HuskyCaucasian Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 QUOTE (Brian @ May 20, 2008 -> 08:16 PM) 8? Yikes. Oregon people slow? oregon's primary system is very strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) MSNBC call Oregon for Obama. No surprise there. Probably a 10-15 point win. CNN said that based on the way the primary is conducted, Oregon i expected to release "a large percentage" of the vote very soon. I think i read that something like 77% of voters had already voted before today. Edited May 21, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 QUOTE (fathom @ May 20, 2008 -> 08:03 PM) Hillary going to win by 250,000 in Kentucky. All we'll hear about is the popular vote now. I don't understand the popular vote argument. If that was the measure that was used for selecting the nominee wouldn't the candidates spend all their time in California, New York, Illinois, etc and never even visit some of the less populated states? Delegates was the decided measurement for selecting the nominee and that's how the candidates strategized their campaigns. You can't change the metric in the middle of the campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 20, 2008 -> 09:08 PM) I don't understand the popular vote argument. If that was the measure that was used for selecting the nominee wouldn't the candidates spend all their time in California, New York, Illinois, etc and never even visit some of the less populated states? Delegates was the decided measurement for selecting the nominee and that's how the candidates strategized their campaigns. You can't change the metric in the middle of the campaign. And Gore would of won in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 20, 2008 -> 08:08 PM) I don't understand the popular vote argument. If that was the measure that was used for selecting the nominee wouldn't the candidates spend all their time in California, New York, Illinois, etc and never even visit some of the less populated states? Delegates was the decided measurement for selecting the nominee and that's how the candidates strategized their campaigns. You can't change the metric in the middle of the campaign. The popular vote is a fair moral argument, it's a reasonable thing to look at in an election. It's one of the reasons so many of us are still pissed about the Gore election. If you could honestly look at this situation and say that yes, Obama had won more delegates, but Hillary had a genuine lead in the popular vote, it'd be reason to consider her claim, especially for the Superdelegates. On the other hand though, the reason it keeps being pushed in this race is that it's the only way that Clinton can spin anything as a win for her. She's not going to win the delegate counts, Obama's going to get to the winning delegate margin soon, but she can push the popular vote thing because it minimizes the magnitude of several of his wins in caucus states and takes full advantage of him not being on the ballot at all in Michigan. If Hillary had a valid popular vote claim, then people would be listening. But you can't just assume that Obama got no votes in Michigan, and only a handful in Iowa and similar caucus states and expect a moral argument to work.l Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2008 -> 10:19 PM) The popular vote is a fair moral argument, it's a reasonable thing to look at in an election. It's one of the reasons so many of us are still pissed about the Gore election. If you could honestly look at this situation and say that yes, Obama had won more delegates, but Hillary had a genuine lead in the popular vote, it'd be reason to consider her claim, especially for the Superdelegates. On the other hand though, the reason it keeps being pushed in this race is that it's the only way that Clinton can spin anything as a win for her. She's not going to win the delegate counts, Obama's going to get to the winning delegate margin soon, but she can push the popular vote thing because it minimizes the magnitude of several of his wins in caucus states and takes full advantage of him not being on the ballot at all in Michigan. If Hillary had a valid popular vote claim, then people would be listening. But you can't just assume that Obama got no votes in Michigan, and only a handful in Iowa and similar caucus states and expect a moral argument to work.l But don't you think that Obama's campaign would have tried running up the vote counts in largely populated regions if the popular vote was the measurement for getting nominated? They would have spent 99% of their time in large urban cities for the duration of the campaign. I highly doubt he would have visited Idaho, South Dakota, or Mississippi. So to me the popular vote is a flawed measurement. EDIT: And he would have focused his advertising in the urban cities as well. Edited May 21, 2008 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I think the Obama camp will make clinton drop the popularly vote argument in exchange for this MI / FL thing getting hammered out. Anyone with half a brain can tell that the FL and MI votes are NOT legit. Award the delegates, btu the vote numbers are VERY flawed. I bet if MI was done again today, Clinton wins 55-45, if not less. She'd win by less than she bet "uncommitted" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 20, 2008 -> 07:24 PM) But don't you think that Obama's campaign would have tried running up the vote counts in largely populated regions if the popular vote was the measurement for getting nominated? They would have spent 99% of their time in large urban cities for the duration of the campaign. I highly doubt he would have visited Idaho, South Dakota, or Mississippi. So to me the popular vote is a flawed measurement. EDIT: And he would have focused his advertising in the urban cities as well. Let's put it this way. If Hillary Clinton had an honest win in the popular vote tally, while Obama had a delegate win, I think it's entirely possible that she has reason to take the fight to the convention and the superdelegates and pledged delegates from each district would have reason to make up their minds. If Obama had a narrow popular vote lead but a delegate loss, then I think that based on Hillary's front runner status coming in and her control of so much of the party mechanisms, she winds up with a win in that case solidly. The only way for Obama to win was to do both the popular vote and the delegate win. Which he's done. Whether or not the advertising and strategy was focused in that direction, you can always make an argument that the popular vote at least counts for something, if not everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 20, 2008 -> 10:28 PM) I think the Obama camp will make clinton drop the popularly vote argument in exchange for this MI / FL thing getting hammered out. Anyone with half a brain can tell that the FL and MI votes are NOT legit. Award the delegates, btu the vote numbers are VERY flawed. I bet if MI was done again today, Clinton wins 55-45, if not less. She'd win by less than she bet "uncommitted" I'm not even sure Hillary would win MI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 21, 2008 Author Share Posted May 21, 2008 Results as of 9am this morning... KENTUCKY, with 100% reporting... Clinton: 459,105 (65%) Obama: 209,771 (30%) Delegates, approximated: Clinton 37, Obama 14 (net +23 for Clinton) OREGON, with 88% reporting... Obama: 331,138 (58%) Clinton: 236,470 (42%) Delegates, approximated: Obama 30, Clinton 22 (net +8 for Obama) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 21, 2008 -> 09:12 AM) OREGON, with 88% reporting... Obama: 331,138 (58%) Clinton: 236,470 (42%) Delegates, approximated: Obama 30, Clinton 22 (net +8 for Obama) I expect a delegate and popular vote increase for Obama once the remaining votes are tallied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 OREGON, with 94% reporting.... Obama: 347,361 (59%) Clinton: 244,772 (41%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts