Hillary is my first runner up. Meaning if Ron Paul doesn't get the nominee from the Republicans, I will vote Hillary. I feel that she is the most educated and most tactical nominee. She isn't going to bring the revolution, but neither is Obama. The only president that COULD do that is Ron Paul.
McCain is alright to me. I feel like his time was in the past, last election. He is a little too conservative to me. At least Mitt Romney didn't win (I will say it again).
Huckabee is my second runner up, as if Paul and Clinton don't get nominees I will vote for Huckabee. Although I am not a fan of the religious thing, Huckabee takes an American stand point on many things. A lot of this is repetitive so I will instead talk about some of the controversy.
Controversy- more of the buzz word in this campaign than "change" is. I don't want to give the impression of being in this alleged Ron Paul cult that people speak of. I am a newly found Ron Paul supporter, not a radical supporter. I don't show these findings in a way to spark a conspiracy theory, but I cannot find any other explanation for things I have read and seen with my own eyes.
First, a New Hampshire girl claims vote fraud in the town of Sutton. The small town has a tiny population and its citizens are all a tight knit family. They all know who they voted for and can't understand that how three of them have come forward as voting for Paul, yet according to the political map- Paul got ZERO votes in Sutton. They don't believe the fraudulent activity happened at the actual site, but was a mistake made on a larger scale.
In regards to voter fraud, I was personally a victim of suspicious activity yesterday. I do my primary/caucus following by way of CNN. When CNN announced that each county could be followed on CNN.com during the New Hampshire primary, I was intrigued. I wanted to see how each county broke down, so I knew who had the biggest all around following. I wanted to see how Ron Paul/Rudy Guiliani/Mike Huckabee sat in comparison.
I looked county by county, very close calls. Sometimes Paul had the most votes of the three, other times Guiliani or Huckabee did. I was pleasantly surprised to see Paul win two counties. Then I noticed that Pittsfield, a smaller county in New Hampshire, had interesting results. Paul had 168 votes- 25% of the county, however where it said reporting (and every other county reporting votes read 100% reporting) Pittsfield said 0% reporting- although Paul had won the county according to the posted results. I made note of this and showed a fellow Paul supporter.
I was curious to figure out what this meant. I continued looking through the county results and returned about 3 minutes later to the page that had Pittsfield's information. Pittsfield was now 100% reporting- Paul had 71 votes and 10%. How did he lose votes in a manner of 3 minutes. How were 168 people accounted for as voting for him and now 71 were? If anyone has an explanation out there I would love to hear it.