If you'll scroll down, you'll see that I predict an Edwards win in Iowa. This poll (thanks, doctor e!) predicts that the "second choice factor" will give Edwards a comfortable lead. Josh Marshall, conversely, thinks that the same factor will work to Obama's advantage.
UPDATE: Bill Richardson has made a deal to throw his second-choice votes to Obama.
7 comments:
I predict (with a lot of confidence) that when Edwards takes the oath of POTUS he'll be wearing stonewashed jeans. Ralph Nader will run the EPA. Al Gore will be on the SCOTUS. Hillary will be VPOTUS. Senator Barack Obama will be AG, General Wesley Clark will be SOD, Governor Bill Richardson, SOS (YAY!), Howard Dean, SG, and Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador to Paraguay.
Do you believe in karma? Do you think it's possible that the smoke that comes out of your ears because of Nader has contributed to the Arctic melting?
In 2004 I wanted John Edwards, he was my candidate as soon as he announced in 2003. I'll "never forgive" John Kerry the way you'll "never forgive" Ralph Nader. Okay, if Edwards becomes POTUS, I'll forgive Kerry. Will you forgive Nader?
When he writes his memoirs, President John Edwards will describe his youthful adoration for the youthful, crusading Ralph Nader, and he'll tell how Ralph inspired him to enter law. He'll acknowledge that he became wealthy by standing on the shoulders of giants like Ralph Nader. (Will he cite Isaac Newton for the half-quote?) He'll agree with the historical record that he won in 2008 by adopting the 2000 Ralph Nader stump speech and political platform, and adapting it to his own less-humble persona.
What reasons would you have for supporting Edwards, for liking so much about him, had there not been a Ralph Nader I and then a Ralph Nader II?
Plainly: If Edwards becomes President, we will all owe immeasurable gratitude to Ralph Nader.
the always provocative aitchd...
i'll forgive nader when he acknowledges his contribution to giving this country to this administration (tho, truth really be told, it's all about the insane scotus decision, but whatever...), and actually really admits that error and admits that the last eight years would have been VASTLY different had gore won.
but nader strikes me as sharing that same self-righteous stubborn streak we've come to adore in W. whoever wears it, that quality as NO business in a POTUS. i NEVER wanted nader as president for precisely that reason; the man clearly had NO sense of principled compromise (again, just like bush); if there is any single feature a president needs to run a country as diverse (and now, as polarized) as this one, it has to be a willingness to compromise.
at least, typically. all that being said, i'm betting the populace has so fully had it with the corruption and incompetent pig-headedness of the repugs that it is dying (sadly, too often, literally) for someone to pull a full-tilt 'mr. smith' role.
either way, when edwards wins, gore won't be on the supreme court (not a lawyer), but UN ambassador. and please, not obama as AG; FITZ!!! clark and richardson sound good, dean too. at least we can bet he'll pick really strong folks for these positions. wonder if he'll consider any republicans? who might those be? the only one i'd count on would be hagel; national security advisor?
Maybe a different sort for National Security Advisor, Krugman or de la Vega?
you folks make me sick, especially aitchd's comments.
You guys/gals must be smoking something, maybe still hungover from New Year's Eve?
It really doesn't matter if Edwards or Obama or Hilary takes the lead, the folks driving this country off the edge of the cliff will still be in charge of the bus representing what's left of our so called democracy except they will jump off at the last minute to catch their private planes to their estates in foreign countries to wait out the ensuing "instability".
Did anyone see the mainstreammedia piece on how many registered voters are getting knocked off voter reg rolls last year and especially this year? go here:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080102/1a_lede02.art.htm
Legal voters thrown off rolls
Database woes could be 'sleeper issue of 2008'
By Richard Wolf
USA TODAY
Five years after passage of a federal law to create electronic registration databases to deter voter fraud, the new technology is posing hurdles that could disenfranchise thousands of legal voters, a USA TODAY examination finds.
From Florida to Washington, voters have been challenged because names or numbers on their registration forms did not exactly match other government databases, such as Social Security and motor vehicle agencies. "We know that eligible people have been thrown off the rolls," says Justin Levitt, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
The databases are only as good as the information fed into them by applicants and election officials. That can lead to human errors as well as variations from state to state. Colorado, for instance, knocked nearly 20% of its voters off the rolls between the 2004 and 2006 elections. Arkansas purged 3%, according to Election Assistance Commission data. end of copied article
Another problem with the debacle in Florida 2000 election was that Sec of State Katherine Harris helped ensure that more than 50,000 poor minority voters got knocked off the voter reg rolls thanks to paying (off) a multimillion dollar contract with choicepoint (see Greg Palast website). not to mention that jeb bush, bush's brother, helped ensure that the counting of the votes was to Bush's favor. don't forget that Sequoia systems provided prepunched ballots for certain counties which help contribute to the many spoiled ballots in Florida:
Dan Rather's Aug. 14 HDnet program, "The Trouble with Touch
Screens", revealed:
- ES&S has used shoddy components in their iVotronic electronic
voting machines since 2001, and has ignored warnings about this
from workers.
- Sequoia, a major paper ballot supplier, switched to substandard
paper just before the 2000 Presidential Election, and ignored
complaints by factory workers.
- Sequoia intentionally misaligned ballots for Palm Beach County
for the 2000 Presidential Election. This is the reason for all the
overvotes, undervotes, and hanging chads in Florida!
http://election-reform.org/dan_rather.html (transcript)
One day, whiners posing as "liberals" will stop blaming Nader for "taking votes away" from Gore and "giving this country to Republicans" and simply admit that, had Gore not scoffed off the more liberal elements of the Democratic Party in a poor attempt to appear centrist, Nader would have been irrelevant.
It's old, guys. Gore lost because a lot of us found him unappealing, not because we found Nader appealing. Gore's various policy points, and choice for vice-President, is why he lost voters to Nader.
Maybe one day, the rest of you will have the spine to admit that much, particularly since so many of us are supporting Obama now, and it has nothing to do with any silly barbs or blame the rest of you have thrown at us for years regarding Bush's victory.
John, my spine's just fine. Actually, it isn't, which is why I have recurrent sciatica, but that doesn't affect the current discussion.
Point is, if YOUR vertebrae were fully operational, you would be able to admit that 97,000 Nader votes outweighs the 537 margin of difference. I ain't gonna let you forget those numbers.
The arrogant progressives think that they are numerous, when they are not. What is Kucinich polling? And don't you DARE ascribe his low numbers to the Grand Conspiracy Against Kucinich.
The fact is, Gore did NOT say Fuck You to liberal Democrats in 2000. To the contrary -- he was scored heavily for striking a tone that was TOO populist, too much in favor of what pundits then called "class warfare."
The fact is, the votes are in the middle. I'm not happy with that situation -- not happy at all -- but I recognize reality.
Again, Joe, you just miss the point. I didn't vote for Bush. Thus, his victory has nothing to do with me. Al Gore did not earn my vote at the time. For one example, his support of censorship and government eavesdropping was something I never cared for. Granted, this had spanned multiple administrations, but he worked on it. He was not opposed to capital punishment. Basically, he took up an active role on a number of issues which alieanted people like myself (the so-called progressives) which, had he not done, wouldn't have alieanted that huge middle. The man overthought how "tough" he needed to be. Myself, and a number of others, voted for Nader so that the Democratic PArty actually could get a measurable idea of how many people share progressive values. As it turns out in that election, we would have been a swing vote. But, I've just grown tired of it being anyone other than Al Gore's fault for losing the election. No politician is owed a vote from me. Thus, I didn't have any part in handing
the country over to Bush. Al Gore did. The mere fact that so-called liberals are still so spineless as to not take credit for that is something that will never fail to disappoint. And if the lesson isn't learned by Democratic Politicians, I won't vote for them in the future either. And that will, again, be their fault if they lose to a worthless Republican, not mine.
Post a Comment