I haven't looked to confirm, but i think if more than 25% of a states voters choose non-committed, all the delegates from that state are require to abstain.
I haven't looked to confirm, but i think if more than 25% of a states voters choose non-committed, all the delegates from that state are require to abstain.
Originally posted by: Painman
Obama is taking lots of red/purple state primaries and caucuses (some of them hugely).
This doesn't mean he'd win Utah in the general - but I think it shows his potential to win more honest-to-god battlegrounds in Nov. than Hillary. The blue states seem to have far more nostalgic feelings about 1993-2000 than the rest of the country.
Well, that's my biased little bit of tea-leaf reading.
This is sort of anectodal, because my brother lives in Utah, but I think it may be accurate.
Utah has a large majority of Republican and Mormons. An insurmountable majority. The minority will go out and vote for the Dem primary, lots of educated Democrat folks in SLC who go for Obama. But in the general when the Mormons come into play, it is no question a Republican state. The two sides of Utah are very stark, the minority make fun of Mormons and they're eccentricities and the Mormons are sort of like Evangelicals in their unwavering support of Republicans.
Michigan? It was 55 Clinton, 40 Uncommitted, 4 Kucinich, 1% to Dodd. Obama would get all the uncommitted since he's the only other person beside Clinton in the race.
exactly, i'm just not sure if its true or not. I remember it being mentioned before the vote, but can't recall exactly.
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Painman
Obama is taking lots of red/purple state primaries and caucuses (some of them hugely).
This doesn't mean he'd win Utah in the general - but I think it shows his potential to win more honest-to-god battlegrounds in Nov. than Hillary. The blue states seem to have far more nostalgic feelings about 1993-2000 than the rest of the country.
Well, that's my biased little bit of tea-leaf reading.
This is sort of anectodal, because my brother lives in Utah, but I think it may be accurate.
Utah has a large majority of Republican and Mormons. An insurmountable majority. The minority will go out and vote for the Dem primary, lots of educated Democrat folks in SLC who go for Obama. But in the general when the Mormons come into play, it is no question a Republican state. The two sides of Utah are very stark, the minority make fun of Mormons and they're eccentricities and the Mormons are sort of like Evangelicals in their unwavering support of Republicans.
This is also anecdotal, but a long time friend of my sister is married to an SLC firefighter - he has some horror stories to tell about how Romney really "ran" the Olympics.
Not like it matters much now - I think we can stick a fork in Brylcreem Boy at this point.
But unfortunately he has done enough to keep Romney down...sadly this looks like it will be a battle between McCain and whomever....if it is Obama v. McCain my vote as a Republican will go to Obama, just cause if we are getting a liberal anyway I would rather one that has some passion...if McCain vs. Klinton then I am either staying home that day or just voting McCain to keep her out of office not that I think he will be any better.
I can't believe Democrats are so stupid. It looks like they will once again nominate the worst candidate left in the race.
Seriously, you people that want Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton for 28 years are missing brain cells.
Looks like I'll be voting (R) later this year.
Seriously, you people that want Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton for 28 years are missing brain cells.
Looks like I'll be voting (R) later this year.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Super Tuesday has been far from definitive. The lessons I key on.
The longer Huckabee hangs in, the worse it is for Romney. But the Repubs better muzzle Limbaugh, because if McCain wins the GOP nomination, a big part of the GOP base will be
poisoned.
Obama is the stronger democratic candidate. Hillary carries the big blue states any democrat would normally carry while Obama shows the better ability to peel away red traditional States the democrats need to carry the general election. No matter who wins. the democrats will be united and enthusiastic.
The future events of 2008 loom bigger because the nomination is still undecided. The GOP danger is that the economy could turn very bad very fast. The McCain danger is that the war in Iraq could resume violence very fast, and there goes McCain credibility.
The longer Huckabee hangs in, the worse it is for Romney. But the Repubs better muzzle Limbaugh, because if McCain wins the GOP nomination, a big part of the GOP base will be
poisoned.
Obama is the stronger democratic candidate. Hillary carries the big blue states any democrat would normally carry while Obama shows the better ability to peel away red traditional States the democrats need to carry the general election. No matter who wins. the democrats will be united and enthusiastic.
The future events of 2008 loom bigger because the nomination is still undecided. The GOP danger is that the economy could turn very bad very fast. The McCain danger is that the war in Iraq could resume violence very fast, and there goes McCain credibility.
No, it won't be. There are many like myself that won't vote for her. Expecially after getting 6 calls from her campaign in 2 days.
From what I've read, most of Obama's staff were going to be extremely happy if they stayed within 100 delegates on ST. It looks like they did, and despite losing NY and CA, he put in an extremely strong showing.
Considering NY is herhomestate, he got 40% of the vote here. That's pretty solid. The latest results have him losing CA by ~10% (52% to 42%) which is also respectable given how far behind he was.
The fact is Obama has been the prohibitive underdog for just about this entire campaign, no matter what the media says. He was facing 20%+ gaps in almost every state, and he has done extremely well thus far delegate wise.
Obama did a really great job closing the gap. Also, MSNBC made the point that he raised 20 million more dollars last month than Clinton, and most of his donors are not nearly maxed out. The longer this goes on, the better he will do.
Should be an interesting couple of months
Considering NY is herhomestate, he got 40% of the vote here. That's pretty solid. The latest results have him losing CA by ~10% (52% to 42%) which is also respectable given how far behind he was.
The fact is Obama has been the prohibitive underdog for just about this entire campaign, no matter what the media says. He was facing 20%+ gaps in almost every state, and he has done extremely well thus far delegate wise.
Obama did a really great job closing the gap. Also, MSNBC made the point that he raised 20 million more dollars last month than Clinton, and most of his donors are not nearly maxed out. The longer this goes on, the better he will do.
Should be an interesting couple of months
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Obama did a really great job closing the gap. Also, MSNBC made the point that he raised 20 million more dollars last month than Clinton, and most of his donors are not nearly maxed out. The longer this goes on, the better he will do.
Should be an interesting couple of months
Most definitely. He raised $32.5 million compared to just over $13 million for her. And many of her donors are already maxed out. There's no doubt about it; The longer this contest continues, the stronger Obama becomes.
Heh, you obama people make me laugh. Some people talk about delegate lead over Clinton when Clinton actually has the lead. Some people said Obama should be happy with such tie race because he was an underdog when he enjoyed huge surge in recent weeks with big endorsement and big lead in polls in places like California. Do you people even remember how Hillary was almost counted out in NH, and the race as well, before she scored a surprising win?
I personally like Clinton, wouldn't mind Obama wins, and see Obama has a bigger chance to win because of the black, independent and red state democrats support. But still, you people really demonstrate the worst of obama support, other than your blind passion about the person, you can't come up with a logical reason why obama deserve to be the next president. and all you people do is yell go obama go or post FUD on the Internet.
I personally like Clinton, wouldn't mind Obama wins, and see Obama has a bigger chance to win because of the black, independent and red state democrats support. But still, you people really demonstrate the worst of obama support, other than your blind passion about the person, you can't come up with a logical reason why obama deserve to be the next president. and all you people do is yell go obama go or post FUD on the Internet.
Perhaps you missed my famous 'Why I'm Supporting Barack Obama' thread. Look it up.
There's no such thing as "deserving" anything. You earn it, and I believe Obama has.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Here's your OP from that thread Pabst:
"Obama is (in my view) the only candidate left that can pull together independent voters and a segment of Republicans to create a true "working majority" that can begin to move this country forward. I disagree with Obama on many issues, but that is (to me) secondary to ending the gridlock we've been sitting in for years. It's time to end the politics of extremism in DC and I honestly believe Obama is the only one capable of doing it. "
Once again, an Obama supporter pointing to how Obama isn't polarizing and will therefore bring people together without one piece of evidence. This is exactly the platform GWB ran on in 2000, and while it got him elected, you'd think people would learn by now that campaign promises of uniting Washington are bs. He gives good speech, hell he inspires me when I watch him, but you can't just shout "yes we can" pat yourself on the back and call it day.
How are you going to get rid of lobbyists exactly? You can dump your own, but getting rid of all of Congress's lobbyists? How are you going to get Reps to vote to repeal tax cuts or to raise taxes? You can't, you'll have to shove it down their throats. He can order the troops home, but how is he going to get any Rep to agree that's a good move when they all say it's folly? HOW? Is it Obamaheresy to ask how? Can I get an answer?
obama has the lead in elected delegates. furthermoe, he won more last night by a narrow margin, thanks so several routs in the south and west and 'close' losses in clinton territory.
In my opinion, why I like Obama:
1.) Best, realistically achievable healthcare proposal
2.) Doesn't take money from Lobbyists, yet leads in fundraising
3.) Clear position on Iraq War
4.) Has waged, for the most part, a 'clean' campaign
5.) Genuine ability to reach across sides and get things done (as shown by his time as an Illinois State Legislator)
6.) Most electability, instead of polarizing, a candidate who can appeal to independents and republicans
7.) His name isn't Bush or Clinton
8.) Doesn't have 20+ years of Washington entanglements
No one deserves to be the next president, you have to earn it. That is the campaign that Clinton ran for the past year, until she lost Iowa. At least now, she has to earn it. In my book, he already has.
To see an article about why I feel he can unite Dems and Republicans, read this one at newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755/page/1
Basically, Obama is willing to sacrifice some of his loftier goals in order to make incremental steps towards his end goal. He respects the other side.
Obama will be able to bring troops home the same way Hillary would. By ordering them home. The President is the Commander of the United States military, Congress is not. They didn't declare war, this Iraq incursion is entirely within the executive branch's jurisdiction. Congress has to approve funding, and he will almost certainly have the support he needs to bring them home simply because many republicans are sick of the war.
You get rid of lobbyists slowly, by gradually decreasing the chokehold they have over Congressmen. By reforming the way we run elections.
You get rid of lobbyists slowly, by gradually decreasing the chokehold they have over Congressmen. By reforming the way we run elections.
Clinton has a ~60 delegate lead thanks to Super Delegates that pledged their support months ago. Obama has always lead in elected delegates. He will continue to have the elected delegate lead through the month of Feb. If Obama wins the elected delegates the he will win the nomination. There would be hell to pay if Super Delegates decided it. It would basically means the peoples vote doesnt matter, would put the issue of Michigan and Florida to shame.
So what, in your opinion super delegates don't count, and they aren't people or represent people? So we should change the rule of the game because your beloved Obama is losing due to super delegates?
I don't believe in Super Delegates, but those are the rules, and everyone has agreed to them. Naturally, Super Delegates will favor the establishment. That would be Hillary. She has something like a 250-175 lead in those as it stands now. Not insurmountable, by any means.
The argument against them is that they take the voice away from the voters and give it to party leaders instead.
Well, this is a DEMOCRAT primary and why shouldn't the party have some say in it? Lots of states allow independent to vote in the primary/caucuses, and alot of time that may result in selection of candidate that do not best represent the party, super delegate just balance it out a little. And the number of super delegate is so small, and it is often not one sided pro one candidate, so the net effect is not gonna be big anyway. You obama people just crying foul because the small lead in super delegate for Clinton just enough to push her over the top for now. if it were the other way around, you'd sing the praise for super delegates.
Where have I cried about it?
I said that both sides agreed to the rules, and that Super Delegates are part of it.
I believe Obama will win enough elected delegates to overcome her advantage there.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter