Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (14755)	1/7/2008 3:10:47 PM
From: pompsander	Respond to of 25737

The Madness of Crowds David Weigel \| January 7, 2008, 8:05am I've been mixing up coverage of the Ron Paul movement with coverage of the frontrunners in New Hampshire. Barack Obama arrives late to massive rallies (where half or more of the people in line get turned away, the rooms being just too small) where he uncorks a 30-40 minute stump speech and takes no questions. John McCain busses into hokey town halls where his questions are increasingly friendly and the fire marshalls turn away spectators, who keep trickling in after the events kick off. John Edwards' events go the same way, with smaller crowds. Mike Huckabee holds the goofiest political events since the rise of Screaming Lord Sutch, 60 percent music and Chuck Norris and 40 percent his compassionate conservative spiel. Mitt Romney draws the smallest numbers and turns the most seats empty during his speech. I have yet to see Clinton in action, but Roger Simon has and frames the difference like this: Obama said things like: “We are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.” Clinton said things like: “I founded in the Senate the Bipartisan Manufacturing Caucus.” This increasingly seems off to me: Obama's speeches are veined with cliches like "working for main street, not wall street," and I talk to people coming out who wanted more specifics. (Obama shunts those into one part of the speech, saying "they" don't want you to pay attention to his ideas like $4000 school tuition credits, and the second time I heard it he didn't even tie it to national service.) But I'm not a New Hampshire voter. The sense here is that Romney is melting away and McCain is heading to a 10-point win. Something similar's happening with Clinton-Obama, but not as dramatically. Huckabee is poaching a bit of the protest vote that would otherwise go to Ron Paul. There are people at these events who want a family man, or a guy who'd abolish the IRS, and after Iowa they see Huckabee as more electable. reason.com

To: pompsander who wrote (14755)	1/7/2008 3:14:30 PM
From: pompsander	Respond to of 25737

Maybe not. Here's Joe Klein, on the weekend's GOP action: I watched tonight's debate with the Frank Luntz focus group at the famed Merrimack Diner, while about 50 Ron Paul supporters--angry that their guy hadn't been included--ranted and raved outside. I"m not sure this was a representative group of Republicans. They seemed pretty conservative. And they...Just. Loved. Romney. Most of those who came in undecided had switched to Mitt by the end of the show. They just adored his position on illegal immigration (their dials plummeted when McCain said we had to be "humane.") They loved his explanation of why he had switched his position on abortion. They loved it when he nailed Huckabee as a tax raiser...in fact, Huckabee's failure to acknowledge that he was a net raiser of taxes ended his credibility with the audience (which, since this is New Hampshire, had been wary of his flagrant religiosity from the start). Meanwhile, McCain was nowhere. His answers lacked zing. He seemed tired. He was unable to make a vigorous case for himself as a leader--even his references back to his days in the military didn't cut it with this Republican audience. McCain won here in 2000 because independent voters found him far more compelling than the independent alternative on the Democratic side, Bill Bradley. This time, he's competing with Barack Obama for independents in a state decidedly more blue than it was in 2000...He may still have enough heft to win this thing. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the race tighten or swing toward Romney over the next few days. I still expect McCain to win New Hampshire; I can't imagine that four days of campaigning, even with two debates crammed in, will be enough time for Romney to shift the polls back into his favor. But I think McCain had an opportunity, with Romney hurt by Iowa, Huckabee hurt by being Huckabee, and Thompson and Rudy seemingly out of the running, to seize the mantle of GOP frontrunner this week, and consign Romney's campaign to near-oblivion. After watching the debates, which highlighted McCain's weaknesses as a candidate for the Republican nomination rather than his strengths, I don't think that's going to happen. Even if McCain takes New Hampshire, I don't think this race will be any less wide-open going into Michigan and South Carolina than it is today. rossdouthat.theatlantic.com