Hillary Clintons March 4 "firewall" broken before

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
D.Turtle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 2002-07-26 08:08am
Location: Bochum, Germany

Hillary Clintons March 4 "firewall" broken before

Post by D.Turtle »

Seeing how Obama has won both Wisconsin and Hawaii, Hillary Clintons last (futile?) hope is to win the March 4 Primary (Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island), or more specific the large ones (Texas and Ohio).

All polls I have seen have her leading those states, However I read this blog post a few days ago with some very interesting information:
Apparently the way the delegates are selected has the following weird result: Even though Hillary Clinton currently leads in polls, the current poll results show her losing the delegate count in Texas.
Burnt Orange Report::: Clinton Up 49-41 in Texas Poll; Obama May Win More Delegates wrote:
[Note: Snipped some parts, and the emphasis is mine]

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY (Latest IVR Poll 1/31)

Hillary Clinton: 49 (48)
Barack Obama: 41 (38)
Undecided: 8 (10)

[snip]

And now for the interesting sub-groups and my analysis. It's here that we find something very surprising!

Even though Clinton leads by 8 points in polling statewide, based upon the following sub-samples, Obama would still come out with a delegate lead.

And that's just among delegates allocated by the primary, not our additional caucus process which Obama has proven deft at winning delegates through.

I'm not kidding, follow me below...

Clinton also enjoys majority support in the South (57%) and Western (61%) regions of the state, and edges ahead in the Eastern part of the state 46% to 40%. Obama is beating Clinton 53% to 32% in the Central region and leads 49% to 44% in the Houston area. The Dallas Fort-Worth region is tied within margin of error (Clinton 42%, Obama 41%).

This section is the most critical when talking about the allocation of national delegates. (For more background as to why, read our two part guide.) While the regions are not defined by Senate District, I'm going to do my best to match them and show what these margins might result in delegate allocation wise. Please refer to this district map and this delegate spreadsheet if you want to follow along.

Region (net delegate gain)

South (57% Clinton, +1 net Clinton)

In order for Clinton to break any 4 delegate border districts, she needs over 62.5% of the vote. Absent that, all three (or four) of these districts are a wash. Right now, all she'd pick up is the odd 3rd delegate in SD-27 (Lucio).

West (61% Clinton, +3 net Clinton)

Again, Clinton faces the same 62.5% issue but the districts are sparse out here. SD-31 only has 2 delegates which will split no matter what. SD-19 has 4 and won't break unless she gets higher and might have even been included in the 'southern' sample because of its anchor San Antonio which was worse for Clinton. That leaves El Paso and the Panhandle with the three 3 delegate districts which only require 51% to get the odd delegate. Racking up the vote in this region doesn't benefit Clinton much once she passes a simple majority, and in this poll, it's her best region.

Eastern (46% Clinton-40% Obama, +/- 0 net)

Now, while this isn't showing anyone over 50%, I believe the delegate match works based upon the split of the viable vote, I'll have to check. Regardless, it doesn't make a lick of difference in this case for East Texas. SD's 1, 2, 3, & 4 are ALL 4 delegate districts that require the 62.5% supermajority to break the tied allocation. Parts of SD-5 could be in this pool, but guess what- it's an even 4 delegate district, too. Hillary sending Bill Clinton through this region needs to ramp up her vote totals by about 15 points before she squeezes any juice out of east Texas. If not, all for nothing.

Central (53% Obama - 32% Clinton, +6 Obama)

The margins here are critical. Looking at these numbers, there is about 15% undecided floating around. If they split evenly along existing proportions, that would put Obama right on the 62.5% line to break 4 delegate districts into 3-1 advantages. Anchored by SD-14 in Austin, Obama can conservatively expect a 5-3 split if he gets over 56.25% and I have no doubt this poll undersamples Obama's college turnout which is highly concentrated here. He'll be able to pick up the odd 3rd delegates in SD-22 & SD-24 with even a simple majority lead. Williamson County north of Austin anchors SD-5 so it's possible Obama could force that 3-1, but I'll leave it tied for now. SD-18 goes east and south so I'm going to leave that 4 delegate district in the split category. SD-25 runs down to San Antonio and has 6 delegates, and the threshold is only 58.3% to break it to 4-2. Keep in mind that an effective college operation at Texas State could help ensure this breaks 4-2 for Obama.

Houston (49% Obama - 44% Clinton, +2 Obama)

Again, if the undecided vote is in the same proportion, Obama would take a 52% simply majority. This is hard to allocate simply because the Houston area is so diverse and the general number is certainly highly weighted by local variances. Four of the six districts here have odd amounts. Based on this, Obama would easily win 4-3 in SD-13 (Ellis who supports Obama) which is African American. He'd need 64% to make this 5-2 and with the support of the district's Senator actively working for him, likely will get there by election day. SD 17 has 5 delegates so as long as Obama leads, he wins the odd delegate. SD's 11 & 15 are both even 4 delegate districts so they are a wash either way if it's close. SD-6 (Gallegos) is a 3 delegate district but Hispanic, so we'll assume this is Clinton's support in the Houston sample and break it 2-1 for her. SD-7 (Patrick) is Anglo so it's 2-1 Obama if he has 1 more vote than Clinton.

Dallas/Ft. Worth (42% Clinton - 41% Obama, +2 Obama )

There are 26 delegates at stake here. Problem is, 18 of them are in even numbered districts, three of which are going to split 2-2. The one that is 6 delegates is SD-23 (West who supports Obama) which is the African American district. Obama needs only 58% to make that a 4-2 split and given the size of the metro area, I'm reasonably confident in asserting that portion of this area's sample includes enough support from SD-23 to do that. That leaves SD-10 (Brimer) and SD-9 (Harris) to whomever wins the simple majority. Obama could do well in SD-9 which include the mid-cities and home to lots of independents but I don't feel comfortable assigning either of these. So lets just assume they break 2-1 for either candidate an cancel each other out for now.

Total (49% Clinton - 41% Obama, +6 net Obama delegates!)

Whoa is right.
[snip]
Interesting indeed.

In addition, Clinton staffers apparently weren't aware of the way Texas awards the delegates:
Washington Post wrote:THE TEXAS PUZZLE
System Worries Clinton Backers
Delegates Won May Not Reflect Popular Vote

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.

Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.

What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.

"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem."
[snip]
Seeing as how she is currently behind in one of her "firewall" states, and seeing as how in pretty much every primary election so far Obama has gained support while Clinton has lost support, I think its fair to say that Hillary Clinton is finished.
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

Oh, she is not finished yet. There is still the possibility of wresting the nomination through procedural skullduggery at the convention but a win of the nomination on those terms could well cost her the general election.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
Strider
Youngling
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-12-25 11:06pm
Location: Boston: It's a happy place, except that it's not.

Post by Strider »

If Hillary took the nomination by political superdelegate force, she'd ruin her position to the degree that Obama could probably run independently and beat her in the General Election (Though he would probably lose in turn to McCain)
User avatar
D.Turtle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 2002-07-26 08:08am
Location: Bochum, Germany

Post by D.Turtle »

To be honest I think that this whole line of thinking that she might get the nomination through superdelegates is silly for a very simple reason: Many of those superdelegates are people who were elected and therefore have to be reelected.

First of all, they would take a huge hit if they were to go so openely and blatantly against the "will of the people". Second of all, Obama has shown himself to be very good at not only getting Democrats out to vote, but also in getting Independents and Republicans out to vote for him. Third of all, Obama has helped other Democrats get elected in very contested states/elections - something that is not the case for Clinton.

If Obama wins the election, that not only places a Democrat in the White House, it also makes it very likely that additional House/Senate seats are won by Democrats.

If Clinton wins through superdelegates, those superdeleagtes have just made their reelection a lot less likely. I don't think they want to risk that.
User avatar
The Guid
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: 2005-04-05 10:22pm
Location: Northamptonshire, UK

Post by The Guid »

But D. Turtle, Democrat loyalists, on whom a lot of these Senators depend, can be said to be behind Hillary more and might see their choice of Obama as a betrayal of the insider.

Just a thought.
Self declared winner of The Posedown Thread
EBC - "What? What?" "Tally Ho!" Division
I wrote this:The British Avengers fanfiction

"Yeah, funny how that works - you giving hungry people food they vote for you. You give homeless people shelter they vote for you. You give the unemployed a job they vote for you.

Maybe if the conservative ideology put a roof overhead, food on the table, and employed the downtrodden the poor folk would be all for it, too". - Broomstick
User avatar
The Original Nex
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1593
Joined: 2004-10-18 03:01pm
Location: Boston, MA

Post by The Original Nex »

The Guid wrote:But D. Turtle, Democrat loyalists, on whom a lot of these Senators depend, can be said to be behind Hillary more and might see their choice of Obama as a betrayal of the insider.

Just a thought.
I think you're underestimating the drive for reelection and overestimating the pull of Rahm's insider cabal. So many Superdels have already come out and said that they will vote for either a) whomever won their state/district or b) whoever has the most delegates overall at the time of the convention. Politicians KNOW that if they stage a coup for Hillary they will LOOSE a lot of Obama supporters in the general, besides the fact that (no-matter what Pat Buchanan says) Barack is more electable than Hillary in a general against John McCain, I think you will see the Superdels being less of a factor as people are making them out to be, provided Obama maintains a lead comparable to the one he has now.
User avatar
Metatwaddle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 2003-07-07 07:29am
Location: Up the Amazon on a Rubber Duck
Contact:

Post by Metatwaddle »

D.Turtle wrote:If Clinton wins through superdelegates, those superdeleagtes have just made their reelection a lot less likely. I don't think they want to risk that.
That doesn't apply to all of them. My state (Delaware) voted for Obama, but out of our eight superdelegates, only three are elected, and one of them (Governor Minner) has a term expiring in January 2009 and will probably retire afterward. Minner and two of the five unelected supers (both are unelected representatives to the DNC) have pledged their support for Hillary and will not see any consequences for that.
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things... their number is negligible and they are stupid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Post by CmdrWilkens »

Elected or unelected the superdelegates are not going to swing the convention to Clinton if Obama enters with a clear advantage. For everything else they are these folks are lifelong pols who will hold party unity above any personal appeal of the Clintons and they KNOW that if a candiadte enters with a clear plurality and they swing the convention the other way it woudl be hell to pay.

The best way to understand what they are and why they will vote this way is to look at the 1972 primary. McGovern entered the convention with something like 55% of the delegates from primaries but he carried less of the popular vote than Humphrey and was essentially tied with Wallace. Had super delegates been in existence the exrremist campaigns of Wallace and McGovern would have been pushed aside in favor of Humphrey (who likely still would have lost but at least he would have done shitloads better than McGovern) as he represented the ideological center of the party to which the most voters could gravitate. In this convention you have Obama likely (not definatley as a screwup on Thursday could change the whole narrative) coming in with a lead in pledged deleagtes, states won, and popular vote. Against that backdrop there is no reasonble explanation for the superdelegates shifting to Clinton.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

I wish people would shut up about the superdelegate scare. Every Obama victory makes it less likely.

To win through superdels now, Hillary Clinton must win every state from here on in. She must net 58% of the delegates every time. And she needs to stop hemoragging superdels to Obama.

It's just echoes of the 'She's a ruthless political animal who will do anything and can acheive total control!' meme. What a pity this race has proven it's full of shit.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
xerex
Jedi Knight
Posts: 849
Joined: 2005-06-17 08:02am

Post by xerex »

any pro CLinton super delagate will have already pledged to support her by now.

the ones who havent pledged are waiting to see who comes out with a plurality .
User avatar
Stravo
Official SD.Net Teller of Tales
Posts: 12806
Joined: 2002-07-08 12:06pm
Location: NYC

Post by Stravo »

Yesterday Bill said in a campaign stop in Texas that if Hillary doesn't win Texas and Ohio that she most likely can't win the nomination so please get out and support her. Looks like the first inkling that she may concede the race if she loses the firewall states. Of course, in typical Clinton fashion, there were a lot of qualifiers in those statements. I guess it's like what your meaning of "is" is.
Wherever you go, there you are.

Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's Guild Cybertron's Finest Justice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2
Image
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

It's just echoes of the 'She's a ruthless political animal who will do anything and can acheive total control!' meme. What a pity this race has proven it's full of shit.
What the hell are you talking about? If anything this race has PROVEN that she's a ruthless political animal who will do anything. From the declared intention to attempt to win with superdelegates, to every baseless sliming attack against Obama, Clinton has done nothing EXCEPT play into the image of her as a ruthless schemining politico. The fact that she's losing anyway doesn't mean she's not out to win at all costs, it just means that people are sick of that shit.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Post by Civil War Man »

Stravo wrote:Yesterday Bill said in a campaign stop in Texas that if Hillary doesn't win Texas and Ohio that she most likely can't win the nomination so please get out and support her.
It's kinda funny when you compare what Bill said then to what Obama said in the speech after Wisconsin came in.

Obama basically said, "I cannot do it alone. If we want to change the country, we will all need to work for it."

Bill basically said, "If Hillary does not win Texas and Ohio, she will not get nominated. It's all up to you."

In the end, it had the same message ("get out and vote for my side"). However, the way Bill said it, it comes across as "if my wife doesn't win, it's all your fault."
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Post by FSTargetDrone »

Civil War Man wrote:It's kinda funny when you compare what Bill said then to what Obama said in the speech after Wisconsin came in.

Obama basically said, "I cannot do it alone. If we want to change the country, we will all need to work for it."

Bill basically said, "If Hillary does not win Texas and Ohio, she will not get nominated. It's all up to you."

In the end, it had the same message ("get out and vote for my side"). However, the way Bill said it, it comes across as "if my wife doesn't win, it's all your fault."
The thing is, he did say that, in so many words. His exact quote was:
"If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. It's all on you,"
I don't see how that can be interpreted in any other way than the way you put it: "...it's all your fault."
Image
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

HemlockGrey wrote:
It's just echoes of the 'She's a ruthless political animal who will do anything and can acheive total control!' meme. What a pity this race has proven it's full of shit.
What the hell are you talking about? If anything this race has PROVEN that she's a ruthless political animal who will do anything. From the declared intention to attempt to win with superdelegates, to every baseless sliming attack against Obama, Clinton has done nothing EXCEPT play into the image of her as a ruthless schemining politico. The fact that she's losing anyway doesn't mean she's not out to win at all costs, it just means that people are sick of that shit.
Or that she tried to live up to the image but there was nothing there. But no, go on, believe the bullshit. :lol: I'm sure all ruthless politicos don't bother with having a plan beyond the first month.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

SirNitram wrote:Or that she tried to live up to the image but there was nothing there. But no, go on, believe the bullshit. :lol: I'm sure all ruthless politicos don't bother with having a plan beyond the first month.
"Incompetence" and "ruthlessness" are not mutually exclusive terms. You might want to try checking your dictionary.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Darth Wong wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Or that she tried to live up to the image but there was nothing there. But no, go on, believe the bullshit. :lol: I'm sure all ruthless politicos don't bother with having a plan beyond the first month.
"Incompetence" and "ruthlessness" are not mutually exclusive terms. You might want to try checking your dictionary.
I've very rarely heard a damn thing about Hillary being incompetent until we see this total collapse. The image that formed and which she promoted included competence.

Besides, there's not much ruthlessness I'm seeing. I'd consider a national media figure saying 'I don't want to lynch Michelle Obama.. Unless there's evidence.. We'll find that' far more ruthless than 'He's all talk!'.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.

Post by CaptainChewbacca »

I somehow imagine Hillary on her throne, in her high command room, surrounded by exploding consoles and shattered mapboards screaming "How could this be??? I am INVINCIBLE!!!" Then Obama fires a torpedo or something.

I dunno, you get the image.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage
User avatar
Invictus ChiKen
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1645
Joined: 2004-12-27 01:22am

Post by Invictus ChiKen »

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I somehow imagine Hillary on her throne, in her high command room, surrounded by exploding consoles and shattered mapboards screaming "How could this be??? I am INVINCIBLE!!!" Then Obama fires a torpedo or something.

I dunno, you get the image.
Obama: Fire!

Me: Fire!

Every Obama Supporter one after the other: FIRE!

Most Republicans one after the other: FIRE!

Clinton's ship goes up like the cloaked Bird of Prey in Star Trek VI


SEE WHAT YOU GOT ME TO THINK WOOKIE!!! :-D
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Post by General Zod »

Apparently Obama has won the Democrats Abroad primary. Hillary's house keeps crumbling.
(CNN) — Barack Obama has won the Democrats Abroad Global Primary, according to the International Chair for the Democrats Abroad, Christine Marques.

Marques tells CNN the results of the week-long vote were:

Barack Obama – 65 percent, Hillary Clinton – 32 percent, with the rest of the candidates pulling in less than 1 percent of the vote each.

Democrats Abroad will send 22 delegates to the Democratic Convention, with half a vote each, carrying a total of 11 votes.

According to Democrats Abroad UK Chairman Bill Barnard, eight of the 22 will be superdelegates: two of those have said they will support Clinton, two have said they will support Obama, and four are undecided. Fourteen of the 22 will be pledged delegates.

Voting in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary began on Super Tuesday, February 5 and continued through February 12. Voting centers were set up in 33 countries, including the UK, France, Germany, Mexico, Canada, Italy, Japan, Hong Kong and new chapters in Istanbul, Ukraine, Russia and Indonesia — the highest number of voting centers in the primary's history.

This was the first cycle that Democrats Abroad enabled those who live in countries without voting centers to vote by mail, fax or Internet.

Democrats Abroad will not release its membership numbers, but the largest communities of U.S. expatriates live in Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.
linky
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.

Post by CaptainChewbacca »

So, now Obama is starting to win in primaries we didn't even know existed.

Does GUAM have a primary?
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Post by FSTargetDrone »

CaptainChewbacca wrote:So, now Obama is starting to win in primaries we didn't even know existed.

Does GUAM have a primary?
Yes:
Saturday, May 3 -- Guam 9 delegates
Image
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

He won the Virgin Islands and D.C. pretty handily.

D.C. should have been a wake up call. If the 'Establishment' player can't win the town of politics-above-all, she's not that much of a politician.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Post by Civil War Man »

FSTargetDrone wrote:The thing is, he did say that, in so many words.
I know. The reason I said "basically" was because I didn't get the exact quote and wasn't about to dig for it at the time I made that post.
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Post by FSTargetDrone »

Civil War Man wrote:
FSTargetDrone wrote:The thing is, he did say that, in so many words.
I know. The reason I said "basically" was because I didn't get the exact quote and wasn't about to dig for it at the time I made that post.
No worries, wasn't meant as a dig. :)
Image
Post Reply