FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center - Obama Clinches Nomination (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 82 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  80  81  82   
Author Topic: Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center - Obama Clinches Nomination
Miro
Member
Member # 1178

 - posted      Profile for Miro   Email Miro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. ...


Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
doesnt answer is Bill can be VP.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Not sure. If he was the VP and the P was assasinated then he'd be the P, which I think would be unconstitutional. I think his VP status would have to be illegal, seeing as how the VP's only real job (other than President of the Senate) is to be waiting in the wings for the main guy to get killed. Essentially you're running as the president's backup.

I'd say it'd be a no.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
It doesn't say that a person cannot be President for more than two terms. It says that a person cannot be elected President for more than two terms. This means that Bill should be able to be a VP.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah, but the amendment says "elected to the office." If Bill gets in as veep after knocking off Hillary (just as a f'rinstance), then he will not have been ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT again. He was elected to be veep. Of course, you could quibble about whether Congress' vote to confirm would constitute being elected to the office.

That's essentially what Threads suggested, I see.

Then Bill might come up with the claim that he suffers from multiple personality disorder, so he is a different person than the one who served as president during his second term. He really did not "have sex with that woman"--that was the other Bill!

Somehow, the Clinton presidency is always going to be special in history, dear to the heart of all stand up comics.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Somehow, the Clinton presidency is always going to be special in history, dear to the heart of all stand up comics.

True. As will the Bush presidency.

Let's hope, whoever the next president is, they won't inspire such hilarity.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Of course, you could quibble about whether Congress' vote to confirm would constitute being elected to the office.
Congress doesn't vote to make the VP president - it happens by action of law.

However, you have to account for the 12th amendment, too:

quote:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
It doesn't say "ineligible to be elected to the office of President," but it could well be interpreted that way.

This is not new speculation, of course. I lean toward Judge Posner's view:

quote:
Still, that view is not universal. Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said by e-mail that "read literally, the 22nd Amendment does not apply" and therefore Clinton could be vice president. "But one could argue that since the vice president is elected . . . should he take office he would be in effect elected president. Electing a vice president means electing a vice president and contingently electing him as president. That interpretation, though a little bold, would honor the intention behind the 22nd Amendment."

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
I doubt it. People need to feed their families by making fun of the guys in office, so my guess is there will be as many political cartoons and comedians about President Obama or Romney or Clinton or Huckabee or Paul or whatever as always.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dragon
Member
Member # 3670

 - posted      Profile for Dragon   Email Dragon         Edit/Delete Post 
C3PO - if I agree with you, will you promise not to slay me?
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Bill Clinton has said explicitly a few times that he interprets the Constitution to bar him from holding the office of Vice President. I think I've heard him cite this passage, specifically:

quote:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Since he could not hold the office of the President again (that is, he would be constitutionally ineligible), he cannot hold the office of Vice President.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Bleh, Dagonee beat me.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
Dragon - I usually go after Krayt Dragons and Hapan Battle Dragons, so I reckon you're all right. [Smile]
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Its extremely likely that if a Democrat IS elected, that eventually the house and senate will fall back into Republican control.
Certainly not in the 2008 elections. History suggests that the coat tail effect is quite strong so republicans have virtually no chance of winning either the house or the senate if they loose the Presidency.

What happens in 2010 will depend very strongly on what the winners do after 2008.

I guess if you give "eventually" a very broad interpretation then you are very likely correct.

It's possibly the only iron rule of American politics that when one party controls the White House the other makes gains in the congress until they obtain control. Americans seem to like that balance. Of course you are right there are exceptions. Bush had a Republican congress for almost 7 years. If a Democrat takes the White House and say the economy starts taking an upswing and Iraq continues to improve the Democrats would likely gain in the congress. But it is also quite possible the Republicans could say, "See we were right all this was setup to happen in the Bush years," and the Democrats will lose in the congress.

Typically no matter how hard a president tries, public approval of the president deteriorates while he is in office. But there are factors beyond his control that can counter that.

If say Obama wins and gets reelection I would be very surprised if the Republicans did not gain control of congress by 2016.

[ January 07, 2008, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
Dragon - I usually go after Krayt Dragons and Hapan Battle Dragons, so I reckon you're all right. [Smile]

Pretty diverse group of dragons you've got there. I don't think Tatooine is even close to the Hapes Cluster.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
There are only Ten True Dragons, and only Two who controls them to their will...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
In a tradition that dates back at least 40 years, Dixville Notch in New Hampshire, a tiny town of 75, voted at Midnight. Obama and McCain won, with seven and four votes respectively. Clinton was shut out, as were Huckabee, Paul and Thompson on the other side.

How good is Dixville at determining national results? Mixed. I think they're right about half the time, but they've leaned heavily Republican in the last 30 years. I wouldn't use them as an indicator of what might happen statewide, but they generally get the press for voting first.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Another thing that I am finding interesting about the rhetoric, Senator Clinton's rhetoric is about what she has done and what she will do; Senator Obama's rhetoric is about what we can do.

Not only is this more engaging rhetoric, this emphasizes the idea that Senator Clinton is about her personal ambition and that Senator Obama is about bigger ideas. Again, I don't know if this reflects reality, whether it is sincere or just smart, (though it has been consistant) but it seems to be something that Senator Obama "gets" and that Senator Clinton is missing.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Bloomberg inches closer to a third party bid.

Ugh. I might have, MIGHT have welcomed a third party bid if Hillary takes the nom, or if, well regardless of the Republican side but probably more if Giuliani wins, but with Obama in the lead? Despite being most recently a Republican, I think Bloomberg is more of a Democrat. Geez, if he runs, Giuliani and Obama all run, it'll be like having three degrees of Democrats running (let's face it, Giuliani is no Republican in the traditional OR the new sense). But more importantly I think he bleeds off just enough votes to hand what would be a Democratic win to the Republicans.

Unless Huckabee runs as a fourth major candidate, then it's, well, more interesting, or if Huckabee runs WITH Bloomberg (though, frankly I think Chuck Hagel is the leading VP candidate for that potential bid).

If Obama wins, I think Bloomberg's reason for running disappears, because I think Obama serves that purpose. But we'll see how it develops.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
You really think Giuliani has a chance of taking the nom? That would be a surprising development. I can buy that he didn't want to win Iowa, but I don't buy that New Hampshire was ever meant to be a writeoff. Also, two NH Precincts are reporting, with Obama and McCain winnning. The polled at, like, midnight. Weird. But I guess it's the Primary process in microcosm.

Bloomberg missed his chance. I don't think there are any people who are afraid to vote for Obama who see building bridges as the answer to bipartisanship. It would take the failure of a clear winner to emerge on the Republican side for him to create an opportunity there. I don't think there are that many people who are turned off by Obama's race, though.

Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Hart's Location (might've gotten the name wrong, I don't really remember it) reported, or someone else?

Hart's (Hartsfield?) and Dixville vote at midnight. Two tiny towns with some fierce pride in their first in the nation status.

Well, anyway, pooka, yes I still think he has a chance. McCain always stood a better than average chance of winning New Hampshire, he has history there, plus Iraq helped a bit. New Hampshire was never meant to be a write off, but if he comes in third and beats Huckabee, I think he's just fine. Romney, like I've always said, is just sort of there, and frankly I think he's been hurt lately by an array of things. McCain's victory serves only to bring a dead campaign back to life, and if Giuliani takes third, Huckabee goes from a big win to a big loss. In otherwords? The Republicans go into Michigan muddled and mired with no clear frontrunner. God forbid Paul actually take third or fourth, that'll REALLY screw with them. Giuliani's strategy, now in some doubt, is that if he can survive, nationally, the first two elections without winning, then his work in the bigger states will get him by. So far it's fine, no reason to raise red alerts, as Huckabee will not come in better than third, he's not getting a national boost from New Hampshire. Giuliani's plan works well when the other candidates beat up on each other. Did you watch the debate Saturday night? Besides, who do you see as the new frontrunner? McCain isn't jumping out of the doldrums into first place. Romney isn't sinking like a stone with a second place finish, Huckabee isn't rising anymore with a third or fourth place finish. Everyone jostles but stays in contention.

Bloomberg didn't miss his chance. Independent candidates have the luxury of waiting a bit. Besides, the failure of a clear winner to emerge on the Republican side is looking like more and more of a real possibility, if not likelihood. It depends entirely on what his platform will be to say whether or not he'll run regardless of Obama winning the nom. But I think Obama winning hurts him out of the gate, and I think a lot of people will tell him to sit down if that's the case. But he didn't miss it. None of the potential independent candidates with a chance to sway the election have missed it. In fact, some, like Huckabee or maybe Giuliani (if he's crazy), don't even know if they'll need to yet.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
And, in my primary role of offering polling data and info:

As of this morning, a Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll has Obama now up 13 points 42% to 29% with Edwards finishing third at 17%.

On the Republican side McCain widened his lead as well, leading Romney 36% to 27%. Interesting, Huckabee comes in at 10%, Giuliani and Paul tie with 9%. Looks like one and two are locked, but the entire rest of the race is up for grabs amongst the major contenders, even Paul.

This is the last poll before the actual polls open, most of which will open in a few minutes. I think Richardson has to pull out after today, he might not, but I think he has to. Edwards will stay in until HyperTuesday, even though he's really running for VP (or maybe AG, when you listen to what he's saying). He's hoping the hopeless hope that a second place finish in NH will give him energy. Good like with that Johnny.

I have to imagine Hunter drops out after today too, and even if he doesn't, it's more of a formality than a reality anyway. Thompson might drop out too, same issue.

Edit to add: Predictions? I'll stick with my guess on the last page about the Democrats: 1. Obama 2. Hillary 3. Edwards, which from the polling data looks to be a no brainer. I'll also go ahead and guess that Obama takes the largest chunk of the independent votes (of which Paul and McCain are really counting on more than he is).

On the Republican side I'll stick with 1. McCain (but it will be narrower than predicted by polls and some pundits) and 2. Romney. But three? It's anyone's guess. I think the lack of available independents hurts Paul, which pushes him to fifth place (ahead of Thompson!). He might take third, maybe I'm wrong, but I see his supporters, forced to make a choice, flocking to Obama. Giuliani or Huckabee? Huckabee got the bump and had a good debate performance (no gaffes, rather charming moderated tone), but the evangelical vote doesn't exist in the same way it does in Iowa in New Hampshire. I still say Giuliani, but it's anyone's game. Giuliani has been sinking in national polls, but you never know.

[ January 08, 2008, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Some small NH towns have already cast their votes

I wonder how the media coverage of this will affect the results throughout the day?

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Hah, it IS Harts Location.

Most people have already made up their minds, some just this morning. I think media coverage will die down to reporting exit polls and endless analysis of how the results will effect the larger race. Mostly the media like to cover it at midnight and it dies by 9am or so. No offense to Dixville or Harts Location, but a couple dozen people in those two towns (if you can call them that) don't, I think, have a major effect on making up the minds of other New Hampshirites (eh?).

The bright side? (for me, since I'm an Obama fan) In Dixville, 5 of 12 Independents went for Obama. Now that's a good number, and it assumes that he got both of the Democratic votes, which isn't assured, there's no breakdown like that.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
CNN.com Headline:
VIDEO: How Important is N.H.?
George Stephanopoulos on the other states key to winning the nomination.

¿Qué?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
Until this thread, I had never even heard of Duncan Hunter! Where did he come from?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mackillian
Member
Member # 586

 - posted      Profile for mackillian   Email mackillian         Edit/Delete Post 
Nathan and I get to celebrate our third anniversary with a trip to the polls! [Smile]

Nathan is still undecided about who he'll be voting for, though I've made up my mind. However, I'm in something as a quandary, as I can't remember what my
registered political affiliation is (as in, I know it's changed, but I can't remember if I did it officially). This means that if I'm still registered Republican (I was young and hadn't yet started volunteering/working in social work), I have to vote on the Republican ticket. Hopefully, I did change my status to Independent so I can vote Democratic.

Also, I really don't see Guiliani taking New Hampshire. There don't seem to be too many folks who like the guy. *shrug*

Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
Congratulations!!

[Party]

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Enigmatic
Member
Member # 7785

 - posted      Profile for Enigmatic   Email Enigmatic         Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting point about Edwards, Lyrhawn. I think I'd much rather see him as Attorney General than as Prez or VP.

--Enigmatic

Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
It hadn't occurred to me before but I think that he would make an excellent Attorney General.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
AG doesn't necessarily seem like a step forward from Senator, nor a step toward President. I mean, anything can happen, but still...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I see his [Paul's] supporters, forced to make a choice, flocking to Obama.
Why would Paul's supporters flock to Obama?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Because they're idealists looking for idealism more than particular ideas?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
The anti-war component, maybe, but not the reactionaries.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
pooka -

Just a guess really, but the majority of his anti-poverty stuff is based on his career as a lawyer taking on big companies and winning for the little guy. That's pretty much what AGs do so far as I know. It's what Elliot Spitzer will run on when he eventually runs for President. But if the majority of his war cry is for the middle class and to protect him against the big corporate interests, and if he is used to a court room to do it, I don't see why AG wouldn't be the perfect post for him. I mean hey, it's not like he has anything else to do.

Dag -

Paul gets a majority of his support from young people, and mostly because of his stance on the war. When people hear the REST of his policies, they tend to get a bit uneasy. Paul isn't going to win, and by and large Paul is going to get independent votes. I think independent votes are going to swing heavily towards Obama in New Hamphsire (poised for so record a turnout several polling stations are running out of ballots!), and I think that will eat into what hope Paul had of a good showing there. Obama has too much cross-party appeal and too much appeal to young voters. It's not like your average Paul supporter is REALLY a Republican (heck, neither is Paul), so I don't see why they wouldn't.

Plus a little bit of what fugu said.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
pooka -

Just a guess really, but the majority of his anti-poverty stuff is based on his career as a lawyer taking on big companies and winning for the little guy. That's pretty much what AGs do so far as I know.

Sigh. That would be nice. I had almost forgotten that was what AGs are supposed to do.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
John McCain is already projected to win the republican primary. Obama and Hilary are still close though Hilary is currently 4% ahead.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
Live WebTV Coverage of NewHampshire on http://msnbc.wm.llnwd.net/msnbc_6_live_8828 . Or if that doesn't work from here,
try http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ then use their link "Watch MSNBC TV's live coverage" near the top right of the page.

Romney has just given a GREAT concession speech.

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
2,333 difference in votes so far, c'mon Obama!!!!!
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Only 37% of the vote on both sides is in, so, while it looks like McCain is going to win, the Democratic race is far from over. It looks like 3,000 votes separate the two of them, and in a race where almost a half million votes are expected, it's far from over. Edwards is way back in the pack. On the Republican side it looks like Huckabee will eke out third place, with a close Giuliani and Paul behind him.

McCain is giving a victory speech, but he's being interrupted to many times by his supporters that I can't even understand what the hell he is saying. There's support and there's support, this is just jarring as far as a smooth speech goes.

I'm still sticking with Obama.

I have to wonder about several things though. Despite what the pundits say, with McCain's win, and even if Obama pulls out NH, this thing ain't over. Romney is ahead in Michigan (or was, last I checked), Huckabee in South Carolina, and Giuliani in Florida. (Hey cool, the people are chanting "MI-CHI-GAN!" They love us!). On the other side, Hillary leads in I think 21 of the 25 states in the HyperTuesday national primary, in Nevada I think by a double digit lead. So, while these early states are fantastically important, it seems more and more like the only reason they are, is so the pundits have something to harp on for a month and a half. It's not nearly over, regardless of today.

While writing this post, Clinton's lead narrowed to 2,300.

Speculation is that Richardson will be heading back to New Mexico to "regroup." But I think he's done. I don't even see Duncan Hunter on the vote count, I have to imagine he's done.

Some reasons why Hillary is still nervous in NH? The college towns voted in much higher numbers than she expected, and they haven't reported in yet.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Son of a Monkey Poo, difference widened to 2,800
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
Why does it show 2 electoral votes each? Does New Hampshire split their votes?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Wait for Durham, Hanover (Dartmouth College, superhigh turnout) and a smattering of small towns that haven't reported yet.

Obama IS going to get a bit of a bump, it just depends on whether or not Hillary can hold onto the bigger cities like Nashua and Manchester.

Lead is up to 3,600. 50% reporting.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
grrrrgh, gargh, eeeerrryerrgeehey.

vote keeps widening now its at 4,300+.... grrr....

C'mon.... c'mon....

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lem
Member
Member # 6914

 - posted      Profile for lem           Edit/Delete Post 
Paul 5th? Well, I am done this election. If he decides to run as a third party I will vote for him. Actually I will write him in regardless of what he decides.

More democrats are voting the republicans anyway, so I figure Obama is our next president. Possibly Clinton.

Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
pooka -

Yep. I don't know how it works on the Republican side, and I'm not even totally sure how the Conventions work, I'll have to check on that. But I know for now in the Democratic races, the delegates are awarded based on how well you do. For all the ballyhooing about Iowa, Clinton took one less delegate than Obama, Edwards took one less than Clinton.

Exit polls: Women going for Clinton New Hampshire by double digit margins. Men go for Obama by same margin. Democrats go for Clinton by 12 points. Obama took Independents by 10 points, a larger group of people. Young voters, the new kingmakers maybe, went for Obama by 30+ points. But the elderly vote is keeping Clinton afloat right now.

The scrappiest fight currently at hand? Paul is 900 votes behind Giuliani. Paul is giving a speech right now, and he's losing control of it a bit. The enthusiasm of his supporters seems to be about 16,000 times that of his own.

By the way, am I the only one who chuckles a bit when he says "I never thought I'd get so much enthusiasm for ending the Federal Reserve System." and the people yell "WOO!!!!!" and then start chanting "END THE FED, END THE FED!!" If he ever had it, which I'm not nearly convinced of, he's clearly not in control of his campaign now.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
On the dem side: Clinton is at 39 and Obama is at 37. he is catching up.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alcon
Member
Member # 6645

 - posted      Profile for Alcon   Email Alcon         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually right now CSPAN shows 40-37 [Frown]
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
Still showing 39-37 on CNN.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, man, I need something else to do for a while. This is eating me up. Something besides laundry.

P.S. Why's there more Democrat Delegates than Republican? I was totally confused by that.

Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
the press and polls said Obama was ahead by double digits whats happening [Frown]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 82 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  80  81  82   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2