Jan 08 2008
Dem Turnout In NH Massive, Another Blowout Of GOP?
There is a tidal wave brewing and its name is Obama. Drudge is reporting the NH polling stations are running out of ballots across the state. Looks to me like Hillary will be crushed. What is also going to be worrisome – in this state which is very much 50-50 – is expect to see another 2-1 edge in turnout for the Dems as we saw in Iowa. The wave is building still – not receding. Which means Hillary is not the only one who will be swept away.
AJ
I tend to be seeing the left having their own anybody but Hillary thing going which is driving it more than the love fest for Obama.
The dem debates have been group hugs with little more than softballs and they still have screwed some of the responses up.
When it comes to the general, who ever is on the right should be able to bring cannons to bear on Obama for lots of reasons.
But then we saw years of Clinton love that had blinders to whatever they did. If they transfer it to Obama , no amount of logic or reason will prevail.
These are not Dems doing the turning out. What you are seeing is the Independents voting en masse in the Democratic primary and not voting in the Republican primary. The numbers of real Democrats and Republicans voting in their respective primaries is probably the same. New Hampshire is an “open primary” state and so what you are seeing is the Independents swamping the party base in NH and voting Democrat to get Obama elected.
In fact from some of the figures I am crunching here, I am starting to think there are a lot of independents who are voting Obama just to take Hill out in the primaries and will desert him in the general for a right side candidate.
Simply piling on to put TWO stakes in her heart plus a whole clip of silver bullets.
I think Merlin is right. People keep forgetting the largest political party is neither. And they can go either way for a lot of reasons.
I read somewhere that in NH something like half the voters are Independents.
And I think some of this Obama fever we are seeing is just phenom stuff. I doubt it will last until the next election. At least I hope not.
Most independents are former Democrats or “center” Democrats who have become embarrassed to be called Democrats because of the antics of people like Pelosi. They are sort of like Lieberman Democrats who became disgusted and left the party. In places like NH, there is no problem with leaving the party because you can do so and STILL vote in the primary. So you are seeing the independent Democrats pulling the party back toward center.
These people are not going to get Obama nominated and then dump him for a Republican. They simply do NOT want to see Hillary elected or any of the other Democratic “establishment”. They are tired of the far left drift of the DNC and are going to pull the party back to center by voting in a candidate as independents.
90% if Independents won’t vote Republican unless someone like a Reagan shows up. Reagan’s claim to fame was that he said that while he himself had conservative values, he wasn’t out to shove those values down anyone’s throat. His job was to get government off people’s backs … ALL people’s backs … liberal AND conservative. That is why so many Democrats voted for him. Reagan was NOT a staunch conservative … in fact the conservative wing of the party hated him until AFTER he got elected. Reagan didn’t even like California conservative politicians much. He saw their “all or nothing” politics as self-defeating.
Reagan famously said that it was better to get half the loaf than to starve. He was a deal maker. However, he was the one who brought the religious right into the party in real force.
I’m also reading that the Republicans are running out of ballots. And that they are planning to keep the polls open as long as there are lines.
[blockquote]In fact from some of the figures I am crunching here, I am starting to think there are a lot of independents who are voting Obama just to take Hill out in the primaries and will desert him in the general for a right side candidate.
Simply piling on to put TWO stakes in her heart plus a whole clip of silver bullets.[/blockquote]
I hope MerlinOS is right.
What are the odds of Ron Paul running as independent?
[blockquote]These people are not going to get Obama nominated and then dump him for a Republican. They simply do NOT want to see Hillary elected or any of the other Democratic “establishmentâ€. They are tired of the far left drift of the DNC and are going to pull the party back to center by voting in a candidate as independents.[/blockquote]
The problem is that Obama is just as far right as the rest of the Democratic party. 🙁
Well it is a long time before the next election and I wonder if the new will not have worn off Obama by then. Bill had himself a little fit about Obama today:
Bill Clinton thinks the media is being way too soft on Obama. I think they are too, but then again, they were pretty easy on Bill back in the day:
lurker:
I read that some stuff came out about Paul today that really should ruin him. The man is a first class bigot.
Oh? What did you read about Paul?
Now that Obama appears to be emerging as the strongest possible for the Democratic nomination, there will be an increasing efforts to find out more about him and report those things that will help the Americans realize how really far left he is.
I have read that the Clintons are bringing back the war room guys that love the scorched earth type of campaigning and George Soros to raise money through another 527. This could get really ugly. This is what this country needs to change.
This is what I saw about Paul, who has denied it all I think:
I linked at pal2pal, this is from Althouse:
Look, I said it on Bloggingheads: The things Ron Paul has been saying made me suspect that his libertarianism were a cover for racism. Listen beginning at 8:07: “I feel like the people who are so enamored with those states’ rights positions and that libertarian position… Coming from the South… and older person… who grew up in the segregated South… How do I know he’s not a racist? … I find it offensive, the positions he’s taking, but maybe it’s the pretty face that you put on the position that is, if not really racist, just insensitive about race?”
Now, James Kirchick has found the shocking evidence:
[L]ong before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling…. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul….
What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics….
Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”…
*********
and it goes on.
These threads are hilarious! Talk about being in denial. So let me get Merlin and Terrye’s theory right.
The majority of the independants in NH know that they will eventually vote Republican in the general election regardless of who wins the primary. They feel this way despite the fact that registered Republicans are not all that exicted about any of the GOP candidates. Nonetheless, the independants don’t really care which Republican wins the primary. The ONLY thing they care about right now is doing whatever it takes to keep Clinton from winning the Democratic primary. So they decided to waste their primary vote that would decide which of the GOP candidates they will eventually vote for the general election wins the primary in order to prevent a candidate from winning the primary for the party they will not vote for. Makes perfect sense to me!!! Other than your wishful thinking, do you have ANYTHING to support your theory (past elections, polling data, etc.)? I didn’t think so.
Sorry folks, AJ is dead on. This is a very bad sign for the GOP. It is still early to declare anyone the 2008 general election winner, but it is not a good sign when independants are voting in droves for the candidate whom is the DNC front runner for now.
This reeks of soothsayer. So typical of him.
Time will tell.
Terrye, oh yeah, I remember reading about those newsletters. Think Free Republic has links to those as well.
conman:
I did not say that. I am an Independent myself. I am saying that I hope that by the time the general election comes around more of the Independents will vote R, but who knows.
Speaking of denial, I hear that Obama is being denying his earlier statements about Iraq and his own record.
As a matter of fact Drudge is reporting Clinton in the lead.