Kos is a (fiscal) Conservative!

The man himself sez about Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich's complaint:

I find it somewhat amusing that so many people are demanding the taxpayers of New Hampshire indulge their paranoia by paying for a recount. What I'm not seeing, however, is an effort to raise the money to pay for such a recount. It seems that no one wants to put their money where their mouth is. It's much easier to spread rumors and baseless allegations than it is to actually do something concrete about it.

Kos adds:

Again, if the people making unsupported allegations want to pay for a recount, all the power to them. That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. But ante up the cash. If they are so convinced that fraud exists, they can even justify the expense as an opportunity to have me and other skeptics in the reality based community eat some serious crow. But other than Kucinich putting a $2,000 down payment toward the cost of that recount, I haven't seen any efforts to raise that money.

If a candidate loses by more than three percentage points, a candidate may demand a recount in New Hampshire, but only if he or she pays for it.

I can only imagine that Rep Kucinich thinks he should have got FEWER votes than the write-ins(*) (figures from Washington Post):

New Hampshire Democratic Party Primary
Candidate name	votes	%
Bill Richardson	13,245	5
Dennis Kucinich	3,912	1
Total write-ins	3,076	1

Hmm. I find Kos making a lot of sense. Reminds of his proposal of what to do with John Kerry's campaign team in 2004.

I also agree with Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary on January 15. If I were a Democrat, the people I would not to face are: Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain (Arizona). (OK if it looked like they could lose to Ron Paul or Fred Thompson, this would set back the liberals 50 years, but I'm talking about someone who the Dems think could beat them.) So it makes total sense to have Democrats for Romney. I like the logo too.




(*) Some elections allow a voter to write-in the name of the candidate who isn't on the ballot.

I'm at the Putney Debates tonight

I'm the last minute change of speaker for the Putney Debates in London tonight. The title of my talk is ‘Change at the Top: How the US Election Process Works and What are the Opportunities for Ron Paul?’

My audience will mostly be British so it's mostly about explaining just how decentralized the U.S. electoral system is. Because anyone turning up is likey to be a Libertarian, I shall be concentrating on Ron Paul's campaign and what he can realistically hope to achieve. I shall try to post a summary of the talk somewhere.

For details, see the Libertarian Alliance blog. Time: 7.30pm (GMT).

Quicks thoughts on New Hampshire: Live Free or Die of Boredom

I don't recall opinion polls getting it this wrong since 1987 in the U.K. General Election, although maybe 1992 was also as bad.

Unless Barak Obama wins at least 70% of the remaining votes to count, he has come second to Hillary Clinton.

The Republican results are nearer the polls.

Yet again, Democrats outvoted Republicans in a battleground state. And the Democrat counting was faster for at least the early part of the evening. In November, this will translate into early declarations by the networks for the Democratic Party candidate and will influence voters further West (Colorado, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington), as they will still be voting when the Democrat victory will have been announced.

Ron Paul didn't quite match Rudy Giuliani. However, when was the last time someone focused the policy element his speech on the abolition of the Federal Reserve?

Final thought for know: Hillary Clinton, John McCain. This does nothing to enhance New Hampshire's reputation as an independent minded state. Very dull. Live Free or Die of Boredom.

Election thread

02:56
Spoke too soon: McCain lead down to 6% over Romney, Clinton down to 2% over Obama. Ron Paul 1% behind Giuliani.

02:42
Turning in.
Final count as I write:
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 49,941 39%
Barack Obama 45,850 36%
John Edwards 21,299 17%
with 48% results in.
(Exit polls now project Clinton win by 2%)

Republicans
John McCain 36,685 37%
Mitt Romney 31,085 31%
Mike Huckabee 11,506 12%
Rudy Giuliani 8,639 9%
Ron Paul 7,811 8%
with 47% of results in.
Fred Thompson is on about 1%.





02:18
HEH. Romney creeps into the 30%, McCain's 37%, with two thirds of votes to count, there's still time to start thinking of recounts...

02:08
My Twitter comment: " Turning in soon. Hillary looks very good in early results. Paul close to Giuliani. Obama underdelivers."

02:04
Kos is worried.

02:02
Over at the RealClearPolitics blog:

8:58 PM Michael Barone just said he thinks Hillary Clinton has a "good chance" of winning tonight. That would be an unreal outcome given the events of the last few days and the overwhelming amount of polling data showing her trailing Obama. - TOM BEVAN

01:57
Perry de Havilland writes: "If Ron Paul can only do single figures in NH, he is going to be pointless from our perspective."
Well it's less than 200 votes between Giuliani and Paul as I write. And it is becoming clear that it's going to be an open fight for some time.
Clinton staying clear of Obama still. Any conspiracy theories yet?

01:27
Credit where it's due. Washington Post has a quick loading quick reporting set of pages od results. In Iowa, they were far, far better than the Republicans at getting Republican results out.
Dems
Reps


01:22
The bad news: Clinton 5 points up to 40%-35%
The good news: Giuliani and Paul tied at 9%.

01:19
Democrats are outscoring Republicans again in a battleground state. Good for the Democrats again.

01:14
John McCain is projected to win the Republican vote. Clinton leads Obama 38%-36%.
Giuliani 9%, Paul 8%.

01:02
Polls closed in New Hampshire.
John McCain, the blogosphere's enemy, is leading the Republican field.
Hillary Clinton edging it in the urban districts (37% to Obama's 36%).
UPDATE: 00:43
From Drudge.
OBAMA 36; CLINTON 37; EDWARDS 17; RICHARDSON 4; KUCINICH 2...
MCCAIN 38; ROMNEY 29; HUCKABEE 11; PAUL 8; GIULIANI 9; THOMPSON 1...

00:39
Obama 37% Clinton 35%
Ron Paul 6%, Giuliani 8%

00:38 GMT Earliest figures showed Clinton ahead of Obama, but like Iowa, Obama is clawing back. Obama 36% Clinton 36%.

Voting still going on in some precincts with paper ballots, this will delay matters.

Why does New Hampshire matter?

New Hampshire has a pretty good record as state that votes the same way as the country as whole, despite not being typical from a demographic point of view.

In 2004, John Kerry famously claimed that all he had to do was win there to overturn the 2000 defeat of Al Gore. He was wrong of course, because the 200 Census meant Kerry needed 11 extra electoral college votes than Gore needed the previous time.

Here's the record of New Hampshire in presidential elections since 1972:
1972: Richard Nixon (Republican, winner)
1976: Gerald Ford (Republican, loser)
1980: Ronald Reagan (Republican, winner)
1984: Ronald Reagan (Republican, winner)
1988: George HW Bush (Republican, winner)
1992: Bill Clinton (Democrat, winner)
1996: Bill Clinton (Democrat, winner)
2000: George W Bush (Republican, winner)
2004: John Kerry (Democrat, loser)

Two losers in nine elections ain't bad. I'd settle for that prediction ratio myself.

Another win for Barak Obama kills any notion (assuming anyone not on the Clinton payroll needs convincing) that a black man can't win a U.S. presidential election. The Clintons look so 1990s...

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani really needs to start getting some votes. I love having a former Libertarian Party candidate for President (Ron Paul) outscoring him, but come on! The G.O.P. nomination looks as wide open as ever.

Clinton (Hillary)... NUL POINTS!

For non-European readers, the title of this post is a reference to our version of presidential primaries, the Eurovision Song Contest, or the cultural atrocity to end them all.

Two little hamlets in New Hampshire, Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, have an exemption which allows them to close the polling station as soon after midnight on election day as all the registered electors have been to cast their votes. So we have our first tallies of the the day.

Dixville Notch:
Barak Obama (Democrat): 7 votes
John McCain (Republican): 4
John Edwards (Democrat): 2
Mitt Romney (Republican): 2
Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 1
Bill Richardson (Democrat): 1
Hillary Clinton (Democrat): NUL POINTS
Mike Huckabee (Republican): 0
Ron Paul (Republican): 0
Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

Hart's Location:
Barak Obama (Democrat): 9 votes
John McCain (Republican): 6
Mike Huckabee (Republican): 5
Ron Paul (Republican): 4
Hillary Clinton (Democrat): 3
John Edwards (Democrat): 1
Mitt Romney (Republican): 1
Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 0
Bill Richardson (Democrat): 0
Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

So the total so far in New Hampshire is:
Democrats:
1. Barak Obama (Democrat): 16 votes
2. Hillary Clinton (Democrat): 3
2. John Edwards (Democrat): 3
4. Bill Richardson (Democrat): 1

Republicans:
1. John McCain (Republican): 10
2. Mike Huckabee (Republican): 5
3. Ron Paul (Republican): 4
4. Mitt Romney (Republican): 3
5. Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 1
6. Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

To say that this would be catastrophic for Clinton, Giuliani, Romney and to a lesser extent Richardson and Thompson is not too extreme, if these tallies were proportionately repeated across New Hampshire. No I'm not predicting. But it looks terrible for Mrs Clinton. Level with Edwards here is a very poor showing.