The Florida Primary - it's Michigan (the remix)

This state has plenty of election history attached to it. In 2000, there was the famous Florida recount, which turned into one of the most important factors in deciding the presidency. You will probably remember that Al Gore won the popular vote (which, in my opinion is the most important thing because you will be represeting those people), but George W. Bush got into the Whitehouse because of the Electoral College system.

These are the results for the 2008 Democrat and GOP primaries in Florida:
Republicans

Candidate	Vote %age	Delegates
John McCain	36	57
Mitt Romney	31	0
Rudy Giuliani	15	0
Mike Huckabee	14	0
Ron Paul	3	0
Fred Thompson	1	0
Duncan Hunter	0	0

Democrats

Candidate	Vote %age	Delegates
Hillary Clinton	50	0
Barack Obama	33	0
John Edwards	14	0
Dennis Kucinich	1	0

This was a terrific victory for John McCain. In terms of voting percentages it looks quite close between him and Mitt Romney, but because it's the delegates that matter, the difference was actually massive. The gains in Florida mean that McCain is now ahead of Romney overall. He will be hoping that the momentum can continue into Super Tuesday. If he does well in that, it would almost certainly mean that he'll become the GOP nominee for President. This is what McCain had to say after the victory:

"Thank you, Florida Republicans, for bringing a former Florida resident across the finish line first in - as I have been repeatedly reminded lately - an all Republican primary.

My friends, in one week we will have as close to a national primary as we have ever had in this country. I intend to win it, and be the nominee of our party."

Even though he got no delegates, it was one of Rudy Giuliani's best performances so far. The bad news is that he put a lot of work into winning this primary and ignored some of the states that have already voted. He felt that winning that state would show the rest of the US public that he can win the tough contests. As he finished third, there will be even more doubts about his credibility. He didn't say that he'd withdraw from the race, but he referred to his campaign in the past tense:

"I ran a campaign that was uplifting."

Apart from ignoring the early states, it didn't help that he was one-dimensional (frequently mentioning 9/11).

Mike Huckabee seems to be slipping down the results tables, which doesn't look too good. However, there is still Super-Tuesday where everything could change and he has shown the US population that he's capable of winning a primary. Even before the results were released in Florida, he knew that he wasn't going to win in the state, but he won't stop campaigning:

"Thank you folks for being here. God bless every one of you. Pray hard, work hard, get the votes out. Remember this -- if they're going to vote for me, make sure they come. If they're not, don't let them out of their driveway."

At the bottom of the results table for the GOP you'll notice that there's Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson. I mentioned in a previous post that Hunter withdrew from the race and I assume that his name was left on the ballot papers because there wasn't enough time to produce a new batch. Apparently Fred Thompson has also quit the race and this actually happened a few days ago. It was such a quiet withdrawal and I don't think many people noticed (despite this, he still managed to get a small percentage of the vote - how strange). He said the following in a prepared statement:

"Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort"

The South Carolina result had sealed his fate.

It was a very different story for the Democrats. As you can see from the table near the top of this post, there were no delegates on offer (like Michigan). This was because they had brought their primary forward, but had not followed the rules. None of the leading candidates bothered to campaign in the state as a result of this, so you have to wonder why they bothered to have a vote. All it did was give Hillary Clinton - the 'winner' - a bit of extra press coverage (like Michigan).

You'll notice that Mike Gravel wasn't in the results table (that you can also see on the CNN website). This intrigues me, because he is still running (apparently) and this was confirmed when I looked at this. Do CNN not like him for some reason? Did they decide that he was no longer credible enough? I don't think it's for them to say. He was the only Democrat who campaigned in Florida. I didn't expect him to still be in the race at this stage because he's behind Dennis Kucinich overall and he doesn't have much chance of winning either. I suppose it's theoretically possible that he could do well in Super Tuesday, but it's highly unlikely that will happen.

So, what do you think?

Technorati tags: Election, USA, Politics, Florida, Rudy Giuliani, Republicans

US election process confuses the media

After I found about about the results in Nevada and South Carolina and read some of the analysis on the internet, I ended up thinking the following:

Does the mainstream media in the US understand their country's election process?

At the moment I don't think they do. Recently Nevada had their caucus and the following is the results for the Democrats:

Candidate	Votes (%)	Delegates
Hillary Clinton	51	12
Barack Obama	45	13
John Edwards	4	0
Uncommitted	0	0
Dennis Kucinich	0	0
Bill Richardson	0	0

You'll notice that even though Clinton got more votes, Obama got the most delegates. It seems that most of the time getting the majority of the votes means you'll get the most delegates, but as you can see from this, it doesn't always happen (another example of this would be the election in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won because more people in the Electoral College voted for him).

As I mentioned in my previous blog post, delegates mean more than actual voters in the US because it's those people who go to the conventions and decide who will be the presidential candidate for their party.

This article in the New York Times is a perfect example of how the media is reporting the result:

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, capturing strong support from women voters and adding a fresh boost of momentum to her campaign as the Democratic presidential race heads to South Carolina, where she is engaged in a fierce battle with her rival, Senator Barack Obama."

Yes, she won the popular vote, but as I've just mentioned, that means nothing. Obama got more delegates in that state and has the most overall on the Democrat side - so he's the real winner. The likes of the NY Times seem to forget that.

There was a poor result for John Edwards, but there is still time for his prospects to improve. There's always the possiblity that Super Tuesday (an event when multiple primaries happen on the same day) could make him the front runner. Uncommitted - that mysterious candidate who did so well in Michigan, managed to finish ahead of Dennis Kucinich, but both got 0 delegates, so they both must be disappointed. I noticed that Bill Richardson was on the results table, which is strange because he's withdrawn from the race. I noticed that same thing happening with Chris Dodd and one or two others in some states - I wonder why their names aren't removed?

On the Republican side, more candidates got delegates, but it was Mitt Romney who won by a signifcant margin in terms of delegates (18) and votes (51%). Surprisingly, Ron Paul finished second in terms of votes and joint second with John McCain (both candidates got four delegates). As usual it was a poor performance for Rudy Giuliani and as each state vote passes by, it looks even less likely that he will become the GOP candidate for President - but there is still time for things to change.

According to this Los Angeles Times article, only Romney and Paul were the active campaigners in Nevada though. I still think it's disgraceful when candidates don't treat every state with respect.

In South Carolina, the GOP primary also took place (the Democrat primary happens on January 26th) and there was a big win for John McCain, which makes him look more and more like a top contender. Even though he only beat Mike Huckabee by 3% in terms of votes, but he gained significantly more delegates (McCain got 19, Huckabee got 5). Ron Paul didn't perform as well getting 4% and 0 delegates (others to get 0 delegates were Mitt Romney - surprising, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter).

It's worth pointing out at this point that Duncan Hunter has now dropped out of the race:

"I ran the campaign exactly the way I wanted to, and at this point not being able to gain traction in conservative states of Nevada and South Carolina, it's time to allow our volunteers and supporters to focus on the campaigns that remain viable."

The media isn't the only people who are confused at the moment. Recently, USAToday mentioned the following in this article:

"The former president trumpeted New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's accomplishments while painting Obama as the "establishment" candidate who would bring only the "feeling of change.""

Obviously, this is heavily biased given that Bill is Hillary's husband and also part of her campaign team, but the former President seems to forget that Hillary is the one with the Whitehouse experience (as she was the former First Lady).

It was also implied in this article that Bill questioned Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq. I seem to remember in some of the debates that Obama, like most of the other candidates felt that a withdrawal was needed. I also decided to look at US Senate records and I found the following:

IRAQ -- (Senate - January 30, 2007)

"The American people have waited. The American people have been patient. We have given chance after chance for a resolution that has not come and, more importantly, watched with horror and grief at the tragic loss of thousands of brave young American soldiers.

The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. The need to bring this war to an end is here.

That is why today I am introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation; more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of United States forces with the goal of removing all United States combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President has so assiduously ignored."

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON IRAQ--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - February 17, 2007)

"I will vote today to bring up a resolution for debate that would disapprove of the President's policy of escalation in Iraq."

It seems that the President doesn't have a knowledge of recent senate activities or his wife's CV. It's amazing what bias does to a person.

So, what do you think?

Democrats, Republicans, Elections, USA, Politics

Wyoming and Michigan - controversy reigns

Everyone seems to have ignored the result in Wyoming. This is possibly because only the Republicans had their vote - the vote for the Democrats comes later on in the year. Only three candidates got delegates. Mitt Romney did well and got eight, Fred Thompson got three and the surprise was Duncan Hunter who got one. It was surprising because he's normally bottom of the results table and this time there were no delegates for the likes of Ron Paul, John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. As there is such a lack of reporting on the GOP Wyoming caucus, it's highly likely that this won't have any influence on the people who are waiting to vote.

So, why did Romney get so many delegates compared to the other candidates? This seems to give a good reason:

"One thing to note is that about 10 percent of Wyoming’s population is Mormon. That being a significant number, it may have given Romney an edge."

If you remember the Iowa caucus, you'll know that religion can have a big influence in United States politics.

Why was Wyoming virtually ignored? According to this article in the Kansas City Star, 14 of the 28 delegates were removed by the GOP. As there were fewer delegates up for grabs, perhaps some of the candidates felt it would be worth campaigning. There's also the fact that the cacus was done much earlier this time. Perhaps some felt they couldn't give necessary time. I hope that some of the candidates didn't ignore it because they felt it was an unimportant state. That sort of message could affect future performances.

This AP article gives the reason why the state was punished:

"RNC rules require the punishment for states that hold their nominating contests earlier than Feb. 5. Iowa, which held caucuses on Thursday, will not be penalized because, technically, the caucuses are not binding on convention delegates. Nevada, which plans to hold its caucuses on Jan. 19, will not be penalized for the same reason."

The states know the rules and they know what happens if they break them. I'd like to know who thought it would be sensible to organise the caucus so early.

I'm interested in seeing how the Democrats handle Wyoming. They've seen what happened to the Republicans. Surely they will do things differently.

Another rule breaker was Michigan, but this time it was on the side of the Democrats:

"...the DNC revoked the state's delegates to the national convention for moving the state's primary to Jan. 15 in violation of DNC rules."

Here are the Democrat results for that primary:

1. Hillary Clinton - 55%
2. Uncommitted - 40%
3. Dennis Kucinich - 4%
4. Chris Dodd - 1%
5. Mike Gravel - 0%

It seems the success story of that particular vote was a mysterious candidate called 'Uncommitted'! Seriously though, the that category had such a high percentage was that John Edwards and Barack Obama withdrew from that state due to the rule breaking. As the Democrats removed their delegates from the state, Hillary Clinton's win meant nothing anyway.

I still don't think that Hillary has performed very well so far, despite her winning two primaries, compared to Barack Obama's one caucus victory. New Hampshire was a narrow victory and Obama finished second, whereas in Iowa Obama won and Clinton was way back in third. If Clinton was seen as credible in Michigan, then she would have got more of the votes from the people who would have gone for Obama and Edwards. I also have to remind everyone that there are still many states left, so she could still lose the race.

As there seems to be so much controversy over delegates in both Wyoming and Michigan, some of you may be wondering what the delegates do. I must admit that that aspect of the US elections was confusing me for a while. Well, it's a similar principle to the US Electoral College. If you were to e.g. vote for Hillary Clinton in a primary, you would also vote for the delegates that support her in that state. When it's time for the democratic National Convention, all the delegates vote for the candidate that they support. Theoretically, you should get a party candidate after that. However, if they don't get a certain majority, it goes to a second ballot and then the delegates could change their support. That second ballot rarely happens though. Usually the person with the most delegates gets to be the party's candidate.

This means that the popular vote means absolutely nothing. Supporters of the delegate system say that it's better because then the bigger states don't always get to control who becomes the party candidate. However, I feel a major disadvantage is that you could have a situation where e.g. Mike Gravel only has one delegate at the time of the party convention and if it goes to the second ballot he could then get all the delegates. This may be highly unlikely, but it's still possible and would reflect the views of the US population because not many people have voted for him (so far). You could also have 'faithless electors', who are people that are supposed to vote for one person, but actually choose someone else. It would be much better to let the people decide - at the moment the popular vote has no legal binding.

So, we have learned that some states aren't capable of following long-standing rules and regulations. We've also learned Mitt Romney can take advantage of candidates failing to campaign in certain states. We also know that Hillary Clinton is willing to stay in a primary just to get a perceived victory, when it actually means nothing to win it.

So, what do you think?

Technorati tags: Democrats, Republicans, Election, USA, Politics

U.S. Elections 2008 - up to Iowa

This is probably going to be the first of a few posts covering the presidential race in the United States. I've been following it very closely because I have an interest in US politics and something like this is internationally important.

First of all, below is a list of the candidates form the Democrat and Republican parties at the start of the whole process:

Democrats
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
Senator Barack Obama(Illinois)
John Edwards (former Senator)
Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
Senator Joe Biden (Delaware)
Senator Chris Dodd (Connecticut)
Mike Gravel (former Senator)

GOP (the Republicans)
Mike Huckabee (former governor)
Mitt Romney (former governor)
Senator John McCain (Arizona)
Fred Thompson (former Senator)
Congressman Ron Paul (Texas)
Rudy Giuliani(former Mayor of New York)
Congressman Duncan Hunter (San Diego)
Congressman Tom Tancredo (Colorado)
Tommy Thompson (former governor)
Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas)

N.B. - There are other candidates, such as independents. However, under the current US system, they hardly get a chance to compete with the GOP and the Democrats. Typically, they have to have significant funds to get any sort of presence (notable non-GOP/Democrat candidates in previous elections include Ross Perot and Ralph Nader).

There can be numerous reasons for a candidate dropping out of the race to become the nominee for their respective party. For example, the candidate might have failed to raise enough funds to campaign effectively. Another reason is that they have had poor ratings in opinion polls and they feel that there would be no point going any further. Early dropouts from this campaign are Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo.

One reason for all of the early dropouts being Republicans could be that GOP approve most applications to be a presidential candidate. With the Democrats, they have a stricter system and don't approve an application unless they consider the person to have a realistic chance.

The campaigning has been relentless and I've noticed there seems to be a significant focus on funding (this link shows you the current funding levels for each candidate). I can understand this - more funding means you can afford more campaigning resources. However, the chosen GOP and Democrat candidates should not be decided on the money that they raise. It should be about policies.

That's why I was pleased to see Mike Huckabee finish top of the GOP caucus poll in Iowa as he isn't the biggest Republican fundraiser by quite a large margin. People have said this some of his success could be because of his religious beliefs and the fact that there is a highly influencial evangelical section of the US population (that point is mentioned in this article and also notes that Huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister).

One of the other GOP candidates, Mitt Romney, has a much larger amount of funding and finished second in the poll - 9% behind Huckabee which is quite a substantial difference. The former governor of Massachusetts (left the position on January 4th, 2007) was considered by many to be the front runner.

Another candidate who was supposed to be one of the favourites is Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York. He only got 3% of the vote and finished second bottom (ahead of Duncan Hunter). One problem I have with Giuliani's campaign is that he focuses on 9/11 too much. One person described it as '9/11 Tourettes'! It might have been an incredibly significant moment in modern US history, but it happened 6 1/2 years ago. He needs to comment more on other important issues, such as healthcare and the national debt. Yes, there should be talk about getting the US troops out of Iraq (how Bush linked Iraq to 9/11 is still beyond me), but it shouldn't be his only issue.

As for the Democrats, a few different prospects were offered. You could have the first woman President or the first black President. While it is good to see women and people from the black community entering the race, I don't think their gender or colour shouldn't be commented on so much or be the deciding factor. It should be about policies. However, in politics this is not always the case.

The Democrats seemed to be more focused on getting the troops out of Iraq, which will definitely please a lot of people - especially those families who have relatives that are in that particular country.

In the Iowa caucuses, it became clear that it's a three horse race to become the democrat candidate:

1. Barack Obama: 929 (38%)
2. John Edwards: 738 (30%)
3. Hillary Clinton: 728 (29%)
4. Bill Richardson: 52 (2%)
5. Joe Biden: 23 (1%)
6. Uncommited: 3 (0%)
7. Chris Dodd: 1 (0%)
8. Mike Gravel : 0 (0%)
9. Dennis Kucinich: 0 (0%)

The only shock with the top three is that Hillary Clinton finished third - previous polls suggested she'd be one of the top two. The doesn't seem to be much coverage of Bill Richardson's campaign at the moment. If the results from this caucus are repeated in the New Hampshire primary, I doubt he'll continue campaigning for much longer.

I thought Biden and Dodd would have got larger percentages of the vote, but as they haven't I can understand why they've ceased campaigning (see this and this). I don't think that Gravel and Kucinich will stay around for much longer either.

When events such as this take place, I am thankful for the internet's existence. The BBC TV news and other news organisations in Britain only mention the big/recognisable names, so you don't get a complete picture of what's going on. They never seem to cover things such as the remarkable funding successes of Ron Paul, or his unique policies.

Without the internet, I wouldn't have heard about Paul, Brownback, both Thompsons, Hunter, Tancredo, Kucinich, Richardson, Biden, Dodd or Gravel. Even after the Iowa caucus result, they barely mentioned John Edwards despite him finishing ahead of Hillary Clinton. I think they might have even mentioned Clinton more than the winner of the caucus - Barack Obama!

There also seems to be much more coverage of the Democrats. Maybe the people making the TV news think they have a greater chance of getting a candidate into the Whitehouse. That is not for them to decide though - they should give balanced coverage of both parties and allow the viewers to make up their own opinions. The internet might also have it's fair share of opinions and bias, but you can always look at multiple resources to get a more balanced view.

So, what do you think?

Technorati tags: USA, Politics, Election, Republicans, Democrats