The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

The first important political moment of 2008 happens early this year...January 3rd.

Whichever candidate wins the first one gets tremendous free coverage and frankly, looks like a winner to their party. The bandwagon effect is monumental, proven last time by John Kerry. I don't know why a bunch of corn-fed midwesterners get to have such an honor, but I think it is one of the reasons why corn gets so much federal subsidy.

Who is going to win? Will Iowans vote for New Yorkers?

The polls show Romney has been ahead for a while, but suddenly Huckabee has caught up. Clinton and Obama seem tied today, but Edwards is very close behind the top two.

This site has many of the current polling results... http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/iowa.html

This site allows you to make your own prediction and get paid if you are correct...

http://www.predictify.com/predictify.aspx?SearchText=iowa&gclid=CMuA8PmbhZACFTyKOAodLkRtvQ

Huckabee has got the mo going his way. The more old time republicans I visit with across America the more I hear they like him and think he can beat Hillabill.

The way all these caucuses and primaries are compressed into a short time period may make it quicker to see who sprouts into the lead. Would you short Rudy and go long on Huck?

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

Originally posted by FOTD

Huckabee has got the mo going his way. The more old time republicans I visit with across America the more I hear they like him and think he can beat Hillabill.

The way all these caucuses and primaries are compressed into a short time period may make it quicker to see who sprouts into the lead. Would you short Rudy and go long on Huck?

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell

---

Huckabee vs. Hillabill will definitely be a nail biter like the Bush/Gore election. We might even see the Supreme Court become the "decider" again. Oh, who am I kidding, like W will allow an election? The clock is ticking on the countdown to the declaration of Marshall law. [;)]

Yeppers. Mike Huckabee is saying god is pushing up his poll numbers.
http://www.falwell.com/index.cfm?PID=16037
Let's go Huckster....Gawd!

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell

I figure Huckabee's got an outside shot at winning the whole thing...

More likely though, is whichever previously pro-choice repub candidate wins... the nominee will use Huckabee as VP... the key word in that phrase is "use"... [;)]

HOLD IT.....I thinketh Darth Cheney has used Bush II. Not the other way around.

Hillabill will choose who to use? Bill can't take the position.....'scuse the intended joke.


The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell

A key question in Iowa will be who got all the second place votes....

Will Obama be the comeback kid?

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell

Democrats

Barrack is seen as an honest individual. He pretty well takes the party line on all the issues and has released some plans to facilitate them - some of which have drawn criticism as unworkable or ill-fated.  In addition, many fear he lacks the experience needed to govern (State then US Senate = 10 years in office).  Also, he's black... Iowa is fairly progressive but some rural farmers in NW Iowa have never seen a black man, let alone voted for one.  Ironically, he has also received criticism from some Black organizations for being "too white."  It is also commonly mistaken that Obama is a Muslim (Hussein...) - he is United Church of Christ. I

Hillary, on the other hand - is seen has having national potential.  She is perceived as having the experience (6 years in office) and a been-there done there rockstar husband.  She basically holds the party line but loses points with many because she has refused to release any details or be tied down by a position.  Polls have indicated an image problem as being power-hungry and unfriendly which was hurt by Iowa media reports of stiffing a waitress on the campaign trail.  She has an advantage because she is well known - but a disadvantage because she is well known.

Edwards is a non-entity.  It would be like voting Tofu as your favorite food because you can add flavor later.

Looks like a toss in Iowa between Hilldog and Husein O'Bama.  Hillary might have an edge as some rural farmers in Western Iowa have never seen a black man before, let alone voted for one (sry, I'm from Iowa so I can say that.  Right?).

Republicans

Rudy Giuliani is too liberal for most Iowans, let alone Republicans.  Probably has strong support in Des Moines and Iowa City (U of Iowa) but outside of there it would be sparse.

Fred is a middle of the road guy for the most part, seems to be a non-issue in Iowa.

Mike Huckabee seems down to earth and should appeal to the base.  His strict ties to the baptist religion is probably an issue for many Iowans (Baptist College, Baptist Minister...etc)  and his desire to teach creationism surely doesn't go over well with some in an education oriented state.  Takes the party line on abortion (no), gun control (no), the death penalty (yes, but not in Iowa FYI), and the Iraq war (yes, I guess...).  He also supports the fair tax.  However, he carries some baggage from Arkansas scandals.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon.  For some reason that always comes up first...  probably an advantage in Iowa against an ordained baptist minister.  In fact, many of the Catholics (Iowa = majority Catholic) can relate to the perceived religious biased thing (aka Kennedy) but nonetheless Mormons are not well understood by many.  More importantly to many he was a self-made business man (Stanford, BYU and Harvard educated).  HOWEVER, his views have flip flopped from various positions to fall into the party line.

Toss up between Romney and Huckabee.
- - -

Should be interesting.  Both of the republican candidates seem pretty vanilla but have religious issues with broader voters (Mike being a fundamentalist Baptist minister and Mitt being a Mormon).  Obama is pretty vanilla  except for being black (pardon the pun)- which one would like to think is a non-issue.  Hillary seems to be the only polarizing candidate, for better or worse (based generally on the candidate, not necessarily positions).

That's what I see.  Correct my ignorance if I was wrong somewhere.

My Iowa predictions:

Democrat:
Obama - 29%
Hillary - 27%
Edwards - 20%  (I think at the caucus people will polarize behind O or H and leave E out to dry more than the polls indicate)

Republican:
Mitt - 30%
Huckabee - 27%
Rudy - 14%
Thompson - 12%

Ron Paul - 6% (bold prediction, only because I think people are not happy with their choices and will go with an outsider to make a point)

I see no Howard like implosions this year.  The only one with something to really lose is Hillary who set herself up as the odds on favorite.  Well, I guess Thompson could take a real beating too. Everyone else can make a showing and move on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Democrats


Democrat:
Obama - 29%
Hillary - 27%
Edwards - 20%  (I think at the caucus people will polarize behind O or H and leave E out to dry more than the polls indicate)

---

I completely agree with your comment about the Edwards crowd and I'm willing to bet that a hefty serving of those is in the Edwards camp as 'not Hillary' people.  Heck Hillary might even inspire them to support a black man.

Heeeeere's OPRAH!

What did Adam say to Eve their first time? Stand back, I’m not sure how big this thing will get.  

I predict that Edwards will make Iowa very close and might win it.

Hillary and Obama will do well in the cities, but Edwards will sweep rural Iowa. The exit polls will be in the urban areas so they TV folk will show Obama and Hillary ahead early in the evening, but when the votes are finally counted, the Edwards campaign will be in full momentum mode.

"some Americans may simply see a vote for Mr. Obama as a vote for faith in America itself. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16rich.html?th&emc=th

If Edwards beats Obama, he will be seen as the "someone besides Hillary candidate."

If Edwards beats Hillary, it will cripple her going forward. One of her strengths is that many people see her as the inevitable winner.

Third place for either Obama or Hillary is bad, very bad. Third place for Edwards will be OK if it is close enough to the other two. If he loses to both of them by double digits, he is done.

First place for Edwards will surge him in the next few states and make him the next President.

The Politico (http://"http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7577.html") has the full text of what they're calling Obama's "closing remarks."  Definitely worth a glance.

Great speech. He is a worthy candidate to be my President.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

Great speech. He is a worthy candidate to be my President.

---

Say what you will about him, he's an excellent orator.

We desperately need a President who can communicate and inspire us.

The current one just smirks and lies.

I am an Edwards fan first, but would love to have Obama as my President.

I predict that Edwards and Hillary both get 27% of the vote and Obama gets 30%.

Nobody knows how strong the first-time caucus-goers are going to be. He has energized many of the normally apathetic Iowans.

Do you think that we should elect a President during "wartime" that has never been...?

Everybody is talking about "experience"....

"Ability to lead"

Where does it say any of these ladies or gents mentioned above fired their first "round".

Not important....? Not a critical quality..?



Oh.... My bad...... that is what the Iowa people are isn't it..?

The first round.[V]

I haven't made an absolute decision...

However;
I have not seen any evidence that Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, or Fred Thompson can hit the ground with "guns blazin"....
IED's goin boom...
body parts raining down like confetti...
 and the death count continuing to climb.

This election is not going to be about "happy.. happy.. joy.. joy.." it will be decided on whom can turn this boat around.

hint This boat is on fire.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

I predict that Edwards and Hillary both get 27% of the vote and Obama gets 30%.

Nobody knows how strong the first-time caucus-goers are going to be. He has energized many of the normally apathetic Iowans.

---

I agree, I think Obama will win.  I like Edwards & Hillary, but there is something about Obama that is truly inspiring.  I have been a supporter ever since I read "Audacity of Hope."  What I like best about him is that his speeches are not dumbed down for the masses.  He doesn't speak in sound bites.

I don't have a clue which channel it was on last night, but they were showing the voting process for the Iowa Caucus last night.  I had heard, but never seen it in action.  They were showing "voter training" in the story quite bizarre to see.  Cannon Fodder, did you ever participate in a caucus back home?

Here's another explaination of it from Wiki:

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

I think Chris Dodd could be a dark horse.  This guy is more disciplined than Hillary, has never misspoke, and just seems solid as a rock.  He kind of glowers and that could be a problem, but his supporters (firefighters) are more reliable than most in terms of show-up.  They all know his talking points and stick to them, and could help immensely in the caucuses when the third-tier candidates get the boot.

Guillianni (sp) may be a scoundrel and at odds with much of the GOP 'base,' but everything I need to know about him was his reaction to the attacks on New York.  He really showed what he was made of at a gut level.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tim huntzinger

I think Chris Dodd could be a dark horse.  This guy is more disciplined than Hillary, has never misspoke, and just seems solid as a rock.  He kind of glowers and that could be a problem, but his supporters (firefighters) are more reliable than most in terms of show-up.  They all know his talking points and stick to them, and could help immensely in the caucuses when the third-tier candidates get the boot.

Guillianni (sp) may be a scoundrel and at odds with much of the GOP 'base,' but everything I need to know about him was his reaction to the attacks on New York.  He really showed what he was made of at a gut level.

---

Actually, Conan brought up a good point about how screwy the caucus system is in Iowa.  If his supporters are firefighters, that might not help him.  The caucuses require that you be present for 2 or 3 hours that night, which excludes from voting anyone who cannot be there, be it due to disability, active deployed military, or having a job that requires you to work evenings.  I'm sure a really avid voter who waits tables could probably swing the night off, but someone who works in emergency services such as fire, paramedics, nurses, medical staff, etc might have a harder time getting off.  Especially the entire workforce which is what the strength of having the backing of a certain group is good for in the first place.  Almost seems a little unfair.

On the other hand ...

I find Iowa's system refreshing because it requires a bit of dedication and interaction before you actually vote. Let's face it -- sometimes voters make decisions in the booth for shallow and glib reasons.

These people in Iowa are genuinely invested in democracy, so I have no problem with it. It's their primary, so they have a right to run it the way they want.

I'm not sure this could be feasible on a national scale, however.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tim huntzinger

I think Chris Dodd could be a dark horse.  This guy is more disciplined than Hillary, has never misspoke, and just seems solid as a rock.  He kind of glowers and that could be a problem, but his supporters (firefighters) are more reliable than most in terms of show-up.  They all know his talking points and stick to them, and could help immensely in the caucuses when the third-tier candidates get the boot.

Guillianni (sp) may be a scoundrel and at odds with much of the GOP 'base,' but everything I need to know about him was his reaction to the attacks on New York.  He really showed what he was made of at a gut level.

---

Dodd's got about as much clout as Gravel.  I really don't see this.

Far right conservatives need to get over themselves about Rudy.  He kicked donkey as a prosecutor and under his watch as mayor, corruption, deficits, and violence was reduced to near nothing for a city it's size.  It went from being many people's idea of Hell to being a pretty liveable and safe city.  So what if he's diddled and he's got a P.O.'d ex wife or two?  Aside from the smoking hole where WTC used to be, NYC was far better off the day he left office than the day he took it.  That's indisputable.  That's leadership.  

Thing is, Mitt's got a proven track record as well from the Olympic Games to a relatively successful GOP governor in a liberal state.  So's Huckabee if you look at what all he had to clean up following Tucker and Clinton in the Governor's mansion.

If it wouldn't devolve into something incredibly self-destructive, I think it would be fun to watch a general election race between Clinton and Huckabee.  I'm sure both camps have plenty of **** bombs to drop on each other.

"This is the most important election of our lifetime."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2233638,00.html?src=rss

A nice perspective on what's goin' down this season.

The Guardian sucks unless you want to know the current talking points of the DNC.  England has been trying to manipulate our political system ever since we dumped the tea in the harbor. [:P]

I'm trying to figure out why people still pay Michael Tomasky for his political op-eds?  They are all the same, they could just re-run his old stuff and save some money.  Reads the same, just the names are changed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

The Guardian sucks unless you want to know the current talking points of the DNC.  England has been trying to manipulate our political system ever since we dumped the tea in the harbor. [:P]

I'm trying to figure out why people still pay Michael Tomasky for his political op-eds?  They are all the same, they could just re-run his old stuff and save some money.  Reads the same, just the names are changed.

---

Well, see there?  You learn something new every day.  Silly me, not being an avid reader of British papers, I came across this in my travels and thought it had some interesting insights into the elections.  

Now I'll be sure to discard Tomasky as soon as I see his name in print.  Likewise the Guardian, and this despicable DNC which you seem to believe is pulling the ideological strings transatlantically.

You won't see this in any newspaper in Tulsa....
AMES, Iowa

Op-Ed Columnist
Deign or Reign?

1-2-08

By MAUREEN DOWD


Edith Wessel, an 80-year-old white-haired retired nurse, moved slowly up the aisle with her walker after listening to Hillary make her pitch.

She told one of the Hillary volunteers that she had “great admiration” for the senator, but also great doubts about whether her strong negatives would sink her in the general election.

“I can’t understand why people dislike her so much,” Mrs. Wessel said.

The volunteer assured the wavering caucusgoer that the Republicans will slime anyone who gets the nomination and that Hillary has more experience wrestling them than her rivals.

Mrs. Wessel is torn. She likes Obama but worries about his experience. She likes Hillary but worries about her baggage.

The presidential anglers here are dancing on the head of a pin. The Democratic race — three lawyers married to lawyers who talk too much — is very tight and very volatile. Even the jittery pack of seasoned political operatives gazing into their BlackBerrys doesn’t seem to have a clue which way the Iowa snowdrifts are blowing.

Across town, Nancy Hibbs, a 57-year-old nurse, came to listen to John Edwards give his son-of-a-mill-worker rant against corporate greed, complete with a sneer aimed at Obama that anyone who thinks you can “just nice” the carnivorous Republican fat cats into submission is in “Never-Never Land.”

Ms. Hibbs had decided after seeing Barack Obama a year ago that she would vote for him. She saw him again Monday night in Ames and felt even more certain that he was the one. After listening to Edwards for 40 minutes on Tuesday, she up and changed her mind, deciding to vote for him.

“You can tell in his voice he’s not playing the game, you can hear his moral commitment,” she said. “We need a big turnaround.”

And what about Hillary? “I don’t want the same old entrenched politics,” she replied, adding emphatically, “And I don’t want Bill in the White House again.”

But Bill very much wants to be in the White House again. He is going around the state relentlessly, giving a speech as tightly choreographed with Hillary’s as a “Dancing With the Stars” routine.

“Miss Bill? Vote Hill!” reads one button being sold outside their events. By the time Bill and Hill are finished with you, you could be forgiven for thinking that she had personally forged the peace accord in Northern Ireland while socking away the $127 billion Clinton budget surplus and dodging bullets en route to ending ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

The Big Dog pushed the experience card hard. “Whatever’s fixin’ to happen,” whether it’s something like 9/11, Katrina or Pakistan, he said, Hillary is better equipped to face it.

As to the health care debacle, he said, “Every president will fail at something or another.” It’s how they dust themselves off that counts.

And whether she has learned from her mistakes, of course, is the heart of the matter, and something that voters can never really know — even if they study up as much as Iowans.

Has Hillary truly changed, and grown from her mistakes? Has she learned to be less stubborn and imperious and secretive and vindictive and entitled? Or has she merely learned to mask her off-putting and self-sabotaging qualities better? If elected, would the old Hillary pop up, dragging us back to the dysfunctional Clinton kingdom? She is speaking in a soft, measured voice in these final days, so that, as with Daisy Buchanan, you have to lean in to listen. But is she really different than she was in the years when she was so careless about the people around her getting hurt by the Clinton legal whirlwind that she was dubbed the Daisy Buchanan of the boomer set?

The underlying rationale for her campaign is that she is owed. Owed for moving to Arkansas and giving up the name Rodham, owed for pretending to care about place settings and menus when she held the unappetizing title of first lady, owed for enduring one humiliation after another at the hands of her husband.

Oddly, Barack and Michelle Obama also radiate a sense that they are owed. Not for a lifetime of sublimation and humiliation, but for this onerous campaign, for offering themselves up to save and uplift the nation, even though it disrupted their comfortable lives.

Michelle told Vanity Fair that Americans would have only one chance to anoint her husband, vowing “it’s now or never” and explaining “there’s an inconvenience factor there” and a “really, really hard” pressure and stress on the family that can only be justified if her husband can win the presidency and “change the world.”

She told a group gathered at a nursing home in Grinnell on Monday that “Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics.”

So it comes down to this: Will Queen Hillary reign? Will Prince Barack deign? And who is owed more?

I call shennanigans on the caucuses and their importance. All the fuss over 200K participants? And if it was such a fulfilling civic duty, why are like 50% of participants every year first timers? How is that even possible? I get that the process illustrates how candidates can warm up a crowd at the retail level, but it is a sop to real 'townhall' democracy because once that is over the campaign becomes an air war almost exclusively. All that time and money and the most the Parties can garner is 10% of the population to participate? What does that say about what the Parties have done to our democracy?

What will the headlines be if Hillary finishes in third place? It could be a devastating blow to her campaign. Third place for John McCain could be huge however.

This field will narrow to three each after this week and to one each in the next five weeks. Iowa is huge because it is the beginning of a sprint after a marathon of preparation.

Hildog has set herself up for failure, anything but a major victory is essentially a defeat.  I do not see a good prospect of her joining anyone else's campaign because she is to dividing of an influence - not to mention it would be humbling for her.

I'll be waiting tonight to see what happens on the  democrats side... and who wins 3rd for the Republicans.

I think you're right about Hillary.  She set herself up waaaaay too early as the "inevitable candidate," which in retrospect is something of an all-in strategy:  meaning, if she turns out NOT to be inevitable, it also means she's NOT invulnerable, that perception has been what she's been banking on.  Her record, after all, isn't really much stronger than Obama or Edwards, and her likeability quotient is much lower.  Invulnerability was only big thing.  That and Bill of course.

I think it's Obama's to lose, honestly.  I've been reading about lower-tier candidates who've been instructing their caucus-goers to put Obama down as their second choice . . . and, per caucus rules, if your first choice loses, your vote goes to your second candidate.  

My wife and I were going to try to get our voter registration cards in in time for the OK primary in Feb, but I really think it'll mostly be over at that point.  Knowing tha this has been the most expensive campaign ever in American history, and the first ballot hasn't even been cast, I think most of the candidates will bow out quickly after one or two losses.  They just won't have enough money to continue. And we'll know our general election candidate sooner rather than later.

Whoa: The final Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll before Iowa's caucus on Thursday showed Obama surging to a four-point lead over Edwards at 31 percent to 27 percent. Clinton fell to third place at 24 percent. Confirms Vaunted Des Moines Register Poll of Monday, But with a Faster Trending Up for Edwards and a Trending Down for Clinton. As the BIG MO shifts to Barack:

Election theft won't be tolerated: Obama
CAUCUSES | 'The nice thing is, I'm a voting-rights attorney'
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/721461,CST-NWS-iowa01.article
January 1, 2008
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com
JEFFERSON, Iowa -- White House hopeful Barack Obama came out swinging Monday when asked if he would fight another "stolen presidential election" like some Democrats believe happened the last two times.

But his "fighting" stance contrasts sharply with the vote he took on his very first day in the U.S. Senate where he joined the 74-1 majority voting not to challenge President Bush's disputed victory in Ohio. The Congressional Black Caucus urged him to be the second "yes" vote, but he declined.

At a town hall meeting in rural Jefferson on Monday, undecided voter Bruce Banister, 56, asked Obama, "The last two presidential elections have been very dirty, and for me there have been very serious questions about whether George Bush was even legally elected. I want to know if we have another dirty election and you are the candidate, if you think it is dirty, will you back off like Gore and Kerry did or will you fight?"

Obama replied, "I intend to whoop 'em so good that it won't even be close and they can't steal the election."

After sustained cheers, laughter and applause, Obama added that he would hope to win over enough independents and Republicans in the general election that, "We aren't going to have 47 percent on one side, 47 percent on the other side, 5 percent in the middle and they all live in Ohio and Florida so you only campaign in two states."

Then Obama gave the hard-charging answer Banister was looking for: "If for any reason this thing is close, we will fight it tooth and nail till the end. The nice thing is, I'm a voting-rights attorney as well as a civil rights attorney."

That was enough to persuade Banister, a rare-guitar dealer, to commit to supporting Obama over his other choice, John Edwards, in Thursday night's caucus.

All the main candidates hoping to win Thursday's caucuses criss-crossed the state Monday seeking to win over undecideds like Banister. Obama is locked in an apparent three-way tie with fellow Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Obama did not mention in his answer to Banister the controversy that greeted him on his first day in the Senate. He faced angering party leaders on his first day by voting not to join Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and African-American congressmen in rejecting the vote totals from Ohio, where Democrats say faulty voting machines and bad voter-registration policies threw the close election to Bush.

Obama said through chief strategist David Axelrod that he voted to accept the results because Kerry himself said he did not want to fight it.

At his first three events Monday, Obama faced questions from undecided voters about what he would do to stop illegal immigration. Obama said he would tighten the borders and crack down on employers who hire illegal aliens but would also support a "path to citizenship" for those already here.

Sure, all you know-it-all political junkies think you know it all about the arcana of the Iowa caucus. But here are the cold hard facts that the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know:

Q. Which way is the “cross-over” vote expected to go?

A: As in most years, independents tend to vote Democratic, but this year the GOP is expected to draw the vast majority of cross-dressers.

Q. Is it true that if a candidate doesn’t reach the 15% threshold, there’s horse-trading among the caucus-goers?

A: True, but also trading of cows, pigs, chickens and goats.

Q. Doesn’t the entire caucus procedure violate the sanctity of the “secret ballot?”

A: Well, yes, but ever since The Bushinistas hired Diebold, the government knows how you’re voting anyway.

Q. Doesn’t the 7 p.m. starting time of the caucuses discriminate against single mothers and night-shift workers?

A: Sure, but that’s balanced out by the fact that the farmers also are excluded, since they hit the hay at 6 p.m.

Q. Isn’t it unfair that a small percentage of voters exercise such a disproportionate weight in the voting for the highest office in the land?

A: That’s only the case if you look at the number of voters in Iowa– if you look at their actual weight, then they’re actually underrepresented.

Q: How about the lack of diversity in Iowa?

A: While it’s true that blacks constitute only about 2.5% of Iowans, the largely German population traces their ancestry to such disparate regions as Berlin, Brandenburg and Bavaria.  

Q. Ultimately, will voters value “experience” or “change?”

A: After 7 years of George W. Bush, the voters seem prepared to go for anyone experienced enough to give them the correct change.
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1341

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I predict that Edwards and Hillary both get 27% of the vote and Obama gets 30%.

---

My prediction is pretty close to what the pollsters are now saying...

The only poll I pay attention to is the final one after election night.  I'm usually wary of polls and which out of the various ones out there get picked up in the national media.

I mean, is anyone going to trust a media concern controlled by Rupert Murdoch which shows a conservative leading the pack in the general election, or the NYT to have an un-biased pick in the race?

What I'm saying is that editors and editorial boards can slant elections to their personal preference by citing or manufacturing poll results similar to the results they want to see in an election.  Undecided voters often follow the polls to make their own decision.

If the Des Moines Register says Obama will get 31% of the vote, that's a likely reality now.  If they would have said Edwards was going to get 46% he likely would.  It's not overly scientific.

I think polls are fine for seeing out what the trends are. For instance, polls are indicating Rudy Giuliani is tanking everywhere, and I don't see any evidence to refute that.

But as an indicator what the final percentages will be, polls aren't worth much. There are too many variables from last-minute voters on election day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588

I think polls are fine for seeing out what the trends are. For instance, polls are indicating Rudy Giuliani is tanking everywhere, and I don't see any evidence to refute that.

But as an indicator what the final percentages will be, polls aren't worth much. There are too many variables from last-minute voters on election day.

---

I agree, rwarn.  Polls are very useful for predicting trendlines.  They don't tell the whole story, of course, or predict exact outcomes, but it's good to see where things are headed, broadly.

And as for bias, I've got to tell you, Conan that there're worlds of difference between the bias that Fox News is spouting and what the NYT runs with.  I can agree that bias exists in all of our media, but that doesn't mean that the bias is obscuring the facts 100% of the time and in all places.  It's a matter of degree.  Having read the NYT off and on for years, I wouldn't say that its bias obscures the reporting of fact, and they work hard to keep their opinion separate from their fact.  Believe it or not, the Wall Street Journal is the same way.  Good reporting, lousy opinion.

Fox News, though, is entirely different.  They don't give a rip about fact at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

The only poll I pay attention to is the final one after election night.  I'm usually wary of polls and which out of the various ones out there get picked up in the national media.

I mean, is anyone going to trust a media concern controlled by Rupert Murdoch which shows a conservative leading the pack in the general election, or the NYT to have an un-biased pick in the race?

What I'm saying is that editors and editorial boards can slant elections to their personal preference by citing or manufacturing poll results similar to the results they want to see in an election.  Undecided voters often follow the polls to make their own decision.

If the Des Moines Register says Obama will get 31% of the vote, that's a likely reality now.  If they would have said Edwards was going to get 46% he likely would.  It's not overly scientific.

---

Rupert Murdoch...! Mister Dow Jones.  Scary isn't it Conan....

To paraphrase Karl the Rove, "There's the news and then there is The News..." The thought of this man being able to control so much of the media and facts is frightening.

somewhat similar to living in Tulsa and having "The World"...



 [}:)]

...Go Huckabee!

CNN projects Huck and Obama as winners.  Huck gets almost 10pt lead in front of Romney, but Obama's lead is almost within the margin of error, with Edwards then Clinton.

Of course, there're more precincts to report still, as well.

I'm about as conservative as you can get and there is no way I could vote for Huckabee.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

I'm about as conservative as you can get and there is no way I could vote for Huckabee.

---

Could you vote for Obama?

Obama kicked the **** out of them.  

On the GOP side, Thompson was a distant third w/ 14% and Giuliani finished behind him- ouch!

I don't see Huckabee having a good run in New Hampshire or anywhere on the east coast except maybe NC, SC, and GA.  Rudy could bounce back there, but I think Romney will win New Hampshire.

Obama's got some great momentum.  I'm still having a hard time picturing the Clintons getting humiliated in New Hampshire though.  Richardson pissed the Clintons off by getting his supporters behind Obama.  Sounds like he's figured out who he wants to be veep for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

I'm about as conservative as you can get and there is no way I could vote for Huckabee.

---

Who could you vote for?

quote:

---

Originally posted by we vs us

Quote

Originally posted by rwarn17588


And as for bias, I've got to tell you, Conan that there're worlds of difference between the bias that Fox News is spouting and what the NYT runs with.  I can agree that bias exists in all of our media, but that doesn't mean that the bias is obscuring the facts 100% of the time and in all places.  It's a matter of degree.  Having read the NYT off and on for years, I wouldn't say that its bias obscures the reporting of fact, and they work hard to keep their opinion separate from their fact.  Believe it or not, the Wall Street Journal is the same way.  Good reporting, lousy opinion.

Fox News, though, is entirely different.  They don't give a rip about fact at all.

---

Fox News is actually pretty balanced.  If you are thinking about commentary programs like Hannity & Colmes (Colmes is just the set up guy for Hannity) or O'Reilly, no those are stacked decks for the RNC, just like Olbermann is for MSNBC.

Just because one news outlet reports on, or does more feature stories on let's say some positive things happening in Iraq, and another tends to focus only on the negative aspects of war, which one is more right?  Which is least biased?  Neither if we throw out our personal paradigms.

Yes, NYT has published a few positive stories on the last year on Iraq, but those have been few and far between.

I tend to get my news from a variety of places and question what I'm reading and hearing.  I'm a cynic by nature, can't you tell? [;)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by we vs us

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavoka

I'm about as conservative as you can get and there is no way I could vote for Huckabee.

---

Could you vote for Obama?

---

Of the Democrats he and Richardson are the only ones I would vote for.

Obama shocked 'em with help from new, young voters and independents.  If you went with regular Democratic voters, he would have edged Hillary by a point.  But guess what, Indy's can vote in the NH primary next Tuesday.  He may shock 'em again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Quote

Originally posted by we vs us

Quote

Originally posted by rwarn17588



Just because one news outlet reports on, or does more feature stories on let's say some positive things happening in Iraq, and another tends to focus only on the negative aspects of war, which one is more right?  Which is least biased?  Neither if we throw out our personal paradigms.

---

That's some hardcore relativism there.  "Neither [is right] if we throw out our personal paradigms."  I mean, isn't the right answer, "the one that is factual is the one that's correct?"

I don't know how it happened, but somewhere along the way, it became conventional wisdom to believe that everything that gets reported is not just biased but is also factually wrong.  I'm gonna catch hell for this, but have you thought that maybe no one was reporting good things about Iraq because nothing good was happening in Iraq?  Or more accurately, the occasional good thing was being overwhelmed by the tidal wave of bad?  Why do we have to bend over backward and create this huge conspiracy of falsehood when in fact the truth might be as reported?

One of the crazy things about Huck is that he seems -- not just proud -- but defiant about his evangelicism.  And he's not aiming it towards the Dems, he's aiming it at other Republicans.  I guess what I don't get is, why is he having so much success when he's quite obviousy looking to split the Republican party down the center?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

Obama shocked 'em with help from new, young voters and independents.  If you went with regular Democratic voters, he would have edged Hillary by a point.  But guess what, Indy's can vote in the NH primary next Tuesday.  He may shock 'em again.

---

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/ObamaHQFeature

A change is going to come. Who will go against beating back the politics of fear?