• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Official NH Primary Results Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheKingsCrown

Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
why?
Click to expand...

It might mean that people saw what Iowa did, considered it, and rejected it, which means there are more brains than dumbcakes in the voting groups right now. Perhaps there is more reason than expected.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
perfectchaos007 said:
Do republicans have super delegates like dems?
Click to expand...

Nope. They also don't mandate that states send a percentage of delegates according to how each candidate does. They leave that up to the state to decide if they want to go percentage, or to go winner-take-all.
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
TheKingsCrown said:
It might mean that people saw what Iowa did, considered it, and rejected it, which means there are more brains than dumbcakes in the voting groups right now. Perhaps there is more reason than expected.
Click to expand...


or maybe they saw what iowa did. reassessed the candidates.. re-evaluated what they stand for. and then voted.

so only dumb people vote for obama now?
 
N

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
Obama is very likeable because he speaks with great passion and style. Combined with his vague yet idealistic proposals, I see him as a greenhorn/newbie who will fail miserably in the White House. As you guys have said it yourself, the capitalistic US society will make sure the corporations eat Obama alive. Ultimately, that is not what the US want for a president.

What I see is that Hilary has similar ideas as Obama judging from their voting patterns. She also has slightly more solid proposals than Obama for her campaign, obviously because she has been planning for this moment for a long time. You guys call that cold and calculating, but what that means is that Hilary has far better research materials than Obama. Quite possibly, her proposals may be more sound because of the longer period of time she spent working on it.

In the end, I think it's just very shallow for you guys to follow Obama simply because he does excellent presentations. Hope is a great thing to have, but the people will be even more dissapointed when Obama fails at keeping his words.

I am no Obama hater at all because I like him and would vote for him if I can. But he is simply too new to politics and fancy presentations won't change that fact.
 
F

Flo_Evans

Member
TheKingsCrown said:
It might mean that people saw what Iowa did, considered it, and rejected it, which means there are more brains than dumbcakes in the voting groups right now. Perhaps there is more reason than expected.
Click to expand...

I think you place way to much importance on the groupthink. Do you think Huckabee is going to slaughter Romney in NH?

Could it be that maybe most people haven't paid much attention yet, are still undecided and that Iowa is the 1st time they serouisly listened to what each candidate has to say?
 
N

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
thekad said:
NetMapel: What policies has Hillary been more sound on?
Click to expand...
I said "possibly more sound" because of the longer periods of time she spent working on those proposals. If it is true as many GAF members have claim that Hilary calculated for her own presidential candidacy for a long time, she would have spent more time researching into the policies she want to use for her campaign. If that is the case, I think it is possible that she has significantly more research to back her campaign policies.
 
P

perryfarrell

Member
NetMapel said:
As you guys have said it yourself, the capitalistic US society will make sure the corporations eat Obama alive.

[more stuff]
Click to expand...

I don't think you really have an idea of what you're talking about. How would 'corporations' eat Obama alive? If he were elected president, he would surround himself with a team of people who he thinks can realize his plans, and they would go to work. The policies of that government would look markedly different from the ones of the current government.

Of course there will always be lobbyists and pressure from the market, but there's no question of corporations 'eating' anything.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
NetMapel said:
In the end, I think it's just very shallow for you guys to follow Obama simply because he does excellent presentations. Hope is a great thing to have, but the people will be even more dissapointed when Obama fails at keeping his words.
Click to expand...
I'm incredibly amused that you followed this post up with one completely about comparing the two candidates on meta levels devoid of all substance.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
We'll know in about an hour and a half how it starts shaking out, but I'm sticking by Hillary losing, possibly huge. And I really don't know what the big deal with that is- she's not a likable person. Notice I said person, as her gender has nothing to do with it for me- I could easily support a female candidate that wasn't as shrewish.

Finally, I fail to see where her "experience" argument comes from. She gets credit for being first lady? Really? Obama's been an elected official for longer than Hillary, if you want to split hairs.
 
A

APF

Member
Francois the Great said:
hillary is a warmonger and obama is not. hence, obama>hillary
Click to expand...
Obama is for unilateral strikes / and or unauthorized mobilization in Pakistan if he can't make diplomacy work. Explain how that isn't sufficiently "warmongering."
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Opus Angelorum said:
I had to laugh today.
My mum was talking about Obama and she was curious as to why he had become so popular.
I'm paraphrasing:
"Why do Americans like someone who has a similar name to that terrorist?"
"Terrorist?, I ask confused.
"Yeah, you know...that guy...Obama Bin Laden"
I lawled, she wasn't joking.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which was more amazingly stupid . . . not knowing the name of the most notorious terrorist of the 21st century or thinking that people should not like someone because their name is similar to someone else's name.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Triumph said:
We'll know in about an hour and a half how it starts shaking out, but I'm sticking by Hillary losing, possibly huge. And I really don't know what the big deal with that is- she's not a likable person. Notice I said person, as her gender has nothing to do with it for me- I could easily support a female candidate that wasn't as shrewish.

Finally, I fail to see where her "experience" argument comes from. She gets credit for being first lady? Really? Obama's been an elected official for longer than Hillary, if you want to split hairs.
Click to expand...

She has THIRTY FIVE YEARS!
 
F

Flo_Evans

Member
The whole "hope is a fairy tale" shit is really disturbing. Its like they are admitting that they really don't want real progress in our government. Fuck that noise.
 
T

thekad

Banned
APF said:
Obama is for unilateral strikes / and or unauthorized mobilization in Pakistan if he can't make diplomacy work. Explain how that isn't sufficiently "warmongering."
Click to expand...

If we have actual knowledge that terrorists are in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government refuses to act against those terrorists, should we not strike?

Yes or No?
 
S

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
McCain's in the lead? That's super.
He's a total shill sometimes, but he's definitely the least scary of the bunch.
 
6

6.8

Member
perfectchaos007 said:
He wants to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years. Thats scary to me.
Click to expand...

sp0rsk said:
McCain's in the lead? That's super.
He's a total shill sometimes, but he's definitely the least scary of the bunch.
Click to expand...

Let me introduce you to the concept of relativity...
 
S

speculawyer

Member
APF said:
Obama is for unilateral strikes / and or unauthorized mobilization in Pakistan if he can't make diplomacy work. Explain how that isn't sufficiently "warmongering."
Click to expand...
Strikes != war or occupation

Bill Clinton did various strikes all the time and nobody complained about that (Well, except all those Republicans that got mad at him for retaliating against Osama Bin Laden.)

But seriously now . . . lets address what Obama really said . . . He said "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Are you really gonna oppose that? Are you an Osama fan?

I hate the Iraq war, but I'd approve of that. If Perv (who we give billions of dollars to) won't do the job, then we should.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
perfectchaos007 said:
He wants to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years. Thats scary to me.
Click to expand...
Oh . . . it got better . . . he was later asked if he really meant that . . . and he said yes . . . I'd keep them there "a thousand years" . . . "a millions years" (!)

Start printing the bumper stickers:

Vote McCain for a Million years in Iraq!
 
K

KilledByBill

Member
speculawyer said:
Strikes != war or occupation

Bill Clinton did various strikes all the time and nobody complained about that (Well, except all those Republicans that got mad at him for retaliating against Osama Bin Laden.)

But seriously now . . . lets address what Obama really said . . . He said "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Are you really gonna oppose that? Are you an Osama fan?

I hate the Iraq war, but I'd approve of that. If Perv (who we give billions of dollars to) won't do the job, then we should.
Click to expand...

Careful now, you're arguing with a Fox News viral marketer. The Neo-cons want Osama around 'cause he's a better boogie man than China when it comes to replacing the dearly departed U.S.S.R.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
KilledByBill said:
Careful now, you're arguing with a Fox News viral marketer. The Neo-cons want Osama around 'cause he's a better boogie man than China when it comes to replacing the dearly departed U.S.S.R.
Click to expand...
You got a point there. And they really can't use China as a boogie-man anymore since they basically have the worst anti-china policy since they sold our country to China with untold billions in debt to China.
 
K

Kabouter

Member
sp0rsk said:
McCain's in the lead? That's super.
He's a total shill sometimes, but he's definitely the least scary of the bunch.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

perfectchaos007 said:
He wants to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years. Thats scary to me.
Click to expand...
People who want to withdraw immediately scare me more.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Francois the Great said:
new hampshire helped mccain out so much last time so he's got the nomination in a lock
Click to expand...
I think new hampshire is still mad about how Bush stole the nomination from McCain in 2000 with the "black baby" smear so they are supporting McCain.
 
A

avatar299

Banned
thekad said:
If we have actual knowledge that terrorists are in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government refuses to act against those terrorists, should we not strike?

Yes or No?
Click to expand...
I wonder....If Bush did the exact thing, how Many of you would support that.
Interesting how willing Americans are to go war,as long as It's under a different pres.
 
N

ndiicm

Member
Flo_Evans said:
The whole "hope is a fairy tale" shit is really disturbing. Its like they are admitting that they really don't want real progress in our government. Fuck that noise.
Click to expand...

lol Cafferty said "I did not have sex with that woman, is the real 'fairy tale' "

:lol
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones and NBC's Ben Weltman
DOVER, NH -- In yet another reference to Democratic Party icon John F. Kennedy -- we've heard several in recent days -- Clinton supporter Francine Torge, a retired educator from Durham, mentioned his assassination in her introduction of the senator on Monday.

"If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK, and he was a wonderful leader," she said. "He gave us a lot of hope. But he was assassinated, and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all of his work and got both the Republicans and Democrats to pass those measures."

The Clinton campaign has suggested rival Barack Obama, who some have compared to Bobby Kennedy, has been comparing himself to the former president lately.

Obama has talked about JFK's target of putting a man on the moon as an example of the need for hope, but says he did not claim to be like him.

In Dover, Torge went on to talk about why she was supporting the former first lady.
"Here, we find a person who is willing to work for a positive change," Torge said, "and she's told us over and over again how she'll do this. Please listen to her. I get so tired of listening to people on national TV say, 'I don't know what she says. I don't know what she plans to do.' Because she keeps coming to the events and telling us over and over what she'll do."
Click to expand...
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/08/560910.aspx

I'm all for JFK bashing but this is a bit...eh
 
F

Flo_Evans

Member
avatar299 said:
I wonder....If Bush did the exact thing, how Many of you would support that.
Interesting how willing Americans are to go war,as long as It's under a different pres.
Click to expand...

A tactical strike against a single target is not the same thing as "going to war"
 
A

APF

Member
speculawyer said:
Bill Clinton did various strikes all the time and nobody complained about that (Well, except all those Republicans that got mad at him for retaliating against Osama Bin Laden.)
Click to expand...
Actually plenty of people on the left complained and still complain about Bill Clinton's "warmongering," pointing to a lot of his actions in the ME as setting-up the so-called "root causes" for Islamists' war on the US / allied nations.

speculawyer said:
But seriously now . . . lets address what Obama really said . . . He said "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Are you really gonna oppose that?
Click to expand...
Sure I will. Unless of course you feel that having actionable intelligence is just cause for launching strikes against a sovereign nation
warmonger.
 
N

ndiicm

Member
speculawyer said:
Strikes != war or occupation

Bill Clinton did various strikes all the time and nobody complained about that (Well, except all those Republicans that got mad at him for retaliating against Osama Bin Laden.)

But seriously now . . . lets address what Obama really said . . . He said "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Are you really gonna oppose that? Are you an Osama fan?

I hate the Iraq war, but I'd approve of that. If Perv (who we give billions of dollars to) won't do the job, then we should.
Click to expand...

Isn't it funny how some people just try so hard to distort his message.

They should just say that they don't want a president with dark skin.
 
T

thekad

Banned
Tamanon said:
WTF? That's an absolutely horrible thing to say, and could really backfire.

"JFK was great, but it wasn't until he was assassinated that LBJ got everything done"
Click to expand...

To be fair, neither Clinton nor her campaign actually said that. It was just a Clinton supporter.

APF said:
Sure I will. Unless of course you feel that having actionable intelligence is just cause for launching strikes against high-level terrorists
darkie.
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Official GTA Trilogy feature list details all the Definitive Edition enhancements
2
57
6K
ACESHIGH replied
  • Locked
2 in 10 Clinton Primary Voters Weren't Going To Vote For Obama (2008 Flashback)
16
3K
ModBot replied
Some Democratic fundraisers pivot; work as lobbyists to advance Trump's agenda
6
1K
TheOctodad replied
  • Locked
New PPP Polls: Clinton winning WI, NH, PA, OH, IA, losing AZ
2
71
7K
Flying Toaster replied
  • Locked
"Ask The Gays!": LGBT voters back Hillary over Trump, 84% to 16%
2 3 4
155
16K
Suikoguy replied
Top Bottom