So Hillary won afterall?

[Perfessor]

She won almost 3 times the delegates including superdelegates whatever those are. Clinton 175, Obama 75 and Edwards 46 delegates. So why did anyone vote?

[Craig Vecchione]

I don't know. I'm just waiting to hear the Ron Paul supporters rationalize his results.

[ThudMaker]

I don't know. I'm just waiting to hear the Ron Paul supporters rationalize his results.

Bump to top. I want to know why the number one guy bringing in the dough wasn't number one in actual votes, too. As a matter of fact far from it.

[Bluescout]

WTF are we talking about? Doesn't the news say Obama won the caucus thingey?

[Captain Fathead]

 

WTF are we talking about? Doesn't the news say Obama won the caucus thingey?

 

 

From what I can gather (and my US election knowledge is rusty, haven't really studied it since highschool), Obama did win Iowa but Hillary's leading everywhere else. Could be waaaay off base though.

[ThudMaker]

OK. Let me try to wear off the rust in my head about party conventions. He won the voting. What he didn't win was the delegates. The delegates are those who go to the convention and state by state give their support. I would say based upon the voting versus what this report says, the delegates will have a lot of explaining to do. My guess is that there is a process in place in IA to corrrect the difference.

[Bluescout]

From what I can gather (and my US election knowledge is rusty, haven't really studied it since highschool), Obama did win Iowa but Hillary's leading everywhere else. Could be waaaay off base though.

 

Ahh... I was under the impression that winning was winning and leading was simply leading. I didn't get the memo on "leading = winning". :poke:

[toolbar]

 

Bump to top. I want to know why the number one guy bringing in the dough wasn't number one in actual votes, too. As a matter of fact far from it.

 

 

'cause Iowa don't mean nuthin'. :poke:

[ThudMaker]

'cause Iowa don't mean nuthin'. :poke:

Come back and explain that when there's no better showing in NH, SC or Florida, too.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

'cause Iowa don't mean nuthin'. :poke:

 

 

There's truth there. Paul did better than Giullianni, but then, Rudy didn't even show up, preferring to focus on some of the later primaries.

[Rowka]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY742M_s1ttD_ycf2Zusn1o1fD3QD8TV5PSO0

 

 

Clinton Leads Delegate Race By The Associated Press

[Perfessor]

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY742M_s1ttD_ycf2Zusn1o1fD3QD8TV5PSO0

 

 

The results I stated were from Yahoo news this morning. It must have been updated results. Yep, it's delegates that win. They can jump to another candidate, though, but they most often don't do that. Superdelegates are often rewarded with positions in government. The beat goes on.

[ThudMaker]

There's truth there. Paul did better than Giullianni, but then, Rudy didn't even show up, preferring to focus on some of the later primaries.

I was specifically talking about Paul. He's supposedly getting huge amounts of dough according to the news and his supporters here. My point is that RP is not going to do any better anywhere else at least the way I see it going down.

[lug]

*****

The Democratic National Committee has allotted states a total of 797 superdelegates to the party's national convention this summer. Those delegates, mainly members of Congress, other elected officials and DNC members, are free to support any candidate at the convention, regardless of the outcomes of the primaries and caucuses. .......A total of 2,026 delegates is needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

*****

 

So in essence, the DNC can "stack the deck", basically ignoring the voters and put whomever they want in the nomination seat.....sweeeeeet.

[Bluescout]

 

***** The Democratic National Committee has allotted states a total of 797 superdelegates to the party's national convention this summer. Those delegates, mainly members of Congress, other elected officials and DNC members, are free to support any candidate at the convention, regardless of the outcomes of the primaries and caucuses. .......A total of 2,026 delegates is needed to secure the Democratic nomination. ***** So in essence, the DNC can "stack the deck", basically ignoring the voters and put whomever they want in the nomination seat.....sweeeeeet.

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget the to-be-named uber-delegates, extra-super-delegates, super-duper delegates, and the awe inspiring tripple-cheeseburger-with-mushrooms-delegates....:poke:

[burdizzos]

Apparently Ron Paul is saving all of his campaign money for the states where he has a better chance.

 

 

I can't find a source to show how much he actually spent in Iowa, but he sat out Iowa much like Rudy did.

[rcz]

i read this as media rationalizing why they've focused so many resources on a candidate.

 

"so what if she didn't win iowa, she'll still get the nomination, anyway. and we'll make sure everyone knows it, so they don't jump ship."

 

here in michigan, you do not have to register for a party in order to vote in that party's primary. so as a libertarian, i can still vote for ron paul in the republican primary without officially claiming to be with the enemy. there is also much talk of democrats voting for paul, too, to put the republican machine in disarray. i doubt that will happen, as republicans didn't do so in 2004 when bush was the incumbent.

 

i find it refreshing, and i think that is why ron paul is focusing his energy more on states like michigan than iowa. the caucus is a bizarre ritual, and not nearly as indicative as new hampshire, south carolina, or other early primaries.

 

robb.

[ezstep]

Vaguely reminiscent of the 2000 election, when Dems were admitting that the elected delegates could, of course, vote for whichever candidate that they wanted, no matter the outcome of their particular state election, and they were trying to sway the vote a particular way. But, why go through the hassle if the delegates (and superdelegates) can vote for whomever they choose and not whomever that state chooses?

 

How political! And quite expensive.

 

"I won. No, I won. No, I am still winning." Perhaps Swift was correct - break out the tightropes.

[ThudMaker]

Apparently Ron Paul is saving all of his campaign money for the states where he has a better chance. I can't find a source to show how much he actually spent in Iowa, but he sat out Iowa much like Rudy did.

That could very well be. I do think he should have tried a bit harder in Iowa, though. It would have made the networks cover his campaign and his stance on issues more. Even if he just beats Thompson or McCain there it would have been worth it, IMHO. Huckabee needed Iowa to try to get more exposure for more cash. My guess is that he'll flame out due to lack of fundage amongst several other reasons, but you never know.

[burdizzos]

I'm expecting a pretty big push in NH for Ron Paul. It is home of the Free State Project, which means that there are at least 8000 very motivated, wealthy Ron Paul supporters.

 

I think that winning 10% in Iowa is pretty darned good, given his stance on the Ag Bill.

[Bass8987]

Apparently Ron Paul is saving all of his campaign money for the states where he has a better chance. I can't find a source to show how much he actually spent in Iowa, but he sat out Iowa much like Rudy did.

 

Yeah, I heard from another site he will be spending more money in NH. Ron Paul didn't really have a chance in Iowa to begin with. It was pretty obvious Huckabee was gonna win in Iowa.

 

Here is his new TV ad that just came out

1qVmVJJaLkM

 

The bodybuilding.com link in my sig has up to the minute news on Ron Paul

[Emprov]

 

My guess is that he'll flame out due to lack of fundage amongst several other reasons, but you never know.

 

I dunno, Republicans like conservative candidates and Huckabee is the more conservative of the big three. Personally, I think that Rudy's too liberal for Republicans to nominate him, it'll be a two horse race between Mitt and Huck IMO.

[georgestrings]

 

there is also much talk of democrats voting for paul, too, to put the republican machine in disarray.

 

 

 

No offense, but I haven't heard of one single Democrat talking about voting for Ron Paul - sounds pretty doubtful...

 

 

 

- georgestrings

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Let's not forget the to-be-named uber-delegates, extra-super-delegates, super-duper delegates, and the awe inspiring tripple-cheeseburger-with-mushrooms-delegates....:poke:

 

 

I suppose you don't know about the Double Secret Delegates.

[ThudMaker]

I dunno, Republicans like conservative candidates and Huckabee is the more conservative of the big three. Personally, I think that Rudy's too liberal for Republicans to nominate him, it'll be a two horse race between Mitt and Huck IMO.

I kind of see it playing out that way, too. I'm irritated that Huckabee went negative with Romney. All he needed to do was explain the humanitarian reason how and why of his stance on illegals and their education while governor of AR. Why did he raise taxes? How did that help or hurt Arkansas? How is it that he's getting hammered over pardons, but he also presided over 17 death sentences being carried out? Lots of ways to remain positive or place positive spin on the negatives as cast by opponents.