US Presidential Primaries, 2008

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date Start date

Who will be the eventual nominee from each party?

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
1,347 replies · 183K views
Wow! Nevada is going to be close for 2nd place. Ron Paul is actually going to pull out a top 3 finish?! And we might have to start keeping track of how often Giuliani loses to Duncan Hunter!
 
on Phys.org
Follow the action.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=NV


Obama takes an early commanding lead, with only 3% of precincts reporting.
So far it's Obama, Clinton, Edwards.

On the Republican side, Romney leads the pack followed by McCain and Paul. It would interesting to see if Thompson gains on or surpasses Huckabee.

Apparently, Romney's message on economic growth resonates with folks in Nevada, and other states.
 
Hillary and Romney have won Nevada for their respective parties.
 
According to CNN - 98% precincts reporting in the Nevada race.

Romney 22,313 52% 18
Paul 5,742 13% 4
McCain 5,558 13% 4
Huckabee 3,500 8% 2
Thompson 3,475 8% 2
Giuliani 1,884 4% 1
Hunter 879 2% 0

Thompson came close to Huckabee, and Paul edged McCain out of second place.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards place top 3 in the Democratic race.

It'll be interesting to see if Edwards throws his support behind Clinton or Obama after SuperTuesday, or perhaps waits until the convention.


In SC, McCain takes an early lead followed by Huckabee, Romney and Thompson.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
Go Ron Paul! I love it!
Ivan, I hope you really wouldn't want this guy in charge of a country, any country. But, as we know, his inablity to get out of single digits THANKFULLY means he's not a viable candidate.

It's no surprise that bible thumping Huckabee wouldn't go over in Nevada. I'm surprised about McCain though, he's the most non-frightening of the Repubicans. Hard core Republican blogs are really bad mouthing McCain because he is too liberal.
 
Last edited:
He is into double digits.

I fail to see how anyone including Paul could be worse than what we've had. So given a choice between Paul and someone like Bush, I would vote for Paul. We need many many more people like him and his supporters. He is like a breath of fresh air.
 
Interesting Stat: Among all the states with completed primaries/caucuses, Clinton has not beaten Obama on the delegate count in any of them. They are tied in Iowa and Nevada. And in NH, which Clinton won, she gained 1 less delegate than Obama! But the superdelegates in the states yet to come up overwhelmingly favor Clinton...so far.
 
Evo said:
It's no surprise that bible thumping Huckabee wouldn't go over in Nevada. I'm surprised about McCain though, he's the most non-frightening of the Repubicans. Hard core Republican blogs are really bad mouthing McCain because he is too liberal.

What exactly do you mean by non-frightening? I find him the most frightening out of all the republicans. He's the guy who said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPdOg6kLG1o"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gokul43201 said:
Interesting Stat: Among all the states with completed primaries/caucuses, Clinton has not beaten Obama on the delegate count in any of them. They are tied in Iowa and Nevada. And in NH, which Clinton won, she gained 1 less delegate than Obama! But the superdelegates in the states yet to come up overwhelmingly favor Clinton...so far.
If Clinton and Obama are essentially tied when the campaigns are approaching the convention, then I would imagine Edwards will be trying to make deals with either for support.

Now someone mentioned that Clinton seems more in touch than Obama with the issues, e.g. education, health, home economic issues, . . . . , but they both relatively equal in foreign policy matters. To me, Clinton still seems to be a Washington insider, more so than Obama, so I have to wonder upon whom Clinton will draw for Cabinet positions, particularly in Defense and State. These were areas in which Bill Clinton was rather weak. But if Obama becomes president, upon whom will he draw?

On the Republican side, Romney and Huckabee have experience as governors, and McCain and Thompson as senators.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
He is into double digits.
You're right, the results I saw hadn't been updated.

Still
Among Republicans, Romney leads with 64 delegates to 21 for Huckabee, 18 for McCain, eight for former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and five for Paul, according to the CNN count. The Republican nominee needs 1,191 delegates.

I fail to see how anyone including Paul could be worse than what we've had.
You and I part ways here, I think he's just a bit more than a tad insane. :biggrin: Seriously, I get the impression when listening to him of the naivety of a 10 year old.
 
Gokul43201 said:
What happens, if come Convention time, there is no candidate with an overall majority?
It looks like for Republicans, it will be between McCain and Romney, but there is still the chance that the hard core Christian right will pull through for Huckabee. An interesting note with McCain leading in SC is that no Republican presidential candidate has won their party's nomination without winning the South Carolina primary.

Clinton and Obama will also be close.
 
Gokul43201 said:
What happens, if come Convention time, there is no candidate with an overall majority?
Well - they'll go through one round, and then negotiations start. Or the guy in third place makes a deal that puts either of the first two over the top in exchange for VP or something like that.

One local commentator mentioned 'backroom deals' with characters like the cigar smoking political advisor played by William Frawley in the Miracle on 34th St.
 
Hee, hee. I agree the normally very sane and informed Ivan seems a screw short on Paul and his loonie toon policies which are absolutely bereft of either good sense or common decency.

Back on topic: One thing to remember about Nevada is it is serious Mormon country and many of the casino workers ironically enuf (also overrepresented here by the caucas methodology) are LDS.
 
Astronuc said:
Well - they'll go through one round, and then negotiations start. Or the guy in third place makes a deal that puts either of the first two over the top in exchange for VP or something like that.

One local commentator mentioned 'backroom deals' with characters like the cigar smoking political advisor played by William Frawley in the Miracle on 34th St.
I've only heard about this in similar, somewhat vague terms. When was the last time this happened?

I can easily see this happening in at least one party, if not both. For the Republicans, if McCain and Romney emerge as forerunners, it looks like Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson and Paul have enough money and support to take away at least 20% of the delegates. Run any combination you like, among those 6 Reps, and it's hard to imagine that the bottom 4 don't carry at least 20% of the delegate count. And that makes it very hard for anyone to beat the 50% mark. Similarly, though to a lesser extent, among the Dems, there's a reasonable chance that Edwards will get over 10% of the delegates. So if Obama and Clinton remain close till the end, there may again be no majority holder. And then, after the backroom shenanigans are through, Edwards, with his crucial 10% could come out better positioned than the loser among Obama-Clinton!
 
Which election was it that Ralph Nader was blamed for pulling just enough votes to alter the election? Supposedly Bush might not have won if it wasn't for Nader taking away Democratic votes. Don't know if there is any truth to that. I kind of equate Paul's attempt to Nader's, so he might help pull enough Republican votes to ensure a Democratic win.

I think it might have been this? Whatever happened to the "Green Party"?

http://www.nvri.org/library/cases/Becker/beckercomplaint.shtml

:smile: Dr Phil voted for Nader, I wonder if he is voting for Ron Paul?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having sold his soul to the Republican party for the Primaries, I don't think Paul will be allowed to run in the General Election as a third party candidate.

PS: Dr. Phil is probably too busy to vote this year. His current project - a daunting one - is to see if he can actually make Britney more of a mess than she already is.
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
Having sold his soul to the Republican party for the Primaries, I don't think Paul will be allowed to run in the General Election as a third party candidate.
Not even if misguided celebrities endorse him? He doesn't have any celebrity endorsements, does he? Pretty sad if you can't get a celebrity endorsement. :-p

gokul said:
PS: Dr. Phil is probably too busy to vote this year. His current project - a daunting one - is to see if he can actually make Britney more of a mess than she already is.
:smile:
 
Last edited:
I don't know who to feel sorrier for: Britney or Dr Phil.

This election is really quite fun. I would take any of the candidates over Bush so already we have progress. But of the bunch I think Huckabee is the most dangerous. He openly professes his desire to put God in the Constitution. And we still could end up with enough neo-cons to allow a continuation of this insanity.

The obvious point that you all miss about Paul is that even if elected, he could never do what he says. The Constitution that he defends with such vigor [the reason that I like him] would not allow it because Congress wouldn't allow it. But to argue for a return to Constitutional law, such as requiring that Congress should be the body to declare war, is a push in the right direction. And if you want to talk about insanity, then please see all threads on King Bush and his policies. This is all a result of straying from the Constitution. There is even a reasonable chance that the election was not legitimate - the ultimate failure of a democratic state!

People had better listen to Ron Paul. I for one no longer believe that our government is legitimate. And I know that many people feel the same way.

Has anyone else been following the voting machine fiasco? What a joke! We will have no way to know if the election in SC is legit because there is no paper trail.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
Has anyone else been following the voting machine fiasco? What a joke! We will have no way to know if the election in SC is legit because there is no paper trail.

I've been following it too, but have been too lazy/tired to post about it (since I already posted quite a bit for the NH concerns). I think people even found out it goes against SC state constitution, yet they still used machines that count votes in private!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REfVcc-4Zrk"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And that is just the tip of the iceberg! Indeed the heart and soul of this country - the democratic process itself - is at stake if not largely lost already. And Ron Paul is the only candidate who speaks to these abominations of the Constitution. That is why people are listening and donating.

Naivety is thinking that these abuses can continue without consequences far worse than Bush's illegal government.
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
I've only heard about this in similar, somewhat vague terms. When was the last time this happened?

I can easily see this happening in at least one party, if not both. For the Republicans, if McCain and Romney emerge as forerunners, it looks like Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson and Paul have enough money and support to take away at least 20% of the delegates. Run any combination you like, among those 6 Reps, and it's hard to imagine that the bottom 4 don't carry at least 20% of the delegate count. And that makes it very hard for anyone to beat the 50% mark. Similarly, though to a lesser extent, among the Dems, there's a reasonable chance that Edwards will get over 10% of the delegates. So if Obama and Clinton remain close till the end, there may again be no majority holder. And then, after the backroom shenanigans are through, Edwards, with his crucial 10% could come out better positioned than the loser among Obama-Clinton!
As Evo pointed out, Nader undermined Gore in the 2000 election, but Nader was going as third party.

The last time deals were being made was 1972 IIRC, at least for the Democrats. In 1972, there was a close race between McGovern and Humphrey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_presidential_election#Democratic_Party_nomination

Carter took the lead in the Democratic primaries in 1976, there have been strong front runners since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1976

The 1976 Republican National Convention was the last time a presidential convention opened without the nominee having already been decided in the primaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976#Republican_Party_Nomination

There was a broad pack of Republicans in 1980, but Reagan pulled ahead of Bush and Dole. Bush became VP and Dole remained a senator until retirement. Dole never could inspire the voting public. The turning moment in 1980 was when Reagan grabbed the microphone during a debate in Nashua, NH and said "I'm paying for this microphone", and that projected a sense of command and leadership that overshadowed Bush, Dole and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980#Republican_Party
 
Apparently in Nevada, women voters came out for Clinton.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/us/politics/20nevada.html
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NV.html

In South Carolina, voters favored McCain over Huckabee. So now the Republicans have a three-way race.
McCain Victory in South Carolina Caps Comeback
By MICHAEL COOPER and MEGAN THEE
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Senator John McCain staved off a spirited challenge by Mike Huckabee to win the South Carolina primary on Saturday, exorcising the ghosts of the attack-filled primary here that derailed his presidential hopes eight years ago.

Mr. McCain’s victory here, on top of his win earlier this month in New Hampshire, capped a remarkable comeback for a campaign that was all but written off six months ago. In an unusually fluid Republican field, his aides said they hoped the victory would give Mr. McCain a head of steam going into the Jan. 29 Florida primary and the nationwide series of nominating contests on Feb. 5.

“It took us a while, but what’s eight years among friends?” Mr. McCain said at a boisterous victory celebration that broke out into shouts of “Mac is back! Mac is back!”

Mr. McCain did best among voters who said experience was the most important quality in a candidate, among those who said the Iraq war and terrorism were their top concerns and among the state’s veterans, who made up a quarter of the vote. He ran about even with Mr. Huckabee, who pressed a populist message here, among the many voters who said their top concern in the election was the economy. He also continued to draw strong support from independents.

Mr. Huckabee’s loss in a Southern state with a strong turnout of religious voters was a setback to his campaign as it heads toward potentially less hospitable states.

Nearly 60 percent of the voters in South Carolina identified themselves in exit polls as evangelical Christians, a group that was heavily courted by Mr. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Baptist preacher. While Mr. Huckabee captured 4 in 10 of their votes, Mr. McCain also made inroads with the group, capturing more than a quarter of their vote.

The South Carolina primary has accurately predicted the Republican presidential nominee since 1980, and since 1988 it has often played a decisive role. The McCain campaign sought to highlight that history here this week, but he is still left facing a scrambled field of opponents, including Mitt Romney, whose lopsided victory in the lightly contested Nevada caucuses Saturday gave him his second win in a week. He defeated Mr. McCain in the Michigan primary on Tuesday.

. . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/us/politics/20carolina.html
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/SC.html

SC Rep Primary Results
John McCain 143,224 33.2%
Mike Huckabee 128,908 29.9%
Fred D. Thompson 67,897 15.7%
Mitt Romney 64,970 15.1 %

Maybe it's a 4-way race.
 
Last edited:
HUCKABEE: I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22754999/

I didn't realize that the Constitution represents contemporary views! This shows a clear intent to violate the separation of church and state. He has an agenda and he is dangerous. He is an enemy of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was very interesting!

...MS. NORRIS: When you're on the ground, also, you really hear the Republican operatives. I mean, this is a conversation that I actually heard in South Carolina talking about how much they really want a Hillary Clinton victory.

MR. BROKAW: Mm-hmm.

MS. NORRIS: I mean, they actually will talk openly about bringing Barack Obama down a few notches because they want to run against Hillary.

MR. MEACHAM: Because it's a known known, to give Secretary--former Secretary Rumsfeld his due. Hillary Clinton, they know what to do. Barack Obama, how do you run against the first African American nominee? It explodes all conventional campaign dogma in ways that completely will surprise and pleasantly and unpleasantly perhaps as they go forward. And I that that that's the--one of the things that's so scary about Obama to Republicans is they don't how to run against him...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22754999/page/4/
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I thought this was very interesting!

...MS. NORRIS: When you're on the ground, also, you really hear the Republican operatives. I mean, this is a conversation that I actually heard in South Carolina talking about how much they really want a Hillary Clinton victory.

MR. BROKAW: Mm-hmm.

MS. NORRIS: I mean, they actually will talk openly about bringing Barack Obama down a few notches because they want to run against Hillary.

MR. MEACHAM: Because it's a known known, to give Secretary--former Secretary Rumsfeld his due. Hillary Clinton, they know what to do. Barack Obama, how do you run against the first African American nominee? It explodes all conventional campaign dogma in ways that completely will surprise and pleasantly and unpleasantly perhaps as they go forward. And I that that that's the--one of the things that's so scary about Obama to Republicans is they don't how to run against him...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22754999/page/4/
This is pretty sick. The democratic process should be about what is best for the country with the selection of the one with the best ideas, not how to trash the opponent.

And Huckabee's comments are worrisome. Who is he to determine "God's standards"?
 

Similar threads

News Reaction to Trump winning the 2016 US Presidential Election
  • StatGuy2000
  • · Replies 12 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
Should I Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils in the US Presidential Election?
  • jobyts
  • · Replies 40 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
News Who Will Win the 2008 US Presidential Election?
  • BobG
  • · Replies 78 ·
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
78
Views
13K
News Ahmadinejad offers to be an observer at US presidential election
  • fourier jr
  • · Replies 8 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
News Why are presidential primaries not all on one day?
  • wasteofo2
  • · Replies 14 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
News Did the 2000 US Presidential Election Have Illegal Activity?
  • russ_watters
  • · Replies 28 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
News Predict the US Presidential Election Winner!
  • Gokul43201
  • · Replies 51 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • Poll Poll
News What Will the Voter Turnout Be in the Upcoming US Presidential Election?
  • check
  • · Replies 10 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
News Was the 2004 US Presidential election rigged?
  • russ_watters
  • · Replies 50 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
C/C++ Print US Presidential Election Years Since 1792
  • ineedhelpnow
  • · Replies 4 ·
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
4
Views
7K