Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008 edited
     (438.141)
    Romney and Clinton seem to have won in Nevada.

    Romney's no big surprise considering a quarter of the Republicans there are Mormons.

    Clinton's now won three states in a row (New Hampshire, Michigan (well kinda) and Nevada).

    Obama really needs to win in South Carolina or he's going to get buried come Super Tuesday.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.142)
    Clinton's now won four states in a row (Wyoming; New Hampshire, Michigan (well kinda) and Nevada).

    Wyoming has only had Republican caucuses---I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.143)
    Jess, that was brainfart on my part. Thought I'd fixed it before anyone would notice it.
    • CommentAuthorMacgyver
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.144)
    Well Obama is ahead in the polls in SC, but they've not exactly been dead on lately...
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.145)
    No worries, Kosmo--it happens. Personally, I find the entire primary season a confusing mess.
  1.  (438.146)
    Personally, I find the entire primary season a confusing mess.


    Then what hope is there for the rest us Jess?
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.147)
    I wouldn't count Obama out yet. Super Tuesday will be the true test. Michigan carries no delegates, so it's really the election that never was. Neither Obama or Clinton has had a run away election yet. Obama won by 8 points in Iowa, Hillary won by 2 points in New Hampshire (and there is a recount going on so the turnout may change) and Hillary won by 6 in Nevada, but possibly came in second when you look at delegates earned.
    • CommentAuthorMacgyver
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.148)
    The US really needs to reform it's political system. The current one is a frikkin mess...
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.149)
    Why does Hilary "win" when BO gets more delegates?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008 edited
     (438.150)
    Hillary won the popular vote, Obama apparently has more delegates from Nevada. Hillary technically should get delegates proportional to the number of votes received. Incidentally, if we're counting "winning" by delegate count, Hillary's winning by a lot since she has more committed superdelegates at this point.

    Edited because I seem to have sticky keys and because the count doesn't include superdelegates. Oops.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008 edited
     (438.151)
    Since I was not entirely clear on what the heck is going on in NV, I consulted the official site for the NV Democratic Party's Caucus:

    **Clarification** of Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby
    (Las Vegas, NV) "The Nevada Democratic Party and its officials have taken great effort to maintain our neutrality in the presidential campaign and the integrity of our process. Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Senator Clinton won the majority. No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."


    Obama's "13 to 12" delegate count is based on projected delegates to the DNC. Those will be decided in April. Both Clinton and Obama received delegates to the county convention proportional to the number of votes they received in the caucuses.
  2.  (438.152)
    Jess, thanks. Very useful.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.153)
    McCain beat Huckabee 33:30 in South Carolina.

    SC was supposed to be one of the most favorable states for Huckabee so a loss there has to hurt him.

    On the other hand, Fred Thompson only got 20% and may be considering dropping out. If he does, that'd help Huckabee.

    Hunter has dropped out but he was generally rating only 1-2%.
    • CommentAuthorpi8you
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.154)
    Wow, not only did Huckabee not win, he came in behind Ron Paul :|
  3.  (438.155)
    I'd just like to point out with regards to the Clinton candidacy that as Obliterati said (438.38) yes /Bill/ Clinton did all those things, thats pretty much my issue with Hillary in a nut shell she seems to be riding on her husband's achievements rather than her own actions, of course I'm mostly getting my info from British sources so the coverage may not have been quite so in depth.
    On a rather conspiracy theorist note, did anyone else think that her reaction to the "iron my shirt" heckling was rather too perfectly played out, I mean the reaction sure I can believe that, but that they flicked the lights up on cue and had the two hecklers stand there to be told off before being escorted off, then it turns out the two are part of a TV show which has gotten an awful lot of free press. Not that I'm saying Clinton arranged a mutually beneficial stunt to boost her ratings but it does smell a tad unusual.
    •  
      CommentAuthorroque
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2008
     (438.156)
    I guess it's not saying much for me that my standards have now sunk so low, I've given up on having an honest politician in office. I just want one who lies well, and does it for reasonable and understandable causes.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2008
     (438.157)
    Alter, I encourage you to look up biographical information on Hillary Clinton. She was nationally recognized as a political activist before she married Bill Clinton. The fact that he was President doesn't mean that she hasn't accomplished numerous things on her own, nor does it mean she's incapable of making decisions. The media loves to paint her this way, and it strikes me as sexist nonsense. Many of the male politicians have fathers or relatives who were also elected officials, but they NEVER get accused of riding coat tails. Romney's father was governor of Michigan, for example, and that was only spun to his advantage when he was campaigning there. Hillary was chair of a few committees during Bill's adminstration, so it's not exactly like she sat on her rear end and did nothing during that time. She was involved in quite a bit of policy.
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2008
     (438.158)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hillary was chair of a few committees during Bill's adminstration, so it's not exactly like she sat on her rear end and did nothing during that time. She was involved in quite a bit of policy.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What committees? By law, due to the JFK administration, she could not be legally appointed to anything. The only thing I remember he chairing was health care, and that was a disaster.

    I don't want to sound like Romney apologist, but Romney's resume is much more impressive than Hillary's. He was a two term Governor of Massachusetts and CEO of two companies and one Olympics. While governor he balanced their budget and passed comprehensive health care.

    Hillary has done community work and help lobby support for legislation, but her time in elected office is only slightly better than Obama's. I will also argue, being a resident of NYC, that she became a Senator solely based on her name and nothing more. She wants all the credit for what her husband accomplished, but wants none of the criticism for any of his failures.

    Hillary wants it both ways, but I think many voters aren't willing to let her have it both ways. Personally, I think the next Clinton elected to President will be Chelsea.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2008
     (438.159)
    Healthcare, yes. She was involved in this back in Arkansas too and was fairly successful there. Again, check a bio. She's been politically involved for a very long time. Just because something isn't "elected office" doesn't mean that it's not political experience.

    Regarding Romney--might that have something to do with the legislature in Massachusetts? I recall him trying to force a vote on gay marriage in an attempt to kill it, and the legislature basically thumbed his nose at him. He generally strikes me as pretty ineffective. Which, I might add, is a good thing, as I find much of his policy fairly repulsive. Romney says he does a lot, but how much of what he claims is actually spearheaded by the democrats in Massachusetts?
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2008
     (438.160)
    ...but her time in elected office is only slightly better than Obama's.


    Nationally that's correct but if you add in Obama's period in the Illinois state assembly (which included heading the Ways and Means Committee for several years) he has more elective experience than her.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.