The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is because they're estimating differently; vote tallies aren't final, and "superdelegates" aren't finalized at all, although some have intimated they will follow the popular vote, some have ties to Clinton/Obama, and some are likely to follow brokered deals at the DNC if Obama pulls off the remaining states (which are mostly Midwestern or have a large black population) and keeps things effectively deadlocked. Clinton has a large edge in superdelegates right now, but that could rapidly change.

jinx, you owe me a coke :-)

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by skylark

jinx, you owe me a coke :-)

I love that ad with Carville and Frist.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark at 6:21

jinx, you owe me a coke :-)

Originally Posted by KSig RC at 06:19

I am awesome

Looks like I beat you there by a few minutes - this means you owe me the Coke, shooter. Hey, I don't make the rules.

[sunnyhibiscus]

I have a question, do you think that if Obama loses Texas and win the majority of the remaining states. do you think that he'll get the nomination?

I doubt that Obama will win Texas, because he's having trouble with the Latino votes. And of course, Texas has a lot of Latino voters.

[33girl]

Romney just quit.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

I'm sorry, but what a dweeb.

[Tom Earp]

Well, the field is really narrowing down on both sides.

The field still sucks!

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Romney just quit.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

I'm sorry, but what a dweeb.

I thought very much the same as I heard his speech.
I do not believe that anyone, at this time, would not and does not support the war on terrorism.

All he did was pick up on one of Bush's favorite comments.

Seems as if the party's gloves are now off. This is just the start of the mud slinging I fear.

On another note; the WSJ suggested a non-partisan web site to follow matters; including delegate counts.
It is:
http://realclearpolitics.com/

[UGAalum94]

Really, guys? You think Obama and Clinton are as committed to the war on terror, including the war in Iraq, as McCain is?

I don't think they're pro-terror or at least see themselves in that sense, but I think there's a huge difference in their attitudes about military action and policy and that of McCain.

I'm not trying to get into which is actually the correct attitude to hold, but if you believe that McCain is correct about Iraq as I think Romney does, there is a big reason to think his victory in the general, over two candidates who basically said they'd pull out of Iraq quickly, is important.

[33girl]

I was simply stating that Romney is a dweeb to say that's why he's quitting when the real reason he's quitting is because he got his ass handed to him on a plate.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Really, guys? You think Obama and Clinton are as committed to the war on terror, including the war in Iraq, as McCain is?

I don't think they're pro-terror or at least see themselves in that sense, but I think there's a huge difference in their attitudes about military action and policy and that of McCain.

I'm not trying to get into which is actually the correct attitude to hold, but if you believe that McCain is correct about Iraq as I think Romney does, there is a big reason to think his victory in the general, over two candidates who basically said they'd pull out of Iraq quickly, is important.

And just who was it who said that we will be in Iraq for 100 years???

War on terror was NOT, as most people understand now, in Iraq.
Now it is.

[Tom Earp]

With Mitt, it made me wonder to much about the money out of pocket to attain this position and scared the heck out of me.

He looks good and is very presentable but, there is/was a big but in my mind and evidently others as well.

Stiil on the list:

Demos:Hill and O

Repubs: Mac and Huck.

God where are we going to end up after this election finally gets over.

I also noticed in the posters link how the polls came out for both Bush and the legislature. Doesn't look good at any end of the spectrum.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

If only presidents could serve three consecutive terms...

... then we'd have a chance at alienating the last three countries that give a bleep about America anymore?

... then we could ensure that global warming plus paralyizing national emergency services turns more major cities into disaster areas like New Orleans?

... then we could line the pockets of energy CEOs with additional tax cuts that our grandchildren will have to pay for while they're already contributing half their paychecks because we depleted our social security funds and had shitty health care and so aren't well enough to work?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by skylark

... then we'd have a chance at alienating the last three countries that give a bleep about America anymore?

... then we could ensure that global warming plus paralyizing national emergency services turns more major cities into disaster areas like New Orleans?

... then we could line the pockets of energy CEOs with additional tax cuts that our grandchildren will have to pay for while they're already contributing half their paychecks because we depleted our social security funds and had shitty health care and so aren't well enough to work?

I'm not a Bush fan, but please, do you even understand how government in the US works? Only one of the three things you've listed really has anything to do with the executive branch. (ETA: Well, I guess they have something to do with the executive branch, but it's hard to see why they wouldn't really be something congress ought to address, seeing as Congress makes laws and all. )

One the other hand, surely SECDomination was joking, right?

[skylark]

Originally Posted by sunnyhibiscus

I doubt that Obama will win Texas, because he's having trouble with the Latino votes. And of course, Texas has a lot of Latino voters.

I don't know though... Obama has done really well in states that are traditionally very conservative, even with Latinos in those states. From what I can tell it is the blue-state-Latinos he has trouble with. With republican and independent Latinos, he does better. I paid attention in particular when Obama won a county in Idaho that is particularly known for having a high Latino population. He ended up winning that county by 76%.