Left In Lowell

Live Iowa Results

27 Responses to “Live Iowa Results”

1. Robby Says:
   January 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 pm

   As a once Rudy supporter-turned Romney supporter, Im have mixed results of tonight. Im obviously upset that Romney lost by the margin that he did. Im upset that Iowa Republicans chose who I believe is my parties weakest chance of winning the white house. Tonight will also hurt Romney’s chances in NH.

   I wouldn’t say Romney is out of it yet, but its an uphill battle from here. Id say McCain now has a steady lead in NH.

   I am relieved in a way that Obama won, he’s the weakest democratic candidate in my opinion.

   But, overall, Im suprised. I thought Hillary and Romney would be the big winners tonight.

   Hillary and Romney were the biggest losers tonight.

2. waittilnextyr Says:
   January 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am

   Obama not only won his primary, but Clinton slipped into 3rd place, and with New Hampshire only a few days away, the race is on for that crown. Obama followed up the win with an outstanding speech, so he certainly looks like the new leader of the dwindling pack.

3. Christopher Says:
   January 4th, 2008 at 12:34 am

   Don’t count Hillary out. It’s not Iowa or bust for her and she still has a good chance in NH. I’m really frustrated by progressive dislike for her. She’s not an ideological liberal, but still left enough to earn conservative animosity and I would say progressive in the best sense. In other news Biden and Dodd have dropped out.

4. Josh Says:
   January 4th, 2008 at 5:58 am

   How about Ron Paul taking 10% of the vote? A lot more than Giuliani! According to Andrew Sullivan, Paul also had the largest portion of independents with 29%. I think we need to start taking him a lot more seriously now.

   Obama took in about 41% of the independents on the Dem’s side showing that he is indeed the most electable and Clinton is way too polarizing to win a general election (no matter how “moderate” you try to make her out to be).

5. Lynne Says:
   January 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am

   Hillary sold out her Democratic soul a long time ago, her votes for some of the corporate-written bills in Congress was atrocious, not to mention her foreign and domestic policy gaffes (like that Iran resolution). She would not only fail to fix many of the unitary executive problems Bush has caused, but will also sell us down the river in our trade deals like her husband did. She’s a neoliberal, and the neoliberals are old news, and a generation past. I want to be done with them. Let the next generation of actual Democrats with spine and principle (well, comparatively) take over. Republican Lite ™ is so yesterday. It doesn’t win us votes and we kept losing with them anyway, after Bill. Down with the consultocracy!!!

   Ron Paul won’t win the nominiation, but he’ll do pretty good in NH, I wager. NH is rife with libertarian conservatives (especially ones against the war). NH prides itself on its orneriness. I don’t think Paul’s real popular in the South. And 10% is still pretty sucky, you have to admit. McCain is the establishment’s choice and you watch, he’ll get the nomination in the end.

   Giuliani’s finished. He was a horrible candidate anyway. The only thing he had going for him was being mayor of NYC during 9/11, and it’s the truth that he made some real terrible calls before and during that tragedy (like insisting on putting the Emergency Center in the twin towers…the only buildings that had already been attacked by terrorists. Moron.).

6. MOONLIGHT Says:
   January 4th, 2008 at 11:22 am

   Say goodnight Hillary !!!

   Maybe say Goodbye Hillary ‘'’

7. waittilnextyr Says:
   January 4th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

   Despite the fact that only one election has been held, and Hillary ran 3rd in that, she leads the delegate pack as she has picked up the majority of the super-delegates (insiders) from various states.

   Clinton = 169 (52%)
   Obama = 66 (20%)
   Edwards = 47 (14%)
   Richardson = 19 (6%)
   Dodd = 17 (5%)
   Biden = 8 (3%)
   Kucinich = 1 (0%)
   Grave = l (0%)

8. lovinglowell Says:
   January 4th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

   Rudy finished poorly because he did not campaign at all in Iowa.

9. Peter Says:
   January 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

   I can’t believe how much Oxygen is wasted on the radio and television on the less-than-unlikely.

   It’s still, by far, most likely going to be Rudy, and he’s still certainly going to lose the general election.

   The only real question for ‘08 is: “are we going to elect our first female president, or our first African American president?” It’s almost time to forget all these silly candidates and take a serious look at Clinton and Obama and figure out exactly which one is the best choice right now.

10. Lynne Says:
    January 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    Rudy? I’m not sure how you could possibly say that…after skipping the early states, and banking on FL, where he’s not even leading anymore, Rudy’s toast.

11. Prince Charming Says:
    January 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    I think Rudy finished poorly because he’s a schmuck.

12. Peter Says:
    January 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Maybe so, but Giu911uliani has a 10 point lead in CA, a 15-20 point lead in PA and about a 40 point lead in NJ, all very populated states. I’m pretty certain when trhe dust settles the GOP candidate will be Rudy, but I still think Bush Junior has sunk his party.

13. Mr. Lynne Says:
    January 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Too bad for Rudy that the delegate system and the electoral collage systematically undervalue (relatively) urban areas.

14. Christopher Says:
    January 4th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    With regard to Hillary I plead guilty to not being an ideological purist. Ideological purity is counterproductive on both sides of the aisle. The decision for me between Obama and Clinton was tough, but I ultimately went with the experience of already having eight years in the White House. Of course she would be worlds better than Bush in her priorities; I don’t believe I have to say that! I’v thought for a long time that Clinton and Obama would make a powerhouse ticket, but Obama in the top spot would be better for campaigning and Clinton in the top spot would be better for governing. I disagree with Biden’s and Dodd’s decisions to drop out before NH. It is a different dynamic than Iowa and all the time and energy they have spent to our north seems for nothing. Even if they were out of money, they could delay their announcements for a few days to see what happens.

15. Lynne Says:
    January 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    It’s not about idealogical purity…it’s about having any ideals at all, in my opinion. Sorry.

    “Ideological purity is counterproductive on both sides of the aisle.” No offense, but that’s incorrect. God, I hate that conventional wisdom. It’s such a losing proposition. For example, I dunno…John Kerry. Al Gore 1.0. Etc etc etc etc etc.

    Look, ever since we Dems, in the last decades, watered down our ideals, as a result of the Reagan “revolution” (better word for it: corporatization)…like being strong advocates for the worker, the poor, equal opportunity, for entrepreneurship and innovation, for the environment…we have lost the heart of not ONLY our own liberal constituency, but also mainstream America. They don’t want a sticky middle. They want clarity of ideals, vision, they are essentially for government creating that equal playing field that dominated (in varying degrees) the 20th century. The polls show it, for god’s sake. Mainstream America wants universal (even single payer!) health care. They want better schools, cheaper quality higher ed, a protected environment and to fight the global climate crisis, to pull down the industrial military complex…

    Clinton is so very much a part and parcel of that losing proposition. I’m sick of losing. Losing elections, and losing ground on all the progress from the last century. Aren’t you?? That’s what being a neoliberal is all about, losing ground. I’d rather gain it back by standing by our ideals, the one that again, once dominated the 20th century. (Why else do you think the Repubs needed a “revolution,” and an obfuscated one at that, to fight against that longterm liberal movement since the New Deal???) The Repubs had to shade their crazy pro-corporate pro-rich pyramid schemes in words like “death tax” to name the estate tax, and trickle-down for economic policies that would only benefit the upper class. Come on! Wake up people!!

16. joe Says:
    January 4th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    Google Obama’s victory speech. At about 2/3 in, it gets really good.

    I think we’re done here. I think there’s a new Man from Hope, and he’s just going to clean up across the board.

    Hillary and Edwards are both very good candidates, I thought, but Obama’s got that Kennedy/Clinton inspirational message that turns out the throngs.

    Remember seeing Jacoby Ellsbury for the first time, and it was like he was playing a different game than everybody else? One with a lot more grace and raw athletic achievement? That’s what it’s like in the Democratic race.

    The Republicans’ chances were slim regardless of who the Democratic nominee was, but Obama’s charisma is the nail in the coffin. This is going to be like Reagan over Carter.

17. waittilnextyr Says:
    January 4th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    I get the impression that Clinton’s objective is to be President. For both Obama and Edwards that appears to be only a necessary step along the way of getting the country back to the people.

18. Real Democrat Says:
    January 5th, 2008 at 2:14 am

    I find it rather amazing that certain individuals believe mainstream America suddenly wants to adopt the OPEN BORDER SOCIALISM advocated by Barack Hussein O’Bama. Hussein may have won in ultra-liberal farm country, but that is where it stops. Educated Democrats do not support this marxist b.s. that comes out of his trap.

    Amazingly, anyone who does not vote for O’Bama is readily questioned “Why not, are you rascist?” Yet, anyone who proclaims hatred for Clinton is never accused of being sexist. Face it, those who voted for O’Bama pretend to be progressive. The “I want to vote for the first Black President” club. This man is nothing more than an African-American Dennis Kucinich. I believe I speak for mainstream America when I say NO THANKS. Why not just nominate Al Sharpton. They’re equally qualified and promote the same brand of socialism.

    I know, let’s raise our taxes to build schools in Mexico, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Peru, Uruguay, Uganda, Mozambique …

    Then let’s raise our taxes to build some new hospitals. Not here in the U.S.A. fools! We build them in Iraq, Mexico, Afghanistan…

    I suggest all the Barack Hussein phonies go find another country to dismantle. America is for Americans, as in U.S.A. Everyone else get lost, and no drivers licenses, free college tuition or any other hand outs to illegal aliens. Save the world on your own dime.

    Real Democrats support Hillary Clinton for President. The best eight years of your lives have been during the Clinton Adminstration. Don’t ever forget that.

19. Lynne Says:
    January 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am

    You are no Democrat, guy. Honestly, you sound like a total Republican, down to stressing Obama’s middle name in an attempt to falsely link him to al Quada. By the way, the CORRECT spelling is “Obama.”

    You’re the sort of Democrat I wouldn’t mind seeing switch parties. By the way, it’s mainstream to be liberal, or have you totally ignored issues polls for the last decade?

    YOU are the ONLY person who I’ve seen say, “anyone who does not vote for O’Bama is readily questioned ‘Why not, are you rascist?’” by the way. You’re putting words in people’s mouths without any sort of citation.

    Obama is no socialist - if he were more liberal, he’d probably be my first choice. Go back to the rock you seem to live under. You, sir, are unAmerican.

20. joe Says:
    January 5th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    ultra-liberal farm country?

21. Christopher Says:
    January 5th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    For the record, this Hillary supporter completely disowns comment #18. True “Real Democrat”s would never talk about another candidate that way! How does Clinton equal losing? Her husband is the only nominee to have WON in the last several years!

22. Michael in NH and Pawtucketvill Says:
    January 5th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    Well Huckabee cleaned up in Iowa so it doesn’t seem like a liberal state on that count. Obama has carved out a centrist position in some areas and he’s to the right of Romney when it comes to healthcare. That said, it feels like a cult of personality and reminds me of how Deval Patrick became the Governor.

    I would rather go with someone with a lot of experience than someone that’s good-looking and touts business experience without experience governing. I think that Governor Patrick, Mitt Romney and Obama fall in those categories.

23. Michael in NH and Pawtucketvill Says:
    January 5th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

    Pretty good exchange on the cult of personality, the power of personal examples and how tough it is to actually govern. (I’m referring to the debate)

24. joe Says:
    January 6th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

    Let me try. Ahem.

    “As a life-long member of the Democrat party, I am concerned that Hussein O’Bama will not be as strong a candidate against the Republicans as the She-Beast, Hitlery. Wake up America!”

25. K-R-S Says:
    January 7th, 2008 at 12:14 am

    Did I hear correctly that Romney has conceded that he will likely not win in NH? This would certainly be a letdown for the more conservative end of the family. ;0)
    I, on the other hand, am leaning toward a candidate on the other side.
    BTW, have to agree with Lynne in regards to her comment #19.
    In regards to comment #18, any comment I might render will likely be edited by my co-editors…but really…are you serious? This is 2007…NOT 1957!

26. joe Says:
    January 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    “O’Bama” isn’t mean to sound Irish. It’s meant to sound Muslim. It’s intended to make the reader put a little pause between the first syllable and the rest of the name. Like “bin Laden.”

27. Peter Says:
    January 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    This thread has gotten so dumb. Here’s a little secret fella, the GOP will lose in 2008. All the hate-mongering and swift-boating and 3rd grade analogies that appeal to the base instincts of morons will simply not do this time around. Your fella in the White House has made certain fo that.
    BTW how many senate seats are up this time around?

Leave a Reply