You are not logged in. Please register or login.

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

James wrote:

Hillary now has a 6% lead over Obama. Almost a third of the votes have been counted, so if it stays the same or Hillary moves up a couple percent, they will be declaring her the winner soon.

While Obama definitely is nowhere near out of the race, this could possibly be a disaster in the making for his campaign. The surge clearly wasn't as big as the media and his campaign made it out to be. It'll start looking like a media fabrication, which will turn voters off and send them back to Hillary or maybe even Edwards.

Hillary HAS to go for the jugular now. The ball is back in her court.

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

James wrote:

Crikey......

Obama is now within 2% of Hillary. This is going to be close.

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

James wrote:

Hillary still winning by 2%. She's winning by almost 3000 votes.

I am using a site that updates the latest numbers every 5 minutes. These statistics are shocking. There are 1200 write in votes. Meaning people voted for dipshits with no chance. Also, Kucinich has 1900 votes. You take away the lame write in candidates and Kucinich, and this thing is virtually a tie.

This is why I am against what I call "dead weight" candidates. Though they are irrelevant, the votes going in their direction, even though only a few percentage points, do in fact sway elections.

The election laws need to be revamped. If its not feasible for you to pull in at least 10% of the vote, you are forced to drop out. This would stop the fringe candidates from spoiling elections, and would also stop people donating to worthless causes.

bigbri
 Rep: 341 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

bigbri wrote:

It's on now. Hillary is gonna win this.

Good thing, too, because she probably will not win Nevada or South Carolina.

Neemo
 Rep: 485 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

Neemo wrote:

what are the big states again? florida and ohio? wherelse?

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

James wrote:
Neemo wrote:

what are the big states again? florida and ohio? wherelse?

In the general election, NY, FL, and CA are usually regarded as "the big enchiladas". However, in primary season a ton of attention is paid to these early states with primaries. In a week is the Michigan primary. That could make or break a few of these campaigns. South Carolina is coming up as well. In a few weeks, we have what is referred to as "Super Tuesday", where a bunch of states have primaries on the same day.

Communist China
 Rep: 130 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

As far as votes or swing potential? Ohio and Florida are huge swng states, as far as most electoral votes, California (55), Texas (34) and New York (31). But since those fall along party lines I wouldn't call them all that 'big' at all. But certainly if a dem were to lose Cal or NY, or a Rep would lose Tex, then they'd lose to the opponent.

I think Pennslyvania is usually close.

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

James wrote:
bigbri wrote:

It's on now. Hillary is gonna win this.

Good thing, too, because she probably will not win Nevada or South Carolina.

Yeah, if she doesn't win NH it is most likely over for her.

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

James wrote:

Data coming out suggesting Obama is getting the rich and college votes, but is losing the blue collar and union votes. Also more women are voting for Hillary in NH.

His campaign is not nearly as solid as previously thought.

You cannot win an election riding on the college vote. Its too fickle. I don't mean anything bad by that, but they are not guaranteed to vote when it counts, and are more likely to switch allegiance when push comes to shove.

bigbri
 Rep: 341 

Re: New Hampshire Primary

bigbri wrote:
Jameslofton wrote:

Reagan is one of the greatest presidents in history. You can yell "trickle down" all you want, but its not gonna change a thing.

Those deficits were necessary to bankrupt the Soviet Union.

Look at the mid-late 70's, and then fast forward to the late 80's. Reagan presided over one of the biggest economic booms this country has ever had.

Reagan didn't know a damn thing about the Soviets?? Then why did he demand to be alone during talks with Gorbachev? Other presidents have advisers up their asses when talking to world leaders. Reagan negotiated without anyone helping him.

The dollar peaked on Reagan's watch. Its been dropping ever since.

He got gas prices under control right when he took office, and they stayed the same during his presidency. They started to rise the moment he left office.

I could go on and on, but I think the parts of his resume I just posted are enough.

It's funny you quoted that stuff, because other than the Soviet thing, the exact same thing happened during Clinton's presidency. It's the Bush's that have fucked everything up. Any one other than a Buch in office, I'll take as a good thing, even if it's McCain, who I like.

Reagan presided over "one of" the biggest economic booms ever, but I'd bet my left nut that the biggest came under Clinton and the dot-com boom.

This is hard to believe, but under Clinton the Dow topped 10,000 for the first time. 15 or so years later, it's still around 10,000.

I paid 98 cents for gas in the mid-90s.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB