5.00pm. Missouri now being called for McCain, who leads Huckabee and Romney 33.1 per cent to 31.8 per cent and 29.3 per cent. Democratic contest still too close to call in Missouri, but Obama holds a slight lead and the trend has been favouring him for some time.
4.44pm. Fox calls Alaska for Obama. Slow progress in New Mexico.
4.36pm. Everyone now calling Arizona for Clinton.
4.25pm. Fox and ABC call Colorado for Romney.
4.23pm. CBS, Fox and ABC (though not CNN) calling McCain for California.
4.21pm. Obama has hit the lead in Missouri, 49.3 per cent to 48.7 per cent with 98 per cent reporting, after a number of outlets earlier called it for Clinton. Given that Democratic delegates are allocated proportionately, this is mostly of academic interest. Not so the state’s Republican race, a winner-takes-all contest in which McCain leads Huckabee and Romney 33.3 per cent to 32.0 per cent and 29.5 per cent, also with 98 per cent reporting. Fox and ABC are calling it for McCain, but not CNN.
4.13pm. NBC and Fox are both calling California for Clinton.
4.12pm. CBS calls Montana for Romney.
3.56pm. CNN now calling Utah for Obama: he leads 53-41 with 37 per cent reporting.
3.50pm. No significant results yet from Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego or Sacramento.
3.38pm. Clinton leads 55-33 in California with 10 per cent counted, but pronounced regional variations can presumably be expected from a state that boasts both Malibu and Compton.
3.37pm. CNN calling Minnesota for Romney.
3.32pm. Fox’s call of Utah for Obama might also have been premature (I heard it on Fox News Radio; not sure it ever appeared as called on the website). Only 13 per cent reporting and Obama leads 45-44. Presumably the Fox call was based on an exit poll.
3.29pm. Clinton leads 51-40 in Arizona with 48 per cent reporting, but nobody’s calling it.
3.25pm. Fox’s call of Tennessee for Huckabee may have been premature (they’re still saying it on Fox News Radio, but not on the website). He leads McCain 34.1 per cent to 32.4 per cent with 83 per cent of precincts reporting.
3.20pm. McCain gaining on Huckabee in Missouri: now 33-32-29, compared with 35-32-27 half an hour ago.
3.15pm. Fox calls Idaho for Obama and Missouri for Clinton.
3.15pm. Fox calls Colorado for Obama.
3.10pm. Fox says Clinton wins American Samoa, and Romney wins Montana.
3.03pm. Fox News Radio reports McCain doing better than Romney in California from absent votes, but Romney doing better in normal votes. Clinton just ahead of Obama.
3.00pm. Also not sure why nobody giving Romney North Dakota, where he leads McCain, Paul and Huckabee 36-23-21-20.
2.58pm. Not sure why nobody calling Montana for Romney: he leads McCain, Paul and Huckabee 36-24-23-17 with 89 per cent of precincts reporting.
2.53pm. Nobody calling Missouri Democratic either, but Clinton leads 53-44 with 68 per cent of precincts reporting.
2.48pm. No one is calling the Missouri Republican race: Huckabee leads McCain and Romney 35-32-27 with 66 per cent precincts reporting.
2.46pm. A couple of outlets calling Georgia for Huckabee.
2.38pm. Fox calls Arizona for McCain and Tennessee for Huckabee.
2.29pm. Fox calls Utah for Obama.
2.25pm. Minnesota being called for Obama, who seems to be picking up a lot of the smaller states. Expectations he would perform well in caucuses have apparently been confirmed, boding well for him in Colorado and Idaho.
2.21pm. Fox News Radio and CNN call Connecticut for Obama.
2.15pm. Huckabee giving a speech, and not sounding of a mind to withdraw.
2.14pm. ABC calls Kansas for Obama.
2.08pm. Fox calls Oklahoma for McCain.
2.06pm. ABC also calling Utah for Romney; no surprise of course that he should carry the Mormon state.
2.03pm. Fox News projects Obama as winner of North Dakota, giving him seven states to Clinton’s six, and Utah to Romney.
1.44pm. Romney coming third behind Huckabee in many more places than expected. Almost time to call the nomination for McCain, pending one or two larger states.
1.31pm. CNN, ABC and Fox News Radio say Obama has won Alabama, which was lineball in late polling.
1.21pm. Fox calls Alabama for Huckabee.
1.18pm. Chap on Fox News Radio says McCain has won New York.
1.09pm. Fox calls Delaware for Obama.
1.07pm. CNN calls New York for Clinton, which is no surprise.
12.55pm. Fox calls Massachusetts for Clinton.
12.54pm. Chat on Fox News Radio indicates McCain is looking very good overall.
12.50pm. Winner-takes-all Republican contest for Delaware called for McCain, which was considered likely but not certain.
12.44pm. Arkansas being called for Huckabee, who is clearly doing better than expected.
12.36pm. Tennessee also called for Clinton, which was expected.
12.35pm. CNN calls Arizona for Clinton and Huckabee. The latter would be a big surprise if accurate; polls had Clinton with only a narrow lead.
12.29pm. The Times on Democratic exit polls:
The AP survey’s findings, leaked to The Times tonight before polls closed, should be treated with caution because they have been wrong before. But the early findings showed Mr Obama winning Georgia by 74 points to 25, Alabama by 59 to 37, Illinois by 69 to 29 and Delaware by 55 to 42. He also had narrower leads, possibly within the margin of error, in New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Missouri. The poll indicated Mrs Clinton was leading by seven points in New York – less than expected – and Tennessee where she had an 11 point advantage, according to the poll. In Oklahoma and Arkansas she was shown as more than 30 points ahead. In California, she is shown just ahead, by perhaps as little as three percentage points.
12.13pm. CNN is also calling Illinois for Obama and Oklahoma for Clinton on the basis of exit polling, though these of course are not winner-takes-all contests. On the Republican side, Illinois (district-level PR), Connecticut (winner takes all) and New Jersey (winner takes all) are being called for McCain, and Massachusetts (two-tier PR) for Romney. All of this is consistent with pre-poll expectations.
11.33am. Further to the previous entry: The Raw Story tells us “Geraghty’s leaks of exit poll data have not always proved accurate. For instance, his information before New Hampshire polls closed showed Senator Barack Obama defeating Senator Hillary Clinton.”
11.23am. More on exit polls from Jim Geraghty at the National Review:
The early wave in California: McCain 40 percent, Romney 36 percent, Huckabee 10 percent. Fascinating and fun as it is, I remind my readers that this doesn’t tell us that much, as we don’t know what the district-by-district breakdown is. Also, there are three million absentee votes that I’m pretty sure are not included in this. So while these numbers are nice to hear for McCain fans, I take them with even more caution, skepticism and grains of salt than usual. Missouri: Romney 34 percent, McCain 32 percent, Huckabee 25 percent. Winner take all. If these numbers hold – and these are early voters, the later waves may change the final a bit — it’s a big, big win for Romney. Georgia: Huckabee 34 percent, Romney 31 percent, McCain 30 percent. Now on to the NYC-metro-area states: New York: McCain 46, Romney 35, Huckabee 10 percent. New Jersey: McCain 48 percent, Romney 35, Huckabee 9 percent. Connecticut: McCain 50 percent, Romney 32 percent, Huckabee 7 percent. More or less what we expected. Now the big Mitt states: The early wave in Utah: Romney 91 percent, McCain 5 percent, Huckabee 1 percent. I think I’m ready to call that one. Massachusetts: Romney 54, McCain 35. But in McCain’s home state… Arizona: McCain 44, Romney 39, Huckabee 8. That’s a heck of a lot closer than I had expected. On to the South, where the numbers at this point look good for Huckabee… Alabama: Huckabee 42 percent, McCain 33 percent, Romney 20 percent. Tennessee: Huckabee 34, McCain 28, Romney 23. Arkansas: Huckabee 33, McCain 21, Romney 19. Oklahoma: McCain 34, Huckabee 32, Romney 27. A barnburner! Delaware: Romney 43, McCain 34, Huckabee 18. Not a big state, but it’s winner take all, so I’m sure Team Romney would take it. Illinois: McCain 47, Romney 31, Huckabee 15.
11.14am. Various media outlets calling Georgia for Obama purely on the basis of exit polls.
11.10am. Jason Zengerle at New Republic on exit polls:
The perils of posting these are obvious (President Kerry and all that), but the exit poll results that I’ve seen show: Obama trouncing Hillary in Georgia, Alabama, and Illinois; Hillary trouncing Obama in Arkansas and Oklahoma; Hillary with leads in New York and Tennessee; and Obama with leads in Delaware and Utah (although there’s only one wave of exit polls for Utah). Everywhere else–including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Arizona, and California–is extremely close.
8.20am (Eastern Australian daylight time). This post will be used to cover today’s Super Tuesday developments, though I don’t promise that my coverage will be greatly timely or comprehensive. We’ll see how we go. The action will begin in earnest when polls in most of the eastern states close at 8pm US eastern time – noon eastern Australian daylight time. Polls in all-important California close three hours later. The one conspicuous exception is West Virginia, which uniquely held a state presidential convention today rather than a primary or caucuses. This has already wrapped up, resulting in Mick Huckabee securing the 18 delegates under the winner-takes-all vote. Huckabee won on the second round of voting after trailing Mitt Romney at the first by 464 votes (41 per cent) to 375 (33 per cent), with John McCain on 176 (16 per cent) and Ron Paul on 118 (10 per cent). Paul was then excluded, and at this point McCain’s supporters were reportedly instructed to throw their weight behind Huckabee to thwart Romney. This delivered victory to Huckabee with 567 (51.5 per cent) to Romney’s 521 (47.4 per cent).
1,182 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 24 » Show All
why do the good folks of the republican right hate hillary? because she is married to bill, she’s female, she is smart, she has an action plan, she is not compliant, she is clearly ambitious and tough, and she is not afraid of a scrap: in short, she is a ready-made object of grievance. mysogyny, sexism, bigotry – any of these words explain the almost glandular reaction against her. this is why so many women are voting for hillary and probably why she will not win the nomination.
Truly, I find the Freepers hatred of Hillary perplexing viewed from here.
This is something that might explain it –> http://www.i-hate-hillary.com/about/about.php
Although, I take Socrates’ @ 946 points about her as contributing as much as 50% or more to the hatred also.
And then there is this: “Clinton’s presidency would erode United States sovereignty, turning major policy decisions over to the United Nations. We must protect America and Americans, by making sure this communist is not elected to the presidency. This country is now at a crossroads in its history: We can either vote for Hillary and become a faceless “global citizen,” or we can rise against this Communist and re-establish everything America stands for. You decide.”
PS. For those of you in Perth tonight (sunday), this is not to be missed –> http://www.perthfestival.com.au/family/waterfools/
Correction: For ‘Socrates @ 946′ read ‘blindoptimist @ 949′. Apologies to both!
Soc @935
I deeply respect Hillary’s obvious intelligence, political experience, statesman(?)ship and capacity for hard work. These features certainly ought to endear her to the masses when contrasted with the lazy and dimwitted incumbent as well as any of her likely Republican opponents. Naturally, I will rejoice when a woman belatedly occupies the most influencial office on Earth and I have no issue that she is eminently qualified for that post.
However, I confess that one other personal feature is a real turn-off for me – her voice. I simply can’t endure 8 years of The Scream on my nightly news bulletins as well as her hectoring tone. I cringe every time she screaches into a microphone and sends the distorted decibel level into orbit. It raises my hackles so. Is this just a case of aural intolerance on my behalf or is it a view that is shared more broadly?
KR – “but because she is a truly ruthless politician” – Tell me one politician who is not ruthless. People hate Hillary because she is a woman politician who is not a bimbo, looks like going some place. It is as simple as that.
Have listened to Colin Powell being interviewed on ABC radio this morning, he sounded awfully close to endorsing Obama, used much of the same ‘change’ terminology. What a pity that Powell was caught up in the lies about Iraq, I believe him to be a fundamentally decent man, would make a great Veep.
I suspect that if you asked 100 Hillary hating Republicans why they felt so strongly about her only 20-25% could articulate a coherent answer. The response from the rest would boil down to ‘because….” ie. most hate her because it’s what Repubs do.
Latte liberals v Dunkin Donut democrats.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3330288.ece
Obama offers to defeat cynicism with hope. Apparently he’s going to turn politics into a form of sharing. Have you noticed that he’s actually carried into his rallies by a flock of cherubs while the heavens open up with the Hallelujah Chorus? I wonder how he does that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?pagewanted=print
The danger for Obama, he is being tagged more and more as the Kumbaya candidate.
Basil Fawlty @ 954 – The question is whether Powell would burn his bridges with the Republican party. And would the Dems embrace the ‘front man’ for the Iraq debacle? Might be hard to get them to see him as part of the solution.
True, he may have been more patsy than arch conspirator, but being a fool is not something you want to run on when seeking the second highest office going, though I admit it didn’t harm GWB, especially in 2004.
- perhaps its a case after Bill & Monica:
‘Bill you owe me….”no , the US owes me” as my reward
They hated her long before Bill and Monica.
- perhaps people believe she should have left Bill after 2000 and the fact she did not proves she has naked cold blood ambition irrespective of marriage morality
Why doesn’t a nation which says it bases itself on biblical teaching and the sanctity of family admire her for her commitment to her marriage vows? That, I would have thought, is the ultimate in marriage morality.
I really can’t understand this one.
- perhaps its she appears hard & ruthless in comparison with perceived ‘warm’ Bill
Perhaps it’s because she’s a strong woman. Bill got brownie points for being a soft man (playing against male stereotypes) but it’s not acceptable for a woman to be ‘hard’ .
I agree with some of the posters above: the problem with Hillary is that she’s a woman who defies all the right wing stereotypes about what women should be. She’s bright, articulate, determined.
Believe me when I say that, here in Australia, women are not allowed to exhibit such traits with impunity (look at the treatment of Julia; the suggestions that she’ll stab Rudd in the back on the first opportunity, the comments about her voice and hair, the slurs about her love life). I know of many strong, articulate women in the community who sit on local boards etc and will never be able to be more than secretary (if that) – because they are strong, articulate women.
And if you, like Hillary, suggest that you should be aspiring to more than that, you’re in trouble.
What’s wrong with ‘every child needs a village’? I live in a country town and this resonates with me. My children are not being raised by me – they are being raised by the whole community. At events such as country shows, I can let my childen wander out of sight, secure in the knowledge that, if anyone tried to lead them away, half a dozen people would recognise that they were with a stranger, and intervene. In a crisis, there are a similar number of people I can ring who will immediately assist – baby sitting is a breeze.
‘The village’ exposes my children to a range of different lifestyles as well – these impromptu babysitters include farmers, truckdrivers, lawyers, single mums, teachers, gardeners, accountants, nurses etc.
Sorry, off topic I know, but to can Hillary for something which is a simple truth seems a bit harsh.
Perhaps those who see the phrase as mawkish are raising their children in cloistered, isolated environments and don’t understand what she is talking about.
First of the Feb 9 Results are in: Mike Huckabee has won the Kansas Republican Caucus. Big win too: 63% to 22% McCain.
Like some others, I have also been intrigued by the level of vitriolic hatred displayed toward Hillary. One thing of interest, she was on the special prosecutors team investigating Watergate, is that where the far right of the Repubs got their hatred initially? This blog covers the whole spectrum of reasons:
http://www.gonemild.com/2004/11/why-do-they-hate-hillary-clinton-so.html
I liked the posting about ‘castration anxiety’, reckon that would fit to a few of the rabid loony right posting there.
codger- I answered at 915 but it’s still in moderation for some reason. I’ll repost it with a minor change to the word that may have triggered the problem.
codger 912-I have found the key!!
For a patient to be hospitalised under a mental health order, three criteria must be met.
1. Patient must have a mental illness which impairs their reality testing
2. Patient must be a danger either to themselves or others
3. The illness must be treatable in a mental hospital
Any doctor can do this (and by God I’ve felt like exercising that on a few non-patients and colleagues in my life!)
Spears must have met these criteria initially. The patient is reassessed within 24 hours by a psychiatrist who can revoke the order or continue it for 3 days. Spears would have been reassessed and must have improved from what is likely to be a “situational acute depression exacerbated by polysubstance pharmacy ab*se”.
Often when the drugs taken wear off, the patient becomes more lucid in a few days. However, if the “breakdown” was due purely to a severe depression or schizophrenic episode, things do not turn around so quickly and a 21 day detention order is put in place.
As she was only in a few days, I suspect there was substance ab*se involved. I hope that clarifies your concerns.
codger-I tried to answer your question but it’s in the moderation ether. Now I find you had an alternative meaning!
On the Hate Hilary question, I can’t work it out either. None of the arguments are rational. But then again, I could never work out why they hated Bill so much either.
1. They hate her liberal policies. (Well Obama’s are much the same so that one’s a crock.)
2. They are scared she is intelligent and articulate and will make changes to their New World Order. (So will Obama.)
3. She is ambitious and ruthless. (Gee, and Romney, Giuliani aren’t)
4. She is arrogant (Don’t think that’s especially true anyway. All pollies are arrogant to some extent)
5. Morally expedient deals (Rudy specialises in these).
In summary, I think the reason she is hated is that she has many of the characteristics that the Repugs hate about their own candidates and politicians in general. No-one is more vitriolic about a particular shortcoming than the person who’s trying desperately to avoid admitting they have it themselves. The fact that she’s female opens up a whole Pandora’s box of other reasons I won’t go into!
I think that the Hilary hating is at least partly a measure of the relative respectability of misogyny (compared most obviously to racism). When the shock jocks and the Coulters and the rest of them want to go Obama for his race they have to tread carefully. They have to deeeply encode what they’re saying. But they can rant on about Clinton being a “hag” or whatever and get away with it.
In short, racial vilification, rightly or wrongly, is more unacceptable than sexism. This doesn’t mean that blacks are less oppressed than women, after all vilification is only a minor aspect of oppression – structural disadvantages are far more important.
Yes, Hilary is strongly hated, both sides of the spectrum – and also with women voters, not just right-wing rabid loony ones frothing at the mouth.
.
If you check the women’s political lobbies analysis, (eg NOW, Ms Mags etc) you might note that there is a long-standing strong age-group demarcation amongst women voters, more so than men. Young women hate her too, as they usually do hate older women everywhere, and this holds with African-American women too – interestingly, this pattern doesn’t hold as strong with hispanic, asian or jewish women, where there is a longer tradition of acceptance of strong older women not just in family, but also community and political life.
.
Various speculation on this common statistical fall-out across women, from young women having “mother figure” issues, according to the Freudian classic of the young identifying more with seeking approval from the powerful “Father” and rejecting the powerless “Mother”.
.
Or to using an analogy of Harriet Tubman’s response when asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them that they were slaves.”
.
This famous quote from the US black civil rights movements, became a way of speaking about collaborators and ‘Uncle Toms’ – or the “Happy Slaves” who are happy with their lot in life. In the early women’s lib days, it came to refer to ‘Aunty Toms’, and refers particularly to young women.
.
962
Robert Bollard
The Hillary Haters Inc. is an industry, and it sees her as the quintessential ‘liberal’ while despising her personal traits. That line about her wanting to sell America to some world order run by the UN goes to the heart of the rabid nationalist’s and Uncle Sam Supremicist’s undying hatred of her.
It’s almost like she’s the Darth Vader to their Luke Skywalker, darkness versus light, evil versus goodness.
Of course other ‘liberals’ may share some of her ideas, but she’s the incarnation of all they detest, rightly or wrongly, and there’s nothing she could do or say to change that.
As for it being sexist, well, yes, as much as the macho Uncle Sam Supremicists are heavily mysoginsist, it’s partially about gender, but foremost it’s because she is a Clinton, and they hate the moral ambigiuty, the carpetbaggery (like republicans never do anything like that???), and the ‘communism’ they feel is imbedded in her views.
And to make matters worse, there’s a lot of Democrats who agree, or at least in part, that Hillary is not their first choice.
On another topic, the US economy is going down the toilet, as we’ve all been reading, and last night I posted an AP poll that showed a good number of Americans equate fixing their economy with pulling out of Iraq and spending that money on something actually useful at home (what a surprise, huh?)
Now, the thing is, the line ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ is Clintons in as much as she is seen to be better equipped to get the economy back on track (partly no doubt because Bill’s presidency is remembered for being so economically robust).
So in these darkening times, Clinton should be able to make this her theme and own it, unless the Obama people can start to use it, but you’d have to think she’d well and truly have the lead on this issue.
This mood of pessimism about the economy will not only hurt McCain, but it should help boost Clinton and will certainly be a big issue come November.
Keep up the good analysis PBs. Always interesting. Does anyone (William?) know male/female % of people using sites like this – hard to tell with pseudonyms but seems a fairly male occupation.
Can’t help but notice, reading the comments on the site Basil links to, that Hillary is a victim of the old pincer movement as well.
So if she controls her emotions, she’s hard and therefore plastic but if she cries, she’s obviously a flake and too erratic to be in charge of the Free World.
I can’t even begin to understand why sticking to her marriage is a minus. To me, it shows loyalty, determination, commitment, recognition of human frailty, compassion…if she’d divorced Bill, wouldn’t the Republicans be saying that she besmirched the sanctity of marriage?
If you’re looking for a villain in the Clinton marriage, it isn’t Hillary.
And as for arrogance and ego…is Obama or McCain up there saying “Oh don’t elect me, I won’t really achieve anything, I’m not that smart, I’m sure you could find someone better if you really tried”?
Last time I looked, both of them were saying – as any political candidate should – that they were the best hope for the future, that only they had the correct solutions, and that they had a record of achievement to prove it.
Sounds arrogant and egotistic to me.
What the Hcuk?
You get the feeling that the McCain haters are going to boost the Huckster,(well at least in the south and the redneck states), as his sweep of Kansas has just shown.
There’s a nice little blog entry on the NYTimes:
Remember the book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Well, it would appear there is still something amiss there. But should we be surprised? These are the buffoons who have legislated science out of school curricula. Had these dolts not voted for an utterly uneducated person, in this case a Baptist minister, opposed to the liberal democracy of the Founding Fathers, that would have been news.
In case you are out there… God Save America.
…gotta say, they have a point! LOL
Wakefield – don’t know about that, but I use a range of blog names, a couple of which are overtly feminine and others which are deliberately masculine (and a few in between).
Tend to think the overtly feminine ones get attacked more often as flaky and illogical whereas the androgynous or masculine ones get treated on the merits of the argument.
KR @ 965 – I agree about their economy being an over-riding issue for 2008, like everywhere else, its our own back-yards and purses/wallets etc which influences voting, and probably just more of us non-Americans – who are interested in things like US foreign affairs and US positions on Israel or Iraq etc.
.
But do you think the economy might be more regionally impacted? Are the swing-states likely to be more influenced by whose handling their hard-times?
Intrade has Clinton/Obama at 39.2%/61.4%
So the punters are seeing Obama’s Big Mo as carrying him to the nomination.
969
Rain
That’s a really good question Rain, and would take some research to even get a feel about, (at least for me! LOL), but I’ll keep an eye open for info on that and post it where I can.
Maybe some others who are more familiar with the US electorate could comment?
Diogenes, Ron, KR and others,
Thanks for the replies on the “why do they hate Hillary so much?” question. The reasons you have outlined fit the rhetoric I read, and as my intuition felt, they are mostly all irrational. I guess I must agree with Roberts conclusion that if they have to chose between giving up on misogyny and racism, they’d prefer to remain misogynists.
To me this does highlight one of the differences between Australia and the US in both society and politics. There is misogyny in Australian politics too (witness Bill Heffernan’s still unrepented “barren” insult to Julia Gillard) but it isn’t as bad as the USA to my perception. Heffernan was condemned for that remark by many. Someone like Anna Bligh can become premier in what was once the rednecked state of Qld and still get 60% approval. But the USA seems to have gone along way backwards on gender equality. To me, they really seem worse now than when I was growing up and first reading the news in the 70s.
Anyone seen the Feb 9 Democratic results yet (I know Huckabee won “bumpkin of the year” in Kansas)?
966
Wakefield Says: Does anyone (William?) know male/female % of people using sites like this – hard to tell with pseudonyms but seems a fairly male occupation.
.
Of course its male dominated, like playing war-games, Dungeons & Dragons, chess or doing well in maths at school, or majoring in Physics. Its “boy stuff” and “boring” to most girls, statistically speaking <—- tongue-in-cheek *wry grin*
.
Except for the minority tomboys of course, who defied all the bell-curves, or were the only girls in a family of 4-6 brothers.
.
Rain
that is a gross generalisation based purely on thousands of pieces of empirical evidence, (says the engineer thinking back fondly to his days captaining the school chess team…)
Ann Coulter and Condi are loved by the “right” so where’s the gender bias
the ‘hate’ against McCain by the rusted on ‘right’
if you are not a full convert , you are banished from heaven
KR #967. I read a pretty good demolition job of “What’s the Matter with Kansas” called “What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas?”. Can’t remember it’s exact location but googling should be easy if you want to read it. The point of the argument was as follows. WTMWK asked why the poorer states were red and the wealthier states blue. Why, in short, were the poor voting republican? It concluded with a lot of stuff about the appeal of evangelical religion etc. WTMWWTMWK employed a more detailed analysis and uncovered the fact that income was in fact the best indicator of voting preference. The poor vote (to the extent they vote at all) Democrat in red and blue states by about the same margin. The difference is mainly in the behaviour of wealthier voters. In blue states they tend to vote Democrat as well, in Red states they are solidly Republican. The other, key problem, is not HOW the poor vote, but whether they do. That’s the central problem of American politics, often obscured by the ease with which we can all laugh at the rednecks – not right wing politics so much as a complete disengagement from politics. Life is so hard for the working class in the US that they don’t bother to vote (not to mention the significant proportion of them in some states who are illegal and not enfrachised, but that’s another story).
KR 964
Exactly right – I have been saying that for weeks. The US is now headed into a recession deeper than the 2001/02 one that came from the dot.com bubble bursting. It should be in full swing by November. And no, they really don’t have the cash spare to spend their way out of it, thanks to Bush’s huge debt. Ironically it will be those on low incomes from the poorer states that vote red which will feel it most. That is why I have come around to the view that I prefer Hillary as democrat candidate (first wanted Edwards but oh well). The Clintons really do have connections to some top economists. One of Bill’s advisors – Joseph Stiglitz – has since won teh Nobel prize for economics. The good news for Dems is that this trend will hurt McCain most, who has virtually admitted to being economically illiterate.
Rain
Here’s an article about recessions in presidential election years and some broad comments about how this may play out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09web-redburn.html
976
Robert Bollard
Good post, thanks. It seems the non-compulsory voting is really a huge impediment to social progress for the very people who don’t bother to get their interests represented.
Also, the thing that Obama’s got, that pulling power, is a big plus if he can turn that crowd drawing appeal into votes.
Isn’t US politics bizarre?
977
Socrates
In that article I posted for Rain, it makes the point that socially progressive ideas and focus on education etc gets to take a back seat in recessions, so if it turns fugly, as some expect, then it’s actually harder for the Democrat causes.
Much will depend on how deep and protracted this downturn gets, and this, nobody can tell from here.
Results for the other Primaries are not due for a few more hours, as they are in Central Time or Western Time zone. 8pm close of the polls. Not sure about the Virgin Islands however (only 3 delegates anyway).
On Huckabee being the new anti-McCain: In the pre-NH debate, McCain and Huckabee both were showing signs that they were about to do a deal with each other. They both said that each other was the prefer candidate in the then field. So I am not sure how well Huckabee is going to feel about some of the non-mainstream Republicans coming in behind him only because they oppose McCain.
Also interestingly, Huckabee and McCain were the only two of the republican candidates to believe in global warming and say that America needs to do something about it.
Rain 969
I just saw your excellent question on which states will be most effected and I partly answered it at 979 above. The more detailed answer is:
- states with more wealthy people will feel the pain less
- states with poorer people will feel the pain more
- states with more sub-prime mortgagees (same as point two really) will feel it most
- states reliant on industries likely to face a downturn – building construction, manufacturers
- states that rely on industries that are essential (eg food) or more international/high tech in focus will feel it less
So places that are high tech (eg Oregon) or rural without growing populations (eg Wisconsin) will be fair, urban with large sub-prime populations (eg Florida) will be worst, and low tech manufacturing (mostly domestic consumption eg Michigan or Ohio) not much better.
Here is a link to a map showing the proportion of sub-prime mortgages in each State.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/storysupplement/subprime_statebystate/
Note that wealthy states like Masssachusets have low % of sub prime (19%) while poorer States like Mississipi have high % sub prime (33%!)
Further evidence that McCain wants to continue with the Repubs ‘illegal wars without end,’ give the UN the finger, ideology:
“Less well known are McCain’s promises, if elected, to expand the Army and the Marine Corps to 900,000 soldiers and Marines from a planned strength of about 750,000; to form a U.S.-led League of Democracies to act when the United Nations can’t or won’t;”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/27096.html
Howard must be devastated that he won’t get to be the deputy.
KR 980
Fair point; I don’t realy know how it will end up electorally. That being said, for Rain’s question, economically the link in my post 982 should still give a good indication on which states are going to suffer most.
I think it is abit simple just to blame southern red necks for everything and label them as red states since the 1960’s. In many Southern states the Democrats remain highly comparative even now esp in North Carolina, Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. A number of which Bill won in 1992. Even Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana maintain Democrat majorities in their lower houses despite having republican governors. Georgia’s governor since 2003 has been the only one since 1872. Texas and South Carolina may be the main exceptions. In the 1992 general election though even Texas cam within 3.5 percent of turning blue.
I think it is abit simple just to blame southern red necks for everything and label them as red states since the 1960’s. In many Southern states the Democrats remain highly comparative even now esp in North Carolina, Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. A number of which Bill won in 1992. Even Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana maintain Democrat majorities in their lower houses despite having republican governors. Georgia’s governor since 2003 has been the only one since 1872. Texas and South Carolina may be the main exceptions. In the 1992 general election though even Texas cam within 3.5 percent of turning blue.
Looks like Obama is winning Nebraska and Louisiana (source USA Today).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-09-saturdayvoting_N.htm
And Washington, quite comfortably. Numbers coming through here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
Nebrasca: Obama 69%, Clinton 31%, 73% reported (source CNN).
Washington: Obama 67%, Clinton 32%, 57% reporting (source CNN)
982
Socrates
just a quick comment about ’sub-prime’ before I get out for some sunshine with the kids:
Sub-prime is, broadly, code for ‘poor black people’ that no one in their right mind would lend big sums of money to, (unless you had a system for parceling the debt and on-selling it to lots of other suckers! LOL)
This makes the equation complex in that Obama is the ‘block’ candidate, so as you can see, there’s no straight correlation on this metric.
Louisiana: Obama 59%, Clinton 28%, 0% reporting? (source: CNN).
Louisiana numbers floating around somewhat:
Obama 43%, Clinton 38%, 0% reporting? (source: CNN).
OK – getting the reasoning behind the numbers – apparently only 2 of 3,966 precincts has reported results.
That’d be the ones who have voted early Davidoff. They’re precounted and released the moment the polls are closed.
Pages: « 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 24 » Show All