Kerry firms up in New Hampshire...

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 08:45pm

Fox News wrote:
John Kerry continued to expand his lead over Howard Dean in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary. Dean is danger of dropping into third place behind Wesley Clark.

These findings are based on the 2004 New Hampshire Primary Tracking Poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. This survey is sponsored by Fox News, WCVB-TV Boston, and WMUR-TV Manchester. Four hundred thirty-one (431) likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters were interviewed between January 20 and January 22, 2004. The potential sampling error for the survey is ±4.7%.

Full story and poll results right here.

Rev Prez

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 08:46pm

Looks like it's over now, Dean-O.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 08:52pm

Man, that sucks. But we'll see.

Rev Prez

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-23 08:54pm

And the great hype slowly fades under the harsh light of reality....

We'll see for sure, but it sure doesn't look good for Dean.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 09:00pm

Well, on one hand it's good to see that Democratic voters still live in the real world rather than the parallel universe where Howard Dean is a centrist. For conservatives, however, that's not so good.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-23 09:03pm

Joe wrote:Well, on one hand it's good to see that Democratic voters still live in the real world rather than the parallel universe where Howard Dean is a centrist.

Yes, it is. And it would be nice to see a real moderate on the ballot.

Joe wrote:For conservatives, however, that's not so good.

Bush has definitely been worse.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 09:05pm

True. If Bush lost but the Republicans hung on to Congress, that would be great, because that would actually keep spending down.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-23 11:48pm

Joe wrote:True. If Bush lost but the Republicans hung on to Congress, that would be great, because that would actually keep spending down.

Theoretically, but how much has such theory translated into practice? Republicans seem to be every bit about the pork barrel as Democrats.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 11:51pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Joe wrote:True. If Bush lost but the Republicans hung on to Congress, that would be great, because that would actually keep spending down.
Theoretically, but how much has such theory translated into practice? Republicans seem to be every bit about the pork barrel as Democrats.

Clinton. Spending grew at a much less rapid rate under Clinton, thanks to the gridlock caused by the Republican Congress.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-23 11:53pm

Joe wrote:Clinton. Spending grew at a much less rapid rate under Clinton, thanks to the gridlock caused by the Republican Congress.

The Republican Congress is still there, isn't it? Why isn't spending being curtailed now, if they were responsible for keeping it down during the Clinton years?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-23 11:53pm

Joe wrote:Clinton. Spending grew at a much less rapid rate under Clinton, thanks to the gridlock caused by the Republican Congress.

In other words, you are counting on a Republican Congress fighting the president so much on budget issues that little gets actually done and thus little gets spent?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-23 11:56pm

EDIT: Besides, it doesn't seem that the Republican congress we've got is too interested in actually lessening the spending increase. After all, they haven't exactly been fighting Bush on his hyper-spending.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-24 12:03am

Darth Wong wrote:
Joe wrote:Clinton. Spending grew at a much less rapid rate under Clinton, thanks to the gridlock caused by the Republican Congress.
The Republican Congress is still there, isn't it? Why isn't spending being curtailed now, if they were responsible for keeping it down during the Clinton years?

Gridlock, like I said. There's no gridlock under Bush, because the Republicans control both Congress and the Presidency. Incidentally, if the Democrats had controlled Congress during the last few years I guarantee you spending wouldn't have increased so much.

In other words, you are counting on a Republican Congress fighting the president so much on budget issues that little gets actually done and thus little gets spent?

Not counting on it, but it would certainly be better than what we have now.

EDIT: Besides, it doesn't seem that the Republican congress we've got is too interested in actually lessening the spending increase. After all, they haven't exactly been fighting Bush on his hyper-spending.

Of course not. But with a Republican Congress even more hostile to the Democratic President than they were to Clinton, nothing will get done.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-24 12:07am

As Iowa proved last week, it's not who's leading the weekend before the primary that counts - it's who's leading when the voting is done.

If the first encounter showed accurately how the rest of the game would play out, the Minnesota Twins would be the 2003 World Series champs.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-24 12:09am

The Dean camp better pull something amazing out of its ass, then.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-24 01:08am

Joe wrote:The Dean camp better pull something amazing out of its ass, then.

He might pull something out of his ass, but it will just turn out he sat on Dennis Kucinich.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-24 01:12am

You know, that makes me think. I bet a sex toy company could make a killing manufacturing dildoes and buttplugs with the heads of politicians on the ends.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 01:14am

Joe wrote:You know, that makes me think. I bet a sex toy company could make a killing manufacturing dildoes and buttplugs with the heads of politicians on the ends.

And then they would be arrested and thrown in prison in Georgia, Texas, etc.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-24 01:31am

Joe wrote:The Dean camp better pull something amazing out of its ass, then.

As Edwards and Kerry did last weekend. Nobody is out of the woods yet.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-24 01:35am

Howedar wrote:
Joe wrote:The Dean camp better pull something amazing out of its ass, then.
As Edwards and Kerry did last weekend. Nobody is out of the woods yet.

That was hardly a stunner. The Dean Hype Machine simply broke down in the face of the electorate, that happens. His leads were never so commanding that he had the election locked and the other problem is he was courting groups that don't turn out as well as others.