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)
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.
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
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
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.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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
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.
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.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
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.
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.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?