tax cuts and tried to ram the shamnesty bill through without time for study or debate. He also was part of the infamous gang or 14 who colluded with the donks to defang the GOP as regards the donk’s filibuster on Supreme Court nominations.
a capella on January 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I was not “angry”. To paraphrase James Carville, it was about the hypocrisy, stupid.
Indeed, that particular incident also began when someone took a comment “personally” which wasn’t personal at all. Apparently some of you think anything short of glowing praise for your political commentary is a personal insult.
It’s also quite amusing to me that you are clinging to your original assertion that “prick” is not a profanity. Not that I care, by the way! I am merely baffled by your arguments.
Maybe it’s because they are nonsensical.
You’re right, let’s recap! You made a comment. I asked you a straight-forward question about that comment. Instead of answering the question, you accused me of being “condescending”.
I used your phraseology and changed “condescending” to “jackass”. You cried foul. I stated that you are a hypocrite and supplied numerous examples of your own words to back up my assertion.
Now you are whining because, to further illustrate your hypocrisy, I asked if you would prefer that I use a word you used against someone else against you.
The fact that you don’t get any of this explains the brain cells remark. This all could have been avoided if you had just answered the original question and not behaved as if you had been wounded.
But thanks for the entertainment!
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Baloney.
I can only “assume” that by “no one” you mean “no one” among the candidates, as “no one” otherwise would be absurd.
Just why do you think that Presidents have Secretaries of Defense and of State? National Security advisers? Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Strawberries McVain is so piss ant arrogant and such a back-stabbing old fool that he probably would not even listen to his much which would render him the one with the least experience in total.
MB4 on January 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Lol. No, but I am ready to call Nanny 911.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
At this point, I’m willing to take anyone but McShamnesty and the Huckster. And of course, Ron Paul.
MyImamToldMeToDoIt on January 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
So many straight lines, so little time.
MB4 on January 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM
No, but I’m beginning to think Buy Danish is the chick who had her wedding cake sculpted in her own image.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 1:40 PM
As we’ve established, I don’t take anything on here personally. You do. Hence why you’ve descended to personal insults (jackass, insufferable prick, brain cells, childish) and I have not.
Like this?
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Doh, you missed the big one! Should have gone for Bill and Hillary!
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Almost did.
Judgment call.
If I had gone with Bill and Hill I would have had to come up with a Monica.
MB4 on January 8, 2008 at 1:48 PM
McShamnesty
Romney
Shuckster
Rudy
Dr Marshall Applewhite
Fred
NickTx on January 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Where’s tickleddragon?
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM
No doubt McCain is a hero, but I question McCain’s abilities as CinC. His statement that he wants to close Gitmo and move it to Leavenworth and his position on water boarding demonstrate a tendency to appease liberals at the expense of our national security.
As for why Mitt has not caught on, in a nutshell (no pun intended) these are the some of the arguments used against him on this blog:
1. “He’s plastic, his teeth are to white, his hair is too perfect, he’s too tanned.
2. He’s a Mormon.
3. He’s a spoiled rich kid who never would have amounted to anything if not for the unfair advantage he got due to his privileged background.
4. Instead of dying in Vietnam he went to France to do missionary work.
5. He lied when he said he “saw” his father march with MLK.
6. He reminds people of a used car salesman.
I do have to admit that he has made a few strategic errors, but that’s probably because Huckabee’s ascendancy in Iowa caught him off guard and screwed up his strategy.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Ok here’s mine…
Madison Conservative 31%
Buy Danish 29%
Wait…
What was this forum about again?
tlclark on January 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Really? “We” have established nothing of the sort.
As for the use of the word “prick”, I never, ever used that word until you began using it to call other people names. Thanks for the inspiration- You are my muse!
No, like this!
If you think using question marks to indicate confusion is “condescending” then you are very easily wounded indeed. Would only one question mark have made the question less painful?
Here, I’ll rewrite it for you:
What? So, he should have spent less money?
Feel better now?
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Humpbots.
Lots of humpbots.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM
If you think maintaining your reputation as an anonymous poster on a comments section on a blog is important…then what can I say?
Yeah, actually, we have. We debated two sides. You claimed that what random strangers say to you on the internet is important and worth crying over, and I claimed it isn’t. Tell me which side is taking it personally.
Copycat. I want royalties, dammit.
Oh yes. I need a cigarette and a kleenex. Was it as good for you, baby?
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 2:08 PM
You two (Danish and Madison) are setting a ‘fine’ example for all the newbies here.
It’s like the old, never ending, spats between CS & Gregor before CS ‘grew up’.
Normally I find both of you pretty decent commentators, but you are ruining this thread.
HotAir should start a special room for people that want to bicker at each other rather than make substantive comments on the topics.
LegendHasIt on January 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM
No, the bickering shouldn’t start to begin with. It does, however.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Buy Danish,
When I hear about these slipups by Mitt, (MLK, crying about church doctrine, etc.) I cringe. Sometimes he seems to talk to much and muddy up a good situation. I have to admit though, I am blinded by the thought of Mitt in the White House. I can’t remember being proud of my President and I want to be. Well, I was proud of Bush right after 9/11 but he took care of that in no time.
I’m with you on McCain. He scares me. Against waterboarding, McCain\Feingold, Shamnesty, against the tax cuts, yada yada. The only comfort he gives me is his support of the troops, it’s just not enough.
Geronimo on January 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I love the humpbots. Especially the music. Ban chica wow wow.
Geronimo on January 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Who cares, were gonna lose in November anyway.
ThePrez on January 8, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Eewwwwwwwww.
You think being asked to clarify a statement injures your reputation as an anonymous blogger?
*rolling on the floor laughing*
You’re crying over [?????] question marks!
Don’t you dare ask MadisonC a question!!!!
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM
R: McCain, Romney, Huck
D: Obama, Clint, Ed
mattyj86 on January 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM
You’re right! Why did you start bickering in the first place?
Sheesh.
I think Mitt would make us very proud indeed. I also think he would bring outstanding skills to the Presidency, and would be a formidable opponent against Barack Obama.
Both Obama and Romney are gentlemen who exude class and optimism, but Mitt could skewer him on the issues.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Oh, my apologies, should I mention doriangrey and your rant about how he called you a liar, or some other such pablum? And then I pointed out that you shouldn’t take such things personally? And then you basically told me it was very personal and I’m a big poopyhead? Amazing how selective your memory is. I’d link to the thread, but unlike you, I don’t respond to threads that fall off the front page, making the attempt to ensure that I get the last word in on threads I have to search for.
So, nice try, but since you’re playing the innocent act, I’ll clarify. You think maintaining your reputation as an anonymous poster on a comments section on a blog is important, as you’ve directly said. You claim that what random strangers say to you on the internet is important. I disagree with both these things. Don’t worry, I’m sure doriangrey won’t bring it up. You’ll be able to pretend your words came out of my mouth and mine out of yours for as long as you like.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Bickermongering?
My grievous error?
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Hmmm…possible responses:
To which I would have responded: “Sorry, my mistake” and we would have gone on civilly. For the record, I was mistaken.
Yours?
You took the ball and ran for as many yards as you could. Get off the pedestal. You can’t admit you went overboard.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I was supposed to apologize for using question marks?
Does it not occur to you that when you say, Try not to be so condescending over absolutely nothing that it just might sound…. condescending to me?
So yes, after you responded to my question in that sanctimonious fashion, I asked that you try not be so much like the mascot of the Democrat party. Under the circumstances, I think it was a fitting description.
I’m not sure how to respond to your other charges which involve balls, boats and pedestals. Too many metaphors for me.
/later.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Where in this suggestion:
…do you see an apology? I see clarification.
I was mistaken in your emphasis. You took the opportunity and insulted me, made what you would consider personal smears, and labeled an entire group of supporters.
Explain that away.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Mitt must win or I shall weep like Hillary but only longer. Has anyone noticed that Drudge Report is missing any stories about Mitt Romney? I don’t see a thing about Mitt closing the gap or anything else about him and the site’s on fire.
Is Drudge Report biased in the same way Shepard Smith is biased? Hm.
sinsing on January 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Republicans:
1. Mitt
2. Maverick
3. Huck
Mav’s appeal is with moderate Republicans and independent voters. Since most moderates and indie voters are going swing toward Doctor No and Obama, Mav’s base is going to significantly shrink. That’s bad news for Maverick, but good news for Mitt. Mitt’s base is consumed with mostly conservative Republicans and some moderates. Huck is going to pick up some populist independents and christian right votes.
Democrats:
1. Obama
2. Hill
3. Edwards
Obama is going to pick up votes from independent voters and from liberals.
Frank T.J Mackey on January 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM
After your 2 minute McCain hate, ponder this.
Rightwingsparkle on January 8, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Goodness, I hope Mitt wins
Micheal on January 8, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Obama has the potential to beat anybody we put up, Huckabee included, and yes, even Fred. This is going to be Camelot Part Deux, and they’re gonna play him that way if he gets the nod.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 4:57 PM
You know what? It didn’t occur to me. Why? Because you responded in a very high and mighty manner to my use of …question marks. And this came after you had just finished snapping at Bkennedy, who by the way had just made a perfectly reasonable comment.
So….by the time you finished asking me not to be condescending we already had hypocrisy and sanctimony from you, and as such, I suggested that you were behaving like a Democrat.
Contrary to your claim, I did not suggest that all Fred Heads are loons, I said “some” of them. Feel free to include yourself in that group. Or not.
At the end of my comment in response to your charge that I was condescending, I gave you a chance to clarify yourself here:
You have yet to explain what you mean when you said-
What was unwise? Should he have spent less money? What do you meant by that?
You didn’t move on either, so here we are!
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 4:58 PM
No, actually you didn’t say “some”. Hard to feel free not to include myself when you address me as “you”.
You know, I admitted my mistake in thinking your unusual use of multiple question marks (normally used to express extreme disbelief, often sarcastic). I notice you don’t have the integrity to admit that you overreacted grossly, insulted me, personally attacked me, and slandered a bunch of people other than me. You’re as hypocritical as it gets, especially as you demanded an apology from doriangrey for things you considered “personal attacks”.
My answer makes absolutely no sense? I don’t know how much more clear to make it.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 5:12 PM
I totally agree. Madison C., B. Danish, why don’t you two get a room already?
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM
I already had mine. The alpha male leaves once he’s through.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 5:26 PM
I have to be honest here. If it looks like Obama might be the nominee, then I feel a bit better.
The awful truth is that the south will never vote for a black man. I hate that it’s true, but there it is. And it isn’t just the rednecks, I can assure you. All those southern Democrats talk a good game about tolerance and diversity, but they won’t vote for Obama, and they will never tell anyone they didn’t.
The black population of the south is not enough. Hillary was a problem because women were going to vote for her in droves. But white women in the south won’t vote for Obama either.
I wish it was because he is a liberal socialist lightweight, but it isn’t. It’s because he’s black, pure and simple.
Rightwingsparkle on January 8, 2008 at 5:30 PM
FYI
Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved are going at it right now on air.
Hugh’s a total Mitt sycophant, and Medved (who until recently was licking Huck’s boots until he proved to be a complete buffoon) is a McCain kiss ass.
It ain’t pretty.
- it seemed germaine…
tlclark on January 8, 2008 at 5:35 PM
I wish I could believe that. However, this isn’t Jesse Jackson. This isn’t Al Sharpton. This isn’t Julian Bond. This is a very clear-spoken socialist with a silver tongue. He’s got just enough charisma to overcome that latent bit of decision. Granted, Huck could charm more, but he’s still a threat, and between the two of them, Florida could be entirely up for grabs.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM
MadisonConservative,
I could be wrong. But I grew up there. I know it pretty well. I just don’t think they will.
Remember, it is the older generation that votes the most. My parents generation is still prejudice no matter how hard they try not to be. My generation always shocks me when I am there. They don’t use the “N” word, but they say things like, “yeah they had to move out of that neighborhood because all the blacks were moving in.” They say it without a concern.
Heck, I’ve already gotten fowarding e-mails about his being a muslim, not really Christian. You don’t think that will stick in the south?
They won’t vote for Obama. I can’t see it.
Rightwingsparkle on January 8, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Dude. You are 100% beta. You and a few others yesterday complaining about newbies – that’s total beta to complain about sharing a toy that you don’t own with other people. I like you well enough, I’ve enjoyed chatting with you – but you are total beta.
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 6:01 PM
So me complaining about people coming on and calling Glenn Beck a “pussy” and a “flaming homosexual”, and me complaining about the number of Ronulans who have suddenly appeared calling people racists and part of the neocon war machine…this makes me a beta?
Riiiight…
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Wow, we can finally address the original question, after I accede that you’re right about one thing – I said “a lot” not “some”, although neither of those words mean “all”.
What do you mean when you say you’re questioning whether it was wise? Do you mean to say that it would have been wiser if he had spent less money? Do you think he’s just a loser and shouldn’t have bothered? Or is it something else?
Do you agree with r2b when he says, “If he doesn’t win, he is just another Perot, or Forbes…a ego driven rich man throwing his money away” or might it be possible that this is a man who is is driven to spend his own money out of concern for this country’s future, and the future of our children and grandchildren?
I look forward to an explanation.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 6:08 PM
No, standing up for Beck is fine, great even. Assuming the authority to tell people to get lost on a blog that’s not moderated by you – yeah, that beta. Saying things like ‘I don’t have final say but’ when you have no say – yeah, that’s beta. That’s thumping your chest like a peacock. Not have magnanimity to shut down your feud with BD – yeah, that’s beta. Ain’t no thing, there’s tons of betas in the world, I’m just pointing it out ’cause you said you implied you were not. Cheers:)
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Missed that one. Ralph. I’m thinking you’re not even beta. More like Omega.
You must be very proud of it too because it’s the second time you’ve made that allusion. Jeez. And to think that you think that suggesting that someone might be loony is “slander”, and that using question marks is the same thing as calling someone a liar.
I guess “Moonbat” is off the table at Hot Air.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM
REALITY CHECK!
At the end of the day, less than 4% of the delegates will have been awarded. Talk of anyone- Dem or GOP- being ‘done’ should really hold off until Feb 6th. This is especially true in the GOP, where we likely will have a 3-way split, none have more than 30 delegates or so. In that scenario, no one is toast yet. The Mitt people could sure use Thompson to get out of the fray, but it would be silly to do so before Feb. 6th. Of course, we FredHeads could use Mitt to get out of the fray- and hand over his bankroll- but one set of dreams is as likely as the other.
michaelo on January 8, 2008 at 6:20 PM
My focus is not on the ego. I think Romney has an ego, though well deserved through his success in business. I don’t think this run is about his ego, as I think Giuliani’s is, for example. I think it was the natural progression for a Governor with his financial resources, family, and background.
What I agree with is the observation that someone like Perot ran, and made a damn good show of it. He garnered the most votes we’ve seen in some time for a third-party candidate, but it didn’t net him much. Not even a cabinet consideration, which surprises me. He never really came back from that. I’m not expecting Mitt to do the same, because he’s not going alone. However, Perot was a billionaire. He could throw around cash rather easily. If Romney really does set new bars for spending, especially at primary time, then there are two problematic results of it. First, it will influence future elections and reaffirm the “most money wins” theorem that I personally find repugnant. Secondly, he, like Bush, suffers the “rich white elitist” label that has dogged a lot of candidates, and it hardly helps.
My concern is actually strangely sympathetic. If Mitt pours extra millions into pushes that garner him fractions of a percent, that’s up to him. I simply see it as wasteful, and obviously his resources would be wrongly focused. As I would very likely vote for him versus Obama, Edwards, or Clinton, I’d like to know he’s not frittering away his resources in the wrong way come the general. I have enough respect for his positions versus a true socialist that it’s rather important. Plus, Clinton can ALWAYS get more. Obama can too, I’m sure.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 6:23 PM
lol, English foul. Mixed metaphor by me!
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Wow. For a moment, you steer back the conversation to sanity, and while I’m responding, you drag it back to your own personal vindiction over my remembering your hypocrisy from thread to thread. The hell with it, I’m done with your games.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Where were yall discussing Beck?
Rightwingsparkle on January 8, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Amazing timing, bolded bit above. Aside from that, people who take full advantage of their anonymity to act like the most obnoxious twit possible tend to annoy me, especially when the last time someone did that, it ended up on C&L. I’d like to see this blog garner enough legitimacy that it’s more referenced than Kos. Then we can finally see Allah on Olbermann, ripping him to bits.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 6:33 PM
RWS, anything for you sunshine:)
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 6:34 PM
There was a headline with an update on his status. The number of people who found the gall to lament his “whining” over his apparent waking up during an operation was mildly disturbing.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Yes, I understand that. That is one of the problems with the web, a lack of accountability which removes the social boundaries people use in public. Which brings up an interesting question on whether that is a compensation for real-world frustrations or the true personality that is hidden in the real world. Frankly, I’m curious, but I digress.
Precisely. Your desire – for vicarious purposes.
That would be awesome. Fun for the whole family!:) But when Michelle was insulted earlier last year, he said one of his only regrets was the blog (respectability, etc I imagine) kept him from responding as he, to our entertainment, would like to.
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM
You’re right. I tried to do that, but no sooner had I posted my on topic comment, I saw you second disgusting hotel room allusion for the day. It must be my fault that you made those comments in the first place!
As for your response to the original question, I still don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Why do you care if Mitt decides to “fritter” away his own fortune? You can always donate to his campaign if you don’t like the idea of candidates spending their own money. The idea that having candidates who have earned great fortunes is endangering the reputation of the Republican Party is fatuous and sounds like an argument to elect Huck or Edwards.
I also disagree with your assessment of why Giuliani is running. Rudy was a miraculously effective mayor and I have no doubt that he is motivated by a desire to do more great things for this country.
Buy Danish on January 8, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »