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

Michigan meaningless for Dems

[EveryNickIsTaken]

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.

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.

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?

Re:Being a non-USA-ian

[Anonymous Coward]

So, they've won New Hampshire... does the state actually belong to them together? Does this winning hold some sort of legislative power? Is this a democratic election thingy?
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.

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:Ron Paul Denouement

[shark swooner]

...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.

Re:Little late

[Cro Magnon]

Hey, this is the most current news /. has ever posted. Wait until tomorrow's dupe before complaining.

Re:Little late

[name*censored*]

We foreigners appreciate slashdot posting this news - after all, your election affects us (this is not facetiousness, unfortunately).

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.

Political Compass

[Confessed Geek]

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!

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:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it

[iminplaya]

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.

Re:The Candidates don't matter

[Shakrai]

I, as usual, am less than enthusiastic about our choices for president

Outside of Ron Paul I have zero enthusiasm for anybody on the Republican side and even at that I doubt I could bring myself to vote for him. I used to have a lot of respect for McCain even though I disagree with him in a lot of areas (his being pro-life comes to mind) but I lost that respect when he started kissing the ass of the religious right, sometime around the 2004 elections. As a New Yorker I previously held Giuliani in high regard. Then he decided to run his entire campaign on 9/11.

On the Democratic side I was undecided for a long time with leanings towards Edwards. In the last week or so I've jumped on the Obama bandwagon. I don't know if he can actually pull off everything that he advocates but I do know that he is a breath of fresh air. You realize that less then three years ago he was a state legislator? Can you picture your Assemblyman or State Senator running for President in the next three years? I know that I can't. Yet somehow he has managed to do it.

I read an interview where his wife said that up until about a year ago they were still paying off student loans and she worries that even if he loses this race that they won't be "real" Americans anymore, i.e: they won't have any of the concerns that the middle class does (debt, health care, education for their kids, etc, etc). For some reason that hit home with me and I think is one of the fundamental problems with American politics -- how many politicians can you think of on the Federal level that even know what it's like to be a normal person anymore? Between the rich ones (who have never known want for anything) and the career politicians I doubt you can find more then a handful of "real" people in Congress or the Administration.

He's got my vote come Super Tuesday. I've never disliked Hillary and even voted for her twice (for the Senate) but I know that if she manages to win it all we can look forward to four more years of slash 'n burn politics in Washington. I don't know if Obama can actually change that and make Washington responsive to the people again but I do know that Hillary can't -- the Republicans will crucify her.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Look into Obama. You might be pleasantly surprised. I dismissed him for a long time and didn't pay much attention to what he had to say. That was a mistake on my part.

Clinton/Obama *TIED* in New Hampshire

[Torodung]

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

Re:The Candidates don't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that's bad? Not only does he support the KKK and Communism, but he also stole my wallet, beat my wife, and impregnated my dog (and he's a boy!). Being the cynic that I am, I figured this was usual behavior for a politician, and I decided to donate money to his campaign. Big mistake. During the night, Ron Paul planted marijuana all over my house and called the ATF. Luckily, he also blew up my car, the sound of which woke me up in time to escape. Now I'm living in a shack in Tierra del Fuego on the run from an international crime syndicate after Ron Paul stole my identity, ran away with my wife, and stole 300 kilos of Colombian nose candy from them.

I think I've had enough of Ron Paul.

The current delegate count

[Notquitecajun]

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.

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.

All of what we're seeing now is confusion

[Quila]

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.

Re:The Candidates don't matter

[Shakrai]

Almost made me wonder if they picked the two most "popular" candidates on /. and picked them for karma whoring.....

With respect, maybe you should bother to read my post history and/or journal before you accuse me of karma whoring.

I like Ron Paul because of his position on civil liberties. Ending the drug war, repealing the Patriot Act, getting us out of Iraq, etc, etc. I also like him because he has the balls to actually state his opinions, no matter how unpopular they might be. It takes a rare sort to do that in politics.

Notwithstanding the above, I have serious reservations about the Libertarian economic platform. There's a reason why we got away from Laissez-faire economics and I do not agree with the concept of a completely regulation free economy. In fact, given the events of the last decade or so and displays of corporate greed, I'm less inclined then ever to trust the "free market" to do anything in my best interest. I also completely disagree with the idea that we need to privatize everything.

I came to like Obama after watching some of his speeches and reading some of his interviews. I won't apologize for that and I realize it makes me the unpopular person around here because I won't tote the /. party line of "both parties are the same". I hope Obama wins the nomination and the general election. That said, I'm still rooting for Ron Paul to do well, because even though I disagree with him on a lot of stuff I think it's a good thing that he is bringing public attention to his platform. And even though I completely disagree with and would oppose their economic platform, I think it's a good thing to get Libertarian ideals into the public debate.

votebyissue.org

[raddan]

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.

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:Joy!

[cayenne8]

"What the fuck is wrong with you people? Some more of "his type of independence"? You mean like dismantling the fucking government?"

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.

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.