Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
scholar

[*] posted on 16-1-2008 at 03:05
Actual votes:

Republicans 37% reporting
40% Romney
30% McCain
16% Huckabee
6% Paul
4% Thompson
3% Giuliani

Romney has been called as the winner. The exact total, and how many delegates he will have, will require more complete results.

So, of the first four states, Huckabee won the first, Romney the second (which was largely ignored), McCain the third, and Romney the fourth (and largest).

I think this leaves Romney in good shape, but McCain and Huckabee are still in it. Guiliani's announced plan has been not to spend time and money in the first few little states, and I don't thnk he has been competing in Michigan. He had hoped to win Florida, and then a number of the big states on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5). If he does, he is in it as well.

Fred Thomson needs to do well, soon, or he will effectively be out of it, unless they turn to him at a second-ballot convention.
scholar

[*] posted on 16-1-2008 at 01:21
FINAL EXIT POLLS SHOW: Romney 34, McCain 28, Huckabee 17
scholar

[*] posted on 16-1-2008 at 00:16
I just learned the "8:00, the polls close" is Eastern time (not the Central Time), so I misspoke by one hour. There are now about 45 minutes left. The Drudge Report says exit polls have Romney 34, McCain 29, Huckabee 16 (in New Hampshire, it was the predictive polls that were wrong, not the exit polls).

But, how is it going district-by-district?confused2
scholar

[*] posted on 15-1-2008 at 23:56
Oh, Good Grief! I just learned that the Michigan primary is sort of like a little electoral college. The winner of each district, wins the 3 delegates from that district. If the race in a district has two or even three candidates who are close in vote, the winner still gets all three delegates. If a candidate wins a district by a landslide, he still only gets three delegates.

So, working it out mathematically, a person could get the most votes in the state, but not get the most delegates. In fact, I will be surprised if more than three, or at the very most four, candidates get ANY delegates. Sombody like Ron Paul or Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thomas may not rise higher than second place in any of the districts. The present thinking is that Romney and McCain are very close for first place, and Huckabee will be back somewhere in third place.

I think the district-delegate arrangement will make it hard for the networks to figure out who won. The polls will be open for two more hours.

I read a blog by one Romney supporter who says that McCain and Huckabee have left the state. He thnks they expect to lose, and don't want to be there to concede.
scholar

[*] posted on 15-1-2008 at 23:08
Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
You don't like her do you?

. . .One Democrat political operative has praised the Clintons for how easily and convincingly they lie. It's amazing how they will say they've done things they haven't done, tell you they've always held a position when they used to push for the opposite, and take credit for things they opposed. .
Presumably this is true of any politician. After being elected their aim is to govern, in order to do so one must be pragmatic so I would expect politicians to 'change their minds' depending on the circumstances.
Certainly, changing your mind based on changing conditions is different. "I used to think A, but now I think B" is a lot different from "I think B, and I've always thought B. B has been my position all along." The Clintons have been described as sociopathic liars--they speak as if they have no regard at all for the truth. They lie about checkable facts. They deny they ever said things, even though you can play the tape on which they said it. back to them.
janet

[*] posted on 15-1-2008 at 22:53
While I accept the point, there is an issue of scale...

If a report in California talks about what's happening in New York, it's reporting on something further away from the viewer than a report here about Rome...

It's no excuse, I agree, but it does help to put things into perspective... (for the record, I'm rather well known for deploring the fact that so few anglophones can speak a second, let alone a third language...).
SRD

[*] posted on 15-1-2008 at 22:32
Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
Just a question Scholar. Why start a new thread about different aspects of the US election campaign. would it not be wise, and easier to follow, if all comments were in one thread like "US Presidential Elections" so we all know where to look if we want to know what is happening?


Gee, someone read my mind.

I just didn't want to say anything for fear of being accused of picking on my countryman just to the south.

(Who is probably a rabid, dirty dog republican and should be tarred and feathered.)

So I waited for someone else to bring up the point that this is primarily a BRITISH board and the majority of the members could care less if we elected RuPaul as our next prez.

roffle
If only that were the case, much as the constant reporting of American politics at the expense of reporting other topics is a source of complaint we do recognise that what happens in America has a major bearing on what happens in the rest of the world. Our problem is that whilst we have some knowledge and understanding of what is happening in the States the Americans seem to know little and care less about what is happening in the rest of the world.
By the way, I do accept that that is not necessarily the case with those who post here.
SRD

[*] posted on 15-1-2008 at 22:28
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
You don't like her do you?
I don't know if I would like her, personally. Among the three leading Democrats, she is probably closest to my political views.

One Democrat political operative has praised the Clintons for how easily and convincingly they lie. It's amazing how they will say they've done things they haven't done, tell you they've always held a position when they used to push for the opposite, and take credit for things they opposed. Sometimes the American radio shows get some laughs by playing what Bill or Hillary say now, and then play a section from their past in which their own words contradict the version they are now saying. It's as if they think the American public is so stupid that no one will check and find out their new version doesn't match the old one, when they say they've always held their present position.
Presumably this is true of any politician. After being elected their aim is to govern, in order to do so one must be pragmatic so I would expect politicians to 'change their minds' depending on the circumstances.
Redwolf5150

[*] posted on 15-1-2008 at 22:27
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
You don't like her do you?
One Democrat political operative has praised the Clintons for how easily and convincingly they lie. It's amazing how they will say they've done things they haven't done, tell you they've always held a position when they used to push for the opposite, and take credit for things they opposed.


Kind of like former Vice President under Bill Clinton Al Gore invented the Internet?

:)

(And yes, I voted for Bill. Twice.)

kewl_glasses
Redwolf5150

[*] posted on 15-1-2008 at 22:24
BTW, I was able to vote absentee in the Michigan election when Doctor Death's loonytune lawyer ran for Governor.

Hating John Engler (the then Republican Governor) so much, I voted for the lawyer, even though I knew he had no chance of winning.

Sometimes you have to vote for the loser to make a statement.

kewl_glasses
Redwolf5150

[*] posted on 15-1-2008 at 22:22
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
Just a question Scholar. Why start a new thread about different aspects of the US election campaign. would it not be wise, and easier to follow, if all comments were in one thread like "US Presidential Elections" so we all know where to look if we want to know what is happening?


Gee, someone read my mind.

I just didn't want to say anything for fear of being accused of picking on my countryman just to the south.

(Who is probably a rabid, dirty dog republican and should be tarred and feathered.)

So I waited for someone else to bring up the point that this is primarily a BRITISH board and the majority of the members could care less if we elected RuPaul as our next prez.

roffle
scholar

[*] posted on 13-1-2008 at 19:17
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
You don't like her do you?
I don't know if I would like her, personally. Among the three leading Democrats, she is probably closest to my political views.

One Democrat political operative has praised the Clintons for how easily and convincingly they lie. It's amazing how they will say they've done things they haven't done, tell you they've always held a position when they used to push for the opposite, and take credit for things they opposed. Sometimes the American radio shows get some laughs by playing what Bill or Hillary say now, and then play a section from their past in which their own words contradict the version they are now saying. It's as if they think the American public is so stupid that no one will check and find out their new version doesn't match the old one, when they say they've always held their present position.
scholar

[*] posted on 13-1-2008 at 18:54
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
Just a question Scholar. Why start a new thread about different aspects of the US election campaign. would it not be wise, and easier to follow, if all comments were in one thread like "US Presidential Elections" so we all know where to look if we want to know what is happening?
I thought a single, lengthy topic would be less interesting than separate ones for different aspects. For example, I could well imagine someone not strongly inclined to politics might have some feeling about the music associated with campaigns. Or, a member who lives in a certain state might have an interest in issues peculiar to that state, but not so much for the whole country. Or, a person might have an interest in any differences the first likely woman candidate, or the first likely black candidate, in their campaigns. (There has been a lot of discussion about a near-tears moment Hillary experienced just before she won New Hampshire. Many women have said that her usual stoicism did not connect with them, but that the near-tears showed her human side.)
marymary100

[*] posted on 13-1-2008 at 13:10
You don't like her do you?
LSemmens

[*] posted on 13-1-2008 at 13:01
Just a question Scholar. Why start a new thread about different aspects of the US election campaign. would it not be wise, and easier to follow, if all comments were in one thread like "US Presidential Elections" so we all know where to look if we want to know what is happening?
scholar

[*] posted on 13-1-2008 at 12:38
As far as I know, Clinton is not doing anyting in Michigan. She did not withdraw her name from the ballot, but a win against no opponents for zero votes when no candidate has campaigned there will not mean much. (Even if the uncommitted delegates win against hers, it will only be an embarrassment.)
marymary100

[*] posted on 13-1-2008 at 08:55
At least Clinton is showing that she still thinks Michigan counts unlike the other front runners. Ignore a whole State at your peril, even if their votes don't count this time around.
scholar

[*] posted on 13-1-2008 at 02:10
The Democrats punished Michigan for moving up its primary by ruling that no delegate votes would be awarded to Michigan at the nominating convention. Obama and Edwards pulled out, so only Hillary is on the Democrat ballot. Anti-Clinton people are urging Dems to vote for uncommitted delegates.

Among the Republicans, McCain won Michigan 8 years ago. Michigan is one of those states where anyone can ask for either ballot, and some Democrats were then urging their people to take a Republican ballot to sabotage them. (I don't know how successful that was.)

Romney was born in Michigan, and his father served as Govenor there (but that was many, many years ago.)

Romney is concentrating on Michigan, which is a populous state with a lot of delegates. I just looked at a poll which showed Romney ahead of McCain by 1 point (which is within the margin of error for the poll).