Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[cartman]

Something thing to keep in mind for Texas is that even in the primary, delegates aren't assigned by statewide popular vote. Each of the state Senate districts has delegates assigned to them by the Democrats based on how many people in those districts voted for Kerry in the 2004 election and Chris Bell in the 2006 Governor's race. Some districts have as few as 2 delegates while a couple of others have 8 assigned to them.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by cartman

Go here:

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/

and click on State House Districts. It'll open up a new window that will allow you to zoom in. Hidalgo County looks to be split up pretty good, with a couple of streets I see belonging to three different districts!

Thanks, that cleared it up some. It annoys me because my district makes no sense, but then again they clearly want that I guess. I am in district 41, about 100 yards from district 40. My neighbor's brother is running in 40, so his other brother must be the one who lives on the street next to me. I don't like my district, the good people to hate are in 39.

[cartman]

My caucus was pretty subdued. We had about 40 people show up, and since I live in a rural area, I think that might have been every Democrat in the area. We signed in, counted up the preferences, and passed a couple of motions to bring to the next level of convention, one regarding the current investigation into our electrical co-op, and another about lack of oversight of the Tx DOT regarding several large projects in our county. It was all over and done in about 45 minutes.

Contrast that to near chaos in some precincts in Austin. The local paper is reporting that cops even had to be called to one.

http://www.statesman.com/

[Jas_lov]

Hillary Clinton has defeated Barack Obama in the great state of Ohio.

[bhlloy]

So Hilary wins by 10+ in OH and looks like she might get a 3-5% win in Texas. IMO, she's still got a good shot.

[Cringer]

Well crap. I really don't want Hillary to be President as of right now, even though the wife voted for her. I was hoping the door would be shut on her tonight. Oh well, I won't be real happy with anyone in the two major parties.

[Cringer]

Hillary Clinton is winning my region of Texas 3-1 over Obama. Expected I guess.

[Vegas Vic]

Did I just hear that no candidate, democrat or republican, has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio in their party's primary. If so, that must bode well for John McCain.

[Cringer]

My wife and I just realized that we screwed ourselves.

We voted in the primaries, so we are no longer aloud to sign the petition to get Nader on the ballot. Texas blows. I should have known that so I kick myself for it though.

[SFL Cat]

I think it's going to come down to an grudge oil-wrestling match between Hillary and Obama at the convention.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

So Hilary wins by 10+ in OH and looks like she might get a 3-5% win in Texas. IMO, she's still got a good shot.

We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how many delegates she picked up. Obama was already up by more than 100. She may have only picked up about 30 depending on how things finish up. Obama can pick some of those back up with wins in Wyoming and Mississippi. It sounds like Hillary is going to go on through Pennsylvania at least. I still don't think she has a good shot, but we'll have a clearer picture when we find out her delegate gain.

[Galaril]

Wow I am really actually am shocked that Clinton won Ohio and TX. I will officially be voting for the Republican candidate though I have been a lifelong Democrat and a fairly strong supporter of both his message and way Obama has run his campaign. I won't be giving the Clinton mafia my vote in November being now I suspect they will eventually take the dem nom. Clinton only won today because of using the fear bomb, muslim bomb, and race bombs (indirectly) as well as a bunch of dirty policitcs that the Clinton's only a month ago accused Bush and the republicans of resorting to time and again. All Hilary did was give the election to the Reps for the next twenty years as many of the younger Obama supporters will be turned jaded by this whole mudslinging of there candidate by the Cintons. The republicans who voted today just to get the "weaker" opponent might be assholes but they are clever assholes know the less.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how many delegates she picked up. Obama was already up by more than 100. She may have only picked up about 30 depending on how things finish up. Obama can pick some of those back up with wins in Wyoming and Mississippi. It sounds like Hillary is going to go on through Pennsylvania at least. I still don't think she has a good shot, but we'll have a clearer picture when we find out her delegate gain.

No way she picks up 30. At most it'll be half of that. It should shake out pretty close to this:

Ohio: Hillary +10
Rhode Island: Hillary +3
Texas: Hillary +1
Vermont: Obama +3

So that is a net gain of 11.

[Vegas Vic]

Clinton has not won Texas. Metropolitan Dallas and Houston have less than 30% of their vote tallied, and Obama is beating Clinton 3 to 2 in those areas.

[Jas_lov]

Good work on the math. 11 or anything close to that obviously isn't enough. Momentum schmomentum. Hillary isn't going to win enough delegates from Obama in states like N.C., S.D., Mississippi, Wyoming, Oregon, and so on. This probably just delays the inevitable as we said earlier today and the night gets even better for John McCain.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Clinton has not won Texas. Metropolitan Dallas and Houston have less than 30% of their vote tallied, and Obama is beating Clinton 3 to 2 in those areas.

And like I mentioned in the post at the top of this page, statewide vote isn't what determines delegate allocation. Certain areas get more delegates based on how they voted for the Democratic candidates in the 2004 Presidential and 2006 Gubernatorial elections. Two-thirds of the available delegates are assigned this way, and the other one-third are assigned from the results of tonight's caucuses. So yes, in effect, you can vote twice in one day for a candidate.

[st.cronin]

I think the Republicans voting for Clinton were not doing so to ensure Clinton's nomination, since I think its not at all clear that Obama is a stronger GE candidate, but instead were hoping to ensure a nomination fight, including possibly a bloody convention fight.

[SFL Cat]

Of course, the Clinton camp will undoubtedly try to get the votes counted in the states she won that were disallowed delegates because they held their primaries early without approval from the Democratic Party.

After all the flap about "votes not being counted" during the past two presidential elections, I don't see how the Dems can ultimately deny those states their delegates.

[st.cronin]

By the way, could the Texas Democratic Primary BE any more complicated????

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the Republicans voting for Clinton were not doing so to ensure Clinton's nomination, since I think its not at all clear that Obama is a stronger GE candidate, but instead were hoping to ensure a nomination fight, including possibly a bloody convention fight.

Yep... if Clinton was up by just 100, they'd be voting for Obama in droves.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Of course, the Clinton camp will undoubtedly try to get the votes counted in the states she won that were disallowed delegates because they held their primaries early without approval from the Democratic Party.

Those states will redo their primaries before the democratic convention. Shutting out Michigan and Florida would be political suicide for the democratic party in the general election.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the Republicans voting for Clinton were not doing so to ensure Clinton's nomination, since I think its not at all clear that Obama is a stronger GE candidate, but instead were hoping to ensure a nomination fight, including possibly a bloody convention fight.

There were scattered reports from today that many people that did this were surprised when they were told after voting for Hillary that they couldn't also vote for the non-Presidential candidates in the Republican primary. I also don't see these cross-over voters coming back to caucus tonight.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Those states will redo their primaries before the democratic convention. Shutting out Michigan and Florida would be political suicide for the democratic party in the general election.

Hmm, I have heard that there are various reasons why this won't be possible.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

By the way, could the Texas Democratic Primary BE any more complicated????

Not sure if this will make things any clearer. It spells out in detail how the process works.

http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/interim/int80-3.pdf



Here's the part on how they apportion the delegates:

Pledged delegates apportioned by primary vote.

A total of 126 delegates will be apportioned to the
presidential candidates based on the March 4 primary
vote in each state senatorial district. Delegates are
allocated among the 31 districts according to a formula
that takes into account each district’s vote for Democratic
nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election
and for Democratic nominee Chris Bell in the 2006
gubernatorial election. The 126 slots are allocated as
follows:

Two: District 31
Three each: Districts 6, 7, 9, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30
Four each: Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16,
18, 19, 20, 21, 26
Five each: Districts 10, 17
Six each: Districts 23, 25
Seven: District 13
Eight: District 14

In each senatorial district, delegates are apportioned
among presidential candidates who receive at least 15
percent of the primary vote in the district. If no candidate
receives 15 percent of the district vote, the threshold for
receiving delegates is reduced
to the percentage received by
the district’s plurality winner,
minus 10 percentage points. For
example, if the top vote-getter
in a district received 12 percent
of the vote, the threshold for
receiving delegates would be 2
percent. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats do not
apportion any delegates to presidential candidates based
on the statewide results of the primary election.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Hmm, I have heard that there are various reasons why this won't be possible.

Don't know about Michigan, but I know Florida is trying to get it done.

And I think Vic is right, if the Dems snub Florida and Michigan, the can kiss any shot at the Presidency goodbye in the GE.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by cartman

There were scattered reports from today that many people that did this were surprised when they were told after voting for Hillary that they couldn't also vote for the non-Presidential candidates in the Republican primary. I also don't see these cross-over voters coming back to caucus tonight.

I didn't know about it before, but figured it out pretty quickly when I got there. I don't like it because the Valley here is pretty much democratic, so the local/state races pretty much come down to the democratic primaries.

Still, the big kicker is I screwed up and voted at all, since I can't sign for any third party candidates to get on the November ballot. Again, Texas blows.

[cartman]

Here's an official link showing the discrepancy between statewide vote and number of delegates assigned. It is from the Texas Sec. of State's office. Hillary is up by about 3 percentage points, but Obama has two more delegates.

http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_state.htm (continually updated as more votes come in)

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

And I think Vic is right, if the Dems snub Florida and Michigan, the can kiss any shot at the Presidency goodbye in the GE.

If they redo them, Clinton would be favored in both, although certainly not a shoe-in. She is up by double digits in recent Pennsylvania polling (a state similar to Ohio demographically). If she holds on to win Texas, then the only large state (150+ delegates) that Obama will have won will be his home state of Illinois.

This thing is going all the way to the convention, and it's going to be a blood bath.

[SFL Cat]

It will be interesting to watch...that's for sure.

[bhlloy]

If Obama loses by 10+ in PA and fades in the remaining significant states, it will be very interesting to see how many of those superdelegates that are making noises about him end up realising that they really want to vote for a Clinton. Do not underestimate the old boys network at work, no matter how much people got caught up in the 11 straight Obama hype.

It's going to get messy, that is for sure. And that's even before you consider potential pressure/controversy/legal wrangling over Michigan and Florida. McCain has got to be laughing right now.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

If they redo them, Clinton would be favored in both, although certainly not a shoe-in. She is up by double digits in recent Pennsylvania polling (a state similar to Ohio demographically). If she holds on to win Texas, then the only large state (150+ delegates) that Obama will have won will be his home state of Illinois.

This thing is going all the way to the convention, and it's going to be a blood bath.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-240.html

Actually in the most recent Pennsylvania poll, Hillary was only up by 4%. The poll before that she was up by 6%. RCP average has her up 9% so I'm not sure where you got these misleading numbers from. The rcp average is even misleading as 2 of the 4 polls go back to before Obama's sweep on February 19th. Here is a list of the remaining states:

Wyoming
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Guam
North Carolina
Indiana
West Virginia
Oregon
Kentucky
Montana
South Dakota
Puerto Rico

There's just not enough left for Hillary to win, even with a 10% win in Pennsylvania. Obama will win Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, and who knows about the rest. A 150 delegate deficit is too much to overcome. Hillary Clinton is hanging on with no real shot of winning. She is the new Mike Huckabee.

[Vegas Vic]

Regardless of what happens, the democrats are in some fairly serious trouble heading into the general election. 25% of Clinton's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain, and 10% of Obama's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain. I suspect those numbers will increase with time.

[Jas_lov]

How many McCain supporters say they would seriously consider voting for Obama or Hillary?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

How many McCain supporters say they would seriously consider voting for Obama or Hillary?

Seriously? Not many.

I have found that most Republicans I know stick to their party lines through thick and thin.

But then again, why would McCain supporters consider voting for anyone but McCain?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

How many McCain supporters say they would seriously consider voting for Obama or Hillary?

It's a different comparison.

25% of Clinton's supporters would seriously consider voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and 10% of Obama's supporters would seriously consider voting for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Seriously? Not many.

I have found that most Republicans I know stick to their party lines through thick and thin.

But then again, why would McCain supporters consider voting for anyone but McCain?

He should have made it more clear or just posted the damn source to his numbers. The Democrats certainly don't benefit by having this drag out for 3 more months. But to say that the Democrats are in serious trouble or that they don't have the advantage in this election is just silly. I think someone earlier today gave a bunch of reasons why. If the Democrats manage to lose this election, they might as well quit all together.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

He should have made it more clear or just posted the damn source to his numbers.

Those numbers were discussed on CNN's election coverage tonight, and the accuracy could certainly be questionable.

As for me, I don't have a dog in the fight. I've voted in every election since 1988, and this is the first time in my life I'll be voting for a republican presidential candidate. I would have voted for Richardson or Biden, but once it came down to Clinton, Obama and McCain, it was a fairly easy choice for me.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Those numbers were discussed on CNN's election coverage tonight, and the accuracy could certainly be questionable.

As for me, I don't have a dog in the fight. I've voted in every election since 1988, and this is the first time in my life I'll be voting for a republican presidential candidate. I would have voted for Richardson or Biden, but once it came down to Clinton, Obama and McCain, it was a fairly easy choice for me.

Obama?

[Neon_Chaos]

I find it amazing that if Hillary becomes the President, the US will have been under a Clinton or a Bush administration for 6 terms since 1988.

As it is, the US Presidency has been under either clan for the past 20 years!

[SFL Cat]

Wait 'til Jeb runs.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Regardless of what happens, the democrats are in some fairly serious trouble heading into the general election. 25% of Clinton's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain, and 10% of Obama's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain. I suspect those numbers will increase with time.

Dude, just stop. You're like the Mizzou B-Ball Fan of this thread.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Dude, just stop. You're like the Mizzou B-Ball Fan of this thread.

Actually, he's right. This is going to end in a bloodbath. Pretty much what I expected to happen, did happen last night. Hillary got Ohio, she edged Texas in a coin flip. She made up about 35 delegates or so depending on how the final numbers turn out.

See my analysis above of how tough it'd have been for Hillary to win if she had taken a +70 delegate advantage. +35? Brutal. But, she's won the big states.

She needs to take 62 to 63% of the remaining vote for the dems now. Yet she's going to spin this off as a victory and bash Obama sensless ahead of PA. She'll probably win PA too. But she has virtually no chance of getting the delegate lead. Neither candidate will have enough delegates to lock the nomination so now it's going to go to the super delegates.

If Obama wins the overall popular vote and delegates (both almost assured) and the super delegates side with Hillary in a back room deal? We don't even have to bother with a GE. McCain will win going away. The dems will spend the next decade rebuilding the damage caused by the disenfranchised voters, especially the african american vote. If Obama gets it at that point? They have a chance, but the Hillary supporters are rabid and it is no slam dunk that they go to Obama. A large percentage of them will defect. Look at Hillary's own message and quotes which have been said about twenty times the last two weeks "If the phone rings at 3AM and I answer it, we're good. If McCain answers it, wer're good. If Obama answers it, I dunno."

If Hillary gets the message through that Obama isn't experienced enough to these people and says that McCain is, what do you think is going to happen in the GE? McCain isn't your typical Bible thumping Republican. The dems bitter "their" candidate lost aren't looking at turning to Bush 3. They are looking at a guy many Reps. dislike because he's so centrist and has went against the party line countless times. If you honestly think there won't be mass defections if this thing gets as bloody as I think it will, you are crazy.

Hillary isn't taking the next 16 states (or MI or FL) at 60-62%. It's simply not going to happen. She has no shot of catching Oboma in the delegate count at this point. She's going to try to rely on back room dealings and the super delegates. As I said above, if she wins, she ensures the dems lose the GE yet again. (just my opinion, I could be wrong)

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Did I just hear that no candidate, democrat or republican, has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio in their party's primary. If so, that must bode well for John McCain.

That makes sense -- I'd imagine that most primaries aren't very interesting by this time of year, anyway.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Regardless of what happens, the democrats are in some fairly serious trouble heading into the general election. 25% of Clinton's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain, and 10% of Obama's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain. I suspect those numbers will increase with time.

I have been getting that over the past 2 weeks in reading many of the strident comments made by Clinton supporters to the news blogs. The common theme was that Sexism is trumping Racism in America and they were pissed about that. Despite the still high negatives for the Clintons, there are a statistically siginificant percentage of Clinton supporters (particularly middle/older white women) that will not vote for a black man. Also included would a segment of the Latino population and good percentage of the Asian population. They will tend to stay home instead.

With what you have seen with the Obama surge/coverage, do you believe that there is a great deal of sexist attitudes involved?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by cartman

No way she picks up 30. At most it'll be half of that. It should shake out pretty close to this:

Ohio: Hillary +10
Rhode Island: Hillary +3
Texas: Hillary +1
Vermont: Obama +3

So that is a net gain of 11.

Looks like I was way off in Texas and Ohio. She's +16 in Ohio and +4 in Texas (primary only, no caucus). So net gain of 20.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Regardless of what happens, the democrats are in some fairly serious trouble heading into the general election. 25% of Clinton's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain, and 10% of Obama's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain. I suspect those numbers will increase with time.

I'm a Clinton supporter and if Obama gets the nod, I'd seriously consider voting McCain (forget seriously consider, I'll most likely do it).

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by cartman

Looks like I was way off in Texas and Ohio. She's +16 in Ohio and +4 in Texas (primary only, no caucus). So net gain of 20.

That'd be complete disaster. Move up the percentages by another one or two now. She has to win at a 64 to 66% clip. Does anyone in their ever lovin minds think Hillary is going to win 16 consecutive states 64 to 36?

If she went +20, it goes from improbable of getting the lead to impossible. It's not happening. The only way she can win now is by back room dealings with the super delegates. If she had any humility at all, she'd get out now. She won't.

[ISiddiqui]

Why not hold out for a deal in a brokered convention (such as giving her Senate Majority Leader) rather than just back out now?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why not hold out for a deal in a brokered convention (such as giving her Senate Majority Leader) rather than just back out now?

maybe President of the Senate?

[ISiddiqui]

President Pro Tem has usually very little power and is given to the most senior member of the Majority Party.