Nevada surprise: John Edwards gets less than 4% and Ron Paul comes in 2nd!

[GaryC 7]

I'm a regular lurker on dailykos. With all due respect, Gary, they've been crazy about John Edwards for a while and he got 4% in Nevada. That community isn't exactly representative.

I don't lurk on the liberal blogs so I wouldn't know. I do know that a google search gives me so much anti-hillary stuff it's hard to sift through it all, and it is coming from left leaning sites more than anything else. But I really do hope Hillary is the nominee. She will be much easier to beat than Obama.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm a regular lurker on dailykos. With all due respect, Gary, they've been crazy about John Edwards for a while and he got 4% in Nevada. That community isn't exactly representative.

I don't lurk on the liberal blogs so I wouldn't know.

Try it sometime. It's entertaining.

Freerepublic.com is a right-wing site I lurk on. Also very very entertaining. I have IDs on both.

[yogib37 3]

Lets pray for Bloomburg to get into the race to save us from another Clinton dynasty.

Bloomberg will siphon off votes from both sides of the aisle. He is a very attractive candidate.

I heard an interview with him earlier in the week saying that he isn't running.

I believe he's been saying he isn't a candidate. Not that he isn't running. Word games. My colleague who is a GOP bigshot in a town in this area tells me the whispers are that Bloomberg will run if Hillary becomes the nominee. We'll see.

He is further left than any of the dems. Once the public understands that there will be very few rep voters going for him. Bloomburg is very bad news for the dems.

His emphasis on rebuilding our nations infrastructure will resonate with many. Not all issues can be neatly divided into right and left.

said before

A series of SurveyUSA polls to measure the awareness of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and possible support for a third-party run for president find he's got an uphill battle ahead of him if he runs.

Across the country, one in four voters have never heard of Bloomberg and just 11% have a favorable impression of him. In an election for president today, if Bloomberg is on the ballot, he receives at most 13% of the vote. He also consistently finishes third of three candidates.

Even in the five boroughs of New York City, where Bloomberg is best known by voters know him best, he does not finish above 28% no matter who his Democratic or Republican opponents would be.

It's not a question as to whether he can win in an independent run, that is a given no. The question is whether he would be a spoiler for the dems if he ran. With the last few elections being decided by the slimmest of margins even a few % of dem votes won by Bloomberg would make a difference. IMO he would make the all important difference if he ran.

Are you talking about the 2004 election?

Dems are turning out in record numbers to vote now, I have very little faith a Rep will win in November - he!!, there is no Rep frontrunner! Americans are speaking & the Republican days are numbered.

I am a Democrat, If Hillary gets the Demo. Ticket, I am sure am going to vote REP. I would vote for anyone but Hillary.

I would even write down Mickey Mouse name if I have to to take at least one vote away from her.

Yogi

[yogib37 3]

I work in a building full of union workers. While the union bosses tell them to vote for Hillary almost to a man they say they would stay home if they had to vote for Hillary. To be honest I haven't found anyone that thinks she should be president. And I disagree with Steven about Rudy being the only one that can beat Hillary. McCain is polling very well against her.

Please clarify, this makes no sense.

The union locals have been encouraging their people to vote for Clinton. The guys I talk to say to hell with what the union says, they will not vote for her. They also are telling me that if Hillary wins the primary they would stay home rather than vote for her. This is only based on the 20 -30 union guys I talk to at work.

And those (20-30) union (GUYS) you know - are they the ones who won't vote for Hillary?

Hillary won 7 out of the 9 at-large precincts in Nevada. You know - where all the culinary workers voted? Their union endorsed Obama.

But Oboma got more delegates from Nevada. How did that happen?

Which is more important then winning the popluar vote.

Yogi

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why do you say that?

If enough people clamor for that one thing, then that one thing can be changed.

eta: if you look at the court, you can see that it could happen in the next decade.

You know, arguing a medical procedure in the political sphere has always struck me as being somewhat silly. Frankly, I'd support a constitutional amendment to explicitly allow abortion (or ban attempts to ban it?) if it made the issue go away.

I work in a building full of union workers. While the union bosses tell them to vote for Hillary almost to a man they say they would stay home if they had to vote for Hillary. To be honest I haven't found anyone that thinks she should be president. And I disagree with Steven about Rudy being the only one that can beat Hillary. McCain is polling very well against her.

Please clarify, this makes no sense.

Ya, cuz they can go in and vote for anyone else they wanted to. Not like the boss is watching.

It is silly I agree - and its rather depressing that it always comes up around election time. Aren't you tired of hearing soundbites from voters saying "Ooh... I voted for so-and-so because of his moral stance of abortion". #### the economy... its like they only care about something that has no bearing on their daily lives whatsoever, except, presumably, to make them sleep better at night. The only reason we have this issue is because of the power and influence of fundamentalist conservatives who want to ban it, and because of that the equally reactionary liberal and feminist groups who come out to oppose it. They are right to oppose it IMO - but then I am rather biased on this. In the UK we have more voter apathy, but we don't have a strong, religious base clamouring for this to be a key election issue. Its simply not a relevant debate - and people have moved past it. As they should.

Of course - abortion is the flagship moral/medical issue, but not the only one. Stem cell research and cloning technologies are another.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

As for alternatives, McCain would look mightily attractive against Hillary. I know he would to me.

they both look the same to me.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

If you poll VJ, you can bet your sweet azz it will be white men.

zomg pink men!11!111!1!1!!11

[no name 1]

If you poll VJ, you can bet your sweet azz it will be white men.

zomg pink men!11!111!1!1!!11

Feel better now? Care to discuss the topic now or just more whining?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You know, arguing a medical procedure in the political sphere has always struck me as being somewhat silly. Frankly, I'd support a constitutional amendment to explicitly allow abortion (or ban attempts to ban it?) if it made the issue go away.

It is silly I agree - and its rather depressing that it always comes up around election time. Aren't you tired of hearing soundbites from voters saying "Ooh... I voted for so-and-so because of his moral stance of abortion". #### the economy... its like they only care about something that has no bearing on their daily lives whatsoever, except, presumably, to make them sleep better at night. The only reason we have this issue is because of the power and influence of fundamentalist conservatives who want to ban it, and because of that the equally reactionary liberal and feminist groups who come out to oppose it. They are right to oppose it IMO - but then I am rather biased on this. In the UK we have more voter apathy, but we don't have a strong, religious base clamouring for this to be a key election issue. Its simply not a relevant debate - and people have moved past it. As they should.

Of course - abortion is the flagship moral/medical issue, but not the only one. Stem cell research and cloning technologies are another.

Agreed. As a society, we ought to leave medical/scientific issues to the trained professionals. It is the height of arrogance for us to presume that their professional training can be completely disregarded and that without us, they'll have no moral compass of their own.

[Alex+R 0]

You know, arguing a medical procedure in the political sphere has always struck me as being somewhat silly. Frankly, I'd support a constitutional amendment to explicitly allow abortion (or ban attempts to ban it?) if it made the issue go away.

It is silly I agree - and its rather depressing that it always comes up around election time. Aren't you tired of hearing soundbites from voters saying "Ooh... I voted for so-and-so because of his moral stance of abortion". #### the economy... its like they only care about something that has no bearing on their daily lives whatsoever, except, presumably, to make them sleep better at night. The only reason we have this issue is because of the power and influence of fundamentalist conservatives who want to ban it, and because of that the equally reactionary liberal and feminist groups who come out to oppose it. They are right to oppose it IMO - but then I am rather biased on this. In the UK we have more voter apathy, but we don't have a strong, religious base clamouring for this to be a key election issue. Its simply not a relevant debate - and people have moved past it. As they should.

Of course - abortion is the flagship moral/medical issue, but not the only one. Stem cell research and cloning technologies are another.

Agreed. As a society, we ought to leave medical/scientific issues to the trained professionals. It is the height of arrogance for us to presume that their professional training can be completely disregarded and that without us, they'll have no moral compass of their own.

While I won't vote based solely on abortion, it's important that anti-abortion policies are not important to a presidential candidate. In other political races, I could care less; it doesn't really matter and a lot of people get stuck on it. I hate that it's made a campaign issue, however.

Re: letting medical pros make all the ethical decisions: are you out of your mind? They're not the "experts" in ethical decision making. Seriously, they have very little ethical training. Their jobs are very practical. I wouldn't tell a scientist how to perform stem cell research, but as a society we should have say in whether they can do it or not.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You know, arguing a medical procedure in the political sphere has always struck me as being somewhat silly. Frankly, I'd support a constitutional amendment to explicitly allow abortion (or ban attempts to ban it?) if it made the issue go away.

It is silly I agree - and its rather depressing that it always comes up around election time. Aren't you tired of hearing soundbites from voters saying "Ooh... I voted for so-and-so because of his moral stance of abortion". #### the economy... its like they only care about something that has no bearing on their daily lives whatsoever, except, presumably, to make them sleep better at night. The only reason we have this issue is because of the power and influence of fundamentalist conservatives who want to ban it, and because of that the equally reactionary liberal and feminist groups who come out to oppose it. They are right to oppose it IMO - but then I am rather biased on this. In the UK we have more voter apathy, but we don't have a strong, religious base clamouring for this to be a key election issue. Its simply not a relevant debate - and people have moved past it. As they should.

Of course - abortion is the flagship moral/medical issue, but not the only one. Stem cell research and cloning technologies are another.

Agreed. As a society, we ought to leave medical/scientific issues to the trained professionals. It is the height of arrogance for us to presume that their professional training can be completely disregarded and that without us, they'll have no moral compass of their own.

While I won't vote based solely on abortion, it's important that anti-abortion policies are not important to a presidential candidate. In other political races, I could care less; it doesn't really matter and a lot of people get stuck on it. I hate that it's made a campaign issue, however.

Re: letting medical pros make all the ethical decisions: are you out of your mind? They're not the "experts" in ethical decision making. Seriously, they have very little ethical training. Their jobs are very practical. I wouldn't tell a scientist how to perform stem cell research, but as a society we should have say in whether they can do it or not.

Scientists get plenty of ethical training.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

If you poll VJ, you can bet your sweet azz it will be white men.

zomg pink men!11!111!1!1!!11

Feel better now? Care to discuss the topic now or just more whining?

actually, i thought the bolded part was whining..........

[no name 1]

You know, arguing a medical procedure in the political sphere has always struck me as being somewhat silly. Frankly, I'd support a constitutional amendment to explicitly allow abortion (or ban attempts to ban it?) if it made the issue go away.

It is silly I agree - and its rather depressing that it always comes up around election time. Aren't you tired of hearing soundbites from voters saying "Ooh... I voted for so-and-so because of his moral stance of abortion". #### the economy... its like they only care about something that has no bearing on their daily lives whatsoever, except, presumably, to make them sleep better at night. The only reason we have this issue is because of the power and influence of fundamentalist conservatives who want to ban it, and because of that the equally reactionary liberal and feminist groups who come out to oppose it. They are right to oppose it IMO - but then I am rather biased on this. In the UK we have more voter apathy, but we don't have a strong, religious base clamouring for this to be a key election issue. Its simply not a relevant debate - and people have moved past it. As they should.

Of course - abortion is the flagship moral/medical issue, but not the only one. Stem cell research and cloning technologies are another.

Agreed. As a society, we ought to leave medical/scientific issues to the trained professionals. It is the height of arrogance for us to presume that their professional training can be completely disregarded and that without us, they'll have no moral compass of their own.

While I won't vote based solely on abortion, it's important that anti-abortion policies are not important to a presidential candidate. In other political races, I could care less; it doesn't really matter and a lot of people get stuck on it. I hate that it's made a campaign issue, however.

Re: letting medical pros make all the ethical decisions: are you out of your mind? They're not the "experts" in ethical decision making. Seriously, they have very little ethical training. Their jobs are very practical. I wouldn't tell a scientist how to perform stem cell research, but as a society we should have say in whether they can do it or not.

Scientists get plenty of ethical training.

Agreed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you poll VJ, you can bet your sweet azz it will be white men.

zomg pink men!11!111!1!1!!11

Feel better now? Care to discuss the topic now or just more whining?

actually, i thought the bolded part was whining..........

Let's start a thread on how to properly identify whining.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

If you poll VJ, you can bet your sweet azz it will be white men.

zomg pink men!11!111!1!1!!11

Feel better now? Care to discuss the topic now or just more whining?

actually, i thought the bolded part was whining..........

Let's start a thread on how to properly identify whining.

that should be interesting. where is this poll or thread?