McCain, Clinton Win New Hampshire 724
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.
The Candidates don't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Little late (Score:5, Interesting)
Why Hillary? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Political Compass (Score:5, Interesting)
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/ [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!
Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (Score:4, Interesting)
No, He's not the only one [counterpunch.org], 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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Whatever you think of the result (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Chuck-abee (Score:3, Interesting)
While we're at it, Obama has Opra's backing and Opra controls how many minds?
Nothing quite like half coverage (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why Hillary? (Score:4, Interesting)
Knowing what Republicans think of Hillary, I can only imagine what they think of her getting super-invincibility power-up that comes ewith being a "War President."
I'll be deeply disappointed if the next President of the United States does not immediately divest him/herself of all these newfound powers. So far, Ron Paul is the only candidate who seems like he would, which in my mind makes up for the fact that most of his other proposals are a bit nutty.
Re:This might be good news for Obama... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Little late (Score:2, Interesting)
This election is probably one of the most important elections in our nation's history.
ZOMG! It's OVER! (Score:3, Interesting)
Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire in 1996.
I'm just sayin'.
Oh Well (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:This might be good news for Obama... (Score:2, Interesting)
You seem quite educated on NH. You may be in a position to help. Please send a list of names and origins so that we can send those folks back.
Re:The Candidates don't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Some momentum is legit (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Democracy in action (Score:3, Interesting)
The US primary system may be arcane and quirky - but it gives the public far more control over the two options that are eventually offered in the election proper. The relatively open campaign spending rules, and the small scale of early primaries, also allows a diverse array of candidates to compete in the early stages - without the support of the party hierarchies.
Re:The Candidates don't matter (Score:1, Interesting)
Holy fucking shit! A member of the religious right that acknowledges that they don't have the right to force their views and opinions on the rest of us. Not to beat it into the ground but that's pretty damned rare and I salute you for having that opinion.
I knew there must have been a reason why you were already in my friends list!
Re:Michigan meaningless for Dems (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the guy [wikipedia.org] that ran against her in 2000 was a complete fucking moron with absolutely no platform to speak of besides "I'm not Hillary Clinton". It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Giuliani hadn't dropped out. I still think she would have won, but at least Giuliani would have known the difference between Owego [villageofowego.com] and Oswego [oswegony.org]. Lazio couldn't be bothered to learn a single thing about upstate (he was from Long Island) and if you know anything about New York State politics you know that a Republican can't win statewide office without upstate.
I went to some of Lazio's campaign events. Every single one of them was filled with rapid anti-Clintoniates that jumped on you from the moment you walked in the door and spent hours trying to convince you why Hillary would be bad for New York. They didn't say a single thing about why Lazio would be good for New York. And Lazio himself was one of the worst campaigners I've ever seen. At a political rally at the local hospital he refused to answer questions about his health care platform, saying (and I quote) "I didn't come here to talk about health care". What kind of questions did you think people would ask you at a hospital, you dipshit?
Re:The Candidates don't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I don't think modern Republicans are interested in old-time Republicans; they want the modern version. That's how they've voted since 2000.
Re:Ron Paul Denouement (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:This might be good news for Obama... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:votebyissue.org (Score:3, Interesting)
As a side note, I was fairly surprised by the results it gave me. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney at the top of the list was expected, HRC at number 3 was not.
Re:Bad assumptions (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Political Compass (Score:3, Interesting)
The test at politicalcompass.org is invalid [debatepoint.org]
-metric