Texsox Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Obama seems to be the favorite here, but it's very close. I'm surprised, very surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Obama camp, NBC news claiming Obama ended up with more delegates last night: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Meanwhile, jesus, those Tornadoes killed 52 people yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:41 AM) Meanwhile, jesus, those Tornadoes killed 52 people yesterday. and climbing. I bet it hist mid-70s before it is all over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) Obama camp, NBC news claiming Obama ended up with more delegates last night: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html Weird. There is some spinning going on there of course, but, the delegates are the delegates - within a couple days we'll know for sure. And if this is right, that Obama actually won SDOGPEIT, that would be huge for him. The article is also right, though, that they are basically in a virtual tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Scanning some local coverage and confirmed by at least one poll, in Texas at least younger Hispanics are trending towards Obama, older to Hillary. In this portion of the border, President Clinton visited here several times, to pick up bundles from Mr. Alonzo Cantu as has Hillary. I thought that would be the swing, but it seems voters are looking past it. I believe for my area, Hillary would be the most benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Thats weird, this morning they had it Clinton 901 to Obama 824, but now they have it at Obama 847, Clinton 834. Someone please explain this to me. That would be huge if true. Why do miscalculations come out? If someone could send me to a reliable source to read about this whole process I'd feel much better about myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) Obama camp, NBC news claiming Obama ended up with more delegates last night: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html I would love to see that spreadsheet. anyone have it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 6, 2008 Author Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) Are they counting Michigan and Florida as "in" for Hillarity? When all is said and done, I bet she gets those delegates and it makes her win. Edited February 6, 2008 by kapkomet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:28 PM) Are they counting Michigan and Florida as "in" for Hillarity? The only ones doing that are in her campaign. Even the national party won't let that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) The only ones doing that are in her campaign. Even the national party won't let that happen. Honestly, it's still sort of possible...because of some wierd, complex convention related procedures. The way I've read it it, there are a couple of main committees at the convention, and it's shaping up that the committee that might have the power to do something about those delegates, the Rules committee or whatever the Hell it is called, might be filled with more clinton backers, while the other committees, i.e. the one that writes the platform, etc., might be stronger territory for Obama based on the current set of endorsements. So, in other words, it's actually possible at this point that Hillary's people will be able to maneuver at the convention to have the rules changed so that some portion of or all of those delegates could be seated and that could make the difference if things stay this close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 12:33 PM) Honestly, it's still sort of possible...because of some wierd, complex convention related procedures. The way I've read it it, there are a couple of main committees at the convention, and it's shaping up that the committee that might have the power to do something about those delegates, the Rules committee or whatever the Hell it is called, might be filled with more clinton backers, while the other committees, i.e. the one that writes the platform, etc., might be stronger territory for Obama based on the current set of endorsements. So, in other words, it's actually possible at this point that Hillary's people will be able to maneuver at the convention to have the rules changed so that some portion of or all of those delegates could be seated and that could make the difference if things stay this close. Well, Florida and Michigan really put the Democratic party in a tough spot. They had to do something because they broke the rules. However, disenfranchising all of the voters in Michigan and Florida may really hurt them in the general election. But, seating those delegates really wouldn't be fair at all to Obama, as he wasn't allowed to campaign in Florida or Michigan. If the race is so tight that it comes down to those delegates, the Democrats risk really pissing off a lot of young voters and independents who voted for Obama if they seat them and give Hillary the nomination. If it's clear either way, they'll just seat some or all of the delegates and there won't be a problem. Edited February 6, 2008 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) Honestly, it's still sort of possible...because of some wierd, complex convention related procedures. The way I've read it it, there are a couple of main committees at the convention, and it's shaping up that the committee that might have the power to do something about those delegates, the Rules committee or whatever the Hell it is called, might be filled with more clinton backers, while the other committees, i.e. the one that writes the platform, etc., might be stronger territory for Obama based on the current set of endorsements. So, in other words, it's actually possible at this point that Hillary's people will be able to maneuver at the convention to have the rules changed so that some portion of or all of those delegates could be seated and that could make the difference if things stay this close. I'm sure they might try. But everyone keeps forgetting, the national party and all those high end superdelegates WANT TO WIN IN NOVEMBER. All else is secondary. If this thing goes to convention without a clear leader, and they suddenly validate those states in some way, there will be a s***storm within the party that will be like nothing that has happened in our lifetimes. They will end up looking like asses, they will lose a lot of voters, they will see Obama and his supporters walk away from the nominee, and basically they'd be blowing the November election for themselves. There is a near-zero chance of them committing political suicide that way. All these conspiracy theories... just remember, these are realists running the party - they will do what is in their own best interests. And starting up that kind of mess, potentially blowing the November election, all for a candidate less likely to win in November even under the best circumstances? No way. They can't be that dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 And let's remember they are a club, and can set some of their own rules. Lots of flexibility involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Has anyone seen absentee vs "day-of" voting in California? I'd be VERY interested to see what those numbers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:08 PM) Has anyone seen absentee vs "day-of" voting in California? I'd be VERY interested to see what those numbers are. Hadn't even thought of that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:08 PM) Has anyone seen absentee vs "day-of" voting in California? I'd be VERY interested to see what those numbers are. I'd bet they would reflect what happened in Florida. She had a huge lead there a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 05:31 PM) I remember my first Presidential vote Same as mine. That was also that last time I voted for a Democrat for president. Once bitten, twice shy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) Same as mine. That was also that last time I voted for a Democrat for president. Once bitten, twice shy. We forget that all the hostages were returned home alive. Ford standing around with a stupid smile and a WIN button to save the economy, and Nixon's Checker Speech. Carter did a lot more good than bad, and set the stage for Reagan. In many ways we needed that transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:26 PM) We forget that all the hostages were returned home alive. Ford standing around with a stupid smile and a WIN button to save the economy, and Nixon's Checker Speech. Carter did a lot more good than bad, and set the stage for Reagan. In many ways we needed that transition. Yeah ... he set the stage alright. Reagan said, it won't do for those hostages to be in custody when I take office and and an hour before he took the oath, they were released. 20% interest rates also set the stage for Reagan to revitalize the economy. Carter was a good man, but a disaster as president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) I'm sure they might try. But everyone keeps forgetting, the national party and all those high end superdelegates WANT TO WIN IN NOVEMBER. All else is secondary. If this thing goes to convention without a clear leader, and they suddenly validate those states in some way, there will be a s***storm within the party that will be like nothing that has happened in our lifetimes. They will end up looking like asses, they will lose a lot of voters, they will see Obama and his supporters walk away from the nominee, and basically they'd be blowing the November election for themselves. There is a near-zero chance of them committing political suicide that way. All these conspiracy theories... just remember, these are realists running the party - they will do what is in their own best interests. And starting up that kind of mess, potentially blowing the November election, all for a candidate less likely to win in November even under the best circumstances? No way. They can't be that dumb. If they really pull the rug out from Obama at the convention, they are going to open themselves up to a world of hurt. After all of the nasty accusations after the 2000 and 2004 elections, they would look like HUGE hypocrates if they pulled a stunt like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:11 PM) Hadn't even thought of that... I thought I read where 22% percent would be voting early (878,747 total votes). Let me try and break this down in my unprofessional opinion... As of this moment, Hillary has 2,107,758 votes, Obama has 1,717,681, Edwards has 168,866. Extract 22% from 3,994,305 and you get 3,115,558 day of votes. Extract 50% of 878,747 from Hillary and you get 1,668,384. Extract 40% of 878,747 from Obama and you get 1,366,182. Extract 10% of 878,747 from Edwards and you get 80,991. That's a break down of 53.55%-43.85%. Still a 10pt gap. If it breaks 60-30-10 early voters, its 50.7%-46.67% Edited February 6, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) If they really pull the rug out from Obama at the convention, they are going to open themselves up to a world of hurt. After all of the nasty accusations after the 2000 and 2004 elections, they would look like HUGE hypocrates if they pulled a stunt like that. Yeah, I agree - they won't do it for those reasons. The way I see it going down... If someone has a pretty big lead, like having enough pledged delegates to be very close to the total needed for nomination, then the other candidate will concede, THEN they will seat those states, and the convention will happen and everyone is happy-happy. If they go to Denver neck-and-neck, then the Supers will end up deciding the nomination... but the FL and MI delegates will suddenly appear at that point, being "secretly" invited to begin with, to seat with whomever the Supers choose. Either way, the Dems will not allow MI and FL to back-door the election, but they will also try to save face with them a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 New Mexico is still up in the air. In classic New Mexican style, it seems they are having trouble counting some of the ballots due to a variety of poorly managed precincts... --In Rio Arriba county, the results for three sites are missing - and they cannot find the county election chair --In Bernalillo, one precinct's ballots were having to be deciphered because they can't tell what congressional district the ballots are for (which begs the question, why is it one precinct?) --And then there are over 16,000 provisional ballots that need to be verified for eligibility, then hand-counted. So, NM is still in the air. Although in this case, the delegates will basically just be split anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts