WWTBAM Bored

I thought it was mighty funny that Hillary could not even manage to get a majority of the votes running unopposed. She barely cracked the 50% mark of Dems that voted. I may be reading this wrong but, to me, that says that many voters would rather vote for anyone BUT her.

And, I also happen to think that it is the end of the line for McCain. I don't think he'll win here (in S.C.) on Saturday, he won't win in Florida and he will get crushed on Super Tuesday.

I found it funny that lots of Michigan Democrats voted for Willard. That's one way to screw with everybody's head during the caucuses/primaries.

I also found it funny that Ron Paul once again got more votes than Phone-It-In Fred and Miss Rudy 9/u11ani. Here's a news flash for Rudy: You ain't gonna win Florida. It's over for you.

Hillary won 54% of the vote in Michigan.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Hillary won 54% of the vote in Michigan.

She got 54-55% of the vote amongst the Democratic nominees and the uncommitted. That is true. I think what Galahad meant was she didn't get the majority of all of the votes cast.

(Then again, we could say that same thing about Willard.)

Sir_Galahad wrote:I thought it was mighty funny that Hillary could not even manage to get a majority of the votes running unopposed. She barely cracked the 50% mark of Dems that voted. I may be reading this wrong but, to me, that says that many voters would rather vote for anyone BUT her.

Yes, you're reading it wrong. It's impossible to know (short of polling) how many of those who voted "uncommitted" would have voted for Clinton - they may have recognized the sham nature of the primary after the national convention decreed it wouldn't count.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: I also found it funny that Ron Paul once again got more votes than Phone-It-In Fred and Miss Rudy 9/u11ani. Here's a news flash for Rudy: You ain't gonna win Florida. It's over for you.

Do you have a prediction as to who will capture Florida? I do agree, though, that it will be a strong wake-up call for Rudy if he does not win there.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Do you have a prediction as to who will capture Florida? I do agree, though, that it will be a strong wake-up call for Rudy if he does not win there.

It sure as hell won't be Willard. We learned in 2004 that Florida won't vote for a Massachusetts liberal.

If it's not McCain who wins Florida, it'll be Huckabee.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:Do you have a prediction as to who will capture Florida? I do agree, though, that it will be a strong wake-up call for Rudy if he does not win there.

It sure as hell won't be Willard. We learned in 2004 that Florida won't vote for a Massachusetts liberal.

If it's not McCain who wins Florida, it'll be Huckabee.

I cannot imagine the Huckster taking Florida. I will have to disagree with you on that.

It's the day after the primary, and the dust is starting to settle.

One of our local radio talk show hosts called the whole thing a sham from the beginning. He was putting forth a conspiracy theory this morning on his show that the Governor (a Democrat) tried to get the legislature to move the primary up if they agreed to the big tax hikes she wanted to get the budget balanced-which took almost 11 months to do.

I think the race-at least on the Republican side, is still a big toss up. I think on the Democratic side it will be a contest between Hillary and Barack Obama. If the Democratic National Committee changes their minds and releases the delegates that were supposed to represent Michigan (currently there are none, as punishment for moving the primary up) they might put Clinton on top and give her the nomination. Stay tuned. This ain't over yet.

The Democrats are setting up the possibility of some big ugliness at their convention if they don't have a clear winner fairly soon. Hillary won Michigan (admittedly against less than robust competition once Edwards and Obama dropped out) and stands to win Florida big, but the Democratic party at this point claims that those primaries don't count. So the question is what happens with the delegates? Either the states are awarded delegates in accordance with the election results, giving Hillary a big bunch, or they send uncommitted slates, or they get no delegates at all. Whichever they do, some candidate will be upset, and the supporters of that candidate will claim the process is unfair.

Under Democratic rules, virtually all the caucuses and primaries have proportional delegate selection, so in a three way race, unless one candidate pretty much runs the table, there is a good chance no one will go into the convention with a majority of delegates. To put things in perspective, there are about 4300 Democratic delegates to the convention. NH and IA have, so far, determined less than 70 of those delegates. BTW, the Republicans have more winner-take-all primaries, but with as many as five viable candidates, they face the prospect of a brokered convention as well.

Adding to the Democrats' problem is the fact that 800 of the 4300 delegates are so-called "super-delegates." These are uncommitted at-large delegates who are, essentially, party bigwigs in each state. Senators, governors, Congressmen, state party officials and so forth. They can verbally commit to a candidate at any time, but it's not binding and it's not dependant upon the results in that state's caucus or primary. So far, about 300 of them have committed, with Hillary having a 100-delegate lead over Obama and Edwards way behind.

If the super Tuesday results are somewhat split, and no one gains much momentum in the states after that, Hillary and Obama could go into the convention roughly tied in delegates, with potentially 800-1100 or so delegates up in the air between the super delegates and the Michigan and Florida delegates. Edwards could go in with anywhere from 5-20% of the delegates as well. At that point, there are any number of scenarios that could play out, most of them fascinating from a political drama and network news perspective, but very bad from the perspective of a party looking to win the presidency. The Republicans have their own possibilities of a 3 to 5 way brokered convention as well.

If this happens, the party that wins the presidency may well be the one that manages to select its candidate with the least amount of bitterness, acrimony and law suits.

silverscreenselect wrote:
If this happens, the party that wins the presidency may well be the one that manages to select its candidate with the least amount of bitterness, acrimony and law suits.

I believe there are several candidates who are gracious, and who will step aside if they see the voters wish it. I loved Al Gore's response to the Supreme Court's decision: "I do not agree with this decision, but I accept it." He gave up what he wanted for himself, in order to have peace for the larger group.

There are candidates now who will do that when the time comes (not that it will come to a Supreme Court thing again, but that they will see the voters saying they want to go another way).

"I do not agree with this decision, but I accept it." He gave up what he wanted for himself, in order to have peace for the larger group.

Richard Nixon did something similar in 1960 when he was advised to challenge the Illinois results because of the massive voter fraud in Chicago.

"Vote early and vote often."

Ritterskoop wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
If this happens, the party that wins the presidency may well be the one that manages to select its candidate with the least amount of bitterness, acrimony and law suits.

I loved Al Gore's response to the Supreme Court's decision: "I do not agree with this decision, but I accept it."

Well, seeing that he had no choice but to accept the final decision, what with there being no court higher than the Supremes. (I bet that he wished that he would have invented such a court rather than the Internet. )

Appa23 wrote:Well, seeing that he had no choice but to accept the final decision, what with there being no court higher than the Supremes.

It's true that there is no court higher, especially considering that Rehnquist had been high on Placidyl for at least three decades.