*official* 2008 us election thread

[McMaster#28]

so now I guess we're waiting to see who comes out first to give their speech for the night.

Both due to address supporters "shortly"

[LokedOut420]

Having just returned from my caucus site, I will give you a brief summary of how things went.

I arrived at 7:00PM exactly, and the final person to sign in for the caucus did so around 9:00. I didn't stick around to find out the final results, but Obama appeared to have a significant lead in my precint. The way things were set up made it difficult to know the exact numbers, but there were several hundred people at this particular site.

I didn't feel like sticking around for the whole process, mainly because the person in possession of the precious manilla envelope (ironicly enough, the same delusional Hillary supported I mentioned encountering in my earlier post after casting my primary vote) didn't seem to have a clue how to handle the large number of people that showed up. So I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd say Obama won by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

Obama 603,970 51%

Clinton 561,266 48%

Obama 676,367 50%

Clinton 660,987 49%

17% reporting

[Gordon Comstock]

Fort Worth, Dallas, Austin, Houston precincts all barely in.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by LokedOut420:

Having just returned from my caucus site, I will give you a brief summary of how things went.

I arrived at 7:00PM exactly, and the final person to sign in for the caucus did so around 9:00. I didn't stick around to find out the final results, but Obama appeared to have a significant lead in my precint. The way things were set up made it difficult to know the exact numbers, but there were several hundred people at this particular site.

I didn't feel like sticking around for the whole process, mainly because the person in possession of the precious manilla envelope (ironicly enough, the same delusional Hillary supported I mentioned encountering in my earlier post after casting my primary vote) didn't seem to have a clue how to handle the large number of people that showed up. So I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd say Obama won by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.

You should have, she's going to blatantly change it to a hillary 2 to 1 margin

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by LokedOut420:

Having just returned from my caucus site, I will give you a brief summary of how things went.

I arrived at 7:00PM exactly, and the final person to sign in for the caucus did so around 9:00. I didn't stick around to find out the final results, but Obama appeared to have a significant lead in my precint. The way things were set up made it difficult to know the exact numbers, but there were several hundred people at this particular site.

I didn't feel like sticking around for the whole process, mainly because the person in possession of the precious manilla envelope (ironicly enough, the same delusional Hillary supported I mentioned encountering in my earlier post after casting my primary vote) didn't seem to have a clue how to handle the large number of people that showed up. So I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd say Obama won by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.

CNN has been reporting that there are several precincts where they had 50 ballots available and 300 people showed up.

Texas vote now 49% - 49%

[Gordon Comstock]

no worries imo, I think Obama will have done well enough tonight given the barrage of attacks that Clinton has no conceivable way of winning.

just got in from watching the Hawks get dicked by the Warriors btw. they aqg, all of their shots were either lay-ups or threes.

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LokedOut420:

Having just returned from my caucus site, I will give you a brief summary of how things went.

I arrived at 7:00PM exactly, and the final person to sign in for the caucus did so around 9:00. I didn't stick around to find out the final results, but Obama appeared to have a significant lead in my precint. The way things were set up made it difficult to know the exact numbers, but there were several hundred people at this particular site.

I didn't feel like sticking around for the whole process, mainly because the person in possession of the precious manilla envelope (ironicly enough, the same delusional Hillary supported I mentioned encountering in my earlier post after casting my primary vote) didn't seem to have a clue how to handle the large number of people that showed up. So I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd say Obama won by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.

You should have, she's going to blatantly change it to a hillary 2 to 1 margin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the immortal words of Bill Clinton, "Whatever ya gotta".

[LokedOut420]

There was this crazy dude that started yelling that somebody needed to call CNN because he wasn't on the list of people who voted today, which is required to caucus. Was quite amusing watching him wander around complaining to everybody, insisting that something fishy was going on.

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by LokedOut420:

There was this crazy dude that started yelling that somebody needed to call CNN because he wasn't on the list of people who voted today, which is required to caucus. Was quite amusing watching him wander around complaining to everybody, insisting that something fishy was going on.

I think we may be hearing a lot of that.

[gunnerfan]

Hillary to speak in about 20 minutes.

[gunnerfan]

Fox just called Ohio for Hillary.

[LokedOut420]

Clinton now leading in Texas with 29% reporting.

[Gordon Comstock]

Originally posted by LokedOut420:

Clinton now leading in Texas with 29% reporting.

no worries imo, no reports from the massive cities than were going 60-40 for Obama.

I don't see her racking up any more than a dozen delegates tonight.

[gunnerfan]

Hillary now leading in Texas 50% - 48% with 32% in. All of a sudden, foofs are saying Obama has lost momentum.

[Becks]

I don't come in this thread much, do you US guys hate Hillary as much as I do?

[Gordon Comstock]

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

Hillary now leading in Texas 50% - 48% with 32% in. All of a sudden, foofs are saying Obama has lost momentum.

yeah, when that deficit exists after Dallas, Houston, and Austin fully report, then they can say that.

oh wait, no they can't - Obama will rape the caucuses tonight.

[Gordon Comstock]

Originally posted by Becks:

I don't come in this thread much, do you US guys hate Hillary as much as I do?

more.

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by Becks:

I don't come in this thread much, do you US guys hate Hillary as much as I do?

Please...when this is all over, I'm STILL gonna be stuck with her as my senator.

[Andrew K]

Originally posted by Becks:

I don't come in this thread much, do you US guys hate Hillary as much as I do?

That would depend on how much you hate her.

[Becks]

I think that answers my question

[gunnerfan]

Now 50% - 49% for Clinton in Texas.

Texas is a proportional state, anyway, isn't it? So, whether Clinton or Obama wins with a 1% or 2% margin means a swing of - what? - a half dozen delegates?

[Andrew K]

It's not proportional. Delegates are decided by the caucuses, weighted towards turnout in previous primaries. It heavily favors Obama because the Hispanics areas are traditionally low turnout areas.

[gunnerfan]

More chatter about the great comeback by Clinton. But, imagine if the states just happened to be aligned a little differently, so that Ohio was a week or two ago, and maybe Vermont and Ohio were swapped with some of the smaller states Obama won. The perception would be very different, but the reality would be the same.

The fallacy is that this is a linear race. It isn't; it's an episodic one.

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

It's not proportional. Delegates are decided by the caucuses, weighted towards turnout in previous primaries. It heavily favors Obama because the Hispanics areas are traditionally low turnout areas.

I thought the primary and the caucuses were discreet events.

Boy, I always thought New York's election laws were opaque!

[Puedlfor]

I have never seen something that should've been so easy made so complicated and tiresome.

the Democratic caucus was scheduled to last from 7:15 to 8pm, and ended up lasting until 10pm. They had to stop everyone signing in for a moment because they had to run off a bunch more pages from the photocopier. They clearly underestimated what was going to happen.

I'm not sure how the Republicans, if any showed up, caucused because there was not a single parking place within a mile of the elementary school where we were located.

259 people showed up to caucus, and I'd guess at least half were African American. Maybe three people there knew what was going on. I was not one of that three.

Of the 25 delegates my precinct could send to the county convention, we sent 19 for Obama and 6 for Hillary. I am an alternate delegate, but like 10th on the list so it's extremely unlikely that I'll get to go. Don't get me started on the ******** with the delegate and alternate lists - who's name is on there, what should we do with the contact information, does it have to be on special paper, can the delegate chair be the caucus chair or does it have to come from the delegation.

[gunnerfan]

And now, they're talking about Florida again! You knew it was coming.

[gunnerfan]

I refuse to listen to Clinton. I just can't stand listening to her voice.

[Becks]

Can't remember if it was you gunnerfan recommending The Show, I've read a couple of not great reviews of MLB 2K8 so far. If it's the same as last year's, I'm fine. Tell me not to worry.

[Andrew K]

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

I thought the primary and the caucuses were discreet events.

Boy, I always thought New York's election laws were opaque!

Yeah, it's completely screwy. Winner takes all is vastly superior.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gunnerfan:

I thought the primary and the caucuses were discreet events.

Boy, I always thought New York's election laws were opaque!

Yeah, it's completely screwy. Winner takes all is vastly superior. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I kind of prefer proportional, I don't think someone that wins 50.1% (or less than 50% if there are more than 2 people running) should get all the delegates.

[Gordon Comstock]

I'm going to bed.

Obama will win TX 50-49.

Obama will gain pledged delegates on the night.

Clinton will gain momentum.

I will be saddened.

[Meitheisman]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andrew K:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gunnerfan:

I thought the primary and the caucuses were discreet events.

Boy, I always thought New York's election laws were opaque!

Yeah, it's completely screwy. Winner takes all is vastly superior. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I kind of prefer proportional, I don't think someone that wins 50.1% (or less than 50% if there are more than 2 people running) should get all the delegates. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the presidential election I'd like to think we have it right in France, I know it's a bigger country here but 1 person = 1 vote no matter where you are in the country would make more sense imo.

Instead of transforming the number of votes in delegates keep the raw number and just add them state after state, who gets the most votes wins. You can assign the delegates afterwards and force some states to adjust a bit to make the numbers match rather than the whole country.

I'm sure someone will point out that it's not doable here for some weird thing I don't know of

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

It's not proportional. Delegates are decided by the caucuses, weighted towards turnout in previous primaries. It heavily favors Obama because the Hispanics areas are traditionally low turnout areas.

Based on how the delegate allocation was weighted, Obama's people have long been expecting to handily win the delegate count in Texas, provided that the vote was close.

And here, on cue, is Chuck Todd. According to him:

Top end net for Hillary in Ohio is 9, but 7 or 8 is more likely, according to him. Low end for her is a net of 5.

Vermont and Rhode Island are a wash. A net of 3 for Hillary in Rhode Island, and a net 3 for Obama in Vermont.

Todd says Obama could net 3 or 4 delegates just from the primary votes in Texas, and will get more when the caucus is finally tabulated. (Apparently it could take as long as next week to determine the caucus numbers.)

Obama's delegate lead is more than 150, so Clinton's night doesn't make a dent in this aspect of Obama's lead.

[bflaff]

Kos saying that the last votes were cast in Harris county (I think that's Houston) just before midnight EST. So any Euro early birds or US insomniacs still have a long wait before we can call Texas. But Obama is well within striking distance. This might be another Missouri, in that Obama could pip a win at the end, once all the urban centers are counted.

[bflaff]

What do I know? MSNBC calling Texas for Clinton.

Wouldn't mind seeing a repeat of Missouri now.

Obama's winning the caucus, solidly, fwiw.

[bflaff]

Safe to say, this race just got much, much, murkier.

Clinton seems intent on being bigger than the Party, so all bets are off. The pledged delegate numbers favor Obama by what should be an insurmountable margin, but Clinton will try to get Party superdelegates to ignore this number and swing to her instead. There are enough of them that they can surmount Obama's pledged delegate lead and swing the race to her. But this is the proverbial smoke filled room deal that would split the Party and create lasting negative reprecussions.

I think Party leaders will sit back and wait to see what tone Clinton adopts in the next week, but if she starts slamming him like she was doing during the past week, then the Party will need some daddies to step in and restore order.

[Kizzak]

Hillary has about a 100k lead in Texas atm and as a result is seeing a 4 delegate victory there according to the Texas SoS

Houston only has 50% reporting with a 50k difference in vote totals (Obama over Hillary) and Dallas has 71% reporting with a 57k difference in vote totals.

I don't think Barack will win the popular vote, but I suspect he will tighten it up enough that the delegate count is equal or back to a slight barack lead.

[Splendid]

Florida and Michigan japes to ensue.

[bflaff]

Some nice analysis from Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, et al on the late night MSNBC coverage. Discussing what Howard Dean wants to do, Maddow notes that Dean may be fighting two competing interests. One, building up Party organizations in all 50 states, and two, winning back the White House in November.

On the first point, now that Clinton nostalgia is fresh in everyone's minds, we're reminded that Dems got the White House in 92 but suffered steady losses in Congress, and also became a Party that lost its competitiveness in the flyover states, ceding whole sections of the country to the Republicans. Back in the present, Democratic turnout has been incredible in these primary states, and the money and attention being given to the primary states have been fantastic at building up Democratic support structures in places where the Dems were a scattered mess. So having the primaries continue through May and beyond is great for building the Democratic brand in states where it has atrophied.

On the other hand, the longer this goes, the more that the Party could get split over the Presidential nominee, which could fatally hurt the Party's chances at winning back the White House, which, again, looked to be a slam dunk in January.

So the question is: does Howard Dean want to build the Party's infrastructure in 50 states, even if the top prize is ceded to the Republicans? Or is it time to try try and pressure Hillary to step aside for the good of the Party's chances in November?

OTF'ers? Thoughts?

Left unsaid: Is is still possible to get an Obama/Hillary ticket in the fall? Does anyone in the Party even want to discuss it?

[bflaff]

FWIW, the final 12 states left to go are:

Wyoming

Mississippi

Pennsylvania

Guam

Indiana

N. Carolina

W. Virginia

Kentucky

Oregon

Montana

S. Dakota

Peurto Rico

Not a lot of Democratic strongholds there. The three biggest states left are PA, NC, and IN. Strangely, the fourth biggest is Puerto Rico, with a mighty 55, even though it's not in the union. Go Democrats.

And despite tonight's results, the next two states (Wyoming on Saturday, Mississippi next Tuesday) should be easy Obama wins. After that, it's a long six weeks to PA.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by bflaff:

Not a lot of Democratic strongholds there.

Sorry, it's late. This was a reference to the speculation that Dean wouldn't mind seeing the race go on, because it helps build up the Party in places where it isn't all that organized.

[LokedOut420]

Here are some early numbers for the caucuses, with districts listed in order of how many delegates are sent to the county or Senatorial District convention. The first number is the number of county convention delegates decided, while the % is the overall delegate %. How these will break down into the 102 total delegates awarded through the caucus process, I have no idea, but this should give you a general idea. Let's hope my coding skills don't let me down.

Senate District 14 (Austin) - 5,466 delegates

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Obama 2,044 66%

Clinton 1,031 33%

Other 1 0%

Uncommitted 0 0%

</pre>

60% (105 of 174 reporting)

Senate District 23 (Dallas) - 4,487 delegates

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Obama 1,102 77%

Clinton 308 21%

Other 0 0%

Uncommitted 3 0%

</pre>

33% (74 of 220 reporting)

Senate District 5 (Houston and other surrounding counties) - 3,098 delegates

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Obama 587 58%

Clinton 416 41%

Other 0 0%

Uncommitted 5 0%

</pre>

32% (115 of 358 reporting)

Senate District 16 (North Dallas) - 3,066 delegates

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Obama 897 59%

Clinton 608 40%

Other 0 0%

Uncommitted 0 0%

</pre>

47% (93 of 195 reporting)

Senate District 8 (North Dallas, Collin County) - 3,020 delegates

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Obama 944 63%

Clinton 549 36%

Other 0 0%

Uncommitted 0 0%

</pre>

50% (104 of 206 reporting)

Senate District 12 (Denton and Northern Tarrant County) - 2,875 delegates

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Obama 598 54%

Clinton 491 45%

Other 0 0%

Uncommitted 1 0%

</pre>

37% (101 of 272 reporting)

Senate District 21 (Mexican border counties filled with racist illegals) - 2,722 delegates

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Obama 181 19%

Clinton 749 80%

Other 0 0%

Uncommitted 0 0%

</pre>

31% (104 of 327 reporting)

Senate District 26 (Bexar County - San Antonio) - 2,533 delegates

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Obama 260 34%

Clinton 496 65%

Other 1 0%

Uncommitted 0 0%

</pre>

31% (81 of 259 reporting)

[LokedOut420]

All senate districts are reporting now, and the results can be followed here.

[LokedOut420]

Originally posted by LokedOut420:

How these will break down into the 102 total delegates awarded through the caucus process, I have no idea, but this should give you a general idea.

Its actually 67 delegates that are decided by the caucuses.

[LokedOut420]

Based on the calculations provided on the website for the Office of the Secretary of State of Texas, with 86.86% precincts reporting, Hillary only has a 2 delegate lead.

[LokedOut420]

After some quick calculations based on current caucus results, Obama has 55% of the current delegate count, giving him 37 total delegates, while Clinton has 45% of the delegate count, giving her 30 delegates.

Factored in with the current Primary results, Obama looks like he could finish around +5 delegates in Texas.

[Jason the Yank]

This thing's going all the way to the convention. There just aren't enough big states left to deliver a knockout blow to either candidate.

[LokedOut420]

Hillary needs to stop putting herself before the party and bow out as gracefully as is still possible for her.

Obama is set to win Texas in the delegate count, despite the media currently spinning it as a Hillary victory, with Ohio not making much of a difference in overall totals as well.

[Jason the Yank]

Originally posted by bflaff:

Some nice analysis from Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, et al on the late night MSNBC coverage. Discussing what Howard Dean wants to do, Maddow notes that Dean may be fighting two competing interests. One, building up Party organizations in all 50 states, and two, winning back the White House in November.

On the first point, now that Clinton nostalgia is fresh in everyone's minds, we're reminded that Dems got the White House in 92 but suffered steady losses in Congress, and also became a Party that lost its competitiveness in the flyover states, ceding whole sections of the country to the Republicans. Back in the present, Democratic turnout has been incredible in these primary states, and the money and attention being given to the primary states have been fantastic at building up Democratic support structures in places where the Dems were a scattered mess. So having the primaries continue through May and beyond is great for building the Democratic brand in states where it has atrophied.

On the other hand, the longer this goes, the more that the Party could get split over the Presidential nominee, which could fatally hurt the Party's chances at winning back the White House, which, again, looked to be a slam dunk in January.

So the question is: does Howard Dean want to build the Party's infrastructure in 50 states, even if the top prize is ceded to the Republicans? Or is it time to try try and pressure Hillary to step aside for the good of the Party's chances in November?

OTF'ers? Thoughts?

Left unsaid: Is is still possible to get an Obama/Hillary ticket in the fall? Does anyone in the Party even want to discuss it?

No way Hillary takes 2nd. She'd be, what, 68 at the end of 2 Obama terms?

To say nothing of having to take the office that is little more than attending state funerals.