Author Topic: Official 2008 Election thread (Read 212910 times)

Gay Boy · « **Reply #540 on:** December 28, 2007, 06:54:00 PM »

lol rudy. Ignoring the early states was so damn stupid. The voters attention and medias attention is on the early states. His avoidance of him led to his campaign being ignored and slowly fade away.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #541 on:** December 28, 2007, 06:59:26 PM »

Whoever told him that focusing on the big states while hoping the 911 stamp would ensure his success in early, smaller states needs to be slapped. Romney is going to beat him in most of the big states, and Huck is going to take the south lol

APF · « **Reply #542 on:** December 28, 2007, 10:57:36 PM »

Yeah I don't like that old Romney commercial either. Have they just started playing it in DC? It does little to dispel the sense of, "just tell me what you want me to say" that's underlined his campaign. Unfortunately, I think, because IMO he's better than that. But then again, Mormon.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #543 on:** December 28, 2007, 11:11:01 PM »

Quote from: APF on December 28, 2007, 10:57:36 PM

Yeah I don't like that old Romney commercial either. Have they just started playing it in DC? It does little to dispel the sense of, "just tell me what you want me to say" that's underlined his campaign. Unfortunately, I think, because IMO he's better than that. But then again, Mormon.

The vibe I get off of Romney is totally "so what's it going to take to get you into this fine previously owned automobile today, sir?"

Mandark · « **Reply #544 on:** December 28, 2007, 11:21:45 PM »

He's not "better than that" in any meaningful sense if he keeps doing that.

Mandark · « **Reply #545 on:** December 28, 2007, 11:35:22 PM »

Quote from: APF on December 28, 2007, 10:57:36 PM

Unfortunately, I think, because IMO he's better than that.

Apparently he's not.

APF · « **Reply #546 on:** December 28, 2007, 11:37:11 PM »

Go for a third quip; I know you have it in you.

Mandark · « **Reply #547 on:** December 28, 2007, 11:54:29 PM »

Okay. Romney = lots of inspirational talk, with no plan for anything behind it.

APF · « **Reply #548 on:** December 28, 2007, 11:58:36 PM »

That was nerbo, not me.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #549 on:** December 29, 2007, 03:37:59 PM »

Huckabee doesn't need to have any policy ideas to actually win the Midwestern states. All he needs to focus on is his "faith" and he is doing that and doing it well. The fact that he will most likely win in the Iowa GOP Caucus is enough to be considered as a legitimate, serious candidate. He will most likely get gangraped in New Hampshire but the fact that he one the first caucus is going to give his campaign some legitimacy. People might be more inclined to vote Huckabee because he won the Iowa caucus and therefore, should be taken seriously as a candidate. I don't expect him to get nominated but he will give some serious competition to the lazy fascists like Rudy and McCain.

Quote

As vast as Huck's ignorance seems to be, stuff like this is just as wrong and is premeditated to boot. Jihadists are all about a caliphate, and include Iran! Wait...

He's also thrown the Muslim Brotherhood in with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda.

How many Republicans do you know that know anything about the Middle East and Central Asia? Other than "brown skin, islam, oil, and sand lol"? Not many. So coming up with this type of bizarre bullshit will convince (read: scare) the Republican base.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #550 on:** December 30, 2007, 05:57:32 PM »

Quote

When is retail politics not retail politics? When candidates refuse to get off their big buses and go do it.

But what happened to the “tour of downtown Waverly” that was on his schedule? Canceled. Not going to happen. He was not going to walk the streets of Waverly in search of voters.

Instead, Thompson rode four blocks to the local fire station. Local fire stations always have captive audiences (unless there is a fire). Inside, Thompson shook a few hands — there were only about 15 people there — and then Chief Dan McKenzie handed Thompson the chief’s fire hat so Thompson could put it on. Thompson looked at it with a sour expression on his face. “I’ve got a silly hat rule,” Thompson said. In point of fact, the “silly” hat was the one Chief McKenzie wore to fires and I am guessing none of the firefighters in attendance considered it particularly silly, but Thompson was not going to put it on. He just stood there holding it and staring at it. To save the moment, Jeri Thompson took the hat from her husband’s hands and put it on her head.

When he was supposed to go out and find voters in shops and diners, talk to them and answer their questions, he decided to skip it and get back on his luxury bus instead. That’s not retail politics. That’s not Iowa. And that’s not laconic. That’s lazy.

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=237945

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #551 on:** December 31, 2007, 12:48:42 PM »

Thompson is over.

Eric P · « **Reply #552 on:** December 31, 2007, 12:52:45 PM »

seriously

between this and the "i didn't want to run for president" thing

edit: his only hope is for millions of hipsters to ironically vote for him

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #553 on:** December 31, 2007, 12:58:53 PM »

Hey gay boy, lay out the terms of the bet again.

It's Ron Paul above 105 in Iowa and winning any state right?

Gay Boy · « **Reply #554 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:07:43 PM »

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on December 31, 2007, 12:58:53 PM

Hey gay boy, lay out the terms of the bet again.

It's Ron Paul above 105 in Iowa and winning any state right?

Yeah, there is two bets.

Mine is that if he gets over 10% in Iowa I buy you a book (I have no idea why you picked that as your winning lol), if he gets under 10% you leave EB.

And you made a separate bet with Raoul (or Mandark, one of those two) that you'll leave EB if he does not win at least one state.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #555 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:14:00 PM »

He's probably gonna get third in Iowa.

Gay Boy · « **Reply #556 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:14:47 PM »

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on December 31, 2007, 01:14:00 PM

He's probably gonna get third in Iowa.

McCain has surged in Iowa (and nationwide). He won't beat him.

I'll say (both first and second could easily flip):
1. Huckabee - 29%
2. Romney - 26%
3. McCain - 17%
4. Thompson - 11%
5. Paul - 8%
6. Giuliani - 7%
7. Hunter - 2%

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #557 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:17:07 PM »

At the very very least Paul will beat Thompson. There is no doubt about that.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #558 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:20:13 PM »

wow, rudy's down for the count in iowa. sexcellent.

Gay Boy · « **Reply #559 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:22:48 PM »

Quote from: Gay Boy on December 31, 2007, 01:14:47 PM

1. Huckabee - 29%
2. Romney - 26%
3. McCain - 17%
4. Thompson - 11%
5. Paul - 8%
6. Giuliani - 7%
7. Hunter - 2%

To go along with my final GOP prediction here is my final Dem prediction:

1. Edwards - 30%
2. Clinton - 28%
3. Obama - 25%
4. Richardson - (Does not meet 15% threshold)
5. Biden - (Does not meet 15% threshold)
6. Dodd - (Does not meet 15% threshold)
7. Kucinich - (Does not meet 15% threshold)
8. Gravel - (Does not meet 15% threshold)

Gay Boy · « **Reply #560 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:23:16 PM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on December 31, 2007, 01:20:13 PM

wow, rudy's down for the count in iowa. sexcellent.

Rudy has given up on the early primaries and focusing basically only on Super Tuesday and Florida. A complete failure of a move.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #561 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:24:24 PM »

Rudy never had a chance anyway.

Gay Boy · « **Reply #562 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:25:19 PM »

He may have had a chance if he put a ton of effort into NH, but he has basically skipped the state leaving Romney to fight it with a now reborn McCain.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #563 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:29:15 PM »

Quote from: Gay Boy on December 31, 2007, 01:25:19 PM

He may have had a chance if he put a ton of effort into NH, but he has basically skipped the state leaving Romney to fight it with a now reborn McCain.

Paul will be the surprise of NH

Gay Boy · « **Reply #564 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:30:02 PM »

Yes, we all know you state he'll win NH. We get it. Wanna know how I see Paul placing in NH? Not including Thompson because he officially pulled out of NH.

1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Huckabee (if he wins Iowa)
4. Paul
5. Rudy
6. Hunter

A 5th and 4th place finish! Clearly the path for the white house

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #565 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:43:38 PM »

You think Huckabee will get above paul in NH?

Mandark · « **Reply #566 on:** December 31, 2007, 08:58:14 PM »

Quote from: Eric P on December 31, 2007, 12:52:45 PM

seriously

between this and the "i didn't want to run for president" thing

edit: his only hope is for millions of hipsters to ironically vote for him

Yes! The Apartment 3-G road to the presidency! Best election analysis ever.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #567 on:** December 31, 2007, 10:43:30 PM »

Iowa GOP Prediction

Huckabee: 31%
Romney: 22%
McCain: 14%
Giuliani: 13%
Thompson: 10%
Paul: 7%
Hunter: 1% (Negligible fringe)
Cox: 1% (Negligible fringe, assuming he is even running anyway)
Keyes: 1% (Negligible fringe)

Iowa Democrat Prediction

Clinton: 34%
Edwards: 29%
Obama: 23%
Biden: 5%
Richardson: 4%
Dodd: 2%
Kucinich: 2%
Gravel: 1% (Negligible fringe)

Gay Boy · « **Reply #568 on:** January 01, 2008, 09:36:22 AM »

Interesting look at the odd Campaign style of Chelsea Clinton. Romney has son's in their late 20's and they go around campaigning for him. As does Edwards late-20's daughter. Yet Chelsea is almost always with her mother or her father on the campaign trail yet just stands their next to her parents not uttering a word like a 5 year old who needs to be watched by her parents. I've noticed this for a while I am glad CNN has too lol.

Quote

VINTON, Iowa (AP) — It's one thing for Hillary Clinton's campaign to turn down interview requests for the candidate's daughter, Chelsea. But can't a 9-year old reporter catch a break?

Sydney Rieckhoff, a Cedar Rapids fourth grader and "kid reporter" for Scholastic News, has posed questions to seven Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls as they've campaigned across Iowa this year. But when she approached the 27-year-old Chelsea after a campaign event Sunday, she got a different response.

"Do you think your dad would be a good 'first man' in the White House?" Sydney asked, but Chelsea brushed her question aside.

"I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute," Chelsea told the pint-sized journalist.

Such is the paradox of Chelsea as she campaigns across Iowa in the closing days before the state's caucuses Jan. 3.

Tall and attractive, Chelsea cuts an impressive figure on the campaign trail; she plunges enthusiastically into the crowd after her mother's speeches, shaking hands and posing for pictures while asking, "Are you going to caucus for my mom?"

But onstage, Chelsea never speaks; she stands next to her mother and applauds but utters not a single sentence and doesn't even say hello. And reporters covering the campaign have been put on notice that Chelsea is not available to speak to them. An aide follows the former first daughter as she works the crowd, shushing reporters who approach her and try to ask any questions.

Famously protective of their daughter's privacy, Bill and Hillary Clinton have taken pains to shield Chelsea from the harsh glare and rough edges of presidential politics. She stayed largely absent from her mother's campaign until December, when she made her first visit to Iowa.

For her part, Sydney looked a bit crestfallen after Chelsea turned her away. But luckily for Hillary Clinton, Sydney's mother has made up her mind to caucus for the former first lady.

"I like her position on family values and health care. And I think it's time we have a female president," Robyn Rieckhoff said.

Their over-protectiveness of Chelsea is something that has been going on since the 90's. It's so weird that she is nearly 30 and they still keep extreme close watch on her and dont let anyone speak to her like she is a child who can't handle the press. The other candidates 25+ kids go out and campaign on THEIR OWN.

TVC15 · « **Reply #569 on:** January 01, 2008, 10:11:24 AM »

What I don't understand is why do they even bring her around if she's not going to talk? Just to keep up appearances? Fuck politics. It's all even stagier than a CRISS ANGEL MINDFREAKENING!

Gay Boy · « **Reply #570 on:** January 01, 2008, 10:18:55 AM »

I think they are just very over-protective of her and want to keep her around as much as possible. Everything about how they treat Chelsea tells me they are in denial that their kid is nearly 30.

Edit: Here is a bit of news. The Clinton Campaign has announced they have broke 100 Million raised (not including the 10 million she transferred from her senate campaign either). It is the first campaign to ever do so in the primaries apparently.

Also Ralph Nader has endorsed John Edwards for president.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #571 on:** January 01, 2008, 03:39:46 PM »

They might as well put her braces back on, throw grease on her face, and give her another polka dot dress. SHE'S FUCKING 27 JESUS

I'll do my final predictions later today

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #572 on:** January 01, 2008, 03:57:15 PM »

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/NEWS09/71231044
Obama 32%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 24%

Huckabee 32%
Romney 26%
McCain 13%
Paul 9%
Thompson 9%

They got it right in 2004. Hmmmm, Clinton is ahead in most Iowa polls except this one correct?

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #573 on:** January 01, 2008, 03:59:45 PM »

I think that Nader endorsement is going to put Edwards over the top.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #574 on:** January 01, 2008, 04:00:30 PM »

Quote from: Raoul Duke on January 01, 2008, 03:59:45 PM

I think that Nader endorsement is going to put Edwards over the top.

What what way, polls?

Mandark · « **Reply #575 on:** January 01, 2008, 04:04:30 PM »

Quote from: Raoul Duke on January 01, 2008, 03:59:45 PM

I think that Nader endorsement is going to put Edwards over the top.

That about seals it for my boy John.

"I knew it was you, Edwards. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!"

Gay Boy · « **Reply #576 on:** January 01, 2008, 05:06:43 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on January 01, 2008, 03:57:15 PM

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/NEWS09/71231044
Obama 32%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 24%

Huckabee 32%
Romney 26%
McCain 13%
Paul 9%
Thompson 9%

They got it right in 2004. Hmmmm, Clinton is ahead in most Iowa polls except this one correct?

There has been massive criticism of this poll however. They include 40% independents in the Dem caucus. The dem caucus in 2004 didn't even have half that many independents. If the poll included only the same amount of independent percentage as 2004 then Clinton wins the poll.

The register is taking a massive gamble in their realibilty by predicting an unheard of massive turnout of independents. This is hard to accept due to the fact that independents must change their party registration to democrats to take part in the caucus that day.

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #577 on:** January 01, 2008, 06:11:11 PM »

Quote from: Gay Boy on January 01, 2008, 05:06:43 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on January 01, 2008, 03:57:15 PM
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/NEWS09/71231044
Obama 32%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 24%

Huckabee 32%
Romney 26%
McCain 13%
Paul 9%
Thompson 9%

They got it right in 2004. Hmmmm, Clinton is ahead in most Iowa polls except this one correct?
There has been massive criticism of this poll however. They include 40% independents in the Dem caucus. The dem caucus in 2004 didn't even have half that many independents. If the poll included only the same amount of independent percentage as 2004 then Clinton wins the poll.

The register is taking a massive gamble in their realibilty by predicting an unheard of massive turnout of independents. This is hard to accept due to the fact that independents must change their party registration to democrats to take part in the caucus that day.

What's their justification for that?

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #578 on:** January 02, 2008, 12:13:26 PM »

I was watching C-span this yesterday, and they had a call in hour where viewers could call in and endorse whoever they wanted. There were alot of Ron Paul callers, I was very surprised. The funniest caller was some old dude who started to cry because he wanted to show the world how proud America can be by voting in a black president. He didnt mention one reason to actually vote for Obama other than the fact that he's black. I think this sums up all the people who support Obama. Vote for the guy who's skin color is different!

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #579 on:** January 02, 2008, 12:17:01 PM »

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on January 02, 2008, 12:13:26 PM

I was watching C-span this yesterday, and they had a call in hour where viewers could call in and endorse whoever they wanted. There were alot of Ron Paul callers, I was very surprised. The funniest caller was some old dude who started to cry because he wanted to show the world how proud America can be by voting in a black president. He didnt mention one reason to actually vote for Obama other than the fact that he's black. I think this sums up all the people who support Obama. Vote for the guy who's skin color is different!

This is certainly not the post of a racist.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #580 on:** January 02, 2008, 12:48:50 PM »

Moment of truth tomorrow.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #581 on:** January 02, 2008, 12:55:27 PM »

Quote from: The Experiment on January 02, 2008, 12:48:50 PM

Moment of truth tomorrow.

My nipples are tingling with excitement. TINGLING.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #582 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:01:37 PM »

Quote from: Raoul Duke on January 02, 2008, 12:17:01 PM

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on January 02, 2008, 12:13:26 PM
I was watching C-span this yesterday, and they had a call in hour where viewers could call in and endorse whoever they wanted. There were alot of Ron Paul callers, I was very surprised. The funniest caller was some old dude who started to cry because he wanted to show the world how proud America can be by voting in a black president. He didnt mention one reason to actually vote for Obama other than the fact that he's black. I think this sums up all the people who support Obama. Vote for the guy who's skin color is different!

This is certainly not the post of a racist.

How is it racist. Wouldnt it be racist if I was saying we should vote for a candidate solely based on their skin color?

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #583 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:02:27 PM »

Racist.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #584 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:05:16 PM »

Quote from: Raoul Duke on January 02, 2008, 01:02:27 PM

Racist.

How?

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #585 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:10:52 PM »

Racist.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #586 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:12:00 PM »

Quote from: Raoul Duke on January 02, 2008, 01:10:52 PM

Racist.

*yawn

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #587 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:16:51 PM »

You believe that the only reason someone might vote for Obama is his skin color. There are lots of reasons someone might vote for Obama besides his skin color. This means that you're a racist, racist.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Racist.

[close]

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #588 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:29:13 PM »

The caller on C-span said he was was referring to the caller on C-span.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #589 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:29:31 PM »

Oh yea.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

racist

[close]

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #590 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:31:49 PM »

Admit it, it was you who called C-Span, wasn't it?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Xenophobe.

[close]

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #591 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:33:01 PM »

I have never called C-span.

If I did I wouldnt talk about Obama.

Powerslave · « **Reply #592 on:** January 02, 2008, 01:33:11 PM »

Quote from: Raoul Duke on January 02, 2008, 01:10:52 PM

Racist.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #593 on:** January 02, 2008, 02:19:44 PM »

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89da5850-b929-11dc-bb66-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Gold and oil break new records

Quote

Gold rose above $850 becoming the first commodity to reach a new record on the first session of new year, followed by oil which sprinted past the $100 level, also setting a record.

Gold pushed to $859.30 a troy ounce on Wednesday, helped by renewed US dollar weakness after the influential ISM manufacturing survey indicated that activity contracted in December, fuelling fears that weakness in the housing market is spreading into the wider economy.

Gold prices surged 30 per cent in 2007 as the dollar sank against the euro and oil prices challenged the $100 a barrel level. This combination was a key factor behind strong inflows in gold exchange traded funds in 2007. Meanwhile jewellery demand remained strong in spite of high prices, particularly in India, China and the Middle East.

Meanwhile oil prices rose by more than $2 following violence in Nigeria, the world’s eighth largest crude exporter, on January 1.

Nymex February West Texas Intermediate jumped $4.02 to $100 a barrel, a record, while ICE February Brent lept $3.37 to $99.35 a barrel.

The latest US inventories data are due for release on Thursday, due to the new year holiday, and traders expect to see further evidence that the market is tightening.

Crude inventories were expected to have fallen 1.8m barrels in a seventh consecutive weekly decline, according to a preliminary poll of analysts by Reuters. Distillate stocks (including heating oil) were forecast to have risen by 0.3m barrels while gasoline inventories were expected to increase by 1.8m barrels.

Investors in commodity markets enjoyed strong returns in 2007, outperforming both global equities and global bond markets and analysts expect to see new money flowing into the complex in 2008.

The total return on the S&P GSCI commodity index in 2007 was 32.7 per cent, its best year since 2001. The S&P GSCI commodity index which is the most benchmark with the most funds following it has a higher weighting for energy than the Dow Jones AIG commodity index which returned 16.2 per cent, its best year since 2006.

The latest data on speculative positioning from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission showed that in the approach to Christmas, speculators increased net long positions (bets on further price gains) across the entire commodities complex with the exceptions of natural gas and palladium.

The net long position in crude oil jumped by 51.1 per cent to 52,847 lots in the week to December 24 when WTI reached $94.13 a barrel.

The speculative net long position on gold rose by 8.3 per cent to 184,375 lots while the net long on platinum increased 12.3 per cent.

Mandark · « **Reply #594 on:** January 02, 2008, 02:21:35 PM »

It's not even "people are backing Obama out of reverse-racism." It's that ALL his supporters are doing that. Cause there's no reason to vote for him otherwise.

Do I file this under FoC's racism, along with his stances on Islam and immigration? Or is it a symptom of his inability to imagine anyone having different opinions than himself? Like how everyone would vote for Ron Paul if they'd just look at the issues.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #595 on:** January 02, 2008, 02:23:17 PM »

Quote from: Mandark on January 02, 2008, 02:21:35 PM

Or is it a symptom of his inability to imagine anyone having different opinions than himself? Like how everyone would vote for Ron Paul if they'd just look at the issues.

Probably this. I know I have this problem. I'm trying not to be as judgmental as I used to me.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #596 on:** January 02, 2008, 02:23:53 PM »

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aCilYJ9OUudI&refer=home

Ron Paul Fund raising King?

Quote

Jan. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Presidential candidate Ron Paul raised almost $20 million for his campaign in the last three months, potentially outpacing every one of his Republican rivals and putting his fundraising in league with Hillary Clinton's.

Paul, a U.S. representative from Texas, raised at least $19.5 million, according to a statement posted on his Web site. His campaign said today that he originally aimed to raise $12 million in the fourth quarter of 2007.

The take puts Paul on par with the top fundraisers in the Democratic Party, who outpaced Republicans last year. The campaign of New York Senator Clinton yesterday said she raised more than $100 million for the year, meaning she brought in at least $20 million in the fourth quarter.

Paul has drawn supporters with his libertarian message and his opposition to the war in Iraq, spurring a burst of donations on the Internet, the source of about 80 percent of the contributions last quarter, according to Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. In the three months through September, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani brought in the most contributions among Republicans, for a total of $11.5 million.

Presidential campaigns don't have to report fundraising figures until the end of January, though many give hints about their totals earlier than that. Arizona Senator John McCain, who's seeking the Republican presidential nomination, yesterday told reporters in New Hampshire that December was his best fundraising month since July. He gave no further details.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kristin Jensen in Iowa at kjensen@bloomberg.net

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #597 on:** January 02, 2008, 02:25:28 PM »

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #598 on:** January 02, 2008, 02:28:24 PM »

It has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with generalizations; there are many Obama supporters - including my dad - who support him because they agree with him on the issues. I'm sure there's a bit of white guilt thrown in the pot, but to declare all his support as nothing more than race related is idiotic. Surprise, a lot of people disagree with you FoC!

Final predictions...eh

Hillary 30%
Edwards 25%
Obama 22%

Romney 35%
Huckabee 33%
Paul <15%

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #599 on:** January 02, 2008, 02:30:32 PM »

You're right, it was an unfair generalization. But the fact remains that there are a bunch of dumb asses out there who are voting for hillary because she is a women and for obama because he is black.

News:

Author Topic: Official 2008 Election thread (Read 212910 times)