• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Election 2008 Political dashboard...

I see Hunter but no Paul.

However, when I click on particular states, I see Paul, but no Hunter.

For example, when I click on CT or KS, Paul shows up first. And when I click on, say, AR or MS, he comes up second. Same with TN.
 
No Edwards and Obama because of the lame duck status for the state of Michigan's delegates in the national democratic convention.
 
All the candidates are there.

Republican side they list:
* Leader Board: Romney 42, Huckabee 32, McCain 13, Thompson 3, Hunter 1
* Others without delegates: Giuliani 0, Paul 0
Simply click on the "other candidates" link to see the candidates that are not in the top 5. Or are you saying because they only listed the top 5 on the leaders page that they are somehow anti-Giuliani or anti-Paul?

Democrats side they list:
* Leader Board: Obama 25, Clinton 24, Edwards 18, Richardson 0, Kucinich 0
* Others without delegates: Biden 0, Dodd 0, Gravel 0
Simply click on the "other candidates" link to see the candidates that are not in the top 5. Or are you saying because they only listed the top 5 on the leaders page that they are somehow anti-Biden, anti-Dodd, or anti-Gravel?

Basically, who is missing? 3rd party candidates? By the way, who are they this year?
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Paul doesn't have 0 delegates.
Click to expand...
Depends on who you are asking. Different places have different estimates for delegates that have not yet been chosen.

For example see this link. On that link, it lists two different sets of delgate estimates. Each set is completely different. In one set (Real Clear Politics source) Paul has 2 estimated delegates. In the other set (Associated Press source) Paul has 0 estimated delegates.

Sorry about the Fox News link it was just the first page that appeared that listed multiple estimates. I could link individual sites with different estimates. CNN estimates Paul will get 2 so far, Yahoo estimates Paul has 0. I could go on and on.

Since they are estimates, are you really going to bicker about a couple of delegates here or there? Once the delegates have actually voted, then you can complain. But until now, Paul is included in the OP's link AND they just happen to use an estimate that gives him 0 delegates so far. As time goes on, I'm sure he'll get more estimated delegates and that website will list them. If not, THEN complain.
 
But in your eyes, Hunter's estimated one delegate is good enough to keep him in the list. :roll:

This is why you anti-Paulbots are so ridiculous. You use whatever standards you feel necessary at the time to declare his campaign dead, and then change your standards for other candidates in the next statement.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
But in your eyes, Hunter's estimated one delegate is good enough to keep him in the list. :roll:

This is why you anti-Paulbots are so ridiculous. You use whatever standards you feel necessary at the time to declare his campaign dead, and then change your standards for other candidates in the next statement.
Click to expand...
All I am saying is that the OP's link has ALL candidates. The candidates are on two lists: the top 5 and the rest. At the moment Paul isn't in the top 5 using that website's estimates. They will change, Paul will move onto the first list. What is the problem?

How is saying all that even remotely anti-Paul? How is that changing standards at all?

Having two lists isn't MY idea. I personally would have all on the first page. Please don't put your words into my mouth. I said not a single word about Hunter being "good enough".
 
Paul has 2 delegates.
I don't think you'll find ANY poll where Paul has less than triple the votes that Hunter does.
 
If the Paul-bots can nto pull a rabbit out of the hat on Feb 5, his candicay is dead.

He had not generated much more than a blip on the radar screen after 4 tests of his support.

You can not blame the media for the lack of voting support. Only his grass roots support.
 
I use yahoo, and everyday. And I will tell you they suck when it comes to being on top of things. They screw up a lot. They tell me my college basketball team is playing a game that actually was played days ago. I've seen the weather forecast that had a daily high that was lower than the low. When it comes to email, yahoo works. When it comes to numbers, yahoo sucks.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
If the Paul-bots can nto pull a rabbit out of the hat on Feb 5, his candicay is dead.

He had not generated much more than a blip on the radar screen after 4 tests of his support.

You can not blame the media for the lack of voting support. Only his grass roots support.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with that. I see his poll numbers, and yeah, I am disappointed. Then I remember that the voting public are a bunch or morons. These are people who voted for Bush, twice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top