NorthSideSox72 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 02:31 PM) IMO, Obama's only chance from this point on is if Indy's and everyone on the Dem side who is anti-Hillary rallies around him. I'm just not sure it's enough. I can't figure out where you are getting this idea about it being a Hillary viictory already. Let's consider this... --Obama has a big lead in SC --Obama picked up two big union endorsements to help NV --The large national lead Clinton had is gone - national polls now show a tie, give or take - as an indicator of Super Tuesday's likely outcome --Obama is raising tons of cash --Indications are that Clinton may have won NH on the shoulders of a poorly designed ballot --Obama is about to pick up John Kerry's endorsement --Clinton's negatives are huge, and her head-to-heads indicate she is the one Dem who is likely to lose in November - Superdelegates know this The only iffy things for Obama are Richardson being likely to endorse Clinton, and Clinton's momentum from a narrow victory in NH. Obama is a crapshoot for either one. If you ask me, its a very close race, with Obama having a slight edge right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 An Obama win in NV will give him the momentum in SC in my opinion. Then it might be up for grabs on Feb 5th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) On NPR, anecdotally, a lot of independents chose to vote for McCain instead of Obama because of Obama's perceived large lead. Interesting, those are the two candidates I woulod vote for if allowed to vote in both primaries. I don't think the ballot was poorly designed. Rotating is better, and evens out the advantages, but even then it is never fair. And I remember from my Poli Sci classes, top of the ballot is huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Funny thing about primaries. They do weird things. 8,000 votes in NH on the second election of the system will not decide this. NH was her firewall. If she had lost NH convincingly, it would have been about done for her. SC is a big state for Obama, and NV doesn't matter so much - not a lot of campaigning going on there. Beyond that, Obama needs a strong second in CA, and winning a lot of states in the South. If Obama is still raising millions, and according to drudge, he's raise a half mil since this morning, he'll have the funds to get out his message. Which means he ain't out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Perhaps someone that is following the Dem sider closer than I can answer this. It seems that Clinton and Obama have the resources to stay in until the convention. I'm guessing Edwards may be able to as well, but that would be tougher. If it stays undecided going into the convention, does Edwards have a chance to be the pick? Or would Edwards become the King or Queen maker? I can't see Obama supporters crossing to Clinton and vice versa. Kind of a smaller version of the Adams - Clay corrupt bargain that torpedoed Jackson in 1852. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Technically, if he controls a delegate, he has a chance if he suddenly gets a few thousand to switch their ballots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 The Delegate Count: Iowa % vote Delegates Super Total Obama: 38 16 2 18 Edwards: 30 14 3 17 Clinton: 29 15 2 17 New Hampshire % vote Delegates Super Total Clinton: 39 9 2 11 Obama: 37 9 3 12 Edwards: 17 4 0 4 Total Count: Super Total Clinton: 159 183 Obama: 53 78 Edwards: 34 52 Weird, huh? The last time a woman controlled as many delegates at a convention was Shirley Chisholm in 1972. She had 152 delegates and won the state of NJ's primary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 What I am thinking Mr. Kickass, does one candidate have to have a majority? Is there any minimum that a candidate has to reach? I'm also thinking back to Kennedy trying to have some of Carter's delegates released back in 1980. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Yes, a candidate has to have 50%+1 of the delegates in a convention to take the nod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 09:53 AM) Of course it helped her. First you have the people that believe she faked it(me)...well those people we're never going to her side anyway so she loses nothing with them. The other people...be it people on the fence, people wanting to see her soft side, women feeling her plight(I also love the guy that had a sign saying iron my shirt and started chanting it in her speeech, brilliant plant IMO) and also the people that just don't care about politics, but now felt bad for her....that breakdown could have swayed any of those groups. Hell her senior adviser said this: Asked if that tearful moment helped win the women's vote in New Hampshire, Clinton's senior adviser Ann Lewis said: "I know it, but I can't prove it." The "Iron my shirt guy" was most likely a Hillary plant. That, then the crying thing, she was just playing up for sympathy. It worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 OK, I get where these come from... QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) The Delegate Count: Iowa % vote Delegates Super Total Obama: 38 16 2 18 Edwards: 30 14 3 17 Clinton: 29 15 2 17 New Hampshire % vote Delegates Super Total Clinton: 39 9 2 11 Obama: 37 9 3 12 Edwards: 17 4 0 4 But you lose me when the numbers somehow mysteriously jump here... QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) Total Count: Super Total Clinton: 159 183 Obama: 53 78 Edwards: 34 52 Are you saying that some super-delegates in states other than IA and NH have already committed? And is that binding, or can they change based on what happens in their states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Yes. These superdelegates have pledged to vote for one candidate or the other, they are not beholden to what happens in their state. In fact, in many states - like the Electoral College, delegates are not bound to the results of a state primary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 02:47 PM) Yes, a candidate has to have 50%+1 of the delegates in a convention to take the nod. That's how I understood it. So if this becomes a floor fight, I give Obama about the lowest chances. Clinton has the "machine" and Edwards is not in the worst of the fray between those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) Yes. These superdelegates have pledged to vote for one candidate or the other, they are not beholden to what happens in their state. In fact, in many states - like the Electoral College, delegates are not bound to the results of a state primary. OK so, a couple hundred Superdelegates have already committed. I assume the rest are waiting to decide, based on their state or something else. Weird. How many superdelegates are there, versus state results-based delegates? And who are these Superdelegates that get to make this kind of call? Local politicians or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 04:15 PM) OK so, a couple hundred Superdelegates have already committed. I assume the rest are waiting to decide, based on their state or something else. Weird. How many superdelegates are there, versus state results-based delegates? And who are these Superdelegates that get to make this kind of call? Local politicians or something? Well, found some info... For the Dems, there are 3,253 pledged delegates (results-based) and 796 Superdelegates, making a total of 4,049. So, Superdelegates make up 19.6% or so of the total. Found this about Superdelegates... • Superdelegates in the Democratic Party are typically members of the Democratic National Committee, elected officials like senators or governors, or party leaders. They do not have to indicate a candidate preference and do not have to compete for their position. If a superdelegate dies or is unable to participate at the convention, alternates do not replace that delegate, which would reduce the total delegates number and the "magic number" needed to clinch the nomination. So, these Superdelegates can do what they want to. But as of now, only 266 Superdelegates have pledged, leaving the rest to decide after their states' primaries. I'd guess that they'd tend to align based on results and/or electability. That does add a twist. If a candidate is dominant enough in the contests, the Supers won't matter (unless the pledged delegates pull a weird one). But if its close, they definitely matter. As an Obama supporter at this point, I am glad to see that the Superdelegates are DNC folks who want the party to win. Obama has the best head-to-head stats of any candidate, making him look a lot more electable. Oh also, there are already 34 pledged to Edwards, 19 pledged to Richardson and 1 to Kucinich. Those numbers will rise (at least Edwards' anyway), so they can come into play later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) The "Iron my shirt guy" was most likely a Hillary plant. That, then the crying thing, she was just playing up for sympathy. It worked. Actually I believe the Iron My Shirt folks were a stunt by a local radio station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts