NationStates Jolt Archive

The polls have just closed in New Hampshire and Senators Clinton and McCain are leading in the early returns.
Source: http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/

Or you could watch the reporting in real time: http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html

You mean people really WATCH cBS news still? WOW.

I'd give my left foot for an Obama v. McCain election. Both have good sides to them, I could stand to see either in office.

The polls have just closed in New Hampshire and Senators Clinton and McCain are leading in the early returns.
Source: http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/

Great, the two pro-war pieces of shit are winning.

Oh well, it only reinforces my desire to leave the country and not look back.

For those who are interested this (http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html) site seems to be keeping up to date on the results as they come in.

Bah, Snaf time warped me.

Or you could watch the reporting in real time: http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.htmlNice link and Fox News is declaring Senator McCain the winner in New Hampshire.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/ (http://www.foxnews.com/)

Or you could watch the reporting in real time: http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html

Yes! Win!

Obama better catch up...although there's still plenty of precincts to count.

For those who are interested this (http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html) site seems to be keeping up to date on the results as they come in.

Bah, Snaf time warped me.

Lies.

I'd give my left foot for an Obama v. McCain election. Both have good sides to them, I could stand to see either in office.

Agreed, though I'd settle for Edwards on the Dem ticket.

I'd give my left foot for an Obama v. McCain election. Both have good sides to them, I could stand to see either in office.

You'd be fine with John "I have no problem with staying in Iraq for 100 years" McCain as President?

Nice link and Fox News is declaring Senator McCain the winner in New Hampshire.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/ (http://www.foxnews.com/)

Oh fox, you fail so hard.

I have more problems with John "the Constitution created America as a Christian Nation" McCain.

That scares you more than the continued mass slaughter in the Middle East, why?

You'd be fine with John "I have no problem with staying in Iraq for 100 years" McCain as President?

I have more problems with John "the Constitution created America as a Christian Nation" McCain.

I have more problems with John "the Constitution created America as a Christian Nation" McCain.

Treaty of Tripoli, Senator. Try reading it. Article XI specifically, I believe.

ImpMex: While I applaud the attempt at hyperbole, nobody wants to stay in Iraq for a century. On the other hand, I don't think that we as Americans should be able to sleep at night knowing that we destroyed a functioning (if brutal, autocratic, murderous etc) regime, and then ran away because things started to look tough and we realized we couldn't have a tidy war.

So yes, I support John "We should fix what we broke" McCain. As for the 'Christian nation' thing? No, I don't support it. On the other hand, I see social issues as something we can deal with later, while Iraq is a problem now.

That scares you more than the continued mass slaughter in the Middle East, why?

Another president who has no fucking idea of what the constitution says doesn't scare you?

You can also watch the results on CNN.

Mike Huckabee is my favorite, but he probably isn't going to do very well in New Hampshire. Last time I checked Hilary was winning on the democratic side and Senator McCain was winning on the Republican side. John Edwards is last in the democrats and Roody is last on the Republican.

Huckabee said he'd consider 3rd or 4th as a win for him in NH given low expected support and he's currently in 3rd.

Lord help us all.

You can also watch the results on CNN.

Mike Huckabee is my favorite, but he probably isn't going to do very well in New Hampshire. Last time I checked Hilary was winning on the democratic side and Senator McCain was winning on the Republican side. John Edwards is last in the democrats and Roody is last on the Republican.

That'd be Mike Gravel and Duncan Hunter, respectively. Edwards and Rudy are both in third for their respective parties.

McCain Declared winner in New Hampshire.

Clinton and Obama deadlocked.

Gravel has 67 votes right now. ROFLMAO.

Another president who has no fucking idea of what the constitution says doesn't scare you?

Never said it didn't scare me.

That'd be Mike Gravel and Duncan Hunter, respectively. Edwards and Rudy are both in third for their respective parties.

Huckabee's beating Julie out by around 1, 000 votes on my screen, are you reading right Ilfry?

Fucking 11% and YOU DECLARE A WINNER?


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/LOLCat/skeptical-cat-is-fraught-with-skept.jpg

Fucking 11% and YOU DECLARE A WINNER?


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/LOLCat/skeptical-cat-is-fraught-with-skept.jpg

Its what CNN is saying.

GObama!

:p

I hate to see this Clinton person leading in NH. Somebody do something!

Oh I know - *uses sharpie on monitor to make up his own statistics*

ahhhh much better

Its what CNN is saying.

Okay. Bastion of responsible newsmaking that is CNN aside, why haven't they declared the Democratic winner?

Huckabee's beating Julie out by around 1, 000 votes on my screen, are you reading right Ilfry?

I was when I read it. I think. It's updated since anyway.

Fucking 11% and YOU DECLARE A WINNER?


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/LOLCat/skeptical-cat-is-fraught-with-skept.jpg

Skeptical cat is right to be skeptical, and we should all be more like Skeptical cat.

hover over Dixville on http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html (top of the map)

I think they should decide the NH election because they have the coolest name.

I was when I read it. I think. It's updated since anyway.

Perhaps your Ilfra-red sensors are off.

Red....Republicans...Ilfra....Infra....I kill myself, and possibly a whole lot more as well :)

Its what CNN is saying.

It's a decent prediction, McCain is ahead. But there's only about 20% reported.

25.24% as I write.

It's a decent prediction, McCain is ahead. But there's only about 20% reported.

25.24% as I write.

And has a 9 point lead over Romney. The other race is still to close to call.

And has a 9 point lead over Romney. The other race is still to close to call.

I, for one, am totally caught up with Gravel. Will he break 100 votes?

I, for one, am totally caught up with Gravel. Will he break 100 votes?

Maybe with the energy sword (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpg5sgKB7rU).

I, for one, am totally caught up with Gravel. Will he break 100 votes?

I would be surprised if 100 people even knew who he was (excluding Alaska). I still support him until the end though.

Clinton seems to be holding steady but, looking at individual precints, I'd be surprised if Obama doesn't take it - he has good clusters of support and seems to have most of the middle where counted.

It's certainly interesting, regardless of support, I'm a little tired of the immediate "Clinton implodes' reports after Iowa.

Clinton seems to be holding steady but, looking at individual precints, I'd be surprised if Obama doesn't take it - he has good clusters of support and seems to have most of the middle where counted.

It's certainly interesting, regardless of support, I'm a little tired of the immediate "Clinton implodes' reports after Iowa.

He better win...

Clinton seems to be holding steady but, looking at individual precints, I'd be surprised if Obama doesn't take it - he has good clusters of support and seems to have most of the middle where counted.

It's certainly interesting, regardless of support, I'm a little tired of the immediate "Clinton implodes' reports after Iowa.

Well she is in the process of retooling her campaign.

Okay. Bastion of responsible newsmaking that is CNN aside, why haven't they declared the Democratic winner?

exit polls i assume.

Clinton seems to be holding steady but, looking at individual precints, I'd be surprised if Obama doesn't take it - he has good clusters of support and seems to have most of the middle where counted.

It's certainly interesting, regardless of support, I'm a little tired of the immediate "Clinton implodes' reports after Iowa.

Slowly, Obama's numbers have been chipping into the deficit. Polls did show a sizable lead going into it: I think it will be closer than anticipated, but Obamarama rolls on.

Slowly, Obama's numbers have been chipping into the deficit. Polls did show a sizable lead going into it: I think it will be closer than anticipated, but Obamarama rolls on.

Obama is only down 3% now.

Click Stand;13356833']I would be surprised if 100 people even knew who he was (excluding Alaska). I still support him until the end though.

129!

i am enjoying watching giuliani fighting it out with ron paul for 5th place

what an embarrassment for him to have to be so close to the nutcase candidate.

Obama is only down 3% now.

So what do you think will happen to Hillary's lead?

So what do you think will happen to Hillary's lead?

Hopefully it will continue to decrease. Hillary is pretty much the worse candidate the Dems could put up for President. Obama is probably one of their best.

Hopefully it will continue to decrease. Hillary is pretty much the worse candidate the Dems could put up for President. Obama is probably one of their best.

Not hopefully but realistically: is she going to hold onto the lead? I think she might, at this rate.

Obama is only down 3% now.

I think that's been fairly constant, at least from the 20% reported counts, it's hovered between 2, 500 - 3, 000 votes difference.

We're now at nearly 50%, I'm guessing there'll be a late surge for Obama as the larger precint votes come in, that's on the hypothesis that where there was a lot of voting, it takes longer time for results to come in.

More like 4, 500 vote difference now.

I think that's been fairly constant, at least from the 20% reported counts, it's hovered between 2, 500 - 3, 000 votes difference.

We're now at nearly 50%, I'm guessing there'll be a late surge for Obama as the larger precint votes come in, that's on the hypothesis that where there was a lot of voting, it takes longer time for results to come in.

More like 4, 500 vote difference now.

It's been all over the map, from Hilary having a 1% lead to a 5% lead. The gap is closing agian, so who knows.

Fucking 11% and YOU DECLARE A WINNER?


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/LOLCat/skeptical-cat-is-fraught-with-skept.jpg

Fox declared him a winner at a lot higher than that, seems they were justified in doing that.

Hopefully it will continue to decrease. Hillary is pretty much the worse candidate the Dems could put up for President. Obama is probably one of their best.
We all know how much you love the Clintons!! :D

We're now at nearly 50%, I'm guessing there'll be a late surge for Obama as the larger precint votes come in, that's on the hypothesis that where there was a lot of voting, it takes longer time for results to come in.

Also, it seems the western precincts are slower coming in. Those were Dean's in 2004, and were where Obama was polling higher, AFAIK.

I'm glad McCain won New Hampshire and not Upchuckabee. Two reasons; first, it's nice to know there are still some reasonably sane elements in the Republican Party and second, it illustrates the growing schism in the party.

There was a time when I would have voted for McCain. I think that time is passed, but I'll give him some thought at least.

I wonder if Edwards seemingly switching to support Obama, for which I think he's an opportunist and therefore loses a little of my respect, means a good few Edwards supporters have switched their support to Hillary.

If I liked Clinton over Obama but support Edwards when I think it didn't matter, would I switch my vote if I thought voting for him would mean Clinton would lose?

Do I give too much credence to the voters' thoughts?

Might I add McCain is an old shriveled up dick who shouldn't be in office, I will vote 3rd party if he wins. But he won NH in 2000 and got killed the rest of the way and he will this time. Romney or Huckabee, both suck anyway.

Last time I checked Hilary was winning on the democratic side and Senator McCain was winning on the Republican side.

I find it slightly telling that you refer to them as "Hilary" in one case and "Senator McCain" in the other.

Maybe with the energy sword (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpg5sgKB7rU).

:eek:

Why. Is. This. Man. Not. Winning??? :mad:

Also, it seems the western precincts are slower coming in. Those were Dean's in 2004, and were where Obama was polling higher, AFAIK.

Was he polling well in larger precincts? Never saw much to that effect on the telly.

:eek:

Why. Is. This. Man. Not. Winning??? :mad:

:D

Actually, Fox reported him the winner at 13%, 15 minutes after the polls closed.



Where did you get that? I saw them do that a lot later.

Fox declared him a winner at a lot higher than that, seems they were justified in doing that.
Actually, Fox reported him the winner at 13%, 15 minutes after the polls closed.
I'm glad McCain won New Hampshire and not Upchuckabee. Two reasons; first, it's nice to know there are still some reasonably sane elements in the Republican Party and second, it illustrates the growing schism in the party.

There was a time when I would have voted for McCain. I think that time is passed, but I'll give him some thought at least.

I kind want someone to beat McCain, just to show up Fox and the others who reported him as winning before all the results were in.

I find it slightly telling that you refer to them as "Hilary" in one case and "Senator McCain" in the other.

Pfft! Like women deserve last names! She'll just get PMS and blow up the world with her nukular weapons!@!!11

I kind want someone to beat McCain, just to show up Fox and the others who reported him as winning before all the results were in.

Unfortunately, the only shot at beating McCain at this point is Romney. I don't dislike Fox THAT much. :p

Unfortunately, the only shot at beating McCain at this point is Romney. I don't dislike Fox THAT much. :p

Vote for me then, free playboys and booze to all who do!

Huckabee said he'd consider 3rd or 4th as a win for him in NH given low expected support and he's currently in 3rd.

Lord help us all.

Well, hopefully he won't consider third or fourth a win in the election and show up at the Whitehouse with his suitcase after he loses. :)

i am enjoying watching giuliani fighting it out with ron paul for 5th place

what an embarrassment for him to have to be so close to the nutcase candidate.

Wait...Ron or Rudy, aren't they both nutcases?

I read in, forgive me, Vanity Fair, an article that pretty much opened with the line that Rudy is certifiably insane and why is this being ignored, it then went into an in-depth account of his insanity, his pettiness and his temper tantrums.

I couldn't trust him to be honest and I'm not surprised if he receives far more mediocre results than previously thought.

Was he polling well in larger precincts? Never saw much to that effect on the telly.

I didn't catch that, but I believe the larger ones are mostly in the SE.

Wait...Ron or Rudy, aren't they both nutcases?

I read in, forgive me, Vanity Fair, an article that pretty much opened with the line that Rudy is certifiably insane and why is this being ignored, it then went into an in-depth account of his insanity, his pettiness and his temper tantrums.

I couldn't trust him to be honest and I'm not surprised if he receives far more mediocre results than previously thought.

noooo gjuliani is a typical big time politician. a little unusual in his private life--or maybe in what we know about politicians private lives. but he's not nutz like ron paul.

uh...looking at your post again... WHY is giuliani certifiable?

hover over Dixville on http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html (top of the map)

I think they should decide the NH election because they have the coolest name.

I like Wentworths Location (just to the right of Dixville) with 4 democratic votes and 5 republican ones... Bill Richardson got 75% of that vote. :D

I didn't catch that, but I believe the larger ones are mostly in the SE.

Well, the college towns (wherever Dartmouth, UNH, Franklin Pierce college) have yet to report. Those are full of independant/Obama votes.

You can read the article here (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/wolff200706)

thank you

noooo gjuliani is a typical big time politician. a little unusual in his private life--or maybe in what we know about politicians private lives. but he's not nutz like ron paul.

uh...looking at your post again... WHY is giuliani certifiable?

You can read the article here (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/wolff200706)

Poor Edwards... I think, given the number of hard swipes he's made in the last couple weeks at both Clinton and Obama, he may even be out of luck for a VP spot this time around. Getting neither Iowa nor New Hampshire may be the end of his political career.

Poor Edwards... I think, given the number of hard swipes he's made in the last couple weeks at both Clinton and Obama, he may even be out of luck for a VP spot this time around. Getting neither Iowa nor New Hampshire may be the end of his political career.

Nah, he's Obama's veep. No way Obama'd take Hillary with him. Only she would play a PC diversity card.

Dick Harpootlian. That's a cool name. As is Dick Swett.

But on topic, McCain got NH! I might not have to move to Canada!
He's the only R I would vote for, in the hypothetical where I could vote and it would count. (When's the last time NY went red? Wikipedia says Reagan, 1984. And the blue was Walter Mondale. I think that's an obvious choice.)

Nah, he's Obama's veep. No way Obama'd take Hillary with him. Only she would play a PC diversity card.
Well, he could pull out someone else altogether to be his veep. You never know - and Edwards could be really bummed out from this poor showing.

I'm betting that one reason why McCain is doing well and Obama more poorly than expected is because in the polls, independents were being counted twice... but only actually vote in one primary apiece, and more than expected hopped to the Republican primary over the Democratic one.

Poor Edwards... I think, given the number of hard swipes he's made in the last couple weeks at both Clinton and Obama, he may even be out of luck for a VP spot this time around. Getting neither Iowa nor New Hampshire may be the end of his political career.

while edwards would have made a good counter balance to obamas northerness i dont think he was ever in consideration for anyone's vp.

too tainted from the last election (like it was HIS fault)

he needs it to be over. he has a wife to take care of and kids to raise. he doesnt need to be president.

Well I am really happy that McCain is pulling WELL ahead of Huckabee. I applaud my neighbors to the North.

Kinda bummed about Obama, but he's only 3 points behind so...meh.

We all know how much you love the Clintons!! :D

My love for the Clintons has nothing to do with this in reality. If I thought she was the best candidate, I would have said so even if I do not like her.

Well I am really happy that McCain is pulling WELL ahead of Huckabee. I applaud my neighbors to the North.

Kinda bummed about Obama, but he's only 3 points behind so...meh.
And just think: Rudy Judy's been campaigning hard in the big states. In the event he gets Michigan, and Romney places second again, Romney could blow a gasket somewhere, ya think?

We may see a Republican convention with more divided delegates than ever, even as the Democratic race is hotly contested.

Sen. Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire Democratic primary (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/)


:D

You can read the article here (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/wolff200706)

interesting article.

he's still not as crazy as ron paul.

Doesn't Obama have a real weak spot?????

Like the Southern States?

What are the chances of him winning the whole enchilada because of that apparent weakness?

Obama just can't close that gap. This sucks.

Doesn't Obama have a real weak spot?????

Like the Southern States?

What are the chances of him winning the whole enchilada because of that apparent weakness?
IMO? Not really much of a weakness on his part. Polls have him strongly leading in South Carolina as Edwards loses ground.

Obama just can't close that gap. This sucks.

its disappointing but not a disaster.

Doesn't Obama have a real weak spot?????

Like the Southern States?

What are the chances of him winning the whole enchilada because of that apparent weakness?

So you think they'll vote for a woman over a black man? I mean, if you are going to assume racial predudice, why not gender?

Since when has any Democrat in recent memory carried the South? How is this news?
Florida is up for grabs.

its disappointing but not a disaster.

Just means this is going to be very close between Hilary and Obama. I got my hopes up when she failed in Iowa.

Doesn't Obama have a real weak spot?????

Like the Southern States?

What are the chances of him winning the whole enchilada because of that apparent weakness?

Since when has any Democrat in recent memory carried the South? How is this news?

Florida is up for grabs.

Florida doesn't count because Florida can't make any decisions on its own: it can't even decide if it's a red state or a blue state. Like a child, it needs a group of adults...like a bunch of judges...to decide for it.

I think this is huge for Hillary, if she'd lost NH I think she'd have had a tough time coming back but, and even if it was, in hindsight, expected for her to win, to come back like this purely in media terms gives a massive boost to her campaign.

It's not over yet but she seems steady.

Sen. Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire Democratic primary (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/)


:D
That's being called on slim evidence that we've already seen...

... but ya, Obama isn't closing the gap so far as more precincts report. They may well have called it correctly.

That's being called on slim evidence that we've already seen...

... but ya, Obama isn't closing the gap so far as more precincts report. They may well have called it correctly.

Eh, there's still hope for our nation...

So you think they'll vote for a woman over a black man? I mean, if you are going to assume racial predudice, why not gender?
I am not assuming racial prejudice, I am going by what I have read (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20080107/primary_scramble_080107/20080107/?hub=World&subhub=PrintStory):

I have a friend who knows Democratic party politics extremely well who still says a black man still can't win in the South. And unless the Democrats can win a couple of southern states, they can't win the White House.

That's being called on slim evidence that we've already seen....

She has a 3% lead with 80% reporting. She's not losing this, unless Obama does extremely well starting now.

She has a 3% lead with 80% reporting. She's not losing this, unless Obama does extremely well starting now.

If anything, Clinton seems to be pulling away in terms of voter numbers.

How interesting it's all been, must have been nail-biting for the candidates. If anything, the Internet has made this very compelling and I think it's a fantastic thing for democracy overall.

Yay Internet!

Indeed, and she's just claimed victory.

Ah well. There are still forty-eight states to go. Next up: Michigan.

If anything, Clinton seems to be pulling away in terms of voter numbers.

But her percentage lead is going down. It might be very close.

Indeed, and she's just claimed victory.

Ah well. There are still forty-eight states to go. Next up: Michigan.

Note that only Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd (who has withdrawn from the race), Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich are on the ballot,[4] as the other candidates are boycotting Michigan in protest of its early primary date. The DNC has stripped Michigan of all its delegates, so the primary will not count towards any candidate's delegate total.

Excuse me.

Next up: Nevada.

anyone else catch obama getting a crowd to chant the translated slogan of the immigrants rights movement?

But her percentage lead is going down. It might be very close.

You're not wrong, to think there's 5, 000 votes in it with around 250, 000 votes recorded and 15% to go....

Still too close to call but I think Clinton will edge it, it's hard to see any real trend aside from that 3%, which has stayed reasonably constant but again, there's not a lot of votes in it.

EDIT: Hmm, except most precincts have a very small number of voters. Clinton to win but interestingly close.

Apparently the scene of her crying helped pull women voters over to her side and she does have both a strong turn out of women and a strong lead in that respect. That'll get the talk show hosts going...

I am not assuming racial prejudice, I am going by what I have read (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20080107/primary_scramble_080107/20080107/?hub=World&subhub=PrintStory):
I'm pretty sure that hasn't mattered as the Southern states have been decidedly red for a few decades.

Still too close to call but I think Clinton will edge it, it's hard to see any real trend aside from that 3%, which has stayed reasonably constant but again, there's not a lot of votes in it.

CNN currently has her at a 2% lead.

But her percentage lead is going down. It might be very close.

Indeed. It's a tie for the delegates.

Excuse me.

Next up: Nevada.

Michigan is next. It is possible the Dems wil relent and allow some Michigan delegates. Expect a large number of uncommitted delegates who'll likely end up Obama delegates if allowed.

I haven't looked around yet, so I might be able to answer my own question by the time you all get around to answering it for me, but I was looking at MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229220/), and there was this:

Hillary Clinton 99,863 39% Delegates: 9
Barack Obama 93,033 36% Delegates: 9

Now, is this an all or nothing state, meaning that despite getting the same number of delegates, Clinton gets the whole bag because she has a higher number, or is it Clinton wins the percentage race but in the grand scheme of things this is more or less a tie?

Going to look it up on my own, but I thought I'd pose the question publicly...

I haven't looked around yet, so I might be able to answer my own question by the time you all get around to answering it for me, but I was looking at MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229220/), and there was this:


Now, is this an all or nothing state, meaning that despite getting the same number of delegates, Clinton gets the whole bag because she has a higher number, or is it Clinton wins the percentage race but in the grand scheme of things this is more or less a tie?

Going to look it up on my own, but I thought I'd pose the question publicly...

Ooh, I was going to ask this but didn't in case I was being stupid - which is stupid of me in itself - but yes, what is the meaning of all this?

Ooh, I was going to ask this but didn't in case I was being stupid - which is stupid of me in itself - but yes, what is the meaning of all this?

CNN's scorecard has them split amongst the highest vote-getters, so I'm guessing that's how it works.

Of course, this state also has some "superdelegates" who aren't tied to the voting at all...

Good.

I wonder, though...according to Wiki, Hillary has a lead in the superdelegates(a ridiculous notion if there ever was one) by at least one hundred over Obama. Are those numbers set in stone?

Because if they are, Obama will have some work cut out for him. He'll be behind every step of the way if this sort of close finish keeps up.

According to CNN, those numbers are "according to the latest polls". Superdelegates are people who get to vote as long as they're alive, and aren't tied to voters. The majority of them that answer the poll currently support Clinton, apparently. However, strong showings in popular votes could possibly sway them.

Now, is this an all or nothing state, meaning that despite getting the same number of delegates, Clinton gets the whole bag because she has a higher number, or is it Clinton wins the percentage race but in the grand scheme of things this is more or less a tie?

Going to look it up on my own, but I thought I'd pose the question publicly...

I'm not really sure I understand the question... It sounds like you're confusing the primary system with the electoral college.

Michigan is next. It is possible the Dems wil relent and allow some Michigan delegates. Expect a large number of uncommitted delegates who'll likely end up Obama delegates if allowed.

Good.

I wonder, though...according to Wiki, Hillary has a lead in the superdelegates(a ridiculous notion if there ever was one) by at least one hundred over Obama. Are those numbers set in stone?

Because if they are, Obama will have some work cut out for him. He'll be behind every step of the way if this sort of close finish keeps up.

Now, is this an all or nothing state, meaning that despite getting the same number of delegates, Clinton gets the whole bag because she has a higher number, or is it Clinton wins the percentage race but in the grand scheme of things this is more or less a tie?

Going to look it up on my own, but I thought I'd pose the question publicly...

democratic primaries are essentially proportional representation, though on several different levels at the same time

Good.

I wonder, though...according to Wiki, Hillary has a lead in the superdelegates(a ridiculous notion if there ever was one) by at least one hundred over Obama. Are those numbers set in stone?

Because if they are, Obama will have some work cut out for him. He'll be behind every step of the way if this sort of close finish keeps up.

why is having your party's high elected officials automatically being delegates to your party's convention ridiculous?

and those numbers are just who has endorsed who so far. it can change if they feel like it, or if it takes more than one round of voting to choose a candidate.

So far, I found this: (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/tp/new_hampshire_primary.htm)
There are 30 delegates at stake in this open, proportional primary. Voters elect district-level delegates; delegates are allocated to any candidate who receives at least 15 percent of the primary vote in a district.

And an urge to slap my government teacher. Or my teenage self for not paying attention. Or both of us.

why is having your party's high elected officials automatically being delegates to your party's convention ridiculous?

Well...I suppose...it just feels like Tammany Hall hasn't quite left us, that's all.

and those numbers are just who has endorsed who so far. it can change if they feel like it, or if it takes more than one round of voting to choose a candidate.
Oh, good.

Fantastic strategy by Giuliani:

“By the time it’s over with, by Feb. 5, it’s clear that we’re going to be the nominee of the Republican Party,” Mr. Giuliani told supporters in Manchester, before flying to Florida. He added that, perhaps, “we’ve lulled our opponents into a false sense of confidence.”

Yes, lull them then devour them!

I suspect he meant we've lol'd them into a false sense of confidence.

Michigan is next. It is possible the Dems wil relent and allow some Michigan delegates. Expect a large number of uncommitted delegates who'll likely end up Obama delegates if allowed.
I'm voting for Kucinich. It will be interesting to see how many others do (our other choices are Dodd, who has already dropped out, and Gravel, who hasn't been campaigning for a while; Kucinich is the only candidate who has come for a visit).

why is having your party's high elected officials automatically being delegates to your party's convention ridiculous?

Because it means that the illusion of democracy in the process is just that - an illusion. If the delegates from the primaries and caucuses are close, those processes might as well not have been held. It is the oligarchy who will determine the candidate.

I am not assuming racial prejudice, I am going by what I have read (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20080107/primary_scramble_080107/20080107/?hub=World&subhub=PrintStory):


Seems to be poular in South Carolina. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_democratic_primary) And that's an important state.

Seems to be poular in South Carolina. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_democratic_primary) And that's an important state.

...and in a state where you would expect racism to be a big issue.

Because it means that the illusion of democracy in the process is just that - an illusion. If the delegates from the primaries and caucuses are close, those processes might as well not have been held. It is the oligarchy who will determine the candidate.

except that it isn't supposed to be purely democratic. it's about the organization of the political party and the formation of the party's platform. i mean, it's bad enough that we have open primaries in some places - if we are going to have political parties, why shouldn't parties take steps to ensure that the party is to some extent under control of the party? basically, it isn't ridiculous for them to do so, even if we might prefer some other system entirely.

besides, even in a case of a close primary with the party bosses effectively deciding things (more than they already do through the use of institutional support in the actual primary races. the establishment basically chooses the repub nominee anyways, for example), the primaries would still have given excellent information about the candidates strengths and weaknesses as campaigners. which is an important consideration itself.

Pfft! Like women deserve last names! She'll just get PMS and blow up the world with her nukular weapons!@!!11

Aside from the outright sexism of that comment, it is also biologically unlikely at her age.

So what happened to those opinion polls showing a two-digit Obama lead?

My thought is that with the perception that McCain vs. Romney was going to be close, and that Clinton vs. Obama was going to be a blowout, that independents gravitated toward what was supposed to be the closer race, and Obama bled votes to McCain. In other words, the polls influenced the opposite outcome of what they predicted. Thoughts?

So what happened to those opinion polls showing a two-digit Obama lead?

My thought is that with the perception that McCain vs. Romney was going to be close, and that Clinton vs. Obama was going to be a blowout, that independents gravitated toward what was supposed to be the closer race, and Obama bled votes to McCain. In other words, the polls influenced the opposite outcome of what they predicted. Thoughts?

Pollsters are idiots or people lied.

Either way, I'm shocked.

Pollsters are idiots or people lied.

Or maybe the poll didn't cover the same demographics as the vote. Polls in Iowa couldn't project a clear winner, but Obama came out clearly on top. If the people polled are a different demographic than the people who actually show up, the results won't match the polls.

Or maybe the poll didn't cover the same demographics as the vote. Polls in Iowa couldn't project a clear winner, but Obama came out clearly on top. If the people polled are a different demographic than the people who actually show up, the results won't match the polls.

Considering many of the mainstream polls I see are things like "vote in our Facebook poll," this is hardly surprising.

Reuters? Pfft. Facebook will create an accurate sample of America. :rolleyes: