• 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
Hootie said:
Whoa, so technically this was actually a win for Obama considering regular delegates didn't count?

The Superdelegates have accumulated over the last few days, they aren't from Florida at all. Most likely the superdelegate boost is more from Kennedy's endorsement than anything else
 

Hootie

Member
grandjedi6 said:
The Superdelegates have accumulated over the last few days, they aren't from Florida at all. Most likely the superdelegate boost is more from Kennedy's endorsement than anything else

Confusing, but I get the jist of what you're saying.

They really need to just get rid of superdelegates all together, it takes the power out of the people's vote.
 

NWO

Member
GhaleonEB said:
I think that's the entire idea.

It is. They were talking about it on MSNBC and said that 40-60 years ago the Democrats in the primary elected a guy who got CRUSHED in the national election and they basically decided that we aren't going to let crazy/unelectable people through even if the people of the party want them because the rest of America won't.

That kind of thinking is kinda stupid though for a party that prides itself on sticking up for the little guy in America.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
NWO said:
It is. They were talking about it on MSNBC and said that 40-60 years ago the Democrats in the primary elected a guy who got CRUSHED in the national election and they basically decided that we aren't going to let crazy/unelectable people through even if the people of the party want them because the rest of America won't.

That kind of thinking is kinda stupid though for a party that prides itself on sticking up for the little guy in America.
Yeah. It's not very democratic, but quintessentially American.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
worldrunover said:
Time to kick Guilliani and Edwards outta there :D

yep



Post Drop-Out Frenzy Update:

-Edwards drops out!
-Giuliani drops out!
-Gravel is 3rd and Ron Paul is 4th :lol
-Edward's 36 superdelegates are free! It is interesting to note that his superdelegates have been bailing out from him slowly for the last week. Probably a big factor why he dropped. Interestingly enough, all of Edward's superdelegates have gone to Obama so far, but will the pattern hold?
 
California

On the Democratic side, the combined results of three nightly samplings of 400 different voters - for Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday - found Hillary Rodham Clinton at 36 percent, Obama at 31 percent and John Edwards at 12 percent.

But when taken alone, Sunday's tracking - just a day after Obama's big win in the South Carolina primary - had Obama leading Clinton, 35 percent to 32 percent, with Edwards' share growing to 16 percent. And pretty much the same numbers came up Monday.

One caveat: A prominent political consultant following the numbers emphasizes that while a single night's tracking isn't considered statistically reliable, it does show movement and direction.

Any way you slice it, the source says, the presidential race here is definitely heating up.

FWIW I think Clinton will eke out a victory due to her strength in the absentee balloting.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
alr1ghtstart said:
which feb 5 states are winner take all?

Only Republican: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Missiouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Arizona.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
grandjedi6 said:
Only Republican: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Missiouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Arizona.

I wonder if the large mormon population can swing a Romney win in Arizona. Would be pretty crazy to see McCrazy lose his own state and go on to win the nomination.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
AlteredBeast said:
I wonder if the large mormon population can swing a Romney win in Arizona. Would be pretty crazy to see McCrazy lose his own state and go on to win the nomination.

I don't think Romney has a chance in Arizona. And even if he did win it, McCain would win California and several other states. I really can't see how McCain can lose the nomination at this point
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
grandjedi6 said:
I don't think Romney has a chance in Arizona. And even if he did win it, McCain would win California and several other states. I really can't see how McCain can lose the nomination at this point

I don't think it is probable, but it certainly is possible. Arizona is 11% Mormon, but probably not enough to to make a big difference.

McCain is almost certainly a lock for the nomination at this point. I would really like to see some polling numbers for Feb 5th states on the Republican side, though.
 
30nypost-obama533.jpg
 

alr1ght

bish gets all the credit :)
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/new-york-post-endorses-obama/
The New York Post has endorsed Barack Obama in Tuesday’s New York Democratic primary, saying that his chief rival for the party’s presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, represented the politics of the past. “Obama represents a fresh start,” The Post stated in an editorial on its Web site. “His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again — a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.”

The editorial is somewhat surprising because Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the News Corporation, which owns The Post, has been seen as cultivating a relationship with Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. In the summer of 2006, Mr. Murdoch, whose political views are highly conservative, played host to a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, causing consternation among many liberals. (Mr. Murdoch had played host to a similar fund-raiser for Senator Charles E. Schumer in 2003 and has given money to other Democrats in the past.)

Also in 2006, Mr. Clinton accepted an invitation from Mr. Murdoch to speak to a gathering of executives in Pebble Beach, Calif.; he included Mr. Murdoch in his Clinton Global Initiative conference on climate change, poverty and corruption; and Mrs. Clinton was one of only two Democratic senators who appeared at a Fox News Sunday anniversary party in Washington, where Mr. Murdoch was in attendance.

The Post, which is known for mostly conservative positions on its editorial pages, noted that “we don’t agree much with Obama on substantive issues” and added: “But many Democrats will. He should be their choice on Tuesday.” The newspaper’s endorsement in the New York Republican primary is yet to come.
 

Tideas

Banned
ToyMachine228 said:
This whole super delegate thing is ridiculous. Those people should get one vote just like everyone else.

I think they do have one votes. It's just, they don't serve the will of the state primaries
 
jamesinclair said:
I really need good polls this weekend to decide if I should vote for Obama or Ron Paul.
SMH

Ron Paul is dead in all polls. And besides, why are you determining who to vote for based on polls in the first place?
 

Hootie

Member
jamesinclair said:
I really need good polls this weekend to decide if I should vote for Obama or Ron Paul.

Of course it's up to you to pick who you want to vote for, but in my opinion and according to basically every political analyst/sane person, Ron Paul's campaign is dead.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Green Shinobi said:
So according to the latest single-day poll, Obama is ahead in California?
The tracking poll Incognito posted has Obama ahead on Sunday and Monday. We'll need more data, though. But looking through the poll site linked above, Obama is seeing large boosts in all states that have poll data from Sunday on.
 
PhoenixDark said:
SMH

Ron Paul is dead in all polls. And besides, why are you determining who to vote for based on polls in the first place?

What I mean, is if Obama and Hillary are 50-50, then Ill give my vote to Obama to try to help.

If Obama doesnt need my vote (because hes far ahead, or far behind) I rather vote for my main Candidate, Paul.

Yes I know he wont win, but tis about the message.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
jamesinclair said:
What I mean, is if Obama and Hillary are 50-50, then Ill give my vote to Obama to try to help.

If Obama doesnt need my vote (because hes far ahead, or far behind) I rather vote for my main Candidate, Paul.

Yes I know he wont win, but tis about the message.
Polls have been shown to be inaccurate in a couple of states so far.
 
I don't think Obama will win California but it will be close. Like I mentioned earlier, the absentee vote is nearly too much to overcome.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Tamanon said:
Technically no, a good amount of them are district-take-all though.

Well what do you expect, they have to separate somewhere :lol

Democrats -- no winner take all primaries, they are all proportional
Republicans -- I posted the large list on the top of this page
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Pre-SUPER TUESDAY Update:

-added more superdelegate endorsements! Obama and Hillary are gaining at the same rate currently
-Added the preliminary results of the Maine caucuses.
-McCain breaks 100 delegates!
-I added a Super Tuesday break down chart:

supertuesday.png
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Rur0ni said:
Sigh, I wonder what these Super Delegates are gonna do.

The Hillary campaign, and to a lesser extent Obama's, has been heavily campaigning Superdelegates to join their team. I imagine we'll keep seeing them be split between the two camps. Then when there is a clear winner they'll jump onto the bandwagon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom