The W
Views: 99861482
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.10.14 1810
The W - Current Events & Politics - Clinton, Romney win Michigan
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.19
Pages: 1
(403 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (17 total)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 15 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Well, the big D primary doesn't count, or so we've been told. At least Hillary managed half the vote running against Kucinich, Gravel and "nobody."

On the R side, three winners in three contests (because WY doesn't count).

NEXT: Saturday - Nevada caucus for the Dems, and the South Carolina primary for the Reps!

http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/08PPR/01000000.html
TOTAL:   1,460,027

REPS
TOTAL: 867,880
Romney 337,556 38.9%
McCain 257,419 29.7%
Huckabee 139,576 16.1%
Paul 54,408 6.3%
Thompson 32,125 3.7%
Giuliani 24,675 2.8%
Uncommitted 18,502 2.1%
Hunter 2811 0.32%
Tancredo 457 0.05%
Brownback 351 0.04%

DEMS
TOTAL: 592,147
Clinton 327,329 55.3%
Uncommitted 236,931 40.0%
Kucinich 21,691 3.7%
Dodd 3841 0.65%
Gravel 2355 0.40%





Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
One potentially worrisome note for Clinton is that apparently 2/3 to 3/4 of African-American voters went for the "uncommitted" option. In SC if that sort of split happens it is very hard to see her being able to overcome that sort of split.

As for the GOP, in my dream world Thompson would win SC and Giuliani would win FL so that all 5 of the top 5 names have 1 contested win each and no one has a clue who is ahead going into Super Tuesday. Hell, if Huckabee could win SC and Rudy takes FL it serves much the same purpose.



2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
General Zod
Italian








Since: 1.10.05
From: Mesa, Arizona

Since last post: 836 days
Last activity: 25 days
#3 Posted on
    Originally posted by spf
    As for the GOP, in my dream world Thompson would win SC and Giuliani would win FL so that all 5 of the top 5 names have 1 contested win each and no one has a clue who is ahead going into Super Tuesday. Hell, if Huckabee could win SC and Rudy takes FL it serves much the same purpose.


I actually think it would be really interesting if the Republicans got all the way to the convention without a clear nominee. I would love to see an old school back room brokered convention, something never seen in my lifetime. It would be fascinating to the politico in me.






Keep it Funky!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by General Zod
      Originally posted by spf
      As for the GOP, in my dream world Thompson would win SC and Giuliani would win FL so that all 5 of the top 5 names have 1 contested win each and no one has a clue who is ahead going into Super Tuesday. Hell, if Huckabee could win SC and Rudy takes FL it serves much the same purpose.


    I actually think it would be really interesting if the Republicans got all the way to the convention without a clear nominee. I would love to see an old school back room brokered convention, something never seen in my lifetime. It would be fascinating to the politico in me.




It makes me tingly to imagine it. If the race is still a 3-5 person race after Feb. 5 I imagine a few names not currently running might get a few phone calls from major GOP power brokers to see how they would feel about being a unifying candidate. Perhaps someone tries to get in Condoleeza Rice's ear at that point.



2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 449 days
Last activity: 409 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
TheGreenPapers.com is estimating 19 delegates for Romney, 8 for McCain, and 3 for Huckabee.

For the Dems, it really is useless, because Michigan was stripped of all 156 delegates because they held their primary before Super Duper Tuesday (February 5th). Florida has also been penalized in this manner (New Hampshire and South Carolina were given exceptions for going at their traditional time in the schedule).

For the Republicans, they've decided to penalize only half the delegates for stats that have primaries before February 5th, which penalized Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida (the Republicans didn't give New Hampshire and South Carolina exemptions).

I'm interested to know what this means. Are they really going to ignore x number of delegates? Do Michigan and Florida think that the Democrat committee is going to change their minds and give them delegates back later in the process? Do the Republican states expect the same thing, or do they think that only getting half the delegates is worth it given the extra attention the candidates paid to them (Wyoming excluded)?
General Zod
Italian








Since: 1.10.05
From: Mesa, Arizona

Since last post: 836 days
Last activity: 25 days
#6 Posted on
    Originally posted by spf
    If the race is still a 3-5 person race after Feb. 5 I imagine a few names not currently running might get a few phone calls from major GOP power brokers to see how they would feel about being a unifying candidate. Perhaps someone tries to get in Condoleeza Rice's ear at that point.


I agree some current non-candidates would probably get calls should there be no nominee at convention time, but I doubt Rice would be on that list. I think she is too closely tied to Bush and the war to be a viable candidate. Someone like Haley Barbour (Governor of Mississippi, widely lauded for his handling of Katrina) could be a potential unifying choice. Of course this is all speculation at this point but it makes for a fun exercise.



Keep it Funky!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 476 days
Last activity: 476 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.13
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    TheGreenPapers.com is estimating 19 delegates for Romney, 8 for McCain, and 3 for Huckabee.

    For the Dems, it really is useless, because Michigan was stripped of all 156 delegates because they held their primary before Super Duper Tuesday (February 5th). Florida has also been penalized in this manner (New Hampshire and South Carolina were given exceptions for going at their traditional time in the schedule).

    For the Republicans, they've decided to penalize only half the delegates for stats that have primaries before February 5th, which penalized Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida (the Republicans didn't give New Hampshire and South Carolina exemptions).

    I'm interested to know what this means. Are they really going to ignore x number of delegates? Do Michigan and Florida think that the Democrat committee is going to change their minds and give them delegates back later in the process? Do the Republican states expect the same thing, or do they think that only getting half the delegates is worth it given the extra attention the candidates paid to them (Wyoming excluded)?



If the nominee is locked up on the Democratic side, they probably let the delegate credentials get accepted during the process, as in all likelihood the Iowa/New Hampshire stranglehold is over, as what benefit would there be of marginalizing in any manner large swing electoral states such as Florida and Michigan while placating smaller electoral states in Iowa and New Hampshire. It gets interesting if the race is close though, as then it comes down to who can control the floor when the 'banned' delegates attempt to be seated. That is why you need Edwards to stay in the race to make things interesting heading into the convention. That is when you would have wheeling and dealing and back room deals galore. And, if the Democratic race ever went past the 1st ballot, would anyone be surprised if Al Gore mysteriously appeared and tried to sneak through the back door as a compromise candidate?
If the Republicans ever went to the convention deadlocked I'd see a better chance of a party schism than of a unifying candidate being found. Pataki would be pathetic, Jeb Bush would be a non-starter and I don't know how Haley Barbour plays outside the South. The perfect compromise candidate probably would have been Fred Thompson if he had stayed in Hollywood and not been exposed as an inept campaigner. Perhaps Newt knew what he was doing staying on the sidelines and letting everyone else implode. Get to a 5th or 6th ballot and Gingrich might look appealing.
This type of thinking is why the Conventions between 1848 and 1948 are interesting to research because they rarely concluded the way it appeared going in.



(edited by redsoxnation on 16.1.08 2239)
kwik
Summer sausage








Since: 5.9.02
From: Norwich, NY

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.00
    Originally posted by General Zod
      Originally posted by spf
      As for the GOP, in my dream world Thompson would win SC and Giuliani would win FL so that all 5 of the top 5 names have 1 contested win each and no one has a clue who is ahead going into Super Tuesday. Hell, if Huckabee could win SC and Rudy takes FL it serves much the same purpose.


    I actually think it would be really interesting if the Republicans got all the way to the convention without a clear nominee. I would love to see an old school back room brokered convention, something never seen in my lifetime. It would be fascinating to the politico in me.





Obviously Feb. 5 is going to play a huge role in what happens, but at this point, are we at least in the realm of possibility of having TWO brokered conventions after all of this? Even if Edwards is knocked out, if there's no clear winner between Hillary and Obama, could we really be looking at 2 weeks of anything goes? Taking it a step further, after all of the complaints about front-loading, and an absurdly long general election campaign, and the possibility of the Iowa Caucuses happening the week after Christmas, what would it really say if in the end, all those votes were basically thrown out the window on the 2nd ballot, and the party elders retreated to the back room to decide upon the chosen ones?



For reasons of creative incompetence, this space will be left blank. Advertising opportunities are avaliable though!!! Contact (Number removed due to pending litigation) for details!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 18 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.21
The less-suspenseful ending for the Democratic race is that I think Obama or Edwards would accept a VP slot if it looks like they're behind, but still carry enough sway to deadlock things. That could be Hillary's trump card. A Hillary/Obama ticket would be virtually unbeatable.



How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for 3 years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? Yea, talking about that 3 years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah?
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.48
I really like how 40% of the voters came out to vote Uncommitted. Sure, Hillary got her 55%, but when you get almost as many people coming out to say they are for anyone else but you, that kinda says a lot as well.

On the Republican side, they all seem so out of touch with the voters. Every week, we are getting someone else winning one of these and there doesn't seem to be a leader in the bunch. Kinda sad.



Forget it Josh... it's Cerebustown.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 449 days
Last activity: 409 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
The campaigns for Obama and Edwards were telling people to vote Uncommitted, as write in votes for those two candidates would be ignored.
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.58
I know there's probably a simple answer to this, but why weren't Obama or Edwards on the ballot in Michigan? And will there be other states where there are candidates missing?
Teapot
Kishke








Since: 1.8.02
From: Louisville KY

Since last post: 161 days
Last activity: 4 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
Both Michigan and Florida moved their primaries too early (before Feb 5) for the DNC, so the DNC has said that they will not allow any of their delegates to be seated at the convention.



Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 449 days
Last activity: 409 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
They took themselves off the ballot, presumably to show their support for the DNC taking away all of Michigan's delegates, which the DNC did because Michigan moved its primary up.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Ballot.phtml
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-Ballot.phtml

Only 31 states (territories, etc) have their Democratic primary ballots finalized, so Hillary Clinton having 31 means she's on the ballot in every state so far. Obama and Edwards are on the ballot in the other 30.
Kucinich isn't on the ballot in Alabama, Delaware, Kansas, or Texas.
Gravel's only in 19 of the 31 states.

Among the Republicans,
McCain and Romney are on the ballot in all 33 Republican primaries so far. Paul, Huckabee, and Giuliani weren't on the Wyoming ballot (similar to Michigan for the Dems), while Fred Thompson isn't on the ballot in the District of Columbia or Delaware. Duncan Hunter's in 25 states, and Alan Keyes is in 21 states. Hugh Cort has gotten himself on the ballot in 7 states. Not bad.
General Zod
Italian








Since: 1.10.05
From: Mesa, Arizona

Since last post: 836 days
Last activity: 25 days
#15 Posted on
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    The less-suspenseful ending for the Democratic race is that I think Obama or Edwards would accept a VP slot if it looks like they're behind, but still carry enough sway to deadlock things. That could be Hillary's trump card. A Hillary/Obama ticket would be virtually unbeatable.


I don't think any of the big three dems will accept a VP slot. Edwards has been there done that and I think an Anyone/Edwards ticket will remind people too much of Kerry/Edwards. I really think Clinton doesn't like Obama and would not offer him the position. If Obama gets the nom he will most likely pick an experienced Washington player (such as Joe Biden or Chris Dodd)to counter his lack of experience. In an odd way that echoes the Bush/Cheney pairing in 2000 (older, wiser, experienced VP that the younger less experienced POTUS can depend on).



Keep it Funky!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by General Zod
      Originally posted by Big Bad
      The less-suspenseful ending for the Democratic race is that I think Obama or Edwards would accept a VP slot if it looks like they're behind, but still carry enough sway to deadlock things. That could be Hillary's trump card. A Hillary/Obama ticket would be virtually unbeatable.


    I don't think any of the big three dems will accept a VP slot. Edwards has been there done that and I think an Anyone/Edwards ticket will remind people too much of Kerry/Edwards. I really think Clinton doesn't like Obama and would not offer him the position. If Obama gets the nom he will most likely pick an experienced Washington player (such as Joe Biden or Chris Dodd)to counter his lack of experience. In an odd way that echoes the Bush/Cheney pairing in 2000 (older, wiser, experienced VP that the younger less experienced POTUS can depend on).

I could see Obama going with Richardson if he were to get the nomination. They can spin Richardson as someone with experience in DC, but also far enough away from DC that he understands the real world. Plus it could help Obama with the Hispanic vote, a constituency he is having trouble cracking into so far.



2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 476 days
Last activity: 476 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.13
    Originally posted by spf
      Originally posted by General Zod
        Originally posted by Big Bad
        The less-suspenseful ending for the Democratic race is that I think Obama or Edwards would accept a VP slot if it looks like they're behind, but still carry enough sway to deadlock things. That could be Hillary's trump card. A Hillary/Obama ticket would be virtually unbeatable.


      I don't think any of the big three dems will accept a VP slot. Edwards has been there done that and I think an Anyone/Edwards ticket will remind people too much of Kerry/Edwards. I really think Clinton doesn't like Obama and would not offer him the position. If Obama gets the nom he will most likely pick an experienced Washington player (such as Joe Biden or Chris Dodd)to counter his lack of experience. In an odd way that echoes the Bush/Cheney pairing in 2000 (older, wiser, experienced VP that the younger less experienced POTUS can depend on).

    I could see Obama going with Richardson if he were to get the nomination. They can spin Richardson as someone with experience in DC, but also far enough away from DC that he understands the real world. Plus it could help Obama with the Hispanic vote, a constituency he is having trouble cracking into so far.






The problem for a Biden or Dodd being a VP candidate is why would either want the position should the Dems win the general election? When you are a Senator from the minority party, VP might be a step up: see the attempt by Dole in '76 and by Lieberman is '00. But, when your party has control of the Senate and you head Committees, VP goes back to the warm drink of piss category.
And, as he is getting lapped by Ron Paul yet again in a caucus and a primary, whoever devised the Giuliani game-plan of having the presumed front-runner a few months back take a knee on every race has to be one of the worst campaign advisors of all time. I rather enjoy seeing Rudy hibernate through the election, but it still is at best the most awkward strategy I've seen.
Thread rated: 6.19
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Clinton, Romney win Nevada
Next thread: Robert J Fisher 1943 - 2008
Previous thread: ACLU: Sex in bathroom stalls a private matter
(403 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
My Lord this is funny. Yeah maybe they should go over there for awhile and see how fun it is to live under a murderous dictatorship. I hope they get up a good round of anti-war hippie music before the Hellfire missle tears them apart. DMC
- DMC, Crazy Canucks (2002)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Clinton, Romney win MichiganRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.127 seconds.