Early indicators are that Mike Huckabee has won in Iowa for the republicans, with Mitt Romney in second and quite possibly Fred Thompson in 3rd.
If this is how this plays out and Mitt Romney having outspent Huckabee by a factor of 10 to 1, my first question is..........

1. Is fund raising overlooked as being as important as a candidates "character, likability, and policy"?


The race between the Democrats is still very much alive with Obama at 35%, Edwards at 31%, and Clinton at 31%


2. Will tonights winners in Iowa receive a boost in national polls?

3. Does success in the early states have an effect on the candidates longterm success in the primaries?

4. Who do you believe will win the primaries for both parties, and why?

5. Who would you most like to see win, and why?

6. Who is your favorite second tier candidate, and why? Do you think they have a chance of winning?


Note that I listed fewer democrats because at this point the race has been narrowed down faster in that particular race than in the republican race. Feel free however to vote for your favorite in each, regardless of what your registered as.


Edited to add that Barack Obama now seems to be the winner for the democrats, and Edwards has the edge over Hillary 31% to 30%

Update:

NBC is now calling the Democratic race for Obama.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22484066/?GT1=10755

Um, do you, um, study history, or really, anything you post? Seriously? You do know that Howard Dean outspent John Kerry and John Edwards over 10 to 1 ?

How about Bill Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

First he finished well behind in the Iowa caucus, which was largely uncontested due to the presence of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, who subsequently won. Secondly the campaign encountered difficulty when, during the New Hampshire Primary campaign, revelations of a possible extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers began to surface. Clinton and his wife Hillary decided to go on 60 Minutes following the Super Bowl to refute these charges of infidelity, as Clinton had fallen far behind former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas in the New Hampshire polls.

Bush won the Iowa, lost the new hampshire, and then picked up the next 11 of 16.

Iowa and New Hampshire are the start of the race, and does really define the fringe candidates, but not really the front runners, as in, set in stone.

Edited to add- I nulled my vote. Any poll without Ron Paul in it is useless, or perhaps, less than useless.

Could you adjust the poll to add 2 more Democratic candidates, Net? I know Iowa's rules for Democrats are weird but your questions transcend this caucus.

If net adjusts the poll, then all the votes so far will be lost. I found this out the hard way. Aquilla will back me up on this - uh, I think.

You have Giuliani as one of the major candidates, but as I sit here in Iowa and watch the numbers roll, Giuliani got 4% of the vote. You exclude Paul who is at 10%. I support Paul.

Ditto your remarks, I nulled my vote.

Huckabee wins, evangelicals voted for an evangelical........big surprise.......

The poll was to see who the favorite is amongst the top runners, I added a question that asked who is your favorite second tier candidate, in your case obviously Ron Paul.

you.........

Um, do you, um, study history, or really, anything you post? Seriously? You do know that Howard Dean outspent John Kerry and John Edwards over 10 to 1 ?

Um, if you, um, studied proper sentence construction, as much as you bash conservatives on this site, as well as the ones in office over the years, you'd be able to construct even the most complex sentences, um yea thats it.

Listen I asked simple straight forward questions without really backing or condemning any of the candidates. Your opinion is more than welcome minus your sarcasm. I didn't imply much about what having money would mean in the first place, I simply pointed out that Mitt Romney has outspent Huckabee, and Huckabee took Iowa tonight despite this. The question was open ended however and intended to get the opinions of others.

Now I didnt include Ron Paul in the pole for the same reason I didn't include candidates like Bill Richardson, and thats the fact that these are second tier candidates that have very little chance of winning at this point, and the question is specific in asking..........

"Who do you support the most of all the top candidates in each primary?

This is the reason I followed that up with a question asking............

" Who is your favorite second tier candidate, and why? Do you think they have a chance of winning? "





Im not an evangelical, but I support Huckabee, In fact I'm not even religious. I realize there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters on the internet, I respect your opinion, but he is not a top runner, and the question ask who is your favorite of the top runners. You could have voted for your favorite among those in the poll, then added for question 6. that your favorite candidate of all is in fact Ron Paul, who is not a top runner, which is fine.

Also Huckabee got much support from Christians but not most of it. I believe I remember hearing about 30% were Christians. What I heard Huckabee supporters in Iowa saying directly, more than anything was that they liked him because he has a character that passes off as sincere and genuine.

My response was based on the fact that, in Iowa, it is not always those that spend the most money in Iowa win. That has been well known for some time.

True, but unlike Ron Paul, Guliani has the best national rating of any republican. Guliani will likely succeed in many states like Florida, New York, and New Jersey among others unlike Ron Paul who is a second tier candidate in almost every respect apart from the money he has raised from special interest groups.




Well I'll tell you what, If I do another poll I'll just have to compose the question in manner that would include all candidates. The question was specifically composed to get the opinion from members of this site on the national front runners. The race for the Republicans is a more split one than the race for the Democrats. Today the Democrats are focused primarily on the three candidates I included in the poll, while the Republicans at this point are less decided therefore the race is still on for the 5 candidates I mentioned for them.

By looking at polls and by watching MSNBC I know what the race is narrowed down to amongst Democrats, did you know my favorite democratic candidate is not mentioned in the poll above? My favorite democrat is Joe Biden, but I didn't include him because he is not a front runner, and im trying to get an Idea about who the favorite is among those who are most likely to be able to win.

"Special interest" groups...You're kidding me, right Net? I'd love to see that gem substantiated.


Is it 'overlooked'? No, it's practically obsessed upon. With that having been said, it is extremely important. Yes, Huckabee is not a great fundraiser [or a great anything else, for that matter] and yes he won Iowa, an evangelical-full, white, rural area full of people who don't know the difference between moral and political philosophy. This was a fluke, and it will be proven as such in New Hampshire.


Of course. Obama's will be more substantial and will last. Huckabee will come in third in New Hamphire and slowly fade back to obscurity where he belongs.


It won't for Huckabee because of his characteristics and lack of a coherent, broad appeal to people who do understand the difference between religious and political ideology. Obama, however, needed this win, and Hillary coming in third was icing on the cake. I expect Obama to pick up some serious momentum, and barring an implosion, he should win the nomination.


Obama and Romney. Obama, as I said, has momentum and a very excited, passionate following. Romney has an obscene amount of money and more broad appeal [how could he not, he's taken every position possible]. In addition, it appears as though McCain's 'surge' was a temporary bump with no real staying power. Huckabee, as I said, is a one-dimensional joke who we will soon be rid of.


Ron Paul, because he would attempt to reduce the Federal government to its proper and legal size and scope.


Ron Paul and no.

CP

ConservPat


He gets money from a number of sources, some are special interest groups, other sources are individual donations from libertarians, and even left wing America. Take a look here for example........


This is titled "The man behind Paul's fundraising curtain" lol like they make this supporter sound like the wizard of oz, hehe my bad

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...=la-home-center

Ok below are some quotes from the link above, notice the parts in bold..........






Now the internet has been a great tool for Ron and he has used it well to rally support from a number of sources, many of which aren't necessarily right wing sources, and obviously do have special interest. Now I'm not condemning this behavior, candidates do have to raise money this way to get anywhere, but money isn't everything. I'm just trying to explain why he has raised so much money yet is getting practically nowhere with most Republicans. Now if you were to break it all down I believe you would find he has gotten very generous donations from those who share his stance on issues like the war, yet aren't republicans in all cases. Its the only thing that makes sense of it to me. If all that support were coming from within the Republican party itself, wouldn't he be more popular amongst republicans?

Either he has gotten some very generous offers from only a hand full of republicans, or is getting additional support from outside the party, probably both. I believe many rich Republicans have been generous but these donators make up a very small percentage of the republican party, additionally armed with the internet he raised the rest of this money from special interest groups, like oil industry billionaires (mentioned above) and from other Independents and Democrats that share his interest. (Also mentioned above)



So your saying Mike Huckabee is not a great fundraiser or a great anything else, for that matter, and Ron Paul is, although Mike is beating him in national and local polls across the nation, ok.



What issues have brought you to the stance you take on Mike Huckabee? Apart from his last name,


Do keep in mind that Mike Huckabee went from where Ron Paul is today, to winning the very first state in the primary, and going up significantly in the national polls. He wasnt supposed to do that, but I noticed his personality early on. He always seemed sharp and had very good responses. I don't support him because of his religious stance, I support him for his authentic appearance and overall solid policies, which in most cases I agree with. I agree with you on Obama however.


Well why is Mike a joke? Specifically why. I explained in high detail why I don't like Ron Paul.



So the size and scope of the gouvernment, is in fact currently illegal? Wow thats a bold claim. I believe myself that certain things can be reduced or modified, but not abolished. So the FBI is illegal, the CIA is illegal, the IRS is illegal, Thats what your saying? Hmm


My favorite second tier candidate was Mike Huckabee for the republicans until he became a front runner, which made him my favorite overall. Today my favorite Democratic second tier candidate is still Joe Biden, always has been. I respect your view on Ron Paul, I just don't agree he is what you say he is in a candidate.

If Huckabee wins the republican nomination, it will completly lock a Dem win, short of a miricle scandal.

Do you think a hard core religious right winger has a chance in a national election Net? From Arkansas, with a shady past as governer?

I'm going to sleep after this post, so I'll respond to the "special interest" portion of your post at a later time.

Yes. The reason why Huckabee is beating Paul right now is because he is very popular among individuals who prefer to have their moral philosophy forced upon others by government power. There are quite a few of these people in our country. The fact that I believe Ron Paul to be superior to Huckabee in every way possible does not translate into my fellow countrymen taking the same position.


He has run his entire campaign based on his devout Christianity. We are electing the President, a secular position in our government, a secular institution by law. He has zero experience in terms of foreign policy which he flaunts by frequently stumbling while speaking about foreign affairs [see his recent reaction to the Pakistani situation]. He has a history of being soft on illegal immigration and flaunts the number of executions he oversaw in Arkansas as if ending human lives is an asset to ones political future. My primary reason for disliking Huckabee is his inability to separate religious Mike from political Mike.

That may be why you support him, but based on all the exit polls available, Iowans like him because he shares their 'values'. He would be a nobody in this campaign without his constant pandering to borderline theocratic rightists.

See above. He is a one-dimensional joke.


It's a fact. Find the part of the Constitution that gives the government the power to:
Establish a federal welfare program
Establish a federal education department
Spy on its citizens without a warrant
Regulate the media
Hold Americans indefinitely without council

That is a tiny sample of the list of illegal things our gov't does.


Actually I didn't say any of that...at any point. What I will say is that some of the things the CIA, FBI and IRS do are illegal.

CP

CruisingRam you would probably say that about any republican candidate apart from Ron Paul. I heard your opinion in recent months on what the modern conservative movement is in America stands for. Starting with Ronald Regan you pretty much have condemned every conservative who has been president in modern times, then have went on to blame them for most of the ills in our society, and Ronald Regan if anyone was one of the finest presidents in modern history. Ive heard you say some pretty interesting things on conservatives in general and my memory is sharp, and as a result I'm not so sure how seriously to take your opinion on any conservative, with your opinion so consistently negative in regards to conservatives across the board. Sorry

Not what I asked ya dude.

Do you think a hard core religious right winger has a hope of winning a national election based on what you think you know about the political trends in the voting public right now?

Wow, was that specific or what?

Another strict constructionist?

Some of those things are (probably) illegal, as the laws are presently written - the warrantless wiretaps and holding prisoners (Americans?) indefinitely without counsel - but that is why you impeach presidents, not tear down working governments. The other things - welfare, education, and regulation of "media" (do you mean regulation of the airwaves, obscene language, or something more?) - are all well justified by interpreting and extrapolating the Constitution. Look no further than the preamble: "in order to... promote the general welfare..."

Does the Constitution mention anything about the gold standard?

Apparently, Huckabee is the number one choice for most of those that thump the bible.

Republican caucus-goers who told pollsters that a candidate's religious beliefs matter "a great deal" overwhelmingly supported Huckabee by a margin of 56 percent to 11 percent.
Link

ConservPat
I'm going to sleep after this post, so I'll respond to the "special interest" portion of your post at a later time.



Thats probably because your position is wrong, you think The reason why Huckabee is beating Paul right now is because he is very popular among individuals who prefer to have their moral philosophy forced upon others by government power? Lol, ok thats funny because I can just picture that in my mind. Lets play this out shall we?

Sir why do you like Mike Huckabee? Well there are many reasons, but more than anything I like Huckabee because I prefer to have my moral philosophy forced upon others!

Lol, I'm sorry but thats funny right, when you put that into context? Well to put my quarky sense of humor aside, in all honesty if you believe he has surged in the polls and won in Iowa because people want a candidate who will force their beliefs on others than I cant help but find some humor in that. I support him, yet as I said I'm not even religious. His religious stance has absolutly nothing to do with why I support him, just like many of the people who voted for him.





Well I disagre that there is any evidence that he cant separate church from state and vice versa. I believe that a person should not be judged for the stance they take regarding religion. I'll admit I actually do not believe in God, its a personal choice, but I'm not going to judge those who have faith, because it can be a good thing, I'm happy for those who find hope through God, and there is no problem with getting some support from those who share those values. Its not my position to say what another man should value. If I were to judge another, I should expect to be judged myself. Thats my philosophy, and I'm sticking to it.



I disagre with that, he gets support from Christians, yes, but that is one thing among many that has him soaring in the polls. The primary thing is his genuine appearance, I've watched the news for 4 hours today and I saw voters in Iowa say over and over again that they like this man because he passes off as an American, rather than a candidate only interested in saying anything to become president. His down to earth appeal is whats helped him beyond anything else.



A one dimensional Joke? Well take the issue of the war away from Ron Paul, where is he then? Ron Paul bases his campaign on the failure of others, he says look at this problem, and this problem, look at the war in Iraq, and he condemns the actions of a weak administration to gain support. Its the card he plays best.

The republican party however has demonstrated in the polls and in Iowa tonight that they don't want to hear it. I don't want to hear it, and in fact I'm sick of hearing it. I know the failures of this administration, I know that spending is out of control, and that this war has seen many failures. Everyone knows this, so instead of telling us something we already know, over, and over and over again, just tell us what your going to do to fix the problem that doesn't evolve discontinuing anything that presents a problem. This is why I don't support this man, and will never take him seriously, he uses issues like this war to draw negative attention to his opponents, yet as far as I can see he has no realistic solutions for anything.


Lol, yea I can see why you support Ron Paul. Lets take what you stated above and change the question.............

Find the part of the Constitution that makes it illegal to:

Establish a federal welfare program
Establish a federal education department


Now lets look at the following, because all of this is typical blame the gouvernment for anything bickering anyway.......

Spy on its citizens without a warrant

( are you being spied on? Do you have any evidence the gouvernment is spying on everyday joes for no particular reason? Are you aware of the paranoia involved with thinking your government is surely out to get you, or even has the time to waste there time listening to you for no particular reason? Do you know what the TSP is and what it enables our gouvernment to do, and why? Do you even agree that we should spy on terrorist?)

Regulate the media (ok get specific, how are they regulating the media? If they are, I'll tell you what, they are doing a p*ss poor job of it, Bush is attacked on a daily basses and criticized regularly, and much of that is deserved criticism. In short make no mistakes this is a free country last I checked, the media says what they want. Are you aware of how the media is regulated in Rouge countries like Iran, and the propaganda that is fed to them by their gouvernment? Thats probably the goofiest thing on your list, the U.S. media isn't regulated by gouvernment, heck I believe goof balls like Al Sharpton have more influence on media than our gouvernment.


Hold Americans indefinitely without council (care to elaborate on that one? Hold Americans indefinitely without council? well you sound like a Ron Paul supporter, I'm sorry but I think this is all highly misplaced and spoon fed to you. Why some people just buy into anything they hear is beyond me.)





Well Ron Paul believes it, and you specificaly said you support Ron Paul because.........

"he would attempt to reduce the Federal government to its proper and legal size and scope."


That would make the current size and scope of the Federal government illegal in your eyes, and the CIA, FBI and IRS are federal programs formed and operated by the same gouvernment that you claim is breaking the law in more ways than one. Well Ron Paul is right up your ally, I see why you support him. Sorry but I just don't buy into all the rhetoric, there are problems that need fixing yes, but there are also candidates willing to exacerbate the truth in order to use people like you to their advantage.

1. Not at all. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Willard M. Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul are proven money raisers and will probably be able to self-finance their campaigns all the way to Election Day. That's an important factor because John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Bill Richardson and Fred Thompson will have to accept federal matching campaign funds (and all the limitations and restrictions that go with them). Being able to raise money--a LOT of money---is the mother's milk of a presidential campaign. Having character, likability and policies are all well and good, but if you lack the ability to raise dead presidents, you'll never get to be president.

2. Hell to the yeah. Obama has punctured the long-held "truth" that a Black candidate can't win in a predominantly White state and he's put the coronation of Hilliary Clinton on indefinite hold. She may win out when all is said and done, but now she knows Obama isn't going to just roll over and play dead and finishing behind Edwards doesn't help either. Does she HAVE to win in N.H. or S.C.? Maybe not both of them, but at least one of them.

3. Well, Rudy Giuliani had better hope so since he's blowing off Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and betting the house on Florida. Huckabee is going to find New Hampshire less receptive than his "aw shucks" personality and born again Christianity in yo' face. If McCain rises from the dead to swat Romney there, that's the end of the road for Romney. He'll be dead man walking and his fundraising prowess will dry up faster than the Miami Dolphins Super Bowl hopes.

4. Nobody is going to run the table. That's impossible with so many states "front-loading" their primaries. No candidate has the money or organization to compete equally everywhere. Certainly, the front-runners are better capable of having a presence in most states, but not one of them expects to win everywhere. They have to pick and choose their shots.

5. Barack Obama is my choice. If America is ever going to be ready to take the next step in eliminating race as a factor in politics, it would be a quantum leap forward for a major political party to put a Black man at the head of a ticket. I refer back to Andrew Sullivan's column last Sunday:

Obama, of course, based his entire candidacy on the title of his campaign book, The Audacity of Hope. The fearful have every reason to look elsewhere. If you do not believe that a black man can be president; if you do not believe that America can risk talking to Iran’s leadership or withdrawing from Iraq without losing the wider war; if you think it’s naive to hope that the polarising culture war of the past 40 years can ever end; if you doubt that a man with a name like Obama who once attended a secular madrasah in Indonesia can ever win a majority of US votes, you really should vote for Clinton.

Obama knows this and directly confronts it. In the final days his appeal is disarmingly simple. “The question is, do you believe in change?” he asks. “The question is, do you believe deep in your gut we can do better than we’re doing?”

There are real and powerful reasons to fear right now. It is not crazy to want the reassurance of a former president back in the White House; it is not mysterious that retrenchment is a powerful sentiment in a world of terror and globalisation and mass immigration. Americans have to make a gut decision – whether Republican or Democrat. Should they take a risk or stick to what they know? Should they dare to be optimists or rely on the pessimism that these past few years has been a good guide to a darkening world?

I prefer to be an optimist and choose hope over fear. Electing Barack Obama as the 45th President of the United States will not end the question of race in America. It will go a long way in making it irrelevant.

6. I don't have a second-tier pick. I could live with Clinton or less likely, Edwards. I could also live with McCain and maybe even Huckabee, but his religious zeal frightens me. I could not stand the idea of Giuliani raising his right hand next January and if Romney won, I might have to seriously consider a move to Canada. He's the Anti-Christ.

We all know that you don't want to hear it, and we all know that the Republican Party doesn't want to hear it. It's called denial. It's one reason the Republican Party has lost members to the Libertarians or have become Independants. The current crop of candidates, save Paul, doesn't appear to want to change course from the last eight years. That means, if a Republican wins in November [which I find unlikely], we will be treated to four more years of government growth, overspending, military adventurism and fear mongering.

Additionally, you're smart enough to know that all problems aren't able to be solved with a fresh face in the Oval Office, or a new tax, or a new 'Act'. Some problems require stopping what we're doing and changing course. You seem to place much stock in standing by one's convictions, no matter how unpopular. Sometimes however, it takes more courage to admit when you're wrong and change course, rather than continue to flush money, effort and sometimes lives, after a problem.



That statement could have been just easily levelled at you by others........

I used to have a rule against letting myself watch election returns. Every time I stayed up late, minimizing my sleep time, all I got was muddled, feckless, and inconclusive coverage of the mathematical enigma that is the US presidential election process. Then, the next morning I would wake up, tired, to find out that the absolute worse possible candidate had been elected by a very slim margin to run the free world, mostly on the backs of people who were more agitated about gays eloping in far-away San Fransisco than the content of CAFTA or the Patriot Act. Twice that happened to me.

Tonight is the first time since I don't know when, maybe ever, that I have been completely satisfied with the outcome of a major election. In both parties. Bill Clinton has a saying "Even if everyone you liked got elected and did exactly what you wanted them to do, there would still be a gap in this world between what is and what should be." Tonight the first part of that fantasy came basically true, in some small microcosmic, one-state fashion.




To tell you the truth, as one of those obamamaniacs, I am both delighted and frightened by the prospect of him facing Huckabee in the general.

Fact is, SC is going to coalesce around that guy. Anti-Mormon sentiment is far too strong to permit Romney, and McCain, Rudy, and Romney are all tethered to a war that is simply unpopular, in both parties.

Huckabee is neither a cut-and-runner, or a hawk. He is shifting the focus of modern conservatism away from the war abroad to the cultural wars here at home.

Yet unlike, say, Pat Robertson, he is free of all the fire and brimstone baggage. He's funny. Genuine. Likeable, campy and corny. He gets away with making references to 60s counter-culture like the Beatle's White album. That's like how Barack Obama, a black man from Chicago, gets away with quoting Ronald Reagan.

What's more, he pushes a brand of social and economic conservatism that is forward thinking -- his Jay Leno comment -- "people want the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off" -- is exactly the message conservatives need to digest before embarking on a national campaign in a country with a shrinking and nervous middle class. Mitt Romney's pitch -- "I'm good for America because I've run a corporation" -- struck me as a false and elitist stretch. Seriously, you don't have to be John Edwards to feel that CEOs and presidents should be cut from different cloths: transparency, honesty, fair-mindedness, checks-and-balances, an eye out for the greater good... none of those are qualities we typically associate with a corporate board room.

But preachers? Yeah. Who do you trust more than a (married) clergyman? A familyman with a little bit of weight hanging over his belt.

I like where Huckabee's blue collar conservativism is headed. In the times today, David Brooks says it best:

Unfortunately, I fear two things about Huckabee: that a chubby middle American white baptist could do circles around Obama in a way that Rudy, Romney, or McCain could not. After all he has so many of Obama's strong traits -- friendliness, an eye for unity, and a positive message. Plus, an identity that says as much about his policies as his stump speech. Not to mention, he can crack a joke and be spontaneous. 2, I fear he is quite possible a totally incompetent governor. Bill Clinton had 12 productive years as AK's governor, plus a mastery of the issues when he made the leap to the presidency. So far, Huckabee has not impressed me with his mastery of the issues, either foreign or domestic. He has a lot of cramming to do.

Then, there was Obama. Let's give this man a round of applause. He cleaned Clinton's clock in the most graceful, diplomatic and commendable way possible.

Peggy Noonan writes:

I know Bill says Iowa is the hardest state, but we are talking about Hillary Clinton -- and Barack beat her on so many fronts: he beat by the same devastating 8-point margin with which Huckabee slaughtered Mitt. He beat her among democrats making less than $15,000 a year, and among democrats making more than $100,000. He beat her among independents, republicans, and edged her out among democrats.

What's more-- he beat Hillary Clinton in the heart of her campaign. He gutted her, statistically speaking. Among self-identified "health care voters," he beat her 34-30. Among suburban voters, he beat her 30-25. Among women, he beat her 35-30. That right there is supposed to be the core committed Clinton base. And he stole her thunder running what we can all agree was the least negative campaign since the invention of high fructose corn syrup.

Next, he brought the youth out. For what might be the first time that I can remember, as many people under 30 as those over 65 showed up tonight. 57 percent of caucus goers had never caucused before. No longer can anyone on here complain about the apathy of the American voter, at least not in Iowa. The total attendance this year was nearly twice that of last year, and that has everything to do with the man who won it. Barack is building a big tent coalition with good signs for whatever democrat takes us to November.

Plus, he effectively ended John Edward's run. John's done. The anything but Clinton crowd has a clear banner to carry. Barack is now officially viable. He'll continue to enjoy the warm coverage bestowed to an underdog -- he is still running against Bill Clinton's wife -- but, to my eyes, New Hampshire and South Carolina are his to lose.

If you're the Clinton campaign, what theme do you run on right now? Electability? Inevitability? Barack has proved his electability by bringing republicans, independents, and the youth to the table. He's brought his unification theme down from an ephemeral stump speech dream to an observable electoral reality. He's popped the 'inevitable' narrative, not only by winning, but by relegating Hillary to an embarrassing third place finish. Defeat makes a candidate look unpresidential, and with out that presidential quality, Hillary is doomed.

If she is going to win this, she is going to have to engage Barack directly, and it is going to be nasty -- she can't float above the pack and harp about party unity and sticking it to the republicans. She is going to have to turn ship and bombard Barack, and frankly, I don't think she has the rhetorical firepower. I mean, compare there post-caucus speeches tonight, if you saw either. Obama's was music, a self-possessed midwestern diction floating through quivering, preacher-like cadences that recalled a martin luther king over dense, literary punchlines. Hillary Clinton's was, well it was Hillary -- nice, built around talking points with a few cute, girlish smiles in between.

In the past I have refrained from commenting too much on the battle for black votes in SC-- if you want white people with lots of interesting ideas on how black people vote, the TV is probably your best source for that. But, being from Georgia, Atlanta, I know something about what this victory is going to mean next door. I have heard everyone from family friends to preachers and strangers tell me that they are on the fence with Barack because they don't believe a black man can win, or worse, he'll be shot. Whether or not Barack will win Georgia in a general election, a lot of South Carolinans are going to wake up tomorrow and realize that he could carry Iowa, he could carry Ohio, he could carry the midwest. That realization going to change this election, and this country. It is nothing short of monumental what Barack Obama has done for african-american politicians tonight. Iowa really accomplished something tonight. I'm not going to go drink anymore kool-aid right now, but I would like to say, I am very, very, very proud of America. I am very, very, very proud of Barack.

Finally, can you imagine what a positive, constructive, and feel-good election we will have if it comes down to Huckabee and Obama? Obama's agreed to match any republican in funding if they agree, and given Obama's ability to raise monstrous amounts of cash, i can't see why Huckabee wouldn't take that offer. What a wonderful surprise of an election that would be. Full of taste, and eloquence, and hope. So much more pleasant than say, Rudy vs. Hillary. And who wants that?

Ok, let's take a look at what you claim, and what the facts are. You claim that "he has raised from special interest groups", but the facts are that $3,153. You will find this under the "PAC Contribution Breakdown:" section of the page, if you need help finding the facts. Now, that is $3,153 out of $8,268,453 (.03813%). Of course these numbers are from thrid quarter, but fourth quarter is not published yet. I bet that is what you meant, right? That "he has raised from special interest groups" in the fourth quarter.



I'm sorry CP, but I have to take issue with this part of your post. You seem to imply that everyone here in Iowa are bible thumpers and we don't know the difference between a minister and a president. Trust me when I say that while there are bible thumpers, and the majority of the state is rural, we are a highly educated group of people that pay attention (most of us anyway) to the politics and the direction of this country. Some people here do vote based on religious standing, but that happens here just as much as the majority of the rest of the country. Most vote on political ideology. I think most in that group's ideology is flawed, but that is simply the difference between my ideology and the liberal voters.

Here in AZ I registered as a Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul at least once in my life. The fact it irritates the party bosses that they cannot stop it just makes it sweeter. After the caucus I will switch right back to Independent. Although if Hillary gets the nod I will actually not vote Libertarian just to do my personal best to deny her the POTUS. I would feel horrible if I didn't at least try to use my one vote in a bucket wisely. I think she would make even Dems nostalgic for Dubya and the "good ole days"
I hope Obama keeps rolling. Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead,
Let the joyous news be spread The wicked Old Witch at last is dead!...............

No other candidate except for Paul among the republicans are people I would consider voting for.

Hail Obama! I was so happy to see he won this thing I did a little happy dance. It's premature though. Very. Remember Bill Clinton came in THIRD for his party in the Iowa caucases for 1992 and won the nomination and then the election. It's a long road for Obama. Per the Republicans...I don't know, I'd probably pick McCain or Giuliani. In the poll I chose McCain. Both of those candidates are relatively fiscal conservatives who (historically) aren't afraid to break party line.

Ahh, but we have this process known as the amendment process. If these things you mention are necessary to operate this so called working government (I haven't seen much work the past several years, but plenty of taxing ) then why is it that they didn't get an ammendment to the constitution to show the necessity of the programs? If it is so important for the "general welfare", then getting the ammendment passed wouldn't be very difficult, right? Until it is an ammendment, I consider it an illegal overstepping of the powers of the federal government granted by the U.S. Constitution. But that is just my interpretation. If I had the time and money, I would, before you make the statement, take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.


The point here is that the Constitution specifically lays out the powers of the Federal Government and all other powers are left to the states. Find in the Constitution that specifically lays out the power of the Federal Government to enact these programs and departments. Again, I will say this: If these programs are so important to the "general welfare" of this country, why not follow the processes put in place by the U.S. Constitution and ammend the Constitution to grant the federal government more power and enact these programs? Why has this process not been used?

Net, I read your post here and it doesn't make bloody sense. For example you accuse Paul of raising money through special interest groups then cite a LA Times article to support your claim. I don't know who Trevor Lynman is. Never heard of him. A college dropout is your special interest man? It's the damn anonymous internet giving Paul modest sums of donations from individual donors, man, not a multimillion-dollar fundraising dinner.

You bold "disaffected Republicans, independents and some Democrats" from the article as if it's horrible that a candidate is getting monetary support from outside his party. You bold "Hedge-fund moguls, Hollywood titans, oil billionaires and the like deliver much of the money" as if these are the special interest groups supporting Paul's campaign. That sentence is attributed to the presidential campaign in general, not Paul necessarily.

You don't have to believe to know who Paul's supporters are. Drop by the FEC's website and other online tools.


I disagree. It has to do with Iraq.

The AP interviewed 1,600 Republicans and 2,136 Democrats. Some interesting info. According to the article the most important issue for Republicans was immigration—and they voted for a candidate that is soft on immigration. Either the AP's 1,600 Republicans interviewed were an anomaly or some of you Republican debaters need to adjust your views about the party's position on illegal immigration. Also:


Another footnote cataloging American conservatism's fusion with religion.

But I don't think there was a whopping 100% caucus turnout for Democrats because of Obama. According to CNN's entrance polls Iraq was the #1 issue for caucus goers. This issue is bigger than one glass ceiling breaking man. Entrance/exit polls aren't very reliable, but the idea is supported by a CNN survey conducted 14 days before the caucus.

Fewer Democratic caucus goers identified themselves as liberals, too. Republicans/conservatives could've swapped allegiances to stop the war. I hope this is the case. There may be just as many appeasing, traitorous and cowardly conservatives as there are appeasing, traitorous and cowardly liberals.

Well, Obama wasn't my first choice but I'm so glad Billary didn't win. I've talked with a few Democrats say they want her to win so Bill would be back in the White House. It's like they don't even wonder about a Democratic president asking Bill to run one of the agencies or hiring him as an ambassador, which I think would be a great job for someone who loves to smooch.

And thank God a majority of those who call themselves liberal didn't vote for Clinton. Stick that triangulation in your pipe and smoke it, DLC member.

I'm sure that if you don't think what I have said through that it would be funny. Of course Iowans didn't go into the caucus thinking 'I'm going to vote for the candidate that will force my religious views on others'. They probably went into the caucus thinking, 'I want a President who shares my values'. But Net, what do you think they expect a President who 'shares their values' to do when he becomes President? Probably enforce laws that promote that morality [See Reagan, Bush II]. That is exactly what social conservatism is and it was social conservatives who were responsible for Huckabee's Iowa win, that's a fact.


And this is completely irrelevant. Social conservatives and the Religious right are responsible for his surge, period. This is not debatable, it is a fact. Simply because you find yourself supporting him and you do not consider yourself a social conservative [which I find odd, because if we dug deeper I think we'd fine you may be socially conservative] does not change that fact.

You are completely misinterpreting what I am saying. I'm not saying that Huckabee will be a bad President because he's religious. I'm saying he'd be a bad decision because his faith/moral beliefs drives his politics, he can't separate the two [most people can't].

Net, there is nothing to 'disagree' with. I stated a fact, Evangelical Christians have propped up his campaign. Look at any Iowa exit poll and this fact will be confirmed. How many Iowans you saw on TV over a four hour time span does not trump the scientific polls that prove my point.

Net, try to focus, we're talking about Mike Huckabee, not Ron Paul. But since you brought up this ridiculous notion that Ron Paul is one dimensional. Ron Paul is much more than an anti-war candidate, he was outlined several other issues he takes with the size and scope of gov't, and I think you know that. He wants to eliminate the Federal income tax, abolish the Dept. of Education, end Federal environmental efforts [something I disagree with him about] along with a plethora of other things that have nothing to do with the Iraq War. But again, this conversation is about Huckabee, who, without his overt religious nature, would be in Arkansans hunting right now.

Net, what are you talking about? I called Mike Huckabee one-dimensional and you've given me a two paragraph mini-rant about Ron Paul and Iraq, stick to the topic at hand.

Now I get why you don't support Ron Paul. You have a fundamental and basic misunderstanding of just how the Constitution works. Net, if the government is not given the power to do a specific thing by the Constitution, then that power is left to the states [per the 10th Amendment]. So, in other words, I don't need to find any part of the Constitution that says the government CAN'T do anything. You have to find a part that shows me that the government CAN do it. And you won't be able to because everything I mentioned is not a power explicitly given to the Feds via the Constitution.

I'm skipping over some of what you've said so that we don't go too far off topic. I will say that it is factually accurate to say that the gov't regulates the media [see the FCC] and spies on Americans without a warrant. We don't know whether or not the people being spied upon are terrorists because they haven't been convicted of anything. But all of that is besides the point which was, 'can you find the part of the Constitution that allows the Feds to do such a thing'. Evidently you can't. Which is okay, neither could the Attorney General.

I will however address this, because it is entertaining to me.
Is this your attempt at condescension. If so, you need to work on it. In addition, you should probably do a quick google search on Jose Padilla, an American citizen held on suspected terrorist charges without council on an American brig for months If you don't think we're holding American's without council, you are misinformed. Why some people dare not attempt to learn negative things about their government is beyond me.

What a logical fallacy. You're saying that because I support someone, and that someone happens to think one thing, that I also do. Uh, no. I do not believe that the CIA or FBI are illegal, this is a point of contention I have with Dr. Paul, among others. I actually do think for myself, and I'm quite good at it.

I'll have to respond to the other posters later, I have to run.

CP

I guess we will soon start seeing the seething personal attacks start to fly at both Huckabee and Obama. It's really amazing the 'tear them down' mentality we have in this country.

I am sure people are going to start using terms like bible-thumper, Jesus freak, and theocracy to associate with Huckabee. (Oh wait just scroll up in this thread)
And this is at the same time Obama will be making speeches from Churches and invoking God's name just as much or more than Huckabee. Can I get a knife to slice the irony please?

Then on the flip side stories will be 'mysteriously' be released about some bombshell about Obama's drug use in the way distant past or some John Edwards like affair that has no basis in fact.

Welcome to the election cycle folks.

Edit to add: So far the answers to the Democratic candidate poll in this thread is very telling.

Yeah but Sleeper Won't that just actually help them out? Help emphasize their outsider status they are being given.
Negative attacks against those who have avoided them will just make them stronger.

You'll just get this
Obama/Huckabee 08
WonderTwin powers ActiVATE!

form of.................... A Health Care dispenser
Shape of...............an Apostle

Your Zan and Jayna analogy aren't lost on me.

People attack and name call when they don't have facts to support their arguments or positions.

Although mildly amusing your Health care dispenser/Apostle jab shows you have no facts.

Abort? Retry? Fail?

I want to say this about Ron Paul. Sorry Conservpat. I'm glad Ron Paul is in the race. I think he is presenting a message that the free-spendin', pork-tossin' GOP needs to hear, again, again, again, and again.

But he has been a lukewarm candidate. A dissappointment, a second rate Ross Perot and a fourth rate Goldwater. Any comparison to Reagan isn't going to leave the page.


Look, I'm impressed with his following, and his fundraising. I'm ecstatic that the internet can put a little-known congressman into contention purely on the power of ideas.

But an election is about more than raising a 6 million dollars surprise on one day based off a v for vendetta youtube clip. An election is about building a coalition. You have fervent supporters, and you go out and recruit the moderates.

I don't see how all this talk about getting rid of the post office and withdrawing from the 170-some countries that we have bases in achieves any of this... fine governing philosophy, but you have to bring in people on the fringes. A lot of people are fed up enough with federal government to sign up for a complete disposal of the alphabet soup our tax dollars support. Great for them. But when you start talking about getting rid of the IRS and social security in this day and age, you turn off a lot of moderate, isolationists who just want a return to the bread and butter social conservativism exemplified by say, Barry Goldwater.

What's frustrating is that, obviously, Ron Paul is not going to get rid of the IRS, even if he wins in a landslide. That's a long term goal, a governing philosophy, a whimsical proposal nestled in a dissertation at the Heritage Foundation. But when you bally around that as your platform?? Elect me I'll up-end America's role in the world and dismantle the government overnight?

I guess what I'm saying is I wish that Ron Paul would be a common sense, approachable fiscal conservative, not a radical academic libertarian with a scheme to demolish the FBI. Ron Paul's going to be a gladfly that pokes some life into the GOP, maybe. But he doesn't have the rhetorical ability, the message, or the campaign to actually compete in any capacity.

That's why the media doesn't cover him... because political journalists are essentially sports writers. They cover winners, under-dogs, and losers. They cover upsets, horse races, photo finishes... they cover competition, in this case a competition that Ron Paul isn't even in.

now Sleepy, Start throwing mud at 2 people who are now known for positive campaigns and you will just make them stronger.

I think people are very tired after 16 years of Clinton/Bush and all the negativity and hate that has arisen. 16 years of having to listen to the shrill shrieks of hypocrisy and blame towards each other.
I know its early and it was only 1 state but both Huckabee and Obama have it down pat when it comes to speaking to people.
People are tired of claims of "I have been a CEO" or "I have the experience to LEAD"
As for facts i just go off of everyday conversations with everyday people--NOT political or talk radio junkies. They genuinely LIKE the 2 of them. The wonder Twins reference was supposed to bring up the Unity 08 idea. If the 2 could decide agreeable on who would be POTUS and vPOTUS they would IMO win hands down.

Kind of like the name calling and attacks on Paul? Just curious.

Yes like name calling and attacks on Pual as well. People should challenge his statements and proposals not call him names.

Although on a factual basis. Ron Paul isn't first place in anything but raising money. And Mike Huckabee proved that you don't need to spend a bunch of money to win. He was out spent 9 to 1 in Iowa by Romney.

The Fair Tax Act isn't "a whimsical proposal nestled in a dissertation at the Heritage Foundation", but a non-partisan alternative tax proposal. If you know something I don't, please share.

Well, I have to say- I think there will be some early revelations about Huckabee and some wrongdoing, some ethical lapses or whatever you want to call it, while Huckabee has been in office. I believe they will come to light.

Um, if there is grounds for these accusations, do you think it is mudslinging, or fair game?

I am sure now that he won Iowa, the spotlight that has been burning on Obama for so long (my mom still believes he is muslim ), that this particular piece of news will now be ignored by the MSM?

I agree that he isn't in first place for anything, I have never made claims otherwise, or predictions otherwise. I was just pointing out that many people don't know all of the facts on his positions, hear left wing and right wing pundents vomitting talking points that have little to no factual basis, and then repeat. Most that attack Paul are making unsubstantiated claims as to either what his positions are, or what the affect of them are. I was simply using your statement to support my point of view. I was not implying that you have been guilty of any bashing yourself, but as anyone that can read will find out, a lot of misinformed or uninformed people are typing away in this and other threads.


I share the humor in people thinking he is Muslim. On the radio not 30 minutes ago, a guy called in and had all the evidence he needs to conclude that Obama is an AQ plant:
His middle name is Hussein
His father was Muslim. (not sure if that is accurate, frankly, I don't give a damn.)
He didn't pledge his allegiance to the flag(this was in reference to him not putting his hand over his heart, but that was the national anthem )
He doesn't wear a flag lapel pin.

It is wackos like that that muddle intelligent debate about candidates. This guy should be removed from the gene pool!

Not to take this too far off topic, but the entire 'general welfare clause' looks like this:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

The common defense and general welfare of the United States. As in protect and provide for the general welfare of the states...That does not mean the federal government has the power to provide 'basic needs' to people within those states, only protect the state and look out for its general welfare.


The gold standard has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is a method by which the market determines the price of gold which our currency would be based upon. It would take power from the Federal government; it would not give the government any power. Therefore it is not a Constitutional issue. The Constitution limits government power, the Gold standard take power that the government has [unconstitutionally in the form of the national bank (thanks Alexander Hamilton) and The Fed] and gives it back the market.

Scubatim:


I certainly don't think everyone in Iowa is a religious-rightist who doesn't know the difference between a minister and a President. But I do believe that enough Iowans do to have negative repercussions [like giving Mike Huckabee delegates]. The same could be said for the rest of the country, so I do not mean to personally go after Iowans.


Drewyorktimes:
Good, Goldwater's foreign policy was insane [and he was very anti-civil rights] and Reagan wasn't in the government-reduction business.

As for the rest of your post, all valid criticisms. Ron Paul obviously could not possibly accomplish most of what he would like to do precisely because of what you stated, he has a long-term philosophy. Granted. With that said, a long-term philosophy and true small government [re]evolution can only start if you vote that first guy into office. But again, what you have outlined is a completely valid criticism.

CP

nighttimer





there is a great deal of truth to that, fund raising is important for a number of reasons. More than anything it helps a candidate to promote their image, but if the image they are trying to promote is not convincing and appealing than the money they have could potentially get them nowhere. In terms of importance I see policy and charter as being most important, a close third would be fund raising ability. I see what your getting at though, it is important.



Well Ive said before that if Hillary gets the nomination she would certainly be easier to beat than Obama. Obama does deserve the nomination over her, I never liked Hillary, even as first lady there was something about her I never liked. Bill Clinton was more likable than Hillary, he made me laugh although I disagred with some of his positions and the fact that he likely lied to the American people in regards to Monica Luinski. Be that as it may, id sooner vote for him, than Hillary, and sooner vote for Obama than either of the Clinton's and Since Obama was the winner in Iowa for the democrats, I have to give him credit.




Well I see Huckabee speaking out to other Christians, but the question is, is there anything wrong with that? Its in his best interest to reach out to those with similar religious preference, just as Obama reaches out to African Americans, now Obama being African American technically has as little to do with how he would operate as president, so as long as he or Huckabee don't over play the religious, or race cards, they should reach out to those who share such traits. I don't see much wrong with it. However if either of these candidates were to become president and demonstrate they have a problem separating religion from state, or race from state, then thats certainly a problem.

I could see how either issue could become a problem but I think everyone should be given the chance to demonstrate that they are not going to turn everything into a matter of race, or religion. See where I'm going? Unless of course the candidate has already shown that they will have such problems, but in the case of both these men Ive yet to see that.



Agreed