Who Has What Delegates?
Hillary won only 8 more than Obama today…
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John McCain won a commanding victory in the Republican delegate race over Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday. Sen. Barack Obama, trailing much of the night, nearly pulled even with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the contest for Democratic delegates.
McCain won 468 delegates to 158 for Romney and 132 for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in incomplete results. A total of 1,023 delegates were up for grabs in 21 states.
Overall, McCain led with 570 delegates, to 251 for Romney and 175 for Huckabee. It takes 1,191 to win the nomination at this summer’s convention in St. Paul, Minn.
Clinton led with 499 delegates to Obama’s 491. A total of 1,681 delegates were at stake in 22 states and American Samoa.
Overall, that gave Clinton 760 delegates, to 693 for Obama, with 2,025 delegates required to claim the nomination in Denver at this summer’s convention.
The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences.
In some states, like Iowa and Nevada, local precinct caucuses are the first stage in the allocation process. The AP uses preferences expressed in those caucuses to project the number of national convention delegates each candidate will have when they are chosen at county, congressional district or state conventions.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1073039/dont_ask_mccain/
Don’t ask McCain about anchor babies . . . he doesn’t like it.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:33 am“Don’t ask McCain about anchor babies . . . he doesn’t like it.”
Apparently, neither does a member of the audience. He does his best to silence any dissent. I don’t care if that guy is a cop or just some dink with an attitude problem, he should never have told her to ’shut up’.
McCain: “In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you’ll pay a heavy price.”
What price? They’re from other countries. And who will pay? We’re allowing them to overrun us and we’re paying for it dearly. It gets worse if we kick them out? How’s that work?
McCain: “But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”
His enthusiasm is overwhelming!
February 6th, 2008 at 3:53 amI think we’re fucked…
I can’t believe the evangelicals voting against Romney because he’s a mormon.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:08 amMcCain looks like a happy corpse.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:05 amI used to like Huckabee, but I think that it may show how far removed from conservatism he is, by staying in the race and stealing votes from Romney.
We’re boned.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:20 amAfter 8 years of relentless smears and unfair coverage of the Repubs in the White House and elsewhere, the country has been conditioned to think that Billary and McCain are the top contenders and deserving candidates for Pres. of the U.S. This is where we are. Embrace the horror–it will probably be Billary or McCain to chose from. They may be almost the same in philosophy, according to some. But there are slight differences–Billary whol- heartedly supports baby killing, even partial birth. McCain never has. Billary has made her socialist agenda clear. McCain “says” the opposite. McCain “says” he will appoint conservatives to the S.Ct. I would rather take McCain, a US veteran and former POW at his word than Billary, a proven liar.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:34 amSenator John McCain:
“I believe that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
We are a free people. This means that the rules we have agreed to live by are those made by the people themselves, not a small elite that claims to be wiser than everybody else. Our laws are legitimate precisely because they reflect decisions solemnly made by the people – in the case of Constitutional law, through the process of ratification and periodic amendment; in the case of statutory law, through their elected representatives in the legislative process. When applying the law, the role of the judge is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law. The judicial role is necessarily limited and one that requires restraint and humility. As I said to the Society at the 2006 convention, “[Judges] should be people who are humbled by their role in our system, not emboldened by it. Our freedom is curtailed no less by an act of arbitrary judicial power as it is by an act of arbitrary executive, or legislative, or state power.”
This is not a new position. I have long held it. It is reflected in my consistent opposition to the agenda of liberal judicial activists who have usurped the role of state legislatures in such matters as dealing with abortion and the definition of marriage. It is reflected in my longstanding opposition to liberal opinions that have adopted a stance of active hostility toward religion, rather than neutrality. It is reflected in my firm support for the personal rights secured in the Second Amendment.
There are two areas of special concern that relate to the careful “balance of power” struck in our Constitutional structure – a balance essential to preserving our liberties. The first of these is the principle of Federalism. My judicial appointees will understand that the Federal government was intended to have limited scope, and that federal courts must respect the proper role of local and state governments. The second principle is Separation of Powers. My judicial appointees will understand that it is not their role to usurp the rightful functions and powers of the co-equal political branches. I will look for candidates who respect the lawmaking powers of Congress, and the powers of the President.
I believe that shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has, and certainly one that has a profound and lasting impact. When I was running for President in 1999, I promised that, in appointing judges, I would not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity. A President should have confidence in the judicial philosophy of those he is appointing to the bench. That is why I strongly supported John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and that is why I would seek men and women like them as my judicial appointees.”
February 6th, 2008 at 10:35 amJohn fuckin Mccain… i would like to thank all john mccain voters for not using any intelligence when you made your decision. I guess the law says you have to be a citizen to vote, but we could’ve just put up posters of the candidates and had monkeys throw their shit at it, and whoever got hit the most would take the nomination. BOOKS R GUD folks.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pm