Another interesting thing - lets say Obama and Clinton split NV and SC. And go on to split states on Super Tuesday. And Edwards keeps getting 15-20% of the vote. In the end, this makes Edwards into the Kingmaker if this thing goes on towards convention time. Neither Clinton or Obama may have enough delegates to win outright. Whoever he commits his delegates to could be the winner. If this plays out just right, you could end up with both the GOP and Dem nominations going onto the convention. I definitely can see it with the GOP since they all appeal to different portions of the party and regions of the country - the Dem is less likely because you'd think eventually people will favor one or the other. But though I'd have preferred Obama winning, this is absolutely fascinating political theatre. It would also make the Texas primary - the last of the big states in early March, I think, actually matter. You'd have all the candidates going up and down the state.
Certainly true - but his populist message does resonate with a lot of people. You'd think people already should know he has no chance but he got that 20% in NH. But as long as neither Clinton or Obama can reach that 50% mark, any delegates Edwards can grab can give him some influence/power in this thing. The best thing for Obama / worst for Clinton is for Edwards to drop out. His odd campaign strategy was basically hoping that Clinton would suffer a series of humiliating losses and drop out soon instead of risking being embarassed on Super Tuesday (in NY in particular) and hurting her future political standing. That would put him one-on-one with Obama. It was a huge longshot, but maybe the only scenario he could see playing out. Now, that hope is gone - so what does he do? Personally, I hope he drops out, but we'll see.
I am a Kucinich/ Edwards type of guy. Obama's waffling was exposed by Hillary. . Voting for the war before being in the Senate and voting for the funding, voting for Cheney's oil bill etc. Obama could probably do the same with her, but everyone knows how calculating Hillary is anyway Despite that, I am very disappointed. I really wanted Obama to knock Hillary out of the box. Obama has been forced to be more detailed and to actually talk about issues, instead of just "change" and "can't we love everybody bi-partisanship". Although unlike "I'm a uniter not a divider" Bush, the deceiver, Obama may very well be a uniter. Hillary was forced to go beyond her boring stump speech and act? more human. They both seem to be influenced by Edwards. If I'm a Republican, I am happy with Hillary's victory, stopping perhaps the Obama wave, but not too happy with the McCain, Huckabee, Romney choice. Rudy is I believe still toast with his inability to appeal to GOP Christian conservatives and his ever growing scandal issues. There was a rumor before New Hampshire that Edwards was going to drop out and endorse Obama. Wonder if that could still happen.
Wouldn't that be wild? I am so used to all my presidential votes, including in the primary being relatively meaningless.
it frightens me that i like the same guys you do. i mean that with no offense!!! if new hampshire winners are the ultimate candidates, i'm voting republican. i'd vote for mccain over hillary every day of the week and twice on sunday. do they let you vote on sunday? if so, i'd vote twice. do they let you vote twice?
I'd vote for Hillary. I'm surprised that you like Kucinich. I still remember McCain from his saving and loan scandal days and his old time conservative days, that is before he became a so-called maverick which was before he was humiliated and capitulated to Dubya etc. He is very like Hillary in that he has compromised so much that he doesn't know what end is up. Max, how about Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani vs Hillary?
This is one thing the Dem party will need to be aware of. Yeah, there's a lot of turnout from young people and "disillisioned people" but those people will go back to non-voting if it's Hillary. They are people-voters, not party-voters, and if its the same old "lesser of two evils" choices, they'll go right back to being disillusioned - and maybe for a long time. You allow yourself to hope, then if it's crushed, you're going to be more disillusioned than before. Not saying that's anybody's problem, but the Dems shouldn't be assuming all that note vote will come out and support whoever the Dems nominate.
Hillary's emotion might have helped her. It wasn't actually crying, but I do believe it was genuine, but it wasn't for the reason she said, about not wanting America to slip back. It was because she wanted to be President so badly and she had been able to taste it. At the moment of that question she thought it was all about to slip away when she had been so close. The emotion was genuine, but it was born out of personal ambition and not genuine concern for America's well-being. In NH I always believed she was incredibly strong. They are more of a traditional politicians kind of vote in the primaries. Her organization was very strong there, and I also think maybe some would-be Obama voters thought the polls were accurate and some of them thought maybe their vote wasn't needed. I think the fact that exit polls also showed that the number one concern among Democratic New Hampshire voters was the economy. That plays into Hillary's camp because people worried about that, aren't as worried about changing the establishment and shaking things up so much as they are about getting someone who knows the in's and out's of getting things done in govt. All of those factors probably played role in tonights result in my opinion.
I agree except I think the young seem like people-voters because they don't fall into the traditional bipartisan culture molds. Democrats can ride the wave of hating Bush into the white house, but the apathy comes from the two sides wrestling over the same old issues without any real progress. I wonder if social conservatives will vote in droves if Hillary gets the nod...
I am displeased. I do not want a hillary ticket. I don't think she is near as electable as Obama, and her blatant politicking drives me nuts - at least pretend to have some ideas not born solely out of poll data... sheesh.
Quite true! But Obama losing has a positive. People have been saying that he's all flash, no substance. Well now he's in a position to prove them wrong. In the long term if Obama can make this a race and come out on top he will be better for it and more prepared to take on the republican slim machine which will surely come. It’s going to be fun to watch.
BTW he only lost by about 2% of the votes and 6 weeks ago was down by 20 points in the polls. I'd say a strong second place finish isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things As a side note: boy do some polsters have some splainin' to do this morning...
I am not terribly high on Obama. He is, frankly, not vastly dissimilar from other candidates in terms of policy promises and past voting idiocy. However, he has one HUGE upside. Of all the candidates, he is the least polarizing. This alone would be a fantastic change for the country after 8 years of Clinton (although I think he was a fantastic president) and 8 years of Bush. I am totally worn out and sick of candidates that only appeal to one voracious set of supporters, who naturally have an equally voracious set of detractors. It's boring, and counterproductive.
Something else interesting. From CNN -- So basically it was a tie with Obama slightly ahead with one superdelegate.
I think you are being unfair if you are trying to equate on the dimension of being polarizing, the policies of the conservative talk radio, Fox Media, Christian right/ George Bush crowd with the policies of the say Bill Clinton or the current Democratic Congress. Do we for instance see a pool of millions of dollars spent from his first day in office, on investigators and law suits to harass Bush, who is far from a saint in his previous life?
