• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

2008 US Presidential Primaries -- Delegation tally thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
AlteredBeast said:
Oh, my apologies, then. In that case, your Iowa caucus Republican list has Huck with 37 instead of 17 as it should be.

When and how do we find out what the delegate numbers are from each state?

Ahh thanks for catching that


It depends on the state. New Hampshire and Wyoming are basically confirmed. However some of Michigan's and all of Iowa's are determined by the state conventions later on. Iowa in particular could potentially give out delegates that are completely opposite of the vote. That's why every site has the same numbers for Wyoming and New Hampshire but everyone completely disagrees on Iowa. Its all guess work. Thankfully most sources agree with each other within a few delegates.
 

APF

Member
harSon said:
Coming from the person who thinks the only thing separating Bush and Obama is skin color :lol
There are more differences--for example Bush has extensive executive experience.
 
Upcoming Primaries/Caucuses

January 19
Nevada Caucus (Democrats -- 33 delegates, Republicans -- 34 delegates)

South Carolina Primary [Republicans only] (Republicans -- 24 delegates)

Why are all the Republicans crawling all over South Carolina for 24 delegates while virtually ignoring Nevada and its 34 delegates?

Is this because they all want to get a headstart in the south?

A "southern strategy" as it were?
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
speculawyer said:
Why are all the Republicans crawling all over South Carolina for 24 delegates while virtually ignoring Nevada and its 34 delegates?

Is this because they all want to get a headstart in the south?

A "southern strategy" as it were?

South Carolina's delegates are secured and locked after the primary, Nevada's are not.
 

APF

Member
speculawyer said:
:lol

He certainly does . . . he has run many businesses into the ground.
Perhaps, but I was speaking of his term as Governor of Texas, and his terms as President of the United States.
 

Seth C

Member
Tamanon said:
Whoa dude, switch to decaf.

And the whole superdelegate thing seems to disenfranchise voters, especially in a close race like this. Basically if the party splits 50/50 or even 45/55, it looks like they have the power to decide things instead.

Actually, even if the vote was split 37/63 the superdelegates could theoretically swing the vote in favor of the other candidate. Yes, it's lame.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
worldrunover said:
I'm confused what you mean by "locked" delegates.. Nevada's could potentially be taken away?

Nevada is a caucus instead of a primary. Primaries traditionanly elected delegates that vote the way either the precincts or state voted for. However Caucus' are entirely different. Usually, none of the delegates are tied to the statewide vote. So when the state holds their state convention to choose delegates they could choose delegates completely opposite of what the voters wanted.

Anyway, Republicans aren't ignoring Nevada. Romney is actually skipping SC to instead focus on South Carolina. The reason McCain and Huckabee are focusing on SC is that they feel they have a better chance of winning there. Also SC use to have 47 delegates before being punished and thus is traditionally viewed as a momentum creator
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Democratic and Republican Nevada, along with Republican South Carolina are done! Which means its time for an update.

Biggest Change? Hunter is out, McCain bumps up to 2nd place.

Tommie Hu$tle said:
Can we get this stickied. I would think this would be AT LEAST as interesting as some of the sports threads.

Oh, a sticky would be much appreciated. Then the thread wouldn't keep dropping to page 10.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Update: A couple of Superdelegates move around, but its nothing major. The big thing is that Fred dropped. Now Giuliani is 5th instead of 7th :lol
 
Hawaii Caucus [Republicans only] (Republicans -- 20 delegates)
-- Please Note: There is no formal system to relate the presidential preference to the choice of the precinct's delegates. Thus there will be no declared or estimated delegates assigned to the candidates



What?


Also, where are Richardsons delegates going? Does he order them somewhere, or are they free to endorse whoever they want?
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
worldrunover said:
I'm eagerly awaiting the new tally at the end of the day.

BTW Kucinich dropped out :)

Ah yes, I just updated that. Thanks.

I'll update the delegate and superdelegate tallies later tonight after the primary.

jamesinclair said:
Hawaii Caucus [Republicans only] (Republicans -- 20 delegates)
-- Please Note: There is no formal system to relate the presidential preference to the choice of the precinct's delegates. Thus there will be no declared or estimated delegates assigned to the candidates

What?
"Republicans will not hold a presidential preference poll that would give a clue about which candidate they are leaning toward at their caucuses ... Instead, the Republican caucuses will be used to elect delegates to the state convention in May. Only then will Hawaii's choice for president emerge"



jamesinclair said:
Also, where are Richardsons delegates going? Does he order them somewhere, or are they free to endorse whoever they want?

Most of Richardson's superdelegates have been split between Obama and Hillary. Also, Hillary seems to have gotten the majority of Richardson's voter base
 
Is this puppy updated? And is it sad that I come to GAF to get my political updates?

Edit

Never mind I see that grandjedi6 is working this.

Hey grandjedi6 thanks for making this thread, I know it helps for me at least.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Tommie Hu$tle said:
Is this puppy updated? And is it sad that I come to GAF to get my political updates?

Edit

Never mind I see that grandjedi6 is working this.

Hey grandjedi6 thanks for making this thread, I know it helps for me at least.

You're welcome!



Update: The South Carolina Primary is done!

-- Obama gained 25 delegates, Hillary 12 delegates and Edwards 8 delegates
-- Also, in the last week, Obama has gained 3 superdelegates, Hillary 8 superdelegates and Edwards 1 superdelegate
-- I added in the Super Tuesday states. It boggles my mind how GAF is going to go through that. Multiple threads? Mega thread?
 
479c514294ba5.jpg


galaxy_quest-tommy.jpg
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Pre-Florida Primary Update:

-added a few superdelegates
-updated the Republican listing, nothing really happened
-added the Democrats Abroad Primary, thus finishing up the Super Tuesday primary/caucuses (even though the DA primary doesn't really count yet)
 

Limedust

Member
Do all of the candidates get a copy of the home game?

This is what happens when too many of those "extra rule" cards get filled out and placed in the deck.
 

Tamanon

Banned
worldrunover said:
It takes power out of the voters and into the National Comittee. I guess they don't trust us enough to make the right call...

You're right they don't. That's exactly why Superdelegates were created, because the people chose what the committee thought was an untenable candidate. They didn't want that to happen again. It's sad, really.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Tamanon said:
You're right they don't. That's exactly why Superdelegates were created, because the people chose what the committee thought was an untenable candidate. They didn't want that to happen again. It's sad, really.

Which is funny since the DNC doesn't really have control over the superdelegates either anymore
 

Cheebs

Member
Green Shinobi said:
FUCK the Superdelegates. They should not exist. Period.
It's was created as a check, a veto if you will. So that if "the people" pick a nominee the party heads deem un-electable or does not match the party's political philosophy they can more or less over-turn it.

In the end its to keep the party from a mob mentality and have be able to be guided to the party wishes.

And that is a big obstacle for Obama. Because party insiders (I am not talking about elected officials like senators, but the office people who control the party organization behind the scenes) don't trust Obama, they don't know what he will do and don't feel safe with him leading the party.
 

Seth C

Member
Cheebs said:
It's was created as a check, a veto if you will. So that if "the people" pick a nominee the party heads deem un-electable or does not match the party's political philosophy they can more or less over-turn it.

In the end its to keep the party from a mob mentality and have be able to be guided to the party wishes.

And that is a big obstacle for Obama. Because party insiders (I am not talking about elected officials like senators, but the office people who control the party organization behind the scenes) don't trust Obama, they don't know what he will do and don't feel safe with him leading the party.


To me, this is just pathetic. "The people" should BE the party. Also, when you have superdelegates announcing their support BEFORE the people vote, it leads to a mob mentality, rather than keeping from one. For example, Hillary is in the lead right now but that is only due to superdelegates. If all of them cast their "vote" early, it would look like she had a massive lead, causing people to side with the winner.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Seth C said:
To me, this is just pathetic. "The people" should BE the party. Also, when you have superdelegates announcing their support BEFORE the people vote, it leads to a mob mentality, rather than keeping from one. For example, Hillary is in the lead right now but that is only due to superdelegates. If all of them cast their "vote" early, it would look like she had a massive lead, causing people to side with the winner.

and hence why the establishment candidate always wins
 

White Man

Member
RiZ III said:
So Hillary is actually ahead? Confused total.

Sorta basically, though superdelegates can shift. It's shady as fuck, and it's the sort of thing that made me stop paying attention to US politics. It's as much aristocracy as it is democracy.

Also, I will sticky this a few days before super Tuesday. Having too many stickies is frowned upon.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
White Man said:
Sorta basically, though superdelegates can shift. It's shady as fuck, and it's the sort of thing that made me stop paying attention to US politics. It's as much aristocracy as it is democracy.

Also, I will sticky this a few days before super Tuesday. Having too many stickies is frowned upon.

Yeah, its as stupid as the electoral college. However, superdelegates are only a little worse than the Republican Party's non proportional primaries. In Illinois we have a loophole primary, where basically you vote for the presidents in a "beauty contest" and the delegate seperately. However the delegates don't have to listen to the Presidential preference, instead they can and have done whatever they wanted :/
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
RiZ III said:
So Hillary is actually ahead? Confused total.
Based on delegates won through the US populace voting in caucuses and primaries, Obama is the democratic frontrunner, followed by Hilary, followed by Edwards.

If you include superdelegates, Hilary is ahead, followed by Obama, followed by Edwards.

Note that no superdelegates have actually been assigned to a particular candidate yet. Every superdelegate that is currently included in delegate totals is a superdelegate belonging to a particular individual who has openly endorsed a particular candidate.

IE: If Al Gore came out today and said "I endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States," then Al Gore's superdelegate would be added to Barack Obama's total as it is reported on, say, cnn. However, Al Gore can change his endorsement (And thus, who receives his superdelegate) any time he wants, and as many times as he wants, before the Democratic National Convention. Only then do the superdelegates become bound to a specific candidate

Up until then, the superdelegates are really just non-binding pledges given to specific candidates.
 

White Man

Member
grandjedi6 said:
Yeah, its as stupid as the electoral college. However, superdelegates are only a little worse than the Republican Party's non proportional primaries. In Illinois we have a loophole primary, where basically you vote for the presidents in a "beauty contest" and the delegate seperately. However the delegates don't have to listen to the Presidential preference, instead they can and have done whatever they wanted :/

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it's only the Democrat's system that is stupid. There's such idiocy everywhere, right up to the electoral college.

I've said it before people: democracy doesn't work!

kent_brockman.jpg


I don't think about it often because it just makes me angry. The system is so broken at so many levels that the only way it even has a chance to get "fixed" is for everything to be taken apart first, and there will never be an opportunity for that. The government won't fix itself by its own accord, and violent revolution is now impossible for America. America is stuck in a nasty-ass rut.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Post-Florida Update:

--Hillary gains 2 superdelegates, Obama gains 6 and Edwards gains 1
--McCain gains 57 delegates from Florida, McCain is now in the lead!
 

Hootie

Member
grandjedi6 said:
--Hillary gains 2 superdelegates, Obama gains 6 and Edwards gains 1

Whoa, so technically this was actually a win for Obama considering regular delegates didn't count?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom