Balta1701

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:25 PM) anyone have any idea how that happens? If the caucuses were binding (they're not), it would happen because its done like the electoral college; a set of 3 delegates covering different areas of the state that aren't equal in population. So while Hillary may win specific areas, Obama may win more delegates (in this version) because he kept it close enough in the highly populated areas and won the rural areas. The other little issue may be that since the Dems are reporting "Caucus delegates" and not actual voters, the actual vote total could be closer than the 51/45 that we're seeing, which may play into it as well. But on top of that, the votes for these delegates are currently non-binding until after a state party convention later this year. So this is basically a dressed up straw poll out there, and once Hillary wins Super Tuesday, a lot of these delegates will simply be allowed to switch to her at the conventions. In other words...God I hate caucuses.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) McCain with a lead in SC. McCain is currently leading all recent polls in CA, NJ and PA, as well as in national polls, and is winning some FL polls too. So, he seems like the inside track guy now - amazing for a candidate written off for dead in the fall. But one wonders if, with this wide field, he might get bitten by the same thing that might bite Clinton - other candidates stacking the chips against him. McCain may have a lead after Super Tuesday, but he won't be anywhere near 50% most likely - and most of the other candidates don't align well with him. It's entirely possible that Thompson could drop out and decide to endorse him.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:01 PM) neither one of those guys are middle relievers. So you're putting a big distinction between setup men and middle relief?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:42 PM) No, in other words, today's delegate count matters - but they can change when they want to. And most of the supers that Clinton has in that big lead you mentioned, could wind up anywhere. That only makes Obama that much more in it. Those early Clinton committals are not binding. But you're assuming that somehow Obama can overcome his deficit in national and state by state pollings on Super Tuesday. Which means that something has to go horribly wrong for Clinton beforehand, because 1 win in South Carolina is not going to be enough to do that.

Someone asked the Nevada Dem party chair about Obama's delegate win claim. Here's the response: In other words...the delegate count today doesn't really matter one bit. If Clinton starts to pull away with a bunch of wins on Super Tuesday, most of those delegates Obama is counting will wind up going for Hillary at the convention.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:26 PM) See Balta's post showing the regional breakdown. Plus, there are superdelegates, who don't have to follow the popular vote. Obama got the same number of delegates as Clinton in NH, despite Clinton winning by 3%. Clinton is winning the battles, but ever since Iowa, Obama has been winning the war. We'll see if its enough to stay close after Super Tuesday. Clinton so far has more Nevada super delegates than Obama, from what I'm reading. It appears that the Obama team argument is that there somehow the delegates are broken down by areas, with each area getting 3 delegates, and while Clinton may have won the most popular area, Obama pulled the electoral college type win and gets an extra delegate by virtue of winning the area battle. God I hate caucuses.

Exit Polls have S.C. too close to call between McCain and Huckabee, but possibly a narrow McCain lead.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:54 PM) I am so torn on this. On one side they just need to move on. On the other side, I think they need to push this idea. I dont think they would make this alogation unless they KNEW but couldnt tell you. Kind of like how radio hosts will hint at something but cant come right out and tell you. Right now the Nevada Democratic party is suggesting that they aren't going to take any steps to investigate the allegations, but there are steps individual voters could take if they felt their rights were infringed. In other words, it will amount to nought. Here's the current Kos diary with the one-sided summary of what people are saying they ran into, if you want more details.

Duncan Hunter is officially dropping out. The only purpose this serves is to pad my post count.

QUOTE(Brian @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:31 PM) *crickets* *Begins referring to the cricket I just sent down the sink as 'chivalry'".

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:42 PM) Funny how you don't see robocalls smearing Clinton. Whatever it takes I guess. Damn you Huckabee!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:34 PM) Where are you getting that? Clinton had a chunk of them up front before Iowa, but since then, I see nothing but superdelegates going to Obama. At least, that's what is being reported. So where do you get this idea about them certainly going to Clinton? Clinton currently has 174 superdelegates pledged. Obama has 85. Do you really think there's going to be a tidal wave of superdelegates going against the trend once Hillary starts winning states on Feb 5?

Right now, both sides are putting out vote fraud/intimidation/mess claims. Nothing ever comes from them.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) You know what? I bet he picked up a few supers in NV, probably the ones that were favoring Richardson (NV had a couple aligned with Richardson previously, I remember seeing it). Actually, upon learning more...somehow he might be right. I'll defer to a blog:

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:34 PM) no no. He flat out said they got more in NV. I dont knwo where he got that from. But those were his exact words. Then he's wrong. It's 13/12.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) I 100% agree. It's not about state by state victories. It's about delegates. Looks like Obama will have move going into Super Tuesday and might still be VERY close coming out of it if not in the lead. Remember, people have short memories. A victory in SC puts that in people's minds on Feb 5th. Clinton's still going to win Florida in that gap.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:31 PM) Interesting point just brought up by the Obama campaign.... Obama got more delegates in NV. No he didn't. The Clintons got 13, he got 12. His point is he has more delegates after Nevada, because N.H. was a tie, Michigan had none, and he had a lead from Iowa. But of course...that ignores Hillary's substantial and certain to grow lead in the Superdelegates.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) Why? I keep hearing about this lead that Obama supposedly had to have going into Super Tuesday. Well, I don't see that as logical at all. National polls and polls in the major states, where Clinton's lead was in the 20's, are now single digits if they are a lead at all. Plus Obama will likely take SC by more than the 1 delegate that Clinton has made up in NV, which means going into Super Tuesday, Obama has more of the earned delegates than she does. And Superdelegates having been endorsing Obama recently. But the biggest thing to keep in mind is, Obama doesn't have to make it through Super Tuesday with a lead in delegates. He just needs to keep Clinton below 50%. If Clinton goes to Denver with less than 50% of the delegates, then I think its just a contest for Edwards' votes. And despite his lousy showing in NV, remember that was a caucus. He's going to keep plowing forward, get his 15% here and there, and push this thing to a brokered convention. Its definitely not over. Hillary also currently has a SUBSTANTIAL lead in super delegates, and although most of them are currently uncommitted, the rest are going to go for her as she starts picking off states, as they won't want to deal with a brokered convention. It's over.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:22 PM) Paul has more votes than H.Clinton in Nevada. The Democrats in Nevada do not release actual vote totals for some reason. The number you're reading is "the number of delegates elected to county conventions that each candidate will receive." according to CNN. The caucus turnout is being reported as somewhere near 115,000, so the actual votes for Hillary has to be about 55,000 or so.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:20 PM) Its.Not.Over. Yes. It is. Barring a major, major slipup by Hillary.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) A lot of those electronic voting machines are poorly designed. Computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon University tested them and found a lot of flaws. Could easily produce 10% no vote error in an election. Which is what a lot of us have been saying since 2000. And every time we did, we just got ignored. And the people making them just happened to always be sending decent lobbying checks to the party in power to make sure that nothing was ever fixed. Some of us kept saying..."You know, eventually, just by accident, there's going to be one of these E-voting machines that totally screws over the Republicans in an election just the way that the paper ballots screwed up the 2000 race in Florida"...but every time someone brought a bill forwards regarding it, enough lobbying dollars came in to stall it. And county after county just kept buying the paperless electronic machines, often with federal money from the Help America Vote Act from 2001.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:54 PM) CNN is reporting that the electronic voting machines broke down in McCain heavy districts in South Carolina. The limited paper ballots ran out, voters turned away from polls. Ouch odds on Huckabee claiming divine intervention ? Oh how sweet it would be if somehow the fact that the Republican Congress adamantly refused to deal with the voting machine issue in this country somehow managed to wind up putting Huckabee as their nominee. I'd get what, 2 "I told you so" statements against the Republicans in 1 day.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) if you don't want A or B... then either vote C or don't at all. How does it make any sense to vote for one bad candidate over another? If Bloomberg entered, he'd instantly be my favorite candidate in a race of Hillary versus anyone. There's a solid shot right now also that I'll be turning in a ballot in November voting for Colbert. I'll take the corporatist independent over the corporatist republican and establishment democrat right now pretty easily. Again, calling myself undecided doesn't mean I can't flip-flop depending on how the campaign goes.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) but you think Romney would be BETTER!? No. I think that neither of them gets points on that matter.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) OH! And Clinton will reinstate that whole pesky Constitution thing the Bushes have been pissing all over. On this, I think I totally disagree. The Clintons certainly didn't show me in the 90's that the first thing on their plate was cutting executive power at all. Give you an example...the court challenges to whether or not Mr. Clinton had to testify under oath and exertion of Executive priveledge there. Some level of wiretapping that was at the time pushing the limits of FISA. Using the DOJ to slow down the admittedly incredibly hostile Congress's investigative powers. I think they're going to more than enjoy having all of Mr. Bush's newly accumulated powers that the Congress surrendered handed to them.