Gephardt d. Sharpton, Braun d. Clinton, Kerry(R) d. Bush(D)

[carpetbagger]

Here's selected names from the rest of the field (courtesy of AP)

DEMS (286/301 reporting)
Dick Gephardt Dem 380 0.2% 0
Al Sharpton Dem 335 0.2% 0
George W Bush (WI) (i) GOP 103 0.0% 0
Carol Moseley Braun Dem 75 0.0% 0
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. Dem 71 0.0% 0
Hillary Rodham Clinton (WI) Dem 53 0.0% 0

GOP (286/301)
John Kerry(WI) Dem 1,349 2.3% 0
Howard Dean (WI) Dem 910 1.5% 0
Wesley Clark(WI) Dem 805 1.4% 0
John Edwards(WI) Dem 762 1.3% 0
Joe Lieberman(WI) Dem 488 0.8% 0
Dennis Kucinich(WI) Dem 27 0.0% 0
Carol Moseley Braun(WI) Dem 15 0.0% 0
Dick Gephardt(WI) Dem 14 0.0% 0
Al Sharpton(WI) Dem 9 0.0% 0

[Goldom]

1. what...

does this mean? that ~2500 Republicans voted for Dems, but only 100 dems voted repub? Or that a whole lot of people were confused about who was in which party?

[carpetbagger]

6. It tends to happen in the primary.

If you're a registered x, you can only vote in the x primary. It's actually not as pronounced as it's been in other elections, but there it is. I think the 100 votes for Bush is telling about the lack of democratic support. In 1992, Bush I got something like 1400 votes.

[ShaneGR]

2. Du sprechst Englisch?

Kommen Sie Hier!

[Wonk]

3. Here's the link you forgot, re: context

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2004/primaries/by_state/NH_Page.html

[Ediacara]

4. What I think is interesting is

That Gephardt, who is no longer running, got 13% more votes than Al Sharpton, who is suposedly still running a real campaign.

Is Sharpton actually targetting states? Or is it purely vanity from the get-go?

[tishaLA]

7. I read a fascinating piece yesterday about Sharpton

that you'd be interested in. Maybe I should start a thread about it, but there are so many today.

Apparently, Sharpton has a right wing hit person, Roger Stone, who feeds him stuff about candidates--particularly the stuff about Dean and the minority cabinet person. Here is the link http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001103.html#more

and here are a few paragraphs of the article:

I have respect for genuine differences of opinion among the candidates, but this action of Sharpton's is completely self-serving. Sharpton's desire for power shows that he is willing to play into the hands of the people he claims to oppose in an effort to "rise to the prize" - even if it means the defeat of the party of which he claims to be a member. To be sure, that defeat is certainly the goal of the Rovian Confederate Fascists and their slathering Greedy Oligarchy Party.

In an effort to maintain the vast power this cabal has attained while the American people slept, the GOP has amply demonstrated that there is no trick too low, no person above being used, no principle that is inviolate. And Rev. Sharpton, blinded by his own ambition, equal in nature and intensity to George Warmonger Bush's desire for the appearance of a legitimate electoral victory, now demonstrates that he is willing to debase himself in his quest, which makes him just like they are.

If there really was a Democratic National Committee (Terry McAuliff, call your office - your resignation letter is awaiting your signature), this should prompt the party to withdraw all support form Al Sharpton, and to begin the ouster of such people as Sharpton and Zell Miller, among too many others.

[goodhue]

5. Randy Crow beats Al Sharpton!

Randy Crow is anti-zionist neo-larouchian as Google would reveal. Is this just folks picking his name cause it sounds cool?

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2004/primaries/by_state/NH_Page.html?SITE=YAHOOELN&SECTION=POLITICS#TOP

[LSdemocrat]

8. Neo-LaRouchian?

wow, who would have thought you'd ever see that term