Dem and GOP: Who do you think will win the nominations?

certainly true in my case.

 

That's pretty funny. Tragically true, in a sense, depressing, but amusing, none the less.



Impeach Bush.

 

Great post! It also partially illustrates why my respect for Edwards has gone down the tubes. I miss the optimistic, "can do", positive Edwards from 2004.

 

Forgot to ask this: Does anyone else find Hillary Clinton's recent rhetoric almost the equivalent to defeatism? It's almost like she knows the results are going to be bad and now she is trying to really lowball expectations. I know the candidates do their own internal polling on a regular basis which keeps them better informed than the general public, which only sees polls every week or two. Is it possible the latest internal polls by the candidates already show her slipping well behind Obama and Edwards in Iowa and behind Obama in New Hampshire? It also seems like Edwards and Obama have turned their guns on each other, which could be a sign they aren't so worried about Hillary for now.

Just a thought. So for now, I don't think Hillary is the favorite for the Dems any more. It's a tossup.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/17/clinton-not-worried-about-polls/

December 17, 2007
Clinton: Not worried about polls

Clinton appeared on CNN's American Morning Monday.



(CNN) – The polls may be tightening in Iowa and New Hampshire, but Democrat Hillary Clinton tells CNN she isn’t concerned. “I just don't pay attention to those snapshots. I know the press does and I guess that's a tool that you try to use, but that's not how I judge how we're doing.

“I've done this a very long time and I never believe that any election is at all predictable, let alone inevitable,” the New York senator told American Morning anchor Kiran Chetry Monday.

And she continued a recent campaign attempt to lower expectations around her showing in early primary states.

“There's a lot of excitement and energy in my campaign, and I'm very confident that we're going to do well, but you know, obviously, this is a very abbreviated, intense process,” said Clinton.

“It starts on January 3rd, in the Iowa caucuses and I guess it ends sometime late on February 5th, after California on the west coast vote. So I’m in it for this entire month,” she said, adding she was “very confident and optimistic about the outcome.”

One milestone Clinton was excited about was this weekend’s Des Moines Register endorsement, telling CNN she was “pumped up” about the nod. “The editorial board of the Des Moines Register put all of the candidates through a grueling process, asking a lot of tough questions, evaluating us, doing independent research, and their editorial makes the case for my candidacy, that I'm ready to lead.”

Clinton is neck and neck with Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the most recent polls of Iowa’s Democratic voters, with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards close behind.

The senator also criticized President Bush for his handling of the economy, and used familiar campaign trail language to laud her husband’s Bill Clinton’s economic record during his two-term presidency. “I was there, seeing how it was done, part of the, you know, Clinton team that was in the White House,” she said. “And when I'm president we're going to get back to fiscal responsibility and good economic stewardship to navigate our country's economy through some very choppy waters.”

– CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

 

Might not be worried about polls, but she's losing sleep over something...

 

Mulder: early states don't have a lot of delegates, but they have an inestimable impact on the states that do. Feb. 5 states are going to fall in line with IA/NH/SC if there is a consensus candidate coming out of those states - which is why Rudy's strategy is so foolish (note that Hillary has similar strength to him in large, later states, but is wise enough to be battling hard for early wins, too).

Obviously, however, fractured results in the first few states will make Feb. 5 much more unpredictable.

 

Although I have issues with all four men you mentioned, I would very much like that campaign if it did occur. That might be one of the most issue based, clean campaigns we've had in a long time.

I think the Republican ticket will end up being Huckabee and McCain in some fashion. And I know both of them hate the idea of negative ads and character attacks.

 

Sorta like Huckabee holding a press conference on not doing negative ads but still shows the negative ad to the reporters to ensure it will get played?

 

After hearing him explain that last night I do believe his reasoning.

 

I'm going to butcher this, but it was something along the lines of not wanting to do it in the first place but starting to feel like he had to because of the constant attacks on him in Iowa. Then the ad was ready to go and he changed his mind. Then to avoid being called he showed the press.

The ad isn't even worthy of being called an attack ad imo.

 

That's total bs.

Why show the AD to the reporters then. If he is so much above the fray, then there shouldn't even be an ad to begin with.

 

The ad was hardly an attack ad. Have you seen it? That such a harmless ad is causing so much of a stir is ridiculous.

And the ad was there to begin with because Romney and his camp have been attacking him constantly.

 

Hillary threw it, and Obama responded by pointing out what it was sleazy attacks, and it worked. In fact that seemed to be part of the reason that her numbers started dropping.

I think attacking Obama will backfire on whoever initiates it. As long as Obama keeps hammering the message about moving forward toward a new direction and points out the attacks for exactly what they are.

It works for him because he has the charisma and message to pull it off.

 

Regardless how harmless the ad was, he himself said it was an attack ad, holding a press conference about pulling back the ad and still show it to the reporters proves it was a stunt for headlines. If it was so harmless, then what's the need for such a big fuss?

We will see if Huckabee can do anything after Iowa.

 

Also remember that McCain and Rudy are buddies. It's almost like there is a triumvirate against Romney the flip flopping sleazbag.

 

So instead of taxes paying for healthcare for everyone, the Dems plans are to have taxes pay for the healthcare of people that don't pay taxes, but everyone else is on their own and forced to purchase healthcare? That sounds like the worst possible system to me.