Looks like we've got ourselves a horse race. Think this will still be settled by February 5th?
Home › Random › New Hampshire Aftermath
January 9, 2008 Print Preview
by Ataru Atlanta on Jan 9, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Looks like we've got ourselves a horse race. Think this will still be settled by February 5th?
© 2004 - 2010, Blog for Democracy, All Rights Reserved. Subscribe to Free updates!
37 Responses to “New Hampshire Aftermath”
Let's see if I can do this without too much spin or being a hopemonger
Congrats to Clinton's organizers on the ground. They got their people out to vote.
Delegates from NH. 9 Clinton, 9 Obama, 4 Edwards. Anything less than a landslide by either candidate would have produced the same number of delegates.
I think Obama will be an even better candidate now. His speech last night was really, really good. He coasted the last 2 days and went into prevent defense. That will not happen again.
One interesting exit poll question by CNN.
Vote if Bill Clinton had been running. Hillary supporters 58% for Bill, 27% for Hillary.
http://www.cnn.com/...es/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM
sndeak,how many of Obama's supporters do you think would prefer Bill to him? That was a pretty rude poll question, but whatever.
Anyway, it's impossible to kill my buzz today. We're back baby. Good to know that prose occasionally tops poetry after all.
On to Nevada!
Mel - According the the numbers only 24% of Obama supporters would prefer Bill. Fair or not, it is interesting.
Yup on to NV. I believe I said somewhere on this blog that I thought Hillary would win NV. I guess it will depend on the endorsements today from the unions since they will be such a huge part of the new caucus process in NV.
Obama gets the culinary workers endorsement Edwards has all the rest, Obama wins, Edwards second, Hillary third.
SC: Obama, Hillary, Edwards
Supertuesday: Obama wins more states barely gets more delegates than Hillary, because she wins the more populated states.
Obama cleans the floor with the GOP nominee.
However, this all depends on Richardson stopping his huge leaps in the polls.
Obama needs Edwards to drop out sooner, rather than later. And he needs Richardson to stay in. But I have a sneaking suspicion it will go the other way around.
It was a shocking result but probably for the best--a long and vigorous primary battle is better for the party and better for the voters because we have a lot of time to determine who our candidate will be. I think in 2004 a lot of people felt like they were stuck with Kerry before they knew if they even wanted him to be the nominee. Hopefully it will stay close until sometime in late February and we can pick a nominee without too much damage from friendly Dem fire.
Agree 100% with Sara. I really felt cheated in 2004 - by the time our primary arrived there wasn't really anyone to vote for - it was a done deal.
I could be wrong (lord knows!) but I'm not so sure Edwards supporters are a lock for Senator Obama.
Sara, it's a nice thought that it goes till late Feb, but I'm not sure what math that would take.
By 2-6 74% of the states will have voted. I personally can't do long division or fractions so I'm guessing the "winner" of all the marbles is on Tsumani Tuesday.
Plus, while exciting I don't think I want a protracted battle, no one will have a dime left at the end of such a thing and then where will the money be to run against the Republicans?
It needs to be over early we need the time to regroup, lick wounds, hire set up offices, eat, rest, raise money and prepare for everything after Labor Day.
my .02
There are various scenarios where the results on 2/5 are so split that the states voting after that date will still potentially matter. Especially since Dem delegates are not awarded winner take all, so if the voting is close in most states on 2/5, Obama and Clinton could on 2/6 have very close delegate totals.
It's really a very screwed up system. I think it's strange that even though Clinton "won" last night, the 2 candidates were awarded the same number of delegates. In many states, unless one person can open up a wide lead on another, we will be dealing with a handful of delegate difference between then two.
And, at some point, Edwards' delegates become valuable if he cuts a deal with someone...
Plus, while exciting I don't think I want a protracted battle, no one will have a dime left at the end of such a thing and then where will the money be to run against the Republicans?
Money is overrated. I'd rather be sure this time that we have the right nominee. Unless there is some radical shift between now and November, the Democratic nominee will have no problem raising money.
And, hey, we might even see some of them down in Georgia after NV and SC.
Anyone know who Shirley endorsed in 04? I can't remember.
The best thing about last night was that the race is still on, and our votes here in GA will count for a change! I am very happy about that. Maybe JJ won't be boring after all?
What are the odds that Edwards will try to snag a VP slot again, using his delegates as a potential kingmaker role if Obama/Clinton go neck and neck? I don't know how his pride could let him take #2 AGAIN, but politicians can be shameless. Any thoughts RD?
The scenario that would make me wet is a brokered convention...now THAT would be fun. Of course, you'd have to have 527s raising money at that point to hammer the GOP nominee until ours is set.
"I don't know how his pride could let him take #2 AGAIN"
Because it makes him an almost guaranteed lock for the nod in 8 years.
Honestly, I do not see him trying to become VP again. I think he knows better than to align himself with Obama, and I just see a strong sense of dislike between Edwards/Obama and Hillary.
I'll predict the following:
Edwards will not be anyone's VP. Either he gets the #1 spot, or he works behind the scenes for the nominee.
Hillary and Obama will NOT be on the same ticket together.
I dunno ... I see Edwards as being a much better VP candidate this time than last time around.
I really hope someone lays it out to him, because I see Obama/Edwards as a superb progressive ticket.
You get two guys who understand both rural and urban poor problems, as well as what is going on in the middle class. Rather than this whole urban/rural battle, there's a real chance for unity there, a rebuilding of the FDR coalition with some new members this time around.
Also, the current Edwards persona makes for the perfect attack dog, which is the VP traditional role. Even in government, Obama gets to be the sunny guy and make fabulous speeches while Edwards is in the back room breaking Big Pharma's knee caps.
I think they both genuinely have a lot to like about what the other one has been doing. It's actually an alliance I've been hoping for since the summer.
Edwards would be a much better veep cause he had to withhold his good qualities (such as not being a complete effing stiff) for Kerry to not be outshined.
Shirley endorsed Kerry and IIRC the day before the primary. She held her endorsement until the very end.
I can more easily see an Obama/Edwards ticket than I could a Hillary/Edwards. I think Edwards and Obama probably loathe Hillary by now.
Still, there's something pathetic in going for the brass ring TWICE and settling for #2 TWICE. On the other hand, he's only 54, so in 8 years, he'd be 62.
Sheesh. Reagan was *only* 69 when he got elected...
yeah, catherine, and remember how that worked out for the country?
actually, I would love to see an obama/clinton or clinton/obama ticket, even though not even i am enough of a cock-eyed optimist to think it would ever happen.
Only 69? And we see how well he did...that is when he was awake and not counting his jelly beans.
69 lashes with a wet noodle for even conjuring up memories of such a bad time.
Trickle down indeed!
Actually RuralDem, Zell changed. Seriously. He saw the political winds a-blowing in Georgia and went with it.
Zell was a liberal. He wanted to raise taxes lets never kid ourselves here. He expanded the government like crazy. And he wanted to change the flag.
Dude is a liberal. He has even privately said he is a liberal.
The reason he won't get the nod is cause of $hit he does like speak at the GOP Convention and shit like that.
I know Zell held liberal positions, I mean come on, he pushed for the lottery and H.O.P.E.
Having Zell on the ticket though would be amazing.
I'm just throwing names out there. Which, with the shift the party has taken, we'd see John Lewis as a VP nominee before we'd see Gene Taylor or someone :/
"If Obama picked Edwards, Edwards would upstage him."
Naw. I like the guy, but he and Obama are of at least equal wattage. They also have sufficiently different styles that they'd best play to the audiences of interest.
Edwards is great with taking individual stories and using them as part of his pitch (that ambulance chasing trained him well). I think Obama is stronger with the voice from the mountaintop kind of speaking. They both are quite engaging individuals.
I think Edwards would be best at pointing out what is wrong and who is being left behind. Obama is probably better at convincing us we can do something about it.
But Nunn and Miller are both burn-outs by now. Besides, Nunn's too busy trying to screw up the progress the netroots have been making and getting Bloomberg to come in and hose everything.
Nunn's screwing up everything by pointing out the insane partisanship that is ruining our country? That's a new one.
Zell Miller is a crazy old coot who drank deeply of the GOP kool-aid. After the crap he pulled in 2004, the party would riot if Zell was even mentioned. The man is dead to me.
Nunn is not interested in being a VP. Let him hunt down nuclear weapons since that seems to be what he cares about.
Gene Taylor would bring absolutely nothing to the ticket. We ain't winnin' Mississippi unless Christ himself is on the ticket. Even then, it would be a struggle.
If you want a southern moderate, I'd say take look at the governor to our north from the great state of Tennessee.
But it's WAY too soon now to be thinking running mate. We have to decide who's gonna head the ticket! Yee-haw!
I didn't literally mean Taylor, he's more conservative than many GOP members of Congress. I just meant someone similar, maybe a little more moderate.
Would Bredesen actually want to be on the national ticket? That'd be another problem, finding someone in the South who'd want to run on the national ticket. Taylor, from what I understand, does not even attend Democratic Conventions anymore.
I guess I just want to see our party actually give a dang about our state this time around. While it would be difficult to win Georgia and other southern states, you sure as hell won't win anything if you completely ignore the voters.
Bredesen said he isn't running.
Which is an absolute shame cause he pulled 70% of the vote.
He is not afraid of the national party, he was actively involved in the southern caucus after 2004.
And JAC1975, we are pretty likely to win MS when we still hold the legislature and have two incredibly popular governors, one of whom is running for senate, and the other wants to be governor again.
Ummm, innerredneck, Alabama has a Democratic state house too, but you don't see it being competitive either. There's a vast difference between the state parties and the national. The state of MS may be voting for D's for state house, but they sure as hell ain't voting in national elections that way.
Although I'll be glad to eat my hat if I'm proved wrong
RD, I too hope GA won't be totally ignored this year. Unfortunately, we don't even have a competitive US Senate race. It would be interesting if our nominee has enough money to at least have a token presence is all states. But I fear if opinion polls show GA ga-ga over whatever a$$clown the GOP nominates, we'll get the big ZERO investment...as usual
Well, you're probably right, JAC, but that just leaves it up to us to liven up the state for Democrats and then maybe next time they'll pay attention.
Oh, and I'll be happy to make a sauce and share that hat with you if you're proven wrong
I'm hearing that Richardson has dropped out.
Richardson is out.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/politics/ci_7924479
"MERRIMACK, N.H.—New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson ended his campaign for the presidency Wednesday after twin fourth-place finishes that showed his impressive credentials could not compete with his rivals' star power.
Richardson planned to announce the decision Thursday, according to two people close to the governor with knowledge of the decision. They spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the governor's announcement. "
shush your lies RuralDem.
"Although I'll be glad to eat my hat if I'm proved wrong"
Watch out for the MS Senate election next year. Ronnie will make it close if he doesn't win.
I got a nice hat for you.
As long as Catherine makes the sauce, I'll be glad to dine
As for the state, Catherine is right...it's up to us to liven up this state. We need to surprise people, and the attention will come. But we gotta MAKE them pay attention
innerredneckexposed,
I think MS will be very competitive. Yeah Musgrove is a Democrat in a deep red state, but he's also very conservative. He's more conservative than Congressman Taylor.
I'm surprised the liberal wing hasn't gone crazy yet about him running. I guess they realize he's the only type of Democrat that can win that Senate seat.
its cause I like him.
did you get my message on aim?
still friends? lol
yes. yes i did.