US presidential elections and the wider world

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:06 pm

I saw that. Guess its pretty safe to say McCain will win. Huckabee might win the few remaining southern states, perhaps even some of the remaining NW states but I think its mathematical impossible to catch up to McCain.

On the democratic side Hillary is concentrating all her efforts in Ohio and Texas. Texas has lot of Latinos who usually vote for her and Ohio has a lot of poor factory workers, which who's union supports her.

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:05 pm

Mathmatically it's quite possible that Huck could win. McCain is only a little over half way to the delegates needed.

But it sounds like Romney will endorse McCain and if his delegates go to McCain instead of Huckabee than McCain will only need a few more states. I'd actually thought Romney would back Huck.

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:19 pm

Romney's stance appears to be to back the most electable GOP candidate, which is certainly McCain.

In other news, did anyone notice that Clinton beat Obama in Massachusetts - even though Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama? A bit of a slap in ol' Ted's face, no?

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:25 pm

Ah, I'm not a big fan of that fat old coward anyways. Personally, I'd rather not have his endorsement, were I running.

- This message was paid for by friends of Preston Anthony Roberts. Remember to vote Roberts in 2016!

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:54 pm

Mikey wrote:Romney's stance appears to be to back the most electable GOP candidate, which is certainly McCain.

In other news, did anyone notice that Clinton beat Obama in Massachusetts - even though Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama? A bit of a slap in ol' Ted's face, no?

I think it helped though. Showed parallels between JFK and Obama. Massachusetts was suppose to be easily Clinton territory the fact that it was split as much as it was showed that Obama made some heavy gains.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:19 am

Obama won 4 states + a territory today. And Clinton fired her friend of 16 years.

Clinton still has a chance with Texas, Ohio, and Pennysvannia all those states she still leads in.

Website · Post by **Uzume** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:08 am

Given their history with, and the current weather phenomena,
I think the Clintons' own a diabolical weather machine

. Weather certainly seems to work in their favor any way, don't 'cha think?

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:26 am

Man

Clinton
1,148

Obama
1,121

Now that is close.

By the way at least Hillary never planned to get this far. Her finiancial manager didn't budget for much past super Tuesday figuring it'd be over by then.
(This probably has something to do with her kicking some tails in her campaign staff).

Both groups are strapped for cash but it sounds like Obama is collecting it faster.

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:51 am

Yes, the Obama campaign is in much better shape fiscally. And this morning, Chris Matthews aired the result of a poll of a McCain-Clinton run vs. a McCain-Obama one. The result: McCain 44%/Clinton 44%; in the other scenario - Obama 46%/Clinton 39%.

Now, Clinton's "superdelegates" have mostly been factored in already. Add to that the facts that Obama has been shown at some point to be more electable over the future GOP candidate and his better financial position, against Hill-dog's catbird-seat position in some big upcoming states... I don't recall seeing anything this close this far in.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:11 am

Sure is interesting, though. On a side note, I wrote a blog in August of last year about the fact that a Clinton vs. McCain race would be a complete disaster for this country and the world. If Obama pulls this off, and gets the nomination, my vote is practically already cast.

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:12 am

Have they? I thought they only added in superdelegates to the tallys you see on CNN and such after that states primary.

For example with the main primary they just had their election today with 24 regular delegates upfor grabs and 10 superdelegates. If the "scores" above change by more than 24 points you know that they're adding superdelegates as they go.

Note that supers don't have to pledge ahead of time if they don't want to.
(For example it looks like 2 of the supers in Maine are going with Hillary and the other 8 aren't saying).

That could potentially lead to a really annoying outcome where superdelegates litteraly decide the election. The reason I really don't like that is that you know deals will be cut.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:00 am

That number includes super deligates. Obama is beating Clinton by a healthy margin in pledged deligates. Clinton just has the machine backing her that makes up for her losses to things like democracy.

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:26 pm

Well, superdelegates are often officeholders, and hopefully realize that in the final analysis, their continued employment depends on following the expressed will of the people...

In other news, I expected Obama to show very well in the "Potomac primaries," but Maine? I'm not complaining... but Maine?

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:11 pm

Romney's endorsed McCain (Beeb) looks like the Republican nomination's all but in the bag.

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:42 pm

Yup. I kinda wish Huck would step down instead of keeping on hitting McCain. Ah well.

And I waver on what I think of superdelegates. On one hand "Down with the Man" and all that. On the other hand a lot of American voters don't really spend enough time on this stuff, particularly the younger set that makes up much of the democratic party. Obama really doesn't have much experience, and hasn't had to make tough calls in his short voting record to measure him by.