Jump to content

Super Tuesday Scoreboard


RedScare

Recommended Posts

Well when Florida and Michigan announces they were going to hold there primary early, Hillary was one of the loudest screamers to have their delegates stripped from them prior to the Primaries. I assume she did this because she hadn't made any campaign trails through there and feared she was behind Obama in polls, and didn't want to have that loss, straight out of the box. Well She Actually wins both Florida and Michigan, so no harm no foul, no big deal, she's ahead of Obama and all is good.

Fast forward to today, she's losing, Obama is on a roll, and now she's screaming to reinstate Florida and Michigan's delegates. Imagine that and to top that off it seems that the nut case Howard Dean is the key figure in this move. Who knows who he endorses. Him and Kerry are cronies and Kerry endorses Obama, this could get interesting.

You know there is trouble when her campaign starts saying things like "but we won Michigan, and Florida" as a counter to Obama's recent wins... uh... yea... but there were no official contests in either of those states. The DNC needs a major overhaul. Not seating delegates, from any state, is a problem. Punishing states in that way seems... dare I say... undemocratic (ignoring/not allowing voters/votes in those states)... and then to top it off... they guy who may get the most popular votes, may not win the thing because of super delegates. Sounds like the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election is being replayed in the 2008 democratic primaries...

Not sure if it will matter in the end... I watched McCain's victory speech.... and looking at the people to his left and right, not to mention him, I thought I was watching nursing home event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know there is trouble when her campaign starts saying things like "but we won Michigan, and Florida" as a counter to Obama's recent wins... uh... yea... but there were no official contests in either of those states. The DNC needs a major overhaul. Not seating delegates, from any state, is a problem. Punishing states in that way seems... dare I say... undemocratic (ignoring/not allowing voters/votes in those states)... and then to top it off... they guy who may get the most popular votes, may not win the thing because of super delegates. Sounds like the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election is being replayed in the 2008 democratic primaries...

Not sure if it will matter in the end... I watched McCain's victory speech.... and looking at the people to his left and right, not to mention him, I thought I was watching nursing home event.

I would not be so quick to use Clinton's excuses for losing as DNC opinion or policy. No one outside the Clinton camp has said the delegates will be seated, and most of the super delegates are undecided. Florida and Michigan may not matter.

As for punishing the states for intentionally trying to subvert the process in their favor, remember that they were warned of the consequences before they moved their primaries, and further remember that the GOP also punished those 2 states for their actions. No one complained about the punishments (except Fla and Mich) prior to knowing the effects on their own campaigns. I don't blame Clinton for now wanting the delegates, but I further do not think the rules should be changed midstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one that runs for president is not excessively power hungry. Some hide it better than others.

Thompson was widely criticized for not being all that motivated. It was a major reason that I really liked him.

Did he hide it excessively well? Even when that was identified as a large part of what was holding him back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet Clinton wishes to now count Michigan! How convenient considering Obama wasn't even on the ballot in that state.

As of today, surprisingly, Clinton has more votes than Obama. She has 9,594,849 to his 9,541,701. However, it can't be ignored that he received ZERO votes in Michigan whereas she received 328,151. Take that * off the board and he's up in the popular vote.

However, the good news for the Dems is that people are NOT voting Republican in the same numbers. Even if you add every McCain and Huckabee vote together, you only come up with 8,014,427.

As of right now, 20,273,024 votes have been cast in Democratic primaries while only 13,386,428 have been cast in Republican primaries.

Additionally, states that have voted Republican for President over the last few years are seeing a surge in Democrat/Indie voters. Virginia is the latest example. Over 970,000 votes were cast in the Democratic primary last night. A little less than 482,000 were cast on the Republican side. That has to be troublesome to the RNC. Arkansas, Georgia, Lousiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia are all states that voted for Bush (N.H. only in 2000) but saw more people participate in the Democratic primaries than the Republican. The difference in those states is now up to 1,373,117 votes cast.

For the Republicans to have ANY chance at the White House, they cannot lose a populated Red State like Virginia or Georgia because they have ZERO chance to pick off a state like California, New York, or Illinois in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you want an unmotivated person as President? Someone who needs their noon-time nap or else they turn into Mr. Grumpy?

I want a cool-headed administrator that doesn't make a lot of noise, very coldly trims fat from government, and isn't remembered almost at all by grade-school kids taking American history in 100 years.

A far-right activist President would likely just haphazardly slash budgets without regard for the merit of the program (insofar as it wasn't a hot-button program (like border fencing), increase government debt, declare an economic victory, and then declare war as re-election nears. A far-left activist President would do the opposite, increase taxes, and then also declare war as re-election nears.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the good news for the Dems is that people are NOT voting Republican in the same numbers. Even if you add every McCain and Huckabee vote together, you only come up with 8,014,427.

As of right now, 20,273,024 votes have been cast in Democratic primaries while only 13,386,428 have been cast in Republican primaries.

I keep hearing this point EVERYWHERE I turn.

But will primary voting numbers translate to election voting numbers? I don't think they will. I think the Democrats are coming out in record numbers because for the first time in a long time they have a polar choice to make: a black man or woman. The Republicans are not as enthused as their choices are too similar to matter. Republicans know that it doesn't really matter who wins the primary, as the election is what's going to count.

I think we'll see the republican numbers at a much greater percentage at the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But will primary voting numbers translate to election voting numbers? I don't think they will. I think the Democrats are coming out in record numbers because for the first time in a long time they have a polar choice to make: a black man or woman.

... who say fundamentally the same thing on every issue. I don't think their sex and race make them polar opposites. I think people are voting in Democratic primaries because they plan to vote for a Democratic candidate in the general election.

There's more difference between McCain and Huckabee than there is between Obama and Clinton (unless sex and race are all you look at.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... who say fundamentally the same thing on every issue. I don't think their sex and race make them polar opposites. I think people are voting in Democratic primaries because they plan to vote for a Democratic candidate in the general election.

There's more difference between McCain and Huckabee than there is between Obama and Clinton (unless sex and race are all you look at.)

I tend to agree that the most compelling polarizing factor isn't race/sex, but policy-oriented vs. personality-oriented. They don't fundamentally say the same thing on every issue because one talks about the issues and the other just talks, with both doing reasonably well in their approach even if it appeals to different types of people. About the only thing they do alike is make fun of George W. Bush at every opportunity.

The Democrats have had effectively a two-way choice from start to finish, and that stimulates turnout. The Republicans never really had that advantage. The incentive for massive turnout later in the game just isn't there because their vote may as well not count anymore; McCain won, game over. Granted, turnout wasn't all that great even when there were many viable candidates, but then again, having many viable candidates also tends to depress turnout because voters have difficulty making a big emotional or financial investment in a candidate when the odds are so low of that candidate's survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more difference between McCain and Huckabee than there is between Obama and Clinton (unless sex and race are all you look at.)

You're absolutely right that there is a night and day difference between John & Mike. The thing is that the average republican isn't content with either choice, and has consoled themselves to just vote the ticket just to keep either Obama or Hilary out.

Every democrat I've talked to can't tell me the difference between Obama and Hillary's stances on any of the issues. All they can talk about is Black Man vs. White Woman and which they think would make a better president - all still while not basing their opinion on any of their issue stances.

Edited by Jeebus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right that there is a night and day difference between John & Mike. The thing is that the average republican isn't content with either choice, and has consoled themselves to just vote the ticket just to keep either Obama or Hilary out.

Every democrat I've talked to can't tell me the difference between Obama and Hillary's stances on any of the issues. All they can talk about is Black Man vs. White Woman and which they think would make a better president - all still while not basing their opinion on any of their issue stances.

So when the general election comes you won't just vote your party's ticket? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right that there is a night and day difference between John & Mike. The thing is that the average republican isn't content with either choice, and has consoled themselves to just vote the ticket just to keep either Obama or Hilary out.

Every democrat I've talked to can't tell me the difference between Obama and Hillary's stances on any of the issues. All they can talk about is Black Man vs. White Woman and which they think would make a better president - all still while not basing their opinion on any of their issue stances.

The Democrats I've been talking to just recently are split. They're either just going to vote the party line or go McCain because they like McCain better than their own candidates...which I suppose would be scary if you're a Huckabee supporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when the general election comes you won't just vote your party's ticket? :lol:

No. Based off what I have said, why would you assume that?

Ask the New England Patriots about primary turnout as an indicator of general election results. ;)

So are you hinting that the democrats don't have it "in the bag", as they seem to think they do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you hinting that the democrats don't have it "in the bag", as they seem to think they do?

I'm saying that primary turnout shouldn't be used to predict general election results. Primaries are very different animals than general elections.

So yeah, I guess I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yeah, I guess I am.

I agree with you. As usual, the 24 hour news networks, with nothing else to talk about - and the evening news shows foolishly trying to compete with the 24 hour news networks - are beating this dead horse to a pulp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jeebus that part of the reason that red state Dems are coming out is because of the historic race dealing with an African American and a woman, but the oher thing people are ignoring is that many Republicans do not know who to support yet or atleast they have not found their candidate despite McCain's overwheliming lead. Hell, even Sugar Land has raised more money for Democratic candidates than Republicans and I cannot even say the same for Houston.

Edited by WesternGulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need a change in Washington. I am not sure if Hillary or Barack are that change we need, but I think after 8 years of GWB we can safely say America needs a new directions. I am definitely not sure McCain is a change, as he seems like more of the same.

Our foreign policies are joke around the world, our economy is tanking, and there is more division in this country than I can remember (I grew of age under Reagan and even he wasn't this divisive).

I dunno ... something's gotta give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need a change in Washington. I am not sure if Hillary or Barack are that change we need, but I think after 8 years of GWB we can safely say America needs a new directions. I am definitely not sure McCain is a change, as he seems like more of the same.

Our foreign policies are joke around the world, our economy is tanking, and there is more division in this country than I can remember (I grew of age under Reagan and even he wasn't this divisive).

I dunno ... something's gotta give.

If you're a big believer in generations, the trick is for baby boomers to start declining as a voting bloc. When Gen X and Gen Y take over, the attitude shifts to, "shut up, get it done, don't bother me." This is a double-edged sword, of course. When politicians actually get things done, odds are decent that they're mostly the wrong things.

I think that a sane version of Ron Paul, with the charisma of Obama or Romney (but without their slimeball aftertaste), an ability to communicate like Reagan, and a funding mechanism like a George Soros might stand a decent chance at dramatically retrenching a very large segment of the voting public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, I love The Niche and Jeebus giving anectdotal evidence about likely Democratic turnout by including conversions with their Democratic friends. That is good stuff right there.

As an aside, I have 2 friends who are Registered Republicans in Boston. They are sisters and they own a small business together. Both of them voted for Bush in 2000. One voted for Bush in '04 while the other one skipped the election because she disliked Bush and Kerry equally. Neither voted in the primary this past Super Tuesday and when I asked why, they both told me because they plan on voting for Obama in the general election but as registered Republicans, they couldn't participate in the primary.

With that evidence in hand, I am willing to predict that Repulbicans everywhere are skipping the Republican primaries but planning to vote Democratic in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, I love The Niche and Jeebus giving anectdotal evidence about likely Democratic turnout by including conversions with their Democratic friends. That is good stuff right there.

As an aside, I have 2 friends who are Registered Republicans in Boston. They are sisters and they own a small business together. Both of them voted for Bush in 2000. One voted for Bush in '04 while the other one skipped the election because she disliked Bush and Kerry equally. Neither voted in the primary this past Super Tuesday and when I asked why, they both told me because they plan on voting for Obama in the general election but as registered Republicans, they couldn't participate in the primary.

With that evidence in hand, I am willing to predict that Repulbicans everywhere are skipping the Republican primaries but planning to vote Democratic in November.

Hey, you were talking about friends/family earlier. Pot, meet kettle. [shrug]

The funny thing is, though, that the media is covering this like a horse race, and its causing people to cast votes for strategic candidates rather than just for who they actually like. That means that a political analyst has to figure out the strategy of a voter responding to the strategy of a political campaign that is filtered strategically through a large number of different media channels with all sorts of different and overlapping target demographics, and ultimately that it isn't about matching the voters with who they like, but about a highly chaotic process with rules that change completely for a whole six months after round one is over.

Frankly, given the manner and quality of coverage, and given that primaries and caucuses have so little validity with respect to the outcome of a presidential election, I'm almost as willing to go by personal anecdotes right now as I am information that is widely publicized.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...McCain's head looks like a pimple fixing to burst...

Both before and after his surgery... there's been this bulge on the left side of his face... It looks better now, especially as time goes on, but it is still noticeable... I keep asking myself what is that? Good to know he's OK now... Doesn't sound like a trivial operation (in 2000):

The operation involved removal of two malignant melanomas from his left temple and left upper arm along with lymph nodes from his neck and a portion of his salivary gland.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DA103EF933A1575BC0A9669C8B63

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Kinkaid, my evidence is just as convincing as yours:

I have conservative Republican friends in several states who sat out their primaries but will be voting in the general election, and it won't be for (insert Dem candidate here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh. There may be trouble in paradise for Barack.

Man files Federal Lawsuit against Obama regarding Gay Sex and Drug Use Claims

Yesterday, a man named Larry Sinclair posted a video to YouTube claiming to have used cocaine and engaged in a sex act with Obama when he was a state legislator in 1999.

Later in the day, Sinclair filed suit against Obama and his campaign guru David Axelrod in Minnesota district court for allegedly attempting to abridge Sinclair's right to free speech, and for waging an intimidation campaign against him.

http://www.whitehouse.com/NewsComments.aspx?start=&NewsID=106

http://www.whitehouse.com/

Smear campaign by Clinton? or the Republicans? or could it be true? They're going to pay Sinclair 10K for taking a polygraph, plus another 100K if he passes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh. There may be trouble in

http://www.whitehouse.com/NewsComments.aspx?start=&NewsID=106

http://www.whitehouse.com/

Smear campaign by Clinton? or the Republicans? or could it be true? They're going to pay Sinclair 10K for taking a polygraph, plus another 100K if he passes it.

Interesting. The last time I went to whitehouse.com was back in high school, by accident. At that time it was a porn site.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

INteresting. Yhe last time I went o whitehouse.com was back in high school, by accident. At that time it was a porn site.

You are correct it was a porn site, and I can't see where the domain changed hands just formats. Dan Parisi has owned that domain since 1997 and up until January 2008 it was porn site. Now all of a sudden Dan Parisi is in the ethics business, strange strange strange. Sounds to me like he's gotten funding from somewhere to totally change the format t a smear Obama campaign, as Arsenio use t say, "Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm!" Do a Google of Dan Parisi and you will get a better idea what a piece of crap this guy is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's some stuff I have found, however it doesn't show where it actually changed hands, and still has the domain attached to Dan Parisi

In 2004 Parisi decided to sell the domain, mainly because of his son who would be in kindergarten the next year. At this point he was making US$1 million annually from the site alone. Parisi had said he did not want to sell the domain name to anyone in the adult entertainment industry, and even claimed to have turned down what was essentially a blank check from a buyer hiding his identity behind his broker.

In November 2005, the domain appeared to be used for a real estate site. In December 2005 it contained only Google ads, with a notice that a site for investigating people by checking their public records would be coming.

In March 2006, whitehouse.com called itself "America's Free Speech Forum". It advertised a cartoon contest and presented links to Associated Press political news stories.

In July 2006, the site was a real estate site again, and forwarded to www.house.com.

As of November 2006, was a search engine for people, which searched over 90 million White Pages listings and 14 million Yellow Pages listings.

As of June-October 2007, the site has once again changed and now claims to be "your source for up-to-date information to help you keep track of the major party candidates for President."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political strategist are saying Hillary has to have 78% of the vote in the March 4th Primaries to have a chance. Looks like she may be toast. She hasn't gotten 78% in ANY of the primaries. Not looking good for the Clinton Camp. I look for the big gun bashing to come out at any time.

Here's a concept, I am thinking if Obama gets the nomination, he would possibly ask her to VP if it doesn't get too personally ugly with the smear campaign, just out of strategy alone. However if She somehow found a way pull it out, I don't think she'd ask Obama just because of the way she is. Also if she pulled it off it would be because of Howard Dean reinstating Florida and Michigan and because of the super delegates. She would ole Crazy Howard huge and he would be the VP pick for her. Just a thought not a prediction.

Edited by Mark F. Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political strategist are saying Hillary has to have 78% of the vote in the March 4th Primaries to have a chance. Looks like she may be toast. She hasn't gotten 78% in ANY of the primaries. Not looking good for the Clinton Camp. I look for the big gun bashing to come out at any time.

Here's a concept, I am thinking if Obama gets the nomination, he would possibly ask her to VP if it doesn't get too personally ugly with the smear campaign, just out of strategy alone. However if She somehow found a way pull it out, I don't think she'd ask Obama just because of the way she is. Also if she pulled it off it would be because of Howard Dean reinstating Florida and Michigan and because of the super delegates. She would ole Crazy Howard huge and he would be the VP pick for her. Just a thought not a prediction.

I think the exact opposite, but for the same reason (because of the way she is). She doesn't want the #2 slot. After all those years in the White House already, and the grueling task of even running for President, why should someone of her stature settle for numero dos? I can see her asking Obama to be her VP because he's younger, full of energy, and will pull a lot of votes their way, in a combined ticket. I don't see that working as well the other way around... I really wonder, if Obama makes it, who he will pick... maybe a hispanic VP? To try to pull more of the hispanic vote? ... no predictions... just thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the exact opposite, but for the same reason (because of the way she is). She doesn't want the #2 slot. After all those years in the White House already, and the grueling task of even running for President, why should someone of her stature settle for numero dos? I can see her asking Obama to be her VP because he's younger, full of energy, and will pull a lot of votes their way, in a combined ticket. I don't see that working as well the other way around... I really wonder, if Obama makes it, who he will pick... maybe a hispanic VP? To try to pull more of the hispanic vote? ... no predictions... just thoughts.

Maybe an Obama-Richardson ticket or Obama-Edwards. That would almost be an unbeatable pair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the exact opposite, but for the same reason (because of the way she is). She doesn't want the #2 slot. After all those years in the White House already, and the grueling task of even running for President, why should someone of her stature settle for numero dos?

Correct. Hillary wants the top spot and will settle for nothing less. She's better off as a senator than a veep.

I can see her asking Obama to be her VP because he's younger, full of energy, and will pull a lot of votes their way, in a combined ticket.

And I think he would accept the job, but I doubt she would offer it.

I don't see that working as well the other way around... I really wonder, if Obama makes it, who he will pick... maybe a hispanic VP? To try to pull more of the hispanic vote? ... no predictions... just thoughts.

Cheech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe this idiot Huckabee won't concede he's done, mathmatically out of it, what is his point other than lining his pockets.

He's doing the same thing Reagan did in 1976 (taking it all the way to the convention, if he can)... so he can get ready for the next election cycle. =)

EDIT: He's also protecting for the possibility that McCain could die. He needs to get more delegates than Romney if he wants to have any chance of being the torch bearer.

Edited by BryanS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking these numbers don't even compare as near the same situation.

1976 Republican delegate breakdown going in to the National Convention

  • President Ford 1087
  • Ronald Reagan 1070
  • Elliot L. Richardson 1(Out)

2008 Republican Delegate Breakdown currently

  • McCain 942
  • Romney 253 (Out)
  • Huckabee 245
  • Paul 14

I can't see the correlation with your statement. As the convention began Ford was seen as having a slight lead in delegate votes, but still shy of the 1130 delegates he needed to win. Reagan and Ford both competed for the votes of individual delegates and state delegations down to the wire. Neither were mathematically out of it. Huckabee is stroking it IMHO, as well as Ron Paul, what chance in hell does he have, I'll tell you NONE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking these numbers don't even compare as near the same situation.

1976 Republican delegate breakdown going in to the National Convention

  • President Ford 1087
  • Ronald Reagan 1070
  • Elliot L. Richardson 1(Out)

2008 Republican Delegate Breakdown currently

  • McCain 942
  • Romney 253 (Out)
  • Huckabee 245
  • Paul 14

I can't see the correlation with your statement. As the convention began Ford was seen as having a slight lead in delegate votes, but still shy of the 1130 delegates he needed to win. Reagan and Ford both competed for the votes of individual delegates and state delegations down to the wire. Neither were mathematically out of it. Huckabee is stroking it IMHO, as well as Ron Paul, what chance in hell does he have, I'll tell you NONE.

...OK... but what happens if McCain dies? Then what? Romney just suspended his campaign... he didn't 'cancel it out.' ... just kinda waiting in the wings... I think Huckabee is trying to get ahead of Romney "just in case" McCain buys the farm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...