Wait, so the final vote for the candidate comes down to the party itself?B.Schuss wrote:
btw, at each party's national convention, are party delegates from each state obliged to vote for the candidate who won their state's primary ? Bound by law, I mean. Or can the delegates vote for whoever they want ?
When dealing with real party opposition. Incumbents run unopposed. I am no way predicting Obama will be unstoppable like the op suggest. I'm just saying you seem to be underestimating the IA/NH vote. Since 1972 all but two (McGovern in 1972 and Clinton in 1992) major party nominees won either Iowa or New Hampshire, or both, en route to becoming the nominee.OrangeHound wrote:
OK ... and 4 out of those 5 did not become President (Carter barely got in in 1976)Kmarion wrote:
Five candidates in recent decades won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and each became their party’s nominee: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gerald Ford in 1976, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
Edit: wait? That's all? Most incumbents will win both Iowa and NH ...
South Carolina needs to be given special attention as well. At least on the GOP side.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Considering primary elections since 1972, we have had only 9 open elections (the other 9 are basically guaranteed because they are incumbent or VP ... yes the VP has the political infrastructure to win the primary as much as an incumbent). This means that 2 out of 9 (22%) won neither the IA or NH primaries.Kmarion wrote:
I am no way predicting Obama will be unstoppable like the op suggest. I'm just saying you seem to be underestimating the IA/NH vote. Since 1972 all but two (McGovern in 1972 and Clinton in 1992) major party nominees won either Iowa or New Hampshire, or both, en route to becoming the nominee.OrangeHound wrote:
OK ... and 4 out of those 5 did not become President (Carter barely got in in 1976)Kmarion wrote:
Five candidates in recent decades won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and each became their party’s nominee: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gerald Ford in 1976, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
Edit: wait? That's all? Most incumbents will win both Iowa and NH ...
Hardly an insignificant number, but I'm not trying to say that an IA or NH win is insignificant ... what Obama is doing is indeed significant. However, that does not make him our next President ... nor even the Democratic nominee. Why? Because his political infrastructure has not yet been tested - this is why McGovern won in 1972.
Clinton has, by far, the strongest political infrastructure. Can Obama's pretty face, smooth talk, and a blank record overcome this? I don't know ...
I guess we are pretty much on the same page. However, there is a nationwide attention shift from Clinton towards Obama, and attention is very good.
I said, "I think most people supporting Obama want change. What he is changing (or has changed) specifically no one seems to know. He is a fresh face and that seems to be enough."
We will see I guess.
You said, "American voters are shallow".Can Obama's pretty face, smooth talk, and a blank record overcome this?
I said, "I think most people supporting Obama want change. What he is changing (or has changed) specifically no one seems to know. He is a fresh face and that seems to be enough."
We will see I guess.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The Dems are running out of Ballots in NH? Wtf..lol.
"Secretary of State is making runs to Seacoast – Hampton, Portsmouth – and Southern Hillsborough – Pelham, Nashua – to bring extra democratic ballots. Many towns are reporting shortages"
"Secretary of State is making runs to Seacoast – Hampton, Portsmouth – and Southern Hillsborough – Pelham, Nashua – to bring extra democratic ballots. Many towns are reporting shortages"
Nice turnout for the dems.New Hampshire officials were bracing for a monster turnout in New Hampshire today, but it looks like even they might have been caught unprepared. Here's the screaming headline on Drudge right now: "EPIC TURNOUT FOR DEMS -- We Are Out of Ballots!"
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Gore won in 2000.OrangeHound wrote:
OK ... and 4 out of those 5 did not become President (Carter barely got in in 1976)Kmarion wrote:
Five candidates in recent decades won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and each became their party’s nominee: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gerald Ford in 1976, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
Edit: wait? That's all? Most incumbents will win both Iowa and NH ...
Gore didn't win the Presidency in 2000 ...sergeriver wrote:
Gore won in 2000.OrangeHound wrote:
OK ... and 4 out of those 5 did not become President (Carter barely got in in 1976)Kmarion wrote:
Five candidates in recent decades won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and each became their party’s nominee: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gerald Ford in 1976, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
Edit: wait? That's all? Most incumbents will win both Iowa and NH ...
I mean the prez elections.OrangeHound wrote:
Yes, but Gore isn't on that list.sergeriver wrote:
Gore won in 2000.OrangeHound wrote:
OK ... and 4 out of those 5 did not become President (Carter barely got in in 1976)
Edit: wait? That's all? Most incumbents will win both Iowa and NH ...
Couldn't edit fast enough ... Gore didn't win the Presidency in 2000 ...sergeriver wrote:
I mean the prez elections.OrangeHound wrote:
Yes, but Gore isn't on that list.sergeriver wrote:
Gore won in 2000.
Yeah, he won, but Bush received a Xmas gift from Florida.OrangeHound wrote:
Couldn't edit fast enough ... Gore didn't win the Presidency in 2000 ...sergeriver wrote:
I mean the prez elections.OrangeHound wrote:
Yes, but Gore isn't on that list.
Yes, of course, Gore won in 2000!sergeriver wrote:
I mean the prez elections.OrangeHound wrote:
Yes, but Gore isn't on that list.sergeriver wrote:
Gore won in 2000.
He won the Democratic Nomination, but he didn't win the Presidency. Of course, there are a lot of people who do not understand the political process of how a President is selected in the United States ... they think it is based on a popular vote.BlackKoala wrote:
Yes, of course, Gore won in 2000!sergeriver wrote:
I mean the prez elections.OrangeHound wrote:
Yes, but Gore isn't on that list.
I do understand that pretty well, what I'm talking about is the Florida affair in West Palm Beach or wherever it was. They stole Gore.OrangeHound wrote:
He won the Democratic Nomination, but he didn't win the Presidency. Of course, there are a lot of people who do not understand the political process of how a President is selected in the United States ... they think it is based on a popular vote.BlackKoala wrote:
Yes, of course, Gore won in 2000!sergeriver wrote:
I mean the prez elections.
Are you listening to Democratic spin? Even after the elections were finalized, an independent group demonstrated that Bush won all recount proposals on the table ...sergeriver wrote:
Yeah, he won, but Bush received a Xmas gift from Florida.OrangeHound wrote:
Couldn't edit fast enough ... Gore didn't win the Presidency in 2000 ...sergeriver wrote:
I mean the prez elections.
Besides, Florida is not Gore's thorn in the side ... losing Tennessee was what really cost him the election ... losing your home state is absolutely shameful.
I think it should be. Just imagine what the world would be like if Gore was now president..... world peace! (almost kidding)OrangeHound wrote:
He won the Democratic Nomination, but he didn't win the Presidency. Of course, there are a lot of people who do not understand the political process of how a President is selected in the United States ... they think it is based on a popular vote.
Maybe, but winning Florida and then being stolen is more shameful.OrangeHound wrote:
Are you listening to Democratic spin? Even after the elections were finalized, an independent group demonstrated that Bush won all recount proposals on the table ...sergeriver wrote:
Yeah, he won, but Bush received a Xmas gift from Florida.OrangeHound wrote:
Couldn't edit fast enough ... Gore didn't win the Presidency in 2000 ...
Besides, Florida is not Gore's thorn in the side ... losing Tennessee was what really cost him the election ... losing your home state is absolutely shameful.
Gore didn't win Florida. He didn't win the first count. He didn't win the second count. And, even after the Supreme Court stepped in, he didn't win any of the 3-4 authorized count methods that were after that (done by the independent coalition).sergeriver wrote:
Maybe, but winning Florida and then being stolen is more shameful.OrangeHound wrote:
Are you listening to Democratic spin? Even after the elections were finalized, an independent group demonstrated that Bush won all recount proposals on the table ...sergeriver wrote:
Yeah, he won, but Bush received a Xmas gift from Florida.
Besides, Florida is not Gore's thorn in the side ... losing Tennessee was what really cost him the election ... losing your home state is absolutely shameful.
Believing anything else is living in a fantasy world.
I'm slightly confused why people think Clinton has mountains of experience over Obama. While she was the first lady under the Clinton Administration, the most significant thing she was put in charge of was the 1993 Task Force for Health Care Reform. And, as most of you know, that crashed and burned real nice.OrangeHound wrote:
Clinton has, by far, the strongest political infrastructure. Can Obama's pretty face, smooth talk, and a blank record overcome this? I don't know ...
Just because she was first lady doesn't necessarily mean she'll know what to do. Its like saying I can disarm a nuclear bomb because I dated a nuclear physicist.
And while Clinton has been in the Senate for a few years longer than Obama, she hasn't really don't anything outstanding to show she has more governmental know-how than Obama. If anything, shes had to defend her "experience" throughout the debates.
This doesn't say he won, it doesn't say Bush did either.OrangeHound wrote:
Gore didn't win Florida. He didn't win the first count. He didn't win the second count. And, even after the Supreme Court stepped in, he didn't win any of the 3-4 authorized count methods that were after that (done by the independent coalition).sergeriver wrote:
Maybe, but winning Florida and then being stolen is more shameful.OrangeHound wrote:
Are you listening to Democratic spin? Even after the elections were finalized, an independent group demonstrated that Bush won all recount proposals on the table ...
Besides, Florida is not Gore's thorn in the side ... losing Tennessee was what really cost him the election ... losing your home state is absolutely shameful.
Believing anything else is living in a fantasy world.
She probably has as much experience as a Vice Presidential candidate ... she was involved in much more than the Task Force.Protecus wrote:
I'm slightly confused why people think Clinton has mountains of experience over Obama. While she was the first lady under the Clinton Administration, the most significant thing she was put in charge of was the 1993 Task Force for Health Care Reform. And, as most of you know, that crashed and burned real nice.OrangeHound wrote:
Clinton has, by far, the strongest political infrastructure. Can Obama's pretty face, smooth talk, and a blank record overcome this? I don't know ...
Just because she was first lady doesn't necessarily mean she'll know what to do. Its like saying I can disarm a nuclear bomb because I dated a nuclear physicist.
And while Clinton has been in the Senate for a few years longer than Obama, she hasn't really don't anything outstanding to show she has more governmental know-how than Obama. If anything, shes had to defend her "experience" throughout the debates.
But, by "political infrastructure", I'm talking about direct connections with the party power-brokers, the campaign talent (speech writers, policy developers, event organizers, pollsters, etc.), fund-raising mechanisms, and relationships that owe "political favors" ... derived through Bill Clinton.
The Supreme Court just stopped the second (and any subsequent) recount of ballots.sergeriver wrote:
This doesn't say he won, it doesn't say Bush did either.OrangeHound wrote:
Gore didn't win Florida. He didn't win the first count. He didn't win the second count. And, even after the Supreme Court stepped in, he didn't win any of the 3-4 authorized count methods that were after that (done by the independent coalition).sergeriver wrote:
Maybe, but winning Florida and then being stolen is more shameful.
Believing anything else is living in a fantasy world.
If I remember correctly most of the alternative methods used to recount the votes were actually favoring Bush also. Although they were irrelevant.OrangeHound wrote:
The Supreme Court just stopped the second (and any subsequent) recount of ballots.sergeriver wrote:
This doesn't say he won, it doesn't say Bush did either.OrangeHound wrote:
Gore didn't win Florida. He didn't win the first count. He didn't win the second count. And, even after the Supreme Court stepped in, he didn't win any of the 3-4 authorized count methods that were after that (done by the independent coalition).
Believing anything else is living in a fantasy world.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Once the general public realizes that (1) his middle name is Hussein, (2) he spent two years at a Madrasa, and (3) he voted against making English the official language of the United States, his ass is cooked with 90% of the "get up and go to work from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m." crowd. I'm not saying those things should keep a man from being President (well, maybe #3), but they're going to with the general electorate. No two ways about it. He's going to get up in a debate against some Vietnam vet like McCain, or a former preacher like Huckabee, and all that slick suit charm is going to look like shit when he admits that rocked back and forth while reading the Koran outloud, or that he voted against English.
Those are all crap reasons to not vote for somebody, Dersmikner. #3 is probably the closest to being valid.
Slow down. Right now they're still fighting to get the nomination from their party for the presidential race; we've still got to endure 9 months of campaigning for fewer and fewer people. The primaries and whatnot don't decide who's going to be a candidate, but they do help to decide who won't.B.Schuss wrote:
[well, I guess that's what you get with the US voting method ( electoral college and all that ).
Personally, I find it sad that the popular vote matters so little, but hey, it's your country.
Last edited by DesertFox- (2008-01-08 13:32:38)
because the VP isnt an important position until the president is incapacitated.B.Schuss wrote:
I would agree that McCain is the best republican candidate, but the polling numbers are just not there for him. He placed fourth in Iowa with 13%, and if he doesn't make up some of that lost ground today and especially on february 5th, I have my doubts that he'll get his party's nomination.
considering yourlast point, I would love to see McCain and Obama run on the same ticket though. Why not have a democratic president and a republican vice ?
You know, do what's best for the country ?
I mean, how are you going to unify the nation if it's always democrats against republicans ? How heal the divide ?
Or are american politics to competitive to allow politicians of two parties to work together ?