2008 Presidential Primary Results

IOWA – January 3, 2008

WYOMING – January 5, 2008

NEW HAMPSHIRE – January 8, 2008

MICHIGAN - January 15, 2008

MICHIGAN - updated May 31, 2008

January 19, 2008

NEVADA

SOUTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA – January 26, 2008

FLORIDA – January 29, 2008

FLORIDA – updated May 31, 2008

MAINE – February 1, 2008

February 5, 2008 – SUPER TUESDAY

ALABAMA

ALASKA

ARIZONA

ARKANSAS

CALIFORNIA

COLORADO

CONNECTICUT

DELAWARE

GEORGIA

IDAHO

ILLINOIS

KANSAS

MASSACHUSETTS

MINNESOTA

MISSOURI

MONTANA

NEW JERSEY

NEW MEXICO

NEW YORK

NORTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

TENNESSEE

UTAH

WEST VIRGINIA

February 9, 2008

KANSAS

LOUISIANA

NEBRASKA

WASHINGTON

February 10, 2008

MAINE

February 12, 2008

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARYLAND

VIRGINIA

February 19, 2008

HAWAII

WASHINGTON

WISCONSIN

March 4, 2008 – Little Super Tuesday – Clinton Survives, McCain Wins Nomination

OHIO

RHODE ISLAND

TEXAS

VERMONT

March 8, 2008

WYOMING

March 11, 2008

MISSISSIPPI

April 22, 2008

PENNSYLVANIA

May 6, 2008

INDIANA

NORTH CAROLINA

May 13, 2008

NEBRASKA

WEST VIRGINIA

May 20, 2008

KENTUCKY

OREGON

May 27, 2008

IDAHO

June 1, 2008

PUERTO RICO

June 3, 2008

MONTANA

NEW MEXICO

SOUTH DAKOTA

[Read more →]

Only Montana (16 pledged delegates) and South Dakota (15 pledged delegates) are left on the Democratic primary schedule, slated for Tuesday, June 3, 2008. According to My Lamppost, Barack Obama is 47 delegates away from clinching the Democratic nomination for President. Hillary Clinton is 203 votes shy and cannot clinch with the two remaining primaries since the total for both equals 31 pledged delegate. Of course, according to delegate rules, the delegates are really the ones to decide at the Denver convention.

It is noted by many journalists and newspapers that Obama has the edge in the Montana and South Dakota primaries and assuming he musters 50% of pledged delegates, he will walk away tomorrow with 16 total pledged delegates, leaving him 31 delegates shy of the finish line. News today came out of Washington that the remaining 17 super delegates from the Senate will pledge to Obama but they will wait until after the final primary day tomorrow to commit and to also give their fellow Senator Clinton time to gracefully leave the race.

Assuming Obama wins 16 pledged delegates tomorrow and then is handed 17 super delegate votes in a few days, his delegate total nears 33, leaving him just 14 delegates shy. At this point or before, Clinton should leave the race. If she doesn’t, look for the DNC powers-that-be to step in to mediate (or mandate, depending on Clinton’s view) a settlement. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, was quoted as saying that there will be resolution by the end of June (read: before her Summer vacation begins). Clinton surely believes she will fare better against McCain and has the demographic support in the Democratic party that Obama doesn’t. Would would-be Clinton voters really vote McCain if she isn’t hte nominee? We’ll see. Would Clinton accept the VP role if offered by Obama? Or will she take the battle all the way to the Denver convention? Out of pressure, the odds are that she won’t take this to Denver. it will be an interesting talk between Pelosi and Clinton if this goes another 30 days.

[Read more →]

There are 9 presidential primaries left. However, three primaries are Republican only – Nebraska, Idaho and New Mexico. The six (6) remaining Democratic primaries are West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, all of which account for 217 pledged delegates.

Is the Democratic primary race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over? Let’s do the math.

On the eve of the West Virginia primary, Clinton trails Obama by 168 combined pledged and super delegate votes. Obama currently has 1,865 total delegates so needs 160
delegates to secure the Democratic nomination (2,025 – 1,865 = 160). Clinton, incidentally, needs 328 delegate votes. At stake over the next few final weeks are only 217 pledged delegates, 103 of which are at stake on May 20th in the Oregon and Kentucky Democratic primaries. As a result, Clinton cannot win the nomination on pledged delegates. There aren’t enough to cover the 328 she needs. There are enough delegates, though, to cover the delegates (160) Obama needs to grab the nomination.

How likely is it that Obama can win 160 pledged delegates over the remaining six (6) Democratic primaries? Not too likely. Obama would need to carry 75% of the vote to get over the top. In fact, the best he’s done recently – pre Reverend Jeremiah Wright and associations with the Muslim religion – was the 61% he picked up in Wyoming back in early March. Even in Illinois on Super Tuesday, he could only muster 64% of the vote.

So, it seems, the whole shebang gets decided by super delegates or at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

[Read more →]

Counting Democratic pledged and super delegates, Barack Obama still maintains a healthy lead going into the next primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th. Hillary Clinton is still trailing Obama by 125 delegates, 150 if you just count pledged delegates. Does Clinton still have a chance of upending Obama? Can she surpass him? Can she convince the super delegates that she is the best choice and despite what the pledged delegate count says, that she is the candidate that should receive the super delegate endorsement? If she does, she will be the Democratic nominee. Obama has alot of work in front of him. it didn’t have to be like this, Barack.

What happened in the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary?
In the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, there were lots of voters who decided their vote at the last minute and among those last minute voters about 60% voted for Clinton. Clinton also received alot of blue collar type votes, lots of women votes and lots of older votes.

But the real question is, why, after months and months of getting to know Clinton and Obama, are there so many people deciding their vote at the last minute? Are people wanting to vote for Obama but still walking uneasy not knowing what’s behind the rhetoric? Did the last debate held on April 16th have anything to do with it? The debate was watched by more Americans (10 million) than any other debate we’ve had so far in this 2008 Presidential Primary season.

Obama is definitely getting rocked a bit by probing interview questions but I guess that comes with the turf when you’re the front-runner because the the only negative to standing on the front-runner throne is that we Americans like to bounce you off of it. Pretty large negative. Just ask Britney Spears. Clinton began her campaign stating emphatically that she was more than prepared to be the next Commander-in-Chief, citing experience in the Oval Office as First Lady and as Senator from New York. Obama can’t match her record as hard as he tries – one term as Illinois Senator – so has tried to rely on rhetoric – “CHANGE” – and endorsements (read: fundraising).

Many American voters will prop you up on good looks and rhetoric but, in the end, it really does boil down to issues and experience which may explain teh high number of last minute voters in Pennsylvania. When pressed by the media about the effect on revenues given an increase in the capital gains tax, Obama seemed ill-prepared to answer. (The question was based on that fact that government revenues actually increased when the capital gains tax was cut. Conversely, government revenues decreased when the capital gains rate was increased.)

We are entering the proverbial 4th quarter of the 2008 Democratic Primary season. It is one thing to build a lead, another to maintain it and quite another to preserve it when the momentum swings to your opponent. American voters are asking the tough questions (through the media and blogs) and this requires that a few layers of Obama’s “issue onion” be peeled back. What is underneath the “CHANGE” rhetoric? Does he understand economics, social policy, foreign policy. Is he poised enough? When TV viewers witness frustration, discontent and non-answers, they project that on to other issues, challenges and confrontations. Can Obama stand strong against other foreign leaders? Can he ably negotiate with Republicans if the Democrats do not gain a majority in the mid-term elections? Basically, does he really and truly “get it”?

Clinton, on the other hand, is somewhat ascerbic and not as good-looking as Obama. She lacks charisma and really does have a whiney voice. Does she have to continually yell into that microphone of hers? Does she think I can’t hear her? But, in the end, who do you trust in the White House? Clinton is right. She has been there. She has had on-the-job training and was given Presidential-type responsibilities while acting as First Lady. She is smart, like Obama, but seems better prepared to stand up to resistance, discontent and threats. She seems better prepared to lead.

The opinon of the Lamppost is this: Obama could have secured the Democratic nomination a while back but super delegates, and now regular voters, are wondering if he really is
better than Clinton and if he even has a chance in hell of beating McCain. So many super delegates are worried, in our opinion, that he will be swallowed whole by McCain. And, we
tend to think this is possible because “change” rhetoric will not fly in the general Presidential election debates. The issues will be debated. A grasp of economics will be required. So will a pragmatic and experienced view of foreign policy.

The super delegates are awaiting a few things before they really commit to either Democratic candidate: one, they want to see how the country continues to vote in the seven (7 Democratic primaries that remain, and two, they will take measure of each as a viable opponent to John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for President. The feeling is that if Clinton continues to trail Obama in pledged delegate totals yet continues to mount momentum with primary victories, the super delegates will not support Obama and swing the nomination to Clinton. In effect, the race is tied. Whichi candidate will reach down and grab that “something extra” to convince us of his or her strength, intelligence, quick wit and poise?

[Read more →]

Last week, in our post entitled Obama Sweeps 9 Primaries – Leads by Only 98 Delegates? we said that Hillary Clinton would have to win at least one of the large primaries on “Little Super Tuesday” in order to stay in the Democratic primary race.

Well, tonight Hillary Clinton regained her momentum and threw a pin into the momentum balloon that Barack Obama was riding. As of 9pm PST, Clinton has won Rhode Island and Ohio and is winning Texas with 58% of the precincts reporting. Earlier Obama won in Vermont.

So Who is Winning the Democratic Primary Race Now?

Even thought it’s early, let’s have some fun with the Democratic delegate counts adn assume that the vote percentages in each state as of 9pm PST hold true:

Updated Delegate Totals: Barack Obama would have 1,543 delegates and Hillary Clinton would have 1,473 delegates. Barack Obama would lead by 70 delegates but Clinton would have successfully stayed off Obama’s momentum, his message and a possible clinching Democratic nomination. Still, though, Clinton has alot of work to do to regain those 70 delegates and with apportioned delegates, it darned may be impossible unless she can whip off a winning streak similar to Obama’s the last month or convince the superdelegates to vote her way.

[Read more →]

Who are you going to vote for President? My father tends to vote according to his wallet. My mother veers toward the religious issues, abortion rights chief among them.

It seems that your Presidential vote in November 2008 will be influenced by your personal agenda and then perhaps by your social standing. In other words, if you’re wealthy or a business owner, you may vote according to taxation ideology. If you’re Hispanic, African American or a woman, you may vote according to health insurance or taxation ideology. If you’re vote is influenced by religion, you may vote according to tenets outlined in your particular religious constitution, i.e., Bible, Koran, Torah, etc: chiefly abortion rights and same sex partnerships.

When Ronald Reagan, our 41st U.S. President who served from 1981 – 1989, ran for re-election, he asked if we were better off than we were 4 years earlier. In other words, did we have more money? Were we making more money? Did we have a good or better job? Did we feel good about our country? The populace seemed to get the point, agreed that they were better off, and elected him to a 2nd term overwhelming over Walter Mondale. I’m not a Reagan apologist. Many things did not go as planned. What I liked about him was that he had charisma, made us feel really good about being Americans, was able to criticize without extracting pounds of flesh (Berlin Wall speech comes to mind). Supply side economics (aka trickle down economics) didn’t work out the way he planned but his plan was new and revolutionary. Many benefited from his economic policies. Many didn’t. But, he tried. He believed in being a good person to his spouse, to his friends, to his colleagues in power. He was decent. He believed in wealth, did not punish those for being rich and tried to legislate a trickle down effect where millions of others could get rich also.

I am neither a conservative nor liberal. I believe in some ideologies promoted by both Republicans and Democrats. I also disagree with some ideologies promoted by both Parties.

• I am a business owner.
• I believe in helping people.
• I don’t believe in Imperialism.
• I do believe in maintaining a prepared self-defense system, i.e., military.
• I believe, from experience, that we need health insurance reform but think it’s necessary that it not be taken over by the State.
• I don’t think there should be a wide divide between rich and poor, at least between those that are rich and those that want to be rich. To those that want a monthly paycheck without working for it, well, I don’t want to pay for you.
• However, if you want to work but can’t, we’ll find a way to take care of you.
• If you’re a veteran and are handicapped mentally, physically or emotionally, my country should support you, reward you and thank you.
• I believe that smoking is not healthy but it doesn’t mean I advocate going into Tobacco Road in South Carolina and immediately eliminating 1,000’s of farming, infrastructure, and managerial jobs as well as family structures. Let’s create a plan to grow something else or retrain the affected population so that they can continue to work and live a meaningful, contributory life.
• I don’t believe in building walls to prevent people from entering our country especially after the symbol of our country in the 80’s – Reagan – sat atop the Berlin Wall and raged against that “communist symbol”.
• I also believe that emigration to the United States is a privilege and a right. Hispanics must promote, nurture and preserve their culture – continue to speak Spanish – but they must also learn to speak English like the Italian immigrants did in 1880-1920 when millions of them entered the United States to escape injustices, poverty and disease in Italy. Same should be said of Asians, Filipinos, Russians – all ethnic groups emigrating to the U.S. Preserve your traditions but help build a unified America. Sure, monitor emigration. Repel those that seek to hurt America. But, make a plan for those that can and want to contribute. Retrain immigrants like you would retrain workers on Tobacco Road.
• How about the War in Iraq? Not sure I was a proponent of the war in Iraq. But since we’re in there, why would we leave a political vacuum and potential unrest in a region uniformly known for 1,000’s of years of turmoil and unrest? Don’t you think that Obama or Clinton would immediately gain the advice of their military chiefs and, after say, 10 minutes, decide that we had to stay in after all? I’m not opponents of Clinton or Obama – I just don’t trust them on this issue. Obama could be naïve; Clinton’s been there. She knows better.
• And my last point: why must every Democrat seek to punish the rich? What is wrong with getting rich, being rich and staying rich? There are bad rich people and there are bad poor people. Sure, there are company executives that steal and cheat. There are still those executives that do everything legally yet everything immorally – accepting huge stock payoffs while 2,000 employees are laid off. Wrong message to send. But, what? We’re going to legislate against it? The media pick up on it and skewer these people anyway. They really don’t ever get away with it and they represent such a minor percentage of wealthy people anyway. Millions of people that are rich today didn’t begin life as wealthy people. However, they did see an America that allowed them to get rich. So, why should someone that risks everything, works tirelessly for 18 hours a day, pays taxes and employs people be punished because someday that risk pays off in the form of a lot of money? The stock market is famous for promoting the phrase “high risk, high reward”. If you risk your time and energy, social relationships, deferment of a home so you can pay an employee’s salary and oil bills, why would you not deserve to be wealthy? Do you know why Michael Jordan made $30 million in the last year of his contract with the Chicago Bulls? Because he made his owner 10x (guess) that amount throughout his playing days. Heck, his visits to the arenas of opponents were typically sold out events – how much money did he make for them? How much did he make for the entire NBA during his playing tenure? The $30m was a thank you note for all that he had done. He deserved it.

Do you know what millions of people with money do – including the rich, wealthy and upper middle class? They own businesses that employ millions of people. When interest rates are stable (and low enough) they build real estate, they add onto their plants, they buy machinery, they buy office supplies, they entertain at restaurants that employ cooks and waiters, they buy nice cars sold by car salesmen, take their cars to gas stations to buy gas from gas station owners. Their employees buy homes which have to be built by construction companies or financed by bankers or mortgage brokers. Finished raw materials for home construction must be purchased from lumber yards. Their employees get married and have kids. Kids eat a lot so there are many supermarket visits where a lot of fruits and vegetables are purchased. Fruits and vegetables are picked by farmers. Kids go to schools (and daycare) that employ teachers. The point is that there is a trickle down effect here. People make money in our capitalist system because others can afford to SPEND it.

Rich people, or let’s just say people with expendable income, also donate time and money to charities. I’m not naïve: many would not donate if the tax code did not provide incentive but… I’m also not naïve: many still would give to charities despite the tax law. Charities employ administrators who, in turn, designate donations to needy people.

So, again, I ask the question: why must there be advocates of increasing the taxes for rich people? Why not decrease taxes for the rich and middle class? Right, you ask, where’s the money going to come from?

We spend, what, a half billion dollars a day in Iraq? There is money in the budget to address social and financial disadvantage and misfortune. The problem is that the lobbies for the military are stronger than the homeless lobby. We just need, as a country, to get smart about keeping the dream alive for everyone that wants to participate in the dream.

In short, we are only as good as our weakest links: racial divides, class divides, laziness, obesity, imperialism, know-it-all-ism, homelessness, intolerance et al. Let’s get with it

So, who will you vote for? I’m thinking McClintama!

[Read more →]

Yeah, yeah, Barack Obama has swept the past 9 consecutive democratic primaries by my count, has grabbed the spotlight and has the edge in charisma. As a result, you’d think that he was ahead by a McCain-country mile.

Well, after his 9-state sweep, Obama is ahead by only 98 delegates with the March 4th democratic primary elections upcoming. (On March 4th, Democratic state primaries are held in Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas, and Ohio.) Because the Democratic primaries were not winner take all primaries, Hillary Clinton was apportioned delegates based on her percentage of votes, thus keeping the 2nd place finisher in the race. But, it is getting tight now.

What does Obama’s 98 delegate lead mean? Is he ahead by a McCain country-mile or is the Democratic race basically tied?

If you look at the number of state primaries remaining (14) as well as the number of delegates up for grabs (922), you’d think the race was about tied and that no matter the results of March 4th, Hillary Clinton would still live to fight another day.

But, on closer look, it appears Hillary Clinton has to win either Ohio or Texas to remain in the race.

Here’s why:
Given the past 9 primaries, Obama has won by an average of 64%. Let’s say he sweeps the March 4th primaries (TX, OH, VT, RI) with the same vote percentage and let’s say Clinton takes the remaining 36%. Obama would win 237 out of 370 pledged delegates available while Clinton would capture 133, leaving them with 1,609 and 1,407 delegates, respectively. The math says that Obama would be ahead by 202 delegates, not counting superdelegates. A lead of 202 delegates with momentum could prove insurmountable given that the state primaries that follow, even though they represent the remaining 720 delegates, really do not have many delegates to give separately, other than Pennsylvania and Indiana.

If Clinton loses Texas and Ohio, she would have to literally shut out Obama in Pennsylvania and Indiana to come back which in all likelihood won’t happen given Obama’s would-be momentum and that we’d be in the homestretch of the primary race.

Remaining Democratic State Primaries:

[Read more →]

Republicans are known for their unity and today Mitt Romney sought to unite the Republican party and its conservative base behind John McCain. A fractured Republican party leading up to the September nominating convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul would not have proved strategic with the general election only a couple of months after that.

It was clear that McCain and Romney did not see eye to eye. McCain is known as more of a moderate Republican often walking across the aisle to work with Democrats. Romney advocates a more staunch conservative Republican ideology. But, Romney has conceded that Republican Party unity and the chance to settle the Party going into general elections is paramount and more important than his own aspirations – at least in this election year. But, believe me, Republicans do not forget. When it comes time for Romney to run again in 2012 or 2016, he will have support as a result of his actions today.

I prefer McCain’s strategy of reconciliation and compromise to Obama’s “We Need Change” credo. In our government, we don’t suffer naive mavericks gladly. Reagan, no matter what you think, was a maverick but a maverick with a plan and respect for his colleagueas. Hell, he once was a Democrat. The President of the United States has to compromise, negotiate, prod and convince Congress and the House of Representatives that his ideas are worth merit – that is unless the majority on both sides belong to the President’s Party. So why Barack Obama is giving the indication he will go it alone and change Washington is beyond me. Washington “insiders” don’t change unless there’s something in it for them.

So What Happens to Romney’s Delegates?

B Simpson asked that very question. Delegates – both pledged and super delegates – are not bound to vote for the candidate that leaves a primary race for President in our United States. However, delegates usually vote according to the retired candidates’ endorsement. For example, today, February 14th, 2008, Mitt Romney officially endorsed John McCain for President and asked his delegates to follow suit. It is expected that his 280 delegates will unite behind Romney’s sentiment and vote for McCain also. This is typically what happens in a Priamry race as a candidate begins to emerge. However, this year may be different. The reason Huckabee is still in the running is because a good percentage of conservative Republicans stand behind his ideologies and are unsure of McCain’s conservative leanings. Well, it’s more like they doubt that McCain will aptly represent their conservative social agenda. So, don’t be surprised if, at the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul in September, some of Romney’s delegates swing to Huckabee. Last point, the swing in delegate votes from Romney to Huckabee could be a mute point if McCain secures more than the 1,191 delegates needed to nominate the Republican candidate for President BEFOREHAND. If all of Romney’s delegates were to swing to McCain, McCain would have 1,123 delegates today, just 68 delegates shy of the nomination.So, there you go – delegates can do whatever they want to do at the convention. I’m even pretty sure that they don’t have to endorse McCain if they feel too separated
from his agenda. If the race were closer and McCain needed the votes, you’d see some major concessions coming from the McCain camp. He already has made quite a few to the conservative base, I’m sure, which accounts for his large lead over Huckabee.

[Read more →]

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachuetts, has retired from the 2008 Presidential race.

Romney is a Republican and was competing against John McCain, Senator from Arizona, and Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, for the privilege of representing the Republican Party in the general election for President in November.

Initially it was believed that Mitt Romney was the Republican Party’s best chance of beating either Clinton or Obama on the Democratic side in the general election. he understood the economy, backed the conservative policies of George Bush and appealed to conservative Republicans. That is, until Super Tuesday ended.

In Super Tuesday voting, it was clear that Mike Huckabee had as much of a stronghold on conservative Republicans as did Romney and, in the end, Huckabee won (with McCain’s help beginning in West Virginia). Romney won the states of Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Daokata and Utah. However, Huckabee took the states known for their conservative appeal and the states many describe as the conservative base of the Repblican Party: the South. Huckabee won the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia. In the end, Romeny emerged with about 50 more delegates than Huckabee but he fell short of convincing conservatives of the same ilk that he should be their choice for President. And that spelled doom for Mitt Romney’s campaign.

[Read more →]

McCain Widens Delegate Lead – Clinton Can’t Shake Obama

With the race for the White House as hot as ever, the focus on delegate counts seems to be at a modern historic high. John McCain took a large step toward securing the Republican nomination for President on Super Tuesday by winning 601 pledged delegates. He now has a total of 1,000 combined pledged- and super-delegates and leads Romney by 434 delegates. McCain needs 488 more delegates to gain his Party’s nomination (1,191 total). Mitt Romney secured 176 delegates in Super Tuesday voting while Mike Huckabee impressively kept pace with 147 delegates.

On the Democratic side, the nomination is still up for grabs which is making delegate counting a fun exercise. Barack Obama won more states in Super Tuesday voting yet Hillary Clinton emerged with more delegates, 739, to Obama’s 700 delegates. In total Clinton leads Obama in a tight delegate race, 1,000 to 902. The candidate securing 2,025 delegates wins the nomination.

SUPER TUESDAY – February 5, 2008

ALABAMA

ALASKA

ARIZONA

ARKANSAS

CALIFORNIA

COLORADO

CONNECTICUT

DELAWARE

GEORGIA

IDAHO

ILLINOIS

KANSAS

MASSACHUSETTS

MINNESOTA

MISSOURI

MONTANA

NEW JERSEY

NEW MEXICO

NEW YORK

NORTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

TENNESSEE

UTAH

WEST VIRGINIA

[Read more →]