thats what i mean, his plans and ideas don’t fit or atleast he hasn’t made the effert to let people see them fit into modern problems such as the war. from what i understand he has the opinion to pull our troops out right away and only work on a deffence strat where we react to attacks but even reacting dosn’t allow us to go on the attack if attacked. although i heard he was in support of going after Osama, he was not in support of the US going into Afganistan to drive the Taliban out. now he may have a reason for that that makes sence, but on face value it sounds crazy and makes him sound like he is as well.
When you think about the Iowa Caucuses or the NH primary keep in mind the numbers effect that those states have on the election. For example, the county I live in ± 4Mill is realy close to equal the population of the States of Iowa ±2.9Mil and NH ±1.3Milcombined. And I live in Arizona, not exactly know for it’s grand metropoli…
So what I’m saying is if your going to have a “preview” primary it might as well be in a state that has virtualy no effect other wise on the outcome of the election. I am sure that is what the NH primary is all about.
i’m not against the idea, but we have it so spread out, even with super tuesday, i think we still have states after that. also we have a spread of states up untell that time. ya they are small states, but they do effect how others will vote when they add up together. your vote should not be effected by how the majority of people before you voted, and we all know people do that.
WOW, a political topic, how did I miss this all this time!?
Just my 2 cents, I think Obamma should win…not going to give a lecture why, just sayin. Also I don’t like Clinton
Can’t remember who it was, but someone had said “Oh, it’s just Iowa” when they were voting, it ended up screwing the guy over as he lost.
I changed the topic name to make more sense…
Thanks Dzrt, I was getting worried. :-D
Perv,
Why do we have to spread it out? We manage to have a general election in one day.
i don’t want it spread out, i’m saying “IF” we keep it spread to do it in blocks, i would much rather have it all on one day so that no state with a low pop gets specal treatment well others with larger and thus more vital pops are ignored.
also add an “a” to the end if you want to shorten my user name, other wise i feel like your calling me a “perv” as in pervert :wink:
also Perva is a word.
accually Clinton had all the intell leading up to the 9/11 attacks, Bush just came into office right before the attacks; he may have had the intell too, but it dosn’t change that Clinton did as well. before that i don’t know as i’m not that old.
This type of speculative post regardinf 9-11 conspiracies or other such issues are EXACTLY the type of post that will result in this thread being locked and removed and preclude any future discussions on the election.
Posters may continue to discuss the candidates, and FACTS relating to their positions or past acts. Conspiracy theories, flames, slander, libel, etc. are not acceptible whether made against Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
STAY ON TOPIC or there will be no topic!
Just as a point of information…
It is not the Federal OR State governments that set all of the rules regarding primaries. THe politcal parties set the primaries and the standards, and then the States have the opportunity to ratify those decisions (and if they do not, the Party can theoretically run their primary or caucus or whatever independent of the State Board of Elections).
NOMINATION primaries/Caucuses are purely a Party function. Some parties (such as the Libertarians) select their candidate at state then a national Convention w/o primaries (though the Libertarians have had primaries in some states in the past such as in North Carolina in 2004)
The order of the Primaries/Caucuses was set nearly a century ago, and it coincides with the removal of such things as Poll Taxes. Not sure if there is a causal link between the removal of poll taxes and setting 2 nearly 100% caucasuan states to lead off the nominations for both parties, but there is at least a correlation even if not a cause and effect relationship. And any change in the order of primaries/caucuses is up to the political parties. For example, the Democrats have fought to keep Iowa/NH first harder than the Republicans. When Michigan moved their Primary ahead of the national party mandate “earliest date” for non Iowa/NH/SC states of 5 FEB, then the DNC voted to strip ALL Michigan delegates oc their right to vote at the Convetion. The Republican party was not QUITE as severe and only removed HALF of the voting delegates, which is why Wyoming only had 12 delegates decided instead of their normal 24… they violated the “earliest date allowed” rule from the RNC and lost half their delegates (which went to Romney).
@ncscswitch:
accually Clinton had all the intell leading up to the 9/11 attacks, Bush just came into office right before the attacks; he may have had the intell too, but it dosn’t change that Clinton did as well. before that i don’t know as i’m not that old.
This type of speculative post regardinf 9-11 conspiracies or other such issues are EXACTLY the type of post that will result in this thread being locked and removed and preclude any future discussions on the election.
Posters may continue to discuss the candidates, and FACTS relating to their positions or past acts. Conspiracy theories, flames, slander, libel, etc. are not acceptible whether made against Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
STAY ON TOPIC or there will be no topic!
i can argue that it was relavent and there are facts to back it, but i see no reason to argue it. it was simply a statment directing at when some one passed the buck to the wrong (IMO) man.
edit: seeing as your on, if this is considered flaming or such deleat this post in favor of keeping the thread open. it was not and still is not my intent to inflame.
Well at the very least it’s off topic, let it go and move on…
thats part of what i was saying is that i am moving on :wink:
Clinton and Mccain won NH.
any one else find it odd that Clinton stool a line from Edwerds and also got teary eyed right before? i think both were just ploys to gain votes and it worked.
@stuka:
If I don’t understand it…. then why did you just state, nearly the same thing here?
I don’t see where I repeated anything.
That’s my point. We can label it a “preview” yet if it was only that, candidates would not take it as seriously.
Hell, have an Oregon caucus or a Arkansas one… I just don’t find it justified for other states is what I am saying if Iowa always gets to be the leader of the choosing. Oh sure, it may not have a direct effect on super tues… but it does carry an underlying one.
Why shouldn’t candidates take the Iowa Caucus seriously? Especially if it is the first indication of how the election might go?
Read more from Switch’s post above.
i can argue that it was relavent and there are facts to back it, but i see no reason to argue it. it was simply a statment directing at when some one passed the buck to the wrong (IMO) man.
I showed how easy it was to pass the buck on someone when no facts are presented. I knew exactly who Balung was talking about, but imitated him in jest. But I could still make an argument for the person I mentioned.
i can argue that it was relavent and there are facts to back it, but i see no reason to argue it. it was simply a statment directing at when some one passed the buck to the wrong (IMO) man.
I showed how easy it was to pass the buck on someone when no facts are presented. I knew exactly who Balung was talking about, but imitated him in jest. But I could still make an argument for the person I mentioned.
i’m not going to reply other then to say, we were told to stop that discusion.
That was a huge win for Hillary last night. That might have put her back in front runner status.
A nice win for McCain too, but I still don’t see him getting the nomination.
Yeah, I don’t see Hillary winning either.
Her haircut alone, should impact her failure. :mrgreen:
I don’t think so, DM. Look at how New Hampshire votes usually. Of course McCain and Hillary ran, they are both the extreme left of their respective parties. Iowa, on the other hand, is more central then New Hampshire, I believe.
It’ll be interesting to see how South Carolina votes. They killed McCain after he rose in New Hampshire in the 2000 primary. Let’s remember, McCain is already a loser, he has to over come that AND push on to win. The other candidates have never, to my knowledge, lost a presidential race (even a primary.) So they already have a leg up on McCain.
As for Mrs. Bill Clinton, I think she just had name recognition in New Hampshire coupled with her history of being ultra-left. But she’s also a part of the old guard and, I think, the people of this nation are looking for a new generation to take over. We’re tired of the Clintons, the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Kerrys, and the rest of them. I find it hard to imagine anyone over the age of 50 getting elected this year.
I don’t want it to be true, but if Mitt isn’t nominated as either Pres or Vice Pres, then my money is on Obama because he’s young, he’s energetic, he’s charismatic and he is not a Vietnam Veteran nor is he an Anti-War Protester/Hippie from the 60’s still clinging onto life because of medical miracles like some of the rest of them.
Actually, if I had my druthers, I’d want Geri Ryan to run for the Republican Nomination. She’d get all those old perverts to vote for her and she’s smart enough to get the women to vote for her too.
i thought Rice would have been a good runner on the R billot, she would have both Clinton and Obama’s “advantages” as a woman and black. on top of that she has real experiance in internatonal afairs.
I think Rice would have been great.
Geri Ryan would also be a great candidate! :-D
At the moment Mitt has the most delegates with his two second places and I think he won WY too (whenever that was).
By big win for Hillary, I ment more in the fact that if she lost it was probably over for her since she is typically very strong in the North East as you said. Plus they can now play up the “comeback kid” card.
