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)
I, as usual, am less than enthusiastic about our choices for president. It would be nice to have a third party (or better yet a 4th party) who can win a substantial part of the vote and a significant chunk of congress (10-20 votes in the house and 5 in the senate and be very powerful)
I voted for Badnarik last time but I don't see the Libertarians even putting forth a palatable candidate this year.
I'll be satisfied as long as some Bible (or other religious book of choice) Thumping lunatic doesn't win and try to control my private life even more.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
We foreigners appreciate slashdot posting this news - after all, your election affects us (this is not facetiousness, unfortunately).
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
I mean, I can live with Hillary - but for the life of me, I can't empathize with why someone would vote FOR her.
To my understanding, despite the usual 'common sense' about presidents, presidents don't make so many actual decisions of their own volition. They veto or sign bills into law. They have limited abilities to make executive orders (despite Bush's attempts to expand this). They guide some military decisions under some circumstances. They really don't guide much actual lawmaking beyond veto threats and ceremonial suggestions.
The key part about a presidential candidate to me is that most of their role is to give speeches, and represent us to the world. The part where I have no empathy with those who vote for Hillary is why anyone would choose to have Hillary Clinton represent them in that capacity. True, she's not the worst candidate in that capacity - but she just seems to have the worst personality for my tastes out of the Democratic candidates.
What is it in Hillary that makes people want her to represent them? Or is it really more of a strategic choice for those voting for her?
Ryan Fenton
While it is no replacement for doing real research and finding out where candidates stand relative to you on specific issues, there is a very interesting site called "Political Compass" at http://www.politicalcompass.org/ It gives a Cartesian representation (2 dimensional rather than just left/right) of your political values based on a questionnaire in terms of Authoritarian vs Personal Liberty AND Economic Right vs Left.
In addition to providing info on where you stand (you might be surprised) it shows were historical figures and the current candidates fall (based on their statements and voting records.)
You can also compare US politicians to the current crop in countries such as Canada, Australia, and England.
Very neat site!
The only candidate who has a grasp of economics....
No, He's not the only one, by a long shot. And as for your other points, Kucinich has him beat, also. He was the ONLY candidate there to vote against the patriot act both times. Paul abstained from one. Obama voted for the other. And the rest? There they were, voting for almost everything the president wanted. Not to worry. Neither Paul nor Kucinich have a snowball's chance. The well oiled machine shall thunder on, and we'll get four more years of Nixon/Agnew.
What?
it is certainly among the more interesting of the possible outcomes. It is hard to think of a result that would keep the race more wide open.
HRC would have been deeply wounded by a loss in NH. She would have had to drag her status of "former frontrunner" into a primary for an election Democrats passionately hope to win. Obama doesn't get unambiguous frontrunner status, but he doesn't lose viability either. The close head to head competition between HRC and Obama gives a tiny sliver of hope to Edwards. If HRC and Obama battle each other to a standstill, he might be able to engineer a victory in SC or a strong second place in FL, and be still in the running by Super Tuesday (Feb 5).
It is even possible for a third place finisher overall to win the nomination. By Democratic party rules, almost 20% of the convention delegates will be unpledged. Suppose the big three go into the convention with something like this: 30% for HRC, 25% for Obama, 15% for Edwards. Edwards could win if the HRC/Obama fight is seen by the unpledged delegates as splitting the party.
On the Republican side, things are just as interesting. Republicans have always preferred a candidate that their party can unite behind for victory, which is why you heard some evangelicals making noises of support for Giuliani when he was in his ascendancy. There is no such candidate yet. Huckabee can potentially pull of a win in SC, and he may walk away from FL with a large hunk of the 57 delegates up for grabs in FL, which awards delegates on a district by district basis. McCain is merely back in the race; he is vulnerable on immigration, and it seems unlikely he will build up any kind of aura of invincibility by Feb 5. However he will be a force to be reckoned with.
The media is counting Romney out, but this is malarkey. Romney has only don poorly compared to (press fabricated) expectations. Two second place finished and a first in a race with no clear front runner is nothing to be sneezed at. Even if he does poorly in SC and FL, he goes into Super Teusday with a huge advantage: money. It won't be possible to press the flesh in all 19 states, so the campaign will be waged largely by advertising; advertising to a population of people who may not have been paying that much attention up to now, and a ripe for some early impression manipulation.
It is even remotely possible for somebody farther down in the Republican standings to score an upset before Feb 5, which would result in a log of free attention.
Overall, we're looking at very competitive races all around, which is a good thing. The candidates are also hitting their stride, under the pressure of competition they're working as hard as I can ever remember at figuring out what it takes to connect with voters. It's looking like we'll see a more interesting and less conventional fight than we've seen in our lifetime.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It was a nice week after Iowa to think that at last we might get a break from the Bush-Clinton dynasties. It's already been 20 years we've had to live with it (Bush Sr. 4, Clinton 8, Bush Jr. 8).
I like Edwards as much as Obama, but really wish he'd cut a deal with Obama for the VP slot so the anti-Hillary vote wouldn't be split. That would have put a hard stop to the Hillary campaign right there.
Obama would be the clearest signal to the country and world that America is set for a new course. An Obama/Edwards ticket would be even stronger.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
In the early voting stages, we have a lot of candidates. Evangelicals may have liked Huckabee, but held their nose and voted Romney because while he's not one of them, he's closer than a Guiliani to them. Once Huckabee takes Iowa and proves to be a viable candidate, those that found Romney the best of the "real candidates" may switch because Huckabee is now a real candidate.
Guiliani planned to skip the early states and focus on Florida. The theory was that McCain was gone, and nobody had leadership gravitas but him. So going into Florida would be Romney, and Huckabee/Thompson (people expected Thompson, but Huckabee grabbed that part of the base). In that three way race, Guiliani wins security republicans, splits fiscal Republicans with Romney, and hopes that Florida's smaller portion of social conservatives leaves him with a win in a major state.
The issue with momentum is that the early states give people a viability kick. If there are 3 solid evangelical candidates, only one is going to be seen as serious, because if you split the vote 3 ways, you lose. So as soon as one wins a race, the others supporters pick their favorite of the viable candidates.
That's how the rolling primary season is supposed to work. Candidates prove viability and therefore start gathering supporters, or fail to prove viability and drop out, letting their supporters move to the most similar candidate that is viable.
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.
Post Iowa and New Hampshire, the Democratic race is down to three candidates, HRC, Obama, and Edwards. All are pulling in support. Edwards is in third, but not by much in the delegate count. All the other guys should either prove viability and get out. The GOP is a bit more open because Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida are all good proving grounds for different candidates... Romney/McCain in Michigan, Thompson/Huckabee in SC, and Guiliani in Florida. But Super Tuesday makes this all screwy, and the horse race garbage isn't helpful.
A rolling primary had advantages, and a national one does, but what we have this year is just stupid.
I don't know why my parent is rated insightful as he doesn't give any concrete examples. Waving your hands and just saying "Ron Paul does not know what he is talking about" is not insightful, just a random opinion without backing. Ron Paul has already written 8 books, many about the economy.
Also, many economists are Keynesian (taught that way). Ron Paul follows the Austrian (Von Mises) school of thought. There are significant differences between the two and also disagreements. Of course a traditional economist is going to clash with him.