Predictions for New Hampshire? [Archive]

Drivesme

01-06-2008, 10:56 AM

OK Iowa turned out pretty much as expected, the Democrats turned out in droves and showed that what is needed/wanted is a real change.
A great number of republicans changed party's and really showed that changed is needed.

The right, or at least the hard core right, turned out and proved just how out of touch they really are by voting for the no change, 'stay the course' candidates.

So, how does everyone see the New Hampshire results?
I see it this way,

Democrats, same as Iowa,
Obama
Edwards
Clinton

I will say that Obama and Edwards will be very very close.

republicans will go with the 'stay the course' failures
Romney
McCain
Huckabee

rudy and thompson have been measured and fit for their political coffins and should just give up now before they embarrass themselves further.
Ron Paul should do the same but after Feb 5th, just to piss off the GOP and for no other reason.

Bottom line on this election is which Democrat will be our next President.

Notus Lotus

01-06-2008, 11:43 AM

I have a hunch McCain will be out in front for the NH primaries, followed by Romney and then Huckabee.

I think you're probably right about the Dems.

JIMV

01-06-2008, 02:33 PM

"A great number of republicans changed party's and really showed that changed is needed."

Got any proof of that claim or is it simply a quess?

McGyver

01-06-2008, 02:33 PM

I'm Thinking it will be Obama and McCain in New Hamshire!

McGyver

01-06-2008, 02:49 PM

"A great number of republicans changed party's and really showed that changed is needed."

Got any proof of that claim or is it simply a quess?

LOL....Yea Jim, We'll run right out and get that for ya....JUST AS SOON AS YOU GET US THE PROOF of all those corruption accusations you keep making against Senator Clinton!

I'm somehow just positive that after 8 Years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax payer money spent, IF Ken Starr had "anything" ON Mrs. Clinton, he would certainly NOT be SHY about putting it out there for ALL to see....Nor would Newt Gingrich, or any of the Other Republican Bulldogs!Afterall, it would help to justify his wasted existance for all those years! And As I recall, Ken Starr gave Mrs. Clinton a "Clean Bill of Health!"

So, If I were you, I would hesitate asking ANYONE on THIS forum for proof of anything they say.....And If I were anyone else on this forum, I would NOT provide you any proof of what they say....Since YOU provide NONE for all of your accusations against Senator Clinton! Therefore, You DESERVE NONE in return!

When they say...."Ask and Ye Shall Receive".....They're talking about God, not BW Forum Members. :D

************************************************** ************************************************** *

JIMV

01-06-2008, 02:56 PM

LOL....Yea Jim, We'll run right out and get that for ya....JUST AS SOON AS YOU GET US THE PROOF of all those corruption accusations you keep making against Senator Clinton!

I'm somehow just positive that after 8 Years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax payer money spent, IF Ken Starr had "anything" ON Mrs. Clinton, he would certainly NOT be SHY about putting it out there for ALL to see....Nor would Newt Gingrich, or any of the Other Republican Bulldogs!Afterall, it would help to justify his wasted existance for all those years! And As I recall, Ken Starr gave Mrs. Clinton a "Clean Bill of Health!"

So, If I were you, I would hesitate asking ANYONE on THIS forum for proof of anything they say.....And If I were anyone else on this forum, I would NOT provide you any proof of what they say....Since YOU provide NONE for all of your accusations against Senator Clinton! Therefore, You DESERVE NONE in return!

When they say...."Ask and Ye Shall Receive".....They're talking about God, not BW Forum Members. :D

************************************************** ************************************************** *

Fortunately, I did not ask you anything at all as I already know you have never said anything you can back with more than oppinion, I asked another poster, politely, if he had any real knowledge of a point or simply was quessing.

As you take any wild assed claim as true if it comes from an approved leftie and suits your purpose, I will leave you with your opinion, about all you ev er arrive with.:D

McGyver

01-06-2008, 03:06 PM

Fortunately, I did not ask you anything at all as I already know you have never said anything you can back with more than oppinion, I asked another poster, politely, if he had any real knowledge of a point or simply was quessing.

As you take any wild assed claim as true if it comes from an approved leftie and suits your purpose, I will leave you with your opinion, about all you ev er arrive with.:D

And I asked YOU "politely" if YOU had any real knowledge of Senator Clinton's "alledged" corruption, or if YOU were "simply guessing???

And just what do YOU provide to back up your "wild assed claims" about Senator Clinton?

JIMV

01-06-2008, 03:13 PM

And I asked YOU "politely" if YOU had any real knowledge of Senator Clinton's "alledged" corruption, or if YOU were "simply guessing???

And just what do YOU provide to back up your "wild assed claims" about Senator Clinton?

Nothing I post will convince you so why bother. I could post any one of a half dozen lists of Clinton corruption. I could post a list of Hillary fundraisers in jail or being tried but again, why bother. You will attack the list not because it is inaccurate but because it comes from a non approved source.

The truth of a charge depends on where itr comes from in your world.:eek:

Drivesme

01-06-2008, 03:44 PM

"A great number of republicans changed party's and really showed that changed is needed."

Got any proof of that claim or is it simply a quess?

The numbers are there jimmy, sorry to break it to you.
I know you wouldn't believe any source that I give you, being the blind lemming that you are, so I will not play that game with you.
I suggest you go find the facts for yourself, then maybe you might believe them.

Drivesme

01-06-2008, 03:48 PM

Nothing I post will convince you so why bother. I could post any one of a half dozen lists of Clinton corruption. I could post a list of Hillary fundraisers in jail or being tried but again, why bother. You will attack the list not because it is inaccurate but because it comes from a non approved source.

The truth of a charge depends on where itr comes from in your world.:eek:
Are you still on that silly fund raiser thing jimmy?
You do know that it has nothing at all to do with her, right??
I mean you claim to be such a scholar and all I would think if you were half as bright as you claim to be you would know that.

McGyver

01-06-2008, 03:54 PM

Nothing I post will convince you so why bother.

Well Jim,
Maybe you couldn't convince me, but there are 50 others on this Forum, who you just may well convince. Why not give it the old college try?

I could post any one of a half dozen lists of Clinton corruption.

Well Ummm Jim.....I didn't ask you to Post Lists....I asked if you had any credible evidence of Senator Clinton's guilt?

I could post a list of Hillary fundraisers in jail or being tried but again, why bother.

Exactly True Jim....Why bother to post a "list" of People in Jail, since that would ONLY prove that THEY are guilty....NOT Senator Clinton.

You will attack the list not because it is inaccurate but because it comes from a non approved source.

First of all Jim, a "list" is NOT proof of guilt....last I checked. And again, I'm not the only one of this forum. So whatever "proof" you provide will be looked at by all interested members of this forum...not just me. So when you say a "non approved source" are we talking a Right Wing Extremist source suffering from a bad case of "Clinton Derangement Syndrome?"

Come On Jim....You're making this Waaaay Toooo Easy for me. You can do better than this! (I think!)

************************************************** ************************************************** *

JIMV

01-06-2008, 05:20 PM

First of all Jim, a "list" is NOT proof of guilt....last I checked. And again, I'm not the only one of this forum. So whatever "proof" you provide will be looked at by all interested members of this forum...not just me. So when you say a "non approved source" are we talking a Right Wing Extremist source suffering from a bad case of "Clinton Derangement Syndrome?"

Come On Jim....You're making this Waaaay Toooo Easy for me. You can do better than this! (I think!)

************************************************** ************************************************** *

Good heavens...when the idiot left posts their list of imagned reasons for impeachment, that is to be treated seriously but when I or anyone else posts a list of folk indicted or jailed, that is scoffed at as evidence...

Wow

Drivesme

01-06-2008, 05:46 PM

Good heavens...when the idiot left posts their list of imagned reasons for impeachment, that is to be treated seriously but when I or anyone else posts a list of folk indicted or jailed, that is scoffed at as evidence...

Wow
'Imagined'?? Not hardly, the crimes on the list are real, and they would of course be investigated, but you knew that.

Your list of people, from the idiot right, while possibly real, is meaningless.
Just because someone that once talked to a Clinton is arrested doesn't make the Clinton's guilty.

JIMV

01-06-2008, 06:20 PM

'Imagined'?? Not hardly, the crimes on the list are real, and they would of course be investigated, but you knew that.

Your list of people, from the idiot right, while possibly real, is meaningless.
Just because someone that once talked to a Clinton is arrested doesn't make the Clinton's guilty.

Need I say more...some leftie crys 'crime' and the rest of the left all pretend it is so. For example, wireless eavesdropping on foreign terrorists...perfectly legal per a half dozen appeals court caase...the left still pretends it is not.

Drivesme

01-06-2008, 07:33 PM

Need I say more...some leftie crys 'crime' and the rest of the left all pretend it is so. For example, wireless eavesdropping on foreign terrorists...perfectly legal per a half dozen appeals court caase...the left still pretends it is not.

You have anything other than "lather, rinse, repeat" jimmy?

McGyver

01-06-2008, 09:26 PM

Good heavens...when the idiot left posts their list of imagned reasons for impeachment, that is to be treated seriously but when I or anyone else posts a list of folk indicted or jailed, that is scoffed at as evidence...

But Wait A Minute! YOU'RE the One who wouldn't accept that list of "legitimate" reasons for Impeachment! RIGHT???? So why in the Hell would you come back and try to post "Your List" as proof of Senator Clinton's guilt?

That is exactly the question I asked you Jim....You go around calling Senator Clinton a criminal.....and as it turns out, You have NO MORE proof of YOUR accusations, than you Bitched about another poster having about Bush's Impeachment! You really need to get over this Double Standard Bullshit Jim....The rules apply to You the same as they apply to every other member of this Forum.

Instead of posting bullshit lists, how about posting Just what YOU believe Senator Clinton is guilty of??? Not President Clinton (yet) but Senator Clinton??? And you might want to explain to all of us just WHY it is that if these charges are correct...Just WHY the GOP hasn't jumped ALL over this very long ago??? Because TRUST ME....They would have!

GUS

01-07-2008, 12:32 AM

Drivesme

01-07-2008, 08:40 AM

Perhaps the GOP is spending its time covering Rudy's crooked ass. Talk about some shady dealings filled with graft and corruption with a sprinkling (actually a flood) of adultry that's our native New Yorker presidential candidate Giuliani.
No need to worry about him anymore, he said the other day that he would pick dick cheney as his vice president!!

He loaded the shot gun, stuck it in his mouth and pulled the trigger, all on national television!

JIMV

01-07-2008, 01:12 PM

You have anything other than "lather, rinse, repeat" jimmy?

On the issue of terror surveilance, I can come up with a legal case citing specific court cases. That is how one makes a point on a political forum. So far you pretend such an argument has no merit as it does not fit with your world view.

In short, I did say something, you have been lacking in the substantive sense.:rolleyes:

lenny

01-07-2008, 01:27 PM

Drivesme

01-07-2008, 01:59 PM

On the issue of terror surveilance, I can come up with a legal case citing specific court cases. That is how one makes a point on a political forum. So far you pretend such an argument has no merit as it does not fit with your world view.

In short, I did say something, you have been lacking in the substantive sense.:rolleyes:
Your court case mean nothing jimmy, remember they are from this administration and that alone makes them worthless.
Surveillance is not welcome in this country, as your boy found out.
It is a legitimate "high crime" committed by this president.

However, the crimes of this president is not the topic of this thread.
What are your thoughts, or should I say the thoughts of the rightwing radio pundits, on the NH primary?

Drivesme

01-07-2008, 02:06 PM

I'm sticking with my original prediction.

D: Obama
R: Paul

I realize McCain won there in 2000, but I think McCain 08 is a significantly different candidate. He might pull it off, but I think his support there is weaker than it would have been had he not spent the past eight years licking peoples boots. Paul will get more of the Independent vote than McCain.

I don't think Romney will win it because a significant number of New Hampshire voters are more informed and independent thinking than the average American; so they'll see Romney for what he is: a complete phony.

The dumber-than-dirt wing of the Republican party is probably pretty low there as well, so Thompson isn't going to take it.

As for Huckabee, the lunatic religious vote won't be as significant as it was in Iowa...I don't think he's going to win this one.

Paul wins a close one. :)

Oh, looks like I forgot one. Ghouliani? What a piece of shit...

You could be right, NH is right next door to Mass. and they HATE romney, and I mean HATE the man.
I don't see Paul taking it though, he is just too far out there to get enough votes, IMO. That would leave McCain and he has sold out to the GOP and is too close to bush but he is also less of a nut job than huck , rudy and the B actor are as good as dead so no sense in even mentioning them.

The republicans are so lost it is hard to get a good read on them this time.
Could be anybodys game but I'm sticking to plastic man Romney.

JIMV

01-07-2008, 02:59 PM

Your court case mean nothing jimmy, remember they are from this administration and that alone makes them worthless.
Surveillance is not welcome in this country, as your boy found out.
It is a legitimate "high crime" committed by this president.

However, the crimes of this president is not the topic of this thread.
What are your thoughts, or should I say the thoughts of the rightwing radio pundits, on the NH primary?

Actually, the case law goes back to the 1930's. If you refuse to pay any attention to the state of the law, why should I bother quoting it to you?

As to NH, hader even than Idaho to call. I think Hillary is in a major slump and might not recover. I see the dems as selecting obama by double digits with Edwards about 10 points behind. I see the republican field as slightly leaning McCain but Huckabe is making big gains and could pull out a squeaker.

Drivesme

01-07-2008, 03:35 PM

Actually, the case law goes back to the 1930's. If you refuse to pay any attention to the state of the law, why should I bother quoting it to you?
As I have said jimmy, many times, you only claim to do and know wondrous things and have yet to prove any of them, after hundreds of attempts to get you to even try.
You won't this time and we all know it, but that is for another thread.

As to NH, hader even than Idaho to call.
Idaho hard to call? You been under a rock your entire life??
Idaho is the easiest of all 50 states to call!
Romney on the right and Edwards for the Democrats, done.
In the general election Idaho might as well not even bother casting ballots, the republican will get it, doesn't matter who it is, they will win Idaho.
A Democrat hasn't carried Idaho sense FDR's first term, and only his first term.
I think Hillary is in a major slump and might not recover.
She was never going to get the nod anyway. The only ones that ever thought she would was the rightwing.
I see the dems as selecting obama by double digits with Edwards about 10 points behind. I see the republican field as slightly leaning McCain but Huckabe is making big gains and could pull out a squeaker.
That much of a gap between Obama and Edwards? What makes you think that?

JIMV

01-07-2008, 05:13 PM

This makes no sense:

As I have said jimmy, many times, you only claim to do and know wondrous things and have yet to prove any of them, after hundreds of attempts to get you to even try.You won't this time and we all know it, but that is for another thread.

I have extensively cited case law on the old forum and you poo-poo the effort as in some way having no meaning..then you claim I have proven nothing while I am the only one actually posting real data and not simply opinion.

Some things are as they are and opinion has nothing to do with it. A court case either comes down your way or not. The body of case law comes down as I have said and, often, cited.

That you do not like it does not change the fact.

The foreign surveilance activity of the White House is completely legal as a host of federal appeals courts have attested. Your not linking the result and citing the activity on a bogus list of impeachable offenses does not make your view prevail.

The law is the law. Your reasoning is flawed.

JIMV

01-07-2008, 05:15 PM

Idaho hard to call? You been under a rock your entire life??
Idaho is the easiest of all 50 states to call!
Romney on the right and Edwards for the Democrats, done.
In the general election Idaho might as well not even bother casting ballots, the republican will get it, doesn't matter who it is, they will win Idaho.
A Democrat hasn't carried Idaho sense FDR's first term, and only his first term.

I am sorry. You are completly right...that should have read Iowa, not Idaho.

JIMV

01-07-2008, 05:17 PM

That much of a gap between Obama and Edwards? What makes you think that?

The latest polling numbers have Obama running away with the thing. His numbers come both from Hillary and Edwards. He might get close to 40% with Edwards and Hillary fighting for the rest.

Drivesme

01-07-2008, 07:57 PM

This makes no sense:

I have extensively cited case law on the old forum and you poo-poo the effort as in some way having no meaning..then you claim I have proven nothing while I am the only one actually posting real data and not simply opinion.

Some things are as they are and opinion has nothing to do with it. A court case either comes down your way or not. The body of case law comes down as I have said and, often, cited.

That you do not like it does not change the fact.

The foreign surveilance activity of the White House is completely legal as a host of federal appeals courts have attested. Your not linking the result and citing the activity on a bogus list of impeachable offenses does not make your view prevail.

The law is the law. Your reasoning is flawed.
Start a thread jimmy.