US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Astronuc]

Obama was apparently born August 4, 1961, so is now 46 yrs of age.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think listening once would be a recipe for disaster. How can you possibly ascertain anything from a single speech? It's hard enough after listening to several, but at least you can tell if it's live or if it's Memorex.

Well, I haven't listened to a speech in how many years? But I know Obama's voting record for the last couple of years. As I told a young Jordanian the other day, "You know how we can tell when our politicians are lying? Their lips are moving." Stop listening. See how they voted.

 

[chemisttree]

Well, I haven't listened to a speech in how many years? But I know Obama's voting record for the last couple of years. As I told a young Jordanian the other day, "You know how we can tell when our politicians are lying? Their lips are moving." Stop listening. See how they voted.

Obama's voting record. http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

I thiink it is difficult to square his voting record with his positions. He is also evasive as to where he stands on the issues.

Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490

 

[Gokul43201]

No more evasive than the other major candidates, from your link.

Just for the record:

Senator John Sidney McCain III repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=53270

Michael D. 'Mike' Huckabee repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=1657

Representative Ronald Ernest 'Ron' Paul repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=55463

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No more veasive than the other major candidates, from your link.

Just for the record:


http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=53270


http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=1657


http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296


http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=55463

Hah, I knew something was wrong here but didn't spot it when I checked the link.

 

[Astronuc]

So all the candidates refuse to respond on the record?! Hmmm.

OR - they just don't like the format, which could be used to provide misleading propaganda against them.

http://www.votesmart.org/pdf/2008/2008_Pres_Political_Courage.pdf

 

[Gokul43201]

One candidate did take the Political Courage Test: Mike Gravel

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=69496

But we already knew that Gravel has loads of political courage when he made this campaign ad: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8

 

[OmCheeto]

Obama's voting record. http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

I thiink it is difficult to square his voting record with his positions. He is also evasive as to where he stands on the issues.

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490

I posted my research of Obama's voting record on key bills last month in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1572557&postcount=49" thread. He voted the same way I would have. He therefore represents my values. I will therefore vote for him, regardless of what he says. Because it's been my experience that in order to get elected, all successful politicians will say whatever they think you want to hear.

Hence, I never listen to any of them.

<insert old adages here>

 

[chemisttree]

Only McCain has taken the political courage test as a US Senator (where he would be voting on national issues). John McCain has even been a member of the Board of Directors of Project Vote Smart. Clinton never has taken one. Obama has taken one as a state Senator but not one as a US Senator.

IMO, these questions should be the only ones allowed at any presidential debate.

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=22369" (as a Governor) is illuminating. The way I read it, not much has changed since he filled out that form.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I really despise Hillary's attempt to seat the Mi and Fl delegates. The candidates all agreed to the exclusion if the States violated the election rules, and now Hillary wants to change the rules after the fact. This is a great example of why we don't want another Clinton in the White House!

 

[turbo]

I really despise Hillary's attempt to seat the Mi and Fl delegates. The candidates all agreed to the exclusion if the States violated the election rules, and now Hillary wants to change the rules after the fact. This is a great example of why we don't want another Clinton in the White House!

Not only that, she left her name on the ballot in MI after the other candidates had removed theirs, so her only opponent was "undecided" and she campaigned in FL the day of the primary, although she claimed that she really wasn't campaigning because she campaigned at events that were not open to the public. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is if you're a Clinton.

 

[chemisttree]

What's most infuriating about it is Ickes' leading the charge! He voted to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates in the first place! I just know that the first order of business Hillary will enact will be to change everyone's zip code to end in 666... God help us all!

 

[turbo]

The only fair thing to do is set up another primary/caucus for each of these states, and whoever has the most momentum and the best message going into them will get their delegates. The big fear in the Clinton camp is that she won't be the winner and Obama will benefit from all those delegates she's trying to claim as her own now. What a slime!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just know that the first order of business Hillary will enact will be to change everyone's zip code to end in 666... God help us all!

Oh please, this is a common tag used every generation to villify someone who is not a nutty fundamentalist extremist.

 

[Gokul43201]

Scores (hope I haven't screwed anything up):

         Prev. Total    LA+NE+WA+ME  VA+MD+DC  New total
BobG        111             04         12        127
Gokul       112             10         12        134
Ivan        112             10         12        134
Astronuc    103             12         12        127
Evo         95              04         -         99
Art         35               -         -         35
lisab       54              10         -         64

Let's get our predictions in for Tomorrow:

Wisconsin
Dem=
Rep=

Hawaii
Dem=
Rep=

 

[Astronuc]

Wisconsin
Dem= 1. Obama, 2. Clinton
Rep= 1. McCain, 2. Huckabee

Hawaii
Dem= 1. Obama, 2. Clinton
Rep= 1. McCain, 2. Huckabee

Hawaii - Obama is a native son, but I think he'll win Wisconsin. He's on a roll.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wisconsin is going to be close for the Dems.

Wisconsin
Dem= Obama
Rep= McCain

Hawaii
Dem= Obama
Rep= McCain

Edit: Just saw a poll by Amer. Res. Group (Feb 15/16) that gives Clinton a 6% lead in WI. Also, new polls in TX are calling a dead heat there.

 

[D H]

Also, new polls in TX are calling a dead heat there.

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)?

 

[Poop-Loops]

Because this nation was built on the ideas of equality. If Republicans can be giant hypocrites by saying they are fiscally conservative while trying to outspend each other, then by golly, the Democrats can do the exact opposite of what their party name would suggest. It's the American way.

 

[lisab]

While Texas Republicans are indeed holding a primary on March 4, the Democrats are not.

Whaaaaaat? There are still Democrats in Texas?

I've been hearing so much about this subject lately. I think some people miss what's really going on here.

Look, what we're seeing is how a party chooses its candidate. That's decided on a state level, by the party. If you're unhappy with the rules, you will need to JOIN the party and get involved with the nitty-gritty business of making the rules. If the party wants to pick its candidate by thumb-wrestling, divining, or pinning-the-tail-on-the-donkey (or elephant), well, that's their perogative.

Where I live, the Dems allocate 100% of the delegates in caucuses. The Reps use the part-caucus, part-primary system - very similar to the Dem's system in Texas.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[lisab]

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.

 

[BobG]

Wisconsin
Dem - Obama
Rep - McCain

Hawaii
Dem - Obama
Rep - McCain

 

[Astronuc]

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

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[BobG]

Worst campaign blunder so far:

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!

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

 

[chemisttree]

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?

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.