Home

Mike Gravel:

« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 9th, 2008 | 08:33 am

So a little primary election, part of the U.S. presidential process, was held yesterday in New Hampshire and it appears that the media think that various people have won.

But you don't want to know about that. What you want to know is, how did our man Mike Gravel, the utter underdog of the Democratic race, fare? As many of you know, Gravel did not do at all well in Iowa. Indeed, the Iowa Democrats went so far as to snub him entirely and give him a grand total of 0 votes.

I am pleased to say, however, that the good people of New Hampshire, more discerning than their Iowa counterparts, did come out in droves (small droves) for Mike Gravel, giving him a total of 397 votes (ok, very very small droves), according to NBC this morning after 96% of precincts had reported in. (This is not quite the same as 96% of votes counted.) Who knows? The remaining 4% might push him over the edge to 400 votes!

I spent the evening updating two friends about Mike Gravel's not overly meteoric rise to this astounding total (when I started watching he was at about 17 votes, so, yes, progress was made.) When he reached 342 votes, I messaged them both in excitement. One responded promptly with, " *gasps and staggers back, clutching her heart.*" As I was typing in a sarcastic response to that, the second wrote, " I'm having palpitations. Although that could be my coffee." Sometimes I'm not sure that my friends always take me seriously.
Tags:

Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Comments {18}

Edward H.

(no subject)

from: [info]cardinalximinez
date: Jan. 9th, 2008 02:34 pm (UTC)
Link

According to some of the stuff I've seen online, I should totally agree with Mike Gravel, but I can't find much about him. And I thought those bastards that run the MSM were ignoring Kucinich.

Reply | Thread

Eric of Clann tSuibhne

(no subject)

from: [info]suibhne_geilt
date: Jan. 9th, 2008 04:39 pm (UTC)
Link

The most egregious example of MSM reality disconnect in this campaign was a story the day after the Iowa Caucus. It was fairly lengthy, all about Clinton's response to Obama's win. There was not a single mention in the story anywhere about John Edwards, who placed second. I figure that if the person expected to come in first gets busted down to third, you should, at the very minimum, mention the name of the person who came in second.

Media coverage of this crappy campaign season is such a disappointing clusterbumble.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Edward H.

(no subject)

from: [info]cardinalximinez
date: Jan. 9th, 2008 04:47 pm (UTC)
Link

"This crappy campaign season"???

Reply | Parent | Thread

Eric of Clann tSuibhne

(no subject)

from: [info]suibhne_geilt
date: Jan. 9th, 2008 05:49 pm (UTC)
Link

My mention of the crappiness of this campaign season is in no way meant to trivialize the crappiness of former or future campaign seasons.

Remember, back in '00, the running joke was that if God had meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Edward H.

(no subject)

from: [info]cardinalximinez
date: Jan. 9th, 2008 07:08 pm (UTC)
Link

Heh. Yep, that about sums it up. Alas, this time around, we've got candidates, but nobody knows about them... I guess it's not God this time, but the MSM.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Mari Ness

(no subject)

from: [info]mariness
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 01:40 am (UTC)
Link

No, I think the winning moments have come from CNN announcing that McCain had won New Hampshire by 15 percentage points. Mind you, this was based on 1% of the vote, and turned out to be slightly inaccurate. And from the rest of the media who have been yammering on and on about personality and how everybody is feeling instead of, say, looking at Clinton's plans for college loans, which is something that could actually affect people, or Edwards's plans for health care.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Meander

(no subject)

from: [info]meandering
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 05:16 am (UTC)
Link

A neuroscientist made a telling point about that.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Mari Ness

(no subject)

from: [info]mariness
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 12:58 pm (UTC)
Link

Excellent article, and dead on correct.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Mari Ness

(no subject)

from: [info]mariness
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 01:38 am (UTC)
Link

If it isn't about the "two-way" race between Clinton/Obama (which I'm not sure is an accurate depiction -- the next primary is in an Edwards stronghold), they're ignoring everything. Including the pesky detail of what the candidates actually stand for.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Edward H.

(no subject)

from: [info]cardinalximinez
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 02:26 am (UTC)
Link

Exactly.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Frank Di Vincenzo

(no subject)

from: [info]lordsnotrag
date: Jan. 9th, 2008 03:14 pm (UTC)
Link

I just found the coverage kinda funny. "Clinton Wins New in New Hampshire!" Well, I guess that's technically true. She did get more votes. However, she tied with Obama in the number of delegates received. So, when it comes down to the actual candidate selection, they tied.

Makes me wonder if Clinton and Obama were flipped in the number of votes how that story would run... "Clinton Neck and Neck With Obama in New Hampshire!"

Reply | Thread

Mari Ness

(no subject)

from: [info]mariness
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 01:57 am (UTC)
Link

Yeah. Clinton only won by about 8000 votes, which is really not saying much. Or not saying anything decisively.

Adn the delegate point is important, especially since it certainly gives Edwards an incentive to stay in the race.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Galador

(no subject)

from: [info]galador42
date: Jan. 9th, 2008 07:56 pm (UTC)
Link

When we took that online political candidate quiz thingy that's been going around, Gravel was picked as our number one (at around 90%) for both my wife and me, with Kucinich a very close second.

As far as his zero votes in Iowa, we'll never know for sure, because the caucus system requires the individual caucuses to settle on a single candidate, doesn't it? So if someone sat down for Gravel and he didn't get enough votes, then that voter had to move to another candidate until there was a majority (or abstain).

Politics hurts my brain.

Reply | Thread

Mari Ness

(no subject)

from: [info]mariness
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 01:41 am (UTC)
Link

True enough in Iowa. I have no idea if anyone actually stood up for him, there, but I'll be interested to see if he picks up any votes in South Carolina.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Shelley

(no subject)

from: [info]anaisis
date: Jan. 9th, 2008 11:45 pm (UTC)
Link

Just for the record, I would like to point out that so far I have called both states correctly in who would come in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. The media? So far they haven't gotten either correct. It is making me very angry that they are totally ignoring John Edwards. Candy Crowely of CNN, actually said that this is now a battle between the 2 superstars. Excuse Me? We have had 2 elections of tiny states that DONOT represent the country. As far as I can tell the election is up for grabs. And since I called both elections and Candy got them both WRONG I think I shall listen to me this time. Just needed to get that off my chest.

Reply | Thread

Mari Ness

(no subject)

from: [info]mariness
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 01:56 am (UTC)
Link

The media has done an atrocious job of covering this entire campaign. And I include their take on the Republican party.

And the media might want to remember that Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992.

Reply | Parent | Thread

tgregoryt

(no subject)

from: [info]tgregoryt
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 02:57 am (UTC)
Link

I'm voting for Ralph. He was the big winner in the Springfield primary.

Sometimes I think that Democrats don't have their act together, but this time - didn't they remove all the delegates from Florida? It is nice to see somebody finally saying "listen, if you can't even put a damned hole in a piece of paper, you're not going to choose our candidate."

Reply | Parent | Thread

Mari Ness

(no subject)

from: [info]mariness
date: Jan. 10th, 2008 12:57 pm (UTC)
Link

Ralph is one of the most qualified candidates this year.

And yes, the Democrats removed all the delegates from Florida. I don't think they'll be missed much.

Reply | Parent | Thread