Primary & Caucus Predictions and Results

[iNow]

Technically, Hillary won MI for the Dems, but they're not counting the MI primary, so it's up to Nevada to see where the momentum is heading for them.

[Pangloss]

The only surprise in the Michigan primary is that the majority of Republican voters were Republicans. I thought that would be the opposite, because (1) it was the other way around last time, and (2) the Democratic primary didn't count (so they might figure that they might as well vote in the Republican one). But for whatever reason it didn't play out that way.

 

(That's one of the states that got screwed by the national party, like Florida, because it moved up its primary date. Michigan Democrats don't count, even though in the end, as you can see, it still came after New Hampshire.)

[Sisyphus]

I also thought that might happen, especially considering this:

 

[Severian]

(That's one of the states that got screwed by the national party, like Florida, because it moved up its primary date. Michigan Democrats don't count, even though in the end, as you can see, it still came after New Hampshire.)

 

I must admit, I don't understand that. I can see the point of penalising them for polling too early, but you would think that Michiganites(?) would rebel given that New Hampshire wasn't penalised at all. And basically the only reason New Hampshire wasn't penalised was an appeal to tradition. Seems a bit unfair to me.

[ecoli]

I also thought that might happen, especially considering this:

 

 

yeah, but I was hoping they'd go for Paul and not Romney.

[DrDNA]

I must admit, I don't understand that. I can see the point of penalising them for polling too early, but you would think that Michiganites(?) would rebel given that New Hampshire wasn't penalised at all. And basically the only reason New Hampshire wasn't penalised was an appeal to tradition. Seems a bit unfair to me.

 

 

I agree. It seems to be unfair and kind of crazy. All about control.

[iNow]

South Carolina:

 

McCain - 33%

Huckabee - 30%

Thompson - 16%

Romney - 15%

 

 

Nevada (Republicans):

 

Romney - 51%

Paul - 14%

McCain - 13%

 

 

Nevada (Democrats):

 

Clinton - 51%

Obama - 45%

Edwards - 4%

[ecoli]

does anybody know how the nevada caucus's work.. I heard a few people saying that the number of delegates awarded doesn't directly depend on the popular vote. But, I didn't understand that.

[iNow]

does anybody know how the nevada caucus's work.. I heard a few people saying that the number of delegates awarded doesn't directly depend on the popular vote. But, I didn't understand that.

 

This PBS story referenced a Washington Post blogger who I thought summed it up well:

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/blog/2008/01/clinton_wins_nevada_vote_but_d.html

 

Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza explains:”While the process of delegate apportionment is extremely complicated, it boils down to this: in the places that Clinton won, there were an even number of delegates that were split between she and Obama. In the places Obama won, there were an odd number of delegates, meaning that he often took two delegates to one for Clinton

 

 

It's not "all or nothing" for the entire state, but the aggregate of each reporting precinct.

[Pangloss]

Interesting. I've seen a lot of talk about delegate counts elsewhere as well. Those counts could become critical if it comes down to a brokered convention.

 

I know I've been beating this drum a lot (the one I'm about to mention again), but one thing I'm starting to wonder is whether the issue of primaries that don't count (because they were moved up) might come up again at a brokered convention. There's no question that political operatives will look at the delegate counts from the uncounted states (like MI and FL) and see if the candidates would have finished in the same order if those states had been counted. If the answer to that question is "no", it could be a whole new ballgame. I almost feel sorry for the press at how badly their decision not to report that story will bite them on the ass if that happens.

[DrDNA]

Obama has 71% with 50% reporting! Hillary is in second with only 20%.

 

On the Rep side, Fred has 16% and he is not even in the race!

McCain 33% and Huckabee 30%

 

My son was watching it on TV and told me these results and I thought he was confused.......

 

Obama's lead is unbelievable!

 

I just looked up the history of S Carolina primary and each party's eventual candidate has been the winner of S CA for a long time......

04 Kerry and Bush

00 Gore, Bush

96 Clinton, Dole

92 Clinton, Bush

88 Dukakis, Bush

 

EDIT 58% Obama, 28% Hillary and still 50% reporting......

 

 

EDIT EDIT 55% Obama, 27% Hillary and 55% reporting....this is odd.....but Obama has been declared a winner...the rep percentages have not moved...

[CDarwin]

The Republicans voted a week ago.

[Pangloss]

And as I predicted in this forum a couple of weeks ago, Hillary stated late this week that she wants to see the banned Florida delegates returned to the pool. That would be, of course, because she leads in Florida polling. Obama, unsurprisingly, wants the agreement adhered-to.

[iNow]

And as I predicted in this forum a couple of weeks ago, Hillary stated late this week that she wants to see the banned Florida delegates returned to the pool. That would be, of course, because she leads in Florida polling. Obama, unsurprisingly, wants the agreement adhered-to.

 

To be clear, Obama was suggesting that each of the Democratic candidates adhere to the agreements they EACH made with the Democratic party itself not to use Florida delegates in the primaries (and consequently, not to campaign in Florida).

 

He was NOT suggesting that the decision made by the Democratic election officials was a good one, nor did he suggest that he agreed with it. He just stated that ALL of the Democratic candidates came to an agreement before campaigning began and that they should stand behind their agreements.

 

It's only now that Hillary Clinton is behind in delegate count that she's trying to reneg on the commitment she made to the Democratic party alongside the other candidates months ago. She commited to one thing months ago, and now that it's not working out for her personally, she is not living up to that commitment.

 

That seemed to be the context of Obama's comments... at least, IMO.

[Pangloss]

Right, which puts you and Obama in the position of supporting an agreement by an American political party and its candidates that disenfranchised tens of millions of American voters. Don't think that card won't be played here, guy. If the final delegate count puts Obama ahead by less than the difference that Florida and Michigan would make, it will be the biggest election story since 2000. And considering the moral position taken by Democrats at that time, their position here is HIGHLY hypocritical.

 

And frankly the disenfranchisement of millions of American voters is more important than a gentleman's agreement between candidates and the cronies and good-old-boys running a national political party.

[iNow]

Just to be clear, I find the decision not to count the delegates abhorrent. It punishes the electorate instead of the decision makers. I agree with your distaste, I agree that the decision will likely be challenged heavily in a few months, and I agree that it really screws up the process overall... since making the vote count later, yet acting like it doesn't count now, throws a lot of unecessary variance into the mix (especially when the current delegate counts which have been amassed are as close as they are now).

 

I'm just saying that your phraseology earlier seemed unecessarily harsh and specific to Obama... as opposed to the primary date deciders and schedulers at the federal level who coordinate with the states. Also, instead of Obama, you should focus your anger on the Florida schedulers for choosing to go against the greater party decision, despite the fact that they knew it would effectively disenfranchise those they represent.

[Pangloss]

iNow, there's no question Obama made a strategic choice regarding Florida. He was far behind Hillary in the polls here and this was long before his early primary successes. Supporting the "agreement" allowed him to narrow his focus at a time that date-shortening was making that difficult. The agreement worked in his favor.

 

Each of the candidate had reasons for supporting the agreement that made sense at the time. Some of them turned out to be wrong. But every Democratic candidate made a choice on this issue. All it would have taken to bust up the agreement and re-enfranchise every Florida and Michigan voter would have been for ONE candidate -- say, a candidate for change? -- to say no.

 

That's politics. It's a game, no doubt about it. But this time the game was played at the direct expense of millions of people's ability to even cast a vote.

 

So if this thing gets challenged later on, Obama is no innocent victim here.

[iNow]

So if this thing gets challenged later on, Obama is no innocent victim here.

I never said he was. I said your target seems misapplied when placed on his back.

 

 

It's not like the rest of us in the country want those morons in Florida voting anyway. Most can't remember where they left their teeth, let alone what's important to the younger generations in the years to come.

[Pangloss]

Why you youngun! When I was your age, we had to walk 80 miles to the polls, and it was uphill BOTH WAYS!!!

[john5746]

It's not like the rest of us in the country want those morons in Florida voting anyway. Most can't remember where they left their teeth, let alone what's important to the younger generations in the years to come.

 

Social security by gum! Social security needs to be there for the younguns!

[ecoli]

no point in having two of these... threads merged.

[DrDNA]

Why you youngun! When I was your age, we had to walk 80 miles to the polls, and it was uphill BOTH WAYS!!!

 

What no bare feet, sleet and snow? Wimp!

[iNow]

I still think it's going to be a big fuster cluck if they try counting Florida for the Dems later after disallowing them from campaigning there. It won't be an accurate measure of the process.

 

It's like, "Do this homework just for your own sake, no grade, no worries." So, you don the homework a bit half assed, then turn it in and get an F for 20% of your semester average.

 

That's how I see this thing going down in Florida. There's a reason nobody put much effort into their "homework" down there.

[Pangloss]

I generally agree with that, although I thought it interesting that the ONE phone call I got regarding the Democratic primary (buried amidst dozens of calls from Giuliani, McCain and Romney) was for Barack Obama. Apparently the calls were made by supporters.

 

And this quote from official Obama spokesperson Bill Burton, posted on Obama's web site a couple of hours ago, is interesting: (source)

 

When Senator Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she said that states like Michigan and Florida that won’t award delegates, ‘don’t count for anything.’ Now that Senator Clinton has lost badly in South Carolina, she’s trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred. Senator Clinton’s own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a ‘contest for delegates’, and tonight, Florida awarded zero. Senator Obama is disappointed that Florida will have no role in selecting delegates for the Democratic nominee, but looks forward to competing and winning in Florida during the general election.

 

She said Florida delegates don't count for anything? Then what did Obama say by signing the same agreement? Pfft. I know spin when I hear it.

[ecoli]

I wonder if she'll say that now, since she won 50% of Florida.