Who else gets to vote Super Tuesday

[RommelTJ]

Nothing like the joys of frontloading....

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, and thousands of Americans will line up to vote.
If McCain comes out as the big winner tomorrow, then the race is over for Romney.

However, things are more difficult for the Democrats. Even if Clinton wins California as expected, Obama will still gain a lot of delegates. What if Obama wins more states than Clinton(which I believe is highly probable)?

Is anyone else upset that the race will be decided this soon? We all know the media will jump on the winner of Super Tuesday and declare him/her the winner, and the average voter will bandwagon on the Media's decision.

So, I ask you to do 2 things: discuss this "front-loading" system for nominating a Candidate and sign if you get to vote tomorrow.

[0peth]

I can't vote yet unfortunately. I think I would have supported Romney, but I don't even like him so much.
My least favorite candidates were Obama, McCain, and Hillary for a while.

Very off-topic...but do students get off on Super Tuesday?

[LordJaric]

This will be the first time I get to vote.

[Christopherr]

I'm voting for Romney, because he's wayyyy better with money than McCain is, and we are definitely in need of an economist.

[TheMason]

At 2/4/08 08:01 PM, 0peth wrote:
Very off-topic...but do students get off on Super Tuesday?

Not very off-topic. However, in most places students do not get off. My school does not let off and I've never gone to a school where they let the students off.

[TheMason]

I voted absentee about two weeks ago.

Huckabee could still prove to be a spoiler if he picks up one or two states in the South.

Remember, this is about delegate count...not an electoral college count of states.

[LordJaric]

At 2/4/08 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Huckabee could still prove to be a spoiler if he picks up one or two states in the South.

I hope he doesn't win.

[TheMason]

At 2/4/08 11:20 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 2/4/08 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Huckabee could still prove to be a spoiler if he picks up one or two states in the South.

I hope he doesn't win.

I don't think he'll win, but if he wins a few states and Romney comes in second he'll be a spoiler for McCain...possibly loosing McCain the nomination. However, if he wins a few states and McCain comes in second...then Romney is out.

Otherwise it is a straight delegate shoot-out between Romney and McCain.

[cellardoor6]

At 2/4/08 11:57 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/4/08 11:20 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 2/4/08 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Huckabee could still prove to be a spoiler if he picks up one or two states in the South.

I hope he doesn't win.

I don't think he'll win, but if he wins a few states and Romney comes in second he'll be a spoiler for McCain...possibly loosing McCain the nomination.

Wait... I don't know if you just worded it weird, but people have been saying that Huckabee would be a spoiler for Romney, stealing away his votes, even though he himself (Huckabee) has little chance of winning.

Romney and Huckabee both get mostly conservative Republican votes, McCain tends to get more moderate votes from centrist Republicans and independents. People say Huckabee is actually working for McCain deliberately because he's taking away votes from Romney but not really taking away votes from McCain. He's essentially staying in simply to prevent Romney from winning.

[public-enemy1]

I failed to register in the county that I go to school in, but Obama would have my vote.

Do any of you think we will have both nominees after tomorrow?

[TheMason]

At 2/5/08 12:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/4/08 11:57 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't think he'll win, but if he wins a few states and Romney comes in second he'll be a spoiler for McCain...possibly loosing McCain the nomination.

Wait... I don't know if you just worded it weird, but people have been saying that Huckabee would be a spoiler for Romney, stealing away his votes, even though he himself (Huckabee) has little chance of winning.

Yeah I know what the pundits have been saying. The Colbert Report did a montauge of correspondants saying a vote for Huckabee is "...a vote for McCain". But how many times has the media been wrong in the primaries?

What I'm saying is there are two likely scenarios:

The Expected Result: Huckabee takes away votes from Romney keeping him in second place...or even worse in third place.

An Alternative Result: Huckabee carries a few Southern States and Romney comes in Second. In this way Huckabee is hurting McCain because he's taking delegates away from the Senator because in these states Romney would be gaining delegates while McCain is not.

Who Huckabee will hurt will come down to who comes in second or third...not first.

[TheMason]

At 2/5/08 01:30 AM, TheMason wrote: The Expected Result: Huckabee takes away votes from Romney keeping him in second place...or even worse in third place.

I should add: assuming McCain comes in first and Huckabee or Romney does not carry many states.

At 2/5/08 12:17 AM, public-enemy1 wrote: Do any of you think we will have both nominees after tomorrow?

I'm 60% sure that we will NOT.

[RommelTJ]

At 2/4/08 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote: I voted absentee about two weeks ago.

Huckabee could still prove to be a spoiler if he picks up one or two states in the South.

Remember, this is about delegate count...not an electoral college count of states.

Yes, but Republicans use the winner take all system, so it's pretty much a count of states and districts.

[Al6200]

The system is wrong. There needs to be a one time popular vote. Think about it, Iowa and New Hampshire got a degree of influence in this election dramatically exceeding their population or just representation.

[RommelTJ]

At 2/5/08 06:24 AM, Al6200 wrote: The system is wrong. There needs to be a one time popular vote. Think about it, Iowa and New Hampshire got a degree of influence in this election dramatically exceeding their population or just representation.

I absolutely fucking agree with everything you just said. I don't care if Republicans win every time. I don't care if people don't get to sit in a room and drink tea. Fuck caucuses. Fuck primaries. Have a one time simple majority election and get over it.

Democracy should represent the majority. It's the only way this country will change.

[The-evil-bucket]

If Clinton takes California and New York, as she's expected to, she'll have a big lead on Obama.

[RommelTJ]

At 2/5/08 06:45 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote: If Clinton takes California and New York, as she's expected to, she'll have a big lead on Obama.

Not really, because of the proportional rule. Proportional rule says that delegates are allocated proportionally among the candidates, so even if Clinton wins Obama will still get a big chunk of the delegates.

[Spike66]

'Sup guys? You wanna boogie with me?

Represent.

[AapoJoki]

If Hillary Clinton becomes the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, I'd like to see Obama as her VP candidate. If it was the other way around, I dunno... Clinton might only hurt Obama's campaign against the Republicans.

[Republican1235]

im gonna vote for romney. im not voting for a negro

[Syphonik]

At 2/5/08 09:53 AM, Republican1235 wrote: im gonna vote for romney. im not voting for a negro

Racist asshole...

[RommelTJ]

At 2/5/08 11:24 AM, Syphonik wrote:

At 2/5/08 09:53 AM, Republican1235 wrote: im gonna vote for romney. im not voting for a negro

Racist asshole...

In case you didn't notice, he is an alt. Don't listen to him. Don't listen to anyone who has 50 posts or less.

[public-enemy1]

At 2/5/08 09:51 AM, AapoJoki wrote: If Hillary Clinton becomes the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, I'd like to see Obama as her VP candidate. If it was the other way around, I dunno... Clinton might only hurt Obama's campaign against the Republicans.

No way that will happen.

My guess is that if Obama gets it, he will run with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

[TheMason]

At 2/5/08 06:18 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 2/4/08 11:11 PM, TheMason wrote:
Remember, this is about delegate count...not an electoral college count of states.

Yes, but Republicans use the winner take all system, so it's pretty much a count of states and districts.

A count of districts: in some cases.
A count of states: in some cases.

The thing is there is about 52 different primary/caucuses and 52 different ways of allocating delegates. Some states (the minority I believe) are winner take all for the state. Other states are proportional while other are proportional in that they are winner take all by district. I'm just saying that we will not know for certain who Huckabee will hurt or if McCain's frontrunner status will survive today's balloting.

Think about Superbowl Sunday. Everyone who knew anything about football was giving convincing reasons and analysis on why the Patriots where two touchdown favorites to win. The result: the Superbowl Champion NY Giants.

All I'm saying is we won't know what happened until happens.

[public-enemy1]

Looks like Huckabee has won West Virginia. Not many delegates up for grabs there, but a win is a win.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 2/5/08 06:34 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 2/5/08 06:24 AM, Al6200 wrote: The system is wrong. There needs to be a one time popular vote. Think about it, Iowa and New Hampshire got a degree of influence in this election dramatically exceeding their population or just representation.

I absolutely fucking agree with everything you just said. I don't care if Republicans win every time. I don't care if people don't get to sit in a room and drink tea. Fuck caucuses. Fuck primaries. Have a one time simple majority election and get over it.

Democracy should represent the majority. It's the only way this country will change.

Help get alot of the money out of politics as well. Sure the candidates would spend more on their national campaign but it would dwarf on how much they put into each pre tuesday state.

On the topic of the three way republican race. It's a two man race Romney and McCain, all huckabee is doing is splitting the conservative vote and is the only reason Romny is not the sure thing.

[public-enemy1]

MSNBC is giving Georgia to Obama.

[TheMason]

At 2/5/08 03:59 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Looks like Huckabee has won West Virginia. Not many delegates up for grabs there, but a win is a win.

Yes and no. WV was not a primary; it was a convention where only 18 of 30 delegates were awarded in a winner take all scenario. However, there are 9 delegates up for grabs in a May primary and 3 RNC delegates. What is interesting is after California and Texas; if McCain or Romney does not have the threshold then these small states and Ron Paul's 6 delegates matter.

But then again, Huckabee is probably going to try to have his delegates go for McCain...

[jonthomson]

At 2/5/08 06:45 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote: If Clinton takes California and New York, as she's expected to, she'll have a big lead on Obama.

Er, Clinton's apparently flipping with Obama in CA, and she'll take NY for obvious reasons. From what I can tell Obama's doing really quite nicely, but I'm now off to stick CNN on for a few hours

[stafffighter]

My moral quandry in voting seemed resolved when the guy I liked who didn't stand a chance dropped out so I could just throw my vote behind the best of those who would do something with it but when I got thew ballot Edwards was still on it. People have got to start pulling out faster.
That's also my stance on birth control.