Delegate Scorecard '08 Primaries

[Mustangman_2000]

I think the results in Michigan are going to be interesting for the Democrats considering what happened in the Iowa caucus.

The 2008 Super Tuesday will be the biggest to date. That is going to be interesting to say the least. We'll most likely have the answers to our questions shortly after.

Here is where we stand as of today.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g18/myjpegs06/Miscellaneous/DelegateScorecard1-9-08.jpg

[jones4stangs]

Why do Clinton and Obama have so many delegate votes? Where do those extra votes come from?

[Mustangman_2000]

Why do Clinton and Obama have so many delegate votes? Where do those extra votes come from?

The other candidates just simply scored lower because they didn't secure the endorsement of the all the potential national delegates. They were simply unpopular or unappealing to draw the votes. Clinton and Obama went into the caucuses with tremendous momentum and popularity. That's why they dwarfed their opposition in the caucuses.

And the disparity between the Democrat and Republican stats is due to the differences in the process of how each party reports the results of the caucus. It's two completely different processes to accomplish pretty much the same thing.

[jones4stangs]

The other candidates just simply scored lower because they didn't secure the endorsement of the all the potential national delegates. They were simply unpopular or unappealing to draw the votes. Clinton and Obama went into the caucuses with tremendous momentum and popularity. That's why they dwarfed their opposition in the caucuses.

And the disparity between the Democrat and Republican stats is due to the differences in the process of how each party reports the results of the caucus. It's two completely different processes to accomplish pretty much the same thing.
That didn't really answer my question. I didn't know where the delegate numbers came from. In ABC's other charts, it show Obama with 38 from Iowa, and 9 from New Hampshire. However the above chart shows him with 115.

Anyway, I did a quick search and came up with enough answer to satisfy me.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/political-convention2.htm
The Democrats use a proportional system, in which the percentage of party members in favor of a candidate in the primary or caucus is reflected in the percentage of delegates representing that candidate who will be sent to the convention. For example, if two candidates split the primary vote, then each gets half of the delegate positions for that state.

Republicans favor a winner-take-all system, although they do allow states the option of using a proportional system. Under a winner-take-all system, the candidate with the majority of votes in the primary or caucus gets all of the state's delegate seats.

Nevertheless, it's still kind of confusing.

[Mustangman_2000]

That didn't really answer my question. I didn't know where the delegate numbers came from. In ABC's other charts, it show Obama with 38 from Iowa, and 9 from New Hampshire. However the above chart shows him with 115.

Anyway, I did a quick search and came up with enough answer to satisfy me.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/political-convention2.htm
The Democrats use a proportional system, in which the percentage of party members in favor of a candidate in the primary or caucus is reflected in the percentage of delegates representing that candidate who will be sent to the convention. For example, if two candidates split the primary vote, then each gets half of the delegate positions for that state.

Republicans favor a winner-take-all system, although they do allow states the option of using a proportional system. Under a winner-take-all system, the candidate with the majority of votes in the primary or caucus gets all of the state's delegate seats.

Nevertheless, it's still kind of confusing.

Well, sorry I couldn't answer your question. And yes, it is a very confusing system at first glance. I've been following this stuff for years and I still just have a rudimentary understanding of how it all works.

[Zarathustra]

There's a reason for that...

[Mustangman_2000]

There's a reason for that...

Let's hear it.

[Zarathustra]

Because it's largely useless and it's just a big money machine aimed at generating funds. In my opinion, the entire elections process in this country needs a complete overhaul. This system we use today has so many flaws and shortcomings, and it's so open for corruption and wrongdoing. Just look at what happened at the last two...

[32VfromHell]

Because it's largely useless and it's just a big money machine aimed at generating funds. In my opinion, the entire elections process in this country needs a complete overhaul. This system we use today has so many flaws and shortcomings, and it's so open for corruption and wrongdoing. Just look at what happened at the last two...

i agree that it does need an overhaul, its needed one since the very first election. I cant help but laugh at you singling out the last two, quite an immature little comment that makes you hard to take seriously at all though.

[32VfromHell]

And by the way, i favor the democrats sytem of splitting it as opposed to winner take all, but thems-the-breaks.

[exlude]

I know a bunch of conservatives are going to jump down my throat for this one: but we need a partially publically funded campaign system.

[Mustangman_2000]

John McCain has jumped in the lead of the Republican polls.

And Hillary Clinton lead has narrowed to 42% over Obama 37%

Obama has gained 40% in the economic polls in one month.