TheUnknown 39 Posted February 5, 2008 Huckabee wins West Virginia. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted February 5, 2008 I had thought about sticking with Edwards, but now that he's dropped out, I think "What's the use." I didn't really decide until I was on my way to the voting precinct. I voted for Edwards. way to make your vote count, man. by the time Kentucky's primary rolls around, the candidates will have already been decided, so my vote's not going to matter anyway. :( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) Obama wins Georgia. Really tight on Republican side. From the BBC: A tornado is heading towards the town of Clinton, Arkansas, CNN reports.I feel bad for finding that amusing, but I do. 8:05 Clinton wins Oklahoma. Obama wins Illinois. McCain wins Illinois and Connecticut. Romney wins Massachusetts. 8:16 Clinton wins Tennessee. 8:30 Clinton wins Arkansas. Huckabee wins Arkansas. 8:35 McCain wins Delaware. 8:54 Huckabee wins Alabama 8:57 Clinton wins Massachusetts 9:00 Clinton wins New York. 9:03 Obama wins Delaware 9:20 Clinton wins New Jersey. McCain wins New York. 9:25 Obama wins Alabama. 9:52 McCain wins Oklahoma. 10:00 Romney wins Utah. 10:10 Obama wins North Dakota. 10:23 Obama wins Kansas and Connecticut 10:30 Obama wins Utah. 10:36 Obama wins Minnesota. 10:40 McCain wins Arizona. 10:42 Huckabee wins Georgia. 11:02 Obama wins Idaho. Romney wins North Dakota. 11:12 Romney wins Minnesota. 11:15 Clinton wins Arizona. 11:43 Obama wins Colorado. Huckabee wins Tennessee. 11:57 Romney wins Colorado. 12:02 Romney wins Montana. 12:12 Clinton wins California. 12:15 McCain wins California. 12:16 McCain wins Missouri. 12:40 Obama wins Missouri. 12:43 Obama wins Alaska. Overnight Romney wins Alaska. Edited February 6, 2008 by TheUnknown Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy 60 Posted February 6, 2008 I would like to re-iterate my previous post. I really don't understand how your system works. lol (does it work? lol) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted February 6, 2008 No, it doesn't work. It's incredibly ewoked up. Here in the States, the parties have little authority to select their candidates. Instead, it is in the hands of the voters. The Presidential nominees for both major parties are formally declared at conventions held during the summer. Before that, the delegates to those conventions are chosen by voters in the individual states. Some states, like mine, have primaries, which are basically pre-elections. Others, most famously Iowa, have caucuses, which are more informal meetings where delegates to the STATE convention are chosen; these delegates choose the delegates to the NATIONAL convention to represent that state. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ayingel 24 Posted February 6, 2008 imma delegate for my precinct!!! yay!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake 53 Posted February 6, 2008 I'm with you, Beeurd. I don't even try to learn to understand that madness. Our systems are fairly straightforward, relatively speaking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted February 6, 2008 most Americans don't even understand it. you need a degree in Political Science. i really don't get why we don't have a national primary. or better yet, just let 'em all run and let us vote for whoever we want come Election day. the current system makes my head hurt, lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted February 6, 2008 The problem with a national primary is that it would be uber-expensive and wouldn't allow for much retail politicking. The problem with a jungle primary is that it would be hard for the average voter who doesn't fully understand the process or the candidates or the issues to research EVERY candidate and therefore would rely way too much on impressions gained from the media; as we know, the media is full of sith. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted February 6, 2008 Yeah, at least this way we sort of narrow the field before Nov. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted February 6, 2008 yeah, but again it's big states like California and New York that have a major hand in deciding things. well, usually it's Iowa and New Hampshire, but still. by the time some states get to vote, the candidates have already been decided and their votes don't count for anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted February 6, 2008 Yeah. Maybe we should have the primaries closer together. And, really, it's only fair that the states with the bigger populations have more "power." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted February 6, 2008 yeah, but it kinda goes agains the whole "every voice counts" thing. most states you already know if they are red or blues states. it comes down to a couple swing states who get to decide. so die-hard Dems in the Deep South don't like to vote because they know it isn't going to matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted February 6, 2008 This year was better than 2004. That was an atrocity. Kerry wins Iowa and gets momentum that carries him non-stop to the nomination. All for winning one itty bitty, lilly white state. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted February 6, 2008 exactly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted February 6, 2008 Our entire Presidential selection process is a joke. We expect people to stand in line vote in the middle of winter. Money plays too big of a role. The Electoral College is a sham. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted February 7, 2008 yeah, but it kinda goes agains the whole "every voice counts" thing. most states you already know if they are red or blues states. it comes down to a couple swing states who get to decide. so die-hard Dems in the Deep South don't like to vote because they know it isn't going to matter. Yeah, it's really sad. Anyway, right now Romney is dropping out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ayingel 24 Posted February 7, 2008 well, he's "suspending" thank god tho he didn't say he endorses mccain...he almost did...but only on his war stance... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted February 8, 2008 Yeah... and his speech was mostly a run for 2012, seemed to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ayingel 24 Posted February 8, 2008 it was...but also...he was being inducted as a legitimate conservative... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted February 8, 2008 I hope someone for the Democratic Party is following McCain around with a camera. Find every pander. Find every vacillitation. Find every contradiction. Make sure he can't portray himself as a principled moderate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ender 8 Posted February 9, 2008 No, they aren't. The Democrats always find a way to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, and that will probably happen again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ayingel 24 Posted February 9, 2008 well...what's funny about that is...that speech that romney gave....mccain and paul both spoke to the same group that same day. paul got the loudest reception from what i can remember, and everyone was told to be nice to mccain and not boo...and it was funny to try to listen to them restrain themselves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake 53 Posted February 9, 2008 *makes airplane flying noises while moving his hand around in the air, then whistles as it dive bombs and crashes* That's your government, imo. Question...does anyone in your country (aside from you upstanding citizens) actually vote based on real political reasons or is it all just one big popularity/mud-slinging/"who loves America more" contest? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
