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

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: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: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.

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.