NorthSideSox72

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.

OK, now 9% in SC... McCain: 35% Huckabee: 28% Romney: 16% Thompson: 14% Paul: 4% Giuliani: 3% Is Huckabee a flash in the pan? And does Giuliani take the cake as the most over-hyped, underperforming candidate ever?

First 2% reporting from SC... McCain: 37% Huckabee: 27% Romney: 16% Thompson: 12% Paul: 4% Giuliani: 3% Still very early of course.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 06:44 PM) 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. Well SC is the last state before Super Tuesday, so, its important to an extent. But again, I'm not saying he is going to win Super Tuesday or even match Clinton - I am saying he doesn't have to. If after Super Tuesday Clinton has less than 50% of the vote-result delegates, then I think Obama has the inside track. Think about this. If after Super Tuesday, it looks like this (in delegates)... Clinton: 45% Obama: 40% Edwards: 15% Think about the final result of that, if that trend more or less sticks through to Denver. Even if Clinton has a slight edge in Supers, those supers are only 19% of the delegates. So basically, if the numbers look like the above after Super Tuesday, I'll put my money on Obama. Now, if Clinton is significantly above 50% on Feb 6, then, I'll say Clinton has it in the bag.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 06:30 PM) 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. So now, CNN has the tied delegates at 12-12. That means 1 is currently open and going to no one. There seems to be some confusion. Nevada has 8 supers - and CNN doesn't have any as having declared. I'm sure some have though.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 06:16 PM) how does that make sense? 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.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 06:16 PM) Exit Polls have S.C. too close to call between McCain and Huckabee, but possibly a narrow McCain lead. I'm torn. If Hillary Clinton is going to be the Dem nominee, then by all means, I want McCain for the GOP so I have someone worth something to vote for. On the other hand, if Obama can pull it off, I'd rather have a given loser like Romney or Huckabee be the Republican.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 08:32 PM) I might be in the minority here, but I am very worried about Buehrle next season. The final two months last season, Buehrle was terrible. He couldn't even hit 86 with his fastball. Now, he's never been a flamethrower, but he used to be able to consistently hit 89-90. Plus, he needs to make some adjustments with his stride, it was too short late last season. That's not what I saw. He was still around 88-89 with the FB, 90 or 91 at times on CSN, but 88, 89, 90 at the ballpark (more believable). And he didn't start getting hit around until September. His August numbers were all pretty decent other than his ERA - because the bullpen sucked. Considering his 2006, his 2007 was a great sign that 2006 was an aberration. I mean, any given SP might have a bad season of course. But Vaz and MB, to me, are pretty darn solid. Its JC and the two newbies that are much bigger worries for me - those are truly unknowns.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:56 PM) Duncan Hunter is officially dropping out. The only purpose this serves is to pad my post count. I heard on the news he's endorsing Balta1701 for the GOP nomination. He said something to the effect of "if I can't be the nominee, f*** it - bury the party".

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) Watched 3:10 to Yuma last night. Some goodt acting performances but a ridiculous screenplay. Too many holes in the story to mention. Really? I'm usually all over that, and I didn't see any. Of course, its a Western, and I wasn't expecting an airtight screenplay I guess.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:39 PM) 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? That large number she had was before Iowa - I remember looking at the CNN site and seeing that. At that time, remember, Clinton was still seen as the inevitable. Now that she's not, yes, I think things change. And they have already, as I noted. And again, the superdelegates are not averge joe's - they know that winning states is irrelevant. Its all about delegates. ETA: I take back irrelevant - winning states is MINOR - it gives perceived momentum.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:37 PM) Right now, both sides are putting out vote fraud/intimidation/mess claims. Nothing ever comes from them. I think that the Clintons started the row with the whole intimidation story a day or two ago (which I think may have hurt Obama, true or not), so now the Obama camp has to hit back, or else risk looking guilty. This campaign has gotten exponentially uglier the last week or two.

The other big factor in a national primary of course is money - and Super Tuesday is basically a national primary. And even though everyone is talking about the mighty Clinton machine, Obama is also raising metric f***tons of money, right there with her.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:35 PM) Then he's wrong. It's 13/12. 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).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:34 PM) Clinton's still going to win Florida in that gap. Which has zero delegates.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:32 PM) 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. 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?

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:31 PM) Interesting point just brought up by the Obama campaign.... Obama got more delegates in NV. AND, SC has almost twice as many delegates as NV. So, an Obama win there actually puts him farther ahead of Clinton. It's all about the delegates. I think it's far from over. Yes Hillary has some momentum, bu tit is far from over. I tend to agree. There are a ton of Superdelegates still on the table, and I see no reason why they'd be afraid of a brokered convention. In fact, they probably think Edwards is more likely to go Obama, so, they may be counting on it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:25 PM) 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. That's much more clear, thanks. Still though, Ron Paul in 2nd? Wow.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:22 PM) Yes. It is. Barring a major, major slipup by Hillary. 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.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:22 PM) Paul has more votes than H.Clinton in Nevada. Holy crap, you're right. Why is the Dem turnout so low? Only 10,000 people?! That can't be right.

Its.Not.Over.

Ron Paul is currently running 2nd in Nevada, with 13% - ahead of all but Romney. That is something worth noting.

Clinton up 51-45 with 90% reporting. So it was close, but Clinton wins. If Obama wins SC as big as the polls indicate, then its still a dead heat as far as I can see. The real story here to me is the GOP... Romney with 51%, the next best 13%?????? That's an ass-whoopin'. And here is the really amazing part - RON PAUL IS IN 2ND IN NEVADA at 13%, WITH 95% REPORTING.

People were wondering about the fact that Clinton was leading among black voters for a while. Well, it seems that trend has reversed itself pretty dramatically. Results of a CNN national poll show that Obama now has the support of 59% among registered Dems, with Clinton at 31%, among african americans. Just back in October, Clinton lead by 24 percentage points in that category - Obama now leads by 28.