This thread is reserved for New Hampshire

Bustaballs

Artifact Armor
Adventurer
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
1,490
Age
39
Location
Kansas
Nation Banner
Windy
Main Job
Beastmaster-Male
Secondary Job
WhiteMage-Male
Third Job
RedMage-Male
Server
Quetzalcoatl
FFXIV
Bustaballs
Super Tuesday is coming up fast. Current polls show:

New Hampshire GOP Primary

John McCain
31%

Mitt Romney
26%

Ron Paul
14%

Mike Huckabee
11%

Rudy Giuliani
8%

Fred Thompson
5%

Some other candidate

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lection_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary




Barack Obama
37%

Hillary Clinton
27%

John Edwards
19%

Bill Richardson
8%

Dennis Kucinich
3%

Mike Gravel
1%


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lection_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary


We'll see how it turns out.
 
I watched the New Hampshire debates tonight. I thought it was hilarious how it was constantly reminding me of qcdn and the way we argue. Sure it was about different subjects and their words were more polished up, they were still mean to each other, but with nicer words.
I also thought it was hilarious how all the democrats kept arguing with each other about the war yet they were all saying the same thing. If you're gonna vote dem this year and your main concern is the war, you really can't go wrong with any of the canidates.
 
The republican debates are far more interesting because they actually disagree on more topics. The biggest thing I see the dems argue over is how their health care idea is better. I say they should take some economics classes and learn the definition of freedom. If we quit subsidizing everything and quit taxing so much and quit putting so many federal mandates on the health industry, prices will go down, quality and distribution will go up, and people will actually be able to choose what they want to do with their own money. We don't need socialized health care. We need freedom.
 
The republican debates are far more interesting because they actually disagree on more topics. The biggest thing I see the dems argue over is how their health care idea is better. I say they should take some economics classes and learn the definition of freedom. If we quit subsidizing everything and quit taxing so much and quit putting so many federal mandates on the health industry, prices will go down, quality and distribution will go up, and people will actually be able to choose what they want to do with their own money. We don't need socialized health care. We need freedom.

QFT.

Also, go Ron Paul for Pres.
 


Watch out, Hillary.
 
But seriously. She's going to get raped by Obama in NH. He's going to beat her by 10 points or more. I can totally see it.
 
=/

Sorry Obama. I guess those scientific polls aren't so accurate after all.
 
=/

Sorry Obama. I guess those scientific polls aren't so accurate after all.

The witty remark for whatever reason iirks me. Yes I support Obama, and yes the polls were probably accurate. Whichever democratic candidate wins CA and NY... they'll probably get nomination. The only detractor I see, is if McCain gets republican nomination, and he pulls more independent voters from the Democratic party. Then the Democrats will have to choose the candidate more amiable to independents. (imo Obama, but if Hillary sheds so more tears, she could garner a few more independents.)

I am so tired of all the trumped up support of young voters, who then happen to turn on something shiny and not vote. God damn that is aggravating.
 
I am so tired of all the trumped up support of young voters, who then happen to turn on something shiny and not vote. God damn that is aggravating.

I may support a candidate, but I usually don't vote for them. I vote for myself, as a write-in. I'd rather me be president than someone who doesn't think exactly like me.

I would vote for Stephen Colbert, but if he was elected that would mean I couldn't watch his show anymore :(
 
I think there were a lot of MA and VT voters that took the bus to vote in NH. Pollsters have been wrong before, but never THAT wrong. The Clintons are a political machine, and I wouldn't put it past them or their friends to rally a whole bunch of gray votes.
 
Or it could just as easily have been a reaction to the raging tide of misogyny that saturated the airwaves the day before. "Oh my god... she expressed an emotion. Clearly she's a hysterical female and can't be president or we'll all get cooties." I don't think that's necessarily it, but it's not out of the question.

The pollsters really weren't too far off the mark, but the media had their narrative written in advance and it didn't include Clinton winning the primary. There are plenty of honest reporters out there, but there are just as many lazy media hacks like Chris Matthews, who acted like it was the greatest political upset in history when it was only the second primary. I like Obama, but one win isn't enough to crown him king.

It's going to be a fun fight. Personally, I hope they end up on the ticket together.
 
Last edited:
Oh no, what the hell is this.... >.<

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...onal/stories/011008dnpolnetfraud.25173a1.html

Bloggers form theory New Hampshire vote was rigged

Posts question polls' inaccuracy, point to documentary on fraud

09:19 PM CST on Wednesday, January 9, 2008

By KAREN BROOKS / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

AUSTIN – The results weren't even in when the blogosphere started to hum with a theory that sharply divided Democrats online: Barack Obama lost to Hillary Rodham Clinton in New Hampshire because the vote was rigged.

"Something stinks in New Hampshire," a commenter posted on the popular liberal site Americablog.com.

Curious about the "wildly inaccurate" polls that put Mr. Obama in a double-digit lead going into Tuesday's primary, blogger Brad Friedman, a Los Angeles-based election-fraud watchdog, questioned the results as soon as they arrived, and all day Wednesday.

"Other folks that I've spoken to, who follow this sort of thing, share my concern at this hour," he wrote on bradblog.com. "If I was Barack Obama, I'd certainly not have conceded this election this quickly. I'm not quite sure what he was thinking."

An Obama representative said the campaign is not alleging that fraud occurred. Clinton aides did not return calls seeking comment.

But the buzz grew all day Wednesday as bloggers across the nation keyed into the fact that 81 percent of New Hampshire votes were being counted on machines that an HBO documentary alleged are easily hacked. It also didn't hurt that New Hampshire was the site of a recount after allegations of fraud in 2004, spotlighted in the much-praised documentary.

It wasn't just on the Democratic side: Supporters of Texas Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Paul were pointing to discrepancies in at least one town, where dozens of votes cast were initially counted as zero – before an elections official corrected the error. Mr. Paul's campaign did not return calls seeking comment.

From Americablog.com to Crooks and Liars to several news blogs, readers posted their concerns – drawing the gleeful eye of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday morning, who pointed to a debate raging on Democratic Underground.

That site, which has more than 100,000 registered users, was alive with debate throughout the day – mainly between Obama supporters and Clinton fans.

"Please come back to your senses," one commenter wrote. "What is most disturbing is the fact some people are accusing the fellow Democrats of fraud. Please, dear reasonable Obama supporter, tell those people to stop."

Some of the nation's most prominent bloggers sparred over the issue as well. Markos Moulitsas, who runs the popular site DailyKos, called the allegations "a load of bull" from "a bunch of cranks." Mr. Moulitsas, who has said he'll vote for Mr. Obama, also said it was typical of the blogosphere to host a "tiny minority" who pose "wild claims."

"This is the price you pay for a medium that democratizes media access," he said. "But really, is that any different than traditional media outlets who pushed the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? A little skepticism from the public in regards to all media would be well advised."

Mr. Friedman took issue with that characterization, saying the process should be transparent and trustworthy, and that the polls were "wildly out of whack" with the results – combined with the questionable machines – should be enough to raise concerns.

"It's no longer a theory that these systems are vulnerable to tampering," he said. "And it doesn't take a conspiracy, it takes one real person."

Online-buzz trackers said the conversation still hasn't grown to the point where it's more than a blip on the radar, if even that. But that could change if the objections gain traction, said Pete Blackshaw, executive vice president of strategic services for Nielsen Online, which tracks blogs and buzz on the Web.

"It could bubble into a broader conversation," he said. "What will be interesting is, to what extent does the hoopla run into the next [contest]? ... For a lot of the bloggers, they're going to have to run the calculus of [whether] prying into this issue of alleged fraud is ... a better conversation starter than the next primary."
 
I may support a candidate, but I usually don't vote for them. I vote for myself, as a write-in. I'd rather me be president than someone who doesn't think exactly like me.

I would vote for Stephen Colbert, but if he was elected that would mean I couldn't watch his show anymore :(

So like, for any polling purposes you vote for a real candidate, then end up shanking them in the end by voting for yourself? I mean, I guess if .1% of people did that, as pointless as supporting someone in the first place would be, it wouldn't matter (maybe). I also understand you'd rather not vote for someone you don't fully agree with. However, there is no way that the majority of the minority end up doing that. More than likely, they all act like they are ready to go, then end up not casting a ballot because of 'diffusion of responsibility.' If they don't do it, someone else will right?

I would recommend that instead of voting for yourself, you should vote for an independent candidate instead. A. They'll never win. B. More importantly, the more votes an independent gets, the more large parties begin looking at what issues it is that an independent group supports, and begin to emulate it. Sadly, that is the tool of change currently in use in the U.S.A.
 
So like, for any polling purposes you vote for a real candidate, then end up shanking them in the end by voting for yourself? I mean, I guess if .1% of people did that, as pointless as supporting someone in the first place would be, it wouldn't matter (maybe). I also understand you'd rather not vote for someone you don't fully agree with. However, there is no way that the majority of the minority end up doing that. More than likely, they all act like they are ready to go, then end up not casting a ballot because of 'diffusion of responsibility.' If they don't do it, someone else will right?

I would recommend that instead of voting for yourself, you should vote for an independent candidate instead. A. They'll never win. B. More importantly, the more votes an independent gets, the more large parties begin looking at what issues it is that an independent group supports, and begin to emulate it. Sadly, that is the tool of change currently in use in the U.S.A.

Yeah, I do it cause I know my vote alone won't make a difference. I hate hearing about how "one vote matters", it doesn't, not in a Presidential election anyway.
And actually I've never voted in a Presidential election, I wasn't old enough during the last one, what I said about voting for myself is just what I plan to do this year^^ Maybe in '12 I'll vote for a constitutionalist party candidate.
 
Yeah, I do it cause I know my vote alone won't make a difference. I hate hearing about how "one vote matters", it doesn't, not in a Presidential election anyway.
And actually I've never voted in a Presidential election, I wasn't old enough during the last one, what I said about voting for myself is just what I plan to do this year^^ Maybe in '12 I'll vote for a constitutionalist party candidate.

But every vote does count! I mean, duh 1 is pretty damn insignificant, but if you get enough of that 'diffusion of responsibility' where people think the same thing... then yea, your vote... turns out it really does matter -- a lot.

I still say you at least vote for some party you believe in.
 
Back
Top