posted
"On the other hand, Osama bin Laden did hope to destroy our economy and he hasn't entirely succeeded. Robert Kiyosaki has."
Hey, pooka. I know that was probably tongue-in-cheek but I was wondering if that is a view you may actually hold to some degree. (About Kiyosaki.) If so, could you elaborate? (I've read one of his books recently and there are a lot of inconsistencies that have popped up in my brain.)
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll update the Democrats and then do the Republicans. It'll look big because I'm going to include all the old data, I want you to be able to see the progression without having to switch back and forth between pages, but I'll bold the newest polls.
Democrats
Alabama February 2nd - Barack Obama 44.4%, Hillary Clinton 37.4% January 31st - Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 41%, other 7%, undecided 6% Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 40%, other 5%, undecided 9% Barack Obama 47%, Hillary Clinton 47%, Other 5%, Undecided 2% Barack Obama 40%, Hillary Clinton 35%, Edwards 9%, Undecided 16% And to give you an idea as to how much things have changed in just a week: January 23rd - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 28%, John Edwards 16%, Undecided 23%
Arizona February 1st - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 41%, undecided 13% January 31st - Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 41%, Other 12%, Undecided 3% January 24th - Hillary Clinton 37%, Barack Obama 27%, John Edwards 15%, Undecided 18% January 20th - Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 24%, John Edwards 9%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Undecided 21%
California February 2nd - Barack Obama 45%, Hillary Clinton 44%, Undecided 5% Barack Obama 45%, Hillary Clinton 41%, Mike Gravel 1%, Undecided 15% February 1st - Barack Obama 39.8%, Hillary Clinton 38.6%, Undecided 18.8%, Refused 2.7% Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 36%, undecided 16% Hillary Clinton 36%, Barack Obama 34%, Other 12%, Undecided 18% January 29th - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 40%, John Edwards 9%, Other 4%, Undecided 4% January 27th - Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 38%, John Edwards 9%, Other 2%, Undecided 2% January 25th - Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 32%, John Edwards 14%, Undecided 4%
Looks like things have significantly narrowed in California. Maybe the endorsement of Maria Shriver for Obama had an effect? Either way, California is a dead heat.
Georgia February 2nd - Barack Obama 52%, Hillary Clinton 37% Barack Obama 51.3%, Hillary Clinton 35.6%, Other 4.7%, Undecided 8.4% Barack Obama 48%, Hillary Clinton 28%, Mike Gravel 1%, Undecided 23% February 1st - Barack Obama 47%, Hillary Clinton 41%, undecided 10% January 30th - Barack Obama 52%, Hillary Clinton 36%, Other 4%, Undecided 8% January 22nd - Barack Obama 41%, Hillary Clinton 35%, John Edwards 13%, Undecided 11%
Missouri February 2nd - Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 44%, Mike Gravel 1%, Undecided 13% February 1st - Barack Obama 44%, Hillary Clinton 42% , other 5%, Undecided 9% January 31st - Hillary Clinton 47%, Barack Obama 38%, other 11%, Undecided 4% Hillary Clinton 48%, Barack Obama 44%, Other 5%, Undecided 2% January 24th - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 24%, John Edwards 18%, Undecided 15%
New Jersey February 2nd - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 42%, Mike Gravel 2%, Undecided 14% February 1st - Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 39%, undecided 12% Hillary Clinton 50%, Barack Obama 36%, Other/Undecided 14% January 31st - Hillary Clinton 44%, Barack Obama 38%, John Edwards 3%, Joe Biden 1%, Bill Richardson 1%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Other 2%, Undecided 11% (kind of a stupid poll) Hillary Clinton 51%, Barack Obama 39%, Other/Undecided 10% January 30th - Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 37%, Other/Undecided 12%
Tennessee February 2nd - Hillary Clinton 55.4%, Barack Obama 34.6%, Other 3.5%, undecided 6.5% January 30th - Hillary Clinton 49%, Barack Obama 35%, other 16%, undecided 4% Hillary Clinton 59%, Barack Obama 26%, Other 7%, undecided 8%
And I'm adding Utah February 1st - Barack Obama 53%, Hillary Clinton 29%, Other/Undecided 18%
Looks like that late visit to Utah the other day, talking about guns and religion, had an effect.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Alabama January 30th/31st - John McCain 38%, Mike Huckabee 30%, Mitt Romney 20%, Ron Paul 5%, Other/Undecided 7% John McCain 36.7%, Mike Huckabee 35.4%, Mitt Romney 14.1%, Ron Paul 4.9%, Other 1%, Undecided 8% John McCain 40%, Mike Huckabee 31%, Mitt Romney 21%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 1%, Undecided 2% John McCain 34%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Mitt Romney 15%, Ron Paul 3%, Other/Undecided 21%
Arizona January 31st - John McCain 43%, Mitt Romney 34%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 7%
California February 1st/2nd - John McCain 38%, Mitt Romney 38%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 6%, Undecided 2% Mitt Romney 37%, John McCain 34%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 13% John McCain 40%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 11% John McCain 38.5%, Mitt Romney 32.4%, Mike Huckabee 8.2%, Ron Paul 3.5%, Undecided 13.7%, Refused 3.6% John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 24%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 10%, Other 6%, Undecided 15%
Colorado January 23rd - Mitt Romney 43%, John McCain 24%, Mike Huckabee 17% Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani 4%
Connecticut January 31st - John McCain 53%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 2%, Undecided 3%
Georgia February 2nd - John McCain 31%, Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 28%, Ron Paul 6%, Undecided 6% Mitt Romney 30.1%, John McCain 28.9%, Mike Huckabee 27.9%, Ron Paul 2.4%, Other 4%, Undecided 10.3%
Illinois January 31st - John McCain 48%, Mitt Romney 34%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 9%, Other 3% John McCain 43%, Mitt Romney 20%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 17%
Massachusetts January 30th - Mitt Romney 57%, John McCain 34%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 1%, Undecided 2%
Minnesota January 27th - John McCain 41%, Mike Huckabee 22%, Mitt Romney 17%, Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani, 6%
Missouri February 2nd/1st - John McCain 36%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Mitt Romney 22%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 11% John McCain 37%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Mitt Romney 24%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 11%
New Jersey February 2nd/1st - John McCain 54%, Mitt Romney 23%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 13% John McCain 46%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 12% John McCain 55%, Mitt Romney 23%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 12%
New York February 2nd/1st - John McCain 49%, Mitt Romney 23%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Ron Paul 6%, Undecided 13% John McCain 49%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Ron Paul 4%, Other/Undecided 9%
Oklahoma January 30th - John McCain 40%, Mike Huckabee 19%, Mitt Romney 17%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 2%, Undecided 14%
Tennessee February 2nd - John McCain 31.9%, Mike Huckabee 29.5%, Mitt Romney 22.1%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 3%, Undecided 7.4%
Utah February 2nd - Mitt Romney 84%, John McCain 4%, Other/Undecided 12%
Just a layman's opinion but...McCain is looking good for the nomination.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I doubt this has any affect nationwide(though what do I know?), but do you think this can help push Obama over the edge in California?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
National polling data on potential presidential matchups:
February 1st: Hillary 46% vs. McCain 49% Hillary 53% vs. Romney 41% Obama 49% vs. McCain 46% Obama 59% vs. Romney 34%
January 31st: Hillary 44% vs. McCain 45% Hillary 50% vs. Romney 36% Obama 44% vs. McCain 43% Obama 51% vs. Romney 33%
I think the Romney numbers are solid, and likely stay that way, even if they narrow through the general, but the McCain fight isn't nearly so clear cut. I think it's likely that we'll have a Democratic nominee by the end of March, maybe not, but, it's my hunch, and I think we'll have a Republican nominee by the end of February. That means probably seven months of campaigning. A LOT of going to change in that time. Hillary could edge him out, he could edge her out, Obama's narrow lead could evaporate or widen. The economy isn't going to get better in seven months, it's likely to only get worse. Iraq teeters on the brink and could go either way.
I think it'll come down to their plans to fix the economy and in general their plans for the country. I think there Hillary will really pick up some points. She's smart, very smart. She has very good, intricate plans to fix a lot of our problems, and I think when she gets the chance to hammer a REPUBLICAN with them, she'll really pick up a lot of votes. I think McCain's attachment to Iraq will drag him down, and I think his being prone to verbal gaffes and his general attitude (and his straight talk, sadly) will drag him down.
I'd be concerned that in a long election cycle, Obama actually gets dragged down as being too much of an empty shirt, and not having enough subtance, which isn't necessarily true, he's got plans too, they just aren't nearly as well formulated as Hillary's. Either way, once we get out of the Primary, the Democrats will come together and hammer McCain, as will Conservatives. I still think either of them has a great chance of beating him, for different reasons. It'll also depend on who the other chooses as their VP.
As a hunch, I think Obama's being untainted and his draw among moderates still gives him a better edge than Hillary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep havinf to remind myself that, unlike the general election and electoral college, the democratic primaries are not winner take all states. Obama benefits from more time, so things may start getting better as long as he he holds his own tomorrow.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney is on the move in California, and Georgia has slipped from Huckabee's fingers and is now in play between Romney and McCain.
Re: Robert Kiyosaki, he is merely the most famous of the various people who have steered people into property investment, fueling the mortgage crisis. I think he has some good points, such as that one should not go into debt to get a fancy education. Well, does he actually say that? I think he says that if your main goal is to get rich, college is a waste of time or possibly even detrimental.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My qualms with Kiyosaki are cultural. I think he is bad for America, but not for the usual reasons. I never liked the way he talked about his "Poor Dad."
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I keep havinf to remind myself that, unlike the general election and electoral college, the democratic primaries are not winner take all states. Obama benefits from more time, so things may start getting better as long as he he holds his own tomorrow.
A lot of pundits are saying 60/40. If he can lose, but take 40% of the delegates with him, and continue his drive like he has in the last couple weeks, he'll stand a good chance at dominating TX, PA, OH and VA. He has almost a month between SuperTuesday and March 4th (I think) when the last of of the bigger states votes. All he has to do is keep the race close, which I think he will, and hope the Superdelegates don't go to Hillary in droves.
Democratic voters see her as the better candidate on most domestic issues (I happen to agree with that), but he's seen as a figure that will unite the country, and they like his Iraq policies better.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My qualms with Kiyosaki are cultural. I think he is bad for America, but not for the usual reasons. I never liked the way he talked about his "Poor Dad."
The trouble with Kiyosaki is that I think he misrepresents what rich truly is. He divides the world into "people who have jobs" and "people who have money that works for them" and suggests the latter group is the only truly rich group because the income earned on their wealth frees them from having to work. But he fails to note that both free time and money are primarily means to an end - they are valuable insofar as you can spend them on something worthwhile. For many people, it is the work they do in the world that provides them an opportunity to spend their time on something worthwhile. A person who twitters their thumbs while their real estate accumulates wealth may accrue lots of money and free time, but isn't rich in any meaningful sense unless they have something to spend that money and time on. In contrast, Kiyosaki's "Poor Dad" may have not had tons of money, but he did have a job as an educator that probably helped countless kids and a possibly even more important roll as a father to Kiyosaki - that sounds to me like a worthwhile allocation of his time and money. Kiyosaki's points are pretty good but only insofar as they are limited to the goal of accumulating money, which I'd argue is helpful but not sufficient for living a truly rich life.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Since Edwards left, Hillary's numbers have been flat or gone down, while Obama's has come up.
Of course, I think it might be time to start looking at who is ahead in states that will vote for them in the general, and who is ahead in swing states. As much as the right wing media wished people wouldn't vote for McCain, he is well ahead of Romney nationally.
Well, from what I could find out, and many have not had recent polls, the swing states are pretty in line with the national figures.
It's interesting to think about, but useless to consider, which red states might go to a third party in the event McCain were nominated. It depends on who the third party is, of course. A Bloomberg/Romney ticket, for instance. It would be far from a dream ticket for me personally, but I can see where the numbers might possibly make sense to Bloomberg.
posted
I look forward to caucusing tomorrow, that'll be a first for me.
I think it's kind of telling that Clinton started out so far ahead in all the polls months ago, and Obama keeps going up (looking at the pollster graph from pooka's link). It seems like most of Clinton's supporters have been wanting her to be President since Bill left office, but as more people get exposed to Obama more people support him. Time is on his side, as long as he gets enough tomorrow to stay competitive he should be able to pull more support before the next big primaries.
Lyrhawn, where did you find the polling data on those vs matchups? It's something I'd like to show some friends who are on the fence.
quote:Either way, once we get out of the Primary, the Democrats will come together and hammer McCain, as will Conservatives.
I don't think Conservatives will keep hammering McCain, as they have nothing to gain by it once he had the plurality of delegates. They will keep hammering away at immigration as an issue, and letting McCain know what they want in a VP. Or, you know, maybe I overestimate them.
P.S. I have to believe that in the end they do not want Clinton to be elected.
Take them with a grain of salt though. There's a lot of campaigning to be done, and statistically, all the McCain results are really a tie.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK,this is a little scary: Super Delegates To Determine Nominee The author makes a strong case that it's mathematically extremely unlikely that either Obama or Clinton can win using pledged aka "voted for" delegates.
I was all for a brokered convention for the Republicans when that seemed possible, as it would have left them in disarray leading up to the general election. Now it seems like that will happen to the Dems instead.
quote: . . . it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.
posted
It's funny. I've a spotty memory, but I seem to recall McCain saying that he wouldn't run against Obama. This is in some random article over a year ago, but I do remember it distinctly.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: OK,this is a little scary: Super Delegates To Determine Nominee The author makes a strong case that it's mathematically extremely unlikely that either Obama or Clinton can win using pledged aka "voted for" delegates.
I was all for a brokered convention for the Republicans when that seemed possible, as it would have left them in disarray leading up to the general election. Now it seems like that will happen to the Dems instead.
quote: . . . it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.
Yeah, we've been discussing this dilemma for quite some time in Political Geography. Yet another reason for why the primary system is another layer of craziness that blankets the already crazy electoral college.
posted
Maybe you're thinking of how McCain said that he would be hesitant to attack Obama (and maybe I'm think of something a McCain staffer said?).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Irami, that would be a pretty interesting development if he is on record of saying that. I doubt he'd stick to it, even if he did say it, though. Is it possible that he was saying "I won't be running against Obama" in the sense that he didn't think Obama would ever get the nomination?
quote:Given that Michigan and Florida combine for 313 pledged delegates, it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.
Wow, it becomes more clear, eh? Though his proposition that the Michigan votes be based on exit polling is ludicrous. Let's face it, even if Florida and Michigan were somehow to re-vote, they'd be split down the middle like everyone else. So the 313 doesn't really solve anything.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Especially since if they do seat the MI and FL delegates it also adds 157 to the "magic number" needed to win. It still would come down to superdelegates.
posted
I think that if, due to super delegates, the democratic nomination goes to any candidate that did not win the majority of votes in the primaries, it would split the party.
I hope both the party big-wigs and the delegates are smart enough to keep that from happening since it would in all likely hand the presidency to the republicans on a silver platter.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the party that felt the 2000 election was stolen from them, the irony would be delicious for Republicans, and all too bitter for the supporters of the guy who didn't get it.
If Obama comes out ahead or neck and neck, I think you might see the Superdelegates pull a little harder for them. The story goes that Claire Mccaskill was convinced to vote for Obama because her daughter more or less guilted her into it. It'd be sad if all the kids coming out to vote for Obama were told at the end their votes didn't matter because the party elite chose for them. Great way to turn them off from coming out in November.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: . . . voting rights groups in Southern California have a new rallying cry for independents: don't forget the bubble!
Independent voters who show up at their local polling place in Los Angeles County on Tuesday and ask for a Democratic ballot have to fill in an extra bubble to show that they intend their vote to be counted for the Democrats. The bubble is at the top of the ballot, before the presidential candidates are listed.
Those who forget to fill in the bubble won't have their votes read by the county's tabulation machines.
Apparently, legally the votes should be counted either way, but due to poor quality control the scanners will not record it if the party bubble is not shaded.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Though I still haven't decided whether I want to vote in the Dem primary or something else. (I am a registered unaffiliated voter. I can vote in any one primary I choose to. We have a lot of parties to choose from.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
if the superdelegates decide the election and it goes against a majority (even a slim majority) for Obama or Hilary, I won't vote in the general election, or I'll vote republican or a throwaway candidate like Nader. and I'll encourage all my friends to do the same. God that sounds horrible. I used to sneer at people that didn't vote, now I have a scenario where it's extremely likely I won't.
Could Obama win as an independent? probably the possibility would exist if he were running against a less moderate republican than McCain, I think his ability to pull republican votes would increase if he ran as an independent without the placard of democrat attached to him. But that would be offset by diehard dems refusing to vote for him for running independent if he's betrayed by the superdelegate club.
heh, what if the superdelegates betray a majority for Obama and McCain offers Obama a split ticket and the vice presidency as a way of cementing their commitment to bipartisanship? Try beating that Hilary. if things get that bizarre the world will probably be ending soon. When was the two party ticket that ran for president/veep? Lincoln/Johnson?
I hate the whole idea of electibility being an argument against Obama. I call it passive-agressive racism. it's a way to let the percieved racism of others dictate how you will behave and vote--it's a way to let your vote become a tacit endorsement of racism.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama won't run as an independent. If he did, McCain would win all 50 states. McCain won't offer him the VP spot, and I don't think Obama would take it if he did.
You'll probably see a lot of superdelegates pledge themselves after tomorrow. Superdelegates like to see which way the wind is blowing. If they back the wrong horse, they don't want retribution weighing down on them later. If Obama, God willing, comes out ahead tomorrow, I'd expect to see a lot of support swing his way as he looks more and more like he could win. Already most of Edwards' supporters have swung over to him since Edwards dropped out (Congressional supporters I mean). You might even see him steal some of Clinton's support if he does well enough.
It looked at first like they were just going to try and crown Clinton, but now it looks like they just want to be on the winning team.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It'd be sad if all the kids coming out to vote for Obama were told at the end their votes didn't matter because the party elite chose for them.
If primary votes end up with a virtual tie in delegates between Clinton and Obama, I don't think it would be so unfair for party officials to be the tiebreaker. If one candidate ends up as the clear favorite among primary voters, then that candidate will get the nomination. But if candidate voters can't come up with a clear favorite, picking the one with slightly more pledged delegates from primaries is probably more arbitrary than letting elites decide, given that delegates are selected through entirely different processes in each state and do not each reflect an equal number of voters.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Adam_S: I hate the whole idea of electibility being an argument against Obama. I call it passive-agressive racism. it's a way to let the percieved racism of others dictate how you will behave and vote--it's a way to let your vote become a tacit endorsement of racism.
It has nothing to do with racism. It's a tactic used against anyone you don't want to win. It's used against Ron Paul (don't bother voting for him; he can't win anyway), and he's even less black than Obama.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But if candidate voters can't come up with a clear favorite, picking the one with slightly more pledged delegates from primaries is probably more arbitrary than letting elites decide, given that delegates are selected through entirely different processes in each state and do not each reflect an equal number of voters.
It beats a wrestling cage match.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I donno.. that might get the ratings up for the Democratic National Convention. Can we get John Edwards as special guest referee?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
is there a way to see real time progreession of super tuesday?
IP: Logged |
posted
[edit]You can never tell how the percentages will translate into delegates, I guess. In Iowa, Thompson and McCain had the same voter percentage but Thompson got no delegates where McCain got 3. Or more notoriously, in Nevada Hillary got the popular vote but Obama got more delegates.[/edit] Edited to consolidate posts so Lisa doesn't have TOPP on 18.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: is there a way to see real time progreession of super tuesday?
In all the primaries so far, 10% or more of the vote has been available immediately at 8 for the relevant time zone.
I am not sure how this worked in Floriday, since part of the state is a different time zone, which was a big deal in the 2000 election.
Certainly, they can report the results of early voting, such as absentee ballots, immediately when polls close. Exit polling also becomes available once the polls close, and those have been reasonably accurate.
This is a by-the numbers model from last available polls. I had a link with statewide delegates a few days ago but lost it. No winner-take-all states have shifted, so the totals are not that different from last week. I did make one adjustment in California, where it was apparent that the three columns did't add up to the total delegates, so I tossed the difference into Romney's column. Spreadsheet
posted
My spreadsheet of democrat delegates x poll figures has Obama with an edge. He really has benefitted from Edward's leaving. Of course, there are undecided voters and such like, and these are straight proportions, so very artificial.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think where the democrats are going to have a problem is if Obama wins if they don't seat Michigan and Florida and Hilary wins if they do. No matter which way the superdelegates go, half the voters will feel like the election was stolen. I don't like that the DNP isn't counting the two states, but since Obama didn't get to campaign there, it isn't fair to count them now. I think in that case, the superdelegates should go with Obama because I think Hilary supporters are more willing to support Obama then Obama supporters will Hilary if they feel cheated.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Obama ran as an independent then I think that would open up an opportunity for Ron Paul to do so as well. A national election between four candidates would be quite interesting (though it could have unfortunate outcomes that don't agree with popular will).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I think if both Obama and Ron Paul ran as independents then McCain would win by a landslide. Most of the Paulites (at least the ones on reddit) would probably vote for Obama over McCain.
EDIT: That was not a response to you pooka. It was a response to myself
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: CNN and others are reporting that Huckabee won the W. Virginia GOP convention.
Due to McCain's supporters throwing their weight to Huckabee after the first vote.
Kind of slimy, but understandable utilitarian politics: if McCain can't win (which he couldn't), at least make sure Romney loses.
Huckabee's effect on this election is fascinating to me. I liked Slate's (?) point that with Giuliani gone, McCain lost an albatross and gained a supporter. Romney's albatross just kept him from winning W. Virginia, and will likely keep him from winning Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri as well. And, I'd say, cost him S. Carolina and Florida as well, although in those cases Giuliani was still at play.
All in all, I think if McCain gets the nom, he'll owe an awful lot to Huck. I wonder if there's an agreement between the two camps. As I pointed out during S. Carolina, they campaigned very chummily.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Romney wasn't really contending in S. Carolina. I don't think Huckabee sees himself as merely a spoiler, since winning Iowa.
The caucus dynamic is a strange duck.
Romney chose not to compete in S. Carolina, because Huck was active, and he knew he couldn't compete with him for the values voters/conservatives. Honestly, were it not for Huck, I think Romney would've rolled to the nom. I'd forgotten about Iowa.
That said, maybe it's a good thing Huck stuck around. This way I can feel aggrieved, and believe Romney was robbed, and at the same time enjoy the benefits of the GOP apparently set to nominate their best hope of winning the general.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: CNN and others are reporting that Huckabee won the W. Virginia GOP convention.
Due to McCain's supporters throwing their weight to Huckabee after the first vote.
Kind of slimy, but understandable utilitarian politics: if McCain can't win (which he couldn't), at least make sure Romney loses.
Huckabee's effect on this election is fascinating to me. I liked Slate's (?) point that with Giuliani gone, McCain lost an albatross and gained a supporter. Romney's albatross just kept him from winning W. Virginia, and will likely keep him from winning Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri as well. And, I'd say, cost him S. Carolina and Florida as well, although in those cases Giuliani was still at play.
All in all, I think if McCain gets the nom, he'll owe an awful lot to Huck. I wonder if there's an agreement between the two camps. As I pointed out during S. Carolina, they campaigned very chummily.
Is McCain getting any delegates for doing so? Ron Paul is getting 3 delegates for throwing his support to Huckabee in WV.
(PS, would someone who posted on the previous page please delete it so that I don't have to have the top post on this page? MmmThanks.)
(PPS, Wow! Thanks to whoever did it. I was actually semi-kidding, but cool!)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
