Super Tuesday

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

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

Here's Drudge's early reporting...

http://www.drudgereport.com/

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

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?

We forgot Missouri.

You say Obama, I say Hillary.

[pmcalk]

Obama carries two of the five eastern states.

On the other hand, looks like I was wrong about Missouri.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

You were correct in putting quotations around the word balanced, since they were never truely balanced.  We were still paying billions to service the debt we already had, and more importantly they were CLAIMING to have a balanced budget while raiding social security funds to make it "balanced".  Spending was not equal to or less than revenues, when you take into account the fact that social security was supposed to be saved for the people when they inevitably would need the benefits they were currently paying in for.

Also, an interesting observation can be made about oil prices and our defecits.  In 1998, when defecit spending was under control, oil was $11 a barrel.  Not as much debt to monetize, and all of a sudden we are only printing $11 and sending it to Saudi Arabia compared to printing $50 and sending it to Saudi Arabia in 2005.  Makes you wonder if the "supply and demand" that dictates oil prices isnt really consumption versus production so much as it is the amount of debt the government needs to get foreigners to buy from us.

[HoneySuckle]

Mrs. President....

Or am I a bit too early with this?[]

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by HoneySuckle

Mrs. President....

Or am I a bit too early with this?[]

???Right now Obama has more states than Clinton with 11.  Even Missouri is still in play--with the numbers practically tied.  The delegate numbers are less than 50 apart.  So yes, a little early.

Why no reports on New Mexico?

Next up--Louisiana, my guess it goes for Obama.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by HoneySuckle

Mrs. President....

Or am I a bit too early with this?[]

Hold up there, HS.  It ain't time yet by a long shot.  []

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by HoneySuckle

Mrs. President....

Or am I a bit too early with this?[]

???Right now Obama has more states than Clinton with 11.  Even Missouri is still in play--with the numbers practically tied.  The delegate numbers are less than 50 apart.  So yes, a little early.

Why no reports on New Mexico?

Next up--Louisiana, my guess it goes for Obama.

Obama just took the lead in Missouri.

[we vs us]

And seriously, how bout ole Huck?  He's winning whole states!  After Iowa, I was sure he was dead in the water, but he's taking it right to McCain!

Also, there're a lot more evangelicals than I thought there were.  

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

...there're a lot more evangelicals than I thought there were.

Sadly...

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

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.

Thats a good way to put it, him being a figurehead of a movement.  Ron Paul the person is not popular, and he is not winning any votes based upon personality, character, or likeability.  It is his message that people like.  Is he the perfect candidate?  No.  But for small government constitutionalists, he is the best thing we have in the running right now, and has a principled record going back decades that I don't see any other politician holding a candle to.

Him going around talking about all the ways the government and financial systems are broken gets people to open their eyes.  They think, probably at first, this guy must be out of his mind.  Then they start seeking out answers.  Then they see that he makes some great points that you never would have heard from traditional media or status quo politicians.  Then they realize how important it is that we start heading in the right direction, and change things for the better.  They don't become supporters of Ron Paul, they become supporters of the advice our founders gave us.
 
What hypocrisy baggage do you speak of btw?

I have heard the one about him adding some funding for his district in a bill, then voting against it when he knew it would pass without trouble.  I can see him being a hypocrite there, but I can also see justification in getting something from the federal taxation WHICH HE OPPOSES but his constituants still pay against their wishes.  He did all sorts of things that would be political suicide for most congressmen, such as opposing farm subsidys when his district is largely rural farmers.  If he didn't at least throw them a bone every now and then, reclaim some of their money that the government took away if you will, he would probably lose his seat in congress and lose it hard.

Then there are the newsletters, which are a neat political trick that can do great harm to him.  He didn't write them, but merely running news teasers quoting racist rants and tieing them to his name - even if you later clarify that those words were not his, the damage has already been done.  And if he really had more knowledge of the racist newsletters than he claims, that would be a strike against him to me.  If you have seen enough of Ron Paul tho, the racist stuff doesnt seem anywhere close to the type of rhetoric he has offered up consistently for decades.  It just doesn't fit his character so I have an easy time believing those were not his feelings on the matter.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Ron Paul is --

--snip--

So my question for you is, what's going to happen after all this primary stuff is over?  At this point, RP doesn't seem poised to win any of the states still in contention, and he hasn't won any to date.  What now?  Will RP work to reform the Republican party from within?  Will he push his agenda from without the party and try to put together (gasp!) a third?  I mean, what are we talking here?  Is this a movement or a one-off, cult-of-personality thing?  Because I might be more interested in voting for Ron Paul if he had a better infrastructure behind him.  And I'm sorry if that's too bourgeois, but I'm giving my vote to someone who can get me results, and without a party -- or confederates of some sort -- to support him in the other branches of government, RP might not be able to deliver anything.

[rwarn17588]

RM's prediction:
Final state count... Hillary 16 Obama 6

PM's prediction:

Obama 14-8.

At 12:30, Obama leads 13-8, with New Mexico still being counted.

Regardless, it looks like PM wins this one by a mile.

Don't be too sad, RM. You *did* win the KFAQ football pool.

[pfox]

Can someone tell me why 42,000 Oklahomans voted for a guy who is no longer running for President?

(John Edwards).

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Ron Paul is --

--snip--

So my question for you is, what's going to happen after all this primary stuff is over?  At this point, RP doesn't seem poised to win any of the states still in contention, and he hasn't won any to date.  What now?  Will RP work to reform the Republican party from within?  Will he push his agenda from without the party and try to put together (gasp!) a third?  I mean, what are we talking here?  Is this a movement or a one-off, cult-of-personality thing?  Because I might be more interested in voting for Ron Paul if he had a better infrastructure behind him.  And I'm sorry if that's too bourgeois, but I'm giving my vote to someone who can get me results, and without a party -- or confederates of some sort -- to support him in the other branches of government, RP might not be able to deliver anything.

I would like to think that people who support his message are behind the IDEA, and will continue to support those IDEAs even if the particular candidate Ron Paul is not successful.

The current scenario is thus:

If McCain doesn't get a majority of pledged delegates, there will be a brokered convention.  The underground strategy of the Paul campaign has been, without getting too specific, to have all Ron Paul delegates at the convention.  The delegates are bound by the popular vote only for the FIRST vote.  If Mccain does not get a majority, there is a brokered convention where all of the delegates get to support whom they choose.  The plan is to make sure the PEOPLE who are chosen as delegates and sent off to the convention are people who will support Ron Paul after the first vote.

If Mccain gets over 50% of delegates pledged too him before the convention, he is automatically going to win it, so Paul is out.

He may choose to run 3rd party, he may choose to give it up.  I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect a 3rd party might happen under certain circumstances.

If Obama is the democrat nominee, Paul would have a tough time getting the "independants" and anti-war people to vote for him.  Mccain vs. Hillary is the perfect scenario for Paul to become a viable candidate, because fiscal and social conservatives hate both of them.  Anti-war folks who really know the issues hate both of them.  And a lot of people would vote for "Not Hillary or Mccain" just out of protest.

Back on the topic of the brokered convention.  I think if the Paul campaign actually thinks this has a chance of getting Paul the nomination, they are out of their minds.  Even if they could somehow succeed in getting a majority of delegates in that support Ron Paul, there would be a revolt against nominating someone who got 5% in the popular votes.  I don't see Paul getting a majority of delegates in the convention, but I do see this strategy being somewhat successful in getting an abnormally large contigency of Paul supporters through the system.  They are very organized in this one area.  If Paul can sneak 15-30% of delegates through the system, they can have a powerful voice in choosing the nominee.  IF this unlikely scenario comes to pass, I see them having the power to stand in the way of McCain.  If Paul cannot win it, I think the Ron Paul delegates would choose Romney as the lesser of two evils, the more conservative choice, and back him.  Ron Paul's delegate insurgency could be the end of the line for McCain in a brokered convention.