posted
Well, the networks have called it for Gov. Mitt Romney. So Gov. Mike Huckabee won Iowa, Sen. John McCain won New Hampshire, and Gov. Romney won Michigan. Like the pundit on Fox News said laughingly, "A clear pattern is emerging...."
South Carolina will probably be between McCain and Huckabee. Then in Florida we will see if Mayor Guilliani will be successful in staking out a place in the running. It may be the Republicans will not have a clear majority candidate before the RNC.
Sen. Hillary Clinton is, of course, winning, being virtually unopposed. However, "Uncommitted," which may be construed as an anti-Clinton vote, is surprisingly strong. It is being reported that a larger portion of the uncommitted votes came from African-American voters in the City of Detroit, who may have become polarized along race lines because of the recent tiff between Clinton and Obama that some construe as being over race. If so, this bodes ill for Clinton in South Carolina, the next primary state (and Florida, and many other southern states), where there is a much larger proportion of voters who are African-American.
If Clinton does go on to win the nomination, she may be forced to accept Obama as a vice-presidential running mate. In fact, this may be part of a deal required so that Obama can give his delegates to Clinton to put her over the top at the DNC. A Clinton-Obama ticket would be really hard for Republicans to beat. The Dems would then be favored by both women and African-Americans voters.
[ January 15, 2008, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people, myself included, say that South Carolina is going to be an important bellweather in seeing how the black vote may or may not go for the rest of the primary season. It's hard to say how Detroit went. Wayne county, where Detroit is, with 73% reporting so far has 55,000 Clinton and 50,000 uncommitted. Oakland County, where I live, is 31,000 Clinton and 24,000 Uncommitted. Wayne is mostly black, Oakland is mostly white. Take that as you will.
Uncommitted is up to 38% on the Democratic side, with Clinton at 57%. Pretty respectable showing for the anti-Clinton crowd.
On the Republican side...now begins the ENDLESS punditry on what South Carolina means for the Republican race. I have a few guesses as to what will happen. Off the top of my head, Thompson will lose and drop out. Huckabee stands a strong chance of winning with a large Evangelical vote there. McCain, strange as it may sound he needs to win SC because his campaign is running on fumes financially. He won't make it to Florida without a win in SC. Giuliani doesn't matter until Florida. Romney will get a small Michigan boost, but he's running third I think in SC, can he survive anything less than a win? Maybe, probably, but it'll be a death knell in reality I think. Huckabee I think will have trouble, financially and realistically surviving a loss in a state with a large Evangelical turnout (in other words, if he can't win where his base is powerful, where can he win?).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hillary had slipped to 59%, last I saw. It was an open race... Indies and Republicans could have in theory voted as uncommitted democrats, could they not?
CNN now shows Hillary at 57% and Uncommitted at 38%, with 81% of precincts reporting. Clinton's final tally dropping below 50% is probably too much to hope for, but even still that's a pretty impressive Uncommitted turnout, all things considered. It'll be interesting to see if either campaign tries to spin these numbers as good news for them, or if they just go on ignoring the state like they seem to have been.
Indies who are supporting Obama probably did vote in the Dem race, but I have a hard time thinking very many Republicans crossed over from a race where their vote half counts to one where it doesn't. But they could in theory, yes.
posted
Gov. Huckabee will draw votes from a large Evangelical base in South Carolina, but Sen. McCain will also draw votes from a large military and retired military base. I think both McCain and Huckabee are depending on a good showing in South Carolina. Gov. Romney realistically has too much ground to make up in just four days, to do any better than third place.
Guilliani is banking on Florida to get him into the race. But really, Super Tuesday may be what finally produces a Republican front-runner. Or not. As I said before, it could still be undecided by the time of the RNC.
If there is no outright winner by the time of the RNC, then there will probably be some deals made. If McCain is leading, or if Romney is leading, maybe they would make a deal with Huckabee to pick him for vice-president if he gives the leader his delegates to put him over the top. I think there is too much animosity between Romney and McCain for one to offer the other the veep place on the ticket. This is all discounting Mayor Guilliani--who may pull off a few victories of his own beginning in Florida (which is what he has been banking on).
But as I suggested earlier, if Sens. Clinton and Obama team up, I don't think any combination of Republicans would be able to beat them.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd doubt any Republicans crossed over to vote uncommitted. Much bigger was the guess of how many Democrats would cross over and vote in the Republican primary. DailyKos, I hear, actually had a drive going to get Democrats to vote for Romney to screw with the Republicans and foster the discontent among them (basically what I considered doing).
I see it at 56% and 39%. It IS probably too much to hope that she'll drop below half, not with 87% reporting. But I still think 56% is a bit of a slap in the face all things considered. I think it's a small enough victory over NO OPPONENTS that she won't be able to play it up much, and that Obama might be able to make hay out of it. A win for Obama was for her to not win be enough to get a bump from Michigan. I think he achieved that and a tense status quo is mainted for the race in Nevada. Either they both ignore it, or one mentions it and the other responds. I lean towards ignoring.
Ron -
I think that'd largely depend on who is on the top and who is on the bottom of that ticket. McCain's VP will actually I think be vitally important, maybe more so than any in recent memory, because of his age. There's a real chance he could die in office. If he picks one of the GOP contenders that seem fairly distasteful to the party faithful, that might be a negative more than the positive a VP generally is. Usually you pick a VP to balance the ticket. But all the potential VPs to pick from, from the leftovers, all have big baggage with them. I think whoever wins the VP probably shies away from his opponents and looks for an unscathed guy somewhere out there that's generally neutral and a good solid conservative.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Democratic Party has cancelled Michigan's delegation reservations at the convention in August. I highly doubt they're going to change their minds now, after this debacle with only Clinton on the ticket. If I were one of the other major dem candidates I'd raise holy hell about allowing those delegates now, with Hillary having over half of them in her pocket.
What this primary in Michigan has demonstrated is that while John McCain does a good job of grabbing the independents and undecideds, Romney appeals to the core of the party. And that should not be overlooked, because it's the core of the party that won the Republicans the election the last time. Especially the core in the southern states. A Romney/McCain ticket would have a lot of success, pulling in independents and the core. A Huckabee/McCain ticket would likewise do well with independents and the south. Romney/Huckabee would not appeal to a wide enough electorate. Either way you cut it, the best bet for the Republicans has got McCain on the ticket somewhere. So really, the rest of this race is between Mitt and Huck to see who will team up with McCain. IMO.
Something people keep missing here is that the national election isn't decided on popular vote. A candidate doesn't have to win the popular vote to win the presidency, as we have seen the last two elections. In fact, all the republicans have to do is concentrate winning in states where they won overwhelmingly last time and they'll be fine. That national popular poll is really meaningless, without the breakdown by electoral college votes.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
732,000 people voted in the Republican race, or 55% of the total who voted.
The numbers are pretty interesting. Paul had a strong showing. Democrats had a very strong showing I think considering the election didn't really matter for them. Getting 45% of the total who voted in an functionally useless election is impressive, and maybe a little not good for the Republicans who chose not to vote. Interesting that Giuliani, who was winning this state a few months ago, got beat by Paul. That's a pretty stunning decline, and a stellar rise for McCain. It remains to be seen if McCain can win in traditional Republican strongholds, South Carolina will be the first test of that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Independents and those who cross party lines will vote for their PrimaryElection choice in the GeneralElection if their candidate wins the nomination. There's no chance that Michigan's Republican Presidential Primary was more than extremely weakly affected by "sabotage the other side" voting: 1,276,770 people voted Republican in 2000 (2004 uncontested) 0,867,948 people voted Republican in 2008. 0,408,822 fewer people voted Republican in 2008 than in 2000
A 32% drop in voters means either: 32% of the population left Michigan since 2000 (unlikely), 32% of RepublicanPrimary voters left the state since 2000 (unlikely), 32% of Republican primary voters dislike the candidates enough to boycott the election, 408,822 independents and Democrats who formerly voted Republican were repelled by the slate of candidates*, or some combination of all four**.
Regardless, 32% fewer voters shows that any influx of "sabotage the other side" Democrats and independents was neglible.
* At least a partial explanation of McCain's poor showing compared to the 51% support in 2000.
** Or it could be that Michigan's political machines have such contempt for citizens -- which I find probable -- that they scheduled the primary to ensure a smaller voter turnout. I'll explain further in a posting (or possibly new topic) concerning the Democratic primary, which was so screwed up that awarding delegates in a manner even vaguely approximating fairness is impossible.
posted
Thinking about the primaries, I'm a little curious as to the media's insistence that Romney's campaign was floundering after losing Iowa and New Hampshire.
If a single candidate had a solid win in both those states, I could see the legitimacy of using language like this:
quote:a desperately needed win in his native Michigan that gave his weakened presidential candidacy new life.
I'll admit I'm a little concerned about bias against Mitt's campaign because of his religion-- I'm a paranoid Mormon with a persecution complex, after all. I've seen a lot of this sort of language directed specifically at Mitt's campaign-- but not at Giuliani's, who hasn't won anything yet. Why aren't I seeing any woeful words directed there?
Maybe I'm not reading the right news sources.
In any case, I'm not sure that the language is justified, with or without bias. Romney won second in both contests in Iowa and NH; both were close races, as I understand things. That's why Romney now leads in delegates-- he's performed consistently.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Off the top of my head, Thompson will lose and drop out. Huckabee stands a strong chance of winning with a large Evangelical vote there. McCain, strange as it may sound he needs to win SC because his campaign is running on fumes financially. He won't make it to Florida without a win in SC. Giuliani doesn't matter until Florida. Romney will get a small Michigan boost, but he's running third I think in SC, can he survive anything less than a win? Maybe, probably, but it'll be a death knell in reality I think. Huckabee I think will have trouble, financially and realistically surviving a loss in a state with a large Evangelical turnout (in other words, if he can't win where his base is powerful, where can he win?).
So this is the fantasy scenario whereby the 3 republican winners implode, making space for Giuliani?
As far as VP noms go, Joe Lieberman endorsed McCain before any votes were cast. You want to talk about a ticket that could make an interesting run against Clinton/Obama. Mostly, I hope it's Obama and not Clinton.
P.S.
quote:I'll admit I'm a little concerned about bias against Mitt's campaign because of his religion-- I'm a paranoid Mormon with a persecution complex, after all. I've seen a lot of this sort of language directed specifically at Mitt's campaign-- but not at Giuliani's, who hasn't won anything yet. Why aren't I seeing any woeful words directed there?
Yes, this is just you being paranoid.
The media isn't talking about Giuliani because it would be too embarassing after they've pumped him up as a front runner. If they don't say anything, and he does manage to bring Florida, great, but mostly they don't want people to remember.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: Giuliani has let it be known all along that he wasn't hoping to do well at all in the beginning, and is focusing on super tuesday. I think he's doing even worse than he expected, and would like the press to cover it, too, but he has an out.
Also, the simple fact that he's doing so bad means most people probably don't care about his campaign, and news organizations are out to attract interest . . .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll admit I'm a little concerned about bias against Mitt's campaign because of his religion-- I'm a paranoid Mormon with a persecution complex, after all. I've seen a lot of this sort of language directed specifically at Mitt's campaign-- but not at Giuliani's, who hasn't won anything yet. Why aren't I seeing any woeful words directed there?
Maybe I'm not reading the right news sources.
In any case, I'm not sure that the language is justified, with or without bias. Romney won second in both contests in Iowa and NH; both were close races, as I understand things. That's why Romney now leads in delegates-- he's performed consistently.
I feel much the same way Scott, I mean look at the New Hampshire Democratic primary, Clinton lead Obama by less then 2%, it was practically a tie, but not once did anybody in the press mention that as far as I saw. It was all, "Clinton the new comeback kid!" "Clinton's campaign gets a breath of fresh air." "Clinton Wins."
The press needs winners, and it likes to talk about winners, not about consistency.
The Republican Party as a whole will of course notice that Romney is being consistent and has X number of delegates going into the national convention. It makes for more viewers if the press makes Romney's win in Michigan look like the do or die moment of his campaign.
McCain a former presidential candidate whose name was a hot button about a year ago, and Huckabee, the underdog nobody, who surprised the media are the two Republicans the press want to write about.
Had Romney won Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, the reports on the Republican primaries would be much more boring. It would be in essence, "The moderate Republican with lots of money wins the nomination, isn't that interesting?!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The press needs winners, and it likes to talk about winners, not about consistency.
I would amend that to be the press needs winners and losers, and it likes to talk about winners and losers, not about consistency. They act like one poor showing means the candidate is history and can't recover
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given his family's history in Michigan, not winning in Michigan probably would have sunk his campaign. And no, the Republican Party as a whole would not notice that Romney has been consistent if, as he had been consistently doing, he had been consistent in not getting enough delegates to win the nomination. It is hard to give him credit for consistency when that consistency had been to lose, and lose at a ratio he could not afford.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, that is an interesting thought. If McCain wins the nomination, he could pick Joe Lieberman for his veep running mate. That would be really interesting. I did receive a recorded message from Joe Lieberman on election day promoting McCain, and I thought how fascinating it was that a former Democratic veep candidate was campaigning for Republican McCain.
As for Romney, it is worth noting that he has the majority of delegates won so far. But I find it hard to believe he will have much appeal in the South.
Lyrhawn, it has got to be deeply disturbing to the Clinton camp that Sen. Clinton won only 55% of the vote, virtually against no one. For uncommitted to win 40% of the vote indicates she is in deep trouble, especially with men and with African-Americans, and with young people 18-25.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If consistency means coming in second every time, while first place alternates between the other two, why not? I also like how Wyoming never happened. It is a ludicrously unpopulated state, but still.
I'm pretty sure South Carolina will go to Huckabee, but the number of delegates accumulated as we go is mattering more now than in any prior race.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
It seems especially silly to focus on the "winner" in the cases where the difference between the top two candidates results in a 1 or 2 delegate difference. I think the media in general is more bought into the "momentum" idea than most regular voters are. A 1st place showing in one state does not equal momentum, IMO. But we heard a lot about "Obama's momentum from Iowa" and "McCain's momentum from NH."
I like following the news of the primaries because I'm interested in the outcome, but I don't like the "horse race" mentality of the coverage.
posted
I find the horse race aspect interesting, however, I think it should come after the substantive story.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Given his family's history in Michigan, not winning in Michigan probably would have sunk his campaign. And no, the Republican Party as a whole would not notice that Romney has been consistent if, as he had been consistently doing, he had been consistent in not getting enough delegates to win the nomination. It is hard to give him credit for consistency when that consistency had been to lose, and lose at a ratio he could not afford.
Er...what Enigmatic said. Looking at the aggregate, it appears that Romney has almost twice the support as the next two candidates.
That's not a result of a photo finish (which is what the media has been plugging). That's an indication of broad, non-geographically constrained support.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Question on the thread title "Nevada(R/D), SC (R) Saturday" - Does SC have its two primaries on different days? When's the democratic one?
--Enigmatic
The following Saturday. (1/26) Crap, gotta send my sister a birthday card.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also noticed a prevalence of weird reporting inregard to McCain and Romney: McCain's 14.8% margin of victory over Romney was headlined "McCain blows out Romney in NewHampshire" or similar. Yet Romney's 23.8% margin of victory over McCain was headlined "Romney edges out McCain in Michigan" or similar.
"Given [Romney's] family's history in Michigan, not winning in Michigan probably would have sunk his campaign."
One could more plausibly argue that given McCain's 60% loss of support in Michigan since 2000 -- 257,521votes of the present as compared to 650,805votes of the past -- his campaign should just fold up their tents and go home. Especially considering that Michigan is far more representative of US demographics than NewHampshire.
posted
Except McCain was campaigning against someone with a strong family history in Michigan, so his outcome was hardly surprising.
Romney has been doing okay. But if he doesn't do much better than he did pre-Michigan, he won't have the delegates by the convention. Too many states are all or nothing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess Giuliani is leading in Nevada polls by 5 percentage points. I wasn't able to find a map of proportional delegates vs. winner take all yet. p.s. LinkPosts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Something people keep missing here is that the national election isn't decided on popular vote. A candidate doesn't have to win the popular vote to win the presidency, as we have seen the last two elections. In fact, all the republicans have to do is concentrate winning in states where they won overwhelmingly last time and they'll be fine. That national popular poll is really meaningless, without the breakdown by electoral college votes.
Mmmm not so much. Bush won the last election by what, two million votes? And only I think two times in history has a president won the presidency without taking the popular vote, so, your assurances seem a bit premature. Duh, obviously both sides will hunker down in states they both won overwhelmingly last time, which is why, like for the last however many years, this is a fight that will primarily take place in the swing states. Of course that depends on the Democratic candidate, as those traditional Republican victory states are more vulnerable than some have been in 30 years.
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote: Off the top of my head, Thompson will lose and drop out. Huckabee stands a strong chance of winning with a large Evangelical vote there. McCain, strange as it may sound he needs to win SC because his campaign is running on fumes financially. He won't make it to Florida without a win in SC. Giuliani doesn't matter until Florida. Romney will get a small Michigan boost, but he's running third I think in SC, can he survive anything less than a win? Maybe, probably, but it'll be a death knell in reality I think. Huckabee I think will have trouble, financially and realistically surviving a loss in a state with a large Evangelical turnout (in other words, if he can't win where his base is powerful, where can he win?).
So this is the fantasy scenario whereby the 3 republican winners implode, making space for Giuliani?
As far as VP noms go, Joe Lieberman endorsed McCain before any votes were cast. You want to talk about a ticket that could make an interesting run against Clinton/Obama. Mostly, I hope it's Obama and not Clinton.
Well no, it's not a dream scenario where ALL three implode, at least one of them is going to come out of South Carolina with a lot of steam, that's generally how South Carolina works for the Republicans. But McCain and Huckabee need money, and Romney needs life in states where, you know, he wasn't born, his dad wasn't governor and he doesn't spend the whole time promising us special commissions and crap to fix the economy. I don't know what Giuliani needs, because he hasn't come in higher than the low teens or single digits yet in a contest, so it's hard to say if he'll even be a factor, but I think Florida will tell. If he loses there, then I think he crumbles nationally. You don't spend that much time and effort in a state (to say nothing of money) to get swept away and still hope to do well in states you haven't been as much, not when you're Giuliani on the GOP ticket.
Still, all five or six of them are NOT coming away from SC alive. Paul will be there because he has more money than Huckabee and McCain put together, he can afford to. Thompson drops out. Giuliani waits for Florida. Maybe the other three keep going, hoping that they can get enough of the delegate count or something to LOOK like they're alive when they really aren't, but I don't know, we'll know Sunday. I think someone comes out crippled.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giuliani never meant to finish out of the top three in all 7* January contests, I can say that much. But if he stays ahead in Nevada, Florida is a possibility. McCain is leading him in Florida at the moment, but we all know the polls are +/- somesuch.
I'm not really sure of the political character of the Florida Republican. I don't see a lot of retired New Yorkers that Giuliani is counting on being Republicans. I do see McCain scoring points with his approach to immigration in Florida, possibly.
So far I haven't seen either candidate saying anything about the MI results. My guess is since it's something either of them could try to spin their way neither wants to be the first to say anything about it directly. It opens it up too much for the other side to counterattack. If Hillary's campaign talks about the win, she's open to the "only name on the ballot" criticism. If Obama talks about the high uncommitted results as if they're really votes for him, he's open to "but Hillary still got 55% to the 40%." Plus accusations either way of trying to score points off a vote the party isn't counting and where they didn't campaign, etc.
I expect unofficial supporters or lower-level campaign workers to try to spin it in their favor, but nothing much out of the actual candidates.
posted
I expect fervor over Nevada and the coming tiff will mean no one talks about the Democratic side of Michigan at all. Maybe if she had blown it out, or got beat, it would've been a story, but 55/40? Non story. Move on to Nevada. Move on to South Carolina.
Between the blown way out of proportion racial argument that seems to now be dead, the Supreme Court ruling Kucinich can be shut out of the debate (which he was), and Hillary backing a lawsuit against food workers at a casino who want to caucus AT the casinos so they can actually vote, but Hillary is backing a measure to get the caucus sites moved (obviously because their union just backed Obama). The contest is three days away, and there's plenty to talk about there, Michigan, for the Democratic side, is already a dead story.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think of John Edwards more as that dapper Doctor with the tennis sweater whose name I suddenly can't remember. Peter Davidson?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...the Clinton campaign inquired...if the Miami Beach Convention Center will be available for a "rally" on Jan. 27, two days before the state holds its...primary... The Clinton campaign denied that she is planning to address a "large venue" in Florida, though a spokesman confirmed she will attend two private fundraisers that day: a $1,000-per-person event at Lucky Strike Lanes in Miami Beach and a $2,300-per-person reception at developer Michael Adler's Miami Beach home."
Apparently Clinton feels that funding a public "Support Hillary" campaign rally while raising campaign funds from the public isn't the same as campaigning. I s'pose it all depends on yer definition of what 'is' is.
posted
I must say, I am a little disturbed by the likelihood (possibility) that the DNC is handing two state primaries to Senator Clinton. I do not trust them to not seat her delegates.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said: Never underestimate the capability of Democrats to sabotage their chances of winning.
AlGore went out of his way to permanently torque off BillBradley during the 2000primaries; which probably decreased turnout amongst party core voters, and delivered some normally Democratic votes and funding over to Nader.
Obama is on the ballot in Florida, keep that in mind, but he won't campaign there. Second, he never had to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, he chose to. I think he could have kept his name on it, not campaigned there, and not suffered the consequences that he feared in Iowa and New Hampshire. He took his name off as a ploy to buy votes from the first two states, by kowtowing to their "we vote first" mantra. It was his choice. Hillary stayed on because she knew she could absorb whatever fallout there was, and it turns out there wasn't any. Anywho, they didn't hand it to her, they handed coal to Michigan and Florida, and she maneuvered it into, well if not a victory, then at least not a loss. Besides, those uncommitted delegates will likely go to Obama at the convention.
Florida won't get a lot of fanfare (but hey, it might) but it will be a contest, regardless of the lack of campaigning, between Clinton and Obama, and we'll see how much her popularity with older people effects the race there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
AP has a story out about the possibility of a Dead-locked GOP convention. It would be the first contested GOP convention in 60 years. Although it seems more likely that even if Super Tuesday doesn't decide the candidate, a deal would be struck before the convention.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republican Party penalized the Michigan chapter for moving up their primary by stating they would seat only half of Michigan's delegates. What if that was exactly the number needed to put one candidate over the top? Imagine the floor fight then to seat the disenfranchised delegates!
Same for the Dems, since their party says it will not recognize any of the delegates won in the Michigan primary. If that was the amount of delegates needed to put Clinton over the top, there would surely be a monumental floor fight. And what about all the delegates listed as "uncommitted"? What if Obama needs only a few more delegates to win the nomination? Not only would their campaign fight for the Michigan delegates to be seated, but also for the uncommitted to be allowed to declare their allegiance!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think long before that happened a deal would be struck. Someone will play kingmaker before the convention. Hard to say who it'll be. It's possible that all three of the Democrats could have a sizeable number of delegate, but mostly it'll be Hillary and Obama, but I think that, Edwards will have enough votes to crown one of them, and I think the two of them could make a deal with the other, but that'll depend on who cracks first, or who is pressured the most.
The situation is much more confusing on the Republican side, and I think Morbo's article is quite possible. The delegates could be split among a lot more people, especially with so many possibilities (maybe) going into HyperTuesday. If the delegates get spread all over the place, the Republicans are going to be in for a looooong struggle to find a candidate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Wow, you gotta read your fine print on all polls. The graphics on CNN's Election center date from early and mid-December.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney is playing the expectations game in SC.
quote:Just a day after his big win in Michigan, Mitt Romney ceded South Carolina to his rivals.
“This is a state I’d expect that Sen. [John] McCain has pretty well wrapped up,” Romney told reporters at the Sun City Hilton Head Retirement Center in Bluffton. “It would be an enormous surprise if he were unable to win here.”
Puffing up McCain is smart, so if Huckabee takes him down it hurts. Romney, knowing he can't win there is also smart to move to Nevada, a race that isn't being contested by anyone. But then, many are guessing that the turnout for Nevada may be as small as 30,000 to 40,000. That's less than the number of people that voted in Wayne County in Michigan alone. Only Paul and Romney are putting ANY effort into the state on the Republican side, and even then it's really only a small amount of staffers.
On the Democratic side, I still expect the turnout will be somewhat low. Less than New Hampshire even, probably. People in the state aren't used to having an important role in the election, the grand majority don't even know how their caucus works, let alone when it is, or why they should bother. Turnout will be higher for the Democratic one because of all the money and people flowing into the state over the election, but I still think it will be low compared to what we've seen thus far. Getting out the vote will matter more in this election than any of the past three contests.
I think Huckabee is probably a little bit better than the spread given there. But, it looks like he's taken a hit, and I still think if Huckabee loses South Carolina, he's done. Maybe not right away, but done. Even in a knife fight for delegates, if he can't take South Carolina, he's never going to take enough to win. Besides, McCain will get a lot of money out of this, money that Huckabee would need.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Judge Dismisses Nevada Caucus Challenge, in Boost for Obama
KEN RITTER AP News Jan 17, 2008 14:30 EST
An attempt by Democrats with ties to Hillary Rodham Clinton to prevent casino workers from caucusing at special precincts in Nevada failed in court Thursday.
From the little I know about the suit, it seems like it had some logic behind it. But the timing (filed just after 2 major Las Vegas unions endorsed Obama) and the filers (Teacher's Union) smacks of pure politics.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to post this and forgot, thanks Morbo.
It LOOKS like good news for Obama. Unions have a history of making endorsements, and the Unions are good at getting their people to the polls, but then who the people actually vote for doesn't always match up to who the Union would LIKE them to vote for.
In other words, for both Hillary and Obama, it's hard to say who the Union members will actually vote for, but, Hillary might have poisoned the well a bit by trying to stop them from voting so easily. I wouldn't be surprised to see most of them vote for Obama.
I didn't really hear the merits of the case, so I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I certainly think it smacks of politics as well. .
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do hate that they limited the extra caucus sites to those casinos with workers represented by the union(s) at issue. Not sure it's a matter for the courts.
The big difference here is that the voting is public - these are caucuses, not primary - and the room will be full of union members and very few other voters(if any).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not. The focus is on South Carolina, and the turnout in Nevada will be very small. It's important for the Democratic field, so if you can't find a poll on them, I'm maybe a little surprised. But as far as the Republican side, I'm not surprised at all. They matter, they just don't matter as much to Republicans at the moment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dennis Kucinich is getting very desperate. I don't think he should have been invited and then disinvited to the last debate, but he's starting to lose it.
There's his spiel that GE/NBC are out to get him, and now this is on his website:
quote: The polls you may have missed
Time after time after time, Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has topped every other candidate in major polls that the major media have either downplayed, dismissed or ignored completely. So, for the benefit of anyone who wonders about the strength and depth of Dennis's support all across the country, take a look for yourselves. And share these results with everyone you know. Click here.
Wow, I thought. I'm pretty up on polls, and I never saw him leading any. Turns out they're all just bogus internet polls, non-random and repeat votable. But the MSM is black-balling him by not reporting them?
He should just quit while he's ahead.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It is a ludicrously unpopulated state, but still.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
