So, who will win? The only reason I included Thompson is that he's a southern good old boy who has a decent chance in South Carolina.

Oops, I voted Thompson, I meant McCain...

Obama is up 10 points on average in current SC polls.

McCain is up an average of 5 points over Huckabee, although one poll has it a dead heat.

I went with what I think is the safe bet- Huckabee, due to his preacher-ness in SC, and Obama, who I think is going to win the nomination at this point, and I think the dems are feeling that as well, and the "mo" is going his way. Repubs tougher to call, they are all over the map right now.

Nevada: Romney and Clinton

South Carolina: McCain and Obama

We should have done this two weeks ago - I'm the only person I know who predicted both McCain and Clinton for New Hampshire.

Edwards and Thompson, just because.

After the failure in NH, the poling folks don't have any credibility. I actually want to see a complete upset of conventional wisdom.

You should have split the two states. I went with McCain and Obama but I think there is a good chance Hillary will win Nevada and the Repubs are likely to split as well.

Thanks for not including Ron Paul. I'm sure some of his supporters will eventually object to his being left out, but as the song says, "Baby, It's Cold Out There."

I still waiting to see "surprise" scubatim's thread posed in regards to Paul's candidacy.

I chose McCain and Obama, though splitting the states probably would have been more accurate. I think Obama could win both states as he has a ton of union support in Nevada from both the state's largest and most powerful union, Culinary Workers Union, and Service Employees International Union. But Clinton's biggest potential issue might be with respect to the recent ruling against the NEA lawsuit filed to prevent casino workers from caucusing at special precincts on the Las Vegas strip. That the lawsuit was only filed AFTER Obama won the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union looks really bad (especially since Clinton has ties to the NEA and some key members are endorsing her). According to CNN.com's Roland Martin, Hillary is quoted after the ruling as saying:
Also from the commentary:


Yes the piece is obviously biased, but the above Hillary quote reeks of sour grapes. Any inkling of potential voter disenfranchisement cannot be a good thing, particularly since Dems fought so hard against it in 2000 and 2004. The fact that Bill went all medieval on a reporter regarding the lawsuit certainly isn't helping things for Hillary. He's been quite the abrasive and angry guy lately!

Oh, I love being called out! It is nice knowing you are thinking of me, my friend! Why would you expect me to be concerned about Paul being left out? Did I ever predict that he would win any states? You know what happens when you assume things, don't you? I actually voted for McCain and Clinton. After a little more reading, Obama will probably win Navada, but we know how polls have done historically.

Nevada: Ron Paul & Britney
SC: Ron Paul & Ross Perot

Did I ever accuse you of saying Paul would win anything? You did use the word "surprise" in your thread, so I was asking what the surprise (short of actually winning anything) might be and when it will happen.

Considering there was another thread where people nulled votes because Paul wasn't included, I was just wondering if it would happen again.

Apparently not.

Ok, so the theme to this thread is who will win, right? Then you wondered when I was going to jump in an argue that Paul should have been included. ("Thanks for not including Ron Paul. I'm sure some of his supporters will eventually object to his being left out, but as the song says, "Baby, It's Cold Out There."") After this statement, you specifically bring my name into it. One can only deduce that you thought someone (me specifically) would be upset that Paul was not one that was listed as a possible winner, thereby being someone that thought Paul could actually win. So, yes, you did accuse me of saying Paul would win anything.

The real surprise is that he has beaten Giuliani in every race except NH where it was nearly a tie, and beat Thompson everywhere except Iowa. I remember some members claiming that he was going to get creamed. He has consistently been only a few percentage points behind top tier candidates, has consistently beaten top tier candidates, and has yet to finish at the bottom. Surprise!

Lol, the reason people are not including him in votes asking who will win in a primary, is because he is not a front runner and im more likely to get struck by lightning twice in one day and play golf that evening than him becoming president. Where is Ron Paul ranked in SC? I don't even know, they usually just show the top 3, or 4 who this time around is John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, then Fred Thompson in that order I think. Ron Paul? Probably 5th again.

I voted Hillary Clinton and John McCain because it was asking who I think will win, not necessarily who I want to win. Would I feel left out if my favorite candidate of any party was left out of a vote asking "who do you think will win?" Well if I knew that candidate had no chance of winning, then no. I liked Joe Biden, and even when he was in the race, I knew he had no chance, so I left him out of my Iowa caucus vote for that reason, just like I left Ron Paul out for the same reason. Nebraska29 did the same thing, but it makes sense right? People could just go all out and include names of people that aren't even running but might spontaneously join in the race for no reason, you know just to be 100% sure nobody is offended that there favorite politician was excluded.

I did nearly null my vote- but what can you do when the entire MSM is against your candidate?

It is interesting that Ron Paul has pretty much wiped the place with Guiliani and Thompson- yet, he doesn't get the press coverage either of them do- in fact, they mention his name as quickly as possible, and move on to those that actually got less votes them Paul, and give them more air time.

Time to put on a tinfoil hat I believe

No, I did not! You are reading too much into things and taking words as a personal affront that were not meant to be. The only reason I mentioned you personally, is that you started a thread on Ron Paul asking about "surprises." Surprise is not a synonym for "win."

The words “some of his supporters” does not single you out. You might want to brush up on deduction techniques Dr. Watson.

Ron Paul Thread

Net 2007 Poll

It was here that several people objected to Paul’s exclusion.


Giuliani’s performance does not surprise me. It may not be that Paul did better than Giuliani, but that Giuliani did worse than Paul. Rudy Giuliani isn’t running an honest campaign. His strategy seems to run the table, starting with Florida.

Here’s a revealing segment from the January 17th Hardball.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22731229/

Giuliani isn’t likable. He goes to the bottom rung along with Paul, Hunter and Thompson. His "Florida strategy" will backfire. If I'm wrong about this assessment I'm sure "some of you" will let me know" after looking at Giuliani's "Super Tuesday" numbers.

I can hear your feet tapping on the stage from here! Nice dancing!

Thanks! I've been told on occasion that I give "Clintonian" answers. I consider that a compliment.

Be careful scubatim! The cat in my avatar might suddenly come to life and bite you. That's why his name is Mega-bite and not Megabyte.

I don't think a modern conservative knows the word "nuance" there Bof-ers

I know it's premature, but as of 3pm Central Time, Paul is tied for second with McCain at 12% in Nevada. (that link will update automatically)

Hey Bof- looks like Ron Paul SHOULD have been in the Poll- he tied for second in Nevada, with McCain. Beat Thompson and Huckabee.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/?hpid=topnews




Oh man, you beat me to it by seconds

ya, Washington Post has called it- Romney first, McCain and Paul second.

That may be right. Romney's 55% + 7 delegates dewarfs everybody else. Guiliani is getting 4%. He has zero momentum going into Florida. To parody the Everly Brothers, "Wake up little Rudy, wake up litttle Rudy ..you fell asleep, your goose is cooked your reputation is shot...Wake up little Rudy, it's time to go home."

I guess you guys can tell I don't particularly dislike Ron Paul, but I detest Rudy Giuliani.

So now second place doesn't mean anything. I like how you can change your position as the situation permits.


Oh my goodness, look! Paul is holding second alone!

How have I done that? A second for either McCain or Paul at 12% is still 43% below Romney and neither Paul or McCain gets any delegates. If Paul (or McCain0 had hit 30% + or - that might be significant.

I don't really get any joy out of this. In my opinion Romney, Huckabee and Giuliana are all venomous vipers that need to be handled from a distance. I wouldn't use such harsh words to describe Ron Paul.

Tool for handling Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and their ilk

Are there any true Republicans that you wouldn't?

Yes, Ron Paul is in a tie as of now for second in Nevada, the explanation is that many of those votes are from tipsy voters who were up all night, at the casino the night before. They just pushed the wrong button, lol. JK That guy needs wins not 2nd's or 3rd's, much like Guliani at this point both those candidates need back to back wins to have a chance. I think he'll come in third on this one, which is a step up. If he comes in second its even a surprising step up, but technically it doesn't help him, he needs to start winning something, time for him is running out.

I'm not a Republican, so I'll pass on this one.



The end of the world must be at hand. For once I aagree completely with net2007.

BoF





We agree, yes this could mean a rip in the fabric of space and time, and the end of all life as we know it.

Ever hear of the expression once in a blue moon? This was once in a blue flamingo, and I've yet to see one of those, lol

What I find interesting is the number of voters in the Republican caucus versus the number of voters in the Democratic caucuses. There was record turnout for the Democrats in the last two contests, but so few in Nevada, or have the precincts with the highest populations not reported from the Democratic race? Or am I misunderstanding how cnn.com/politics is reporting?

Uh, Dude- there is only ONE true republican in at all- the rest are republicrats. - Ron Paul is the only conservative in the race, period. The rest are big goverment lackeys, no different from one another.

I was referring to any Republican politician, not just candidates.

Um, I think what you are seeing is how the national race is going to shape up- there just aren't any good candidates that the main stream media can get behind in the republican race- and it shows in the republican turnouts in most states. The real tale will be when we see hard-core red states like mine, if WE have a massive dem turnout- then you will see a dem prez this time next year.

Reading through this thread is becoming a little bit like watching one of the cable news channels' wall to wall coverage. Right now, I'm packing and watching the UCLA-USC BB game instead. None of this makes that big of deal in the grand scheme of things. Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Nevada, South Carolina? Neither party competed in Michigan (the one state that does impact the nation), so what do we have? Nada, buncha results that only mean some of the rear-enders have a reason to bow out of the race. Now, once we start talking about states like Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania and California, then we're talking. That all happens in a few weeks unlike it has in past years and I think will be most interesting to see how it plays out. I think that's why Rudy has used the strategy he has in waiting for the truly important primaries before he starts spending his money. It will be interesting to see if it works or not.

Aquilla

Well, back to the actual credible candidates....

Hillary nabbed Nevada. I was listening to a Vegas caucus meeting on SIRIUS CNN and it was just something else, sounded like a complete zoo.

Oh, I have a great deal many I like then. My own state has had a nice house cleaning the last year, many of them in jail, many more to go, and the republican replacements are quite a thing to be proud of!

This isn't the political joke thread!

Ron Paul finished in 5th just behind Thompson and McCain in Iowa; He finished 5th in New Hampshire just behind Giuliani. He finished 4th in Michigan. And now he is finishing 3rd or 2nd in Nevada and his name isn't even being mentioned. Instead, they are going to listen to Giuliani, a 6th, 4th, 6th, and 6th place finisher give a stump speech in Florida. Anyone who thinks the media isn't ignoring Paul is lying to themselves.

Right now, I'm listening to Huckabee tell the people that aren't going to vote for him to stay home. Gotta love democracy!!

Hmm With 79% of the vote in Its still hard to say who will get that 2nd for the Reps.


Ron Paul
4,563

McCain
4,540

a 23 vote spread between the two. That gap has closed a bit to bring McCain closer to 2nd but Paul just might pull off that 2nd, if McCain doesn't continue to close.





I saw that, it was a joke.

I agree, the 29th of this month is the real deal- however- there is the real life issue of "momentum"- folks are deciding who to vote for, much of it on "electability" so some of this IS important, though, in the delegate scheme of things- meaningless, but in the "momentum and getting your name out there"- a big deal indeed.

However, I think Guiliani has less chance to win than Ron Paul. Rudy has tons of corruption baggage, personal life baggage, and is a "I was there on 9/11" candidate.

I think that is what frustrates me so much with the media's refusal to allow Ron Paul much of a forum, and having me thinking we need to regulate the media a LOT more strictly in campaigns. I am definately begining to feel that the networks should be forced to give equal time to all candidates, to anyone garnering 1% of the vote.

I am really getting sick of corporate America getting to decide who gets to run for president.

I'm all in favor of Ron Paul getting his 15 minutes. Sooner the better. He's been on the Sunday Morning shows and quite frankly, he does worse there than he does in the debates. But, oh well, he's a non-entity in the grand scheme of things.

Back to the topic of this thread. I think McCain's win in South Carolina helps him a lot going in to the showdowns in the important states. Contrary to my earlier disclaimer about the importance of all these smaller state primaries, they do seem to be important from the standpoint of the candidate and the people working on their campaign. I watched McCain's speech tonight and there is no question he's "on the jazz". I got the feeling from him, for the first time, that he really thinks he can win the nomination. I'm beginning to think he can as well, and what's more, I think he can beat either Obama or Clinton in the general election. I'll go into that sometime in another thread, but for now, if McCain wins in Florida, and he's pretty much tied in the lead there in the polls, I think it's pretty much all over on the Republican side.

Aquilla

I thought you were hoisting one for Fred, Aquilla? Now all of a sudden your bally-hooing McCain's win in a state where the age of consent is 14 yrs old. What happened to Fred? Where is your allegiance to your drinking buddy?

Sure Paul was on Meet the Press, but it didn't get much play because he dusted Russert's usual conflict of interest questions off like dandruff. His words aren't sensational, or centrist, or left-leaning or radical or demagoguery, they're logical and rational and practical. Stuff the general Bible-thumping brain-washed Yin to al-quaida's yang doesn't understand. You can't explain to someone that believes that whales live in a sea, and swim around with people in their mouth about the Gold Standard, or how cutting taxes needs to be accompanied by cuts in spending because they won't get it. That's just silly ol' book learnin' Yankee nonsense. Try inta pet thems funny numbers and all that rith matics n stuff. Where'sma teeth Jethro? Youns don't have no teeths Mamma.

Why is Giuliani getting air play for his fourth sixth-place finish? What will Giuliani do in Florida? Well he's been a non-factor, but he's all over TV. Ron Paul's been ignored. I was watching election coverage at work and I was asked who I would vote for and I said Ron Paul and I got the usual answer, "Never heard of him." And you never will, because he wants to you to keep more of your money and government and business don't want you to have your own money, they want all your money.

Yeah, I was supporting Fred Thompson back before he started his campaign started, but I've been pretty disappointed at how he's campaigned since he got into the race. I thought he'd be a lot more passionate about why he wants to be President and what he wants to do as President than he has. I guess he lacks that "fire in the belly" that Colin Powell has referenced in the past. If he lacks it, then so do I as far as his candidacy is concerned and quite obviously a number of other Republican voters feel the same way. Fred might make a good drinking buddy, but I don't know that he'd make a very good President, and he's shown he doesn't make a very good candidate for the job. I'm not going to support someone I don't think can win in November and at this point, I don't think Thompson can. I think McCain can win in November and that's a pretty important thing. I disagree with him on some issues, but on most I'm okay with his stance. He's sure one hell of a lot better than any of the characters running on the other side.


Aquilla

What month is this? Oh yeah, January. When is Election Day? Um, November?

Gad people have short attention spans, or is it low tolerance for political crock pottery. Anyway, the Volunteer State seems to have had it up to here:

The Bottom of Your Life Has Fallen Out . . .

Both my picks lost, so I guess the polling people have gotten their acts back together.

Which is a bit disappointing. Ah well, and it goes on and on and on . . .

But hey, the guvmnt is gonna give us 145 billion! Woo Hoo, finally something for us rather than that other kid, Iraq.

Yep.

The reason he's not more passionate is because he's sleeping. Thompson's candidacy was created by FOX News. His supporters, unlike Paul's, did not come from a popular uprising. His following was created by Rupert Murdoch who was drunk on nostalgia and blinded by power, thinking he could recreate Thompson in Reagan's image and the sheep would follow. Well, some sheep did follow, but once they came to realize the truth about their shepherd, the sheep strayed to greener pastures.

You should really take a personal inventory of yourself and consider what kind of statement being a Thompson follower makes about you personally. If you can be so easily led by FOX News into following whoever they put in front of you, then you are going to need to get more informed about a great many things.

The odds are not with McCain for a number of reasons. First he has partially, especially early on in the campaign, embraced the Bush legacy.

Second, he has supported an unpopular, never ending increasingly costly war.

Third, although we hope to avoid a recession, there is an increasing chance that that is where we are heading. If the economy does not do a turn-around in the next 180 days or so, almost any Republican candidate is DOA.


I think you’ve got it backwards. McCain may be the best of his side, something I have reluctantly come to believe, but a worse choice than the most likely candidates on the other side.

BTW: This thread is now obsolete, since we know who the winners in Nevada and South Carolina were. Since there has already been substantial debate on this thread, I would suggest it be moved to the 2008 election forum and that any postmortem analysis of primary results be debated in a new thread in the elections forum.

I've read a lot of crap here on AD from the left, but after this load, I'll have to get some bigger boots I think. I thought about submitting the above post to the SETI team I'm on because it comes from either an altered state of reality, or from another planet. But, then again, there is that letter "I" in SETI and there's little if any "I" in that post........

For the record, the idea of Fred Thompson's candidacy was broached to him by a group of people in Tennessee including former Senator Howard Baker. Baker and Thompson go back a long ways, back when Baker was the ranking member on the Watergate committee where he hired Thompson as minority counsel. Now unless the claim is that Howard Baker is a "stooge" of Murdoch (and I wouldn't be surprised if the whacklibs make that claim at some point), then FOX had nothing to do with pushing Thompson's candidacy.

I supported Thompson because I liked many of the things he stood for and I thought he'd be a better campaigner than he's turned out to be. His performance in the debates has been lackluster for the most part and he's not exactly bringing a lot of energy to his stump speeches from what I've heard. Oh well, moving on........

From BoF



Considering the source, that's a pretty strong endorsement for McCain!

Aquilla

Actually Aquilla, I think the biggest baggage for McCain is going to be his statement "we will be in Iraq for 50-100 years"- I think that would kill him in the general election.

CR, I don't think anyone [maybe not even McCain himself ] knows what he means by that statement. It's important to remember that we still have forces in Germany, Japan, and protecting South Korea. I find it hard to believe he meant we would still have 100-150,000 troops in Iraq in fifty years; but it's perfectly reasonable to assume we'll have a presence. As memory recalls, Bush was recently in negotiations for a long-term Air Force [or Army, I forget] base in Northern Iraq. So, the context may save him in the general election if he's the nominee.

Nope, it won't, even if that's what he said. I thought I heard it as a "we could", but that's neither here nor there. How long have we been in Germany? Korea, Japan? Are we at war with them? The fact is that as long as the US is dependent on oil from the Middle East, and that will be a considerable time, the US will have some sort of a presence there. The stability of that region is vital to not only the US but to the entire world. John McCain at least has the courage to speak the truth. We're not out of that region anytime soon. Any candidate who disputes this is either a naive idiot, or a liar.


Aquilla

Now that the Nevada caucus is over we find that the person who placed second was not included in this poll. Why not?

The 3rd, 4th, and 5th place candidates were included in the poll.

It is an observable phenomena. Ron Paul is avoided by main stream media. It is OK to dismiss him. He is left out of debates. Even in debate footage available for replay Ron Paul is edited out. And we have that same attitude in this poll.

What is it about Ron Paul or his ideas which creates such a loathing, uncertainty, fear which drives people to block him out? The reason that "he does not have a chance to win" does not explain it. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th place finishers did not have a chance and they were included in this poll.

I tend to think it is because he is challenging to the status quo and that makes people uncomfortable. Is it because his ideas will mean people will have to figure out more on their own and that uncertainty is scary ? Both major parties want big government where the central government runs things by spending a good portion of your money ( and even more from others) to do the right thing. They decide so you do not have to. Is this need to conform so strong that Paul needs to be passively silenced ?

It is not just a Ron Paul phenomena. Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich both have ideas which rattle the foundation of Washington D.C. power. They are given distant coverage by main stream media. I do blame insider big business for much of this but it does go much further. It is here on AD. There is a fear of the ideas from inside big business but those fear are shared by individuals. People who want the Democratic Party to take over, to institute nationwide health plans, to make us all equal, fear Paul as he could end hope to do so. People who want the Republican Party to spread the United States way of life, by force if necessary, and to find and kill the bad guys see Paul threatening that possibility. The party base for each of the major parties seem together in this. They want big central government. If the toes of those who question this are stepped on a little, so be it.

Voters have been trained through the years to think they can not do it without big central government. They are dependent. People wish for this dependency to continue, either for business reasons, political aims or because they themselves have become dependent. You can have too much freedom.

A little bit of fascism is not really fascism is it ?

I never went into any threads regarding the candidates with some delusional idea that Paul would come out the victor, however I have steadfastly stood my ground in support of his campaign. The common theme to those that explain why one shouldn't support Paul is because his platform is impossible to implement. I find that to be one reason to support him. Gray Seal, you pretty much hit it on the head as to why I support Paul. Every day we hear the word change come out of one candidate or another, but what change is being spoken of? All I see is the continued growth of our federal government and the continued corrupt spending of our federal government. Who was it that said that "you can put a dress on a pig, but it is still a pig"?