BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:32 PM

Caucus in Iowa-
The vote in 1784 precincts elected delegates to the county conventions. The county conventions (99 of them) select delegates for the district conventions. For the Democrats, most of the delegates for the National Convention are selected at the district level, the rest at the state convention.
The short hours allowed for the Iowa caucuses means people who work those hours cannot vote. Absentee voting not allowed, so soldiers, etc. cannot vote.

A most peculiar system.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:13 PM

Rig--

It's just that when you said you would "happily" vote for Hillary, the hypocrisy meter went off, considering your not-well-concealed views on religion.

And knowing your views on illegal immigrants, you also may be interested to know that Hillary is now engaged in a big push to win Hispanic votes. Now I wonder what that might entail. Something tells me that might not completely meet with your approval.

Hope you're still "happy" to vote for her.


LH--

Ron Paul:

1) You may not be seeing him as a candidate, but some posters are putting him forward as a potential VP. Caveat emptor.

2) As a Canadian, you may not be aware of the way interest groups interact in the US. But if Paul is pulling votes, he may well do it from anti-war Democrats in states that's allowed in primaries. Also, his anti-war stance is not pulling many at all from McCain. If people expect that "victory" is possible in Iraq, they will not be swayed by Paul. So he is splitting whatever anti-war or libertarian vote there might be in Republican circles. McCain is not even close to a Libertarian. Therefore Paul is helping the strongest pro-war voice, McCain. Since he is also the strongest opponent for any Democrat, this is not helpful.

3) I'm fully aware of Huckabee. Several days ago I pointed out that his populist appeal would evaporate when the details of his proposed tax plan came out.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:18 PM

LH--

Reference is of course to Paul's being a potential VP for a Democrat--no Republican presidential candidate will touch him.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:03 AM

As to why Obama lost New Hampshire, it seems clear the reason is that he was the victim of overheated expectations--as Hillary was in Iowa.

The latest polls were so over the top--in fact his team was trying to dampen expectations--to no avail. ( And there was no time to register the surge in women's votes due to Hillary finally "humanizing" herself.)

This also had the effect of causing overconfidence in his supporters. Some seem to have felt it was a foregone conclusion he would win. I've read that the "youth vote" percentage was actually no greater than in in 2004.   A much higher vote in general--but no "youthquake" --no huge surge of new young voters, out of proportion to the rest. Again, probably due to overconfidence.

Hopefully (take that, grammar police), his young supporters will learn from this.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:29 AM

Any candidate who does not try for Hispanic votes is in for trouble in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and New York. There are 44 million Hispanics in the U. S.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:39 AM

Hmmm. You think some Democractic candidate would take Ron Paul as a running mate? I'd be very surprised if they did. Matter of fact, I'd be downright astonished.

Now, Ron, I really don't think you should be harassing Rinslinger for supporting this or that candidate despite the fact that they have professed religious beliefs....LOL! I mean, come on...don't be so completely petty-minded in your zeal to argue with certain people here, such as Rinslinger, that you try to hold them to every single personal value they have ever exposed about themselves on this forum when it comes to backing various political candidates. To do so is to become like some sort of internet stalker or something.

You know as well as I do that NO American candidate will EVER profess unbelief in God in his or her public role and say "I'm an atheist", because to do so would be political suicide in the USA!

There is NEVER going to be an officially running American candidate with ANY chane of being elected who claims not to believe in God....never. So Rinslinger has no choice about the matter...he has to back someone who expresses belief in God or else back no one at all............and you know it. Or at least you should.

I get the impression that if you also knew his favorite clothing styles, favorite animals, and favorite sexual positions, you'd somehow drag those in to attack him...claiming it shows that he's a hypocrite for backing "X" or "Y". (I'm joking there, okay?) Give it up.

Or did I misinterpret what you said?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 04:04 AM

"Never" - LH? So much for religious freedom then. A big turnaround from the founding fathers. Or would they too have claimed the right to their own religion but denied others the right to no religion?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:08 AM

The founding fathers didn't have to court votes from red-necks in Alabama in order to get elected. The Tele-evangilist hadn't been invented yet, and right-wing-religious wakkos had not begun to pollute the airways with voices like worm-gear-drive Skilsaws raised in a common concert for the stated purpose of maliciously destroying public education.

                The dumber they can make the public, of course, the better chance they have of getting their candidates elected. They discovered that Sunday School was a really good place to start.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:20 PM

What, Richard????????????   I am not saying, Richard, that people running for office in the USA would deny someone's right NOT to believe in God! Perish the thought. Goodness sakes, no! That might lose them some atheist votes. I think you have seriously misconstrued what I said somehow.

My point was that all American politicians always go through the motions of at least pretending to be devout Christians...whether they really are or not...because if they didn't it would kill their chances of ever being elected.

And that's a fact. It's sheer pragmatism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, with separation of church and state, with your freedom to be an atheist, or with anyone's freedom to be anything. It has to do with snagging votes.

It's a cynical and totally predictable pandering to pervasive cultural stereotypes in the search to secure the maximum number of votes from the American voters. (The cases, by the way, where it isn't cynical of politicians to demonstrate their public "piety" would be those where they really ARE pious...as I'm sure some of them are. But when they're not...well, then, they're just doing what they think they must do to get those votes.)

It is not, therefore, any kind of attack on atheists, that's not its real objective at all...so fear not! You can go to bed safely tonight without fear of torch-bearing mobs in a religious frenzy coming to burn you out of your little religion-free condo...you miserable, Godless, heathen, hell-bound....!   Bwah-hah-hah!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:26 PM

Er, I'm not in a condo.

But if someone is unelectable because they are black - that's prejudice.

If someone is unelectable because they are female - that's prejudice.

If someone is unelectable becuase they do not believe in God (or some God or other in particular) that's prejudice too.

We are just starting to talk here about repealing laws that prevent Catholics from holding certain offices (shame about Tony B Liar). Looks like the USA is heading in the other direction. Scary.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM

Yes, Richard, all the examples you gave there most certainly are prejudice. No doubt about it.

I've been dealing with various forms of unpleasant prejudice ever since I emerged from the womb, and I think everyone else probably has too. We'd all like to see less of it.

You have laws in the UK that prevent Catholics from holding certain offices???? That's bizarre.

Such as?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:13 PM

I'd also state that, IMO, anyone who votes for a candidate because she's a woman is as dumb as anyone who'd vote against her for the same reason. Same goes for (and against) blacks.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:33 PM

Absolutely.