Only 1-percent of precincts have reported, but that hasn’t stopped the AP from projecting Mitt Romney the winner of Nevada’s Republican caucus, largely on the strength of Mormon voters, who accounted for 25-percent of GOP caucus goers. Early returns show Romney taking over 40-percent of the vote, with Ron Paul, John McCain and Fred Thompson jostling for a distant second place. The much more high profile and closely fought Democratic caucus is still underway.
Meanwhile, in South Carolina, where the Republican candidates have campaigned heavily in pursuit of the top spot in today’s primary, turnout is reported to be very, very low.
Three hours into voting, the South Carolina State Election Commission reports that turnout has been low “across the board” for today’s Republican primary here.
“All the reports I’ve received from various counties is that turnout has been light,” said commission spokesman Chris Whitmire.
Hmm. That can’t be too encouraging for Republicans.
UPDATE [1:12 PM]:
The networks have all called the Nevada Democratic Caucus for Hillary Clinton, who leads Barack Obama 50% to 45% with 74% of precincts reporting. Do the math; despite trailing only slightly in recent polls, John Edwards will finish a distant third. Looks like Nevada voters bought into the media narrative that this was two-person race.
UPDATE, UPDATE [4:51 PM]:
Or maybe Obama won. I’m confused.
UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE [6:26 PM]:
McCain wins South Carolina. Just barely.
“Nevada Dem Caucuses Marked by Massive Vote Suppression, Claims Ex-Prexy”
Like the headline? Then here’s the story:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....ssion.html
A Dem’s worst enemy looks to be another Dem.
The Piper
This may have more to do with the low SC turnout than anything else:
“Snow fell in the northern part of the state, which has little snow removal equipment.”
http://news.aol.com/elections/.....2309990001
Meanwhile, AP reports that Romney is taking 50% of the Mormon vote and over half of the total vote. (ibid) Giuliani has to win something soon, or he’ll be out of the race. I predict Fred Thompson’s candidacy would not survive a failure to win, or at least make a strong showing, in SC and my guess is he will not. But the overall picture for both parties will remain muddled until
Super Tuesday, which should bring things into sharp focus. After Super Tuesday, there will be only 1 or 2 candidates left standing in each party. I don’t think the Democratic nomination will get locked up then, but I don’t think Edwards is in the race. On the GOP side, I think it’ll come down to Romney and McCain.
Announcement: Roger Rabbit Endorses Hillary Clinton
Roger Rabbit Endorses Hillary Clinton
I have decided to vote for Hillary in my precinct caucus. It was a tough decision. Yes, Obama is an attractive candidate, and offers inspirational leadership; and, as the British magazine “The Economist” pointed out, “[A]n Obama presidency would close up two of America’s deepest wounds: as a black man, especially one who does not run as a black politician, he would draw the sting of race from its politics; as a young man, he would step beyond the poisonous legacy of the 1960s division Vietnam wrought between liberals and conservatives.”* But as compelling as though arguments are, that’s not enough.
After 12 years of Republican control of Congress, and 8 years of Bush43’s disastrous presidency, there is much damage repair to be done. And there is also a set of great challenges in the areas of health care, energy, the environment, and building an economy capable of sustaining the American middle class in an era of globalization. It will take an experienced politician, wise to the ways of Washington, to accomplish all of this. I have reservations about Obama’s ability to deliver the goods — he isn’t experienced enough with Washington yet to control Congress and get a legislative agenda enacted. Without an experienced and sure hand on the helm, Congress could veer out of control, or into inaction.
Finall, Obama has positioned himself as the candidate of reconciliation, but that’s not what the country needs right now. After 8 years of heavy-handed Republican partisanship, we need at least 4 years of heavy-handed Democratic partisanship to set right the wrongs done to workers, consumers, small investors, students, our troops, and others. There is a crying need to reaffirm the New Deal and at the same time update it to meet today’s needs, especially in the areas of health care and retirement security. It will take more than happy talk from a pollyanna to do that. What’s needed is a pair of walking boots, someone tough enough to wear them, and some good ol’ fashioned stomping and ass-kicking.
Obama will make a good vice president and presidential understudy. The number #2 spot on the ticket is a great place for him right now. It would position him for another run 8 years from now, when he will be more seasoned, more earthy, and better prepared to make the most of the power that will be his when his turn comes to serve in the White House. And his turn should come; but this year, of the available choices, Hillary Clinton is the indispensable leader that our party and nation needs.
* http://www.economist.com/opini.....d=10497371
The bloated gasbag Limpbone is leaning heavily towards Romney – the freaking idiot who will say anything, promise anything, spend almost anything to get elected. I hope he gets the nomination although I don’t see how he can if the greedheads can’t get the religious right to go along.
The greedheads must have determined that they can’t trust McCain and that Romney is more than willing to do what he’s told.
@4 I can’t say I’m surprised. Limpdick would never support McCain, of course; he hates McCain. Who else is there? Huckabee’s not a contender, Giuliani is persona non grata to the hard right, and Romney at least doesn’t have a Willie Horton problem (so far as we know), although he bears an inconvenient resemblance (in many ways, not just looks) to John Kerry. This must be agonizing for Lush. He probably had to pop another half-bottle of Oxycontin to help him make up his mind, and almost certainly did so in a state of great pain.
(chortle)
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Well, it wasn’t easy for me either but I didn’t need any painkillers, although I might need them later (after some of my liberal buddies on HA get done kicking me).
I made a pragmatic decision based on who has the ability to get things done in Washington. I’m more in sympathy with Edwards and more inspired by Obama, but I opted for the most practical choice.
@6
“I made a pragmatic decision based on who has the ability to get things done in Washington.”
That, in the end, is really what it comes down to.
“All the reports I’ve received from various counties is that turnout has been light,” said commission spokesman Chris Whitmire.
Eat it wingnut losers! Your discredited ideology is falling on its face!
“Looks like Nevada voters bought into the media narrative that this was two-person race.”
Goldy – I think that’s the reality, not just media spin, sorry to say. Edwards has got to win something, and soon, and has to continue on a winning streak or he is not, in fact, in the race. I honestly don’t think that’s going to happen.
In any event, I have a schedule conflict on Feb. 9, so if the Democratic nomination is effectively decided on Super Tuesday, I won’t go to the caucus and will attend the other meeting instead.
This idea of who has the ability to get things done in Washington is an interesting one, because the Republicans have a powerful incentive to be against anything Hillary says simply because it’s Hillary.
And Obama would be making a big, big mistake if he agreed to be her veep.
HELL EDWARDS IS A BIGGER LOSER THAN ROGER RABBIT.MABEY ONE OF THOSE 200K VETS WILL SAVE YOU A PLACE UNDER THE BRIDGE.
IF EDWARDS HAS SUCH A PASSION LETS SEE HOW MUCH OF HIS MONEY HE SPENDS ON HIS CAMPAIN AFTER HE USES UP THE TAX PAYER DOLLARS FROM THE GOVERMENT.ILL BET AS SOON AS THAT MONEY IS GONE HE WILL DROP OUT OF THE RACE.THATS THE LEFT FOR YOU. I FEEL YOUR PAIN.AS LONG AS ITS NOT MY MONEY IM SPENDING.LOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSERS
@10 The fact wingers hate Hillary didn’t influence my decision; it’s merely a bonus. It doesn’t hurt her in my eyes! It’s tempting, but a mistake, to focus exclusively on the presidential race; equally important is building up the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate so Republicans CAN’T block Democratic initiatives.
We must, of course, expect pure obstructionism from the Republican minorities in Congress. That’s why we need a president who is wise in the ways of Washington and can figure out how to work around the Republicans, or, if necessary, campaign across the country to get voters to support Democratic congressional candidates to expand the majorities to the point where Democratic congressional leaders can defang the GOP obstructionists.
I would like to see Pelosi and Reid replaced with more assertive and committed leaders.
Part of the problem right now is our dependence on the conservative “blue dog” Democrats elected in 2006 for our majority in the House. They have to be accomodated, because without them, we don’t have a House majority. We need to expand the number of true Democrats in the House so that we have a true majority that doesn’t depend on this marginal Democrats. It’s doable, but will take work, because we need to pick up another 15 – 20 House seats (40 would be better).
We’re looking pretty good in the Senate, because the GOP has 22 seats at stake this fall versus only 11 Democratic seats, and some of theirs will be open seats because they have half a dozen senators retiring this year, whereas the Democrats have no retirements and no open seats. So, we’re certain to pick up enough Senate seats to give us a firm majority, although getting enough for a filibuster-proof majority is a lot iffier — but not impossible. Just difficult and somewhat unlikely.
One of the things that gave me the greatest hesitation about Obama, all along, is the fact he has built his campaign around the concept of reconciliation and ratcheting down the partisanship. Undoubtedly that’s resonating with many voters and accounts for much of Obama’s popularity; he’s seen as a healer and peacemaker. The problem is, that’s just not realistic in the present political climate, and committing himself to seek compromises with Republicans carries heavy risks of giving away big chunks of the Democratic agenda without even trying to enact it. I think that’s unwise, and I’m not willing to sign up for it. I don’t think Obama is being realistic in believing that he can work with the Republicans. There are no reasonable Republicans left; all the moderates and sensible people have been driven out of the other party, and what’s left is a screaming mob. For the next several years, at least, it’s not going to be possible to do business with Republicans and we need to think in terms of forcing our agenda on them, just as they forced their agenda on us. Otherwise, they’ll succeed in keeping the current status quo in place, and we’ll lose the ballgame.
I don’t think there will be a Hillary-Obama or Obama-Hillary ticket. I do think accepting the #2 spot would be a good career move for Obama, and I do believe he might accept it if it’s offered. In the past, numerous presidential candidates who didn’t quite win the nomination, and who said they would not accept the second spot on the ticket, changed their minds and in some of those cases it worked out for them in terms of later advancing to the Oval Office. LBJ comes to mind, for example. But I don’t think Hillary will pick Obama if she wins the nomination. I do think Gregoire could be a dark-horse possibility for the #2 spot on a ticket headed by Hillary, if she wants it, but I don’t know that she does. I hope that Gregoire doesn’t leave the state to serve in a Hillary or Obama or Edwards administration; I want her here as governor, because she’s irreplaceable in that role.
I don’t have a list of preferred v-p candidates. I haven’t thought that far forward yet. Possibly Eliot Spitzer might be a great presence on a ticket headed by any of them. I don’t see any reason to give it to Richardson. If I were the Democratic nominee, I’d be looking over my party’s governors, especially those from big states and key states.
11, 12 – “Yo” is a contraction of the word “yahoo” (as in “trailer park yahoo”) and is properly spelled “y’o.” Like most wingnuts, y’o can’t even spell his own fucking name! So why should I care what he thinks? I don’t. You can go back inside your trailer now, y’o — you’re dismised.
roger….good for you! you keep backing hillary….
but, you might want to read what hundreds of people are saying about the clintons in nevada:
“Bill Clinton is having meltdown after meltdown. On “Morning Joe” today, Lanny Davis called in to push this line as well, and Scarborough openly said Clinton is just making stuff up. Never thought I’d agree so much with Scarborough, but he’s absolutely right, and it was painful listening to Lanny try to parse, spin and triangulate. The Clintons have become utterly shameless. I know many Republicans have felt this about them for a long time, but honestly, I’m just now beginning to recognize it myself. Power at any cost. Hubris. It’s disheartening.” *jen from nevada*
this is just ONE example of a democrat voter showing her disgust at billy’s escapades. even here in very liberal humboldt county ,just by showing up he lost vote after vote for hillary. he doesn’t seem to have his usual “self control” anymore. he is as shrill and whiny and dishonest as she is now…….what a pair!
they showed less than a minute of tape on billy’s visit on the local [liberal] news. people were pissed at the way he acted. god…you libs are so slow on the uptake.
but, please, do nominate the racist and very entitled hillary.
hey rog….your CLONE goldy is backing hillary too. and you know what a kiss of death he is for ANY candidate.
BWAAA HAAA HAAA…………
@16 He’s backing Edwards, you fool.
14, 15 – As I said above, your hatred of Bill and Hillary is not the reason I chose her, but reinforces my feeling that I’ve made the right choice. It constitutes sort of an endorsement by you of my selection, if you get my drift.
That should be 15, 16.
The more invective wingnuts pour on Hillary, the more I’m going to like her.
15, 16 (continued) Oh yeah, one more thing, did I forget to tell you to go FUCK YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!
I actually like Obama, but I disagree with about 90% of what he says. I hate, loathe and despise Hillary and disagree with about 90% of what she says. I’d prefer Obama over Hillary any day of the week: he just seems like a nice guy whereas Hills seems like a harpy.
Well, I won’t be voting for any Democrat or Republican in 2008. I’ve decided that the parties are just too corrupt and crazy for me. My advice is for everyone to vote for whatever third party candidate that is available, even if it means writing your own names in the blanks. Time to take control of the country away from the Democrats and Republicans. They haven’t done us any good.
It’s looking more and more like the powers that be are manure-vering us toward a meaningless, depressing Hillary-versus-Mitt runoff in November. If that turns out to be the case, it may not make a whole lot of difference who wins.
1. Petee-Pipey-Pecker-poo is still a gigantic dumbass.
2. Go Willard!
@23 I think there’s a huge difference between Hillary and Mitt, and I definitely care about who would win that one.
Okay, news straight from the Silver State.
Was there ‘voter supression’? Not on my watch, goddammit. The closest thing I can come up with was the crazy who insulted and berated me and the whole caucus system despite my best efforts to accomodate and placate her before realzing that her choice (Edwards) was not viable. Then Crazy refused to realign (as did three others, but at least they did so nicely, and I commended them for it) and stomped off in a hail of profanity before venting her spleen on the only TV crew in the building (you can eventually check http://www.ktvn.com to see if they post any of Crazy’s hyperventilating – I’m in the white short-sleeved shirt if you’re looking for me).
Aside from that, it was pretty smooth. The only real problem was a lack of registration forms and placement cards. That led to some mad scrambles to get more forms and cards. Not to mention having to explain the whole process to a few people who didn’t know what to expect. I was expecting 36, got 37, and more than half of that number were new registrants I handled personally (yes, that’s legal in Nevada’s system). The caucus wound up Obama 23 (3 delegates), Clinton 9 (1), and Edwards 3 (zero). Crazy and one other bailed after the first alignment. Several people congratulated me on running a precinct almost totally alone (I got a little help from the precinct’s Clinton captain – whose delegate is my landlady – hey, can I slide on a month’s rent now?), and the brownies I spent all last night baking were the hit of the caucus.
Some news and notes:
The Clinton voters were almost all women with one guy in tow, and almost all the women were, well, let’s just say they were past breeding age.
The Obama voters were very well mixed along all lines, with about as many women in the group as there were in the Clinton camp.
The whole process did take a bit more than half an hour, I will admit. But only 45 minutes from first address to adjournment. So there.
And the only out-of-state volunteer in our building was one guy from California who helped me with the fuzzy math of awarding delegates when not all of the caucusgoers voted for viable candidates. I guess Reno is just too far out in the boonies for the Iowa volunteers that were supposedly coming to help. Who wants to bet that if there were any, they stayed in Vegas and were hung over this morning?
And what do I take away from this? Not all that much, aside from some empty plates that held a shitload of brownies. I can take a sort of humble pride (yes, that’s an oxymoron) in having served my community. I chose only to be an alternate for the Washoe County convention next month, because with my schedule as a musician, I could be anywhere in the West at any given moment. And since the apartment complex in which I live is 90% of my precinct, I’m sure I’ll probably hear from Crazy again.
At high volume, no doubt.
And Ron Paul, while finishing in a virtual tie for second with John McCain, only got about 13% of the vote despite spending as much money as, if not more than, ANY other candidate regardless of party. My money holds firm and says he’ll bolt and go back to the Libertarians.
@3: Well reasoned and cogent as ever, Roger.* With the economic and foreign policy shitstorm that is now more than a black cloud over the horizon, we clearly need a Democratic president willing to take this nation on a new course. My fear is Clinton is not the one willing to take the kinds of bold steps that will undoubtedly be required.
As more of an unknown, Obama would possibly be more free in this matter, and has the soaring rhetoric to make it happen. Would he have the mettle to do so? That is the great unknown. The next 8 years will most likely not be politics as usual.
We shall see.
Regards,
*I shall go down with the Edwards ship.
@13: If Obama doesn’t get there, the VP slot would be a waste of his time and his talents.
@9: Re conflict, Feb. 9. Those Illuminati meetings are a major pain, eh? :)
@26 Thank you for your public service, Joe. It’s never easy, and rarely appreciated by those you serve. But it’s important anyway.
@28 I think Obama has both the soaring rhetoric and the mettle; it’s what his effectiveness would be that I have doubts about.
@30 I need to keep the supply of baby rabbits flowing.
@33: A nooner with Peggy? Perish the thought! :)
Thanks, Roger. BTW, here’s some more tidbits from the Nevada Caucus:
According to the NDP website (www.nvdems08.com), Clinton’s victory statewide is only because of her 10-pint win in Clark County, despite the drama over the lawsuit concerning the at-work caucases on the Las Vegas Strip. Clinton lost most of the counties, winning only in Clark (LV) and a few rural counties. By contrast, Obama won a majority of Nevada’s counties, and did especially well in rural Nevada. This bodes very well for the upcoming caucuses and primaries.
And yes, there have been reports of Culinary Workers’ Union officials trying to force their members to caucus for Obama. IMHO this looks like a horrible backfire on the Union’s behalf, and almost certainly was a reason as to why Clinton’s win in Clark County was by as wide a margin as it was.
Roger Rabbit says: Announcement: Roger Rabbit Endorses Hillary Clinton
It was never in doubt in my mind dumb bunny!
Here is the reason she won Nevada: “Hispanics made up 14 percent of Democratic caucus-goers in Nevada today, and they overwhelmingly supported Clinton. She got 64 percent support from Hispanics, while Obama got 26 percent and Edwards got 8 percent.” – CBS News.
Puddystudy: This was expected. When Frank Luntz interviewed the Nevada Debate people, this one Hispanic basically said they would not support Obama cuz he was black. I posted the video. It figgers.
Of course the puny brained 16%ers haven’t been tracking the ethnic cleansing acts the hispanic gangs have been doing in their LA neighborhoods. Puddy has.
Pelletizer: How did I know you’d choose Clinton
It’s simple, really simple. Just about every 16%er who was a poster during September 2005 when headless lucy’s racists rants occured either chose Clinton or Edwards.
You don’t think Puddy isn’t doing his Puddystudy of the 16%ers?
Character counts. The 16%ers don’t have character. They are NEW Progressives similar in thought to the 1900s Progressives.
Pelletizer@33: Go to an animal shelter. You can do it!
roger….goldy was supporting edwards and then he said he liked hillary. which is it goldy?
if it was between mitt and obama i would either not vote or vote for obama. perish the thought…but even though i am a republican i would have to vote my conscience and go for someone that would be good for the country. and that sure isn’t mitt romney.though i must say, obama is a great speaker but is it all hot air? he’s smart and an attractive candidate and i am sure he could learn everything he needed to know as president…but right now his inexperience makes me nervous. we are at war and he is pretty naive.hillary would be a disaster as president. she would offend just as many heads of state from other countries as she does americans. she is just a shrill shrew. fishwife comes to mind. and could she shut her big mouth? she looks like a rabid horse coming at you. for god’s sake ,hill, either smile or laugh….but practice at it so it at least looks somewhat normal.and do we really want the hillbillies back in the white house? come on…i know you are all clinton [bill] supporters but times have changed and haven’t you been listening to him stump for her? it’s appalling. he thinks it’s still pre blog, pre internet era….and that he can say one thing at this town go five miles down the road and say the exact opposite. he is a disaster for her campaign.
They are NEW Progressives similar in thought to the 1900s Progressives.
You are a shit-head similar in thought to that poop-scarfing cur that sniffs around here and knocks everything down with his poop-breath.
21 Shut the fuck up Piper. As a supporter of the war criminal George W. Bush, you obviously have no values. And your ability to judge politicians is a proven disaster.
@38 Don’t let ME stop you from voting for Obama, puddinghead. In fact, I encourage you to do so — are you happy now?
@39 Who needs an animal shelter for that? A public park — any public park — will do fine. A public park next door to a zoo will do especially fine.
@40 Where did goldy support hillary? I missed that post. Can you link to it?
If #41 is the best the 16%ers can project…
Clueless American History Idiot, please place real American historical URLs to refute what I have demonstrated as Progressive history.
You can’t fool. So all you do is scream to no one. Who is coming to your aid? Artfart? He can read let alone understand historical facts.
@40 (continued) Don’t worry, sweetie, you don’t have a conscience so that should be easy for you.
One last tidbit:
From what I’ve heard on local media, online and in person, the general consensus was that the Republican caucus was horribly run, and a lot of people were turned away because the lines (most R sites apparently only allowed people in to their straw polls one at a time) were just that long.
@40 (continued) Okay, when your rant stops long enough for you to come up for air, could you please explain why anyone should pay any attention whatsoever to the opinions of any idiot who voted for George W. Bush? C’mon now, get serious, where does a Bush voter get off by complaining about Hillary (or, for that matter, anyone else)? That’s like Himmler bitching about Churchill …
You see #41, it’s the part of the comment you choose to attack.
My Puddystudy is being solidified every time you post. These easy to read idiot synopses from you help my point.
@48 That wouldn’t surprise me. R’s have already proven they can’t run a corporation honestly, and can’t run a government (even a small one) at all.
So why would anyone imagine they could run a caucus?
what I have demonstrated as Progressive history.
You’ve demonstrated that you’re batshit insane, an object of pity. The crowd you carry water for is despised, reviled and will be deposed.
Johnny_Moronic@53: Pity from you is like someone barfing on you.
You reject the accurate record of American History even after I give you the URLs, since you can’t find tings on the ‘Net.
NO THANKS!
Johnny_Moronic@53: As I said in post#50, every time you post you solidify my Puddystudy. The things you choose to “attack” prove my point. You can’t refute my points above.
So how is your favorite movie “Loose Change”?
55 – You solidify nothing but the crap in your own head. There’s nothing to debate. Your bullshit is flat out bat shit insane stupid. I won’t dignify it by responding to it.
Everyone else here lets me and HL deal with you. So I’m going to stop and let someone else do it.
Jack yourself off with Goldberg’s stupid book. Stupid is as stupid does. Have fun.
You can’t dignify it because you would have to admit you’re ignorant to US History.
If I invested the way you blog I’d be poor – real poor.
You deal with me? How?
Running away from the debate?
Don’t answer real questions?
Admit you are a racist by not answering?
You are an original 16%er and you admitted you like Senator 400 Haircut Two Americas which proved my point above?
Deliver mythical responses with nothing to back them except your gaseous excretions?
I’m still waiting for a single URL to refute 1900s Progressivism? You love to blather but there is no substance.
At least rhp6033 admitted he made a mistake with the stock market. If that was you I would have dusted your sorry ass here. Instead I gave him a gentle nudge because I knew better. With you, when you determined the Puddystudy on Mattel was correct what did you do, you chose not to answer. You are a chicken. I would hate to be your children who’s father is a wimp and a chicken. A measure of a man is to stand up for principles. You stand in quicksand. Bwawk bwawk bwawk…
BTW I don’t have Goldberg’s book, YET!
Eugenics_Project(YLB): What did you do last week on my questions to you on Progressivism? You ran away and blogged on Iraq.
See ya.
You’re not even worth a dismissed through prejudice, the prosecution rests or nuff said.
You are an idiot. The Peter Principle really applies to you.