Barack Obama John Edwards Bill Richardson Hillary Clinton
Overall
You know who I think was the real victor of the Republicans, and you know what I think is happening on the Democrats side. So this leaves us with some very simple facts to dissect on the Republican side. First is the Huckabee angle; what does this mean for Mike? Second is the Romney angle; how does this change Mitts chances in the primary? Third is how does this affect the other candidates? Well we know this means Huckabee gets 15 minutes of fame, but does it matter? Not really, but it give Huckabee the chance to hang around for an extra election or two. He has no chance of winning an election unless we become evangelical Christians. So I guess the question is who wants to convert? No takers? Alright, then lets write him off; he didn't win on the issues. He is only going to win in and around the Bible belt. I would be really surprised to see Huckabee win any other elections unless the Republican base are short sighted evangelicals who have not looked past the church doors for political information. This is not to say anything negative of you if you like Mike, but just to say you may not be looking at the big picture. First and foremost, who could he win against in a general election? Second, this is a republican primary and Huckabee is not ethical or a conservative. Republicans want conservatives. What about Mitt? Well, he mopped the floor with the other candidates. The closest candidate to him was McCain with 13%. Romney won the election on the issues. Romney is now coming to New Hampshire where he is to face the other major candidate who made a blip on the Iowa map. McCain will not roll over in New Hampshire and may win next Tuesday. Does this mean Romney is dead? Could this be over before it even starts for Mitt Romney? Not even close. If McCain wins here in New Hampshire, Mitt has Michigan and South Carolina. Both states poll Romney with a favorable light. Romney will either gain the silver or the gold in New Hampshire before he receives a gold in Michigan and another gold or silver in South Carolina. Romney can win the Primary if he can stay in the top two or three for every election until "Super Tuesday." Iowa and New Hampshire will propel Romney to the top, even if McCain takes first here and Mike has Iowa. Romney just has to pull second. So where are Thomson and Giuliani? Like I said before, Thompson landed with a thud. I think Thompson's campaign has been on life support for at least month now, and I think he is going to drop out after New Hampshire. I would be surprised to see him in South Carolina, but I do not intend to see him at "Super Tuesday." As far as Giuliani, it's hard to win if you do not show up. He is betting on the later states to crown him king. I hope others have enough good sense to see his true intentions. Rudy only cares about you if you are a major state. If he cares about you, he only cares that you see him how you like your candidate (in the style of Hillary). Does he have some real positions? Yes, he is a social liberal and a fiscal moderate. I pray Florida knows that Rudy wants to grant amnesty to all the illegal's soaking up space in their state. To the legal immigrants and children of legal immigrants how are voting, think about Rudy's "amnesty measures" when your time comes. The Caucus only affected Mitt and Mike; no other candidate mattered in Iowa. If you learned one thing from Iowa, please know his: Mitt Romney won.
The Iowa caucus has traditionally been an informal vote of about 10% of the voting population. This year was nothing different. About 10% showed up and "voted" for their candidate. We had Obama winning on the Democrats side, and Huckabee on the Republican. Both sides showed very clearly who the most viable candidate for both sides is. I know … how can Mike Huckabee be viable? I never said he was, only that the vote showed us who was viable. Now that I have teased you, let me swing our attention to the Democrats. If you want to read about the Republicans, read this post. So Obama wins by a good margin, followed by Edwards, and Clinton as the caboose. This is a fitting order in my opinion. I think Clinton makes a good rear end, and I don't want her to think she can just glide in, take the vote and glide out. She is still going to be the nominee in my opinion, but I would like to see her work for it. Further, if she has to raise hell on the way to the nomination, the other Democrats are going to start digging into her past. This will make my job easier (picking her apart), and it also make an easier victory for the Republican candidate (not like they need it). If you expect me to take more pop-shots, please wait for another post. I try to reserve those so I can spread them out and not be too repetitive. Edwards should be used to second. It seems to me he has been there before. Then again, he HAS been there before, and therefore he knows how to run for office. For Edwards to pull second place is about the same as saying he tripped on a stair. Do not count Edwards out because he is not a new kid on this block. You must watch Edwards, he learned from the best. I am not being hypocritical; I still stand by my other post. John Edwards appeals to a particular group within the Democratic voting population. Hillary is still the favorite. Our buddy Obama is a wild stallion on the stage. No one knows quite how to handle him. Do you attack him, discredit him, or ignore him? He is the first viable "black" candidate offered in a primary election. Obama has staying power, but I don't think he can pull New Hampshire under his wing. Hillary seems to be the one speaking New Hampshire's liberal language. Obama is going to make this a close race, but I don't know if he can get over on Hillary. Hillary VS Obama offers a new piece to the game board, one I had not thought about. If Obama take New Hampshire, Hillary might not fair too well in the primary. My assumption was Hillary would resonate with Iowa in the same fashion as she does here in the Granite State. I expected Hillary to get silver, maybe gold, and then plow though New Hampshire like a moose in the brush (New Hampshire reference). Now I am rethinking the ease of access for Hillary. South Carolina is a state that has a high ratio of minority voters. Right now, they are not voting for Obama because they do not think "white America" would vote for him. What happens if he wins New Hampshire and Iowa? Both states are 95% "white," doesn't this prove that Obama can win the white vote? Will this sway the South Carolina voters? Many questions, few answers. Here are my thoughts; Even if Obama takes the first two elections, then takes South Carolina, he can not win. Hillary is the "Hollywood candidate" who will sweep New York, Massachusetts, and the entire "Left Coast." Obama is going to get a HUGE bounce, but it will not rocket him into the general election. Obama is going to make this one interesting, and Edwards is going to be a thorn in the side. When the dust settles, Hillary will be the only MAN standing.
First and foremost, I want to apologize. You asked for my analysis, and I made you wait. Why haven't I written about the Youtube Debate? This is a great question, especially since Mitt stole the show. There are a few reasons why I did not write about this, the most obvious is because of the blatant fraud CNN committed. I should have posted my thoughts the day after the debate, but I wanted see what else would unfold excluding the "Clinton plant." This was supposed to be a debate not and evening of Democrat plants from one side of the room to the other. As the evening unfolded, I noticed that even the questions were erroneous, or portrayed in an erroneous light. Typical, I would have to back up my arguments here, but I just feel like I am telling you what you already know. CNN flew a guy out from California to Florida to accost the candidates face to face. Why would CNN fly him out? Simple, because the Clinton News Network (CNN) thought it would be good to have a member of Hillary's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Tran-sexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee spout rhetoric at the Republicans on the stage. Way to go CNN. You really showed your "fair and slanted" side there didn't you. Don't get me wrong, I like and watch CNN, but this stunt went too far. The next mornings follow up with John Roberts was pathetic. Keith Kerr tried to say his "…friend…" just "put (his name) there" on the steering committee list and he had nothing to do with it. I don't know what is worse, the fact that it happened, the lie from Kerr, or Roberts sitting there trying to act like CNN had no idea about this mans background. It took me one quick web search and I knew were this "Log Cabin Republican" stood. (Can you taste the sarcasm?) You know, I am enjoying this, so let me continue dissecting the deceit in an indirect way. I have not read much from Michelle Malkin, but look at how much she has uncovered. Hillary was not the only Democrat to be represented at the "debate," Obama and Edwards also were represented. So what's the deal? CNN can pull this stuff on the Republicans but the Democrats are allowed to skip a FOX debate? Oh look, here we have the New York Lies, I mean, Times trying to justify the withdrawal of the Democrats from said debate. … Sorry, I went off on a tangent there … Anyhow, Michelle pointed out other issues with the people selected, but she did not point out my thoughts from the evening of the debate; "What did CNN do, look for the worst videos to portray conservatives as pathetic extremists?" What was with the questioners, and more importantly what was that music video they used to open? The whole debate format turned me off. The candidates were great and took it in stride, but I do not feel I "got my money's worth" from the debate. At least they didn't use these videos. CNN and Youtube did a great job disappointing me, just like the Democrats youtube debate. Just about every question seemed out of place in a GOP presidential primary. Almost every question that leaned towards conservative beliefs was asked by a "youtuber" who looked or acted like they escaped from a mental institution, or came straight out of the movie "deliverance." It seems that CNN hand pick the most unstable looking people to ask a conservative values question. The most eloquent of the questioners asked questions with a liberal slant. Why can't we have relevant questions asked in a mature manner by one moderator? If you want input from the constituents, ask them to write in a question, and then create a list of the questions asked. Present the list to the candidates and let them debate the topics. This would allow the constituents to see how their candidates fair on the issues. If candidates have differing opinions, this gives us an opportunity to hear both sides and understand both viewpoints. You know, like a debate! Many of the questions were good at the heart, yet ridiculous on the surface (I like the bible question, but not the way it was asked). Conversely, many were simply ridiculous. This style of "youtube debate" is degrading to the candidates, and degrading to me. So what was the point of the Youtube debate? It was so real Americans could ask the candidates question … if CNN liked the slant. The debate left me with more questions and less answers. Did we learn anything about the candidates, or did we just hear grandstanding by the democrat sympathizers? Why was there so much rhetoric in the questions and audience responses? Why did CNN transport a Hillary committee member to the debate? Incase I haven't explained this well enough, CNN=liberal. For anyone who has been paying attention over the past few months, you learned almost nothing. For those who were not paying attention until now, you learned this: Republicans make really bad Democrats.
