Posted on 01/08/2008 7:32:20 PM PST by Aristotelian
In a stunning upset victory, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton beat Sen. Barack Obama in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary election in New Hampshire.
Sean Hannity is standing up for Romney agains the Huckabee spokesman....said “He is the leader in delegates”!
You run McCain, color this life long Conservative activist out no matter who the Dems run. I will bite my tongue and say nothing against McCain, but I sure as heck will not be campaigning for McCain.
I learned a lot about politics last year in a roundabout way. I was the plaintiff in a rather complicated lawsuit involving a series of construction loans I made to some (now former) friends who were in the home building business. I spent several days prepping with my attorney prior to my being deposed. I was very nervous, as there were a lot of facts that I thought I needed to memorize. My lawyer had me memorize a mere handful of statements. He called them my "mantra." Basically, they were the equivalent of talking points. He said that no matter what "loaded" questions the opposing counsel asked, I could almost always use one of the canned answers.
So, instead of fielding questions that required thoughtful answers, I had pre-packaged answers and merely had to pick out the right one in response to a question. Being a novice in such matters, I thought this was brilliant. Actually, it is part of the daily routine for lawyers, which most politicians are. Hillary had the pre-packaged, emotional answer at the ready, and she could have used it no matter what question was asked.
"Senator Clinton, do you have the time?"
(Crying)"No, I'm so busy trying to help this country to move forward, I don't have a minute to myself."
She could have and would have given the same emotional response regardless of the question. Anyone who believes otherwise is a complete fool.
Oh--yes--I won the case.
Despite this week's hoopla over Obracko, the older rank & file Democrats would not support Obracko like the media thinks.
For all their talk about 'tolerance' and diversity, Democrats are soooo not into voting blacks into power in America.
Especially in the South and West.
Also, Jewish Democrats will REALLY have a hard time supporting a quasi-Muslim black guy, especially one who expresses distain for Israel and joy for Islamic countries.
Look at what happened tonight in New Hampshire.
Democrats tell pollsters how much they "love" the black guy on the ballot.... and then in private they change their tune.
Democrats are some of the smarmiest people on earth.
New Hampshire just isn’t as enlightened as Iowa.
Who knew?
Great synopsis.
The Bitch is Back.
Rome2000 and I were discussing on another thread whether in the final moments in the privacy of the voting booth some of the voters would balk at marking their ballot for “Obama.”
That is something that wouldn’t show up in a caucus where you vote publicly and and have to state your reasons publicly, and would not show up in a poll.
There may be a “Muslim” name factor that is as strong against Obama as Romney’s Mormon upbringing is against him.
Yeah, and Richardson has been sucking up to her in the debates.
Independents want the pollsters to think they are 'racially tolerant' and thus said they were gonna support the black guy.
Then, in the private moment of voting, they just couldn't bring themselves to do it.
The New Hampshire independents tonight showed that they prefer the bland 'white bread' of McCain over the more interesting choice of either Obracko or Mitt Romney the Mormon.
Chicken shirts, if you ask me.
The only other explanation is that the actual vote counters changed the outcome however there is one more possibility.
On the Republican side, the NH voters rewarded him for his campaigning efforts over the past 8 years or so. The independents mostly went to Democrat polls 60/40, but.....Many dems went to Republican polls and they voted for McCain because they know and understand that the Dems have a better chance if Republicans do not turn out in the general to vote for someone they can't tolerate. I think there may well have been organized crossover voting by those who would have been Obama supporters. This would also explain the faulty polling against the actual results.
Anyhoo....there are three possible reasons I illustrated off the top of my head. I don't buy the new voter business either. The State always has a high turnout at 70%. This time it was no different. The State is losing population, not gaining, and the numbers just don't add up to me. Very strange......
Well....Now it is a two man race on the Dem side. We still have four or five or six....
We need to get this pared down and soon, or we will end up with a brokered convention, and we will lose bigtime while the Dems run away with it.
“Maybe Midwesterners are more honest than New Englanders.”
And maybe people behave differently in an open caucus than with a secret ballot. The polls were spot-on in Iowa, and totally off in New Hampshire. It certainly is a striking difference.
Indeed. I just can’t bear the thought of a candidate like McCain or Giuliani getting the nomination. I know Giuliani will definitely pick up delegates in states such as Florida.
We may never know for sure what all the factors were.
Did I hear right, that Hillary won some areas by 85%?
What does that mean??
I can't decide which is more humorous, the faulty polls or Aristotelian's sarcasm! Both were great!
Yeah.........and maybe a taste of things to come.
Change....change...change.....
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.