New Hampshire GOP Primary
John McCain 31%
Mitt Romney 26%
Ron Paul 14%
Mike Huckabee 11%
Rudy Giuliani 8%
Fred Thompson 5%
Some other candidate 2%
I look at this and think:
How can Huckabee win one state then come in a distant 4th in another?
What the hell is going on with Fred Thompson?
How does Ron Paul get 14% of the vote?
Can this be a bigger mess?
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Election 2008: New Hampshire Republican Primary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
"How can Huckabee win one state then come in a distant 4th in another?"
because the demographics in iowa are entirely different from those in new hampshire, and the constituents have entirely different concerns and priorities
"What the hell is going on with Fred Thompson?"
fred! is dead, game, fred! is dead
"How does Ron Paul get 14% of the vote?"
simple
many wingnuts have grown frustrated and embarrassed with the lockstep, hawkish neocon agenda, and want a more "american", "cafeteria conservative" approach, where they can pick and choose what they believe works, and discard what hasn't
there is widespread disgust over neocon ambivalence and inaction with illegal immigrants, yesterday's gutting of the initiative to build a security wall on the mexican border, aspects of bipartisan trade policies that have cost america jobs, and a renewed desire for states' rights, particularly on social issues
significantly, when it gets to a point where condoleeza rice throws up her hands in complete annoyance with the olmert regime, increasing numbers of voters on the right began questioning the wisdom of influence of aipac and similar lobbies on us foreign policy in the middle east, and there is a perception among many americans that paul will restore balance by treating israel just like any other foreign, sovereign nation, and realign excessive financial and military aid to commensurate levels
which many see as key to america's survival, with mideast turmoil possibly lasting several more decades
and there is a perception among many that dr. paul is more honest and forthright than his rivals, which is no different from any other republican, or even democrat, who simply finds his particular candidate of choice more to his liking
so what is there not to understand?
the whole crop of candidates is a bad lot, when you look at the big picture
"Can this be a bigger mess?"
yes, absolutely
the difference is the demographics of the two states: age of the electorate, religious preference, etc.
thompson has nothing. dynamically, he makes reagan look like a fanatic. his only attraction seems to be that he doesn't have any of the negatives that each of the other candidates seem to have. but he doesn't seem to really want the job that bad. it's like, yeah, i'll be your president if you anoint me.
ron paul sounds good when he talks libertarian talk. and for republicans who don't like the mess bush has gotten into in iraq, he is a breath of fresh air when he says we shouldn't be there and never should have done it. he's the only one with the guts to say exactly what he thinks. (because he doesn't have a chance).
you should have seen bill moyer's journal last night. he had paul on and then kucinich. it was astounding how similar they sounded in so many ways. as paul claimed to be the only real republican running, kucinich said he was the only real democrat. they both said exactly what they believed because they knew they didn't have to pussy-foot in order not to make a mistake that would ruin their chances.
As 'Dick' Morris said on O'Reilly show, Fred Thomson is lazy. In last night's debate, he also showed that he is a moron!
Ron Paul has some great points when it comes to our foreign policy, economy and civil liberties. Many 'independent' voters like him - they dont look upto their radio talk show hosts to decide their vote!
Where is the proof in regards to your last sentence? Some of the anon's want to talk about personal attacks, but here is another one from the Left.
How do you know I pick my candidate based on what Sean or Rush says?
You don't, making your comment stupid, so if I say you are stupid that is not a personal attack, but an evaluation of your mental abilities based on what you say.
On the other hand, your comment has no basis in fact whatsoever.
Methinks thou doth protest too much. He didn't say that YOU make your decisions on the bleatings of radio wingnuts.
Your overly-sensitive reaction leads me to believe that you view yourself in that category. If you didn't, you wouldn't have automatically assumed he was talking about you in contrast to the "independent voters".
So, using your own formulation, you're the one that is stupid for assuming that he was referring to you when he didn't say anything to imply that he was.
"How do you know I pick my candidate based on what Sean or Rush says?"
well, your positions rarely deviate from their positions, particularly rush, and you do not demonstrate any criticism of their positions
this does not mean that you in actuality do not question their opinions, but the fact that you never express these criticisms, if any, lead the reader to this impression
in addition, you rely on whatever leads on blogs like newsmax and drudge, so the perception is you are simply parroting the day's republican talking points
if you notice, you don't receive half the negative feedback on your local posts, because they seem more spontaneous, and based more on actual events that touch you, rather than the right-wing echo chamber
and, game, nobody stoops to the level of personal invective faster than you do, and that sets the tone for your commenters, so you have to take personal accountability for that
"well, your positions rarely deviate from their positions, particularly rush, and you do not demonstrate any criticism of their positions"
So because their positions match it means that the Game is just a robot? With whom do YOU agree and on how many positions? Have you been criticizing anyone that you intend to vote for, or for any pundits with whom you generally agreee? Such accusations are simply stupid and judgemental. People like Rush are more a reflection of conservative thought more than the creator of it. I would say the same for lib pundits (except I'd say they reflect unintelligent thought).
Exactly...I was talking about 'Independent Votes'!! Also, I never referred to him in my post!
Well...fabrication of facts... again!!
Post a Comment