Super Tuesday

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

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

(John Edwards).

225,000 Californians (105,000 at 44% reported, so you can extrapolate to above 200k) voted for Giuliani today.

I guess if you REALLY believe in someone, it is honorable to stick to your principles and cast a vote for that person anyway (assuming you never believed in that person's opponents one bit).

I wonder how many of these Edwards and Giuliani votes are people sticking to their principles, and how many are uninformed people who voted for the name they recognized.

[joiei]

The NYT has an interesting graphics about the election finals and how each county voted breaking it out to Democrats and Republicans.
here - http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/OK.html

[RecycleMichael]

Pmcalk predicted the results better than I.

Obama won more states. But Hillary won more delegates and had more overall votes cast for her.

She won in two of the three categories.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

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.

You answered the question. His voting for bills then against the same bills, even when it made sense to him or his district, is reminiscent of Kerry and Romney. Politically it was damaging. The accusations of racism and flip flopping don't have to be true as past races have shown. They simply have to be plausible and usable.

I think of Paul the same way Democrats think of Nader. Except more fiery and less lawyerly. His contribution will be as conscience to the party or figurehead for a new party and a generator of ideas others will take as their own. Even though I disagree with the starving government into a coma attitude, I enjoy his rants and his reality thinking.

As far as his/yours economic assumptions, I am simply not educated enough on the subject to do anything but listen, ask questions and point out inconsistencies. There are lots of experts on this forum to do the arguing.[]

[RecycleMichael]

This from electoral-vote.com

Hillary Clinton did well in Arkansas (Bill was governor after all), and in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California, as expected. Oklahoma we'll come to in a minute.

Obama did especially well in Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska. Whut? Yes, Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska. One of the big questions of this election has been the role of identity politics. Would white people vote for a black man, for example. Well, Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska are full of white people. In fact, they have very few minorities of any kind (except the Eskimos in Alaska). What gives?

Obama did extremely well in caucus states and Clinton did very badly in them. How come? Turnout in caucus states is always low, usually about 10-20% of the electorate. Only highly motivated people bother to show up, especially the Democratic caucuses, which go on for hours and people have to publicly defend their choice. Obama has a smaller, but extremely active and loyal following, especially among younger voters. These are precisely the people who can swing a caucus state by showing up in droves and working hard to convince the other voters that Obama would make a great President. In primary states, the media, especially TV ads have a much bigger influence. Now it becomes clear why Obama won North Dakota but Clinton won Oklahoma, a demographically similar state in the same part of the country: North Dakota had a caucus and Oklahome had a primary.

[dbacks fan]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by pfox

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

(John Edwards).

225,000 Californians (105,000 at 44% reported, so you can extrapolate to above 200k) voted for Giuliani today.

I guess if you REALLY believe in someone, it is honorable to stick to your principles and cast a vote for that person anyway (assuming you never believed in that person's opponents one bit).

I wonder how many of these Edwards and Giuliani votes are people sticking to their principles, and how many are uninformed people who voted for the name they recognized.

I tend to think that this is a result of people who got mail in ballots in January. A friend of mine did the mail in only to have Edwards drop out, so now she feels like she wasted her vote.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by 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.  []

Obama wins more states and apparently has more delegates than Hillary after Super Tuesday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Pmcalk predicted the results better than I.

Obama won more states. But Hillary won more delegates and had more overall votes cast for her.

She won in two of the three categories.

Who won more delegates?  If Hillary did, then you win, but I have seen different reports on that one.

If I had been thinking more clearly, I would have only bet on total number of states Obama's wins, since I still don't understand how delegates are awarded, and I figured she would overall get the popular vote (does any one know how that ultimately turned out?)

Still, all in all a very good night for Obama, though I wish he would have gotten either California or Massachussetts.

Obama does well in caucus states because his supporters tend to be younger and more inspired.  Caucuses require more committed supporters than primaries.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Pmcalk predicted the results better than I.

Obama won more states. But Hillary won more delegates and had more overall votes cast for her.

She won in two of the three categories.

Who won more delegates?  If Hillary did, then you win, but I have seen different reports on that one.

If I had been thinking more clearly, I would have only bet on total number of states Obama's wins, since I still don't understand how delegates are awarded, and I figured she would overall get the popular vote (does any one know how that ultimately turned out?)

Still, all in all a very good night for Obama, though I wish he would have gotten either California or Massachussetts.

Obama does well in caucus states because his supporters tend to be younger and more inspired.  Caucuses require more committed supporters than primaries.

Delegate count (not including superdels) from CNN
Clinton 590
Obama 603

[guido911]

In  light of yesterday's results, who do you think should be on suicide watch?

A.  Mitt Romney;

B.  Rush, Hannity, and Ann Coulter;

C.  Ted Kennedy and other Endorsers of Obama;

D.  Other

[tulsacyclist]

B

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle
Who won more delegates?  If Hillary did, then you win, but I have seen different reports on that one.

If I had been thinking more clearly, I would have only bet on total number of states Obama's wins, since I still don't understand how delegates are awarded, and I figured she would overall get the popular vote (does any one know how that ultimately turned out?)

Still, all in all a very good night for Obama, though I wish he would have gotten either California or Massachussetts.

Obama does well in caucus states because his supporters tend to be younger and more inspired.  Caucuses require more committed supporters than primaries.

Delegate count (not including superdels) from CNN
Clinton 590
Obama 603
[/quote]

CBS says otherwise...
CBS News estimates Clinton has won 747 of the night's available delegates, compared to Obama's 744.  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/05/politics/main3794580.shtml

FoxNews has it Hillary 737 from last night with Obama 699. http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/states/

I don't know who to believe anymore.

[FOTD]

Yesterdaze news.....

looking into my crystal ball sez the big mo is on Obama's side.

[jne]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Yesterdaze news.....

looking into my crystal ball sez the big mo is on Obama's side.

My crystal ball concurs with Aox.  See here:
http://www.intrade.com/

I tried to buy up Obama when he was bottom dollar, but they won't take U.S. credit cards anymore.  I've got to figure out a different way to get money in there.

[RecycleMichael]

I agree the momentum is with Obama. I wouldn't be counting on any eggs before they hatch however.

Elections change every day.

It is a long time till the convention.