Among political scientists polling processes and methods are perceived to be innately flawed and sometimes dangerously so.

One danger is the effect of the bandwagon as we have seen recently with the Clinton campaign.  

The technical term is “spiral of silence” in which people are less inclined to state their contrary opinions confidently in the face of what appears to be inevitable.

This silence is hardly "measurable," but nonetheless implicit, in the present Clinton numbers.

Peter Hart and other “mainstream pollsters,” having been burned by this phenomenon in the past, are working assiduously today to adjust numbers to reflect reality at this point before any votes have been cast.  Those who live by polls also die by polls.

Ask Tom Dewey, Al Gore, or John Kerry.  A little quick on the champagne draw on election eve makes for a very hung-over morning.

This election cycle is soon to be history, but still, it hasn’t really started yet either.

This being an opinion blog, the mere pasting of new polls every day does little to inform us.  Moreover, it is time-bound in that the data is always cold, even when it first comes out.  

The accurate narrative of any campaign includes polling, but not at the expense of ignoring nascent political maneuvers and the mystery of the future itself.

The day before D-Day opinion was split as to who was winning the war.  A few days later the polls reflected an American populace which virtually unanimously believed the war would soon be over.  

Both polls proved to be misleading in their own way.  Eisenhower was in the thick of it and even he wasn’t sure until months later.

The election is hardly about polls or even poll samples.  The election happens in ways beyond the reach of pure science.  

The election is about votes cast in the privacy of a polling booth, but it is also about the trip to the polls: all that happens until the moment of truth.  Opinions don’t vote.

Hillary Clinton has been ordained by the capitalist power structure, but even they can hedge their bets.  An amazing thing is happening if we will pay attention: Obama is getting one more look at this and if he wins in Iowa, the polls will slavishly, one dimensionally, reflect that “Obama got a second wind.”

Of course, by then, we’ll already know that.  The spiral of silence will have reversed direction, at least for a while.

Watch the little things, watch the things that no one else does, hear what is left unsaid.  

Ignore bells and whistles.  Listen to the silence.  

Vote conscience and refuse to jump on the bandwagon… it is an American patriotic privilege and duty.

Godspeed.

'...There could be 18 days between the Dem contests in New Hampshire (January 8) and South Carolina (January 26). That's a lifetime in politics, and if Clinton loses the first two states, don't be surprised if South Carolina becomes a MAJOR showdown state -- much like it was in the 2000 GOP presidential race. It could be a last stand for Clinton, Edwards, or Obama…..'

How long ago was Hillary heading for a coronation ?
The race is changing.
If Edwards and Obama keep up the heat at the CNN debate, Hillary is toast.
Hopefully, Richardson and Dodd will keep their borwn nosing to a minimum and we can get on with the debate.

Edwards and Obama should insist on straight, honest answers from Hillary (and her 'Forked Tongue Express')
The race is up for grabs in this debate !!

Edwards/Obama '08
REAL CHANGE, HONEST CHANGE

First Read:
'..."Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire — the states that begin the presidential nominating battle — say Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards are more likely than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to say what they believe, rather than what they think voters want to hear...'

In other words, Hillary is dishonest
Hillary doesn't tell the truth
Let's nominate an HONEST CANDIDATE
Let's nominate a LEADER, not a slippery politician

Mike Huckabee has 2nd place now in Iowa without spending money!  But, Romney has spent nearly $60,000,000 dollars and is about to be toppled by Huckabee!

It looks like Huckabee's message is really catching on.

I liked what I read about Huckabee at:

www.hucksarmy.com
www.mikehuckabee.com

I'd love to see Hillary get bumped out of the race early, but there's no way---she has too much money, too much influence with the high and mighty (and mighty corrupt!).  She'll survive whatever the rest do in the first couple of primaries.  I wish I could say she won't, though...

Unnamed sources claim that the 'Wall StreetJournalFOXStar Crime Family' aka 'Walstjofosta Mob', leaned on Judith Regan to hush up, in order to protect the 'Rudy Crime Family' and its' top Capo, Kerik. Seems the two DisOrganized Crime Families had a plan to divide up all of the DisOrganized Crime in the Tri-State Area, and corner the distribution of Blackmarket Aqua Dots.

As soon as Huckabee's single digits started creeping up in Iowa following the straw poll, it was a silent mortal wound to both Romney and Thompson; the next few months are the gradual process of where it becomes more and more obvious.

As I noted in a comment on politico last week, we could end up with a showdown between Paul and Huckabee; their stronger than expected showings in early states will automatically result, by virtue of mathematics, in lower than expected showings by Romney, Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani.  Giuliani may potentially survive this phenomenon in the first few states, but the others likely would not; Romney would be devastated by losing Iowa, and McCain and Thompson would not survive two consecutive lower-than-third-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, something which looks more and more likely everyday.

Just some independent analysis from an independent voter.

The election is a little bird that poops on your head when you are pontificating....

The news may be in the paper, but sometimes news is old before it is new....

Listen to the silence, feel the burn, smell the glove, eat at Joe's...

Ears of corn cannot hear, even in Iowa...

Clinton will win, unless she doesn't, while Obama could lose but then again...

cryptic non sequiturs are often confused with wisdom...

Do not put your trust in polls, they can only tell you what is happening, trust in the opinions of The angry man on the mountain, the heckler from Texas, Sunyata, Iowa attorney (no email address,)and especially the man of a thousand screen names. How could you go wrong?
Lastly,
small change can often be found under seat cushions...


Van

What happens if Huck wins Iowa? Romney is badly injured and it becomes a two man race. Huckabee v Romney. Who would have thought earlier this year that Romney and Huck will be competing for 1st place in Iowa :-) what a fall for McCain and Giuliani. The flatlanders know how to put politicians in their place.

We await the looming Paul-Huckabee showdown. Do not confuse this with the Tancredo-Hunter terror/fear fest coming to your town soon...Watch as Gravel and Kucinich perform their hits, "Let me in, I'm still here" and "cash-flow Blues".


Van

 shouldn't there be some kind of a limit on the number of hillary titled posts first read has?

 where have all the 'inevitable' hillary juggernaut posts gone?

all that rubbish aside, it is time for the dem party to select the best candidate, with the best plans and the best chance of winning the general election, that automatically eliminates hillary.  edwards and obama are the two logical choices, I still think edwards has the best domestic plans, and I am somewhat un-clear on some of obama's ideas, but if either one were nominated I could vote for them, both seem to be interested in helping the nation as a whole and have not sold out to the machine, although I still believe edwards is the best candidate to take on the entrenched lobbying cancer now calling the shots for all of us, either would be a wiser choice than 'bush-lite’.

Van - Paul and Huckabee have already passed Fred Thompson in New Hampshire in the RCP average AND on intrade betting for the national race; don't be surprised if they have more staying power than Romney, McCain, or Thompson.  I'm not making any guarantees, but it certainly could happen that they end up the top two, and it's fairly likely in my opinion that the final two will end up some combination of Paul, Huckabee, and Giuliani; the kind of conventional wisdom that says that's impossible is the same kind of wisdom that said Huckabee and Paul would never be doing as well as they are now.  You do realize that, right?

Van - You'll appreciate this, a poll just out today to back up my point:

Cook/RT National Poll: Giuliani 29 - Thompson 12 - McCain 12 - Romney 12 - Huckabee 8 - Paul 6.

Huckabee is within four points of second place nationally, and Paul is within six points of second place nationally.  

I think Huck got an hour on MTP early in the year. I thought he was interesting because he was a 'real' Evangelical. He came across very well. Maybe this guy represents the middle in some way Coasties don't 'get'? He might make a dreadful president, but this is Democracy in action. There may actually be a solid religious core in this country. The GOP under Bush may have created something of an illusion that it included this. But, it was heavy on symbolic issues. There are people who simply live their lives in a religious way, and saying you stopped Gay marriage doesn't have too much to do with this.

You can't make too much of any Pol. But it is possible people outside the media manipulati think Huck is real, and this is where Romney really may come up very, very short. I mean, if you don't want the elite, you don't vote for Rudy or Mitt, you vote for Huck. Right? The ultimate irony of the GOP is that including the Evangelicals, balancing them with other elites, never meant the Evangelicals wouldn't whisk those elites right off the platform. We'll see.

A SECOND Iowa poll out today has Huckabee in a firm second place, and Obama is even closer to Clinton. Check out the numbers: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/three-states-that-were-not-close-at-all.html

Huckabee is flat earther, who takes the book of Genesis literally as the way the universe was created. He thinks creationism is how we came about, and does not believe in evolution...even though its conclusive that the world and the universe is more than 6000 years old, it took more than 6 days to make the earth, we are way to diverse to originate from just a single pair [who by the way only had two sons, one of which killed the other so how did the rest come about???]  So how can anyone in their right mind support this wack job!

At least Clinton still dominates the field in new polls from New Hampshire and South Carolina released yesterday and today: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/new-early-state-polls-clinton-strong.html

Mark Thieme, Short and sweet, and to put your post in perspective, I will be succinct:
It is all a crap shoot!

Shadow-
I'm wondering why you had no complaint about someone posting some long piece that they obviously wrote previously, FIRST on the thread?

I do not share your views on the race or your claims of independence in your posts.

That said, you can't blast the polls when they clearly indicate that Clinton (despite any media narrative needed to keep selling papers until Tsunami Tuesday) barring some REAL scandal or campaign FU, will be near impossible to beat (Have you SEEN her intrade numbers?) then Quote the same sources to make you case for Huck/Paul.
So far Paul has shown that there is a lot of money out there for an anti-war republican candidate, whatever their other views may be, and Huck has validated the fact that the republican party has been fractured by the Bush years and doesn't really know who, or what to rally around.
Paul's anti-war stance and libertarian positions on almost all but the right to choose issue stand little chance of being absorbed within his own party, and with his dedicated followers and their MONEY, is poised for a 3rd party run.

Huck committed a republican mortal sin; He raised taxes! His candidacy could be compared to the kind of horse they call a, "rabbit", in a thoroughbred race; Some of his positions and his personality are setting the pace for what the republican candidate SHOULD do in the general election, but his comments on abortion and anti-science stance will see his candidacy burn out as the race moves to Tsunami Tuesday.

I do not claim to be an independent, but I do try to be objective.


Van

However, this story could get legs -- but it depends on the other GOP candidates picking up on a storyline that would call for them to bash FOX’s parent company.

What happened to Judith Regan will never make it as a news story so long as the major networks fear Fox and their moron viewers, and as long as Fox controls the mindless morons (audience) on their own channel by choosing not to cover this story. FAIR and BALANCED.

MSNBC is the only chance for truth. Keith should lead with this every night. He should have on Judith every single night. Like how Keith mentions the day count since mission accomplished, he should follow this story until it comes to its logical conclusion. If MSNBC is smart they can bring down Fox and Newscorp (a patriotic and financially lucrative thing to do). They'll have to really blow the lid off some already obvious facts, but primarily that Fox News is not biased to the modern GOP, but they are in fact the modern GOP. With Murdoch at the helm and Roger Ailes (Ex-Nixon Press advisor) running the network it's obvious as hell to the rest of us. The problem is Fox in the beginning just said that they weren't biased. In fact, just as O'Reilly links Move-On to George Soros, we all know (for a fact) that Fox is directly linked to the GOP, and represents the first modern communications department from a political party to get their own news channel.

The most hilarious example of this was how links have been proven between Carl Cameron (campaign reporter) and both Bush campaigns. Also it was obvious when the administration picked Tony Snow straight from his fill-in seat on the O'Reilly factor as the Press Secretary.

I challenge the intelligence and the qualification for humanity of any individual who can honestly say that they don't think that Fox News is simply a communication arm of the modern GOP.

pat huntington ny,
You seem very misinformed about a lot of things including what Christians (the educated ones, not your uncle) believes. I suggest you first learn what other people who disagree with you believe and then attack them in an educated way.

I could go on a litany to counter the things that you just said because you have just said a bunch of empty and false rhetoric. I got better things to do with my time.

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton is the top choice for 42% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. Senator Barack Obama earns the vote from 20% while former Senator John Edwards attracts 13%. Bill Richardson is preferred by 5% and no other candidate tops the 3% level among Likely Democratic Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Edwards falls to seven behind Obama. Does anyone really believe at this late stage that yesterday's Obama memo, as it concerns Edwards, was NOT poll driven?
Despite the current media narrative, there has been little or no change in the race since last month, with the SV and CBS polls all falling within the MOE, for the most part. What is most interesting is that even where Clinton lost support (in some polls) that support didn't go to Edwards or Obama, but mostly back to undecided.
That Obama STILL hovers at around 20% core support, after three course changes in his strategy, and that Edwards is much more willing to adopt a, "scorched earth policy" does NOT bode well for Obama, no matter how many fawning pieces the media can generate for him. The anti-Clinton faction wants an aggressive champion (and that's not Obama, by his own admission), and winning Iowa is John's ONLY hope of going forward. If Iowa is everything (it isn't) then finishing THIRD is disaster for all three, but MOST disastrous for, 1-Edwards (he's done) 2-Obama (It's just a dream), 3-Clinton (double-digit leads in NH, SC, NV). Edwards seems to want it more than Obama right now. The debate will be a showcase for how Obama deals with what he now has to see as the DUAL threat of Clinton and Edwards. He can survive finishing third in Iowa, Edwards can't. Let's see how the two men respond tomorrow night.


Van

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/for_or_against_presidential_candidates

McCain lowest core opposition. He is the ONLY republican I don't want in the GE. Clinton LEAST polarizing, again!

Candidate         For      against    diff.

Clinton           32          44       -12
Rudy              27          40       -13
McCain            18          33       -15
Edwards           22          41       -19
Huck              17          36       -19
Mitt              19          39       -20
Obama             23          44       -21

There isn't a single candidate in the race who MORE people would definitely vote FOR than would vote AGAINST.


Van

MSNBC is the only chance for truth.

That's quite a statement.....
I'm sure Hillary would support that statement LOL



I challenge the intelligence and the qualification for humanity of any individual who can honestly say that they don't think that Fox News is simply a communication arm of the modern GOP.

I know a challenge when I see one.....

I've watched this blowhard Olbermann a few times.....
I can see why O'Reiley continues to whip his butt....

Hannitty/Combs on Fox.....
A Regan conservative and a liberal on the same show...
Which show on MSNBC has that?

Game set and match............

Van - First of all, if Mr. Thieme continues to do that, I will chastize him also; if you recall, I only got on your case after you starting spamming huge posts at the top of threads day after day, post after post.  No one should do that - it's irritating and disrupts the conversation; I appreciate that you've been doing it less.

Second, you are trying to credit the intrade numbers for Clinton while ignoring those for Paul and Huckabee, so I could accuse you of the very same thing you're accusing me of (even though I hadn't brought up Clinton once in this thread).

Finally, you say you don't believe me than I'm an independent - so who do you think I support then?  Do you think I'm a Republican or a Democrat?  Do you think I support Obama? Paul? Edwards? Dodd? Huckabee?    I'd love to hear this...

To JT from okc-
pat huntington NY was right on in his analysis (good job pat). You religious loons hate having to talk about what you really believe (because you have no core). You said, "i'd counter your points, but I have better things to do with my time." Yea right. You have not counter. Christian loons really don't believe in evolution. You are crazy, CRAZY, and it's because your religion has caused you to devolve. Who needs critical thinking skills when you can just attribute the laws of gravity or the theory of evolution to some invisible bearded guy who talks to you (which if someone really, REALLY talks to you get help). Let's call a spade a spade religion is a hoax and anyone (Huckabee included though he is a nice guy) who peddles the tenets of religion is doing one thing, looking to control you. No one really believes that the Earth was created in 6 days, or 6000 years. The Bible has nothing to do with historical record, and any truth that comes from it lies in interpretations of fables. Yes, the Bible is no greater than Aesop's Fables. You were probably introduced to the two at the same time, but for some reason you continue to believe in one as reality, why?
That's beside the point. The point is you stay off pat's back if you don't have the courage to stand up for your convictions. You are probably just too shakey in your own beliefs to have a true debate.

Keep it coming Van. I'll really look forward to your analysis on the morning of January 4th, 2008 the day after your girl gets that arse waxxed in Iowa. She finishes 3rd in Iowa hten we've got a brand new race. You heard it here first.

I've thought for a long time that Huckabee is going to be the dark horse in the Republican race. I really think he could take the nomination if he wins Iowa and then has a surprise win in NH. And he worries me to run against more than any of the other Republican jokers. The one thing I heard on the radio recently is that he raised taxes more than once as governor, so that ought to dampen his hopes in the Republican party. Still, that anti-choice group was foolish to give their endorsement to Thompson. If they'd have given it to Huckabee, it could have helped put him over the top. And he would be mighty formidable as the candidate to emerge.

Keep it coming Van. I'll really look forward to your analysis on the morning of January 4th, 2008 the day after your girl gets that arse waxxed in Iowa. She finishes 3rd in Iowa hten we've got a brand new race. You heard it here first.

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:04 PM)


You won't be here to read it...


Van

November 14, 2007 - National Presidential Preferences

The following results are based on nationwide telephone samples of 600 likely Democratic primary voters and 600 likely Republican primary voters (those saying they will definitely vote in a primary or participate in a caucus in 2008) conducted November 9-12, 2007. The theoretical margin of error for each sample is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time.

Hillary Clinton continues to lead the Democratic field.
(Last month in parens)
Clinton-46(45) Obama-21(20) Edwards-11(13)

Hillary led by 25% last month. Now she only has a 25 point lead.

On the repub side

Rudy-25(24)
Mitt-21(15)
Fred-17(16)
McC -12(14)

The Mittster makes a big move, beyond the MOE.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Van

Van - I don't know who this "other poster" is who spammed even worse than you, but I have no tolerance for anyone who uses such tactics incessantly; I'm sorry I can't be here every day to chastize them all.  In my reading of this blog, you appeared to be the worst offender, and it's partially because there is one thing that you used to do that no one here does; you would post replies to comments that existed in other threads, and generally ended up clogging threads with posts that weren't even remotely on the topic of the firstread post or the conversation in the comments.  You stood out by virtue of your own behavior.   Did you not notice I complimented you earlier in this thread for being less obstructive than usual since I chided you about this?  Don't you remember that I pointed you to a politico link where I defended Clinton the last time you alleged that I'm only here to get her?

'...they clearly indicate that Clinton (despite any media narrative needed to keep selling papers until Tsunami Tuesday) barring some REAL scandal or campaign FU, will be near impossible to beat...'

Famous last words !!
(she's STILL inevitable?)
If Clinton LOSES in Iowa...
It slows her in NH (and give the winner a buzz)....
If she LOSES in NH .....
It gives that winner a buzz...
Hillary is 'a mile wide and inch deep' in her support

The majority of people who support her, AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION !!

If she loses the first two primaries, the wheels come off her 'little red wagon'
Look what happened to the 'wicked witch of the East'
It just took a little girl with some water...


Gee, van...
I thought you were moving to a higher plane...

(I assumed you were the Clinton flunkie that planted the question and got caught doing it)

Stuck here among mortals, eh van ?


Anxiously awaiting the debate
THAT will be critical !!
(for what it does or doesn't do)

In addition to being a part of God's Army that wants to turn back the Enlightenment the Huckabee that we think we see was created for the media.  He doesn't much resemble the guy described here http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/153590 here http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/08/30/JohnBrummett/343215.html here http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0807/448893.html here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15853756/ or here http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2006/09/kaching_1.aspx .  He's as mean-spirited, closed-minded, and politically calculating as any of the other Republicans in the race.  In fact the citizens of Arkansas actually prefer Hillary Clinton as President by more than a 4 to 1 margin. http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/11709.htm

Why dont that bully jully answer a simple question .I would like to see his goffy act now mocking hilliary for not ansewring well enough for him .OK piture him gesticulating wildly and moving in an aggitated manner saying she aaa coulda no aaaa she aaa just a has ta aa answer the question .Well rudy here come the Qusetions  You didnt know he was cheating on his wife imean wernt you double dating with your mistress at the time or was it your third wife .He wants to be rough on hilliary but dont be hard on him with gossip.Cant take the heat.BUT AMERICA LOVES A BULLY.

In our opinion, the biggest news in the New York Times/CBS polls of Iowa and New Hampshire isn’t the Democratic dead heat in the Hawkeye State. Nor is it Hillary’s seemingly comfortable lead in New Hampshire. Nor is it even Thompson in fourth place in Iowa (at 9%) and sixth place in New Hampshire (at 5%). Rather, what jumps out at us is Huckabee narrowly trailing Romney in Iowa, 27%-21%. Per the Times, “[N]early every one of Mr. Huckabee’s poll measures in Iowa … was encouraging:

Yeah I'll bet you'd rather talk about Huckabee than the Democratic race. You posted a slew of fake negative stories about Edwards on Monday & Tuesday where you wanted everyone to believe that his campaign was down and out in Iowa. And now that the latest poll shows that he went UP in the poll in Iowa instead of down like your negative stories wanted us to believe you want to change the subject. And what's more you didn't even bother to say that he went up in the poll. Shame on you for being so obvious in your bias.

Hey everyone the next time you see a series of negative stories about Edwards on this blog it may be because his poll numbers are about to go up. Keep that in mind before you post a comment here. These guys are not playing straight with you.

Desperate, Overland Park Kansas-
Obviously this isn't the forum to do it. I think any even handed person knows that calling us Christians flat earthers is baseless.
You said that I have no core. I wonder what core do you have if you do not believe in any sort of absolutes. There's no point in you morally judging me because you are not supposed to believe in morals right?
In your world there shouldn't be any reason to feel outraged about any injustice in this world, or arguing against "intellectual lightweights" like me(at least thats what you think). Correct?
Many smarter people than us on both sides of the debate has already done their job. I suggest you look at those debates. Another great resource for you is http://www.str.org

To Poor, Sad, Pathetic Jerry who wrote:

I know a challenge when I see one.....

I've watched this blowhard Olbermann a few times.....
I can see why O'Reiley continues to whip his butt....

Hannitty/Combs on Fox.....
A Regan conservative and a liberal on the same show...
Which show on MSNBC has that?

Game set and match............

Wow jerry reading comprehension is not your strong suit, nor is logical debate, but I'll be brief.

My point has very little to do with MSNBC, but maybe I should just spell it out to you and see if you can refute it.
Premises
1. Fox News is owned by one of the largest GOP contributors and operated by a former GOP press secretary.
2. They have extensive ties to GOP campaigns, and GOP organizations.
3. Fox News has been caught passing out GOP memos companywide.
Conclusion
Fox News is a communication arm of the GOP.

The aforementioned are facts. Refute them. Don't bring up something irrelevant. Don't try and change the subject to HRC or MSNBC, but refute them. Sadly you will be unable to. I doubt that you even post something. For once in your life discuss and debate. Your pathetic little game set match comment just goes to show how unintelligent and devoid of reason you are. Look tool I just took you to the cleaners unless you can come up with something, which you can't. Respond...do it...respond...you can't. Embarrassing.

Go away now the big kids are talking.

Huck is doing well in Iowa because he is a bible thumper like the rest of them. His win in Iowa will be worthless, because noone will care about the win, they'll care about Romney's loss.

Huck is not a threat nationally. He has no cash to go into any other state. And in NH he'll suffer a loss because people in NH aren't social conservatives, but instead fiscal conservatives. And tax hike mike doesn't offer that.

The winner of Huck's 1st place finish will be Giulliani because he'll be able to cripple Romney and label him a loser because he spent all that cash there.

Mike Huckabee is an amazing individual.  He's unlike every other politician that I've ever followed.  He's the real deal.

Finally there's an average American (as opposed to his rich elitest opponents) running for President.  Huckabee has my vote!

Please visit:
www.hucksarmy.com
www.mikehuckabee.com

Pat, Adam & Eve's 3rd son was named Seth (as is my 3rd son named).  But I, like many others, don't want to waste my energy defending the BIBLE!!!!  The Bible is the only real truth.  

I thought Huck was the man LONG before I knew he was a Christian.  He resonates with those of us in Fly-over country who still believe this country can be great.  He is not interested in partisan bickering, but rather wants to lift the country up.  You'll notice, even in the GOP debates thus far he hasn't attacked his opponents.  Not only do I believe Huck will win the GOP nod, but he will win the general election by a large majority.  Those who are so fed up with politics and haven't voted in years because nobody in the past 20 years has deserved their vote will be getting off their couches to raise up a man like Huckabee.  And I Praise God for giving Huck the armor to take all the arrows.  No one gets this far with so little without God working behind the scenes.

www.hucksarmy.com

As far as polls go I hear the same people prattle on about how hilliary is falling ,you are the same people who thought the republicans could pull 06 elections out even though the polls were showing the tsunami for the dems,roves math didnt work then and it wont work now.  We the people are fed up with the repucker party and thier disregard for childern and eldrly and the weak in society,any rand ideas are dead as she is, long live the Frank Capras of the world.

Shadow-

Characterizing someone's posts as, "spam", and accusing them of being paid operatives makes me wonder about your objectivity and sort of indicates a slight, little, tint of bias.


Here was you response to one of the TWO first posts I could find for van in the last three weeks;

"Good to see all the paid Clinton operatives are earning their paychecks by posting quickly at the top of the thread.  Would you people kindly mind not telling us what to think?  We voters here in a democracy tend to resent that.
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007) 9:49 AM)

Yet you claim to seek an actual correspondence with this accused spammer and paid operative?

I rest my case.

Van

As far as polls go I hear the same people prattle on about how hilliary is falling ,you are the same people who thought the republicans could pull 06 elections out even though the polls were showing the tsunami for the dems,roves math didnt work then and it wont work now.  We the people are fed up with the repucker party and thier disregard for childern and eldrly and the weak in society,ann rand's ideas are dead as she is, long live the Frank Capras of the world.

Yo Van, you're so punch drunk that you don't even know how to respond. I have stated over and over again, I will vote for Hillary if she's the nominee irrespective of the fact that I hope she's not. In other words, why wouldn't I speak through my computer on 01/04/2007 if she wins Iowa? Because I'm afraid you'll do what? Gimme a break.

First of all- go Huck. So far I love the guy.  What his beliefs are about the origin of earth, or what Kucinich's opinions on UFO's are, should be irrelevant.  I'm biased but I don't believe one should compromise their beliefs for political expediency, which should be hard for anyone to do if they believe in a God who's much more powerful and important to them than the opinions of any one of us.

People who believe there is no reconciling science and Christianity might wish to take a look at the "Pre-Adamite" theory, which is espoused by many Christians.  It's quite interesting, and is more than plausible in the opinion of those of us who do not reject carbon dating and other tools of science (you'd be surprised how much is on the internet there about the fallaciousness of carbon dating, interestingly, but I don't buy it.)  Basically the Pre-Adamite theory acknowledges that the earth is as old as science says it is, but also asserts that millions of years of history passes between Genesis 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.  It also asserts that there was a catastrophic flood or other disaster which took place long before the Biblical flood. St. Peter cites this idea as if it is common knowledge (2 Peter 3:6). Scientists have long speculated that some cataclysmic (sp) event like this might have led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.  Obviously there are lot of blanks I'm leaving in here since I'm no expert on it and it would take forever to get into, but I think it something atheists and those on the fence about certain issues should do some research on. Google it; here's just one link on the idea.. (www.kjvbible.org/satan.html)

Despite the disparaging remarks we religious people of varying degrees endure, we make up so much of the county that you'd think we wouldn't be dismissed so out of hand by so many people.  It might be helpful to know a little more about Christian psychology, to avoid some frustration over our belief persistence.  1- In the Bible Jesus says that the road to heaven is narrow and few are on it- the road to hell is wide and most people are on it (Matt 7:13-14)  This gives most Christians a bunker-like, us against the world mentality.  Deriding Christians just makes them feel they're right.  I believe it's part of the reason Bush is so obstinate about this war.  2- In the Bible Jesus says that he was persecuted, and so if the son of God can be persecuted, we Christians certainly should expect to be persecuted.  So again, disparaging remarks just make most Christians feel more Christian and more sure that their beliefs are correct.

Obviously, I disagree with any person who claims to know for sure that there is no God. Atheism requires at least some faith, because no one can prove there is no God.  This is why I have less of a beef with agnostics, who basically say they cannot know what cannot be proven.  If everything that exists has a cause or creator, there was a first cause or creator.  Call it what you will.  Christians call it God.  Religion is at its root what some people feel they owe to this first cause.  Some people believe in God but don't feel that they owe what philosophers used to call the "prime mover" anything.  

If one reads these boards enough, or watches cable news and talk shows enough, one might mistakenly believe that most people are atheists.  Studies show that though less than half the country goes to church twice a month or more, 90 percent of the country believes in some idea of a God.  Atheists have a long way to go to convince the masses about their theory.  And belief in God will be a litmus test for the Presidency for a while to come (though this is clearly not technically what the Founders intended.)

As for other things about Christians that many find annoying, you also don't need to be a Christian to take certain stances on controversial social issues- there could easily be an intuitive, non-religion based repulsion to gay sex or abortion.  

This will be a 3-4 way race if Hillary gets the nomination.

Less likely 3-4 way split if Obama can still take it.

Why?  Ask Hillary and Bill.  They ain't amateur players, folks.

That's why Obama's second chance provides such great entertainment.

As some one here put it succinctly, it is a "craps shoot" from now til Spring.

Did you not notice I complimented you earlier in this thread for being less obstructive than usual since I chided you about this?  Don't you remember that I pointed you to a politico link where I defended Clinton the last time you alleged that I'm only here to get her?
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:51 PM
---------------------------------------------_________
Man are you ever kissing butt!  LIKE ME, SEE ME, IT'S ME !!!!!!!!!!
Van I read this guy and I find him a pathetic know-it-all.  Scroll him bye bye.

That the Clintons are the ultimate capitalist power couple goes without saying, although I just said it.

Realist politicians and political scientists love the Clintons because they are so blatantly, unabashedly, capitalist pawns in progressive clothing.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Nobody else gets to be president.  No bright-eyed idealist need apply.  The last one was shot in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in 1968.  

Idealists good make good mythology, but they do die young.

I and others have noted that the fix is in for Hillary and I have noted that it could be worse.  It is now.

Nonetheless, recent developments alter the calibration a smidgen.  Just enough for a smart, astute player to squeak through...

All this only proves my point of last night posted first thing on First Read on First Thoughts.  That point being...

Polls, prognostication, even psychic Mary don't know what tomorrow brings.

Listen to the silence.

To Gadbot who wrote this
But I, like many others, don't want to waste my energy defending the BIBLE!!!!  The Bible is the only real truth.  

You cannot defend the Bible. It carries with it, as I mentioned earlier no more truth than Aesop's Fables. It is certainly not an accurate form of history or an accurate observation of reality (see scripture which states that the earth is the center of the universe). It is social and political philosophy.

As I mentioned I think that Huckabee is a nice guy which in fact some Christians are nice people (particularly those who try to practice Jesus' teachings of love thy neighbor and Dr. King's message of Agape).

However, belief in fables has little to do with finding solid evidence and truth concerning moral and ethical development. Any student of history knows that religion and the Bible are definitely the worst display of higher ethical and moral reasoning (see the Crusades and the Inquisitions).

To Cedric. Why it matters what a persons beliefs about reality are should be obvious. You argue that a person can be insane, yet have correct stances on the issues. We've talked before about this, but you must realize the difference between the type of democracy we would have with an enlightened secular progressive at the helm of our great nation compared to a democracy headed by Pat Robertson or George W Bush.

In Richard Dawkins discourses on theism, he discusses though some people can find biblical interpretations morally valuable, these few by no means outweigh the damage that religion and the Bible have done to our civilization.

Hello, just count up the death toll people.

I'd think it would be pretty important to make sure that the President of the United States is not a Revelations end of days guy. You are all still waiting for Jesus to come back in fact. What other religious radicals have these end of days stances G. W. and of course Iran's Ahmadinejad.

Just out of curiosity, did someone vote to make Shadow the hall monitor and I missed it?  I'm not quite sure why he thinks it is his place to tell people what is acceptable in length and content.  

Here's a tip, Shadow.  If you don't like it...scroll past it.  Most adults have realized by now that life is full of things and people we don't like, and the best way to handle them is to move right on past them.  

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):