convincible.org

I watched the Republican debate in South Carolina tonight on Fox News. (I should watch more Fox news for balance but it took me a long time to even find it on the TV!)
It WAS very interesting to see the “conservative” candidates debate in front of a Southern audience. There was a much different bend to it than there was in the NH debate.

Fred Thompson: still the best, most reasonable constitutional type candidate.
McCain: Honorable straight up guy. Not a great or charismatic speaker. His support if the war is a bit too adamant for me.
Giuliani: A great speaker, logical, clear, with good direction. But I distrust his moral background. Gaining on McCain for me.
Huckabee: Better than Romney.
Romney: Still a bit slippery for me.
Ron Paul: Somewhere in there he sights a good philosophy. But Paul doesn’t pull it off. And this latest newsletter news does seem like a real problem or at least mistake in his past.

The question is.. how do I compare these to the Democrats now?

Carl

Now… doesn’t that somehow seem in line with my previous post? Kerry always had that elitist feel to me…
Carl

Watched the Newshour tonight.

Amy Walter, editor-in-chief of the National Journal’s political daily The Hotline had this to say about the results from New Hampshire:

The real story, though, I think is — the divide here is on the socioeconomic issues between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And, quite frankly, even though John Edwards running as a populist, he was never really part of the debate for many of these voters, who really thought, if you made less than $50,000, you supported Hillary Clinton.

If you did not have a college degree, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you thought the economy was worsening, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you thought things were going well, you had a postgraduate degree, you were making more than $100,000 a year, you voted for Barack Obama.

And it really almost went exactly down the line as that.

Here’s the full text.

Wow, this really surprises me. I would have thought maybe the reverse! Any explanations out there?

Carl

Convincible has recieved a message from a reader on the debates. We think it’s a fun one!
Mr. Wood writes:

After briefly pondering this topic, I’m inspired to create a new word: “pithable”

Definitions:

A pithable argument (as opposed to a “pithy” argument) is one which has the potential of becoming substantial or weighty by the addition of a small, but cogent insight.

“The candidate’s proposal was pithable, if economic insights were added.”

A pithable argument is also one which can be demolished by stabbing it’s core. As in pithing a laboratory frog.

“The candidate’s proposal was pithable, because it neglected the fact that the earth is round.”

But most importantly, it sounds like “pitiful” with a mouth full of popcorn, and sentences where it is interchanged are also meaningful!

For the Democrats, Clinton has come back and beaten Obama by a bit. And Edwards has fallen significantly back.

Hillary Rodham Clinton 39%
Barack Obama 36%
John Edwards 7%
Bill Richardson 5%
Dennis J. Kucinich 1%

On the Republican side, John McCain has really climbed up the leader board. That’s great too see as he is one of my favorites. Ron Paul has also climbed up a bit. He could play a part!

John McCain 37%
Mitt Romney 32%
Mike Huckabee 11%
Rudolph W. Giuliani 9%
Ron Paul 8%

But it’s just NH. The media places a lot of emphasis on these early races because its great news. And it’s certainly a real part of the process. But seeing how different the results are from Iowa reminds me that we are still just seeing small parts of the population show their opinion, and that opinions are forming and changing. My personal opinion is changing all the time on the candidates!