Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Latest Numbers from Iowa

1

I am surprised Huckabee has not gained more support from evangelicals at this point. If he wins Iowa though, the GOP nomination is going to be totally up for grabs. Huckabee may not be the Presidential nominee but he will probably be on the VP Slot

Posted by Just Me | October 29, 2007 9:15 AM
2

NPR said this morning that Huckabee is viewed by Iowans as not a top tier frontrunner, but a strong choice for Veep. Evidently he's not collecting any cash.

The terrible logic in all this is a ticket w/ Huckabee as Veep might allow Rs to endorse an electable semi-moderate like Guiliani with some hope of getting conservatives out on election day.

In my heart, though, I still can't believe that Rs will endorse a pro-choice candidate.

Posted by Big Sven | October 29, 2007 9:19 AM
3

any way you slice it, i don't want ANY of these clowns to be president.

except Kucinich.

Posted by maxsolomon | October 29, 2007 9:30 AM
4

I'm sure Kucinich could do for the country what he did for Cleveland, Ohio.

Posted by Mikeblanco | October 29, 2007 9:38 AM
5

The Huckabee as Veep idea is the same as Bush 41's choice of Dan Quayle. Nobody ever though Quayle was a particularly good Veep, but he was added to the ticket in an attempt to pick up the ultra conservative vote. This is the quaint way politics used to be conducted before the Rove "Gay Panic" tactics era.

Posted by SDA in SEA | October 29, 2007 9:38 AM
6

Huckabee might be surging just because the evangelicals (not the power brokers like Dobson, but the actual voters) need to vote for someone. Now that the crazy asshole from Kansas is out of it they've got one clearcut choice.

Posted by Matt from Denver | October 29, 2007 10:06 AM
7

I dread one day having to tell my kids that our president is picked by Iowans who jerk off with numbers. Worse than using a kid's bike, in my opinion.

Posted by Greg | October 29, 2007 11:11 AM
8

What is wrong with people? Clinton's numbers amaze me. I guess name recognition is really what it takes to win. And loving corporations.

Nominating Clinton will hand the presidency to the Republicans. A Guiliani/Huckabee ticket can beat her, and probably will.

We're wasting our chance.

Posted by Dianna | October 29, 2007 11:23 AM
9

Well, @8, actually the Washington Post front page article says that Sen Clinton vs Guilani is a 65 - 35 vote, so there's not danger in that.

But personally, I think the media just wants to talk about the horse race, and not about the issues or positions. Which is why they try to short circuit the discussion.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 29, 2007 11:28 AM
10

I really wanted an actual progressive in this race, one that could repackage the fragmented coalition of liberal and centrist issues into a coherent story that spoke to working together for our common good. But the reality is that the only one who has the right policies is Kucinich, and he can't tell that story in a credible way.

For the general election, I'm OK with that. I'll vote for the nominee and every viable candidate has something positive to offer (Obama can even tell the story, it's just the only thing he can do). But right now, for the caucus, I think I'm going to have to vote my conscience. Despite all his flaws, Kucinich is the only candidate who has consistently been on the right side of issues (except for his poor history on abortion, and he says the right things about that now.) I want to vote for someone who knew at the time, like I did, that the Patriot Act and the Iraq War were wrong from start to finish. I want someone who's not afraid to say that we need single-pay health care in this country and that it would be more efficient than our current system or any of the proposed half-measures. I want someone who is an unabashed liberal.

Yeah, he wasn't the world's best mayor back when he was like 18 years old, and yeah, he's a bit of a kook personally. But the primary is when he vote for what we want the Democratic Party to represent. I don't want it to represent the triangulating Clinton machine, or the slightly insincere populism of Edwards, or the flashy emptiness of Obama. I don't want it to be represented by the interests of banks and insurance companies (Dodd, Biden), or by a vaguely misogynistic and homophobic Western governor who represented the worst aspects of our national lack of an energy policy and screwed over Wen Ho Lee along the way in Clinton's cabinet. And I don't want it represented by a faded legislative hero from 30 years ago, who hasn't done anything substantive in the meantime.

Kucinich will lose, but maybe he'll get enough delegates along with Edwards, Obama, and Dodd to make a progressive bloc at the convention that can keep Hillary from screwing over the progressives. Maybe they can even make a deal to get us a progressive VP so that 8 years from now it's not more of the same bullshit that we've had more or less since FDR shoved Henry Wallace out of the party sixty years ago.

Posted by Cascadian | October 29, 2007 11:59 AM
11

Will-it depends on what poll you look at. Many national polls (which I realize don't mean much at this point) have Clinton/Guiliani neck and neck...I fear a Clinton nomination will get all those conservative voters out to vote AGAINST her, along with all the "independents" who just hate her. And if Huckabee is on the ticket as VP, that only makes it worse.

Posted by Dianna | October 29, 2007 1:33 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).