View Poll Results: Democract Primary

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Barack Obama

    37 69.81%
  • Hillary Clinton

    13 24.53%
  • Another Democrat Candidate (and share below who)

    3 5.66%
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 285
  1. #161  
    It's certainly very interesting to watch.

    While dragging on the process is increasing the unfavorables for both Obama and Hillary, it's also bringing out new Democratic voters in droves and the Democrats are dominating the news. McCain hardly gets any attention these days. I'm not convinced that the process has to end up badly for the Democrats. If only they could just stop the negative attacks... then when Obama is ultimately nominated, Hillary, and everyone who endorsed her, has to throw full support to Obama. I suspect that a lot of Hillary supporters who say they'd never vote for Obama would ultimately come around.

    The problem with this idea is that it looks like Hillary is getting more negative, not less. And her relative success in Pennsylvania will probably encourage her to continue what she's done. She still believes she has a chance.

    What I don't get is why they'd design a process like this in the first place. It seems they should try to finish all the primaries much earlier, and schedule the convention in May. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the party has no central power.
  2.    #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    What I don't get is why they'd design a process like this in the first place. It seems they should try to finish all the primaries much earlier, and schedule the convention in May. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the party has no central power.
    It usually does finish a lot earlier. I think in the last 100 years it happened only once before when it comes down to something like this.....it was with Kennedy or something like that.

    According the "Hobbes Political Analysis" there are three reasons why the Dem party are in the spot they are in:

    1) When the State Dem Parties in Florida and Mich broke the rules and changed their Primary dates, they disqualified themselves from the formula that is usually in place. The delegates from these two states could have pushed one or the other over the top of given them momentum to do so shortly after. They knew the DNC rules stated that all delegates will be ignored in a case like this, but they did anyways without any complaints.....that is until they were called on it. This is known as the "shoot-yourself-in-the-foot-and-yell-at-everyone-else-after-you-pull-the-trigger-because-no-one-stopped-you-while-you-were-taking-your-time-to-make-sure-you-were-aiming-perferctly-at-your-big-toe" syndrome.

    2) The way the Dem party has organized the process to win delegates makes it nearly impossible to change the balance of state delegates after a certain point if it is close race. For example the Reps have several states that take all or basically divide the delegates up according to the percentage of votes they got (this is a huge over simplification, but at the end of the day works out close to that).

    The Dems often times do not distribute the assigned delegates to districts based on population but rather by how much Dem Party support that district has. For example in the Penn Primary yesterday there were districts that were assigned 16 delegates when other districts with the same population count were assigned only 3 delegates. The difference? One is more Dem heavy while the other one has more Rep than the first. This then creates the problem that a candidate can win by a land slide with the popular vote but but loose big time with delegates.

    This is what happened in Texas. Hillary actually won more votes, but Obama walked away with more delegates.

    The other side to this coin is that it makes it hard for either candidate to catch up or spread the margin most of the time. In reality, as the last two months of Dem primaries have shown, it ends up that each candidate gets about the same amount of delegates each primary.


    3) The Dem party did recognize that the system they set up could do exactly what it is doing now....not produce a clear winner for their ticket. So they set up the system of Super Delegates to make the final decision when the State Primary Delegate system they put in place fails.




    You add all of this up together....and it looks like the Dem party, whether they realized it or not, set themselves up for the very situation that they are in now.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/23/2008 at 12:54 PM.
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    it's also bringing out new Democratic voters in droves and the Democrats are dominating the news. McCain hardly gets any attention these days.
    You make very good points...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    It's certainly very interesting to watch.

    While dragging on the process is increasing the unfavorables for both Obama and Hillary, it's also bringing out new Democratic voters in droves and the Democrats are dominating the news. McCain hardly gets any attention these days. I'm not convinced that the process has to end up badly for the Democrats. If only they could just stop the negative attacks... then when Obama is ultimately nominated, Hillary, and everyone who endorsed her, has to throw full support to Obama. I suspect that a lot of Hillary supporters who say they'd never vote for Obama would ultimately come around.

    The problem with this idea is that it looks like Hillary is getting more negative, not less. And her relative success in Pennsylvania will probably encourage her to continue what she's done. She still believes she has a chance.

    What I don't get is why they'd design a process like this in the first place. It seems they should try to finish all the primaries much earlier, and schedule the convention in May. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the party has no central power.
    I agree with most of what you've said -- though I think her negativity is exaggerated. Nothing she is saying is even a fraction of what will be said about Obama come October.

    If nothing else being attacked for those things now gives him the chance (if he's the nominee) to prepare defenses and understand the stress of being under attack. The primaries are kinda like preseason football.

    In regards to the primaries and the process -- its always been a mess. But its arguable that its less a mess this year than it seems.

    My major complaints are the way the DNC chose to punish voters for what the parties of MI and FL did. Dumbest move EVER. (and it must be reversed).

    Second -- I wish the caucus states (in most of which there are few democrats and little chance for a democrat to win in November) had not gotten such disproportionate influence on the outcome.

    Its utterly retarded that she wins all the big states -- all the states that she'll need to win, to prevail in November -- but she can't catch up to his delegate count. This was what the superdelegate sytem was originally intended to redress.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    ...2) The way the Dem party has organized the process to win delegates makes it nearly impossible to change the balance of state delegates after a certain point if it is close race. For example the Reps have several states that take all or basically divide the delegates up according to the percentage of votes they got (this is a huge over simplification, but at the end of the day works out close to that).

    The Dems often times do not distribute the assigned delegates to districts based on population but rather by how much Dem Party support that district has. For example in the Penn Primary yesterday there were districts that were assigned 16 delegates when other districts with the same population count were assigned only 3 delegates. The difference? One is more Dem heavy while the other one has more Rep than the first. This then creates the problem that a candidate can win by a land slide with the popular vote but but loose big time with delegates.

    This is what happened in Texas. Hillary actually won more votes, but Obama walked away with more delegates.

    The other side to this coin is that it makes it hard for either candidate to catch up or spread the margin most of the time. In reality, as the last two months of Dem primaries have shown, it ends up that each candidate gets about the same amount of delegates each primary.


    3) The Dem party did recognize that the system they set up could do exactly what it is doing now....not produce a clear winner for their ticket. So they set up the system of Super Delegates to make the final decision when the State Primary Delegate system they put in place fails.




    You add all of this up together....and it looks like the Dem party, whether they realized it or not, set themselves up for the very situation that they are in now.

    yup.

    This district based proportionality system is nuts.

    Proportionality ought be statewide.

    And democratic majority large states should have greater weight and influence in the selection of a nominee.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    If nothing else being attacked for those things now gives him the chance (if he's the nominee) to prepare defenses and understand the stress of being under attack. The primaries are kinda like preseason football.
    Very true... and he is going to need all the skills he can muster once the 527s get rolling!



    My major complaints are the way the DNC chose to punish voters for what the parties of MI and FL did. Dumbest move EVER. (and it must be reversed).
    Too late to reverse it now... MI and FL dem leaders decided to do what they wanted to do and now look like idiots. The dnc had simple rules... fl and mi decided not to follow those rules... I see no reason anything has or should "be reversed."


    Second -- I wish the caucus states (in most of which there are few democrats and little chance for a democrat to win in November) had not gotten such disproportionate influence on the outcome.
    Have to be a dem for ALL the people... not just for people where you "think" you can win. It makes little sense to simply say "I can't win, so that state is not important." If that were the case, obama would have never entered his name into the hat....

    Problem is giving up on states is exactly why the dems lost the last two elections... not because of nadar.

    Its utterly retarded that she wins all the big states -- all the states that she'll need to win, to prevail in November -- but she can't catch up to his delegate count. This was what the superdelegate sytem was originally intended to redress.
    Problem is she won many of the big states, but by slim margins. In addition, she did not even "win" texas... obama grabbed more delegates in TX. ooopppsss...

    Obama has won more states... but she won larger states... obama will get those larger states if he is the nominee and the swing states he has already won... not to mention put some red states into play (even though you say he won't... all good... he might not, but it is fun for me to say it.).

    So NC is down the tubes for Hillary....

    Any predictions on Indiana? Is this going to be her next "I have to win" state?
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7.    #167  
    If it was up to us....how would we fix the Primary process?

    First. Remove the Caucus procedure and go to a Primary vote.

    Second. The thing that I always questioned was spreading out the Primaries like they do. IMHO, this disenfranchises the voters in the states that are at the end of the Primary schedule when historically there is only one valid candidate for their party when they finally are allowed to go and vote.

    Third. I am of two minds on this one. Every state should be assigned the same amount of State Delegates. Then they were distributed evenly among the districts in the state. Then the candidate takes all for that district. Or it could be a split according the the state's popular vote. In other words if a candidate wins 45% of the state's popular vote then they 45% of the State's Delegates.
  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Very true... and he is going to need all the skills he can muster once the 527s get rolling!


    Too late to reverse it now... MI and FL dem leaders decided to do what they wanted to do and now look like idiots. The dnc had simple rules... fl and mi decided not to follow those rules... I see no reason anything has or should "be reversed."
    I fear the Obama side has so sowed the waters with the anticipation of betrayal, that it will be hard to do the right thing and count those voters. I would if I had any influence. I would have acted months ago right after they voted, when it was clear that their votes might be needed. Something had to be done to not exclude voters who had voted in good faith.

    Have to be a dem for ALL the people... not just for people where you "think" you can win. It makes little sense to simply say "I can't win, so that state is not important." If that were the case, obama would have never entered his name into the hat....

    Problem is giving up on states is exactly why the dems lost the last two elections...
    The problem is the disproportionate influence that a small number of voters get in the system of the caucus process. It becomes even more unfair in a place like idaho where there are MAYBE 20 democrats in the state -- and no liberal Democrat has any chance there in November. Yet those voters have MANY MANY times more influence than the people of Fl or MI. Absurd.


    Problem is she won many of the big states, but by slim margins. In addition, she did not even "win" texas... obama grabbed more delegates in TX. ooopppsss...

    Obama has won more states... but she won larger states... obama will get those larger states if he is the nominee and the swing states he has already won... not to mention put some red states into play (even though you say he won't...
    As Hobbes explained -- the stupid proportional delegate allocation sytem -- COMBINED with a nutty caucus system -- allowed Obama to get as many delegates as he did. That result completely misrepresented his support in Texas.


    So NC is down the tubes for Hillary....

    Any predictions on Indiana? Is this going to be her next "I have to win" state?
    I think she'll win Indiana -- by more than expected.

    NC is more like SC -- not good ground for her.
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/23/2008 at 01:34 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    If it was up to us....how would we fix the Primary process?

    First. Remove the Caucus procedure and go to a Primary vote.

    Second. The thing that I always questioned was spreading out the Primaries like they do. IMHO, this disenfranchises the voters in the states that are at the end of the Primary schedule when historically there is only one valid candidate for their party when they finally are allowed to go and vote.

    Third. I am of two minds on this one. Every state should be assigned the same amount of State Delegates. Then they were distributed evenly among the districts in the state. Then the candidate takes all for that district. Or it could be a split according the the state's popular vote. In other words if a candidate wins 45% of the state's popular vote then they 45% of the State's Delegates.
    good suggestions -- I mostly agree with you Hobbes.

    I don't have a problem with the lengthy schedule -- it allows much more to be aired and explored. The primaries are a mechanism to educate ALL voters...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    If it was up to us....how would we fix the Primary process?

    First. Remove the Caucus procedure and go to a Primary vote.

    Second. The thing that I always questioned was spreading out the Primaries like they do. IMHO, this disenfranchises the voters in the states that are at the end of the Primary schedule when historically there is only one valid candidate for their party when they finally are allowed to go and vote.

    Third. I am of two minds on this one. Every state should be assigned the same amount of State Delegates. Then they were distributed evenly among the districts in the state. Then the candidate takes all for that district. Or it could be a split according the the state's popular vote. In other words if a candidate wins 45% of the state's popular vote then they 45% of the State's Delegates.
    I would:
    a) Have people register for one party 6 months in advance.
    b) Compress primaries down to 3 months.
    c) Determine nominee based on national popular vote.

    And while I'm at it, I'd get rid of the Electoral College, and base the Presidential election on a national popular vote as well.
  11. #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I agree with most of what you've said -- though I think her negativity is exaggerated. Nothing she is saying is even a fraction of what will be said about Obama come October.

    If nothing else being attacked for those things now gives him the chance (if he's the nominee) to prepare defenses and understand the stress of being under attack. The primaries are kinda like preseason football.
    Hillary is certainly holding back; she will never be as vicious as we know it will get. The problem for Democrats is that she's raising doubts in the minds of Democratic voters, especially those who support her, about Obama's ability to be President. And she can persuade them in a way that Republicans can't.

    Its utterly retarded that she wins all the big states -- all the states that she'll need to win, to prevail in November -- but she can't catch up to his delegate count. This was what the superdelegate sytem was originally intended to redress.
    Based on the maps at http://electoral-vote.com, you're right. Clinton has a chance of beating McCain in Florida and Ohio, while it doesn't look good for Obama. At the same time, Obama does better against McCain in Michigan than Clinton does against McCain. How Clinton does in New York, California, and Pennsylvania isn't as important because they're not really swing states.
  12. #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I would:
    a) Have people register for one party 6 months in advance.
    b) Compress primaries down to 3 months.
    c) Determine nominee based on national popular vote.

    And while I'm at it, I'd get rid of the Electoral College, and base the Presidential election on a national popular vote as well.
    The electoral college was set up to provide representation to the lower populated states. If this was not in place, a candidate would have little incentive to visit those states.

    The Super Delegates were established so they COULD override the popular vote if they feel it is necessary. Suppose Obama wins the delegate & popular votes, then something else is revealed about him that strongly damages his chances in the fall. The Super Delegates, at the convention, can then override the previous voting to promote another candidate that they feel has a chance to win.

    Kinda late to change that (calls for Hillary to withdraw rather than court the Super Delegates).

    As far as an earlier comment about Hillary being seen as more 'negative', I am wondering if this isn't partially a bias towards 'strong women' that results in the 'B' word to describe them. A guy saying the same thing is viewed as strong. A woman as b..chy?

    Think this country has a ways to go yet before we can claim 'equality' on a lot of issues.
    RJuhl
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjuhl View Post
    The electoral college was set up to provide representation to the lower populated states. If this was not in place, a candidate would have little incentive to visit those states.
    I think candidates would visit less populated states regardless.

    And actually, eliminating the electoral college would put every state in play - encouraging candidates to spend lots of time in even solidly blue and solidly red states.


    As far as an earlier comment about Hillary being seen as more 'negative', I am wondering if this isn't partially a bias towards 'strong women' that results in the 'B' word to describe them. A guy saying the same thing is viewed as strong. A woman as b..chy?
    No, she made a deliberate strategic decision to go on the attack when Obama had vowed not to. Since then, Obama has hit back by talking about the Bosnia incident during conference calls with reporters.

    And more recently, she started airing these two negative ads before the Pennsylvania primary:


  14. #174  
    is mickey or mini mouse a Dem? I think either would be better than a racist or a liar.
    _____________
    Visor -> Treo 650 Cingular UNLocked (Cing. Blue Phone on Orange Network) -> vzw 700p -> VZW Centro (much better)
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    The problem is the disproportionate influence that a small number of voters get in the system of the caucus process. It becomes even more unfair in a place like idaho where there are MAYBE 20 democrats in the state -- and no liberal Democrat has any chance there in November. Yet those voters have MANY MANY times more influence than the people of Fl or MI. Absurd.
    The problem is not the system... the problem is the fact she has not won. As Tiger Woods says, "You put Ws on the board and everything else falls into place." It is a true statement.

    It is not the fact that obama has won in states that has African Americans (which is what you are saying). Obama has won all over America... even in states with very small (less 5%) African American population.

    I'm going to leave this alone.. obviously, we will have to agree to disagree... but I think shifting blame for her failed management style and inability to counter obama's plans explains clearly why she is in this situation. Flip side is obama has not been able to put her under. When he won like 10 in a row, that should have been it.




    As Hobbes explained -- the stupid proportional delegate allocation sytem -- COMBINED with a nutty caucus system -- allowed Obama to get as many delegates as he did. That result completely misrepresented his support in Texas.
    They were both playing under the same rules... I don't get it.



    I think she'll win Indiana -- by more than expected.

    NC is more like SC -- not good ground for her.
    Anyone else for a prediction? lol...

    One for obama winning it.

    One for Hillary winning it by more than expected (although, I'm not sure anyone expects here to win in Indiana... she is currently behind).
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  16. fishera's Avatar
    Posts
    494 Posts
    Global Posts
    495 Global Posts
    #176  
    Wow, lots of posts while I was in class... boy do I need to get full internet on my Treo already. haha

    anyway...

    1.) No, not 8 years old. Close! 11 years old I paid $300 for an unlocked N-Gage. Oh was that exciting. Bluetooth, GPRS, Symbain, memory card slot... so much joy in something so simple compared to today. Back when the USD was not half the value of the Euro...

    2.) I am a liberal at heart and nothing is going to change that. Oh man was I glued to the tele last night, and CNN.com. I appreciate the way they have used AJAX to actually make the results interactive and readable. Penn. going for Clinton hit my like a silver bullet... it felt stunning and was a great refresh to reality.

    3.) Thank you for the compliment BARYE. As for the comment on increasing prices for good services, that does not solve a problem- only creates an economic crisis. Germany post WWI anyone? the Mark become worthless and it cost BILLIONS of papermarks to go buy a cup of coffee for example. Thats what happens when currency is not backed by gold or silver, such as ours which is backed by faith and egotistical stockbrokers. *no offense to them, I love the stock market and all the money it yields... when it yields lol* In addition to that, with commodities such as oil becoming $4 a gallon, people are cutting back in every which way possible. Of course our world is built on oil imports, so that means a rise in food production costs, overall transportation, services and goods, etc. My family does pretty well but we are cutting back... no one can afford a price increase if they do not have the money to spend in the first place.

    Three basic principles to rise an economy... "Peace, Land, and Bread" yes I did just quote Lenin, but he was right in the fact that when the economy is slowing, every industry BUT necessities decreases in value or is decimated. Sad but true.

    Hopefully the "economic stimulus package" will boost our crisis, but as I am, most of America will not spend it out on clothes, or re-invest it but pay off credit card bills and moorage payments. It all goes back to peace, leaving iraq. land, raising the housing market. and bread, which applies to everything consumed such as oil, electricity, natural gas, and of course food production.

    4.) The primaries are an amazing thing in this country, and as a side note I hate caucuses as I am even shocked they have not been challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. But I hate it when people from the Obama camp act like they have this done, like Clinton is over. It is far from over and I think she proved that last night. Spending 1/5th what Obama did in the state of Penn. and still beating him by a few hundred thousand votes.

    I have to say it would be a mistake in some ways to let the process go till September, but it may just be that way. That is putting aside the fact Michigan and Florida have not been counted in and did hold fair primary elections, maybe not on the correct day breaking the DNC's rules, but they did hold them none the less. Florida has a hand full of delegates and so does Michigan *where Obama wasn't on the ballot because I guess he did not see it as needed even though they still voted.*

    My ONE FEAR, and ONLY FEAR is that the Democratic Party is becoming so divided over this primary that McCain will win. gahhh! NO!
    Aaron M. Fisher
    CEO of Sonicfish Consulting
    www.SonicfishConsulting.com

    PDA/ Smartphones:
    Handspring Visor> Sony Clie SL10> Nokia N-Gage> Nokia 3300b> Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 680> Nokia e71> Apple iPhone 3G> Palm Pre+
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by fishera
    As for the comment on increasing prices for good services, that does not solve a problem- only creates an economic crisis. Germany post WWI anyone...
    History is important, but hopefully you will take some business classes.

    Hopefully the "economic stimulus package" will boost our crisis
    Quote Originally Posted by fishera
    I am a liberal at heart and nothing is going to change that.
    Yes, maybe you will always be a liberal at heart.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  18. #178  
    If the democrats feel that the economic stimulus package is so important, then why are those same democrats stating they want to raise our taxes? The Bush tax cuts and the expected tax increases are going to be good for us? You talk about the cost of food increasing? Are you aware of the so-called renewable energy and what resource is being used to make it?

    I do hope you continue to learn.

    Ben
  19. #179  
    remember - if liberals had brains they would be republicans so if he continues to learn he will move to right.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post

    I do hope you continue to learn.

    Ben
    _____________
    Visor -> Treo 650 Cingular UNLocked (Cing. Blue Phone on Orange Network) -> vzw 700p -> VZW Centro (much better)
  20. fishera's Avatar
    Posts
    494 Posts
    Global Posts
    495 Global Posts
    #180  
    The 2001 Bush tax cuts only cut the tax on the very wealthy, 1%, the ones who do NOT need it. The middle class needs them, the ones with no health care, the ones with minimum wage jobs. If you are making a half a million a year or a few million, pay your taxes and don't complain- you can more then afford it! PS: If you support McCain, remember he voted against the Bush tax cuts in congress... read the voting records. Oh, and Obama voted to authorize $300 billion to Iraq in September '07, even under the false intelligence!

    As for history and business- look up the mark. It became worthless because as the value dropped, the government just printed more and more of it. Does this sound familiar? Economic Stimulus package? It hands non-existent money into circulation. Inflation will only increase now that a few billion more dollars with zero backing is being put into our economy. Does that make sense republicans? I can't find a way of breaking it down any easier.

    As for renewable energy. You are aware we pay some farmers to not grow food, right? Why not pay them and have them grow fuel! I am not a strong supporter of ethanol but you can't deny its pretty cool. Electric cars, EV1, bring them back! Better yet, hydrogen cars. THAT is alternative energy for cars. As for in general and the grid. I live in Southern California where it is sunny maybe 340 of the 365 days of the year. SOLAR, WIND, THERMAL, HYDRO! 21st century people, there is no way we can still use a 19th century fuel. Its dirty, its expensive, and it causes too many problems.

    JUST REMEMBER: Bush is a great President, for 1% of the population, and no more!
    Aaron M. Fisher
    CEO of Sonicfish Consulting
    www.SonicfishConsulting.com

    PDA/ Smartphones:
    Handspring Visor> Sony Clie SL10> Nokia N-Gage> Nokia 3300b> Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 680> Nokia e71> Apple iPhone 3G> Palm Pre+
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions