Iowa Caucus - Discussion Forum - The Massassi Temple Forums Archive

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

Iowa Caucus

2008-01-08, 11:38 PM #121

Thrawn[numbarz]

colonpee addict

Posts: 11,951

Originally posted by TSM_Bguitar:

As opposed to rightists? :rolleyes:

No they're dumb too

And pedos

2008-01-09, 12:03 AM #122

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

Far more than the other candidates, I favor Richardson.

Greenboy: Maybe, but I don't think it's fair our presidential system is set up to force us to choose between just a handful of candidates. If you vote, you help legitimize America's election process.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2008-01-09, 1:37 AM #123

Recusant

Prefered by 80% of Doctors

Posts: 1,480

Can't you go to the voting booth and just spoil your ballot? The whole point of elections is to have your opinion on how the country should be run be counted with everyone else. By spoiling it you show that you're not apathetic about it (you bothered to turn up), you simply don't like any of the choices available to you. It's probably what I'm going to do at the next general election in the UK unless one of the parties changes their manifesto a lot.

2008-01-09, 4:55 AM #124

Wolfy

I TYPE LOUD

Posts: 10,623

Can someone explain to me what happened here:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

Why did Clinton win New Hampshire with fewer delegates? And why does CNN say Clinton has 24 delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire, and Obama has 25, when...those numbers don't add up in any way?

the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot - LC Tusken

2008-01-09, 7:41 AM #125

dalf

Everyone's favorite alcoholic administrator!

Posts: 8,683

Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:

Clinton winning is statistically the least likely thing that has happened so far this year. So unlikely, actually, that I think there's real cause for concern about the legitimacy of the result.

Mind you, I have no concrete evidence of irregularities. But it does bother me, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some discussion of it over the next few days.

That woman will stop at nothing to get elected. That ***** is downright frightening.

Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.

2008-01-09, 9:35 AM #126

TSM_Bguitar

Registered User

Posts: 862

Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that something "went wrong"

2008-01-09, 9:45 AM #127

Michael MacFarlane

Unwitting troll accomplice

Posts: 8,272

Originally posted by Wolfy:

From the numbers on this page, it looks like New Hampshire's 22 pledged delegates are split roughly proportionately (with 9 to Obama and 9 to Clinton). The total on another page shows 12 for Obama and 11 for Clinton, which would mean that of New Hampshire's 5 superdelegates (the guys who aren't pledged to vote according to the result of the primary), 3 support Obama and 2 support Clinton.

As for the Iowa and New Hampshire totals, they're only including delegates pledged to vote for the winner of the primary. 9 from New Hampshire and 16 from Iowa for Obama (25) and 9 from New Hampshire and 15 from Iowa for Clinton (24).

If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.

2008-01-09, 10:54 AM #128