US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Ivan Seeking]

Financial responsible decision planning motivates economic growth in the US. The inflowing capital stimulates increases in production quotas and increases in the standard of living. If we cut off this source of funds and created a closed economy, isolation will lead toward a system where the production possiblities have limit and have been obtained.

The inflowing capital should not be to finance deficit spending, it should be for investment in business, and for goods and services. What you are defending is financial suicide.

traditional and proved economic policy directions.

The point that you are missing is that the system is failiing because of these policies. You are acting as if we don't have a crumbling infrastructure, runaway debt, a depleted military, a mostly lost city [New Orleans] that we can't afford to rebuild, and a health care system and SS system that are facing collapse.

Whether the initial lender is the China or the Saudi kingdom, payment is made back towards the party. This is a loan istelf which works both ways but the exchange of dollars from one party to the next must be initiated by one and then later of course the other follows. This creates no net debt accrued over the time period.

What you are saying is that we are not paying more and more interest for our increasing debt, which is false.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ron Paul talks about our foreign policy as part of the problem. Consider this: Based on cost estimates from the DOE's twenty year study of algae for biodiesel production - called The Aquatic Species Program - for less than the estimated cost of the Iraq war, we could have built enough bioreactors [for algae] to convert the entire US to domestically produced biodiesel, and we would have no need for oil.

This is absolute insanity! But we have grown so accustomed to insanity that any real solutions will sound insane.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Defecit spending financed entitlements in the 1990's and continues paying; this was the buzzword of 1990's monetary issue reform debates in the legislative branch. Spending then in the 1990's ment taking debt later. Social security taxes cannot completely pay for social security, this has been true since the first social security recepient. If the system were toi fail, social security bankruptcy would result. As of yet, the government and its people have managed payments continuously since the start of deficit spending without default on loans.

The United States has never defaulted on payment and countries continue financial advances supporting US entitlements. Falure would indicate a default on payments; can you point towards a period in time which the US defaulted on payments to back the claim the US has a failing system?

 

[Gokul43201]

New video by the Black Eyed Peas: Yes, We Can - from Obama's DNC speech.

 

[Gokul43201]

I Should have said this earlier to save Bob a bunch of trouble...from this point on, we pick just the winner of the race in each state (no more second/third places).


Template:

California:
Dem =
Rep =

New York:
Dem =
Rep =

Illinois:
Dem =
Rep =

New Jersey:
Dem =
Rep =

Georgia:
Dem =
Rep =

Massachusetts:
Dem =
Rep =

Missouri:
Dem =
Rep =

Tennessee:
Dem =
Rep =

Arizona:
Dem =
Rep =

Minnesota:
Dem =
Rep =

Colorado:
Dem =
Rep =

Alabama:
Dem =
Rep =

Connecticut:
Dem =
Rep =

Oklahoma:
Dem =
Rep =

Arkansas:
Dem =
Rep =

Kansas:
Dem =
Rep =

Utah:
Dem =
Rep =

New Mexico:
Dem =
Rep =

Idaho:
Dem =
Rep =

Delaware:
Dem =
Rep =

North Dakota:
Dem =
Rep =

Alaska:
Dem =
Rep =

 

[mheslep]

Neocons would have us believe that when we cut tax rates, domestic economic activity surges, and the extra taxable activity offsets the revenue lost through the rate cut. That didn't work when Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy, and it didn't work when Bush did the same.

Don't forget the neocon JFK tax cuts.

 

[lisab]

OK, here are my picks.

California:
Dem = Obama, in a come-from-behind surprise victory
Rep = McCain

New York:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Illinois:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

New Jersey:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Georgia:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Massachusetts:
Dem = Obama
Rep = Romney

Missouri:
Dem = Obama
Rep = Huckabee

Tennessee:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Arizona:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Minnesota:
Dem = Obama
Rep = Romney

Colorado:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Alabama:
Dem = Obama
Rep = Huckabee

Connecticut:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Oklahoma:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Arkansas:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Huckabee

Kansas:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Utah:
Dem = Obama
Rep = Romney

New Mexico:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Idaho:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Delaware:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

North Dakota:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Alaska:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Romney

 

[Evo]

California:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

New York:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Illinois:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

New Jersey:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Georgia:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Massachusetts:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Romney

Missouri:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Tennessee:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Arizona:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Minnesota:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Colorado:
Dem = Obama
Rep = Romney

Alabama:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Connecticut:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Oklahoma:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Arkansas:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Huckabee

Kansas:
Dem = Obama
Rep =

Utah:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Romney

New Mexico:
Dem = Obama
Rep =

Idaho:
Dem = Obama
Rep =

Delaware:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

North Dakota:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Alaska:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Still working on this.

 

[Astronuc]

Maybe it's time to start a new poll.

I think the voting for Republicans would be different.


McCain and Romney are the national leaders by far. Huckabee might pull the lead in some southern states. That'll be really interesting.


NPR Poll Finds Mixed Signals on Candidates
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18620958

Morning Edition, February 4, 2008 · Voters are closely divided over the presidential race, saying they would like to see a Democrat in the White House, but picking Republican John McCain over Democrats Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama when asked about specific candidates, according to a new NPR poll.

The poll also shows 68 percent of respondents think the country is on the wrong track, and the economy is uppermost on voters' minds, followed by the Iraq war and health care.

If the election were held today, 49 percent of likely voters said they would support the Democratic candidate and 44 percent would vote for the Republican nominee, according to the poll, conducted Jan. 29-31.

However, when likely voters are asked about matchups between specific candidates, Sen. McCain holds a slight lead over either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama, though McCain's advantage is within the poll's margin of error.

In a theoretical match-up between Clinton and Republican former governor Mitt Romney, Clinton leads 49 percent to 44 percent.

Clinton Could Challenge Obama's Deep Illinois Roots
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18648375

All Things Considered, February 3, 2008 · Illinois is one of the big prizes on Super Tuesday, which could give Illinois Sen. Barack Obama an advantage. He has deep roots in the Chicago community and has been endorsed by many Democrats in the state. But Sen. Hillary Clinton is giving Obama a run for his money in the primary. And she has roots in the state, too — she was born there.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting story. More Republicans are looking to the Democratic party!

I expect in November - Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton will win election for Pres/VP.

Middle-class turns to Dems for economy help
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/04/unclassed/

KAI RYSSDAL: One day before Super Tuesday, Arizona Senator John McCain has made a new pitch to voters. At a rally in Boston the Republican presidential candidate promised to come up with specific policies to turn the economy around. Said he'll do it by "unleashing the forces of the free market." That right there might be the clearest point of distinction between the Republican and Democratic hopefuls in the race. And with the economy topping the list of issues that voters are concerned about, it could spell trouble for the GOP. Jeremy Hobson reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JEREMY HOBSON: Todd Krost, who lives outside Detroit, is a lifelong Republican. But this year, he and his wife, who both work and make about 60 grand between them, are planning to vote for a Democrat. Someone who's addressing their economic concerns. He says all they're hearing from Republican candidates are biographies.


Todd Krost: I'm not so much concerned about that as I am our pocketbook and, you know, what my family's going to do for the next couple years.

Same goes for Carly Cummings, a small business owner and lifelong Republican from Omaha, Nebraska:

Carly Cummings: Well, I am for less government, but I am also for taking care of everyone and making sure that just that we look out for our fellow man. So I feel like there is more compassion and just more foresight economically on the Democratic side to be able to reach out to a broader variety of people.

The problem for Republican candidates is not just limited to Todd and Carly. It extends to what former Bush speechwriter David Frum calls the middle-middle. Traditionally, Republican suburban or exurban families making about $70,000 a year.

Scott Keeter, of the Pew Research Center, has the numbers to prove it:


Scott Keeter: Over the past few years, we have seen a very large partisan gap in ratings of the national economy. We are now seeing that gap declining somewhat, as more Republicans are saying that they don't think the economy is doing well.

Hobson: So traditionally, Republicans have said the economy is doing fine under this Republican president, and now they're starting to break away and sound more like Democrats?

 

[Astronuc]

I going to agree with BobG except for MA. I'll give that to Obama. It think several states will be very close.

California:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

New York:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Illinois:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

New Jersey:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Georgia:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Massachusetts: *
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Missouri:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Tennessee:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Arizona:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Minnesota:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Colorado:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Alabama:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Conn:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Oklahoma:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Arkansas:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Kansas:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Utah:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

New Mexico:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Idaho:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Delaware:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

North Dakota:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Alaska:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

 

[Evo]

Only 3 people with predictions?

 

[Evo]

I going to agree with BobG except for MA. I'll give that to Obama. It think several states will be very close.

California:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

New York:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Illinois:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

New Jersey:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Georgia:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Massachusetts: *
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Missouri:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Tennessee:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Arizona:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Minnesota:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Colorado:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Alabama:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Conn:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Oklahoma:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Arkansas:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Kansas:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Utah:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

New Mexico:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

Idaho:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Delaware:
1. Clinton
2. Obama

North Dakota:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Alaska:
1. Obama
2. Clinton

Astro, it's supposed to be Democrat and Republican, you only showed Democrat.

 

[Astronuc]

Republican: I agree with BobG. I think Giuliani would have beat Huckabee in places like NJ, MA, and others. I've put Rudy for #3 in NY. I think he's still on the ballot. I don't know if Huckeeboy has visited NY. I think even Paul would beat Huckybaby in NY. Paul is somewhat popular in my area for some reason.

California:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

New York:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Giuliani

Illinois:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

New Jersey:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

Georgia:
1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

Mass:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Huckabee

Missouri:
1. McCain
2. Huckabee
3. Romney

Tennessee:
1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

Arizona:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Paul

Minnesota:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Paul

Colorado:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Paul

Alabama:
1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

Conn:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

Oklahoma:
1. McCain
2. Huckabee
3. Romney

Arkansas:
1. Huckabee
2. McCain
3. Romney

Utah:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Paul

West Virginia:
1. McCain
2. Huckabee
3. Romney

North Dakota:
1. McCain
2. Paul
3. Romney

Montana:
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Paul

Delaware:
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Paul

Alaska:
1. Paul
2. McCain
3. Romney

 

[Astronuc]

Astro, it's supposed to be Democrat and Republican, you only showed Democrat.

I know - I was working on the Reps. Now go finish yours.

My IE is screwed up and IE kept crashing while I was trying to read some stats on the various states.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

California:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

New York:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Illinois:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

New Jersey:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Georgia:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Massachusetts:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Romney

Missouri:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Tennessee:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Arizona:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Minnesota:
Dem = OBama
Rep = McCain

Colorado:
Dem = Obama
Rep = Romney

Alabama:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Connecticut:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Oklahoma:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Arkansas:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Huckabee

Kansas:
Dem = Obama
Rep = ------

Utah:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Romney

New Mexico:
Dem = OBama
Rep = ------

Idaho:
Dem = Obama
Rep = ------

Delaware:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

North Dakota:
Dem = OBama
Rep = McCain

Alaska:
Dem = Obama
Rep = Ron Paul

 

[Gokul43201]

My picks:

California:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

New York:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Illinois:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

New Jersey:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Georgia:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Massachusetts:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Romney

Missouri:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Tennessee:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Arizona:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Minnesota:
Dem = OBama
Rep = McCain

Colorado:
Dem = Obama
Rep = Romney

Alabama:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Connecticut:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

Oklahoma:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

Arkansas:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Huckabee

Kansas:
Dem = Obama
Rep = ------

Utah:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = Romney

New Mexico:
Dem = OBama
Rep = ------

Idaho:
Dem = Obama
Rep = ------

Delaware:
Dem = Clinton
Rep = McCain

North Dakota:
Dem = OBama
Rep = McCain

Alaska:
Dem = Obama
Rep = McCain

PS: Montana and WV for Reps are closed caucuses and will not be included.

 

[Astronuc]

NEW YORK (CNN) – Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won the West Virginia State Party Convention, the first Republican presidential nominating contest of “Super Tuesday.”

Huckabee was victorious on the second ballot.

Huckabee picked up 18 national convention delegates after trailing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on the first round of balloting. It appeared as though supporters of Arizona Sen. John McCain, who placed a distant third on the first ballot, moved over to Huckabee, helping him to carry the day.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ins-first-super-tuesday-presidential-contest/

So for the Reps, it was

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain

 

[Gokul43201]

I would have bolded the next clause in that excerpt. Everyone knows that the GOP insiders hate McCain, and that Romney is their poster child. Huckabee himself is only popular among a medium sized, uberconservative wing. The interesting thing here is that the McCain gang went over to Huck so Romney wouldn't win the state.

Are all closed conventions "winner take all"?

 

[Astronuc]

Everyone knows that the GOP insiders hate McCain, . . .

No kidding!

McCain faces conservative backlash
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02...h/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

(CNN) -- GOP front-runner John McCain is cruising into Super Tuesday with a hefty lead in the polls, but he's drawing a backlash from some top conservatives who say he is too liberal to carry the Republican nomination.

Are all closed conventions "winner take all"?

Not sure.

 

[BobG]

And already reports of voting problems.

[In Virginia]..the State Board of Elections had received hundreds of calls by noon, many from people wanting to know why their polling places were closed.

Oh, wait! Virginia's primary is next week on Feb 12. Doh!

 

[Astronuc]

And already reports of voting problems.

Oh, wait! Virginia's primary is next week on Feb 12. Doh!

Well, at least they're eager to vote! Maybe in 4 years, Virginia will have joined Super Tuesday.

I think it was McCain or Romney who told their supporters, "Go out and vote as many times as you can." - then realized the implication of what he just said.

 

[Astronuc]

Anxiety over jobs, economy crowd out war, other issues

It's particularly acute in states where housing has cratered and unemployment is higher.

Economy worries in focus as voters cast ballots

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- In a change from prior years' presidential primaries, anxieties about jobs and eroding housing wealth have pushed out war, health care and hot-button social issues as the No. 1 subject in voter's minds.

Voters heading to the polls in 24 states Tuesday are instead expected to pay more attention to candidates' positions - or posturing - on solving economic challenges facing the United States today.

"Job insecurity, the difficulty with financial markets and the risk of a spillover to the rest of the economy, will play a central role," said Dimitri Papadimitriou, president of the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College.

That's particularly the case in states where the housing market has cratered and unemployment rates are shooting higher.

Take California, the biggest prize in terms of delegates. It ended 2007 with a 6.1% unemployment rate, more than one percentage point higher than the national average.
Foreclosures more than tripled last year, while home prices in Los Angeles and San Diego have been dropping by double-digit percentages. As if to underscore the state's increasingly precarious financial position, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled a $14.5 billion-budget shortfall.

"The economy, both on the Democrat and Republican side, has become really a front-and-center issue in the California primary," said Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California, in San Francisco.

 

[turbo]

Here's a reason to vote for Obama if you don't want McCain continuing Bush policies:

Sunday's Washington Post/ABC poll shows Obama defeating McCain 49%-46% while McCain beats Clinton 49%-46%. Sunday's Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll shows Obama defeating McCain 45%-43% and McCain defeating Clinton 45%-41%. Both polls give Obama a 6 point advantage over Clinton in a match-up with McCain.

These most recent polls are consistent with numerous polls taken over the past year, most, but not all, of which show McCain defeating Clinton. A January 10-12 Financial Dynamics poll shows McCain defeating Clinton 48%-45% and Obama defeating McCain 43%-42%. A December 12-14 Zogby Poll shows McCain defeating Clinton 49%-42% and Obama defeating McCain 47%-43%, a 10 point advantage for Obama over Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/obama-likely-to-defeat-mc_b_85009.html

 

[Moonbear]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ins-first-super-tuesday-presidential-contest/

So for the Reps, it was

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain

Keep in mind that in WV, that was a Republican CONVENTION, not a primary election. Our primary isn't until May (the Republicans can have an actual vote on a whopping one-third of the delegates for their party, since the other 2/3 got wheeled-and-dealed to a candidate they really didn't want today).

On the upside, when I got confused hearing results for WV on CNN tonight, and rushed to the SOS website trying to figure out what was going on, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that since the last time I checked their website for primary election information, they've changed the rules so now "No Party" voters can vote in the primary. Hmm...at the rate things are going, I might have to vote for a"Mountain Party" candidate. Yep, apparently we have one.

 

[Gokul43201]

Obama with a 10 states to 6 lead over Clinton. Zippity doo dah!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Clinton took Ca.

 

[Astronuc]

Montana - 649,436 total registered voters (No registration by party)

Romney   625 38% (25 del)
Paul     400 25%  
McCain   358 22%   
Huckabee 245 15%

They're really excited in Montana.

 

[Astronuc]

Paul did better than McCain in Alaska

Romney   5,126 44%  12 
Huckabee 2,548 22%   6 
Paul     1,955 17%   5 
McCain   1,804 15%   3

Not too many Dems in Alaska, or they live in Ca for the winter.

Obama    302  75%  9 
Clinton  103  25%  4

 

[BobG]

Going into Super Tuesday, Romney was saying that Huckabee shouldn't still be in the race - all he was doing was spoiling Romney's chances. On the surface, McCain finished second in 4 of the 5 states Huckabee won, but I think Romney still has a case. It would be a stretch to say Romney would be winning or even tied against McCain without Huckabee in the race, but I think Romney could have been a lot closer; maybe as close as within a 100 delegates - more because of close states like Missouri that McCain won than the states Huckabee won. Most likely case would be a very solid lead for McCain, but close enough to say you still had a race.

I don't think you could make the same claim for Huckabee. He'd be closer and he might have won a couple of close states like Missouri and Oklahoma. If Romney wasn't in the race, you'd have a big batch of delegates up for grabs, but it would be hard to say Huckabee would have an advantage over McCain in winning those delegates.

The real reason McCain's thumping Romney and Huckabee is the delegate rules in the various states. If you had the same rules as the Democrats, the Republicans would be locked in a 3-way race that would be virtually guaranteed to run into the convention.

McCain won 6 winner-take-all states and Romney 4, but McCain won 305 delegates in his winner-take-all states while Romney won only 119. Plus McCain won 2 states, Oklahoma and Illinois, that were virtually winner-take-all, even if the losers in those states picked up a few token delegates. Oklahoma went 37%-33%-25%, yet McCain picked up 32 delegates to Huckabee's 6 and Romney's 0. The rules in Illinois and Oklahoma were good for another 84 delegates for McCain.

Romney won 7 states, but 3 of them were good for a net gain of 16 delegates over McCain - less than the smallest of the winner-take-all states.

Huckabee won 5 states, but only 2 were winner-take-all, plus Georgia which virtually a winner-take-all state. He won 85 delegates in those states. Winning Alabama netted Huckabee 1 delegate over McCain, while Tennessee netted him 7 over McCain.

The state total (excluding California) was McCain 8, Romney 7, and Huckabee 5, but that was a landslide victory for McCain once the different delegate rules are taken into account. In significant victories, McCain won 8, to Romney's 4, to Huckabee's 3. McCain's significant victories were more significant (more delegates). He won 389 delegates in his, while Romney went 119 and Huckabee went 85.

 

[Evo]

Current delegate count

Democrats need 2,025

Clinton 845

Obama 765

Republicans need 1,191

McCain 613

Romney 269

Huckabee 190

 

[denverdoc]

Here's a reason to vote for Obama if you don't want McCain continuing Bush policies:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/obama-likely-to-defeat-mc_b_85009.html

It was a curious pattern IMO out west--in states like Colorado, ND, Idaho, Utah all of which run crimson red to purple, Obama stomped Clinton, meanwhile losing to her on the coasts. (Going southwest and in California, poor support by latino voters for Obama seems to have hurt.)

I can see many quasi-independent voters including myself possibly going for McCain vs Clinton, whereas I would vote Obama over anyone else.

 

[BobG]

It was a curious pattern IMO out west--in states like Colorado, ND, Idaho, Utah all of which run crimson red to purple, Obama stomped Clinton, meanwhile losing to her on the coasts. (Going southwest and in California, poor support by latino voters for Obama seems to have hurt.)

I'll say it was a curious pattern, at least for the Democrats. They shot my picks in the PF 2008 FLFFTNODBTVPCIASBSB all to heck. And after I did so good on the Republican side.

 

[Gokul43201]

Clinton took Ca.

I'm waiting to see how many pledged delegates she makes.

California has the "62.5% rule". In any county where the winner does not get 62.5% of the vote, the delegates are shared equally. If Clinton won every county by the same 52-42 margin, she would end up with the same number of pledged delegates as Obama.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was ticked that I didn't review the other votes here before dismissing Huck in the South. If I had looked, your votes might have clued me in.

Were there poll numbers foretelling his victories in the South? I'm thinking that I checked for Romney and McCain and forgot about Huckleberry.