January 3, 2008

Iowa caucuses

Posted by Arcane Gazebo at January 3, 2008 11:51 PM

I haven't been blogging politics lately but let me just say that I'm pleased with the outcome of the Democratic caucuses in Iowa. Obama and Edwards are both candidates I really like and I'm happy to see them do well at the expense of Hillary Clinton, whom I don't like very much. (However, she'd still be vastly better than any of the Republican alternatives.) I think Edwards is unlikely to win the nomination at this point but I hope Obama can maintain his lead in the coming primaries.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the idea of a President Mike Huckabee is terrifying but since I don't think he can win the general election I'm not too worried. Better that he win the primaries rather than someone more electable but also scary like McCain. Personally I'm hoping for a Mitt Romney nomination, since he's not only the least-bad Republican in the field (still pretty bad) but would get trounced in the general election when the evangelicals stay home rather than vote for a Mormon.

Tags: Election 2008, Politics
Comments

His platform might be scary, but the commercial Huckabee did with Chuck Norris facts was pretty hilarious...

Posted by: Lemming | January 4, 2008 7:46 AM

The Huckabee win is a bad thing, though, since it weakens Romney going into New Hampshire and thereby strengthens McCain (I confused the heck out of Lesleigh last night by telling her that McCain was the winner in Iowa!). Strange to think the latter is now a contender again, btw! Though thinking this through a bit last night, oddly enough I think it is to the advantage of reality-based America if Huckabee can stay in the race for a while. A two-man Romney vs. McCain race could be bad, especially if McCain can ride the momentum of a New Hampshire win this time around. But I figure if it's a three man race, Huckabee will take away more potential McCain voters (fetus fetishists who don't trust Romney's flip-flopping panders, basically) than Romney voters. Not sure how the anti-immigrant crowd sees Romney or Huckabee, though; that issue is apparently one of McCain's main heresies. Torture enthusiasts will go to "Double Guantanamo" Romney regardless.

Note, not only can Huck not win the general, he can't win the nomination either. Logically, neither can anyone else in the R field (as Yglesias likes to point out), but it's more true of Huck than the rest. He has no money, little organization as such, and most importantly the money-cons are dedicated to ensuring he loses.

Too bad Dodd never caught on for the Ds, he was my preference...

Posted by: Justin | January 4, 2008 11:48 AM

I can imagine one good thing were Huckabee to become president: I'd finally have the impetus to move to Europe.

I need to learn more about the Democrat contestants. I'm not very fond of Hillary, but I must admit that my view is based on one screw-up: her zealous and, in my opinion, utterly uninformed attack on the GTA game that could be modified to have adult content. Being passionate and vocal about an issue is only a good thing if you understand that issue.

Posted by: Nick | January 4, 2008 12:57 PM

Nick, if it helps, here's my take on the Ds (it maps to AGs outcomes, we may or may not have different reasons though).

Clinton - pro: already been fully slimed by the right-wing media; her negatives can't go any higher. Judging from NY bloggers, she's a smart and effective politician. Con: subject of irrational Clinton-hatred by wingers, so will mobilize an otherwise unhappy R base. She's the most conservative D yet is perceived as the most liberal. On foreign policy, she doesn't really seem to think voting in favor of the Iraq war was a mistake at all, and supported the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which potentially offers a foundation for Bush to start a war with Iran. Has a union-buster as a major campaign staffer.

Obama - pro: A Democrat with charisma, wow! Was right all along on Iraq, and in general seems to have the most mature and sensible approach to foreign policy. Probably the most electable of the three, with the charisma and appeal to independents (though any D should thump any R, with the possible exception of Clinton vs. McCain). Press doesn't hate him - yet. Con: Sometimes uses Republican rhetoric to criticize his opponents (some health care attacks were reminiscent of Harry & Louise, apparently). If he actually means his kumbaya, let's all get along, uniter rather than a partisan, type of spiel, he'll be very ineffective in office (name the last time Rs compromised on anything). But it may be just meaningless campaign promises like W's "compassionate conservatism" eight years ago. He's also had official campaign events with rabid homophobic bigots.

Edwards - pro: Probably the best chance to make serious changes when in office. He's the most liberal yet the southern white guy thing causes him to be perceived as the most conservative. He did a pretty convincing job of changing his mind about his vote to authorize the Iraq war. Con: Even less political experience than Obama. Press hates him almost as much as they hate Clinton (and love McCain), witness the idiotic haircut stories. He took public financing, so may be at a severe financial disadvantage for much of the year despite vastly better D fundraising than Rs this cycle (though 527 groups may cancel this out entirely).

Given the current field, I personally favor Edwards very slightly, but will probably vote strategically for Obama as the more successful anti-Clinton candidate.

Posted by: Justin | January 4, 2008 3:09 PM

I could see a conservative-leaning swing vote turn against voting Republican because their nominee's Mormon much more easily than I could see a liberal-leaning swing vote turn against voting Democrat because their nominee's black or a woman...

That's just a thought I have in my head right now. That and that Hillary may be a political pro on some level, but that's why I don't trust her. She's so much a serpent that she has snakes coming out of her hair.

Of course one would say the attempt to trust a politician was my first misstep... but if that's a maxim on society and not able to change, then in the words of Kent Brockman... "I've said it before and I'll say it again, Democracy simply doesn't work."

Posted by: Josh | January 4, 2008 11:16 PM

"Enough is about enough! I've had it with these motherfucking snakes in my motherfucking hair!"

I like the move to Europe if the Republicans win again idea. :) I'd say I'm already there, but my peeps back home despise it when somebody claims they're part of Europe. It's actually kind of funny how uptight they get about it. :)

Posted by: Mason | January 5, 2008 2:36 AM

bloomberg anyone?

Posted by: shellock42 | January 5, 2008 5:36 PM

Also, this.

Posted by: Josh | January 5, 2008 11:22 PM
Post a comment