BigSqwert Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:11 PM) CNN.com developing story headline: EDIT: Her actual resignation letter which shows no regret for what she said. For someone who claims to be ready on Day 1 why does it take Clinton 2 or 3 days to act on things like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) For someone who claims to be ready on Day 1 why does it take Clinton 2 or 3 days to act on things like this? You can say that a lot about the Clinton campaign. Why didn't they have a better plan for caucuses, why did they plan for everything to be over on Super Tuesday even in the weeks leading up to that day, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:26 PM) 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. At the end of the day when you add it all up, Obama wound up with more pledged delegates in Texas and in Nevada. How is she the winner? Her popular vote cannot be used as a defense when Obama has 2025 delegates. And he has the overall popular vote lead for those that think that is most important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:31 PM) At the end of the day when you add it all up, Obama wound up with more pledged delegates in Texas and in Nevada. How is she the winner? Her popular vote cannot be used as a defense when Obama has 2025 delegates. And he has the overall popular vote lead for those that think that is most important. At the end of the day, there is a state popular vote total, it is the only equal comparison between states. That map shows who received the most votes in that state. How that state manipulated the results so someone different received more delegates is a separate issue. So if you wish to have an asterisk that says Obama lost the popular vote, but won more delegates, I guess you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:41 PM) At the end of the day, there is a state popular vote total, it is the only equal comparison between states. That map shows who received the most votes in that state. How that state manipulated the results so someone different received more delegates is a separate issue. So if you wish to have an asterisk that says Obama lost the popular vote, but won more delegates, I guess you can. How hard would it be to color a state for a candidate who won the most delegates? It would be like going to the standings page on ESPN.com and no longer seeing wins and losses but who leads in team batting average. Why rank by a measurement that does not affect the final outcome of who will win the division? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg The Bull Luzinski Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Heard this today, anybody else fear HRC splitting from the party if she does not get the nom and running as a 3rd party candidate, and thus fracturing the party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Heard this today, anybody else fear HRC splitting from the party if she does not get the nom and running as a 3rd party candidate, and thus fracturing the party? If she did that then there is no doubt in my mind that she had to of made a back room deal to give McCain the presidency. Because thats the only way in hell that she'd do something that stupid. All she'd do was steal votes from Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg The Bull Luzinski Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 QUOTE(AngelasDaddy0427 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:44 PM) If she did that then there is no doubt in my mind that she had to of made a back room deal to give McCain the presidency. Because thats the only way in hell that she'd do something that stupid. All she'd do was steal votes from Obama. By her twisted logic, she would do it so she could beat McCain in 2012 (probably an easy target) rather than have to wait for the Obama presidency to end in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Polls say Obama would win Iowa and Hillary would lose Iowa. It's stuff like that that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) Polls say Obama would win Iowa and Hillary would lose Iowa. It's stuff like that that matters. But Iowa isnt California. Only California and NY count to hillary. All those "other" states dont matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 the plus side to Obama's "50 state strategy" is he can reclaim states like new hampshire, michigan, iowa, missouri, wyoming that have gone republican. They aren't the sexy FLA and OH delegates, but they add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Well... Ferraro quits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 06:05 PM) Well... Ferraro quits. Ferraro was seriously deluded and naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:46 PM) How hard would it be to color a state for a candidate who won the most delegates? It would be like going to the standings page on ESPN.com and no longer seeing wins and losses but who leads in team batting average. Why rank by a measurement that does not affect the final outcome of who will win the division? It wouldn't be hard at all. I don't get your point. So they have a map that shows popular votes. I guess if you only want one map, then this isn't the map for you. Bottom line, a map that shows the popular vote from state to state allows the public to see in which states the candidates received more votes. They could also come up with a delegates map, but the charts seem to work well. Why are you so afraid of the popular vote? And what do you think about a system that allows a candidate to lose the popular vote and win more delegates? Fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 06:45 PM) But Iowa isnt California. Only California and NY count to hillary. All those "other" states dont matter. Then why have them on the map? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) Then why have them on the map? Geographical continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 06:49 PM) the plus side to Obama's "50 state strategy" is he can reclaim states like new hampshire, michigan, iowa, missouri, wyoming that have gone republican. They aren't the sexy FLA and OH delegates, but they add up. Ding ding ding! If he can pick off a lot of little states then lose ONE big state, he can come out ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 07:08 PM) Why are you so afraid of the popular vote? I'm not. Obama is leading in popular vote. But that's now what ultimately decides who gets the nomination. Delegates do. States should be highlighted on the map to reflect who is actually winning the states by the method that decides the winner...i.e. delegates. QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 07:08 PM) And what do you think about a system that allows a candidate to lose the popular vote and win more delegates? Fair? I think it's stupid but that's the system that is in place. I do like the proportional allocation but I don't get how someone with less votes can get more delegates. The rules need to be tweaked. Perhaps the popular vote winner of a state should do no worse than plus one delegate no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Anyone catch Olbermann? He went off. I except him to be in a body bag in a year or so. He ended his monologue with "Good night and good luck" which I thought was pretty cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 08:19 PM) Anyone catch Olbermann? He went off. I except him to be in a body bag in a year or so. He ended his monologue with "Good night and good luck" which I thought was pretty cool. So what did he say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 07:09 PM) Then why have them on the map? they arent to Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 06:19 PM) Anyone catch Olbermann? He went off. I except him to be in a body bag in a year or so. He ended his monologue with "Good night and good luck" which I thought was pretty cool. Pretty sure he always does that at the ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 08:31 PM) Pretty sure he always does that at the ending. he does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 08:31 PM) Pretty sure he always does that at the ending. Oh. Guess I don't watch enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 08:19 PM) Anyone catch Olbermann? He went off. I except him to be in a body bag in a year or so. I am lookign forward to the rerun tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts