election nattering

[rm]

WHY IS HUCKABEE DOING SO WELL?

Also, why is CNN focusing on who is winning a state for the Dems when the Dems split states?

Comments

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

Those places allowed early voting and people voted for Thompson and Huckabee before today. So weird.

[kathrynrose.livejournal.com]

I hate to say it, but down here in the south, there are a lot of idiots who care more about the Bible than the constitution.

I'm listning to the election coverage on Air America so I don't have to scream at the doofuses on the tv. :)

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

1. Who cares? Let us celebrate, for it showeth a Banana Republican base that may yet refuse to vote for John McCain, even if it means handing the White House to a POC or a chick. Think of it as being like Pat Buchanan winning New Hampshire in 2004: on the one hand, creepy, but on the other, a good tactical indication.

2. Because they are idiots whose model of the world has never progressed past high school (where they did not exactly excel in those disciplines that require cognitive gifts), and think that we are too. If I could make one change, just one, in our national social/political culture, it would be to eliminate the Kool Kids of journalism and replace them with actual competent grown-up reporters.

Anything else I can help you with?

[weirdquark]

1. I read something this morning that said that Dobson has said that he'd boycott the election if McCain gets the nomination.

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

I saw a youtube clip of Ann Coulter claiming that if McCain is the Republican nominee, she's going to not only vote for but campaign for Hillary Clinton.

[dskasak.livejournal.com]

Huckabee> Could it be that he's showing up as the new stop-McCain candidate?

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

Actually they were saying stop Romney candidate...

[miep.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that the dems split delegates in caucus states, but it's winner-take-all in primary states. Is that incorrect?

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

Republicans have winner-take-all rules in some primary states. But the Democrats apportion everywhere, if I'm remembering correctly.

[browneyedgirl65.livejournal.com]

No, Dems have some winners take all states. But I'm not sure if it's by caucus or primary or something else.

[lilerthkwake.livejournal.com]

I HATE Huckabee. HATE HATE HATE. And McCain gives me the willies.

[miep.livejournal.com]

Huckabee appeals to the super anti-gay, anti-abortion, conservative evangelicals.

[go-orgoahead.livejournal.com]

I think if a Republican wins the White House again that assassinations will have to be made. They are all insanely scary, and sometimes make me ashamed to be American due to association.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

Huckabee must be stopped at all costs. Seriously.

[schpahky.livejournal.com]

I keep thinking about Huckabee as a McCain running mate and it scares the living daylights out of me. I just don't buy the whole "But I won't impose my religion on you" thing.

[browneyedgirl65.livejournal.com]

I'm actually more worried about this, that the Huckster's angling for a veep bid. He will never pull in a national vote as a presidential candidate, but he might be useful to McCain to mitigate that "Buchanan factor." I don't know.

McCain and Romney appear to despise each other, so I think that combo's not an issue (and besides a Mormon is .not. going to pull the religious whack jobs in. At least not those whack jobs.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

I don't buy it either, ever since his statement aobut bringing the constitution in line with " God's Law ".

[xo-kizzy-xo.livejournal.com]

Last time I looked Romney was ahead in my state. But that was to be expected. Hillary and Obama were running neck and neck with Hillary having a very slight lead. Haven't seen any final polls yet...the outcome will be interesting.

[sethg]

Note that except for Arkansas and West Virginia, Huckabee is "winning" with pluralities.

They really don't like Mitt in the South, it seems.

What I can't understand is why Massachusetts Republicans went for Romney, after all he did to piss on the state in general and the state Republican Party in particular.

[weirdquark]

If you look at the town by town results, McCain did well in the more liberal areas; Romney got the more conservative parts of the state. According to the Boston Globe, much of McCain's support in MA back in 2000 came primarily from the swing voters and we voted Democrat this year.

So it's not that the Massachusetts Republicans went for Romney, it's that those of us who didn't like Romney cared more about who would get the Democratic delegates than about which Republican won, because when it comes down to the election in November, Massachusetts is going to vote Democrat no matter who the Republican running is. (Obama got more votes than all of the Republicans combined. By about 17,000.)

[wyrdwriter.livejournal.com]

WHY IS HUCKABEE DOING SO WELL?

*Shakes Head* I was wondering the same thing.

[magnetgirl.livejournal.com]

Thought you'd appreciate this from Warren Ellis:

"Well, the exit polling was fucked,
wasn't it? I think three or four
states changed control between
US networks calling them from exit
polling and the actual counts coming
in. You'd think that'd be a bigger
story this morning. But maybe the
likes of CNN want to forget the
Breaking News email blast that gave
Alabama to Clinton.

More interesting, perhaps, is that
MA went to Clinton, after the
Kennedy clan came out for Obama.
That small thing indicates trouble
down the road for the DCCC -- the
old party machinery could have
done without showing a chink in its
armour this early on.

Still, a better night for Obama than
the polling suggested. Why am I
so interested in Obama? Because
I don't think Clinton can beat McCain.
Simple as that."

[iterum.livejournal.com]

What I didn't understand about the election coverage was how the news teams decided when to change from "too close to call" to "projected winner" without any new information, as happened a couple of times.

[marcmagus]

I have no answer to your first question.

The answer to your second question is that they didn't actually have anything interesting to say, but they had to pretend to talk about the Democratic primaries. Since there wasn't enough real data to even attempt to make predictions about who would be getting how many delegates, they just nattered on about their projections of how the popular vote would split. It made it look like they were delivering news.

It pissed me off, but I really can't think what they should have done, other than repeating over and over that there wasn't naything to report and the other networks were lying in implying that there was.