News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Astronuc]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yahoo! CNN projects that Obama wins Wisconsin! He's 9:0.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Once again, Obama and Hillary each got more votes than McCain did.

 

[lisab]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

 

[chemisttree]

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.

 

[cristo]

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?

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[turbo]

I did find this link from the Free Republic, urging Republicans to cross-over and vote for Clinton, but haven't yet found a reliable link to Dick Morris' views on the upcoming primaries.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1971534/posts

 

[chemisttree]

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.

 

[chemisttree]

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

 

[Gokul43201]

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).

 

[chemisttree]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

Today's front page article?

 

[turbo]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[chemisttree]

Today's front page article?

Yes, that's it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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?

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[chemisttree]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.