US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[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.

 

[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.