PDA

View Full Version : Who won Nevada?


jAZ
03-05-2008, 06:55 AM
?

alnorth
03-05-2008, 06:56 AM
The casinos

Carlota69
03-05-2008, 10:14 AM
?

Clinton won, but, and I'm ot sure of the process, Obama gained more delegates...

jAZ
03-05-2008, 10:27 AM
Obama gained more delegates...
So who won?

Carlota69
03-05-2008, 10:32 AM
So who won?

She won the state--but for some reason, he walked with more delegates. I hve no idea how that happened, but Nevada is in her column.

jAZ
03-06-2008, 12:40 AM
She won the state--but for some reason, he walked with more delegates. I hve no idea how that happened, but Nevada is in her column.
Here's my point. "Who won" is meaningless by any measure other than "Who won the most delegates" since the only measure of winning the Party nomination is gaining 2025 delegates.

Obama "won" Nevada with fewer total votes. Clinton lost with more total votes.

But Obama "won" Nevada.

jAZ
03-06-2008, 12:41 AM
She won the state--but for some reason, he walked with more delegates. I hve no idea how that happened, but Nevada is in her column.
Here's my point. "Who won" is meaningless by any measure other than "Who won the most delegates" since the only measure of winning the Party nomination is gaining 2025 delegates.

Obama "won" Nevada with fewer total votes. Clinton lost with more total votes.

But Obama "won" Nevada. And it looks like... depsite the reports to the contrary last night... he also "won" Texas for the same reason.

ClevelandBronco
03-06-2008, 12:45 AM
Here's my point...Obama "won" Nevada with fewer total votes...

I'm trying hard to understand your sense of pride in Nevada's seemingly undemocratic outcome.

jAZ
03-06-2008, 01:00 AM
I'm trying hard to understand your sense of pride in Nevada's seemingly undemocratic outcome.

It's not pride. It's stating facts. The entire concept of "delegates" is the weakness that causes this "undemocratic" nature and both the Dems and the Reps have them.

ClevelandBronco
03-06-2008, 01:27 AM
It's not pride. It's stating facts. The entire concept of "delegates" is the weakness that causes this "undemocratic" nature and both the Dems and the Reps have them.

Okay. I'll happily admit that we're both "undemocratic" then. Let's assume that we GOPers have no problem with being "undemocratic." (I certainly don't wish for democracy here or anywhere else. No, not even in Iraq.)

Why is it that you guys can't get comfortable with saying that you aren't democratic either? Your majority votes one way, but a minority nominates another way? That's the democrat party's way of doing things?

It's all good with me however you play this out. I'm just enjoying the performance.

Dance for us.

jAZ
03-06-2008, 06:55 AM
Okay. I'll happily admit that we're both "undemocratic" then. Let's assume that we GOPers have no problem with being "undemocratic." (I certainly don't wish for democracy here or anywhere else. No, not even in Iraq.)

Why is it that you guys can't get comfortable with saying that you aren't democratic either? Your majority votes one way, but a minority nominates another way? That's the democrat party's way of doing things?
Jesus, is this really all part of your effort to try to rationalize childish name calling? Sadly, I don't think the "professionals" running your party are any less childish.

We live in a Democratic Republic for gods sake. We are the Democratic portion of that, you are the Republic portion of that.

Beyond being an attepted insult and dropping the "ic" makes the person who invented it look dumb as a box of rocks and each person lemming following their lead look even worse.

If your purpose is to reflect your claim that Dems don't advocate "democracy" any longer, dropping the "ic" and leaving the "Democrat" fundamentally fails. The definition of "democrat" is "An advocate of democracy".

The purpose really isn't ligustic, but rather political namecalling. And a sad reflection of where the Republicans have chosen to take our political discourse. Kudos to McCain for trying to lead you guys in a new and less childish direction.

stevieray
03-06-2008, 07:01 AM
Spare us your sanctimonious BS...you've done nothing more more than hurl insult after insult towards Bush for the last six years, then cry like a little girl when someone reflects your mantra and exposes you for the partisian hack you are.

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 07:25 AM
Spare us your sanctimonious BS...you've done nothing more more than hurl insult after insult towards Bush for the last six years, then cry like a little girl when someone reflects your mantra and exposes you for the partisian hack you are.Well, that's relevant. Like the rest of your DC posts, I suppose.

jAZ
03-06-2008, 07:41 AM
Spare us your sanctimonious BS...you've done nothing more more than hurl insult after insult towards Bush for the last six years, then cry like a little girl when someone reflects your mantra and exposes you for the partisian hack you are.

It's always boring when you show up.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 07:49 AM
So then your point is to blow Obama a little more? Arent your knees sore yet? Do you have a blow up doll of this man?

patteeu
03-06-2008, 08:49 AM
Here's my point. "Who won" is meaningless by any measure other than "Who won the most delegates" since the only measure of winning the Party nomination is gaining 2025 delegates.

Obama "won" Nevada with fewer total votes. Clinton lost with more total votes.

But Obama "won" Nevada.

If either of the candidates were going to win 2025 pledged delegates, I'd agree with you. Given that that isn't likely to be the case, "winning" isn't nearly as straightforward as you suggest. In addition to the pledged delegate result, "winning" can also be seen in terms of who gained a more persuasive argument for use in the battle for super delegates (e.g. who won the popular vote, who won which demographic segments, etc.).

jAZ
03-06-2008, 08:59 AM
If either of the candidates were going to win 2025 pledged delegates, I'd agree with you. Given that that isn't likely to be the case, "winning" isn't nearly as straightforward as you suggest. In addition to the pledged delegate result, "winning" can also be seen in terms of who gained a more persuasive argument for use in the battle for super delegates (e.g. who won the popular vote, who won which demographic segments, etc.).
That's not winning, that spinning. Winning is measured by delegates.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 09:05 AM
Jesus, is this really all part of your effort to try to rationalize childish name calling? Sadly, I don't think the "professionals" running your party are any less childish.

We live in a Democratic Republic for gods sake. We are the Democratic portion of that, you are the Republic portion of that.

Beyond being an attepted insult and dropping the "ic" makes the person who invented it look dumb as a box of rocks and each person lemming following their lead look even worse.

If your purpose is to reflect your claim that Dems don't advocate "democracy" any longer, dropping the "ic" and leaving the "Democrat" fundamentally fails. The definition of "democrat" is "An advocate of democracy".

The purpose really isn't ligustic, but rather political namecalling. And a sad reflection of where the Republicans have chosen to take our political discourse. Kudos to McCain for trying to lead you guys in a new and less childish direction.

You're such a whiner, jAZ. Get over yourself.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 09:08 AM
That's not winning, that spinning. Winning is measured by delegates.

Feel free to hold whatever opinion that makes you most comfortable. Don't delude yourself into thinking you can impose it on others though.

Carlota69
03-06-2008, 11:45 AM
Here's my point. "Who won" is meaningless by any measure other than "Who won the most delegates" since the only measure of winning the Party nomination is gaining 2025 delegates.

Obama "won" Nevada with fewer total votes. Clinton lost with more total votes.

But Obama "won" Nevada.

Well if you know the answer, why ask the question?

All I know is that the caucus system is ****ed up--period. She won the popular vote, but he won more delegates.

????

And based on what I experienced, I will NEVER participate in a caucus again. I'm sure the Texans who particpated in their caucus may agree.

I really hope, if MI and FL redo, that it is a primary--more fair for everyone involved, especially the voter.

stevieray
03-06-2008, 03:00 PM
It's always boring when you show up.


shocking that's all you've got....doesn't refute the fact that you still can't handle what you dish out...

stevieray
03-06-2008, 03:16 PM
Well, that's relevant. Like the rest of your DC posts, I suppose.
OMGZ THEY SAID HIS MIDDLE NAME
WHERE IS MY METAMUCIL JPEG?

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 03:41 PM
RIGHT HERE BITCH

stevieray
03-06-2008, 03:46 PM
RIGHT HERE BITCH

:eek:

YOU SO SCARY
YOU SUCH MEAN NATION