-
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.
Michigan Presidential Primary results thread
- Thread starter thefro
- Start date
- Status
worldrunover
Member
Can someone explain why Michigan dems don't get to vote in the primary? (or get to vote but they don't count). I'm really confused by that.
The state lawmakers moved up the primary. The national parties didn't like that, so they sanctioned our state. Dems docked us ALL our delegates, so the primary doesn't count. Repubs docked us HALF... so those votes kinda count.worldrunover said:
That's the gist.
Also, some dem candidates took their names off the ballot in protest. I wanted to drop a vote for B-Rock, but I couldn't... so I voted on the Republican ballot instead. Yeah, here, you don't register for a party, so you can vote for the ones you wish (if they're on the ballot).
speculawyer
Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_po/primary_wrong_release
I am not good with computer. How did this get here? :lol
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI
Democratic Vote by Gender:
Female: 57%
Male: 43%
Primary Vote:
Hilary: 57%
coincidence??
Democratic Vote by Gender:
Female: 57%
Male: 43%
Primary Vote:
Hilary: 57%
coincidence??
Stoney Mason
Banned
Tamanon said:
Of course. Where else would he be. He's lil Lieberman to John Mccain.
ToyMachine228
Member
I think it's pretty awesome that Democratic voters actually went and chose the "Uncommitted" option instead of just skipping out on voting because they didn't support Hillary. It definitely sends a message, and I think it's great. To see people going out to send a message and show that they care when they weren't even able to choose their candidate...Pretty awesome.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Tamanon said:
Obviously you missed that Lieberman is endorsing McCain
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/mccain.endorsements/
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Tamanon said:He wasn't happy that the votes weren't going to count(also, if they don't count, then why campaign)
No. Obama, Richardson, Edwards and Biden were not happy about Michigan bumping up their primary date. So they asked to be removed from the ballet. The only reason Dodd and Hillary did not follow was that they felt it was useless step since the delegates weren't being counted anyways.
this is the oddest republican race i've ever seen. romney has the most delegates, but has absolutely zero momentum anywhere. else. in. the. country. mccain's ornery 'maverick' persona plays well in the north, while huckabee will decimate the non-believers in the bible belt.
at least we can all agree now that giuliani's national strategy was a spectacular failure, and an indicator of the man's incredibly, stupidly high risk tolerance. as a new yorker i am most pleased.
at least we can all agree now that giuliani's national strategy was a spectacular failure, and an indicator of the man's incredibly, stupidly high risk tolerance. as a new yorker i am most pleased.
Stoney Mason
Banned
scorcho said:
That party is so divided it doesn't have a clue who it wants. Each little faction is trying to take over. It's like Jericho.
i still remember when giuliani first tried flipping on abortion early last year. after romney called him out on it, rudy defiantly affirmed his liberal social record while smugly maintaining his national lead in polls. pundits bleated like sheep that he was changing decades of republican politics and identity and that we were in the dawn of the new era.Mandark said:
i giggle thinking back to that.
I think the shoddy state of the GOP primary field is a function of how spectacularly the Bush presidency has failed.
If Bush were still polling well and the Republicans had Congress, there'd be a healthy field of credible, if not inspiring candidates, and enough party discipline to get behind an early front-runner.
But the state of the party and its association with Bush has basically knocked out George Allen, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, and Jeb Bush out of the picture. The GOP suddenly needs to find someone who isn't associated with the Bush admin, but who still favors its policies (which are the policies favored by a majority of Republican voters).
Maybe 1968 for the Democrats is the best parallel. Unpopular president not running, chaos in the primaries, etc.
If Bush were still polling well and the Republicans had Congress, there'd be a healthy field of credible, if not inspiring candidates, and enough party discipline to get behind an early front-runner.
But the state of the party and its association with Bush has basically knocked out George Allen, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, and Jeb Bush out of the picture. The GOP suddenly needs to find someone who isn't associated with the Bush admin, but who still favors its policies (which are the policies favored by a majority of Republican voters).
Maybe 1968 for the Democrats is the best parallel. Unpopular president not running, chaos in the primaries, etc.
:lol i'm so happy that I post on a message board where someone would make this joke.Tamanon said:
Anyways, the craziest statistic is that exit polling shows that 70% of black voters in Michigan tonight cast their ballots as "uncommitted" instead of for Hillary. So a significant amount of blacks made it out to deliberately vote AGAINST Hillary. I wonder if South Carolina will vote like that.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Deku said:
After the 15% threshold the state would also send "uncommitted" delegates to the Democratic Convention in August, instead of delegates specifically for Obama or Hillary. However since Michigan gets 0 delegates, this doens't really matter
speculawyer
Member
No, they need new policies. Bush had a GOP congress and GOP senate for much of the time and pretty much got most policies that he and the GOP wanted passed.Mandark said:
And the results are in . . . the Bush/GOP policies failed spectacularly. Failure in economics, failure in foreign policy, failure in defense, etc. Yes, there is hardcore base that continues to push for the same policies . . . but most people realize that continuing to oo the same thing will yield the same results.
http://pollingreport.com/
scorcho said:
RFK and MLKJ getting assassinated didn't hurt either!
grandjedi6 said:
Ah ty. The BBC story I read made a mention of this and noted somehow helping Obama and Edwards play a role in the convention. But that makes no sense if they're not getting any delegates to begin with.
speculawyer
Member
Uh oh . .Deku said:
scorcho: Just the best parallel of those available; I think each election is its own beast.
But I do think the demographic tide is against the GOP. As the country gets older, browner, and less freaked out by gay people, it's going to get harder and harder to put together a coalition based on privatization, nativism, and homophobia.
I don't think the GOP's going to get mired in irrelevance like the Tories have in the UK, or like the Liberal (not liberal) Party in Australia seems to have just done. But that's the general direction they're headed in.
People have taken some shots at Hacker and Pierson for writing a book about Republican dominance right before the Democrats came storming back, but I think they were pretty much right in their analysis. It's just their plan for getting power relied on having power. They needed control of Congress to get control of K Street and they needed the top-down money structure to keep backbenchers in line and they needed control of state legislatures to gerrymander in their favor. Break their hold, and it all falls apart. My crude sports metaphor for this is a football team built around ball control and defense, unable to rally from a deficit.
Trivia! When Kevin Phillips was pushing the Emerging Republican Majority back in the late 60's/early 70's, he said the demographic shifts would tilt the country towards the GOP through 2006. True story.
But I do think the demographic tide is against the GOP. As the country gets older, browner, and less freaked out by gay people, it's going to get harder and harder to put together a coalition based on privatization, nativism, and homophobia.
I don't think the GOP's going to get mired in irrelevance like the Tories have in the UK, or like the Liberal (not liberal) Party in Australia seems to have just done. But that's the general direction they're headed in.
People have taken some shots at Hacker and Pierson for writing a book about Republican dominance right before the Democrats came storming back, but I think they were pretty much right in their analysis. It's just their plan for getting power relied on having power. They needed control of Congress to get control of K Street and they needed the top-down money structure to keep backbenchers in line and they needed control of state legislatures to gerrymander in their favor. Break their hold, and it all falls apart. My crude sports metaphor for this is a football team built around ball control and defense, unable to rally from a deficit.
Trivia! When Kevin Phillips was pushing the Emerging Republican Majority back in the late 60's/early 70's, he said the demographic shifts would tilt the country towards the GOP through 2006. True story.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Deku said:
Well the DNC might give their delegates back at the convention
speculawyer
Member
speculawyer
Member
Mandark said:
Yep. It seems a lot of moderates have left the party such that you need to take real hardcore positions to get applause lines The Republican debates have become freak shows to some degree with the audiences booing, jeering, screaming, etc. Double Guatanamo!
It is sort of a negative feed-back loop . . . you lose moderates, so you need to act more extreme to win over the remaining hardcore, which causes you to lose more moderates, etc.
By the time the election rolls around, any Dem candidate will easily be able to make negative ads by putting together a set of hardcore extremist quotes from the debates.
Synth_floyd
Banned
I hope Romney wins the GOP nomination. He's clearly the weakest of all the major candidates. Him and Guiliani. They'd go down so hard against Obama. Hillary is weaker than Obama though so if it's Hillary vs. Guiliani or Romney then it's a battle of the Washington hacks and hopefully they'll all lose.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Something interesting that I saw while looking at county by county tallies, McCain won the majority of counties, I believe, but Romney absolutely slaughtered McCain where it mattered; the cities. He won every big county in Michigan.
Looking at the demographics and exit poll survey results was pretty fascinating, as well.
Looking at the demographics and exit poll survey results was pretty fascinating, as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/01/working_the_crowd.html
I found that story funny for some reason.
I found that story funny for some reason.
speculawyer said:
seems like it....there was an article in Time with a quote from a GOP insider about them being extremely happy with Clinton winning in NH, they would defiantly prefer to go up against her rather than Obama
although personally, i dont think any of the current GOP candidates could take down Hillary either....all off them have major weaknesses that could bring them down easily when the main campaign starts
speculawyer said:
December 20th isn't that recent.
That last thing I heard about this on TV was that John Edwards was the ONLY Dem to beat all the Republican candidates.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
This has Clinton vs Huckabee, Clinton vs McCain, Obama vs. Huckabee, and Obama vs. McCain polls from a few days ago.
Clinton and Obama easily beat Huckabee but they both lose to McCain which is why I don't get people around here are wanting McCain to win. He's the only guy I see beating Clinton or Obama.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
JKBii said:
for real?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
grandjedi6 said:
it wasnt so much that they werent happy, but the democratic party wasnt happy. obama, richardson, edwards and biden asked to be removed from the ticket in support of their party's decision.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked