Author
|
Topic: CNN Projection: HRC Wins Both Texas and Ohio Primaries
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 04 March 2008 09:00 PM
But, delegate count will still leave Obama with a slight lead.That being said, the headlines will all say: "Clinton Wins Texas and Ohio" And that will give her much needed momentum. This fight is going to go on for weeks (if not months). In the mean time, McCain will be raising (and banking) money for the General Election. I think the proportionate delegate allocation rules of the Democrats (as opposed to winner-take-all rules of the Republicans) are not helping the Democrats make a decision and start focusing on the General Election...
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 04 March 2008 09:06 PM
More on effect of delegate allocation rules:OHIO: Clinton (55% of the vote) Obama (43% of the vote) Delegates for Clinton: 63 Delegates for Obama: 48 McCain (63% of the vote) Huckabee (33% of the vote) Delegates for McCain: 79 Delegates for Huckabee: ZERO TEXAS: Clinton (52% of the vote) Obama (48% of the vote) Delegates for Clinton: 18 Delegates for Obama: 12 McCain (55% of the vote) Huckabee (40% of the vote) Delegates for McCain: 69 Delegates for Huckabee: ZERO [ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 04 March 2008 09:35 PM
Some interesting exit poll information:Men split evenly between Obama and HRC. Women's Vote: 55% HRC, 45% Obama Latinos (in all age groups) overwhelmingly supported Clinton. African-Americans (in all age groups) overwhelmingly supported Obama. Older Whites: HRC Younger Whites: Obama Church Attendance: More Than Weekly: HRC (45%) Obama (55%) Weekly: HRC (55%) Obama (45%) Monthly: HRC (52%) Obama (45%) A Few Times a Year: HRC (54%) Obama (42%) Never: 50-50
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 05 March 2008 07:35 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer: In a very very perverse way, I would love Huckabee to win. Just to see what happens. Seriously, you think things are fucked now? Huckabee will outdo anything the Chimp has done. What scares the hell out of me (and I still can't believe it is happening), is that there are enough people who like that freak religious nut Huckabee to keep him going. That does not say a lot about America. A Far far right religious nut bar who wants America to endorse God at every section, has a following.
Huckabee is a freak. But, he's not going to be President. He dropped out last night.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357
|
posted 05 March 2008 08:27 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: What about VP? Think it's possible?(Okay, I know, that belongs in the other thread.)
Conventional wisdom (which has gotten somewhat of a drubbing recently) says that for McCain to win he needs to make inroads with indies and dems. Huckabee is prolly too scary to help him with those pockets or to carry states that wouldn't have been squarely for the GOP anyway...like CA.
ETA: Also, Huckabee is almost as detested as McCain by the very conservative part of the Republican base (mostly on economic issues). So he wouldn't help McCain there either. [ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: pookie ]
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 05 March 2008 04:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by Sven: Obama has not won a single large state (other than his own state of Illinois and neighboring Missouri). In contrast, HRC has won NY (no surprise there), Ohio, Texas, California, Massachusetts, and Arizona, along with Michigan and Florida—although the voters’ choices in those two states do not count. The only big state left is Pennsylvania and she currently leads in the polls there by about 10 points.If this isn’t resolved after the Pennsylvania primary, this may go all the way to the late August convention—which is held a mere nine weeks before the General Election. That cannot possibly be a good thing for the Democrats. The bitterness between the Obama and HRC camps—not to mention spending all of their campaign money fighting with each other—will make it harder to unify against and defeat McCain. I think the Democrats’ delegate allocation rules need to be substantially revised to help the party pick a winner earlier.
Actually, Obama won two states bigger than Massachusetts, Missouri and Arizona, namely, Virginia and Georgia. The problem is not the allocation rules, it is the imbalance the primary schedule. Most states rush to be near the beginning, so you're left with a seven week gap between Ohio and Texas and the next big state, Pennsylvania. Also, the amount of superdelegates is ridiculous. It should be 5% at the most, and probably should be eliminated altogether.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 05 March 2008 06:31 PM
Someone asked how it is now implausible for HRC to win the delegate count.Easy. There are fewer than 700 pledged delegates yet to elect. For Hillary to overtake Obama, she'd need to win more than 400 to his less than 300. In other words, given that all Democratic primaries and caucusses are (more or less) proportional, she'd need to win the remaining contests by a margin of almost 60 percent. Notionally, she could well win some of them by that kind of margin. It's a long shot that shoe could average 60%+ across the board. __________________________________________________
pookie noted conventional wisdom that McCain needs to make inroads among independents and soft dems. In fact, the conventional wisdom applies across the board. Candidates need to run to the outside to win their party's nomination, then run back to the centre to win the general.
__________________________________________________
McCain won't pick Huckabee because Huckabee doesn't bring him anything he needs. Huckabees latter day successes were because he was the non-McCain, but the conservative movement didn't much like Huckabee either.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 05 March 2008 08:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR: Someone asked how it is now implausible for HRC to win the delegate count.
I think the word was "insurmountable", not "implausible". The word I questioned was "insurmountable" ("impossible to surmount"). I don't think it's impossible for HRC win the Democratic nomination. It may be unlikely, but it's not impossible (i.e., it's "implausible").
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 05 March 2008 10:00 PM
As it stands, the only way for Hillary to win is with the support of Superdelegates. The best projection for her suggests she's got 1,370 delegates. If she were to win 100% from this point forward, that's an additional 611 (I checked) delegates, for a total of 1981 - still 44 short of the 2,025 needed to win. And she's not going to win 100% of the remaining delegates.Currently she's behind Obama by 85 - 105 delegates, depending on whose projection you accept. To catch him, she needs to win 86 - 106 more delegates than Obama from this point forward. Meaning a spread of 349 - 262 (57%) at minimum, or a spread of 359 - 252 (59%). Plus there are an additional 152 delegates spots (including 67 from the Texas caucusses and 85 from elsewhere) yet to be allocated. At this point, Obama still appears to be winning the Texas caucusses, and the vast majority of those remaining 85 delegates are from states won handily by Obama. Of the twelve remaining primaries and caucusses, more than half match the demographics of the states Obama has won to date. Although, using the past to project the future, the largest bloc of delegates (Pennsylvania) is likely to break to Hillary, and the next largest (North Carolina) is likely a toss-up. [ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 06 March 2008 04:34 AM
quote: Originally posted by Left Turn:
The solution to the timing schedule is for both the Democrats and Republicans to run a National primary, with all 50 states holding both Democratic and Republican primaries on the same day. They also need to eliminate the superdelegates on the Democratic side. A 1 day national primary means all delegates for both parties are chosen at the same time. It also means that every primary voter in every state gets to vote for every candidate. There'd be none of this crap where candidates drop out before your state gets to vote, such that most states get fewer choices in the primaries than the early states.
Had there been a national primary, Clinton would have won in a walk. There's something to be said for giving unknowns and relative unknowns a chance to break through in state contests. But there needs to be a way to do it in a more rational manner and more condensed time period. Something like having a half a dozen geographically balanced contests every two weeks between February and May would be one way to do it.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 06 March 2008 05:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR: As it stands, the only way for Hillary to win is with the support of Superdelegates.
You are correct. It all depends on the Superdelegates. She's going to make the following arguments to the Superdelegates: 1. She beat Obama in all of the larger, critical states (the states that will be essential to win in the fall general election). Therefore, the Superdelegates should vote for her (and thus give her the nomination) because she will have a better chance of winning those states in the race against McCain that Obama. 2. If one considers the votes cast in the Michigan and Florida primaries, she has a slight lead in the popular vote (she leads Obama 51% to 49%). Therefore, the Superdelegates should vote for her to reflect the will of the people. Those are two pretty compelling arguments, in my opinion.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 06 March 2008 06:37 AM
yes, but ...1/ the big states (NY, NJ, CA) would vote Democrat anyways, even if they ran a convicted horse thief at the head of the ticket; 2/ that slight Hillary lead is, well, slight ... 50/50 cannot be too much of an argument Lots of room for Obama to wiggle there ... [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631
|
posted 06 March 2008 03:06 PM
Pledged delegates State by State1.Alabama, 52 Delegates, 27 Obama, 25 Clinton 2.Alaska, 13 Delegates, 9 Obama, 4 Clinton 3.Arizona, 56 Delegates, 25 Obama, 31 Clinton 4.Arkansas, 35 Delegates, 8 Obama, 27 Clinton 5.California, 370 Delegates, 167 Obama, 203 Clinton 6.Colorado, 55 Delegates, not all decided yet? 7.Connecticut, 48 Delegates, 26 Obama, 22 Clinton 8.Delaware, 15 Delegates, 9 Obama, 6 Clinton 9.Florida, 0 Delegates, should have 210 10.Georgia, 87 Delegates, 61 Obama, 26 Clinton 11.Hawaii, 20 Delegates, 14 Obama, 6 Clinton 12.Idaho, 18 Delegates, 15 Obama, 3 Clinton 13.Illinois, 153 Delegates, 104 Obama, 49 Clinton 14.Indiana, 72 Delegates, Primary May 6 15.Iowa, 45 Delegates, 16 Obama, 15 Clinton, 14 Edwards 16.Kansas, 32 Delegates, 23 Obama, 9 Clinton 17.Kentucky, 51 Delegates, Primary May 20 18.Louisiana, 56 Delegates, 34 Obama, 22 Clinton 19.Maine, 24 Delegates, 15 Obama, 9 Clinton 20.Maryland, 70 Delegates, 42 Obama, 28 Clinton 21.Massachusetts, 93 Delegates, 38 Obama, 55 Clinton 22.Michigan, 0 Delegates, should have 128 Delegates 23.Minnesota, 72 Delegates, 48 Obama, 24 Clinton 24.Mississippi, 33 Delegates, 19 Obama, 14 Clinton 25.Missouri, 72 Delegates, 36 Obama, 36 Clinton 26.Montana, 16 Delegates, Primary June 3 27.Nebraska, 24 Delegates, 16 Obama, 8 Clinton 28.Nevada, 25 Delegates, 13 Obama, 12 Clinton 29.New Hampshire, 22 Delegates, 9 Obama, 9 Clinton, 4 Edwards 30.New Jersey, 107 Delegates, 48 Obama, 59 Clinton 31.New Mexico, 26 Delegates, 12 Obama, 14 Clinton 32.New York, 232 Delegates, 93 Obama, 139 Clinton 33.North Carolina, 115 Delegates, Primary May 6 34.North Dakota, 13 Delegates, 8 Obama, 5 Clinton 35.Ohio, 141 Delegates, 66 Obama, 75 Clinton 36.Oklahoma, 38 Delegates, 14 Obama, 24 Clinton 37.Oregon, 52 Delegates, Primary May 20 38.Pennsylvania, 158 Delegates, Primary April 22 39.Rhode Island, 21 Delegates, 8 Obama, 13 Clinton 40.South Carolina, 45 Delegates, 25 Obama, 12 Clinton, 8 Edwards 41.South Dakota, 15 Delegates, Primary June 3 42.Tennessee, 68 Delegates, 28 Obama, 40 Clinton 43.Texas, Primary 126 Delegates, 61 Obama, 65 Clinton 43b.Texas Caucus, 67 Delegates, 38 Obama, 29 Clinton 44.Utah, 23 Delegates, 14 Obama, 9 Clinton 45.Vermont, 15 Delegates, 9 Obama, 6 Clinton 46.Virginia, 83 Delegates, 54 Obama, 29 Clinton 47.Washington, 78 Delegates, 52 Obama, 26 Clinton 48.West Virginia, 28 Delegates, Primary May 13 49.Wisconsin, 74 Delegates, 42 Obama, 32 Clinton 50.Wyoming, 12 Delegates, 7 Obama, 5 Clinton 51.D.C, 15 Delegates, 12 Obama, 3 Clinton Other contests 1.America Samoa, 3 Delegates, 1 Obama, 2 Clinton 2.Americans Abroad, 7 Delegates, 4.5 Obama, 2.5 Clinton (I'd hate to be the delegate who is chopped in half!) 3.Guam, 4 Delegates, Primary May 3 4.Puerto Rico, 55 Delegates, Primary June 7 5.Virgin Islands, 3 Delegates, 3 Obama Total Pledged Delegates Available (Including Florida and Michigan) 3,591 Totals 2,632 Obama 1373.5 Clinton 1232.5 Edwards 26 Still available (including Florida and Michigan): 904 Also outstanding Colorado 55 Delegates Pledged and distributed 2,632 Still Available 904 Outstanding 55 Total 3,591 Sometimes it helps to be an accountant [ 07 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ] [ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631
|
posted 06 March 2008 03:13 PM
Distribution of delegates still available1.Florida 210 Delegates 2.Indiana 72 Delegates, Primary May 6 3.Kentucky, 51 Delegates, Primary May 20 4.Michigan 128 Delegates 5.Montana, 16 Delegates, Primary June 3 6.North Carolina, 115 Delegates, Primary May 6 7.Oregon, 52 Delegates, Primary May 20 8.Pennsylvania, 158 Delegates, Primary April 22 9.South Dakota, 15 Delegates, Primary June 3 10.West Virginia, 28 Delegates, Primary May 13 11.Guam, 4 Delegates, Primary May 3 12.Puerto Rico, 55 Delegates, Primary June 7 Total 904 [ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667
|
posted 07 March 2008 08:45 AM
quote: Originally posted by Left Turn: Clinton can only really win by getting the superdelegates to vote her over the top at a brokered convention. I don't see any way that Clinton can pick up enough pledged delegates to win. [ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
Considering that we live in a country that has brokered conventions every time, surely we know that conventions are not the worst thing in the world, and are actually relatively helpful to the candidates, providing a considerable bounce. Note, for instance, that the Conservative Party happily dropped the leadership selection process of the Alliance (one man one vote). Secondly, why is the idea of super-delegates deciding things so sinister? Keep in mind that Clinton will be very close, if not ahead of Obama in the popular vote. She is already ahead if you count Florida and Michigan. Pennsylvania will make here ahead if you count Florida. Other states could then put her in the lead in terms of votes. Having a convention is a perfect way in which to account for the intricacies of the delegate selection process (which have screwed Clinton).
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 07 March 2008 08:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by Briguy:
There are some states that have eliminated the all-or-nothing BS in general elections, BTW. I can only think of Maine, but I know there are others.
True. Each state's electoral votes are based on the total of senators and representatives - in the case of Maine, that's four electoral votes. Maine's electoral votes are distributed with two going to whoever carries the state, and the remaining two based on the outcome in the two congressional districts. The best possible result for the second place candidate is 3-1. I believe the system is the same for Nevada. As it works out, I don't think either state has ever actually split it's electoral delegation since the state winner has also carried each congressional district.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 07 March 2008 08:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Left Turn:
The solution to the timing schedule is for both the Democrats and Republicans to run a National primary, with all 50 states holding both Democratic and Republican primaries on the same day.
That essentially restricts the nomination to one or two wealthy and well-connected candidates with incredibly deep pockets. No dark horses. No insurgencies. And we'd already be looking at a Romney - Clinton faceoff.
It is hardly democratic to limit participation in the electoral process to the uber-wealthy.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 08 March 2008 03:48 AM
Looks like (which was not unexpected) that Obama ended up winning more delegates in exas than Clinton. quote: You may have received incorrect information about what happened in the Democratic presidential race the other night. There is the widespread impression that Hillary Clinton won Texas.It looks like Barack Obama may well have. . . . . First, the over-all statewide vote in the primary, which she took by 51-48, meant nothing. It was as irrelevant as the nationwide vote in a presidential race - the one Al Gore won. Delegates were apportioned according to margins in state senate districts. And some of these state senatorial districts had more delegates than others, on account of their having had more democratic votes cast in them in recent elections. Anyway, this primary only counted for two-thirds of the delegates. Hillary appears from that primary to have copped four more Texas delegates than Obama. The other third of the delegates come from the caucuses that took place immediately after the polls closed. . . . . With about half the caucuses counted, Obama appeared to have picked up seven delegates, erasing his four-delegate deficit from the primary. That moved him ahead of Hillary in Texas by three delegates. If the trend generally holds for the other half of the caucuses, he'll move up three more delegates, putting him up on her in Texas by six.
http://tinyurl.com/2tjzor
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 08 March 2008 10:35 AM
Noam Chomsky: Why Isn't Iraq in the 2008 Election? Democracy Now!. Posted March 3, 2008.The public is massively against the war, and the Dems are debating over tactics in Iraq -- here's why. The following speech, transcribed by Democracy Now!, was delivered by Chomsky in Massachussetts at an event sponsored by Bikes Not Bombs. quote: Not very long ago, as you all recall, it was taken for granted that the Iraq war would be the central issue in the 2008 election, as it was in the midterm election two years ago. However, it's virtually disappeared off the radar screen, which has solicited some puzzlement among the punditry.Actually, the reason is not very obscure.(...)
[ 08 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 09 March 2008 04:42 AM
quote: Yet the most monstrous bigotry in this election isn’t about either race or sex. It’s about religion. The whispering campaigns allege that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim planning to impose Islamic law on the country. Incredibly, he is even accused — in earnest! — of being the Antichrist. Proponents of this theory offer detailed theological explanations for why he is the Antichrist, and the proof is that he claims to be Christian — after all, the Antichrist would say that, wouldn’t he? The rumors circulate enough that Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Rev. John Hagee, a conservative evangelical, what the odds are that Mr. Obama is the Antichrist. . . . . In looking back at that history, you wish that a candidate had responded not only with, “No, I don’t have any black ancestor,” but also with, “So what if I did?” Likewise, with countless people today spreading scurrilous rumors that Mr. Obama is a Muslim, the most appropriate response is a denial followed by: And so what if he were?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html?ref=opinion [ 09 March 2008: Message edited by: josh ]
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 09 March 2008 02:51 PM
Ha! I knew it... I knew that basing indignation on ponctuation was risky at best. "Josh" had posted in the "Obama" thread a poison-pen blog article from Roger Simon with the following: quote: ...On “60 Minutes” Sunday, when Steve Croft asked Clinton if she believed Obama was a Muslim, she replied: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.” “As far as I know”? Doesn’t that just continue a smear?...
But here is how Sam Stein transcribes for the Huffington Post Clinton's allegedly scurrilous "not as far as I know" line: quote: ...Ellison's comments came two days after the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes ran a segment last Sunday in which a male voter explained how he was influenced by the fallacious Muslim smear campaign against Obama. Later in the show, Clinton was asked if she believed the rumors.'"Of course not," said the New York Democrat. "I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Asked by correspondent Steve Kroft whether she was taking Obama at his word or personally believed he was not a Muslim, Clinton expanded on her answer: "No. No. Why would I? ... There is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."
It makes a big difference when you do not transcribe her words with a dramatic full stop, as did Simon. The complete cite also points out the extent to which it is the MSM that are working hard to make Obama's alleded Islam connection an issue and to pin that smear on Clinton. Why play their game?
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 20 March 2008 03:02 PM
Turns out Clinton lied her way to victory in Ohio: quote: The Obama campaign on Thursday accused Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of purposely distorting her position on Nafta, pointing to newly released White House schedules that show Mrs. Clinton attended several meetings on Nafta.During one meeting cited by the Obama campaign, on November 10, 1993, Mrs. Clinton spoke to a group of approximately 120 participants at a Nafta briefing. (The Senate passed the Nafta bill on Nov. 20.) According to an ABC News report, one person in attendance at the meeting said Mrs. Clinton’s remarks “were totally pro-Nafta and what a good thing it would be for the economy.” The Obama campaign pounced on the meetings, describing them as evidence that Mrs. Clinton has misrepresented her support for Nafta. She has said in the past that she has been a critic of Nafta “from the very beginning.”
http://tinyurl.com/2gw4l4 [ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: josh ]
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|