If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Believe it or not, the New Hampshire primary might encourage some candidates to run for president and encourage others to drop out of the race. I'm glad that's cleared up   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 31
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

484 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jan 2008 at 11:03 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2008-01-08 08:02:21 PM
Oh come on, I just put this bumper sticker on the front of my car. I sure hope she doesn't drop out.

www.carryabigsticker.com
 
2008-01-08 11:01:12 PM
img530.imageshack.us
 
2008-01-08 11:16:30 PM
Hillary and Obama seem to be tied in terms of delegates and both at something like double what Edwards has. Any chance Ed is considering giving up?
 
2008-01-08 11:20:38 PM
I'll be damned if a handful of zealots in Iowa and the unusually-large turnout, due to a freakishly-warm day in New Hampshire, should be allowed to decide whom everyone else in the country gets to vote for!

/Spoken by a citizen of South Carolina, who REALLY gets to decide, biatches!
//Just kidding...we need primary reform, ahead of tort reform, tax reform, reform reform, etc.
 
2008-01-08 11:28:37 PM
i can has Condorcet?

Or at least change the fracking order each election.
 
2008-01-08 11:29:34 PM
I blame gays for weakening the institution of marriage.
 
2008-01-08 11:45:57 PM
chu2dogg: I blame gays for weakening the institution of marriage soil.

Stuart?
 
2008-01-08 11:46:47 PM
Nobody'sPerfekt:
I hope so. Nobody in recent history has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire and gone on to win the nomination. Most likely the Edwards votes will go to Obama, since John's supporters are more liberal than those who like HillDog.
 
2008-01-09 12:10:54 AM
I really wanted to see Kucinich win. I want Jessica Rabbit as first lady.

i224.photobucket.com

i224.photobucket.com
 
2008-01-09 12:16:06 AM
Crosshair: Oh come on, I just put this bumper sticker on the front of my car. I sure hope she doesn't drop out.

so.awesome.
 
2008-01-09 12:19:33 AM
ecmoRandomNumbers: I really wanted to see Kucinich win. I want Jessica Rabbit as first lady.

I can't tell which photo has Kucinich in it.

/I'd vote it though
//Or possibly Obama
 
2008-01-09 12:19:37 AM
Jim_Callahan: Hillary and Obama seem to be tied in terms of delegates and both at something like double what Edwards has. Any chance Ed is considering giving up?

Eventually he will. The only problem is giving Obama those delegates and support.
 
2008-01-09 12:25:38 AM
Maybe it'll inspire Kucinich supporters to finally develop a homeopathic remedy for their acute douchebaggedness.
 
2008-01-09 12:29:39 AM
eastbaywatch: Maybe it'll inspire Kucinich supporters to finally develop a homeopathic remedy for their acute douchebaggedness.

Dude, practically the only discussion Kucinich gets here is ogling of his wife. I have no idea how you could consider that "doucebaggedness", except for the fact that you're a rabid partisan who can't get past the letter next to someone's name.
 
2008-01-09 12:43:28 AM
Jim_Callahan: Hillary and Obama seem to be tied in terms of delegates and both at something like double what Edwards has. Any chance Ed is considering giving up?

Not before another miserable failure in South Carolina he won't. And with Super Tuesday only about a week after that, he may hold on a bit longer. But he's gone after 2/5 at any rate.

Then hopefully he'll have the common sense to do so and back Obama.
 
2008-01-09 12:47:13 AM
Wolf_Blitzer: Dude, practically the only discussion Kucinich gets here is ogling of his wife. I have no idea how you could consider that "doucebaggedness", except for the fact that you're a rabid partisan who can't get past the letter next to someone's name.

I don't know about eastbaywatch, but I'm a firm Democrat, and I went to see Kucinich speak back in '04 - it was the nuttiest, hippiest crowd I had ever seen for a political event. The speech was half politics, half new-age motivational bullshiat. They ate it up.
 
2008-01-09 12:47:42 AM
Wolf_Blitzer: eastbaywatch: Maybe it'll inspire Kucinich supporters to finally develop a homeopathic remedy for their acute douchebaggedness.

Dude, practically the only discussion Kucinich gets here is ogling of his wife. I have no idea how you could consider that "doucebaggedness", except for the fact that you're a rabid partisan who can't get past the letter next to someone's name.


Seriously. I think he mixed up "Dennis Kucinich" with "Ron Paul."
 
2008-01-09 12:49:25 AM
Hillary and Obama are close in the number of delegates. But if you count in the superdelegates who've pledged support Hillary has a very large numerical lead.
 
2008-01-09 02:01:57 AM
Diebold is for Hillary, the delegates are for Hillary, the womans are for Hillary, the establishment is for Hillary.

The only ones who are sanes are AGAINST Hillary. When we see the number of sane people who voted for Bush, we are screwed.

/seriously I spoke to several womans, they only vote for her because they want a woman in the white house...they forget about everything else bad about that biatch. FARKING RETARDS.
 
2008-01-09 02:06:36 AM
Quick action plan for Gov. Bill Richardson:

1) Drop out of race.
2) Endorse Barack Obama.
3) Look forward to cabinet position (Secretary of State?)
4) ------------
5) PROFIT
 
2008-01-09 02:33:08 AM
Lets hear it for a dually contested conventions.
 
2008-01-09 02:58:55 AM
www.cpinternet.com

"Is it my turn yet?"
 
2008-01-09 07:58:18 AM
Nobody'sPerfekt: I'll be damned if a handful of zealots in Iowa and the unusually-large turnout, due to a freakishly-warm day in New Hampshire, should be allowed to decide whom everyone else in the country gets to vote for!

/Spoken by a citizen of South Carolina, who REALLY gets to decide, biatches!
//Just kidding...we need primary reform, ahead of tort reform, tax reform, reform reform, etc.


Anyone care to explain why we don't hold the primaries like the national election and have all states vote on the same day?
 
2008-01-09 08:04:31 AM
bison0329: Nobody'sPerfekt: I'll be damned if a handful of zealots in Iowa and the unusually-large turnout, due to a freakishly-warm day in New Hampshire, should be allowed to decide whom everyone else in the country gets to vote for!

/Spoken by a citizen of South Carolina, who REALLY gets to decide, biatches!
//Just kidding...we need primary reform, ahead of tort reform, tax reform, reform reform, etc.

Anyone care to explain why we don't hold the primaries like the national election and have all states vote on the same day?


Since it is hard to remove a president from office, it should be difficult to put one in office. Also, many people still hold on to a notion that states are independent entities not just a county government beholding to a state.

/Also, you get to watch nutjobs, freaks and bastards speak their minds for a while before everything gets decided
 
2008-01-09 08:37:03 AM
coachwdb: "Is it my turn yet?"

Sigh...I miss the Independence Party of Minnesota. Peter Hutchinson was the last candidate I actually felt good about supporting. Even though I moved out of state, I still advocate for the Independence Party of Minnesota to friends and family.

As strange as he was and as much as some people think of him as a joke, I think Jesse Ventura's political positions were some of most well-reasoned and pragmatic I've seen in a politician. Moderate with a tendency towards libertarianism. It's odd to be saying this, but why can't more politicians be like Jesse Ventura?
 
2008-01-09 09:06:19 AM
Other than tradition why should Iowa and New Hampshire have such a potential influence on primaries? I think its time this antiquated process be reformed. It should reflect a greater more diverse population from across the United States.

If something so important to all the citizens of this country is at possible stake. It smacks as distinctly unfair if these two diminutive states hold so much sway. I have nothing against the voters Of Iowa or New Hampshire but why should their votes be any more influential than the votes cast elsewhere in the United States? Or as Orwell put it are some more equal than others?

Isn't it the height of hubris for them to want to keep this power under the pretense of mere tradition? How the hell would the citizenry of New Hampshire Or Iowa feel if for example California decided to hold their primary before them? It certainly by virtue of population alone would be more legitimate.

I wouldn't mind so much if the media circus surrounding theses two early primaries didn't seem to create an artificial result. I say artificial because how could it be genuine with so many going unheard from? I don't begrudge the pundits their stumps but I sure as hell resent them rendering ours to effective obsolescence.
 
2008-01-09 09:33:16 AM
How 'bout this; the primaries last for 2 months. All states have an open primary for 2 months and over this period the candidates from each party try to sway the public to pick them for November....
 
2008-01-09 09:50:24 AM
Edwards gave a speech last night after the primary and from the sound of that, he is nowhere near giving up. I think he plans on Hill-dawg or Obama exposing something hideous about the other.
 
2008-01-09 11:53:12 AM
Jennifer: Other than tradition why should Iowa and New Hampshire have such a potential influence on primaries? I think its time this antiquated process be reformed. It should reflect a greater more diverse population from across the United States.

If something so important to all the citizens of this country is at possible stake. It smacks as distinctly unfair if these two diminutive states hold so much sway. I have nothing against the voters Of Iowa or New Hampshire but why should their votes be any more influential than the votes cast elsewhere in the United States? Or as Orwell put it are some more equal than others?

Isn't it the height of hubris for them to want to keep this power under the pretense of mere tradition? How the hell would the citizenry of New Hampshire Or Iowa feel if for example California decided to hold their primary before them? It certainly by virtue of population alone would be more legitimate.

I wouldn't mind so much if the media circus surrounding theses two early primaries didn't seem to create an artificial result. I say artificial because how could it be genuine with so many going unheard from? I don't begrudge the pundits their stumps but I sure as hell resent them rendering ours to effective obsolescence.


Basically, those two states have so much influence because the average voter is a moron. They don't have enough delegates to really be a big deal, but because they go first, and because the average idiot bases their vote on whoever is "winning" instead of taking time out of their schedules to make up their own minds, we get the influence of early primary states. Seriously, if people weren't so damn lazy and intellectually stunted, the first states would make almost no difference. Here's the really crazy thing, even though Hillary won New Hampshire last night by a couple of percentage points, Obama actually got one more delegate.
 
2008-01-09 01:37:01 PM
Jennifer: Other than tradition why should Iowa and New Hampshire have such a potential influence on primaries?

It reminds us that states like Iowa and New Hampshire do exist.
 
2008-01-09 01:53:23 PM
I hope Fred Thompson decides to join the race.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report