Today on Blogcritics
Home » Calling Nevada (and a Bit of South Carolina)

Calling Nevada (and a Bit of South Carolina)

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

We think of Nevada as a strange little desert state full of whorehouses and casinos, but it's also more politically significant than you might realize.

For Democrats it may not be a big source of delegates, but it's important because it's a highly unionized state, and the results there may be an indicator of how other states with a strong union presence may vote.

It's significant for Republicans because it's a two-thirds Republican state, with more GOP delegates than Iowa, New Hampshire or Michigan. Both parties are holding caucuses, not primaries, so that increases the power of party insiders and reduces the strength of candidates who get independent and crossover votes, which will likely have the most impact on the Republicans.

The Democrats have already had a serious crisis in the state which may have nationwide repercussions. Hillary Clinton's supporters at the NEA reminded us that she represents the disenfranchisement wing of the party when they sued to try to keep Culinary Workers Union workers from being able to caucus at work after the union endorsed Obama. The NEA suit failed in court, strengthening Obama's position and possibly leading to some backlash against Clinton from those tired of insider politics.

So, with all this in mind, here are my (likely worthless) predictions for Saturday's caucus results:

The Democrats

    Barack Obama – 39%
    Hillary Clinton – 37%
    John Edwards – 18%

The polls as of yesterday are showing Clinton ahead, but I think that because of the backlash factor against Clinton pitting union against union, the big unions will go more for Obama than their members are willing to admit in the polls and he'll pull out a small, surprise win. I'm betting that Edwards will lose support because his campaign seems to have lost momentum, and whatever undecided voters there are at this point will decide that voting for him is a waste of time.

The Republicans

    Mitt Romney – 24%
    John McCain – 23%
    Fred Thompson – 15%
    Mike Huckabee – 12%
    Rudy Giuliani – 11%
    Ron Paul – 9%

I think the polls are more accurate in Nevada for the Republicans than for the Democrats. But Romney has had a hard week, and I think his margin of victory will be smaller than predicted despite spending a lot of money on the state. McCain is from a neighboring state and has a lot of appeal in Nevada, and I think that will give him a little boost.

I also think Thompson will do better than expected. He's had a lot of good press this week and a great debate performance and that's got to be worth something. I think Huckabee is also overrated in Nevada polls. I can't see people of such a sinful state voting for someone so hostile to everything they believe in. And then there's Ron Paul. This ought to be one of his strongest states, but he's underperformed so badly everywhere else that while I think he'll do better than the predicted 6%, I doubt he'll break into double digits.

The Internet Vote

Here's a new approach to calling the vote. On the theory that any press is good press, I've taken my results above and revised them based on a weighting derived from how many Google News hits each of the candidates has generated in the past week. That produces these results:

Democrats

    Obama – 33%
    Hillary Clinton – 32%
    Edwards – 31%

Republicans

    Mitt Romney – 24%
    John McCain – 22%
    Mike Huckabee – 18%
    Fred Thompson – 13%
    Rudy Giuliani – 12%
    Ron Paul – 8%

Ok, it's totally unscientific, but it may be significant that the media is talking an awful lot about Edwards and Huckabee, moving them way up once: I add that factor in. There's nothing like free publicity and stirring up discussion, and they seem to be the ones doing it. It suggests that both races might be a bit closer than I or the polls predicted.

But wait….

There's South Carolina too – well, half of it anyway.

While the Democrats are holding their primary in South Carolina next week, the Republicans are holding theirs on Saturday head to head with Nevada. Here's how I'm calling it:

Republicans

    John McCain – 28%
    Mike Huckabee – 25%
    Fred Thompson – 19%
    Mitt Romney – 12%
    Rudy Giuliani – 3%
    Ron Paul – 7%

I'm giving Paul a bump over what the polls give him, because South Carolina has elected and reelected Mark Sanford as governor, and he's like a sane version of Ron Paul. I'm also giving Thompson a big bump because he had a strong week and he's from a nearby state. And I'm dropping Romney down a bit because I don't think people in South Carolina will like his slick personality. And here are the Google News weighted results:

Republicans

    John McCain – 25%
    Mike Huckabee – 24%
    Mitt Romney – 18%
    Fred Thompson – 15%
    Rudy Giuliani – 8%
    Ron Paul – 8%

I'm skeptical of the little bump the Google News rankings give to Romney. It's probably carryover from Nevada, but he is the insider favorite, so he might do better than expected. And for the record, South Carolina is worth 24 delegates for the Republicans.

So there it is. Feel free to scoff, discuss or offer your own predictions.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com Reggie

    **RJ’s Political Picks**

    South Carolina (Republican):

    Mike Huckabee – 36%
    Fred Thompson – 23%
    John McCain – 22%
    Mitt Romney – 10%
    Ron Paul – 4%
    Rudy Giuliani – 3%
    Duncan Hunter and everyone else – 2%

    Nevada (Republican):

    Mitt Romney – 33%
    John McCain – 21%
    Fred Thompson – 13%
    Ron Paul – 11%
    Rudy Giuliani – 10%
    Mike Huckabee – 9%
    Duncan Hunter and everyone else – 3%

    Nevada (Democrat):

    Barack Hussein Obama – 42%
    Hillary Rodham Clinton – 38%
    John Edwards – 16%
    Dennis Kucinich and the rest of the lunatics – 4%

  • Arch Conservative

    If the real results are anything close to RJ’s picks Mccain will be fatally wounded and I will go to bed with a smile on my face.

    My picks are

    SC

    Huckabee 31%
    Mccain 27%
    Romney 19%
    Thompson 10%
    Guiliani 4%
    Paul 4%

    Nevada

    Romney 30%
    Mccain 24%
    Thompson 11%
    Guiliani 7%
    Huckabee 7%
    Paul 3%

    I would be surprised if Mccain beat out the Huckster in SC. SC made Mccain pay dearly in 2000 and since then he has done nothing to gain the favor of conservatives, rather he has antagonized them.

    If Mccain doesn’t win SC or NV and Romney wins NV and finishes third in SC that will make Florida a two man race between Romney and Guiliani. If Romney wins FL he wins the nomination.

    My fingers are crossed.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Wow, RJ. And I thought my predictions were risky. Now I can be guaranteed to look accurate by comparison.

    BTW, I heard that Romney had the FoxNews logo tattooed on his ass. You’ve seen it up close. Any truth to the rumor?

    Dave

  • Greg ‘Peace Song’ Jones

    Should Hillary Apologize to Blacks ?????
    Blacks Learning ‘Goldwater Girl’ Hillary Was AGAINST
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964….Feel Deceived !

    An article by Washington columnist Robert Novak (Google: ‘Hillary, King, Goldwater) reveals that Hillary Clinton was a staunch supporter of Sen. Barry Goldwater (who was adamently against the civil rights act and a segregationist) during the same period she claims in all black church appearances that she was for the civil rights movement. Blacks feel that it was impossible for Hillary to have been a Goldwater Girl and pro civil rights at the same time which leads to the assumption that Ms. Clinton is re-inventing her past. Many blacks feel deceived by The Clintons. Should Hillary Clinton make a public apology to blacks ?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    What the hell are you talking about, Peace Song? Goldwater was one of the strongest advocates of civil rights ever to hold a seat in the Senate.

    He voted for the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 which were the ones which led to desegregation and only opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt it intruded too much on individual liberty and free trade, not because he was a racist.

    To suggest that Goldwater was a racist just to get at Hillary is outrageous.

    dave

  • Arch Conservative

    BTW, I heard that Romney had the FoxNews logo tattooed on his ass. You’ve seen it up close. Any truth to the rumor?

    I don’t know about that Nalle but as far as Republican candidates go Romney is the least coddled and canonoized by the Media well with the exception of Ron paul of course. Senator amnesty’s ass isn’t big enough to have the logos of all the media outfits who give him daily rimjobs tatooed on.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You have GOT to be kidding. The general media may not be coddling Romney, but he gets more press from the right wing talkers and FoxNews than all the other candidates put together. Rush Limbaugh can’t shut up about the guy and Fox might as well make his face their logo.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    You’re right he does get more press from real conservatives in talk radio. However talk radio is just one small part of the media. Mccain is praised 24-7 by the newspapers and MSM outlets and you know he is Dave.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I wouldn’t exactly call most of those on talk radio ‘real’ conservatives, except perhaps Neal Boortz.

    And do you deny that FoxNews – the most watched of all the news networks – has Romney on their minds 24/7?

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Romney just one Nevada and things just got a lot tougher for Mccain.

    If illegal smeagol doesn’t win SC he is toast!

  • Lumpy

    I thought the caucuses ran until 3. How has Romney already won?

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com Reggie

    Current results:

    Republican – Nevada

    689 of 1797 Precincts Reporting:

    ROMNEY – 55% 10,492

    MCCAIN – 13% 2,429

    PAUL – 12% 2,259

    THOMPSON – 8% 1,409

    HUCKABEE – 7% 1,404

    GIULIANI – 4% 776

    HUNTER – 1% 250

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com Reggie

    Current Results:

    Democrat – Nevada

    60 of 1797 Precincts Reporting:

    OBAMA – 48% 39

    CLINTON – 46% 38

    EDWARDS – 5% 4

    KUCINICH – 1% 1

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Lumpy,

    Romney is so ridiculously far ahead based on entrance/exit polls and early returns that it really can’t be called any other way.

    Way to go Dave!!!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “Reggie”???!!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Ack! Hillary won Nevada…

    1608 of 1797 Precincts Reporting:

    CLINTON 51% 5,284

    OBAMA 45% 4,685

    EDWARDS 4% 389

    KUCINICH 0% 4

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Meanwhile, Romney destroyed the Republican competition in Nevada…

    1414 of 1797 Precincts Reporting:

    ROMNEY 52% 18,200

    PAUL 13% 4,563

    MCCAIN 13% 4,540

    HUCKABEE 8% 2,682

    THOMPSON 8% 2,669

    GIULIANI 4% 1,577

    HUNTER 2% 608

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Well, between me, Dave, and Arch, I think it’s fair to say I was closest in the Nevada GOP primary. I had the widest margin between Romney and McCain (Romney beat him by about 40 points), and I also had Ron Paul with the highest percentage of the vote (Paul came in a surprising second place, narrowly ahead of McCain, with approximately 13% of the vote).

    Agreed? ;-)

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    As for the Nevada Democrat race, Dave and I were about equally wrong. We both mistakenly predicted that Obama would beat Clinton (she finished ahead of him by about 6 points), and we both greatly overestimated the support Edwards would receive (he only got about 4% of the vote).

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    It’s certainly no secret that Hillary worked for Goldwater back in ’64, and Dave is correct that Goldwater was never against civil rights. He was a bit too looney to be given access to “the button,” but he was not a segregationist.

    Hillary surprises again! Is Obama loosing traction?

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I am absolutely wordless over the ridiculous results from Nevada, particularly for the GOP caucus. All I can say is WTF? I mean really, WTF?

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    As for the Nevada Democrat race, Dave and I were about equally wrong. We both mistakenly predicted that Obama would beat Clinton (she finished ahead of him by about 6 points)

    Turns out we were less wrong than we thought, RJ. Because of a peculiarity in how delegates are assigned, although Obama lost the popular vote by like 2%, he actually ended up with one more delegate than Clinton, and that’s what really matters, so he basically won 13 delegates to 12.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Sigh…looks like McAmnesty just won South Carolina…

    84% reporting:

    MCCAIN…33%
    HUCKABEE…29%
    THOMPSON…16% [he didn’t drop out, as many had expected…]
    ROMNEY…15%
    PAUL…4%
    GIULIANI…2% [he really, really needs a win in Florida in ten days…]
    HUNTER…???

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Oh, Duncan Hunter just dropped out. Story here.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    RJ, my sources tell me that McCain won SC, not this other guy you’re talking about.

    I wonder how many PaulBots’ hearts exploded when he came in 2nd in Nevada.

    Dave

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    I think the Ron Paul faithful is extremely happy with the Nevada results, when you use the Ron Paul Primary Placement Conversion Table:

    5th place = 2nd place
    4th place = 1nd place
    3rd place = won nomination
    2nd place = won presidency

  • wildnfree

    Actually Dave, We the Paulbots expected him to do better in Nevada. What shocks is how well Fred Thompson did in SC. Thompson & Paul had been taking turns in fourth. But SC is more conservative than the other states that have held primaries so far so it’s not totally surprising that Fred moved up a notch.
    As for Giuliani are any of you ready to admit that he is not a factor in this race, never has been, and is not likely to do any better. If not, how much is ole Murdoch paying you to keep beating his favorite dead whorse.

  • wildnfree

    Matthew, you and the other neocons will only have yourselves to blame when the margin that the GOP needs to win next November is gone. By pissing all over us libertarian Republicans and our favorite candidate, people like yourself are responsible for the creation of all of the consevative 3rd party spin-offs that will eventually be the death of the GOP. If you guys do not wish to hear the phrase Madame President elect in November, you (and Faux News and quite frankly most radio talkers) should at least realize that you’re alienating a legitimate, and very conservative constituency.

  • REMF

    “Sigh…looks like McAmnesty just won South Carolina…”

    And Mitt “Mountain Meadows Massacre” Romney came in fourth…

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Actually Dave, We the Paulbots expected him to do better in Nevada.

    You will note that in the article I predicted that Paul would do much better than the polls suggested, though he exceeded even my expectations. He had a LOT of backing from the casinos and sports books, so it’s not surprising.

    What shocks is how well Fred Thompson did in SC. Thompson & Paul had been taking turns in fourth. But SC is more conservative than the other states that have held primaries so far so it’s not totally surprising that Fred moved up a notch.

    And Paul got 3% in one of the most libertarian states in the union. And all the Republican libertarian types in state offices were backing McCain, not Paul.

    As for Giuliani are any of you ready to admit that he is not a factor in this race, never has been, and is not likely to do any better. If not, how much is ole Murdoch paying you to keep beating his favorite dead whorse.

    Who around here is rooting for Rudy? No one that I’ve seen. But you’re wrong about Murdoch. Based on what’s shown on FoxNews he’s a Romney supporter.

    By pissing all over us libertarian Republicans and our favorite candidate, people like yourself are responsible for the creation of all of the consevative 3rd party spin-offs that will eventually be the death of the GOP.

    If the libertarian republicans are smart they’ll stick with the party while the theocrats and racists and conspiracy freaks leave the party. Then we can start to put it back on track.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    So it looks like it’s down to Florida.

    Here’s hoping that Mitt Romney can stop the illegal smeagol crazy train.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    But everyone knows that Rudy is going to win Florida, right?

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Well, Rudy certainly hopes so, but the latest Real Clear Politics Averages show McCain up by nearly 3% over Rudy in Florida, with Clinton leading Obama by 19% here.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    While the final verdict remains in question, I must admit that I am surprised that Clinton has gained so much traction since her surprise win in NH. What is really going on, we may never know. I truly felt that Obama would surge despite his NH loss. He may still, but the trend seems to be going HC’s way. Perhaps Super Tuesday will go some distance in sorting this out.

    While I remain for HC, I still believe that Obama would have a better chance of winning in November unless race really does become an issue. I suspect it has and will to some degree, but mostly unspoken, behind the scenes.

    As some of the comments above indicate, though, it might not matter who the Dems nominate. The Reps are uncharacteristally splintered. Will McCain continue to surge? Will Romney regain momentum? What about The Huckster? Can Ron Paul catch on with mainstream voters? What of Rudy?

    I think some believed, and certainly hoped that the evangelical’s influence in the party would more or less dissolve and the more moderate forces within the GOP would hold sway. That may ultimately come to pass, but at what cost? If those backing Huckabee and/or Paul split away from the party to back either or both of those candidates in an independent run, it could be difficult for the Reps to muster enough votes to beat the Dems.

    I think Dave believes that a more moderate Rep candidate will bring back some of the independent votes away from the Dems, and that may be, but it’s difficult to predict if that scenario would be enough to carry the day for the Reps especially should they lose the evangelicals.

    Keep in mind that Bloomberg is still out there. While he claims not to be a candidate, he certainly is acting like one. An independent Bloomberg run could actually further splinter the Reps taking some of the more fiscally conservative voters with it. If the Reps loose them and a significant number of the evangelicals, it’s hard to see how they could win against Obama or even Clinton. It’s a bit unsettling and unprecedented to see the Reps coming unglued while the Dems seem to be basking in a love fest of unity. When it comes down to it, there isn’t a great deal of difference between the three main Dem candidates, excepting for race, color and gender. Say what?

    It’s all going to continue to be very interesting over the next weeks and months. The unpredictability makes it fun, no? Woohoo!!!

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    While I remain for HC, I still believe that Obama would have a better chance of winning in November unless race really does become an issue. I suspect it has and will to some degree, but mostly unspoken, behind the scenes.

    Republicans and independents will vote for Obama. They won’t vote for Hillary. Given her negative ratings that IMO makes her unelectable.

    I think some believed, and certainly hoped that the evangelical’s influence in the party would more or less dissolve and the more moderate forces within the GOP would hold sway. That may ultimately come to pass, but at what cost?

    Hopefully at the cost of the fundamentalists leaving the party altogether.

    If those backing Huckabee and/or Paul split away from the party to back either or both of those candidates in an independent run, it could be difficult for the Reps to muster enough votes to beat the Dems.

    I’d rather lose to Obama with the fundies purged from the party than win the White House this election.

    I think Dave believes that a more moderate Rep candidate will bring back some of the independent votes away from the Dems, and that may be, but it’s difficult to predict if that scenario would be enough to carry the day for the Reps especially should they lose the evangelicals.

    The real key for the GOP is the independent vote, and Huckabee can’t win it while a moderate can.

    An independent Bloomberg run could actually further splinter the Reps taking some of the more fiscally conservative voters with it.

    I find this popular belief inexplicable. Bloomberg is indistinguishable from a fairly far left democrat. I can’t see any circumstance in which he wouldn’t draw most of his support from Democrats, not Republicans.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    You say:

    “I find this popular belief inexplicable. Bloomberg is indistinguishable from a fairly far left democrat. I can’t see any circumstance in which he wouldn’t draw most of his support from Democrats, not Republicans.”

    I disagree. The key is that “popular belief.” Bloomberg is perceived as a fiscal conservative. Right or wrong, that, I believe, is the perception, and the perception is all. Perhaps you can go about the country and knock some heads to put all the misperception to rest. At any rate, his candidacy may not materialize, and I can’t see him having that much of an influence. Although, as happened with Nader and the Green Party, even a couple of percentage points can completely change the outcome.

    I really don’t agree that Hillary is unelectable. Should she become the nominee, I think a number of women will rally behind her including a # of independents. I wouldn’t venture to say that many moderate Republicans would do so, but it’s certainly possible that the prospect of having a woman president – even if it’s Hillary – will intrigue a lot more people than you may suspect.

    With either Obama or Hillary leading the Dems the politics will likely not be business as usual, and, consequently, not as predictable. I know Clinton has a lot of negative baggage as is plain to see here at BC. But I’m not sure it’s as pervasive as you apparently believe. Of course, Obama won’t have to deal with those negatives, which may render him more electable than HC, but the Reps may not be cohesive enough to bring her down.

    I know you are repelled by the evangelical’s usurpation of the Reps, but they came in droves by invitation. They may not be as ready to vacate the premises as you obviously wish. If they do leave enmasse it would likely be to follow Ron Paul or perhaps Huckabuck should he decide to run as an independent. He claims that he won’t, but that could change.

    I think there may be a significant “gray area,” wherein a number of Reps will be conflicted about which direction to go. Some may be moderate in their politics, but more radical in their faith. Such people will not be so predictable.

    I know you have much of this figured out in your head. I just think that there are far too many variables to make any even remotely reliable predictions. Even given some of the possible scenarios as to who winds up running against whom, there are a number of other less predictable factors – say, the respective running mates chosen – that can push things one way or another. After all, your primary predictions have not exactly come to fruition – especially regarding HC. Love em or hate em, the Clintons always seem to go into the fray covered with manure and come out draped with ticker tape and rose petals.

    B-tone

  • Arch Conservative

    “Republicans and independents will vote for Obama.”

    Speak for yourself Dave.

    I know there may be some people who call themselves Republicans who might vote for Obamaa but real Republicans would never vote for him in large numbers.

    I will also NEVER vote for Mccain and know that there are many of my fellow republicans who feel the same way.

    I’m now becoming certain that the ascendency of John Mccain in the GOP would harm my party far more than a Hillary win in 2008.

    I hate to say it but I would rather lose with Romney or Rudy than win with Mccain.

    I wasn’t around when suckass Carter was president. Well I was but I was wearing dipaers so I wasn’t really paying too much attention to what was going on. I may have lived through that time when things sucked like they had never sucked before but I was blissfully unaware.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that I will very soon be learning how much things in America can possibly suck come November when my only choices are Senator amnesty and the most hated socialist in America.

    God this is going to ……SUCK!

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Well, Arch, it’s all a matter of perspective. All of us who look at the world differently have, for the last now 7 plus years lived through what we feel to have been a period that has truly sucked. We have lived under the spell of the heinous Idiot Bush, which is far worse than crab grass.

    It’s only fair that the onus be shifted to those who elevated the hated Texas weed to the top office in the land so that now you all can suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from a hated left leaning administration. (Sorry, I couldn’t figure how to keep the plant metaphor going.)

    B-tone

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “Matthew, you and the other neocons will blah blah blah blah blah blah

    [paraphrasing added in bold]

    Funny how you think I have some kind of party affiliation just by making fun of Ron Paul supporters. I don’t really care who I alienate from the GOP, because the Party of Suss has always been a one-man party. And you’re not invited.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I have a sneaking suspicion that I will very soon be learning how much things in America can possibly suck come November when my only choices are Senator amnesty and the most hated socialist in America.

    Out of interest, Arch, if it comes down to that and Bloomberg comes in as a third party candidate, would you consider voting for Bloomberg? Just curious.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Speak for yourself Dave.

    I generally do. But I also know there are others who share my perspective.

    I know there may be some people who call themselves Republicans who might vote for Obamaa but real Republicans would never vote for him in large numbers.

    People need to get over the idea that some people are ‘real’ republicans and some aren’t. Especially those who do nothing but support a party hack like Romney who changes his opinions based on the latest poll. Talk about not being a real Republica. Romney defines that status.

    I will also NEVER vote for Mccain and know that there are many of my fellow republicans who feel the same way.

    So when your choice comes down to McCain or Obama, who will you vote for?

    I’m now becoming certain that the ascendency of John Mccain in the GOP would harm my party far more than a Hillary win in 2008.

    Yeah, it would be terrible to have an actual conservative elected. That would just suck.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Well, Arch, it’s all a matter of perspective. All of us who look at the world differently have, for the last now 7 plus years lived through what we feel to have been a period that has truly sucked. We have lived under the spell of the heinous Idiot Bush, which is far worse than crab grass.

    Just to annoy Arch, I have to point out that Romney actually IS all the things which Bush has been accused of being (sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly). If you hated Bush you’ll end up hating Mitt about 3 times as much.

    On the other hand, I’m firmly convinced that if Hillary wins the election we’ll be wishing we had Bush back in a couple of years.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Out of interest, Arch, if it comes down to that and Bloomberg comes in as a third party candidate, would you consider voting for Bloomberg? Just curious.

    Well as of right now I do not know much about bloomburg but would at least consider him if it came to Mccain and Hillary. If Bloomburg didn’t win me over I’d probably write in Duncan Hunter’s name as he is the one person who most refelcted my values.

    A lot of people assume that because I am a Republican I must love Bush but that’s not the case.. I’m not happy with him at all and can’t wait for my nationad my party to be done with him.

    Here is a little alundry list of the issues/criteria I use for selecting a candidate

    1. Illegal immigration…I want a president who actually believes that something can and SHOULD be done to secure our southern border, and protect our citizens, laws and culture.

    2. Abortion I want a candidate who will stand up and publicly condem the infanticide that is going on.

    3. Fiscally conservative values. I do not want a president who believes that government is the answer to every problem but rather prefers to let the market and the population help themselves. He should believe in low taxes and low spending. His respect for the market should be tempered with support for a very limited social welfare system whose goal it is not to make people dependent upon the government but briefly help them through the hard times until they become self sufficient again.

    4. Military power. I want a president who is in no uncertain terms fully committed to seeing that the US has the most powerful and capable military in the world.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Then except for the first item on your list, AC, McCain should be your man.

    I am still seeing a McCain/Huckabee ticket vs. a Clinton/Obama ticket in the fall. And I think it will be a close race, but fingers crossed it will go to the Dems. [If Romney heads the GOP ticket, I believe he will lose rather badly. Fair or not, either the press, or more likely, Mitt himself, has painted him as “a stiff and a phony,” as Fred Barnes has pointed out.]

    This is the best year for political junkies in a loong time. Even if you’re not a fan of the leading candidates, the storyline is pretty exciting.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Arch, a suggestion:

    When you’re quoting from another commenter in order to respond to them, would you mind either italicizing the quote or putting it in quotation marks?

    I’m not personally having any trouble distinguishing your remarks from someone else’s, but others might have more difficulty.

    Thanks.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    handy, if there’s any justice in the world (and there probably isn’t), it’s the Republicans’ turn to shoot themselves in the foot with their choice of nominee. Bush was there for the taking in ’04, but wouldn’t you know it, the Dems had to go and nominate Captain Charisma…

    As I see it, the only viable candidates on the Republican side with sufficient cross-party appeal are Giuliani and McCain. Of those, Rudy currently seems extremely unlikely to win (unless his bigger-states-only gamble actually does pay off), and Macca is probably going to have to buy off the conservative wing of his own party by selecting someone to their liking as VP, in order to persuade them to vote for him!

    Thompson might have pulled it off too, due to his Law and Order name recognition, but he clearly is not going to get the nomination.

    I don’t see Romney getting tanked as badly as you think, unless his eventual opponent can successfully expose how much of his presentation is just slick window-dressing.

    As for Huckabee, he’s simply unelectable. Either Clinton or Obama will wipe the floor with him.

    McCain is the only Republican I would even consider voting for… if I was eligible to vote!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    The dynamics in the fall will be very different from the atmosphere now. Generally speaking, the more people actually hear Clinton speak, the more electable she becomes, because she’s very smart and not half as scary as the caricature the GOP would like to paint. And if Obama is aboard, his brilliant speaking abilities will serve to soften her tendency toward harshness.

    McCain and Huckabee have been very careful not to attack each other in the race to date. Huck may pick up enough delegates to be able to swing a divided convention, and in return for the VP slot he may throw his support to McCain, certainly if his other option is Romney. [Giuliani is still a potential wild card, but he did not do himself any favors by coming in 5th or worse so often in the early states.]

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    I’d rather have Reagan back – even in his present state (that being dead) than to have Bush back at the helm.

    I think your fears regarding HC are unfounded. Any “crazy” ideas she may come up with will doubtless be drubbed by Congress, or at least reshaped into a more paletable form. But I don’t think she will have many crazy ideas floating about. She just may prove to be smarter than even her staunchest supporters suspect. Despite her teary moment in NH, if elected, I think she will be hard as nails with few warm and fuzzies. Bill will have to provide all that kind of thing. I can’t wait to see Bill’s White House tour special on the tube to show us the new bed linens in the Lincoln bedroom and the flower arrangements for an upcoming dinner for the President For Life of Berzerkastan.

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I am still seeing a McCain/Huckabee ticket

    I also think this is likely, but I think Huckabee will be VP no matter who gets the presidential nod.

    vs. a Clinton/Obama ticket in the fall.

    I think that combination is the one which could lose to McCain/Huckabee, and I would hope that it did should it come to that.

    And I think it will be a close race, but fingers crossed it will go to the Dems. [If Romney heads the GOP ticket, I believe he will lose rather badly. Fair or not, either the press, or more likely, Mitt himself, has painted him as “a stiff and a phony,” as Fred Barnes has pointed out.]

    All true.

    I’d rather have Reagan back – even in his present state (that being dead) than to have Bush back at the helm.

    IMO a dead Reagan would be better than most of our choices for this fall.

    I think your fears regarding HC are unfounded.

    Time will tell. My family is discussing moving to another country while we still can as her election seems more and more probable. Ireland and Australia top the list right now.

    Any “crazy” ideas she may come up with will doubtless be drubbed by Congress, or at least reshaped into a more paletable form.

    Not with a Senate controlled by the likes of Nancy Pelosi. If whoever ends up replacing Harry Reid is a socialist too, we could be in for a very rough few years.

    But I don’t think she will have many crazy ideas floating about. She just may prove to be smarter than even her staunchest supporters suspect. Despite her teary moment in NH, if elected, I think she will be hard as nails with few warm and fuzzies.

    That’s what’s scary. People aren’t against Hillary because she’s a woman or because she cried. They’re afraid she may be competent and actually implement the things she believes in.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Ah, yes. All you good capitalists are so afraid that Clinton is the reincarnation of Lenin himself. Again, I think you’re all alarmists when it comes to HC. Do you really think she will be able to make wholesale changes that will send capitalism packing? Do you imagine that she will have us all moving into high rise collectives trading in our GAP jeans and Old Navy fleece hoodies for gray Mao outfits? Do you envision us hitting the street enmasse at 5AM for group exercise and neighborhood street cleaning with straw brooms? Who knows, maybe that’d be good for us.

    B-tone

  • Clavos

    “Do you really think she will be able to make wholesale changes that will send capitalism packing? Do you imagine that she will have us all moving into high rise collectives trading in our GAP jeans and Old Navy fleece hoodies for gray Mao outfits? Do you envision us hitting the street enmasse at 5AM for group exercise and neighborhood street cleaning with straw brooms?”

    No B-tone, of course not, but a shift toward socialism well short of what you describe would make me uncomfortable enough to make sure my Mexican passport stays current.

    And I think Hillary can and will bring that about.

    She’s a firebrand, an ideologue, a leftover 60s activist who thinks she can change the world, and as Dave says, she can.

    Hillary will be forceful. She will demand that the country toe her line; she won’t be a compromiser, nor will she heal the very deep rifts in our society.

    Because of that, and because I’m philosophically opposed to most of the ideas she proposes, she’s scary to me.

    Obama, on the other hand, though perhaps even more left in his ideas, strikes me as a much more reasonable and inclusive individual. He also seems smarter, in the sense that he appears to be willing to listen to other’s ideas and seek out a path acceptable to as many people as possible in the solution of problems.

    Obama comes across as a (in the words of another pol) “uniter, not a divider.”

    And a very bright man.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    Of course, I was taunting Dave above. Nevertheless, I just don’t share your fears of a Clinton presidency. She may well push things to the left, but I don’t know if that is necessarily bad. If HC takes up residence on Pennsylvania Ave, you can keep your boat idling at the dock just in case, but I doubt that anything will change so dramatically that a mass exodus of dyed in the wool capitalists would ensue while lefties are passing out Mao’s Red Book on street corners.

    As I said, Hillary may move the paradigm to the left, but, really most things government, even under her hubby’s tenure, have moved to the right fairly steadily at least since Reagan and perhaps since Nixon, with only a brief hiccup during the Carter years. A bit of lefty juice might just spice things up a bit. Who knows?

    B-tone

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Interestingly, the left wing of the Democratic Party is suspicious that HRC is a rightist, not a leftist. One of my closest friends says he’s afraid she’ll turn right once in office,”just like her husband did.” He’s referring primarily to welfare reform in Bill’s case and Iraq in HRC’s.

    Now, he’s a pretty smart fellow, and, even accounting for some hyperbole and blogospheric ranting, Dave and Clavos are no dummies either. You can’t all be right, you know.

    But she does seem like one of the most cautious and careful politicians around. I don’t see her as some wild-eyed radical. She is more of a statist than Dave or Clavos, but, jeez, so is GW Bush.

    HRC will look for government solutions to problems [health care, environmental protection, corporate excess, the economic well-being of people whose income is less than 6 figures] the GOP would prefer to just leave alone. But what I hope for is some pragmatic middle ground, and I still think that’s possible.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Bill Clinton was more of a pragmatist than some thought he would be. He saw the failures of the welfare state and acted accordingly initiating “workfare” that leftists saw as a sell out.

    Bill was and remains pretty much a centrist, probably more so than his wife. Any notion that HC will veer to the right is, I think, unfounded. I’m sure such a move would certainly be welcomed by Dave and Clav.

    Dave says he fears that HC would be a hard as nails president. At about the same time both he and others have chided her for her emotional “outburst” in NH claiming how that “lowered the level” of the campaign and demonstrates that she hasn’t the balls to be president, if she can’t control her emotions on the campaign trail. She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.

    As I’ve said, I won’t be at all dismayed by an Obama win. However, there is a significant part of me that would really like to see HC take all the marbles in November. If she does, she will be the most scrutinized president EVER. She won’t be able to adjust a bra strap without somebody making an issue of it in the media. I don’t envy her that, but she has chosen this course. She damn well better be ready for it. I think she just may be. (What’s that sound? Ah, yes – the grinding of Hillary Hater teeth.)

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Putting all the rest of it aside, just look at your last paragraph, Baritone.

    How will it benefit the country to have another 4 years on top of the last 16 where you have a president who’s under constant attack on both the personal and political level and looked on by a large secment of the country as a traitor and enemy of all of our basic values?

    We need someone who can bring the country together, not someone who will bring about the final sundering.

    Dave

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    I thought you were in favour of reforming failed organisations and states? As the USA is clearly a failure that is failing to achieve its aims of freedom and democracy, let’s split it up into three or four more harmonious states! *Removes tongue from cheek*

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    So now, Hillary has sunk to the level of “traitor and enemy of all our basic values?” Do YOU believe that? You are nearing the point of being shrill. Unreal!

    B-tone

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dave has used that rhetoric before, regarding Democrats in general, and Nancy Pelosi, HRC, and Charles Rangel and other committee chairmen in particular. It’s way over the top, and short circuits the possibility of reasonable discussions about different policy positions. It takes things into the realm of My Political Opponents Are Evil Incarnate. Destructive foolishness.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Baritone, I didn’t say that she was a traitor, just that a large portion of the country would view her that way. Huge difference and it goes to my point that her presence in the White House would be divisive, a point you reinforce by automatically jumping to the wrong conclusion from what I wrote. Handy does exactly the same thing again and again. You both respond to what you assume I would write as an evil right-winger rather than to what I actually wrote, which is much more reasonable. That attitude is part of the problem.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    “You both respond to what you assume I would write as an evil right-winger rather than to what I actually wrote, which is much more reasonable. That attitude is part of the problem.”

    Quoted for Truth.

    (In this one instance at least)

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave, you like to hang things out there for others to grab onto. You have a talent for saying things without – as you would have it – actually saying them. You tantalize, you suggest, but then step back. You’ve obviously been around the political block, so you’ve learned the art of ‘politic speak.’ You couch your phraseology carefully so you can make your disclaimers when it serves you. Regardless, you spread the seeds that will germinate in the minds of others while you sit back and deny you ever said anything of the sort. It’s perhaps a clever, tactic, but not convincing, at least not here in Baritoneland.

    “How will it benefit the country to have another 4 years on top of the last 16 where you have a president who’s under constant attack on both the personal and political level and looked on by a large secment (sic) of the country as a traitor and enemy of all of our basic values?”

    Quoted with emphasis for truth.

    I asked if YOU believed HC is a traitor. A simple “no” would have sufficed.

    B-tone

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    I suppose most of you have seen that Fred Thompson has dropped out of the race.

    Whew!

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, you like to hang things out there for others to grab onto. You have a talent for saying things without – as you would have it – actually saying them. You tantalize, you suggest, but then step back. You’ve obviously been around the political block, so you’ve learned the art of ‘politic speak.’ You couch your phraseology carefully so you can make your disclaimers when it serves you.

    I admit that I am capable of doing this and have done it on occasion, but that does not apply in this case. What I wrote was absolutely clear and not ambiguous at all.

    Regardless, you spread the seeds that will germinate in the minds of others while you sit back and deny you ever said anything of the sort. It’s perhaps a clever, tactic, but not convincing, at least not here in Baritoneland.

    But again, that’s not what I did here.

    I asked if YOU believed HC is a traitor. A simple “no” would have sufficed.

    No, it wouldn’t have. It’s too simplistic an answer to that question. My actual answer would be that I do not think that she is a traitor, but that I think she does carry within her the potential to be enormously destructive to the country, both through her legitimate policies and her willingness to pursue those policies through means as destructive to the constitution and the nation as anything George W. Bush has done. She has not done these things yet, and may not end up going to the lengths of which I think she is capable, but the potential is certainly there.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    I obviously disagree with your assessment of both your writing and your fears concerning HC.

    Despite your denials, I believe that’s exactly what you were doing. If not, the result may be the same.

    As to your concerns with Clinton, that same potential is true of anyone taking the presidency. I look upon the likes of Huckabee and Paul with far more trepidation than Clinton. I think McCain is, perhaps the least stable of any of the front runners. His short fuse coupled with his verbal gaffs last summer render him in my mind rather a loose cannon. Giuliani’s ruthlessness and Stalinist penchant for gaining revenge against anyone who he believes may have crossed him may make for a tense atmosphere in the White House and beyond with staff members afraid of hiccuping lest they be noticed. One could probably make similar cases for all of the other candidates as well.

    Additionally, any of the current crop of candidates could have agendas that few of us suspect. Hillary has no particular potential to be destructive to this country than anyone else. The fear that you and others harbour are irrational and unfounded.

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I obviously disagree with your assessment of both your writing and your fears concerning HC.

    Clearly, but you’re still wrong about thw writing. This is a clear, unambiguous sentence:

    “and looked on by a large segment of the country as a traitor and enemy of all of our basic values?”

    I didn’t say looked on by me, but by a large segment of the country. Do you deny that a great many people dislike and fear Hillary?

    As to your concerns with Clinton, that same potential is true of anyone taking the presidency. I look upon the likes of Huckabee and Paul with far more trepidation than Clinton.

    Here’s something to consider. I look on Romney, Clinton, Huckabee and Paul as potentially dangerous. Notice that I include people from BOTH political parties. You seem to inclde only people from one political party. I think that’s very telling.

    I think McCain is, perhaps the least stable of any of the front runners….Giuliani’s ruthlessness and Stalinist penchant for gaining revenge against anyone who he believes may have crossed him may make for a tense atmosphere in the White House and beyond with staff members afraid of hiccuping lest they be noticed.

    So is there a Republican you don’t hate? Do you just hate them because they are Republicans?

    One could probably make similar cases for all of the other candidates as well.

    All the Republican candidates, right?

    Additionally, any of the current crop of candidates could have agendas that few of us suspect. Hillary has no particular potential to be destructive to this country than anyone else. The fear that you and others harbour are irrational and unfounded.

    Have you looked at her policy proposals?

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    In answer to your last question: Yes. I have read most of her position papers on her web site. I find nothing alarming in any of it.

    Now, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t claim to “hate” anyone.

    Secondly, as to my choices above, we had already been considering Clinton. We have both agreed that Obama has few negatives and is likely the least objectionable of all of the candidates. There just isn’t a lot to say about Edwards. I don’t think he’s a serious threat at this juncture, although he could serve as a spoiler. Frankly, I have no opinion of him as a potential president. His main negative as I have seen him is his penchant for wearing his religion on his sleeve. Who does that leave?

    My choices above were made as they all have well documented baggage that could have a significant negative effect on their presidencies.

    As to your writing: We’ll just have to agree to disagree. As I see it, your intent in writing, and the effect of what and how you write, may be at odds.

    B-tone