February 5, 2008 Super Tuesday

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Do we know who won New Mexico yet? I'm happy with these results. I agree with those who think Obama could've taken California if the primary was a bit later. There were a huge amount of absentee ballots cast there over a month ago. I think he's gained a lot of support there since then.
 
We don't know NM yet, still about 8% to report in and the margin is very close and Obama has the edge.

I have a feeling it'll stay with Obama because he's done VERY well with the caucuses, but we'll see.
 
U2democrat said:
We don't know NM yet, still about 8% to report in and the margin is very close and Obama has the edge.

I have a feeling it'll stay with Obama because he's done VERY well with the caucuses, but we'll see.

That's good news, albeit a little surprising considering all we've been told about Hillary having the big edge with Hispanic voters. I'm sure she still does, but if Obama can win a state with a large Hispanic population like New Mexico, that's a good sign.
 
Last edited:
Really wish Obama can just pull away. Won't happen with being going against a Clinton though.
 
U2democrat said:
If you look at the map, Hillary won most of the typical blue states.


Obama won the red and battleground states.


This is important when looking toward the General.

I really need to look at the map breakdown. I had read an article that said Obama was doing very well in the typically Red states, but that was before the primaries actually took place. I need to go do that now.
 
Irvine511 said:
what's interesting is McCain. he's all reach, no base. what propelled him to victory was the anti-war GOP vote.

[q]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-mccain-the-favorite-of-anti-war-republicans/

[/q]


fascinating.


Given that the number of people in the GOP who are "anti-war" is less than 20% of the party, no one, in the GOP primaries, is being propelled to victory from their votes, even if one assumes this exit poll(which are notorious for being inaccurate) is accurate.

But if it is accurate, it is an indication that the opposition to the war in Iraq is soft which means you could see many anti-war Dems and Independents voting for McCain in November.
 
Strongbow said:



Given that the number of people in the GOP who are "anti-war" is less than 20% of the party, no one, in the GOP primaries, is being propelled to victory from their votes, even if one assumes this exit poll(which are notorious for being inaccurate) is accurate.

But if it is accurate, it is an indication that the opposition to the war in Iraq is soft which means you could see many anti-war Dems and Independents voting for McCain in November.



i'm sorry your boy didn't do better.

:hug:
 
Sting should be more worried about the fact that the Democratic turnout has been enormous, as have their fundraising efforts.
 
anitram said:
McCain will have enormous problems in the general. Nobody has a better GOTV than the evangelicals. If they stay home, he's toast. If he panders to them, he'll lose the independents.

Have they ever stayed home before? I don't think so. There is going to be one person that is pro-life running, and the other person that is pro-choice and that alone will bring most of them out to vote as it always has for the past 40 years.

Plus, now we allegedly have people who are against the war in Iraq supporting McCain. McCain has a longer history of working with members on the otherside of the isle than anyone in government today, let alone Hillary or Obama. Obama may say that he is a candidate for independents and Republicans as well, but McCain actually has a proven record of bipartisanship in his time in the Senate. Obama does not. That bodes well for the general election where many people will be looking past the wonderful sounding speaches towards substance, experience, and some sort of record. Smart independents may be impressed by what Obama says in regards to bipartisanship, but then they will look at the record and see that Obama does not have a record of bipartisanship while McCain does.
 
Irvine511 said:




i'm sorry your boy didn't do better.

:hug:

I wish he had done better. Minnesota, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee were all supposed to be McCain victories. Still with 559 delegates and clear front runner status, I think McCain can eventually lock up the nomination.
 
anitram said:
Sting should be more worried about the fact that the Democratic turnout has been enormous, as have their fundraising efforts.

I think they have had more open primaries than the Republicans. Its also more of an indication that the base of the Democratic party is currently fired up. The general election will involve a massive number of people who never bother to vote in the primaries. Republicans have money too, although it does not look like Mitt Romney's money has bought him very much. McCain essentially has no money when compared to Romney.
 
Irvine511 said:

The only reason Bush Sr. lost in 1992 was because of Ross Perot. If the evangelicals had stayed home, Bush would have received much less than 38% of the popular vote.
 
Strongbow said:

Plus, now we allegedly have people who are against the war in Iraq supporting McCain.



now, now. let's not get sloppy again and derive conclusions from facts that don't support them.

he got the anti-war GOP vote, which means people who are registered Republicans who vote in the primaries. of the three candidates, McCain is seen as, ironically, the most anti-war candidate, most likely due to the great effort he put into distinguishing himself from Rumsfeld. it's also likely that, despite his rhetoric of a 100 year occupation of Iraq, these people don't really believe it, and everyone knows, as McCain does, that the surge is unsustainable and troops will begin to come home in 2009. the question is not to withdraw, but how to withdraw.

thus, to these people, McCain seemed the most logical choice. if i were voting in a Republican primary, i'd be voting for McCain.

but, in the general election, i can easily see these people going for the Democrat.

easily. these are the low-hanging fruit of GOP voters. easy pickings, especially for Obama.

and, of course, you do realize that it's McCain's history of working with Democrats that causes him to be despised by the base, right? the guy lost the entire south to a creationist baptist minister. McCain has no base. so, for all his bipartisanship, as an overall advantage, it's kind of a wash in the general.
 
Strongbow said:


The only reason Bush Sr. lost in 1992 was because of Ross Perot. If the evangelicals had stayed home, Bush would have received much less than 38% of the popular vote.



compare the 1992 evangelical turnout to the 2000 and 2004 elections. it's not even close. and Ross Perot isn't the "only" reason. it's quick and easy to say that, but that doesn't make it true.

Bush 2 mobilized them to eek out two victories in ways that his father never could.
 
Irvine511 said:




compare the 1992 evangelical turnout to the 2000 and 2004 elections. it's not even close. and Ross Perot isn't the "only" reason. it's quick and easy to say that, but that doesn't make it true.

Bush 2 mobilized them to eek out two victories in ways that his father never could.

From what I've seen and heard Bush 2 portrayed himself, whether true or as a ploy to get votes, much more like one of them. He basically claimed to be a Conservative evangelical. I don't recall ever hearing about Bush 1 doing that, and I haven't heard him refer to himself as one in the years since. I know he is a Christian, but he's seemed to distance himself from the militant evangelicals far more than his son ever has.
 
Washington Post

Romney's Expenses Per Delegate Top $1M

By Jonathan Weisman

Republican campaign operatives call it the Gramm-o-meter, the money a candidate spends per delegate won, in honor of Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator who spent $25 million and won just 10 delegates, or $2.5 million per, in 1996.

By Republican strategist Alex Vogel's calculation, Mitt Romney is giving Gramm a run for his money. The former Massachusetts governor has spent $1.16 million per delegate, a rate that would cost him $1.33 billion to win the nomination.

By contrast, Mike Huckabee's campaign has been the height of efficiency. Delegates haven't yet been officially apportioned, but roughly speaking, each $1 million spent by Huckabee has won him 20 delegates.
 
Obama has more votes right now in the largest counties in New Mexico. The provisional ballots still need to be counted. I don't know who is going to take New Mexico because it is a real close call between Clinton and Obama.
 
Strongbow said:

I think they have had more open primaries than the Republicans. Its also more of an indication that the base of the Democratic party is currently fired up. The general election will involve a massive number of people who never bother to vote in the primaries.

Which likely helps Obama, considering much has been made of his efforts to bring youths into the equation.
 
boston.com

CHICAGO -- Now that the dust has (almost) settled, Barack Obama has won more Super Tuesday delegates than Hillary Clinton, his campaign said this morning. Of the 22 states up for grabs, Obama won 13 states to Clinton's 8. They're still counting votes in New Mexico, where Obama holds a narrow lead.

The delegate victory yesterday, assuming it holds, would represent a significant coup for Obama. Clinton had long been seen as the dominant candidate in the Feb. 5 contests, and she was expected to emerge with more delegates.

But while Clinton captured big wins in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, it wasn't enough to overcome Obama's strength around the country, including in pivotal states like Missouri and Connnecticut. He also did better in Clinton's home state of New York than she did in his home state of Illinois.

"Last night was an outstanding night for the Obama campaign," campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters in a conference call this morning.

According to Plouffe's tally, Obama won 847 pledged delegates yesterday to Clinton's 834, bringing his pledged delegate total to 910. Clinton's overall total, Plouffe said, is 882. But there's a long way to go: It takes more than 2,000 delegates to win the nomination.

UPDATE: Obama, addressing reporters at a Chicago-area hotel this morning, argued that despite feeling victorious after last night, he was still the "underdog," because of Clinton's institutional advantages and broader name recognition. "We are less of an underdog than we were two weeks ago," Obama said, which prompted a chuckle from assembled reporters. "I think that's fair. I think that two weeks ago we were a big underdog. Now we're a slight underdog."

On a conference call with the media this morning, Clinton's campaign aides said they expect neither candidate will have won five or 10 more delegates than the other on Super Tuesday when everything is counted, and they said their current count has them up by one. Clinton aides also touted her success yesterday among late-breaking voters, rural voters, and young voters. And they noted her lead among superdelegates -- the Democratic Party leaders who get a voice in the nomination.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
boston.com

CHICAGO -- Now that the dust has (almost) settled, Barack Obama has won more Super Tuesday delegates than Hillary Clinton, his campaign said this morning. Of the 22 states up for grabs, Obama won 13 states to Clinton's 8. They're still counting votes in New Mexico, where Obama holds a narrow lead.

The delegate victory yesterday, assuming it holds, would represent a significant coup for Obama. Clinton had long been seen as the dominant candidate in the Feb. 5 contests, and she was expected to emerge with more delegates.

But while Clinton captured big wins in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, it wasn't enough to overcome Obama's strength around the country, including in pivotal states like Missouri and Connnecticut. He also did better in Clinton's home state of New York than she did in his home state of Illinois.

"Last night was an outstanding night for the Obama campaign," campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters in a conference call this morning.

According to Plouffe's tally, Obama won 847 pledged delegates yesterday to Clinton's 834, bringing his pledged delegate total to 910. Clinton's overall total, Plouffe said, is 882. But there's a long way to go: It takes more than 2,000 delegates to win the nomination.

UPDATE: Obama, addressing reporters at a Chicago-area hotel this morning, argued that despite feeling victorious after last night, he was still the "underdog," because of Clinton's institutional advantages and broader name recognition. "We are less of an underdog than we were two weeks ago," Obama said, which prompted a chuckle from assembled reporters. "I think that's fair. I think that two weeks ago we were a big underdog. Now we're a slight underdog."

On a conference call with the media this morning, Clinton's campaign aides said they expect neither candidate will have won five or 10 more delegates than the other on Super Tuesday when everything is counted, and they said their current count has them up by one. Clinton aides also touted her success yesterday among late-breaking voters, rural voters, and young voters. And they noted her lead among superdelegates -- the Democratic Party leaders who get a voice in the nomination.

That's an interesting article! I'm with the camp that believes we might not know our nominee until the convention. I would hope it comes before that, but it doesn't look like it at this point. I'm glad Obama is still humble enough to admit he's got a long way to go if he hopes to get the nomination. The biggest mistake he could make at this point, that has been made by countless other politicians before him, would be to believe his own press. As long as he realizes he still has a lot of people to prove himself too, he has a good shot of getting the nomination. The more he lays out his positions, policies, and visions, the more people who may not have committed to a candidate (or committed to another candidate earlier) could begin to get on board with him.
 
U2isthebest said:


That's an interesting article! I'm with the camp that believes we might not know our nominee until the convention. I would hope it comes before that, but it doesn't look like it at this point. I'm glad Obama is still humble enough to admit he's got a long way to go if he hopes to get the nomination. The biggest mistake he could make at this point, that has been made by countless other politicians before him, would be to believe his own press. As long as he realizes he still has a lot of people to prove himself too, he has a good shot of getting the nomination. The more he lays out his positions, policies, and visions, the more people who may not have committed to a candidate (or committed to another candidate earlier) could begin to get on board with him.

:yes: And you know a seasoned politician like Clinton (or, if he does get the nomination, McCain) would take advantage of any over-confidence he may show.

Color me very, very impressed with the success of his campaign thus far.
 
Here's what Harry Reid, Democrat Senate Majority Leader says about McCain temperment:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080206f.html


57486104.jpg



Pulling out his wallet and removing a white piece of paper, Reid told the reporter: "All I have to say about that is this. I have it right here, and you can put it in your little recording devices."

Then, reading aloud, and quoting Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) from an interview last Friday, Reid said: "The thought of him [McCain] being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me."

mccain-mad.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom