February 5, 2008 Super Tuesday - Page 19 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-06-2008, 09:40 AM   #361
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 02:28 AM
A lot of establishment Democrats up there.
__________________

U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:09 AM   #362
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 10:28 PM
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.
__________________

U2isthebest is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:13 AM   #363
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 02:28 AM
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 is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:22 AM   #364
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
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.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:29 AM   #365
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 02:28 AM
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.
U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:38 AM   #366
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,438
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Really wish Obama can just pull away. Won't happen with being going against a Clinton though.
BEAL is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:43 AM   #367
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
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.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:01 AM   #368
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.com...r-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 is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:10 AM   #369
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow



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.

Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:14 AM   #370
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Sting should be more worried about the fact that the Democratic turnout has been enormous, as have their fundraising efforts.
anitram is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:15 AM   #371
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
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.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:18 AM   #372
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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

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.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:25 AM   #373
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


Have they ever stayed home before? I don't think so.


in 1992.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:26 AM   #374
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
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.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:28 AM   #375
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




in 1992.
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 is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:30 AM   #376
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

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.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:30 AM   #377
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
McCain essentially has no money when compared to Romney.
Or Obama.

Or Hillary.
anitram is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:33 AM   #378
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


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 is online now  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:46 AM   #379
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 02-06-2008, 11:56 AM   #380
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:28 PM
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.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×