Edwards staying in would have handed Clinton the nomination, just like having a three person race gave the nod to McCain for the GOP.

 

I start getting a headache when we begin to decipher how one candidate effects the others. In a five person race with two chimps, a zebra, an elephant, and a chipmunk, the chimpmunk takes the small critter vote from the chimps, but the chimps take the poo flinging votes from the elephant, who takes the walks on four legs vote from the Zebras, who take the eat grass vote from the chimpmunks . . .

So when is the last time we have had four major candidates left in the game at this stage of an election cycle?

So when is the last time we have had four major candidates left in the game at this stage of an election cycle?

 

It's been a while, but I'm not certain how "in" Romney is. It's looking pretty bleak on the delegate count.

 

What will be interesting is looking back in 5 or 10 years and seeing why some excellent candidates did not gain any traction. I think we all thought Rudy G would have been a factor, and Thompson certainly had potential. But they were like a wet sparkler on the 4th of July in states where they are still legal.

So when is the last time we have had four major candidates left in the game at this stage of an election cycle?

 

Good question. But the truth is we only have three major candidates left.

 

However, on the bright side, UT loves Romney.

 

Romney - 90%

McCain - 5%

 

Wow.

Another Wow moment.

 

Clinton's California vote total is approximately the same as the total turnout for the GOP in California.

Obama's California vote total is almost the same as McCain and Romney's combined vote total.

Good question. But the truth is we only have three major candidates left.

 

However, on the bright side, UT loves Romney.

 

Romney - 90%

McCain - 5%

 

Wow.

 

Predicting the future . . .

 

However, on the bright side, UT loves white men.

 

McCain - 90%

Clinton - 5%

 

Wow.

Nah, Clinton's good for at least 20% in Utah.

Nah, Clinton's good for at least 20% in Utah.

 

Kerry was good for 26%, I'm guessing the DEM candidate for change is in the teens at best.

Based on Primary results, Obama would score a mid 30's.

Based on Primary results, Obama would score a mid 30's.

 

We'll see.

lol cept he would've had a lot of support in MO, TN, OK, AK, AL, GA as well. obviously he wouldn't have gotten a lot. but in any case it's pointless. oh well.

Hillary sig? I thought Edwards was against the status quo.

Hillary sig? I thought Edwards was against the status quo.

He hates Obama.

 

 

So you all think Obama "won" last night? I've read most of what you've said in this thread. I can't see it, with Hillarity winning all the big states.

 

 

He hates Obama.

 

 

So you all think Obama "won" last night? I've read most of what you've said in this thread. I can't see it, with Hillarity winning all the big states.

It depends on your definition of "win", which is why I earlier put that word in quotes...

 

--If by "win" you mean number of pledged delegates won today... well, Obama is ahead, but Clinton will likely just pass him when all the dust settles - so that's her win.

 

--If by "win" you mean staying in the overall pledged delegate lead, then Obama won.

 

--If by "win" you mean number of states, Obama won.

 

--If by "win" you mean who did best against expectaions, then Obama won.

 

Its all perspective. But I think even you, Kap, have to say, Obama is doing better than most anyone expected at this point. Didn't you say he'd get rocked on SDOGPEIT?

 

As an Obama supporter, I would declare this a tie. there are positives on both sides. Hillary needed a knockout blow to slow him down and this isnt it. He won CT and was competitive in AZ, NM, and CA. Remember, MOST of these states had Hillary +20 or 30 2 weeks ago.

Edited February 6, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

As an Obama supporter, I would declare this a tie. there are positives on both sides. Hillary needed a knockout blow to slow him down and this isnt it. He won CT and was competitive in AZ, NM, and CA. Remember, MOST of these states had Hillary +20 or 30 2 weeks ago.

In the most narrow literal sense (pledged delegates), it was a Clinton victory, just barely. But overall, looking at how things are lined up this month, I think this plays as an Obama victory. By the time we get through the next few rounds, I think Obama will be back on top again in delegates, and Clinton will be on her heels.

 

Next few races (pledged delegates at stake)...

 

February 9th:

Washington (78)

Louisiana (56)

Nebraska (24)

 

February 10th:

Maine (24)

 

February 12th:

Virginia (83)

Maryland (70)

D.C. (15)

 

February 19th:

Wisconsin (74)

Hawaii (20)

 

That's it for Feb - but that is another 450-ish delegates. Looking at the DEMOCRAT voters in those states, I think Obama has a slight overall edge. But then again, demographics keep shifting with these two. And in open primaries, independents will lean towards Obama, from what the polls indicate.

 

February 9th:

Washington (78)

Louisiana (56)

Nebraska (24)

 

February 10th:

Maine (24)

 

February 12th:

Virginia (83)

Maryland (70)

D.C. (15)

 

February 19th:

Wisconsin (74)

Hawaii (20)

 

I havent seen any polls, but the press (and apparently the Clinton campaign) seem to think those states might go Obama. At least the Feb 9th stats and probably the Feb 12th states.

She is also losing the battle for campaign funds. Rumors going around that the Clintons are digging into their own pockets at this point. Her core supporters are maxed out.

It depends on your definition of "win", which is why I earlier put that word in quotes...

 

--If by "win" you mean number of pledged delegates won today... well, Obama is ahead, but Clinton will likely just pass him when all the dust settles - so that's her win.

 

--If by "win" you mean staying in the overall pledged delegate lead, then Obama won.

 

--If by "win" you mean number of states, Obama won.

 

--If by "win" you mean who did best against expectaions, then Obama won.

 

Its all perspective. But I think even you, Kap, have to say, Obama is doing better than most anyone expected at this point. Didn't you say he'd get rocked on SDOGPEIT?

 

Sure I did. And what you all tell me is it didn't happen... right?

 

As I said, the next major one state delegate count is Texas, IIRC. Mar 4. I'll be voting Democrat that day.

 

 

 

Sure I did. And what you all tell me is it didn't happen... right?

 

As I said, the next major one state delegate count is Texas, IIRC. Mar 4. I'll be voting Democrat that day.

On that note, for you Texans on the board... how do you think Obama and Clinton will play there? My wild guess is that Obama would do well in north and central texas, and the major cities, while Clinton will do better in the border areas south and west, and in eastern Texas. Does that sound about right?

 

On that note, for you Texans on the board... how do you think Obama and Clinton will play there? My wild guess is that Obama would do well in north and central texas, and the major cities, while Clinton will do better in the border areas south and west, and in eastern Texas. Does that sound about right?

Obama will need to find some way to close the gap amongst the hispanic voters.

On that note, for you Texans on the board... how do you think Obama and Clinton will play there? My wild guess is that Obama would do well in north and central texas, and the major cities, while Clinton will do better in the border areas south and west, and in eastern Texas. Does that sound about right?

East Texas will probably go Obama. Austin will go Hillarity, although close. Obama will do well in Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth. Border areas and West Texas overwhelmingly Hillarity.

 

In all actuality, I would love to try to get in on one of these dealies when they come here. Maybe I will have an epiphany of epic proportions and decide that Hillarity isn't so bad after all...

 

In a nutshell, I think Hillarity wins 52-48 (assuming 100% calc), or to say by 4 pts.

Obama will need to find some way to close the gap amongst the hispanic voters.

He says he got nearly 40% in New Mexico. And nation wide it was 34.

East Texas will probably go Obama. Austin will go Hillarity, although close. Obama will do well in Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth. Border areas and West Texas overwhelmingly Hillarity.

 

In all actuality, I would love to try to get in on one of these dealies when they come here. Maybe I will have an epiphany of epic proportions and decide that Hillarity isn't so bad after all...

 

In a nutshell, I think Hillarity wins 52-48 (assuming 100% calc), or to say by 4 pts.

If Obama wins the major metros as you say, and east texas, I think that means he'll take the state.

 

I'll disgree with one part of your assessment - Austin. The polls in all these primaries have shown two trends that haven't changed - the more education a voter has, and the younger they are, the more likely they are to vote for Obama. That to me says Austin goes to Obama.

 

I think you are right though about border areas, west texas, and also north texas going to Clinton. And Obama taking the big central cities, and now that you mention it, east texas as well.

 

Don't forget he had a rally in Austin last year that had about 20K people attend. This was when he was much more of an unknown and a much bigger underdog.

Edited February 6, 200818 yr by BigSqwert

As I re-think it, re: Austin, you're right.

 

But Dallas/Fort Worth will probably split right down the middle.

 

Houston will go Hillary, if I had to guess.