Primaries - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Primaries

Posted by atbell on Feb-06-2008 03:09:

Primaries

I just found this CNN sumary of the primaries. It's nice and comprehensive, not to mention easy to find the states where Ron Paul got double digit percentages.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pr...dates/#20080205

Posted by eROs.au on Feb-06-2008 03:10:

Re: Primaries

quote:
Originally posted by atbell
not to mention easy to find the states where Ron Paul got double digit percentages.

lol

Posted by Q5echo on Feb-06-2008 03:32:

CNN is good...if you like to scroll.

Realclearpolitics.com is fairly quick and dirty with a lot of quick ancilliary links

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Feb-06-2008 03:34:

can you be a member of both parties thus allowing you to vote in both primaries? i think its a bit dumb if you cant, perhaps im a swinging voter and want to see the two best candidates from each side running for the top job.

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Feb-06-2008 03:51:

You can only vote in one to prevent people from purposely voting for the most vulnerable candidate of the party other than their own.

Here's a list of who's won what so far:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/

quote:
By Greg Sargent - February 5, 2008, 10:19PM

A big win for Obama: MSNBC and Fox call Connecticut for the Illinois Senator. He also is projected to win MInnesota, Kansas and Alabama. Here's the tally so far:

Obama:

Connecticut

Minnesota

Delware

Georgia

Alabama

Illinois

North Dakota

Kansas

Utah

Clinton:

Massachusetts

New York

New Jersey

Tennessee

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Feb-06-2008 03:58:

the more i learn about the US political system the more i love australia's

Posted by Fibonacci on Feb-06-2008 05:00:

yikes mccain vs hillary... the thought of that is very scary.

Posted by Q5echo on Feb-06-2008 05:25:

mccain vs hillary = /hope

Posted by josh4 on Feb-06-2008 09:54:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
mccain vs hillary = /hope

hope was lost in 2000

quote:
Originally posted by eROs.au
lol

double lol

Posted by Q5echo on Feb-06-2008 13:00:

quote:
Originally posted by josh4
hope was lost in 2000

in a vein attept to take a jab at me, you again make absolutely no sense and reinforce the belief that you're a complete moron.

was there no hope in 2004 as well?

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Feb-06-2008 13:18:

Posted by atbell on Feb-06-2008 14:59:

quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci
yikes mccain vs hillary... the thought of that is very scary.

Scary but not wholely unexpected.

People don't actually like change, the idea of it may be inspriring but change invovles uncertainty and uncertainty is scary.

Therefore, vote for the scary that you are certain about.

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Feb-06-2008 15:07:

It would have been nice to get California or Arizona, but overall it was a good night for Obama - he won 13 states to Hillary's 9, and by wider margins than she mustered. California was a big prize though, and she will continue to lead in delegates, but Obama performed better than polls suggested he would in a lot of states.

He has far more cash on hand than the Clintons, and could spend them into the ground from here until March, which will give him a very good shot at picking up PA, Ohio, and Texas - I still like his chances to catch Hillary.

The states that Obama spends time in trend his way, as can be seen in South Carolina and Georgia... now he has the resources to hit more states going forward than Hillary does. And with four debates agreed to by the Clinton camp already, this campaign is far from over.

Posted by LuvTiesto on Feb-06-2008 15:31:

Clinton has about 100 moar delegates than Obama.

Why don't people understand... BROS BEFORE HOES.

THE BITCH AIN'T ELECTABLE.

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Feb-06-2008 17:14:

quote:
Originally posted by LuvTiesto
Clinton has about 100 moar delegates than Obama.

Why don't people understand... BROS BEFORE HOES.

THE BITCH AIN'T ELECTABLE.

Posted by josh4 on Feb-06-2008 23:29:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
in a vein attept to take a jab at me, you again make absolutely no sense and reinforce the belief that you're a complete moron.

was there no hope in 2004 as well?

as if i have a perceived vendetta to bring you down. don't flatter yourself you're not nearly that important to my time. (however i am satisfied that what time i do spend seems to cause much more discomfort than expected)

perhaps you missed the whole blunder that was the 2000 election. yes a lot of hope in the US election system was lost then.