How Voters Think

[Harlan Huckleby]

So you are telling me he is this close to being a first tier candidate...but that he is misleading voters?

Ya, Hucklebee desperately needed a win in S.C. to remain viable. It really was that stark - he dropped from first tier to out of the race. The reason is that he has so little funding that he is vulnerable, no margin for error. His distant 4th place finish in Florida was the last stroke of the axe.

What do you want him to say? "I'm still in this because I'm auditioning for the role of VP?" Who is going to say that? Please show me any historical evidence of that ever happening.

No, here's the speech I would write for him: "Thank you for your support. The voters have spoken and we do not have the resources to continue our campaign. I hope to continue to be a voice in the Republican Party for working people. I urge you to support my friend, a great American, John McCain."

The reality is that this kind of posturing by a candidate who realizes he has no realistic chance of winning, but has a good chance to potentially be a VP or cabinet member, is typical and happens almost every election cycle. Huckabee isn't misleading anyone...we all know what is going on.

I agree with everything you say except the last sentence. A lot of his voters do not fully understand that he is effectively out of the race.

IMO, Paul is more misleading. The guy acts like people give a crap about his ideas...when the guy can't muster much more than 3% of the vote in most relevant states.

huh? He gets a low vote total because he is portrayed in the media (correctly) as not being viable. His isolationist ideas have a lot of resonance. I find him honest & sincere.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you are going to talk about coalition builders, John McCain trumps Clinton by a landslide.

You are right that McCain is an effective senator and famous for building coalitions. You are wrong about Clinton, she is also highly respected and effective in the Senate, your mind is stuck on an impression you formed of her 15 years ago.

[RashanGary]

Rush and Hannity are really pushing hard for Huckabee to drop out. Apparently all the polsters are saying McCain wins in a three way race. With that in mind, they realize the only chance Romney has is to either have a major swing (which doesn't appear likely) or for Huckabee to drop out (hopefully giving Romney more votes). They're taking a "we're desperate and it can't get any worse" approach.


I think they'll be unpleasantly suprised if Huckabee drops out. His 100% is probably made up of hard core evangelical christians who would NEVER vote for a mormon, esspecially a mormon who supported abortion for most of his career. If Huckabee drops out, I think McCain is in even better shape.


The funniest thing about this whole thing is taht the talk radio right always stroked and loved the radical christian voters. They talked about how libs laughed at them and didnt' respect them. It's funny to see that same group take their party down. Every christian should realize that conservatism comes before christianity to these hosts and to the poliltical party. It's been obvious, but I think the christian right thinks the republican party and conservative radio hosts care about them, hahahah. It's all for votes.


The right tried to convince everyone this election would tear apart the liberal base. Instead, it's shredded the republican party. This is fantastic. I still think McCain can pull it out and I hope he does. I'm aligned with him now. NOt because I think any of them will do any good; just because I want to see the fireworks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am watching the democratic debate on CNN.COM.

It is a total love fest, and both candidates are coming off wonderfully. In my biased opinion, Hillary is magnificent tonight. The Democrats have the issues, and two candidates who are extremely charismatic and articulate.

I just may cream my jeans.

[Joemailman]

No videos please.

I thought in the first part of the debate Clinton's answers on health care and immigration had more depth than Obama's. However, she didn't do herself any favors on Iraq. Was she really surprised that the vote to give Bush authorization to use military action turned into a war?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Both Hillary Clinton & John Edwards voted to authorize Bush to go to war. Those who treat this decision as a litmus test of their judgement are being a bit superficial. The information at the time was that Iraq had WMD. Not authorizing Bush would have weakened the U.S. diplomatically. It was a reasonable choice that most Senators made.

If Obama had been in the Senate at the time, he might very well have voted to authorize. "I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence", he conceded in a New Yorker Magazine interview.

“Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.” Audacity of Hope

And excuse my cynicism, but Clinton and Edwards are obviously politically ambitious, and voting to authorize was the (seemingly) politically wise choice at the time for someone seeking to be Commander in Chief. Perhaps a politically ambitious fellow like Obama would have done the same.

http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camp...-war-comments/

[hoosier]

Both Hillary Clinton & John Edwards voted to authorize Bush to go to war. Those who treat this decision as a litmus test of their judgement are being a bit superficial. The information at the time was that Iraq had WMD. Not authorizing Bush would have weakened the U.S. diplomatically. It was a reasonable choice that most Senators made.

If Obama had been in the Senate at the time, he might very well have voted to authorize. "I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence", he conceded in a New Yorker Magazine interview.

“Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.” Audacity of Hope

And excuse my cynicism, but Clinton and Edwards are obviously politically ambitious, and voting to authorize was the (seemingly) politically wise choice at the time for someone seeking to be Commander in Chief. Perhaps a politically ambitious fellow like Obama would have done the same.

http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camp...-war-comments/

The intelligence about Iraq and WMD's wasn't nearly as clear cut as Bush suggested. Bush and company cherry-picked the reports to make the picture seem black and white, and disregarded anything that suggested otherwise.

But the WMD issue is a red herring, IMO. Who do you think sold and helped Iraq to develop their WMD programs in the 80's? WMD was never the real reason that the Bush admin wanted to depose Hussein--although, granted, there may have been some idealistic people in the White House who thought the invasion was about fighting tyranny and installing democracy. But anyone who thought THEN that this was BushCheney's main motive is every bit as naive and deluded as those who think Saddam was behind 9/11.

[The Leaper]

His isolationist ideas have a lot of resonance. I find him honest & sincere.

Perhaps, but he is no more in the race than Huckabee...so your opposition to Huckabee's continued presence in the race seems strange when you support Paul sticking around.

If Huckabee's supporters at this point truly think he has a chance to win the nomination, they are retarded. The media coverage has been portraying the race for the nomination as a 2 person race in both parties since SC.

[The Leaper]

I think they'll be unpleasantly suprised if Huckabee drops out. His 100% is probably made up of hard core evangelical christians who would NEVER vote for a mormon, esspecially a mormon who supported abortion for most of his career. If Huckabee drops out, I think McCain is in even better shape.

I generally agree with you.

The notion that Huckabee is influencing this primary is nutso. The vast bulk of his supporters are evangelical Christians who view Mormonism as a cult...and are probably less likely to support Romney than a staunchly pro-life McCain, although they are more likely to see neither as worthy of their support.

Rush and his rich crowd is just going to have to suck up their pride and back McCain...unless they want Hillary or Obama to win the presidency in a landslide.

[The Leaper]

The Democrats have the issues.

They had the issues in 2004...and lost to the weakest incumbent president perhaps in US history.

I wouldn't make a mess in your pants just yet.

[Joemailman]

Both Hillary Clinton & John Edwards voted to authorize Bush to go to war. Those who treat this decision as a litmus test of their judgement are being a bit superficial. The information at the time was that Iraq had WMD. Not authorizing Bush would have weakened the U.S. diplomatically. It was a reasonable choice that most Senators made.

If Obama had been in the Senate at the time, he might very well have voted to authorize. "I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence", he conceded in a New Yorker Magazine interview.

“Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.” Audacity of Hope

And excuse my cynicism, but Clinton and Edwards are obviously politically ambitious, and voting to authorize was the (seemingly) politically wise choice at the time for someone seeking to be Commander in Chief. Perhaps a politically ambitious fellow like Obama would have done the same.

http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camp...-war-comments/

I've been torn for some time on whether to be critical of people like Clinton and Edwards for voting for the authorization. Part of me is critical of them because it was blatantly obvious to me that the authorization meant war, and they should have realized that.

On the other hand, there is the argument that the authorization did strengthen the diplomatic power of the White House, and it is not Clinton's fault that Bush abused that power. There is the question of whether she should be criticized for giving the President of The United States the benefit of the doubt when he said he would only go to war as a last resort.

I'm a little surprised she didn't mention that it was only after the authorization that Saddam let the inspectors back into Iraq. Perhaps she has on other occasions. The bottom line though is that in debates Obama, unlike Clinton, doesn't have to get into explanations about why he voted for the authorization, but now says the war was a bad idea. It's not so much a plus for Obama as it is a negative for Clinton.

Personally, I've kind of moved past this debate. I'm more concerned what will happen the next 5 years in Iraq than I am with what has happened the last 5. Clinton and Obama don't seem to differ much on what the policy in Iraq should be going forward. It will be a much different in the national election where their differences with McCain are much greater.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The notion that Huckabee is influencing this primary is nutso.

He's taking 15% of the vote, more in Arkansas and bordering states, so clearly he is influencing results. Most pundits say he is drawing from conservative Romney voters. You imply they wouldn't vote at all without Huckabee. I don't think this is a credible claim, a percentage, probably most, would still vote.

Regardless of how he is impacting the race, I wish he would get the hell out, he's distorting the will of the voters, and his expressed intention of becoming president is no longer credible or sincere.

[RashanGary]

I find it hard to believe that Huckabee's radical christian vote would go to Romney. I think they'd vote for McCain or not at all (most likely McCain).


Regardless, no matter who wins the race, the GOP is going to have a tough time this election. They don't have a conservative/christian to lead the charge. McCain isn't a conservative. Romney isn't a traditional christian. Their voting base is split, the way I see it.



Their best chance might be something like Romney/Huckabee. Romney to keep the conservatives happy and Huckabee to keep the radical Christian turn out.

[hoosier]

I find it hard to believe that Huckabee's radical christian vote would go to Romney. I think they'd vote for McCain or not at all (most likely McCain).


Regardless, no matter who wins the race, the GOP is going to have a tough time this election. They don't have a conservative/christian to lead the charge. McCain isn't a conservative. Romney isn't a traditional christian. Their voting base is split, the way I see it.



Their best chance might be something like Romney/Huckabee. Romney to keep the conservatives happy and Huckabee to keep the radical Christian turn out.

I think their best chance is Hillary at the head of the Dem ticket.

[Joemailman]

Recent polls show that McCain would be competitive with either Clinton or Obama; Romney would not.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo.../national.html
These polls are probably not very meaningful right now. Many of those voters who do not vote based on party affiliation will probably wait until they know who the nominees are before comparing candidates.

[hoosier]

Recent polls show that McCain would be competitive with either Clinton or Obama; Romney would not.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo.../national.html
These polls are probably not very meaningful right now. Many of those voters who do not vote based on party affiliation will probably wait until they know who the nominees are before comparing candidates.

Yes, agree, it's hard to measure in a poll how much a given candidate would motivate the opposition. If I were a Repub, though, I'd much much rather see Hillary than Obama right now.

[The Leaper]

If I were a Repub, though, I'd much much rather see Hillary than Obama right now.

I would agree with that. The GOP doesn't seem to really be behind any candidate very strongly...McCain has yet to garner 40% of the vote in any state, even though he seem the prohibitive frontrunner.

The one thing that can save them is the threat of Hillary Clinton in the White House. That will be enough to get the rich ass economic wing and far right evangelical wing to the booth, as both groups despise Clinton...and would seriously consider voting for Satan over Hillary.

Obama, while just as liberal as Clinton, doesn't have the negative hatred that Hillary has...and probably would be able to get in easily because of a significantly stronger democratic voter turnout.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You can tell who the Republicans are most worried about by who they attack the most this time of year.

What people say they'll do 9 months from now doesn't mean much. Hell, Hillary had 30 point leads in many state polls just 3 months ago! The general election campaign will shape everything.

I'm confident Clinton would be a strong candidate. Obama could be even better, but I wouldn't count on it. I'm comfortable backing the winner of the upcoming Obama/Clinton contest rather than theorizing how each will come out of a future campaign with the republicans.

I started having some doubts about McCain this week. He looked tired and old at the debate, and didn't look good last night on Leno. Age is a problem for him. Obama is going to look like McCain's illigitimate grandson if/when they debate.

[Joemailman]

I've seen a number of times this year where McCain seemed to be looking old and tired, but he always seems to bounce back. If this campaign were being held 2000 years ago, he would be endorsed by Lazarus.

[RashanGary]

It always looks like McCAin has a big swollen left cheek (If you're looking at the TV it's on the right).

It's strange looking.


Yes he is VERY old. I just keep hoping he wins because the conservative media is going absolutely crazy and I love it.