The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

[Adri]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...ults/state/#TX

According to CNN, Clinton "won" the Texas primary but Obama "won" the Texas caucus. What does that mean? I heard an explanation of the Texas system on the radio but still don't know if it's fair to say that either candidate "won" in Texas given the split between the primary and the caucuses and how close the estimated numbers are in both anyhow.

[oceanpacific]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Texas Democrats apparently has their own unique system in which 2/3 of the delegates are chosen in the primary election (which Clinton "won") and 1/3 are picked by caucus. However, to be eligible to vote in the caucus, you have to first vote in the primary. There have been charges of irregularities in the caucuses.

Further, the votes in the primary apparently are not equally weighted in the delegate selection process. According to the news services, votes cast in rural counties (Clinton areas) are not as "valuable" as those in the urban areas like Dallas, Houston, and Austin (Obama strongholds). So, it's possible that Obama may get more delegates than Clinton even though she garnered more popular votes. And this is before you consider Obama's advantage in the caucuses.

That may be the way things are done in the Lone Star State ..........

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

According to CNN, Clinton "won" the Texas primary but Obama "won" the Texas caucus. What does that mean? I heard an explanation of the Texas system on the radio but still don't know if it's fair to say that either candidate "won" in Texas given the split between the primary and the caucuses and how close the estimated numbers are in both anyhow.

Look at my previous post re: how the Texas primary and the caucus awards delegates.

Yes, Clinton won the Texas primary, based on popular vote. And Obama appears well on his way to winning the Texas caucus, based on popular vote. But winning the popular votes of each state doesn't get you the nomination. It's getting delegates. And as the article I linked to earlier shows, the size of each district's delegation is not based on population. It will be interesting to see how the delegates will be divided between the two candidates. This is why, in reality, it was premature of Clinton to go crowing to high heaven about her 51% win in the Texas primary. But after 12 straight primary defeats, her campaign was desperate to blow its horn at any bit of good news. But that was all hype. What's really important is seeing how much ground (if any) that Clinton made up in catching up to Obama's delegate total.

[Karen]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Take it from me, a native Texan....tons of things are done "way differnt" in Texas. Remember, like Hawaii...Texas was once a nation, lol.
Heck, not even I realized we had our own "electoral college" or should I call that "electoral barn?"

Awww, look at drudge headlines today...finnnnallyyy.....both candidates are hinting at sharing the ticket, like duhhh....saw this one coming before Obama announced his run for the office. It's history and a winning ticket, unless......a lot of democrats are secretly racist and then if so, McMuffin will get a ton of crossover votes, and they'll hold their noses and vote for him.

This entire election season has me holding my nose. Vote at all? or avoid jury duty by staying home on election day and baking cookies?

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

That may be the way things are done in the Lone Star State ..........

Ah, but tell the the truth. Did you care about this before? Did you even know that Texas had this unique two-step system for the last couple of decades?

Well, the Clintons didn't care about it either in 1992 and '96, when Bill breezed his nomination through that state. Funny how a hotly contested primary changes all that.

Anyhow, now that the dust has settled on Super Tuesday II, here are the numbers that matter the most. Forget about the popular vote. Forget about polls that ask who you would rather have as commander-in-chief at 3 am. Here are the delegate breakdowns from each state.

Ohio: Clinton 71, Obama 59 - Everybody knew that this was one of the states Clinton not only had to win, but win decisively in order to keep her campaign going. Mission accomplished here, with her 10 point victory.

Texas Primary: Clinton 65, Obama 61 - For all the hype that surrounded Clinton's win in the Texas Primary last night, all it netted her was a 4 delegate gain. This is not what her strategists wanted. She is still well-behind Obama in the national delegate count,.... and with the Texas Primary over and done, she now has one less major state at her disposal in trying to catch up to Obama. I said it in one of my previous posts here and I'll say it again. She really needed a big win in Texas, but she didn't get it. Modest gains in delegate-rich states are not going to cut it for Hillary at this stage of the game, and time is running out for her.

Texas Caucus: Votes still being counted - But as of this posting, Obama holds a 12 point lead with 39% of the votes counted. This is important because the caucus vote will decide how 67 delegates will be allocated. So far, it looks like Obama will have an excellent chance to make a gain here, with the effect of eating into (and maybe even nullifying) Clinton's win in the Texas Primary. More bad news for the Clinton camp.

Rhode Island: Clinton 13, Obama 8

Vermont: Obama 9, Clinton 6 - No big surprise or drama in these last 2 states.

As of today, the AP reports that Obama now leads Clinton 1,562 to 1,461. This means that even with her primary wins in Ohio and Texas, as morale boosting as it was for her campaign, she is still trailing by 101 delegates, a number that will likely increase when the Texas caucus results come in. And while Hillary may crow at the top of her lungs that Super Tuesday II was the day that she stopped Obama's momentum, how long will that trend last? Wyoming's caucus is coming up this Saturday, followed 3 days later by Mississippi's primary. Obama tends to do well in caucuses, which will help him in the Cowboy state. He will also benefit from the high percentage of Blacks living in Mississippi. And once those races are done, it will be a 6 week gap before the next big state (Pennsylvania) steps into the spotlight.

[sinjin]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

As of today, the AP reports that Obama now leads Clinton 1,562 to 1,461.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ate_count.html

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

This entire election season has me holding my nose. Vote at all? or avoid jury duty by staying home on election day and baking cookies?

If you live in Hawaii, not registering to vote to avoid jury duty might not work. If you have a driver's license and/or if you pay income tax in this state, your name might get pulled for jury duty.

[lavagal]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Frankie's Market:
Yeah, I think we're both in Obama's Ohana, but I have a question for you. What's your expectation for the Pennsylvania caucus? I'm a Jersey Girl from way back, so I pay attention to East Cast stuff. And given Ohio is parked right next to Pennsylvania, it might be a safe bet to expect that she could squeak a win from Obama. I'd like to think that Philly and other parts of that state would pull for Obama. What say you?

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Lavagal,

I believe Clinton still leads Obama in polls of Pennsylvania, but it shrunk from like 20% in January down to about 10-12%. But with 6 weeks left to go before Penn's primary, it's hard for me to predict who will win and by what margin at this point. A lot can happen in 6 weeks. After Super Tuesday I, it seemed like everything was going Obama's way. But yesterday's results showed Hillary's campaign suddenly flexing its muscle and doing a good job of getting out the vote, esp. from seniors and women in both Texas and Ohio. But next week, the momentum could very easily shift the other way with Obama favored to do well in Wyoming and Mississippi.

In Pennsylvania, I'm guessing that Obama will probably be strongest in Philadelphia, where there is a high population of African-Americans. But outside of Philly, it looks like much of the state's population demographics play right into Clinton's favor.

If I had to make a gut prediction right now, I would say that Clinton will probably hang on to Pennsylvania. But really, the pressue is not on Obama to do well in that state. He's not expected to win, anyway. The pressure really is on Hillary to not only win, but to win big. Just like in Texas, she can't be satisfied by eking out a win. If she is pinning her hopes on getting the superdelegates to support her nomination at the DNC in August, she needs to come up with as big a win as she can. Anything less than a double-digit victory for her will not impress many superdelegates.

[Vanguard]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Remember that story about Obama telling the Canadians that his stance on NAFTA was only rhetoric, not reality? And then remember how Clinton made a big deal about it? Turns out it was Clinton who said that to Canada, not Obama

We like to make jokes about Canada, being "America Junior", etc., but this kind of interaction with our own elections, it's a little scary.

[cynsaligia]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

I merely point out what I see. If anyone tries to pass off their speculation as fact, I can and will point it out. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's life in a public forum. This is not anyone's private blog. Disagreement and diversity of opinion is inevitable. Hopefully though, we can discuss our differences in positions without taking it personally.

none of that bothers me. it's the hypocritical tone of some of your posts, which have presented speculation about obama or HRC or anyone else as fact when it suits your position.

remember when i said this:

i base my voting decisions on facts, too, and my preference is HRC. i'd guess, FM, that our desires, visions for the future, and priorities are a little different.

i don't feel a need to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with me that it takes a clinton, who will work her ass off (versus spouting some pretty words in the hopes that others will be inspired to do what he himself should be getting dirty and doing), to clean up after a bush. i admit my candidate of choice lacks clean hands on several things--but then again, none of the candidates have clean hands by any means.

you, in contrast, viciously attack anyone or dismiss as unimportant anyone who even questions the littlest bit about your messiah. hey, if he were so perfect, then BHO (stealing from you, glossyp) should be able to take some serious knocks without you having to use words like "KKK" or "sleazy"and going into a virtual ventricular tachycardia.

i remain quite happy that it apparently bothers you when i (and others) point that out. your patronizing apology was funny, tho. *thumbs up*

I didn't vote for Obama, and won't if he is the Dem nominee, but I really hope he wins Texas and Ohio. I'd love for the Clintons to finally be gone from the presidential scene, or at least limit it to buffoonish Bill. Also, I detest how her campaign used the race card to pull Obama down, and then how she recently said that she doesn't believe Obama is a Muslim "as far as I know." She has no honor.

pfft.

if you actually WATCHED the exchange between steve kroft and sen. clinton, you'd know she wasn't leaving the door open for interpretation as to whether she thought obama was a muslim or not (not that it matters what his religion was):

STEVE KROFT, “60 MINUTES”: You don‘t believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that‘s—there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says and there isn‘t any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: You said you take Senator Obama at his word that he is not Muslim.

CLINTON: Right.

KROFT: You don‘t believe that he is Muslim, or implying, right?

CLINTON: No, no, why would I? No. There is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

clearly, kroft was pushing her. he asked the question FOUR times. she said NO four times. end of story. nothing to cry foul about. you may feel the clintons lack honor, but clearly in this case, the only dishonor was from kroft, who kept badgering her, and anyone who wants to misconstrue clinton's very definitive response into a vacillation.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

so the question is that if both Obama and Clinton were to run as a ticket, who would be on top?

Personally I cannot see Obama on top with Hillary's mindset. Maybe in midterm Obama can suggest to Hillary, "Hey can I have a turn on top...you know...change?"

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

none of that bothers me. it's the hypocritical tone of some of your posts, which have presented speculation about obama or HRC or anyone else as fact when it suits your position.

remember when i said this:



i don't feel a need to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with me that it takes a clinton, who will work her ass off (versus spouting some pretty words in the hopes that others will be inspired to do what he himself should be getting dirty and doing), to clean up after a bush. i admit my candidate of choice lacks clean hands on several things--but then again, none of the candidates have clean hands by any means.

you, in contrast, viciously attack anyone or dismiss as unimportant anyone who even questions the littlest bit about your messiah. hey, if he were so perfect, then BHO (stealing from you, glossyp) should be able to take some serious knocks without you having to use words like "KKK" or "sleazy"and going into a virtual ventricular tachycardia.

What can I say? If you can't tell the difference between a criticism of a candidate's policies/politics/qualifications vs. an attack of a candidate's character/family background,... If you can't tell the difference between a dissection of a candidate's positions on the issues vs. hate articles that grasps at straws to falsely link someone with a religion and claiming that they "hate America," well, I guess there's just no having a productive discussion under these circumstances. So be it.

But good luck to all the candidates you are supporting, anyway.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

Remember that story about Obama telling the Canadians that his stance on NAFTA was only rhetoric, not reality? And then remember how Clinton made a big deal about it? Turns out it was Clinton who said that to Canada, not Obama

We like to make jokes about Canada, being "America Junior", etc., but this kind of interaction with our own elections, it's a little scary.

Well, the NAFTA memo was fair game. But so is the Clintons' failure to release their tax returns.

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/web...es/020609.html

Barack should go on the attack over Hillary and Bill Clinton's refusal to release their tax records -- but subtly, by framing it as part of his "electability" argument. He could say that Democrats need to know ASAP whether there is a big skeleton just waiting to emerge from the closet. He could argue that Hillary's insistence that the returns are a "non-issue" and a distraction and thus won't be released until the general election campaign isn't good enough -- that she owes Democrats the chance to see what fresh fodder the returns will provide McCain and the GOP political machine.

The only thing I would add to that is the fact that Hillary "loaned" her campaign $5 million of her own money in January. Thus, it makes financial transparency on the Clintons part a very legitimate issue that needs to be resolved before the Democratic nomination is made.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 2

so the question is that if both Obama and Clinton were to run as a ticket, who would be on top?

It looks like we may be waiting until the convention to find out.