BS: Primaries

Subject: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:45 PM

Any results beginning to show?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:07 PM

ABC has called New Jersey and Connecticut, winner-take-all states, for McCain. Romney is taking Massachusetts.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:15 PM

Huckebe took West Virgina at a statewide convention. The first vote did not result in a winner. So delegates from McCain and Paul switched to Huckabe. Romney was not pleased.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:16 PM

CNN has called Illinois and Georgia for Obama and Oklahoma for Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:45 PM

Sen. Barack Obama surged into a large 3:1 lead in the first returns from very early Democratic Party primary voting.

In Indonesia.

Where Obama spent four years of his childhood.

At midnight Tuesday Jakarta time, about 100 members of Democrats Abroad began voting at the Marriott Hotel. Unofficial first returns gave Obama 75% of the vote to Hillary Clinton's 25%. "There is a bit of rooting for the hometown boy," Tristram Perry, a public diplomacy officer at the U.S. Embassy, told the Associated Press.

"It's the first time someone who grew up in Indonesia is running for president," he added. Probably a pretty safe statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:03 PM

Magrath of Harlow has posted a link to CNN exit polls (but I am finding them hard to figure out, hardly surprising as it is 2 am here)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:13 PM

www.cnn.com has a ticker with check marks as the states are projected as won by one or another candidate. You may have to select the American edition. I just checked: the International Edition has it too.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: freightdawg
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:19 PM

MSNBC is calling Massachusetts for Clinton.

Boy, Kennedy really helped Obama there.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:35 PM

I've been calling Obama to take California. When will we know?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:08 PM

I believe it's probably not reasonable to say anybody "takes" anything on the Democratic side--it's proportional. Delegate count and general trend are probably the important aspects.


And we may not know much about California til tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:24 PM

Overall, so far it looks like a close delegate split on the Demo side. So they both move on.
California probably will be close, perhaps a few more delegates to Obama than to Hillary. Another split in Texas, so it's on to the Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:31 PM

Right now there are ten states tending over 60% of votes cast on the Obama side, and seven ending over 50% for HC.

It looks like Obama will end up ahead. California may be key, though and it will be last in with results, except for Hawaii.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:35 PM

Massachusetts was a desperate fight for Hill, and she outspent Obama severalfold in order to fight it. Looks like she did so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:39 PM

As of an hour ago (AP):

WASHINGTON (AP) Ñ Sen. John McCain led the Republican delegate race over Mitt Romney in early results on Super Tuesday, while Sen. Barack Obama was ahead of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
McCain won 97 delegates in early voting Tuesday to 0 for Romney and 18 for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. A total of 1,023 delegates are up for grabs in 21 states.
Overall, McCain led with 199 delegates, to 93 for Romney and 61 for Huckabee. It takes 1,191 to win the nomination at next summer's convention in St. Paul.
Obama had 18 delegates in early voting Tuesday, while Clinton had 11. ..A total of 1,681 delegates are at stake in 22 states and American Samoa....

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:42 PM

From what I read, as long as Obama holds his own today, the schedule from now on favors him.

And the Democrats should realize that many, perhaps most, of the new voters supporting Obama, are not generic Democratic voters--they are Obama voters. They will not come out to support Hillary in the fall if she were by some chance to be picked as the nominee.

Whereas, as I've said elsewhere, the Republicans, now snarling at each other, will come together in November at the perceived common danger: President Hillary Clinton.

On the other hand, Obama will unite the Democrats, get many independent votes, and even some Republicans--Susan Eisenhower is not alone--and get scads of new voters.

None of which Hillary can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:49 PM

10:20 p.m. | More Calls: The Times is calling New Jersey for Mrs. Clinton. The Times is calling Alabama, North Dakota, Minnesota and Kansas for Mr. Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:24 PM

11:14 p.m. | Connecticut: The Times is calling Connecticut for Mr. Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:55 PM

Ron Davies wrote: "From what I read, as long as Obama holds his own today, the schedule from now on favors him."

Please don't make racial remarks here Ron. I can le it go this time, but that's two tonite! I saw you had also posted to the now defunct "Mary Jo Kopechne Thread" and now this. You really should be ashamed of yourself..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: freightdawg
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:55 PM

All Obama had to do was not get clobbered, and he could focus on the next round of primaries and caucuses. He did far better than that (right now CA is leaning toward Clinton, but even if she wins overall, he will get a sizeable number of delegates).

In states where he won, he uniformly pulled 60-70% of the vote. In states where Clinton won, she pulled mid 50 to 60%. Since the delegates are awarded proportionally, she could win all the battles and statistically lose the war.

Her victory in NY was only 17 percentage points. The only clear blowout she had was in AR, and TN was pretty good to her as well.

Bottom line, Clinton should be very, very worried. This is NOT going according to her game plan!

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:18 AM

Spaw-

Have you never heard the expression--hold his own--as meaning stay even?

Physician, heal thyself.

You are reading racial reference--absurdly-- into a perfectly objective statement.

And you are also incorrect on the short-lived Mary Jo thread--where my point was that the thread itself was yet another smear by our resident master of the art. It would require quite an imagination to read race into that.

Please simmer down a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:31 AM

What I've said is a far cry from a real racist statement, as for instance stating that Obama is "white on the inside"--which was said by one of our illustrious posters, for which I took him to task.

We have to be able to distinguish between racist remarks and other language: ordinary English--and satire and sarcasm, for that matter. And if we're not sure about an expression, we should look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:23 AM

LMAO..........and if we're not sure about another 'Catter we should look him up as well(;<))..........Its a joke Ron, relax......just a joke. Almost ten years and 24,000 posts and most of them making lame ass jokes or ragging on someone unmercifully............Ask around and I'll send you a free grain of salt and a whooppee cushion!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:28 AM

Unless I am badly mistaken, Ron, Spaw was doing his own off the wall thimg. Not to worry.

Tonight I participated in a Democratic caucus (The Republicans held their primary at a different location at the same time). For us in Alaska this is a largely symbolic activity- our primary is not until May.

I have no idea how the rest of Alaska balloted; Juneau is much more liberal than most of the state.

But out of 1171 ballots cast in the Juneau caucus, 62& of them went to Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 02:48 AM

Obama got 62 Ampersands? Really Ebbie? Seems to me that it doesn't bode well for him at all if he can't put up any real numbers and only gets 62 Ampersands. Course when you figure that if Ron up there is right, the guy holds himself which probably puts some folks off so an Ampersand may be the best he's capable of under the circumstances. Come to think of it, why do y'all give out Ampersands anyway? You're supposed to be voting ferchrissakes...........

Well Ebbie, let me know if anything changes huh?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:18 AM

The focus on Obama here is absolutely incredible.
He's second in a two horse race.
Isn't that where Bush was when he won his election in the courts?
So where's the "Change"?
C'mon guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:18 AM

MN went 2 to 1 for Obama, and gave Romney the nod on the Repub side.

I still say it will be Clinton v McCain in November.

As Ron has correctly pointed out, Obama isn't winning the Democratic base. Which is why he won't be the nominee.

"New" voters ain't all they are cracked up to be either. Here in MN they gave the governorship to Jesse Ventura. In case anyone is wondering, that one didn't work out too well. And his "new" voters have since slithered back into their snake holes.

You see, so-called Democrats like so many here don't get how to vote. They play prima donna with the whole voting thing.

Want to get the Republicans out of the White House and Congress?

Then shut up, and get in line behind Clinton.

If you don't care if Republicans remain in power, keep cheering for Obama. He has zero chance of beating McCain in November.

To me, the demographics are telling. Democrats are far more sexist than they are racist. But that didn't surprise me. I feel vindicated.

The venon towards Clinton here by the men is the perfect example of what I'm talking about--especially from the Boberts and Rons among us.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:20 AM

Jim - if you had been following this over the past few months it would be clear. Obama has come from being an unlikely candidate to being a real threat to Clinton.

Locally I had been hearing that a 'black man' had no chance in this race, particularly against the likes of Clinton and Edwards, and the pundits, in general, didn't really take him seriously for some time.

To see him as such a front runner is historical - he did not have the advantage of a presidential name to give him a lift either.

Also, as has been said, with the figures to hand he could win more delegates than Clinton, which would put him in a much better position.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:30 AM

jacqui.c, I don't know where you are getting your information that Obama came out of Super Tuesday as the "front runner". No news organization is reporting anything even remotely close to that declaration.

The Clinton and Obama camps both got to declare a non-defeat. That's it.

You may have heard that people wouldn't elect a black man. See my post above yours. Obama captured the male vote--black and white. Black voters are voting for the black candidate. There is simply no other way to interpret their votes.

But Clinton captured the base of the Democratic party, and I am actually encouraged for the first time in a long time, because there is one bloc of male voters that stuck by Clinton: Latino men, whom everyone has said would never vote for a woman.

I am thrilled to see Democratic support still so strong in the Latino community in general (they came out in big numbers too, but they aren't as sexy a voting bloc as Obama's voters, apparently).

Latino voters have a lot riding on this election. Obama's stand on immigration sucks to the point where even McCain's stand on immigration is more progressive by comparison.

The way that will translate in November is, if it Obama v McCain, Latinos are going to vote for McCain and you will see them referred to in future elections as "McCain Democrats".

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:35 AM

Hey, it's time to wake up again, gang!

It does look as if Super Tuesday has proven an excellent test for Clinton and Obama, and they've both survived from what I see. The next round of states should favor Obama but Clinton should catch up when it comes to the big states of Texas and Ohio. If Obama can overtake Clinton in Ohio he'll gain the nomination. Obama needs someone else than Clinton as VP to reinforce his Presidential campaign. But if Clinton wins the nomination, she would be foolish not to invite Obama to be her running mate, and she certainly is not foolish.

On the other hand, with regard to the Republicans, it looks like a decisive defeat for Romney even if he now has more delegates than Huckabee. Huckabee shows a regional strength and a consistent ideological support that Romney has failed to mobilize. That makes Huckabee an easy pick as a running mate for McKain.

Did I miss anything else in my reading of the coffee grounds this morning?

Maine's Democratic caucuses come up this Sunday. The race is expected to be close here as well.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:39 AM

"McCain"

Sorry about that.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:40 AM

And Ron is wrong about Obama's voters refusing to go to Clinton if she wins the nomination. They will, especially the black vote, which will remain firmly in the Democratic column. As a voting bloc, they are going to be badly weakened though, if Clinton comes out on top. If that is the case, the Latino bloc will hold much more power in the Democratic party than ever before--and within the next one or two election cycles, they will be much more powerful than the current Black Leadership Caucus, et al. Their power in the party is beginning to wane.

If there is any message from last night, it is that Clinton has a solid hold on the Democratic base, which either candidate MUST have in Nov to win. Obama? Weeeellll...maybe yes, maybe no.

Here is the thing. Obama is doing brilliantly among the highest educated and richest Democrats--the ones who tend to vote in primaries and go to caucuses. In the general election, that demographic holds far less sway.

MN's Obama victory last night shows exactly that. MN overwhelming supported Obama because they perceived him as an anti-war candidate. MN is extremely anti-war, but loves the warriors. MN hasn't voted for the winning presidential candidate in the general election though, since god left for Chicago. That is the conundrum. MN is very progressive among progressives. But we aren't terribly mainstream.

Or feminist, I might add. Politics is largely a male sport in our state, and the ladies fetch the coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM

Yeah, and how about those Kennedy endorsements for Obama, and knighting him the new JFK.

Not so much, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:58 AM

GG-

But why would MN Republicans line up behind Rumney? I was surprised that McKain didn't get the lion's share of votes in that race. Instead Rumney got 42% of the vote versus 22% for McCain and 20% for Huckabee. Interesting state!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:05 AM

MN Republicans are insane, that's why. We have a Republican gov, who is quite popular & teflon-ish. He is McCain's campaign co-chair.

And when I say insane, I truly mean it. The Repub party here has been dominated for nearly 3 decades by rabid anti-abortionists. Seriously rabid. They went for Huckabee.

As to why Romney instead of McCain? It is pretty easy to see he got the "moderate" business Repubs. We have lots of Fortune 500 companies here.

And nobody knows how to vote their own self-interests better than so-called "moderate" big business Repubs. The recession ain't hurtin' any MN millionaires, I assure you. And we are a pretty affluent state.

Also, MN votes like Mass. does.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:47 AM

We got little for news here.

??

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:23 AM

Just read the news. But it made no mention of California. Did it go for O or C?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:27 AM

GG-

The "real you" does appear to be embedded in MN. LOL

I do believe there have been some "GG clone posts" on Mudcat threads that may not have been yours. Why not sign up as a Mudcat member, minimize such confusion, and stand tall!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:49 AM

The basic situation, Peace, on Weds morning: McCain is breaking into a clear lead, but not a complete wrap yet, with Huckabee and Romney nipping at him as he runs.

Hillary Clinton has the current lead but the margin is slim enough that it is still a one-on-one battle which will probably not be entirely resolved until the Democratic National Convention. Still in play, a number of states still have Dem primaries or caucuses to go, and there are also a lot of "superdelegates" who may slide one way or the other at any time, sustaining the uncertainty of a final resolution until the final pick at the Convention.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:04 AM

Thank you, Amos. (I was in California way back during '68 when Kennedy was killed, so my understanding of the primaries--despite having campaigned for McCarthy for over a half year--is not as good as it should be.}

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:08 AM

Well, it ain't over by a good margin. I will be interested to find out how the situation changes when the good people of the United States learn that Hillary is in the early stages of a late-in-life pregnancy, carrying the love-child of John McCain. So far, the Clintons have managed to keep a complete blanket of silence on this information.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:09 AM

GG - I said Obama was A front runner - not THE front runner. Makes a lot of difference if you read it correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:16 AM

You really have to dig deep into the news articles to discover that Hillary in fact, won.
The media has giving Obama Rock Star status, compared him to JFK and completely downplayed & twisted the fact that he is not winning.
Do not make the same mistakes all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:32 AM

Amos-

Is that astounding news true?

The Clintons certainly have been discrete about this. Maybe Bill doesn't know yet.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:33 AM

If I correctly read the Guardian of today, and combine it with a remark above it is starting to look as if the policy litmus test between Obama and CLinton is whether the democratic voter places more importance on the war or a health service. The rich democrat can afford health insurance, but does not want to get conscripted. The poor democrat knows he runs the risk of conscription, but needs a health service.

I am getting to think that if I were eligible to vote, I'd be voting Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:02 PM

well...it seems as if this (the Democratic side) might not be decided by primaries alone, which means that the "super delegates": party leaders and insiders, who are allowed to change their votes at the last minute, may decide it all by back-room deal making. I sure hope not, as we NEED the general electorate to feel like they made a real difference.

The most interesting statistic I heard last night was that a poll of Democrats nationwide said that when they were asked: "Would you be 'satisfied' if Clinton won?", 72% said 'yes'...and when asked: "Would you be satisfied if Obama won, 71% said 'yes'.

Those statistics are sure reflected in voting as Democrats try to wrestle with the 'problem' of having 2 candidates they mostly like.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:07 PM

Jim Lad:

The reason the media do not declare that she is winning is that the istuation is still too indeterminate. Every story I have read on the subject gives her the lead in presently defined delegate votes; but the undone primaries and the still undetermined disposition of superdelegates leaves the story unfinished.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:14 PM

I woudl like to add this one remark: the reason Obama supporters flock to his campaign is not based on a single issue, such as compared health-care plans or stances on Iraq.

It is because they believe they have found a better human being to support. A person of more integrity, less duplicity, and a higher grade of public honesty than any of the predecessors in play.

They reason, quite correctly, that the most important attribute of the next PResident will not be how he resolved problems posed in 2000 or even 2007, but what kind of mettle he will show when faced with new world developments. None of us can easily forget the dazed, uncomprehending look on W's face as he sat their trying to read "My Pet Goat" and understand 9-11 at the same time. Frankly he looked like someone who had forgotten his lines.

When he did act, he acted unwisely, planned badly, followed through weakly, and lied about the whole thing from both sides of his head.

The BIG lack in the White House for the last eight years has been integrity and vision. Hillary borrows both factors from who ever is nearest or brightest on her radar.

This is what makes Obama a preferred candidate. We need someone with a driving soul, a standard of honesty and the ability to think through bullshit without falling into it. On THESE criteria he is far and away the better candidate of the two.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:15 PM

I don't find it difficult to hear that Clinton 'won'. It's on MSNBC as well as other mainstream news. Last night Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert discussed the implications of the divided votes. They agreed that a clear winner could hang in the balance well into July (after Montana and South Dakota's primaries) and that it is possible that the contest will continue to the convention itself.

They are saying this morning that Obama garnered 76& of Juneau's Democratic vote last night. (Someone moved the % sign, Spaw)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:26 PM

Thanks for that update Ebbie. He is really collecting those Ampersands! I bet no one else has as many. But if he continues to hold himself that may be all he gets....................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:57 PM

Bite thy tongue, M'sieu Spaw.