News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on tracking the Democratic and Republican primary results while participants make predictions leading up to the Iowa Caucus. The Democratic race is tight among Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, with polls showing fluctuating leads. Among Republicans, Huckabee's rise has stalled, resulting in a statistical tie with Romney. Participants are encouraged to predict outcomes for both parties, with a scoring system for correct predictions. The conversation also touches on the candidates' public personas, with some expressing dissatisfaction with their responses to personal indulgences, and highlighting the potential impact of independent voters on the Democratic side. As the Iowa Caucus approaches, predictions are made, with many favoring Obama for the Democrats and Huckabee for the Republicans. The discussion reflects a mix of excitement and skepticism about the candidates and the electoral process, emphasizing the importance of upcoming primaries in shaping the nomination landscape.

Who will be the eventual nominee from each party?

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
  • #571
It seems you are addressing the broader question of what to do with the troops rather than the specific charge you made earlier:

mheslep said:
BTW, now that he recently stated he'd consider military force against AQ if they attempt to set up a base in Iraq, and given that AQI attempting exactly that now, it appears he's all for military action in Iraq.

So, in answer, yes, he is for military action against AQ in Iraq. I don't think he has said otherwise. What he has said is that the US ought not to be policing the civil conflict between the Sunnis, Shiites and subsects within them. Presently the bulk of military resources is being spent in such activity, not in fighting AQ (even if you don't count the violence fomented by AQ but not perpetuated directly by them). I've seen recent estimates of 4 - 8% of the violence directly attributed to AQ. Their numbers are also a similar fraction of the total participation among the insurgency. Their indirect influence is not huge. Sometimes, AQ even has the effect of reducing violence. In Anbar, for instance, it was AQ going too far and pi$$ing off the local clerics that facilitated the vast improvement there.

The wisdom behind such a decision (to let the S&S duke it out amongst themselves) is another matter altogether. All I'm saying here is that there is no internal contradiction between Obama's response in the debate and what he has said all along.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #572
mheslep said:
As that is a completely different statement from the 'cheap tricks' statement, Ill take it as a retraction.

Well, don't. You are simply denying the facts.
 
  • #573
However, I will assume [for now] that you weren't intentionally misstating the date even after I posted a link showing the correct date.
 
  • #574
Gokul43201 said:
So, in answer, yes, he is for military action against AQ in Iraq. I don't think he has said otherwise. What he has said is that the US ought not to be policing the civil conflict between the Sunnis, Shiites and subsects within them. Presently the bulk of military resources is being spent in such activity, not in fighting AQ (even if you don't count the violence fomented by AQ but not perpetuated directly by them).
Yes, thus the point of the prior post - addressing AQ alone and not the rest of the issues is unworkable.

I've seen recent estimates of 4 - 8% of the violence directly attributed to AQ. Their numbers are also a similar fraction of the total participation among the insurgency. Their indirect influence is not huge.
Disagree. The current influence is small and waning, but that's w/ 150k troops; recent history shows it can be quite different. Most insurgency histories show the '06 golden dome bombing and related events attributed to AQ as responsible for a large escalation in the insurgency, and the http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx" .

Sometimes, AQ even has the effect of reducing violence. In Anbar, for instance, it was AQ going too far and pi$$ing off the local clerics that facilitated the vast improvement there.
Certainly, but stated that way confuses cause and consequence.

The wisdom behind such a decision (to let the S&S duke it out amongst themselves) is another matter altogether. All I'm saying here is that there is no internal contradiction between Obama's response in the debate and what he has said all along.
I take the point but this latest sounds different to me. Previously he had said Iraq is not the place to fight AQ. The last debate comment had a clearly different tone IMO ; as 'commander in chief' if AQ "is forming a base in Iraq" he'd "act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests ".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #575
mheslep said:
Previously he had said Iraq is not the place to fight AQ.
Here's a paraphrase: Iraq is not the place one should have chosen to fight AQ at. I suspect this is what he may have been saying.
 
  • #576
Gokul43201 said:
So, in answer, yes, he is for military action against AQ in Iraq. I don't think he has said otherwise. What he has said is that the US ought not to be policing the civil conflict between the Sunnis, Shiites and subsects within them. Presently the bulk of military resources is being spent in such activity, not in fighting AQ (even if you don't count the violence fomented by AQ but not perpetuated directly by them). I've seen recent estimates of 4 - 8% of the violence directly attributed to AQ. Their numbers are also a similar fraction of the total participation among the insurgency. Their indirect influence is not huge. Sometimes, AQ even has the effect of reducing violence. In Anbar, for instance, it was AQ going too far and pi$$ing off the local clerics that facilitated the vast improvement there.

mheslep said:
Disagree. The current influence is small and waning, but that's w/ 150k troops; recent history shows it can be quite different. Most insurgency histories show the '06 golden dome bombing and related events attributed to AQ as responsible for a large escalation in the insurgency, and the http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx" .
Terrorism itself never has much effect (other than maybe psychological). Terrorists in stable countries with law and order are simply caught and executed or imprisoned. The groups can only survive where you already have unstable, volatile conditions.

It's no coincidence that Al-Qaeda was first in Sudan, then Afghanistan, and now Iraq. You had to have a volatile Sunni-Shiite-Kurd situation in order for Al-Qaeda to have any meaningful presence in Iraq.

Which is what I think Obama is getting at. Instead of trying to finish off what's left of Al-Qaeda along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, we've tied up 130,000 to 160,000 troops fighting a second front, as well.

Or, better yet (or perhaps just isolationist), fight neither fronts. It's cheaper to reaccomplish the Afghanistan invasion as punishment for harboring terrorists when it's needed than to try to hammer a civil war into a stable democracy. At the very least, if the government isn't capable of preventing terrorist groups from taking up residence in their country, they adopt the attitude the US and Iraq have towards Turkey's invasion of Kurdish territory. They either help or at least stay out of the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #577
BobG said:
Terrorism itself never has much effect (other than maybe psychological). Terrorists in stable countries with law and order are simply caught and executed or imprisoned. The groups can only survive where you already have unstable, volatile conditions.
Surely that must be qualified to something like 'never has much effect in deciding final outcomes' since as is the statement is tripped up by many events such as Archduke Ferdinand's assassination and WWI, and Iraq as cited above w/ the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201760_pf.html" :
"The explosion of the holy shrine pushed the country into blind violence, in which tens of thousands of innocents were killed," said Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric

[I'm mindful these AQ posts are straying far from the topic of a popular thread so feel free to move this out of thread]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #578
While assassination ought not to be grouped under terrorism (unless you also hold that most every Intelligence Agency is a terrorist organization), it is ironic that you picked 2 examples that made Bob's case. Both pre-WWI "Yugoslavia" and Iraq in '06 were highly fractured and unstable regions (and both under essentially foreign occupation). A better example would have been 9/11. Even a stable democracy can react irrationally to terrorism, particularly (but not necessarily) if it is of foreign origin, and cause a great escalation of violence.

In any case, this discussion should probably be excised from this thread and appended to the Progress in Iraq thread.
 
  • #579
Gokul43201 said:
While assassination ought not to be grouped under terrorism (unless you also hold that most every Intelligence Agency is a terrorist organization), it is ironic that you picked 2 examples that made Bob's case. Both pre-WWI "Yugoslavia" and Iraq in '06 were highly fractured and unstable regions (and both under essentially foreign occupation). A better example would have been 9/11. Even a stable democracy can react irrationally to terrorism, particularly (but not necessarily) if it is of foreign origin, and cause a great escalation of violence.

In any case, this discussion should probably be excised from this thread and appended to the Progress in Iraq thread.

9/11 didn't create a large escalation of violence inside the United States. The London bombings and the Madrid bombings didn't result in an escalation of violence in either of those countries.
 
  • #580
BobG said:
9/11 didn't create a large escalation of violence inside the United States. The London bombings and the Madrid bombings didn't result in an escalation of violence in either of those countries.
I think Gokul's comment "Even a stable democracy can react irrationally to terrorism, particularly (but not necessarily) if it is of foreign origin, and cause a great escalation of violence." was a reference to Bush's invasion of Iraq using inferences of 9/11 and al-Qaida as justification to attack a sovereign nation which was not shown to be an immediate threat to the US. Al Qaida attacked the US, Saddam Hussein and Iraq did not.
 
  • #581
Clinton trails in Texas, deadlocked in Ohio

What a change over 10 months.

Ohio primaries
Dem
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Rep
1. McCain
2. Huckabee

Rhode Island primaries
Dem
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Rep
1. McCain
2. Huckabee

Texas primaries
Dem
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Rep
1. McCain
2. Huckabee

Vermont primaries
Dem
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Rep
1. McCain
2. Huckabee

New Vermont poll puts McCain, Obama well ahead of rivals
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/NEWS01/802270313/1009/NEWS05
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain have big leads over their rivals in Vermont with six days to go before the state's presidential primary, according to a new statewide poll.

Obama had the support of 57 percent of likely Democratic primary voters and Hillary Clinton had 33 percent, the poll found. Among likely Republican primary voters, McCain led with 69 percent, while Mike Huckabee had 17 percent and Ron Paul had 5 percent.

I think the March 4 races will be close, but I'll go with Obama. He's got momentum and I think Clinton has failed to make a compelling case as to why she and not Obama should be the nominee. Obama is favored over McCain, whereas as McCain is favored over Clinton, particularly among independents.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #582
BobG said:
9/11 didn't create a large escalation of violence inside the United States. The London bombings and the Madrid bombings didn't result in an escalation of violence in either of those countries.
Point taken.

There's a whole bunch of scores to update, ain't there? Any takers?
 
  • #583
Scores (not including NM):

Code: 
         Prev. Total    WI(R,D)+HI(D)      New total

BobG        127             06               133
Gokul       134             06               140
Ivan        134             06               140
Astronuc    127             06               133
Evo         99              --               99
lisab       64              06               70

I'm not making any predictions until monday night...

For Texas, should we include the results of caucuses that are announced tuesday night or restrict ourselves to only the primary results?
 
Last edited:
  • #584
The Columbus Dispatch, with the largest poll conducted in Ohio, gives Clinton a whopping 16% lead.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/02/POLL02.ART_ART_03-02-08_A1_599GNRO.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Whom will you vote for?

Clinton: 56%

Obama: 40%

Other: 4%

I'm giving this more credibility than I would have since they did not ask "Who will you vote for?" but less than I would have had they asked "For whom will you vote?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #585
Gokul43201 said:
The Columbus Dispatch, with the largest poll conducted in Ohio, gives Clinton a whopping 16% lead.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/02/POLL02.ART_ART_03-02-08_A1_599GNRO.html?adsec=politics&sid=101



I'm giving this more credibility than I would have since they did not ask "Who will you vote for?" but less than I would have had they asked "For whom will you vote?"

How old is that poll? Today, reports indicate a very close race - closer than 16 points.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #586
Ohio primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Rhode Island primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Texas primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain

Vermont primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain

I agree Ohio and Texas could both be tough to predict. I'm not sure whether Obama's momentum will allow him to catch Clinton in Ohio, whether she barely hangs on, or whether she pulls out both Texas and Ohio.

There's no way she pulls out the margin of victory she really needs in those two states. At best, she does well enough to keep hopes for a comeback alive.
 
  • #587
Unless I see some real movement from Obama in Ohio over the next couple of days, I'll be making the same predictions as Bob.
 
  • #588
Astronuc said:
How old is that poll? Today, reports indicate a very close race - closer than 16 points.
Feb 21 through 29. It's the only poll I've seen with such a large lead for Clinton. Most others are in the 3-6% range.
 
  • #589
Gokul43201 said:
Unless I see some real movement from Obama in Ohio over the next couple of days, I'll be making the same predictions as Bob.

Same here. There are some eyebrows raised over RI but I'm not sure why. It may be worth watching though.
 
  • #590
From what I've seen I thought with the demographics from recent primaries it was thought Obama has a better chance of winning Ohio than Texas?
 
  • #591
A funny excerpt from MTP.

MR. RUSSERT: Here's the interesting thing about politics and why we love to cover campaigns. This year's being now described as fear vs. hope. The phone represents fear, and Obama is trying to suggest hope. Back in 2004, your man, William Jefferson Clinton, campaigning for John Kerry, framed Clinton's political law this way. Let's watch.

(Videotape, October 25, 2004)

FMR. PRES. CLINTON: Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23434169/page/4/

This is all in response to Hillary's latest commercial
Narrator: It's 3 AM, and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3 AM, and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message.
 
Last edited:
  • #592
Gokul43201 said:
For Texas, should we include the results of caucuses that are announced tuesday night or restrict ourselves to only the primary results?

How is the winner declared officially; or does anyone know? :biggrin:
 
  • #593
  • #594
Ivan Seeking said:
How is the winner declared officially; or does anyone know? :biggrin:
There really is nothing more than symbolic value to the term 'winner' in these races. There will be primaries and a part of the caucus happening on tuesday, the results of both being announced that night. The rest of the caucusing happens over the next month or two and their results will be announced when the Texas Dems sit down for their Convention (sometime in June?).

The reason Hillary's camp is kicking up a fuss about the Texas caucus and asking that the caucus results not be announced immediately is because they believe she has a better shot at coming out winner on tuesday if the caucus votes are tallied later (Obama always thrashes her in caucuses).
 
  • #595
Gokul43201 said:
There really is nothing more than symbolic value to the term 'winner' in these races. There will be primaries and a part of the caucus happening on tuesday, the results of both being announced that night. The rest of the caucusing happens over the next month or two and their results will be announced when the Texas Dems sit down for their Convention (sometime in June?).

The reason Hillary's camp is kicking up a fuss about the Texas caucus and asking that the caucus results not be announced immediately is because they believe she has a better shot at coming out winner on tuesday if the caucus votes are tallied later (Obama always thrashes her in caucuses).

Which gets back to the idea that a winner is declared, so we could use that, but then we could get caught up in Hillary's little game. So if we try to avoid that, there is the question of whether we count the popular vote or the number of pledged delegates as a legitimate win.

Pledged delegates are what count so I say go with that. Of course if Hillary manages to block the release of the caucus results then it won't matter.
 
Last edited:
  • #596
Sorry to break all of your bubbles, but the results have already been leaked:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #597
Poop-Loops said:
Sorry to break all of your bubbles, but the results have already been leaked:

:smile: Funny and clever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #598
That IS funny... kinda makes you want to cry funny, but FUNNY!

I just saw that tomorrow, Ohio could be virtually shut down due to ice and snow. Already CNN is predicting that voting stations could lose power.
 
  • #599
Poop-Loops said:
Sorry to break all of your bubbles, but the results have already been leaked:



I just had fun watching the messages on the bottom :smile:.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #600
Some weeks ago we were discussing the phenomenon of cross-over voting for the expressed purpose of causing mischief in the other party. I don't remember which thread it was in, sorry if I have it in the wrong one...but here's Rush encouraging conservatives to vote for Clinton:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

"I want Hillary to stay in this…this is too good a soap opera," Limbaugh told fellow conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham on Fox News Friday.

The report also states that in January, a liberal blog encouraged Michiagan voters to vote for Romney (remember him?).

Is this legal? How could a true citizen misuse their precious vote to disrupt the democratic process?
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
News (Multiple Answer) Presidential Hypothetical Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
News Is Hillary's Third Place Finish in Iowa a Sign of Trouble for Her Campaign?
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • Poll Poll
News Who will win the Republican nomination?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
News What were the top issues in the 2008 presidential election?
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
20K
News What Are the Consequences of the Debt Deal for the US Economy?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News New Hampshire voters worried about U.S. image
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News So, who will win the 2008 election?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News What Will the Voter Turnout Be in the Upcoming US Presidential Election?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
27K