NorthSideSox72 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Nevada will hold both caucuses, and South Carolina will have its Republican primary, on Saturday th 19th. Here is an opening volley... when asked about the lawsuit filed to prevent caucus locations in the casinos in Vegas, Slick Willy got a little snippy. And he kept saying over and over again that those votes would be worth five times as much; anyone know what that's about? By the way, as Sqwert noted, the courts decided the caucus locations are a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) And he kept saying over and over again that those votes would be worth five times as much; anyone know what that's about? I thought that too. My guess is it's "fuzzy math" or a distortion of reality. Someone needs to call him out on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 He might be referring to the allegations that there will be union officials there to make sure the rank and file vote the way they want them to, thereby ensuring most or all the votes go for Obama, even if they wanted to vote for someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) He might be referring to the allegations that there will be union officials there to make sure the rank and file vote the way they want them to, thereby ensuring most or all the votes go for Obama, even if they wanted to vote for someone else. See, and that is a HUGE issue I have with caucuses. I realize a caucuses probably favor Obama (whom I support). but Americans should be able to vote in secret. The one thing great about America is that we cant be influenced to vote when in the booth. It's what makes us different than supposed "democracy dictatorships" where you can vote, but if you dont vote for who we tell you to vote for... we kill you. THat is a bit drastic of a comparison, but who is to say someones JOB isnt in jeopardy for voting for Hillary and Not Obama? It's just not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 01:19 PM) See, and that is a HUGE issue I have with caucuses. I realize a caucuses probably favor Obama (whom I support). but Americans should be able to vote in secret. The one thing great about America is that we cant be influenced to vote when in the booth. It's what makes us different than supposed "democracy dictatorships" where you can vote, but if you dont vote for who we tell you to vote for... we kill you. THat is a bit drastic of a comparison, but who is to say someones JOB isnt in jeopardy for voting for Hillary and Not Obama? It's just not right. This is why the Caucus system just sucks. One of several reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) I thought that too. My guess is it's "fuzzy math" or a distortion of reality. Someone needs to call him out on this. People need to read the quote "Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give everybody who voted in a casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct? Did you know that?" the former president said, growing visibly upset. (Watch Clinton's back and forth with the reporter) "What happened is nobody understood what had happened. Now everybody's saying, 'Oh, they don't want us to vote.' What they really tried to do was to set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) People need to read the quote Here's one attempt to crunch the numbers on Karl's claim there: So here’s our math (the algebra teacher at our public school would be so proud). We took a robust prediction of 10,000 people showing up to the Strip at-large caucus sites this coming Saturday. We divide that by 9, and get 1,111-and-change showing up to each at-large precinct on Saturday. Now plug 1,111 into the handy-dandy formula provided by the state: 1,111 divided by 15 = 74-and-change. Round down to 74. That means that given our scenario, 1,111 people will show up at each of 9 caucus locations. And each caucus location will get 74 delegates. Now multiply the 74 by 9. We get 666. That’s the total delegates from the at-large precincts. What percent is that of the total delegates? Well, there are 10,446 delegates elsewhere in the state. So by doing the last step, it equals a little less than 6 percent. Whether those extra Strip delegates will be enough to change the outcome of the caucus remains to be seen, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 03:22 PM) People need to read the quote I still dont get how being given the ability to vote means it is automatically 5 times more powerful. If they could go home to vote, they would! But since they cant, they hold caucuses there. It's just shifting the vote to a different location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 03:19 PM) See, and that is a HUGE issue I have with caucuses. I realize a caucuses probably favor Obama (whom I support). but Americans should be able to vote in secret. The one thing great about America is that we cant be influenced to vote when in the booth. It's what makes us different than supposed "democracy dictatorships" where you can vote, but if you dont vote for who we tell you to vote for... we kill you. THat is a bit drastic of a comparison, but who is to say someones JOB isnt in jeopardy for voting for Hillary and Not Obama? It's just not right. But what we have in a primary is two clubs picking who will represent them and run in the general. Each party has some flexibility in how they pick "their" candidate. Primaries as we know them, have only been around for about 50 years. At least with having a majority of states holding primaries. Prior to that, delegates were sent to a national convention to pick the candidate. At the most, you would have a voice in which delegate went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 03:24 PM) Here's one attempt to crunch the numbers on Karl's claim there: OMG! 666. Voting on the strip means voting for the devil!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) If they could go home to vote, they would! I don't think so. More will vote at a location they are already at, like work. People find all sorts of excuses, and not knowing where to go is one of them. Not being able to get off work is another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 01:31 PM) I don't think so. More will vote at a location they are already at, like work. People find all sorts of excuses, and not knowing where to go is one of them. Not being able to get off work is another. But in a primary system, there's a way around that; it's called an absentee vote. The problem with the caucus system is that absentee voting is impossible. Therefore, the only way to get people to actually participate and be counted is to hold the caucuses in a way that they can make it. Is it somewhat unfair that the caucuses are being held at the location where some people work but not others? Yes. But the fact is the system is unfair either way, and given the choice, I'll always take the option which is unfair in the sense that it allows more people to have their votes counted instead of the system that excludes potential voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Not all caucuses are like the Iowa Democratic Caucus. A lot of them do allow secret balloting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 I tend to agree that a caucus may not be the best way to go. But it does make it exciting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 04:27 PM) I tend to agree that a caucus may not be the best way to go. But it does make it exciting! It has some problems with it, but I for one really enjoyed hearing a lot of different people talk about what they liked about their candidates. As far as the Republican one went, the votes were written on pieces of paper. So, no one knew who you were voting for. I do like the Iowa Democrat method where it really forces you to talk and think about what a candidate brings to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Watch results trickle in for the Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 They have already called the Repubs for Romney. Ick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I predict a 1% difference between Obama and Clinton in the end. I don't know who wins, but the difference will be 1%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) I predict a 1% difference between Obama and Clinton in the end. I don't know who wins, but the difference will be 1%. Which means they would be splitting delegates once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:22 PM) Which means they would be splitting delegates once again. That is correct. It's a dog fight. I really prefer this "splitting" method rather than the Republican winner take all. It's far more realistic of who people want. This is why I am a HUGE supporter of removing the electoral college and going by popular vote in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 wow i never expected numbers like this. i mean i didnt expect an edwards win but 5%? that is messed the f*** up. oh well. GO CLINTON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 MSNBC called it for Clinotn. DAMN IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I think Obama is officially done. Unless he wins strong in SC, nothing stops Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Obama needed Edwards to do better - because if Edwards had kingmaking power he'd pick Obama, but with Edwards out of the picture Clinton wins this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I'm surprised McCain is doing this poorly in Nevada.. Paul could take second? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts