The 2008 Democratic and Republican Primaries

[Matt]

You said it wasn't accurate when Obama was projected in 20th percentile a month ago :confused:

Huh?

[souvlaki]

Sorry if someone has explained this already, but does anyone know why MSNBC has Obama ahead in the total delegates by 4 points, whereas CNN has him behind by nearly 80? While the latter isn't bad for Obama (I think it's about where they expected to be today), the two figures do show a completely different perspective over what happened last night, especially when you consider he was behind in the delegate count before last night.

[Matt]

Perhaps CNN is counting Super Delegates?

[Excel]

Hillary suporter Kevin Drum frm Washington Post has called the delegate race from last night for Obama.

It looks like Obama, by the narrowest of margins, won last night's delegate hunt. By our estimates, he picked up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Clinton.

What more you want, Matt?

Popular vote means jack though. No aspect of the Presidential election is based on popular vote, it is all about states and districts. I'll concede that Obama did not lose last night. But he certainly did not win either and it was certainly a momentum blow and a set back for his campaign. It proved that all these Kennedy and other endorsements that he has been flaunting means jack. It proves that his outspending of Clinton as of late meant jack. While he did not outright lose, it was not a good night for his campaign. I wonder though, if for once...Pennsylvania will decide a primary :wow:

But yeah...definitely the only loser last night was REAL Democrats. :csad:

Perhaps, but from a media standpoint which is what most people only see, he won the most states and the most delegates.

[Darkly Dexter]

wow Obama won in a lot of States :up:

[Chris B]

I a bit surprised. I was expecting McCain and Hillary to both win a lot more states than they did, leaving McCain as the de facto Republican nominee and Hillary have a clear lead in the delegate count over Obama.

[Genesis 1.0]

They should really revamp the delegate system on the Republican end to more closely resemble the Democratic portion. McCain cannot for the life of him win over the conservative vote and rarely gets a decisive victory.

Just look at Obama, his orginization is clearly stronger, he's won 7 out of 8 of the caucus states. He wins when there's an informed set of voters as you see by necessity in a caucus, essentially the base.

Romney, arrogant personality and all, has won the majority of the caucus states as well, with the exception of the West Virginia deal. Again among conservatives, the base of the Party, he's won out.

McCain's been out since his showing, despite winning the bigger states, pleading with the base of the Party, trying to show he's an actual Republican. It's really mind boggling. If the system were shifted to mirror the Democratic Party, we'd have an actual race that coincides with *gasp* the Party's core.

He's working in reverse, most politicians veer to the left and right respectively in the Primary and then try and come to the center during the General. McCain's operating near the center now and will have to move back to the right during the General in order to win his own party.

Ugh.

[The Senator]

Howard Dean said he won't let this go to the convention. The party will sit down with both nominees after Pennsylvania and hammer out a reasonable strategy... which may mean an Obama/ Clinton or Clinton/ Obama ticket.

[Genesis 1.0]

At best he might convince them to clean it up, beyond that? Nada.

[Matt]

Howard Dean said he won't let this go to the convention. The party will sit down with both nominees after Pennsylvania and hammer out a reasonable strategy... which may mean an Obama/ Clinton or Clinton/ Obama ticket.

I can't see Hillary taking the number two spot no matter what. I also can't see her allowing her running mate to be chosen for her, so I'm not sure how effective that would be.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

wow Obama won in a lot of States :up:



I believe 13 :up:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

This is what CNN site says

Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 630
Superdelegates: 193
Total: 823

Barack Obama
Pledged: 635
Superdelegates: 106
Total: 741



This is what foxnews site says

Hillary Clinton 1,024
John Edwards 26
Mike Gravel 0
Barack Obama 933
Total 1,983


oh and the Republicans

Mike Huckabee 190
John McCain 703
Ron Paul 14
Mitt Romney 293
Total 1,200


If more accurate numbers exist please post/explain :confused:

[st barbara]

Not being an American I was wondering what the difference is between a "superdelegate" and an ordinary delegate. Do the Superdelegates' votes count for more, if so why ? (Or do they wear spandex with their underwear on the outside :wow: )

[The Incredible Hulk]

MSNBC has Obama ahead by about 4 delegates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475

God help us all.....

[\S/JcDc\S/]

What makes the numbers larger or smaller between different reports?

Now we have 3 different sources with different count.

I believe Hulk's post is what I saw most recently on the news. Obama ahead with 838 to Hillary's 834.

Trying to get accurate most up to date count is a bit tricky.

[The Incredible Hulk]

I think they each have their own unofficial ways of counting them. The Dems numbers are hard to peg right now because they arent winner take all states, so they have to divy up each of the delegate districts which can take a while. Some news outlets might be more willing to call a district for a candidate than another. I know in New Mexico for instance they're separated by like 40 some odd votes but they still cant get final totals from 2% of the districts.

[souvlaki]

Yeah, what is up with this? I still haven't found a good answer. There is quite a large difference between up by 4 delegates, and down by 81.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Hey I support Obama as a man with a vision and consider the President to be a spokeperson for party... So why not him?

Yet... I will definitely have to say it seems to me that Hillary had the previous delegates before Super Tuesday in a close race that even if Obama won more delegates on ST, she would still have a slight lead. Yes we all know she didn't win nearly as many states for the record, but that's a different can of worms ;)

[The Senator]

Not being an American I was wondering what the difference is between a "superdelegate" and an ordinary delegate. Do the Superdelegates' votes count for more, if so why ? (Or do they wear spandex with their underwear on the outside :wow: )

A delegate is a member of a party who votes at the nominating convention. He or she usually represents a district, and his or her vote at the convention typically corresponds to how the district voted.

A superdelegate is someone in politics, such as a Senator, Congressman, Governor or other elected official. They usually vote for who they endorse in the primary. For example, Gov. Jon Corzine endorsed Hillary Clinton, so he's a superdelegate who has pledged a vote for Hillary at the convention.

The Republicans are different. They don't have superdelegates, so their nominee only depends on district delegates in states which don't have "winner take all" systems. However, if a state is winner take all, then every delegate from that state is obligated to cast his or her vote for whoever won that state. For example, California's vote is based on Congressional districts, so 55% of the delegates may vote for McCain at the convention, 30% would vote for Romney, and 10% would vote for Huckabee. However, New York was a winner-take-all primary, so McCain would theoretically win 100% of New York's delegates.

It's fairly complicated.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/tp/super_delegates.htm

[The Senator]

Yeah, what is up with this? I still haven't found a good answer. There is quite a large difference between up by 4 delegates, and down by 81.

Well, the delegate mess won't be confirmed for a while, so no site is completely reliable.

Plus, I don't think some sites included Superdelegates. Clinton is definitely ahead due to Superdelegates alone. Obama is ahead in overall state delegates, if only by five.

I would expect things to clear up after this weekends' primaries and next week's Potomac Primary, where I think he'll end up winning big, and will emerge with a good 30-40-point lead over Clinton in regular delegates. Plus, there are over a thousand superdelegates who haven't endorsed. Some won't endorse, like Mark Warner or Bill Richardson; some may endorse, like Russ Feingold or Jim Webb.

[Matt]

Hey I support Obama as a man with a vision and consider the President to be a spokeperson for party... So why not him?

Yet... I will definitely have to say it seems to me that Hillary had the previous delegates before Super Tuesday in a close race that even if Obama won more delegates on ST, she would still have a slight lead. Yes we all know she didn't win nearly as many states for the record, but that's a different can of worms ;)

Because a REAL democrat should be the spokesperson for the party.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Well, the delegate mess won't be confirmed for a while, so no site is completely reliable.

Plus, I don't think some sites included Superdelegates. Clinton is definitely ahead due to Superdelegates alone. Obama is ahead in overall state delegates, if only by five.

I would expect things to clear up after this weekends' primaries and next week's Potomac Primary, where I think he'll end up winning big, and will emerge with a good 30-40-point lead over Clinton in regular delegates. Plus, there are over a thousand superdelegates who haven't endorsed. Some won't endorse, like Mark Warner or Bill Richardson; some may endorse, like Russ Feingold or Jim Webb.

At this rate with Obama giving Hillary a run for her money (pun intended heh heh) this could go into May :eek:

[Matt]

At this rate with Obama giving Hillary a run for her money (pun intended heh heh) this could go into May :eek:

Someone mentioned Howard Dean saying he wouldn't let it go until the Convention and if neccessary after Pennsylvania, he would sit them down and work something out.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Because a REAL democrat should be the spokesperson for the party.

I guess I would say for me personally, I don't consider myself a democrat or republican but let's be honest... It always comes down to one or the other. We are stuck with a 2 party system. With that being the case I have to look at issues important to me, and I have to consider who is most likely to represent our country the best and also seems most likely to unite let alone seek the buzz word "change"

Ended up being Obama for me. Obviously considering the surge, there are others that have that outlook as well. A month ago he was considered out of the race. Now things have gotten interesting.

[Excel]

Someone mentioned Howard Dean saying he wouldn't let it go until the Convention and if neccessary after Pennsylvania, he would sit them down and work something out.

Like what? Way the states line up, Obama could be the potential delegates, states, and votes leader after Pennsylvania, but theres NO WAY Hillary drops out. The only states between now and then Hillary is likely to get are Texas and Ohio but that would probably in the spirit of California where she doesnt get that many more delegates while Barrack gets a big advantages from the smaller states.

[Matt]

Like what? Way the states line up, Obama could be the potential delegates, states, and votes leader after Pennsylvania, but theres NO WAY Hillary drops out.

He may not depending on super delegates.

[rdh007]

Because a REAL democrat should be the spokesperson for the party.

There aren't any of those left. :(

[Matt]

There aren't any of those left. :(

Four words: Sherrod. Brown. Research. Him.

[rdh007]

I meant in this race.

I've seen a little because of your postings, but I intend to delve more deeply. All I did was the wiki page.

[Excel]

He may not depending on super delegates.

Heres the schedule:

2/9: Louisiana - 68 Delegates
2/9: Nebraska - 31 Delegates
2/9: Washington - 97 Delegates
2/9: Virgin Islands - 9 Delegates
2/10: Maine - 34 Delegates
2/12: D.C. - 37 Delegates
2/12: Maryland - 99
2/12: Virginia - 103 Delegates
2/19: Hawaii - 29 Delegates
2/19: Wisconsin - 92 Delegates

3/4: Ohio - 162 Delegates
3/4: Rhode Island - 32 Delegates
3/4: Texas - 228 Delegates
3/4: Vermont - 23 Delegates
3/8: Wyoming - 18 Delegates
3/11: Mississippi - 36 Delegates

The only ones remaining in Febuary Clinton will likely win are Nebraska and Maine. Obama Louisiana, Washington, D.C. Maryland, and Virginia all have high African Americans or Barrack ahead in poll and he grew up in Hawaii and Wisconsin has very, very little Latino and Asian folk though it also has little African American folks. However, in December Hillary lead Barack in polls 39-26. One would think the gap has closed considerably since then.

And that leads to another problem for Hillary. With Barrack the clear delegate, vote, and state leader heading into March 4th, do the people in Ohio change their minds? Same for Texas.

Either way it would take massive, landslide victories in both for Hillary to take the delegate lead which would be extremely unlikely given momentum.

[The Senator]

The DNC is looking to win in the fall, and they're looking at who has the best chances of winning. Chances are, the DNC will take a long look at the numbers, and will try to convince the person with the greatest chance of losing to step aside. The Democrats don't need a repeat of the 1968 convention.

My honest guess is that the DNC would favor Obama over Clinton, mostly because of his strengths with independents and the fact that he is running as a change agent.

But like I said, I don't think this will go past March 4. I feel like Obama will sweep the primaries/ caucuses in the next week (MD, DC, VA, LA, NE, HI and possibly WA), giving him a pretty clear edge going into some of the later states, such as TX, where the polls have apparently have the two of them tied (according to an analyst on Hardball earlier).

While I can't say for sure Obama has this in the bag, it definitely isn't looking bad for him.

[souvlaki]

Heres the schedule:

2/9: Louisiana - 68 Delegates
2/9: Nebraska - 31 Delegates
2/9: Washington - 97 Delegates
2/9: Virgin Islands - 9 Delegates
2/10: Maine - 34 Delegates
2/12: D.C. - 37 Delegates
2/12: Maryland - 99
2/12: Virginia - 103 Delegates
2/19: Hawaii - 29 Delegates
2/19: Wisconsin - 92 Delegates

3/4: Ohio - 162 Delegates
3/4: Rhode Island - 32 Delegates
3/4: Texas - 228 Delegates
3/4: Vermont - 23 Delegates
3/8: Wyoming - 18 Delegates
3/11: Mississippi - 36 Delegates

The only ones remaining in Febuary Clinton will likely win are Nebraska and Maine. Obama Louisiana, Washington, D.C. Maryland, and Virginia all have high African Americans or Barrack ahead in poll and he grew up in Hawaii and Wisconsin has very, very little Latino and Asian folk though it also has little African American folks. However, in December Hillary lead Barack in polls 39-26. One would think the gap has closed considerably since then.

And that leads to another problem for Hillary. With Barrack the clear delegate, vote, and state leader heading into March 4th, do the people in Ohio change their minds? Same for Texas.

Either way it would take massive, landslide victories in both for Hillary to take the delegate lead which would be extremely unlikely given momentum.

I agree. Hillary seems to be using Guiliani's strategy, which I think may work against her. She's implied that she's more focused on Texas and Ohio, and is not putting a lot of effort into the states in between. She also is out of money. I wouldn't be shocked if she gets the nomination, but really, Obama is in much better position to win this than he was before Super Tuesday.

[The Senator]

States Obama Will Win

Washington, DC
Maryland
Hawaii
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Washington state
Vermont
Wyoming
Montana
Mississippi
South Dakota

States Hillary Will Win

Rhode Island
Maine

Toss-Ups/ Lack of Polls/ No Precedent

Ohio
Texas
Pennsylvania
Oregon

Hillary could win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Obama wins all of the states I think he'll win by the margins he won by last night, he may not need the bigger states. He'll have to come close in two of them, and that's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

He's won seven of the eight caucus states, and five of those were by huge margins. I would imagine that trend will continue in the western-midwestern states. 60+% in NE, WI, SD, WA, and HI are very possible.

[kronos251]

I can't see Hillary taking the number two spot no matter what. I also can't see her allowing her running mate to be chosen for her, so I'm not sure how effective that would be.

That, and again this question: who will be the first to swallow their pride and accept the VP position?

[Excel]

*awaits Matts knowledgeable take* ;)

[\S/JcDc\S/]

That, and again this question: who will be the first to swallow their pride and accept the VP position?

The one losing ;)

[jaguarr]

Gonna be interesting to see how much further Hillary can go since she's having to finance her own campaign through a "personal loan" of $5M. Obama just pulled in another $32M from what I've read. He's definitely got the financial advantage going into this next stretch.

jag

[Matt]

Heres the schedule:

2/9: Louisiana - 68 Delegates
2/9: Nebraska - 31 Delegates
2/9: Washington - 97 Delegates
2/9: Virgin Islands - 9 Delegates
2/10: Maine - 34 Delegates
2/12: D.C. - 37 Delegates
2/12: Maryland - 99
2/12: Virginia - 103 Delegates
2/19: Hawaii - 29 Delegates
2/19: Wisconsin - 92 Delegates

3/4: Ohio - 162 Delegates
3/4: Rhode Island - 32 Delegates
3/4: Texas - 228 Delegates
3/4: Vermont - 23 Delegates
3/8: Wyoming - 18 Delegates
3/11: Mississippi - 36 Delegates

The only ones remaining in Febuary Clinton will likely win are Nebraska and Maine. Obama Louisiana, Washington, D.C. Maryland, and Virginia all have high African Americans or Barrack ahead in poll and he grew up in Hawaii and Wisconsin has very, very little Latino and Asian folk though it also has little African American folks. However, in December Hillary lead Barack in polls 39-26. One would think the gap has closed considerably since then.

And that leads to another problem for Hillary. With Barrack the clear delegate, vote, and state leader heading into March 4th, do the people in Ohio change their minds? Same for Texas.

Either way it would take massive, landslide victories in both for Hillary to take the delegate lead which would be extremely unlikely given momentum.

There is really no spin to it. If Hillary cannot win good ammounts of delegates and convince Super Delegates she is done.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Gonna be interesting to see how much further Hillary can go since she's having to finance her own campaign through a "personal loan" of $5M. Obama just pulled in another $32M from what I've read. He's definitely got the financial advantage going into this next stretch.

jag

A day after super tuesday Obama's team raised 4 million dollars almost the amount of Hillary's "personal loan" as they are calling it :o

[The Senator]

I can see the DNC offering Hillary a spot as Senate Majority Leader if they want to make Obama the nominee. I think she'd accept it, although reluctantly. I don't think Obama would want her as his VP.

[The Incredible Hulk]

its sad that people assume Obama will win certain states solely because they have high %'s of African Americans, implying that African Americans voted solely based on racial lines. I'm no fan of Obama by any means, but you've got to give a little more credit than that...

[The Senator]

its sad that people assume Obama will win certain states solely because they have high %'s of African Americans, implying that African Americans voted solely based on racial lines. I'm no fan of Obama by any means, but you've got to give a little more credit than that...

But when he's winning 70% of the African American vote and he's running in states with huge black populations-- Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, the District of Columbia, and Maryland-- that automatically gives him an edge you can't deny. The white votes definitely help him, but if he didn't have those black voters, he may not have done well in the states he took and he may not do well in the states ahead.

[Spider-Fan]

I don't see Obama/Clinton or vice versa happening. Neither will want the other to be their VP. Not sure who VP will be for either, but I am convinced this ticket won't happen in any order.

And if Clinton or Obama get screwed due to the Super Delegates, I will be very angry. Whoever leads the delegate count after the primaries deserves the nom. If they go against the majority (even if it meant Obama getting the nom over Hillary...which I want), I'll be very mad.

[Matt]

I think Obama has the nomination just about locked up. Hillary would have to pull magic out of her butt at this point or just win over a **** load of super delegates. While I am glad Hillary is not winning the nomination, I still think it is a sad day for the Democratic Party and America when a man, who so blatantly stands against what it means to be a Democrat, can run on skin color and buzz words and be the nomination of Roosevelt's party.

[The Senator]

I don't see Obama/Clinton or vice versa happening. Neither will want the other to be their VP. Not sure who VP will be for either, but I am convinced this ticket won't happen in any order.

And if Clinton or Obama get screwed due to the Super Delegates, I will be very angry. Whoever leads the delegate count after the primaries deserves the nom. If they go against the majority (even if it meant Obama getting the nom over Hillary...which I want), I'll be very mad.

Well, that's how things have been done since 1972. It's sort of like the electoral college. You can piss and moan about it all you want, but hey, at the end of the day, you're just gonna have to learn to live with it.

[Spider-Fan]

Well, that's how things have been done since 1972. It's sort of like the electoral college. You can piss and moan about it all you want, but hey, at the end of the day, you're just gonna have to learn to live with it.

It is not like we haven't had to before.

Note - Not trying to start any fights with that comment.

[Matt]

I think it is worse than the Electoral College, as correct me if I'm wrong, super delegates can just pick whomever they want. They do not have to go based on voting or anything like that. At least the electoral college does. But, the DNC is a private institution as are primary elections...so...they are within their right.

[The Senator]

It is not like we haven't had to before.

Note - Not trying to start any fights with that comment.

This would be the first time superdelegates decided the nominee, but yes, the electoral college has screwed over the American populous several times before.

[jaguarr]

I think Obama has the nomination just about locked up. Hillary would have to pull magic out of her butt at this point or just win over a **** load of super delegates. While I am glad Hillary is not winning the nomination, I still think it is a sad day for the Democratic Party and America when a man, who so blatantly stands against what it means to be a Democrat, can run on skin color and buzz words and be the nomination of Roosevelt's party.

Hate to break it to you, Matty, but none of the candidates that have been running as Republicans OR Democrats have been true to the supposed foundations of their respective parties for ages. Hell, the Republicans we've had in power for the past eight years have been all about big government, big spending, corporate asslicking and a whole lot of other things that go against the grain of traditional Republican tenets. So, mourn if you must, but mourn the decay of the entire system, not just the Democrats.

jag

[Malice]

Texas, which recently has not had much impact on the elections...because they have usually been one side or another (except the Bush Gore election) will be a huge important state again!

[Matt]

I could care less about the Republican party though. However, when I see REAL POPULIST Democrats like Sherrod Brown in Ohio, it makes me sad that they aren't the ones leading the party. :csad:

[jaguarr]

The times change. Matt gets left behind. The tears flow. Poor Matt. :(

jag

[Matt]

The times change. Matt gets left behind. The tears flow. Poor Matt. :(

jag

Comeon Jag, you must see the point. Do you really want your party's leader to be more concerned with ensuring that a 13 year old can get an abortion without her parents knowing than ensuring that a middle class working man has a secure job that isn't going to be shipped over seas due to a FTA with a third world country?

[jaguarr]

Comeon Jag, you must see the point. Do you really want your party's leader to be more concerned with ensuring that a 13 year old can get an abortion without her parents knowing than ensuring that a middle class working man has a secure job that isn't going to be shipped over seas due to a FTA with a third world country?

What leader has ever said that their priorities were what you just listed? :huh:

jag

[Matt]

What leader has ever said that their priorities were what you just listed? :huh:

jag

Barack Obama's clearly are. He supports no restrictions on abortion at all and has been very vocal about such (Voted NO on notifying parents if their minor child gets an abortion), yet he also says that he wants to create MORE free trade agreements, especially in South America.

[jaguarr]

Barack Obama's clearly are. He supports no restrictions on abortion at all and has been very vocal about such (Voted NO on notifying parents if their minor child gets an abortion), yet he also says that he wants to create MORE free trade agreements, especially in South America.

You sure are extrapolating a lot, aren't you? :huh:

jag

[Matt]

You sure are extrapolating a lot, aren't you? :huh:

jag

Not at all. He has voted in both the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate to allow minors to recieve abortions without informing their parents. He has openly said that he would support establishing free trade with South American countries if elected President.

[jaguarr]

Not at all. He has voted in both the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate to allow minors to recieve abortions without informing their parents. He has openly said that he would support establishing free trade with South American countries if elected President.

If you can ascertain, accurately, what his priorities are that he will focus on, just from that then your powers of political prognostication are far greater than mine, Matt.

And abortion is a non-issue. Nothing much will change with it at all at the Federal level at least for the foreseeable future.

jag

[Matt]

If you can ascertain, accurately, what his priorities are that he will focus on, just from that then your powers of political prognostication are far greater than mine, Matt.

So you feel comfortable with a President who supports free trade with third world countries that have no regulation what so ever, but does not support parental notice regarding a MINOR'S abortion?


And abortion is a non-issue. Nothing much will change with it at all at the Federal level at least for the foreseeable future.

jag



Little things will. Abortion won't go away, but regulations around it will change from President to President. I don't like Obama's stances on those little issues. I do like his support of using stem cells for research but I personally think the notion of allowing a 13 year old girl to recieve an abortion without her parents know is just as absurd as allowing her to donate a kidney without her parents knowing. It is a medical procedure and the parents have a right to know. Plus he is a big proponent of keeping partial birth abortions and third trimester abortions legal. Anyone who has seen videos or pictures of one of these and can call it less than murder, is a sociopath in my eyes.

[jaguarr]

I'm more worried about the economy, getting Iraq settled, fixing healthcare, fixing our education system, and doing something about our record deficit, personally. I have a feeling our next President will be, too.

jag

[Matt]

I'm more worried about the economy, getting Iraq settled, fixing healthcare, fixing our education system, and doing something about our record deficit, personally. I have a feeling our next President will be, too.

jag

Free trade is crucial to fixing our economy and is one of the biggest threats to it. As for getting Iraq settled, leaving 5,000 troops behind isn't going to do it. There is nothing wrong with our education system. Its a bit underfunded, but the fact is, some students just don't have the desire to learn and no ammount of standardized testing or stupid No Student Left Behind acts will fix that. As for our deficit, explain to me how Barack Obama intends to fix it when most of his plans involve spending billions if not trillions of dollars more than we already are?

[jaguarr]

Dude, EVERYTHING is wrong with our education system. The No Student Allowed To Excel program has destroyed it and made it a fixation on teaching only what's on those idiotic competency exams so that schools will continue to get their budgets for the next year. It's destroyed education in this country, marginalizing every single student it's touched and tying the hands of teachers and school administrators. Don't tell me there's nothing wrong with education in this country because that is a big, stinky load.

As for fixing our economy, the Republicans have NO plan at all. McCain's said himself he has no idea. Add in the fact that the Republicans have gone out of their way to enable wholesale offshoring of jobs for their corporate buddies, and I just don't see the Republicans fixing that with what they bring to the table currently. Talk about Free Trade being abused and run amok.

Iraq is a friggin' mess. I seriously doubt the next President is going to be able to fix it and there will be a whole lot of debate over how we do just that before anything gets done. McCain loves Iraq and wants to continue bleeding money all over that country and keep our presence there intact and that's not the answer, either.

Government spending is out of control, I agree. None of the candidates bring any solution to the table for that.

I know you just hate Obama but how you can have so much hate for that guy without espousing the same amount of hate for all the other candidates is beyond me. They all have the same or similar issues and problems that they bring with them.

jag

[Matt]

I DO hate all of the other candidates, I have said it on numerous occassions. Obama just annoys me the most as he enjoys such an undeserved pedestal. I'm voting third party.

[Spider-Fan]

Dude, EVERYTHING is wrong with our education system. The No Student Allowed To Excel program has destroyed it and made it a fixation on teaching only what's on those idiotic competency exams so that schools will continue to get their budgets for the next year. It's destroyed education in this country, marginalizing every single student it's touched and tying the hands of teachers and school administrators. Don't tell me there's nothing wrong with education in this country because that is a big, stinky load.

As for fixing our economy, the Republicans have NO plan at all. McCain's said himself he has no idea. Add in the fact that the Republicans have gone out of their way to enable wholesale offshoring of jobs for their corporate buddies, and I just don't see the Republicans fixing that with what they bring to the table currently. Talk about Free Trade being abused and run amok.

Iraq is a friggin' mess. I seriously doubt the next President is going to be able to fix it and there will be a whole lot of debate over how we do just that before anything gets done. McCain loves Iraq and wants to continue bleeding money all over that country and keep our presence there intact and that's not the answer, either.

Government spending is out of control, I agree. None of the candidates bring any solution to the table for that.

I know you just hate Obama but how you can have so much hate for that guy without espousing the same amount of hate for all the other candidates is beyond me. They all have the same or similar issues and problems that they bring with them.

jag

100% correct. I knew this act sucked as a student, and now that I am studying teaching and learned a lot about it, it is a terrible policy that needs lifted ASAP.

[Matt]

As for education, I agree it is underfunded, what I meant when I said nothing is wrong, is our government is looking for some kind of magical fix that will make stupid students suddenly become honor students. No Child Left Behind or Merit Pay (which Obama suggests) will not solve anything. Some kids just don't want to learn. We should stop looking for reasons that aren't there.

[hippie_hunter]

States Obama Will Win

Washington, DC
Maryland
Hawaii
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Washington state
Vermont
Wyoming
Montana
Mississippi
South Dakota

States Hillary Will Win

Rhode Island
Maine

Toss-Ups/ Lack of Polls/ No Precedent

Ohio
Texas
Pennsylvania
Oregon

Hillary could win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Obama wins all of the states I think he'll win by the margins he won by last night, he may not need the bigger states. He'll have to come close in two of them, and that's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

He's won seven of the eight caucus states, and five of those were by huge margins. I would imagine that trend will continue in the western-midwestern states. 60+% in NE, WI, SD, WA, and HI are very possible.

I think Hillary will win Washington state, Virginia, Vermont, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oregon.

But the other states you mentioned, the midwestern and ones with large black populations, Obama has in the bag.

[The Incredible Hulk]

the problem with Obama is that he's basically unelectable in a national election. Do you think the morons who voted for Bush AGAIN in 2004 are going to be swayed to elect a black guy with a muslim sounding name? (Stupid I know, but you have to understand the level that some of these people operate)

Not that Hillary is a great alternative, but she atleast has some cache with the suburban moderates and COULD take out McCain. If Obama gets the Nom, McCain can basically walk out to "Hail to the Chief" at the RNC.

[Zen]

the problem with Obama is that he's basically unelectable in a national election. Do you think the morons who voted for Bush AGAIN in 2004 are going to be swayed to elect a black guy with a muslim sounding name? (Stupid I know, but you have to understand the level that some of these people operate)

Not that Hillary is a great alternative, but she atleast has some cache with the suburban moderates and COULD take out McCain. If Obama gets the Nom, McCain can basically walk out to "Hail to the Chief" at the RNC.

i don't think the general consensus agrees with you

i think many are saying that Obama is actually courting quite a few republicans out there, notably Dwight Eisenhower's progeny and their constituents. Also it is apparent that Obama is bringing DROVES of new people to the booths across the nation, people who wouldn't be voting if it wasn't for his presence in the political arena.

and many beleive that Hillary may be harder to elect than Obama for a few reasons...

Her wavering stance on Iraq, and having Voted for the war in the beginning

She galvanizes the fractured republican party that McCain is struggling to pull together, many don't want McCain AT ALL... but are willing to toe the line if the "dreaded" Hillary steps up.

Obama's fund raising campaign is possessed... i don't know any other way to describe it... they can raise boatloads of cash...

just yesterday they put out an internet bid to match Hillary's 5 million she injected into her campaign... they matched it in 1 day

I don't think you can count this guy out.

personally i think hes stronger against McCain then Hillary... his message for change is solidified by his proven judgment on the war... McCain will have more credibility than Clinton because he will point to the surge, where Hillary has stated if she could, she would go back and change her vote on the war.

McCain will appear as the Old establishment candidate that wants the war to go on for 100 more years (hes said something akin to that) and Obama is poised to present a young very electable opposition to that front

and Obama's top voters in many states are White Men... i don't see a divide here, if he can court a few more Latino votes (something which should be absolutely SIMPLE for a democrat in the national election) i don't see how its such a terribly difficult race for him.

[jaguarr]

If Hillary folds and Obama gets the nomination, you'll see the Latino vote galvanize behind Obama, even despite the fact that he is black (and yes, that is a point of issue for many Latino voters, like it or not).

jag

[hippie_hunter]

I don't think courting the Latino vote will be easy for Obama against McCain. McCain's stances on immigration will surely help him a lot in courting them.

[souvlaki]

the problem with Obama is that he's basically unelectable in a national election. Do you think the morons who voted for Bush AGAIN in 2004 are going to be swayed to elect a black guy with a muslim sounding name? (Stupid I know, but you have to understand the level that some of these people operate)

Not that Hillary is a great alternative, but she atleast has some cache with the suburban moderates and COULD take out McCain. If Obama gets the Nom, McCain can basically walk out to "Hail to the Chief" at the RNC.

That's simply not true. If you look at his primary votes, quite a few of them come from independents, and even a few Republicans. Far more than Hillary is, which is why she has advantages in states with closed primaries. He's generally carrying the southern states by a 2 to 1 margin too. And not that polls have been incredibly accurate of late, but he's leading against McCain in most national polls, whereas Clinton is losing in most. Mark my words, there will be Republicans camping out at the polls waiting to vote against Clinton if she ends up being the nominee.

I'm not saying an Obama nomination would be a walk in the park but really, this idea that Clinton is more electable in a general election is really getting annoying. All signs point to the opposite being true.

[jaguarr]

I don't think courting the Latino vote will be easy for Obama against McCain. McCain's stances on immigration will surely help him a lot in courting them.

The vast majority of Latinos are staunchly against Republicans.

jag

[Zen]

...and McCain won't be pushing "amnesty" type legislation and rhetoric in trying to keep his base happy.

[The Senator]

That's simply not true. If you look at his primary votes, quite a few of them come from independents, and even a few Republicans. Far more than Hillary is, which is why she has advantages in states with closed primaries. He's generally carrying the southern states by a 2 to 1 margin too. And not that polls have been incredibly accurate of late, but he's leading against McCain in most national polls, whereas Clinton is losing in most. Mark my words, there will be Republicans camping out at the polls waiting to vote against Clinton if she ends up being the nominee.

I'm not saying an Obama nomination would be a walk in the park but really, this idea that Clinton is more electable in a general election is really getting annoying. All signs point to the opposite being true.

While I think Obama can win, I don't think he'll take deep red states. He'll have to fight hard to win several swing states, and his running mate has to be from a red state. He has no other choice. He needs to fight in Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and Virginia if he wants to win this. He has the money and the organization, certainly. I just hope he isn't naive enough to think he'll carry Kansas, Idaho or Alabama because he won their primaries by steep margins.

[Zen]

Jag hook me up with some of the info surrounding Latinos and Blacks... they don't vote for each other or something?

mixed Latino/african americans are generally gorgeous people... they should really rectify this hatred and squelch out a few more eyebrow raisers.

[Zen]

While I think Obama can win, I don't think he'll take deep red states. He'll have to fight hard to win several swing states, and his running mate has to be from a red state. He has no other choice. He needs to fight in Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and Virginia if he wants to win this. He has the money and the organization, certainly. I just hope he isn't naive enough to think he'll carry Kansas, Idaho or Alabama because he won their primaries by steep margins.


yeh i think its a fallacy to infer any democratic candidate can carry historically red states... but the swing states, the Dems probably got them this year.

[jaguarr]

Jag hook me up with some of the info surrounding Latinos and Blacks... they don't vote for each other or something?

mixed Latino/african americans are generally gorgeous people... they should really rectify this hatred and squelch out a few more eyebrow raisers.

Yeah, it's a weird cultural thing to me, but a lot of Latinos don't like blacks. It's something that goes way, way back. Even in my wife's family (they are Dominican) there are members who were black (but still Dominican in birth, heritage and nationality) and they were seriously looked down upon within the family because of it. It's a very old cultural thing. You can probably thank the Spaniards for it.

jag

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Yeah, it's a weird cultural thing to me, but a lot of Latinos don't like blacks. It's something that goes way, way back. Even in my wife's family (they are Dominican) there are members who were black (but still Dominican in birth, heritage and nationality) and they were seriously looked down upon within the family because of it. It's a very old cultural thing. You can probably thank the Spaniards for it.

jag

Yep, CNN or Foxnews did a report about that last night. As a white male I can say it's rather silly, then blacks and hispanics shall come together to whip me :(

[jaguarr]

Yep, CNN or Foxnews did a report about that last night. As a white male I can say it's rather silly, then blacks and hispanics shall come together to whip me :(

The other thing I do know is that a lot of Latinos would rather vote for a black guy than they would a Republican. My own Father-In-Law is one of those Latinos that has issues with blacks but he hates Republicans ten times more than he does blacks and while he's not an Obama fan (he's in love with Hillary, apparently) he has said that if Obama gets the nomination he will vote for him because he doesn't want the Republicans to get back into the White House again. The Republicans have a long and storied history of ****ting all over Latinos and the Bushies have only added to that. There are a lot of embittered Latinos that have had it with the Republicans and they are mobilizing to vote them out no matter what. Kind of weird to see them becoming so politically active since they've been relatively lackadaisical about the whole thing the last several elections. I think they've started to realize the power in numbers that they truly possess as a voting demographic.

jag

[jaguarr]

just yesterday they put out an internet bid to match Hillary's 5 million she injected into her campaign... they matched it in 1 day


I was just poking around on Google News and they've said that Obama's campaign raised $7M in 48 hours off that internet bid. He's got the financial advantage and the Clinton campaign is starting to panic over it because they are at a serious disadvantage going into this next round of primaries, which Obama seems poised to carry the lion's share of at this point:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/2-0-0&fp=47abca5166548fd6&ei=0FOrR5bqCImaqwO25PGNAQ&url=http%3A//ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD8ULJOVG0&cid=1129588225


jag

[The Incredible Hulk]

That's simply not true. If you look at his primary votes, quite a few of them come from independents, and even a few Republicans.

Please dont try and use the voting in the democratic primaries/caucuses as evidence for the outcome in a national election, it's pointless. And moderates arent the same as independents.


Far more than Hillary is, which is why she has advantages in states with closed primaries. He's generally carrying the southern states by a 2 to 1 margin too.

again its a democratic primary. put him against a Republican and watch that change in a BIG hurry.


And not that polls have been incredibly accurate of late, but he's leading against McCain in most national polls, whereas Clinton is losing in most. Mark my words, there will be Republicans camping out at the polls waiting to vote against Clinton if she ends up being the nominee.

any more so than a liberal black face with a muslim sounding name?

I'm not saying an Obama nomination would be a walk in the park but really, this idea that Clinton is more electable in a general election is really getting annoying. All signs point to the opposite being true.

those are some weak signs. I see Obama and a lot of his supporters really reaching for things to validate him as being a serious candidate. Truth is, he's running pretty well against a really weak Democratic field. Gore and Kerry were much stronger dem candidates in prior elextions and couldnt hold up against the Republicans, even against an incumbent with a bad approval rating.

[Zen]

is most of that money from 25-100 dollars bids from regular folks off his website?


how is he doing this??

[The Incredible Hulk]

i don't think the general consensus agrees with you

i think many are saying that Obama is actually courting quite a few republicans out there, notably Dwight Eisenhower's progeny and their constituents. Also it is apparent that Obama is bringing DROVES of new people to the booths across the nation, people who wouldn't be voting if it wasn't for his presence in the political arena.

Not sure if "droves" are coming to the polls since the primary numbers have been statistically similar to prior years. However i wont deny the fact that the black vote is up. The sad part is, i think it has more to do with his skin color as opposed to his message.


and many beleive that Hillary may be harder to elect than Obama for a few reasons...

Her wavering stance on Iraq, and having Voted for the war in the beginning.

I've never understood why thats conisdered "wavering?" Perhaps when presented with the actual facts, she changed her position on the war after seeing it was wrong. A lot of people in the government have changed their mind on Iraq. Changing your stance on something after having time to assess it, isnt it a weakness, its a strength, unless you support Bush of course.


She galvanizes the fractured republican party that McCain is struggling to pull together, many don't want McCain AT ALL... but are willing to toe the line if the "dreaded" Hillary steps up.

as opposed to the inexperienced, ultra-liberal black muslim? (not kidding, thats how they'll frame him)

Obama's fund raising campaign is possessed... i don't know any other way to describe it... they can raise boatloads of cash...

Once they get to the presidential elections, this matters very little anymore since campaign finance was reformed.

just yesterday they put out an internet bid to match Hillary's 5 million she injected into her campaign... they matched it in 1 day

great. although if you think the person with the most money makes the best candidate perhaps we can get Bill Gates to run?

I don't think you can count this guy out.

wasnt counting him out, just think he'll never hold up against McCain


McCain will have more credibility than Clinton because he will point to the surge, where Hillary has stated if she could, she would go back and change her vote on the war.

wow, admitting a mistake. thats certainly not a characteristic we'd see in a leader. we'd rather have them "stay the course" and continue shooting themself in the foot.


and Obama's top voters in many states are White Men.

EVERYONE"S top voters are White Men, because White Men make up the majority of people in the country that vote. If his top voters werent white men, then you'd have to be concerned.

[Zen]

Google record turnout and obama and you'll find a completely different answer in many states that have voted in the primaries than what your trying to convince me of...

...

Obama 2002...
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

you can feed me all you want on what you think makes a strong president, i think his judgment here was ABSOLUTELY correct, and the fact that he was the only one who got it right only solidifies my position and tendancy to side with him over Clinton... he will stand for his judgment and not waiver... Hillary probably wanted to vote against the war but was beatin down by the un-patriotic garbage that infiltrated every democrats heart during that time... Except Obama. it wasn't strength that voted for that war,

it was Weakness... there was no evidence, only fear.


does campaign finance reform touch him if hes getting all of this money from people and not corporations?

and i mentioned white men to show people aren't voting for him based on color... i think they like what he might bring

[Darkly Dexter]

Google record turnout and obama and you'll find a completely different answer in many states that have voted in the primaries than what your trying to convince me of...

...

Obama 2002...
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

you can feed me all you want on what you think makes a strong president, i think his judgment here was ABSOLUTELY correct, and the fact that he was the only one who got it right only solidifies my position and tendancy to side with him over Clinton... he will stand for his judgment and not waiver... Hillary probably wanted to vote against the war but was beatin down by the un-patriotic garbage that infiltrated every democrats heart during that time... Except Obama. it wasn't strength that voted for that war,



That's one of the reasons why I think he is the best candidate. When almost everyone, Republicans mostly but also a lot of Democrats (Like Hilary, Kerry and Edwards), were voting in favor of the war, he said NO. That's personality. He has what it takes.

[Excel]

Whats this talk Hillarys broke? Barack has raised near 8 million since Tuesday :eek:

[Zen]

didn't she have a 100 million dollar war chest?

maybe its a ploy to appear as an underdog which has been so popular lately...

http://www.kryptonitekollectibles.com/images/cat/giants_logo_small.gif

[Zen]

well it appears to have payed off... hillary is hot on baracks heals with 6million to his 7 in the past two days

[04nbod]

oh please barack has oprah on his side he will not lack for cash support!

[Zen]

oh please barack has oprah on his side he will not lack for cash support!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/gore-endorsement-rumor-ki_b_85516.html

do you think this is plausible... and if it is, do you think it helps or hurts his campaign?

[Matt]

oh please barack has oprah on his side he will not lack for cash support!

Oprah is a private citizen. She can't fund a campaign. She can only donate so much every so often.

[Excel]

oprah can only donate 2,500

[teseract]

The other thing I do know is that a lot of Latinos would rather vote for a black guy than they would a Republican. My own Father-In-Law is one of those Latinos that has issues with blacks but he hates Republicans ten times more than he does blacks and while he's not an Obama fan (he's in love with Hillary, apparently) he has said that if Obama gets the nomination he will vote for him because he doesn't want the Republicans to get back into the White House again. The Republicans have a long and storied history of ****ting all over Latinos and the Bushies have only added to that. There are a lot of embittered Latinos that have had it with the Republicans and they are mobilizing to vote them out no matter what. Kind of weird to see them becoming so politically active since they've been relatively lackadaisical about the whole thing the last several elections. I think they've started to realize the power in numbers that they truly possess as a voting demographic.

jag

It's a "feeling threatened" thing. You would be surprised how much energy can be set loose in a person if he or she feels that the current political party is going to threaten his or her way of live.

[hippie_hunter]

Mike Huckabee just won Kansas.

[hippie_hunter]

Obama won Washington and Nebraska

[R0rschach]

Obama won Washington and Nebraska

:grin:

[Matt]

Obama won Washington and Nebraska

Any word on delegate distribution?

[The Professor]

Obama FTW

[Arkady Rossovich]

Obama will win..but barely.

I have another thing to say. Malice was upset that Mitt Romney dropped out,and that made me think. It's sad that often times you can't vote for someone who represents all your ideals or truely fights for what you want. Often you have to vote for someone who shares common things,not all..but most. It's a shame it has to be like that..with Republicans or Democrats.

[BlackLantern]

Obama will win..but barely.

I have another thing to say. Malice was upset that Mitt Romney dropped out,and that made me think. It's sad that often times you can't vote for someone who represents all your ideals or truely fights for what you want. Often you have to vote for someone who shares common things,not all..but most. It's a shame it has to be like that..with Republicans or Democrats.

you know that saying "You cant please everybody"? it applies to Politics as well.....you'll never get a candidate who lines up 100 percent with everything you want or believe in....or its extremely rare if it does happen

[hippie_hunter]

Obama won Louisiana.

[Matt]

Obama will win..but barely.

I have another thing to say. Malice was upset that Mitt Romney dropped out,and that made me think. It's sad that often times you can't vote for someone who represents all your ideals or truely fights for what you want. Often you have to vote for someone who shares common things,not all..but most. It's a shame it has to be like that..with Republicans or Democrats.

I plan to vote third party as a lifelong Democrat.

[Malice]

Can someone possibly help explain what Super Delagates are about?

[Malice]

(Dont post in this thread unless you have an update)

Democrats - 2,025 delegates needed for nomination

Hillary Clinton - 1064
Barack Obama - 1029
John Edwards - 26


Republicans - 1,191 delegates needed for nomination

John McCain - 721
Mitt Romney - 278
Mike Huckabee - 231
Ron Paul - 14
Fred Thompson - 5
Rudy Giuliani - 1
Duncan Hunter - 1


Updated on 2/9/2008 - 9:51pm
(info gathered from link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914))

[Cory]

new delegate count

Clinton 1064
Obama1029

[The Senator]

Super Delegates are government officials or leaders within the Democratic Party who vote for a candidate at the convention. Basically, if someone endorses a candidate, their endorsement counts as a Super Delegate.

Republicans have this, too, but their delegates won't be confirmed until the convention.

[The Professor]

Isn't it like, there's 3/4 Pledged delegates and 1/4 Super delegates?

I just got this explained to me today as well.

The Super Delegates aren't committed, as the Pledged ones go into the convention knowing who they'll vote for. Supers can change their mind.

[sithgoblin]

new delegate count

Clinton 1064
Obama1029

Not according to this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914).

[Cory]

i saw that too, but those numbers have been up for 2 days nows, so they are off.

[Matt]

Not according to this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914).

MSNBC doesn't count super delegates for some reason :huh:

[Cory]

now its clinton 1084, obama 1057

[Cory]

MSNBC doesn't count super delegates for some reason :huh:

yea what is that about

[R0rschach]

Huckabee is apparent winner in Louisiana, NBC News reports.

[The Senator]

I have another thing to say. Malice was upset that Mitt Romney dropped out,and that made me think. It's sad that often times you can't vote for someone who represents all your ideals or truely fights for what you want. Often you have to vote for someone who shares common things,not all..but most. It's a shame it has to be like that..with Republicans or Democrats.

You will never find a candidate which agrees with you 100% of the time. It's their job to convince you they'll fulfill most of your wishes; it's your job to get your priorities in order.

[Malice]

updated

[souvlaki]

Edit- Oops, double post

[souvlaki]

yea what is that about

Well, I never understood the point of CNN or any of the other news organizations including pledged super-delegates anyhow. All super-delegates to my knowledge, pledged or not, can change their minds at the convention. Personally, I think it would take some balls on the part of the super-delegates and the DNC to vote against whomever has the lead in delegates and states come convention time. Could you imagine the reaction if Obama or Clinton had the delegate and state lead in June, and the super-delegates voted for the other candidate? It would be the most controversial thing to happen since Florida in 2000, and I'm really shocked how many people honestly believe that might happen.

[Venom'sDad]

A huge percentage of people believe that can happen because many don't trust billary. They already have set that precedence in the media, the reason why most outlet are showing Super Delegates in their totals, giving the impression that billary is winning the delegate count. Most media outlets was not doing that in the beginning. Add the fact that billary has been trying to reinstate MI and FL delegates with back-door tactics and CMM suggesting that the people of those states are being disenfranchised, on a daily basis now.

Just think, disenfranchise use to be a term deem by Dems on Rep stealing the election from the American People. Now certain Dems are doing it within their own Party. Spliting & Destroying the Party for their own personal gain. Yeah, that's who I want in charge of the nation. :(

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Yo Malice that is what this thread is for

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=295312

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It's amazing how a candidate can win a lot of states but its not always seen in the delegate count :o

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Good God Malice did someone hack your account :confused:

Again in the Delegate Discussion Thread

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=295312

:confused:

[StorminNorman]

\S/

Stop being a dick :up:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Stop kissing up, your own words DICK :up:

[Excel]

The idea is this is all numbers while JcDc's is discussion. I suspect these posts will be deleted soon

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Yes a thread to discuss the delegate count. If this wasn't a moderator (who we all agree we like for the record...) We'd be posting the "Use the Search" joke pics or something :o

[Venom'sDad]

Well, I never understood the point of CNN or any of the other news organizations including pledged super-delegates anyhow. All super-delegates to my knowledge, pledged or not, can change their minds at the convention. Personally, I think it would take some balls on the part of the super-delegates and the DNC to vote against whomever has the lead in delegates and states come convention time. Could you imagine the reaction if Obama or Clinton had the delegate and state lead in June, and the super-delegates voted for the other candidate? It would be the most controversial thing to happen since Florida in 2000, and I'm really shocked how many people honestly believe that might happen.

A huge percentage of people believe that can happen because many don't trust billary. They already have set that precedence in the media, the reason why most outlet are showing Super Delegates in their totals, giving the impression that billary is winning the delegate count. Most media outlets was not doing that in the beginning. Add the fact that billary has been trying to reinstate MI and FL delegates with back-door tactics and CMM suggesting that the people of those states are being disenfranchised, on a daily basis now.

Just think, disenfranchise use to be a term deem by Dems on Rep stealing the election from the American People. Now certain Dems are doing it within their own Party. Spliting & Destroying the Party for their own personal gain. Yeah, that's who I want in charge of the nation. :(

[jaguarr]

VD, do you have more info or links on what Hillary's trying to do with the Superdelegates, particularly in FL and MI? I'd like to read more about that. And, sorry I had to call you VD. :o

jag

[Venom'sDad]

My apologies to Malice, I didn't see the 1st post.... I just saw souvlaki response to cory(who apparently responded to matt), and I just responded.

[Venom'sDad]

VD, do you have more info or links on what Hillary's trying to do with the Superdelegates, particularly in FL and MI? I'd like to read more about that. And, sorry I had to call you VD. :o

jag

LOL, that's fine, it's the norm now. I'm treated like a disease here on the hype.

To answer your question, it has been discuss all over the media networks MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN, ABC, I read it in the L.A. Times a few days ago and so on. I'm sure you can find it anywhere, just check those sites. It has been a topic discuss everywhere... especially by Tim Russert on his show and Wolf Blitzer in the "Situation Room" lol.... I like saying that.

[The Senator]

A huge percentage of people believe that can happen because many don't trust billary. They already have set that precedence in the media, the reason why most outlet are showing Super Delegates in their totals, giving the impression that billary is winning the delegate count. Most media outlets was not doing that in the beginning. Add the fact that billary has been trying to reinstate MI and FL delegates with back-door tactics and CMM suggesting that the people of those states are being disenfranchised, on a daily basis now.

Just think, disenfranchise use to be a term deem by Dems on Rep stealing the election from the American People. Now certain Dems are doing it within their own Party. Spliting & Destroying the Party for their own personal gain. Yeah, that's who I want in charge of the nation. :(

WTF :whatever:

[The Senator]

Real Clear Politics Average

Clinton: 1121
Obama: 1118

[The Senator]

LOL, that's fine, it's the norm now. I'm treated like a disease here on the hype.

To answer your question, it has been discuss all over the media networks MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN, ABC, I read it in the L.A. Times a few days ago and so on. I'm sure you can find it anywhere, just check those sites. It has been a topic discuss everywhere... especially by Tim Russert on his show and Wolf Blitzer in the "Situation Room" lol.... I like saying that.

Michigan and Florida are technically allowed to have caucuses now, according to the DNC. So, their delegates may count if both those states decide to hold caucuses in the next month or so. My guess is, because the DNC is allowing caucuses, they won't allow the delegates won during the primaries to count at all.

[jaguarr]

Found a good read on Hillary and superdelegates over on MSNBC.com (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/09/651383.aspx). Interesting.

jag

[The Senator]

CNN Average

Clinton: 1108
Obama: 1049

[comicgirl]

Can someone possibly help explain what Super Delagates are about?http://www.hellblazer.com/media/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.jpg

[The Senator]

http://www.hellblazer.com/media/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.jpg

Hey, don't make fun of Mike Huckabee's wife like that :csad:

[comicgirl]

Hey, don't make fun of Mike Huckabee's wife like that :csad:LOL!!!!!....she is baaaaaaaaah-uuuuuuuuuuuu-tiful.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

CNN Average

Clinton: 1108
Obama: 1049


Obama sweeps last night... Has won more states yet things are locked up in delegate count. If that is all that matters don't include the public at all, just have delegates and super delegates and mutated delegates vote from the start.

[The Senator]

Obama sweeps last night... Has won more states yet things are locked up in delegate count. If that is all that matters don't include the public at all, just have delegates and super delegates and mutated delegates vote from the start.

Clinton still apparently leads in the popular vote, too.

[J. J. Jameson]

Obama is leading in the Maine caucus. Looks like he'll win it. :up:

[Excel]

Obama destroys her in Maine, where she was expected to win.

If Tuesday goes as expected, shes obviously in big, big trouble.

[Havok83]

Clinton 1118
Obama 1095


Thats from ABCnew.com. Its VERY close. I really dont see Hillary winning Maryland, DC or Virginia. Obama is going to take the lead with those

[Excel]

Assuming he wins all 3 on Tuesday...what does this mean for clinton?

That leaves Hawaii, which Obama will win, and Wisconsin left for Clinton.

[Havok83]

Assuming he wins all 3 on Tuesday...what does this mean for clinton?

That leaves Hawaii, which Obama will win, and Wisconsin left for Clinton.
Clinton will most likely win Texas which is huge but Im not sure if it will be enough

[Darkly Dexter]

Clinton 1118
Obama 1095



Wow that's tight.

[Excel]

RCP has clinton at 1,123 and Obama at 1,120 :wow:

Wisconsin poll

Hillary Clinton 50%
Barack Obama 41%
Unsure 8%
Other 1%

Clintons only hope of making Febuary just a bad one instead of a campaign ending one.

[Darkly Dexter]

I don't understand why the elections in United States are so complicated.

Why don't they do it more simple (and more democratic)?

I mean, who gets more votes, wins. Period. lol

[J. J. Jameson]

I don't understand why the elections in United States are so complicated.

Why don't they do it more simple (and more democratic)?

I mean, who gets more votes, wins. Period. lol

Because you have to determine who the most popular candidates in each party are.

Then the electoral vote/electoral college system is used in the actual election because A)people are stupid, so there has to be a go-between of sorts and B)it's meant to show what the population as a whole wants, rather than a few select, big city areas.

[Kelly]

It will come down to the Super Delegates, and the majority of the Super Delegates, I predict will vote for Clinton....

[The Senator]

I actually oppose the delegate/ super delegate system entirely, even though my candidate might benefit from it in the end.

I think it was a good system when it first debuted in 1972, after the fiasco that was the 1968 Democratic Convention. They were designed to ensure that a certain number of delegates would be pledged for a particular candidate, so that someone from out of the blue wouldn't come in and take the nomination, ala Hubert Humphrey. Unfortunately, we've come to almost the reverse situation which I don't think Sen. George McGovern thought of when he reformed the nominating system: A near tie where delegates alone may decide the election.

If the Democrats screw this up, I would not be surprised one bit to see primary reform up on the table by the Democrat who loses the primary.

[Kelly]

I actually oppose the delegate/ super delegate system entirely, even though my candidate might benefit from it in the end.

I think it was a good system when it first debuted in 1972, after the fiasco that was the 1968 Democratic Convention. They were designed to ensure that a certain number of delegates would be pledged for a particular candidate, so that someone from out of the blue wouldn't come in and take the nomination, ala Hubert Humphrey. Unfortunately, we've come to almost the reverse situation which I don't think Sen. George McGovern thought of when he reformed the nominating system: A near tie where delegates alone may decide the election.

If the Democrats screw this up, I would not be surprised one bit to see primary reform up on the table by the Democrat who loses the primary.

Unless they end up the VP, in that case, they will keep their mouth shut for the next 16 years.....

[jaguarr]

It will come down to the Super Delegates, and the majority of the Super Delegates, I predict will vote for Clinton....

I don't know. I still think it's still too early to tell. There is a growing belief in the Democratic party that there are a lot of moderate and independent voters that could vote for either McCain OR Obama that definitely would vote against Clinton. There are also a lot of disenfranchised Republicans that wouldn't come out to vote if Obama was running against McCain but definitely would head for the polls to vote against Hillary. She's a very polarizing figure, for better or for worse, and it may play against her. The Democrats may do some back room politicking to see her campaign stumped by the Super Delegates if the belief that the only Dem that can beat McCain is Obama really takes hold.

jag

[ScottyBBadd]

We are stuck with a 2 party system.

No we are not stuck with a two party system. You say you are not a Democrat or a Republican, then prove it. Vote Independant/ 3rd party. If 60% of registered voters are Independants, as I have heard in some surveys, then if they voted Independant/3rd party then it would no longer be a 2 party system. Change would happen cause the Dems and GOP would no longer be the only game in town.

[Kelly]

I don't know. I still think it's still too early to tell. There is a growing belief in the Democratic party that there are a lot of moderate and independent voters that could vote for either McCain OR Obama that definitely would vote against Clinton. There are also a lot of disenfranchised Republicans that wouldn't come out to vote if Obama was running against McCain but definitely would head for the polls to vote against Hillary. She's a very polarizing figure, for better or for worse, and it may play against her. The Democrats may do some back room politicking to see her campaign stumped by the Super Delegates if the belief that the only Dem that can beat McCain is Obama really takes hold.

jag

True, but there is ALOT going on behind the scenes......and I know that they see the perfect ticket as Clinton/Obama.........Obama would be a part of the Executive Branch for the next 16 years guaranteed......and I can damn well guarantee you that the political talk behind the scenes is for just that......so who knows at this point. Do they want a possible 8 years, or a guaranteed 16 years......?????

[jaguarr]

True, but there is ALOT going on behind the scenes......and I know that they see the perfect ticket as Clinton/Obama.........Obama would be a part of the Executive Branch for the next 16 years guaranteed......and I can damn well guarantee you that the political talk behind the scenes is for just that......so who knows at this point. Do they want a possible 8 years, or a guaranteed 16 years......?????

Yeah, I've heard of the supposed whispers of a Clinton/Obama ticket as well. There's been so much nastiness between the two of them in this campaign, particularly from Hillary's side, that they'd have some serious damage control to do in order to get the public to buy it, though.

jag

[Kelly]

Yeah, I've heard of the supposed whispers of a Clinton/Obama ticket as well. There's been so much nastiness between the two of them in this campaign, particularly from Hillary's side, that they'd have some serious damage control to do in order to get the public to buy it, though.

jag


They started that damage control in the debate in California.....

[Excel]

It aint bout that yall; we need Obama and his ways NOW, not in 8 years.

[Lightning Strykez!]

But wouldn't an Obama/Clinton ticket damage Obama's credibility? He's built his entire platform on a departure from "the past", and moving on from the "more of the same". Having Clinton joined at the hip would completely negate that stance.

I doubt this will happen. One look at Al Gore's playing 3rd fiddle to Billary should send Obama running from the very idea.

[Kelly]

Possible 8, or guaranteed 16......which do you think the DNC wants?????

And in the end, Obama, may not have to settle for VP......he's running strong at this point.......BUT, his pick as VP will be more important than ever....

[Lightning Strykez!]

Possible 8, or guaranteed 16......which do you think the DNC wants?????

And in the end, Obama, may not have to settle for VP......he's running strong at this point.......BUT, his pick as VP will be more important than ever....

Well, Hillary is not going to accept a Veeper. I just can't see it happening--she's too arrogant.

He needs Evan Byah...but he's in bed with Hillary. :(

[Kelly]

Well, Hillary is not going to accept a Veeper. I just can't see it happening--she's too arrogant.

He needs Evan Byah...but he's in bed with Hillary. :(

No, she won't...


Byah, has name recognition among Democrats....but nationally......just not enough, IMO. He solidly has the mainstream young Democrats for the most part, he needs someone that will bring in the major independent vote out there.....someone that would bring him more to the center. The older democrats will do what they usually do and vote straight ticket......they would vote for Mickey Mouse if he was the Democrat up......

As for the Republicans......the Christian Right, is going to be a hard sell for McCain, and he's going to have to make a decision on whether he needs them or not. They won't vote just because he's a Republican.....they just won't vote.

[jaguarr]

But wouldn't an Obama/Clinton ticket damage Obama's credibility? He's built his entire platform on a departure from "the past", and moving on from the "more of the same". Having Clinton joined at the hip would completely negate that stance.

I doubt this will happen. One look at Al Gore's playing 3rd fiddle to Billary should send Obama running from the very idea.

That's a very good point, LS. I'm not sure Obama would want her on the same ticket as him, no matter what the Dem leadership wants them to do.

jag

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well, if the powers-that-be do push for a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket, both candidates can still take solace in the fact that such a match-up would still be historical--and ground-breaking in ways we probably can't even fathom right now. The first female American President? The first African-American vice-president?

Um, yeah. I have a feeling that particular ticket would crush anything the GOP had to offer.

[Venom'sDad]

I'm interested to know why it constantly appears as if Obama is trailing in the delegate count. On a daily basis, he appear to be within approx 25 delegates and closing, depending on who totals one is following, than after a primary or caucus, he appear to be 25 or more... after picking up a net gain. Which brings me to another observation, there is 7 different delegate count, maybe more than that by now.... but, what is that all about?

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm interested to know why it constantly appears as if Obama is trailing in the delegate count. On a daily basis, he appear to be within approx 25 delegates and closing, depending on who totals one is following, than after a primary or caucus, he appear to be 25 or more... after picking up a net gain. Which brings me to another observation, there is 7 different delegate count, maybe more than that by now.... but, what is that all about?

It could be additions of superdelegates to her tally....

[The Senator]

I'm interested to know why it constantly appears as if Obama is trailing in the delegate count. On a daily basis, he appear to be within approx 25 delegates and closing, depending on who totals one is following, than after a primary or caucus, he appear to be 25 or more... after picking up a net gain. Which brings me to another observation, there is 7 different delegate count, maybe more than that by now.... but, what is that all about?

There are unpledged delegates which cannot be correctly predicted, so these media outlets are doing rough estimates. Trust me, most of these people spend hours analyzing numbers and making predictions... unfortunately, no one source is correct, and the final tally won't really be known until the convention in August.

[Venom'sDad]

It could be additions of superdelegates to her tally....

Yeah I know, I guess i was under the impression, that when one of these officials pledge their endorsement for a candidate, and these official are members of the Super Delegates, that count as a pledge Super Delegate for that candidate. Correct me if I'm wrong, I only heard of billary getting three in the last two days....2 from WA and one from LA(the state). Her totals appear to rise by more than 40+ everytime, keeping her consistantly ahead. The media regularly announce candidates endorsements, especially since these pledge endorsement count as Super Delegates for a candidate.... that's why candidates seek endorsements.

[The Senator]

Yeah I know, I guess i was under the impression, that when one of these officials pledge their endorsement for a candidate, and these official are members of the Super Delegates, that count as a pledge Super Delegate for that candidate. Correct me if I'm wrong, I only heard of billary getting three in the last two days....2 from WA and one from LA(the state). Her totals appear to rise by more than 40+ everytime, keeping her consistantly ahead. The media regularly announce candidates endorsements, especially since these pledge endorsement count as Super Delegates for a candidate.... that's why candidates seek endorsements.

Right, but Hillary has been ahead in the endorsement game consistently throughout this campaign. Obama needs to get over a hundred more endorsements to start racking up the superdelegates. While he's been getting a few here and there, they still don't compare to Hillary's.

[Venom'sDad]

Obama for the first time, leads in the delegate count, that includes the dreaded Super Delegates.

Obama --> 1134
Billary----> 1131

This according to the latest results from CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/10/politics/main3813759.shtml

[hippie_hunter]

Obama for the first time, leads in the delegate count, that includes the dreaded Super Delegates.

Obama --> 1134
Billary----> 1131

This according to the latest results from CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/10/politics/main3813759.shtml

But CNN has Clinton in the lead

Clinton ---> 1,148
Obama ---> 1,121

[Malice]

Damn this is close....never seen one this close before

[Venom'sDad]

But CNN has Clinton in the lead

Clinton ---> 1,148
Obama ---> 1,121

Yeah, that was a point I was making earlier... there are approxy 7 different delegate counts out there. No network or print media appear to agree. CBS News is the first I've seen to have Obama in the lead, including SuperDelegates. I will scan more sites and compare; however, I though the CBS count was interesting. Frankly, no one knows which count is accurate, CNN, CBS, or any of the countless others. :(

[Venom'sDad]

FoxNews and Real Clear Politics 2008, shows Obama leading as well in the Delegate count, including SupDels.

The Drudge Report is quoting CBS News results.

Obama ---> 1143
Billary-----> 1138


BTW, Obama/Edwards meeting has been called off until a later date. Both are saying that they want to meet in private and not surrounded by media attention.

[Excel]

Well, yall say they decide the election. Its starting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?ei=5065&en=83bd560436fa713f&ex=1203397200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[The Senator]

I don't think they'll jump ship unless the Super Delegates are the only deciding factor in this race. If Obama manages to come out on top by huge margins in today's primaries, in addition to Wisconsin, Rhode Island and Hawaii in the next week or so, he'll close the gap between himself and Hillary, therefore making the Super Delegates irrelevant.

You'll also notice that they're not switching from Clinton to Obama because they support Obama's candidacy, but because they detest the idea that this nomination will be decided by Super Delegates.

[Genesis 1.0]

We'll see at the convention.

Any super-delegate's word is like writing in sand, it'll shift a thousand times between now and then, usually with whoever has the most steam heading into it.

EDIT: Got me by a minute.

[Excel]

I don't think they'll jump ship unless the Super Delegates are the only deciding factor in this race. If Obama manages to come out on top by huge margins in today's primaries, in addition to Wisconsin, Rhode Island and Hawaii in the next week or so, he'll close the gap between himself and Hillary

Might be abit behind...but what gap? Even with super delegates he has 4-5 delegate lead and itll be 40-50 after today hopefully.

[The Senator]

Might be abit behind...but what gap? Even with super delegates he has 4-5 delegate lead and itll be 40-50 after today hopefully.

That's with state delegates. With super delegates included, Clinton leads Obama 1136 to 1108.

[Venom'sDad]

Well, yall say they decide the election. Its starting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?ei=5065&en=83bd560436fa713f&ex=1203397200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

That’s a great fine Excel. What it illustrates to me, a percentage of her Super Delegates are now second guessing themselves as they become more familiar with Obama, the nuances between their plans, elect ability, and his ability to unite the party, Congress, and the country. ABC did an interview with some early voters who wished they could change their vote as they become more familiar with Obama. I imagine the same sort of thing is beginning to take place with many of her Super Delegates.

[The Senator]

That’s a great fine Excel. What it illustrates to me, a percentage of her Super Delegates are now second guessing themselves as they become more familiar with Obama, the nuances between their plans, elect ability, and his ability to unite the party, Congress, and the country. ABC did an interview with some early voters who wished they could change their vote as they become more familiar with Obama. I imagine the same sort of thing is beginning to take place with many of her Super Delegates.


I think you're wrong here. Most of the Super Delegates who currently support Hillary will probably not vote for Obama unless the nomination comes down to the Super Delegate count alone. It would be a slap in the face for a party which fussed for years about Al Gore's electoral college loss to George W. Bush if they nominate a candidate who led in the delegate count but trailed in the popular vote, and that's the concern which is being expressed in this article.

Furthermore, most Super Delegates are aware of who these candidates are. Super Delegates are politicians and party insiders who know each candidate pretty well. They're not just discovering Barack Obama or seriously looking into his platform for the first time. Had Hillary ran away with the nomination, they wouldn't question their support for her one bit. And chances are, most Super Delegates will stay pledged to their candidate regardless of who comes out on top before the convention.

[Kelly]

Might be abit behind...but what gap? Even with super delegates he has 4-5 delegate lead and itll be 40-50 after today hopefully.

It's not a winner take all with the Democrat delegates......so in all honesty, there is not a true count to be found anywhere......and there won't be a true count until the convention, almost guaranteed.

[Excel]

I think you're wrong here. Most of the Super Delegates who currently support Hillary will probably not vote for Obama unless the nomination comes down to the Super Delegate count alone. It would be a slap in the face for a party which fussed for years about Al Gore's electoral college loss to George W. Bush if they nominate a candidate who led in the delegate count but trailed in the popular vote, and that's the concern which is being expressed in this article.

Furthermore, most Super Delegates are aware of who these candidates are. Super Delegates are politicians and party insiders who know each candidate pretty well. They're not just discovering Barack Obama or seriously looking into his platform for the first time. Had Hillary ran away with the nomination, they wouldn't question their support for her one bit. And chances are, most Super Delegates will stay pledged to their candidate regardless of who comes out on top before the convention.

I dont think switching is that big of a deal. The problem for Hillary if she keeps loosing is that the vast majority of the 400 or so undecided super delegates are all gonna go to the Obama.

[jaguarr]

It's not a winner take all with the Democrat delegates......so in all honesty, there is not a true count to be found anywhere......and there won't be a true count until the convention, almost guaranteed.

Pretty much. Anyone who says they have an accurate count of delegates and super delegates is either delusional or talking out of their ass.

jag

[YsoSerious]

This "super delegate" talk sounds like Hillary is going to steal the nomination if she doesn't win it outright.Sounds like Gore vs Bush all over again.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It's kind of odd to see that Obama wins all the caucus states pretty much and in general looking at the number of states he has won 22 states to Mrs. Bill Clinton's 11 states yet he's barely ahead in the delegate count. Especially with these super delegates... Ugh, Clinton will be on her knees like Monica for those votes :-/

[Kelly]

This "super delegate" talk sounds like Hillary is going to steal the nomination if she doesn't win it outright.Sounds like Gore vs Bush all over again.



LMAO.....not even close, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court, changing the history of the court forever........changing the checks and balances system that the forefathers put in place........

not..........................even................. ..............................close.:o

[\S/JcDc\S/]

LMAO.....not even close, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court, changing the history of the court forever........changing the checks and balances system that the forefathers put in place........

not..........................even................. ..............................close.:o

That seems arrogant of you Kel. I'm sure his thoughts were influenced by CNN where they do reference the Gore/Bush electoral vote mess as a similar situation...IF the super delegates were to go against Obama winning the popular vote/majority of states. Many have made the comparison and you know it.

[Excel]

It's kind of odd to see that Obama wins all the caucus states pretty much and in general looking at the number of states he has won 22 states to Mrs. Bill Clinton's 11 states yet he's barely ahead in the delegate count. Especially with these super delegates... Ugh, Clinton will be on her knees like Monica for those votes :-/

He has a 55 delegate lead right now and itll grow next weekend. He has an 11 state lead which cannot be blown, and an 800,000 lead in the popular vote.

Those super delegates that are undecided will NOT go against the popular vote and state leader if it comes down to them.

[Kelly]

That seems arrogant of you Kel. I'm sure his thoughts were influenced by CNN where they do reference the Gore/Bush electoral vote mess as a similar situation...IF the super delegates were to go against Obama winning the popular vote/majority of states. Many have made the comparison and you know it.

No, just my opinion.............nothing arrogant at all intended........I think CNN is wrong as well in that reference. To equate American Citizens CHOICE, true CHOICE........to that of a Conservative slanted Supreme Court, that changed the course of HISTORY......232 years of history.....putting the Supreme Court into position that it has never been put in before, and probably never will again.......no ....... sorry..........not even close......

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Oh I'm not saying you were trying to sound arrogant, I'm just saying it could be perceived that way because many are making that comparison to Bush/Gore mess. This is all an IF anyways... IF Obama keeps the popular vote/wins most states and IF the superdelegates were to vote against the favorite. That would be why the comparison seems valid. Because the candidate who won, basically through legalities has it taken away.

[Kelly]

Oh I'm not saying you were trying to sound ignorant, I'm just saying it could be perceived that way because many are making that comparison to Bush/Gore mess. This is all an IF anyways... IF Obama keeps the popular vote/wins most states and IF the superdelegates were to vote against the favorite.


Ok, now you've changed from arrogant to ignorant.....lmao......I can assure you, I'm probably more arrogant of my knowledge of history than I am ignorant....:cwink:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH soooooooooorrrrry typo!! :eek:

LMAO

I certainly would not think of you as ignorant my friend ;)

[Kelly]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH soooooooooorrrrry typo!! :eek:

LMAO

I certainly would not think of you as ignorant my friend ;)


I have to admit, as a student of history, as a teacher of history and government......the 2000 election was like a slap in the face of our Constitution and way of life in America more than anything before its time....IMO......we have had changes to the Constitution that have kept us moving forward.......this one decision that was #1 a state decision.....#2.....made by a group that is meant to "interpret the law" set forth by the legislature meant to "make law"....sent us backwards.......I have a hard time with the whole thing............so I would probably equate very little with it......

[Arkady Rossovich]

Obama barely has more than Clinton now..and i hope it stays like this.

[Malice]

My only feeling on this is that if Hillary needs some votes, she may pull out the lawyers and start a lawsuit...

This seriously could split the Democratic party.
I am not sure how this all will come down and how it will be dealt with.

Quite interesting though

[The Senator]

1) I support allowing caucuses in Florida and Michigan

2) I support it, so I would be quite happy

3) Hillary will benefit from a caucus in Florida, Obama will benefit from one in Michigan

4) It is fair for both states to hold caucuses. They were barred from holding either a primary or a caucus before February 5. Since they held primaries before that date, they were stripped of their delegates. However, if they hold caucuses between now and the convention, they won't be breaking the rules at all. That would allow Obama to actually campaign in Michigan, where his name wasn't even on the ballot.

5) I would allow both states to hold caucuses in mid-June if there is no clear nominee.

[souvlaki]

1) What is your opinion of the possibility of a Caucus being held in MI & FL.
I have no problem with it at all.

2) How would you feel if that happen?
No problem with it at all. If it's still an issue after March 5th, hold them.

3) Who do you think would benefit from a Caucus in MI & FL?
Obviously it depends on what happens in the next few weeks. Given that they would be caucuses, Obama.

4) Is it fair to have a Caucus in MI & FL after those states officials fully understood, that if they choose to defy the DNC in moving up the Primary Date, their delegates would not be seated/counted?
I personally have no problem with the delegates as is not being seated. If it becomes an issue though, I have no problem with a caucus being held. I personally think after March 5th it will be a moot point one way or another.

5) What would be your solution?
In my opinion they should wait it out through Pennsylvania. See where they are at that point. If Obama is still in the lead delegate wise, take Clinton aside, ask her politely to step aside. If she refuses, or threatens to sue to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegates, offer to hold caucuses in both states within weeks of the Pennsylvania primary. If Clinton still doesn't want to accept this, so be it. She can look like a fool for turning down an option to hold caucuses. Obviously, if Clinton wins by a significant margin in the March 5th states, retakes the lead in delegates, etc., they should do the same with Obama, take him aside, and ask him to get out of the race. If they are smart they will pressure Clinton to make him a running mate, but something tells me it wont happen.

[Matt]

The Democrat National Committe: What Would You Do

Serious consideration are being toss around concerning MI & FL Delegates, given the closeness in Pledge/Super Delegates. The DNC is trying to avoid a show-down on the Convention Floor in Denver, concerning whether or not MI & FL voters are being disenfranchised.

What are your feelings or opinions on a few scenarios:

1) What is your opinion of the possibility of a Caucus being held in MI & FL.

2) How would you feel if that happen?

3) Who do you think would benefit from a Caucus in MI & FL?

4) Is it fair to have a Caucus in MI & FL after those states officials fully understood, that if they choose to defy the DNC in moving up the Primary Date, their delegates would not be seated/counted?

5) What would be your solution?


1) I don't believe they should hold ANOTHER caucus. There was already one. If you are going to do anything, let those votes stand. The candidates chose not to put their names on the ballot. It was their choice, they shouldn't have a redo because candidates thought the states were a waste of time.

2) I wouldn't care much either way.

3) Probably neither as Obama would win Michigan and Hillary would win Flordia, and when you factor in delegate sharing, they would just about cancel each other out.

4) Not really.

5) Let it stand as is.

[Excel]

You cant change the rules in the middle of the game, everybody knows that.

[The Senator]

1) I don't believe they should hold ANOTHER caucus. There was already one. If you are going to do anything, let those votes stand. The candidates chose not to put their names on the ballot. It was their choice, they shouldn't have a redo because candidates thought the states were a waste of time.


Both held primaries, not caucuses. They're two completely different things, though the objective is the same.

[Addendum]

Both states knew what would happen if they moved their primaries up. They did so anyway, and the DNC took away their delegates.

I see nothing wrong with that.

[hippie_hunter]

I feel that the Democrats should allow the Florida and Michigan delegates. What they did to those states was unfair and completely undemocratic. Plus it could help prevent another undemocratic thing from occuring: having the superdelegates decide.

[Addendum]

It was completely fair. Michigan and Florida wanted to move their primaries up. The DNC said "if you do, then you will be stripped of your delegates". Michigan and Florida went ahead and moved their primaries up and the DNC stripped both states of their delegates.

What part of that isn't fair?

[hippie_hunter]

It was completely fair. Michigan and Florida wanted to move their primaries up. The DNC said "if you do, then you will be stripped of your delegates". Michigan and Florida went ahead and moved their primaries up and the DNC stripped both states of their delegates.

What part of that isn't fair?

I feel that it's the states right to set up an election on the day that they want to. It shouldn't be the right of a party to do so. If they wanted to punish Florida and Michigan, they should have done it the way the Republicans did so by halfing their delegates, not taking them all away and taking away the voters voice in the convention.

[Addendum]

The Democratic party doesn't have to set it's rules like the ones the Republicans have, and vice versa. The parties have the right to set their rules. Florida and Michigan were made aware of the consequences if they moved their primaries up. So both states have to live with the results of their actions.

[Matt]

Agreed. Parties are for better or worse private entities. They could set whatever absurd rules they want for their primary and people would have to abide as long as it does not prevent people from voting (Which it did not. People could still vote on the Democratic ticket).

[Venom'sDad]

I have to agree completely with all of Addendum assessments... they knew the consequence, they chose to defy and proceeded anyway. The fact of the matter, all 50 states and commonwealths Delegations, for decades, agreed to allow the DNC & GOP to approve/disapprove primary dates. They all understood the traditions and the process, and agreed to the Parties Rules. Voters should have urge their officials not to defy the rules, if they wanted to maintain their voice. Instead the voters were apathetic.

This is why the American People should stay vigilant with the political process, in order to prevent being caught in the middle of a situation. Voters should have held their elected/unelected officials accountable and express their concern. It was not like local & national news networks and print media didn't discuss these issues on a regular basis, leading up to actually picking a date.... even there after. Voters were apathetic, now they want to cry foul.

I'm very disappointed. :(

[Rated-X]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?ei=5065&en=6866c9b35cbe72c6&ex=1203829200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1203288072-Zrn3yfCBYCKDneqOMXdJ6g

Former Vice President Al Gore (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/al_gore/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.

Democratic Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates.

The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.

But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons.

The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee’s chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.

A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/john_edwards/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Senators Christopher J. Dodd (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/christopher_j_dodd/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_r_jr_biden/index.html?inline=nyt-per), have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.

“It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Ms. Pelosi said she intended to remain neutral, though some of her closest friends and allies in the House are publicly supporting Mr. Obama.

She said the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month, as the Clinton campaign has proposed. Mrs. Clinton got more votes in both places, although neither candidate actively campaigned there and Mr. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. The party had penalized those states for holding their primaries earlier than the party wanted by stripping them of their delegates to the convention.
“We can’t ignore the rules which everyone else played by,” Ms. Pelosi said.

Few figures are being more closely watched by Democratic insiders than Mr. Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who associates say has been lobbied hard for an endorsement by allies of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama.

Although it is not clear what role their past may play in his decision, Mr. Gore and the Clintons have a complicated, sometimes intense history, and Mr. Obama’s strength in the presidential race could make it even more complicated.

Some of Mr. Gore’s allies have complained bitterly that Mr. Clinton concentrated more on Mrs. Clinton’s Senate run in 2000 than on getting Mr. Gore elected president. For his part, Mr. Clinton was surprised and hurt that Mr. Gore did not enlist him on the campaign trail in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

Although Mr. Gore has expressed concerns to some associates about the damage a brokered convention could cause, several associates said he was hopeful that one candidate would soon break through, sparing the party such an outcome. He told a close friend recently that his decision not to endorse “feels like the right thing” and that he remained optimistic the race “is going to tip at some point,” the friend said.

Another close ally of Mr. Gore’s, however, said: “He recognizes the need for a few party elders to stay on the sidelines to ensure, if needed, that the process is fair and honest. It could very likely take a group of senior party people, including Gore, to settle this, but the only way they can settle it is if they stay on the sidelines now.”

Kalee Kreider, communications director for Mr. Gore, said that he “has no present plans to endorse a candidate,” though she added, “He has not ruled out that possibility prior to the convention.” Ms. Kreider declined to discuss Mr. Gore’s private conversations with party leaders.

But four close associates of Mr. Gore’s said senior party officials had actively consulted him for his advice about what the superdelegates should do if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton amassed the 2,025 delegates necessary to win the nomination after the final Democratic caucus in Puerto Rico on June 7.

Party leaders described Mr. Gore as a potentially crucial mediator because the putative head of the party — and the man who chose him as his vice president — Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per), is hardly a neutral observer when it comes to his wife’s candidacy.

“Because President Clinton is very involved on one side, there is an opening for him to be a more neutral force and an honest broker,” said a close associate of Mr. Gore’s, who like most of the associates spoke only on the condition of anonymity. “He’s probably the only unaligned person with the kind of stature to step in to that role and have a real impact on this.”

Several allies said that because of Mr. Gore’s bruising defeat in 2000 presidential voting in Florida, he would have the credibility with Democrats to carry the message that the will of the people should be respected.

Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are aggressively lobbying the superdelegates, a battle that received new attention after Representative John Lewis (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/john_lewis/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Georgia, who had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said late Thursday that he would cast his superdelegate ballot for Mr. Obama if the battle for the nomination went to the convention.

The Clinton camp has Mr. Clinton making frequent calls, and Mr. Obama’s surrogates are pushing for superdelegates from states where he won primaries or caucuses to pledge their support to him.

But there was no sign of any wholesale shift in support toward Mr. Obama on Friday. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip and highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he intended to remain neutral and let the primaries play out even though Mr. Obama won overwhelmingly in his district and state.

“If I were to only reflect my state, then that may not be good enough for a national candidate,” Mr. Clyburn said. “So I think we ought to use our collective judgment to do what is in the best interests of our party.”
But the role that the superdelegates should play between now and the convention is at the heart of a raging debate. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which is trailing in the delegate count, has taken the position that superdelegates should be free to choose the best-qualified candidate. Mr. Obama’s campaign has said that the superdelegates should be bound by the voters’ will.

Several senior officials cautioned that the party elders had not yet determined whether superdelegates should be urged to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most delegates, or the one who won their state or Congressional district, or the winner of the popular vote. Because Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton might lead in different categories, the question is a vital one.

At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. Although a number of his supporters had been urging him to endorse Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton has actively sought his backing, Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.

A senior associate of Mr. Gore’s said that surrogates for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had tried to lock up the former vice president’s endorsement. But he has steadfastly refused to even hint at which candidate he might favor.

[The Senator]

I have to agree completely with all of Addendum assessments... they knew the consequence, they chose to defy and proceeded anyway. The fact of the matter, all 50 states and commonwealths Delegations, for decades, agreed to allow the DNC & GOP to approve/disapprove primary dates. They all understood the traditions and the process, and agreed to the Parties Rules. Voters should have urge their officials not to defy the rules, if they wanted to maintain their voice. Instead the voters were apathetic.

This is why the American People should stay vigilant with the political process, in order to prevent being caught in the middle of a situation. Voters should have held their elected/unelected officials accountable and express their concern. It was not like local & national news networks and print media didn't discuss these issues on a regular basis, leading up to actually picking a date.... even there after. Voters were apathetic, now they want to cry foul.

I'm very disappointed. :(

But if Obama won both contests, you'd want those votes counted, wouldn't you?

[The Senator]

I think the DNC should go for 'winner take all' primaries, rather than reform the Super Delegate system.

[Addendum]

Who won in the Florida and Michigan primaries isn't the issue. The thing is that both states moved their primaries up, which violated the rules the DNC established. The political parties, both Democratic and Republican, are in charge of the nominating process for their parties. The primaries and caucuses in each state are subordinate to those rules, not the other way around.

[The Senator]

Who won in the Florida and Michigan primaries isn't the issue. The thing is that both states moved their primaries up, which violated the rules the DNC established. The political parties, both Democratic and Republican, are in charge of the nominating process for their parties. The primaries and caucuses in each state are subordinate to those rules, not the other way around.

But, if Obama won both states, I can guarantee that VD would throw a huge fit about how the Clinton Machine wants to deny MI and FL their say, because they knew Obama would come out on top months in advance. He and many other supporters would complain that this system is undemocratic, and would demand that their delegates would be seated. He'd say the DNC is still controlled by the Clinton Machine, and that Dean wants to escape their clutches but they just can't.

For the record, I don't want the delegates seated... but I do have to wonder where everyone would stand if the tables were turned.

[Matt]

Who won in the Florida and Michigan primaries isn't the issue. The thing is that both states moved their primaries up, which violated the rules the DNC established. The political parties, both Democratic and Republican, are in charge of the nominating process for their parties. The primaries and caucuses in each state are subordinate to those rules, not the other way around.


Agreed. It should have nothing to do with who won what. Michigan and Florida knew the consequences but they called the bluff anyway and they lost. If I am playing poker, and my opponent tells me "I have a royal flush" and I go all in, thinking its a bluff, but he actually had royal flush, should I say "Oh, I thought you were bluffing, can I have my money back, please?"

[Matt]

But, if Obama won both states, I can guarantee that VD would throw a huge fit about how the Clinton Machine wants to deny MI and FL their say, because they knew Obama would come out on top months in advance. He and many other supporters would complain that this system is undemocratic, and would demand that their delegates would be seated.

Thats true.

[Matt]

Just for the record though, I doubt the extra delegates would make that much of a difference.

Florida has 210 delegates, if I'm not mistaken. Michigan, 151. Hillary would take Florida. Obama would take Michigan. When you factor in delegate splitting, they would probably cancel one another out, with Hillary getting a slight edge, albeit, not enough of one to make a REAL difference. If the goal of this is to find a clear cut winner...this will simply add to the confusion.

[ScottyBBadd]

I think the DNC should go for 'winner take all' primaries, rather than reform the Super Delegate system.

Worked for the GOP.

[Matt]

Remove them completely. At least with the electoral college, they pretty much have to vote with the people...but with the super delegates, you are giving about 800 people the power to just give 1/3 of the necessary votes to anyone they want in exchange for backroom, behind closed doors, deals. Its just so...undemocratic.

[Zen]

I have no problem with how delegates are awarded based on proportion to vote... basically i would rather have that then winner take all states. i think the super delegates should be scrapped and remove the rule where either candidate has to reach a specific amount of delegates...

whoever wins the most from the states pledged delegates becomes the nominee... that simple.

why can't it be that simple?

reforming the schedule of the primaries should probably be looked at as well..

i think they should have something like two primaries a day for about a month. the states should be ordered based on population... each day have a big state and a little state.... in the middle of the primaries have the middle states.

if we had ten states numerically categorized by population i would order the primaries like this.

1 10 mon
3 8 tues
5 6 wed
4 7 thur
2 9 fri

[EdRyder]

If nothing else, this election has showed how incredibly flawed the Democrats system of nominating a candidate is.

While the idea of "Super Delegats" isn't entirely a horrible one - the fact there is no rules preventing candidates from paying them a million dolars for their votes is - well it reaks of Chicago in the 60's.

It's nothing short of corruption.

The current practice is obviously flawed - should it be reformed, or scraped all together?

Well even if you dissmiss/remove the idea of a "bought and paid" level of corruption, its still an inherently corrupt system.
Its all predicated on the basis of polititians power wielding inside the party.I dont see them giving it up,but I agree they should

[rdh007]

I thought it was cheap and petty of Clinton to keep her name on the Michigan ballot when everyone else (except Dodd who never stood a chance--which also sucks) had gotten theirs off. It seems like it's sort of a trump card she's got in case they decide to seat those delegates. :down

[hippie_hunter]

The Democrats should adopt the Republican style of delegates. Sure the winner take all thing may seem unfair, especially since McCain took all of Missouri's by simply winning by 1 or 2 percent.

But it's a hell of a lot simpler and way more fair than what the Democrats have going on.

[Venom'sDad]

Remove them completely. At least with the electoral college, they pretty much have to vote with the people...but with the super delegates, you are giving about 800 people the power to just give 1/3 of the necessary votes to anyone they want in exchange for backroom, behind closed doors, deals. Its just so...undemocratic.

WOW! I can't believe I'm saying this... but I absolutely, 100% agree. :up:

[Venom'sDad]

^ Exactly :up:

[Matt]

So she was the only one smart enough to keep it on there, can't really hold it against her. Hell, every candidate should've kept their names on the ballots to protest what the DNC was doing and show that they wouldn't just ignore these people. I'm sure Clinton's intentions weren't so noble...but still.

[The Senator]

Didn't Obama keep his name on the Florida ballot? So he's not exactly the purveyor of noble intentions...

[Venom'sDad]

Here is a transcript from Tim Russert's "Meet the Press", that I think everyone should read. Plus, this transript gives an example or a little insight into which of the three major candidates remaining, appear to have better Fiscal & Executive experience, given all three are Senators.



MR. RUSSERT: Besides superdelegates, another important issue is Florida and Michigan, and this is what happened. Back in August of '07, Howard Dean wrote this letter to all the candidates:

"As leader of the Democratic Party, I strongly urge you to adhere to the 2008 delegate selection rules. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules. ... The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules adopted by the full DNC at its August 2006 meeting clearly provide that only four states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire," "South Carolina - may hold their respective contests prior to February 5, '08. The [Rules and Bylaws Committee's] finding of noncompliance included a 100 percent loss of pledged and unpledged delegates."

If you tried to move your primary up, you've lost all your delegates. Florida and Michigan did it, they lost all their delegates. The Clinton campaign put out this statement:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the" nomination "process." "We believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."


That was the Clinton campaign in September. Here's the Clinton campaign in February.

"With regard to Michigan and Florida, our position is clear. We're going to ask our delegates to vote to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan. We do not think that" "many Americans should have" had "their votes and their voices and their preferences denied."

"We had an enormous turnout, particular in Florida, the largest turnout in the history of the Democratic primary in Florida. And we believe that it is critically important that those delegates have an opportunity to express their preferences at the convention."

"I don't believe that anyone seriously thinks we're going to have a national convention in which the delegations of Florida and Michigan are not going to have a say. So that is our position."

Now it's obvious, this could equate to fraud if billary succeed in getting the rules overturn. She made a PLEDGE when the feeling was she was inevitable. It was good for then, why isn't it good for her now. I can not support a person who lacks Integrity. I said it before, I say it again... she will spilt, divide, destroy the party and cast citizens, members, and the will of the people, to reach and grasp her ambitions. Pledges means nothing to her.... so keep in mind when she's pledging to pull the troops out, to fix healthcare, LISTEN to you the American people, that she's the hallmark of real change, to reform lobbiest, fix the education system and "no-child left behind", Bill won't have any scandles while she's Prez, address environmental issues, fix immigration and DL for illegals, reducing budget, etc, etc, etc.... remember this, Pledges from her is just a 7 letter campaign slogan.

Now, from the "Capital Gang" members, a little insight on who is possibly best prepared on Day 1 dealing with the greater task Strategics & Fiscal challenges. Just a little insight mind you, into the three remaining candidates psyche, judgement, foresight, management, planning, and strategic intellect.... qualities of a good effective Leader. Not taking away from anybody; but, a small example.



MR. RUSSERT: Joe Klein made this observation, Albert Hunt. Let me see what you think of it.

Joe Klein writes, "If nothing else, a presidential campaign tests a candidate's ability to think strategically and tactically and to manage a very complex organization. We have three plausible candidates remaining - Obama, Clinton and John McCain - and Obama has proven himself the best executive by far. Both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns have gone broke at crucial moments. So much for fiscal responsibility."

MR. HUNT: Oh, I think that's absolutely dead on, Tim. I mean, there's a wonderful piece by Josh Green in The Atlantic that talks about the total disarray of the Clinton campaign. The biggest enterprise that either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama have ever run in their entire lives are these campaigns. And you--one just looks at the result. Whoever wins, and I don't think it's a foregone conclusion, David Axelrod and company at that Obama campaign have run circles around the Clinton campaign.

They(Clinton campaign) weren't prepared for a protracted battle, they weren't, weren't prepared for a money fight, they weren't prepared for caucuses, they weren't prepared for a tough alternative. And what happened, Tim, every smart politician, every smart political strategist comes in with a game plan. But the really good ones are able to adjust. They're able to throw out some stuff, tweak some stuff, the Stu Spencers, the James Carvilles. These people couldn't adjust.

MS. CARLSON: she's campaigned on experience, and neither one of them have much experience, and senators never do.

MR. HUNT: Wait, wait, wait, Kate. Let me just say, the reason I think that Josh Green piece, which I alluded to, to a minute ago is so important because what it--the point it makes is not just there's disarray, not just a campaign in trouble always has backbiting, but the, the decisions that were made of who to put where and why Senator Clinton chose various people.

Why she picked people for loyalty rather than for competence. And I think that's a far more important question, at least, than, than anecdotes about a losing campaign.

This illustrate a reflection of the candidates themselves, the psyche and judgement in decision making..."had I known what I know today, I wouldn't have voted for the war in Irag".... the ability to manage and adjust to situations on the fly.... the foresight to see problems or situations brewing ahead... her & McCain could not see that their campaigns was going broke, until they went broke.... poor planning, judgement, and assumption, now billary is trying to open offices in Ohio & Texas, one cannot assume circumstances won't occur.... finally, no strategic intelligence what so ever, she does not no how to deal with little ole, inexperience, nieve, Barack Obama; talking about having no exit plan to get the troops out of Iraq.... Thank GOD she's not running the country.

This is what we got to look for. This is a reflection of the type of leader, lack of ability and tact, and polarizing she will be. The lady has the Clinton name... her competence speaks louder than her words or perception.

Here is the link if you want to read the whole Transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23209237/).

[redfirebird2008]

Yep, if the campaign is a referendum on each candidate's ability to build an organization and lead people in that organization, I think it's pretty obvious that Barack Obama has kicked the everloving crap out of everyone in this campaign, even if he loses to Hillary. Never forget how powerful the Clintons are in American politics and how remarkable it is that Barack was in the TEENS in nationwide polls as recently as November 2007. The fact that anyone was even able to overcome the sense of inevitability that existed before Iowa to turn this into such a good race is proof of how much he has out-strategized and flat out beat her in this campaign.

[R0rschach]

You cant change the rules in the middle of the game, everybody knows that.

I concur.

[The Senator]

Again, if Obama won the Florida primary, he would actively fight to have those delegates seated, especially if those delegates meant the difference between winning and losing the primary. All of his supporters would be on board with him, too, because they want him to win. So, I don't see why Hillary is automatically evil because she wants to win the nomination. Yeah, she made a pledge, but if the DNC wanted Florida's votes to remain irrelevant, then they should have made it against the rules for either candidate to campaign there.

But since VD turned this thread into the Great Moral Crusade between Clinton and Obama, I feel I ought to add my two cents:

There seems to be a whole lot of discrepancies between what Obama says and what Obama does. If you want to talk about pledges candidates have broken this election cycle, Barack Obama broke the unofficial pledge he made at one of the first debates to not campaign negatively against the other Democratic candidates. Obama is also in the process of breaking a pledge he made with Sen. McCain to accept public financing, and he's receiving widespread scrutiny for it. Next, Obama pledged not to campaign in Florida, but he made several stops there prior to the beginning of the primary season, and also remained on the ballot. Finally, He says he hasn't taken a single dime of lobbyist money, which may be true depending how much less than a dime means to a politician of his stature. Regardless of that, his campaign is chaired by lobbyists across the country, so for him to say that he isn't influenced by lobbyists in the least bit is a bunch of phooey. The influence is still there, even though the money isn't.

So, to hold Obama as the epitome of moral integrity doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Rated-X]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

[Lightning Strykez!]

Okay, so we're on the eve of the day that will either breathe life into or utterly kill someone's candidacy tomorrow. So wage your bets here...who's winning and who's losing tommorrow? List your wagers state by state if you like for Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.

[Raiden]

I think Obama has a chance to win all these primaries. Even if Clinton do win one (like Ohio), she needs to win by a large margin and I don't think it will happen.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I don't believe he will get Ohio. They are very, very conservative and they've been strongholds for Bill Clinton, who has been all over that state lately.

I think he has a chance at Texas, and Vermont. Rhode Island is a swing state, no?

[The Senator]

Ohio

Clinton: 52%
Obama: 47%

Texas

Clinton: 44%
Obama: 55%

Rhode Island

Clinton: 54%
Obama: 45%

Vermont

Clinton: 32%
Obama: 67%

[Lightning Strykez!]

You think she'll do that poorly in Vermont???? :eek: I have a feeling it will be closer.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled an upset in Rhode Island either...they've both cut into eachother's "backyards" before with Conneticut and Mass.

[Matt]

I think they're going to split and in turn make PA the deciding factor this election. If Clinton takes PA it will either be brokered or go to the convention. If Obama takes PA, Clinton will have to drop out.

[Matt]

I think Obama has a chance to win all these primaries. Even if Clinton do win one (like Ohio), she needs to win by a large margin and I don't think it will happen.

Why does everyone think Clinton NEEDS to win more than Ohio? With the delegate sharing system, even if she only wins Ohio, not much will change. She will remain down by 200-300 delegates and if she takes PA after that, she will still have a strong shot going into the convention where it will come down to who can offer the super delegates the most (hint: It will be Clinton with all of her insider connections and favors to be called on). If she only wins PA and Ohio going into the convention, she will still have about a 50/50 chance of getting the nomination. Yay Democracy. :dry:

[hippie_hunter]

Obama will win Vermont. Clinton will win Ohio and Rhode Island. Texas is too close to call, but I have a feeling that Clinton can squeak out a win.

[hippie_hunter]

Ohio

Clinton: 52%
Obama: 47%

Texas

Clinton: 44%
Obama: 55%

Rhode Island

Clinton: 54%
Obama: 45%

Vermont

Clinton: 32%
Obama: 67%

I wouldn't be so sure on Texas by that margin. The polls have it very, very close. What's odd is that two of them (Insider Advantage and PPP) have Clinton up 5 points. While Survey USA and Rasumssen have Obama up by 1 point.

That race is just too close to call but both can certainly squeak out a victory here.

[hippie_hunter]

I think they're going to split and in turn make PA the deciding factor this election. If Clinton takes PA it will either be brokered or go to the convention. If Obama takes PA, Clinton will have to drop out.

I think if Clinton wins on Tuesday then she's pretty much guaranteed to take Pennsylvania.

[hippie_hunter]

You hear it everywhere: Tuesday is Hillary Clinton's last stand. If she can't win Ohio and Texas, she's history.

True, mostly. But it's not the whole story. The rest goes like this: This is Barack Obama's third chance to knock her out. If he can't close the deal this time, maybe he can't close the deal, period.

Either the third time is the charm for him, or it could be strike three against him. Any result tomorrow that doesn't finish her off lets her argue that Democratic voters' love affair with Obama was just one of those flings. She'll say buyer's remorse has set in, and it's time to get serious about winning the White House.

She'll also bring up her wins in the disputed Michigan and Florida primaries and repeat her vow to fight for those delegates.

Given the wacky past two months, those arguments would keep her alive. They start with the claim that even a split decision tomorrow would fit a pattern showing voters can't commit to the Illinois rookie.

Obama had Clinton on the ropes after his smashing win in Iowa. If he could roll over her in New Hampshire, her supposed firewall, she would wave the white flag.

We know how that turned out. Her teary-eyed chat in a diner, and the ridicule heaped on her by talk radio, led to a large turnout of women that saved her.

Obama had his second chance to end it on Super Tuesday. Fresh off his landslide in South Carolina and Bill Clinton's clumsy attempt to belittle him as the second coming of Jesse Jackson, Obama was on a roll. He eroded her big leads in the key contests of California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, and winning one or two of those would have made him king.

Cancel that. Clinton won California and New Jersey by 10 points each. She won Massachusetts by 15 despite Sen. Edward Kennedy's passing the Camelot torch to Obama.

So here we go again. Obama has won the last 11 contests and for the third time, he can finish it.

The delegate math is in his favor. He has a lead of about 110 and unless she makes a net gain tomorrow, she will be running out of states. The 334 combined delegates in Texas and Ohio are the jackpot, with 36 more in Rhode Island and Vermont.

There are also 350 superdelegates still on the sidelines. Since neither Clinton nor Obama can practically get to the magic number of 2,025 without them, these supers are the deciders.

Clinton can make a case for them if she holds her own tomorrow. Winning Texas and Ohio would let her claim the race is basically tied and she has the momentum. Winning either one keeps her alive because it denies him the knockout. It's an asymmetrical contest where the greater burden is his.

It's not fair, but it's politics. She is like an incumbent, and the longer the race goes on, the more she benefits just by surviving.

Yes, the odds are against her. And it won't be pretty, but she still can win. If she does, she will have been tested by fire and the Clintons will have a new Comeback Kid.

[Chris B]

I pretty much agree with Obama taking Texas and Vermont, with Hillary taking Rhode Island. Ohio is a toss-up to me, though Hillary is favored.

[souvlaki]

Ohio will barely go to Clinton, Texas will barely go to Obama because of the caucus results and early voting (there are reports that early voting is actually working to his advantage in this primary), Vermont will go to Obama by a decent margin, and Rhode Island will go to Clinton though I think it will be closer than people think. All in all I think it will for the most part will be fairly predictable without any huge surprises.

[rdh007]

Clinton wins everything but Vermont. She wins Ohio handily.

[souvlaki]

You hear it everywhere: Tuesday is Hillary Clinton's last stand. If she can't win Ohio and Texas, she's history.

True, mostly. But it's not the whole story. The rest goes like this: This is Barack Obama's third chance to knock her out. If he can't close the deal this time, maybe he can't close the deal, period.

Either the third time is the charm for him, or it could be strike three against him. Any result tomorrow that doesn't finish her off lets her argue that Democratic voters' love affair with Obama was just one of those flings. She'll say buyer's remorse has set in, and it's time to get serious about winning the White House.

She'll also bring up her wins in the disputed Michigan and Florida primaries and repeat her vow to fight for those delegates.

Given the wacky past two months, those arguments would keep her alive. They start with the claim that even a split decision tomorrow would fit a pattern showing voters can't commit to the Illinois rookie.

Obama had Clinton on the ropes after his smashing win in Iowa. If he could roll over her in New Hampshire, her supposed firewall, she would wave the white flag.

We know how that turned out. Her teary-eyed chat in a diner, and the ridicule heaped on her by talk radio, led to a large turnout of women that saved her.

Obama had his second chance to end it on Super Tuesday. Fresh off his landslide in South Carolina and Bill Clinton's clumsy attempt to belittle him as the second coming of Jesse Jackson, Obama was on a roll. He eroded her big leads in the key contests of California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, and winning one or two of those would have made him king.

Cancel that. Clinton won California and New Jersey by 10 points each. She won Massachusetts by 15 despite Sen. Edward Kennedy's passing the Camelot torch to Obama.

So here we go again. Obama has won the last 11 contests and for the third time, he can finish it.

The delegate math is in his favor. He has a lead of about 110 and unless she makes a net gain tomorrow, she will be running out of states. The 334 combined delegates in Texas and Ohio are the jackpot, with 36 more in Rhode Island and Vermont.

There are also 350 superdelegates still on the sidelines. Since neither Clinton nor Obama can practically get to the magic number of 2,025 without them, these supers are the deciders.

Clinton can make a case for them if she holds her own tomorrow. Winning Texas and Ohio would let her claim the race is basically tied and she has the momentum. Winning either one keeps her alive because it denies him the knockout. It's an asymmetrical contest where the greater burden is his.

It's not fair, but it's politics. She is like an incumbent, and the longer the race goes on, the more she benefits just by surviving.

Yes, the odds are against her. And it won't be pretty, but she still can win. If she does, she will have been tested by fire and the Clintons will have a new Comeback Kid.

I really don't agree with this. The biggest mistake the Obama campaign has made of late has been how high they've raised expectations. It's like they've made the whole country forget that only two weeks ago Obama was a long shot in three of the four states voting tomorrow. He came back from a 20% deficit in both Ohio and Texas in less than two weeks. If Obama's campaign played it right the story tomorrow night, even if he lost by a very narrow margin would be that Obama came from behind in states he was not expected to be competitive in. Instead, he can realistically only win Texas and Vermont and be seen as the loser. Never mind the fact that after Pennsylvania most of the states are favored for Obama, and that the analysts and number crunchers are saying that it's looking like Obama will be going into the convention with at least 150 delegate lead if the rest of the contests go as expected. Nevermind that Hillary still needs to win all the states she's expected to win in by a 60% margin (including Texas and Ohio), and all the states Obama is expected to win in by a 75% margin. If he loses either state tomorrow all the sudden he's the big loser of the night. Someone in the Obama campaign needs to be shot for making the race tomorrow night out to be Obama's to lose.

[The Senator]

You think she'll do that poorly in Vermont???? :eek: I have a feeling it will be closer.


I don't know... during the Potomac Primary I was spot-on in my predictions, give or take two-four points, and everyone said I was crazy... I have a feeling she'll be owned handily in Vermont.

[hippie_hunter]

I agree that Obama's going to look like a bit of a loser because he isn't going to win Ohio and Rhode Island. Though I think Clinton can get some much needed momentum if she wins Texas as well which is a very likely possibility (same said with Obama winning Texas as a very likely possibility).

I think Pennsylvania is going to be a much needed state for Clinton too. If she wins that state, this thing will be going to the Convention which will be to Clinton's advantage if Obama only leads by such a slim margin of 100 - 150 delegate lead.

[hippie_hunter]

I don't know... during the Potomac Primary I was spot-on in my predictions, give or take two-four points, and everyone said I was crazy... I have a feeling she'll be owned handily in Vermont.

It's pretty obvious I think that she's going to get owned in Vermont. That's a guaranted victory for Obama while Rhode Island is a guaranted victory for Clinton. Those states are going to be pretty meaningless.

It's Ohio (which Clinton will most likely win) and Texas (far too close to call) that will matter. If Clinton both of those states, along with Rhode Island, it's going to give her campaign some much needed help and help her win Pennsylvania and a few other states.

[Excel]

Ohio:
Clinton: 51
Obama: 48

Texas:
clinton 50
Obama 49.5
(obama heavily wins in delegates though)