Official NH Primary Results Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
It won't end this close. Just watch. I think the Rep. side with tighten but the Dem side should widen.
 
Wow, Politico.com OWNS. You can see detailed results of what Town has checked in and what their percentages were, direct AP numbers. Awesome stuff.
 
According to MSNBC, with 8% in:

Clinton 38%
Obama 36%
Edwards 17%
Richardson 4%

Mccain 38%
Romney 28%
Huckabbe 12%
Giuliani 9%
Paul 8%
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Wow, Politico.com OWNS. You can see detailed results of what Town has checked in and what their percentages were, direct AP numbers. Awesome stuff.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thanks for the site. Much appreaciated.
 
anyone following the sexism angle on MSNBC with regard to the explosive media following Hillary's tears and the non-story of Romney's purported four tearfests?

is Lou Dobbs off yet? i don't know if i can handle any of these media outlets.
 
scorcho said:
anyone following the sexism angle on MSNBC with regard to the explosive media following Hillary's tears and the non-story of Romney's purported four tearfests?

is Lou Dobbs off yet? i don't know if i can handle any of these media outlets.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm listening, it's basically people yelling at each other until Olbermann of all people put in a voice of reason. Oddly enough, he used the same voice I do when trying to settle an argument between friends.
 
If the primaries in Iowa and NH are so determining for the dems, aren't they for the republicans then? Because, if they are...how again is Guilliani the biggest candidate for the GOP?
 
This is exactly the way it went in Iowa. Obama was getting his ass kicked until the big cities results came in and he dominated.
 
scorcho said:
APF's argument, i think, is that any encroachment on a nation's borders is tantamount to infringing on the state's rights to sovereignty within its territory.
Click to expand...
Yes . . . but "infringing on the state's rights to sovereignty within its territory" is not equal to war.

Heck . . . we kidnapped people off the streets in Italy against that government's will and they are mad about it . . . but I really don't think anyone would say we are 'at war' with Italy.

But I'm trying to remember . . . didn't we do a strike from a Predator UAV in some other mid-east country . . . Yemen, I think? Yes, I remembered correctly. I don't remember people making a big stink about that strike . . . why would a strike in pakistan be any different? In fact we've already done it there too.
 
This is exactly the way it went in Iowa. Obama was getting his ass kicked until the big cities results came in and he dominated.
Click to expand...

Except he's not getting his ass kicked. It's basically tied.
 
It may not make him a "warmonger" to you for whatever reason, but there's no doubt at the very least he was attempting to pander / appear "strong" on foreign policy in an absolutely inelegant, hamfisted manner; he also managed to place himself further to the "right" or closer to "unilateralist warmonger" than the Bush Administration, than Rumsfeld, etc on this issue. Personally I don't find, "hey cooperate with us or we'll violate your sovereignty and damn the consequences" reassuring in any way shape or form, but then again I'm not exactly a warmongering unilateralist.

Oh, and what happens when that "actionable intelligence" fails, as it inevitably will at times? Striking against a single terrorist HVT is often not worth the consequences when you do have the "host" country's approval for the strike.
 
scorcho said:
anyone following the sexism angle on MSNBC with regard to the explosive media following Hillary's tears and the non-story of Romney's purported four tearfests?
Click to expand...
Rachel Maddow noticed that hypocrisy.
 
APF said:
It may not make him a "warmonger" to you for whatever reason, but there's no doubt at the very least he was attempting to pander / appear "strong" on foreign policy in an absolutely inelegant, hamfisted manner; he also managed to place himself further to the "right" or closer to "unilateralist warmonger" than the Bush Administration, than Rumsfeld, etc on this issue. Personally I don't find, "hey cooperate with us or we'll violate your sovereignty and damn the consequences" reassuring in any way shape or form, but then again I'm not exactly a warmongering unilateralist.

Oh, and what happens when that "actionable intelligence" fails, as it inevitably will? Striking against a single terrorist HVT is often not worth the consequences when you do have the "host" country's approval for the strike.
Click to expand...

He was asked the question. What would you have liked him to say?
 
speculawyer said:
Heck . . . we kidnapped people off the streets in Italy against that government's will and they are mad about it . . . but I really don't think anyone would say we are 'at war' with Italy.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, what would the reaction be if, to use a completely random example, Portugal went into downtown New York City and pulled people off of the street, kidnapping American Citizens? Why do WE think something is acceptable only when we do it but not other countries?
 
Looks like it's mostly precincts in southern NH that are reporting and in those Clinton is slightly ahead of Obama. McCain is smearing Romney the Used Car Salesman across the board and Ron Paul is in fifth. At least the Republicans are getting it right.
 
Politico.com tip. If you're on the local New Hampshire map, any precinct with returned data is darker. So you don't have to blindly roll over everything like I did.

Really interesting stuff. Some places Hil is dominating in, some Obama is.
 
thekad said:
He was asked the question. What would you have liked him to say?
Click to expand...
Probably something close to what I have been saying.

speculawyer: you do realize that the DOD under Rumsfeld had called-off strikes for this exact reason, right?
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Politico.com tip. If you're on the local New Hampshire map, any precinct with returned data is darker. So you don't have to blindly roll over everything like I did.

Really interesting stuff. Some places Hil is dominating in, some Obama is.
Click to expand...
How do I get to the map? Is it for registered members only?

Edit: nevermind. Found it.
 
I was talking about in Iowa. The fact it's tied already bodes well for a BIG win for him.
Click to expand...

I know. You said this is what happened in Iowa until he came back to win. I said it didn't happen lik ethis in Iowa because he is much closer early.
 
Question from a foreigner:

Was Edwards expected to do well in NH? Did he spend a lot of campaign money there? Will it be a big blow for him if he stays in the teens or is that an expected percentage?
 
Gaborn said:
I'm curious, what would the reaction be if, to use a completely random example, Portugal went into downtown New York City and pulled people off of the street, kidnapping American Citizens? Why do WE think something is acceptable only when we do it but not other countries?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think that was acceptable. However, following my previous statements, I wouldn't have complained if it were Osama that they kidnapped off the streets of Italy.

Not only do I think that such unauthorized kidnappings are violations of their sovereignty, I think they are very bad anti-terrorism policy. The absolute most important thing in anti-terrorism is intelligence and cooperation. I think that by alienating so much of the rest of the world, we are probably not getting the best cooperation from other countries.
 
Iowa was neck and neck for a while at first, too. It didn't start to break big for Obama until about 40-50% was in, if I remember.
 
Souldriver said:
If the primaries in Iowa and NH are so determining for the dems, aren't they for the republicans then? Because, if they are...how again is Guilliani the biggest candidate for the GOP?
Click to expand...

It's the expectations game. Rudy made it clear early that he didn't care about the early states. So the media doesn't hold him accountable for mounting a good showing. Doesn't make it fair but that is why the media frames it in this manner.
 
VALIS said:
Iowa was neck and neck for a while at first, too. It didn't start to break big for Obama until about 40-50% was in, if I remember.
Click to expand...
he broke around 20-25% they called the election before 50% was in
 
VALIS said:
Iowa was neck and neck for a while at first, too. It didn't start to break big for Obama until about 40-50% was in, if I remember.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the question is why that happened. I believe it's because the first results are from rural areas, and Clinton does well there, while the urban areas take a while to count the votes and these are Obamas stronghold.

If that's true, then yes Obama'll pull ahead.
 
speculawyer said:
Not only do I think that such unauthorized kidnappings are violations of their sovereignty, I think they are very bad anti-terrorism policy.
Click to expand...
The said country should do it themselves, if they can't someone who can needs to do it. ;)
 
VALIS said:
Iowa was neck and neck for a while at first, too. It didn't start to break big for Obama until about 40-50% was in, if I remember.
Click to expand...

MAN, check this out, the raw numbers right now.

Hil: 10,566
O:10,288

What a barn burner!
 
APF said:
It may not make him a "warmonger" to you for whatever reason, but there's no doubt at the very least he was attempting to pander / appear "strong" on foreign policy in an absolutely inelegant, hamfisted manner; he also managed to place himself further to the "right" or closer to "unilateralist warmonger" than the Bush Administration, than Rumsfeld, etc on this issue. Personally I don't find, "hey cooperate with us or we'll violate your sovereignty and damn the consequences" reassuring in any way shape or form, but then again I'm not exactly a warmongering unilateralist.
Click to expand...

:lol

APF said:
Oh, and what happens when that "actionable intelligence" fails, as it inevitably will at times? Striking against a single terrorist HVT is often not worth the consequences when you do have the "host" country's approval for the strike.
Click to expand...

If you had a shot at the current guiding hands behind Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists and you did have approval of the country they're in and the intelligence did look right, you're telling me you wouldn't strike? Yes, these things do go wrong (of course you're going to hear more about the failures than the successes), but it's better to have acted than not and wonder the what ifs. This is all very hypothetical in any case.
 
APF said:
speculawyer: you do realize that the DOD under Rumsfeld had called-off strikes for this exact reason, right?
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that Rumsfeld could have hit Osama but called-off the strike because the missile would have landed in Pakistan? I'm sorry, I don't believe that.

The only way I could believe Rumsfeld calling off such a strike is if I were a conspiracy theorist that felt he wanted to keep Osama around as a boogie-man to scare americans with. :D

Edit: Oh . . . and did you notice that I posted links to reports of such strikes that we did do in sovereign countries. (Pakistan and Yemen)
 
Wes said:
Question from a foreigner:

Was Edwards expected to do well in NH? Did he spend a lot of campaign money there? Will it be a big blow for him if he stays in the teens or is that an expected percentage?
Click to expand...
He was not expected to do well, and had spent most of his money in Iowa. It would be a big blow realistically but the bigger blow was losing Iowa. He was expected to do about where he's at now.

I like Edwards. Sigh.
 
APF said:
It may not make him a "warmonger" to you for whatever reason, but there's no doubt at the very least he was attempting to pander / appear "strong" on foreign policy in an absolutely inelegant, hamfisted manner; he also managed to place himself further to the "right" or closer to "unilateralist warmonger" than the Bush Administration, than Rumsfeld, etc on this issue. Personally I don't find, "hey cooperate with us or we'll violate your sovereignty and damn the consequences" reassuring in any way shape or form, but then again I'm not exactly a warmongering unilateralist.

Oh, and what happens when that "actionable intelligence" fails, as it inevitably will at times? Striking against a single terrorist HVT is often not worth the consequences when you do have the "host" country's approval for the strike.
Click to expand...
of course it was attempting to bolster his FP chops, but that's a trait that every national politician is guilty of. it was a very blunt statement, but even you stated that the policy itself should at least be considered, one would assume in light of all facts, consequences and variables. it really falls to what qualifies as 'actionable intelligence'. Obama, are you reading?
 
Stoney Mason said:
It's the expectations game. Rudy made it clear early that he didn't care about the early states. So the media doesn't hold him accountable for mounting a good showing. Doesn't make it fair but that is why the media frames it in this manner.
Click to expand...
Ah. Thanks. Not completely 'unfair' though. If you pull out the big guns in these states and don't manage to come out on top, it doesn't bode well. For Guilliani it's not easy to predict how he'll do elsewere then, so you can't write him off just yet. (But that's basically what you said so I'm stating the obvious :lol) What amazes me though is how much off an effect the campaigning seems to have. A pamflet or banner wouldn't sway me to a candidate at all.
 
We have been hearing for the past few days what a huge blow this would be to Clinton if she loses again. But what would happen to Obama's campaign if he ends up losing NH after all the hype?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Canada's election results are in
8
183
Jaybe replied
WEAPONS | Official Trailer
25
547
Nocty replied
Iron Heart official Trailer
2 3
118
657
jason10mm replied
The Smashing Machine - Official Trailer
19
330
Putonahappyface replied
Tron: Ares | Official Trailer
2
75
3K
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Top Bottom