Official 3/4 Democratic Primary Results Thread

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think Hillary should really get down on her knees and thank Tina Fay like she was a white house intern, though.

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Heres to a brokered DNC in August. :beer::beer::beer:

:thumbsup:

and I thought I'd never see one in my lifetime. it's like catnip for a political hack like me

The Democrats a walking a fineline. A mistep could have MASSIVE ramifications for the party for years.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: loki8481
what's the DNC's strategy, though, if Obama's doublespeak on nafta puts Ohio into play, national security concerns put NJ/NY into play, and Crist carries FL for McCain?

There is no possible way that New York is in play. I am almost as absolutely doubtful about Jersey.

it's really a long ways away, but there's deep dissatisfaction in both states about our democratic governors (rightly or wrongly, Corzine's taking a lot of heat for things that, imo, aren't his fault) and it could project itself into the polls.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I'm on the other side of the country, but I still don't see that happening. As a Washingtonian I can tell you we've got a lot more conservatives than we're given credit for (it is the social conservatism that kills candidates here), but I don't see us swinging this year. Point being state politics don't equal national politics.

I mean we're a decidedly anti-Bush state that elected a Republican governor in 2004 (well, we elected him but he had the contest stolen from him )

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think Hillary should really get down on her knees and thank Tina Fay like she was a white house intern, though.

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Heres to a brokered DNC in August. :beer::beer::beer:

:thumbsup:

and I thought I'd never see one in my lifetime. it's like catnip for a political hack like me

The Democrats a walking a fineline. A mistep could have MASSIVE ramifications for the party for years.

This isn't a fine line, this is stupidity. A split Dem party was the only possible hope the Pubs had for a victory this year, and they're handing it to McCain on his silver platter. And for what?

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Hi2u President McCain

McCain won the presidency with the dem results tonight.

 

[Dari]

My G-d this is fucked up. She definitely lost the primary delegate count in Texas but won in Ohio. The Texas caucus delegate count is up in the air. You can't fault Clinton though. If Obama can't seal the deal, then he has no one to blame but himself. Clinton is giving him a test of what us Republicans would do to him if he won and he's failing badly. He needs to be tougher.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Hi2u President McCain

McCain won the presidency with the dem results tonight.

That doesn't even make any sense. Traditionally primary voting info is ONLY relevant to determining the nominees and is often irrelevant to determining the outcome of the actual presidential election.

But thanks for playing

Edit: What is it with Republicans and the "You're either with us or against us" attitude on everything? I saw some pundits on CNN talking about how people are rejecting one candidate or the other, thus securing the race for the Republicans. He actually suggested that if Obama wins the nomination, the Clinton supporters will all vote for McCain! Voting for Clinton is NOT equivalent to supporting McCain! This is idiocy!

Every theory regarding the actual presidential election is pure fantasy at this point, and people are buying into it. There are another eight months to go until we see the presidential election.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Hi2u President McCain

McCain won the presidency with the dem results tonight.

That doesn't even make any sense. Traditionally primary voting info is ONLY relevant to determining the nominees and is often irrelevant to determining the outcome of the actual presidential election.

But thanks for playing

So you don't see it being a problem that the (R) can use all their money attacking the dems until the convention while they also destroy each other? Not to mention the people that will vote for him if Hillary is the nominee...me included.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Hi2u President McCain

McCain won the presidency with the dem results tonight.

That doesn't even make any sense. Traditionally primary voting info is ONLY relevant to determining the nominees and is often irrelevant to determining the outcome of the actual presidential election.

But thanks for playing

So you don't see it being a problem that the (R) can use all their money attacking the dems until the convention while they also destroy each other? Not to mention the people that will vote for him if Hillary is the nominee...me included.

Yes, I agree, Hillary as the nominee would send a ton of voters to McCain. I think that's obvious, and there's nothing wrong with stating the obvious.

What is being suggested is that it doesn't matter who the next nominee is, somehow the Republicans have been delivered the presidency because the Democrats don't have their nominee yet. THAT is what is ludicrous here.

I don't see a problem with the Republicans using money to attack the dems until the convention - traditionally the Republicans have always run more smear campaigns than the Dems anyway. You can count the number of attack ads every 4 years in the presidential race, the Republicans always have more (at least for the last two elections, I never kept track before then).

A few extra months of attack ads from the Republicans won't necessarily secure them the race, especially since they have no one to target yet. They stand to waste a ton of money if they're going to start running attack ads this early in the game. Any attack ads aired now will not stick with the American people until election time (in 8 months). They'd literally be throwing money away.

Are you seriously suggesting that whoever runs the most attack ads is the winner?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Hi2u President McCain

McCain won the presidency with the dem results tonight.

That doesn't even make any sense. Traditionally primary voting info is ONLY relevant to determining the nominees and is often irrelevant to determining the outcome of the actual presidential election.

But thanks for playing

So you don't see it being a problem that the (R) can use all their money attacking the dems until the convention while they also destroy each other? Not to mention the people that will vote for him if Hillary is the nominee...me included.

There is also the flip side of that argument. Yes, Clinton may lose some independents and moderate Republicans to McCain (though she actually won independents in Ohio and tied with independents in Texas) but if you look at the Pew Research poll, Obama loses more Democrats to McCain head to head. Those are the traditional blue collar voters and swing Catholics. Both candidates have problems so it's not all one sided.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Hi2u President McCain

McCain won the presidency with the dem results tonight.

That doesn't even make any sense. Traditionally primary voting info is ONLY relevant to determining the nominees and is often irrelevant to determining the outcome of the actual presidential election.

But thanks for playing

So you don't see it being a problem that the (R) can use all their money attacking the dems until the convention while they also destroy each other? Not to mention the people that will vote for him if Hillary is the nominee...me included.

Yes, I agree, Hillary as the nominee would send a ton of voters to McCain. I think that's obvious, and there's nothing wrong with stating the obvious.

What is being suggested is that it doesn't matter who the next nominee is, somehow the Republicans have been delivered the presidency because the Democrats don't have their nominee yet. THAT is what is ludicrous here.

I don't see a problem with the Republicans using money to attack the dems until the convention - traditionally the Republicans have always run more smear campaigns than the Dems anyway. You can count the number of attack ads every 4 years in the presidential race, the Republicans always have more (at least for the last two elections, I never kept track before then).

A few extra months of attack ads from the Republicans won't necessarily secure them the race, especially since they have no one to target yet. They stand to waste a ton of money if they're going to start running attack ads this early in the game. Any attack ads aired now will not stick with the American people until election time (in 8 months). They'd literally be throwing money away.

Are you seriously suggesting that whoever runs the most attack ads is the winner?

if it goes on long enough, it could end with both camps just hating the other and not showing up to the polls if their guy/gal doesn't make it.

hell, I'm already on the verge of being totally done with Obama after reading crap from his supporters bashing Hillary in here seemingly non-stop.

when you're trying to unite the party, telling the 49% of people who voted for the other guy that they voted for a cold hearted bitch who needs to get back into the kitchen... is not conducive.

it's one of the things that pissed me off about Bush so much... he won by the slimmest of margins and then pretended that half the country didn't matter because he had his 1% mandate.

 

[Dari]

http://www.time.com/time/polit...719614,00.html?cnn=yes

A total fuckup. Obama can't finish it.

 

[0roo0roo]

looks like the hilary haters got some egg on their face.

despite constant and biased media coverage against hilary declaring her dead for the longest time she comes back with 3 wins in the states that are important in the real election.

she is a strong person to stand up in that negative media storm. obamas gotten a free ride and he couldn't even win ohio with his massive cash pile.

as for people going to mccain if hilary is selected. i doubt it. clinton hate tends to be overstated. i'll tell u what though, i'll vote mccain if obama gets the nod. hilary and mccain would fight for the middle. obama and mccain..well mccains got the middle, obamas definitely got far left credentials but frankly thats not enough when his free media ride is over.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Hi2u President McCain

McCain won the presidency with the dem results tonight.

That doesn't even make any sense. Traditionally primary voting info is ONLY relevant to determining the nominees and is often irrelevant to determining the outcome of the actual presidential election.

But thanks for playing

So you don't see it being a problem that the (R) can use all their money attacking the dems until the convention while they also destroy each other? Not to mention the people that will vote for him if Hillary is the nominee...me included.

There is also the flip side of that argument. Yes, Clinton may lose some independents and moderate Republicans to McCain (though she actually won independents in Ohio and tied with independents in Texas) but if you look at the Pew Research poll, Obama loses more Democrats to McCain head to head. Those are the traditional blue collar voters and swing Catholics. Both candidates have problems so it's not all one sided.

Obama certainly loses me to McCain. I won't vote for that empty suit, no way.

 

[Balt]

In the end, regardless of who the Dems nominate, I think this is McCain's election to lose.

Time and again the American people who are undecided enter the voting booth and decide that the status quo is better than anything that real change might bring. Everyone knows that our country is going to face some huge challenges in medical care and Social Security, but one of the strongest voting blocs is older people and quite frankly many of them only care about the system lasting long enough for them to die. Rocking the boat is the last thing they want.

It's not limited to just the elderly, though. There are plenty of others who cheer things like "tax rebates" that are really only borrowing money from future generations by increasing our national debt. But hey, that's their problem, right?

 

[GoingUp]

I'm interested to see how the delegate math in Texas shapes up. If Obama can make it a draw after the delegates are counted, he probably can wash out more of Hillary's delegates in Mississippi and Wyoming in the upcoming weeks.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Obama has only won one one large state, his home state of Illinois. If it weren't for caucases... if every state held a normal primary election, Clinton would be winning right now. Texas is a great example of just how idiotic this whole caucus thing is.

Maybe this is a stupid question but why is Texas so important in the (D) primary when it's likely going to go to McCain in the general election?

 

[StageLeft]

My predictions for naught! I am nothing! Alas, I decry events. For shame!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As I've said, she has more lives than a cat. It's certain she'll take PA and then it is entirely possible that she can win the nomination with the superdelegates, thereby giving the victory to McCain. The Dems have this magical ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They should have clubbed Bush last time like a baby seal, and instead got beat. I think it entirely possible they'll do it again.

 

[Bitek]

Omg Dems are so dumb, they will find a way to lose this election. Obama got banged up this week with all the attacks from Hillary and her browbeating of the media to repeat them. He has stop playing the nice guy and start hitting her back, and there is plenty of ammo. Clinton scandals, poll-driven politics, Bill's pardons, shady donors, her fraud of experience, her Iran vote, etc etc. He needs to hit her where she lives if he wants to put her away. He can't keep pulling punches.

Soo... its then 7 long weeks of viciousness, w/ McCain tossing hand grenades in the middle the whole time. Even if she wins Pa, she is still way behind in dels, so no strong argument for him to drop out Clearly the GOP was the big winner tonite.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Hi2u President McCain

McCain won the presidency with the dem results tonight.

That doesn't even make any sense. Traditionally primary voting info is ONLY relevant to determining the nominees and is often irrelevant to determining the outcome of the actual presidential election.

But thanks for playing

So you don't see it being a problem that the (R) can use all their money attacking the dems until the convention while they also destroy each other? Not to mention the people that will vote for him if Hillary is the nominee...me included.

There is also the flip side of that argument. Yes, Clinton may lose some independents and moderate Republicans to McCain (though she actually won independents in Ohio and tied with independents in Texas) but if you look at the Pew Research poll, Obama loses more Democrats to McCain head to head. Those are the traditional blue collar voters and swing Catholics. Both candidates have problems so it's not all one sided.

Obama certainly loses me to McCain. I won't vote for that empty suit, no way.

and I won't vote for that cackling sellout bitch. So many in Obama and Hillary's camp aren't voting for the other one + all the attack ads at each other through June + McCain campaigning in the general by himself through June = McCain president.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Obama has only won one one large state, his home state of Illinois. If it weren't for caucases... if every state held a normal primary election, Clinton would be winning right now. Texas is a great example of just how idiotic this whole caucus thing is.

Maybe this is a stupid question but why is Texas so important in the (D) primary when it's likely going to go to McCain in the general election?

Who wins where has no bearing on who will win the election IMO. These are democrats, and of since Clinton and Obama have nearly identical platforms, they're voting for who they like more and are apparently susceptible to petty attacks. All of those people will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. The question is who everyone else will vote for... And in the case of Hillary vs McCain it will be McCain.

He can just play back Hillary's red phone ad, and just change the end to "I'm John McCain and I approve this message"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Yes, I agree, Hillary as the nominee would send a ton of voters to McCain. I think that's obvious, and there's nothing wrong with stating the obvious.

Nope, nothing wrong with stating the obvious, unless it's completely against the data. Obama picked one from the republican playbook: say something enough and people will believe it. Obama keeps saying he can get Hillary's voters, but she won't be able to get his. Wrong.

Obama's supporters are more liberal than Hillary's, and if he gets the nomination, more of Clinton's supporters go to McCain than would Obama's supporters if Hillary wins the nom.

The opposite of what you claim is obvious is true according to: http://www.delegatehub.com/archive/?id=6333

Hillary supporters support her in large part because they believe experience matters. 25% would go with McCain over Obama. Meanwhile 86% of Obama supporters would support Clinton in the general. If you have data other than your own guessitmate as to what is obvious I'd be interested in seeing it.

http://www.people-press.org/re...splay.php3?PageID=1254

One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Hafen
Omg Dems are so dumb, they will find a way to lose this election. Obama got banged up this week with all the attacks from Hillary and her browbeating of the media to repeat them. He has stop playing the nice guy and start hitting her back, and there is plenty of ammo. Clinton scandals, poll-driven politics, Bill's pardons, shady donors, her fraud of experience, her Iran vote, etc etc. He needs to hit her where she lives if he wants to put her away. He can't keep pulling punches.

Soo... its then 7 long weeks of viciousness, w/ McCain tossing hand grenades in the middle the whole time. Even if she wins Pa, she is still way behind in dels, so no strong argument for him to drop out Clearly the GOP was the big winner tonite.

According to CNN she is not behind much at all and has more super delegates than Obama;

Primaries and Caucuses

Barack Obama
Pledged: 1257Superdelegates: 194Total: 1,451

Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 1127Superdelegates: 238Total: 1,365

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Yes, I agree, Hillary as the nominee would send a ton of voters to McCain. I think that's obvious, and there's nothing wrong with stating the obvious.

Nope, nothing wrong with stating the obvious, unless it's completely against the data. Obama's supporters are more liberal than Hillary's, and if he gets the nomination, more of Clinton's supporters go to McCain than would Obama's supporters if Hillary wins the nom.

The opposite of what you claim is obvious is true according to: http://www.delegatehub.com/archive/?id=6333

Hillary supporters support her in large part because they believe experience matters. 25% would go with McCain over Obama. Meanwhile 86% of Obama supporters would support Clinton in the general. If you have data other than your own guessitmate as to what is obvious I'd be interested in seeing it.

http://www.people-press.org/re...splay.php3?PageID=1254

One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

Yet in polls pitting McCain vs Obama, Obama wins while the opposite happens with McCain vs. Hillary.

I'll say it for the record. If Hillary wins, she'll beat McCain just like Kerry beat Bush. It won't happen. Obama has the best chance between of the two Dems. If the Dems front Hillary, I'll vote McCain along with a ton of other people. Wait and see.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think a social moderate, fiscal conservative, national security hawk might find fertile ground here.

McCain has all of the above, save the social moderation.

Are you honestly saying NJ/NY will be possible Republican states?