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.

Comments

fuck the news media

[Shakrai]

I watched just enough of the coverage last night to walk away with one observation: Fuck the news media.

Seriously. They spent more time talking about Hillary "tearing up" then they did talking about policy differences between the candidates.

"Do you think those were genuine emotions on her part or was it calculated?" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK! Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate? Why don't you do some research into Obama's time as a state legislator, because most of us outside of Illinois know next to nothing about this period in his life.

And why all this goddamn focus on who "wins" each state? The primaries (at least for the Dems) aren't a winner-take-all. All three of the leading Democratic candidates walk away from this with delegates to the convention. All three of them walked away from Iowa with delegates. Yet somehow Hillary's loss in Iowa all but doomed her campaign in the eyes of the media.

*sigh* And they wonder why people are disillusioned with the process.....

Re:fuck the news media

[timster]

Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate?

Well, as we all know the answer is mostly ratings, there is at least some sense to it. While the President does have a bully pulpit, they don't write laws, and can't ultimately pass a health care policy, and certainly don't vote in the Senate. That is the job of legislators.

If you consider the Bush administration, most of his important successes and failures are not legislative in nature. The famous tax cuts are somewhat overblown, since there was a surplus at the time and everybody (including Gore) had a tax cut proposal. The much-hyped social security reform did not occur. The immigration plan did not pass.

Presidential candidates are always full of legislative proposals, but they are seldom remembered long. Bush's operational record is much more interesting -- the years of failure to react when Rumsfeld's war plan was not working, the laid-back approach to Katrina disaster relief, the poor international relations. The point is that if you judge presidential candidates entirely by their policy positions -- as if they were running for the Senate -- they can all look deceptively similar. So it's not surprising that the electorate at large is looking for signs of leadership and a particular philosphy more than they are looking for detailed policy proposals.

Re:fuck the news media

[Reality Master 101]

"Do you think those were genuine emotions on her part or was it calculated?" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK! Why don't you tell us about her health care policy? Or her votes in the Senate?

I'm not going to defend the TV news media (I don't watch them AT ALL, and I don't understand why anyone does), but on this particular point, of course genuine emotions matter! The sincerity and trust of the candidate is paramount to everything. What difference does it make what a candidate *says* they stand for, if you can't believe they speak with any sincerity?

The biggest knock against Hillary (and Bill) is that they'll say ANYTHING to get elected. It's all about manipulation.

I'm not that much of a fan of Ron Paul's ideas, but I believe him when he says that's what he'll do when he's in office. With Hillary, I have no idea what she'll actually do once in office. Her promises mean nothing.

Re:fuck the news media

[hey!]

Well, because character does matter.

I've read the position papers of the candidates on things like health care, and Iraq. Every one is full of holes as swiss cheese, because there aren't simple and universally supported strategies to solve the kinds of problems that don't go away on their own.

You must can't take an issue like health care and reform it by making a wonderfully clever proposal. You've go to have the mother of all hissy fit fights even to tweak something a bit. In a real reform fight, having the trust and confidence of the American people is a huge asset.

When a candidate has a moment of unguarded emotion, it becomes a crisis point in the campaign. Do the people believe it was real, or was it feigned? Was it a sign of weakness, or strength? What people believe about that incident tells you a great deal about the kind of political power he will be able to marshal for his programs.

The HRC "welling tears" incident may well have been a watershed moment for HRC. When asked to explain it, she said something extremely revealing. She was touched by somebody expressing concern for her, and at the same time she was uncomfortable because she wants to be judged by what she does, not who she is. In short, she is most comfortable if she can campaign with a firewall of proposals, position papers, and resume items between her self and the people who might vote for her.

This explains something about HRC's candidacy that has bothered me for a long time. She is obviously extremely bright, hard working, and experienced, but somehow she her performance has had a canned, lackluster quality. The party is fixing to set the electoral barn on fire, and Hillary's been obstinately waving her wet blanket of experience and cautious centrism. In light of the events leading up to NH, what is clear is that the wet blanket is there to protect her ego. She knows probably better than anybody else how personally painful politics can be, so while she's quite happy to have her ideas and proposals set up for criticism, she's been withholding herself from criticism.

People don't change overnight, but HRC is clearly a hard working, ambitious and determine person. The question is whether she'll take the personal risks needed to achieve victory, or whether she'll only make a pretense of doing so.

Re:fuck the news media

[OldeTimeGeek]

So Hillary showed a moment of (probably unscripted) humanity. So what? Does this make her any more qualified to be President? Is it better to have someone who is competent or charismatic? Not saying, of course, that any of the Democratic candidates is less competent than the others for the office, but two are definitely more charismatic than the other.

To me, the problem lies with how people project their own personalities onto the candidate rather than how the candidate actually is.

Hillary Clinton, who most people will agree is very smart, has problems because people just can't connect on a personal level with her. And because of this, people feel that she's being disingenuous with them.

Barak Obama does better because, along with being intelligent, he makes people feel that there is a commonality between them. People think that they see something of themselves in him and are able to see what they want or hear what they want. People want to hope for something new and he gives them a platform to place this hope upon. This in no way diminishes from his intelligence, it's just the way that people work.

I see a lot of parallels between his candidacy and the one of John Kennedy. Youthful, smart, well-spoken and someone that people connect with. In 1960, people wanted youth and energy. In 2008, people want hope. Funny thing is, didn't people want much the same thing in 1992 when a complete unknown named Bill Clinton was elected?

Ron Paul Denouement

[fishdan]

Like most /.ers, I've been enamored of Ron Paul, but this poor showing in what should have been Ron's best state is disheartening to me. Yes, I know it was better than Fred Thompson -- but to be 2 places behind Huckabee? Ron's campaign seems to be so much more about the message than the man, which is great -- that's the way it should be. But the message is not getting our there. And I'm not sure why. Ron had a great point in the ABC debate 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, and it clarifies why fixing fiscal policy is a giant issue. Ron's ideas of cutting spending, ending the war, following the Constitution and removing the income tax seem to be at least talking points that should be doing better than what Ron seems to be getting in the polls. So where is the disconnect?

I think the problem is that getting elected is still about campaigning -- and Ron's campaign is not being run as skillfully as others. Living in MA, I was waiting for the call to volunteer. I signed up to make phone calls, hold signs, do anything. I was never contacted or asked to do anything.

So I'll still keep giving money -- I want Ron's ideas to be heard everywhere, so that in 2012 the right candidate will not be buried/censored/mocked by the main stream media. And hopefully the campaign will raise the money sooner, and hire a real campaign manager. To change everything, as Ron and his followers want to do, will mean winning a presidential election -- and doing that means winning an American style presidential campaign. The message can win -- if it gets out there.

I hope someone can convince me there's still hope for this year, because I want to believe.

Re:Ron Paul Denouement

[MicktheMech]

The disconnect is that he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about on some of his key points.

Ron's ideas of cutting spending, ending the war, following the Constitution and removing the income tax seem to be at least talking points that should be doing better than what Ron seems to be getting in the polls.

Those are things a lot of people can get behind. The problem is when he starts talking about monetary policy (eliminating the fed, returning to a gold or other commodity standard). It sounds nice and he's good at putting it in terms people can understand. Except, those terms are misleading. What he's proposing will not fix the China problem, what it may do is tank the global economy. Before you get on the Ron Paul bandwagon look up a serious, respected economist and ask him how effective Paul's plans will be, I think it would be enlightening.

I realize that I'm criticizing Ron Paul on slashdot and the zealots will mod me down pretty quickly. I don't care about the karma, this needs to be said.

Re:Joy!

[east coast]

May the best one win!

Knowing voters? They won't.

For the most part the top three aren't going to change. The media is doing their damnedest to see this holds true. The best I really hope for at this point is that some ideals sift to the top and people start to embrace candidates who don't march to the beat of a party drum. As much as I'd like to see Ron Paul at the top I think it would be just as sweet to see some more of his type of independence in the house and senate.

This might be good news for Obama...

[wbren]

If Obama can come within 2% of winning in a state that is about 97% white, I think he's got a very good chance nationwide. I don't think it's unfair to think that had something to do with the loss.

Re:Michigan meaningless for Dems

[saider]

This is the problem with the media and over reporting of the primaries. It plays on people's unconscious desire to support a winner.

There should be no "momentum" in an election. The fact that there is illustrates that a significant number of voters "follow the leader". This is not to say that people are _completely_ sheepish, but rather when faced with a decision, a significant part of that decision is what other people are doing.

But, I guess that is how all social animals behave.

Democracy in action

[clickclickdrone]

Considering how keen America is on exporting democracy to all and sundry, have you any idea how damned wierd your particular version looks to non-Americans? I've just had to spend twenty mins on Google trying to work it all out what with primaries, electroral collages etc. The fact that it seems to require so much money just to get heard doesn't help. Not really a very good advert for democracy in action.

Re:The Candidates don't matter

[Just Some Guy]

Then there's his religious background. Even if you are willing to ignore his Muslim heritage (and, yes, I know the madrassa thing was overblown)

I am a white conservative Christian Republican. Obama is none of those. And yet I still think you're talking out your ass. Your allusion to "his Muslim heritage" fails in two huge ways:

• It's been proven time and time again that he isn't a Muslim, so why bring it up?
• It implies that there's a set of acceptable religions for those in government and a corresponding set of unacceptable ones. As a Baptist, I don't want Baptists added to the "bad list". Therefore, neither can I tolerate another religion added to that list. I don't agree with Islam and I'm not particularly in favor of Muslims in high office here, but intellectually I understand that I can't deny anyone that freedom while expecting to retain it myself. So drop it already, OK?

his current church is known for running astroturfing campaigns against telecoms, and astroturfing for Comcast.

Obama owns a church? Wow! That's more impressive than I'd given him credit for. Back in reality, it's pretty much guaranteed that every religious group has members that do something unappealing, and equally guaranteed that the other members have nothing to do with it.

Re:Some momentum is legit

[cayenne8]

"The existence of a Super Tuesday meant that elections after that have been meaningless, and ones before that are support important. That's what has been screwing up the elections, and letting "winners" of a small state with split delegate counts to screw things up."

This is what I don't understand...why the hell are Iowa and NH always first and second in this process?

I'd dare say they don't reflect a good spread of what the whole country thinks or wants. Why aren't ALL states voting at the same time, like in the national election? It sucks that candidates that would be more viable to the country as a whole are kicked to the curb early on before the rest of the country gets to vote for them to represent their party.

At the very least...they should move the starting primaries to different states each time...so that each state would get a chance to be first to evaluate the candidates.

There are many things that need to be considered for change in our election system, but, I'd say the primary method should be first to change as that it effects the WHOLE process early on...

Re:Some momentum is legit

[alexhmit01]

This is what I don't understand...why the hell are Iowa and NH always first and second in this process?

Historical process? The national conventions officially pick the candidates. Local party activists and elected officials were the delegates (or picked them). There was the fighting in 1968 (mentioned elsewhere), but I think that New Hampshire created the idea of elected delegates (similar to how our electoral college is chosen by statewide popular vote, while originally the state legislatures named the electors) from a primary. The Iowa Democrats decided to have a caucus day for party organization, where people would show up all at once and conduct party business, and name the delegates to the national convention or something similar. In 1980 the Republicans in Iowa decided that they wanted to be first in the nation as well, so they set up a primary... but legally New Hampshire was protected as first primary, so they called it a caucus.

The argument for leaving it alone... If you come up with an idea to reform Democracy, and everyone copies it, should you keep a benefit? On top of that, the people of Iowa and New Hampshire, by the nature of the situation, appear to take primaries VERY seriously. Polls of the people showing up to vote have spent more time on the matter than others do. They have created a culture around their Caucus/Primary process, and maybe it's not a bad thing to do.

The pushed up Super Tuesday debacle is bad, but what if you leave Iowa/NH alone for historical reasons, but then have rotating small state regional ones. Michigan is big, but gives you a midwest primary, SC a southern one, Wyoming popped up with a western state early, but seemed mostly ignored... throw Oregon in there and you've done a round of regional voting. Add Delaware if you think that Midatlantic states get short thrift.

If you did those over the span of 2 months, then moved to larger regional primaries... i.e. have 2 states/week for the next 2 months, then let the big states move, you'd get a more fair system. The small states could let candidates practice retail campaigning, which lets non-corporate or rich candidates compete, but the big states would pick in the end.

In the end, a Super Tuesday with the 10-20 largest states would mean that in any contested primary, they pick who wins.

I would also standardize delegate selection... either winner take all or proportional. But by most places being proportional (which has the added benefit of the chief backers of major candidates all getting to go to the convention), and California being winner take all (IIRC from 4 years ago). California has a HUGELY disproportional affect... possibly to the point of single handedly decided a contested race.

California, by population, is something like 25x-30x the size of New Hampshire... It shouldn't have 100x the influence.