Politics
purepedantry | January 4, 2008(Keeping in the promised theme of having rants on Fridays, here is rant number one. For those of you who are offended...well...I am going to have to say that it is Friday. The weekend is coming, and frankly I couldn't care less.)
I hate you Iowa. I hate your sprawling plains of uninterrupted nothingness that remind me why even the Mormons kept on trucking. I hate your obscenely well-mannered citizens that remind me why New Yorkers truly are bastards. Most of all, I hate the Iowa caucuses. (The only thing I like about Iowa is Tara. Tara is cool.)
The only part about the Iowa caucus that…
drorzel | January 4, 2008One of the many annoying things about the Iowa caucus coverage is that what's really a faintly absurd and kind of trivial process gets magnified into this huge and all-consuming Event that bumps other, much more important, stories down the queue. Kevin Drum highlights what might be the perfect illustration:
On CNN, Bill Bennett just celebrated the Iowa caucuses because there's been "no violence, no killing." That's way better than Kenya! Anderson Cooper agrees, telling us that Iowans have invited strangers into their very own homes and.....haven't killed them, I guess.
The recent…
gregladen | January 4, 2008Indeed, in science. The current issue of Science reviews the positions of each of the major presidential candidates in the area of science.
Writing the overview to this collection of views, Jeffrey Mervis states:
Many factors can make or break a U.S. presidential candidate in the 2008 race for his or her party's nomination. The ability to raise millions of dollars is key, as are positions on megaissues such as the Iraq war, immigration, and taxes. Voters also want to know if a candidate can be trusted to do the right thing in a crunch. Science and scientific issues? So far, with the…
drorzel | January 4, 2008The Iowa caucuses are finally over, and Daily Kos has the scoop:
Finally, primary season is over, and it couldn't come soon enough. After a week of conflicting polls and a flurry of last minute campaigning by all parties, ______ has (narrowly / decisively) won the Iowa caucuses.
Numerous factors contributed to this very predictable Iowa win. First, the ground game, and/or lack thereof. Second, the weather, most specifically the fact that the weather was different from what it might have been. And third, as always in Iowa, caucus-goers' "second choices" were (futile / important / decisive). If…
razib | January 3, 2008How did I do? First, I got the rank order pretty much down! The only mistake was swapping Richardson and Biden. Second, I didn't know how the Iowa Democratic Caucus was set up...otherwise, I would have been retarded to not assume it would have taken a "Winner Take All" outcome due to the 15% threshold. Below the fold, with 100% and 96% of precincts for Dems and Repubs respectively. New Hampshire predictions forthcoming!
Candidate
Real Results
My Prediction
Difference
Barack Obama
37.6
30
7.6
John Edwards
29.7
28
1.7
Hillary Clinton
29.5
27
2.5
Bill Richardson
2.1
4
-1.9…
clock | January 3, 2008Final results of the Iowa caucuses:
Senator Barack Obama : 37.58%
Senator John Edwards : 29.75%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.47%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.11%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.93%
Uncommitted : 0.14%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%
Precincts Reporting: 1781 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)
More important numbers:
Total Voter Turnout (approximate): 356,000
Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)
Biden and Dodd have quit the race.
Media pundits - catastrophic:
Frameshop: Obama And The 'Balance' Frame
With Obama's Win, What to…
evolvingthoughts | January 3, 2008
The previous Australian junta introduced a "citizenship test" for those wanting to become naturalised Aussies. It includes such gems as who Don Bradman was, who wrote a song that isn't even officially our anthem (Waltzing Matilda - Tom Wait's version is way better), and other fluff. About one in eight failed the first round. Similar tests apply in the US, Canada and the UK, I gather.
This raises the question of the title. What must a citizen know?
I hold a somewhat spare view of this topic. A citizen must know only that which all citizens are obligated to know, and for my money, that is…
grrlscientist | January 3, 2008tags: Iowa caucus news, politics, Obama, Democrats
With 97% of the Iowa precincts reporting, there finally is a clear winner;
Barak Obama 38% (16 delegates)
John Edwards 30% (14 delegates) Was John Edwards really in second place? If so, why did he end up with one delegate fewer than Hillary Clinton? Or maybe the delegates were not yet assigned as reported?
Hillary Clinton 29% (15 delegates)
239,000 people turned out for the Democrats, a historic high for Iowa Democrats -- slightly more than 10% of the state's registered voters. (124,000 turned out in 2000). Incidentally, 28% of all Democratic…
grrlscientist | January 3, 2008tags: Iowa caucus news, politics, Huckabee, Republican
Is this an indication of the deep chasm that separates Americans today?
With 86% of precincts reporting;
Mike Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25% Apparently, his former prochoice and "don't ask, don't tell" positions really hurt him.
Fred Thompson 14%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 10%
Rudy Guiliani 4%
112,000 Republicans turned out for the Iowa caucus tonight -- less than 10% of the state's registered voters (89,000 turned out in 2000). Huckabee had fairly even support across all groups, which included evangelicals, home schoolers and other…
grrlscientist | January 3, 2008tags: Iowa caucus news, politics
I am listening to live coverage of the Iowa Caucus on WNYC radio and here is an update:
Democrats: Obama (30%), Clinton (32%) and Edwards (34%), with 12% of the precincts reporting in Iowa.
Republicans: Huckabee (CNN projected winner), Romney and McCain, in that order (lots of close contenders in this race).
Apparently, there are so many people who are participating in this state-wide caucus that they are having trouble accomodating everyone. I am pleased to hear that the democratic process is alive and working.
One interviewee stated that he thought the…
pontiff | January 3, 2008From a letter sent to APS members by Michael S. Lubell the Director of Public Affairs for the American Physical Society some due outrage:
The Omnibus Bill is a disaster for the very sciences that our political leaders have repeatedly proclaimed essential for our national security, economic vitality and environmental stewardship. Several reports have suggested a picture less bleak, but they do not take into account the effects of either earmarks or inflation. In fact, numerous programs will have to be trimmed or canceled.
Hundreds of layoffs, furloughs and project shutdowns at Fermilab,…
jlynch | January 3, 2008For what it’s worth:
Obama, Edwards and Clinton.
Romney, Huckabee and McCain.
Update: AP are reporting Obama 36%, Edwards 30%, and Clinton 30%. For the Republicans it is Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, and McCain/Thompson in third.
jlynch | January 3, 2008Noting the increasing "God-talk" by candidates from both parties, Donald Kennedy comments:
Given this new focus on religious disclosure, what does this U.S. election have to do with science? Everything. The candidates should be asked hard questions about science policy, including questions about how those positions reflect belief. What is your view about stem cell research, and does it relate to a view of the time at which human life begins? Have you examined the scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth? Can the process of organic evolution lead to the production ofnew species, and how…
drorzel | January 3, 2008Timothy Burke is disgusted with the New York Times, and soliciting nominations of people who would be more interesting on the Op-Ed page than the Times's current stable of established writers:
As an extension of my last post, let me start the nominations for online writers that you feel like could serve as better columnists for the New York Times than most of the current group. Basic things to consider: reasonably good writers in stylistic terms, evidence that they could handle writing regularly and could write within the space constraints, evidence of the ability to surprise either in their…
razib | January 2, 2008Again, based on knowing almost jack-shit about politics compared to the pundits, here are the percentages I'm predicting after reading websites for a few hours....
Republican:
Huckabee - 29%
Romney - 27%
Thompson - 15%
McCain - 13%
Paul - 10%
Giuliani - 5%
Hunter - 2%
Keyes - 1%
Democrat:
Obama- 30%
Edwards - 28%
Clinton - 27%
Biden - 5%
Richardson - 4%
Dodd - 3%
Kucinich - 2%
Gravell - 1%
Update: Everyone seems to think that Romney will pull it off. If I'm wrong, then I know jack shit (which I admit). If I'm right...well, I'm prescient, and I know something that others don't (nothing can…
gregladen | January 2, 2008For US citizens, adults only, you must be over 18 to view this content...
and thus of voting age.
Check out this site. It asks you to rank a bunch of different general issues, distributing 20 points across them. This requires you to think carefully about what you think is important (thus getting more points).
Then, based on those responses you are asked questions about more specific issues. Like, if you said "gun control" was important, you are now asked about assault weapons ban legislation, perhaps other gun control legislation, etc.
Then it tells you the top three candidates in…
jlynch | January 2, 2008Some of the other SciBlings are doing it, so why not ...
My compatibility with the current gaggle of presidential candidates:
Kucinich (95)
Gravel (90)
Richardson (82)
Edwards (81)
Dodd (78)
Clinton (74)
Obama (72)
Biden (72)
Paul (61)
McCain (44)
Thompson (38)
Huckabee (36)
Romney (35)
Giuliani (34)
Hunter (28)
Somewhat predictable, though I’m surprised at Clinton over Obama. Feel free to comment as to your results.
razib | January 2, 2008I don't really know much about politics...but that never stops people from blogging about politics, so here are my Iowa predictions ranked ordered from first to last.
Republican:
Huckabee
Romney
Thompson
Mccain
Paul
Giuliani
Hunter
Keyes
Democrat:
Obama
Edwards
Clinton
Biden
Richardson
Dodd
Kucinich
Gravell