reflections on "Super Tuesday"

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27966
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

#51 Post by MarleysGh0st » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:22 am

To get back to the Super Tuesday reflections, the most amazing statistic I heard was on ABC News, last night. The vote totals for all of the Super Tuesday primaries gave Clinton and Obama about 7 million votes each, with only about 30,000 votes separating them. When it comes to delegates, the quirky proportional representation rules change that some, but that's what I call a close race!

I can't find these figures online, or any comparable totals for the Republican primaries.

User avatar
trevor_macfee
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:51 am
Location: The Old Line State

#52 Post by trevor_macfee » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:35 am

MarleysGh0st wrote:
I can't find these figures online, or any comparable totals for the Republican primaries.
Here you go:

McCain: 43.2 percent (3,657,444)
Romney: 35.5 percent (3,001,607)
Huckabee: 21.4 percent (1,809,404)

From Slate at http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/Default.aspx

User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27966
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

#53 Post by MarleysGh0st » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:41 am

trevor_macfee wrote: Here you go:

McCain: 43.2 percent (3,657,444)
Romney: 35.5 percent (3,001,607)
Huckabee: 21.4 percent (1,809,404)

From Slate at http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/Default.aspx
Thanks!

But I see that they've left out the totals for Ron Paul (and the token votes for candidates who already dropped out of the race) and yet they still have these figures adding up to 100.1% :roll:

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24300
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: reflections on "Super Tuesday"

#54 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:25 pm

ToLiveIsToFly wrote: I looked on line at some point last night and it said that Edwards has like 24 delegates, and none of the other also-rans have any. Whatever tv station my wife turned on last night when she was worried about having to watch Wolf Blitzer explode all over our screen said that basically all the superdelegates are pretty much committed to one candidate or the other (though of course they can change their minds).

Are you saying you expect Obama and Clinton to be within 24 delegates of each other come convention time, or is there some other reason neither of them will have a majority?
There are about 800 super delegates. Bill Clinton is one; so is Ted Kennedy and so are Hillary and Barack Obama (all sitting Democratic Senators, Reps, governors, former Presidents and VPs and a lot of other party big wigs are super delegates). About 300 of these super delegates have publicly committed to one candidate or another, either by endorsement or otherwise. Barbara Boxer has said she isn't officially endorsing anyone but that she would vote for whoever carried California. Some Congressmen have said the same thing about their District.

None of these statements are support are binding, either under party rules or law. So, they are free to change their minds at any time between now and the time they cast their vote at the convention. So if it comes down to a difference of a couple of hundred votes, which it could well do, the super delegates hold the balance of power. That would still mean a first round nomination, but it might mean that the results would not be known possibly until the votes are cast on the convention floor, as in the old days.

"Alabama.... The great state of Alabama, the first alphabetically, the home of the five time national champion University of Alabama and the world's biggest ball of twine, is proud to cast 10 votes for Governor A, 6 votes for Senator B and 3 votes for Paul "Bear" Bryant...."

Also complicating things are the 350 delegates from FL and MI, most currently pledged to Hillary, who are not entitled under current party rules to be seated and counted. Hillary can bring that matter up for a vote as well if she wants, and the delegates, including the superdelegates, would decide whether to seat them.

Plus, no delegate, even those officially pledged, is legally or under party rule required to support any candidate. These people are, in a lot of cases, political activists or people with a lot of free time who decided to go through the delegate selection process, which involves attending a series of meeting and being voted on. So, some or all of them might change their minds at any time.

My view is that whoever goes into the convention with more pledged delegates will be in a position to scream foul if they don't win. However, in 1984, Gary Hart had won more delegates than Mondale going into the nomination, but superdelegates but Mondale over the top. Hart did not make an issue out of it, and Mondale got clobbered in the general election anyway.

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

#55 Post by Appa23 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:54 pm

As much as it pains me to say that SSS is right, he really hit the two reasons why there could be an interesting Democratic Party convention if Clinton makes a comeback against Obama, and it is close at that time.

I especially think that the Michigan and Florida delegates are an interesting dilemma. It is very possible that Clinton "won" those two states because Obama stuck to the rules/dictates of the national party PTB and did not campaign there. Really, the delegates from those two states can not be seated unless there is a sanctioned, competitive election., and we actually know if they should go to Clinton or Obama.

I also will note the humor that I find in the fact that Omaha's mayor, Mike Fahey, has the same Super-delegate status as Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy. It really seems like one is scraping the bottom of the barrel to bestow the hoor on a mayor from a Top-50-sized city.

User avatar
Tocqueville3
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Mississippi

Re: reflections on "Super Tuesday"

#56 Post by Tocqueville3 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:07 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
ToLiveIsToFly wrote: I looked on line at some point last night and it said that Edwards has like 24 delegates, and none of the other also-rans have any. Whatever tv station my wife turned on last night when she was worried about having to watch Wolf Blitzer explode all over our screen said that basically all the superdelegates are pretty much committed to one candidate or the other (though of course they can change their minds).

Are you saying you expect Obama and Clinton to be within 24 delegates of each other come convention time, or is there some other reason neither of them will have a majority?
There are about 800 super delegates. Bill Clinton is one; so is Ted Kennedy and so are Hillary and Barack Obama (all sitting Democratic Senators, Reps, governors, former Presidents and VPs and a lot of other party big wigs are super delegates). About 300 of these super delegates have publicly committed to one candidate or another, either by endorsement or otherwise. Barbara Boxer has said she isn't officially endorsing anyone but that she would vote for whoever carried California. Some Congressmen have said the same thing about their District.

None of these statements are support are binding, either under party rules or law. So, they are free to change their minds at any time between now and the time they cast their vote at the convention. So if it comes down to a difference of a couple of hundred votes, which it could well do, the super delegates hold the balance of power. That would still mean a first round nomination, but it might mean that the results would not be known possibly until the votes are cast on the convention floor, as in the old days.

"Alabama.... The great state of Alabama, the first alphabetically, the home of the five time national champion University of Alabama and the world's biggest ball of twine, is proud to cast 10 votes for Governor A, 6 votes for Senator B and 3 votes for Paul "Bear" Bryant...."

Also complicating things are the 350 delegates from FL and MI, most currently pledged to Hillary, who are not entitled under current party rules to be seated and counted. Hillary can bring that matter up for a vote as well if she wants, and the delegates, including the superdelegates, would decide whether to seat them.

Plus, no delegate, even those officially pledged, is legally or under party rule required to support any candidate. These people are, in a lot of cases, political activists or people with a lot of free time who decided to go through the delegate selection process, which involves attending a series of meeting and being voted on. So, some or all of them might change their minds at any time.

My view is that whoever goes into the convention with more pledged delegates will be in a position to scream foul if they don't win. However, in 1984, Gary Hart had won more delegates than Mondale going into the nomination, but superdelegates but Mondale over the top. Hart did not make an issue out of it, and Mondale got clobbered in the general election anyway.
Dude, you know a lot.

But can you change a poo poo diaper with one hand?

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

Re: reflections on "Super Tuesday"

#57 Post by Appa23 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:46 pm

Tocqueville3 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
ToLiveIsToFly wrote: I looked on line at some point last night and it said that Edwards has like 24 delegates, and none of the other also-rans have any. Whatever tv station my wife turned on last night when she was worried about having to watch Wolf Blitzer explode all over our screen said that basically all the superdelegates are pretty much committed to one candidate or the other (though of course they can change their minds).

Are you saying you expect Obama and Clinton to be within 24 delegates of each other come convention time, or is there some other reason neither of them will have a majority?
There are about 800 super delegates. Bill Clinton is one; so is Ted Kennedy and so are Hillary and Barack Obama (all sitting Democratic Senators, Reps, governors, former Presidents and VPs and a lot of other party big wigs are super delegates). About 300 of these super delegates have publicly committed to one candidate or another, either by endorsement or otherwise. Barbara Boxer has said she isn't officially endorsing anyone but that she would vote for whoever carried California. Some Congressmen have said the same thing about their District.

None of these statements are support are binding, either under party rules or law. So, they are free to change their minds at any time between now and the time they cast their vote at the convention. So if it comes down to a difference of a couple of hundred votes, which it could well do, the super delegates hold the balance of power. That would still mean a first round nomination, but it might mean that the results would not be known possibly until the votes are cast on the convention floor, as in the old days.

"Alabama.... The great state of Alabama, the first alphabetically, the home of the five time national champion University of Alabama and the world's biggest ball of twine, is proud to cast 10 votes for Governor A, 6 votes for Senator B and 3 votes for Paul "Bear" Bryant...."

Also complicating things are the 350 delegates from FL and MI, most currently pledged to Hillary, who are not entitled under current party rules to be seated and counted. Hillary can bring that matter up for a vote as well if she wants, and the delegates, including the superdelegates, would decide whether to seat them.

Plus, no delegate, even those officially pledged, is legally or under party rule required to support any candidate. These people are, in a lot of cases, political activists or people with a lot of free time who decided to go through the delegate selection process, which involves attending a series of meeting and being voted on. So, some or all of them might change their minds at any time.

My view is that whoever goes into the convention with more pledged delegates will be in a position to scream foul if they don't win. However, in 1984, Gary Hart had won more delegates than Mondale going into the nomination, but superdelegates but Mondale over the top. Hart did not make an issue out of it, and Mondale got clobbered in the general election anyway.
Dude, you know a lot.

But can you change a poo poo diaper with one hand?
Well, SSS clearly knows diddly-poo about college football. They claim 12 national titles. Roll Tide!

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24300
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

#58 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:01 pm

Appa23 wrote:I especially think that the Michigan and Florida delegates are an interesting dilemma. It is very possible that Clinton "won" those two states because Obama stuck to the rules/dictates of the national party PTB and did not campaign there.
None of the Democrats campaigned in MI or FL. Obama and Edwards removed their names from the MI ballot but were told they could not take their names off the FL ballot unless they officially suspended their campaigns.

However, their decision to do what they could to de-emphasize the decisions in those states was motivated at least in part by practical politics. The demographics in FL strongly favored Hillary and in MI decently so. Neither Obama or Edwards quite understandably wanted to have a loss in a big state hung around their necks for psychological reasons, so their decisions to buy into this were motivated as much by self-interest as any so-called "respect" for the Democratic rules.

User avatar
ne1410s
Posts: 2961
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: The Friendly Confines

#59 Post by ne1410s » Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:19 pm

MSNBC is reporting that Howard Dean is asking the two states to redo their primaries so the delegates will be "legitimate".
"When you argue with a fool, there are two fools in the argument."

User avatar
ToLiveIsToFly
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:34 am
Location: Kalamazoo
Contact:

Re: reflections on "Super Tuesday"

#60 Post by ToLiveIsToFly » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:51 pm

Tocqueville3 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
ToLiveIsToFly wrote: I looked on line at some point last night and it said that Edwards has like 24 delegates, and none of the other also-rans have any. Whatever tv station my wife turned on last night when she was worried about having to watch Wolf Blitzer explode all over our screen said that basically all the superdelegates are pretty much committed to one candidate or the other (though of course they can change their minds).

Are you saying you expect Obama and Clinton to be within 24 delegates of each other come convention time, or is there some other reason neither of them will have a majority?
There are about 800 super delegates. Bill Clinton is one; so is Ted Kennedy and so are Hillary and Barack Obama (all sitting Democratic Senators, Reps, governors, former Presidents and VPs and a lot of other party big wigs are super delegates). About 300 of these super delegates have publicly committed to one candidate or another, either by endorsement or otherwise. Barbara Boxer has said she isn't officially endorsing anyone but that she would vote for whoever carried California. Some Congressmen have said the same thing about their District.

None of these statements are support are binding, either under party rules or law. So, they are free to change their minds at any time between now and the time they cast their vote at the convention. So if it comes down to a difference of a couple of hundred votes, which it could well do, the super delegates hold the balance of power. That would still mean a first round nomination, but it might mean that the results would not be known possibly until the votes are cast on the convention floor, as in the old days.

"Alabama.... The great state of Alabama, the first alphabetically, the home of the five time national champion University of Alabama and the world's biggest ball of twine, is proud to cast 10 votes for Governor A, 6 votes for Senator B and 3 votes for Paul "Bear" Bryant...."

Also complicating things are the 350 delegates from FL and MI, most currently pledged to Hillary, who are not entitled under current party rules to be seated and counted. Hillary can bring that matter up for a vote as well if she wants, and the delegates, including the superdelegates, would decide whether to seat them.

Plus, no delegate, even those officially pledged, is legally or under party rule required to support any candidate. These people are, in a lot of cases, political activists or people with a lot of free time who decided to go through the delegate selection process, which involves attending a series of meeting and being voted on. So, some or all of them might change their minds at any time.

My view is that whoever goes into the convention with more pledged delegates will be in a position to scream foul if they don't win. However, in 1984, Gary Hart had won more delegates than Mondale going into the nomination, but superdelegates but Mondale over the top. Hart did not make an issue out of it, and Mondale got clobbered in the general election anyway.
Dude, you know a lot.

But can you change a poo poo diaper with one hand?
In an airplane bathroom today.

User avatar
Tocqueville3
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Mississippi

Re: reflections on "Super Tuesday"

#61 Post by Tocqueville3 » Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:27 am

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:
Tocqueville3 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote: There are about 800 super delegates. Bill Clinton is one; so is Ted Kennedy and so are Hillary and Barack Obama (all sitting Democratic Senators, Reps, governors, former Presidents and VPs and a lot of other party big wigs are super delegates). About 300 of these super delegates have publicly committed to one candidate or another, either by endorsement or otherwise. Barbara Boxer has said she isn't officially endorsing anyone but that she would vote for whoever carried California. Some Congressmen have said the same thing about their District.

None of these statements are support are binding, either under party rules or law. So, they are free to change their minds at any time between now and the time they cast their vote at the convention. So if it comes down to a difference of a couple of hundred votes, which it could well do, the super delegates hold the balance of power. That would still mean a first round nomination, but it might mean that the results would not be known possibly until the votes are cast on the convention floor, as in the old days.

"Alabama.... The great state of Alabama, the first alphabetically, the home of the five time national champion University of Alabama and the world's biggest ball of twine, is proud to cast 10 votes for Governor A, 6 votes for Senator B and 3 votes for Paul "Bear" Bryant...."

Also complicating things are the 350 delegates from FL and MI, most currently pledged to Hillary, who are not entitled under current party rules to be seated and counted. Hillary can bring that matter up for a vote as well if she wants, and the delegates, including the superdelegates, would decide whether to seat them.

Plus, no delegate, even those officially pledged, is legally or under party rule required to support any candidate. These people are, in a lot of cases, political activists or people with a lot of free time who decided to go through the delegate selection process, which involves attending a series of meeting and being voted on. So, some or all of them might change their minds at any time.

My view is that whoever goes into the convention with more pledged delegates will be in a position to scream foul if they don't win. However, in 1984, Gary Hart had won more delegates than Mondale going into the nomination, but superdelegates but Mondale over the top. Hart did not make an issue out of it, and Mondale got clobbered in the general election anyway.
Dude, you know a lot.

But can you change a poo poo diaper with one hand?
In an airplane bathroom today.
Wow. In an airplane bathroom? That's impressive.

User avatar
ToLiveIsToFly
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:34 am
Location: Kalamazoo
Contact:

Re: reflections on "Super Tuesday"

#62 Post by ToLiveIsToFly » Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:37 am

Tocqueville3 wrote:
ToLiveIsToFly wrote:
Tocqueville3 wrote:[

Dude, you know a lot.

But can you change a poo poo diaper with one hand?
In an airplane bathroom today.
Wow. In an airplane bathroom? That's impressive.
Well, I did sneak into the First Class bathroom (if "walk straight in there and hope they don't say anything" qualifies as sneaking), and it wasn't a flawless change. A change of outfit probably would have been necessary even before my changing him, but it was infinitely more necessary after. He's really good at getting his feet in it and then getting his feet on other things.

User avatar
Tocqueville3
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Mississippi

Re: reflections on "Super Tuesday"

#63 Post by Tocqueville3 » Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:39 am

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:
Tocqueville3 wrote:
ToLiveIsToFly wrote: In an airplane bathroom today.
Wow. In an airplane bathroom? That's impressive.
Well, I did sneak into the First Class bathroom (if "walk straight in there and hope they don't say anything" qualifies as sneaking), and it wasn't a flawless change. A change of outfit probably would have been necessary even before my changing him, but it was infinitely more necessary after. He's really good at getting his feet in it and then getting his feet on other things.
It's funny how they can kick their little legs all around the changing table and such and "aim" their little foot right for the poopy diaper. Olivia is getting to where she's really starting to squirm during diaper changing. Like turning over mid diaper and trying to sit up and stuff. I need two hands all the time now.

Yesterday she was in front of the tv watching Little Einstiens in her Bumbo. She decided it would be a great time to mess her diaper whilst in her Bumbo. It wasn't pretty. Poo poo doesn't stay wher it is supposed to stay when the baby is sitting in their Bumbo. I had to do a full body hose down.

User avatar
ne1410s
Posts: 2961
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: The Friendly Confines

#64 Post by ne1410s » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:54 am

I have about the same amount of problem with you believing your bible is inerrant as you probably have with me believing the first sentence in your bible is false, ...
What a hoot!! The first sentence is the only one I do believe. The rest is bullshit.


"It doesn't TAKE all kinds. we just HAVE all kinds."
"When you argue with a fool, there are two fools in the argument."

Post Reply