I'll wait for the movie to come out, thanks.

I'm calling it for Kucinich on the Democratic side.

Cheers

Not paid for by Kucinch for President.

I know I spelled his name wrong

I call Kucinich as well... for third place barely squeaking by Edwards (pretty please? just so Kucinich can be in the CNN jan 21st debate).

Hey I just got off the phone with a pretty, well incredibly good friend/old co-worker who is currently working with the Edwards camp in Nevada. Anyways, please don't attack me here, he said that the turnout is beyond their inflated expectations, and that Obama at least from their exit polls (granted it's still early) looks to be ahead by a couple of points. I do knkow I trust this guy 100%, but exit polls are exit polls so we'll see. Anyways I figured I would pass that tid bit of information along.

www.HyerStandard.com

xoites defends Constitution @ 4:

BDM @ 2:

How can they call it at 11:30 in the morning?

I have a better question: How can they call it before registration begins?

It is 10:35 here in Nevada (I am 20 minutes from my caucus place). Registration begins at 11 AM and caucusing begins at 11:30.

The fascists started at 9am.

BDM @ 2:

How can they call it at 11:30 in the morning?

Simple. They are corrupt, and they are morally bankrupt. They do not care what the results will be. Rather, they want to MAKE the results what they WANT them to be. This is the kind of behavior that the rules, regulations, and past professionalism of the press used to prevent. This is the kind of behavior that can ACTUALLY disenfranchise voters. Voters WILL be discouraged from going to the polls if all of the MSM outlets have already called the race for one of the candidates.

This kind of "reporting" is the kind the FCC should be grinding in to the dirt. These "news" outlets should be fined so harshly, THEY are forced to go in to debt to the same degree the country itself is. The fines should be so harsh that the "news" outlets would, out of necessity, FIRE the "reporters" or "newscasters" who cause the company to receive such a fine. Throw their sorry, corrupt a$$es to the damned curb. Black-list them as being disreputable, preventing them from finding a decent-paying job in a field they are not qualified to be in in the first place.

Moderation @ 11:

BDM @ 2:

How can they call it at 11:30 in the morning?

Simple. They are corrupt, and they are morally bankrupt. They do not care what the results will be. Rather, they want to MAKE the results what they WANT them to be. This is the kind of behavior that the rules, regulations, and past professionalism of the press used to prevent. This is the kind of behavior that can ACTUALLY disenfranchise voters. Voters WILL be discouraged from going to the polls if all of the MSM outlets have already called the race for one of the candidates.

This kind of "reporting" is the kind the FCC should be grinding in to the dirt. These "news" outlets should be fined so harshly, THEY are forced to go in to debt to the same degree the country itself is. The fines should be so harsh that the "news" outlets would, out of necessity, FIRE the "reporters" or "newscasters" who cause the company to receive such a fine. Throw their sorry, corrupt a$$es to the damned curb. Black-list them as being disreputable, preventing them from finding a decent-paying job in a field they are not qualified to be in in the first place.

"Gotta be first, just gotta be first"...goal of ALL MSM outlets as to primaries.

It's just ‘Fools Gold’ in Nevada Caucuses: No Delegates Awarded, Just ‘Chips’

Joe O. @ 14:

I kept refreshing the tracker page to see if it has been updated. No dice. How the Hell can MSNBC or anyone else for that matter call who won yet? Who the Hell is working for MSNBC? Saddam Hussein's former vote counters?

No, just some corporate hooker like Jack Welch.

And then, I noticed that this was odd from the tracking website. The tracking results were said (at the top of the post) to be posted at this time:

"By jamie Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:20 pm"

Funny, but unless my clock is completely wrong or I have completely lost my marbles, today is Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:04 PM EST right now. Where is Jamie posting from? The Atlantic ocean?

Is there something wrong with the link to the tracker?

BDM @ 17:

Joe O. @ 14:

I kept refreshing the tracker page to see if it has been updated. No dice. How the Hell can MSNBC or anyone else for that matter call who won yet? Who the Hell is working for MSNBC? Saddam Hussein's former vote counters?

No, just some corporate hooker like Jack Welch.

People these days are trying to deliberately rip you off, or they are going to rip us off from total incompetence or not giving a sh*t about anything.

This country is in serious doo doo.

Why is everyone silent on Ron Paul beating McCrain, Guiliani, Thompson!?

Goooooooo Paul!

That's like when the British news channel reported the collapse of the WTC buildings before it actually collapsed. Seems like they already know what's happening before it happens.

If there is ever a revolution the media must be the very first to go down. None of this would be possible if it wasn't for them doing what they do.

Chris @ 29:

If there is ever a revolution the media must be the very first to go down. None of this would be possible if it wasn't for them doing what they do.

Exactly

Matthew @ 7:

Hey I just got off the phone with a pretty, well incredibly good friend/old co-worker who is currently working with the Edwards camp in Nevada. Anyways, please don't attack me here, he said that the turnout is beyond their inflated expectations, and that Obama at least from their exit polls (granted it's still early) looks to be ahead by a couple of points. I do knkow I trust this guy 100%, but exit polls are exit polls so we'll see. Anyways I figured I would pass that tid bit of information along.

www.HyerStandard.com

They just started.

Damn entrance polling is messing with yer minds... take a deep breath.

Here in the SW, with Mesa, AZ being second to SLC for LDS, the vibe has been for Magic Underwear guy for a while. Harry Reid wears the same Magic Underpants, too, dontcha forget.

RobertD @ 354:

Andy K @ 346:

RobertD @ 340:

The Chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic party is now unambiguously declaring that Nevada's delegates will go to Clinton:

"The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008," said Jill Derby, the chairwoman of the state party. "We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

In other words, the fix is in, folks.

Can you say Katherine Harris?

Uhhm, Robert, can you tell me what the process is for apportioning delegates in each state? These are, after all, primaries, not general elections for seats in a government. The state parties, and not the state governments- nor the federal government- get to make these rules by which their candidates are selected.

Don't take this to mean I don't think there could be corruption in this election, but until I see compelling evidence...well, innocent until proven guilty, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming there is any outright corruption going on. Each state apportions its delegates in its own way, from what I understand.

However, according to the rules in Nevada, Obama has received 13 delegates to the state convention, Clinton 12. What the state's Democratic Chair *appears* to be saying, though, is, "Because Clinton got more actual caucus votes, the state's rules for apportioning delegates be damned. When the state convention happens, we will choose the delegates for the national convention in the way they should *actually* have been apportioned according to what we believe Nevadans truly meant." I mean, if you look her last sentence, that's what she's saying.

Personally, I think our country's electoral system, including nominating delegates, is arcane and outdated. It's based on the assumption (of the "founding fathers") that individuals are too stupid to be trusted to vote correctly (and we could argue that). But if Nevada's rules say "delegates should be apportioned like this," and you run your campaign based on those rules, then some party hack is allowed to reinterpret them the way she wants to make it so that the party's preferred nominee wins more delegates, why have elections? That's essentially what Katherine Harris did in Florida in 2000; she certified the election for Bush without allowing for the final recount to be finished.

Do the rules count, or not?

Yes, the rules count, but, in the case of Nevada Democrats, what are the rules? I'd like to know how Clinton- not, btw, my candidate- won 51% of the caucuses but ended up with one less delegate to the convention.

Ands while Iagree with you that the Electoral college is a supremely fucked up method of choosind the President, I'm not so sure that the primary system is preferable to selecting the candidates. I'd rather go back to the smoke filled rooms where card-carrying party regulars select the candidates that they will support in November. The process we have now creates an election cycle that gets longer and longer as the years pass. When did this campaign start, really? In September of '07? Jesus, the system just screams for the corruption of money to simply sustain itself. IMO, if we simplify the nomination process, we get rid of the corruption.

BTW to all on all these caucus results: Iowa officially reported total individual votes( 2 to 1 turnout in favor of Dems) which wer turned into percentages by the media and the campaigns. New Hampshire reported totals for GOP, but percentages of delegates for Dems, because that's how respectively organize and tally their results. As I understnad the NH model is true for Nevada. This makes this early political process difficult to gauge and easy to argue over. Natiional polls however show soignificant Democratic favourtism on general policy issues. Flawed though they may be thise are what at's what many people use. If I were a professional pundit these factors would be exciting, but as a voter I;d say they are part of the fine print in a software license agreement--important but pure hell to get through and to be read and understood in context which requires skepticism and self eduction. I'm just sayin'...

xoites defends Constitution @ 360:

Andy K @ 349:

Luke @ 345:

xoites defends Constitution @ 344:

hey everyone this guy wants to bomb Iran because he wants to make sure the world buys oil in U.S. dollars

Luke, you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

xoites has been posting here for about two or thee years. He is about the most ardent supporter of non-violence I have ever spoken to online. He's also espoused his anti-corporate views on this site more times than you've ever posted here at all.

This is why so many of us who have been at C&L for years consider you Paulists trolls. You have no sense of the community. None!

Thank you Andy. That was nice of you to say. I went away for a while. I had no idea someone decided what i was thinking.

Luke, you have a lot of nerve supposing i want this or that. I am a non violent anti racist. I was arrest twice at the White House before and during the first Gulf War back when Ron Paul was writing that everyone should own a gun to protect themselves from "Urban Animals."

So now he is against a war? Good for him. Maybe someday he will be against shooting blacks as well.

the first time I thought I should own a gun is when I asked myself how prepared am I for a Katrina like event to hit New York

Devin @ 366:

Wasn't part of the reason for the electoral college that there needed to be a way to prevent high population states from completely overwhelming low population states with very different needs? Kind of an anti-tyranny of the majority?

Also, if the election system was simplified to a single general vote, why wouldn't rich candidates promote themselves via commercial months in advance of this general vote? Wouldn't the super-rich still have an edge?

The super rich always have the say in any vote

remember the US doenst even own the bank that prints its money

Luke @ 365:

xoites defends Constitution @ 360:

Andy K @ 349:

Luke @ 345:

Luke, you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

xoites has been posting here for about two or thee years. He is about the most ardent supporter of non-violence I have ever spoken to online. He's also espoused his anti-corporate views on this site more times than you've ever posted here at all.

This is why so many of us who have been at C&L for years consider you Paulists trolls. You have no sense of the community. None!

Thank you Andy. That was nice of you to say. I went away for a while. I had no idea someone decided what i was thinking.

Luke, you have a lot of nerve supposing i want this or that. I am a non violent anti racist. I was arrest twice at the White House before and during the first Gulf War back when Ron Paul was writing that everyone should own a gun to protect themselves from "Urban Animals."

So now he is against a war? Good for him. Maybe someday he will be against shooting blacks as well.

the first time I thought I should own a gun is when I asked myself how prepared am I for a Katrina like event to hit New York

I second what AndyK said about xoites.that is one non violent peace activist right there........more than most that's for sure.

mudshark @ 370:

Luke @ 368:

Luke @ 367:

Devin @ 366:

The super rich always have the say in any vote

remember the US doenst even own the bank that prints its money

did you know that kennedy started printing money not tagged to the fed reserve

he was killed

really???...hmmmm......would you care to provide us with some kind of proof of this...like a link.please don't provide us with some kind of tabloid type link.

So yes it is a wiki link which we all know any one can edit

but here it is executive order 11110, when Kennedy had the US Treasury start printing Silver notes not involving the Fed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

the Fed controls the US economy no matter what. the people who control the fed are the same people who didnt want the UK to go to the euro

Every Clinton supporter I know has expressed that he or she will support the elected party Nominee, even if it is not Clinton. On the other hand, all I hear from Obama supporters is what amounts to a child having a temper tantrum. "If Clinton gets the nomination, I'm voting for the republican!" (stomping foot)

ugh. Grow up. I volunteer for Clinton. If Obama wins the nomination, I'll volunteer for him. Clinton is not Bush. To suggest that she is bush-like is ridiculous. She is a left-centrist. So is Obama, according to his record. I mean, the man was praising Reagan a few days ago.

I have stopped visiting this blog so much due to the rabid Clinton-haters here and some of the disgusting openly sexist comments. This is a clinton-hating bubble. Support for Clinton is strong and your typing sexist insults about her on the computer doesn't change that.

Luke @ 372:

Luke @ 371:

mudshark @ 370:

Luke @ 368: really???...hmmmm......would you care to provide us with some kind of proof of this...like a link.please don't provide us with some kind of tabloid type link.

So yes it is a wiki link which we all know any one can edit

but here it is executive order 11110, when Kennedy had the US Treasury start printing Silver notes not involving the Fed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

the Fed controls the US economy no matter what. the people who control the fed are the same people who didnt want the UK to go to the euro

So yes the predicted dates are off and maybe some of you know about what this artical is talking about. infromationclearinghouse.info does have some radical articles that one arguing in a legitimate circle would not exactly wish to quote, this paper is a very interesting, out of the box view of foreign policy that I strongly agree with. I also can see how someone in a position like bush would defend this. this is the begining of what I understad about the PETRO-DOLLAR

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm

please read, at least the second half not involving a history lesson

BUMP

Luke @ 376:

Shit I would nuke Iran if I thought they would destroy our economy too

Spoken like a true ron Paul supporter. Thank you for making my points for me.

Gloria @ 378:

I participated in the Nevada Democratic caucus today. I am an Obama supporter. I am also a black women. I was appalled by the behavior of the Clinton campaign workers, supporters and volunteers. The were rude and obnoxious to Obama and Edwards supporters. I have spoken to several other people including my father who participated in different locations and they expressed the same sentiment.

I am disheartened enough to say I am embarrassed that she may be the Democratic nominee. I will also have to vote 3rd party or Republican. If those people are indicative if her campaign in general, we are certainly in trouble and her behavior is certainly no better than the current administration.

were you in my precinct ?? (Washoe/ North Valleys)... Seriously there needs to be some sort of IQ or competence test before you should be able to vote. People who are in some dire straights voting for someone who doesn't care about them and they flaunt it like its a badge of pride.... and on top of that extremely rude too.

I've posted on and off for a while, but these results really made me want to comment. I live not far from Nevada, (where the Democratic party is essentially taboo) and can see how the LDS (mormon) community would be influential in many parts of the state. To give you an example, at 18 I voted for Bob Dole (Yes, I will admit I voted AGAINST Clinton because I felt he wasn't doing enough) because coming from NYC as a kid - I was a "centrist Republican". I moved to Salt Lake City, and in the first political discussion I had with anyone here, I learned that I immediately was an evil leftist liberal here in Utah.

Since my vote against Clinton, I've always voted for the presidential candidate (in the GE or in caucus) that I felt was best for the country. I almost pulled the lever for a third party in 2000 before finally going with Gore - my big hang up at the time was Lieberman for VP considering I just couldn't trust him, though I also felt Gore wasn't inspired and would continue to hurt the economy with things like NAFTA. So the choice was hard, but it was made. In 2k4 was an ardent "Deaniac", because I felt he had the best chance to change the status quo. Then, very reluctantly I voted for Kerry instead of staying home. Why? I liked his VP having some charisma and what seemed to be a good plan to take forward to Congress. So again, I reluctantly pulled that lever for the Democrats. Now? Edwards (though I was piqued with interest about Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd early on). And it's looking like it's going to be Obama or Clinton. One of those candidates I feel I could pull the lever for - though not as easily as I could for Edwards - but I could do it. The other? I'll vote Huckabee - the worst possible thing for America - and McCain over the other candidate. There's no way that Huck's going to ever get any bible thumping crap passed through, and this country would be better for us to wake up to the danger of religious zealotry. McCain's a war hawk, an idiot and a sellout, but at least you know what kind of a whore he is, opposed to the unnamed hawk in donkey clothing we have on our side.

I would rather a bible thumping maniac in the White House than a woman with both corporate ties and sponsors of all the things her ideological views are supposed to be against, and with a vendetta against the people that made her life hell in the 90's.

Before you slam me for hating Hillary because she's a woman, I'll say this - I can in clear conscious pull the lever for a woman in any position of government. But not her. Not now. Not here. Not ever.

Oh well, I will admit that I planned to continue to vote straight Democratic ticket for everything from school board on up (provided they aren't obviously corrupt or running on a completely self defeating platform - which was less than 5 candidates in every single election), like I have every year since 1998. But this

may

be the presidential election that either pushes me away from that specific vote, or away from the process entirely - since in Utah where I live, it doesn't matter what I vote anymore, too many Mormons get told to vote the way god wants them too.

Any way... last point of the night. What confuses me, in a state with as many teamsters and unions as any, and with such a disparity of the economics from Vegas to the rest of the state, is that John Edwards is all but an afterthought - especially considering his long standing against corporations and for the upper lower - middle classes. I would have expected him to be closer but not necessarily win (20% or so to the other's 30+%). I see a lot of things being thrown negatively at him from others in the party, and to me they seem to be based off so much anger towards the obvious failings of Kerry. Sort of like how Kerry went for Obama - Edwards challenged him to fight for 2k4, Kerry preferred to just let things go.

Edwards isn't Kerry. But then again, I guess it doesn't matter anymore.

Luke @ 376:

Shit I would nuke Iran if I thought they would destroy our economy too

?

Chris @ 27:

That's like when the British news channel reported the collapse of the WTC buildings before it actually collapsed. Seems like they already know what's happening before it happens.

Do you have a citation for this claim?

NEVADA AND S CAROLINA, DON'T LET THE MEDIA DECIDE WHO THE NOMINEES SHOULD BE, FOR YOU. THINK FOR YOURSELVES. LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU SMARTER THAN THAT. VOTE IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS. VOTE EDWARDS.

Mattastic @ 38:

"Mediocracy"?

Good Name. Mediocracy

People with great ideas, individuality, will, and integrity don't have a chance right now in this system.

Failure and incompetence is rewarded.

Ron @ 41:

It's not a primary, it's a caucus. They don't walk in, vote and then walk out.

Caucus's are a farce. They should be dumped.

Romney has 700 votes and they know he won? Um, how the hell does that work? Exit polls? Exit polls in NH showed Obama won by a landslide......*sniff, sniff* Anybody else smell that?

L.A. Confidential @ 42:

Ron @ 41:

It's not a primary, it's a caucus. They don't walk in, vote and then walk out.

Caucus's are a farce. They should be dumped.

Agreed, but I still intend to be aat them in Washington St. because I want my voice to be heard and hopefully make a different. We also have a primary about 10 days later.

Voting machines malfunction in South Carolina Republican primary
Posted: 02:32 PM ET
CONWAY, South Carolina (CNN) – Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign called on supporters in South Carolina Saturday to make sure that their votes are counted, as voting machines in an eastern county malfunctioned on primary day.

"We have received reports from Horry County that voters are being turned away from the polls, because electronic voting machines are not working and paper ballots are not available,” Buzz Jacobs, McCain’s South Carolina state director, said in a statement. “Some voters say they are being instructed to return at a later time. We are disturbed by these reports and hope that this issue is resolved immediately. We encourage any voters who were turned away from the polls to return again to their polling place this afternoon to exercise their constitutional right to vote."

The MSM is already making excuses for the possible low turnout for some republicans by blaming the weather.So to be clear,the so called "Patriots" of the republican party in SC are scared to death of a little snow,thus will not perform their civic duty.Pathetic. How are republicans supposed to deal with the terrorists if they can't handle fluke weather?

I hope the MSM and their minions get their asses handed to them as they did in New Hampshire.

Radian @ 52:

I hope the MSM and their minions get their asses handed to them as they did in New Hampshire.

Boy the MSM sure did back down and keep their word after the NH fiasco didn't they?

Can you say media-controlled democracy?

I can say media-controlled Kleptocracy.

galmud @ 55:

Wow Obama won with a 100% of the votes!

Yes with 0.23% precincts reporting what a stunning upset!

Obama 86% haha so where's the prediction MSNBC??

Obama 73% ......oh no he's falling fast

Watching the m$m today, just having to have Ron Paul's name at the top of that board has seemed to put them extremely on edge. I can't wait till they have have to respect the power of the unions and see Edwards and Kucinich, and Obama of course up there. I do have to say I am happy at how the writer's strike has really brought out peoples support and knowledge of Unions. It is finally becoming mainstream to 'damn the man'.

The puppet-pundants might just shit themselves on camera, just say fuck it and cut to repeats of Catch a Predator and RedEye right there.

Don't let them forget Nevada C&L!

L.A. Confidential @ 58:

galmud @ 55:

Wow Obama won with a 100% of the votes!

Yes with 0.23% precincts reporting what a stunning upset!

Whoa! Thats the exact percentage that Saddam Hussein used to get when he was in power also.

Go Ron Go, 2nd or 3rd would be an amazing outcome for ron paul, after all the smears and ignoring his campaign by MSM.

wow Ron Paul close to McCain's heels in NAvada. WOW that is awesome

Giuliani 6th place, :D smile on my face

Crazyness now.... CNN has just gone from 3% reporting to 2% reporting and Hillary has gone up by 20 points.

Bill must be pulling the fire alarms in the casinos.

andy @ 68:

Go Ron Go, 2nd or 3rd would be an amazing outcome for ron paul, after all the smears and ignoring his campaign by MSM.

Agreed. This also shows that the Neocon/Bush doctrine is being wittled away to nothing. Even the die hard Republicans may not be going for it anymore.

Bullshit Bill. The real voter supression is you and Hillary clogging up the floors of the caucus with your Secret Security. Gee, who if any down there would be able to block out people?

If ex-president's couldn't weight in on the Iraq war, then they don't need to weight in on campaigns either. Or at least give Elizabeth Kucinich, Elizabeth Edwards, or Michelle Obama.

America is evolving.

In all seriousness, check out CNN's entrance poll results. It really favors Clinton.

59% Female
72% over 45
81% makes less than 100k

Damn.

SckofFknLiarz @ 81:

Timothy Rose @ 72:

Crazyness now.... CNN has just gone from 3% reporting to 2% reporting and Hillary has gone up by 20 points.

Bill must be pulling the fire alarms in the casinos.

Vote rigging going on.

Am I the only one who has changed their entire "you're my effing hero" attitude with Bill? It's getting really dirty. It kinda looks like Sean Hannity was.... errrrr..... uh...... nevermind... my fingers won't let me type that.

ConcernedCanuck @ 83:

Timothy Rose @ 82:

SckofFknLiarz @ 81:

Timothy Rose @ 72: Vote rigging going on.

Am I the only one who has changed their entire "you're my effing hero" attitude with Bill? It's getting really dirty. It kinda looks like Sean Hannity was.... errrrr..... uh...... nevermind... my fingers won't let me type that.

I find it disgusting that a former leader is blatantly influencing the outcome of an election whether it's his spouse or not. There should be a law.

I've been talking to my wife about it, and if she wins, we're probably sitting this one out. I got tricked like this by Lieberman's bull shit, and it won't happen again.

Look at the Reps.

1 Romney
2 McCain
3 Paul

McCain and Paul tied with 12% yet as the votes come in, we're supposed to believe that 50 vote difference that's between McCain and Paul is normal?? Wouldn't it be statistically possible, or rather, plausible that Paul would take the 2nd spot at least for a minute by 10, 30 or 50 votes? NO!! The machine is programmed to keep McCain 2nd until the count is over. Poor Ron Paul. Look. Learn and be shocked. Be very shocked.

I know all politics at this stage is hard ball, and not for the faint of heart. I'm leaning toward Obama at this point if only because the Clinton campaign has a hint of "Rovism" to it. It doesn't smell right.

This is no different than Soviet Russia, where they had the choice of one party's candidates and the state propaganda organ worked overtime to control and manipulate the public dialog. There was no debate. Here we have a government owned and operated by banking and corporate America, which also owns all means of mass-consumed information. They are assuring that only corporate/banking approved candidates are allowed to speak or be given an opportunity to succeed, they are censoring any forbidden topics and thought, and they are silencing debate.

We are so running out of time to salvage this country.

Paul @ 90:

This is no different than Soviet Russia, where they had the choice of one party's candidates and the state propaganda organ worked overtime to control and manipulate the public dialog. There was no debate. Here we have a government owned and operated by banking and corporate America, which also owns all means of mass-consumed information. They are assuring that only corporate/banking approved candidates are allowed to speak or be given an opportunity to succeed, they are censoring any forbidden topics and thought, and they are silencing debate.

We are so running out of time to salvage this country.

With all due respect, Paul, what the hell do you suggest we do about it?

Timothy Rose @ 91:

CNN hasn't updated Nevada in 25 mnutees now. McCain just jumped 200 votes ahead of Ronnie for 2nd.

All day they've used Nevada to influence South Carolina where they're still voting. Can you spell f-i-x?

Rico @ 94:

Timothy Rose @ 91:

CNN hasn't updated Nevada in 25 mnutees now. McCain just jumped 200 votes ahead of Ronnie for 2nd.

All day they've used Nevada to influence South Carolina where they're still voting. Can you spell f-i-x?

I'm pretty sure McCain was winning SC before today anyway. The only think he needs to hope is that the weather kept all the God Fearing crazies in their homes.

It just got serious. Clinton jumped almost 300 votes up with 23% reporting.

Wow... with 26% in....

Votes:

Clinton - 1227
Obama - 1006
Edwards - 45

I don't normally buy into the whole "media dictation" view of elections, but they certainly killed Edwards. Unless he spent $0 there, I don't know.

Timothy Rose @ 92:

Paul @ 90:

This is no different than Soviet Russia, where they had the choice of one party's candidates and the state propaganda organ worked overtime to control and manipulate the public dialog. There was no debate. Here we have a government owned and operated by banking and corporate America, which also owns all means of mass-consumed information. They are assuring that only corporate/banking approved candidates are allowed to speak or be given an opportunity to succeed, they are censoring any forbidden topics and thought, and they are silencing debate.

We are so running out of time to salvage this country.

With all due respect, Paul, what the hell do you suggest we do about it?

Don't buy into the machine.
Be your own campaign.
People always say don't talk about politics. Do talk about them! The people that don't want people talking are the ones that don't want change. Caucus your friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers. Engage them, educate them. Be civil and respectful, be prepared and informed; be everything the m$m is not. The people in our own lives are voters too, tell them what the regular news is not. The revolution has to start locally, where ever you are.

Timothy Rose @ 99:

xoites defends Constitution @ 97:

I have just returned from my first caucus. There were five precincts in one large room. To say it was noisy would be an understatement. There were 66 of us in our precinct. It was determined that for a candidate to be viable ten people had to stand up for him or her. Four of us stood for Kucinich. Hillary's supporters were the most well organized with Obama supporters a close second. Before the first tally was taken the four of us supporting kucinich decided to get up as one and join the Edwards group giving them 14. Three delegates came out of our Precinct for Edwards. I am not sure how many for Hillary who had 38 people. Obama had 14 as well so i am assuming they got three.

Thanks. You could have just said "clusterfuck." But your explanation works, too.

There was plenty of room for improvement but i also saw people standing up and giving passionate speeches for the candidates they were supporting which is something rarely seen in America these days. Except for televised events and anti war (and other) demonstrations i have never seen ordinary Americans do that. I think it should happen more often.

Agent Provocateur @ 102:

Timothy Rose @ 92:

Paul @ 90:

This is no different than Soviet Russia, where they had the choice of one party's candidates and the state propaganda organ worked overtime to control and manipulate the public dialog. There was no debate. Here we have a government owned and operated by banking and corporate America, which also owns all means of mass-consumed information. They are assuring that only corporate/banking approved candidates are allowed to speak or be given an opportunity to succeed, they are censoring any forbidden topics and thought, and they are silencing debate.

We are so running out of time to salvage this country.

With all due respect, Paul, what the hell do you suggest we do about it?

Don't buy into the machine.
Be your own campaign.
People always say don't talk about politics. Do talk about them! The people that don't want people talking are the ones that don't want change. Caucus your friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers. Engage them, educate them. Be civil and respectful, be prepared and informed; be everything the m$m is not. The people in our own lives are voters too, tell them what the regular news is not. The revolution has to start locally, where ever you are.

xoites defends Constitution @ 104:

Timothy Rose @ 99:

xoites defends Constitution @ 97:

I have just returned from my first caucus. There were five precincts in one large room. To say it was noisy would be an understatement. There were 66 of us in our precinct. It was determined that for a candidate to be viable ten people had to stand up for him or her. Four of us stood for Kucinich. Hillary's supporters were the most well organized with Obama supporters a close second. Before the first tally was taken the four of us supporting kucinich decided to get up as one and join the Edwards group giving them 14. Three delegates came out of our Precinct for Edwards. I am not sure how many for Hillary who had 38 people. Obama had 14 as well so i am assuming they got three.

Thanks. You could have just said "clusterfuck." But your explanation works, too.

There was plenty of room for improvement but i also saw people standing up and giving passionate speeches for the candidates they were supporting which is something rarely seen in America these days. Except for televised events and anti war (and other) demonstrations i have never seen ordinary Americans do that. I think it should happen more often.

Both good points... and both rather related to eachother.

Paul, I was half expecting you to decree a revolution, but I appreciate your rational approach. And you're 100% right.

fil @ 107:

Timothy Rose @ 80:

In all seriousness, check out CNN's entrance poll results. It really favors Clinton.

59% Female
72% over 45
81% makes less than 100k

Damn.

The stupid youth supporters post applications of Facebook but these dumb youth voters actaully do not end up voting.

The youth vote is the laziest voting bloc in the country, they complain and all but they don't go out and vote.

So if Obama doesn't take Nevada, blame the stupid young people who stay home and play Xbox Live

That's fairly obvious if you look at CNN's age projections. What happened to the youth vote? Could it be that the length of these primaries, and the full blown media hype, have turned them off? I mean, does it really take MONTHS to find a leader of a party? How much money is wasted on this?

in every election it's the same story. The youth are all up on youtube, myspace and now Facebook but they motivate their butts to do their duty to go vote.

today: Women voters are more motivated and active in shaping this election then the youth vote on the DEMS side

Timothy Rose @ 111:

I think MSNBC just called it for Hillary. They have the green checkmark next to her name now.

Damn.

Correction...

The definately just called it for her.

Still damn.

fil @ 107:

Timothy Rose @ 80:

In all seriousness, check out CNN's entrance poll results. It really favors Clinton.

59% Female
72% over 45
81% makes less than 100k

Damn.

The stupid youth supporters post applications of Facebook but these dumb youth voters actaully do not end up voting.

The youth vote is the laziest voting bloc in the country, they complain and all but they don't go out and vote.

So if Obama doesn't take Nevada, blame the stupid young people who stay home and play Xbox Live

I agree. There is one simple solution: Bring back the draft and promise to send the young smart-asses off to fight the Bush and Clinton wars in Iraq, Iran and beyond. Then watch how fast they'll head to the polls.

CNN too now.

Maternal Copulaters

What's fascinating is that Obama is winning everywhere in the state except Clark County (Las Vegas, Henderson) and Lincoln County (Lake Las Vegas resort area is the main residential). The link is a live update site.

I think she's picking up the white rich Jewish vote, especially in Lincoln County. Ditto in sections of Las Vegas. Huge rich Israeli population in Vegas.

I can say "media controlled democracy"...

But I can also say:

"Decline of free speech" because, for example

"Kucinich...objected to the [Texas democratic] party oath that a presidential candidate must "fully support" the party's eventual nominee. Kucinich crossed out the oath when he filed for a spot on the primary ballot."

Now Kucinich is not even on the Texas ballot. The party in Texas has erased his name from the ballot.

How's THAT for "controlled" democracy?

If the media is guilty of INFLUENCING choice, and they are, in doesn't even come close to what the political groups around the country are doing. For they are actually MAKING THE DECISION on who gets elected. The media does not have this power. The media cannot PREVENT people from getting elected, they can only influence by ignoring, chastising, laughing at, and otherwise engage in NON-VIOLENT forms of democracy.

Since the media is not a government body, they have no obligation to support certain people and ignore others according to popularity polls. They are like you and me, that is, they have free speech. The media is not obligated. If you think they are obligated, then YOU YOURSELF must then submit yourself to popularity (which most people who think the media is breaking a law have already done anyway). If you go on blogs as a citizen, and you support a candidate that is not popular, then you would be guilty just like the media is.

If you think you and the media are different, then on what basis do you differentiate between the two? I am serious, because if my questions here are not asked, then perhaps the shit will continue. If these are not the right questions/comments, and you have better ones, then how come there are still problems? How come all the "geniuses" out there with all their infinite wisdom made this world such as it is? If these questions are wrong, then the alleged "right" questions that have been asked already need to be criticized, because the problems are here today, now, this very minute. So,

You think the media is actually CONTROLLING things? They are not, they are merely doing what they think is right without stopping anyone. By not having certain news stories on certain candidates, they are not controlling democracy, they are merely controlling that which they deserve to control: Their own property.

If this makes you angry, if you think the media should not have property rights because of some alleged "special purpose" for democracy, then you are helping make this country worse because you are advocating that property rights should be respected in some circumstances (like your home and your family and your meat shop for example), but it should not be respected in other circumstances (like mainstream media).

This contradiction must eventually result in the system of property to break down, because the definition for it has become arbitrary and subjective, meaning that bad people can make it what they want.

This unfair expectation that the media has some special purpose for others, and should not use its own judgment, did not start in the last few years. If you look at it, you will find that it started once the media became seen by the public, and thus politically coerced to be, a SYSTEM for democracy, which actually means a SYSTEM for the state. For a "system" of democracy is a political system. If it is political, then truth does not become important, but rather power.

Eventually, this backwards philosophy will produce media companies that are run by political people in the full sense of the word, whereby the owners become part of the political system of government, for they too come to believe that the media is a political entity, when its not.

In simplest terms, the media and its customers are simply made up of one group of people telling stories in exchange for money by the readers. The readers pay money to have other people tell them stuff about the world. As with everything else in a free market, if they are found to be lying, then people will go elsewhere.

But you may ask, where would they go? There are only a few companies that tell stories, and so it's not fair to assume that people can just go "elsewhere" is it?

Well, the answer to this question does not say anything bad about the media that currently DOES tell stories, you merely show that there is "not enough". Well, have you ever seriously considered why there are "not enough" media companies? The answer to this is because free entry in TV media is not allowed. You need a "license" to broadcast. Now, WHO makes the decision to grant "licenses"? It is of course, the people who make the laws, the government.

So the REAL reason why this country's media is fucked up, is not because of a "few bad apples" like Murdoch et al. No, these people will ALWAYS eventually come into existence to take advantage of whatever system is in place. Thus, people who want to start a media company must FIRST become buddy buddies with the regulators before they are granted permission to broadcast. This means that the media becomes primarily that which promotes the government, whoever it happens to be at the time.

The internet does not have this problem, because it is not regulated....but as you can see, certain people are trying VERY VERY VERY hard to stop this by introducing regulation on the internet. They SAY it is to stop pornography, spam, blah blah blah...but in reality, in the deepest part of the philosophies of the people running the show now, are that they want to stop the free flow of information and free speech. Such a thing is VERY threatening to the system in place right now.

Regulation is not about "control" of good people over bad people. It is about creating a system whereby people feel safer knowing that change is a SLLLLLOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW process. In this way, any threat to one's success or dominance is not as great as it would be under a free market. The people who talk about "net neautrality" may have good intentions, but good intentions guided by faulty logic is WORSE than bad intention guided by true logic. In the former case the problems are corrected right away. In the latter case the problems go unseen for long periods, decades even, before people find that something just isn't right. They cannot know for sure what it is right away because all along there was "good intentions".

This is where we are today with the media.

In the early periods of TV, the "good intention" set in place were to stop bad things from being said on the air. Freedom was not the goal, but rather "good" programs only. OK, so far so good right? The only way to guarantee this was for the state to take control of the airwaves. You think the media is free market? Do you think that Murdoch and his ilk represent freedom of the press?

BAH!

His empire represents exactly what is wrong with having the state grant who can say what on TV. If TV were truly free, then, of course, you will have sex shows on in the middle of the afternoon. But at least if the population were rational, and saw that the TV has no right to show good things, and parents did their parenting, then the media would truly be about the people, for then the media would be more representative of what people want, instead of the state who most people will never even meet in their lives.

The problem in 2007 is not Murdoch or O'Reilly or of free enterprise. The problem is the fear that people have of being free. That's it really. And include the government into that category. If the government were faced with freedom, then their own success and power will be jeopardized. If people are afraid of freedom, as I am sometimes in all honesty, then we will give up our rights to choice. Once we do that, our children and their kids WILL BE BORN WITH NO CHOICE.

If you are BORN with no choice, as we all are with TV and radio (except satellite which the FCC does not control), then you become unable to cope with reality. If you are unable to cope with reality, you will sink deeper into fear and the state will become EVER more powerful.

The solution, in short, is to make TV licenses illegal. The long term result of this will be that the media companies that make the most money (by showing what people like rather than what the government allows), will succeed.

That's TRUE democracy in the best form...

Prediction November 2008 headline: "Republicans keep White House, thank to Clintons!"

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! MAYBE THE FIX IS IN ALREADY!