Official Caucus/Primary Thread

[QueenAdrock]

Post up news as it breaks here!

Numbers will come in less than 24 hours from now, but as of right now CNN said it's between Clinton/Obama and Huckabee/Romney.

I hate both of the Republican frontrunners. :mad: I know, shocking, right?

[yeahwho]

Thanks queenie for putting this up. I'm sick of the Paul/Obama threads, we needed a good caucus thread, every sight needs a good caucus thread.

OK, thats all I got, just waiting around for the caucus to get caucusing.

[drizl]

its rigged. doomed to fail the american people. nothing has changed since the rigged elections of 2000, and 2004. seriously, what the fuck do you expect to happen.

[abcdefz]

PEROT 2008

[EN[i]GMA]

Hitch on the Iowa Caucus: http://www.slate.com/id/2181008/

[Whatitis]

its rigged. doomed to fail the american people. nothing has changed since the rigged elections of 2000, and 2004. seriously, what the fuck do you expect to happen.


You're rigged

[drizl]

arent we all

[QueenAdrock]

You're rigged

lol pwnt

So, rigged for who this time, O Mighty Drizl? I mean, you know all and see all right? Who's gonna win? This thread is for talking about caucuses and who you think is gonna win, so at least try to make it relevant pls.

[QueenAdrock]

Predictions from Washington Post analysis dude:

Estimated Democratic Results

Obama 35%

Clinton 25%

Edwards 23%

Richardson 6%

Biden 4%

Kucinich 0%

Estimated Republican Results

Romney 39%

Huckabee 32%

Paul 11%

McCain 9%

Thompson 5%

Giuliani 0%



Hmmm, if Richardson actually pulled in 4th that may give him more of a chance for VP, at least. Between Hillary and Obama, I'd like to see Obama though, so hopefully these numbers are gonna be accurate.

[drizl]

obviously you're not a golfer

[roosta]

GMA;1546601']Hitch on the Iowa Caucus: http://www.slate.com/id/2181008/

lol, you're linking to christopher hitchens.

anyway, as a non-american - OBAMA FOR THE WIN!

[saz]

are those washington post predictions from chris cillizza? he couldn't be more wrong. not only are the races on both sides too close to call, but even democratic and republican operatives and campaign managers aren't making any predictions and admit that the races are too close to call.

[EN[i]GMA]

lol, you're linking to christopher hitchens.

anyway, as a non-american - OBAMA FOR THE WIN!

Yes, because Hitchens is one of my favorite journalists, and he's right on this issue.

Notice that I don't post his articles on the Iraq war, for example, because I think he's wrong there.

But he's right on quite a lot of other stuff, this included. And he's a damn fine writer.

[King PSYZ]

woo hoo

OBAMA FTW

[saz]

congrats to obama and his supporters. this sure is a historic moment in american history. things are going to be tough now for edwards, but i'm still going to remain optimistic.

[yeahwho]

Wow, I'm kind of amazed, I'm happy but sort of blown away by Obama's ability to hustle this caucus, Edwards did an amazing job of conveying his fight for the middle class, he almost won me over.

Hillary has really been trumped here, it is an amazing feat. She is more than capable but the constant name association is going to be her downfall, I've always felt she is/was a burn card in the democrats game plan, name recognition to draw in the media and voters, a certain familiarity and solidness.

Like I said before, Edwards kicked some serious ass in Iowa, he definitely has my attention.

Huckabee? He makes the current administration of Bush/Cheney look like liberals.

I found this on some readers comments in the local rag about Obama I thought I'd share it,

barack obama ... first off, he has the single worst name anyone could ever have in the history
of politics ever ever ever ... personally i see his terrible name as being kind of a plus, as it really couldn't
be worse unless his name was satan hitler babyeater ... he's the least experienced of the candidates but he's also really smart and principled and telegenic.

[King PSYZ]

yeah that sounds like the words of a man I want running my country...

jesus tapdancing christ, every single one of you who read this and are intelligent, elligible voters in the US better make sure you and everyone you know votes this year.

this is probablly our last chance, we get someone like huckabee in office and I wouldn't be suprised if world war three was started as the holy wars 2.0

the guy is a fucking preacher, anyone remember seperation of church and state from 5th grade social studies?

he's more than welcome to do and belive what he wants, but a preacher has no business running a country. moreso when not every single citizen belives in what he does.

you can be political and have your personal (aka private) beliefs. but when your beliefs are your profession that's when the line gets blurred and it can only end badly for everyone else.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'd be happy either Edwards or Obama.

Not jump-for-joy giddy, but satisfied. Edwards would be ideal, but I think that Obama just has that it factor.

He could be a Kennedy-esque force.

[DroppinScience]

Obama = (y)

I'm truly happy he's beat the cynics and naysayers, so keep it up, dude!

Huckabee is a freakazoid on nearly every issue I'm aware of, but at least he's a guy with some kind of integrity. The world ends if he's in the White House, but I'm quite satisfied with Romney, McCain, Guiliani, and Thompson eating it. (y)

[King PSYZ]

well there's supposedly rumblings we might get the best of both worlds on the dem ticket.

I guess some people are saying it could be Obama/Edwards if Obama takes the nom.

[wrongwayandugg]

This is going to be different from the rigged elections of 2000 and 2004! I can feel it.

Keep clicking and chucking in your cockerel fight, people. You may actually move things a smegging inch forward this time! You can do it!!

[drizl]

GMA;1546744']Yes, because Hitchens is one of my favorite journalists, and he's right on this issue.

Notice that I don't post his articles on the Iraq war, for example, because I think he's wrong there.

But he's right on quite a lot of other stuff, this included. And he's a damn fine writer.

anyone who is still supporting the iraq war is a fucking idiot. pride yourself in that man.

[drizl]

This is going to be different from the rigged elections of 2000 and 2004! I can feel it.

Keep clicking and chucking in your cockerel fight, people. You may actually move things a smegging inch forward this time! You can do it!!

how is it going to be different? we are still using the same exact system and outsourcing vote-counting to other countries. there remains, NO ACCOUNTABILITY and NO PAPER TRAIL! we should be outraged by this!

[drizl]

its all a grand stage. act II follows act I which is then followed by act III and so on... we as the audience, cheer and laugh and cry believing, as if dreaming, that it is real, that we too have a part.

[wrongwayandugg]

This is going to be different from the rigged elections of 2000 and 2004! I can feel it.

Keep clicking and chucking in your cockerel fight, people. You may actually move things a smegging inch forward this time! You can do it!!

how is it going to be different? we are still using the same exact system and outsourcing vote-counting to other countries. there remains, NO ACCOUNTABILITY and NO PAPER TRAIL! we should be outraged by this!

How can you ask that? Look at who is leading the caucus here! There is real hope.

Obama's rhetoric is pristine!

Huckabee is an open-border promoter and he is anti-gun. He says the right thing almost all the time. The media has built him up because the democratic and republican strategy memos have come out and called him the "Glass Jaw." He couldn't have any skeletons in his closet. They pulled his poll numbers all the way down months ago. Now look at him! Huckabee is perfect.

[drizl]

first of all, its only the primaries.

secondly, if iraq osama is the chosen one he will only be a pawn of the CFR, as he and his wife are deeply involved.

the only hope for real change is with ron paul.

[wrongwayandugg]

first of all, its only the primaries.

secondly, if iraq osama is the chosen one he will only be a pawn of the CFR, as he and his wife are deeply involved.

the only hope for real change is with ron paul.

If it is rigged, then how did ron paul get to 10%?

[drizl]

it doesnt really matter.

[drizl]

proof of vote rigging in florida (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs)

now, based on this congressional testimony, and the fact that we are still using the same systems, and in some cases, outsourcing the votecount all the way to our buddies in israel, even further from scrutiny, how can we assume that the election process will NOT be rigged.

it might not be rigged all the time in every situation. but when it comes down to it, and the vote looks awry from where the most powerful of the powerful want it to be, you can count on it, the vote will be rigged. so even if its not rigged right this very second, the fact that it will be if it has to be, means that the election process from the very get go, is hopeless.

[EN[i]GMA]

anyone who is still supporting the iraq war is a fucking idiot. pride yourself in that man.

Like I need advice from you, the forum's resident fucking moron.

[wrongwayandugg]

GMA;1546895']Like I need advice from you, the forum's resident fucking moron.

ouch. the past two presidential elections were rigged though. don't ya think?

[EN[i]GMA]

ouch. the past two presidential elections were rigged though. don't ya think?

I have no idea.

[DroppinScience]

drizl,

Here's the thing, you could be 100% right about EVERYTHING (9/11 being an inside job, vote rigging, CFR, etc.), but in order for anyone to believe you, you have to come off as reliable. We like reliable sources, something we can trust. If you're supposed to be the truth teller and everything we've ever known is a sham, you're doing a shit job of convincing us.

Maybe CFR is some evil organization, I don't know. But even if I take your word for it, I couldn't find any proof that Obama is actually a member of said conspiratorial organization.

You're asking for a whole heck of a leap of faith, and none of us are drinking your Kool-Aid.

[QueenAdrock]

NO PAPER TRAIL!


Not true. You can request a paper ballot if you don't trust the current system. I'm voting by paper ballot in the primaries and in the general election. ANYONE can request an absentee ballot, so those who want a paper trail CAN have it.


And I for one, would also like to know how Ron Paul got such high numbers if it's rigged. "It doesn't matter" isn't an explanation.

[yeahwho]

And I for one, would also like to know how Ron Paul got such high numbers if it's rigged. "It doesn't matter" isn't an explanation.

"It doesn't matter" will be as good as it gets. Believe me I wasted a full week of my life trying to get Ron Paul's policy on how he will bring home the troops from Iraq and deal with the consequences of that war.....In return I went to looneyland where you are called names and told whoppers by some creep on the internet.

And I thought Ron Paul was creepy, his followers are the true oddballs. I hate to be that way but WTF, I'm not going to engage somebody who cannot grasp the basic fundamentals of social discourse. Ignore function is nice but whenever drizl gets quoted I see the same bullshit he was serving me. No redeeming character, only insults to both ones intelligence and person. A very small mind indeed.

[drizl]

its obvious that ron paul would make some serious changes if he were elected, changes that wouldnt fit so well with the established corporate-political leaders. its quite clear that they dont want him to win because you can observe in the way the media treats him that they are trying to push him off as an incapable fringe candidate. when it comes to the final hour, if the exit polls shows the wrong candidate winning, they will be fudged.

it happened in florida on 2000

it happened in ohio in 2004

it happens all over the world all the fucking time....

dont be scammed.

so yes, ron paul getting 10% doesnt matter, because 10% is not enough to have to fudge the results. or who knows, maybe they fudged it to 10%?

fudgesicles, this is not rocket science.

[drizl]

yeahwho is a dipshit pussy

[Schmeltz]

Ignore function is nice but whenever drizl gets quoted I see the same bullshit he was serving me.

Mmmm. We should perhaps issue gentle reminders to those few brave souls still willing to put up with his silly crap, to the effect that quoting drizl's drivel is neither productive nor desireable.

You're right about the ignore function too: it is nice.

[QueenAdrock]

I didn't hear too much about this, I'm assuming because it happened over the weekend, but:

Romney wins Wyoming. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004110054_wyo06.html)

So now Huckabee has Iowa, Romney has Wyoming, and we move on to New Hampshire on Tuesday. I really hope Romney wins the Republican nomination, just because I think he'd be easiest to beat. He's already been caught in a web of lies regarding several issues (him watching his dad march with MLK, for one), and I could see it happening more and more. Granted, it's what he's supposed to do since he's a politician, but he's not good at covering it up like the other ones. ;)

[yeahwho]

Another interesting development is Joe Biden's campaign coming to an end, I have to give the man snaps for telling it like it is,

“This," said Biden, "is about celebrity. You’ve never given any of us a chance. You know in your heart I’m more qualified than any of these guys up top. I know you can’t say yes or no, but I know you know.”

A very good man. He is great and deserves a hand for speaking his mind. (VP?)

Further reading here, LAtimes (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/running-for-pre.html).

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, a lot of it is celebrity. I honestly think Richardson is the most experienced and would do an awesome job, but he doesn't stand a chance because he doesn't have the name recognition or the money to get his ideas out there.

That's not to say the other people in the field aren't experienced and won't do a good job, I just think Richardson's a real swell guy who can't get a leg up.

I remember Biden saying something that's always stuck with me. "It's not leadership if no one's following." Bush has always touted how he's a leader and a great one at that, and what he says goes and all that, and Biden's pretty on the money with that one.

[QueenAdrock]

McCain got New Hampshire, from what I'm seeing on CNN...

Clinton is at 39%
Obama is at 37%

4,000 votes between them, and they have yet to count the college towns.

Ooooh, it's a nail biter! :o

[Documad]

Tee hee. People didn't count on the women without children in NH apparently. :D

[QueenAdrock]

Ahhh, CNN projected it for Hillary.

BOOURNS.

[Documad]

She had a 10 point lead with women and about a 15 point lead with women who don't have children.

I think they were pissed off at the way people ripped into her.

I don't care who wins but I'm glad it's not over. I'm glad we're going to have a tighter race than the media was saying.

And yay for NH for not being contrary.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, yesterday they were saying that Obama had a double-digit lead in the polls for New Hampshire. But they DID also say that it's harder to measure that sort of thing, since any registered voter in NH can vote for either party, regardless of affiliation.

[yeahwho]

Good for Clinton, she is going to make it an honest race, perhaps win, who knows. Unless Obama sheds a tear during a scripted moment in the next 3 days.

Vulnerability as a virtue that must be played. Right away.

He should show he's human and give a speech with his fly open or shirt inside out.

I don't know, cracks me up though I read 3 major papers this morning and all 3 within a paragraph or closer talk about Clinton's comeback then her teary eyed campaign trail response as if it played a major role. And the kooky part is it may have.

It's fun and insane all at once. How to become the President of the United States!

[abcdefz]

I really thought the tears would play the other way.

At least she didn't win by much.

But, as President Bush has shown... you don't have to win by much. Hell, you don't even have to win. :(

[AceFace]

i know i already brought up the daily show in another thread, but last night they showed clinton's "crying" speech. then followed it with a montage of male senators and presidents crying on camera. it was a pretty smart statement.

i'm really enjoying reading you guys' posts. i try to be as politically aware as possible, but sometimes i find it hard to form my opinion into words. i may chime in occasionally.

[yeahwho]

My real feeling is if the democrats want to risk this next election, Hillary is your candidate. She is going to bring the Clinton name back in the forefront and really, the republicans will relish it with glee. She also brings the "Bush Clinton" US royalty theme right into the forefront. What this election is about as much as policy is CHANGE! This country is desperately looking for a different type of leadership, be it republican or democrat most folks cannot stomach anymore of this shit we've been through. We need to move on and Hillary brings a lot of baggage, lack of trust and the ability to invigorate the republican party to really pull out all the stops on "swift boating" the hell out of her.

Clinton lost my vote with her reprehensible position on the Iraq war when it was in its formative stages, and there are damn few candidates that even take the stance of "The Iraq War was bad news from the beginning."

[SugarInTheRaw]

Iowa still hasn't issued the final results.

[saz]

"What New Hampshire did was come out and body slam the national establishment press." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/shes-pulled-off-a-stun_n_80590.html)


i'm not a fan of hillary's at all, but i love the fact that so many of the talking-head, beltway pundancy got new hampshire dead wrong. they were all hopping on the obama bandwagon, and already writing off hillary and her campaign.

i don't think she won because she almost cried. i think that the media wrote her off way too soon, and that while the majority of women voters may not get behind her in one state, ie iowa, doesn't imply that the majority of women voters won't get behind her in another state, ie new hampshire.

and at one point on msnbc last night, norah o'donnell declared that it was a "two person race" and that john edwards was soon going to quit. meanwhile, this was after edwards had declared he wasn't quitting, a fact which was repeated by keith olbermann, and even wolf blitzer on cnn mentioned that edwards is still in the middle of this race. remember, bill clinton didn't win either iowa or new hampshire in '92. anyways, it's clearly a wide open race in both parties, anyone of the top three could win: huckabee, romney, or mccain, and edwards, obama, or clinton. and the south carolina and nevada primaries are coming up.

one candidate i think i'm prepared to write off is giuliani. his campaign had written off iowa and new hampshire, and were betting on larger states like florida. but meanwhile, giuliani is currently in fourth place (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/01/08/giuliani_sinks_to_fourth_in_florida.html) in florida. i think what has done giuliani in with the republican base is not so much his social views, which still could play a role, but rather that he billed new york taxpayers for his trips to the hamptons to carry out his affair with judith nathan (while cheating on his second wife), and using the nypd as his and the nathan family's personal taxi service. plus there's the bernard kerik factor - a presidential hopeful who not only appointed kerik to be commissioner of the nypd (who was 22 credits shy of a college degree, only a handful of years on the force) and rejected great nypd veterans in the process; but also then went on to recommend kerik for secretary of the department of homeland security. the same bernard kerik who used an apartment near the wtc site (for rescue workers to rest), to have an affair with judith regan. the same bernard kerik who has links to organized crime and is now under federal indictment.

[abcdefz]

Edwards won't quit before SC. No way.

[yeahwho]

[QUOTE=sazi;1547900]
one candidate i think i'm prepared to write off is giuliani.

Giuliani is running for President of 9/11, isn't he? He's not really trying to be our president....least thats the drift I was getting from the debates.

[Documad]

i'm not a fan of hillary's at all, but i love the fact that so many of the talking-head, beltway pundancy got new hampshire dead wrong. they were all hopping on the obama bandwagon, and already writing off hillary and her campaign.

i don't think she won because she almost cried. i think that the media wrote her off way too soon, and that while the majority of women voters may not get behind her in one state, ie iowa, doesn't imply that the majority of women voters won't get behind her in another state, ie new hampshire.

I agree. Middle-aged and older women saw something different in the Hillary-gets-slightly-emotional clip than Men and younger people. It read as honest to older women (and to me). The more people belittled her, the more offended we got. I don't think she naturally has the votes of women, but the media are inadvertently pushing some of them to support her.

Women are usually harder on other women than they are on men. And women are harder on other women than men are on women. If that makes any sense. But when a bunch of asshole media guys say that a woman is toast because she got tired and frustrated, and when a couple of pompous guys team up on her to call her old and irrelevant, it can backfire.

She's got a lot of work to do, but shoving Bill to the side is a good start.

[Documad]

At least she didn't win by much.

But, as President Bush has shown... you don't have to win by much. Hell, you don't even have to win. :(
The way the electoral college works in the general election has nothing to do with how the nomination process works for the big two political parties. It's not winner-take-all.

Hillary and Obama got exactly the same number of delegates out of the NH primary. It doesn't matter who wins. Romney's not far off with his talk about being happy with silver medals.

[Documad]

My real feeling is if the democrats want to risk this next election, Hillary is your candidate. She is going to bring the Clinton name back in the forefront and really, the republicans will relish it with glee. She also brings the "Bush Clinton" US royalty theme right into the forefront. What this election is about as much as policy is CHANGE! This country is desperately looking for a different type of leadership, be it republican or democrat most folks cannot stomach anymore of this shit we've been through. We need to move on and Hillary brings a lot of baggage, lack of trust and the ability to invigorate the republican party to really pull out all the stops on "swift boating" the hell out of her.

I think that Obama is as big of a risk as Hillary in terms of electability in the general election. But I understand what you're saying about the people who are out to get her and I agree that her baggage is an issue. I'll vote for the democrat no matter what, but I get tired of all the talk about issues and change.

I don't understand why people pick their candidates based upon who wants to do what with medical care, education, etc. Yes, policies matter, but at the end of the day, it matters more who is in congress for that stuff. Those big issues are going to be talked to death before anything gets decided. And we're not going to pull out of Iraq soon no matter who we put in the White House. It's logistically impossible.

The presidency, for me, is about who do I feel most comfortable making really hard decisions with very little notice. Whose judgment do I trust to make tough decisions. For that, I think that personality and character are the most important attributes.

Bush isn't our worst president because he disagrees with me on all the big issues (and he does disagree with me on all the big issues). What makes him our worst ever president is that he always thinks he's right, he doesn't work well with others, he has a limited imagination, he had limited life experience with people from other cultures, and he has the most hideous group of friends imaginable.

I disagreed with Clinton on a lot of issues and there were things I didn't like about his personality. But he was open to hearing ideas of others and I think that he was willing to consider the possibility that he was wrong. Those are terrific qualities in the leader of the free world.

I suspect that I would be most comfortable letting Hillary make important emergency decisions. I wouldn't be comfortable with Obama doing that because I know almost nothing about him except that he's articulate. Articulate isn't something I look for in a president. Many of the really articulate people I know are making up for a lack of substance. I might get more comfortable as I learn more about him. I'm not ruling anything out.

[QueenAdrock]

He should show he's human and give a speech with his fly open or shirt inside out.


Very true. Or show some major camel toe, because that's both humanizing and would show the rest of the world that he's got a giant wang.

[saz]

I agree. Middle-aged and older women saw something different in the Hillary-gets-slightly-emotional clip than Men and younger people. It read as honest to older women (and to me). The more people belittled her, the more offended we got. I don't think she naturally has the votes of women, but the media are inadvertently pushing some of them to support her.

Women are usually harder on other women than they are on men. And women are harder on other women than men are on women. If that makes any sense. But when a bunch of asshole media guys say that a woman is toast because she got tired and frustrated, and when a couple of pompous guys team up on her to call her old and irrelevant, it can backfire.

She's got a lot of work to do, but shoving Bill to the side is a good start.

i completely agree with you, except for the comments "a couple of pompous guys team up on her to call her old and irrelevant, it can backfire".

hillary is an extremely strong woman and tough politician. she can take it, being the apparent front-runner and being criticized, and she handled all of the republican slime in the 90s.

edwards wasn't calling her old or irrelevant, but rather a corporate democrat (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.html), who represents the the status quo (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/01/10/kissling_clinton/index_np.html) and their interests (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-stoller/hillary-clintons-lobbyis_b_80990.html).

i think a lot of women in new hampshire got fed up with sexist garbage (http://consortiumnews.com/2008/010908.html), which provided a boost for her.

[saz]

I think that Obama is as big of a risk as Hillary in terms of electability in the general election. But I understand what you're saying about the people who are out to get her and I agree that her baggage is an issue. I'll vote for the democrat no matter what, but I get tired of all the talk about issues and change.

right. the most electable democrat is john (http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/cnn-national-matchups-john-edwards-most-electable-121207001.html) edwards (http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/john-edwards-is-the-most-electable-democrat.html).


I don't understand why people pick their candidates based upon who wants to do what with medical care, education, etc. Yes, policies matter, but at the end of the day, it matters more who is in congress for that stuff.

i think a lot of people, including myself, vote with their conscious and vote for those who share their values, goals, and ideology. i never vote strategically, nor vote for the lesser evil.


Those big issues are going to be talked to death before anything gets decided. And we're not going to pull out of Iraq soon no matter who we put in the White House. It's logistically impossible.

but you make a great point about the congress and senate. the democrats, led by harry reid and nancy pelosi, are pathetic. they're unwilling to stand up to a president who has about a 30% approval rating, and give him whatever he wants. they won't cut off the funding for the war, because they're afraid of republican name-calling, that they 'don't support the troops'. and they refuse to consider impeaching bush and cheney, who make nixon look like a boyscout. yes, impeachment has already been discussed here, but the fact that they're letting these slimeballs get away with taking a dump all over the constitution and clearly operating above the law speaks volumes about their lack of leadership and backbone.


I suspect that I would be most comfortable letting Hillary make important emergency decisions. I wouldn't be comfortable with Obama doing that because I know almost nothing about him except that he's articulate. Articulate isn't something I look for in a president. Many of the really articulate people I know are making up for a lack of substance. I might get more comfortable as I learn more about him. I'm not ruling anything out.

hillary worries me because she was all for the war in iraq, and refuses to admit that she made a mistake, and refuses to apologize for her vote. she also voted for the kyle-lieberman amendment, and hasn't really done much in the senate, other than being a hawk and panderer to corporate interests. obama is also a huge panderer to corporate interests (http://nymag.com/news/politics/30634/), but at least he was against the iraq war. and they both do deserve some credit for voting against (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2547342320070525?feedType=RSS&rpc=22) funding the war, but i think that was an attempt to pander to skeptical progressives.

[yeahwho]

i think a lot of people, including myself, vote with their conscious and vote for those who share their values, goals, and ideology. i never vote strategically, nor vote for the lesser evil.

a few random thoughts....

I'm a complete sellout, I've whored my vote to the less evil. Kucinich and myself are absolutely the closest to ideals as far as presidential candidates. I've switched to Obama because of his early stance on Iraq. Obama is a high octane candidate, he's chrome wheeled, fuel injected and steppin' out over the line. A political machine to be reckoned with, if Hillary or Edwards can shake him up more power to them.

The time to party is yet to come. The international media loves Barack, I think this is because he is talking about a much more pro-active foreign policy by the US, which of course many republicans and probably Hillary will attack soon enough. Yet he is and has been so "on target" with all of his thoughts on foreign policy so far, especially the middle east.

I do really like Edwards as a next candidate, his stature and poise is very strong, stronger than Hillary, even stronger than Obama. His message to genuinely fight for the middle class and even the playing field for Americans is
a very solid message. I'm sticking with the big "O" though because I see a political animal that has barely even began to scratch the surface being unleashed.

The shit is just starting to head towards the fan. :)

[drizl]

Obama is a high octane candidate, he's chrome wheeled, fuel injected and steppin' out over the line?

hahahahahahahaha

[SugarInTheRaw]

Dennis Kucinich and his campaign paid $25,000 to the secretary of state towards the New Hampshire vote re-count currently in progress to secure Hillsborough and Rockingham.(!)

[yeahwho]

Dennis Kucinich and his campaign paid $25,000 to the secretary of state towards the New Hampshire vote re-count currently in progress to secure Hillsborough and Rockingham.(!)

Dude has a heart of a lion, I really respect him. How come Ron Paul isn't coughing up some of his Big Bucks from internet campaigning for this recount?

[abcdefz]

he's chrome wheeled, fuel injected and steppin' out over the line.


:D


Yeah. I'm "undeclared" in California so I am allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. I'm going with Obama, too, and it's partly out of faith,
partly strategic.


I remember all too well when Judi Dench and Maggie Smith split the vote, thus letting Marisa Tomei to slip through and win. :(

[SugarInTheRaw]

Dude has a heart of a lion, I really respect him. How come Ron Paul isn't coughing up some of his Big Bucks from internet campaigning for this recount?

I'm keeping an eye and ear out for more details. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are friends.

[QueenAdrock]

Up to date scoreboard:

Delegates:

Obama - 38
Clinton - 36
Edwards - 18


Romney - 66
McCain - 38
Huckabee - 26


Looks like McCain took South Carolina last night. Romney came in 4th, after McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson (!). It's so weird just HOW much it varies from state to state. All the pundits were saying it was all downhill from Iowa, all other states would fall lock-step along what others have voted for...and that's just not the case.

[DroppinScience]

All the pundits were saying it was all downhill from Iowa, all other states would fall lock-step along what others have voted for...and that's just not the case.

And I think this aspect pleases me the most about the primaries this year. It's anybody's race at this point (well, moreso for the Republicans, but the Democrats it's still fairly close). Why should we declare a nominee so early in the game? Shouldn't we let the states have their say before the pundits go and tell them what they want to see happen?

What would be especially satisfying is if the GOP and Democratic Conventions are both "nail-biters" in which nobody is really sure who will come out as their presidential and VP nominees until the last moments of the convention. Some of the most exciting elections happened this way (though that was a LONG time ago), so it'd be cool to see it again.

[QueenAdrock]

My mom said she remembered watching that (or maybe listening to it on the radio, I don't remember which) when she was a little girl. Not sure which election she was talking about, but she said the candidate was actually announced during the convention.

Exciting, sure, but the one bad thing I can see is that if there's an obvious winning candidate for the Republicans by say, March, wouldn't they be able to start campaigning earlier? I remember we knew after Super Tuesday in March 2004 that Kerry was going to be the Democratic candidate, so his "announcement" at the 2004 DNC convention came as no surprise - he had been running ads and campaigning for months by then. How the heck will it work out if the candidate is chosen at the convention this year, thus leaving them only 2.5 months to campaign?

[DroppinScience]

My mom said she remembered watching that (or maybe listening to it on the radio, I don't remember which) when she was a little girl. Not sure which election she was talking about, but she said the candidate was actually announced during the convention.

Exciting, sure, but the one bad thing I can see is that if there's an obvious winning candidate for the Republicans by say, March, wouldn't they be able to start campaigning earlier? I remember we knew after Super Tuesday in March 2004 that Kerry was going to be the Democratic candidate, so his "announcement" at the 2004 DNC convention came as no surprise - he had been running ads and campaigning for months by then. How the heck will it work out if the candidate is chosen at the convention this year, thus leaving them only 2.5 months to campaign?

Well, most conventions when your mom was growing up had a LOT of squabbling conventions in which everybody wrangled everybody to get their delegates together and nobody knew until that final night. Which is a good thing.

And the GOP won't have an obvious nominee for some time to come, as every state shifts back and forth between Romney, Huckabee, McCain. Heck, even if Giuliani somehow wins Florida by a sheer miracle (which I'm doubting), then the race will be even more fractured.

The Dems are going to have a more obvious nominee a lot sooner than the GOP.

[marsdaddy]

Obama wins South Carolina -- whooppeee!

[DroppinScience]

Obama wins South Carolina -- whooppeee!

I was kinda hoping for Edwards to take it (OR at least be 2nd place to Obama), but I'm satisfied Obama took it from Hillary. (y)

[yeahwho]

Obama wins South Carolina -- whooppeee!

You Go "O"! There are some who really do want a dynamic human being to lead our country. I'm really quite happy with this result and the accumulating endorsements he's snagging on his way to the convention. It is on.

[DroppinScience]

Obama's got Caroline Kennedy backing her. Can't go wrong, right? Right?

[QueenAdrock]

Of course not! Especially with a great name like John Kerry behind him too!

*waits for Kerry to make stupid remark and have to withdraw his support of Obama out of fear of handing another election over to the Republicans*

[roosta]

Barack rocks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOWlpvOPKXc)

[DroppinScience]

Barack rocks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOWlpvOPKXc)

That's cute! :D

[QueenAdrock]

Obama got Georgia just now.

[jennyb]

I voted! :)

Just wanted to publicly pat myself on the back. Heh heh.

[QueenAdrock]

The Dems are going to have a more obvious nominee a lot sooner than the GOP.

:mad:

[DroppinScience]

:mad:

How about revise my sentence to: "The Dems will have a lot more obvious WINNING nominee before the GOP" because that McCain guy isn't gonna win.

[QueenAdrock]

I stand by my :mad:.

[roosta]

Hilary Clinton?

damn you america!

[RobMoney$]

I can't wait until all this "Yes We Can" bologna to be over.
"Yes You Can" what?
That guy needs to come back in 8 years from now with a better plan than that.

[QueenAdrock]

Hilary Clinton?

damn you america!

Well, she has more superdelegates, about 80 more. She's only leading him by 6 in regards to state delegates. State delegates are given out based on percentages won, superdelegates have nothing to do with voting and are given out based on who they think is the best candidate. They can be convinced by either candidate to vote for them, and from what I've heard, Chelsea has been lobbying them quite a bit.

So, if it was based just on how the people have been voting, they are split almost evenly.

Why we even have those superdelegates, I don't know.

[QueenAdrock]

Actually the numbers are different now than when I checked this morning...

Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 630
Superdelegates: 193
Total: 823

Barack Obama
Pledged: 635
Superdelegates: 106
Total: 741


So it appears Obama has 5 more state delegates. Which leads me to the question again: who the heck are these superdelegates and why do their votes matter so much? CNN has done a terrible job explaining what their purpose is.

[King PSYZ]

Superdelegates in the Democratic Party are typically members of the Democratic National Committee, elected officials like senators or governors, or party leaders. They do not have to indicate a candidate preference and do not have to compete for their position. If a superdelegate dies or is unable to participate at the convention, alternates do not replace that delegate, which would reduce the total delegates number and the "magic number" needed to clinch the nomination

Best I could find, basically they're democratic govt employees and buddies they talk into voting for them

[mikizee]

Why doesn't the US's election system be a little bit MORE complicated.

[RobMoney$]

Ok, I know I'm not the most educated person on the internet, but I'm 36yrs. old and I've voted in every significant election since I was old enough to vote and this is the first time I've ever heard of this "Superdelegate" business.

If I understand Psyz's link, these superdelegates' vote count more than just the average person, like a hierarchy? I'm pleading complete ignorance on this issue, but that's a bunch of Bullshit and sounds completely UN-American.

[DIGI]

Superdelegates are elected officials and they are free to change their vote. So as long as Obama keeps cleaning up, he should be fine.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, but it still seems kinda fucked up to me that these delegates have so much more power than anyone else voting. I'd like to know who they are and why they think they're so damn special.

[jennyb]

I found this little video (http://current.com/items/88834200_the_primaries_maze)to be quite helpful. Yeah these "superdelegates" make me wonder a little... *rubs chin* :confused:

[abcdefz]

Yeah, I don't like the Democrat's superdelegates thing a bit.

I still don't understand why it's not just a straight one-person-one-vote. I know we're a republic and not a democracy, but come on.

[roosta]

G'wan Obama

[yeahwho]

Washington - 6856 of 7150 Precincts Reporting - 96%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Obama , Barack Dem 21,629 68%
Clinton , Hillary Dem 9,992 31%
Uncommitted Dem 363 1%

President - GOP Caucus
Washington - 6235 of 7150 Precincts Reporting - 87%
Name Party Votes Vote %
McCain , John GOP 3,468 26%
Huckabee , Mike GOP 3,226 24%
Paul , Ron GOP 2,799 21%

[QueenAdrock]

Hillary's state delegates: 885
Obama's state delegates: 918

Hillary's superdelegates: 223
Obama's superdelegates: 131

Hillary overall: 1,108
Obama overall: 1,049

He's winning state delegates by 30 now, and she's winning superdelegates by almost 100. This shit is stupid. Let the people decide.

[jennyb]

...He's winning state delegates by 30 now, and she's winning superdelegates by almost 100. This shit is stupid. Let the people decide.

*shakes head* ditto