Nevada & South Carolina Primary

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-01-19 08:12pm

Reuters wrote: South Carolina (Reuters) - Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Mitt Romney won Nevada's presidential contests on Saturday, and Republican voting ended in South Carolina as an unpredictable White House race moved to the U.S. South and West.

Clinton, a New York senator, beat rival Barack Obama in a hotly contested Nevada race that could give her new momentum in the seesawing nomination battle to select Republican and Democratic candidates in the November election. The two had split the first two contests.

"I just want to say how grateful I am to Nevada and all of the people who worked so hard in this campaign," Clinton said in Las Vegas. "I guess this is how the West was won."

Romney won decisively among Republicans in a Nevada race his rivals largely skipped to concentrate on South Carolina, where John McCain and Mike Huckabee were running close ahead of voting in a campaign focused on the economy.

No one in either party has claimed the role of favorite in the race to pick the two candidates to contest the November 4 election to succeed President George W. Bush, with the first major state-by-state battles producing multiple winners.

Few quick comments
1. Nevada is not a winner takes all state, as it stands HC has exactly one delegate over Obama, she picked up 13 to Obama's 12.

2. DR Ron Paul comes in second in Nevada beating out everyone else while Mitt takes the whole dang state. Funny stuff, I always wanted Ron to win to tie a state(Sure as hell don't want him as President, but on the "sane-o" meter he ranks higher than all of the others)

South Carolina is still coming in, but it looks like McCain might have won a second state, stay tuned.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-01-19 08:15pm

How is it that Paul did better in Iowa and Nevada than in that bastion of independence that is New Hampshire?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-19 08:18pm

MSNBC is saying Obama has 1 more than Clinton. So either they fucked up, or Edwards is giving his delegates to Obama?

Vaporous · Post by **Vaporous** » 2008-01-19 08:26pm

They're right. Obama wins one more delegate (his 13 to her 12), though if you include "super delegates" it's technically a tie at 14 apiece.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2008-01-19 11:07pm

Flagg wrote:MSNBC is saying Obama has 1 more than Clinton. So either they fucked up, or Edwards is giving his delegates to Obama?

Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama won more delegates.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-19 11:39pm

So Obama won the Nevada primary and he tied in New Hampshire, yet the media is claiming both as victories for Clinton? Nice.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-19 11:43pm

Vaporous wrote:They're right. Obama wins one more delegate (his 13 to her 12), though if you include "super delegates" it's technically a tie at 14 apiece.

What the fuck is a super-delegate, anyway?

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2008-01-20 12:09am

Flagg wrote:
Vaporous wrote:They're right. Obama wins one more delegate (his 13 to her 12), though if you include "super delegates" it's technically a tie at 14 apiece.
What the fuck is a super-delegate, anyway?

Something else to make the US presidential election so long and drawn out that everyone's just sick of the whole thing by the time the actual election comes around so they stay home and forget about it? That's my guess anyway.

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2008-01-20 12:13am

Flagg wrote:
Vaporous wrote:They're right. Obama wins one more delegate (his 13 to her 12), though if you include "super delegates" it's technically a tie at 14 apiece.
What the fuck is a super-delegate, anyway?

It's a Democratic Congresman, Senator, or Governor. They get to pick who they want to vote for.

Honorable Mention · Post by **Honorable Mention** » 2008-01-20 12:24am

I'm really glad Paul got second. The other Republican candidates are awful, and at the least it is proof that even 'fringe' candidates can gain decent momentum.

I want to say that I really hope Giuliani flops in Florida because I am tired of hearing how he is "just biding his time", but I also don't want to see McCain win.

At least Obama won. An Obama win is always good news, imo.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-20 01:27am

You guys realize that Ron Paul is a racist nutjob, right?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-01-20 02:29am

Flagg wrote:You guys realize that Ron Paul is a racist nutjob, right?

Racist? No. Nutjob? Probably.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-20 02:36am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Flagg wrote:You guys realize that Ron Paul is a racist nutjob, right?
Racist? No. Nutjob? Probably.

Yes, racist.

CNN Story

Austin Chronicle Story

1996 Article From the Houston Chronicle

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2008-01-20 02:46am

Flagg wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Flagg wrote:You guys realize that Ron Paul is a racist nutjob, right?
Racist? No. Nutjob? Probably.
Yes, racist.

CNN Story

Austin Chronicle Story

1996 Article From the Houston Chronicle

Now now, Flagg. Ron Paul has made it very clear that he didn't write all that horrible stuff that was published in his newsletter, under his name, from his office. Which means he isn't a racist. It does however, make him very stupid...

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-20 02:47am

Alex Moon wrote:
Flagg wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote: Racist? No. Nutjob? Probably.
Yes, racist.

CNN Story

Austin Chronicle Story

1996 Article From the Houston Chronicle
Now now, Flagg. Ron Paul has made it very clear that he didn't write all that horrible stuff that was published in his newsletter, under his name, from his office. Which means he isn't a racist. It does however, make him very stupid...

Yeah, he denies it now!

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2008-01-20 03:00am

Please enlighten a non-American: Which is the most important, the popular vote or the delegates votes and which Democratic candidate really won in Nevada?

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2008-01-20 03:11am

The Delegates. But you should really be winning popular votes anyway, as they determine the emotional leverage you have over the race. It's like saying "What's more important, winning the debate, or being right." Being right is better and more useful, but if you never win anything, people are extremely unlikely to support you popularly.

This is only an issue in extremely tight primaries, which are rare. Usually someone will take 2/3rds of the primaries so it's obvious who the winner is. It's tightly split between the candidates, you'll have a lot of backroom dealing at the convention to work out who to nominate. That's totally legal and normal, but it's just odd to see. People are not used to tiebreaker mechanics being used any more than they're used to seeing someone win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-20 03:11am

Mange wrote:Please enlighten a non-American: Which is the most important, the popular vote or the delegates votes and which Democratic candidate really won in Nevada?

Delegate vote. Thye are the ones who choose the nominee at the national convention. So Obama won the Nevada primary. He tied in the New Hampshire primary. The media has declared Clinton the winner in both despite those facts. Because the media is full of retards.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-01-20 03:14am

Mange wrote:Please enlighten a non-American: Which is the most important, the popular vote or the delegates votes and which Democratic candidate really won in Nevada?

Since this is the Primary Election (i.e, the election in which the parties pick their respective candidates), what matters is the number of delegates a candidate wins in a primary/caucus, not the popular vote (although the popular vote is good PR). This is because the delegates to the National Convention of said party or parties are required to vote for whoever won their "votes" in the primary on the first voting round, and if a candidate gets a simple majority of said "votes" before the Convention (2025 votes out of 4049 for Democrats, 1,196 votes for Republicans), he gets his party's nomination. Compounding the fun factor on the Democratic side is the fact that out of said 4,049 delegates, 796 are "super-delegates", which, as mentioned above, constitute Democratic governors, Senators, and Representatives, who can vote for whomever they want (hence why when you hear some random Democratic governor or senator endorse either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, it matters).

That's what makes Mitt Romney's lopsided victory in Nevada a strategic victory for him, although not much of a PR victory (since he was the only person other than Ron Paul who seriously competed in the state). He picked up an easy 18 delegates, whereas McCain, the winner of South Carolina, had to put up a major fight to pick up 19 delegates.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-01-20 03:16am

Oops! Forgot about the Democratic winner in Nevada, which you asked about. Barack Obama was the winner (although he gathered less support in the Caucus), since he gained 13 delegates for his efforts while Hillary Clinton only brought in 12 (not that it is much of a victory).

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-20 03:16am

Covenant wrote:The Delegates. But you should really be winning popular votes anyway, as they determine the emotional leverage you have over the race. It's like saying "What's more important, winning the debate, or being right." Being right is better and more useful, but if you never win anything, people are extremely unlikely to support you popularly.

This is only an issue in extremely tight primaries, which are rare. Usually someone will take 2/3rds of the primaries so it's obvious who the winner is. It's tightly split between the candidates, you'll have a lot of backroom dealing at the convention to work out who to nominate. That's totally legal and normal, but it's just odd to see. People are not used to tiebreaker mechanics being used any more than they're used to seeing someone win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.

True, the popular vote has an effect on how voters in other states may go, but that's because people aren't informed about delegates, so they will vote for whoever they think is "winning" or just won't vote at all.

That's why declaring winners based on popular vote as opposed to delegates won is a major disservice to the voters and candidates. It would be like if the MSM declared Gore the winner in 2000 (blatant election theft aside) based on the popular vote, ignoring the electoral votes. You know, the only ones that actually matter.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-01-20 03:18am

Flagg wrote:
Mange wrote:Please enlighten a non-American: Which is the most important, the popular vote or the delegates votes and which Democratic candidate really won in Nevada?
Delegate vote. Thye are the ones who choose the nominee at the national convention. So Obama won the Nevada primary. He tied in the New Hampshire primary. The media has declared Clinton the winner in both despite those facts. Because the media is full of retards.

Well, as mentioned, you get moral (and probably financial) support for winning the popular primary vote in said areas, if Clinton Advisor Terry McAuliffe's statement about "greatly increased fundraising in the wake of the New Hampshire "victory"" was right.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-20 03:21am

Guardsman Bass wrote:Oops! Forgot about the Democratic winner in Nevada, which you asked about. Barack Obama was the winner (although he gathered less support in the Caucus), since he gained 13 delegates for his efforts while Hillary Clinton only brought in 12 (not that it is much of a victory).

Yeah, but that's not what the entire fucking media is saying. They are all saying she "won" Nevada, which is a blatant lie. She won more popular votes which don't matter for dick, as opposed to delegates which actually do matter.

I wonder had the situation been reversed, with Obama winning the popular vote and Clinton the delegates, if the MSM would be running things the same way. Part of me wants to think that they are just more comfortable with a Clinton nomination, but most of me thinks they are just too fucking lazy. Then again, actually reporting on facts means they have to take time away from horse race bullshit.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2008-01-20 03:21am

Flagg wrote:
Mange wrote:Please enlighten a non-American: Which is the most important, the popular vote or the delegates votes and which Democratic candidate really won in Nevada?
Delegate vote. Thye are the ones who choose the nominee at the national convention. So Obama won the Nevada primary. He tied in the New Hampshire primary. The media has declared Clinton the winner in both despite those facts. Because the media is full of retards.

This may be the first election in ages where the conventions actually matter.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-20 03:21am

Guardsman Bass wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Mange wrote:Please enlighten a non-American: Which is the most important, the popular vote or the delegates votes and which Democratic candidate really won in Nevada?
Delegate vote. Thye are the ones who choose the nominee at the national convention. So Obama won the Nevada primary. He tied in the New Hampshire primary. The media has declared Clinton the winner in both despite those facts. Because the media is full of retards.
Well, as mentioned, you get moral (and probably financial) support for winning the popular primary vote in said areas, if Clinton Advisor Terry McAuliffe's statement about "greatly increased fundraising in the wake of the New Hampshire "victory"" was right.

Oh, I'm sure it was. But it's based on ignorance.