New Hampshire voters are reportedly flocking to the ballot boxes in such record numbers today that they’re running out of ballots — amid signs that many independent voters were opting to vote in the Democratic race.
That’s likely to ...

New Hampshire voters are reportedly flocking to the ballot boxes in such record numbers today that they’re running out of ballots — amid signs that many independent voters were opting to vote in the Democratic race.
That’s likely to ...

If yard signs and bumper stickers are any indication, they outnumber GOP candidates signs 3 to 1 maybe even more.

Very trenchant analysis based on hard data. Must be a Bush supporter.

The lines weren't long, but then we don't have one machine-shoot this year my town moved up in the world-now instead of pencil and paper and little old ladies hand counting, we have the scanner where you use the black marker to fill in the circle and the machine scans it.

I did notice a lot of people had GOP ballots, but our area of town tends to lean slightly more GOP than the other two wards.

I would have expected independents to swing towards the Republican contest, given that the polls show Obama winning comfortably while McCain and Romney are neck-and-neck.

A couple of comments already, but no one has mentioned the sporting aspect. Politics is sports to a lot of people, and they like to back the winning team. Obama, with a clear lead, is the winning team. Voting in the Republican primary, where there's still a contest, risks backing a losing team.

Not rational, but then most voting isn't.

Democratic side -- if either Obama or Clinton wins, I would expect Jim Webb to be the VP. Defense credentials, welcoming home the "Reagan Democrats", and regional balance all in one well-spoken package.

Republican side -- I suspect that if McCain or Romney win, they need to make amends with the religious conservatives. If Huckabee is for some reason unacceptable, then another religious conservative like Brownback. If Huckabee wins the nomination, he needs a Washington insider with defense or foreign policy experience. If Lugar weren't too old, I'd say he'd be right.

My point was less a prediction of a future than how different the delegate count is from the hype. Obama, Edwards and Clinton are as tight as they can be on the delegate count. But the hype is all Obama.

History shows that Iowa and NH are not relevant for their delegates but for the effect they have on predicting where the other states are headed (or perhaps causing it). So the Obama lead is not just "hype," it is a pretty sound projection of where the delegate count will end up.

On the Dem side, I don't think Obama or Clinton would choose the other, but Edwards might still be a choice. Richardson definitely seems a prime candidate, even he seems to think so.

Hard to do the VP exercise till you know who the top of the ticket is, so I won't even try on the Republican side (maybe McCain-Brownback?). Assuming Obama wins the nomination, Wes Clark would appear to be his best choice to shore up the experience/foreign policy credentials. He endorsed Hillary but both of them seem like they could get over that. Richardson has a nice resume but just isn't presidential timber.

I am not so sure.

If yard signs and bumper stickers are any indication, they outnumber GOP candidates signs 3 to 1 maybe even more.

I suspect McCain will actually do well today, but whether that is enough to give him much of a boost is another question.

I think for the GOP South Carolina is going to be very important.

I figure Hillary and Obama will turn on each other-their race is actually pretty tight-I don't think Edwards is going to finish as closely here-the yard signs are all about Hillary and Obama.

Certainly a strong second-place in New Hampshire wouldn't be the end of his campaign, he's still likely to be ahead in delegates, unless McCain pulls off a landslide.

Jesus Christ that's complicated

Yup -- and it's even more complicated for the Democrats! They have more PR plus the "Super Delegates."

especially when you start stripping half the delegate for the punished states. Do you know if each of those delegates will be counted as half a vote, of if only half of the delegates will get a vote? If the latter, which delegates will be stripped, RNC, district or at-large delegates?

Honestly, I'm not sure if they've figured that out. Or whether they'll actually follow through and do it.

CQ has a state-by-state list of the delegate allocations.

Jesus Christ that's complicated, especially when you start stripping half the delegate for the punished states. Do you know if each of those delegates will be counted as half a vote, of if only half of the delegates will get a vote? If the latter, which delegates will be stripped, RNC, district or at-large delegates?

Can we get a list of which states are winner-take-all and which split their delegates, and how many delegates each state has?

CQ has a state-by-state list of the delegate allocations.

Real people, as opposed to us political junkies, tend to vote for the candidate they want, not in a strategic way to help a lesser choice defeat an even lower choice.

Not that he might not be a veep choice, anyway.

Who is on the list of possible VP candidates on the GOP side? Presumably none of the top 3 would select any of the other top 3 as VP, Thompson seems dead as a candidate for either office, Guiliani wouldn't seem to bring much to the table either, and Ron Paul is still bat-shit insane. Are there any strong governors or congressmen whom the GOP is eying for the VP spot?

On the Dem side, I don't think Obama or Clinton would choose the other, but Edwards might still be a choice. Richardson definitely seems a prime candidate, even he seems to think so.