US Presidential Primaries, 2008

  • News
  • Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date
In summary, the Iowa Caucus is going to be a close race, with Huckabee and Paul fighting for fourth place.

Who will be the eventual nominee from each party?

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
  • #211
wildman said:
Wow! You are really good.
Hardly! Most others here were more accurate on Iowa. See post#68.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
<< marginal picture deleted by berkeman >>

I wonder what marginal means in this context? Most of what the candidates discuss is marginal IMO, so maybe we can get berkeman to delete them from the race :smile:

By this I mean that that candidates revert to divisive issues like race or abortion or flag waving rather than substantive issues. The impending Recession which is a substantive topic, was, IMO, caused by the fact that the politcos have failed to understand how greed in the banking industry helped to cause Black Friday in 1929, and how our current impending downturn has similar root causes. However, candidate discussion is all about band-aids, or about finding reasons to perpetuate ideology (lowering taxes or giving public money to the poor and middle class), not solving the problem permanently.
 
  • #213
Gokul43201 said:
Rudy could be next. Florida is going to kick him in the ballots! He must now depend on NY and NJ to make something work for him! But McCain is uncomfortably close in both states.

This is the most shocking development of the race. I know the 'experts' point out the fact that no one has successfully pursued the strategy Giuliani's pursuing successfully, but the early primaries went almost to perfection. The only way they could have gone better would be to have Thompson win South Carolina.

I'm really stumped by how he could be running low on money. He didn't campaign heavily in the early states, so, if he spent his money, it had to be somewhere else. Maybe somewhere besides Florida? He sure doesn't seemed to have gained any advantage in Florida by avoiding the distraction of Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

Giuliani came into the primaries as the nearly overwhelming front runner and could disappear from the race without even making a noise!

In even more bad news for Giuliani, Duncan Hunter endorsed Mike Huckabee. Don't be mislead by how few votes Hunter got in the primaries. I'm absolutely positive Americans have been waiting eagerly for Hunter to give them voting advice. (How in the world am I leading the PF 2008 FLFFTNODBTVPCIASBSB when I find it possible to make statements like that!)
 
Last edited:
  • #215
  • #216
mheslep said:
Looks like Kucinich is going lose his House seat too.

That's tragic.
 
  • #217
Gokul43201 said:
Rudy could be next. Florida is going to kick him in the ballots! He must now depend on NY and NJ to make something work for him! But McCain is uncomfortably close in both states.
Locally, I've heard that NY Republicans are favoring McCain over Giuliani.
 
  • #218
Astronuc said:
Locally, I've heard that NY Republicans are favoring McCain over Giuliani.

This is what I have a hard time understanding. Can anyone tell me why people are favoring Mccain? I thought the '100 years war' statement would be the end of him, but I guess not.

I mean, how can you even trust a guy who says "I wish interest rates were zero."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #219
Just wait... We had a thread about McCain melting down not too long ago. IIRC someone [I think Evo] even mentioned how sad it is when people get old and start losing it. I can't help but think that sometime before Novermber he is going to have a problem in the public view.

Everything else aside: The job ages a man [or woman?] ten or twenty years in four, and McCain is already too old.
 
  • #220
falc39 said:
This is what I have a hard time understanding. Can anyone tell me why people are favoring Mccain? I thought the '100 years war' statement would be the end of him, but I guess not.I mean, how can you even trust a guy who says "I wish interest rates were zero."
Are you forgetting that McCain is not running as a Democrat? An aggressive foreign policy statement will not hurt him nearly as much in his Primary as it will in the general election.
 
  • #221
Astronuc said:
South Carolina
Democratic:
1. Obama (doing well there)
2. Edwards (homey)
3. Clinton (south will be tough for her)
Revising:
1. Obama (doing well there)
2. Clinton
3. Edwards


In Florida:
Democrats
1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. Edwards
 
  • #222
South Carolina
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

Astronuc said:
In Florida:
Democrats
1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. Edwards
Florida doesn't count for the Dems. Put down Florida predictions only for the Reps.
 
  • #223
jim mcnamara said:
I wonder what marginal means in this context?
Marginal = belonging in the margin.

Ever since Fermat pulled his last trick, all marginal things have gotten a bad rap. In PF, aything marginal is considered highly speculative, and probably unprovable.
 
  • #224
Florida:
Republicans:

1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Giuliani
4. Huckabee

I think it will be close between Romney and McCain.
 
  • #225
South Carolina
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

Florida:
Republicans:

1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Giuliani
 
  • #226
SC
1). Obama
2). Clinton
3). Edwards
 
  • #227
S.C.
Dems

1 Obama
2 Clinton
3 Edwards

Fl
GOP
1 Romney
2 McCain
3 Giuliani
 
  • #228
South Carolina
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

Florida
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Giuliani
 
Last edited:
  • #229
The pundits were claiming tonight that Bill Clinton has damaged Obama and that there is a shift in Obama's support [going to Hilllary] that is not reflected in the most recent polls.
 
  • #230
Ivan Seeking said:
The pundits were claiming tonight that Bill Clinton has damaged Obama and that there is a shift in Obama's support [going to Hilllary] that is not reflected in the most recent polls.
I think Bill Clinton needs to be quiet and sit on the sidelines.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080126/ap_on_el_pr/south_carolina_primary
COLUMBIA, S.C. - In a Democratic primary sure to attract a large number of black voters, race remained a persistent subtext as Barack Obama found himself going up against two Clintons.

South Carolina became a "must win" state for Obama, whose victory in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3 began to fade after he lost contests in Nevada and New Hampshire to Hillary Rodham Clinton. A win here on Saturday could help reinforce Obama's co-frontrunner status with Clinton, while a loss would severely imperil his candidacy.

. . . .

Widely popular among black voters, Bill Clinton complained that reporters cared too much about the racial aspect of the campaign even as he predicted Obama would win here because of his race.

. . . .

The run-up to the primary was noteworthy for its nasty tone — from a rancorous televised debate early in the week to the first negative ads of the campaign.

Clinton and Obama clashed bitterly in a televised forum Monday in Myrtle Beach, chiding one another on issues of character and trustworthiness. Edwards tried to rise above the rancor while pleading for equal air time.

. . . .
It is unfortunate that candidates waste our time sniping at each other. I want to hear about solutions to problems, not insults. I want to hear ideas on ending the war on terrorism, not prolonging it. I want to hear their ideas about sustainable economic development, more opportunity, better health care, improvements in education, greater security, . . . .

Negative campaigning leads to a lower common denominator, and the best we get is the mediocrity we have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #231
Ivan Seeking said:
The pundits were claiming tonight that Bill Clinton has damaged Obama and that there is a shift in Obama's support [going to Hilllary] that is not reflected in the most recent polls.

Not in South Carolina. Clinton's comments are shifting votes towards Edwards.

Now that Edwards is almost safely out of it, though, I think the Clintons are comfortable categorizing Obama as the black candidate. If blacks vote for Obama in South Carolina, white men vote for Edwards, and white women vote for Clinton, then the Clinton's have the race framed the way they want it. There's a lot more whites, even in the Democratic Party, and Edwards isn't going to hurt them that much in accumulating delegates.

Of course, there's a risk in having Bill Clinton do so much campaigning. Even more people are asking just what Bill Clinton will do around the White House with no real job?

The first three women governors* in the country all stepped in as replacements for their husbands, so it's not a huge surprise the first serious woman Presidential candidate would be a former President's wife, but I don't think she can win if the similarity becomes too blatantly obvious.

*Nellie Ross won election to succeed her deceased husband as Wyoming Governor; Miriam Ferguson won election to succeed her husband as Texas Governor after her husband was impeached and convicted as governor; Lurleen Wallace won election to succeed her husband as Alabama Governor when George Wallace was ineligible due to term limits (Lurleen Wallace's story is pretty bizarre).
 
  • #232
I would guess Romney in FL and Obama in SC...
 
  • #233
Meanwhile - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080126/ap_on_el_pr/remember_iraq;_ylt=AoEZM5ZvexLX52l4sf_2apRh24cA
WASHINGTON - Republican angst over the war in Iraq may be helping fuel John McCain's rise as a top presidential contender, even though he has been the campaign's highest profile supporter of the unpopular conflict, according to surveys in early voting states and interviews with GOP pollsters.

In states that have held GOP nominating contests so far, the Arizona senator has done better with people naming Iraq as the country's top problem than with those who picked other issues, entrance and exit polls of voters show. He has also done better with GOP voters saying they disapprove of the Iraq war than with those saying they approve.

Unlike Democrats and independents, most Republicans support the war, which several national polls show has been overtaken by the economy as the campaign's defining issue. Yet while only a minority of Republicans express displeasure with the conflict, their numbers are significant in the close race for the GOP nomination.

Republican pollsters say GOP voters unhappy over Iraq are generally displeased with how the Bush administration has conducted the conflict and don't oppose the war itself. They say that with violence in Iraq declining in recent months, those Republicans see it as vindication for McCain's longtime support for a continued strong U.S. military effort.

. . . .

Lance Tarrance, a pollster and informal adviser to McCain, said reduced U.S. and civilian casualties in Iraq are helping McCain get "the best of both worlds" — support from Republicans who favor the war and from those who feel it has been mismanaged.

Others say the numbers showing McCain's strength among GOP war critics reflect that many of his supporters are independents or have moderate views on many issues, which happen to include doubts about the war, and are not driven by misgivings about the conflict.

. . . .
We'll see. The longer the occupation of Iraq lasts, the more resentment there will be in the world, and the greater the adverse economic impact will be on the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #234
Astronuc said:
Meanwhile - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080126/ap_on_el_pr/remember_iraq;_ylt=AoEZM5ZvexLX52l4sf_2apRh24cA
We'll see. The longer the occupation of Iraq lasts, the more resentment there will be in the world, and the greater the adverse economic impact will be on the US.

He's helping himself in the primaries. 61% of Republicans say stay as long as it takes. Only 26% of Independents and 8% of Democrats agree with that though, plus logistics will require reducing troops very soon.

Funny how the percentages on Iraq have changed. The percentage supporting staying and saying Iraq is improving are going up, but overall opinion of Bush's handling of the war have stayed steady (as in dismal). McCain seems to be getting the credit for saving Iraq from Bush.

If violence stays down as troops are withdrawn, McCain will be very popular. If violence rises as troops leave, then McCain is probably set to take a lot more blame than any other candidate and maybe even more than Bush. The primaries will be over by time the long term impact of the surge is known, but Republicans might be hoping for a brokered convention just to delay having to decide on a candidate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #236
Gokul43201 said:
From CNN's exit polls in SC, Obama did very poorly among whites (especially women). That could be troubling!
In this day and age, that is troubling - more so for the country than for Obama. :frown:
 
  • #237
Anybody see Obama's speech tonight? That was moving and optimistic. It's great to feel optimistic after a speech by a presidential candidate. It's been a while since I felt like that!I also think poorly may be a relative term here. Obama didn't win with the margin he did with only black votes. I think the number may be around 24% of whites SC Dems voted for Obama. While this isn't great, it is about double what most were expecting. I think it was a great day for Obama.

Another thing that should be pointed out. Obama got as many votes this year as there were voters in the 2004 SC primary. I think this shows Obama's ability to pull in those people who were otherwise apathetic. This is another positive I see in SC.
 
Last edited:
  • #238
Astronuc said:
In this day and age, that is troubling - more so for the country than for Obama. :frown:
It is a sign that voter preferences are based on something other than than the candidates' political positions and intentions. That's not good. There are a whole lot of people (especially in the south) that would never vote for Clinton, and there are a whole lot of people (especially in the south) that would not vote for Obama. Anybody who does not recognize that the southern states are critical in this election just isn't paying attention.
 
  • #239
Gokul43201 said:
From CNN's exit polls in SC, Obama did very poorly among whites (especially women). That could be troubling!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

Astronuc said:
In this day and age, that is troubling - more so for the country than for Obama. :frown:
Perhaps. That conclusion would also depend upon which areas he focused his campaign efforts in SC. My little experience working campaigns has been that people tend to want to go campaign where they're already popular, despite full knowledge that such is a poor use of resources. It takes a disciplined effort to get yourself out into areas where you're behind (like everything else ;-). Also, Sen. Obama is one of most inclusive dems I've seen, but could some of his rhetoric have been at least slightly polarizing? Attacking Sen Clinton for her MLK-but-it-takes-a-President comments?
 
Last edited:
  • #241
mheslep said:
That conclusion would also depend upon which areas he focused his campaign efforts in SC.
That was exactly my first thought - that Obama campaign advisors would have him targeting dominantly black areas and possibly devoting disproportionately greater talk time to issues that concern blacks more. Rallying the base is what it always comes down to.
 
  • #242
mheslep said:
My little experience working campaigns has been that people tend to want to go campaign where they're already popular, despite full knowledge that such is a poor use of resources. It takes a disciplined effort to get yourself out into areas where you're behind (like everything else ;-).
I agree. For example, Kerry by-passed states like Colorado since it was considered a 'red state'. That IMO is wrong. Any politician running for president needs to go to every state and make the case as to why he/she should be elected president. The president is supposed to represent everyone, even those who disagree or even villify him/her.

Also, Sen. Obama is one of most inclusive dems I've seen, but could some of his rhetoric have been at least slightly polarizing? Attacking Sen Clinton for her MLK-but-it-takes-a-President comments?
It's possible. I've missed those particular recent statements where Obama has criticized Clinton. I've heard Obama responding to Bill Clinton's comments. Obama, and others for that matter, should avoid negative campaigning.

Unfortunately, too many voters seem to respond to negative campaigning, which encourages more of it, and that IMO undermines the democratic process.
 
  • #243
I was tempted to pick "Other" for the Democrats. I think Al Gore still has a chance! I think there's a good chance of both nominations not being decided until the conventions.

I still went with Clinton for Dems just because her organization gives her an advantage with the superdelagates. I think she'll at least go into the convention with the lead.

I went with McCain for the Republicans but I really think it's a toss-up as to who will have the lead going into the convention.
 
  • #244
This will probably disappear after May or June, but -
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/primaries/

A lot of states up for grabs on Super Tuesday, Feb 5.

Clinton has apparently moved on the campaign in TN.


McCain is rising in Florida following an endorsement by Gov. Bill Crist.


Obviously I missed something, but why was Obama not registered in the Michigan primary?

BobG said:
I think Al Gore still has a chance!
Really!?

I think there's a good chance of both nominations not being decided until the conventions.
I tend to agree.

I still went with Clinton for Dems just because her organization gives her an advantage with the superdelagates. I think she'll at least go into the convention with the lead.
Possibly.

Let's see Feb. 6.
 
Last edited:
  • #245
Astronuc said:
Obviously I missed something, but why was Obama not registered in the Michigan primary?
The state moved it's primary up without approval from the DNC, so that primary didn't count. I believe Florida won't count for the Democrats for the same reasons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/
 

Similar threads

  • Poll
News (Multiple Answer) Presidential Hypothetical Poll
    • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
News What Are the Consequences of the Debt Deal for the US Economy?
    • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
4K
News What were the top issues in the 2008 presidential election?
    • General Discussion
3
Replies
82
Views
18K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top