Hillary Clinton & John McCain Win in New Hampshire

McCain wins; AP projects Clinton win

www.cnn.com

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain easily won New Hampshire's Republican primary Tuesday, but Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were locked in a tight race. The results mark a resurgence for McCain, whose campaign was all but written off this summer. "Tonight, we sure showed them what a comeback looks like," the Arizona senator said as supporters shouted, "Mac is back."

Clinton held a 2 to 3 point lead over Obama throughout most of the night, despite recent polls showing Obama 9 points ahead of the New York senator.

(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 8-1-2008 by chissler]

The AP has just projected Clinton as the winner in New Hampshire, but CNN is holding off on calling it just yet. No big surprise with McCain, but this is big news that Clinton has been able to overtake Obama thus far.

More to follow...

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

CNN has just projected a Clinton win for New Hampshire as well.

Wow! What an upset. When I was watching the news at 6 o'clock, they had saiud it was pretty much a lock that Obama and Romney were in for the win. This election year is looking more and more interesting as time goes on. I really felt that if Clinton lost in NEw Hampshire, she would be facing a real uphill battle. Now if she wins, she is looking like the 'come back kid'.

those tears must of done the trick

I really loathe Hillary, I think she is full of doody. I really hope shes not on the same board ill be flicking my switches on.

Originally posted by purplemonkey
those tears must of done the trick

I actually believe there is some merit behind this. Yesterday Obama was projected as a double digit winner, and today he's the runner-up!

Very interesting.

reply to post by chissler


Population of New Hampshire.

1,350,000

Population that voted for a Democrat.

214,795

about.... 16% of the population.

population that voted Republican.

175,106

about..... 13%

Total voters.

389,901

about .... 29%



Congrats. 29% voted, in total.. aprox 7% of New Hampshire voted for Hilary, 5% voted for Mccain.

What the hell is the point of the * damn primaries. 84% of people polled on CNN say the primaries have no effect on their vote.

CNN

Maybe I am a pessimist. I don't know.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Is the 1.3 million number the voting population or total? Remember there's an age limit bud .

I'm sorry New Hampshire, but I can't ever visit your state again. Your motto is supposedly 'live free or die' yet you voted for Clinton and McCain...It seems you want to die, but certainly not free...

reply to post by biggie smalls


Good point.

As of 2006 New Hampshire elligable voters is:

926,885

42% of the population voted.

11% Clinton,

9% McCain.

Noting of course, New Hampshire and Iowa have some of the highest turnouts in the country because of the emphases.

The primaries determine who is left around to vote for in the big election.

Clinton might stand a chance in Carolina now, but I doubt it. McCain will run out of money, Huckabee was a one state wonder and the forever second placer Romney will get the nod at the convention. Ron Paul freaks will forever hold their 10% far left in the corner with the lights out position, taking 10% away from any democrat in the big race and causing them to lose when Ron Paul goes independant on everyones ass.
Look forward to 4 more years of Republican asskicking in the middle east, courtesy of the good ole U S of A and Ron Paul supporters.



[edit on 8-1-2008 by TheArchAngel]

reply to post by Rockpuck


The total number of votes has not been fully counted, but at roughly 85% in, the number is now roughly 430,000.

According to your source, the number of registered voters is 850,836.

I'd say this turnout is rather impressive, given numbers of the past.

Two CFR candidates won beating two other CFR candidates who were predicted to win by the CFR controlled MSM. Big deal. Just another instance of two masks on the same face.

Originally posted by TheArchAngel
The primaries determine who is left around to vote for in the big election.

Clinton might stand a chance in Carolina now, but I doubt it. McCain will run out of money, Huckabee was a one state wonder and the forever second placer Romney will get the nod at the convention. Ron Paul freaks will forever hold their 10% far left in the corner with the lights out position, taking 10% away from any democrat in the big race and causing them to lose when Ron Paul goes independant on everyones ass.
Look forward to 4 more years of Republican asskicking in the middle east, courtesy of the good ole U S of A and Ron Paul supporters.

Thank god for that. I would rather vote independent then democrat. Just because I vote for somebody independent doesn't mean Im wasting my vote or taking away a vote from somebody else. If there are no good independents I would rather not vote then vote for people like clinton, obama, mccain, giuliani, romney or any of those other hypocrits. Maybe Im voting for Ron Paul because one party wants to throw all my money into healthcare and the other party wants to throw it all into war. Maybe I just want to vote for somebody that doesn't want to take all my damn money?

As far as Im concerned 10% just mean 1 out of every 10 people are a bunch of asshats interested in spending everyone elses money on what they believe is right.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

The total number of votes has not been fully counted, but at roughly 85% in, the number is now roughly 430,000.

According to your source, the number of registered voters is 850,836.

I'd say this turnout is rather impressive, given numbers of the past.

Given the numbers, yes it turned out better then most states would have, but I believe it to be because of emphasis being the first two states and the most toured and campaigned.

www.census.gov...

I used the Census to calculate (from the year 2000) the revised 900k+ in my second post.

I used the Census (From year 2006) for my first post.

I used the numbers given at "time of decision" that announced the winners in the first post.

I used the same source, different numbers in revised post.

79% precincts in at time of first post,

87% in at time of second post.

Statistics can be a bitch, eh?

reply to post by grimreaper797


Sorry, but a wasted vote is on someone who cannot win. It will always be that way.

Originally posted by TheArchAngel
Sorry, but a wasted vote is on someone who cannot win. It will always be that way.

No, a wasted vote is a vote for somebody you don't believe in. Im voicing my opinion, whether you like it or not. It wasn't wasted because it expressed my opinion. So screw off if you don't like the fact that I will vote my mind, and not vote for the winner like it was american idol or some bs.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Absolutely Grim, absolutely.

I refuse to vote for either of the two parties on principle, and me not voting for them and voting for a third party, be it Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Greene, what have you, is telling the two parties "I don't agree with your politics".

And the 50-60% of American who don't vote voice their opinion which is "I don't care what you do to me, I am to ignorant to govern myself"

Clinton and McCain. Heh. I guess the Free State Project hasn't been going so well.

How is that possible? Double digit projected win for Obama turns into a loss. Damnit