Results & Wrap Up : WV and NEB Primaries; Special Cong. Runoff Election in MS

[Wretched Excess]

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.

[Miss Mia]

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. 

[franksolich]

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.

[Miss Mia]

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. 

[Miss Mia]

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.

[franksolich]

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.

[Miss Mia]

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.

[Wretched Excess]

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.

[Wretched Excess]

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? 

[Wretched Excess]

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.

[Wretched Excess]

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.

[Miss Mia]

change just for the sake of change, eh, Mia? 

LOL  I just don't like that we have good candidates dropping out after Iowa or New Hampshire. 

[franksolich]

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.

[Wretched Excess]

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.

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

[franksolich]

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."

[franksolich]

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%

[Wretched Excess]

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)

[franksolich]

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.

[Wretched Excess]

Oops. Sorry frank. It wrapped oddly on WAPI, and I just missed it.

Thanks.

[franksolich]

Oops. Sorry frank. It wrapped oddly on WAPI, and I just missed it.

Thanks.

We're doing this again next week, for Oregon, right?

[Wretched Excess]

Absolutely. And KY.

[Wretched Excess]

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.

[Wretched Excess]

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   they tie it all back to the national election in the last half of the
story.

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

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.

[Wretched Excess]

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.