Ladywriter 7,783 Report post Posted February 6, 2008 article Super Tuesday failed to spark a decisive battle in the presidential races, with results from two dozen states leaving candidates in both parties far from their respective nominations. Sen. John McCain took the lion's share of Republican delegates on Super Tuesday, but still had only about 51 percent of the amount needed to secure his party's nomination. On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton comes away with about 41 percent of the delegates needed for the nomination while Sen. Barack Obama sits at 36 percent. NBC News has projected a Clinton victory California Hillary Clinton 582 delegates Barack Obama 485 delegates I think McCain just about has the rep nomination wrapped up but the dems are still too close to call. Look at the flowers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Myk JL 1,731 Report post Posted February 6, 2008 I agree & wonder why Ron Paul hasn't dropped out. Those who fight deplorables should see to it that they themselves do not become deplorables. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ladywriter 7,783 Report post Posted February 6, 2008 Pride or delusional thinking? Look at the flowers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Myk JL 1,731 Report post Posted February 6, 2008 Pride or delusional thinking? I'd say delusional thinking based on some statements from Ron Paul supporters. "Even if Ron Paul Loses, he wins?" What a load of BS. And the Republican Party will remain the pro-war party. Those who fight deplorables should see to it that they themselves do not become deplorables. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pchan 5,162 Report post Posted February 7, 2008 Clinton got 9 states while Obama got 13. I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ladywriter 7,783 Report post Posted February 7, 2008 Delegates count, but how do you count them? Look at the flowers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Myk JL 1,731 Report post Posted February 7, 2008 In this case I'd say Republicans have a better way than Democrats. Winner take all is way more simpler. Those who fight deplorables should see to it that they themselves do not become deplorables. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zepling 100 Report post Posted February 10, 2008 If winner was to take all, I'm not sure if I would bother voting at all. California is VERY predictable. For instance, it was obvious Hillary was going to win our state. She has the Latino vote and they make up around 50% of our population here. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to vote Obama even though I'm sure he'd lose--I just wasted my vote. I would see no point in voting if that were the case. But I think winner takes all is okay for small states. For big ones though, I think splitting the delegates is more fair. Mayor Quimby I'll admit I used the city treasury to fund the murder of my enemies, but as Gabbo would say, I'm a bad wittle boy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
