Spring RTS Engine

Any thoughts from people who have been following the American elections (probably more non-Americans than Americans, which is a bit sad, but eh..). Note for people who don't know - this is NOT the main event, just first of the nomination elections (but generally important because it can lead into momentum that carries for the rest of the election season).

Results went something like this:
Dems:
1) Clinton - 39%
2) Obama - 37%
3) Edwards - 17%

Republicans:
1) McCain - 37%
2) Romney - 32%
3) Huckabee - 11%

Ron Paul 8%!!!!

Too bad Obama lost to Hilary with that last minute surge. Its going to be quite a battle now between the two of them. The media are saying the surge was from middle aged and older women as a sympathy vote due to Hilary's breakdown earlier during a rally. I would tend to agree with that.

My first choice from the two parties are Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D). However, I do accept they aren't likely to win the nomination, so I would support Edwards (D) or Obama (D) from the Democrats, and none of the Republican candidates as my second choice.

No candidates that represent me, nothing new.

I would like somebody who takes a clear stance. None of them do on many issues, and the people who try to are usually far distant from me in belief.

What was the vote/party result?

SinbadEV wrote:What was the vote/party result?

Not sure what you mean, nemo has the top 3 from each party above.

SinbadEV wrote:What was the vote/party result?

I have no idea what you mean.

It's worth pointing out that Obama and Clinton both got 8 delegates from this (although everybody is likely to forget this).

Relative wrote:Ron Paul 8%!!!!

Too bad Obama lost to Hilary with that last minute surge. Its going to be quite a battle now between the two of them. The media are saying the surge was from middle aged and older women as a sympathy vote due to Hilary's breakdown earlier during a rally. I would tend to agree with that.

My first choice from the two parties are Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D). However, I do accept they aren't likely to win the nomination, so I would support Edwards (D) or Obama (D) from the Democrats, and none of the Republican candidates as my second choice.

Paul or Kucinich?

they are pretty much complete opposites in some ways.

neddiedrow wrote:No candidates that represent me, nothing new.

I would like somebody who takes a clear stance. None of them do on many issues, and the people who try to are usually far distant from me in belief.

*becomes cynical at age 19*

you're kind of a downer

Paul or Kucinich?

they are pretty much complete opposites in some ways.

I'm not reaslly sure but I think they both go for the "honest politician" vote

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... /state/#NH

We do this in canada sometimes... The total number of votes each party gets lets you know which party is likely to win the riding... int this case the Democratic by a landslide.

tombom wrote:

neddiedrow wrote:No candidates that represent me, nothing new.

I would like somebody who takes a clear stance. None of them do on many issues, and the people who try to are usually far distant from me in belief.

*becomes cynical at age 19*

you're kind of a downer

I was cynical at ten, if I recall.

There are people I would vote for with no regrets, simply not in an American election of this magnitude. I can only hope that some of the people I've discovered over the years survive the rise so that one day I can vote a person I actually trust into a position of power which requires such.

tombom wrote:

Paul or Kucinich?

they are pretty much complete opposites in some ways.

I'm not reaslly sure but I think they both go for the "honest politician" vote

Yeah, they are polar opposites in most areas. Kucinich gets the honest politician vote as tombom suggested, whereas Ron Paul gets a more sincere vote from me because I can identify with his positions the most out of all the candidates.

Edit:

I have American citizenship btw, so I can vote at the federal level.

neddiedrow wrote: I would like somebody who takes a clear stance. None of them do on many issues, and the people who try to are usually far distant from me in belief.

Sadly, Biden has dropped out after a drubbing in Iowa. A shame, he was so much fun to watch in the debates (while Clinton and Obama and Edwards dance around trying to make sure they don't offend anyone or make some tactical mis-step, Biden just spouted acidic, clear answers.)

Sinbad: such numbers are somewhat informative, but given that New Hampshire is such a small state with so few electoral votes (and very high number of independents), I doubt that the breakdown of #s of votes per party will be of much use. While it is certainly interesting that independents seemed to go Dem, very few other states have a comparable % of undecided or unaligned voters.

I think the "sympathy vote" theory is idiotic, personally. It implies that middle aged and older women are incapable of voting with their minds rather than their hearts - something that most women I know would find pretty damn offensive. If anything, I would argue that her surprisingly strong performance in NH is due to 1) a good debate result in comparasion to Obama (broken-record of "change, change, change, change" - which is odd, since he's usually a much better orator), and 2) the difficulty of accurate polling in NH. There are such sharp divides between population centers and regions of the state that any poll that focused even slightly too much in Concord (the capital) or Hanover (college town where Dartmouth - ivy league school - is), would very probably show Obama as WAY ahead. However, Manchester, the biggest city in the state, is decidedly pro-Clinton (less youth).

Not to make a ridiculous prediction too early in the game, but I honestly can't see Obama carrying forwards to success in a general election if he continues to try to ride the youth vote; college kids are notoriously crappy at getting to polls and voting booths.

I think that Obama thought that he could ride through the primary just by being likable, but now he's going to have to take stands and unveil proposals instead of just supporting change in general

Currently Obama has very wide support, so taking positions would inevitably alienate some people, but if he does it right the only advantage Clinton would have is experience, and likability trumps that.

A president surrounds himself with a cabinet of experienced people; s/he doesn't need to have had experience himself, s/he just needs to know how to take advice.

lol@us

Well, I'll be darned. McCain won in New Hampshire. Gonna lol if he continues to win, he was the guy Jr.'s political bosses wanted to squelch the last time around, and we know how that ended

If I were Obama, I'd ask McCain to be Veep right now, win the entire center, center-right and most of the left

TBH, we just need a bigger government, more police, and less of those pesky human rights. This is ammerka aftr al!

I cry voter fraud!

Relative wrote:Ron Paul 8%!!!!

Too bad Obama lost to Hilary with that last minute surge. Its going to be quite a battle now between the two of them. The media are saying the surge was from middle aged and older women as a sympathy vote due to Hilary's breakdown earlier during a rally. I would tend to agree with that.

My first choice from the two parties are Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D). However, I do accept they aren't likely to win the nomination, so I would support Edwards (D) or Obama (D) from the Democrats, and none of the Republican candidates as my second choice.

My friend Sam said the same thing...

Kinda creepy, it is.

I'm fairly proud of my state for getting a decently high participation percentage, compared to the national average.

Apparently Kerry has or is just about to announce his endorsement for obama. I wonder what affect this might have.