Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Wolf Blitzer just said that there is live streaming video on CNN of at least one caucus in NV. (The one they were showing for a while, it was interesting! At Caesar's Palace. Large, exuberant Obama group. Smaller [but still sizable], more subdued Hillary group. Pretty much nonexistent Edwards group.)

0 Replies

Washington Post just announced that Romney won the Republican caucus.

Posted at 2:34 PM ET, 01/19/2008
Romney Wins in Nevada
By Chris Cillizza
washingtonpost.com staff writer

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the Nevada Republican caucuses today, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee were battling for a first-place finish in South Carolina.

With the presidential campaign still wide open in both parties, the focus shifted today to the South and West, where Republican and Democratic candidates are urgently seeking wins in a caucus and primary contest to give their campaigns a boost.

"Today, the people of Nevada voted for change in Washington," Romney said following his victory. "For far too long, our leaders have promised to take the action necessary to build a stronger America, and still the people of Nevada and all across this country are waiting."

With 29 of 1,789 precincts reporting, Romney had 46 percent of the vote to 15 percent for Sen. McCain and 14 percent for Rep. Ron Paul (Texas). Despite the paucity of actual results, the race had been called for Romney by the Associated Press and several television networks.

0 Replies

South Carolina - Republicans

Three last polls out have good news for Huckabee, who equals or surpasses his best polling since the NH primaries in all three. But McCain remains strong as well, not losing any ground, making the race something of a tossup in the polls. In a new Survey USA poll, McCain leads by 4; in the last issue of the Reuters/C-Span/Zogby tracking poll, he leads by 1; in a new ARG poll, Huckabee leads by 7.

A piece of comforting news for McCain supporters could be that the ARG poll seems out of line in other ways as well, with Romney mysteriously losing half his support and coming in at 9%, and Thompson outdoing the best of his polling so far by several points at 21% - so perhaps it's just an outlier, something gone screwy. But nevertheless, the other two polls also both show Huckabee up, while they're mixed about McCain.

Here's the updated table and graph:

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/1458/screps2cj4.png

0 Replies

I'm predicting McCain loses SC.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Washington Post just announced that Romney won the Republican caucus.

Yay! I got it right!

And a Romney win is always good for a 'yay' -- I still think he's the most easy to beat of 'em. Well, he and Huckabee perhaps, if he keeps on gaffing.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Wolf Blitzer just said that there is live streaming video on CNN of at least one caucus in NV. (The one they were showing for a while, it was interesting! At Caesar's Palace. Large, exuberant Obama group. Smaller [but still sizable], more subdued Hillary group. Pretty much nonexistent Edwards group.)

Ha! That's funny. Poor girl - the girl trying to lead it all...

They just announced that it's time for the "second alignment", and so far Obama has 82 votes, Hillary 77 (or 79?), and Edwards, eh... 5.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Wolf Blitzer just said that there is live streaming video on CNN of at least one caucus in NV. (The one they were showing for a while, it was interesting! At Caesar's Palace. Large, exuberant Obama group. Smaller [but still sizable], more subdued Hillary group. Pretty much nonexistent Edwards group.)

Ha! That's funny. Poor girl - the girl trying to lead it all...

They just announced that it's time for the "second alignment", and so far Obama has 82 votes, Hillary 77 (or 79?), and Edwards, eh... 5.

Well, at least she's got a new calculator now....

0 Replies

And I swear that the poor girl said, bout 5-10 mins ago, "OK, only people who are actually caucasing members can talk to me ... I've decided.." (with an apologetic grimace, while trying to work out her calculator), and one of the groups started yelling, "leave her alone! leave her alone!".

(Which is probably a lot funnier if you've seen the "leave Britney alone" video)

They just announced in that caucus actually, Hillary got 80 votes, Obama 86, meaning Hillary gets 16 delegates from there, and Obama 17.

0 Replies

Nevada

Democrats
89% of precincts reporting

Clinton 51% (of delegates)
Obama 45%
Edwards 4%

Which means kudos to Zogby's tracking poll, sponsored by Reuters and C-Span. Its last poll out had Clinton at 45%, Obama at 39%, Edwards at 6% and 9% of undecideds. Redistribute the undecideds and you're pretty much spot on.

Republicans
78% of precincts reporting

Romney 53% (of votes)
Paul 13%
McCain 13%
Thompson 8%
Huckabee 8%
Giuliani 5%
Hunter 2%

Now THAT wasn't foreseen in any poll...

Mind you, we're talking a grand total of 37,000 caucusers or so..

0 Replies

Damn that Romney... sorry about the NV wuss out on predictions.... McCain for SC!

0 Replies

The Edwards people keep saying that he's going to stay in the race all the way through, even though it's not looking good for him. IF he drops out, though, who do you (general "you") think that would benefit more? I've seen conflicting opinions, each of them somewhat convincing. (Helps Clinton by staying: It's been pretty much Hillary or "other," and Edwards splits the "other" vote. Helps Obama by staying: Some kind of stats [can't remember if polls or caucus results] show that people whose first preference is Edwards supporters tend to go to Hillary over Obama.)

0 Replies

Why wasn't the Romney win forecast in NV? He was the only one to actively campaign there and there is a large Mormon population. Is that correct?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

The Edwards people keep saying that he's going to stay in the race all the way through, even though it's not looking good for him. IF he drops out, though, who do you (general "you") think that would benefit more? I've seen conflicting opinions, each of them somewhat convincing. (Helps Clinton by staying: It's been pretty much Hillary or "other," and Edwards splits the "other" vote. Helps Obama by staying: Some kind of stats [can't remember if polls or caucus results] show that people whose first preference is Edwards supporters tend to go to Hillary over Obama.)

He's staying in because he is accumulating a heck of a lot of power to throw around at the convention. He can either make Obama's day or guarantee Clinton a win.

On a very personal level, I'd like to see him drop out earlier and spend the time with his wife and family. They really could use him around home helping to give Elizabeth some quality time with the family rather than out shaking hands for no other reason than to be one of the many chess pieces at the convention.

Having him stay in does keep everyone on their toes though and prolongs the excitement of the uncertainty.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Helps Obama by staying: Some kind of stats [can't remember if polls or caucus results] show that people whose first preference is Edwards supporters tend to go to Hillary over Obama.)

The argument that he'd help Obama by staying in is mostly based on his supporters being more like Hillary-supporters than like Obama supporters in their demographic make-up (older, union households, middle/lower education) and priorities (cares about people like me, think the economy is the most important issue), and would thus be more likely to vote for Hillary than Obama when forced to choose.

I dunno, I can see both sides of the argument.

One wildcard to add in the mix: despite Edwards having clearly taken the most leftwing stances in this campaign, he keeps doing better than average (or even best) among self-described conservative Democrats. Perhaps because of memories from his 2004 campaign, when he was relatively moderate, perhaps because he's the conventional, white male candidate. Where would conservative Democrats go when having to choose between Obama and Hillary?

0 Replies

Without researching, Soz, I'd say they'll split his votes... and I for one hope he doesn't stick around. Personally; I think it's unlikely that neither Hillary nor Obama will have a majority without him... so I think he's wasting his time anyway.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

On a very personal level, I'd like to see him drop out earlier and spend the time with his wife and family. They really could use him around home helping to give Elizabeth some quality time with the family rather than out shaking hands

Well, Elizabeth very much wants him to stay in. 'Fact, she's more fanatic than him. She's out there with him, and enjoying it; not waiting at home for him to spend some quality time with her. And I would think she knows better whats good for her than we do, no?

I guess, the kind of person she is, being around throngs of supportive people and making a battle out of something she really believes in suits her personality better than sitting at home waiting to die.

0 Replies

To get an idea of how strongly Elizabeth herself feels about the campaign continuing, and just how angry she can get at people suggesting that they should just home now that her cancer has returned, check out this:

Elizabeth Edwards and the Mommy Wars

(I actually like the title of another article on the same subject better: "Elizabeth Edwards Vs. Nosey, Opinionated, Busy-Body Mothers" :wink: )

The story: a poster on a Silicon Valley moms blog, last year, went on for quite a bit about how the Edwardses were bad parents for continuing with John's campaign now her cancer had returned - they should be at home, with the children, spending quality time now that they still could! "Take your kids home. Get off the campaign trail. [..] you are forcing your young children, who should be in school to ride in buses and talk to the press when they obviously don't want to. [..] They deserve some peace, not time with nannies and campaign-trail daycare providers [..]. give your children some actual QUALITY time with you, which they are not having on the bus or in senatorial-aide-nannycare."

Elizabeth came across it, and herself logged in to respond - dignified but forcefully:

"With all due respect, what you would choose to do is relevant only once: when you choose how to spend your remaining days. I made my choice; because of our lives it was a public choice, but the choice doesn't belong to the public, it belongs to me. And with all due respect, you have no idea what the quality or amount of the time I spend with my children is. [..] I want to be entirely clear. You don't get to say I am a terrible mother because you think you wouldn't make my choices in my situation. You don't get to say that my children don't want to be with us when you don't know them [..]. You don't get to judge me because you think you know exactly what you would do if you had my disease. I want to be really clear: you don't know. And if the sun always shines on you -- and I pray it does -- you will never know."
My bet is that if Edwards gets out of the race - after today, or after Feb 5 - it'll be despite Elizabeth, not because of her.

0 Replies

Here's speculation about Edwards in a "kingmaker" role at the convention...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7979.html

0 Replies

I completely agree with you about Elizabeth's POV, nimh, and her right to spend her time however she wants. However, I feel the same way Butrflynet does. I, too, would prefer to see them spending this time at home with their family.

Moreover, I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of the Edwardses putting themselves through the stresses of a campaign given the fragile state of her health. More than one woman (Democrat) I know has voiced the opinion that John couldn't be expected to give the country his full attention if he is elected. Whether that is right or wrong, or whether the Edwardses agree with it or not, it is certainly a major consideration to some voters.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/delegate_counts.html
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/16/national-delegate-count-tally/

I'm not sure why the sources differ in the totals?

Yeah, I dont know why the Fox News one has two listings from two different sources that show different totals.. dont know whats going on there.

The Real Clear Politics one is continually updated, so it will be increasingly different from (both sets of) numbers on the Fox page as more info comes in. It's also interesting because it keeps track of how many Super Delegates have pledged to the different candidates (in the Dem race). From what I understand, Super Delegates are not distributed on the basis of any primary or caucus, but basically represent groups of important Democratic constituencies and political grandees and the like?

So here's two useful overviews regarding the current scoreboard on delegates:

MSNBC has a good scoreboard with just the delegates won in the primaries and caucuses. Better go there than to CNN, where there seems to be something screwy with the data. This MSNBC page also has a column for superdelegates, but it's still set at 0 for everyone.

It's updated to include the Nevada delegates too now.

Then the Real Clear Politics page you already linked in has a good scoreboard that does already include Super Delegates. Not quite sure how they arrive at those numbers, but it's interesting. Hasnt been updated to include Nevada yet, but I'm sure it soon will be.

0 Replies

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know