CNN is calling Nevada for Clinton and Romney. South Carolina is still going, but early reports tell of a Huckabee surge.
UPDATE: NYT sez of Nevada: Clinton 51, Obama 45, Edwards 4 (ouch); Romney 53, Paul 13, McCain 13, Thompson 8, Huckabee 8, Giuliani 5 (ouch).
UPDATE: Buzz has it that Clinton won by overwhelming margins among Hispanics, and Obama won by overwhelming margins among blacks. Polling shows a similar dynamic in upcoming states. That's good news for Obama in South Carolina, but very, very bad news for Obama on Super Tuesday, when the Hispanic vote will be substantially larger. I'm told Southern whites are largely against him as well. So much for post-racial politics.
UPDATE: Right: Obama won Nevada blacks 80 to Clinton's 16; Clinton won Nevada Hispanics 64 to Obama's 24. Overall turnout in Nev. was enormous.
UPDATE: Duncan Hunter -- remember him? -- is out of the race. The world mourns.
UPDATE: McCain pulls out a narrow victory in South Carolina, with 33 to Huckabee's 30, Thompson's 16, Romney's 15, Paul's 4, and Giuliani's 3 (losing to Paul!). There are lingering issues about effed up voting machines, FWIW.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Los Angeles rejects solar plan, still likes solar power
Comments
View as Flat
LegumeSam Posted 12:10 pm
19 Jan 2008
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:08 pm
19 Jan 2008
I do not know how much responsibility Hillary herself bears for the "irregularities" (really really mean ones, too!) reported by ThereIsNoSpoon. By no means is she off the hook, ethically, but electoral shenanigans in US history seem to be enthusiastically engaged in by whoever can.
As with Iowa, though, I cannot help feeling that the caucus system is especially unreliable, un-American and nasty.
So, was the vote for my man John Edwards suppressed, somehow? The difference between his numbers in the pre-caucus polls and the actual voting results would suggest that that is not at all unlikely.
I am pretty miserable, right now, trying to think strategically about what his best next move might be.
Still, I do not want to punish Hillary just yet. My husband and I are both glad that she beat her film-on-water rival from Chicago.
Or, sort of beat him. The delegate business baffles me -- and why the hell should it, in this the greatest democracy on Earth? : (
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:57 pm
19 Jan 2008
Caucuses have nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with organization, which most of the time these days, means money.
Edwards loses because despite his showing in the polls, his supporters did not turn out. It can happen, especially with a caucus system. Clinton and Obama were both stronger organizationally.
More interesting is that Mitt won to balance McCain in South Carolina. Unless Rudy wakes from the dead, we may soon have two two candidate races.
The Democrats are pretty much twins (except for style) (although Obama's "raygun is allright by me" quote may turn out to be suicidal), but the Republicans could get down and dirty with each other. Should be a good show.
If he's still on the ballot, John Edwards gets my vote. But he was always doomed. Who in the hell cares about poverty, social justice and a fair and equitable society in todays' America?
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
GreenOx Posted 2:28 am
20 Jan 2008
His complex positions on cap-and-trade legislation and arbitrary assignment of renewable energy production are more realistic and helpful, I think, than blanket "support" for both. On the former, it is important to include India, China and the rest of the world in a global carbon market - but on different terms than the U.S. Since American business won't suffer significantly from increased carbon costs if China and India don't participate (see report highlighted here: http://www.greenox.blogspot.com), we cannot use that as an excuse for inaction on establishing cap-and-trade.
On the second issue, requiring a mandatory portfolio of renewables is the most expensive way to get that result. Incentivizing alternative energy via tax breaks and subsidies will produce the desired result while not significantly increasing transaction costs for companies (who then pass those relatively higher costs onto consumers). Biofuel production would, I think, make up a large portion of renewable energy requirements, and the last thing we want to do is have a blanket biofuels requirement because of some types' questionable energy and emissions balances and affect on global food prices.
So, overall, I think environmentalists should be happy for this weekend's results - especially on the Republican side - should they factor significantly into choosing the parties' candidates.
-GreenOx
http://www.greenox.blogspot.com
-GreenOx
http://www.greenox.blogspot.com
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 4:54 am
20 Jan 2008
While an RPS may be an expensive way to get renewable energy, in this country it's very necessary, because we need the big power companies to invest in renewables. Incentives won't get them to invest enough, but renewable portfolio standards are in place in, I believe, 29 states now, and are an important component of regional energy policy.
Also, I'm not sure how you leap to saying that biofuel production would take up the bulk of renewable portfolios -- this assumption blurs the distinction between power production and transportation fuel. Renewable power production is not largely crop based, right? -- it comes from many different sources like wind, hydro, landfill gas, even hog waste (in my state), and improvements in efficiency (which count toward the RPS in many states).
Finally, I'm skeptical of your positive comments about Romney, but I'll wait to comment til I've read up more. But if you're voicing approval of comments he's made about including China and India in climate policy, be aware that the Republicans usually use this as an excuse for inaction at home (am I right in inferring that you are British and possibly less familiar with some of the usual political rhetoric over here?).
Permalink