News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on tracking the Democratic and Republican primary results while participants make predictions leading up to the Iowa Caucus. The Democratic race is tight among Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, with polls showing fluctuating leads. Among Republicans, Huckabee's rise has stalled, resulting in a statistical tie with Romney. Participants are encouraged to predict outcomes for both parties, with a scoring system for correct predictions. The conversation also touches on the candidates' public personas, with some expressing dissatisfaction with their responses to personal indulgences, and highlighting the potential impact of independent voters on the Democratic side. As the Iowa Caucus approaches, predictions are made, with many favoring Obama for the Democrats and Huckabee for the Republicans. The discussion reflects a mix of excitement and skepticism about the candidates and the electoral process, emphasizing the importance of upcoming primaries in shaping the nomination landscape.

Who will be the eventual nominee from each party?

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
  • #501
Boy... hard to tell.

Wisconsin
D Obama
R McCain

Hawaii
D Obama
R McCain

One Hawaiin said that Hillary doesn't have the aloha spirit. o o poo poo
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #502
I have to join the crowd with this one.

Wisconsin
D - Obama
R - McCain

Hawaii
D - Obama
R - McCain

Another prognostication: Huckabee continues his race for the 2012 nomination. At least until after Texas.
 
  • #503
Wisconsin
Dem - Obama
Rep - McCain

Hawaii
Dem - Obama
Rep - McCain
 
  • #504
Wisconsin will test Clinton's support
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080219/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_wisconsin_warnings

WASHINGTON - Wisconsin is almost the kind of state Hillary Rodham Clinton would have invented to win a Democratic presidential primary, brimming with whites and working class voters who usually support her. A poor performance there Tuesday would raise big questions about her candidacy.

Clinton needs to do something to break Barack Obama's momentum. Her rival has won in eight straight states, including decisive victories last week in Virginia and Maryland, and has begun to diminish her edge with core supporters like women and the elderly.
. . . .
Obama has some built-in advantages in Wisconsin: It's next door to his home state and the Democratic governor, Jim Doyle, actively supports him.
. . . .
A poll released Friday, conducted by Research 2000 for WISC-TV in Madison, Wis., showed Obama with a slight 47 percent to 42 percent lead in Wisconsin.

. . . .

Two caveats: Primaries this year have drawn far more voters than those in 2004; Wisconsin's might as well. And Wisconsin primaries are open to all voters. With the Republican race all but decided for John McCain, Republicans and independents might flock to the Democratic primary, and they have supported Obama more than Clinton so far this year.
Reps and Inde's could also vote for Clinton in hopes that McCain would defeat Clinton.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/wi/wisconsin_democratic_primary-270.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #505
D H said:
Why do the Democrats have such incredibly convoluted and undemocratic rules (e.g., superdelegates)?
First off, there is no reason for the parties to have to allow the people to choose the party's nominee. It's perfectly fair for the party to choose their own candidate and to say "this is our candidate and if you don't care for him/her, vote for someone else".

Secondly, the Republicans also have superdelegates, but they make up a much smaller fraction of the total delegates. However, some states (eg: Wyoming, West Virginia) have closed conventions where the Republican winner of that state is selected entirely by members of the state's RNC. To my knowledge the Dems do not have any closed conventions.
 
Last edited:
  • #506
The reason for the superdelegates was McGovern. They are intended to prevent people who can't win from getting the nomination.

I agree that it is not democratic and should be changed.
 
  • #507
Worst campaign blunder so far:

Hillary Clinton said:
We don't need to have a beer with the next President. We had that President.

Wait! We're in Wisconsin! The beer capital of the USA!

Hillary Clinton said:
Although, you know, I'd be happy to have a beer, too.

At least she didn't blow her recovery by saying she'd be happy to have a Labatt's.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23136227#23238099
 
Last edited:
  • #508
D H said:
I predict every pollster will be wrong on Texas. While Texas Republicans are indeed holding a primary on March 4, the Democrats are not. They're hold a http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/texass_unique_primaucus.php" . Two thirds of the delegates will be chosen based on voting in the Democratic primary, with an incredibly convoluted allocation scheme to boot. What about the other third? The Democrats are holding a caucus that starts fifteen minutes after the primary polling ends. Nobody knows what kind of mess this will create. The idea of a mixed primary/caucus was apparently created to give the party bigwigs more of a say.

Why do the Democrats have such incredibly convoluted and undemocratic rules (e.g., superdelegates)?

The Democrat party will award 126 delegates as a result of the primary returns. The delegates are proportional to the popular vote turnout in the last presidential (2004) and the gubernatorial (2006) elections. In those elections some mostly african american districts had a much larger than normal turnout and so in those districts more delegates are in play than usual. In some largely hispanic districts in the valley area, the vote turnout was light in those elections so there are fewer than the usual number of delegates in play.
The caucuses begin the night of the primary and end at the state convention in June. These caucuses will choose 42 at-large pledged delegates based on participation in the caucuses. The state convention in June will choose an additional 35 super delegates and 25 'pledged-party' and/or 'elected-official' delegates. So, this won't be over until June in Texas...

What's so arcane and convoluted about that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #509
Gokul43201 said:
Let's get our predictions in for Tomorrow:

Wisconsin
Dem=
Rep=

Hawaii
Dem=
Rep=
Looks like I screwed up. If I'm not mistaken now, The Reps do not have a primary in Hawaii today, but they do have one half of the primary process in Washington (the first half of the delegates were attached to a caucus that McCain won about 10 days ago, the second half to a primary today).

So, for score-keeping, we ignore (HI, Rep) and count the other 3 results. We will also have to ignore (1/2WA, Rep) that is not included above. Hopefully, if McCain wins this too, the scoring will be unaffected, since we all voted for McCain in the first (1/2Wa, Rep) anyway.
 
  • #510
Bob, what's up with Colorado? Fewer than 20 of the 55 delegates attached to their caucus of a couple weeks ago have been awarded. What are they waiting for?

Also, I've forgotten that Clinton was called the winner in NM. So I need to update scores with this result too.
 
  • #511
Clinton looks for Wisconsin upset as voters decide

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton is looking for some much-needed momentum and hoping to end her eight-state losing streak versus rival Sen. Barack Obama in Wisconsin's Democratic primary as voters hit the polls in that state and two others on Tuesday.

Some pundits are saying Clinton could pull off an upset in America's Dairyland despite lagging in polls behind Obama.

For the Democrats, Wisconsin is Tuesday's marquee showdown in a trio of contests that also includes Hawaii and Washington state. In Washington, Democratic primaries won't yield any delegates. Those were awarded in the Feb. 9 caucuses. And Obama is expected to win handily in Hawaii's Democratic caucuses. The Illinois senator spent much of his childhood in the state.

But Wisconsin is a different story. Ninety-two delegates and super-delegates are at stake in Tuesday's vote there. Voter turnout in Wisconsin was predicted to reach a 20-year-high of 35%, the highest turnout since the presidential primary in 1988 when nearly 40% of the eligible voters participated.

Obama now holds a lead of 1,275 delegates over Clinton's 1,220, according to the Wall Street Journal. But the gap could prove to be wider since Clinton's total holds more super-delegates who are free to change their votes. Without super-delegates, Obama's lead is 1,112 delegates to Clinton's 978. A total of 2,025 is needed to secure the Democratic nomination.
. . . .
Clinton is looking for an upset, which she desparately needs.
 
  • #512
Yahoo! CNN projects that Obama wins Wisconsin! He's 9:0.
 
  • #513
Obama stomped Hillary in Wisconsin: 58% to 41%.

Early in the count [8%] he is burying her in Hawaii by 77% -23%. She currently has 666 votes. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #514
Once again, Obama and Hillary each got more votes than McCain did.
 
  • #515
Ivan Seeking said:
Once again, Obama and Hillary each got more votes than McCain did.

And that's the real story. It's amazing.

No surprise he took Hawaii, but I thought it would be a lot closer in Wisconsin.
 
  • #516
Holy Cow! Obama got the endorsement from the Teamsters! So much for Hillary's lock on the blue collar workers.

Obama's trend lines in all major voting groups have strongly positive slopes, and have since November.
 
Last edited:
  • #517
Clinton has more union endorsements, but let's remember that's the leadership of the unions that are doing the endorsing. When they head into Ohio, and later Pennsylvania, the actual voters (union members or former union members) in manufacturing are going to remember who gave away a lot of their jobs with NAFTA, and they will likely get a little feeling of satisfaction from voting against his wife. She thinks Ohio is her firewall - I think she's going to get burned there big-time.

I can no longer find the link, but a poll-watcher in Wisconsin said that Obama's win would have been bigger, but many Republicans cast cross-over votes for Clinton. They desperately want her in the general election because she is so easy to attack.
 
  • #518
turbo-1 said:
a poll-watcher in Wisconsin said that Obama's win would have been bigger, but many Republicans cast cross-over votes for Clinton. They desperately want her in the general election because she is so easy to attack.

How pathetic! And they call themselves patriotic? More like conniving cheaters if you ask me. Maybe that's why we got what we got when their candidate won in 2000/2004.

Don't expect cheaters to elect a man of honor.
 
  • #519
Apparently, lots of Wisconsin's GOP voters thought that voting for McCain would be wasting their influence, since he has the nomination locked up. Instead, they voted in the Democratic primary and voted for the candidate that looks easier to beat in the general election. I just spent about 20 minutes searching and can't find that report. I cruise the political news regularly and may bump into it again.
 
  • #520
Well, assuming that it's true [and some people do this regularly; it is nothing new], each and every one of them lies by placing a vote for Clinton. In fact it may technically constitute fraud depending on how the ballot reads.

Either way it shows how little they actually value democracy. Rather than cherishing the right to vote and the democractic process, instead they see our democratic system as something to be manipulated.
 
Last edited:
  • #521
Ivan Seeking said:
Well, assuming that it's true, each and every one of them lies by placing a vote for Clinton. In fact it may technically constitute fraud depending on how the ballot reads.

Either way it shows how little they actually value democracy. Rather than cherishing the right to vote and the democractic process, they see our democratic system as something to be manipulated.
Wisconsin has open primaries and every voter can re-register at the polling places and participate in either primary. I'm assuming that Independents likely broke for Obama. Republicans could have crossed over because they were genuinely fed up with the status-quo, or because they wanted to vote against the Dem candidate that could more likely beat McCain. Since the comments were from a poll-watcher, I'm assuming that he had access to some exit polling to back up his claim. I'll post a link if I can find it again.
 
  • #522
lisab said:
And that's the real story. It's amazing.

No surprise he took Hawaii, but I thought it would be a lot closer in Wisconsin.

I usually vote republican, but in this race what is the point. McCain was going to win, why waste a vote when I can maybe help determine the democrat. So that is what I did, I voted for Obama when I usually vote Republican.
 
  • #523
turbo-1 said:
I can no longer find the link, but a poll-watcher in Wisconsin said that Obama's win would have been bigger, but many Republicans cast cross-over votes for Clinton. They desperately want her in the general election because she is so easy to attack.

Is that what the poll-watcher said or is that just your spin on it? I'm anxiously waiting for your link to back this up. It wouldn't be the first time Republicans have voted in a Democrat primary to try to pick their preferred opponent. There were reports of this in Virginia. Of course in Virginia they crossed over to vote for Obama. Some right wing conspiracy that is...

BTW, Dick Morris is imploring Texas GOP voters to turn out and vote against Hillary.
 
  • #524
It's fascinating to watch and try and follow this process, but it's incredibly complicated for those of us that aren't used to it! I think I get the idea though: you vote for who you want to be the candidate for your party; the votes are then shared out amongst some delegates who then go to a conference and vote again. The winner of this is the presidential candidate.

I've got a few questions though: can you only vote in one primary, or can you vote in a republican and a democrat one? What happens at the final meeting with the delegates: do they have to carry the votes from the state or can they change their mind? Then, what happens about the vice president? Does the person second in the polls automatically run as vice president, or is there some other way to decide this?
 
  • #525
chemisttree said:
Is that what the poll-watcher said or is that just your spin on it? I'm anxiously waiting for your link to back this up. It wouldn't be the first time Republicans have voted in a Democrat primary to try to pick their preferred opponent. There were reports of this in Virginia. Of course in Virginia they crossed over to vote for Obama. Some right wing conspiracy that is...

BTW, Dick Morris is imploring Texas GOP voters to turn out and vote against Hillary.
I have spent a lot of time trying to dig up that link, but I don't remember where it came from and Google isn't helping.

Do you have a link for the Dick Morris/TX thing? It's interesting that he would be trying to suppress a Clinton candidacy. Morris knows what a good target she would be.
 
  • #527
cristo said:
It's fascinating to watch and try and follow this process, but it's incredibly complicated for those of us that aren't used to it! I think I get the idea though: you vote for who you want to be the candidate for your party; the votes are then shared out amongst some delegates who then go to a conference and vote again. The winner of this is the presidential candidate.

I've got a few questions though: can you only vote in one primary, or can you vote in a republican and a democrat one? What happens at the final meeting with the delegates: do they have to carry the votes from the state or can they change their mind? Then, what happens about the vice president? Does the person second in the polls automatically run as vice president, or is there some other way to decide this?
Your guess is as good as anyone's. The rules vary from state to state and the delegates don't always vote the way of the popular vote in the primary. Add to that are 796 of these 'superdelegates' (unpledged party leader and elected official delegates) this year that can vote any way they feel. The primary used to pick the VP but nowadays the Candidate chooses a running mate.
 
  • #528
turbo-1 said:
I have spent a lot of time trying to dig up that link, but I don't remember where it came from and Google isn't helping.

Do you have a link for the Dick Morris/TX thing? It's interesting that he would be trying to suppress a Clinton candidacy. Morris knows what a good target she would be.

I saw that on Hannity and Colmes. Dick Morris' final words were to the effect that all GOP supporters in Texas have a duty to vote against Hillary in the March Democrat Primary. I can't find transcripts but I'll look some more. Others http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4655610".

He has written on the subject as well:
Texas and Ohio also permit Independents to vote in their Democratic primary. Texas even allows Republicans to do so. With the Republican nomination largely decided, there is little to draw these voters to the McCain-Huckabee battle and much to induce them to enter the Democratic primary to vote against the candidate so many of them love to hate. The Texas primary will assume the aspect of a general election so heavy will be the crossing over and nobody could expect Hillary Clinton to carry Texas in a general election.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/02/15/even-in-texas-advantage-obama/#more-266
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #529
From what I've read in a few places, many Reps have registered Dem to influence the Dem race. However, it seems there is no uniformity of strategy among them (good or bad). While a bunch have or will vote for Hillary so McCain will have an easier target, others loathe her so much that they prioritize getting Hillary out much higher than getting McCain in, and hence, have or will vote for Obama. I think there may be about as many Reps voting for Obama as there will be for Hillary, and the reason for both decisions is primarily that they hate Hillary.

Also, a few are afraid that Hillary has a bunch of dirt on McCain from his FBI files, which she likely dug into during her White House days (recall the unexplained appearance of nearly a thousand FBI files in the Clinton White House).
 
  • #530
Gokul43201 said:
Also, a few are afraid that Hillary has a bunch of dirt on McCain from his FBI files, which she likely dug into during her White House days (recall the unexplained appearance of nearly a thousand FBI files in the Clinton White House).

Who needs dirt when the NY Times can slander him at will? The latest Times hit job on McCain is the sleaziest of sleazy. No sources, no proof... despicable.
 
  • #531
Today's front page article?
 
  • #532
Obama has won the Democratic Global Primary, gathering about 65% of the vote. The delegation will be small, with 14 delegates apportioned by vote and 8 superdelegates. Still, it adds to his total.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_delegates;_ylt=AnHUz2Ub0uElGt4qOkjjG5Os0NUE
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0125/p06s01-woeu.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #533
Greg Bernhardt said:
I usually vote republican, but in this race what is the point. McCain was going to win, why waste a vote when I can maybe help determine the democrat. So that is what I did, I voted for Obama when I usually vote Republican.

The key is that you vote for best candidate and not the worst. You are voting to make the system stronger, not weaker.

I was planning to vote for Ron Paul if the dems have it locked up. I know Paul can't win but I strongly support his allegiance to the Constitution, so my vote would be to support his position.
 
  • #534
Ivan Seeking said:
The key is that you vote for best candidate and not the worst. You are voting to make the system stronger, not weaker.
Maine allows voters to change party affiliations readily, even on primary day, if you want. I'm an Independent, but I have registered as a Democrat or a Republican to vote in the primaries in order to make sure that the strongest candidates (that most closely reflected my views) made it to the general election. I voted for George Mitchell (D) every time he was up for re-election, and did the same for Bill Cohen (R). When you've got a Congressman that keeps his nose clean and tries to fairly represent his constituency, they deserve your vote.
 
  • #535
Gokul43201 said:
Today's front page article?

Yes, that's it.
 
  • #536
The person who thinks Hillary is the anti-Christ complains about the NY Times?

Where did you pick up the 666 bit; Rush? Or did that come from one of those political nut groups that are masquerading as a church and loading the internet with nonsense and hate?
 
Last edited:
  • #537
One more little wrinkle in the Democrats Abroad primary that I failed to mention is that along with the small number of delegates that will be seated at the convention, each delegate will have only 1/2 of a vote. This leaves Clinton and Obama with the very real possibility that each may end up with a whole number of votes, plus 1/2 a vote left over. Interesting.
 
  • #538
chemisttree said:
Who needs dirt when the NY Times can slander him at will? The latest Times hit job on McCain is the sleaziest of sleazy. No sources, no proof... despicable.

Its just the latest from 'hate media' in the grand tradition of Jason Blair, Miller, etc.
 
  • #539
Ivan Seeking said:
The person who thinks Hillary is the anti-Christ complains about the NY Times?

Where did you pick up the 666 bit; Rush? Or did that come from one of those political nut groups that are masquerading as a church and loading the internet with nonsense and hate?

It came to me in a dream... see, I was talkin' t'god th'other night...
Seriously Ivan, it was a joke. I'll bet you googled it...

And, for the record... I don't think Hillary is the antichrist. I just believe she is hastening his arrival.:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #540
I did have to laugh at Bill Clinton when he was working a crowd of supporters in Texas:

~ "If she wins in Texas and Ohio then I think she'll win the nomination. But if you don't come through for her, then I don't think she'll win."

So if she wins, SHE wins, but if she loses, THEY lost it for her. :biggrin:
 
  • #541
chemisttree said:
I don't think Hillary is the antichrist. I just believe she is hastening his arrival.:wink:

So what does the wink mean? Are you serious or not.

I have dumped my oldest friend [over 30 years] over this business so excuse me if I fail to see the humor. I think this country is in deep trouble and there is no joking about it. The foundations of liberty and democracy are under attack and religous zealotry and terrorism are being used as motives/justifiers.

Soldiers swear to protect the Constitution with their life. I think it's time the rest of this country started taking it seriously and stop making a mockery of the democratic process. It should be cherished.
 
Last edited:
  • #542
Not a stellar performance by Clinton last night. Her comment about "change you can Xerox" didn't seem to go over nearly as well as she thought it might.

I bet Rush Limbaugh won't be too proud to plagiarize her comment come Fall, though.:smile:
 
  • #543
BobG said:
Not a stellar performance by Clinton last night. Her comment about "change you can Xerox" didn't seem to go over nearly as well as she thought it might.

I bet Rush Limbaugh won't be too proud to plagiarize her comment come Fall, though.:smile:
It was ironic that her answer to the last question for which she won most plaudits was plagiarised almost verbatim from a speech 2 months ago by Edwards :smile:
 
  • #544
Art said:
It was ironic that her answer to the last question for which she won most plaudits was plagiarised almost verbatim from a speech 2 months ago by Edwards :smile:

Would you expect anything different from someone who plagiarized her husband's record/experience?
 
  • #545
Kennedy sings in Laredo!


That's how we do it down here in Texas, y'all! I guess that's meant to enlist the hispanic vote in Texas which is currently leaning very heavily toward Hillary. (can you guess why?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #546
chemisttree said:
Would you expect anything different from someone who plagiarized her husband's record/experience?
You mean her much-vaunted "35 years of experience"? I'm getting sicker of that phrase with every passing day. 35 years of what? Of being a lawyer? Of being a Wal-Mart board member? Of being the brains behind Bill Clinton? I wish she'd get specific about how she was serving her country for those 35 years.
 
  • #547
chemisttree said:
Kennedy sings in Laredo!


That's how we do it down here in Texas, y'all! I guess that's meant to enlist the hispanic vote in Texas which is currently leaning very heavily toward Hillary. (can you guess why?)

I'm curious, why is the hispanic vote so much in favour of Hillary? Presumably immigration is a big issue with them but aren't both candidates policies on this pretty much identical?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #548
Her roots in the state, as she never fails to remind voters, reach far back. One of her national co-chairs, Raul Yzaguirre, remembers meeting Clinton in 1972, when she went to south Texas to register Hispanic voters for George McGovern. "It was a bit of a culture clash," he says, recalling the blond, bespectacled young woman who asked him how to make tamales. When her husband was president, she visited repeatedly, and over the years she's become steeped in Tejano culture.

The border area holds the most promise for her, with its rich reservoir of Latino voters—a group that's been a base of support. Hidalgo County, home to McAllen, is 90 percent Mexican-American and a place where the old-timers used to place two photos on the mantel: one of the pope and one of JFK. "We're the bluest part of a Red State," says Jerry Polinard of the University of Texas-Pan American. "When we talk about building a fence down here, we talk about building one on the north to keep the Republicans out." But under the state's inscrutable delegate-allocation system, this heavily Hispanic area will have comparatively fewer delegates to award. So Clinton will have to compete for voters all over: liberals in Austin, old-line Democrats in the middle, blacks in Houston and Dallas, and rural traditionalists east and west.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/112777

She's been here before. She's baaack...

Maybe she'll be the first hispanic president!
 
  • #549
chemisttree said:
Kennedy sings in Laredo!


That's how we do it down here in Texas, y'all! I guess that's meant to enlist the hispanic vote in Texas which is currently leaning very heavily toward Hillary. (can you guess why?)


Actually I really can't guess why...can you be so kind as to enlighten me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #550
chemistree, I just read your post - it came up before I finished mine.

Well I'll be darned, I didn't know she had a lot of contacts in Texas.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
News (Multiple Answer) Presidential Hypothetical Poll
Replies
12
Views
2K
News Is Hillary's Third Place Finish in Iowa a Sign of Trouble for Her Campaign?
2
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • Poll Poll
News Who will win the Republican nomination?
Replies
10
Views
7K
News What were the top issues in the 2008 presidential election?
2
Replies
82
Views
20K
News What Are the Consequences of the Debt Deal for the US Economy?
Replies
27
Views
4K
News New Hampshire voters worried about U.S. image
Replies
2
Views
3K
News So, who will win the 2008 election?
Replies
9
Views
3K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News What Will the Voter Turnout Be in the Upcoming US Presidential Election?
Replies
10
Views
3K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
3
Replies
133
Views
27K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top