Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Fixed that for you.

What is MSM?

BTW, isn't it mathematically impossible for Huckabee to win the nomination by number of delegates? Is there another way that a candidate can win the nomination in the Republican party? I really want to know because even though I am and have been a registered Independent my entire life, I am more familiar with the Democratic party process than the Republican one.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

What is MSM?

BTW, isn't it mathematically impossible for Huckabee to win the nomination by number of delegates? Is there another way that a candidate can win the nomination in the Republican party? I really want to know because even though I am and have been a registered Independent my entire life, I am more familiar with the Democratic party process than the Republican one.

Numerically, the Repub. nomination contest is over. Huckabee is running, and gaining delegates (particularly from the evangelical wing of Republican primary voters) as "leverage," so to speak, establishing himself as the "anti-McCain" alternative to those who just aren't feeling McCain.

Perhaps it'll lead to Huckabee's being chosen as VP, or as the leader of the party after the '08 elections.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

Numerically, the Repub. nomination contest is over. Huckabee is running, and gaining delegates (particularly from the evangelical wing of Republican primary voters) as "leverage," so to speak, establishing himself as the "anti-McCain" alternative to those who just aren't feeling McCain.

[COLOR=darkred]While it looks like the nomination contest is over based on the numbers, trust, it is far from over.[/

Perhaps it'll lead to Huckabee's being chosen as VP, or as the leader of the party after the '08 elections.

[COLOR=darkred]Some have speculated that Huckabee will "kingmake" McCain into getting the nomination by giving his delegates to McCain in exchange for McCain making Huck a running mate, though Huckabee said on Meet the Press last Sunday that he was not interested in a VP position. Whether this was a slick PR ploy or the truth remains to be seen.[/

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

[COLOR=darkred]While it looks like the nomination contest is over based on the numbers, trust, it is far from over.[/

[COLOR=darkred]Some have speculated that Huckabee will "kingmake" McCain into getting the nomination by giving his delegates to McCain in exchange for McCain making Huck a running mate, though Huckabee said on Meet the Press last Sunday that he was not interested in a VP position. Whether this was a slick PR ploy or the truth remains to be seen.[/]

McCain and Huckabee are friendly. In other venues Huck dodged the question saying "they have talked."

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

What is MSM?

[COLOR=darkred]MSM = Main Stream Media[/

BTW, isn't it mathematically impossible for Huckabee to win the nomination by number of delegates? Is there another way that a candidate can win the nomination in the Republican party? I really want to know because even though I am and have been a registered Independent my entire life, I am more familiar with the Democratic party process than the Republican one.

[COLOR=darkred]It is also mathematically impossible for McCain to win the nomination prior to Convention. Someone did a spreadsheet listing state by state the number of (bound) delegates won or projected to win by Republican candidate. If I find it, I'll post it here.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]ETA: I question if the number of delegates the MSM says that McCain has is accurate in that are those delegates bound to McCain, and if so, are they legally bound or only "morally" bound. The difference is that in some states, delegates are legally bound to vote for the winning candidate and if they deviate, there could be some serious legal consequences, whereas in morally bound states, it is "recommended" that they vote for the winning candidate, but they can "break rank", vote for another candidate, and only get a slap on the wrist. Personally I think there are a LOT more stealth Huckabee and Paul delegates than the MSM is actually reporting.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]Both candidates Huckabee and Paul are shooting for a brokered convention, which is if in the first round of voting no candidate wins a simple majority, then in the second and subsequent voting rounds all delegates become unbound and it becomes a free for all with who the delegates want to vote for.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]I can tell you now there is a significant number of delegates who are uncommitted to any candidate and we won't know who they will be voting for until convention.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]The smartest thing for the Huckabee and Paul delegates can do at this point is to team up and to give each other support to win states that they have the stronger support in. I am speaking of states where they have caucuses instead of primaries. This happened in WV where Huckabee won because the Paul delegates swung their support to Huckabee in exchange for 3 delegates going from Huckabee to Paul. If this had happened earlier in the primaries, a brokered convention would've been all but certain, plus Paul would've likely won such states as Nevada and Maine.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]If the GOP hates McCain's guts the way everyone is saying they do, there will most definately be a brokered convention.[/

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

[COLOR=darkred]MSM = Main Stream Media[/



[COLOR=darkred]It is also mathematically impossible for McCain to win the nomination prior to Convention. Someone did a spreadsheet listing state by state the number of (bound) delegates won or projected to win by Republican candidate. If I find it, I'll post it here.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]ETA: I question if the number of delegates the MSM says that McCain has is accurate in that are those delegates bound to McCain, and if so, are they legally bound or only "morally" bound. The difference is that in some states, delegates are legally bound to vote for the winning candidate and if they deviate, there could be some serious legal consequences, whereas in morally bound states, it is "recommended" that they vote for the winning candidate, but they can "break rank", vote for another candidate, and only get a slap on the wrist. Personally I think there are a LOT more stealth Huckabee and Paul delegates than the MSM is actually reporting.[/
[COLOR=#8b0000]Both candidates Huckabee and Paul are shooting for a brokered convention, which is if in the first round of voting no candidate wins a simple majority, then in the second and subsequent voting rounds all delegates become unbound and it becomes a free for all with who the delegates want to vote for.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]I can tell you now there is a significant number of delegates who are uncommitted to any candidate and we won't know who they will be voting for until convention.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]The smartest thing for the Huckabee and Paul delegates can do at this point is to team up and to give each other support to win states that they have the stronger support in. I am speaking of states where they have caucuses instead of primaries. This happened in WV where Huckabee won because the Paul delegates swung their support to Huckabee in exchange for 3 delegates going from Huckabee to Paul. If this had happened earlier in the primaries, a brokered convention would've been all but certain, plus Paul would've likely won such states as Nevada and Maine.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]If the GOP hates McCain's guts the way everyone is saying they do, there will most definately be a brokered convention.

The Repubs are non-binding and do not have super delegates. The Dems are binding and have super delegates.

[mccoyred]

Gotcha! That was a really good explanation. I could not figure out why Paul was still in the race and what Huckabee has to gain at this late date.

BTW, I spoke to one of my diehard Republican friends and he, probably like most conservatives, is NOT happy AT ALL. I think both conventions will be rather interesting this summer...


[QUOTE=KAPital PHINUst;1600498][COLOR=darkred]MSM = Main Stream Media[/



[COLOR=darkred]It is also mathematically impossible for McCain to win the nomination prior to Convention. Someone did a spreadsheet listing state by state the number of (bound) delegates won or projected to win by Republican candidate. If I find it, I'll post it here.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]ETA: I question if the number of delegates the MSM says that McCain has is accurate in that are those delegates bound to McCain, and if so, are they legally bound or only "morally" bound. The difference is that in some states, delegates are legally bound to vote for the winning candidate and if they deviate, there could be some serious legal consequences, whereas in morally bound states, it is "recommended" that they vote for the winning candidate, but they can "break rank", vote for another candidate, and only get a slap on the wrist. Personally I think there are a LOT more stealth Huckabee and Paul delegates than the MSM is actually reporting.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]Both candidates Huckabee and Paul are shooting for a brokered convention, which is if in the first round of voting no candidate wins a simple majority, then in the second and subsequent voting rounds all delegates become unbound and it becomes a free for all with who the delegates want to vote for

[COLOR=#8b0000]I can tell you now there is a significant number of delegates who are uncommitted to any candidate and we won't know who they will be voting for until convention.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]The smartest thing for the Huckabee and Paul delegates can do at this point is to team up and to give each other support to win states that they have the stronger support in. I am speaking of states where they have caucuses instead of primaries. This happened in WV where Huckabee won because the Paul delegates swung their support to Huckabee in exchange for 3 delegates going from Huckabee to Paul. If this had happened earlier in the primaries, a brokered convention would've been all but certain, plus Paul would've likely won such states as Nevada and Maine.[/

[COLOR=#8b0000]If the GOP hates McCain's guts the way everyone is saying they do, there will most definately be a brokered convention.[//QUOTE]

[mccoyred]

Well, NM has finally been decided in Hillary's favor. She continued to do well with women, Hispanics and older voters. Obama continued to do well with college-educated and younger voters; the Black population in NM is negligible however Obama did pull a majority of white voters.

It looks like Edwards failure to endorse a candidate cost Obama the state. Clinton won by only about 1100 votes. Edwards took over 2000 votes that might have gone to Obama and Richardson garnered 1200 votes that may have gone to Hillary.

Hillary is now going after Obama with both barrels trying to paint him as a talker and not a doer. I think that this strategy will backfire. On CBS news last night, Michelle addressed this question with Katie Couric in a straightforward and factual manner. Michelle rightly challenged the narrow definition of 'experience'. While Hillary has more experience in the Senate (by a mere 3 years), Obama has more elected experience having served8 years in the Illinois state legislature before being elected to the Senate. He was a civil rights attorney, constitutional law PROFESSOR and worked with people on the grass roots level. Representing corporate interests as an attorney and a board member are not necessarily better or more substantive experience for the highest office in the land; her mere one year at CDF is a blip in her '35 years of experience' and her 16 years as First Lady doesn't count AT ALL.

I don't know what to say at this point about Florida and Michigan.....

[Ten/Four]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Well, NM has finally been decided in Hillary's favor. She continued to do well with women, Hispanics and older voters. Obama continued to do well with college-educated and younger voters; the Black population in NM is negligible however Obama did pull a majority of white voters.

It looks like Edwards failure to endorse a candidate cost Obama the state. Clinton won by only about 1100 votes. Edwards took over 2000 votes that might have gone to Obama and Richardson garnered 1200 votes that may have gone to Hillary.

Hillary is now going after Obama with both barrels trying to paint him as a talker and not a doer. I think that this strategy will backfire. On CBS news last night, Michelle addressed this question with Katie Couric in a straightforward and factual manner. Michelle rightly challenged the narrow definition of 'experience'. While Hillary has more experience in the Senate (by a mere 3 years), Obama has more elected experience having served8 years in the Illinois state legislature before being elected to the Senate. He was a civil rights attorney, constitutional law PROFESSOR and worked with people on the grass roots level. Representing corporate interests as an attorney and a board member are not necessarily better or more substantive experience for the highest office in the land; her mere one year at CDF is a blip in her '35 years of experience' and her 16 years as First Lady doesn't count AT ALL.

I also think Hillary going after Obama in this way will backfire. If she had done this in the first place things may be different for her. Doing it now only makes her seem desparate, which she is.

She's critizing him for being a "talker," but what has Hillary said in any speech that made nondecided voters want to listen. At least when Obama speaks you stop and listen even if you may not agree with him.

Originally Posted by mccoyred

I don't know what to say at this point about Florida and Michigan.....

This is going to be interesting. It's unfortunate because you don't deny those voters the right to choose who will be the nominee. On the otherhand, all the candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. I think Florida has more of a chance to get delegates seated because all the candidates names were on the ballot. Only Hillary's name was on the ballot in Michigan.