Obama '08?

old europe wrote:

Seems like a high viability threshold for caucuses with one or two delegates.

Hm.

Thanks for the info, OE. I already couldnt believe that he polled only 5% of actual individual preferences, but thats not the case then.

One of the disadvantages of the caucus system - its not one man-one vote.. (but it does have its charms)

Entrance polls show him between 8 and 9%.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NVDEM

CNN's Nevada entrance poll shows women outnumbered men by a huge 59-41 margin, and they favored Hillary by a 51-43 margin.

Hillary also crushed Obama among Latinos, 64-26, which could be an ominous sign for him.

Bill [Clinton has acted] particularly exercised about the at-large precincts located at Vegas casinos, where Obama's culinary union [..] endorsement was supposed to pay big dividends. But, of course, the gaming industry itself is a very powerful interest-group in Vegas (management, that is). And, as we've been hearing over the last few days, it overwhelmingly supported Hillary. No surprise, then, that she appears to have fought Obama to a rough draw along on The Strip.

Maybe [..] Edwards's inability to draw older, whiter, less affluent voters [also benefited Hillary].

Another thing to keep in mind, courtesy of today's entrance polls: About two-thirds of Nevada caucusgoers said Tuesday night's debate was very important. Hillary won those people by a 54-33 margin.

Robocall trashes "Barack Hussein Obama"

The Obama campaign has released a recording (mp3) it says came from a Nevadan's answering machine of an anonymous robocall that criticizes Obama for taking money from special interests while repeating, four times, his rarely used middle name: "Hussein."

"I'm calling with some important information about Barack Hussein Obama," the call begins, before saying that "Barack Hussein Obama says he doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest groups but the record is clear that he does."

After mentioning his full name once more, the call concludes:

"You just can't take a chance on Barack Hussein Obama."

Paris goes big for Hillary Clinton

LAS VEGAS -- CNN is now projecting Hillary Clinton will win the Nevada caucuses. I covered the caucus at the Paris Hotel and Casino, and I had no idea what was going on outside, but inside the Concorde ballroom caucus site here, Clinton supporters heavily outnumbered Obama backers. The big loser, at least at Paris, was the Culinary Workers Union, which backed Obama.

Around 11 a.m., workers began lining up to caucus, some in red CWU/Obama T-shirts, but they were quickly outnumbered by workers with red and black "I support the Union and I support Hillary" placards and T-shirts.

Paris banquet worker Patricio Gajardo, a Hillary supporter, relished the apparent setback for the union, at least here at Paris. "The union pressured us all the time. But they never return our phone calls when we need something." The Clinton side of the room is heavily Latino.

Ray Wadsworth, a laid-off Bally's worker who is strongly supporting Obama, got into a shouting match with Nicky Nicolescu, a cocktail bar worker at Paris, still wearing a short skirt and heels from her shift, with a Hillary T-shirt on top. Wadsworth pointed to the six-year strike at Frontier, a now-closed hotel. "Bill Clinton never walked a picket line at Frontier. Hillary Clinton's never walked a picket line in her life." Nicolescu tried to settle him down. "All the candidates are good," she told him. She's supporting Clinton "because she's the woman for the job. And I loved when her husband was president." She also blamed the union for the infighting. "They have put a lot of pressure on us, but nobody tells me what to do."

This could be an anomalous precinct; we got reports that at Wynn, turnout is lower and seems to favor Obama. Because of allegations of intimidation by CWU leaders at Paris, the Clinton campaign has focused attention here. Chelsea Clinton campaigned here Friday; former President Clinton was here this morning. And AFSCME president Gerald McEntee is here ushering people to the Clinton side of the room. "I think she's gonna upset him here," he said with a smile. McEntee later got into a shouting match with Wadsworth, who came over to heckle the Clinton supporters, but as the count begins, he's smiling again.

Jennifer Blair, a bartender at Bally's, remained undecided. She said she was sad to see the union endorse a candidate, and even sadder to see union members trying to shout each other down with "Hillary" and "Obama" chants. "We're supposed to be a union, but now we're divided." Blair was standing in a group of two other undecided voters. In the final count Clinton outpolled Obama 211-98. Of five John Edwards supporters, two went with Obama. That's a delegate count of 42 for Hillary and 19 for Obama. More to come.

...
Some early predictions were that the nominations would be a foregone conclusion by now or, at the latest, after Feb. 5, when 24 states, including California, hold primaries and caucuses. But both parties' races are still so tight and in flux that there is a chance in each party that no candidate will capture enough votes to secure the nomination before the conventions. This development would lead to great upheaval for either party, but it may be a significantly bigger danger for the Democrats because of a rule enacted in 1982 by party leaders. In 2008, the result may be a Democratic convention choosing a nominee who lacks the legitimacy of being the "people's choice."

...

In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention. Party leaders assumed this would help them retain a measure of control over the process -- and of course continue to be granted the bounty of political favors that historically flowed from backing the right horse at the convention. In 2008, the 796 super delegates will make up about 20% of the entire convention. Winning the nomination requires 2,025 delegates.

In creating the super delegates, Democratic Party leaders sought to show that although they respected the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses, they also expected that the super delegates could play a significant if not necessarily decisive role in the selection process. However, it did not work out that way. Popular will has put one candidate far enough ahead by the convention that the super delegates haven't come into play. Every nominee since these reforms has been decided based on the primary and caucus votes.

This year might be different. Because no front-runner has emerged, and the compressed time frame of the election may prevent any candidate from gaining enough momentum, no candidate may have enough delegates by convention time. In that case, the super delegates, the majority of whom currently support Hillary Rodham Clinton -- but who could switch sides at any time -- could well be the decision-makers at the convention. And this could be a real problem for the Democratic Party.

...

The elected delegates, though virtually unknown, are at least selected by the voters and pledged to the candidate those voters chose. Most of the super delegates aren't chosen by the general populace, and they are not bound by the votes in their respective states. If they end up making the difference in the nomination -- especially if the winner came into the convention in second place -- there is a strong possibility of disenchanting a good portion of the party's base, potentially costing the party the election.

After wondering for years about the strange election procedures in the US, I finally found a nice blog to second my opinion. What I find so sickening: first all contenders of each party hack into each other for months. One of the exhausted warriors wins and goes on the throw mud and insults at the other winner. (hundreds of millions are spent during those exercises).
.
I am sure that many wonderful people are refusing to take part in these torture campaigns and we are left with two survivors.
.
The last time we witnessed the shady victory of a man who turned out to be the worst president in US history.
.
http://www.opinion-columns.com/praguewriter/2007/04/the_french_get_.htm
l

The last time we witnessed the shady victory of a man who turned out to be the worst president in US history.

noinipo wrote:

The last time we witnessed the shady victory of a man who turned out to be the worst president in US history.

That was way back in 1975.

Now I think it's time for one of my children to show the world what a colorless society, SHOULD look like, which is why I'm voting for Obama in NJ on 2/5!

Ticomaya wrote:

noinipo wrote:

The last time we witnessed the shady victory of a man who turned out to be the worst president in US history.

That was way back in 1975.

Richard Milhous Nixon was the thirty-seventh President of the United States serving from 1969 until his resignation in 1974.