It looks like its going to be Obama again tonight in New Hampshire if exit polls are anything to go by.  And by a massive margin as well! 4-13% with widest margins of error.  :O

Heres hoping

Quote from: SteveFIt looks like its going to be Obama again tonight in New Hampshire if exit polls are anything to go by.  And by a massive margin as well! 4-13% with widest margins of error.  :O

Heres hoping

Tonight? Isnt the NH Primary tomorrow night with results expected just past midnight our time?

CNN poll says hes got a double digit lead.

yeah - sorry its cause its still 7pm yesterday in Boston and been on the phone to Vegas all day (CES is up and running).  Its about 30 hours from now so pick a timezone

Heh, would appear its not quite the done deal yet with Obama - although -3% in what I would perceive as a "Hilary"-ish state might not be too bad

Well its far too earlier to state that anyone is a done deal.

Still a strong showing, although if he had won it wouldve given him the momentum he needs to take the bigger states.

As it stands right now, he probably has more delegates between the two states that Clinton does.

Id be suprised if he doesnt take SC.

Quote from: SteveFIt looks like its going to be Obama again tonight in New Hampshire if exit polls are anything to go by.  And by a massive margin as well! 4-13% with widest margins of error.  :O

Heres hoping

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7179342.stm

A lot of people have egg on their faces, Hilary Clinton and John McCain  takes New Hampshire!

I wonder if he owns the company that makes the oven chips...

The US exit polls really are crap lol.

Whats the point in a poll that says Obama will win by 10% with a 4% margin of error in the poll.  Then he loses by a tiny bit.  Thats not a 4% margin of error in the poll its a 10%+ margin of error!  Not sure why they bother

The smear and fear spin has started, there is e-mails going around that tell about Obamas muslim background and muslim schools he attended and that this is the muslim worlds way to destroy the US from whithin.

What else would you expect from any political group? Its either a Christian group or a Republican one, probably both.

They even say "check snopes it is true" who is sponsoring snopes ?

Sure those of you who are keeping track saw Clinton won Nevada 51% to Obamas 45%. Split the delegates it seems, although a public victory for Clinton.


He gave one hell of a speech yesterday:
Text
Video

I have said it was a shame that Obama hadnt split the ticket with Clinton on this, would have put him in a perfect position to run in eight years.

Beeb going on about the victory

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7198564.stm

Then theres the primaries in South Carolina and Florida, followed up by the 22 states voting on Super Tuesday.

Still could go either way, the southern states could go Obama with the black vote or might go Clinton with the white vote.

Florida looks like McCain and Clinton again. Its now a two horse race in each of the camps, with Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards both pulling out.

http://www.tekforums.co.uk/posts/reply/30/10803.page

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7218848.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7218848.stm

It was always split between Obama and Clinton. I live in a democrat state and everyone here wants one of those two to win.

Florida and Michigan will play an interesting roll. Essentially theyre just beauty contests as the DNC stripped them of all delegates as they moved their primaries forward. The candidates pledged not to campaign in those states, with Obama and Edwards taking their names off the ballot in Michigan. With Clinton being the only major player (and the national front runner) youd think from a popular vote perspective shed win a landslide (regardless of how meaningless it is (at the time))? Nope, she won 55% with uncommited coming in at 40%.

Where ever Obama has been to campaign his numbers have risen quite steadily, but he hasnt been to Florida or Michigan, so the numbers stayed the same in general. Now as mentioned before this was at the request of the DNC and the first four states who asked the candidates to sign a pledge saying they wouldnt campaign there.


Heres the dillema; for Dems Michigan is a must win state in a general election and Florida is a major swing state. If the DNC dont eventually seat delegations from those two states then its political suicide and theres little chance of Dems winning the states in November (plenty of damage has already been done in this sense). With the race between Clinton and Obama being so close, especially after his larger than predicted win in South Carolina (+27%) and so many major endorsements flying in (three Kennedys, Gov of Kansas all this week alone plus more), hes starting to pick up some real momentum after the mud slinging match between Nevada and SC primaries. The Clinton name has been somewhat tarnished by Bills antics and Hillary giving the impression to woman that she needs her man to run the show in SC. Running upto Super Tuesday, Obama with his new found momentum will be much closer to Clinton delegate wise - I dont think hell win the major states (besides Illiniois) but as the DNC split delegates proportionally instead of winner takes all it wont matter. Not many people are expecting a clear front running coming out of Super Tuesday which means it could all still be up in the air by the time we reach the convention in Denver in August.

Then it becomes 1968 all over again with a floor fight for the nomination at the convention. (Argueably its also the year the Dems lost their way and began a pretty much non-stop succession of Republicans). If the number of delegates between the two candidates is quite close then two factors will be important:

1) Who Edwards pledges his 50 odd delegates towards. (Clintonll offer him what ever he wants to get those, even the VP ticket. Not that Obama wouldnt as well but I think shed be more pushing. Then again hes more alligned with Obama).

2) If the Clintons persuade the DNC to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan which would essentially hand her the nomination.

Obama and his supporters will argue (quite rightly IMHO) that the Clintons stole the nomination as they never campaigned in those states due to promises made... but as mentioned before not seating them at all could hand the election to the Republicans, especially if McCain is nominated, which lets face it is more than likely.

You expect the 08 election to be a cake walk for Dems with the last 8 years and if it was anyone but McCain it probably would be, except he appeals to Liberals and Independents, hes a war hero with a record of bipartasianship and has a lot more experience than any of the Dem candidates, which flies in the face of Hillarys experience line. No way she can use that in a a national campaign against him.

Also Hillary is far to polarising. If you want to energise the Republican base nominate her and itll be a very hard fight for the Dems. Obama has his failings but if anything hell bring Republicans and Independents over.