Support NeoGAF

[Cheebs]

the debate topic has fallen off the front page and it seems a bit weird to use a cnn debate thread to discuss this up coming weeks primaries when not are in SC anyway sooo.

Sat is the dems in SC. Tuesday is Reps in Florida. What do you predict will happen?

Mine:

SC:
1. Obama
2. Hillary
3. Edwards

Florida:
1. McCain
2. Rudy
3. Romney

 

[Cooter]

SC:
1. Obama
2. Hillary
3. Edwards

Florida:
1. McCain
2. Rudy
3. Romney

Ditto.

 

[harSon]

1. Obama
2. Hillary
3. Edwards

 

[PhoenixDark]

SC:
1. Obama
2. Bill Clinton
3. Edwards

Florida:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. 911

 

[Tamanon]

SC:

Obama
Hillary
Edwards

FL:

McCain
Romney
Huckabee

 

[Stoney Mason]

This one isn't exactly hard. Especially on the Dem side. Mccain seems like the nominee at this point unless Rudy can pull a New Hampshire.

 

[BigGreenMat]

SC: I think Edwards will do better than expected, but I don't know if he gets to 2nd even.
1. Obama
2. Hildog
3. Edwards

Florida: I really have no clue, but...
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee
4. Paul
5. Giuliani

 

[Ponn]

If it helps making predictions Guilliani and Romney have been advertising pretty hard the last month. Especially Romney. Saw the first Mccain ad today. Still, Florida likes old white people so I will have to say

1)Mccain
2)Rudy
3)Romney

 

[worldrunover]

If Edwards gets third in SC he has to pack it in, right?

BTW how interesting would it be if Stephen Colbert was on this ballot? Who would he hurt more? I say Obama.

As for Florida, I have a funny feeling Guiliani may take this one, followed by Romney and McCain (I am puuting McCain third because I would assumed Rudy takes votes from him).

 

[Cheebs]

SC:
1. Obama
2. Bill Clinton
3. Edwards

Florida:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. 911

Nice :lol

 

[Stoney Mason]

A lot of people like to criticize Rudy's strategy of waiting until Florida but I'm not really sure what other options he had. Not to mention once the economy moved out in front of the war as the issue, he was pretty much in trouble. Basically he's 4 years too late. If this was 2004 he would have gotten the nomination but not in 2008.

 

[Tom_Cody]

South Carolina seems to be locked into position for the Democrats. The closest poll from the last week showed Obama 9 percentage points ahead. The standings for the Democrats in South Carolina are as set in stone as these things can get.

The Florida Republican race can not accurately be predicted until polling data arrives reflecting Fred's Departure.

 

[Tauntaun]

I just want Obama to beat Hillary and Ron Paul to do as well as possible.

 

[Mandark]

A lot of people like to criticize Rudy's strategy of waiting until Florida but I'm not really sure what other options he had. Not to mention once the economy moved out in front of the war as the issue, he was pretty much in trouble. Basically he's 4 years too late. If this was 2004 he would have gotten the nomination but not in 2008.

His campaign's been pretty awful, too. He seems incapable of effectively pandering to the base, which you think would be a simple matter. People like me were always going to mock the 9/11 Tourette's, but he kept it up to the point where even his natural audience wasn't buying it.

Reminds me of a lit professor years back who said that talented writers shouldn't assume they could knock out a successful harlequin romance over a few weeks. Readers of cheap fiction can tell if the author is into it, or if they're just aping the conventions as an outsider.

 

[grandjedi6]

Dem. South Carolina
1.) Obama
2.) Edwards
3.) Hillary
4.) Kucinich
5.) Uncommitted
6.) McCain
7.) Homer Simpon
8.) Gravel

Rep. Florida
1.) McCain
2.) Huckabee
3.) Rudy
3.) Romney
4.) Paul
5.) Uncommitted
6.) Keyes

Dem. Florida
1.) Clinton
2.) Obama
3.) Edwards
4.) Kucinich
5.) Uncommitted
6.) Gravel

 

[Fragamemnon]

SC:

Obama
Clinton
Edwards

Florida:

McCain
Huckabee
Romney
9iu11ani


Media narrative-Obama wins big in SC, people look at his big wins in two redder, more conservative states (Iowa and SC) and ask if Obama is a candidate who can potentially enact some realignment the same way that Reagan did with his Reagan Republicans. Everyone still sort of eyes Tsunami Tuesday and Clinton's huge leads in some states and wonders if the big win is enough to get Obama to pull even before that day.

McCain wins but yet again his share is in the high 20s/low 30s and his fundamentals with self-described conservatives and evangelicals are terrible. Huckabee gets a trong showing in the Panhandle + a big boost now that Grampa Fred is out. Romney cements his role as a non-winner, and Giuliani's campaign is humiliated and he leaves the race soon thereafter.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't even remembering hearing much about Rudy in the past few months. He retreated to Florida while the race narration constantly fluctuated; from Romney's religion to Huckabee craze to McCain frontrunner talk, etc. Meanwhile Rudy was on the sidelines making no news. Why anyone would think that placing all your marbles on winning one primary state - with absolutely no momentum to speak of - was a good idea is beyond me. He seemed too busy running against Hillary than actually competing against his opponents

 

[worldrunover]

Why is SC for the dems a given when the same polls had Obama ahead by similar margins in New Hampshire and he lost? Why are we trusting polls again all of a sudden?

 

[Tamanon]

Why is SC for the dems a given when the same polls had Obama ahead by similar margins in New Hampshire and he lost? Why are we trusting polls again all of a sudden?

We don't let the women vote in the Carolinas.

 

[harSon]

Why is SC for the dems a given when the same polls had Obama ahead by similar margins in New Hampshire and he lost? Why are we trusting polls again all of a sudden?

We aren't. I think everyone is expecting the black democrats (Nearly half of the voters) to vote for Obama.

 

[Y2Kev]

I'll go Obama, Hilldawg, Edwards...

And McCain, Romney, Giuliani. Watching Giulibombi fail will be the highlight of the year.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Why is SC for the dems a given when the same polls had Obama ahead by similar margins in New Hampshire and he lost? Why are we trusting polls again all of a sudden?

I don't believe the black vote is as variable to switching out at the last moment as the white vote for various reasons.

Although anything is possible of course.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I don't even remembering hearing much about Rudy in the past few months. He retreated to Florida while the race narration constantly fluctuated; from Romney's religion to Huckabee craze to McCain frontrunner talk, etc. Meanwhile Rudy was on the sidelines making no news. Why anyone would think that placing all your marbles on winning one primary state - with absolutely no momentum to speak of - was a good idea is beyond me. He seemed too busy running against Hillary than actually competing against his opponents

Like I said, not defending it as a perfect strategy and I raised the same issues months ago but with limited resources spending a lot of time in some of the earlier states where he literally had no chance wasn't an attractive alternative either. It's easy to Monday Morning QB his strategy. I'm not really sure what the correct strategy would have been for him.

 

[Y2Kev]

Like I said, not defending it as a perfect strategy and I raised the same issues months ago but with limited resources spending a lot of time in some of the earlier states where he literally had no chance wasn't an attractive alternative either. It's easy to Monday Morning QB his strategy. I'm not really sure what the correct strategy would have been for him.

What makes you so sure he had no chance to win in some of those states? Conservative voters?

 

[Stoney Mason]

What makes you so sure he had no chance to win in some of those states? Conservative voters?

Well he definitely didn't have a chance in Iowa or South Carolina, or Wyoming. With their fairly religious bases. Theoretically he might have done better if he had actually tried in places like Nevada or New Hampshire. Unless the war and terrorism remained at the forefront, in retrospect I just think he would have had a tough time getting his party's nomination no matter what with the structure of the primary season.

His ads seem like a relic from a couple of years ago with all the 9/11 and war talk. Republicans are paying lip service to that stuff but they really aren't invested in it anymore either outside of the macho talk.

 

[Mandark]

Giuliani's main problem is that the more people get to see and hear him, the less they want to vote for him.

Not sure how you overcome that.

 

[Y2Kev]

Giuliani's main problem is that the more people get to see and hear him, the less they want to vote for him.

Not sure how you overcome that.

Well, he's been doing a lot of hiding :lol

 

[VALIS]

Yeah, predicting this one on the Dem side seems as easy as predicting the superbowl. GOP not so much. I'd love to see Rudy flop. I think I'd laugh for a week.

 

[Ether_Snake]

1- Obama
2- Hillary
3- Edwards

1- McCain
2- Romney
3- Huckabee
4- Paul

EDIT: Forgot Huckabee

 

[Fragamemnon]

Anyone not putting Fundiebee in the top 3 in Florida has never visited the large part of Florida north of Orlando. He'll clean up there big time with Fred out of the picture.

 

[JayDubya]

I just want Obama to beat Hillary and Ron Paul to do as well as possible.

I just want to see Giuliani drop out first. It's probably signed and sealed already that it's going to be Clinton vs. McCain, the anointed front-runners from long before their candidacies for this even began.

Clinton's had a relatively smooth ride, McCain looked dead in the water for a long time. We'll see, I guess. Not a great choice for America on either ticket.

But better than a Clinton vs. Giuliani race. Ugh.

 

[Particle Physicist]

If Edwards gets third in SC he has to pack it in, right?

BTW how interesting would it be if Stephen Colbert was on this ballot? Who would he hurt more? I say Obama.

As for Florida, I have a funny feeling Guiliani may take this one, followed by Romney and McCain (I am puuting McCain third because I would assumed Rudy takes votes from him).

wouldnt Colbert be running as a republican?

 

[APF]

Giuliani's main problem is that the more people get to see and hear him, the less they want to vote for him.

Aah, "The Kerry Effect."

 

[Tamanon]

wouldnt Colbert be running as a republican?

Colbert tried to run as a Democrat and a Republican. The Republican side was "too expensive" and the Democrat side would not allow him to run.

 

[Tom_Cody]

Why is SC for the dems a given when the same polls had Obama ahead by similar margins in New Hampshire and he lost? Why are we trusting polls again all of a sudden?

Obama's win in New Hampshire and the margin of Romney's win in Nevada are the only two real anomalies in this primary season. Other than those two, average polling data has been accurate within about 5%. Obama's 10.9% swing is the exception, not the rule. Also, Obama currently has a 12.2% lead in the average polling data, so Hillary would have to pull an even larger swing in order to beat him.

As ridiculous as it sounds, another potentially significant factor in New Hampshire was Hillary's crying incident. Hillary won big among women in New Hampshire after losing the female vote in Iowa. Her tears happened so close to the primary polls were not able to accurately capture their effect. The effect could have been nothing, but a lot of people think those tears were the reason for the swing.

In summary, New Hampshire was the exception, not the rule. According to every reasonable indicator the results of South Carolina are locked up, unless a megaton happens (ex. Hillary's tears.)

 

[Stoney Mason]

The Republican side was "too expensive" and the Democrat side would not allow him to run.

Is that more of your wicked satire on the state of the parties?

 

[Tamanon]

Is that more of your wicked satire on the state of the parties?

It is kinda ironic that the reasons he didn't or wasn't allowed to run pretty much mirror how the parties approach presidential candidates. The Republican side you have people starting to drop out because they don't have the money to run and the Democratic side picks and chooses who will run in their campaign based along the Dean/Clinton party division.

 

[worldrunover]

I was going to ask this before, but I guess I'll ask it here; is there a such thing as a politician who has conservative fiscal policy but liberal social policy (or vice-versa)? I don't understand how being anti-abortion and pro-war has anything to do with wanting to run a "top-down" economy. I guess what I'm saying is socially I'm pro-dem but economically I find myself right-leaning. It seems silly that there can't be a cadidate who would embrace both.

Or am I wrong?

P.S. don't tell me Ron Paul.

 

[Tamanon]

I was going to ask this before, but I guess I'll ask it here; is there a such thing as a politician who has conservative fiscal policy but liberal social policy (or vice-versa)? I don't understand how being anti-abortion and pro-war has anything to do with wanting to run a "top-down" economy. I guess what I'm saying is socially I'm pro-dem but economically I find myself right-leaning. It seems silly that there can't be a cadidate who would embrace both.

Or am I wrong?

P.S. don't tell me Ron Paul.

The problem is what you consider socially liberal. Because once you get into government programs it's really really tough to actually BE a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

If you believe that being socially liberal means that the government doesn't have a say in the social world, like religion, marriage and all that, you have a possibility. But socially liberal has changed to mean that the government is supposed to take care of people.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Rudy's "24" ad I like to call it. This shit would have gone over gangbusters in 2004 but now it just seems like Jack Bauer. Been there done that. Actually a well produced ad when you just examine it on its technical merits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iFhGtKO-Q

More recent Rudy ads that try to strike the balance he probably should have been going for prior to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTdmRL_F2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUemvqnhefY

And of course the parodies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Fi7rgznXM

 

[Stoney Mason]

I was going to ask this before, but I guess I'll ask it here; is there a such thing as a politician who has conservative fiscal policy but liberal social policy (or vice-versa)? I don't understand how being anti-abortion and pro-war has anything to do with wanting to run a "top-down" economy. I guess what I'm saying is socially I'm pro-dem but economically I find myself right-leaning. It seems silly that there can't be a cadidate who would embrace both.

Or am I wrong?

P.S. don't tell me Ron Paul.

Some people argue that is Rudy


The problem is you get the party no matter what. The candidates are beholden to them which is almost why I never vote on the "individual" during a general election.

 

[grandjedi6]

Some people argue that is Rudy


The problem is you get the party no matter what. The candidates are beholden to them which is almost why I never vote on the "individual" during a general election.

Voting only based on the party has its flaws though. For example, Bush really didn't represent the financially conservative side well at all. Just because its the correct party doesn't mean the individual will do well at all in office. I know of a few Republicans who now wish they voted for Kerry just because of how sucky Bush has been, even for conservatives.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Voting only based on the party has its flaws though. For example, Bush really didn't represent the financially conservative side well at all. Just because its the correct party doesn't mean the individual will do well at all in office. I know of a few Republicans who now wish they voted for Kerry just because of how sucky Bush has been, even for conservatives.

Oh agreed. There is no fixed solution. Although when people tell me generally who they "wished" they voted for I also tend to take that with a grain of salt because often those same people turn around and make the same mistake again.

 

[Cooter]

Damn Stoney. Do you change your avatar every couple of days?

Anyway, I so so wish Obama can pull this out but if he can't let's get McCain nominated so he can defeat Darth Hillary. I'm hoping the SC win can propel him to a FL win. We'll see.

 

[Mandark]

Anyway, I so so wish Obama can pull this out but if he can't let's get McCain nominated so he can defeat Darth Hillary.

This is why people shouldn't vote based on their impressions of the candidates' personalities. Obama or McCain? That's crazy talk.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Rudy's "24" ad I like to call it. This shit would have gone over gangbusters in 2004 but now it just seems like Jack Bauer. Been there done that. Actually a well produced ad when you just examine it on its technical merits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iFhGtKO-Q

More recent Rudy ads that try to strike the balance he probably should have been going for prior to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTdmRL_F2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUemvqnhefY

And of course the parodies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Fi7rgznXM

:lol those ads are amazing.

 

[grandjedi6]

This is why people shouldn't vote based on their impressions of the candidates' personalities. Obama or McCain? That's crazy talk.

Yet, sadly, this is exactly what most independents do

 

[APF]

This is why people shouldn't vote based on their impressions of the candidates' personalities. Obama or McCain? That's crazy talk.

Why? They've both indicated they'll sacrifice their principles in order to court the right-wing.

 

[Piper Az]

SC: Obama-the Clintons-Edwards
FL: Rudy-McCain-Romney

 

[Cooter]

This is why people shouldn't vote based on their impressions of the candidates' personalities. Obama or McCain? That's crazy talk.

Not at all. I would prefer McCain mostly because of economic reasons but would be ok with Obama. From all my research he is an honorable man who will tell it like it is. That is something you will not get from Hillary.

When there's no one on either side that shares your stance on all positions you have to make due.