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.
Michigan meaningless for Dems (Score:5, Informative)
Fixed link (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Michigan meaningless for Dems (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Some momentum is legit (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Some momentum is legit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I really never understood why New Yorkers put up with her (being a carpetbagger).
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 yo
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Candidates don't matter (Score:5, Funny)
I think I've had enough of Ron Paul.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure he's said some things you disagree with. But tell me - Why would you vote for somebody who is so clean and perfect that there is no way they're telling you the truth? Why not go with the person who is more real, who makes the occasional off-remark that doesn't sit well, who speaks like a real human being? Don't you realize the rest are just marketed products that won't deliver on the brand name promise?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Klansman: These Communists don't normally support us.
Ron Paul: Now, Mr Klansman, we agreed to keep that under our hats. If they knew this was a Klan rally, we'd be all alone.
Then he turned right around and told a Communist:
Communist: These Klansmen don't normally support us.
Ron Paul: Now, Comrade, we agreed to keep that under our hats. If they knew this was a Communist f
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
votebyissue.org (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Actually, I could imagine Joe Bruno making a good President. He's been the man behind the curtain here in NY long enough.
Don't forget that Silver is also behind that curtain ;)
Here's an interesting thought if you are a New Yorker: If Hillary does win, who is Spitzer going to appoint to fill out her term in the Senate? One of my friends half-seriously suggested that he should appoint Silver just to get him the hell out of Albany and remove his chokehold on the Assembly. If we had a Republican Governor you could make the same argument for appointing Bruno.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Technically, the Prime Minister is normally the leader of the political party holding the greatest number of seats in the House. However, at least on a technical level, even this isn't required...the Prime Minister is legally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen, and legally can pretty much appoint anyone to the post. While this power has never been historacally abused, the Governor General does have the technical legal right.
As well, altho
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.
Re:The Candidates don't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was referring to the fact that, policies aside, the man is batshit insane. Did you watch his speech? Even if he came up with the best policies on earth, the "leader of the free world" just shouldn't be a crazy person.
Re: (Score:2)
So as long as the person that's elected and tries to control your life isn't a religious zealot, you're ok? It's only the non-secular control freaks that bother you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Amen to that!
fuck the news media (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
While I completely agree with what you are saying, I still think it would be a better service to our Democracy if the media focused less on Hillary's personality and more on the viewpoints and positions of the candidates. Who the hell cares how "likeable" she is? You realize that in 2000 and 2004 people voted for the candidate that they'd "rather have a beer with". How'd that turn out again?
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'm starving for leadership. That's probably why I've become a fan of Obama. He is actually inspires me, w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of assinine crap is that.
You don't just sit there not lifting a finger until he regains conciousness and can ask
for you to call an ambulance. You line up the resources. You ensure that your relevant
project manager has all his ducks in a row.
Alternatively, you could actually pay attention to the situation and step in
if need be.
You don't an engraved invitation to offer help.
Some private citizen old geezer in
Clinton/Obama *TIED* in New Hampshire (Score:5, Informative)
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 [cnn.com]
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: (Score:2)
Yes, and on the Republican side, Romney is way in the lead in the total number of delegates pledged so far, despite having lost both Iowa and New Hampshire. The media makes it sound like his campaign is in dire straights, and yet he's actually winning by a fair margin! (This is in no way an endorsement of Romney, I just don't get the media).
Re: (Score:2)
When I read the title on the article here, which was based on the media reports, I'd thought that someone
must have missed Lucifer skating to work. Hillary takes NH? Brr... What's the world coming to?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:fuck the news media (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:fuck the news media (Score:4, Insightful)
What I am saying is that it might. It depends on what the most marginally informative piece of new information you might have. If you'd never heard of HRC, then it is unlikely to be very useful. If you know a great deal about HRC, it might provide insight you didn't have before.
The fundamental political skill of anybody who wants to change things has to be be the ability to get around professional opinion formers and connect directly with enough people to neutralize them. Otherwise you get stuck endlessly explaining that, no, you didn't claim to have invented the technology behind the Internet.
Does this mean HRC can do it? I have had doubts all along. But if she proves she can, this incident will be seen in retrospect as a watershed. If she doesn't, it'll be another one of those things that just happened and nobody is sure if it meant anything.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen of the Clintons is that they'll change their position and put out doublespeak that they've always had this new position. I have no problems about people changing their positions, it can be healthy. However, but I do have problems with them lying about it or being weasely, I'd rather them say it out right. Romney
Re: (Score:2)
They know this, so instead they focus on anything that will c
Ron Paul Denouement (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Dude, he almost beat Rudy... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ron Paul Denouement (Score:4, Insightful)
True, I'm arguing two things at once. First: If you WANT backing, gold is useless. It's a fiat currency in itself. So don't use gold. Use something with actual value.
but don't actually set it aside to back the dollar.
Second: You don't actually WANT backing. Proper backing means taking a lot of valuable stuff and hiding it away.
The ideal is to use something that is not 'useful', but is in limited quantity, so it means something that it backs the dollar. Gold sounds like a pretty good candidate to me.
Dollars are not useful and are available in limited quantities. And you don't actually have to hide anything away. Lots of useless work is done mining gold; in fact gold mining kills people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ron Paul Denouement (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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:Ron Paul Denouement (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
the president also has a lot of influence over what happens in congress. look at the war spending bills that never made it. because of the veto, bush got everything he wanted. i don't see congress going so far to the democrats that they can get anything they wan
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Obama can start putting forth specific action plans rather than vague generalizations (inspiring as his speeches may be), then he has the potential to crush HRC on Super Tuesday.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
The test at politicalcompass.org is invalid [debatepoint.org]
-metric
This might be good news for Obama... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bad assumptions (Score:3, Insightful)
What a nice backhanded way of saying you think most people are racist pigs. Voters (especially) are better than that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What a nice backhanded way of saying you think most people are racist pigs. Voters (especially) are better than that.
Racism may be on the decline, but a lot of Americans from the bad old days have not died yet; and older folks are more likely to vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws [wikipedia.org]
That's 41% of Alabamans voting to keep a defunct law making marriages b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What a nice backhanded way of saying you think most people are racist pigs. Voters (especially) are better than that.
It hardly takes "most people" to swing a few percent in an election, it takes - well - a few percent. And it's one thing what you'll openly admit, another what subtly influences you. Right now here in Norway there's a lot of press now about minority-heavy schools being abandoned by ethnical norwegians. While some complaints about immigrants with language problems and such are valid, most aren't. Usually you get some vague reference to "a better environment" elsewhere while trying to be as non-specific as
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Because there was? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
The current delegate count (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R [cnn.com]
Some of the difference may be due to the inclusion of unpledged delegates on CNN. But even so, Huckebee should be probably listed as 21, not 31, (and puts Romney considerably ahead).
Re:The current delegate count (Score:4, Informative)
Please remember that these delegates are absolutely free to choose who they wish, and is forced to if a precinct awards a delegate position to a candidate that drops out of the race. While the spotlight is off of us now, a subset of Iowans are by no means done with presidential primary politics. I was a delegate up to the state level in 2004, but didn't have the inclination to raise funds or votes for a trip to the national convention. I am not a county delegate in '08, which means that I get to sit back and wait for the election to end.
Also, this is related to the Democrat Caucuses only, as I recently learned that the Republican Caucus is run differently, although I don't know in what regard.
Now, the media's numbers for the delegates are relatively secure, although in 2004 Gephardt dropped out, which forced those delegates to go elsewhere. Imagine a similar thing if Edwards moves to a VP position again.
Democracy in action (Score:5, Insightful)
All of what we're seeing now is confusion (Score:5, Informative)
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.
State versus National Government (Score:3, Informative)
This is one thing I've never understood about American politics (in particular, the platform of a lot of Republican candidates). Why do so many people believe that government on a state level is inherently better than government on a federal level? Surely a standardised system nationwide makes life a lot simpler for everyone.
For the same reason many (e.g.) British think that being governed at the national level is better than at the European level: better representation. The needs, beliefs, and traditions of people in the mid-west are different from the northeast for example, but population (number of voters) in the northeast is high. Keeping much of the government local ensures to some extent that your needs will not be sacrificed in favor of lobbyists across the continent. There is a definite trend in places for urban areas
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US primary system may be arcane and quirky - but it gives the public far more control over the two option
ZOMG! It's OVER! (Score:3, Interesting)
Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire in 1996.
I'm just sayin'.
Vote for Ralph!! (Score:3, Funny)
Diebold locales for Clinton, Hand-counts to Obama (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Diebold locales for Clinton, Hand-counts to Oba (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Voting anomalies all over, fix the system (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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:Being a non-USA-ian (Score:5, Funny)
USA politics are really confusing since I thought the big vote was in November of leap years.
Re:Little late (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Little late (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't even know New Hampshire had some election in this pre-election zaniness the Americans have designed to increase the length of elections.
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 "f
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Joy! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Joy! (Score:5, Informative)
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: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:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, show me the candidate who doesn't believe in the "eventual" withdraw from Iraq? Well, McCain said he wouldn't mind a permanent troop presence in Iraq, much as we have in Germany or South Korea. But they'd be there as a hammer to wield against Iran, not to promote internal stability.
The point is, everyone (excluding a few neocons who seem to think we have a holy mandate to occupy every country everywhere until the end of time) claims tha