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.
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"
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.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
USA politics are really confusing since I thought the big vote was in November of leap years. Yes, the state of New Hampshire now belongs to McCain and Clinton. They will rule it jointly for the next four years.
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.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Hey, this is the most current news /. has ever posted. Wait until tomorrow's dupe before complaining.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
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
A writers stirke? No. But I did hear that Mr Hitler and his army invaded Poland. It's a crazy world.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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
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.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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!
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.
-William Brendel
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.
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
And before any of the Paulites offer a retort like, "Ron Paul says he didn't even write the newsletter," consider this. Whether he did or did not read the newsletter is completely irrelevant. The quotes are not isolated: for example, the entire "article" about the L.A. riots is a six-page racist tirade. Moreover, they span over a fifteen year period. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that one of two things is true. Either a) Ron Paul read the newsletter and tacitly approved of what his ghost writer wrote or b) he didn't read the newsletter which he lent his name and support to once in fifteen years. Neither speaks well about his integrity.
How much of Huckabees success comes from the endorsement of Chuck Norris? And as much as I like the aging martial artist, I don't think HE'D be as popular as he is without the internet.
While we're at it, Obama has Opra's backing and Opra controls how many minds?
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
So, why exactly is it that there wasn't a story posted when Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus?
More Twoson than Cupertino
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.
It will be 'fortunate' for all nations once George is out of office. While my country's reputation isn't exactly favorable in the international community these days, I hope people realize the difference between the agenda of the George W. Bush administration, and the principles of the United States of America. He's pretty much violated everything our country stands for, and personally, I think the world will be much better off with who ever is next.
This election is probably one of the most important elections in our nation's history.
In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
What is the point of comparing the price of oil with the price of gold?
Oil is bought with dollars (Venezuela and Iraq both considered switching to euros, guess which two countries the US didn't like) not gold. This is actually important, it is considered one of the things to help keep the dollar somewhat alive.
Gold is also not nearly as stable as people seem to think. So explain why this connection should be so clear and what it all means.
I have read up on Ron Paul and the couple of policies that he has sound intresting until you start to wonder how to actually implement them.
End the war. Oh goodie, another vietnam style strategic withdrawal (read route, if you are dumping your helicopts overboard to make room for new refugees, you ain't withdrawing, you are running)? The US made the mess, would be nice if you clean it up first before you go back home. It don't matter if you are pro or anti the war, it is a fact and you have to deal with it and you can't just runaway.
Cut spending. Another lovely one. I got a way to cut spending right here. NO SALARY FOR THE PRESIDENT and he pays rent for the whitehouse and buys his own airline tickets. Wanna bet NONE of these simple spending cuts will be taken up? On a larger level, you just can't cut spending. It just never works out, even if you try to do it for real and massively re-organize the state, the cost of the re-organisation will take years to re-coup in savings. Companies know this, that is why big companies when they make cuts in staff to save money ALWAYS reserve extra cash to pay for it. Saving money costs money. It gets even worse in big projects because the money you are cutting is somebodies income. Close a department and you are firing people, never a good idea for somebody who is elected by a popularity contest.
A policy of cutting spending is like a good intention with no actuall plan attached. Show me where you are going to cut spending, how you are going to deal with the sideeffects and how much it is going to cost to achieve in the first place.
Removing the income tax, another idiotic scheme. Sure it can be done, but it would require a massive change and is going to upset a lot of people. Voting people. It would basically force a radical change on how the US funds itself and what it can and cannot do. How are politicians going to buy votes with pork projects if there is no cash?
No Ron Paul is just another smooth talking figure head who promises everything that people like you want to hear without actually ever going into how he thinks he is going to achieve any of this.
In the Netherlands we got something called the "rekenkamer" (mathchamber) which during campaigns checks the various political parties agenda's for financial soundness (normaly they check the goverments policies). They don't judge right or wrong, just wether the financial side of it all makes sense. Promise free public transport, abolish taxes all fine with them, but the figures have to match up.
Perhaps the US should do something similar, check all the politicians promises and do the math.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
A rather idiotic story, about how the two candidates who lost on both sides where anti-gaming, as if voters in Iowa care.
Learn to read slashdot every day, every hour.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
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.
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.
Or not.
Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire in 1996.
I'm just sayin'.
Ralph Wiggum! See here or here.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
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-
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.
How anyone on Slashdot can seriously consider anyone that doesn't believe in Evolution is beyond me. It seems like a one question sanity test.
Wikipedia provides a more detailed explanation. In particular, many states have moved their primaries to earlier dates this year in an attempt to have a greater perceived impact. The parties don't like this, and, since these are party events after all, they have reacted by stripping some or all of the delegates to be awarded in these early elections.
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.
Yes, it's utterly impossible that different locales could have different election results. Everyone knows every state is entirely homogeneous.
Nah, seriously, I'm glad people like you are keeping tabs on things related to computer voting, but this little statistic just doesn't sound significant to me.
Comment of the year
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.
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.........
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.
What a nice backhanded way of saying you think most people are racist pigs. Voters (especially) are better than that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.