Reddy

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 05:30 PM) Two people finish college and have a choice. One becomes a trial lawyer and becomes a multi-millionaire and the other becomes a civil rights lawyer who fights for impoverished people for chump change. Just saying. lol wow. which would you have picked? and by the way - he only made so much money as a trial lawyer because he was DAMN GOOD. He worked his ASS off and was an incredible lawyer. and remind me what barack obama has accomplished with his life? other than being in the senate for 2 damn years and deal coke.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) I find it hard to believe that someone with a 28000 sq ft home can connect with the poor. again, why cant rich people be nice? why can't rich people help the poor? his wealth has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 02:10 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274513,00.html He is making his campaign about "two americas", he is fair game for charging these fees for talking about poverty and his 'supercuts'. yeah ok. well lets just keep using the SAME two attacks for months and months. if that's all you've got against the guy well then i'm ok with that. he spent a lot of money on a haircut. well damn him. if he's gonna win back the white house and pull our country out of its current nosedive well i'll take it. and Big Sqwert - I've run into a ton of that canvassing for Edwards. It's not just your guy - sorry.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 01:54 PM) Well, it is kinda funny when Edwards talks about two Americas, then goes out and gets $800 hair cuts and charges $50,000 to give a speech about poverty. really? you've gotta be kidding me. a) $400 haircut - but how much do you think Hillary spends? and Romney has a PAID makeup entourage following him around. He doesn't use the ones provided him by the News networks etc etc, but he needs to use his own. And what about Hillary chartering a HELICOPTER to visit all 99 counties in 5 days... i think thats a worse use of money. b ) Where'd you find that 50 grand figure? And how much does Bill ask for to speak? How much does Obama ask for?

oh ok cool i didnt see that part. well that makes me even happier!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) No. If you don't get 15% in a given precinct, you have the option of standing pat, not polling with anyone, or moving to another candidate. Some will do each, and its impossibly to say which ones and for whom. And in some precincts, candidates like Richardson and Biden will indeed have 15%, so why have the other precincts simply give up the votes when it would be better to leave them out of the pool? Obama has lost momentum to Edwards. the unfortunate thing is, those two tend to vie for a similar pool of voters, partially. Its possible that could result in handing it to Clinton. Its hard to say. This will be interesting to watch. actually, something like this is perfectly valid because the people that actually respond to this pollster are people who obviously would switch to one of those three if theirs isn't viable. that makes sense BUT those individual voters would rather have their votes count and so they'll go with someone else.

New Poll from Insider Advantage taking out the lower tier candidates: Insider Advantage 12/28 - 12/29 788 LV Clinton 30% Edwards 29% Obama 22% Clinton +1.0

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 10:13 PM) I believe that YOU think that, but I don't believe he thinks that. Rich people who can afford the time and money to help poor people do not impress me. Poor to middle class people who spend thier time and money to help people impress me. It's nothing for him to take a few weeks off to go to help work in NO. The firefighters from all over the country that used thier vacation time to go down there and help in the relief effort. Those guys impress me. The guys who fund and run food banks themselves, they impress me with their passion to help those less fortunate. Tell me, in all his fighting for the 'disenfranchised', did he do it for free? Any pro bono work there? Or did he pocket some huge ass fees? When he fights for infants born with brain damage or other serious conditions that entail a lifetime of expensive medical care, does he lessen or forgo his usual 1/3? It's easy to help the downtrodden when you can pocket a million bucks in the process. As for hearing him speak, I have heard that the Reverend Jim Jones was a pretty persuasive speaker as well, but I would not care to have found out. I am glad you have a passion for politics, but to think that any of these guys (or the gal) are in this simply for altruistic reasons is absurd. but to suggest they're only in it for the fame/glory/money/power/etc is also just absurd. Look, John didn't start out rich ok? he was f***ing poorer than you or me. by a long shot. the guy had to work and fight for everything he has EVER achieved. what is SO WRONG with succeeding? so he achieved the American Dream. Should he be vilified for that? that's ridiculous. Yes he became a trial lawyer, yes he made a s*** ton of money, but he did it while helping people. There are a lot of worse ways to make yourself rich. you're saying that any altruistic behavior from a rich person means LESS than if it comes from a middle class citizen? ya know what? i'll bet you that to the person they're helping it doesn't matter ONE DAMN BIT. John's lived his life helping people. you can try and slant that any way you want but at the end of the day that's what it is.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 11:26 AM) You need to put down the Koolaide. He is doing it for the power, perks and priveledges that come with the office, like all the rest. That, and his ego (like allt he rest) makes him believe he is the best person for the job. YOU, nor anyone else, do not figure into that formula. sorry, it tastes pretty good. if you EVER saw him speak you'd agree. he feels passionately. he legitimately cares about real people and i don't care if you believe me or not. he was down cleaning up after katrina. he's started a poverty center in NC. he has fought for the disenfranchised his whole life. he plans to restore the middle class. he is personally sickened when he hears stories about people having to watch spouses die because they didnt have the health insurance to help them. the man cares. like i said, i dont give two s***s whether you think i'm blowing this out my ass but if you even took the time to see him or speak with him you'd understand this.

Edwards to Campaign for 36 hours STRAIGHT EDIT: in case you don't feel like doing the math, that's 16 events in 36 hours. talk about unprecedented. just goes to show that he can outwork anyone. he did the same thing as a lawyer working all-nighter after all-nighter to defend people who didn't have a voice and now he's doing it for us. To me, having a progressive workaholic in the White House is exactly what we need. And what a change it'll be.

i'm just saying the obama camp exaggerates their numbers at events. kinda annoying but whatever, doesn't really affect anything.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 03:10 PM) While, as we all know crowds prove essentially nothing, today both Edwards and Obama are in Davenport. 850 iowans. real numbers or obama numbers?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 08:36 AM) The other candidates wish they could get the crowds Obama has been getting. No one has generated as much excitement this campaign season even without Oprah at the events. they are getting the crowds dude. the events i mentioned were: Edwards: Tipton, IA pop. 3,100 Obama: Iowa City/Coralville: 62,000 so in doing that math... IC/Coralville is 20 times larger than Tipton. Even if you take that 900 number Edwards outdrew Obama per capita. If you go with the real number of 450... well... Edwards crushes Obama.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 02:16 PM) Things couldn't get much tighter in Iowa. There are two polls out post-Christmas. Here are the results: Strategic Vision (12/26-27, 500 LV): Obama: 30% Clinton: 29% Edwards: 28% Research 2000 (12/26-27, 600 LV): Obama and Edwards: 29% Clinton: 28% No one else in double digits in either case. Undecided is 4% in SV, 2% in R2000, so those numbers are dropping quick. Its going to be very close. the RCP Average now reads: Clinton 29.3% Edwards 27.3% Obama 27% Feel the surge baby! was just helping run an Edwards event tonight in Tipton, IA. small place, 30 or so people were invited and we crammed 80 people into a tiny back room in a restaurant. it was pretty great. John's really connecting to voters one on one here and it's pretty incredible. what i'm not a fan of is this Obama spin - there were about 450 people at his event in Coralville and now they're touting that 900 people were there. This was my old middle school, 900 people wouldnt FIT in that freaking gym... talk about lame.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 08:36 AM) While I agree that always having IA and NH first is dumb, I don't think the fact that it is rural should have anything to do with the decision. Iowa was chosen for a number of reasons before, some of which are still valid. It makes a good bellweather state because it doesn't tend to lean heavily to one party or the other, has an unusually well educated population, and is culturally and geographically central. It also represents that rural population you speak of in a prototypical way, which is not something to ignore. Perhaps the best idea is to choose a handful of states that tend to be centrist, maybe say 6 to 10 of them, but which represent different dynamics otherwise - some heavily urban, some rural, some from each region of the country, some of different racial backgrounds... and have that be the list of states who always go first. Among that list, the order changes each year. And every 6 to 10 years, once each has gone first, you re-evaluate which states should stay on the list, or add new ones. Or heck, just go get a different 6 to 10 that have that same variety. that actually sounds like an interesting idea. because i really wouldn't like it if like i said before the candidates only focused on the urban areas because then all the needs/voices of the rural folks wouldn't be heard. but yeah, your idea there is the first i've seen that doesn't have some giant flaw... cept maybe that it's too much work for our incompetent congress to handle. lol

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 09:00 PM) So, why does it make more sense to have the candidates spending all their time in a state that's hardly urban, mostly rural, and has a population that is much more racially homogeneous than the rest of the U.S.? oh believe me i dont think it should stay with iowa - that's honestly just kinda absurd. i love it, dont get me wrong, but it doesnt make any sense. but then i'm not really sure theres ANY method that makes any sense.

also interesting - newest poll has Clinton at 31, Edwards at 25 and Obama at 22. so now the averages are: Clinton 29.8 Obama 25.5 Edwards 24.5 this stuff is so interesting. really there's NO way to predict what happens...

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 08:36 PM) All states should have their presidential primaries on the same day IMO but then how do you calculate it? is it a system that goes solely on the popular vote? because in that case candidates will only show up in NY, CA, TX, IL, PA and FL kinda lame...

new poll by Strategic Vision: Obama 30% Clinton 29% Edwards 28% i'm telling you theres a surge coming.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) Except that Obama was making speeches at anti-war rallies around that time, and being quite vocal against it. Maybe he would have caved - but I doubt it. It goes to the thing that, in my opinion, is the biggest difference between Obama and the other candidates - he is willing to lose. He's not one to cave on an important issue just to survive politically. John Edwards' main platform is Poverty... that's equivalent to political suicide.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) Just curious... if you had to vote for someone other than Edwards (like, lets say you were in a precinct where he couldn't poll 15%), who would it be? Dodd i think... or Biden.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) I knew about the caucusing in general, and the forum... but the 15% rule I wasn't sure on. Its optional, then? They can realign or not? That sounds right. right they can go to another candidate or not move or go with uncommitted.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:22 PM) Obama actually passed an ethics reform bill during his brief term as Senator. What has Edwards done besides vote for the Iraq war? Obama wasn't IN the senate to make that decision at the time. Convenient. I really hate that line. If he'd been there he would've done the same goddamned thing.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) Well now that is very interesting, I must say. Anyone know more about this 15% threshold thing? And how that works, exactly? Also very significant is the 7% undecided, who could go anywhere. yep. in the Iowa Caucuses, there is an initial grouping where all the supporters for each candidate consolidate together. a tally is taken and if any candidate does not have at least 15% of the total number of people at that caucus site, that candidate is not "viable". Then a new round takes place and all those who's candidates aren't viable have to realign with someone else. I dont remember whether this is mandatory or not... i dont think so, but generally most people if not all choose to realign. the fun thing is that it's all old school where you can try to win voters that night with arguments etc etc - you can keep trying to persuade people up until the time the realignment happens. it's a very rustic system actually. lol

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/Insi...aucus_poll.html