In Michigan, a state John Kerry won in 2004 with a 3.42% lead over an unpopular George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton scored 55% in an effectively uncontested election.
Now pretend she has a Republican opponent in November.
You can see why the Republicans reckon they have a chance against the New York Senator. Let's not forget that she has vastly more resources than all her opponents combined, if we include the backing from George Soros' proxies, for example.
If I had to define "divisive"...
About the turnout, here's the score:
Democratic votes total= 592,798
Republican votes total= 867,577
Now the question is, how much did Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney affect this result? Did a lot of Democrats stay at home? Or is Michigan the first hard evidence that Republicans might do better in 2008 after George W. Bush?
My guess is that the wrong Democratic party candidate could get hammered in November. But so could the wrong Republican. A communicator like Ronald Reagan against Clinton-Edwards-Obama on current form would probably take the 50 states, leaving the District of Columbia to cling to. As for Bill Clinton against the current Republican field? No need for Ross Perot or an Oklahoma bombing.
1/16/2008
Ron Paul hanging in there
The LA Times has noticed Ron Paul "thumped" Giuliani and Thomson In Michigan. Overall, Representative Ron Paul (Texas) is ahead of both Giuliani and Thompson, both of whom have to do well in at least one of South Carolina, Nevada and Florida. Thanks to the "Ronbots," he has more cash than his closest rivals. As he is putting out an ideological message rather than merely seeking the nomination, there is every reason to assume Ron Paul will stick around.
Here's the "popular vote" from Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Michigan for the Republicans.
I made this from data here.
Here's the "popular vote" from Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Michigan for the Republicans.
| Candidate | Popular Vote | % |
| Romney, Mitt | 443,139 | 36.18% |
| McCain, John S. | 361,546 | 29.52% |
| Huckabee, Mike | 207,308 | 16.93% |
| Paul, Ron | 84,554 | 6.90% |
| Thompson, Fred Dalton | 50,925 | 4.16% |
| Giuliani, Rudolph W. | 49,198 | 4.02% |
| Uncommitted | 17,971 | 1.47% |
| Others | 4,796 | 0.39% |
| Hunter, Duncan | 4,567 | 0.37% |
| Tancredo, Thomas Gerald "Tom" | 317 | 0.03% |
| Keyes, Alan L. | 220 | 0.02% |
| Brownback, Samuel Dale | 197 | 0.02% |
| Total | 1,224,778 | 100.01% |
I made this from data here.
Michigan thread and why it matters
I'm not staying up for the Michigan primary results, but you can follow the Republican-leaning viewpoint here and the Democrat-leaning viewpoint here (not sure if there's a specific thread on Daily Kos yet). Wordy but pretty straight reporting later here.
Here are my thoughts for what they're worth.
1) The Democrats will go and vote Republican to push Mitt Romney for two reasons. They are convinced he is beatable in November, and the more Republicans win different primaries (Huckabee got Iowa and McCain got New Hampshire), the more divided the Republicans will be. It's good politics, provided they start with the right "loser" to back.
2) Because the Democrats votes don't really count (it's a complicated issue to do with the party's nomination rules, see The Green Papers), there should be a lot less of them than Republicans, given that this is a very marginal state in the last presidential campaign. John Kerry beat George W. Bush with a 3.42% lead in Michigan. That's one of the SIX states the Democrats won with less than 4% leads (Wisconsin 0.4%, New Hampshire 1.43% [but a gain], Pennsylvania 2.5%, Minnesota 3.48% and Oregon 3.9%) in 2004. With a relatively unpopular incumbent...
For the Democrats, the easy targets are few in number: Iowa 0.67%, New Mexico 0.79% [both gains], Ohio 2.12% [yes FOUR states were closer than Ohio but somehow the conspiracy theorists never mention them] and Nevada 2.59% are the only targets under 4%. You can add Colorado on 4.67%.
So my tip is to look at the vote totals. If the Democrats poll more heavily in total than the Republicans do, then its VERY bad for the Republicans. It adds to the evidence from Iowa and New Hampshire of a party in organizational chaos.
3) Check the accuracy of the pollsters. If they broadly get Michigan right this time, they might get November right in this state, which could be cricial.
Now for some background.
The November election will be decided by an Electoral College count, with 269 (if you get the casting vote in Congress) or 270 (to be sure) votes required.
Here's the breakdown in the most tightly contested states in 2004 that I mentioned above.
0.40% Wisconsin (D), 10 votes
0.67% Iowa (R), 7 votes (gain from D)
0.79% New Mexico (R), 5 votes (gain from D)
1.43% New Hampshire (D), 4 votes (gain from R)
2.12% Ohio (R), 20 votes
2.50% Pennsylvania (D), 21 votes
2.59% Nevada (R), 5 votes
3.42% Michigan (D),17 votes
3.48% Minnesota (D), 10 votes
3.90% Oregon (D), 7 votes
4.67% Colorado (R), 9 votes
Democrats "at risk" 69 votes. Republicans "at risk" 46 votes.
And just for fun, every winning Presidential candidate since 1972 inclusive has won the following SIX states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennesee. In 1968, a third party candidate scored wins in some of the Southern states so I haven't included that election.
Here are my thoughts for what they're worth.
1) The Democrats will go and vote Republican to push Mitt Romney for two reasons. They are convinced he is beatable in November, and the more Republicans win different primaries (Huckabee got Iowa and McCain got New Hampshire), the more divided the Republicans will be. It's good politics, provided they start with the right "loser" to back.
2) Because the Democrats votes don't really count (it's a complicated issue to do with the party's nomination rules, see The Green Papers), there should be a lot less of them than Republicans, given that this is a very marginal state in the last presidential campaign. John Kerry beat George W. Bush with a 3.42% lead in Michigan. That's one of the SIX states the Democrats won with less than 4% leads (Wisconsin 0.4%, New Hampshire 1.43% [but a gain], Pennsylvania 2.5%, Minnesota 3.48% and Oregon 3.9%) in 2004. With a relatively unpopular incumbent...
For the Democrats, the easy targets are few in number: Iowa 0.67%, New Mexico 0.79% [both gains], Ohio 2.12% [yes FOUR states were closer than Ohio but somehow the conspiracy theorists never mention them] and Nevada 2.59% are the only targets under 4%. You can add Colorado on 4.67%.
So my tip is to look at the vote totals. If the Democrats poll more heavily in total than the Republicans do, then its VERY bad for the Republicans. It adds to the evidence from Iowa and New Hampshire of a party in organizational chaos.
3) Check the accuracy of the pollsters. If they broadly get Michigan right this time, they might get November right in this state, which could be cricial.
Now for some background.
The November election will be decided by an Electoral College count, with 269 (if you get the casting vote in Congress) or 270 (to be sure) votes required.
Here's the breakdown in the most tightly contested states in 2004 that I mentioned above.
0.40% Wisconsin (D), 10 votes
0.67% Iowa (R), 7 votes (gain from D)
0.79% New Mexico (R), 5 votes (gain from D)
1.43% New Hampshire (D), 4 votes (gain from R)
2.12% Ohio (R), 20 votes
2.50% Pennsylvania (D), 21 votes
2.59% Nevada (R), 5 votes
3.42% Michigan (D),17 votes
3.48% Minnesota (D), 10 votes
3.90% Oregon (D), 7 votes
4.67% Colorado (R), 9 votes
Democrats "at risk" 69 votes. Republicans "at risk" 46 votes.
And just for fun, every winning Presidential candidate since 1972 inclusive has won the following SIX states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennesee. In 1968, a third party candidate scored wins in some of the Southern states so I haven't included that election.
1/12/2008
Kos is a (fiscal) Conservative!
The man himself sez about Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich's complaint:
Kos adds:
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):
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 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.
1/11/2008
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).
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).
1/09/2008
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.
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:
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.
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.
1/08/2008
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.
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.
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.
1/04/2008
A shambles
Last night's Iowa caucus was a triumph for the U.S. Democratic party's organization and a warning for Republicans. As Kos put it, all the Republicans had to do was give out pieces of paper, let people mark it, count them and put the numbers on a website.
The Democrats on the other hand, had to hold informal hustings, jostle around a room to form bunches, get counted, argue, haggle and plead the "unviable" candidates' supporters to switch, count again, and then post their results.
Guess which turned out quicker?
The Democrats had over 100,000 more votes to count, and did so more effectively. It got to the point that I never got a score out of the Republicans own website, whereas I found the Democrats to be very effective.
If this was Wyoming, or Massachusetts, it might not matter. But in the past 36 years, Iowa has changed from Republican to Democrat and back again several times.
In 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1984, Iowa went Republican and the party's candidate won in cases apart from 1976. In 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000, Iowa's electoral college votes went to the Democratic party candidates, who won the presidency in 1992 and 1996. In 2004, the Republicans came back to narrowly win the state, by 10,059 votes out of a total 1,506,908. That's a majority of 0.73%. In a British parliamentary election this would be about equivalent to 540 votes in an average sized constitutency.
For those who remember the fuss made by some people about Ohio in the 2004 presidential election, the majority in Iowa was one third of that in the Buckeye state. Although there are "only" 7 electoral college votes in Iowa, a shambolic local organization by the Republicans is not a good omen for the coming election proper.
Kos is right. If the Republicans can't handle this caucus in Iowa, they're not about to sweep places like Pennsylvania or Michigan. He also has a point about the Mike Huckabee movement being a mirror of the Kossaks in 2004.
I would also add that Barak Obama has the look of a winner right now, in a way that no British Conservative has looked for the past 15 years. Considering that inexperience is the only serious objection (from a Democratic party perspective) to his taking his party's nomination, if he wins New Hampshire and John Edwards focuses on attacking Hillary Clinton, we could witness a sudden realignment.
The Democrats on the other hand, had to hold informal hustings, jostle around a room to form bunches, get counted, argue, haggle and plead the "unviable" candidates' supporters to switch, count again, and then post their results.
Guess which turned out quicker?
The Democrats had over 100,000 more votes to count, and did so more effectively. It got to the point that I never got a score out of the Republicans own website, whereas I found the Democrats to be very effective.
If this was Wyoming, or Massachusetts, it might not matter. But in the past 36 years, Iowa has changed from Republican to Democrat and back again several times.
In 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1984, Iowa went Republican and the party's candidate won in cases apart from 1976. In 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000, Iowa's electoral college votes went to the Democratic party candidates, who won the presidency in 1992 and 1996. In 2004, the Republicans came back to narrowly win the state, by 10,059 votes out of a total 1,506,908. That's a majority of 0.73%. In a British parliamentary election this would be about equivalent to 540 votes in an average sized constitutency.
For those who remember the fuss made by some people about Ohio in the 2004 presidential election, the majority in Iowa was one third of that in the Buckeye state. Although there are "only" 7 electoral college votes in Iowa, a shambolic local organization by the Republicans is not a good omen for the coming election proper.
Kos is right. If the Republicans can't handle this caucus in Iowa, they're not about to sweep places like Pennsylvania or Michigan. He also has a point about the Mike Huckabee movement being a mirror of the Kossaks in 2004.
I would also add that Barak Obama has the look of a winner right now, in a way that no British Conservative has looked for the past 15 years. Considering that inexperience is the only serious objection (from a Democratic party perspective) to his taking his party's nomination, if he wins New Hampshire and John Edwards focuses on attacking Hillary Clinton, we could witness a sudden realignment.
Turning in
The news from Iowa is not great for Hillary Clinton, good for Barak Obama, lousy for Mitt Romney, good for Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. Ron Paul leading Rudy Guliani, 3 to 1, is curiousity of the night.
I'm turning in. Further updates tomorrow.
I'm turning in. Further updates tomorrow.
Ron Paul thrashes Rudy
Ron Paul 2,425 11%
Rudy Giuliani 830 4%
after 25% of precincts reporting. Not bad for the Libertarians. Figure from Associated Press via Washington Post.
UPDATE:
Giuliani comes back, threatens to overtake John McCain. Ouch! However, Mike Huckabee with less than 5% of the spending of Mitt Romney, appears to be making the case against "money buys elections."
Iowa Republican Caucuses Results
Candidate Votes * %
Mike Huckabee 14,045 31%
Mitt Romney 10,084 23%
Fred Thompson 5,950 13%
John McCain 5,194 12%
Rudy Giuliani 4,901 11%
Ron Paul 4,379 10%
Duncan Hunter 168 0%
Tom Tancredo 2 0%
Key: * Explainer: What are these votes? | Red Checkmark Winner
Precincts: 41% | Updated: 9:20 PM ET | Source: AP
Rudy Giuliani 830 4%
after 25% of precincts reporting. Not bad for the Libertarians. Figure from Associated Press via Washington Post.
UPDATE:
Giuliani comes back, threatens to overtake John McCain. Ouch! However, Mike Huckabee with less than 5% of the spending of Mitt Romney, appears to be making the case against "money buys elections."
Iowa Republican Caucuses Results
Candidate Votes * %
Mike Huckabee 14,045 31%
Mitt Romney 10,084 23%
Fred Thompson 5,950 13%
John McCain 5,194 12%
Rudy Giuliani 4,901 11%
Ron Paul 4,379 10%
Duncan Hunter 168 0%
Tom Tancredo 2 0%
Key: * Explainer: What are these votes? | Red Checkmark Winner
Precincts: 41% | Updated: 9:20 PM ET | Source: AP
Iowa
I'm following the early Iowa caucus returns for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The BBC's first error of the night was to predict that Republican returns would appear an hour before the Democrats.
In fact the Dems here got off to a brisk start.
The first result gave John Edwards 50% and Obama and Clinton 16.67% each.
For the Republicans here. Nothing as I write.
Latest figure:
Democrats:
Senator John Edwards : 34.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.12%
Senator Barack Obama : 30.28%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.02%
Senator Joe Biden : 1.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.14%
Uncommitted : 0.10%
Precincts Reporting: 205 of 1781
UPDATE:
The pundits suggest Barak Obama will have strength in depth, which suggests that he can pick up in the later reporting precincts.
Latest figure 1:48am GMT
Senator John Edwards : 33.44%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.24%
Senator Barack Obama : 31.63%
Governor Bill Richardson : 1.80%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.78%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.07%
Uncommitted : 0.05%
Precincts Reporting: 367 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)
UPDATE:
I was about to post figures showing Barak Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton, but the second place switched back. John Edwards is the leader though. But not by much...
Senator John Edwards : 32.52%
Senator Barack Obama : 32.41%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.15%
UPDATE:
with 530 precincts reporting...
Senator Barack Obama : 32.70%
Senator John Edwards : 32.38%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.02%
If Clinton comes third it's an open contest.
UPDATE: (2:40am GMT)
Senator Barack Obama : 36.68%
Senator John Edwards : 30.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.99%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.01%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
Uncommitted : 0.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1487 of 1781
Hillary Clinton below 30% is not good for her, but Edwards failing to pull ahead of her is OK. Barak Obama's team can certainly feel good right now.
In fact the Dems here got off to a brisk start.
The first result gave John Edwards 50% and Obama and Clinton 16.67% each.
For the Republicans here. Nothing as I write.
Latest figure:
Democrats:
Senator John Edwards : 34.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.12%
Senator Barack Obama : 30.28%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.02%
Senator Joe Biden : 1.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.14%
Uncommitted : 0.10%
Precincts Reporting: 205 of 1781
UPDATE:
The pundits suggest Barak Obama will have strength in depth, which suggests that he can pick up in the later reporting precincts.
Latest figure 1:48am GMT
Senator John Edwards : 33.44%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.24%
Senator Barack Obama : 31.63%
Governor Bill Richardson : 1.80%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.78%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.07%
Uncommitted : 0.05%
Precincts Reporting: 367 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)
UPDATE:
I was about to post figures showing Barak Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton, but the second place switched back. John Edwards is the leader though. But not by much...
Senator John Edwards : 32.52%
Senator Barack Obama : 32.41%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.15%
UPDATE:
with 530 precincts reporting...
Senator Barack Obama : 32.70%
Senator John Edwards : 32.38%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.02%
If Clinton comes third it's an open contest.
UPDATE: (2:40am GMT)
Senator Barack Obama : 36.68%
Senator John Edwards : 30.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.99%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.01%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
Uncommitted : 0.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1487 of 1781
Hillary Clinton below 30% is not good for her, but Edwards failing to pull ahead of her is OK. Barak Obama's team can certainly feel good right now.
12/12/2007
Update
I've been working at a desk with Blogger-hostile equipment, and I've been concentrating on the day job. Because of spam, I try not to leave my e-mail address lying around on-line. But anyone interested in a business contact should be on Linked In, and anyone wishing to socialise should be on Facebook.
5/11/2007
Sarko
Tonight I'm speaking at the Putney Debates on the recent presidential election in France. Details from the Libertarian Alliance. I hope to post comments over the week end.
1/25/2007
10,000 not out
Last week I hit 10,000 hits on Antoine Clarke's Election Watch.
It's a milestone. And I'm happy about it. I once set up a newspaper with a circulation of less than 100, so a trickle of readers does not bother me.
I realize that the key to better visibility is more writing, more often. It took from 13 July 2004 to 17 January 2007 to hit the 10k mark (visitor #6,969). We shall see how long it takes to hit 25k.
It's a milestone. And I'm happy about it. I once set up a newspaper with a circulation of less than 100, so a trickle of readers does not bother me.
I realize that the key to better visibility is more writing, more often. It took from 13 July 2004 to 17 January 2007 to hit the 10k mark (visitor #6,969). We shall see how long it takes to hit 25k.
Netroots against Hillary?
From MyD, Matt Stoller writes:
This doesn't read like a fan...
So it looks like Republicans aren't the only ones hoping the situation in Iraq stabilizes soon.
I did find this funny though:
Not funny for the African-American community that their selection of heroes is so poor, but the "with it" Democratic white boys should be a little more aware of who and what their allies are. Next they'll discover that Nation of Islam is anti-Jew.
Hillary Clinton's strategy is to scoop up money from the elites, keep
enough women to hold off from losing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and rack
up huge margins in the black vote in the later states.
This doesn't read like a fan...
Hillary Clinton's strategy is to scoop up money from the elites, keep enough women to hold off from losing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and rack up huge margins in the black vote in the later states.
So it looks like Republicans aren't the only ones hoping the situation in Iraq stabilizes soon.
I did find this funny though:
I didn't realize this until I was in Connecticut, but Maxine Waters is a hero in the African-American community.
Not funny for the African-American community that their selection of heroes is so poor, but the "with it" Democratic white boys should be a little more aware of who and what their allies are. Next they'll discover that Nation of Islam is anti-Jew.
1/17/2007
10,000th hit sometime this week
OK. Instapundit or Daily Kos this ain't. But I can remember hoping to reach the 25th issue of my 100 circulation TANSTAAFL Times.
1/13/2007
Politicians adverts target bloggers and blog readers
Two U.S. presidential candidates for 2008 have started advertising on blogs.
One of them, John Edwards, was the 2004 Democratic Party Vice-Presidential candidate. He is using a video broadcast hosted on YouTube to launch his campaign for his Party's presidential nomination. The other, Mitt Romney, is a medium chance to be the Republican Party's candidate for President. His adverts point blog readers to mittromney.com.
It's worth noting that the ads are both cheaper than television and will be better targeted.
1/07/2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
