Official 3/4 Democratic Primary Results Thread

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: KrispyKreme50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama certainly loses me to McCain. I won't vote for that empty suit, no way.

That's because Hillary is more of a Republican than McCain is, and it's only the Hillarybots who can't see it.

More abysmal nonsense.

Pro-choice? Hillary not McCain
No torture? Hillary, not McCain
Pull out of Iraq? Hillary, not McCain
Universal Healthcare? Hillary, not McCain
Repeal Tax cuts? Hillary, not McCain

Obama is not an empty suit. He's an extremely bright and charismatic guy and would be a fine nominee.

Did McCain ever support waterboarding? He voted yes on the bill that restricted interrogation by civilian intelligence bodies to the Army field manual, which follows the Geneva convention AFAIK.

Yes he supported waterboarding, there was recently a vote to specifically ban waterboarding that he voted against. I guess he was against it before he was for it.

Look at question 22 for your answer:

http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate

What answer is that? He just voted against a measure a week or two ago that would have specifically banned waterboarding. (that would be after this debate footage) So, I guess this establishes that he's willing to compromise some of his most sacred principles, but... well... yeah.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama certainly loses me to McCain. I won't vote for that empty suit, no way.

That's because Hillary is more of a Republican than McCain is, and it's only the Hillarybots who can't see it.

Did anyone else notice the precinct-level maps on Clinton vs Obama last night? They looked just like the Bush vs Kerry maps. The same people who voted for Dub voted for Hillary. I do not think that is a coincidence. They are a lot alike.

That's actually a strong point in Hillary's favor in terms of electability. All the districts that Obama won will vote for her anyway and it would seem that she was more competitive in the swing/right leaning districts.

I still want Obama to win, but that's an interesting point in her favor.

Or indicates they're Limbaugh republicans who followed orders.

I know you're not a "Hillbot" of any sort, but would point out up til now that they have dismissed Obama victories in any Repub areas.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama certainly loses me to McCain. I won't vote for that empty suit, no way.

That's because Hillary is more of a Republican than McCain is, and it's only the Hillarybots who can't see it.

Did anyone else notice the precinct-level maps on Clinton vs Obama last night? They looked just like the Bush vs Kerry maps. The same people who voted for Dub voted for Hillary. I do not think that is a coincidence. They are a lot alike.

That's actually a strong point in Hillary's favor in terms of electability. All the districts that Obama won will vote for her anyway and it would seem that she was more competitive in the swing/right leaning districts.

I still want Obama to win, but that's an interesting point in her favor.

Or indicates they're Limbaugh republicans who followed orders.

I know you're not a "Hillbot" of any sort, but would point out up til now that they have dismissed Obama victories in any Repub areas.

Fern

Well actually as I mentioned in another thread exit polling seems to show that Republicans who crossed party lines to vote in the primary voted significantly in favor of Obama.

One important difference also is that what we're talking about here is Hillary's strength in Republican dominated areas of swing states as opposed to victories in states that are certain to go red no matter what. I think it should be considered far more important to do well in the conservative areas of states you can win then to do well in states you are certain to lose anyway. (I don't care how much Obama won the South Carolina primary by, he's not carrying the state in the general election)

Anyways, I hope Obama wins the nomination. It looks like he will. If Hillary wins though, I'm perfectly content with voting for her too.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yes he supported waterboarding, there was recently a vote to specifically ban waterboarding that he voted against. I guess he was against it before he was for it.

This distortion is surprising. It's not your habit.

The bill was to restricit the CIA (or whomever) to interogation techniques outlined in the Army Field manual (or watever it's called).

McCain veto'd that because he thought it too restictive. He also denounced waterboarding again at that time.

Most that can be said is McCain may want the interogators to have the option to use sleep deprivation etc. But, again, he clearly repeated his opposition to waterboarding.

No doubt if the bill were to merely outlaw waterboarding he would have approved it. If you've got a link to bill that simply was to ban waterbording and he voted "no". Link it up please.

Fern

 

[GoingUp]

When are the caucus results coming out from Texas? Whats the holdup?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
When are the caucus results coming out from Texas? Whats the holdup?

They have until Friday to submit them.

IIRC it is also being counted by hand. It isnt like Washington where they computerized as much as possible.

Obama is currently winning 22 of the 31 Senate Districts in the Caucus. Over half by 20-30%+ and 5-15% in the rest.

Clinton is handily winning 5 of the remaining 9. The other 4 are fairly close within 5%.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
When are the caucus results coming out from Texas? Whats the holdup?

They have until Friday to submit them.

IIRC it is also being counted by hand. It isnt like Washington where they computerized as much as possible.

Obama is currently winning 22 of the 31 Senate Districts in the Caucus. Over half by 20-30%+ and 5-15% in the rest.

Clinton is handily winning 5 of the remaining 9. The other 4 are fairly close within 5%.

I'd lke to believe you, but youve been wrong with almost everything youve posted in this thread.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yes he supported waterboarding, there was recently a vote to specifically ban waterboarding that he voted against. I guess he was against it before he was for it.

This distortion is surprising. It's not your habit.

The bill was to restricit the CIA (or whomever) to interogation techniques outlined in the Army Field manual (or watever it's called).

McCain veto'd that because he thought it too restictive. He also denounced waterboarding again at that time.

Most that can be said is McCain may want the interogators to have the option to use sleep deprivation etc. But, again, he clearly repeated his opposition to waterboarding.

No doubt if the bill were to merely outlaw waterboarding he would have approved it. If you've got a link to bill that simply was to ban waterbording and he voted "no". Link it up please.

Fern

You are right there was more to it then just waterboarding. I'm still very surprised he voted against it... specifically because the methods mentioned were almost all still coercive interrogation techniques, things very similar to methods he has stated in the past are ineffective. To me it seems a small, almost meaningless distinction to vote against a bill to stop what you believe are crimes against humanity.

To be more clear, I don't actually believe that McCain is suddenly pro-waterboarding. He did seem to make a political calculation there in his vote against that bill however, compromising a position I did not think he would compromise.

So my wording was probably a bit of a distortion, yeah. Sorry about that.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yes he supported waterboarding, there was recently a vote to specifically ban waterboarding that he voted against. I guess he was against it before he was for it.

This distortion is surprising. It's not your habit.

The bill was to restricit the CIA (or whomever) to interogation techniques outlined in the Army Field manual (or watever it's called).

McCain veto'd that because he thought it too restictive. He also denounced waterboarding again at that time.

Most that can be said is McCain may want the interogators to have the option to use sleep deprivation etc. But, again, he clearly repeated his opposition to waterboarding.

No doubt if the bill were to merely outlaw waterboarding he would have approved it. If you've got a link to bill that simply was to ban waterbording and he voted "no". Link it up please.

Fern

You are right there was more to it then just waterboarding. I'm still very surprised he voted against it... specifically because the methods mentioned were almost all still coercive interrogation techniques, things very similar to methods he has stated in the past are ineffective. To me it seems a small, almost meaningless distinction to vote against a bill to stop what you believe are crimes against humanity.

To be more clear, I don't actually believe that McCain is suddenly pro-waterboarding. He did seem to make a political calculation there in his vote against that bill however, compromising a position I did not think he would compromise.

So my wording was probably a bit of a distortion, yeah. Sorry about that.

I think his beef was that the bill would have mandated that the CIA be covered under the army manual... I'd imagine that McCain might prefer a less heavy-handed approach.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
When are the caucus results coming out from Texas? Whats the holdup?

They have until Friday to submit them.

IIRC it is also being counted by hand. It isnt like Washington where they computerized as much as possible.

Obama is currently winning 22 of the 31 Senate Districts in the Caucus. Over half by 20-30%+ and 5-15% in the rest.

Clinton is handily winning 5 of the remaining 9. The other 4 are fairly close within 5%.

I'd lke to believe you, but youve been wrong with almost everything youve posted in this thread.

While I don't know about any recently reported results (Obama was reported ahead in the causcuses last night), he's right about reporting the results.

Under the rules the results are not due to be posted by snail mail until Friday. Some may get them in earlier. But for those who mail Friday, well could be a while.

Fern

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama certainly loses me to McCain. I won't vote for that empty suit, no way.

That's because Hillary is more of a Republican than McCain is, and it's only the Hillarybots who can't see it.

Did anyone else notice the precinct-level maps on Clinton vs Obama last night? They looked just like the Bush vs Kerry maps. The same people who voted for Dub voted for Hillary. I do not think that is a coincidence. They are a lot alike.

You will be surprised to see the opposite. I'm just about to make a post about it.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
When are the caucus results coming out from Texas? Whats the holdup?

They have until Friday to submit them.

IIRC it is also being counted by hand. It isnt like Washington where they computerized as much as possible.

Obama is currently winning 22 of the 31 Senate Districts in the Caucus. Over half by 20-30%+ and 5-15% in the rest.

Clinton is handily winning 5 of the remaining 9. The other 4 are fairly close within 5%.

I'd lke to believe you, but youve been wrong with almost everything youve posted in this thread.

That was based of the Democratic Party of Texas website. The caucus numbers are on it. I never said the numbers would hold its currently 20 to 11. But here is the website

TX Dems Caucus Results

 

[LongTimePCUser]

Its 20 to 11 for Obama now.

This just shows how broken the cacus system is if the person who wins the majority of the popular votes in the state then loses the caucus delegates 20 to 11. The caucus system does not reflect the popular vote at all. It is really un-democratic and does not represent how a candicate will do in the blind vote system that will happen in November.

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
When are the caucus results coming out from Texas? Whats the holdup?

They have until Friday to submit them.

IIRC it is also being counted by hand. It isnt like Washington where they computerized as much as possible.

Obama is currently winning 22 of the 31 Senate Districts in the Caucus. Over half by 20-30%+ and 5-15% in the rest.

Clinton is handily winning 5 of the remaining 9. The other 4 are fairly close within 5%.

I'd lke to believe you, but youve been wrong with almost everything youve posted in this thread.

That was based of the Democratic Party of Texas website. The caucus numbers are on it. I never said the numbers would hold its currently 20 to 11. But here is the website

TX Dems Caucus Results