How the first round went vs. the results we’re seeing now? (Can it be done?) In other words, what role did the second-guess play in shaping the final results? Because the other primaries aren’t going to be like this, no? You make up your mind and cast your vote and that’s it. No mulligans…
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Man, oh man, the second choices clearly went to Obama. I think the really interesting tidbit is the overwhemingly strong turnout for Democrats that received a huge boost from independents and first time voters. Based on the numbers I’ve seen, Hillary Clinton, placing third with the Democrats, received more than 50% more votes the Huckabee got winning the Republican caucuses.
Dems turnout was 224,000 to the Repubs 124,000. Hillary got 29% or around 65,000 votes compared to Huckabee’s 35%/43,000 votes. If this continues, then the Dems are in a very strong position for the fall election.
Right…but how big a chunk can that be? If Edwards and Clinton supporters stood firm, we’re talking about a statistical dead heat or actual loss for Obama, right? Beyond the turnout, how meaningful was this vote, really?
The Washington caucus will be similar. Come out and play…there will be some horses bein’ traded on Feb. 9.
Obama will not do well nationally. The country will never elect a Muslim candidate.
Obama gave a great speech.
Puddy Here: Soon to be erased by Heil Hitler Goebbels Lee
I looked at the moronic predictions of Lee and Clueless Gooberfool (YLB) from last week on Iowa. Predicting Edwards as the winner.
Why do people listen to Clueless Gooberfool or Lee?
Didn’t I call Obama?
@ 3, OM
I certainly plan to! I’m still on the John Edward’s wagon, myself. Like Bob Schieffer, CBS, pointed out many past campaign elections (forget the names, but he listed them) where Iowa selected certain elections. But New Hampshire voted entirely different because it was a different part of the country with totally different logistics and issues. To PPH, Schieffer said he thinks New Hampshire “doesn’t listen to Iowa”.
Still, I’m surprised at Clinton’s lower placement too. May look entirely different in less than a week, when the caucuses back East make their bids. Closer to her home turf.
Granted I didn’t show up last night for the HA’s early caucus, haven’t participated on a real caucas in decades which was a one time only thing. But, I thought after the first vote, there was SOME discussion and haggling? This sounds more like a cattle auction, just hustling them toward the pens. One person from Iowa I read elsewhere stated this evening:
“..it was very interesting, but I don’t really think where I was at was a true caucus. Did a quick count by hands, told Biden’s supporters they didn’t have enough for a viable group. Then we separated into groups and counted, count didn’t match so they counted again, and that was it. No actual caucusing, no 2nd count, nothing. “
PMoron @ 6
I don’t recall making any predictions. I believe I expressed a preference for Edwards – not the same thing.
Got a cite? Of course not. It’s so natural of you to spew bullshit without backup e.g. me accepting some bullshit challenge from you.
Oh and look what your moronic right wing bro @ 4 said about Obama! So sad that you are so ignorant about why the majority of people have turned against your ilk.
You say your man is not Huck but why not? He’s a young earth creationist just like you! Oh I get it, he committed the worse sin of all, he raised taxes to balance a budget!
Lee, put this loser out of his misery.
224,000 people turned out in IA to reject Republicanism.
Let this be an inspiration to all people in all States to do whatever they can to toss the Republicans on their collective asses this November.
You know things are bad for the GOP when, in the heart of the heartland, the Democratic loser gets 1 1/2 times as many votes as the Republican winner. Eat shit, wingnutz!
@4 Is there a Muslim candidate in the race? Who?
@9
A suggestion: Ignore the wretched speck of troll shit (@6). Anything you say or don’t say will be used by the wretched speck of troll shit (@6) against you.
Ignore, then ignore, then ignore.
What I’m trying to say, is just ignore.
@4 It’s Hail Mary time for the wingnuts — they’re down to their last-gasp desperation throw.
@13 No, we tried that, and it doesn’t work. You can’t defend your kitchen against cockroaches by ignoring them. You have to hunt down and exterminate every last one of the little bastards.
Just kidding! I’ll settle for putting them all in insane asylums.
Here’s the reason smart people should vote D this year:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....ith-qwest/
The Dems have chosen Qwest as their official telcomm carrier. The R’s can’t use their spy equipment on them!
Is that smart or what?
But Roger, this is not the real world. This is the virtual world of a blog.
But I think you got my point. I also get yours.
OK. If you choose not to ignore, dig in, and yap.
And Roger, I’ve noticed that you don’t mind yapping…
@6
Actually Puddybud, I predicted Clinton would win, mainly because I’m never right about these things and figured that I might as well put that fact to good use. I feel a hell of a lot better about 2008 than I did before today.
You can post here again.
@9
I have no ability to put Puddybud out of his misery. Sometimes stupid can’t be saved, it can only be mocked.
@19
I wouldn’t mind if puddybud posted here. As it is, all we get from that over ripe tampon is toilet wipe leavings. I too would yap and mock if I had the stomach for it.
@18 My little pink rabbit tongue is all I’ve got, and if I can drive them bonkers by wagging it, why not?
@21 “I too would yap and mock if I had the stomach for it”
More practice will toughen you up for this important task. What we’re doing here is nothing less than saving America from a mutant species that tries to crossbreed humans and goats.
dodd peaked at montlake’s 1-2-08 DL session. kucinich became a non-entity before the caucuses began. gravel and his gravitas continued to be ignored by all media including bloggers. obama’s victory speech was usausa with republican talking points. hrc gave the usual dull speech with a madeline albright clone (or was it ma herself?) in background and the golden-tongued bubba painfully looking over her shoulder. edwards gave a great speech about stopping the greedy mofos who try to run our lives surrounded by regular-looking people and ending with a bruce springsteen tune and his children, wife, and parents on stage with him.
tracked and out.
p.s. this blog would improve dramatically if you intelligent horseass lovers followed this rool about trollz:
http://plush-life.blogspot.com/search?q=trollz
@25
I’m on board!
@ 1,
Actually, according to some entrance polls, the big winner from second-choice voters was Edwards. The summary is here and there’s a link there to the CNN data that gives some interesting demographic breakdowns.
In any event, Obama came in with 35% of the vote, Clinton started with 27%, and Edwards started with 23%. Obama picked up 3 percentage points, Clinton picked up 2 percentage points, and Edwards picked up 7 percentage points in terms of the final results.
@6 “Puddy Here: Soon to be erased by Heil Hitler Goebbels Lee”
I can’t think of a more deserving gnat for it to happen to, except for the departed-and-unlamented JCH.
@25 B-b-b-but troll-kicking is FUN!! How would we amuse ourselves if we didn’t kick the trolls?
@25 (continued) Didn’t you ever play kick-the-can when you were a little bunny? Substitute a troll for the can, and you’ve got a great adult game.
Paul @ 2,
I think there are a couple of take-aways, the biggest being Obama going in a winner and coming out a winner in Iowa. If anyone had any question about whether or not Obama was for real, those doubts had to be erased tonight.
Second, this has to be a disappointment for Clinton. Of the three front runners, she picked up the fewest number of second-choices votes. She’s still the front runner nationally, though there’s a good chance that will change due to Obama’s results.
On the Republican side, this has to be a huge disappointment for Romney. He poured tons of money into Iowa, and Iowans weren’t buying. And, while Huckabee won, it stands in stark contrast to Obama’s win. Huckabee wins on, essentially evangelical, home turf. Obama wins amongst voters who are as demographically different from him as you can possibly get.
In a sense, and this sound rather sick, I think McCain now becomes the national front runner on the Republican side.
So, Darryl, what’s the latest analysis on McCain vs Obama. The table you posted yesterday gives McCain a better than 90% chance if winning that matchup, but I get the sense that there aren’t many polls that involve that matchup. Correct?
Proof That Republicans Are Irrational
“For those likely to vote in the [New Hampshire] GOP primary, immigration … is now the No. 1 concern, say recent polls. The state has few illegal immigrants.”
http://www.businessweek.com/ma.....exclusives
Why A Democrat Will Win In November
“Sean Sullivan, an announcer for the Manchester Monarchs hockey team, blames high gas prices and tight household budgets for a 40% drop in attendance this season.”
Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://www.businessweek.com/ma.....exclusives
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Why is hockey attendance important? Because it’s like a canary in a coal mine. If blue collars can’t afford to attend hockey games, the Republicans are finished.
It’s the economy, stupid! Economic worries have displaced Iraq as voters’ top concern in recent polls. That means the GOP has lost their “national security” trump card. Not that they were ever any good at national security to begin with.
@31 “She’s still the front runner nationally, though there’s a good chance that will change due to Obama’s results.”
If her status changes, it will be due to a changing public mood, of which Obama’s results are a reflection. Newsweek says Iowa voters “voted for change.” In a nutshell, people are fed up with the status quo. And that’s bad news for the GOP, because they created the status quo.
For a few weeks now, new polling data have shown the economy taking greater precedence as a motivating factor for voters. I sure hope the Republicans wage this campaigning by bragging about the Bush economy, because for the average person — i.e., Joe Blow who doesn’t own a million shares of Halliburton — the economy is shit.
The official inflation figures are a fucking joke. Everyone who shops for groceries or pulls up to a gas pump or pays a winter heating bill knows that inflation isn’t any fucking 2.5%. A popular misconception is that oil prices are going up. In reality, the value of a dollar is going down — down over 40% since Bush took office. When you sum real inflation, monetary inflation, and dollar devaluation, the inflation during Bush’s 7 years to date is easily in double digits, annually. In other words, this economy is putting more pressure on middle class living standards than any economy since the one Jimmy Carter inherited from Jerry Ford.
Thus, it is no surprise at all that the economy is emerging as THE issue of overriding importance to most voters. One would have to be blind not to see the breadth and depth of economic fear in the land. And THAT means major-league trouble for the party in power — 2008 is shaping up to become the biggest electoral blowout this side of the Depression.
Brace yourselves, Pukes, because a tidal wave of REPUDIATION is coming straight at you!!!
Funny how the last time a Bush dragged his party down into a humiliating defeat it was because of the economy, too! Republicans are just no good at managing the economy. Not that they’re any good at anything else, except they’re good at lying and propaganda, but that eventually catches up with you after you fail to deliver.
Force Roger Rabbit To Work!
But it will take a Democratic president, because Republicans will never change their tax policies that reward the idle rich and punish workers. The last thing they want is being forced to pay the same tax rates as wage earners!
If our wingnut trolls were serious about kicking Roger Rabbit out of his chair in front of the computer and making him do something productive, they would tax capitals gains and dividends twice as much as wages — not the other way around.
After all, why should I work if Congress is going to punish me for working by doubling my tax rate? A successio of Republican congresses and presidents made it clear they want me to sit on my fat rabbit ass pushing dollar signs in little circles and producing nothing. Why else would that tax wages at 35.65% (28% + FICA) while taxing my capital gains and dividends at 10%? I’d have to be stupid to get a job and work!
If Obama has any sense, the first thing he’ll do as president is send legislation to Congress to tax capital gains and dividends at 35.65%, and tax wages at 10%! Then I’ll have no choice but to do something productive instead of flipping stocks all day.
So, wingnuts, if you want to force Roger Rabbit to get up off his cute furry cottontail and do something constructive — you’d better vote for Democrats!
I’m just sayin’ …
By the way — the presidential preference vote in the Iowa Republican caucus is NOT BINDING! The GOP totals mean little more than a straw poll. It simply shows who the caucus attendees preferred. The GOP straw poll results are not binding on any of the GOP delegates at any level. At the precinct, GOP voters write their preferred candidate on a secret ballot. Then, GOP voters attending the caucus choose delegates to the county convention, without any legal relationship to candidate preference. Same thing happens when county conventions choose delegates to the state, and the state convention chooses national delegates.
If Huckabee has a plurality in a given precinct, it is possible that only Huckabee delegates will be elected from that precinct. Or even that no Huckabee delegates will be elected. Basically, each precinct delegate elected has to get a majority support of the caucus attendees from that precinct. And it can be arbitrary in determining whose supporters are elected as delegates to the next level.
By contrast, presidential preference is legally binding in the Democratic caucus. Each candidate who ends up with at least 15% support at a given level elects delegates proportionately to the next level. If 10 delegates are to be elected, and Obama has 40%, then he gets 4 delegates — who will be chosen only by Obama supporters.
This may explain why twice as many Democrats attended the Iowa caucuses, as compared with Republicans. The presidential preference is guaranteed to mean something in the Democratic process, while it is at best indirect in the Republican process.
Washington Democrats follow similar rules as do Iowa Democrats, while Washington Republicans use a similar process as do Iowa Republicans.
@ 38, Thanks Richard (great to see you!)
I think you’ve explained something I’ve been having a real problem with (mind you I’m hearing impaired). I keep hearing the pundits saying PPH the Dems need 50%! 50%! . Trying to figure, because it looked like at least 3-way race, how’s ANYBODY even hoping to get 50% in Iowa?
NOW, I’m thinking it’s actually what YOU’RE saying 15% support , not 50.
That is seriously helpful! Thx
Thorn: Have you ever posted anything commentable by us whom think right?
NOPE! Just a thorn, a pinprick.
You too are vacuous!
Lee you are right. It was Will who called it Edwards. I guess Mr Two Americas $400 Hairspray just fell short.
For Clueless Gooberfool: http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4038#comment-724201
For Clueless Gooberfool: http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4038#comment-724260
Lee: I will keep my vitriol down to a lower level. But I haven’t seen or read any Lee-based rebuke of a certain lefty horsesass poster.
So again I ask why is that?
41, 42 – Those weren’t predictions you idiot. You are too stupid by half!!!