The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2008 => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on May 13, 2008, 08:21:41 AM
-
the latest poll has hillary up 36 points in WV. Rassmussen has her up 29, but that is a
week old. I'm not sure I am buying the 36 points.
-
The Democrats in Nebraska have a presidential primary, too, but it doesn't count for anything.
The Republican primary in Nebraska is for delegates to the national convention.
What happened was that when Dean Howard or Harold Dean or whatever his name is was trying to tell states when they should hold their primaries, Nebraska Democrats decided to hold caucuses in early February, rather than using the May primary to determine delegates.
For the record, there's been much "buyer's remorse" about it; most Nebraska Democrats now seem to think caucuses are the worst thing since the invention of leisure suits.
There are no significant primary races in Nebraska today.
But what to watch for is this: Obama won the Nebraska caucuses 68-32% in Nebraska.
If the margin in the popular vote (which doesn't count for anything anyway) varies much from that 68-32%, it's more proof that caucuses are driven by pushers and shovers and "activists," and many times going against the will of the people.
-
and an interesting special election in mississippi tonight to fill the congressional seat
vacated when roger wicker was selected to fill the senate seat of trent lott when
he retired.
I am sure the GOP wil be declared dead if the dems flip this seat. and they may.
DOWN THE BALLOT: MISSISSIPPI'S SPECIAL
DOWN THE BALLOT: Mississippi’s special
The New York Times, previewing today’s congressional run-off in Mississippi between Travis Childers (D) and Greg Davis (R), notes how the Republicans have tied Childers to Obama -- in what some see as playing the race card. “Hoping to hang on to a Congressional seat in a tight special election here on Tuesday, Republicans in this mostly white and very conservative district are trying to make the vote more a referendum on Senator Barack Obama than on the candidates themselves.â€
“In advertisements and speeches, Republicans have repeatedly associated Travis Childers, the white Democrat threatening to take the seat away from the Republican Party, with Mr. Obama. Republicans say Mr. Obama’s liberal values are out of place in the district. But for many Democratic veterans here, the tactic is a throwback to the old and unwelcome politics of race, a standby in Mississippi campaigning. Former Gov. William Winter, a Democrat, expressed shock at the current campaign. ‘I am appalled that this blatant appeal to racial prejudice is still being employed,’ said Mr. Winter, who lost the 1967 governor’s race after his segregationist opponent circulated handbills showing blacks listening to one of his speeches. Mr. Winter went on to win the governor’s office 12 years later.â€
(Again, be careful not to read too much into the results since neither candidate's political party is listed on today's ballot.)
The Wall Street Journal has some stats on the spending in this race. "The National Republican Congressional Committee has spent more than $1.3 million in advertising and direct mail. Mr. Davis also has benefited from funding from outside Republican groups. Freedom's Watch, a group working to elect Republicans to the House, has spent an additional $550,000 on advertising. The NRCC has sent staff to Mississippi to help boost Republican voter turnout, which will be critical to Mr. Davis's chances. Republicans have drawn on a long roster to campaign for Mr. Davis, including Gov. Haley Barbour, Sen. Thad Cochran, Mr. Lott, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Vice President Dick Cheney, who appeared Monday at an event with Mr. Davis."
Per NBC’s Mike Viqueira, House Republicans are besieged these days by internal criticism and concern over the possibility of electoral disaster come November. Today’s special election in a Mississippi district that has been solidly Republican for years has many of them on edge, as a Democrat could very well take the seat. It would be the third loss in a row of a seat previously held by a Republican. So Republican leaders are answering the threat with a new message intended to carry them forward to election in November. They call it "the change you deserve", and this week they will start to talk about affecting this change on issues like health care ("greater choice and control"), the economy (cutting wasteful spending, balancing the budget), energy, and security.
linky (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/13/1014539.aspx)
-
The Democrats in Nebraska have a presidential primary, too, but it doesn't count for anything.
The Republican primary in Nebraska is for delegates to the national convention.
What happened was that when Dean Howard or Harold Dean or whatever his name is was trying to tell states when they should hold their primaries, Nebraska Democrats decided to hold caucuses in early February, rather than using the May primary to determine delegates.
For the record, there's been much "buyer's remorse" about it; most Nebraska Democrats now seem to think caucuses are the worst thing since the invention of leisure suits.
There are no significant primary races in Nebraska today.
But what to watch for is this: Obama won the Nebraska caucuses 68-32% in Nebraska.
If the margin in the popular vote (which doesn't count for anything anyway) varies much from that 68-32%, it's more proof that caucuses are driven by pushers and shovers and "activists," and many times going against the will of the people.
caucuses are a silly, anachronistic, and ultimately inaccurate means of selecting a presidential candidate. they are indeed subject to manipulation, peer pressure, and just plain bullying. I will be interested to see if the non-binding primary yields the same results as the caucus. is there anything down-ballot that will draw dems to the polls?
-
caucuses are a silly, anachronistic, and ultimately inaccurate means of selecting a presidential candidate. they are indeed subject to manipulation, peer pressure, and just plain bullying. I will be interested to see if the non-binding primary yields the same results as the caucus. is there anything down-ballot that will draw dems to the polls?
Actually, there's more to draw Democrats to the polls in Nebraska today, than Republicans.
It's for the Democrat nomination to run against the inevitable Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Michael Johanns.
It pits a businessman who just switched parties three months ago (after Johanns got into the race for the Republican nomination), and it seemed likely the Democrats weren't going to come up with a credible candidate to oppose the Republican Johanns, and a last-minute filer, a Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for the third district (the western two-thirds of Nebraska) open seat in 2006.
The real Democrat, the late-filer, is quite a charmer, but he's not inevitably the Democrat candidate.
So that's going to pull Nebraska Democrats to the polls today.
-
caucuses are a silly, anachronistic, and ultimately inaccurate means of selecting a presidential candidate. they are indeed subject to manipulation, peer pressure, and just plain bullying. I will be interested to see if the non-binding primary yields the same results as the caucus. is there anything down-ballot that will draw dems to the polls?
Actually, there's more to draw Democrats to the polls in Nebraska today, than Republicans.
It's for the Democrat nomination to run against the inevitable Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Michael Johanns.
It pits a businessman who just switched parties three months ago (after Johanns got into the race for the Republican nomination), and it seemed likely the Democrats weren't going to come up with a credible candidate to oppose the Republican Johanns, and a last-minute filer, a Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for the third district (the western two-thirds of Nebraska) open seat in 2006.
The real Democrat, the late-filer, is quite a charmer, but he's not inevitably the Democrat candidate.
So that's going to pull Nebraska Democrats to the polls today.
then it will be very interesting to see the discrepancy between the caucus results and the primary results.
-
I wish I could quote polls and stuff from Nebraska, but we have only one major, and one semi-major newspaper in the whole state (seven days a week), and since polls cost a lot of money, they tend to poll only tight races, high-profile races, and general election races.
This is the first time in a long time I haven't seen any polls in the Omaha World-Herald or the Lincoln Journal-Star; there may have been some, and I missed them. But usually I don't miss those sorts of things.
Polls conducted by the radio and television stations tend to be "man on the street" deals, not scientific.
Polls paid for by individual candidates tend to be really bad, at considerable variance with the final results.
I think it's part of the Nebraska character; it's nobody's business.
Those times I've been polled, I've always lied.
And it seems a significant proportion of my fellow Nebraskans do too.
-
polls in WVA close at 7:30 local time.
-
just saw the WVA exits. she is taking 70% or more of women, white people, low income voters, and uneducimated peepul.
she's going to slaughter him. too bad it's over.
-
and 65% of seniors. this is going to be a massive blowout.
-
I'm at work this evening. WE do please keep me informed. :wink:
BTW, I predict a Hillary win by at least 30%.
-
Polls in West Virginia apparently just closed.
Polls in Nebraska close at 8:00 p.m. central time, 7:00 p.m. mountain time.
-
With zero percent in, ABC declares Clinton the winner in West Virginia.
-
I ventured over to DU. They're saying the exit polls look like a 2-1 win for Clinton.
They said Bill Clinton predicted an 80-20 win for Hillary today, so anything less is a loss. LOL
Again, I say Hillary by 30%
-
While waiting for West Virginia, these were the presidential choices in Nebraska today:
Republican President John McCain 0 ---
Republican President Ron Paul 0 ---
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 0 ---
Democrat President Mike Gravel 0 ---
Democrat President Barack Obama 0 ---
Nebraska President Don J. Grundmann 0 ---
Nebraska President Bryan Malatesta 0 ---
Nebraska President Diane Beall Templin 0 ---
Green President Jesse Johnson 0 ---
Green President Cynthia McKinney 0 ---
Green President Kent Mesplay 0 ---
Green President Kat Swift
-
I heard on the morning show here that Mike Gravel is going up against Bob Barr for the Libertarian ticket. That can't be right.
-
While waiting for West Virginia, these were the presidential choices in Nebraska today:
Republican President John McCain 0 ---
Republican President Ron Paul 0 ---
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 0 ---
Democrat President Mike Gravel 0 ---
Democrat President Barack Obama 0 ---
Nebraska President Don J. Grundmann 0 ---
Nebraska President Bryan Malatesta 0 ---
Nebraska President Diane Beall Templin 0 ---
Green President Jesse Johnson 0 ---
Green President Cynthia McKinney 0 ---
Green President Kent Mesplay 0 ---
Green President Kat Swift
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
the exits finished at 68-32. *poof*
-
I heard on the morning show here that Mike Gravel is going up against Bob Barr for the Libertarian ticket. That can't be right.
that's exactly right. politics makes strange bedfellows.
-
I heard on the morning show here that Mike Gravel is going up against Bob Barr for the Libertarian ticket. That can't be right.
that's exactly right. politics makes strange bedfellows.
Interesting.
Maybe they'll team up and be a "unity" ticket. LOL
-
Polls in West Virginia have been closed for fifteen minutes.
Nothing to report.
Maybe they count ballots there by abacii?
-
Maybe they'll go dump rocks into a pond somewhere.
-
Polls in West Virginia have been closed for fifteen minutes.
Nothing to report.
Maybe they count ballots there by abacii?
the most current numbers on the WV sec. of state elections returns page are from 2006.
-
I'm using ABC for West Virginia.
If someone knows a better site, please illuminate.
ABC's results for the Republican primary in West Virginia in February apparently weren't updated.
So maybe I'm at a lemon of a site.
-
Baroque Obama's flag pin in his lapel on his single WVA appearance must not have convinced too many west virginians
-
I'm using ABC for West Virginia.
If someone knows a better site, please illuminate.
ABC's results for the Republican primary in West Virginia in February apparently weren't updated.
So maybe I'm at a lemon of a site.
I am scanning foxnews, abcnews, and cnn. everyone is at zero. on the GOP side, . . .
Huckabee 567 52% 18
Romney 521 47% 0
McCain 12 1% 0
:-)
-
the cable news networks are desperately trying to keep the horse race aspect of the story alive, but their
hearts aren't really in it. fox broke from live coverage to put their ratings champ, bill o'reilly, his timeslot
back.
-
the cable news networks are desperately trying to keep the horse race aspect of the story alive, but their
hearts aren't really in it. fox broke from live coverage to put their ratings champ, bill o'reilly, his timeslot
back.
What about the other stations?
-
From somebody's blog:
7:37 pm ET: A thought on what Clinton could use right now: A handful of superdelegate endorsements to roll out -- to show, not say, that people are having second thoughts about Obama. She wouldn't need that many -- maybe three or four, with nice statements saying, we need the strongest Democrat possible to take on John McCain.
-
Oh Hell.
Nebraska, where the polls don't even close for another hour yet, will probably be 100% in before West Virginia's in at all.
-
the cable news networks are desperately trying to keep the horse race aspect of the story alive, but their
hearts aren't really in it. fox broke from live coverage to put their ratings champ, bill o'reilly, his timeslot
back.
What about the other stations?
PMSNBC and CNN are still on the WV primary.
-
I am watching obama surrogate bob casey peddling "hope and change" despite the 2-to-1 blowout tonight. that's gotta be hard.
-
o'reilly is still sort of covering the primary, but in his own bizarre way. that's all a business decision by fox news channel based on his ratings; they didn't want to preempt him.
the rest of the MSM really is trying to keep this story alive.
-
John Edwards is still on the ballot in West Virginia.
I wonder how much he'll pull in.
-
John Edwards is still on the ballot in West Virginia.
I wonder how much he'll pull in.
the good hair vote in WV shouldn't be more than 1 or 2%. :-)
-
just heard the guy on CNN ask a clinton campaign official if hillary would leave the race: "no one quits after a 30 point win".
(Channeling Baroque Obama)
"My PAIN has a NAME, and her name is HILLLLLLLAAAAAAARRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!"
*spit*
UNIFY THIS, BITCH!!
*kicks dirt*
SLUT!!!
:-)
-
What's up with West Virginia?
The polls have been closed for nearly an hour now.
West Virginia and Nebraska have approximately the same population (and 5 electoral votes each).
By an hour after the polls close here, pretty much all reports are in; 98% or 99% or something.
We don't even have 1% from West Virginia yet.
-
seeing numbers trickle in
Clinton 1,314 58% 0 Winner
Obama 753 34% 0
that's on abcnews.com and cnn.com, Frank.
-
Hot damn.
1% now in from West Virginia.
Clinton 58%
Obama 33%
-
What's up with West Virginia?
The polls have been closed for nearly an hour now.
West Virginia and Nebraska have approximately the same population (and 5 electoral votes each).
By an hour after the polls close here, pretty much all reports are in; 98% or 99% or something.
We don't even have 1% from West Virginia yet.
Those numbers have to be trucked over mountains in West Virginia. It slows them down.
-
Edwards is doing 8% in West Virginia.
-
this was in MO, not WV. but he should make up his mind if this is "false patriotism" or not.
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080513/capt.4b1282d9d20f496d98efa54e2c5a047e.obama_2008_primary_mojh107.jpg?x=252&y=345&sig=0ji7tyrjQJTQFoI9tVPxRQ--)
-
Edwards is doing 8% in West Virginia.
must be the results from Metrosexual county.
-
West Virginia still at 1% reporting.
Clinton 56%
Obama 36%
Edwards 8%
-
You know, Edwards won 13% in West Virginia in 2004, the Bostonian Billionaire 69%.
Edwards might match his 2004 numbers.
-
this was in MO, not WV. but he should make up his mind if this is "false patriotism" or not.
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080513/capt.4b1282d9d20f496d98efa54e2c5a047e.obama_2008_primary_mojh107.jpg?x=252&y=345&sig=0ji7tyrjQJTQFoI9tVPxRQ--)
Wasn't that when a Vet gave him a flag pin?
-
2% now in from West Virginia.
Clinton 62%
Obama 31%
Edwards 7%
-
this was in MO, not WV. but he should make up his mind if this is "false patriotism" or not.
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080513/capt.4b1282d9d20f496d98efa54e2c5a047e.obama_2008_primary_mojh107.jpg?x=252&y=345&sig=0ji7tyrjQJTQFoI9tVPxRQ--)
Wasn't that when a Vet gave him a flag pin?
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wears a U.S. flag pin at a town hall-style meeting held at Thorngate Ltd. in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Tuesday, May 13, 2008.
-
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wears a U.S. flag pin at a town hall-style meeting held at Thorngate Ltd. in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Tuesday, May 13, 2008.
I knew you'd know. :)
-
Still 2% in from West Virginia.
Clinton 63%
Obama 30%
Edwards 7%
-
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wears a U.S. flag pin at a town hall-style meeting held at Thorngate Ltd. in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Tuesday, May 13, 2008.
I knew you'd know. :)
Link to story with picture (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gAyEr0dB4_SdO4gWkfL6TWiy1gzgD90L2NB80)
on edit : I was going to post this story this morning when serverpronto lost power and we crashed . . . over and over.
-
Still 2% in from West Virginia.
Clinton 63%
Obama 30%
Edwards 7%
I don't see numbers for edwards, but on the GOP side, I do see huckabee, paul, romney, and even guiliani on the ballot. :???:
-
3% now in from West Virginia
Clinton 58%
Obama 36%
Edwards 6%
Ooops, looks like Edwards is fading.
-
Still 2% in from West Virginia.
Clinton 63%
Obama 30%
Edwards 7%
I don't see numbers for edwards, but on the GOP side, I do see huckabee, paul, romney, and even guiliani on the ballot. :???:
The Republicans in West Virginia had caucuses in February.
That's what those numbers are from.
-
3% now in from West Virginia
Clinton 58%
Obama 36%
Edwards 6%
Ooops, looks like Edwards is fading.
"fading" should be that big nancy's middle name.
-
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wears a U.S. flag pin at a town hall-style meeting held at Thorngate Ltd. in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Tuesday, May 13, 2008.
I knew you'd know. :)
Link to story with picture (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gAyEr0dB4_SdO4gWkfL6TWiy1gzgD90L2NB80)
on edit : I was going to post this story this morning when serverpronto lost power and we crashed . . . over and over.
Thanks for the link.
-
Still 2% in from West Virginia.
Clinton 63%
Obama 30%
Edwards 7%
I don't see numbers for edwards, but on the GOP side, I do see huckabee, paul, romney, and even guiliani on the ballot. :???:
The Republicans in West Virginia had caucuses in February.
That's what those numbers are from.
:thatsright: :doh: :-)
never mind.
-
:thatsright: :doh: :-)
never mind.
It's the opposite of Nebraska, where Democrats had caucuses in February.
-
4% from West Virginia now in.
Clinton 58%
Obama 36%
Edwards 6%
-
:thatsright: :doh: :-)
never mind.
It's the opposite of Nebraska, where Democrats had caucuses in February.
the numbers on cnn.com went from zero to those numbers at the same time the dem numbers
moved the first time. it threw me. that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-)
-
Less than 5 minutes before the polls close in Nebraska.
My prediction: Nebraska will be 99% reported before West Virginia is 10% reported.
-
Less than 5 minutes before the polls close in Nebraska.
My prediction: Nebraska will be 99% reported before West Virginia is 10% reported.
nebraska is flatter :wink:
-
Less than 5 minutes before the polls close in Nebraska.
My prediction: Nebraska will be 99% reported before West Virginia is 10% reported.
nebraska is flatter :wink:
Actually, reports in Nebraska have to be released simultaneously, all at the same time.
Or nearly the same time.
Nebraska reports from Omaha first, Lincoln second, and then the rest of the state third.
It's an anti-political-machine mechanism, so that the Democrats in Omaha can't wait to see what the rural votes are, and then create "votes" if needed; it's something from the 1920s.
This is the reverse of most places (Chicago and Illinois, St. Louis and Missouri).
It works. Big cities should report first.
-
5% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 58%
Obama 42%
-
9% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 59%
Obama 34%
Edwards 7%
-
5% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 58%
Obama 42%
wow. you weren't lying. nebraska will be in before WV.
I can't find anything from the mississippi congressional seat that the dems are trying to flip; you know, the one where we're all doomed if the republicans lose it?
-
9% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 59%
Obama 34%
Edwards 7%
what IS it with these edwards voters? the guy has been effectively out of this race since NH, and that's if he was ever in it to begin with. :whatever:
-
Still 5% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 56%
Obama 42%
Gravel 2%
-
10% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 61%
Obama 32%
Edwards 7%
Edwards still hanging on.
-
Cynthia McKinney, with 4 votes so far, handily winning the Green Party presidential nomination in Nebraska.
-
yikes. here is the guy we are running for the open congresssional seat in mississippi
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/05/13/miss-topper.jpg)
his dem opponent is the guy on the left with the sticker on his shirt.
-
Cynthia McKinney, with 4 votes so far, handily winning the Green Party presidential nomination in Nebraska.
how many greens are there in nebraska? 6? :-)
-
12% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 61%
Obama 33%
Edwards 7%
-
Cynthia McKinney, with 4 votes so far, handily winning the Green Party presidential nomination in Nebraska.
how many greens are there in nebraska? 6? :-)
Apparently there's 10 right now.
And four candidates for the Green Party presidential nomination.
-
12% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 61%
Obama 33%
Edwards 7%
not a single obama county in WV yet.
-
Cynthia McKinney, with 4 votes so far, handily winning the Green Party presidential nomination in Nebraska.
how many greens are there in nebraska? 6? :-)
Apparently there's 10 right now.
And four candidates for the Green Party presidential nomination.
they can hold their convention in your garage. :-)
-
18% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 62%
Obama 31%
Edwards 7%
-
Omaha's slowing things up in Nebraska.
Nobody else reports until Omaha's tipped its hand first.
-
yikes. here is the guy we are running for the open congresssional seat in mississippi
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/05/13/miss-topper.jpg)
his dem opponent is the guy on the left with the sticker on his shirt.
I thought maybe it was a bad picture, but apparently that's just the way he looks.
(http://media.commercialappeal.com/mca/content/img/photos/2008/04/08/9davis.jpeg)
-
yikes. here is the guy we are running for the open congresssional seat in mississippi
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/05/13/miss-topper.jpg)
his dem opponent is the guy on the left with the sticker on his shirt.
I thought maybe it was a bad picture, but apparently that's just the way he looks.
(http://media.commercialappeal.com/mca/content/img/photos/2008/04/08/9davis.jpeg)
LOL :lmao:
-
Omaha's slowing things up in Nebraska.
Nobody else reports until Omaha's tipped its hand first.
I like the way nebraska does it. you always know where you are in the process, instead of scouring the world for county results, and making a ton of assumptions on what must still be out based on what you can find.
-
19% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 63%
Obama 30%
Edwards 7%
-
the spin is already starting based on the exit polls. WV is 95% white, 70% unedimacated, rural, and "bottom 5 in income (whatever that means).
Racist, Redneck, Poor, White People (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_exit_poll_glance)
-
6% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 56%
Obama 42%
Gravel 2%
-
yikes. here is the guy we are running for the open congresssional seat in mississippi
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/05/13/miss-topper.jpg)
his dem opponent is the guy on the left with the sticker on his shirt.
I looked up the primary results from last month:
With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Childers had 31,138 votes, or 49.4 percent, while Davis had 31,066 votes, or 46.3 percent. Only Childers and Davis will compete in the run-off.
davis is the republican.
-
23% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 63%
Obama 30%
Edwards 7%
-
the spin is already starting based on the exit polls. WV is 95% white, 70% unedimacated, rural, and "bottom 5 in income (whatever that means).
Racist, Redneck, Poor, White People (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_exit_poll_glance)
According to the DUmpmokeys doesn't that describe all white people except for the 99-44/100th% white DU total membership?
-
Secretary of State (Nebraska) site really slow.
Just really damned slow.
They must have counted on having only a couple dozen hits tonight, and so adjusted their bandwidth accordingly.
-
23% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 63%
Obama 30%
Edwards 7%
she's even doubling him up in huntington county (marshall university) and monongalia county (WVU). I thought he might run better in the northern panhandle, but his best county there is ohio county; he's at 58-36 with 100% in.
-
yikes. here is the guy we are running for the open congresssional seat in mississippi
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/05/13/miss-topper.jpg)
his dem opponent is the guy on the left with the sticker on his shirt.
I thought maybe it was a bad picture, but apparently that's just the way he looks.
(http://media.commercialappeal.com/mca/content/img/photos/2008/04/08/9davis.jpeg)
Poor Greg Davis!!! He's a really nice guy and he's been a good mayor. My parents like him a lot. He took John Grisham's seat in the MS legislature when he decided to write full time.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVe9w7stVns[/youtube]
-
yikes. here is the guy we are running for the open congresssional seat in mississippi
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/05/13/miss-topper.jpg)
his dem opponent is the guy on the left with the sticker on his shirt.
I looked up the primary results from last month:
With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Childers had 31,138 votes, or 49.4 percent, while Davis had 31,066 votes, or 46.3 percent. Only Childers and Davis will compete in the run-off.
davis is the republican.
Unfortunately, the demographics may work against Davis.
-
Still 6% in from Nebraska.
Clinton 55%
Obama 42%
Gravel 3%
Gravel picked up a percentage point.
-
the spin is already starting based on the exit polls. WV is 95% white, 70% unedimacated, rural, and "bottom 5 in income (whatever that means).
Racist, Redneck, Poor, White People (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_exit_poll_glance)
According to the DUmpmokeys doesn't that describe all white people except for the 99-44/100th% white DU total membership?
the DUmmies aren't the point in this case, I don't think. the idea is to explain away this blowout as the result of covert racism, and to provide a front story moving forward into the general that only latent racists would oppose obama in the general election.
the public is being blackmailed before the general even gets off the ground.
-
7% from Nebraska now in.
Clinton 55%
Obama 42%
Gravel 3%
-
28% from West Virginia now in.
Clinton 64%
Obama 29%
Edwards 7%
Edwards still hanging tough.
-
yikes. here is the guy we are running for the open congresssional seat in mississippi
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/05/13/miss-topper.jpg)
his dem opponent is the guy on the left with the sticker on his shirt.
I looked up the primary results from last month:
With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Childers had 31,138 votes, or 49.4 percent, while Davis had 31,066 votes, or 46.3 percent. Only Childers and Davis will compete in the run-off.
davis is the republican.
Unfortunately, the demographics may work against Davis.
the mississippi republicans ran hard against the national dems in this race, including obama, but especially pelosi. if we lose here, the conclusion will be, of course, that the whole line of reasoning was rebuked in a southern state, and that (I am sure some will try to argue) the dems and obama can compete in the south in november.
-
34% from West Virginia now in.
Clinton 64%
Obama 29%
Edwards 7%
-
28% from West Virginia now in.
Clinton 64%
Obama 29%
Edwards 7%
Edwards still hanging tough.
I lived in WV years ago. there was a lot of good hair there. it was all on chicks . . . maybe some hillary supporters are abanding her for silky pony.
no, seriously, I would assume his hyper-populist platform does resonate with many west virginians.
-
14% from Nebraska now in.
Clinton 49%
Obama 48%
Gravel 3%
-
36% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 64%
Obama 29%
Edwards 7%
-
15% of Nebraska now in; Omaha's getting its act together.
Clinton 49%
Obama 48%
Gravel 3%
Cynthia McKinney with 9 votes apparently the winner of the Green Party presidential nomination.
-
36% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 64%
Obama 29%
Edwards 7%
she is more than doubling his raw vote.
still not an obama lead in a single county. some of the numbers are just eyebrow raising; 82-13 in mingo county.
-
39% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 64%
Obama 28%
Edwards 7%
-
16% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 49%
Obama 48%
Gravel 3%
-
finally found a Mississippi Congressional runoff update:
Democrat leading 1st District runoff
Democrat Travis Childers is leading Republican Greg Davis in the runoff for the District 1 congressional seat.
With 278 of 462 precints reporting, Childers had 53 percent of the vote. Davis had 47 percent.
The runoff was necessary after a special election last month produced no outright winner.
The winner will serve the final months of a term vacated by Roger Wicker. Wicker, a Republican, was appointed to the U.S. Senate after former Sen. Trent Lott resigned in December.
But Davis, 42, and Childers, 50, will face off again in the November general election. That race will determine who replaces Wicker in January for a full, two-year term.
link (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NEWS/80513035&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL)
-
42% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 28%
Edwards 7%
-
45% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 28%
Edwards 7%
-
18% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 49%
Obama 48%
Gravel 3%
Remember, Obama won the caucuses 68-32%.
This is surely significant.
-
a factoid on the mississippi runoff. childers ran ahead in the early returns in the primary, as well. from the april primary:
Childers was racking up votes in the eastern and rural parts of the district and held a slight lead nearly two hours after the polls closed. Davis was running strong in his own home base of DeSoto County, just south of Memphis, Tennessee.
With 64% of precincts reporting, Childers had 32,201 votes, or 51.4%, while Davis had 30,400, or 48.6%.
link (http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=8319727)
-
47% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 28%
Edwards 7%
-
22% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 48%
Obama 48%
Gravel 3%
-
yikes. here is the guy we are running for the open congresssional seat in mississippi
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/05/13/miss-topper.jpg)
his dem opponent is the guy on the left with the sticker on his shirt.
I thought maybe it was a bad picture, but apparently that's just the way he looks.
(http://media.commercialappeal.com/mca/content/img/photos/2008/04/08/9davis.jpeg)
Poor Greg Davis!!! He's a really nice guy and he's been a good mayor. My parents like him a lot. He took John Grisham's seat in the MS legislature when he decided to write full time.
that is pretty interesting. the first is kind of a funny district, it is the entire northeast corner of the state. your comment on the demographics perhaps being against davis made me want to go look up the exact boundaries.
Mississippi 1st Congressional Disitrict (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=MS&district=1)
everything from columbus to tupelo and the memphis burbs. heck. anything could happen.
-
50% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 28%
Edwards 7%
-
mississippi first congressional district update:
With 80 percent of precincts reporting, Childers leads Davis 51 to 49 percent.
childers' lead is narrowing, just like in the primary
-
23% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 48%
Obama 48%
Gravel 3%
-
24% of Nebraska now in.
We're just about done with Omaha.
Clinton 48%
Obama 48%
Gravel 3%
-
54% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 28%
Edwards 7%
-
25% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 48%
Obama 48%
Gravel 3%
-
well, hell. the AP has called the mississippi first congressional runoff for the dem.
AP: Childers wins 1st District for Democrats
Democrat Travis Childers has defeated Republican Greg Davis in the runoff for the District 1 congressional seat, The Associated Press has projected.
With 80 percent of precincts reporting, Childers leads Davis 51 to 49 percent.
The runoff was necessary after a special election last month produced no outright winner.
The winner will serve the final months of a term vacated by Roger Wicker. Wicker, a Republican, was appointed to the U.S. Senate after former Sen. Trent Lott resigned in December.
But Davis, 42, and Childers, 50, will face off again in the November general election. That race will determine who replaces Wicker in January for a full, two-year term.
link (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NEWS/80513035&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL)
-
29% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 48%
Obama 48%
Gravel 4%
Gravel up one percentage point.
-
56% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 28%
Edwards 7%
-
31% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 48%
Obama 48%
Gravel 4%
-
29% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 48%
Obama 48%
Gravel 4%
Gravel up one percentage point.
I think the results of our experiment are coming in. caucuses are NOT reflective of the preferences of the electorate. I understand that the intervening 3 months have had a huge effect, but I would argue that the caucus result was tainted to begin with.
-
29% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 48%
Obama 48%
Gravel 4%
Gravel up one percentage point.
I think the results of our experiment are coming in. caucuses are NOT reflective of the preferences of the electorate. I understand that the intervening 3 months have had a huge effect, but I would argue that the caucus result was tainted to begin with.
You're right.
At least in the case of Clinton in Nebraska, if Clinton gets anything more than 32% of the popular vote, it means the caucuses are NOT reflective of popular opinion.
It also means there's a lot of Nebraska Democrats voting for McCain in November, if Obama's the Democrat nominee.
At least that seems the situation here; I don't know about other places.
-
58% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
-
38% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 48%
Obama 48%
Gravel 4%
-
extended AP wrap up on the 1st district in mississippi; I didn't realize that the mississippi dems tried to
smear davis as a clansman :censored: they tie it all back to the national election in the last half of the
story. :whatever:
Childers wins 1st District for Democrats
Democrats appeared to regain control of north Mississippi’s 1st Congressional District — for now.
Shortly after 9 p.m., with 80 percent of the precincts reporting, The Associated Press declared Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers the winner over Southaven Mayor Greg Davis, a Republican, in a runoff.
The runoff was necessary after a special election last month produced no outright winner.
Childers’ apparent victory means he will serve the final months of a term vacated by Roger Wicker. Wicker, a Republican, was appointed to the U.S. Senate after former Sen. Trent Lott resigned in December.
But Childers, 50, will face Davis, 42, again in the November general election. That race will determine who replaces Wicker in January for a full two-year term.
Earlier tonight, Childers had been leading Davis in Lee, Tippah, Yalobusha and Choctaw counties. But Davis had a commanding lead over Childers in DeSoto County.
Voter turnout was higher than projected in DeSoto County, a Republican stronghold where Davis lives. Circuit Clerk Dale Thompson credited the turnout to local, bipartisan efforts to energize voters. She said another boost came from a campaign visit by GOP Vice President Dick Cheney, who urged support of Davis Monday.
Gov. Haley Barbour and Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, both Republicans, stumped for Davis in other parts of the district.
Meanwhile, Childers received help from fellow conservative Democrat Gene Taylor, a congressman from Bay St. Louis.
Political experts had said it was very possible for a Democrat to recapture the seat held by Wicker since 1994. Before he won the seat, Democrat Jamie Whitten had held it for more than 50 years.
The district also includes Oxford, Booneville, Tupelo and Columbus. And experts had said voters’ exhaustion with the war in Iraq and soaring gas prices could sway them from Republicans.
Voter turnout was mixed.
Lee County officials described turnout as light. In one of the county’s largest precincts, where 5,000 voters live, only 1,000 had voted by 4 p.m., they said.
Lowndes County officials said turnout there was better, though.
Democrats touted Childers’ win as evidence that voters are frustrated with Republicans.
“Democrats weren’t supposed to win this seat,†said Terry Cassreino, spokesman for the Mississippi Democratic Party and a campaign press secretary for Childers.
But Marty Wiseman, director of the Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University, said “It’s only the beginning, not the end. The Republicans will try viciously to hold onto that seat or reclaim it.
“Davis is smart and a tireless campaigner. You have got to plan to work hard and take a punch if you play against Davis, because he plays to win.â€
If the district’s Democrats turn out heavily to support a Democratic presidential nominee in November, it could further boost Childers, he added.
The runoff drew national attention from both parties, especially since Republicans have lost two congressional seats this year.
Rep. Don Cazayoux's recent victory in a Louisiana special election to fill former Rep. Richard Baker's seat was the first Democratic victory in the Deep South this year. Republicans had held the Baton Rouge district for decades.
House seats in other Southern states also are up for grabs.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent about $1.6 million on the Childers-Davis race and the National Republican Congressional Committee spent about $1 million.
Childers won 49 percent of the vote in the contest last month that made the runoff necessary, coming within several hundred votes of winning the seat outright. Davis received just more than 46 percent.
Voters in northeast Mississippi voted overwhelmingly for Republican President George W. Bush in 2004.
So Republicans tried to link Childers with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who holds more liberal views on issues such as abortion and gun rights. Childers is socially conservative. In recent ads, Democrats cast Davis as cozy with the Ku Klux Klan.
link (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NEWS/80513035&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL)
-
59% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
-
44% of Nebraska now in; Lincoln.
Clinton 46%
Obama 50%
Gravel 3%
-
63% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 28%
Edwards 7%
-
So Republicans tried to link Childers with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who holds more liberal views on issues such as abortion and gun rights. Childers is socially conservative. In recent ads, Democrats cast Davis as cozy with the Ku Klux Klan.
How the hell did they manage that? They must have twisted the truth so hard they had it crying 'uncle'. :whatever:
-
47% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 50%
Gravel 4%
They must round up the numbers.
-
64% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 65%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
-
49% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 50%
Gravel 4%
-
68% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 66%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
-
50% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 50%
Gravel 4%
-
So Republicans tried to link Childers with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who holds more liberal views on issues such as abortion and gun rights. Childers is socially conservative. In recent ads, Democrats cast Davis as cozy with the Ku Klux Klan.
How the hell did they manage that? They must have twisted the truth so hard they had it crying 'uncle'. :whatever:
it was a last minute gutter snipe slime maneuver . . .
DCCC links Davis to KKK founder’s statue (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dccc-links-davis-to-kkk-founders-statue-2008-05-13.html)
here's a link to a discussion of the flier (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/05/13/dccc-links-greg-davis-to-kkk-founders-statue/):
(http://briefingroom.thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/photo1.jpg)
(http://briefingroom.thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/photo-11.jpg)
-
I'm on the DCCC's mailing list. It gets pretty pathetic at times.
And a West Virginia Democrat comparing a Republican to a Klansman is just too f**king funny for words.
-
52% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 49%
Gravel4%
-
69% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 66%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
-
55% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 49%
Gravel 4%
-
I'm on the DCCC's mailing list. It gets pretty pathetic at times.
And a West Virginia Democrat comparing a Republican to a Klansman is just too f**king funny for words.
nathan bedford forrest was also one of the best civil war cavalry generals ever to sit in the saddle.
-
72% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 66%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
One supposes it's safe to assume that Messalina Agrippina pulled it off.
Too bad Edwards and Gravel dropped out.
-
72% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 66%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
One supposes it's safe to assume that Messalina Agrippina pulled it off.
Too bad Edwards and Gravel dropped out.
I think she has that one pretty much in the bag. :-)
-
57% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 49%
Gravel 4%
-
57% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 49%
Gravel 4%
and the stunning indictment of the caucus system continues . . . .
-
72% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 66%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
One supposes it's safe to assume that Messalina Agrippina pulled it off.
Too bad Edwards and Gravel dropped out.
I think she has that one pretty much in the bag. :-)
Well, I just like to be sure.
It's part of my conservative nature to be cautious.
-
59% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 49%
Gravel 4%
-
72% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 66%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
One supposes it's safe to assume that Messalina Agrippina pulled it off.
Too bad Edwards and Gravel dropped out.
I think she has that one pretty much in the bag. :-)
Well, I just like to be sure.
It's part of my conservative nature to be cautious.
he doesn't have a lead, or anything even close to it, in any WV county. from a quick scan, his closest approach is ohio county at 36%.
he's toast.
-
73% of West Virginia now in.
Clinton 66%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%
-
59% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 49%
Gravel 4%
Wasn't Clinton projected to win Nebraska?
-
what are the raw vote numbers in nebraska, frank?
-
59% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 49%
Gravel 4%
Wasn't Clinton projected to win Nebraska?
obama won the nebraska caucuses back in february; this is a non-binding primary. frank explained it far better than I could in the first few posts of the thread.
-
Right now in Nebraska with 64% of the vote in:
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 33194 47%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 2791 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 35037 49%
-
Wasn't Clinton projected to win Nebraska?
Obama won the Nebraska caucuses in February 68-32%.
It was generally considered Clinton was toast in Nebraska.
Nobody even bothered to poll.
My theory is, if Clinton wins more than 32% of the popular vote here, then that's damned well indicative that caucuses do not accurately reflect popular opinion.
-
Ok... Thanks. I must have misheard about Clinton being expected to win there.
-
71% of Nebraska now in.
The new percentages and numbers:
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 38458 48%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3126 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 38306 48%
-
Right now in Nebraska with 64% of the vote in:
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 33194 47%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 2791 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 35037 49%
interesting. here are the february caucus numbers:
Obama 26,126 68%
Clinton 12,445 32%
more than just being unrepresentative of the preferences of the electorate, caucuses could even be said to be anti-democratic. they obviously somehow exclude huge numbers of people that are perfectly content to express their preferences and exercise their franchise in a primary.
-
59% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 49%
Gravel 4%
Wasn't Clinton projected to win Nebraska?
obama won the nebraska caucuses back in february; this is a non-binding primary. frank explained it far better than I could in the first few posts of the thread.
I agree about caucus not showing the true reflect of the electorate. It does tend to be the more activist part of the party at them.
I do think there are some pros to them though. In Texas there's both the primary and caucus (for democrats). I participated in both for the first time this year. For the primary I voted early as usual. But it was really neat to get together with a bunch of neighbors for the caucus. Even more interesting was the democratic senate district conventions. The caucus part, at least in Texas, does more for party building. I'll tell you more after I go to the state convention next month.
-
Other presidential numbers in Nebraska, with 71% in now:
Republican President John McCain 97800 87%
Republican President Ron Paul 14394 13%
Nebraska President Don J. Grundmann 33 50%
Nebraska President Bryan Malatesta 13 20%
Nebraska President Diane Beall Templin 20 30%
Green President Jesse Johnson 12 19%
Green President Cynthia McKinney 36 58%
Green President Kent Mesplay 7 11%
Green President Kat Swift 7 11%
It looks like Cynthia McKinney wrapped it up, at least here.
-
Wasn't Clinton projected to win Nebraska?
Obama won the Nebraska caucuses in February 68-32%.
It was generally considered Clinton was toast in Nebraska.
Nobody even bothered to poll.
My theory is, if Clinton wins more than 32% of the popular vote here, then that's damned well indicative that caucuses do not accurately reflect popular opinion.
it's even more staggering than that. it looks like caucuses can easily select the wrong candidate. forget hanging chads. this is a small(er) group of people enforcing their will on an entire state when selecting a party nominee for president of the united states.
I don't think it gets any more wrong than that.
-
Nebraska now with 74% in.
With due apologies to West Virginia, that seems a foregone conclusion, and it's late, so I'll quit covering West Virginia.
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 39415 48%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3235 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 39259 48%
-
59% of Nebraska now in.
Clinton 47%
Obama 49%
Gravel 4%
Wasn't Clinton projected to win Nebraska?
obama won the nebraska caucuses back in february; this is a non-binding primary. frank explained it far better than I could in the first few posts of the thread.
I agree about caucus not showing the true reflect of the electorate. It does tend to be the more activist part of the party at them.
I do think there are some pros to them though. In Texas there's both the primary and caucus (for democrats). I participated in both for the first time this year. For the primary I voted early as usual. But it was really neat to get together with a bunch of neighbors for the caucus. Even more interesting was the democratic senate district conventions. The caucus part, at least in Texas, does more for party building. I'll tell you more after I go to the state convention next month.
I hear you, but texas is actually a supporting argument to mine and frank's thesis; the texas primary results disagreed (rather widely, as I recall) from the caucus results. why is that? and which one is wrong? and is the wrong one actually tainted somehow?
there is a huge problem with the way many states pick their candidates if what seems to be going on is actually going on.
and personally, I think party building should be specifically excluded from the process of picking a candidate for president for the same reason that "electioneering" (for lack of a better word) is prohibited from polling places. those places that you express your preference should be completely free of outside and undue influence, or there is no way to be sure that it is really your preference.
-
Nebraska now with 74% in.
With due apologies to West Virginia, that seems a foregone conclusion, and it's late, so I'll quit covering West Virginia.
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 39415 48%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3235 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 39259 48%
nebraska is more interesting anyway.
-
Okay, with 75% in, these are the numbers in Nebraska.
All that's left now are places such as where I live, or where dutch508 was born and raised, all the isolated towns and cities of the Sandhills.
I don't know anybody who voted for Obama around here, so it's reasonably safe to conclude Clinton carried the Nebraska Democrats, and that the choice made during the caucuses in February was not the popular choice.
Republican President John McCain 105056 87%
Republican President Ron Paul 15415 13%
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 40286 48%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3343 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 39989 48%
Nebraska President Don J. Grundmann 35 51%
Nebraska President Bryan Malatesta 13 19%
Nebraska President Diane Beall Templin 21 30%
Green President Jesse Johnson 12 19%
Green President Cynthia McKinney 36 58%
Green President Kent Mesplay 7 11%
Green President Kat Swift 7 11%
-
I hear you, but texas is actually a supporting argument to mine and frank's thesis; the texas primary results disagreed (rather widely, as I recall) from the caucus results. why is that, and which one is wrong, and is the wrong one actually tainted somehow.
there is a huge problem with the way many states pick their candidates if what seems to be going on is actually going on.
and personally, I think party building should be specifically excluded from the process of picking a candidate for president for the same reason that "electioneering" (for lack of a better word) is prohibited from polling places. those places that you express your preference should be completely free of outside and undue influence, or there is no way to be sure that it is really your preference.
I definitely agree that primaries are much more accurate in reflecting the will of the most voters. Caucuses just don't get as much participation.
While I like part of what a caucus does, actual involvement in picking a candidate, I dislike that there's not as much participation.
The democratic party needs to take a good look at caucuses. I wouldn't be that upset if they were done away with.
On a similar note, I'm also for rotating primaries and not having Iowa and New Hampshire the first to go. I'm not for a national primary day, but a set number of meets that divide up everyone. For instance, maybe north east, south, central, south west, midwest and west and space them a couple of weeks or three weeks apart. And while I'm thinking up my new system, why not have it start until March or April and wrap up just a month or so before the national conventions.
-
Ooops, an unexpected shift, with 80% now in.
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 40801 46%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3577 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 43810 50%
-
There's something called the "Delaware Plan" for state primaries.
The 13 smallest states would hold their primary in March.
Then the next 13 smallest states would hold their primary in April.
Then the next 12 smallest states would hold their primary in May.
And finally the 12 largest states would hold their primary in June.
The "beauty" of it is, if one wishes long campaigns and competitive races, nothing is finally determined until after the 12 largest states have voted, they of course being much larger than the smaller 38 states all put together.
That would be good, but I'm sort of queasy about Nebraska voting with Vermont, in a March primary.
-
Ooops, an unexpected shift, with 80% now in.
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 40801 46%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3577 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 43810 50%
StL county must have come in. :-)
-
There's something called the "Delaware Plan" for state primaries.
The 13 smallest states would hold their primary in March.
Then the next 13 smallest states would hold their primary in April.
Then the next 12 smallest states would hold their primary in May.
And finally the 12 largest states would hold their primary in June.
The "beauty" of it is, if one wishes long campaigns and competitive races, nothing is finally determined until after the 12 largest states have voted, they of course being much larger than the smaller 38 states all put together.
That would be good, but I'm sort of queasy about Nebraska voting with Vermont, in a March primary.
I think I might have read about that plan. I think that the states should be grouped together. 1. It would make travel on the candidates easier. 2. It would cost less so candidates without a big name could still get out there and campaign more. I really dislike how money becomes such a factor with candidates. There are good candidates but they can't ever get their fundraising going in order to actually get out there more and hence get more money.
Didn't the polls have Hillery ahead by 14 points? This was supposed to be one of her slam dunks, right?
<singing>for ($hillery=86; $hillery==0; $hillery--){ Sha na na na. ha na na na, say hey hey, good bye!}</singing
In what state? In W. Virginia she was ahead by 30+ pts.
-
Nebraska, with 81% now in.
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 41326 46%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3641 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 44254 50%
-
Didn't the polls have Hillery ahead by 14 points? This was supposed to be one of her slam dunks, right?
<singing>for ($hillery=86; $hillery==0; $hillery--){ Sha na na na. ha na na na, say hey hey, good bye!}</singing
I didn't see a poll for nebraska; it was an afterthought since the caucuses were in feb.
-
There's something called the "Delaware Plan" for state primaries.
The 13 smallest states would hold their primary in March.
Then the next 13 smallest states would hold their primary in April.
Then the next 12 smallest states would hold their primary in May.
And finally the 12 largest states would hold their primary in June.
The "beauty" of it is, if one wishes long campaigns and competitive races, nothing is finally determined until after the 12 largest states have voted, they of course being much larger than the smaller 38 states all put together.
That would be good, but I'm sort of queasy about Nebraska voting with Vermont, in a March primary.
I don't have a huge problem with iowa going first. someplace ultimately has to go first; it may as well be iowa. I just think caucuses are insane.
-
I forgot about Nebraska today. So I thought Frank was referring to WVA. My bad.
-
Nebraska, with 81% now in.
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 41326 46%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3641 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 44254 50%
it's an even more critical problem that cries out for an immediate solution if the caucus actually picks the wrong candidate. it's already established that they are utterly unrepresentative of the preference of the electorate; that's a fatal enough flaw.
-
I forgot about Nebraska today. So I thought Frank was referring to WVA. My bad.
WVA is 67-26 with 90% in. that was an ass stomping.
-
There's something called the "Delaware Plan" for state primaries.
The 13 smallest states would hold their primary in March.
Then the next 13 smallest states would hold their primary in April.
Then the next 12 smallest states would hold their primary in May.
And finally the 12 largest states would hold their primary in June.
The "beauty" of it is, if one wishes long campaigns and competitive races, nothing is finally determined until after the 12 largest states have voted, they of course being much larger than the smaller 38 states all put together.
That would be good, but I'm sort of queasy about Nebraska voting with Vermont, in a March primary.
I don't have a huge problem with iowa going first. someplace ultimately has to go first; it may as well be iowa. I just think caucuses are insane.
But Iowa is a caucus. And overall Iowa doesn't reflect the US. Now, if on the same day they did Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada/Arizona, that would be a good diverse group of voters all across the country.
-
I never paid attention to Ron Paul.
How does his 13% showing here in Nebraska compare with other primaries?
Higher, lower, about the same?--no need to look up, just pull it out of the memory if it's there.
-
Another change I would make, is standard voter registration deadline for each state. While on one hand I think it would be great to have same day registration, I can see flaws in it. But if all the states had 30 days before the election registration that would be good too. And also this open/closed/kind of open primaries should change as well.
-
I never paid attention to Ron Paul.
How does his 13% showing here in Nebraska compare with other primaries?
Higher, lower, about the same?--no need to look up, just pull it out of the memory if it's there.
Frank, I would think with all the other candidates dropping out, minus McCain that there's a lot of protest votes in there for Paul.
-
But Iowa is a caucus. And overall Iowa doesn't reflect the US. Now, if on the same day they did Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada/Arizona, that would be a good diverse group of voters all across the country.
The Delaware Plan wouldn't allow for caucuses; all 50 states would have to adopt a primary.
I'm just pulling this out of my head, but I assume the 13 smallest states are Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii.
That's a pretty good cross-section of America, for the first series of primaries.
-
But Iowa is a caucus. And overall Iowa doesn't reflect the US. Now, if on the same day they did Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada/Arizona, that would be a good diverse group of voters all across the country.
The Delaware Plan wouldn't allow for caucuses; all 50 states would have to adopt a primary.
I'm just pulling this out of my head, but I assume the 13 smallest states are Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii.
That's a pretty good cross-section of America, for the first series of primaries.
I agree that would be a good cross-section. The only thing I don't like about it, is those states are all over and I would want the "minor" candidates to still have a fighting chance even if they're not raising $20 million a month. But again, last summer McCain was broke and he managed to become the nominee. *shrug*
We just need to do something different than what we're doing now.
-
There's something called the "Delaware Plan" for state primaries.
The 13 smallest states would hold their primary in March.
Then the next 13 smallest states would hold their primary in April.
Then the next 12 smallest states would hold their primary in May.
And finally the 12 largest states would hold their primary in June.
The "beauty" of it is, if one wishes long campaigns and competitive races, nothing is finally determined until after the 12 largest states have voted, they of course being much larger than the smaller 38 states all put together.
That would be good, but I'm sort of queasy about Nebraska voting with Vermont, in a March primary.
I don't have a huge problem with iowa going first. someplace ultimately has to go first; it may as well be iowa. I just think caucuses are insane.
But Iowa is a caucus. And overall Iowa doesn't reflect the US. Now, if on the same day they did Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada/Arizona, that would be a good diverse group of voters all across the country.
yeah, I know. I was only addressing the question of the order in which the states would vote. I think it should be a primary, of course. and no state is fully representative of the country at large, and constantly "tweaking" the combinations of states that are to go first from one presidential election cycle to the next would probably introduce as much opportunity for mischief as this insane caucus system.
ultimately, I don't think the actual order is that important, but I am a little suspicious of some formal system created by some party committee that hold too much sway of how and when people vote for their party presidential candidates.
-
But Iowa is a caucus. And overall Iowa doesn't reflect the US. Now, if on the same day they did Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada/Arizona, that would be a good diverse group of voters all across the country.
The Delaware Plan wouldn't allow for caucuses; all 50 states would have to adopt a primary.
I'm just pulling this out of my head, but I assume the 13 smallest states are Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii.
That's a pretty good cross-section of America, for the first series of primaries.
I agree that would be a good cross-section. The only thing I don't like about it, is those states are all over and I would want the "minor" candidates to still have a fighting chance even if they're not raising $20 million a month. But again, last summer McCain was broke and he managed to become the nominee. *shrug*
We just need to do something different than what we're doing now.
change just for the sake of change, eh, Mia? :wink:
-
I never paid attention to Ron Paul.
How does his 13% showing here in Nebraska compare with other primaries?
Higher, lower, about the same?--no need to look up, just pull it out of the memory if it's there.
it's not completely out of line. I remember he got 16% in PA, and 8% or so (just short of 10, anyway) in NC and IN.
-
But Iowa is a caucus. And overall Iowa doesn't reflect the US. Now, if on the same day they did Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada/Arizona, that would be a good diverse group of voters all across the country.
The Delaware Plan wouldn't allow for caucuses; all 50 states would have to adopt a primary.
I'm just pulling this out of my head, but I assume the 13 smallest states are Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii.
That's a pretty good cross-section of America, for the first series of primaries.
then I am in favor of it.
-
change just for the sake of change, eh, Mia? :wink:
LOL I just don't like that we have good candidates dropping out after Iowa or New Hampshire.
:)
-
Okay, I'm calling it a night, lest I exceed RebelKev in the total number of posts (joke).
Anyway, there's still 19% of Nebraska left uncounted, and Clinton's starting to pick up again, 5 or 6 votes at a time (in Nebraska, a significant number).
All these uncounted places are in the outer regions here, and so I'm still thinking Clinton won Nebraska.
I've been wrong before, though.
I'll check the 100%-all-in numbers in the morning, and post them here.
But whether Clinton won Nebraska by a razor thin margin, or lost Nebraska by a razor thin margin, the case has already been made that caucuses do NOT represent the will of the people.
-
Okay, I'm calling it a night, lest I exceed RebelKev in the total number of posts (joke).
Anyway, there's still 19% of Nebraska left uncounted, and Clinton's starting to pick up again, 5 or 6 votes at a time (in Nebraska, a significant number).
All these uncounted places are in the outer regions here, and so I'm still thinking Clinton won Nebraska.
I've been wrong before, though.
I'll check the 100%-all-in numbers in the morning, and post them here.
But whether Clinton won Nebraska by a razor thin margin, or lost Nebraska by a razor thin margin, the case has already been made that caucuses do NOT represent the will of the people.
please post final results for nebraska in the morning. this is an interesting experiment.
-
Well, the Delaware plan would be no worse than what we have now.
I definitely would like to end the process of crossover. That is what gave us McCain and Bush. And probably is what is keeping Hillary alive. If you don't agree with the platform of an organization, you really shouldn't be voting for its officers.
-
Well, I was wrong, but not by much.
With 100% of Nebraska in:
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 43614 47%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3864 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 46279 49%
However, as mentioned earlier, this shows that caucuses do not represent the will of the people; Obama had carried Nebraska Democrats 68-32% in the caucuses of February, but then in the popular vote, couldn't get even half the Democrat votes here.
What this means is the "activists," the controllers, the shovers, the pushers, of a political party are oftentimes out of sync with the voters, and end up picking a candidate popular among themselves, but not popular with the people.
There appears to be a whole lot of Democrats who don't like Obama, and don't like him so much that perhaps half of them will sit out the general election, and half of the other half will vote for McCain.
If the Nebraska caucus/primary comparison is any indication nationally--which it might, or might not, be--it looks now to me as if unless McCain does something really stupid, the Democrat candidate for president is going to carry.....Vermont.
Please notice that qualifier, "unless McCain does something really stupid."
-
Other Nebraska results, with 100% of the vote reported:
Republican President John McCain 118065 87%
Republican President Ron Paul 17647 13%
Nebraska President Don J. Grundmann 37 47%
Nebraska President Bryan Malatesta 18 23%
Nebraska President Diane Beall Templin 24 30%
Green President Jesse Johnson 13 19%
Green President Cynthia McKinney 38 57%
Green President Kent Mesplay 8 12%
Green President Kat Swift 8 12%
-
What were the final raw vote totals, frank? I also wonder how many fewer people participate in the caucuses than in primaries.
I posted the total dem caucus vote upstream in this thread.
(Via WAPI)
-
What were the final raw vote totals, frank? I also wonder how many fewer people participate in the caucuses than in primaries.
I posted the total dem caucus vote upstream in this thread.
(Via WAPI)
Those are the vote totals there, Wretched Excess, the numbers between the name of the candidate and the percentage.
I know, I know, but hey, we don't have many people here.
The turnout was 23%, as expected, turnout among Democrats much higher than that of Republicans.
-
Oops. Sorry frank. It wrapped oddly on WAPI, and I just missed it.
Thanks.
-
Oops. Sorry frank. It wrapped oddly on WAPI, and I just missed it.
Thanks.
We're doing this again next week, for Oregon, right?
-
Absolutely. And KY.
-
Well, I was wrong, but not by much.
With 100% of Nebraska in:
Democrat President Hillary Clinton 43614 47%
Democrat President Mike Gravel 3864 4%
Democrat President Barack Obama 46279 49%
However, as mentioned earlier, this shows that caucuses do not represent the will of the people; Obama had carried Nebraska Democrats 68-32% in the caucuses of February, but then in the popular vote, couldn't get even half the Democrat votes here.
What this means is the "activists," the controllers, the shovers, the pushers, of a political party are oftentimes out of sync with the voters, and end up picking a candidate popular among themselves, but not popular with the people.
There appears to be a whole lot of Democrats who don't like Obama, and don't like him so much that perhaps half of them will sit out the general election, and half of the other half will vote for McCain.
If the Nebraska caucus/primary comparison is any indication nationally--which it might, or might not, be--it looks now to me as if unless McCain does something really stupid, the Democrat candidate for president is going to carry.....Vermont.
Please notice that qualifier, "unless McCain does something really stupid."
interesting theory. I have been back and forth on this one myself. I am trying to scrape together total primary votes for kerry, and total votes cast overall in the dem primaries in 2004, and see if I can't project a relationship between that and the gazillion votes that Baroque Obama has rung up in the primaries.
it's a tortured comparison, of course, because the dem primaries have been so provocative this election cycle, but it may give us an idea of what dem turnout will be in november based on his results in the primaries.
-
extended AP wrap up on the 1st district in mississippi; I didn't realize that the mississippi dems tried to
smear davis as a clansman :censored: they tie it all back to the national election in the last half of the
story. :whatever:
Childers wins 1st District for Democrats
Democrats appeared to regain control of north Mississippi’s 1st Congressional District — for now.
Shortly after 9 p.m., with 80 percent of the precincts reporting, The Associated Press declared Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers the winner over Southaven Mayor Greg Davis, a Republican, in a runoff.
link (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NEWS/80513035&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL)
whoa. the 1st mississippi CD finished 53-46. that last 20% must have come in all for childers. and of course, the national media is already shoveling dirt on congressional republican candidates for the november election.
-
the dems shouldn't get too carried away with themselves over childers' victory.
he is pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-growth, hard against illegal immigration, hawkish
on the federal budget, supports making the bush tax cuts permanent, and appears to support
the summertime gas tax ban.
he is hard to nail down on the war. some quotes:
On the Iraq war, Childers said America needs to influence its allies more and find a way to start to bring American troops home within 12-18 months from the start of a new administration in January.
"This was an ill-conceived war - Americans were misled," he said.
Davis disagreed with a quick pullout of troops. "I would not vote for anything that would supersede decisions by our military experts," he noted.
and . . . .
He also responded to a question about how he will get along with the more liberal leadership in the House.
"I was a conservative long before it was a buzzword," the businessman said. "I'll vote with my party when they're right and I'll vote with Republicans when it's in the interest of North Mississippi."
his margin was bigger than it appeared it would be last night, but all the nancy pelosi got last night
was another blue dog that is likely to vote against her more than he will vote with her.
-
some of these numbers in WVA are just truly mind blowing. Wayne County was 79 -14 percent; Mingo County was 88 - 8.
and just to let the air out of the "only idiots vote against obama" spin, she carried west virginians with a college degree 55-45.
-
KY (May 20th) is likely to be similar to WV. clinton was up 40 in the last poll in WV, and she won by 41; she is up 34 in the last poll in KY. but that is likely to be offset by oregon, which has it's primary the same night. the last polls there have obama up 11 and 14.
-
extended AP wrap up on the 1st district in mississippi; I didn't realize that the mississippi dems tried to
smear davis as a clansman :censored: they tie it all back to the national election in the last half of the
story. :whatever:
Childers wins 1st District for Democrats
Democrats appeared to regain control of north Mississippi’s 1st Congressional District — for now.
Shortly after 9 p.m., with 80 percent of the precincts reporting, The Associated Press declared Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers the winner over Southaven Mayor Greg Davis, a Republican, in a runoff.
link (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NEWS/80513035&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL)
whoa. the 1st mississippi CD finished 53-46. that last 20% must have come in all for childers. and of course, the national media is already shoveling dirt on congressional republican candidates for the november election.
Yes, they are already throwing flowers on the dirt and walking back to hearse.
Childers won because MS has had election almost every Tues. for the past nine weeks I think. People are actually getting tired of it. My parents live there. They were rolling their eyes when the runoff was announced (not my folks, just people in general). Plus, Davis is the mayor of the town my parents live in which is literally a stone's throw from the TN state line and the Memphis city limits. It's really a suburb of Memphis but in another state. Lots of rural folks are wary of Davis because that town is so close to Memphis. Rural folks have reason to be wary of Memphis and it's politicians. Unfortuantely, that stink lingers. Davis is good man and I'm sorry he lost. Childers is a Blue Dog so it will be interesting.
-
extended AP wrap up on the 1st district in mississippi; I didn't realize that the mississippi dems tried to
smear davis as a clansman :censored: they tie it all back to the national election in the last half of the
story. :whatever:
Childers wins 1st District for Democrats
Democrats appeared to regain control of north Mississippi’s 1st Congressional District — for now.
Shortly after 9 p.m., with 80 percent of the precincts reporting, The Associated Press declared Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers the winner over Southaven Mayor Greg Davis, a Republican, in a runoff.
link (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/NEWS/80513035&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL)
whoa. the 1st mississippi CD finished 53-46. that last 20% must have come in all for childers. and of course, the national media is already shoveling dirt on congressional republican candidates for the november election.
Yes, they are already throwing flowers on the dirt and walking back to hearse.
Childers won because MS has had election almost every Tues. for the past nine weeks I think. People are actually getting tired of it. My parents live there. They were rolling their eyes when the runoff was announced (not my folks, just people in general). Plus, Davis is the mayor of the town my parents live in which is literally a stone's throw from the TN state line and the Memphis city limits. It's really a suburb of Memphis but in another state. Lots of rural folks are wary of Davis because that town is so close to Memphis. Rural folks have reason to be wary of Memphis and it's politicians. Unfortuantely, that stink lingers. Davis is good man and I'm sorry he lost. Childers is a Blue Dog so it will be interesting.
I have been there! Southaven is a waaaaaaaaay cool little town. well, it's probably not so little anymore.
-
Very cool place!!! I grew up there. We actually lived in the Memphis city limits for the four years I was in high school (long story - wanted to go to a certain school) we moved right back afterwards (well my mom did - I went off to the dorms at college). It has grown. A lot! White Flight and all.....