Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

McCain, Clinton Win New Hampshire

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the its-that-time-again dept.

United States 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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Joy! (1)

thefatz (97467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967360)

May the best one win!

Re:Joy! (4, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967654)

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.

Michigan meaningless for Dems (4, Informative)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967380)

Michigan was stripped of its delegates [slashdot.org] 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 (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967556)

Yeah,

because we all know how worthless it will be for someone to be perceived as having momentum on their side. Their is certainly no self fulilling "electability" component to the primaries.

Re:Michigan meaningless for Dems (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967594)

Yes. That momentum thing really worked out well for Obama. Good point.

Re:Michigan meaningless for Dems (5, Insightful)

saider (177166) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967962)

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.

Re:Michigan meaningless for Dems (1)

crosson (1204404) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968446)

Don't forget that momo romney has the mad money, and mccain is broke!

Little late (-1, Troll)

iamdug (568944) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967382)

So now news that was reported twelve hours ago through every major new outlet becomes slash dot material.
In that case, did you hear about this writers strike thats going on?

Re:Little late (5, Funny)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967558)

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

Re:Little late (5, Interesting)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967560)

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

Re:Little late (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967614)

Fortunately (or is that unfortunately considering the election will affect us?) we aren't inundated with news on the subject 24/7. 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.

Re:Little late (2, Interesting)

framauro13 (1148721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968400)

It will be 'fortunate' for all nations once George is out of office. While my country's reputation isn't exactly favorable in the international community these days, I hope people realize the difference between the agenda of the George W. Bush administration, and the principles of the United States of America. He's pretty much violated everything our country stands for, and personally, I think the world will be much better off with who ever is next.

This election is probably one of the most important elections in our nation's history.

Re:Little late (2, Funny)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967572)

A writers stirke? No. But I did hear that Mr Hitler and his army invaded Poland. It's a crazy world.

The Candidates don't matter (3, Interesting)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967414)

I, as usual, am less than enthusiastic about our choices for president. It would be nice to have a third party (or better yet a 4th party) who can win a substantial part of the vote and a significant chunk of congress (10-20 votes in the house and 5 in the senate and be very powerful)

I voted for Badnarik last time but I don't see the Libertarians even putting forth a palatable candidate this year.

I'll be satisfied as long as some Bible (or other religious book of choice) Thumping lunatic doesn't win and try to control my private life even more.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (2, Informative)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967474)

Ron Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (-1, Troll)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967742)

Who is embracing the KKK and the Communist party. Pardon me if I don't vote for him. And since the libertarian party is trying to get him to run for them I don't expect to be able to vote for them either.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21967932)

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.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

gebbeth (720597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967982)

Who is embracing the KKK and the Communist party.

The KKK and the Communist party? What hole have you been buried in all year. You have clearly been taking someone else's account on this and have done NO research for yourself. Ron Paul is neither a Communist nor a racist. The man has a Congressional record going back 30 years that supports this. He wants to do away with the income tax (very Communist indeed!) He wants people to be treated fairly (very racist indeed). If he isn't for some government interference program like affirmative action, its because the very nature of that sort of program is RACIST. He wants the federal government out of your life (another of those communist themes he supports) and he wants you to be able to be free to decide for yourself how you conduct business and associate with others. These concepts are the very foundation of Freedom. Anytime an individual looks to the government he surrenders a little bit of that Freedom and cumulatively over the last hundred years we have lost ALOT of it. If you really were a libertarian, you would understand these concepts. It seems that you are just another government thrall. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you are my countryman!

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968322)

Just listen to what Ron Paul's own supporters have to say about him [stormfront.org] .

Oh, and did I mention he took money from those people?

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968340)

Besides the desperate lack of formatting your point is the only reason I haven't rule Paul out. Now that said I'm gunna cut my losses and take my beating like a bad little moron who doesn't get nearly enough time to do research yet (I'll have more in April when I get back to the states)

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968014)

Really? Can you point to his outward support of either group to back up that well poisoning?

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??? I'm so sick of one moron telling me "I'll take care of your children" and another idiot telling me they'll build a fence to keep the "bad guys" out.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968142)

It wouldn't matter as much to me if his campaign didn't hem and haw over the issue. Take a stance (I prefer the it's their money let them contribute it where they see fit stance for this.) This makes him no better than the rest of the field to me and in some ways less palatable. I don't know who I will vote for yet, but I do not like any of the candidates. As for pure political stance I AM closest to Ron Paul.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (2, Funny)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968154)

There was that fund raiser Ron Paul had a while back where he had both Communists and KKK members present. To one of the Klansmen he said:

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 fund raiser, we'd be all alone.

Too bad Ron Paul's son Eric and his black manservant Jack had to spoil it all by exposing the party for what it really was.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968188)

Thank you I need a good laugh dealing such a frustrating topic.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968498)

Ron Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican.
But is he likely to run as (L) once he fails to win the (R) nomination?

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967656)

So who will you be voting for?

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967802)

Christopher Walken - http://www.walken2008.com/ [walken2008.com]

Re:The Candidates don't matter (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967756)

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.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967882)

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.
Actually, I could imagine Joe Bruno making a good President. He's been the man behind the curtain here in NY long enough.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967994)

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:The Candidates don't matter (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968350)

I could see Shelly getting the Senate appointment or some other good party member like Cuomo or Carl McCall. Given all current circumstances but a Republican governor apointing Bruno would be a mistake. His strong man tactics are the only thing holding the narrow Republican margin in the Senate. Once he retires/dies the State will sink into the Blue morass; that'll be the last you ever hear from us up-staters.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968502)

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?
Why, Bill of course!

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968192)

I agree, I've voted for Hillary before and she's a great stateswoman, but I think Obama will do the best job uniting the country as president.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

PowerEdge (648673) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968398)

The only people who think Giuliani is running his entire campaign based purely on 9/11 are not either listening to him, but rather listening to his detractors, and they are not reading his policy statements, and understanding that 9/11 shouldn't be taken off the table either. It figures into his foreign policy outlook as well as certain domestic policies. Giuliani can't escape 9/11 it happened on his watch, in his city. But, he has much more substance than that. Really, though, it is those who fear a Giuliani nomination that are pushing the Giuliani is running on 9/11 only notion.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

wannabe-retiree (845754) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968414)

Nice post. I agree with you on Ron Paul (my first choice) and Barack Obama (my second favorite). The point I'd like to challenge you on is McCain kissing the ass of the religious right. I hear that a lot and while I understand the sentiment, I don't think it's a problem. As far as I can tell, he hasn't adopted any new policies based on the religious right. He appears with constituents that I might find repugnant, but until he starts speaking like them, he's still fine with me. He used to call out those people in unflattering terms, but now he meets with them and acknowledges where they agree and where they disagree. That's the mark of a more mature statesman in my mind.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968426)

I'm actually hoping for a Obama ticket from the Dems. I have some reservations about Ron Paul I will be looking further into but I would love to see other real outsiders take the ticket.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967968)

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.

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:The Candidates don't matter (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968310)

There aren't that many non-religious control freaks in the political arena.

Re:The Candidates don't matter (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968354)

It's only the non-secular control freaks that bother you?
Yes. They aren't trying to start WWIII so Jebus can show up.

fuck the news media (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967450)

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 (1)

s!lat (975103) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967636)

Thats why there's EBay. Sell your vote to the highest bidder. After all, if its good enough for Congress it should be good enough for the people. *warning: Your local and or Federal election laws may prohibit this activity. Please discontinue use in case of incarceration or oppression.*

Re:fuck the news media (5, Insightful)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967748)

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 (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967830)

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, which I haven't been able to say in a long time about a candidate for Federal office. Regardless, I still fail to see how the media spending hours talking about Hillary's tears and whether or not they were "real" is a productive use of time.

Clinton/Obama *TIED* in New Hampshire (5, Informative)

Torodung (31985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967808)

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 [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:Clinton/Obama *TIED* in New Hampshire (1)

Steve525 (236741) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968044)

That's right: Clinton took 9 delegates and Obama took 9 delegates in NH. Edwards took the remaining 4.

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:Clinton/Obama *TIED* in New Hampshire (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968268)

The media's playing the "let's distract the populace" game...

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:fuck the news media (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21967824)

Would you want a president that starts crying in front of foreign leaders because foreign policy is just darn too difficult?

Re:fuck the news media (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968022)

"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 (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968082)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21968200)

Fuck the news media.


NO. You will very definitely catch one of those...venerable diseases...doing that.

Re:fuck the news media (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968238)

Positions do matter, but I think the "Style" parts do matter too, because I have little faith that a typical politician, especially a Clinton, can hold a position on principle.

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's done similar, though not quite as often as I can tell.

Re:fuck the news media (1)

ConanG (699649) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968394)

They talk about her tears and not her policy because anyone really interested can find out how she stands on various policies. This isn't 40 years ago. We have the internet and we can easily research any candidate we want to a pretty deep level. The television news is completely unsuited to such a level of detail required to make informed decisions. The best they could hope to do is paint a very broad picture of each candidate... which they do.

They know this, so instead they focus on anything that will capture people's attention. They can easily cover Hillary breaking down in little clips and bites here and there. To cover her stances on various issues would require a large chunk of uninterrupted time (in addition to every other meaningful candidate). That won't keep people tuned in, most people will turn away before learning anything meaningful, and too many people won't be able to tune in anyway due to scheduling. In short, it would be pointless and non-profitable.

Wake me up when it's over... (-1, Flamebait)

spywhere (824072) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967466)

I will vote against the Republican nominee, no matter who wins the Democratic primary race. I would prefer John Edwards, but he won't be winning this one. Hopefully, Ho-bama (whoever wins) will make him Veep.

I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal: Democrats go to meetings.

Same ol' same ol' (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967472)

They may as well run a McCain/Clinton vs. Clinton/McCain ticket in the general election.

Being a non-USA-ian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21967492)

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.

Re:Being a non-USA-ian (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21967536)

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.

Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (0, Troll)

bconway (63464) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967516)

The only major candidate who wants to immediately withdraw from Iraq...
The only candidate who has a grasp of economics....
The only candidate who will protect social security for the elderly...
The only candidate who understands how to fight inflation...
The only candidate who understands if you give up liberty for security you have neither...
RON PAUL
www.ronpaul2008.com [ronpaul2008.com]

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (0, Troll)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967562)

The only candidate who is certified bat-shit crazy.... Google "the New Republic Ron Paul". Some interesting Ron Paul newsletters from the 80's and 90's were reported on yesterday. Essentially, the guy is a homophobic, anti-semitic, racist douchebag.

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (3, Insightful)

Manchot (847225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967834)

And before any of the Paulites offer a retort like, "Ron Paul says he didn't even write the newsletter," consider this. Whether he did or did not read the newsletter is completely irrelevant. The quotes are not isolated: for example, the entire "article" about the L.A. riots is a six-page racist tirade. Moreover, they span over a fifteen year period. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that one of two things is true. Either a) Ron Paul read the newsletter and tacitly approved of what his ghost writer wrote or b) he didn't read the newsletter which he lent his name and support to once in fifteen years. Neither speaks well about his integrity.

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968206)

Agreed here. If he disapproved of the newsletter, he should have stamped it out VERY quickly, and not let it linger as long as it did.

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968196)

Do you really how crazy you sounded just now?

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968348)

To a Ron Paul supporter, I can imagine that logic would be a crazy thing.

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

Manchot (847225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968444)

Have you at least looked through the TNR article? It's not just a few quotes or isolated pieces contained therein: it's dozens, and maybe even hundreds, spanning over fifteen years.

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967606)

Yay! Ron Paul.

Although I reckon it will take something of a miracle for a Republican to win so why does it matter?

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

crerwin (971247) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967692)

He also opposes abortion rights, stem cell research, and net neutrality. Oh, and he doesn't 'believe' in evolution. What a great candidate.

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968064)

He also opposes abortion rights, stem cell research, and net neutrality. Oh, and he doesn't 'believe' in evolution. What a great candidate.
How is this relevant to a candidate who holds that the federal government has no say, either way, in those issues?

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

gebbeth (720597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968250)

He also opposes abortion rights, stem cell research, and net neutrality. Oh, and he doesn't 'believe' in evolution. What a great candidate.

And he also believes that the Federal government should have no say in any of these issues. These were the foundations that the country was founded upon, that the Federal government has very limited powers as stated in the Constitution and that the states and the people get the rest of the power. This is the very foundation of freedom. How free are you if you look to the government to decide everything for you? NOT FREE AT ALL! Oh sure, you are free to buy a television or go fishing or participate in any number of distracting pastimes, but how many things can't you do? Abortion rights and stem cell research should be decided by state and county governments. The Federal government should have no say in what is taught in schools...that should be decided by local school boards where people are most represented and the value system of a local area can be represented in a school. No child left behind equates to all children left behind! With all of the rules made at the Federal level you are lost to the tyranny of the masses as politicians bribe the populace into submission...at the local level you are most represented. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for lunch...thats why we live (supposedly) in a Republic, but more and more power has been consolidated at the Federal level and the Republic is going bye bye. But you are clearly going to accept the status quo that you grew up in and ignore the police state growing up around us. If you are actually open minded, you might check out Naomi Wolf's book: "End of America"

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (4, Interesting)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967718)

The only candidate who has a grasp of economics....

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 (1)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967796)

The only major candidate who wants to immediately withdraw from Iraq...

This alone proves he's a fucking moron and shouldn't win.

Eventual withdrawal from Iraq = good thing
Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, causing complete collapse of what little stability is there now = bad thing

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968346)

I don't believe we have ever been a force for stability in Iraq.

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 that, if the country ever becomes able to "govern itself", we should massively draw down our presence in Iraq. But I don't believe we should wait nearly that long, and I think our presence in Iraq promotes violence and makes the Shia-run central government unwilling to make the compromises necessary to get the Sunnis involved in the political process.

If you decide to respond, please start off with a definition of "eventual".

Re:Think for yourself, don't let the TV do it (1)

gebbeth (720597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968396)

We invaded a sovereign nation in a war that has lasted longer than WWII. We went in there to depose Sadam Hussein and to make sure he had no WMD's. We have succeeded on both counts...WE WON the war. Its time to come home. We did not go to Iraq to combat terror. Sadam's regime was actually anti-terror because terrorists would have been a rogue element in his society that would have undermined his authority which was absolute. I am not saying the man was a nice guy, but he wasn't a terrorist. We went into and now occupy Iraq and terrorism has been pervasive as long as we have been in there. We are occupying a country. Would you be upset if China had troops all over America (don't just dismiss it as impossible...actually imagine it!)? I would certainly be upset if there were Chinese or German or any other nation's troops stationed in America for our supposed good. These people are upset that we are in their country and that we have been in interfering in their countries for the last sixty years. Our CIA has meddled and disrupted governments and caused revolutions and generally destabilized the whole region all without the general consent of the US populace. Some of these facts are verifiable from documents which have been declassified. One such event is in the 50's when we took the leader of Iran who was secular and pro-west and caused a revolution against him. In his place the west had installed a military dictator. People don't forget this sort of thing! We need to get out of Iraq because it was a mistake to go there, it costs us BILLIONS of dollars which we are getting from China and Japan in the form of loans and because we really aren't doing any good there. Our economy is literally being stretched to its limits (have you noticed the weak dollar of late?) over this war. We just can't afford it. Do some research on our financial system and the foundation of the Federal Reserve. You will find out just how our monetary system works and why its causing the country's economy to collapse.

Americans, they never learn... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21967522)

Clinton winning something? I hope this doesn't become a trend, we've already had to put up with 8 yrs of you electing an idiot to dictate international policy, please don't make us put up with it any longer.

Might as well just let your grandmas dictate international policy if you're going to let Clinton in.

Of course this post is lost here as most Slashdot users do actually have a clue, but can you lot at least go out and castrate and/or remove all those that apparently don't?

Ron Paul Denouement (4, Insightful)

fishdan (569872) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967548)

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.

Dude, he almost beat Rudy... (1)

spywhere (824072) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967566)

If he had done just a little better and out-polled Gu9/11ani, I would have needed a roll of paper towels to clean up my happiness.

Re:Ron Paul Denouement (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967616)

Well, if anything it makes Fox News look like total idiots for inviting Fred Thompson to their debate instead of Ron Paul, considering Thompson received 1% of the votes and Paul 8%. It is a little disheartening for Paul fans, but it's a long trail so hopefully he'll pick up momentum somewhere.

Re:Ron Paul Denouement (1)

scottyokim (898934) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967668)

Um, you don't have to wait to volunteer. Operation Live Free or Die occurred in your neighbor state. You can walk your own precinct. You can join your local meetup group. You can organize your own sign waves. The message certainly doesn't get out if we all are waiting for the call ...

Re:Ron Paul Denouement (1)

WaZiX (766733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968046)

Ron Paul wants to reinstate the Gold Standard... IMHO, anyone who can possibly want to revert to that outdated system just cannot be taken seriously...

Re:Ron Paul Denouement (1)

yamamushi (903955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968450)

Yeah, cause printing money without anything backing up makes a lot more sense.

Re:Ron Paul Denouement (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968086)

The problem with Ron Paul's campaigns is that it's so similar to Dean's in 2004 - a wide, broad, and shallow base. Most of the campaign workers for NH were from out-of-state - I read one column where the reporter couldn't find a single New Hampshire native in the room.

Re:Ron Paul Denouement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21968254)

But the message is not getting our there. And I'm not sure why.

I think the message has gotten out loud and clear: vote for Ron Paul if you want to eliminate federal funding of roads, universities, social security, medicare, the EPA, the IRS, and a return to the gold standard and use of "letters of marquee"... in other words, vote for Ron Paul if you want to bring America back to the robber baron Gilded Age.

Most people rightly assume that an authoritarian like Guiliani would run the country better than someone who doesn't even want a government at all.

Re:Ron Paul Denouement (1)

Palshife (60519) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968342)

I'm willing to bet that most /.ers are not enamored with Ron Paul.

Re:Ron Paul Denouement (1)

gebbeth (720597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968482)

I signed up to make phone calls, hold signs, do anything. I was never contacted or asked to do anything.
OMG! Why are you waiting for someone to tell you what to do? Go find a meetup group (www.meetup.com) that supports Ron Paul in your area and if there isn't one, then go create one. Don't wait for someone to tell you what to do..you know what do do...call people hold sings...you just said so. Just go out and do it and other people will find you. Be a leader, get involved. I at first thought that Ron Paul would do very well because I just assumed that all of the people who saw his message of Freedom would leap up and be active and campaign for him like me, but it looks as though I was mistaken and that many of his "supporters" just expect other people to do it for them, they don't want to be involved in self government (which is really what our country was founded upon). There were originally never any career politicians, the legislature met several times a year and the people went back to their day jobs the rest of the time. Government has gotten too large and invasive and we literally have to take our country back. This is not going to happen with anyone sitting next to their phone waiting for someone to call to tell them what to do. I respect that you want Ron Paul to be president, but ask yourself if you really "support" him.

You understand? Then explain it (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968486)

What is the point of comparing the price of oil with the price of gold?

Oil is bought with dollars (Venezuela and Iraq both considered switching to euros, guess which two countries the US didn't like) not gold. This is actually important, it is considered one of the things to help keep the dollar somewhat alive.

Gold is also not nearly as stable as people seem to think. So explain why this connection should be so clear and what it all means.

I have read up on Ron Paul and the couple of policies that he has sound intresting until you start to wonder how to actually implement them.

End the war. Oh goodie, another vietnam style strategic withdrawal (read route, if you are dumping your helicopts overboard to make room for new refugees, you ain't withdrawing, you are running)? The US made the mess, would be nice if you clean it up first before you go back home. It don't matter if you are pro or anti the war, it is a fact and you have to deal with it and you can't just runaway.

Cut spending. Another lovely one. I got a way to cut spending right here. NO SALARY FOR THE PRESIDENT and he pays rent for the whitehouse and buys his own airline tickets. Wanna bet NONE of these simple spending cuts will be taken up? On a larger level, you just can't cut spending. It just never works out, even if you try to do it for real and massively re-organize the state, the cost of the re-organisation will take years to re-coup in savings. Companies know this, that is why big companies when they make cuts in staff to save money ALWAYS reserve extra cash to pay for it. Saving money costs money. It gets even worse in big projects because the money you are cutting is somebodies income. Close a department and you are firing people, never a good idea for somebody who is elected by a popularity contest.

A policy of cutting spending is like a good intention with no actuall plan attached. Show me where you are going to cut spending, how you are going to deal with the sideeffects and how much it is going to cost to achieve in the first place.

Removing the income tax, another idiotic scheme. Sure it can be done, but it would require a massive change and is going to upset a lot of people. Voting people. It would basically force a radical change on how the US funds itself and what it can and cannot do. How are politicians going to buy votes with pork projects if there is no cash?

No Ron Paul is just another smooth talking figure head who promises everything that people like you want to hear without actually ever going into how he thinks he is going to achieve any of this.

In the Netherlands we got something called the "rekenkamer" (mathchamber) which during campaigns checks the various political parties agenda's for financial soundness (normaly they check the goverments policies). They don't judge right or wrong, just wether the financial side of it all makes sense. Promise free public transport, abolish taxes all fine with them, but the figures have to match up.

Perhaps the US should do something similar, check all the politicians promises and do the math.

Why Hillary? (3, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967618)

I mean, I can live with Hillary - but for the life of me, I can't empathize with why someone would vote FOR her.

To my understanding, despite the usual 'common sense' about presidents, presidents don't make so many actual decisions of their own volition. They veto or sign bills into law. They have limited abilities to make executive orders (despite Bush's attempts to expand this). They guide some military decisions under some circumstances. They really don't guide much actual lawmaking beyond veto threats and ceremonial suggestions.

The key part about a presidential candidate to me is that most of their role is to give speeches, and represent us to the world. The part where I have no empathy with those who vote for Hillary is why anyone would choose to have Hillary Clinton represent them in that capacity. True, she's not the worst candidate in that capacity - but she just seems to have the worst personality for my tastes out of the Democratic candidates.

What is it in Hillary that makes people want her to represent them? Or is it really more of a strategic choice for those voting for her?

Ryan Fenton

Re:Why Hillary? (1)

rizzo420 (136707) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968020)

the threat of veto is actually quite powerful. look at it now with a democratic congress that has too few votes to override the veto. the only case where a president has no power is when congress is so overpowering that even a veto doesn't work.

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 want signed into law.

i think a vote for hillary is stupid. she's got about as much charisma as gore (who still lacks it even though he's become some sort of superhero for people). she's a politician and doesn't really care about much other than her political career. the same can be said about obama, but he seems to be a bit more genuine.

ron paul, while he claims to be a libertarian is so far against actual rights and progress that i don't consider him to be a good candidate. sure, he might want the states to decide everything, but he also has the power to put a hardcore right winger in the supreme court (another power of the president that's pretty important).

i'm still all about dennis kucinich, who has no chance at winning, so my vote may end up going towards obama (the guy kucinich said to vote for). though i wouldn't mind seeing john edwards win either. i think the dream team would be obama/edwards.

Re:Why Hillary? (3, Interesting)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968060)

You're still thinking of the old presidency. Pre-9/11 mentality and all that. Under the new presidency, the President can have anyone, anywhere detained, tortured, executed, spied upon, or forbidden from using any mode of transport more advanced than Greyhound. He can funnel substantial fractions of our ginormous military budget to private contractors run by the President's political contributors. He can use the Justice Department to fight "political corruption" among the opposing party. He can exonerate those who broke the law while doing his bidding. He can use the military against any target in the world, without further Congressional approval.

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:Why Hillary? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968476)

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 don't know but it would be interesting if we could see who the opposing parties would like to see as president from each others current pool. I think the Republicans might just warm up to Clinton.

I'll be deeply disappointed if the next President of the United States does not immediately divest him/herself of all these newfound powers.

Be prepared to be disappointed. I just don't see how the voting public is so easily duped into thinking that these people are going to make such swinging reforms. We keep seeing the same cycle of bad noise and people keep eating it up. But what can you expect out of a populous that has kept Survivor on TV for 8 or 9 years.

Re:Why Hillary? (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968136)

They'd vote for Hillary, likely, because Bill is such a known quantity. I think there's this misguided hope that having her as President will get him out in the public eye more, and he's undoubtedly charismatic...whatever else one might think of him. And I've heard a fair number of people talking about voting for her strictly for the novelty of electing the first female President. No concerns for whether she might do a good job, or what she stands for. Just that they'll be breaking that barrier.

Re:Why Hillary? (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968144)

It seems like the primary voters (in NH, at least) are still weary of Obama's chances at winning a general election - when they should be more concerned about HRC's chances given her huge negative numbers.
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 (5, Interesting)

Confessed Geek (514779) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967662)


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!

This might be good news for Obama... (5, Insightful)

wbren (682133) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967682)

If Obama can come within 2% of winning in a state that is about 97% white [wikipedia.org] , 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:This might be good news for Obama... (1)

Jeremy.DeGroot (878927) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967908)

It would be even more heartening to point out that last week he won Iowa [barackobama.com] , which is just as white [iowadatacenter.org] .

Re:This might be good news for Obama... (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968010)

I think it's unfair to think that had something to do with the loss. He won in a state that's just a white. The key difference between this vote and the last one was we didn't have an emotional moment from Hillary taking up a significant portion of media time before the first election.

Re:This might be good news for Obama... (2, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968214)

Obama, being bi-racial, is just as much white as he is black. Given that racism, particularly in the North, is strongly diminished from what it once was, I seriously doubt that had any bearing on his close loss in the state. Or are we going to start automatically assuming that all of his losses are rooted in racism, and couldn't possibly be because people just liked another candidate more?

Whatever you think of the result (3, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#21967790)

it is certainly among the more interesting of the possible outcomes. It is hard to think of a result that would keep the race more wide open.

HRC would have been deeply wounded by a loss in NH. She would have had to drag her status of "former frontrunner" into a primary for an election Democrats passionately hope to win. Obama doesn't get unambiguous frontrunner status, but he doesn't lose viability either. The close head to head competition between HRC and Obama gives a tiny sliver of hope to Edwards. If HRC and Obama battle each other to a standstill, he might be able to engineer a victory in SC or a strong second place in FL, and be still in the running by Super Tuesday (Feb 5).

It is even possible for a third place finisher overall to win the nomination. By Democratic party rules, almost 20% of the convention delegates will be unpledged. Suppose the big three go into the convention with something like this: 30% for HRC, 25% for Obama, 15% for Edwards. Edwards could win if the HRC/Obama fight is seen by the unpledged delegates as splitting the party.

On the Republican side, things are just as interesting. Republicans have always preferred a candidate that their party can unite behind for victory, which is why you heard some evangelicals making noises of support for Giuliani when he was in his ascendancy. There is no such candidate yet. Huckabee can potentially pull of a win in SC, and he may walk away from FL with a large hunk of the 57 delegates up for grabs in FL, which awards delegates on a district by district basis. McCain is merely back in the race; he is vulnerable on immigration, and it seems unlikely he will build up any kind of aura of invincibility by Feb 5. However he will be a force to be reckoned with.

The media is counting Romney out, but this is malarkey. Romney has only don poorly compared to (press fabricated) expectations. Two second place finished and a first in a race with no clear front runner is nothing to be sneezed at. Even if he does poorly in SC and FL, he goes into Super Teusday with a huge advantage: money. It won't be possible to press the flesh in all 19 states, so the campaign will be waged largely by advertising; advertising to a population of people who may not have been paying that much attention up to now, and a ripe for some early impression manipulation.

It is even remotely possible for somebody farther down in the Republican standings to score an upset before Feb 5, which would result in a log of free attention.

Overall, we're looking at very competitive races all around, which is a good thing. The candidates are also hitting their stride, under the pressure of competition they're working as hard as I can ever remember at figuring out what it takes to connect with voters. It's looking like we'll see a more interesting and less conventional fight than we've seen in our lifetime.

Chuck-abee (2, Interesting)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968008)

How much of Huckabees success comes from the endorsement of Chuck Norris? And as much as I like the aging martial artist, I don't think HE'D be as popular as he is without the internet.

While we're at it, Obama has Opra's backing and Opra controls how many minds?

an opinion from Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21968032)

Am I an idiot or Hillary looks to me as a republican in a democrat dress?
If I lived in the US I'd probably be independent or democrat, but if I had to choose between only her or any other republican I'd probably vote a republican (save maybe Giuliani, and I'm italian).

Nothing quite like half coverage (2, Interesting)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968038)

So, why exactly is it that there wasn't a story posted when Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus?

The current delegate count (4, Informative)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21968162)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?