I have long believed that Hilary could only win if the "Anybody But Hillary" Democrats (who I suspect are a majority of her party) failed to unite around a single alternative. However, it now appears that both Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson are asking their supporters to flock to the Obama banner as a second choice in the arcane Iowa Democratic caucusing procedure.
If that support materializes, Obama will perform above his latest polls, which are already good.
Well - whether Obama wins by a little or a lot Hilary will be the Terminator candidate. She can't be bargained with. She can't be reasoned with. She doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And she absolutely will not stop, ever.
But that doesn't mean she can't be defeated. It'll just take a while, thereby compounding our angst and her ultimate humiliation.
OK, let's have some Iowa predictions below. I say Obama, Edwards, Hillary, but no screaming. On the Rep side, Romney thumps Huckabee, McCain finishes third.
'Anybody but Bush' was a real psychological trap for Democrats; who reset the trap with new bait?
==================
Posted by: kim | January 03, 2008 at 01:17 PM
I guess Richardson's shot at VP is history which is why he is giving his supporters to Obama.
He looked a little depressed when I saw him on Morning Joe this morning. I still say he should run for the Senate in New Mexico.
Posted by: maryrose | January 03, 2008 at 01:23 PM
I predict there will be caucuses and no one will get a majority.
I really don't like any of them that much, on either side, but I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to relive the days of the Clintons in the White House.
Eight years ago, it was anyone who isn't Clinton and even Al "Nobel Prize" Gore really didn't want the Clintons (or any Buddhist monks) any where near his campaign. So why even attempt a repeat ?
Posted by: Neo | January 03, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Hussein, Silky Pony, Red Witch
Romney, Huckster, Thompson/McCain (photo finish for third)
I disagree with TM as to the possibility that the Red Witch may get her broom broken. I watched her ad from yesterday again and she has all her money riding on health care and overburdened mom's caring for kids plus the old folks. She's hung on '92 demographics and they just don't pertain.
I would also note that Dean, not Rolodex, is at the DNC and that Dean has elected more Dems in three years than the Clinton's have since they wriggled onto the scene. Dean still has Presidential aspirations, no matter what he says to the public, and the Clinton's are an obstacle to be overcome.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 03, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Huckabee, 40
Romney, 30
McCain, 16
Thompson, 8
Paul, 4
Edwards, 35
Clinton, 30
Obama, 28
Republican analysts merely HOPE that Huckabee gets thumped, and greet each supposed Huckaflub eagerly (now he'll crumble, he misspoke on Pakistan, he shot his rifle over the press's heads, he criticized the President, he crossed a picket line). Tomorrow, after the win, it will be back to the "he's got no money, only evangelists support him, he's a lightweight who the Democrats hope to see nominated". Two weeks from now, after Michigan and SC wins, those in denial might start to see that voters of all stripes like and believe Huckabee, see him as genuine, that he's probably the GOPs best hope in the general.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | January 03, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Wow one of the Clintonistas is jumping ship this early? A cabinet member? Holy cow, doesn't he know some former cabinet members ended up dead under mysterious circumstances for less?
Posted by: GMax | January 03, 2008 at 01:50 PM
that he's probably the GOPs best hope in the general.
God help us then (no pun intended).
My picks:
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Romney
Huckabee
McCain
Posted by: Sue | January 03, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Hussein, Silky Pony, Red Witch
Romney, Huckster, Thompson/McCain (photo finish for third)
That's my order too, except I think Thompson would have won 3rd outright if politico and then Fox hadn't floated the whole quitting thing. Actually I'll put him in 3rd all alone out of pissed-offness.
Posted by: Jane | January 03, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Oops I forgot the italics - sorry Rick.
Posted by: Jane | January 03, 2008 at 02:01 PM
RB, I've thought for months that Ron Paul is an unconscious sock puppet, manipulated by Deaniacs to alienate libertarians; now there is an article(Nation?) comparing Pauliacs and Deaniacs.
=============================
Posted by: kim | January 03, 2008 at 02:01 PM
I'm with Jane.
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2008 at 02:01 PM
The only state Huckabee may win is Iowa. Then, god willing and the creek don't rise, he is the toast he deserves to be. I don't see how you can be a Christian and ethically deficient. Mr. Huckabee is significantly deficient in the ethics department, the honesty department -- and, as Rush has strongly stated today, is NOT a conservative.
That said, I predict he will win Iowa, followed by Romney and Thompson.
I couldn't care less which of the lefty liberals win. I do think if Hillarity wins that our side will have tons of fun. If Edwards wins, the baby scandal will be in the news posthaste. If Obama wins, the Clintons will have to get really creative in bringing him down.
Posted by: centralcal | January 03, 2008 at 02:02 PM
I wonder if Rush's smackdown of Huckabee and McCain will have any effect?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 03, 2008 at 02:04 PM
I don't see how you can be a Christian and ethically deficient.
Let me count the ways...
Posted by: Jane | January 03, 2008 at 02:05 PM
Just got flagged for spam--what's the deal?
Posted by: Other Tom | January 03, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Nothing personal..Typ;epad's going crazy again, OT.
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2008 at 02:11 PM
Obama, Clinton, Edwards
Romney by a hair, Huck, McCain
Would love to see Thompson show, but I don't think it's going to happen. I must say I'm surprised at McCain's holding power - I thought he was done months ago.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 03, 2008 at 02:14 PM
I think Fred has had a good under the radar last minute campaign on the ground and despite Politico's last minute smear, I think he will get third place.
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2008 at 02:17 PM
"When we fought the Yankees and annihilation was near,
Who was there to lead the charge that took us safe to the rear?
Why it was Hillarity R, Clinton;
Old "Toot your own horn - pone."
Hillarity R, Clinton, a girl who knew no fear!
When we almost had 'em but the issue still was in doubt,
Who suggested the retreat that turned it into a rout?
Why it was Hillarity R, Clinton;
Old "Tattered and torn - pone."
Hillarity R, Clinton, she kept us hidin' out!
With our ammunition gone and faced with utter defeat,
Who was it that burned the crops and left us nothing to eat?
Why it was Hillarity R, Clinton;
Old "September Morn - pone."
Hillarity R, Clinton the pants blown off her seat!"
Posted by: Latex Lord | January 03, 2008 at 02:18 PM
The web is starting to vibrate with hints of not one, but TWO humongous scandals set to break January 8th. And, among those in the know, just happens to be Huckahooey's guy Joe Carter (evangelical outpost).
Yep, just being good Christians, doncha know.
Yes, Rush has smacked Huck around pretty good today. I suspect, that if Huck keeps up the pace of his slimey politics, that Rush may have more to say before New Hampshire.
Posted by: centralcal | January 03, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Kim,
It's a rolling barrage - first Paul, then the Huckster, then McCain. Next weeks menu will have many selections on how McCain is the last, best hope.
Judging by DeMSM treatment, I'd say Thompson is the most feared candidate. I'm not sure that's correct because of Romney's organizational skills but I do believe that's the way the Dems read it.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 03, 2008 at 02:28 PM
My Iowa caucus predictions from another thread:
Republicans............................ Democrats
1. Mitt Romney 30%.................1. Barack Obama 33%
2. Michael D. Huckabee 24%......2. John Edwards 31%
3. Fred Thompson 17%..............3. Hillary Clinton 29%
4. John McCain 13%..................4. Who cares?
5. Ron Paul 10%
Posted by: Elliott | January 03, 2008 at 02:39 PM
I agree with you Rick about Thompson.
Posted by: Jane | January 03, 2008 at 02:45 PM
No real idea as I'm not there, I'm reading people I have no confidence in and a great deal depends on who shows up where. The late pollers seem to have decided that it's more likely the people who polled for DMR a couple of days ago know what they're doing and I see no reason at this point to not extend to them the benefit of the doubt.
Huckabee and Obama
Posted by: Patrick Tyson | January 03, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Judging by DeMSM treatment, I'd say Thompson is the most feared candidate.
************************
absolutely.
Posted by: SunnyDay | January 03, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Okay, okay, since it is prediction time and I can't be any more wrong than anyone else, here are my predictions:
Republicans:
Romney
Huckabee
Thompson
McCain
Democrats:
Edwards
Obama
Clinton
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 03:16 PM
There has to be at least one surprise tonight. Would Hillary finishing third suffice?
Posted by: Elliott | January 03, 2008 at 03:36 PM
If Edwards comes in 2nd, will he wonder why he is always the bridesmaid and never the bride in Iowa?
Posted by: Sue | January 03, 2008 at 03:37 PM
Obama
Edwards
Clinton
Romney
Huckabee
Thompson
Who do I *want* to win Iowa, though? Edwards and Huckabee.
Edwards because I don't want either Clinton nor Obama to come out of Iowa with an air of inevitability. Clinton for obvious reasons, but Obama because I think it's too early in his career to waste the presidency. Give him some time, experience, and seasoning, and I'd probably vote for him myself. Not now.
Huckabee because he's refreshing, sensible, funny, non-threatening to non-religious folks if they bother to LISTEN, and a win would stick it to the pundits. I'm sick and tired of conservative zero-tolerance and I'll leave it at that.
I'm with hrtshpdbox, folks.
I think the criticisms of Huck have been dishonest, arrogant, snobbish, over-the-top.
He's not perfect enough for you? Screw that.
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 03:51 PM
Apparently Susan Estrich was quoted widely yesterday as saying that "If Huckabee is the Republican nominee, I will be dancing at the Inauguration."
Since Estrich has a big mouth, I usually dont pay attention to what she says. But like Karl Rove blurting out how Dean would be the easiest Democrat to beat, sometimes these little tidbits tell you what the other side really thinks.
Not that I think he does not fade regardless of Iowa, since he is nowhere in NH and will likely not be a factor in Super Tuesday either. Plus there is a need for cash to run a campaign, how many times can you call a press conference to try to get the press to air the ads you dont have the money to run anyway?
Posted by: GMax | January 03, 2008 at 03:51 PM
I'm not religious and I find Huckabee more threatening, and equally as dishonest as Hillary.
It makes me wonder what is in the water in Hope Arkansas.
Posted by: Jane | January 03, 2008 at 03:53 PM
I'm with Sara in that I think/hope Edwards wins in Iowa.
As far as Huckabee is concerned--he will never get the big bucks for the general election.
Romney is the one with money and at this point for the R's it is the most deciding factor.
Posted by: glasater | January 03, 2008 at 04:06 PM
Huckabee because he's refreshing, sensible, funny, non-threatening to non-religious folks if they bother to LISTEN, and a win would stick it to the pundits. I'm sick and tired of conservative zero-tolerance and I'll leave it at that.
I do not find Huckabee sensible or non-threatening to non-religious folks. I find him sadly ill informed, very much the type of Christian that gives Christians such a bad name with so many, and absolutely wacky when it comes to taxes and all those feel good pardons. I can't imagine a worse nominee than Huckabee because he is so dishonest and so bigoted.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 04:07 PM
I am not an Edwards supporter but he articulates best the left's philosophy.
Posted by: glasater | January 03, 2008 at 04:09 PM
Plus I don't want a Democrat as the Republican nominee and Huckabee is a liberal Democrat snake who cloaks himself in sanctimonious inanities that pass for humor but are really nothing more than backstabbing and mean-spiritedness.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 04:10 PM
I am not an Edwards supporter but he articulates best the left's philosophy.
Meaning he is slightly more honest about what he truly believes than the other two. Unfortunately, they all have schooled in the George McGovern school of how not to run a liberal Democrat campaign and took a refresher course from the Dukakis school of pardons and prayers. In other words, none of them will really tell you what they want to do to ya, cuz it might cause an avalanche.
Posted by: GMax | January 03, 2008 at 04:17 PM
If it's close, Hillary will squeak out a win over Obama. If it's not, Hillary is a distant (more than 10 points behind Obama) third.
I'm feeling better about Huckleberry *not* winning. It won't quite be the Scream but it'll let some air out the balloon.
It's a pretty nice day (for early January) here. Moderate tempatures, no precipitation. Expect a record turnout.
Posted by: Der Hahn | January 03, 2008 at 04:22 PM
I'm really busy today: just take everything Jane says and add a +1 for me.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | January 03, 2008 at 04:25 PM
Very true GMax.
In my heart I tend to agree with RichatUF that the 2008 election will make 2000 look like a cakewalk.
Posted by: glasater | January 03, 2008 at 04:25 PM
how many times can you call a press conference to try to get the press to air the ads you dont have the money to run anyway?
An example of what I was complaining about. It's this type of cynical trash talk I'm against.
I'm not advocating that Huck should win the nomination or that if he did (impossible, ISTM) he wouldn't be clobbered by the Dems AND the Rep pundits and wannabe pundits. I'm just sick and tired of the knee-jerk reaction against him. To me it says more about you than about him.
I'm not religious yet I'm not ashamed to say I heart Huck.
And I want a brand new set of pundits. The old ones have become too stuffy and sure of themselves.
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 04:28 PM
AWK
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2008 at 04:36 PM
There is a truism that every red-blooded Republican, whether moderate, conservative or libertarian should follow -- if the MSM is backing someone and drooling over a Republican candidate, then run as fast as you can in the opposite direction.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 04:44 PM
I don't find Huckabee the person to be so awful. I just think he's a terrible candidate, and would get thoroughly and deservedly pummeled in a general election, while in the process giving liberals unlimited material to lambaste conservative Southern evangelicals. (Not that Huckabee is truly conservative, but the idiots won't ever figure that out.)
Can't you just see the master MSM narrative? "You thought Bush was bad, look at this moron!"
Posted by: Porchlight | January 03, 2008 at 04:45 PM
I'm just sick and tired of the knee-jerk reaction against him. To me it says more about you than about him.
Knee jerk? I'm southern and raised Baptist. I won't be voting for Huckabee.
Posted by: Sue | January 03, 2008 at 04:49 PM
My predictions:
Obama Romney
Huck
Thompson/McCain-photo-
Edwards finish.
Clinton
Posted by: maryrose | January 03, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Awk! That came out bad... McCain /Thompson -photo-finish
Posted by: maryrose | January 03, 2008 at 04:55 PM
if the MSM is backing someone and drooling over a Republican candidate, then run as fast as you can in the opposite direction.
There's a grain of truth here, but it isn't everything. Shuster has been knocking on Huck as hard as you guys have.
But don't forget the corollary: if the MSM constantly puts down, or worse, ignores, a Republican candidate then you can be pretty sure he's the one they're terrified of...
and that would be..Fred.
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 04:58 PM
I deeply loathe Huckabee. I believe he is both dishonest and dishonorable. I also believe that his chance of being the nominee is zero, but if in fact he were nominated he would lose 45 states or more.
I'd love to see it be Obama, Edwards and Clinton. I can just picture a purple-faced Bubba, veins bulging in his neck, screaming at Mark Penn and the other sycophants. And I'd like to see her lose in N.H. next week. The worldwide front-page news would be the wheels coming off the Clinton juggernaut. And I would be dancing the Eagle Rock.
Posted by: Other Tom | January 03, 2008 at 04:58 PM
He's not perfect enough for you? Screw that.
He's not very conservative, and not, in my opinion, well-qualified to be president. So in the hunt for a conservative presidential candidate . . .
Other than that, I really have no problem with Huckabee (unless that "floating cross" thing was an intentional attempt at subliminal advertising, in which case I think he's got serious judgment issues . . . but I'm willing to allow that isn't the case). But I won't be voting for him under any foreseeable circumstances.
and that would be..Fred.
That's the way I see that one, too. He's also the best qualified and most conservative of the fairly-disappointing GOP field. (Which manages to look good by comparison only because of the terribly disappointing Dem field.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 03, 2008 at 05:04 PM
I've listened to Huckabee, and I've done some research on his tenure in Arkansas, and I don't like what I've seen. His positions on illegal immigration are ridiculous. He thinks that illegal immigration is some sort of payback for slavery. How does that make sense? Illegal immigrants were never slaves, and current U.S. citizens -- those who are paying the costs for the millions of unskilled, undereducated illegals flooding across our southern border -- were never slave owners. Huckabee also says that it is unfair to "penalize" illegal alien students for the sins of their parents by denying the illegal alien students U.S. taxpayer-funded college scholarships. Since when is the denial of a benefit to which a person is not legally entitled in the first place construed as a "penalty"? Huckabee called a law requiring voters to show state-issued picture I.D. before voting "un-American and un-Christian." What is un-Christian or un-American about trying to make sure that the person casting a vote in a U.S. election is legally entitled to do so? There are an estimated 12-20 million foreigners living illegally in the U.S. Document fraud is rampant in the illegal alien community. Phony voter registration cards can be purchased for a few dollars on the streets of L.A., Phoenix, and most other major cities. But we shouldn't ask people to show their driver's licenses at the voting booth, because that might deter illegal aliens for voting for some tool like Huckabee!
Posted by: Coyote99 | January 03, 2008 at 05:12 PM
Democrats:
Clinton 29%
Obama 29%
Edward 29%
Republicans
Romney 38%
Huckabee 24%
Thompson 17%
Posted by: RichatUF | January 03, 2008 at 05:12 PM
how many times can you call a press conference to try to get the press to air the ads you dont have the money to run anyway?
If that earns me the smear of a "cynical trashtalker" then I guess that will have to be.
Kinda looks to me that you, Syl, were just spoiling for a fight and since you did not have anyone else to pick on, heck grab the closest one and wail away.
If you believe his story, maybe I should call you gullible and a pollyanna but I wont because that would be negative and I am not about that.
Fact is, he is out of cash and has very little in the way of organization and a lots of States where those two tiny things are kinda ( with a really in front ) important are about to loom on the immediate horizon.
Posted by: GMax | January 03, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Oh good Lord, they just said on Fox that caucus goers see the Huckster as a "father figure." Please save us from another of those arrogant pols who wants to feel my pain.
I'm not looking for the "best conservative" since the conservative view is sometimes way too far to the right for my taste, but I am looking for the best leader with solid conservative positions on judicial nominees and on national security, plus someone who understands global economics. To me, that is Romney and no one else.
Plus the way the Huckster attacked the LDS church really pissed me off. I find his religious views to be downright scary and bordering on the fanatic, even as it put his hypocrisy on display.
I still say the best ticket is a Romney/Thompson ticket, which I think would be unbeatable.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 05:19 PM
Rich,
Where's McCain? I can get to the Romney number through organization backed by cash (plus he's a decent candidate) and I have Huckabee at 20-25% but I think McCain comes in at 10-15%.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 03, 2008 at 05:19 PM
I agree about Huckabee,OT. I think he is a cheap populist who clothes his bribes to the morons in religious-speak.
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2008 at 05:21 PM
"I deeply loathe Huckabee. I believe he is both dishonest and dishonorable."
Ditto for me, Other Tom.
GMax, I think your preceptions of the press conference, were accurate and shared by most of us.
Posted by: centralcal | January 03, 2008 at 05:24 PM
ooopsy daisy - "perceptions"
Posted by: centralcal | January 03, 2008 at 05:35 PM
GMax
So I'm a troll? LOL
Coyote99
But we shouldn't ask people to show their driver's licenses at the voting booth, because that might deter illegal aliens for voting for some tool like Huckabee!
What are you so afraid of? Aren't your arguments good enough to win an election without a zero-tolerance policy at the voting booth too? If I moved to Florida I wouldn't be able to register to vote! And I'm not an illegal. This paranoia has gone a bit too far AFAIC.
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 05:38 PM
And Ed Rollins--for heavens sake.
Posted by: glasater | January 03, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Syl, you do know that Iowa is now full of out of staters many of whom will vote in the caucus under Iowa's You'all come on over and vote if you want, don't you? What is the point of voting if there is no constraint limiting the voters to those who are eligible to vote.
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Please. pick someone out of whom the rest of the world will not take the piss,someone who can deal with the jackals of the press,who does not have the kind of voice you want to strangle,who looks respectable in trousers,who can bear to put their hands over their hearts during the National Anthem,who can inspire the respect of the West,who is not so vain they really think the song is about them,who can look antipathetic leaders in the eye Someone who the MSM does not approve of,who gets the heads of the left rotating on their shoulders,who has actually had a day job,who understands we live in dangerous times,who does not need to be loved and will not genuflect to all and sundry to be so,who does not want the job out of personal vanity or as a career move,but see it as a duty.
Thanks awfully.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 03, 2008 at 05:42 PM
I think your preceptions of the press conference, were accurate and shared by most of us.
I'm curious. Do any of you believe that such cynicism makes you smarter? Probably not, but do you believe cynicism is a protection against something? If so, what? A shield against the other side's cynicism?
Is there anything we can do about it?
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 05:46 PM
In Washington State--illegals have no problem getting drivers licenses and have used that ID to vote.
In 2004 I had illegals showing voter registration cards from 1976 wanting to come and vote at the precinct I worked.
Posted by: glasater | January 03, 2008 at 05:48 PM
I have been registered to vote in 9 different states over the last 40 years. It used to be that when you registered, you were given a wallet card indicating you had registered which then you showed at the polls so they could cross your name off their printouts.
Frankly, I see absolutely no reason why every voter shouldn't have to show a valid registration card or receipt before being allowed to vote. It is so crazy that anyone can walk in and vote anywhere they want with no proof of anything.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 05:49 PM
Contra to Syl, I think allowing non-eligible voters to vote makes a mockery of the entire notion of an election.
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2008 at 05:51 PM
"If I moved to Florida I wouldn't be able to register to vote! And I'm not an illegal." No, you wouldn't be an illegal, you'd simply be ineligible to vote under the laws of Florida, which under the Constitution has the power to regulate the "time, place and manner" of elections held in that state. If voting is that important to you, stay where you are, or move to Florida sooner. Or perhaps, if you haven't yet satisfied Florida's residency requirement, your current state would allow you to vote by absentee ballot.
If requiring voters to demonstrate at the polling place that they are who they say they are is paranoia, count me as paranoid.
Posted by: Other Tom | January 03, 2008 at 05:53 PM
Rick-
I think that Thompson has pulled a quiet insurgency and his endorsement by Rep. King was the kicker in Iowa. If McCain pulls 10%-12% he'll get it mostly from Huckabee and a few points from Romney*. Huckabee's national problem-money and organization-is also at play in Iowa [and good point above about beware of Republican Media Darlings]. McCain's star faded a while ago and he only pulled 5% in Iowa in 2000 [pretty good seeing as how he blew it off] and the rather arcane rules in Iowa will probably keep his support around 5% this time too.
If Huckabee pulls off a decent showing (above 25%) in Iowa he'll have enough in the tank for only South Carolina [and he might even get abandoned there, even with his SC organization, because of the large number of military retirees defecting to McCain].
But it looks like the betting wisdom is Obama and Huckabee. I am so hoping that the democrats just can't help themselves and that they sue one another over the primary votes starting in Iowa.
Posted by: RichatUF | January 03, 2008 at 06:00 PM
Cynic - One who doubts the sincerity of others.
gullible - easily deceived.
Perhaps I am one and you are not the other. I am entitled to my own considered opinion on the matter.
Of course, it is possible for a cynic to be right, and therefore me to be a cynic and you to still be gullible.
Posted by: GMax | January 03, 2008 at 06:00 PM
What happened in our state was this "feel good" idea of letting everybody vote (basically) and then challenging the ballot later.
This is the most ridiculous policy to ever come down the pike.
Posted by: glasater | January 03, 2008 at 06:03 PM
Romney
Huckabee
Thompson
Obama
Edwards
Clinton
No more dope from Hope, please.
Posted by: David R. Block | January 03, 2008 at 06:04 PM
clarice
What do the Iowa caucuses, an idiotic and much criticized process, have to do with whether I can register in Florida? If I can't register because of the new rules, then something has gone too far.
Life is messy (and so am I). I accept most of the consequences of that, but I won't accept the loss of such a basic right.
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 06:04 PM
I had to vote by absentee ballot in 2000. I had come to California and had been out here for months, but my residence of record was still my home in Indiana. I was staying at my Mother's while she was in hospital. So, I requested an absentee ballot and voted from afar. Other than the extra step of calling Indiana and requesting an absentee ballot, it was a simple procedure. I had the absentee ballot within 2 or 3 days of my request.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 06:05 PM
He's not perfect enough for you? Screw that.
He's not very conservative, and not, in my opinion, well-qualified to be president. So in the hunt for a conservative presidential candidate
And here, above, we have summed up why I can be a conservative Christian by faith, but will never be one by politics.
Huckabee promotes the idea, albeit tacitly, that a significant plank in his platform is his superior grasp of moral rectitude. Thus he further promotes the fallacy that to be a good Christian one must be "better" than everyone else.
The guy is, God bless him, very likable. But he is a modern day Pharisee. And no conservative to boot.
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 03, 2008 at 06:05 PM
I do not understand. Why can't you register in Florida? Every state that I know of has cut off dates. I think, IIRC, Maryland had a 30 days before the primary and then again 30 days before the general. But that still doesn't stop someone from voting absentee in their previous state or precinct.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 06:07 PM
Sara
It is so crazy that anyone can walk in and vote anywhere they want with no proof of anything.
I agree that this is crazy...too far in the other direction.
Clarice
Contra to Syl, I think allowing non-eligible voters to vote makes a mockery of the entire notion of an election.
Thanks for the strawman, Clarice.
I still love you.
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 06:12 PM
Factcheck.org has shown that Huckabee's ads DID run on, I believe, 3 television stations.
Posted by: centralcal | January 03, 2008 at 06:14 PM
What is unreasonble about getting an absentee ballot from your former ares of residence? You probably know better what is going on there--the candidates--issues, etc. then your new home in Florida.
Posted by: glasater | January 03, 2008 at 06:19 PM
Via Say Anything:
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 06:20 PM
Thus he further promotes the fallacy that to be a good Christian one must be "better" than everyone else.
That's what happens when you don't listen to him. And this is the position many liberals take.
Huckabee says that we ALL are fallible. Christians no less than anyone else. All he can do is try.
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 06:22 PM
Via The Corner:
C-SPAN is on the air LIVE right now, and will continue with it's LIVE coverage of both Democratic and Republican caucuses beginning at 7 pm ET on both C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 . We will showcase three caucuses from Iowa (two LIVE, one taped to air later) and will feature a local broadcast from Des Moines (KCCI-TV) with results as they happen. Stay warm if you're there (or anywhere on the eastern seaboard)!
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Yeah, the Huckster says that but what he means is his brand of Christianity, not mine or someone else's. His way or you are doomed. Not for me, no thanks.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 06:28 PM
Why is it a strawman, Syl? Allowing out of staters to vote is hardly different than allowing aliens to vote, I think. Legislatures set forth the basics for eligibility. With no advance registration or means to check whether the voter is the registrant, it's all a sham.
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2008 at 06:30 PM
When I see the Huckster with his guitar, I keep expecting Jimmy Swaggart to be in the background playing boogie woogie gospel and then yelling, "are you Saaaaaaaved? Step right up folks, get your salvation now. Vote Mike!" Oh and while you're at it, drop a few hundred in the collection plate to assure your salvation is complete.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 06:32 PM
"he'll have enough in the tank for only South Carolina"
He had to put money down already in SC, didn't he? As far as I know you have to pay when you book (at least a down payment). I believe that a considerable amount of Thompson's dough is already in SC bank accounts. McCain has managed to get the money out of politics quite successfully with regard to his own campaign and I wonder if he's actually going to do as well in SC this time as he did in 2000.
I didn't realize that the IA rules were working against him.
Did you catch Clinton's plan to provide babysitters in order for parents to attend caucuses? Who in their right mind turns their kids over to unvetted teens? She's counting heavily on the village idiot vote, isn't she?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 03, 2008 at 06:33 PM
or at least until next payday.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 06:34 PM
Hey all, by the by...
When does this 19th century hootenanny in Iowa get underway? Or is it an all day thing?
For all the years I lived right next door to those crazy Iowegians, I never once paid any attention...
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 03, 2008 at 06:37 PM
That's what happens when you don't listen to him. And this is the position many liberals take.
Actions vs. words, brother. Like I said it's not what he says, it's his vibe.
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 03, 2008 at 06:40 PM
Starts at 7:00 p.m. local.
Posted by: Other Tom | January 03, 2008 at 06:42 PM
Most definitely not an all day thing. Caucuses are at night, and run a few minutes to several hours depending on who is running it, how many show up and the Party involved. The Dems for example have a throw out the also rans and pick again procedure, which is done by standing in corners if you can believe it. That will most likely take longer than if everyone votes once and the results are tabulated and submitted.
Posted by: GMax | January 03, 2008 at 06:44 PM
See above, Soylent, re: CSPAN coverage.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 06:46 PM
"Actions vs. words, brother. Like I said it's not what he says, it's his vibe."
Amen, Soylent! It is a very troubling vibe, too.
I am at work and don't get home until 8 pm Eastern time (5 pm Calif time) - so I am curious about the beginning and ending times of the caucus, too.
Posted by: centralcal | January 03, 2008 at 06:47 PM
What is unreasonble about getting an absentee ballot from your former ares of residence?
Nothing. I'm not moving. And this coming election could be absentee, as you say. It's the future. Without current ID of any stripe and no means of getting some without resources I don't currently have. Going into further detail would be too personal and I'm not going there.
Huckabee is little more than a silver-tongued politician...
::shock::
A politician acting like one in response to another one acting like one, it's horrifying.
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 06:48 PM
Why is it a strawman, Syl?
You're assuming I agree with the Iowa method. I don't. But I don't think rules should be so strict that citizens can fall through the cracks. Hell, we're willing to let ten guilty men go free so that one innocent isn't punished, why should we turn that on its head for the vote?
Posted by: Syl | January 03, 2008 at 06:54 PM
PUK,
I wish you could vote here and agree with you completely on your wishes for America's next president.
One question, What did you mean by:
" who looks respectable in trousers,"
Was that a hit on Hillarity? Because if it isn't, well, I have a dirty mind. :) Just asking :)
Posted by: Ann | January 03, 2008 at 06:55 PM
No Huckabee's denigration of Romney's, and 13 million others, Mormon faith was so disgusting and low, it showed him for the hypocrite he is. It was disgusting and should have eliminated him from consideration as president immediately.
Posted by: Sara | January 03, 2008 at 06:55 PM
"Hell, we're willing to let ten guilty men go free so that one innocent isn't punished, why should we turn that on its head for the vote?"
Because it is of far greater consequence that a person be found guilty in a criminal matter than that he be forced to file a challenged ballot and prove his eligibility before his vote counts.
Posted by: clarice | January 03, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Cool. ARG's last minute facesaver is out and it confirms the Thompson surge that Zogby picked up.
I don't put much faith in ARG or Zogby but it's a nice start to the evening.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 03, 2008 at 07:01 PM
At least in Texas you can obtain a State issued ID card which is short of a driver's license. $15 and proof of ID. Proof can take many forms but birth certificate and social security card will suffice. Both can be obtained from hospital and Soc Sec office if the original are lost.
I am sure most states have similar if not identical provisions. So what the problem? $15? I will give it to you if we can stop with the post about it.
Posted by: GMax | January 03, 2008 at 07:01 PM
Was that a hit on Hillarity? Because if it isn't, well, I have a dirty mind. :) Just asking :)
Good grief Ann! You are gonna get me fired! I just laughed so loud, I scared half the office!
Posted by: centralcal | January 03, 2008 at 07:02 PM
Okay, guys for a really good laugh, follow the link in my url - it is to Iowahawk who is liveblogging the caucus.
He has a real screamer about Chris Matthews and the MSNBC gang who he ran into at the grocery store.
Posted by: centralcal | January 03, 2008 at 07:09 PM