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 .
  • #601
lisab said:
Some weeks ago we were discussing the phenomenon of cross-over voting for the expressed purpose of causing mischief in the other party. I don't remember which thread it was in, sorry if I have it in the wrong one...but here's Rush encouraging conservatives to vote for Clinton:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

"I want Hillary to stay in this…this is too good a soap opera," Limbaugh told fellow conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham on Fox News Friday.

The report also states that in January, a liberal blog encouraged Michiagan voters to vote for Romney (remember him?).

Is this legal? How could a true citizen misuse their precious vote to disrupt the democratic process?


What are you talking about? Voting is central to the Democratic process. Motivations are entirely irrelevant...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #602
Speaking of voting, I found this interesting.

In Texas, Not All Voters Are Equal
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87851341
Morning Edition, March 3, 2008 · Voters in Texas go to the polls Tuesday in one of four primaries. However, the Lone Star state's contest is different than the others. Texas Democrats apportion their delegates according to voter turnout in previous elections — regardless of the turn out in this election.
 
  • #603
chemisttree said:
What are you talking about? Voting is central to the Democratic process. Motivations are entirely irrelevant...

And what would be the result if everyone tried to game the system?

There are basic ethics and a moral responsibility here to cast sincere votes.
 
  • #604
chemisttree said:
What are you talking about? Voting is central to the Democratic process. Motivations are entirely irrelevant...

Imagine a lifelong Republican voter crossing over to the Democratic party to vote for Clinton in the primary.

If that voter is doing so because he truly is a newborn Clinton supporter...OK.

But if that voter's only intention is to disrupt the Democratic Party's candidate selection process, well, that smells like fraud to me.

People have fought and died for our right to vote. It should be cast with honor.
 
  • #605
No help for Obama in Ohio.

Cleveland, Ohio

Tuesday
27-30 degrees F

Freezing rain...snow and sleet in the morning...then occasional freezing rain and rain in the afternoon. Snow and sleet accumulation around an inch. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Brisk with highs in the lower 30s. Northeast winds 15 to 25 mph with gusts up to 35 mph. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.
» ZIP Code Detail
Tuesday Night
Freezing rain or snow or sleet with a chance of rain in the evening...then snow after midnight. Additional snow and sleet accumulation around an inch. Brisk with lows in the upper 20s. Northeast winds 15 to 25 mph with gusts up to 35 mph...becoming north 5 to 10 mph after midnight. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.
 
  • #606
Ivan Seeking said:
Tuesday
27-30 degrees F
How odd! It's been up in the 60s here most of the day today.
 
  • #607
Couldn't that weather actually help Obama, though? If it suppresses the turnout of older voters and the young charged-up voters decide to vote and make a statement, I can see how bad weather might break the state his way, especially if black voters in urban areas decide this primary is important. It's a matter of voter commitment. My wife and I have attended caucuses in REALLY nasty winter weather. It's important to do so because the lower turnout means that your preferences in the caucuses have a higher impact that they would have during a high-turnout event. We both registered Democratic one year so that we could attend the D caucuses and help decide between Dick Gephardt and Jesse Jackson, both of whom were very strong labor advocates during a tough period for the workers at Maine's paper mills.
 
  • #608
Historically bad weather means a lower turnout, and Obama has a large base in Cleveland. Hillary is focused more on the East and South where the weather should be better.

On a positive note, Obama has been working the SW corner of the state so he may be finding that he has some traction in Republican territory.
 
Last edited:
  • #610
Wow! Now CNN is predicting flash floods in the Southern part of the State.
 
  • #611
With the caveat that we haven't agreed on the definition of victory in Texas... I am assuming that we are using the declared winner, if there is such a thing. It is possible that Hillary would win the popular vote but get fewer delegates.

Ohio primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Rhode Island primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Texas primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain

Vermont primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain
 
  • #612
turbo-1 said:
Couldn't that weather actually help Obama, though? If it suppresses the turnout of older voters and the young charged-up voters decide to vote and make a statement, I can see how bad weather might break the state his way, especially if black voters in urban areas decide this primary is important. It's a matter of voter commitment.
The turnout of young voters has been much higher than past elections in the Democratic primaries. Usually, the young voters are the least charged up.

A higher than usual turnout is an accomplishment in itself. It would be extremely optimistic to think young voters have suddenly been converted from the most apathetic to the most committed.

I'd expect the young voters to be the first group discouraged by the weather.
 
  • #613
Ivan Seeking said:
Ohio primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Rhode Island primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Texas primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain

Vermont primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain
Me too...though I'm afraid Clinton might end up taking Texas by a whisker.
 
  • #614
Ivan Seeking said:
Ohio primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Rhode Island primaries
Dem: Clinton
Rep: McCain

Texas primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain

Vermont primaries
Dem: Obama
Rep: McCain

Yep, this is how I'm going, too.
 
  • #615
Apparently many Texans and Ohioans voted early, maybe as many as 1 in 5 in Ohio.


Day of Reckoning for Clinton, Obama
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17838435
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #616
As soon as the polls closed, CNN projected that Obama and McCain win Vermont. The polls close in Ohio in 27 minutes.
 
  • #617
Clinton's thrashing Obama in Ohio and RI...and she might pull off a reasonable win in the TX Primary too. When do the caucuses in TX close?

The exit polls show that in all states women outnumbered men 3 to 2.
 
  • #618
Maybe women got riled about the difference between the way Obama was treated by the media and the way Clinton has been treated. Or Clinton hit the right notes on the issues. Interesting.

Edit: Texas is very close, but Clinton has big leads in Ohio (35% precinct reporting) and RI.


But look at the popular votes. Either the Republicans are just not turning out or largeer proportions of those states are Democrats, or Independents are voting in the Dem primaries, so the Democrats could conceivably carry red states in the general election!
 
Last edited:
  • #619
Looks like Hilary is going to keep her campaign going if tonight turns out well for here. Pennsylvanians get ready! We're up next!
 
  • #620
If Clinton wins big in OH, she'll like refuese to quite. That'll certainly make Pa and interesting race.
 
  • #621
Looks like Hillary might take the TX primary with a large difference. Unlikely that Obama will close that gap in the caucuses tonight.
 
  • #622
Right now the count may not be representitive. He has large margins in the population centers which are just now reporting. The current results are mainly from the rural areas.
 
  • #623
Actually, from what I'm seeing, Obama has a good chance of taking Texas.

One TX county was a dead tie with 100% of the votes counted - about 2300 to 2300. :biggrin:
 
  • #624
Ivan Seeking said:
Actually, from what I'm seeing, Obama has a good chance of taking Texas.

One TX county was a dead tie with 100% of the votes counted - about 2300 to 2300. :biggrin:

I agree, Obama does have a good chance in Texas.

The first results to come in from there are from the primaries. Clinton tends to do well in primaries; Obama tends to do well in caucuses. If the first results have Clinton up by just a little, Obama could still win when the caucus results come in tomorrow.
 
  • #625
Looks like the Primary results will be much closer than the exit polls were suggesting (over 10% margin for Clinton). Very early numbers on the caucus results are coming in as expected: Obama with a double digit lead.
 
  • #626
OH NO! CNN just projected Hillary the winner in TX...in the primary.
 
  • #627
Is it good for McCain that Clinton and Obama will probably spend the rest of the primary season exposing each other's weak points? Or is bad publicity better than no publicity at all? By the end of the primary season, we will hear the Clinton team talk about Obama and the Obama team talk about Clinton, and no one will even remember McLane's name.
 
  • #628
lisab said:
Imagine a lifelong Republican voter crossing over to the Democratic party to vote for Clinton in the primary.

If that voter is doing so because he truly is a newborn Clinton supporter...OK.

But if that voter's only intention is to disrupt the Democratic Party's candidate selection process, well, that smells like fraud to me.

People have fought and died for our right to vote. It should be cast with honor.

I agree with your sentiment that a vote for Hillary would not be honorable... tell ten of your friends how you feel! That aside, are you advocating some form of Thought Police? I can see it now... "No, Mr. Smith, you can't vote in this election because your motivations aren't pure enough."

I don't think anyone has died for THAT sentiment. Fraud! That's rich! A vote by a Republican for Hillary is fraud? Someone should tell that to Hillary...
 
  • #629
chemisttree said:
I agree with your sentiment that a vote for Hillary would not be honorable... tell ten of your friends how you feel! That aside, are you advocating some form of Thought Police? I can see it now... "No, Mr. Smith, you can't vote in this election because your motivations aren't pure enough."

I don't think anyone has died for THAT sentiment. Fraud! That's rich! A vote by a Republican for Hillary is fraud? Someone should tell that to Hillary...

No one was talking about law enforcement. Either you are ethical and resposible or you cheat. Which are you advocating?
 
  • #630
Ivan Seeking said:
No one was talking about law enforcement. Either you are ethical and resposible or you cheat. Which are you advocating?
You can't cheat unless there is a rule to break and you agreed not to break it and then you broke it. What rule are you talking about?
 
  • #631
I am talking about the moral responsibility to honor the system and cast an honest vote. If one isn't honest then that argument won't carry any weight.
 
  • #632
jimmysnyder said:
You can't cheat unless there is a rule to break and you agreed not to break it and then you broke it. What rule are you talking about?
The rule of ethics - honesty.

If one's vote truly reflects a preference for a candidate, then voting for someone whom one does not truly want for a given office is dishonest.

On the other hand, one could make the argument that a Republican or Independent could vote for Clinton in the primary with the expectation that Clinton is less electable than McCain, and in the general election one could cast the vote for McCain, which is the true preference.
 
  • #633
Which is worse for McCain - an endorsement from the NY Times or an endorsement from George Bush? It seems the optimal timing for each was reversed. On the other hand, it wasn't a particularly enthusiastic endorsement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23481178/
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Tuesday night. "Of course the president is going to endorse the GOP nominee, which is going to be Senator John McCain."

Bush made morning phone calls to McCain's former rivals Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson to congratulate them on their primary campaigns. He intends to call Rudy Giuliani later.

"He said he appreciated their ability to keep their sense of humor and that he looks forward to working them in the '08 election," Perino said.

Asked about McCain's past disagreements with Bush, she said: "The point of these elections is for the candidate to run as their own person. Elections are about change and going forward, and one of the most attractive things about Senator McCain to the Republican Party is that he has been his own person. He has blazed his own trail and he will have to make the case as to why voters should vote for him."

No congratulations for Ron Paul? No congratulations for Brownback, Tancredo, or Hunter?

And Bush should comb his hair. In the photo of him and McCain shaking hands, Bush looks like he just climbed out of bed.
 
Last edited:
  • #634
Ivan Seeking said:
I am talking about the moral responsibility to honor the system and cast an honest vote. If one isn't honest then that argument won't carry any weight.

Astronuc said:
The rule of ethics - honesty.

If one's vote truly reflects a preference for a candidate, then voting for someone whom one does not truly want for a given office is dishonest.

Members here (I won't name them) have stated that they intentionally vote in a primary for another party's candidate with the intent to further their candidate's chances. Be careful of calling your friends unethical or dishonest. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #635
Evo said:
Members here (I won't name them) have stated that they intentionally vote in a primary for another party's candidate with the intent to further their candidate's chances. Be careful of calling your friends unethical or dishonest. :smile:

That is correct. For example: if Clinton wins primaries for the Democratic side, then McCain is nearly a shoe-in. Therefore, someone who wants McCain as president could vote for Clinton in the primaries.
 
  • #636
Math Jeans said:
That is correct. For example: if Clinton wins primaries for the Democratic side, then McCain is nearly a shoe-in. Therefore, someone who wants McCain as president could vote for Clinton in the primaries.

Or they could just be an honest, ethical person...and vote for McCain.
 
  • #637
Math Jeans said:
That is correct. For example: if Clinton wins primaries for the Democratic side, then McCain is nearly a shoe-in. Therefore, someone who wants McCain as president could vote for Clinton in the primaries.
Funny, I keep hearing Clinton can't win against Mccain on this forum, but the McCain supporters I know (and I know a lot of them in this neck of the woods) feel Hillary is more of a threat.
 
  • #638
Evo said:
Members here (I won't name them) have stated that they intentionally vote in a primary for another party's candidate with the intent to further their candidate's chances.

Absolutely correct. That's no more dishonorable than actively campaigning for a candidate for which one has no intention of voting. Ann Coulter's stated intention to campaign for Hillary is a perfect example. While I think its a bit childish it certainly isn't dishonorable or fraudulent.
Personally, I couldn't vote for Hillary because I was afraid of spontaneously combusting... and South Texas is under a burn ban, after all.
 
  • #639
Evo said:
Funny, I keep hearing Clinton can't win against Mccain on this forum, but the McCain supporters I know (and I know a lot of them in this neck of the woods) feel Hillary is more of a threat.

It could be because those McCain supporters are seeing Clinton getting votes, and not realizing that it is for McCain's advantage :biggrin:.
 
  • #640
Evo said:
Funny, I keep hearing Clinton can't win against Mccain on this forum, but the McCain supporters I know (and I know a lot of them in this neck of the woods) feel Hillary is more of a threat.

I hate to agree with Karl Rove on anything, but he's got a point when he says that Hillary's negatives are so significant, it would be easy to beat her. There's a lot of people hate her with white-hot passion.

But then again, some conservative become livid at the mention of McCain's name. They think he's a liberal!

I wonder if the Clinton-haters are the very same people who are the McCain-haters. What are they going to do...stay home and not vote, get so lathered up in their hate that they start to kick their dog around?

(The author of this post does not condone dog-kicking. No dogs were hurt in the writing of this post.)
 
  • #641
Astronuc said:
If one's vote truly reflects a preference for a candidate, then voting for someone whom one does not truly want for a given office is dishonest.
So those 'anybody but a Republican' or 'anybody but a Democrat' voters are all dishonest? What rule are you invoking? It seems that people are being tagged as unethical without being told what rule they broke.
 
Last edited:
  • #642
jimmysnyder said:
So those 'anybody but a Republican' or 'anybody but a Democrat' voters are all dishonest?
I don't understand the question.
 
  • #643
Astronuc said:
I don't understand the question.
They don't vote for who they want, they just vote against who they don't want. That would be dishonest according to your definition:
astronuc said:
If one's vote truly reflects a preference for a candidate, then voting for someone whom one does not truly want for a given office is dishonest.
 
  • #644
jimmysnyder said:
They don't vote for who they want, they just vote against who they don't want. That would be dishonest according to your definition:

People who crossed over weren't voting against McCain. They were voting to "Pimp" themselves, to "Keep the Chaos Alive" (from RL's website, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022608/content/01125107.guest.html ).

Sometimes, the best reason a voter can find to vote for a person is "because I hate him the least." That's very, very different from using their vote to disrupt another party's selection process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #645
lisab said:
People who crossed over weren't voting against McCain. They were voting to "Pimp" themselves, to "Keep the Chaos Alive" (from RL's website, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022608/content/01125107.guest.html ).

Sometimes, the best reason a voter can find to vote for a person is "because I hate him the least." That's very, very different from using their vote to disrupt another party's selection process.
You mean like the majority of the Democratic party who agree with Ralph Nader on every policy issue but are going to vote for the Democratic candidate just to throw chaos into the McCain campaign?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #646
lisab said:
People who crossed over weren't voting against McCain. They were voting to "Pimp" themselves, to "Keep the Chaos Alive" (from RL's website, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022608/content/01125107.guest.html ).

I hope you don't take that stuff too seriously. After all, Rush and all the conservative talk show hosts railed against McCain and couldn't even convince their own republicans to vote against him. Now you ascribe some mythical power to them to explain Hillary's win in Texas?
Elsewhere in the link you provided, Rush claims credit for derailing Hillary's campaign! (As if someone like Obama couldn't do that himself!) Clearly that's tongue in cheek or delusional. Either way, not worth getting worked up about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #647
chemisttree said:
I hope you don't take that stuff too seriously. After all, Rush and all the conservative talk show hosts railed against McCain and couldn't even convince their own republicans to vote against him. Now you ascribe some mythical power to them to explain Hillary's win in Texas?
Elsewhere in the link you provided, Rush claims credit for derailing Hillary's campaign! (As if someone like Obama couldn't do that himself!) Clearly that's tongue in cheek or delusional. Either way, not worth getting worked up about.

Mythical, no; Rush is a far cry from mythical everywhere but in his own mind. But given how close this race is, it wouldn't take many votes to sway the result.

As far as getting worked up, I do get worked up when people work to subvert the process, especially when it's done for what seems to be pure amusement. I don't understand why more people don't get worked up!

In an earlier post you asked about thought police - no, of course I'm not advocating that. Each citizen is on his own when he enters the booth and casts his vote; I can only hope that he is honorable and ethical.
 
  • #648
Regarding McCain and his meeting with Bush today: Honestly, if McCain made every effort to distance himself from Bush, under the right circumstances I could vote for him. But when I hear of his great affection for Bush, and when he refuses to denounce religious zealots, I lose nearly all respect for him. He may think he's a maverick, but he looks an awful lot like a Bush to me.

I will always respect him for standing up against the use of torture. He gets an A+ for that one!
 
Last edited:
  • #649
I'm still against Clinton even though she apparently eats hot peppers.
 
  • #650
Wow - play with this calculator for a while. I can't see how Clinton can overtake Obama, realistically.

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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