Slashdot Mirror
McCain, Clinton Win New Hampshire
Well the title says it. I figured some of you guys might be interested in the results of New Hampshire. Next week is Michigan, where I live. Somehow I don't expect any of the campaigns to ring me up.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Michigan was stripped of its delegates because the state Dem party moved up the primary without the blessing of the DNC. The candidates have already agreed not to spend any time there. On the republican side: If McCain can beat Romney in MI, Romney will be against the ropes and will likely have to consider withdrawing from the race, as it'd be an embarressing defeat.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
That's right: Clinton took 9 delegates and Obama took 9 delegates in NH. Edwards took the remaining 4.
This was not a popular election. It's about the delegates. How the press could report this as anything other than a tie is beyond me.
There's no shame in second place in a Democratic primary. So long as you take 15% of the vote, you get delgates, and you are not a "loser" by any stretch of the imagination. Especially in such a tiny state. It takes over 2000 delegates to be nominated.
And don't forget, Democrats have "super delegates," that are unpledged, to spoil a close race towards the Will of The Party, regardless of what the popular vote says.
Here's a good look at it: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html
But all the major news outlets cover our civic process like it was a soap opera. The primary reporting is just incompetent and wrong, if not bloody-minded lying.
--
Toro
States allocating pledged delegates to date:
Iowa, Wyoming (GOP), New Hampshire
Republican Delegates (1,191 needed to win nomination)
Candidate Delegates
Rudy Giuliani 0
Mike Huckabee 31
Duncan Hunter 1
John McCain 7
Ron Paul 0
Mitt Romney 29
Fred Thompson 3
Total 71
Democratic Delegates (2,026 needed to win nomination)
Candidate Delegates
Hillary Clinton 24
John Edwards 18
Mike Gravel 0
Dennis Kucinich 0
Barack Obama 25
Bill Richardson 0
Total 67
WAAAAAYY too early to tell...we almost have to wait til Super Tuesday, because none of the front-runners are even halfway out.
The purpose of this particular bit of pre-election zaniness (I can't argue with that term) is to narrow the field. The states each hold some form of "primary" whereby the opposing parties can decide which candidate to offer up during the "end-the-zaniness" election when we finally decide upon a president and put an end to the high volume stream of telephone calls and junk mail we all receive during election years.
The significance of the primaries here in New Hampshire is that we've historically been "first in the nation" to hold these polls. In fact, I believe (but could be wrong) that our state government even passed a law forcing us to move the primaries forward, if necessary, to protect that status.
>the laid-back approach to Katrina disaster relief, Not that he could have done anything until the state asked him for help.
Because it is not part of the Constitution, not part of the official process.
Our two ruling parties have so taken over our process that what they do is effectively the process. We hold multimillion dollar conventions to select the candidates on the taxpayer's dime, and they are really just functions of the two parties. Minority leader, majority leader, minority/majority whip, etc., all just a power structure within our government invented by the two parties, yet they get paid more, get a bigger staff, etc. The only legitimate one is the House Speaker.
The electoral college is peculiar to us because of our original situation. It is designed for the now unfortunately antiquated idea that the individual states are sovereign and have only created a federal government for their common defense and other things best managed as a group, such as coining money and international relations.
But we don't try to export our way of democracy. Notice that Iraq and Afghanistan have parliamentary systems.
Interestingly, Clinton did far better than the exit poll numbers in the locales which were tallied by LHS from Diebold (now Premier) machines, while Obama won in the municipalities which were counted by hand. The discrepancy is about 5%. You can check this yourself. Here's the database of counting systems Bev Harris collated from information supplied by the Secretary of State of New Hampshire before the primary: http://www.bbvdocs.org/NH/state/Jan-08-votingsystems-NH.txt -- and here you can find the AP vote tallies: http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html (I'd appreciate a better source than this flash, BTW.)
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
The primary system actually helps reduce the impact of money a lot, by emphasizing local/"retail" politics in small states. The candidates actually have to go out and persuade voters in person, rather than by just running expensive media campaigns. That gives them the exposure they need to become known, and yes, to raise money needed for the big-state campaigns later.
Mike Huckabee's rise is a great example of this. The guy had next to no money, was competing against millionaire Mitt Romney's high-spending campaign, and still came out on top in the Iowa contest.
No doubt the primaries are a complicated process, but there are some real benefits that come out of it.
Actually, you are incorrect on this statement.
Technically, the Prime Minister is normally the leader of the political party holding the greatest number of seats in the House. However, at least on a technical level, even this isn't required...the Prime Minister is legally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen, and legally can pretty much appoint anyone to the post. While this power has never been historacally abused, the Governor General does have the technical legal right.
As well, although tradition mandates that the Prime Minister holds a seat in the House, there is no legal basis for this to be a requirement. 2 Senators have been appointed Prime Minister in Canada's history, and one PM actually ruled from the hallways after being defeated in a general election until winning a by-election (William Lyon Mackenzie King for you trivia buffs out there).
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I highly suggest that everyone have a look at votebyissue.org. I consider voting to be my civic duty, and so I spent about an hour on Saturday reading through the blurbs and checking off boxes. The results were surprising. Before taking the quiz, I considered Edwards to be my top choice, followed by Obama. Surprise, surprise-- Clinton and Kucinich were actually better aligned with my views (although Edwards was still on top). Ron Paul was the only Republican to make it into the "positive points" column, and I apparently despise Tancredo. Obama ended up being dead last for Democrats; just about tied with Ron Paul.
BTW, if you don't agree or disagree with a blurb, leave the checkbox blank. The software takes this into account at the end. The instructions were not clear on this. After I had my tallies, I formulated a simple tally system-- +1 point if I agreed, -1 point if I disagreed, and -.5 if I did not answer. I did not answer if I thought the candidate was being purposefully vague.
This is worth your time, and much more time-efficient than trawling through the fluff on the candidates' websites.
Personally, I am for dismantling the federal govt. more towards what it was Constitutionally designed to be. The bloated, self-serving, overreaching, intrusive behemoth that it has become is something I and many (I think) would like to see reigned in.....and have it more like the founders of the country envisioned.
I kinda like the freedoms that used to come with the US....and the choices of lifestyle presented by letting local and state govts rule based on the needs and wants of the people that occupy them.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
...when he pointed out that the price of a barrel of oil in gold is the same as it was in 1992. Everyone can understand that...
That's a coincidence.
The price of oil happened to be low in 1992, and the price of gold was recovering from its massive collapse in the early 80's. They both happen to be really high now. It's a coincidence. You could find such coincidences for any two commodities.
Someone just went back and found a particular point when the price of oil to gold happened to be the same as they were in 2007. You are mistaken to think that this entails that the price of oil to gold has been historically stable, which it isn't, an obvious falsehood that this bogus point had obviously been intended to imply.
Think of it this way: Is Ron Paul trying to say that the price of oil would not have been going up over the past few years if we were using gold-backed dollars rather than fiat dollars? In order for that to be true, wouldn't the change in the price of oil have to be explained by inflation in the fiat dollar? Now, the price of oil is around four times what it was in 1992. Has there been fourfold inflation in the US dollar since 1992?
No, there hasn't. None of this adds up. It's not just a little wrong in the details, it's utterly off-base from the start. The next time anyone tries to peddle any of this gold standard stuff to you, use your head and maybe even google.
If you mean the American People, that argument lost all validity with the 2004 elections. If you mean some abstract concept of the nation as a whole, I would argue that that concept is essentially meaningless given that it is not adhered to by people who are actually taking actions.
A long time ago there were no primaries or caucuses. Candidates were chosen by the parties at the conventions. In 1968, in Chicago, there was a sense by several people that the candidate chosen did not represent the people (anti-war activists). There were major protests in the streets. Afterwards, it was decided that the people needed to have a more direct role in the process. Primaries and caucuses were set up. Iowa and New Hampshire were chosen first because the states were small, and the thought was that the parties would not yet have built up a "machine" in such small venues. If all the primaries were held at the same time, the small states would be entirely ignored, as they often are during the general election. I think primaries should be drawn out, with laws against having primaries all on the same day. There should be at least 2 or 3 days between primaries. That way each state gets some face time with the candidates.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Well, they should change that law, because the current primary system sucks at picking presidents. I'm not trolling. Seriously, something needs to change.
New Hampshire has a law stating that their primary is held 1 week before the next earliest state's primary. Every time another state moves their primary up, NH puts theirs one week earlier. Iowa is still allowed to be before them because they have a caucus, not a primary.
That's 41% of Alabamans voting to keep a defunct law making marriages between whites and non-whites illegal! http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/al/main03.htm
Some things indeed are better to be standardized across the whole and the Constitution spells many of these out, but many things should not be. Remember, that the US is *big* compared to many nations. The individual states are the size of many individual countries and are sovereign in their own right.
There are a number of anomalies across the board. Given my candidate choice, I pay attention to particular ones, but unfair votes concern me, period.
Two I am immediately familiar with:
* A precinct where there were almost 700 registered local active Ron Paul volunteers but less than 400 votes counted. Huh?
* A (small) precinct that counted zero votes for Dr. Paul where a family of three (all of whom voted for him) submitted a challenge. It turns out that the hand ballots recorded 31 votes, but "0" was "accidentally" copied to the tally sheet when it was submitted to the party HQ. "3", "1", "13", "30", I could all understand, but how do you mis-copy "31" as "0". A problem here is that actual counts are usually observed, but the filing of the summary sheets is not.
I am not running around screaming "my candidate should have won". I think he did better, possibly quite a bit better than represented, but I expect that a recount would uncover (and correct) abuse against other candidates as well. People's votes, even if they vote for Attila the Hun, should count. There are people I would probably leave the country for if elected, but I still think the elections should be fair.
I am not even going to get started on the Iowa Caucus. It is so badly handled there is no fixing it and no way a recount would even correct anything. It seems pretty certain at least Giuliani, Romney, and Dr. Paul got under-counted, but who knows by how much or what else was going on. At least the vote is not meant to be binding and the delegates are elected separately (as I understand it).
Given how partisan and divisive elections are getting and how bad the question (and answer) of fraud is growing, it is a bad combination. I really begin to wonder what will happen when a large portion of the population "loses" an election and just plain refuses to accept that the election was fair (perhaps with valid cause). With many of the election systems and processes currently in place, you simply cannot *prove* that an election was anywhere in the ballpark of fair -to either side-. I see bad things from this. Replacing the voting system with something that requires a majority win, encourages moderate candidates or opens things to more parties can defuse the situation somewhat (e.g. Instant Run-off voting, or, better, ranked voting). Those systems tend to be a little less sensitive to manipulation and produce larger/clearer margins of victory.