BigSqwert

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 08:31 PM) Pretty sure he always does that at the ending. Oh. Guess I don't watch enough.

Anyone catch Olbermann? He went off. I except him to be in a body bag in a year or so. He ended his monologue with "Good night and good luck" which I thought was pretty cool.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 07:08 PM) Why are you so afraid of the popular vote? I'm not. Obama is leading in popular vote. But that's now what ultimately decides who gets the nomination. Delegates do. States should be highlighted on the map to reflect who is actually winning the states by the method that decides the winner...i.e. delegates. QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 07:08 PM) And what do you think about a system that allows a candidate to lose the popular vote and win more delegates? Fair? I think it's stupid but that's the system that is in place. I do like the proportional allocation but I don't get how someone with less votes can get more delegates. The rules need to be tweaked. Perhaps the popular vote winner of a state should do no worse than plus one delegate no matter what.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:47 PM) Why? I like that is occurs earlier in spring and later in fall. Lot of darkness here in Chicago. Not all of us are as fortunate to live in sunny California.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:41 PM) At the end of the day, there is a state popular vote total, it is the only equal comparison between states. That map shows who received the most votes in that state. How that state manipulated the results so someone different received more delegates is a separate issue. So if you wish to have an asterisk that says Obama lost the popular vote, but won more delegates, I guess you can. How hard would it be to color a state for a candidate who won the most delegates? It would be like going to the standings page on ESPN.com and no longer seeing wins and losses but who leads in team batting average. Why rank by a measurement that does not affect the final outcome of who will win the division?

It's rare that I give credit to GWB but I am happy that he signed the bill that changed the dates for DST.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:26 PM) That is why they also report delegates won. Each state runs their primaries in their own way. In Texas you would need three maps to be really accurate. One to show delegates won based on the popular vote in each Rep district, one for caucus delegates won, and finally pledged superdelegates. And remember Texas awards delegates in a State Rep by State Rep districr basis. At the end of the day when you add it all up, Obama wound up with more pledged delegates in Texas and in Nevada. How is she the winner? Her popular vote cannot be used as a defense when Obama has 2025 delegates. And he has the overall popular vote lead for those that think that is most important.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:11 PM) CNN.com developing story headline: EDIT: Her actual resignation letter which shows no regret for what she said. For someone who claims to be ready on Day 1 why does it take Clinton 2 or 3 days to act on things like this?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:19 PM) It depends on what they are trying to show with the maps. Whenever they mention the maps they mention that it shows who "won" the various states. I am just having a hard time understanding why they use a different measure to identify which state a candidate won then the measurement that is actually used to secure the nomination.

CNN.com developing story headline: EDIT: Her actual resignation letter which shows no regret for what she said.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:46 PM) There are several *facts* being reported. It is being reported how many delegates have been won, and it is being reported who won which states. Should the media just not report the winner of the popular vote in each state because some people do not understand that delegate count is more important? What people think after reading and hearing those results cannot be controlled. I understand the various things that are being reported wrt to popular vote, states won, etc. My beef is that when the major networks show a map of who won which state they only go by popular vote when that is not the measurement used for who wins the nomination. Would it be too difficult to color Texas and Nevada as Obama wins on the map? He did win those states when using the actual, and only, measurement used to decide the nominee.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) To which I replied what does winning 11 states have to do with anything, when two states can outweigh their delegate totals? Why are they being potrayed as 11-2 for Obama, instead of their respective delegate totals? To me it is the samething, but for the other side. I think we're having 2 separate arguments here. You are arguing that bigger states are more important than smaller ones. I won't say I disagree. However, I'm arguing that she is getting credit for a win when in fact she has less awarded delegates in these states that she "won". The ultimate measure of the winner is delegates. Not who won more states. Not who had a higher popular vote count. So that's why I question why CNN, MSNBC, etc are awarding Clinton wins in states where she lost the delegate battle.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:01 PM) I am not sure what this has to do with the general election in the first place? We are talking about the Democratic primaries and how those are being portrayed, right? You were talking about winning states. I'm trying to make a distinction as to what constitutes winning a state. In the Democratic primary a state is won by who had the most delegates awarded since delegates are ultimately the deciding factor of who gets the nomination. Look at Texas and Nevada for example. Clinton won those 2 states in total popular vote by small margins but Obama wound up getting more delegates in each of those 2 states. At the end of the day her popular vote "win" does nothing to help her cause. Hence why I question why the MSM still counts Nevada and Texas as a Clinton win. What exactly did she win from that?

You also did not address my original question. The primaries are decided by who gets 2025 delegates first. This has nothing to do with the winner-take-all strategy of the general election.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) The whole Obama 11 state winning streak was stupid, because none of the states had any BIG delegate pull to them. Those states combined gave him 285 delegates.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) Its the same media who keeps hyping up how many states Obama has won, as if they are all equal wins. The size of the states really matters in an election where population, and therefore delegates are weighted towards big states. Who cares how many states they each have won? Who has the most electoral votes is what really matters. You can't really compare the Democratic primaries and the general election since one has proportional victories and one has winner-take-all. Two different strategies in play.

Why does the MSM continue to portray state victories by who won the popular vote? If the nominee is decided by who gets 2025 delegates first then shouldn't a state victory be awarded to who won the most delegates in a particular state? My analogy would be focusing on team triples to try and determine which team will win the division. If popular vote isn't the determining factor then why mislead the public?

Perhaps this should be spun off to a new thread?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 10:36 AM) Yea, i doubt very many Republicans are going to go to that much trouble just to vote for Hillary. Why not? She has 35 years of experience. Just ask her.

It's dailykos btw.

Olbermann to go off on Hillary tonight with a "special comment". First time he's done this to a Democrat.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 08:41 AM) Is PA a proportion state or winner take all? All Democratic primaries and caucuses are proportional.

This guy has an interesting take on reforming the primary calendar for future elections.

Check out the Playboy Club at Palms.

Colbert's "The Word" from last night: