Nevada Caucus and SC GOP Primary discussion thread

[Balta1701]

A lot of those electronic voting machines are poorly designed. Computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon University tested them and found a lot of flaws. Could easily produce 10% no vote error in an election.

Which is what a lot of us have been saying since 2000. And every time we did, we just got ignored. And the people making them just happened to always be sending decent lobbying checks to the party in power to make sure that nothing was ever fixed. Some of us kept saying..."You know, eventually, just by accident, there's going to be one of these E-voting machines that totally screws over the Republicans in an election just the way that the paper ballots screwed up the 2000 race in Florida"...but every time someone brought a bill forwards regarding it, enough lobbying dollars came in to stall it. And county after county just kept buying the paperless electronic machines, often with federal money from the Help America Vote Act from 2001.

[NorthSideSox72]

Clinton up 51-45 with 90% reporting. So it was close, but Clinton wins. If Obama wins SC as big as the polls indicate, then its still a dead heat as far as I can see.

 

The real story here to me is the GOP... Romney with 51%, the next best 13%?????? That's an ass-whoopin'. And here is the really amazing part - RON PAUL IS IN 2ND IN NEVADA at 13%, WITH 95% REPORTING.

 

[mr_genius]

Which is what a lot of us have been saying since 2000. And every time we did, we just got ignored. And the people making them just happened to always be sending decent lobbying checks to the party in power to make sure that nothing was ever fixed. Some of us kept saying..."You know, eventually, just by accident, there's going to be one of these E-voting machines that totally screws over the Republicans in an election just the way that the paper ballots screwed up the 2000 race in Florida"...but every time someone brought a bill forwards regarding it, enough lobbying dollars came in to stall it. And county after county just kept buying the paperless electronic machines, often with federal money from the Help America Vote Act from 2001.

 

ES&S basically bribed their way into getting a big government deal.

[mr_genius]

Clinton up 51-45 with 90% reporting. So it was close, but Clinton wins. If Obama wins SC as big as the polls indicate, then its still a dead heat as far as I can see.

 

The real story here to me is the GOP... Romney with 51%, the next best 13%?????? That's an ass-whoopin'. And here is the really amazing part - RON PAUL IS IN 2ND IN NEVADA at 13%, WITH 95% REPORTING.

 

Paul has more votes than H.Clinton in Nevada.

[NorthSideSox72]

Paul has more votes than H.Clinton in Nevada.

Holy crap, you're right. Why is the Dem turnout so low? Only 10,000 people?! That can't be right.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Holy crap, you're right. Why is the Dem turnout so low? Only 10,000 people?! That can't be right.

I THINK it's votes vs delegates.

[Balta1701]

Paul has more votes than H.Clinton in Nevada.

The Democrats in Nevada do not release actual vote totals for some reason. The number you're reading is "the number of delegates elected to county conventions that each candidate will receive." according to CNN. The caucus turnout is being reported as somewhere near 115,000, so the actual votes for Hillary has to be about 55,000 or so.

[mr_genius]

The Democrats in Nevada do not release actual vote totals for some reason. The number you're reading is "the number of delegates elected to county conventions that each candidate will receive." according to CNN. The caucus turnout is being reported as somewhere near 115,000, so the actual votes for Hillary has to be about 55,000 or so.

 

that makes more sense

[NorthSideSox72]

The Democrats in Nevada do not release actual vote totals for some reason. The number you're reading is "the number of delegates elected to county conventions that each candidate will receive." according to CNN. The caucus turnout is being reported as somewhere near 115,000, so the actual votes for Hillary has to be about 55,000 or so.

That's much more clear, thanks.

 

Still though, Ron Paul in 2nd? Wow.

 

[mr_genius]

Does Ron Paul even given a speech after each states primary results are announced? If he does, it's pretty lame that no one is covering his 2nd place speech for NV

[Balta1701]

Exit Polls have S.C. too close to call between McCain and Huckabee, but possibly a narrow McCain lead.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

Exit Polls have S.C. too close to call between McCain and Huckabee, but possibly a narrow McCain lead.

I'm torn. If Hillary Clinton is going to be the Dem nominee, then by all means, I want McCain for the GOP so I have someone worth something to vote for. On the other hand, if Obama can pull it off, I'd rather have a given loser like Romney or Huckabee be the Republican.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

First 2% reporting from SC...

 

McCain: 37%

Huckabee: 27%

Romney: 16%

Thompson: 12%

Paul: 4%

Giuliani: 3%

 

Still very early of course.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, now 9% in SC...

 

McCain: 35%

Huckabee: 28%

Romney: 16%

Thompson: 14%

Paul: 4%

Giuliani: 3%

 

Is Huckabee a flash in the pan? And does Giuliani take the cake as the most over-hyped, underperforming candidate ever?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

CNN now shows Obama with 13 delegates, and Clinton with 12.

 

[Reddy]

CNN now shows Obama with 13 delegates, and Clinton with 12.

 

anyone have any idea how that happens?

[Balta1701]

anyone have any idea how that happens?

If the caucuses were binding (they're not), it would happen because its done like the electoral college; a set of 3 delegates covering different areas of the state that aren't equal in population. So while Hillary may win specific areas, Obama may win more delegates (in this version) because he kept it close enough in the highly populated areas and won the rural areas.

 

The other little issue may be that since the Dems are reporting "Caucus delegates" and not actual voters, the actual vote total could be closer than the 51/45 that we're seeing, which may play into it as well.

 

But on top of that, the votes for these delegates are currently non-binding until after a state party convention later this year. So this is basically a dressed up straw poll out there, and once Hillary wins Super Tuesday, a lot of these delegates will simply be allowed to switch to her at the conventions.

 

In other words...God I hate caucuses.

[Reddy]

If the caucuses were binding (they're not), it would happen because its done like the electoral college; a set of 3 delegates covering different areas of the state that aren't equal in population. So while Hillary may win specific areas, Obama may win more delegates (in this version) because he kept it close enough in the highly populated areas and won the rural areas.

 

The other little issue may be that since the Dems are reporting "Caucus delegates" and not actual voters, the actual vote total could be closer than the 51/45 that we're seeing, which may play into it as well.

 

But on top of that, the votes for these delegates are currently non-binding until after a state party convention later this year. So this is basically a dressed up straw poll out there, and once Hillary wins Super Tuesday, a lot of these delegates will simply be allowed to switch to her at the conventions.

In other words...God I hate caucuses.

 

exactly. god this political system is so messed up.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

54% reporting from SC...

 

McCain: 34%

Huckabee: 29%

Thompson: 16%

Romney: 15%

Paul: 4%

Giuliani: 2%

 

[Reddy]

54% reporting from SC...

 

McCain: 34%

Huckabee: 29%

Thompson: 16%

Romney: 15%

Paul: 4%

Giuliani: 2%

 

good to see. huckabee scares me so much.

[StrangeSox]

Clinton leads by five points with the early returns. This could officially be the worst general election ever.

 

It's going to be very, very hard to ever top Kerry vs. Bush in my mind.

 

Clinton vs. Romney would give it a run for its money, though.

[StrangeSox]

The trouble is, I paid enough attention during the Clinton years that right now, I think that there's a solid chance that a corporatist Republican might well be a better policy maker than the Clintons, and the fact that they've surrounded themselves in this campaign with many of the same people from the last election doesn't help matters. Hillary would have an awful lot of work to do to convince me otherwise in the general. I don't think the Clintons did a very good job with the opportunity they had in the 1990's, and right now, I'd lean towards a fresh face over them again.

 

And the fact that I really hate the idea of political dynasties in this country really, really doesn't help.

 

+1

[Balta1701]

It's going to be very, very hard to ever top Kerry vs. Bush in my mind.

 

Clinton vs. Romney would give it a run for its money, though.

Clinton v. McCain would be absolutely horrendous...between the media's dislike for Clinton and the media's unbelievable fawning over everything McCain does. At least with Clinton and Romney the media hates both of them, so there'd be a bit of balance that way.

[StrangeSox]

Clinton v. McCain would be absolutely horrendous...between the media's dislike for Clinton and the media's unbelievable fawning over everything McCain does. At least with Clinton and Romney the media hates both of them, so there'd be a bit of balance that way.

 

Yeah, but I could vote for McCain without needing to vomit while doing so. Not so with Clinton, Romney, Bush or Kerry.

 

Since, IMO, the Democrats are going to strengthen their power in Congress, I'd like to see a moderate Republican in the White House.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, but I could vote for McCain without needing to vomit while doing so. Not so with Clinton, Romney, Bush or Kerry.

 

Since, IMO, the Democrats are going to strengthen their power in Congress, I'd like to see a moderate Republican in the White House.

I'd be the opposite...I'd be unable to vote for McCain or Clinton without vomit. McCain flip flops just as much as Romney, he's just as inconsistent, panders just as much, is dramatically more insane on military issues...but because the press fawns all over him, no one pays attention to how he goes from bashing the right wing to courting them like crazy, from supporting an immigration bill to opposing it, how he violates campaign finance clauses that he personally advocated with his campaign, and on and on and on. At least Romney has some bit of a sane record from MA. McCain mixes in enough sane rhetoric to get the media to fawn over him, says the exact opposite when it's politically convenient, but never, ever, ever gets called on it. And he thinks its a good idea for us to be in Iraq for-freaking-ever.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Balta1701