Next Stop: New Hampshire
Taos, NM: If you were Bill Richardson, what would you do at this point?
Enjoy the ride and campaign for VP. But at some point he's going to run out of money and get off the debate stage.
Cleveland, OH: Dewey Defeats Truman. Why should we believe another poll or pundit ever again?
The only good thing about Dewey v Truman is that the news media has been getting it wrong for many decades. Some wise person - probably a pundit - noted that it was lamentable how many voters in Iowa and New Hampshire were talking about candidates as if they were pundits themselves, trying to assess who might win by analyzing the polls. If true, that's faintly depressing. Voters should be encouraged to analyze the candidates on their values, policies and character. To the extent that our current style of political reporting has contributed to the punditification of voters, that's a crying shame.
Charleston, SC: Interesting that your colleageus Jon Alter and Howard Fineman pretty much declared Obama the nominee before tonight. What do they say now?
I think they have written about this very subject on this very website.
West Lafayette, IN: Why aren't headlines showing that Obama is leading in delegates and got the most delegates in NH than Hillary? After all, does not the Democaratic candidate with the most delegates win the nomination?
You are right. Delegate counts matter. But delegate counts at this stage are tiny.
St. Charles, IL: Last night as the results started coming in showing Hillary ahead by 2%, a lead she never relinquished, why did MSNBC panelists avoid any discussion of this early lead until it became quite obvious that she might even hold the lead and win? Were they waiting for the "Hanover" vote? Are they still waiting?
The notion of "calling" a race is a difficult one. After 2000, the networks - and the AP - are rightly very cautious about doing so in a close election. New Hampshire was a very close race, so I think their caution was justified.
New Bern, NC: Just because Clinton beqt out Obama by 3 points, does not the fact that Edwards got 17 percent of the vote have a factor? Combined, Clinton does not beat out Obama and Edwards,i.e. these are non-Clinton votes.
Who is to say that all the Edwards votes are non-Clinton?
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: toddless10 @ 01/09/2008 1:09:01 PM
Comment: We shouldn't measure how we vote for someone just because they kissed the cheek of a small child, or paid out thousands of dollars to help people in Katrina, because they were a powerful Senator for a few years, instead we should measure our votes out to people who have the same morals as us, who know what the guy down the street wants, we should vote for someone who can live up to the responsibilities of being President, who can just a normal person who happens to decide the fate of our nation, who can justify their actions and make all people believe in them. Hillary, in your book may be all of these, but she hasn't won my vote. I still see past the little smirk and the pants suit and see someone who has been weak in the past, and will carry that on for the future.
By the way, everyone should do their research before entering the polls, my question to you is how? When there are over 300 million people in our nation, 200 something that can vote, how can you reach every single one of them? A lot of people can't afford any type of technology. I think our candidates should focus more on education, not just in school, but LIFE education. They should focus on helping those families keep up with a fast pace world, either financially, or emotionally. Find a way to get rid of the national debt, and start having a positive cash flow and be able to have plentiful money to help those in need, and I'll vote for you. Until then, we have to rely on the media to tell us whose better than who, we have to rely on our friends who tell us what candidate did what, we have to rely on what information we have to decide who our next president is going to be.
to finish
Lastly, why is this tunneled vision? I want to critize all candidates, but Hillary just sticks out like a sore thumb, sorry. Instead of saying that we should vote for someone just because a lot of people say a lot of bad things about them, and we should give them a pity vote, we should question why are we voting for this particular person and not that one? I challege you to ask yourself what makes Hillary better than any other candidate?
Posted By: toddless10 @ 01/09/2008 1:08:34 PM
Comment: lol, hurray for generalizing New Hampshire. I'm actually pretty sure that the majority of New Hampshire isn't independent thinkers and doesn't do their research. I do not believe they are independent thinkers because they wouldn't vote for Hillary, in fact they more than likely wouldn't vote. They are voting because someone told them to, and they were told that their vote actually makes a difference. This is the only time that a person's vote actually counts, and then, not really. As far as the final vote, we have the Electoral College to tell us who our next president is going to be. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying doing go out and vote. Please do, for then it's not such a burden on your representives to pick for you, they have a more general consensis on who to vote for, and also they wouldn't want to upset the people that put them there hence putting their job on the line. From a capitolist point-of-view the government has a very good chance of being extremely corrupted. Why does it take MILLIONS of dollars to get votes!? Go give Abraham Lincoln millions of dollars (or a few thousand back then) and see what he does with it. I don't think he would spend thousands of dollars on making shiny little buttons that say vote for me.
Yes, Hillary has made several accomplishments throughout her life that make her highly qualified to be our next president. However, do we wish to have someone who has been corrupted on the larger scale? This year, there really isn't any good candidates. Whose fault is that? Our fault. We put too much of our lives into politics that we get clouded of the real reason why we are argueing and bickering. We are trying to elect a leader, not a person who "teared up" at the thought that "omgosh, I MIGHT actually lose." We should want a person who says, "O.K. I'm down, this sucks, perhaps I should just get back up and try again." You don't need to make a big scene of it. Of course, this big scene was allowed to take place because of our lovely media. (Don't get me started on our media.)
Newsweek doesn't need to do a cover story of HIllary, nor any other candidate. Why you ask? Because there are already hundreds of stories. Heck, Hillary has made a book of her own. You should read it.
Posted By: jimc1967 @ 01/09/2008 12:44:35 PM
Comment: I wonder just how sincere the "tearing up" really was. Hillary Clinton is sometimes derided for being calculating, and carefully orchestrating, her political actions. In fact, only last week analysts were talkiing about her fake laughs and forced smiles at campaign events, and a Hillary biography released just last October focused on how she intentionally is emotion-less in public. Both she and Bill Clinton are known for keeping a close check on their public persona's. I don't want to sound like a hater, I suspect she may have even rehearsed it the night before. Did anyone actually see tears in her eyes, or was it simply a quiver in her voice?