Florida primaries thread

Voting has begun in today’s Florida primaries, the last to be held before Super Tuesday apart from Republican caucuses in Maine on Saturday. For refusing to play by the rules of the parties’ national committees, Florida has been stripped of the 210 delegates it would normally send to the Democratic national convention, along with half of its 114 Republican delegates. All 57 of the Republican delegates will be pledged to the winning candidate, whereas the Democratic primary amounts to nothing more than an opinion poll. Polls show John McCain and Mitt Romney neck-and-neck in the Republican race, with Rudy Giuliani looking very unlikely to pull off his Florida-first strategy.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,099 comments on “Florida primaries thread”

Comments Page 17 of 22
1 … 16 17 18 … 22

  2. Bill seems to attract some ‘interesting’ friends. From Newsweek:

    Pinchuk won an even bigger favor when Clinton agreed to speak at the Yalta conference. Clinton dazzled the audience with a powerful address about the global challenges facing Ukraine. But he also inadvertently caused a stir when he was embraced by Pinchuk’s father-in-law, Ukraine’s former president Leonid Kuchma, whose authoritarian rule had been condemned by the State Department. Three years ago, a Ukrainian government investigation linked Kuchma’s regime to the decapitation in 2000 of dissident journalist Georgy Gongadze. When Gongadze’s widow, Myroslava, saw a newspaper photo of Clinton and Kuchma at the conference, “I wanted to throw up,” she told NEWSWEEK. Clinton, she says, was being used by Pinchuk “to clean up and legitimize Kuchma’s legacy.”

  3. True, jaundiced view, at 801. By “action” I meant “what’s actually happenin'”, not where one can get the best value, but I didn’t make that clear. It’s always a good move to ping ambiguity. Thanks.

    What I’m sayin’, and have for my last dozen or so comments, is that The Kid is comin’ home like a runaway train. Momentum is surging now that formerly switched-off American voters are getting an eye and earful of Obama on the box and the web. They want to see and hear more. The political zeitgeist is crackling. Just a little taste of Obama doesn’t do it for those who came in late anymore. They want the Motherload. And they want it now.
    Obama’s handlers have positioned The Kid, and timed his run like Group One spin-doctorin’ George Moores. Like jockey George, those who can deliver a “deft touch” at the business end of a race always have an advantage.

  4. 24 hrs later. You got to admit that the debate between Hillary and Barrack last night was a class act in terms of appearance, presentation and content. It made the Reps debate looks like a Hollywood B-grade movie.

    I think Barrack made a tactical mistake for not ruling out on the “Dream Team” when asked. People will think that they might get Barrack as well if they vote for Hillary. So it’s OK to vote for Hillary, we get Barrack as the VP now and maybe as POTUS later.

  5. The interesting thing is, you can just about see a Clinton-Obama ticket at this stage… but I don’t think anyone can see an Obama-Clinton ticket – not least because she would be 68 when her turn came up again. But I digress.

    It’s astonishing to see the weight of support being thrown to Obama now – I would suggest at a tentative guess that out of all the endorsements in the past week, he would have picked up maybe 75% of them. Of course, we are yet to find out if he has peaked too early or too late – on the one hand, another week to kill off the remaining poll gap would have been useful, on the other steaming into a Super Tuesday of which the consensus is you are going to lose is useful, as it allows you to dismiss the results as ‘hey, better than we expected a month ago’ and continue the charge forward.

    There was a very interesting article in the oz today – “at the gates of Castle Clinton” (in the Inquirer section.) In a way this metaphor is very accurate. This is one of the last chances the Democratic Party will have – ever – to stand up to the Clinton dynasty and say enough is enough. Either stand up and take action now, or accept reality and ensure you have nothing to fight for over the next eight years, at which point there will be undoubtedly more ‘winds of change’ after a prolonged period of total Democratic control. Obviously I am making a lot of assumptions there, but you catch my drift.

    Also look at it this way – the two Clinton’s can undoubtedly do a tremendous amount of good in the public over the next eight years if they lose. Money, power, name recognition, popularity, a genuine desire to help the poor and disadvantaged… there are few people out there who don’t appreciate their work, or their service to the world, it’s just we don’t want them in power again. If Obama loses, he will return to the Senate for another term or two, before refocussing on another run, or maybe return to teach. No disputing that will be a good thing, but he can’t have nearly the impact the two Clinton’s could if they started using their name for good, once they realise their time in power is finally well and truly at an end. Better result for everyone all around.

    Super Tuesday can’t come soon enough.

  6. 802
    MayoFeral

    Yeah, old Bill, eh? What a trooper he is! Did you catch that story about his dealings in Kazahkstan and his ‘fee for services’ rendered in the form of tens of millions donated to his Clinton fund?

    Talk about a mover and shaker (or shake-down artiste!).

    He’s got so much form that the Repuglies are going to wet themselves dragging every converstion, every donation, every deal and every back he’s slapped in the last 7 years that you can hear them near busting with excitement at the prospect of having Hillary as the putative target.

    And anyone who thinks Obama has ‘history’ like Bill’s is NOT on the planet.

  8. The LA Times concludes it’s ringing endorsement of Obama:

    In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long — a sense of aspiration.

    …after concluding that they are both excellent candidates, but Obama was always against Bush’s folly in Iraq and has a personal history that is not, how shall we say, ‘white bread’!

    But that word, ‘aspiration’ is one we’ve all seen kicked around the political lexicon and abused right, and er, centre. My all time favourite, the ‘let them eat cake’ moment, when Dame Leonie Kramer ascribed Howard’s loss to, you guessed it…too much ‘aspiration’!

    Dame Leonie Kramer: “Once you start aspiring you never stop”

    (Thanks to that other Ann Coulter wannabe, Miranda Devine, for this exquisite gem of noblesse oblige!)

    Now, enter Obama, the new master of aspiration!

  10. 807
    davidoff

    Thanks for that, a very interesting bit of google-ometry!

    If you search on California for the last 30 days Clinton only gets even close in Santa Barbara (now, someone, why is that?)

    Fascinating toy!

  15. 811
    davidoff

    Yeah, Obama might be ‘liberal wet dream’, but the facts are that he’s still well and truly in this race, and even though Clinton will most likely take the majority of delegates on Tuesday, he will still be close enough to keep her running until the convention.

    It’s not the lay down misere that some people assumed.

  16. @811
    From the Los Angeles Times …

    An Obama presidency would present, as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent, born in the nation’s youngest state, with a childhood spent partly in Asia, among Muslims. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama’s mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama’s life story in preparing a president to understand the American character. His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.

  18. David Brooks on Jim Lehrer’s News Hour said he’d had lots of emails from Republicans after the Democratic debate and they were basiclly saying that they were in trouble. And if the McCain/Romney debate is the standard, then they are seriously in trouble.

    Hat off to Brooks, for a Republican he sure can tell it like is without rancour and insult. A true gentleman of scribbler’s giuld.

  28. Eeeeeeeek, that woman is off her meds, and it’s plainly apparent that she’s barking, or perhaps more accurately, squeaking mad! (for indeed, Ann Coulter squeaks and shrieks!)

    Aaaargh, what a mad, sad little thing! And to think, such a deranged she-whippet is the pin-up girl for the lunar right! Well that proves they’ve got no taste for a start. Just try and imagine even listening to that piercing shriek and watching those staring eyes as she foams at the mouth over every ‘conservative’ buzzword.

    Cree-py!

  29. have just caught up with the blogs tonight and find Centre trying to confuse non punting Blogers with his false figures to justify his errors

    Now in #782 he wants to hold everyone’s money as a real Bookie which is what I thought and wqhich was not only inappropriate but went against being a Donation

    Secondly anyone looking at his fake example to support his false argument can see a further single $50 bet on Clinton means the Bookie loses…he owes $39 to William…

    and any further bets on Clinton in his example means a greater Bookie loss
    owing by him to William.

    The suggestion he could not lose is therefore proven false

    ie. INSTEAD OF EACH OF US MAKING A DONATION TO WILLIAM , we would be relying on one person (the Bookie) to pay up

  32. Some blogers here have disagreed (often strongly) with my views and that is their right & I take no offfence at all…its the non faint hearted blogoshere

    So I wish to set the record straight for those who want to take the trouble to check the ACTUAL figures quoted by Centre in #782 which are misleading
    Do not take my word…check the figures independently yourselves

    Centre has produced a notional Bookie profit of $11 and says as its a profit the Bookie pays WB zero. But he says IF the Bookie loses on the book he will pay WB

    Well you’ll see from Centre’s own figures that ONE only single further bet of $50 on Clinton would mean the Bookie’s net loss is a max of $39 & the Bookie owes WB a max. of $39

    Any further bets on Clinton without bets on the others only increases the Bookies loss and increases the Bookies liability to WB

    Each winning Clinton bet even at tightened odds still creates an ACCUMULATING loss to the Bookie & a liability by the Bookie to WB
    which is highly inappropriate for us all

    I challenge Centre to dispute these specific figures.
    Of course he won’t because the maths are correct
    Instead Centre will attempt a red herring to camoflage his error or pretend this blog did not happen

    The flaw in Centre’s idea was two fold
    The bookie was exposed to a potential large liabiilty as per the above
    RATHER than us making simple donations to WB with those who win having bragging rights on their phantom bets at phantom odds

    I said previously that Centre was to pay WB on all winning bets without any offset to Centre which is true despite Centre’s assertions.
    My statement was soundly based on the assumption the bookie can have a loss on the ‘book’ causing the bookie to owe the ‘book’ loss to WB
    THIS CAN EASILY occur as I’ve demonstrated above

    Having corrected the misrepresentation for those who wish to check the mathematics themselves , I move on to the more important issue of a donation to WB and pledge $50 as a donation

    Whilst I’m having a phantom $50 bet on Obama at the phantom odds of 7/2
    I will pay WB whether Obama wins or not

    (7/2 are ridiculous odds by Centrebet but reflect bundles put on Hillary)

  33. OMG, just had to watch that Ann Coulter vid, now I know what purgatory must be like. She would have to be the best example of why the Yanks must get those repugnant loonies away from the doomsday button. As KR said, creepy.

  36. McCain is F**ked. The far right conservatives want him to be FRC. The middle moderate conservatives want him to be MMC. The liberal left conservatives want him to be LLC. You cannot be all things to all people. You cannot please all the people at all times.

  39. 837 No, it’s a polling blog keen to see the blog put on a secure financial footing to ensure that it can continue with plenty more election cycles covered. I’m sure that any ideas good, bad or ugly will be canvassed until a workable solution becomes apparent. I’m sure that if the Finnigans have got good ideas they will be thrown into the mix and discussed along with the current ideas about increasing the flow of donations to this blog.

  40. #839 – see #584

    #582 – Centre – I also said that I will put my money where my keyboard is. I will donate $50 to WB if Hillary wins. $20 if Obama wins. WB gets my tears if McCain wins. Fair enough?

  44. Steve , you’ve expressed the sentinment the clearest.

    The blog should be put on a reasonable financial footing so it can continue

    My concern was not with Centre’s intentions but with the flawed execution of him actually being a Bookie on this site (or to be more accurate a 1/2 Bookie)

    ie. liable for the total of notional winning bets less notional losing bets

    my blog 832 explains the detail why Centre was wrong to claim minimal losses
    WOULD be incurred by the ‘Bookie’ & why a Bookie is inappropriate

    Therefore Centre’s idea belongs in the dust bin and we should endeavour to bounce around practical ideas tp make the Poll Bludgers site viable.

    (which could involve bragging rights & varying “”class’s” of a ‘Rodent’ award)

  46. 843 – Part of the reason for such a dramatic graph adjustment is there hadn’t been a poll there for months.

    Even if Obama doesn’t win but gets close it is still going to be over, as most states are not winner takes all, so the delegates might be split fairly even. If come Thursday the delegate count is split is 1250 Clinton to 800 Obama, it will be game on and the race will go on. However, if the numbers are 1500 to 500, it will be all over red rover.

    Over on the other side, McCain looks likely to wrap it up on Tuesday. But if Hucklebee does well in the south, it might still be on. Hucklebee will position himself as the king maker.

  47. Frin Taegan Goddard.

    Clinton, McCain Open Wider National Leads

    The latest Gallup tracking poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton with a 7 point lead nationally over Sen. Barack Obama, 48% to 41%. This is up from just a three point lead yesterday.

    On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain now holds a 20 point lead over Mitt Romney, 44% to 24%, “his largest lead since he assumed the front-runner position following the New Hampshire Republican primary.” Mike Huckabee trails at 16%.

    ———-

    And a great “Quote of the Day”

    “If you’ve got a Hillary and McCain race, you’ve got a third option: That’s the pistol on the bed table.”

    — Pat Buchanan on MSNBC.

  48. They seem to use smaller sample sizes than the Australian polling companies do. 350 voters to 800 voters seem to be the normal. This might be a consequence of “no call” laws.

  50. Blair , am surprised the National Poll has widened

    I predicted Obama to get a 49% National vote on Super Tuesday and I’m not looking very good as was my prediction of a 50 delegate difference on Tuesday

    However these are National not State primary Polls & as I feel is Obama has momentum particularly in the south & somewhat in the East I feel Obama will do well in those States….& end up close enough to Hillary to warrant continuing

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 17 of 22
1 … 16 17 18 … 22