We now have results presidential nomination results from the states of Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina (Republicans only at this as of now). Based on what happened and why it happened in those states, how do we calculate the future?


Questions for debate:

1. Which Democrat and Republican candidate do you think has momentum going into Florida and Super Tuesday?

2. Who do you think will win the Democratic and Republican nominations?

3. Texas and Ohio have their primaries late – March 4. Will Texas and Ohio be irrelevant by the time they hold their primaries or will they be king or queen makers?

Bonus question:

4. Do you anticipate any “surprises”?

Edited to correct awkward wording.

1. Which Democrat and Republican candidate do you think has momentum going into Florida and Super Tuesday?

I will hold off on the Dem side until I see the SC vote- I believe Nevada to be near non-issue really. I mean, Nevada is a Mormon state- did anyone thing Romney would lose it? I think Obama will win the south actually. Hard to call though- could be wrong. McCain and Romney will be the only players going into florida, I believe Guiliani is DOA, Thompson is doing worse than Ron Paul even though Thompson was the media darling, and Ron Paul the media goat. Hillary will be tough to beat in Florida though, there are lots of Clinton supporters there.

2. Who do you think will win the Democratic and Republican nominations?

It is a tough call between McCain and Romney, and same between Obama and Hillary. too close to call at this point. But that is what it seems to boil down to at this point.

3. Texas and Ohio have their primaries late – March 4. Will Texas and Ohio be irrelevant by the time they hold their primaries or will they be king or queen makers? Depends on if someone walks away with Florida- if one of the four I mentioned walks away with Florida, that will drop everyone but the "big four"

Bonus question:

4. Do you anticipate any “surprises”?

I am hoping for big suprises from Ron Paul, of course, but I think we are shacking it down to the "big four".

1.) Logically, Huckabee cannot pull a first-or-second place victory here. We just don't have enough Evangelicals in this state, and when falling victim to cold-calling, newsletter-ing and television ads, he's a non-issue in this state. That leaves America's Mayor, who has actually been quite active and is being well-received in North Florida, the Mormon, and the Old Guy, as dubbed by local writers.

McCain has a very strong base in Florida, and I know my parents and sister plan on supporting him during the primary. McCain has an edge none of the other Republicans have: exposure. He's played the presidential game before and even though he was blind-sighted for the top job, people still know him for the seeking of it. It worked to his advantage in South Carolina and New Hampshire.

Concerning Democrats, I won't dispute Clinton's base in South Florida, but there is factionalism even among them as Obama is getting more aggressive here. Edwards' message doesn't really resonate here, for one reason or another. I don't hear a lot of buzz about him.

2.) Clinton and McCain. Romney could surprise us on Super Tuesday, but I believe McCain has a lot going for him despite his pro-war stance.

3.) Ordinarily, they would be quite unimportant. But if the race remains as close as it's been in these early states, they could determine the nominee.

4.) The only real thing that would surprise me is if John Edwards drops out. I anticipate him holding on until the bitter end, collect his delegates [which won't be nearly enough to win the nomination] and then throw his support to the highest bidder in Obama and Clinton. In essence, Edwards is positioned to pick the next Democratic nominee if he uses this strategy. It would shock me if he let it go.

1. Which Democrat and Republican candidate do you think has momentum going into Florida and Super Tuesday?

For the Democrats it depends on what happens in SC. If Hillary can win SC she's in good shape going into Super Tuesday. As far as the Republicans go, things are looking better for McCain. Conservatives are spilling their votes between Huckabee and Thompson in the South and leaving the door open for McCain. Romney is really hurting in the South. He's just not that well liked it appears. Finishing 4th behind Thompson is a really poor showing in SC.

Here in Florida Rudy is doing a lot of TV ads. If he wins this state the Republicans are heading towards a brokered convention.


2. Who do you think will win the Democratic and Republican nominations?

I still think Hillary is going to win. She has the better organized campaign and the Clint ons have a lot of power in the Democrat party. Winning primaries is largely about turnout and unless there's a tsunami of Obama support (which is possible) Clinton is going to get the nomination.

As far as the Republicans go... I have no idea how it's going to end up. If McCain can win Florida he'll likely have the nomination. Huckabee has peaked and Romney doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

3. Texas and Ohio have their primaries late – March 4. Will Texas and Ohio be irrelevant by the time they hold their primaries or will they be king or queen makers?

It's too early to answer this question. I figure the Democrat side likely be settled after Super Tuesday. The Republicans might be headed....


4. Do you anticipate any “surprises”?
...to a brokered convention. That would be a big surprise, but if Rudy wins in Florida I think it'll will play out that way. Thompson and Huckabee will eat up the Southern States. Rudy will have the Northeast (if he wins Florida). McCain vs. Romney in the West. It's very possible that no one will get enough delegates before the convention.

1. Which Democrat and Republican candidate do you think has momentum going into Florida and Super Tuesday?

Clearly McCain has the Republican momentum, but Romney may still be viable. I think Huckabee lost his chance for the Presidency in South Carolina. For the Democrats, Clinton and Obama are running neck and neck.

2. Who do you think will win the Democratic and Republican nominations?

McCain and Clinton.

3. Texas and Ohio have their primaries late – March 4. Will Texas and Ohio be irrelevant by the time they hold their primaries or will they be king or queen makers?

You want to talk about irrelevance? I'm registered in my home state of Oregon. Our primary is May 20th! I think Texas and Ohio will be the final flesh out between McCain/Romney and Clinton/Obama.

4. Do you anticipate any “surprises”?

I'll be surprised if Thompson, Huckabee, Edwards and Guiliani stick it out until the bitter end.

1. Which Democrat and Republican candidate do you think has momentum going into Florida and Super Tuesday?
Hillary and McCain have the momentum. However, the winner of these elections is rarely a surprise. If you name a state, you can name a winner. Utah - Romney, Alabama - Huckabee, Arizona - McCain on the Democrat sida, Georgia - Obama, Florida - Clinton, Mississippi - Obama, New York - Clinton. I can pick the big losers in every state, the American people. We want change! And who do we get? The usual suspects.

2. Who do you think will win the Democratic and Republican nominations?
Romney because of his money and Clinton because of her money.

3. Texas and Ohio have their primaries late – March 4. Will Texas and Ohio be irrelevant by the time they hold their primaries or will they be king or queen makers?
They will be irrelevant because we already know who is going to win them. McCain/Hillary in Texas. McCain/Obama in Ohio. Some may be wondering why I'm picking Romney when I just picked McCain to win key states. I am picking Romney to win the Republican nomination because he will finish strong in every state and eventually win the nomination.

4. Do you anticipate any “surprises”?
Edwards hanging around after Super Tuesday would be a surprise. In 2004, Edwards was running second against Kerry, now he's in third battling for votes with Kucinich.

You can slap me for being pretentious, but based on the data, Edwards is fifty-one delegates ahead of our friend Dennis. This is only with four states weighing in. Edwards is poised to collect a fair share of the delegates on Super Tuesday and make him a very necessary ally during the convention if Clinton and Obama remain as neck-in-neck.

1. Going into Florida it's got to be John McCain and the '08 version of the Straight Talk Express with a full head of steam, but preparing to ambush him is the former frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, who has done a remarkable imitation of a Florida gator lying in wait---come to think of it, Rudy kind of looks like an alligator too. The G man has placed his whole candidacy on winning in Florida and then using that victory to propel himself into the race by cleaning up on Super Tuesday. The problem for Rudy is nobody's ever tried his strategy before. If McCain or Huckabee beat Giuliani he's dead meat.

As for the Dems, Barack Obama has to win South Carolina or he's going to look like a flash in the pan. If he can hold off Hillary there with Southern African-Americans giving him the win, he'll be well-positioned to fight on through Super Tuesday and perhaps into March. Lose in S.C. and he's going to be hurting badly. John Edwards isn't going to win anywhere, but he could rack up enough delegates to make an impact upon whom the inevitable nominee is.

2. For the Democrats, I have to reluctantly admit rumors of the demise of The Clinton Machine have been greatly exaggerated (including by me). I still think Hillary is a terribly polarizing figure, but it's she the nominee then so be it. On the GOP side, I can say with greater certainty who won't be the nominee (Thompson, Huckabee) . Flip a coin between McCain and Willard Romney. Giuliani is a wild card.

3. For the Democrats, the process should be over before March unless Clinton does worse than expected on Super Tuesday. The GOP could be fighting it all the way with three candidates (McCain, Romney, Giuliani) and none of them with enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

4. Surprises? This is a presidential election year. It's nothing BUT surprises.

GOP:

Here's the thing people don't really mention/admit/remember about Giuliani:

He's a bit of a sloth. He suffers from a condition similar to the 'aw, shucks' attitude that sank Fred Thompson. He talks a mean game, barks like a pitbull on the stump -- but he does not, never has, never will campaign very hard.

In 2000, he barely got around to campaigning against Hillary Clinton -- even before the cancer. She came in as one of the most reviled characters in American politics, an unlikely candidate to win over the crucial hard-republican upstate new york vote, against a nationally renowned republican who was even tolerated in Manhattan. By all means, it should have been a protracted, awesome battle -- as high-profile as senatorial races get. But he barely put up a fight. She went on a "listening tour" of upstate new york, he stayed in Gracie Mansion and touted business as usual (to be fair, he did have an elected position to hold down.) She won over rural and typically conservative voters, he festered, floundered, and finally folded.

Fast forward eight years, and Giuliani's basic consistency seems exactly in tact.

He talks a mean game about destroying Hillary Clinton, just like he did in 2000. But he remains a localized, self-limited candidate -- a single-issue politician with a single-state strategy.

Giuliani has always been comfortable retail politics. He doesn't have the veneer to manage a national campaign.

So I'm going to foray onto a limb and say it here: Even if he does win Florida, he does not have the machinery or the pizazz to carry off a super tuesday strategy. He sleeps too much, says too much. He's unlikeable, and he lacks a filter. He doesn't have it in him.

There was a time when I thought he was the probable shoe-in for the 2008 white house: the perfect match for Hillary Clinton, someone who could hold onto Alabama but put California -- and just maybe -- New York into play, especially if he could triangulate here and there. But then I watched his strategy unfold, and I remembered what a Rudolph Giuliani campaign is like.

Dems:

If you step back a few months, rewind to the days when Obama was polling 20, 30, 40 points behind Hillary Clinton, then suddenly the issue of momentum becomes much more interesting on the dem side.

The Obama strategy has always been to win Iowa, then capture South Carolina. I read somewhere his campaign had a slogan that SC stood for 'Stop Clinton.' It's been his firewall since the inception of his campaign.

So what's amazing is how well he's done in New Hampshire and Nevada, states where none of us -- admit it -- ever expected him to win. He came remarkably close to winning both. Note: he lost those two states, and there's no way or reason to sugarcoat those losses. But they were planned losses, and pretty narrow losses for planned losses.

I've been wondering what the Obama campaign sees that I don't. The way I look at this, he has to come into Super Tuesday with a surge of support similar to what he experienced post-Iowa. He has to crash into tsunami tuesday on his own wave, because a tie goes to Clinton in more ways than one.

First of all, if the media coverage doesn't change in some significant way, then Obama will come up short on February fifth. The Clintons have framed of the debate -- they painted Obama as a "fairy tale" and it stuck. Among lower-income, latino, and under-educated democrats -- not to mention women and the elderly -- he is gasping for support. You can't win a democratic primary without a respectable showing in all of the above sub-sets.

How's he going to change that? Even if he wins SC, it will be just considered a "black" win for a "black" candidate -- furthering the idea that Barack Obama is a nice idea, but not a serious contender for white female, elderly, and blue collar votes. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is operating like an enormous vacuum cleaner, drowning out Obama's voice beneath this consistent, obnoxious racket. All Bill needs to do is keep making headlines, and Obama gets nowhere. And Bill Clinton is great at making headlines.

Clearly, Obama's staff went into this race with realistic expectations vis-a-vis which early states they could win, and I don't think they ever included NH or NV in that pile. They did include Iowa and SC, and now I'm scratching my head wondering what the final result is supposed to be.

1. Which Democrat and Republican candidate do you think has momentum going into Florida? Democrats - Hillary. Republicans - It depends a lot on Charlie Crist. If he backs McCain the way McCain backed him for governor then McCain has it. Otherwise, I'm very afraid of the possibility of Rudy and McCain splitting the veteran vote (40% of the Rep primary) and Romney slipping past with the W. Huck, Romney, and Giuliani have all three already taken runs at McCain. McCain has a lot going for him though without Crist's formal endorsement. Large veteran vote. 10% Cuban vote that leans McCain/Rudy. Large Jewish vote and Leiberman is down there stumping for John. The Irish GOP, the Republican's Delta Force, backs him too.

2. Who do you think will win the Democratic and Republican nominations? I hate to say this because McCain vs Obama would restore my faith in American politics, but I think that it's going to be Romney vs Clinton. I have just met too many people who don't dig in the way people do and even though the internet has changed the game some, the transformation is not complete. Those two have the money and can set the tone.

4. Do you anticipate any surprises�? I agree with Nemov and the possible split Republican convention.

Good questions, the media has been wrong time and time again on candidates, and I was wrong by saying John McCain was out a couple months back. This election so far has had many surprises. By looking at things as they stand today it is hard to say, I think as of now John McCain has the momentum going into Florida for republicans, and Barack Obama and Hillary are in a statistical dead heat, South Carolina will help Obama out if he wins their, I believe he is favored to. However in Florida Hillary has the big lead and if she wins their she will likely have more delegates overall than Obama. Right now he has one or two more than her, so its very close.

Florida will help to establish who has the momentum going into "Super Tuesday" but that will be the key day that will probably narrow down the race to 4 candidates, "two on each side". any other candidates in the race at that point will either drop out, or have virtually no chance. There will probably be a larger spread between the top 2 candidates as well on each side, with one noticeably more dominate than the other. It may still be close, but we will have a much better Idea who the nominees may be, at that point. I'm not sure what roles Texas and Ohio will play yet, its too soon to tell.

1. Which Democrat and Republican candidate do you think has momentum going into Florida and Super Tuesday?

On the Republican side I think it's definitely McCain. He's leading or tied in all of the polls according to Real Clear Politics and that's pretty impressive given that he was written off as roadkill not that long ago. I think if McCain wins Florida or even finishes a close second (-2%), he's going to win the nomination.

On the Democrat side, I think it depends on how Obama and Clinton do in South Carolina. The one that wins there has a leg up in Florida.



2. Who do you think will win the Democratic and Republican nominations?

Not betting the farm on it, but my gut feel is a McCain v. Clinton race. Both are national candidates with national organizations.



3. Texas and Ohio have their primaries late – March 4. Will Texas and Ohio be irrelevant by the time they hold their primaries or will they be king or queen makers?

Yep. California will determine the king and queen.


Bonus question:

4. Do you anticipate any “surprises”?

Other than the Giants winning the Superbowl, no. At the end of the day, the one who has the best national political organization is going to win. That's Clinton and McCain.


Aquilla

Good analysis, drewyorktimes. I enjoyed reading it. A few observations of my own and a question or two.

One of the big problems for the GOP is that with the exception of Mike Huckabee all of their candidates come off as a bunch of mean bastards.

Giuliani and Fred Thompson have two of the most insincere and gruesome smiles I've ever seen on a human being's face. You can tell they would rather be somewhere--ANYWHERE--else than standing in the middle of Dogpatch, South Carolina shaking the hands of people they wouldn't let wash their cars. Thompson is just a lazy slob. You can almost see him thinking, "Damn, I'd rather be back in the hotel banging my trophy wife than talking to these local yokels." Giuliani is not a people person. He looks like a impatient mortician wishing the family would hurry up and finish crying so he can start throwing dirt over the casket and get back to the office and deposit their check before the bank closes.

John McCain is too damn old. He's cranky, wrinkled and recycling riffs from his 2000 campaign. He's like an old rock star on a desperate last tour trying to make enough money to keep his creditors away from his house and gold records. Mitt Romney is about as genuine as a porn star's orgasm. He's the guy who makes the decision to fire 50 workers on the production line and Giuliani is the one who cheerfully volunteers to be the stooge that tells them to clear out their lockers and pick up their last paycheck.

Where does Giuliani get this undeserved reputation as "the Hillary Killer?" How does even a GOP that doubles over in nausea at the very thought of The Clintons moving back into The Lincoln Bedroom rally around a pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay crossdresser with a family life that makes Bill and Hillary look like Luci and Desi? Besides a Florida filled with retirees from NYC, where else in the solidly Red South does a Rudy Giuliani sell?

Will even fear of President Hilliary be enough to bring together the fractured GOP base around an heretic like McCain, a brainless rich twit like Romney or a social liberal like Rudy? I have my doubts....



I don't know how Obama broadens his "New Reagan" coalition to include working class White men, older White women, Latinos and the Clintonistas who long for a third term for Bill. Beyond The Audacity of Hope there is The Intractable Cold Hard Political Realities and I agree that it may be difficult for Obama to cobble together a force that can smash through the Establishment that has cast its lot with Hillary Clinton.

Still, this can't be coming as a total shock to Team Obama that there are a lot of Democratic constituencies that aren't in love with him. With no George Bush or Dick Cheney to run against, who's the Republican bogeyman that's going to scare working class White men, Latinos, Jews and older White women into Obama's open arms? Better the devil they know (in Bill and Hillary) than the devil they don't.

Yeah, if Barack takes South Carolina it'll be chalked up as a "Black" win by a "Black" candidate, but does that really cheapen it? Any win in politics is better than a loss. What it might mean is The Clintons will have to fight tool, nail and claw to pry Black voters away from Obama. How do they go negative against Barack without looking like they want back into The White House that they'll throw a Black man under the bus to get a White woman elected? Race is a definite wild card for not just Barack Obama but for Hillary Clinton as well. If Black voters get ticked off by Hillary and Bill destroying Obama, they may just stay home in November.

Bill Clinton has thrown the whole concept that as the ex-President he's also the titular head of the Democratic Party and should be above overtly favoring one side over the other. Screw that noise! Bill has gone after Barack with such zeal that he's pretty much pre-emptied any chance of a Clinton/Obama "unity" ticket. If Obama isn't seriously considered for the vice-presidency, what effect will that have on not just his Black support, but his upper-class White Democrat support and his ability to attract independents? Hillary has no appeal to independents even if she was the cover model for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.

There are more than a few Democrats that would find four years of old as dirt John McCain slightly easier to live with than eight years of Hillary Clinton. If they decide to stay home and not vote for her and independents come out big for McCain (especially if the war in Iraq stays a secondary concern) the Democrats might yet snatch defeat from the numerous factors in their favor for recapturing The White House.

It was never going to be easy to elect a woman or an African American president of the United States. And it is a cruel historical twist that the republic has its first serious female candidate for president at the same time that it has its first serious black candidate, forcing the two to fight each other for the Democratic nomination. Neither Obama nor Clinton is running on their identity, but because the substantive policy differences between them are so small, identity has become central to their showdown. Even with the best of intentions, this kind of competition can easily take an ugly turn as incidental remarks or minor episodes get turned into symbols of seeming disrespect or become viewed as forms of strategic insinuation.

I am not concerned that the losing candidate will refuse to endorse the winner. The dangers for the eventual nominee are that the early enthusiasm among the Democratic base could wane, dragging down turnout in the fall, and that other voters, particularly working-class white men, could become alienated from the party altogether.

Winning back these so-called Reagan Democrats has long been the party's principal political challenge. The last thing the Democrats need is to have this year's primaries devolve into a factional, fractious debate over racism and sexism that reminds some people why they deserted the Democrats in the first place. In the primaries, former senator John Edwards has offered a third option for some of these voters, who may be supporting him not because of his fighting message but because he is the white guy in the race. In the general election, this bloc might move to the Republican nominee.

Democrats ought to be able to make substantial gains among working-class voters this cycle. A declining economy the year before a presidential election has historically been a strong predictor of victory for the opposition party. The more the economy becomes the campaign's focus, the greater the Democrats' chances of appealing to voters feeling the brunt of the downturn. But conversely, the more the debate focuses on race and gender, and the longer the fight between Clinton and Obama drags on, the worse the fallout is likely to be in November. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8011802870.html

Do I see any surprises down the road?

Yep. It's based on what this article is talking about:

Long-term Unemployment Finally Being Recognized

In a nutshell, this MSNBC article identifies that a recession did occur in 2001, that the middle class is having a hard time finding jobs, that safety nets are actually gossamer spider webs these days, and that the US economy is again slipping into recession.

So you've got two broad Americas. One America touts unemployment figures of 5% being a sign of a healthy economy. Another America knows this is a pile of peat moss. One America is employed and doing well. The other is not on either side. One America thinks bankruptcy will never happen to them. Another sees it as a stark reality, along with the possibility of going homeless. One America gets premium health care. Another gets squat and has to self-diagnose and self-medicate.

That's Edwards' shtick.

It's the economy stupid is coming back. Now is that going to help any of the apparent momentum holders? I don't think so. Only Edwards has any depth to this thing. The rest are well-off and distant from such a thing as a shrinking middle class.

So that's the surprise I see coming, and coming swiftly.

World Economy Feels Our Pain

Of course the question is whether Edwards will get enough of a boost to pull off nomination. That I don't know, but he'll be more of a contender as people realize that what he's talking about is true. We've still got quite a few months before the nomination process is finished and better communications than we had in 1992, which was a year before the World Wide Web was developed into its infancy.

In the end you can't convince anyone with numbers that the economy is great when they're in long-term unemployment. It's also a hard sell for those with jobs but worried about losing them while knowing that unemployment goes far beyond whatever unemployment comp their state offers. And for quite some time employment has been changing to contract employment for short periods, which doesn't make you eligible for unemployment comp in Colorado.

You're better than this nighttimer. Is not looking at the man himself and just critisizing him for what category he falls into the best you have?

Turnabout is fair play then. Obama is too damn young. He's naive, inexperienced, and has absolutely no substance behind his speeches. Sounds stupid doesn't it?

lol, good point. Its all good to defend someone from being attacked for how they look, or more specifically what race they are in, and Nightimer does this a lot, but when they happen to be the one throwing around the same shallow criticisms at other groups, based on appearance, it makes a person wonder.

Look net2007, stick to the point. There are four questions to debate. If you don't have anything in the way of predictions to add to the thread then ...

Actually, you're quite right JustLeaveMeAlone. It was a cheap shot and a limp attempt at humor. I should have thrown a "smiley" in there to make it clear I wasn't serious. I apologize to anyone who took offense.

But only about John McCain. Giuliani does look like a alligator. Thompson is a lazy slob. Willard M. Romeny is a rich twit.

I do consider McCain a bona fide hero who has gone above and beyond the call of duty and deserves respect for going through something that would have broken or killed most of us. He didn't lose five years of his life by choice and I should know better than to repeat the garbage that someone like Chuck Norris spewed up.

While I disagree with Senator McCain on many issues, he is the Republican I consider the greatest threat to a Democrat winning back the presidency. I have no doubt had he won in 2000 this nation would be in better shape than it is.

Just to clarify though, if a candidate can be too young and inexperienced, a charge frequently leveled at Obama, then it's equally true that a candidate can be too old and entrenched and McCain is vulnerable to that criticism.

net2007, I answered a question you posed about race in a previous thread and either you didn't read it or you just ignored it. Either you have an open mind or a open mouth. Which one is it?

If you aren't going to be "fair" enough to bother with honest attempts at dialogue, then just drop the pretense and admit all you are is just another Internet Troll. Your constant sniping about my supposed "obsession" about race seems to make it clear that it's you who has a bug up your nether regions about race. Stop trying to hijack threads with your pathetic fixations.

This is your idea of "honest dialogue"?

Just trying to define the rules here before I jump in the gutter with you.


Aquilla

Golly gee, Aquilla, my bad. I clean forgot you were the official "Hoisting one for Fred" guy around these parts. Perhaps it was a bit of a slur on my part calling Fred a "lazy slob." I should have stopped at "lazy."

But hey, don't go on my say-so. Just Google the words, "Fred Thompson" and "lazy."

The more damaging claim against Thompson might be that he's too lazy to campaign for president, or serve as one. That's been getting a lot of traction. I mean a lot. Really, like, a ton. link

"Fred Thompson: Lazy as charged" So the sum total of Thompson’s day in Waverly was meeting with a newspaper editor and saying nothing and then meeting about 15 people in a warm firehouse and saying nothing.

When he was supposed to go out and find voters in shops and diners, talk to them and answer their questions, he decided to skip it and get back on his luxury bus instead.

That’s not retail politics. That’s not Iowa. And that’s not laconic. That’s lazy. link 2

His high school football coach in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., told the Nashville Tennessean, "He was smart, but he was lazy. He probably could have been a straight-A student if he'd applied himself." With eight years in the Senate, his legislative record was thin. Says a former adviser: "While the Senate is filled with ambitious men who aren't in a rush to get home at night, Senator Thompson kept a lean formal schedule, did the bare minimum to get by and then hightailed [it] to the Prime Rib or the Capital Grille." link 3

If you'd like more examples Aquilla, I can supply all you need. It doesn't exactly take a ton of research.

As for the political sport of gutter-jumping, I'm afraid I have to claim at best, bronze medalist status. When it comes to getting down and dirty with the personal attacks, you're the one bringing home the gold.

Example: let's consider your thing about Congressman Ron Paul.

• 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.
  
• People here have complained that Ron Paul isn't getting any coverage. Some sort of grand conspiracy I suppose. Fact is, he's not a viable candidate.
  
• Support Ron Paul, ok by me although you could just as well support Don Quixote as a write-in for all the good it will do.
  
• I'd pretty much support any of the GOP candidates over the evil three Democrats, except for Ron Paul. The guy is a complete idiot and his mother dresses him funny.
  
• If North Korea wants to attack South Korea, oh well, Paul doesn't care - not his problem. Iran wants to attack and destroy Israel, Paul doesn't care. He doesn't think they'll do that, but what the hey, if they do, not our problem. Israel has nukes he claims so they can take care of themselves. And oh by the way, he wants to get rid of both the FBI and the CIA - kinda sorta. As soon as I can stop laughing at this idiot's interview and stop rolling my eyes, I'll pull up a few of his more "interesting answers" for discussion here. This guy is a nutcase.
  
• If you're saying Ron Paul doesn't think he has a chance, then why is he asking people for money to run? Do we possibly need to add thief to the idiot, liar list for him?
  
• When Ron Paul tells you what he's going to do as President, he's being one of two things. An unrealistic, niave idiot, or a bold-faced liar. I choose idiot because I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Which would you choose?
  
• Next week on Meet the Press, they are going to spend (waste) an entire hour on an in-depth interview with Ron Paul. This will give him the opportunity to prove to all of America just what an idiot he truly is.
  
• Ron Paul. He's an idiot. Let him run on the Libertarian ticket and get a few thousand votes and raise a few million dollars off the Internet. He's the GOP's version of Howard Dean who by the way is also an idiot.

What are the rules to "honest debate?" The first one is to engage in it with someone who debates honestly. That may not be me, but it definitely ain't you.

1. Which Democrat and Republican candidate do you think has momentum going into Florida and Super Tuesday?

I think Huckabee's showing (or lack thereof) in South Carolina has doomed him. McCain has the obvious momentum on the GOP side, but Romney leads in both total popular vote and total delegates to this point. This is not often pointed out. Romney is actually winning to this point.

I think Obama still has momentum. I find it hard to believe that the fact that Obama TIED in both Nevada and New Hampshire, both of which were portrayed as a losses. Yes, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama got the same number of delegates in Nevada and one MORE in New Hampshire, which is the only thing that matters.

Bill Clinton has gone so negative on Obama I'll really be surprised if it doesn't come back to bite Hillary. I thought I was flashing back to the 1990s when I saw Bill just making stories up about Union officials threatening potential voters with schedule changes if they we voting for Obama. Yeah, I believe a union official is going to blurt something like that out in front of Bill Clinton. And I got a good deal on that bridge too!

2. Who do you think will win the Democratic and Republican nominations?

In all likelihood it will be Clinton. They will go negative even worse than they have to this point and sink Obama's chances by portraying him as inexperienced (probably true) and unelectable (very untrue) not to mention he's black (oh wait, "spade work" "shuck and jive" "flapping his gums" and other undertone racial remarks are already in play).



3. Texas and Ohio have their primaries late – March 4. Will Texas and Ohio be irrelevant by the time they hold their primaries or will they be king or queen makers?

I think they will be in play for the GOP. For the Democrats, it depends on how Super Tuesday shapes up and how the party sees Obama--viable or not. I'm thinking that they are still in play for both sides.

Bonus question:

4. Do you anticipate any “surprises”?

Would the Clinton machine running over Obama be a surprise?

I will be surprised if it isn't down to McCain/Romney by Super Tuesday.

Well actually I do make many attempts at dialog here, its my position on these issues that has me at opposition with most people here. Im a Conservative Republican, in support of the war, and thats a highly unpopular position to hold on this site. There are literally about 5 members on this site who largely share that position, who additionaly make post from time to time. Its a small portion of the active posters on this site. Usually when I make a point, whether it has a link or not, I'm going to receive a fair amount of criticism for it, and if I make a criticism on someone else, I'm criticized, lol. I'm not exactly on my turf here, on some of the most frequently debated issues, but I welcome those criticisms and try to address them the best I can

Now you seem a little agrevated, because Ive openly criticized many of your views, in this last quote of yours in regards to me Im called a troll with pathetic fixations. Hmm ok, my response? I disagree, lol

BOF


I gave my response in regards to the subject of the forum, but when I read Nightimer say "John McCain is too damn old. He's cranky, wrinkled and recycling riffs from his 2000 campaign." what can I say when a member points out that given his common stance he should know better, other than I agree that I believe its a comment that shows a degree of profiling someone on looks. Now thankfully he later apologized and said it was a joke.

In regards to the election like I said its hard to say at this point, but I think the most likely scenario would be a McCain Vs. Clinton presidency. Thats more of a best guess at this point than anything.

You know, I had heard Clinton's proxies using words like that, and it shocked me a couple of times before I realized that it is a pattern. I can't believe that she's getting away with this. You would think that it would backfire in South Carolina among the black electorate at least. I have only heard the word "spadework" twice in my life, and both times it was uttered by Hillary Clinton about Barack Obama. She is not known for choosing words randomly.

He may be 51 delegates ahead of Dennis, but he is 71 behind Obama. Obama, who is in second has 31% of the delegates through the four contests, and Edwards only has 13%. It appears that he is making a run for second seat at this point.

I agree. John McCain, while I don't agree with him either (and am somewhat completely disenfranchised with politicians), he most likely is the choice that Republicans need to make.

Robert Novak, this week in his column said it best I guess....


So, in my terms... Romney makes me feel dirty. Like I have to bathe in bleach dirty. Giuliani has more skeletons in his closet than Clinton (and makes comments about 9/11 every 6 seconds), and Huckabee makes me want to charm snakes and pass the offering plate 6 times. McCain is who is left over. I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Very good points here. I can't put my finger on what it is about The Glove, but I just don't like the way I feel after listening to him talk. Like I said in a different thread, it sometimes comes down to a gut feeling, and I don't know if it is all of the spicy bean dip I ate watching the games last night, or Mitt that puts that acidic taste in the back of my throat, but I sure don't like it. I doubt that it is heartburn, honestly.

One reason that does push me further away from The Glove is the constant bashing of all the other Republican candidates by the conservative talking heads. I have always found Beck entertaining at the very least, but since he has stood behind The Glove, I have to turn his show off. I get tired of Beck bringing up McCain-Feingold. I honestly have not heard anything substantive from him against a McCain presidency, and continue to hear the excuses as to why The Glove did what has been brought up from his political past.

As far as a Giuliani v. Clinton race, that would be considered the race of scandals. Really, which one has more ammo for the mudslinging? It is really hard to tell. I would be embarrassed to have either as the President of the United States.

On a personal level, I agree with a lot of what Huckabee says, which would make him a good pastor. Unfortunately, we aren't selecting a pastor. We are selecting the President of the United States, and thought I think it is great that he has a solid relationship with God, I don't think I want to be preached to by my president. My political philosophy does not support Constitutional Amendments on moral issues. No matter how you cut it, gay marriage and abortion are moral issues. I go to church on Sundays, and I embrace my faith, but there is a line to be drawn. I don't think any moral issue should be in the legislative discussion of any elected official. I don't see any reason why any of the three branches should take a position on either side of these issues.

And even if he runs third in every Super Tuesday primary, he'll have enough to be the king-maker to Obama if Mrs. Clinton maintains her edge. He'll ram his delegates down her throat when he endorses Barack Obama and becomes the veep on the Democratic ticket once again.

No, it ain't you. Just trying to clear up the rules here in case your man makes it to the next level. If that happens, there's a whole lot we can talk about there.

I don't think he will though (in keeping with the topic in this thread). I think the Clinton machine is going to derail him at some point, probably Super Tuesday. Then he and his wife can go on Oprah and have a good cry together.


Aquilla

Wow, talk about an in depth analysis. According to all the reports about Thompson in South Carolina his crowds were larger and more energetic than any of the other campaigns. However, no one really thought he was going to win, so he didn't get the votes. His performance in the last debate and past month on the stump were great. Nighttimer might to step away from politics for awhile. It doesn't get much more vile than the comments above.

Fred got in the race too late, his campaign was immediately labeled over and over again as lazy and it stuck. Rudy's problem is that he's ideologically opposed by many Republicans (fairly or unfairly).

About the Democrats:

One thing to keep in mind about Hillary is that she polls extremely well with Hispanics. The Clintons are viewed very favorably by that community and that should an asset to her in the South and in the West.
She's also doing an excellent job hitting on hot topics like the economy. She has a new intuitive every day. It doesn't even matter that the ideas are absurd (freezing interest rates, and foreclosures.... sounds like Hoover) they keep her name in the headlines.

These primaries are largely about turnout and Clinton has had years to setup the groundwork for this campaign. While Obama has basically only run for President since he became a Senator he just hasn't built up the infrastructure that his opponent has in each state. For Obama to win this thing he needs a groundswell of support to put him over the top. He's a dynamic candidate and there's a lot of excitement about his candidacy. It's a great match up.

If he loses this go round he needs to leave the Senate serve as Governor of Illinois for few years.

I misunderstood your previous post, we are obviously in agreement to the possible future of Edwards, or is it the past...hmm, seems to be he is looking at a similar role.

4. Do you anticipate any “surprises�? There is one possible surprise that I forgot to mention. If it turns out to be Romney vs Clinton, don't be surprised to see Bloomberg enter the race. With the high negative ratings of those two, he might see that as an opening. :?:

There's a lot to say in here.



Well said.



Amen... maybe GOP thought here is that it takes one doppleganger to destroy the other, like two twins, one evil and one good, both more like the other than either cares to admit.

For all its anticipated fireworks, Hillary VS. Rudy would turn a major presidential election into, essentially a stylistic, Coke or Pepsi-type choice. What floats your boat? Fraudulent Blond Woman or Raging Bald Hunchback.

Seriously: on a long list of policy Giuliani and Clinton(s) are virtually identical. As close as major democrats and republicans come in this day of polarized politics.

Both served as executives during basically the same years, during which neither of them took terrorism seriously enough to prevent 9/11; while Bill Clinton was launching mis-guided missile strikes in Afghanistan that did little good, Rudolph was moving new york's emergency command unit onto the 23rd floor of Trade Center number 7, right next door to the largest target on the city's skyline. (Remember, the twin towers had already been attacked once at this point). While Bill was philandering in the oval office, Rudy was sleeping with his mistress in Gracie mansion on mother's day. Today, Rudy says 'tested. ready. go. (Collect $200)' and Hillary says -- well, basically the same thing. The Iraq war would last into either's second term. Get past their respective moral tones, and both are cut from the exact same cloth: Pro-business, welfare reform, tough on crime, soft on immigration 'Repemblicrats.' Both spoke passionately for the slighted white male living on the fringes of a downward economy.

Is this not defeatism from the same party that wants us to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years?



I agree. I've been generally impressed by Barack's ability to even compete with Clinton(s), but at this point I'm wondering if they came into this with a winning strategy or a 'doing very well' strategy. None of their current difficulties can be news to them, but I dunno... I'm anxious to see what happens between SC and 2/5.



On a cosmic level, of course not. Like you say, "Any win in politics is better than a loss." But I think the biggest danger facing Obama is that he could be a demoted to a 1 1/2 constituency candidate -- blacks and youth. A SC win could be easily spun to support that narrative, and nothing would be better for Hillary -- she could cruise to the nomination on the votes of blue collar whites, latinos, women, and the elderly, without having to batter down Barack and alienate black voters. And, on the flip side, bringing race into the debate allows her to woo over white males -- her problem demographic -- by appealing to the first word in that demographic label. Here's what Tim Dickinson from Rolling Stone said about it:



For me, that there shed a lot of light onto the Clinton's strategy. She's campaigning lightly in SC -- personally, I suspect she's learning to somewhat cede the black vote to Obama, and work for the bigger picture.



I almost count myself in that number.

Putting the critical issues aside -- the war, the economy, our role in the world -- the philosopher in me wants to see the democrats win simply to restore equilibrium to the universe. I don't take that part lightly, and I don't think I could actually bring myself to punch a hole next to John McCain's name, even though I like the guy -- he runs wonderfully positive campaigns, and he should be applauded a thousandfold for that.

But the flip side is that I can not, in good conscience, return Bill Clinton to the white house for a third term. It's just against the spirit of the constitution, of every thing democracy is supposed to promote. And I say that as an admirer of Bill Clinton.

Hey Aevans176, you might want to wash your eyes out with Clorox if you caught Mitt's schtick yesterday.

Remember that video of Michael Dukakis driving a tank looking like Snoopy in military drag? Here's an even more phony one. Watch this video of Willard M. Romney meeting with the Black folks on MLK Day. I mean Who Let the Dogs Out??? That song is almost EIGHT years old, for Chrissakes! Couldn't Mitt have least thrown his hands up, flashed some gang signs and said, "Crank dat?"

At the risk of offending net2007, Mitt Romney is the Whitest Man Alive.



Don't kill the butcher that cuts the meat, nemov. If you don't think the commentary can't get much more vile you haven't been paying attention.

This just in: Fred's out. You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

nighttimer



It takes more than that to offend me, but your wrong about Romney, Wrong I say! How could you think such a thing?

Michael Jackson is the whitest Man Alive, everyone knows that.


I actually don't care for Mitt as a candidate much, I don't want to see him be our nominee, he will lose in the general election. I think McCain can overcome him though.

I am delighted with Obama's win in South Carolina.

He won by a majority (55.4%) - not a plurality - doubling Clinton's vote totals in the process.

http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/scsec/scsec...prisw-012608.pl

I think this gives him momentum going into Florida, "Super Tuesday" and then Texas and Ohio.

Despite that, I'm not taking his nomination for granted.

According to Real Clear Politics, Clinton still had an average 10% national lead in early January. That is down from her 25% positive spread in November and I anticipate that Clinton will lose and Obama will gain in national polls as we go forward.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/?poll_id=191

BTW: Endorsements by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy an Caroline Kennedy have not hurt Obama's cause. Ah, a wink for Ted - Kennedy of Course.

1. Obama and McRomney
2. Obama and someone I won't vote for
3. Irrelevant
4. God I hope not.

3. Texas and Ohio have their primaries late – March 4. Will Texas and Ohio be irrelevant by the time they hold their primaries or will they be king or queen makers.

It now appears the Texas and Ohio primaries will be relevant, especially for Democrats.

I'm not sure about Ohio, but I'm hoping we can overcome the assortment of goat ropers, rednecks and other misanthropes to give Texas to Barack Obama.

Goat-roapers?

Yes, I have to agree with BoF here that the late primaries for the Democrats will be especially important. In case you missed Howard Dean's interview this morning with CNN, he stated that he wants this matter settled sooner than the Convention so as to really give the Republicans [who by and large will be running McCain]. So that probably won't impact the election for darn, but hey. It will be very unfortunate if the pattern in these late primaries goes Obama/Clinton/Obama/Clinton and so forth.

That should be "goat ropers."

Here's a definitioin.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goat+roper

The momentum is clearly with Obama now. If there had been more time he probably would have even taken California(although it really doesn't matter too much cause the delegates are split up).

What I am curious to see is if Hillary Clinton will try to move the goal posts when it gets closer to the end and claim she should get the delegates from Florida and Michigan even after she already agreed with all the other candidates last year that there would be no delegates from those states for having their primaries early.

I think you're right. The gap is so narrow between Obama and Clinton now, but I think his message is resonating more in the national polls.

Of course she will. It's politics. It was security for her to agree so in case Obama were in the lead, he couldn't widen that margin; and if she were falling behind, she could drum up that support from seemingly "no where." Alas, it's a game of horse-trading we love so dearly.

I think both of you are correct. Look at the current Democratic figures on Real Clear Politics. Do you remember when Clinton was 20 or so points ahead nationally?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Ah I love polling. This year it's been such a disaster by way of... well, everything. I don't tend to trust the polls anymore, but I find that extremely interesting and I think it just goes to show Obama still has monentum looking ahead.

MSNBC has just confirmed that Mitt Romney is dropping out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. This, of course, gives McCain momentum and might well propel Mike Huckabee into the vice presidential slot.

Oh smoof.

I think McCain promised Romney the VP slot more than Huckabee.

I never thought Romney would do this. That's incredible. He didn't do so badly on Super Tuesday, either.

He's officially "suspending", which he's probably doing to maintain some control over his delegates.

Romney to Suspend Campaign

Yes, which is also the move Edwards made.

I'm just curious, does anyone know what would happen to his delegates if he "ended" his campaign? Would they go back and crunch the numbers and redistribute to McCain, Huckabee and Paul?

The Romney decision surprises me. He is ahead of Huckabee. It will be interesting to see what will happen going forward... Will the more conservative Republicans now move to Huckabee?

There has always been a sense that Romney, as a smart businessman, will cut his losses at some point if he fears he cannot win. I was actually impressed by his passionate speech on Super Tuesday. It was the best one of the night in my opinion. Now a couple days later, he's done. That's politics for you.

Well, it leaves room for his bid in '12 if a Democrat wins. He wants to be a unifier in this race, and what a better way than to "take one for the team?" It's an altogether smart move. He says as much in his suspension speech that he's doing it for the country.