DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Hopefully the fact that PA is a closed primary will keep some of the GOP'ers at bay. Some could change their registration of course, but as Rex pointed out, the deadline for that is fast approaching and most people won't bother or don't know about it.

 

[mr_genius]

Hopefully the fact that PA is a closed primary will keep some of the GOP'ers at bay. Some could change their registration of course, but as Rex pointed out, the deadline for that is fast approaching and most people won't bother or don't know about it.

 

Yea, i doubt very many Republicans are going to go to that much trouble just to vote for Hillary.

Edited March 12, 2008 by mr_genius

[BigSqwert]

Yea, i doubt very many Republicans are going to go to that much trouble just to vote for Hillary.

Why not? She has 35 years of experience. Just ask her.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Pro-Obama Governors Challenge Hillary "Big State" Spin

More than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. It's also worth noting that polls in four of these five states show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

 

WOW! That quote says it all.

There have been 47 contests so far (including the 2 versions in Texas) and half came from 5 states while the other half are spread among the rest. WOW!

[southsider2k5]

Didn't the Dailykas try to do the same thing to McCain? I guess Rush is more convincing to his followers.

 

They campaigned to do the samething in Michigan because only Hillary was on the ballot there.

[BigSqwert]

Why does the MSM continue to portray state victories by who won the popular vote? If the nominee is decided by who gets 2025 delegates first then shouldn't a state victory be awarded to who won the most delegates in a particular state? My analogy would be focusing on team triples to try and determine which team will win the division. If popular vote isn't the determining factor then why mislead the public?

[southsider2k5]

Its the same media who keeps hyping up how many states Obama has won, as if they are all equal wins. The size of the states really matters in an election where population, and therefore delegates are weighted towards big states. Who cares how many states they each have won? Who has the most electoral votes is what really matters.

[BigSqwert]

Its the same media who keeps hyping up how many states Obama has won, as if they are all equal wins. The size of the states really matters in an election where population, and therefore delegates are weighted towards big states. Who cares how many states they each have won? Who has the most electoral votes is what really matters.

You can't really compare the Democratic primaries and the general election since one has proportional victories and one has winner-take-all. Two different strategies in play.

[southsider2k5]

You can't really compare the Democratic primaries and the general election since one has proportional victories and one has winner-take-all. Two different strategies in play.

 

Winning Mississippi is not the same as winning Ohio, and shouldn't be portrayed as such. The whole Obama 11 state winning streak was stupid, because none of the states had any BIG delegate pull to them. The number of states each candidate has won, does not matter. All of the state sizes are not equal, and just giving total numbers of state wins is shortsighted. Hell just think back to the 2004 election when Bush used the same strategy to declare a mandate, and everyone freaked out. Oh how the times have changed...

[BigSqwert]

The whole Obama 11 state winning streak was stupid, because none of the states had any BIG delegate pull to them.

Those states combined gave him 285 delegates.

[BigSqwert]

You also did not address my original question. The primaries are decided by who gets 2025 delegates first. This has nothing to do with the winner-take-all strategy of the general election.

[southsider2k5]

Those states combined gave him 285 delegates.

 

California alone gave Hillary 203 delegates. Add in her 139 from New York state and you have dwarved the total of those 11 states that quick. Yet winning those 11 states is somehow put on a pedistool like it is more important. Its misleading and dishonest.

[southsider2k5]

You also did not address my original question. The primaries are decided by who gets 2025 delegates first. This has nothing to do with the winner-take-all strategy of the general election.

 

I am not sure what this has to do with the general election in the first place? We are talking about the Democratic primaries and how those are being portrayed, right?

[NorthSideSox72]

I am not sure what this has to do with the general election in the first place? We are talking about the Democratic primaries and how those are being portrayed, right?

Wait, you think that the media is somehow favoring Obama? Then how do you explain that every article everywhere keeps referring to Clinton's big victories in OH and TX, when in fact she didn't win TX at all!

 

[BigSqwert]

I am not sure what this has to do with the general election in the first place? We are talking about the Democratic primaries and how those are being portrayed, right?

You were talking about winning states. I'm trying to make a distinction as to what constitutes winning a state. In the Democratic primary a state is won by who had the most delegates awarded since delegates are ultimately the deciding factor of who gets the nomination. Look at Texas and Nevada for example. Clinton won those 2 states in total popular vote by small margins but Obama wound up getting more delegates in each of those 2 states. At the end of the day her popular vote "win" does nothing to help her cause. Hence why I question why the MSM still counts Nevada and Texas as a Clinton win. What exactly did she win from that?

Edited March 12, 2008 by BigSqwert

[Texsox]

Winning Mississippi is not the same as winning Ohio, and shouldn't be portrayed as such. The whole Obama 11 state winning streak was stupid, because none of the states had any BIG delegate pull to them. The number of states each candidate has won, does not matter. All of the state sizes are not equal, and just giving total numbers of state wins is shortsighted. Hell just think back to the 2004 election when Bush used the same strategy to declare a mandate, and everyone freaked out. Oh how the times have changed...

 

Using a sports analogy, isn't this like counting wins during the season? Of course there are big and small wins. But unlike say, college football, strength of schedule will not come into play. So I think there is some value in those comparisons.

 

As far as Bush, I think the general is like the championship game. Sometimes the best team in the regular season doesn't win. Sometimes a bad call changes the results. And then we have the debates as to what the victory actually means. There can be valid and invalid inferences drawn from the same information. So I think it could be fair, in a primary, which occures in series, to make inferences that would not be valid if everyone voted at the same time.

 

Still, great points, states won is not as big a factor as which states which will be a better predictor of success in November. But it really doesn't matter which Dem won Texas, they will lose in November and the opposite for California.

[StrangeSox]

California alone gave Hillary 203 delegates. Add in her 139 from New York state and you have dwarved the total of those 11 states that quick. Yet winning those 11 states is somehow put on a pedistool like it is more important. Its misleading and dishonest.

 

Those states are going to go Dem no matter what. Hillary winning in solid blue states like NY and CA doesn't say much. Hillary winning* in solid red states like Texas doesn't say much. Their outcome is pretty much guaranteed in the general. It is the swing states that matter. Hillary won Florida* and Ohio in that area, to her credit.

Edited March 12, 2008 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

You were talking about winning states. I'm trying to make a distinction as to what constitutes winning a state. In the Democratic primary a state is won by who had the most delegates awarded since delegates are ultimately the deciding factor of who gets the nomination. Look at Texas and Nevada for example. Clinton won those 2 states in total popular vote by small margins but Obama wound up getting more delegates in each of those 2 states. At the end of the day her popular vote "win" does nothing to help her cause. Hence why I question why the MSM still counts Nevada and Texas as a Clinton win. What exactly did she win from that?

 

To which I replied what does winning 11 states have to do with anything, when two states can outweigh their delegate totals? Why are they being potrayed as 11-2 for Obama, instead of their respective delegate totals? To me it is the samething, but for the other side.

[BigSqwert]

To which I replied what does winning 11 states have to do with anything, when two states can outweigh their delegate totals? Why are they being potrayed as 11-2 for Obama, instead of their respective delegate totals? To me it is the samething, but for the other side.

I think we're having 2 separate arguments here. You are arguing that bigger states are more important than smaller ones. I won't say I disagree. However, I'm arguing that she is getting credit for a win when in fact she has less awarded delegates in these states that she "won".

 

The ultimate measure of the winner is delegates. Not who won more states. Not who had a higher popular vote count. So that's why I question why CNN, MSNBC, etc are awarding Clinton wins in states where she lost the delegate battle.

Edited March 12, 2008 by BigSqwert

[Texsox]

There are several *facts* being reported. It is being reported how many delegates have been won, and it is being reported who won which states. Should the media just not report the winner of the popular vote in each state because some people do not understand that delegate count is more important?

 

What people think after reading and hearing those results cannot be controlled.

[BigSqwert]

There are several *facts* being reported. It is being reported how many delegates have been won, and it is being reported who won which states. Should the media just not report the winner of the popular vote in each state because some people do not understand that delegate count is more important?

 

What people think after reading and hearing those results cannot be controlled.

I understand the various things that are being reported wrt to popular vote, states won, etc. My beef is that when the major networks show a map of who won which state they only go by popular vote when that is not the measurement used for who wins the nomination. Would it be too difficult to color Texas and Nevada as Obama wins on the map? He did win those states when using the actual, and only, measurement used to decide the nominee.

Edited March 12, 2008 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

CNN.com developing story headline:

Geraldine Ferraro is leaving the Hillary Clinton campaign in the wake of a controversy regarding her remarks about Barack Obama.

 

EDIT: Her actual resignation letter which shows no regret for what she said.

Edited March 12, 2008 by BigSqwert

[Texsox]

I understand the various things that are being reported wrt to popular vote, states won, etc. My beef is that when the major networks show a map of who won which state they only go by popular vote when that is not the measurement used for who wins the nomination. Would it be too difficult to color Texas and Nevada as Obama wins on the map? He did win those states when using the actual, and only, measurement used to decide the nominee.

 

It depends on what they are trying to show with the maps.

[BigSqwert]

It depends on what they are trying to show with the maps.

Whenever they mention the maps they mention that it shows who "won" the various states. I am just having a hard time understanding why they use a different measure to identify which state a candidate won then the measurement that is actually used to secure the nomination.

[Texsox]

Whenever they mention the maps they mention that it shows who "won" the various states. I am just having a hard time understanding why they use a different measure to identify which state a candidate won then the measurement that is actually used to secure the nomination.

 

That is why they also report delegates won. Each state runs their primaries in their own way. In Texas you would need three maps to be really accurate. One to show delegates won based on the popular vote in each Rep district, one for caucus delegates won, and finally pledged superdelegates. And remember Texas awards delegates in a State Rep by State Rep districr basis.

 

They report the popular vote because people want to know and it is the one comparison you can make from state to state. We still believe that every vote matters.