Super Tuesday

[pmcalk]

OK, RM--you made your predictions before Edward's dropped out.  What are your predictions now, only a few hours before polls open?  What are the total delegates you are predicting?  Care for a friendly wager?

[RecycleMichael]

Sure.

Hillary sweeps the east. New York, Massachussetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware. Obama makes it close in Massachusetts, Delaware and New Jersey.

Obama wins Colorado, Illinois, Idaho, Utah, Alabama and Georgia.

Hillary sweeps the rest. California, Missouri and Arizona will be close, but she wins big in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Minnesota, Kansas, Tennessee, Alaska, and Arkansas.

The key is to watch the east first. If Obama gets more than 40% in New York and wins Massachusetts, the rest of the nation will be close.

Missouri and California are the closest. If Obama can win either one, he will be within a hundred delgates of Hillary at the end of the night.

I predict he won't win either and will be over 150 delgates behind. No media will call California until at least midnight our time.

Final state count... Hillary 16   Obama 6

[FOTD]

Don't think we will know the nominee until long after tommorow.

Super delegates will hold the power most of whom are status quo which helps Billary. The average voters don't really matter.

West coast states make up %30 of the delegates. I'm not staying up.

[pmcalk]

I think you really underestimate the momentum Obama has.  He's raised more money, got more endorsements in the past month by far than Clinton.  Being on the upswing, I am betting that most undecided will sway towards Obama.

EAST COAST:  Obviously, Hillary will win in New York.  Recent polls have Obama & Clinton in a dead heat in Massachusetts, but I imagine she will maintain a slight lead, though its an open primary, which benefits Barack.  New Jersey, Connecticut, & Deleware have a tie between the two.  I imagine that New Jersey will go to Clinton, since it's more blue collar, though it is semi-open, too.  Ultimately, Hillary gets 3, Barack 2

South--Hillary gets Oklahoma, Arkansas & Tennessee.  Barack gets Georgia & Alabama.

Plains--Kansas now has Barack ahead, as well as Missouri.  I predict Barack gets both, along with Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Idaho, & Colorado.  

West:  Arizona & New Mexico will go to Hillary, and Alaska will go to Barack.

California--this is the most difficult to predict.  Hillary has a lot of workers on the ground, but Barack has gotten so much momentum there.  Latest polls have them in a statistical tie, or Obama slightly ahead.  While I am not as confident, I have a feeling tha Obama will win just slightly.

Ultimately, Obama 14 states, Clinton 8.

I agree of the total pledged delegates up for grabs, there will be a very low overall difference, since none is a winner take all.  Even if Clinton gets California, I predict that the delegates will be almost evenly divided in that state.

[Breadburner]

The Mexicaints wont vote for Osama....

[FOTD]

California is turning big time for Obama despite the hispanic vote concept....

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Secondly, no one should talk about energy independents or rising gas prices when they voted to further restrict domestic drilling and/or allow more refining capacity.  Or at least provide a viable alternative (nuclear presumably).  The US has more oil under federal control than Iraq but we can't touch it... we don't really need the 2 or 3 Trillion dollars nor do we really care about energy independence (could go on and on).

...

At the moment, I'm leaning towards Paul just to show I'm not happy with the status quo (if he had a chance of winning I would probably not vote Paul).

The government got way too big, spending got out of control.  The huge pressure to finance all of this spending keeps the US engaged in operations overseas that it does not need to be involved in.

Do you know that a big reason we "depend" on foreign oil when we could be drilling our own is that it is a scheme to finance our debt?  Are you aware that we have deals set in place with foreign governments to 1) Sell oil in dollars and 2) Re-invest part of that in our national debt - So in other words, the foreign oil dependancy is a scheme to get us to finance all of this debt we have.  The federal government has not only gotten too large, it has grossly overstepped the boundaries of LOGIC in its largesse.  It hit a logical financial limit a long long time ago.

The United States essentially went bankrupt in 1971.  Dropping the gold standard meant that, before 1971, the dollars we paid people overseas had value, they could be exchanged for a set amount of gold.  After 1971 they became backed by nothing, and have greatly distorted in value as time goes by and we print print print.

Imagine this.  Our government got too big at the same time our manufacturing base lost its' dominance in the world.  Government spending in the 50s and 60s grew, and we started taking a few too many liberties with the way we gave out dollars to foreigners.  What we had was a gold-backed dollar we were handing out, but reserves dropped and dropped - It equated to fractional reserve banking gone wild.  We fought a war that wasn't neccesary with money we didn't have.  But this was 40 years ago.  The Vietnam war bankrupted us.  We had exploited fractional reserves far past their limit, and could no longer back our dollars with gold since we had spent WAY too much money we simply DID NOT HAVE.  Nixon dealt the death blow in 1970 when he lifted import quotas on oil.  More dollars going out, no more gold to back them.

As spending shot skyward, defecits were growing, and the country was going bankrupt, more complex schemes came about to finance our out of control government.  This goes back to what I mentioned about agreements with oil producing nations.  We COULD drill ANWR...  But it works better this way:  Buy oil from places like Saudi Arabia.  Dictate to them that they take dollars for oil.  Also dictate to them that a portion of this money we pay them, they re-invest in our debt.  So by importing our oil from these foreign nations, we have a mechanism to finance our huge defecit spending.  Without it, we would be more limited in who would buy our debt - or heaven forbid we limit ourselves to spending just the money we have.

Guess which nations didn't like being told to only denominate oil in dollars, and to reinvest a portion in our debt?  If you guessed Iraq and Iran you get a cookie

The reason we went to war in Iraq was because Saddam wanted to switch his oil sales from dollars to euros.

Iran has already converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies.  But they pose a bigger threat soon.  They are planning to open a commodities exchange.  There are currently two major exchanges: NYMEX in New York and IPE in London.  There are currently three oil markers:  West Texas Intermediate, North Sea Brent Crude, and UAE Dubai Crude.  All three are denominated in US dollars.  Iran is going to start a new major exchange, with a new price marker denomoniated in Euros.  This has the potential to be very serious for the US dollar and the price we pay for oil here in the US.  This is why we are threatening action with Iran.

If a country like Iraq or Iran switches from trading oil in dollars to trading oil in euros, it exposes the dollar for its weakness.  We in turn pay higher prices.  $90 oil happened because of nations trading oil in Euros.  If everyone sold oil in dollars, we could just print dollars and give them to them.  When they switch to euros, it exposes the inflation.  Now, if we increase the supply of dollars, the price of oil goes up.  We are exposed.

The Iranians did not create this problem.  The problem goes back to our government seeking ever larger federal budgets, seeking to spend money it doesnt have, and the federal reserve printing dollars from nothing.  Only by reducing the size of government, and reducing spending can we halt this crazy endless cycle of creating money, borrowing money, and laundering money through oil sales to feed the massive hunger of our government.

A foreign country like Iraq won't facilitate our defecit spending by buying our debt and protecting our dollar - so we invade them and install a new government.  Can you see why they hate us?  Likewise, in Saudi Arabia we keep in power a regressive and oppressive regime that the people hate, simply because they are a good sport in selling us oil in dollars and buying our debt.  The people hate the regime.  The US government supports the regime.  Can you see why they hate us?

The NATIONAL DEBT DOES HAVE CONSEQUENCES.  We have by and large been lead to believe that the huge number we hear quoted (a number in the trillions of dollars) is "tolerable" and "not really a problem the average person should worry about".  That money comes from somewhere.  When the federal budget grossly exceeds incoming revenue, dastardly methods can and will be resorted to to create that money by various methods of manipulation.  We have gone for DECADES giving people money that never existed in the first place.  We just create it and hope they take it.  This system is on the verge of collapse.  As other powers such as China or Russia see the moment arise, we sit in a very precarious situation with the confidence in our dollar a mere event away from destruction.

If you believe in free markets, small government, self reliance, and personal liberties, there is no other candidate in the same ball-park as Ron Paul.  There is such corruption that stands to lose if a man like Ron Paul were in power that the effort from day one has been to discredit, discredit, discredit him as a "nut".  Fighting against an out-of-control government is not "crazy".  Defending our garunteed constitutional rights even in the face of security challenges is not "kook" behaviour.  Insistance upon fighting wars only when the nation is at serious risk is not lunacy, it is wisdom and understanding of history.  Believing that some elected officials are doing the dirty work of giant corporations and private banks isn't "conspiracy nonsense", it is an essential realization we must come to grips with if we are to ever overcome the massive odds we have against us in the fight for freedom.

I think one of the downfalls of America is the fact that the free society that the founders envisioned turned out to be SO successful that we could STILL live a great life at the same time we are being robbed blind.  We do have it good in America, which is one reason why people think Ron Paul sounds crazy.  How could everything he says is wrong be wrong if we have it as good as we do?  All I can say is that we can still live good while being stolen from and manipulated as much as we are, that is just a testament of how strong America is.  I suppose we could be satisfied with the status quo.  But how about this:  Why don't we shake off some of the baggage that is holding us down from our true potential?  Life without a monstrous government and monstrous central bank.  Truely free markets.  Truely free society.  Your life as YOU want to live it, not as the government sees it for you.  A financial system that doesn't create money for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.  A prosperity system with no limits, restrictions, or high price of entry.

If that is "insane" then somebody get me my straight jacket.

[waterboy]

Two things come to mind. One is that when the budgets were "balanced" in the 1990's why didn't that create havoc with the world markets? According to your construct the balancing of spending/revenues should have created fiscal panic. Instead there was steady growth.

Two, is the recognition that oil companies would rather buy both crude and refined oil products overseas, add a profit margin and market to Americans without the mess of drilling in our backyard and building expensive refineries. That is a critical recognition that you correctly note. Our oil companies have been marketers for the past 40 years. They have little interest in the dirty work as long as there are secure sources. When we went into Nam, the allegations were made that potential reserves and cheap labor were the real reasons.

With that in mind one can see why Germany specifically and Europe in general, is excelling in R&D for solar power, wind power and other alternatives while we sit back and insist it isn't viable until we've drilled holes in everyone's back yard and the right investors own the rights to any other energy source. Yet in Germany common folk are being encouraged to contribute to their grids and mass transit is a given. Our paradigm does not and will not allow that encouragement.

Ron Paul is an interesting figure head for a movement to reality based thinking. His politics make sense on a basic level but his main strength imo is pointing out how far we have strayed from a successful formula.  However, from listening to right wing radio recently, he has his own hypocrisy baggage and they intend to use it if he starts to succeed. Plain and simple, we're screwed because the driver of our economic bus is drunk on oil, screaming scripture, firing his AK out the window and aiming the bus at anyone who dares criticize. When the bus crashes and we sort out the carnage, changes will be made.

[RecycleMichael]

OK pmcalk...you are on.

We agree on 15 of the 22.

We differ on these seven states.

Connecticut and Delaware in the east.
Minnesota, Kansas and North Dakota in the middle. Alaska up yonder. And California (way left).

We should know early on the first two.

California is everything. It counts more than the other six combined. Obama will win in San Francisco and San Jose...Hillary will win in Hollywood, Los Angelas and San Diego. Whoever gets Sacramento will win the state.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

OK pmcalk...you are on.

We agree on 15 of the 22.

We differ on these seven states.

Connecticut and Delaware in the east.
Minnesota, Kansas and North Dakota in the middle. Alaska up yonder. And California (way left).

We should know early on the first two.

California is everything. It counts more than the other six combined. Obama will win in San Francisco and San Jose...Hillary will win in Hollywood, Los Angelas and San Diego. Whoever gets Sacramento will win the state.

Obama will win California. Our first Technocrat.
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/300039

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

OK pmcalk...you are on.

We agree on 15 of the 22.

We differ on these seven states.

Connecticut and Delaware in the east.
Minnesota, Kansas and North Dakota in the middle. Alaska up yonder. And California (way left).

We should know early on the first two.

California is everything. It counts more than the other six combined. Obama will win in San Francisco and San Jose...Hillary will win in Hollywood, Los Angelas and San Diego. Whoever gets Sacramento will win the state.

Just one clarification--I said Obama will get 2 out of the five for the east coast. I am guessing that it will be Connecticut & Deleware, but it may be two others.  Still on?

Also, winning means most popular vote, not most delegates, right?

One more thing--we originally had a difference of 8, with you saying Obama only gets 6, I said 14.  But you only have a difference of 7.  Which state are we forgetting?

[RecycleMichael]

There are three ways to count wins tonight. Most overall votes, most states, and most delegates.

I say we count each way and two out of three is the winner.

Obama versus Hillary, head to head.

Dinner for both families at a local restaurant?

[pmcalk]

Sounds good.  So just 2 out of 3 overall, regardless of the specific states?  That's good, because I was really getting a headache trying to figure out the different counts, and what we left out.

[FOTD]

I am guessing the spread may be 100 delegates (Hilldog in the lead) after today....that close.

[pmcalk]

If Georgia is any indication, this is Obama's night.  Exit polls have him up 2 to 1 over Clinton.