Conquer Club

STATEWIDE RESULTS
DEMOCRATS
CLINTON: 99,392 (39%) (Won)
EDWARDS: 42,922 (17%)
GRAVEL: 354 (0%)
KUCINICH: 3,473 (1%)
OBAMA: 92,653 (37%)
RICHARDSON: 11,547 (5%)

REPUBLICANS
GIULIANI: 17,813 (9%)
HUCKABEE: 22,863 (11%)
HUNTER: 1,037 (1%)
McCAIN: 76,689 (37%) (Won)
PAUL: 15,901 (8%)
ROMNEY: 65,059 (31%)
THOMPSON: 2,486 (1%)

Surprised?

Obama takes 37%, and as an Obama supporter, I'm a little disappointed, but still somewhat satisfied.

I think this is death to Edwards and Giuliani. Especially Giuliani. Yeah, it may be early in the game, but he just got royally owned three times in a row.

Not Clinton...please say it's not true!

DaGip wrote:Not Clinton...please say it's not true!

Well it's name recognition more than anything else. My guy Richardson is dead meat.

DaGip wrote:Not Clinton...please say it's not true!

I would rather her than Ron.

Well at least Obama was a close runner-up...plus McCain won out, and at the very least he seems like a personable guy. So it could be worse.

Iliad wrote:

DaGip wrote:Not Clinton...please say it's not true!

I would rather her than Ron.

That's just because his cult following turned you off. He's an all right candidate, but not someone to cheer for.

Frigidus wrote:

Iliad wrote:

DaGip wrote:Not Clinton...please say it's not true!

I would rather her than Ron.

That's just because his cult following turned you off. He's an all right candidate, but not someone to cheer for.

But he's FOR the constitution!

Damn Obama lost

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I think this is death to Edwards and Giuliani. Especially Giuliani. Yeah, it may be early in the game, but he just got royally owned three times in a row.

Everyone keeps saying Giuliani is out. It's only 3 states, and they're small states at that. And, Giuliani skipped these first three states, so no one really expected anything more. See how he does starting with the states he's been campaigning in.

nagerous wrote:Damn Obama lost

He didn't "lose", he finished 2nd by two measly percentage points. Unless your candidates are chosen based on in how many states they ended up getting the most votes in the primaries, but you can't possibly be that stupid, despite all the YouTube evidence...

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I think this is death to Edwards and Giuliani. Especially Giuliani. Yeah, it may be early in the game, but he just got royally owned three times in a row.

Edwards was doomed after the Iowa caucus. He absolutely had to win there, because he needed the money. He can no longer afford to spend the money needed to campaign in the bigger states.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I think this is death to Edwards and Giuliani. Especially Giuliani. Yeah, it may be early in the game, but he just got royally owned three times in a row.

not necessarily giuliani is playing a dangerous game ignoring these early primaries but as long as candidate gets on a roll guillani's concentrate on super duper tuesday strategy could still work

the bit of a emotion the other night and her response to the "go home and make my tea" are clearly the reasons why hillary won. Obama is going to be in trouble now in the primaries that don't have an open vote.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I think this is death to Edwards and Giuliani. Especially Giuliani. Yeah, it may be early in the game, but he just got royally owned three times in a row.

Giuliani's whole plant revolves around ignoring the first couple states (Iowa, New Hampshire and even South Carolina) and focusing on the bigger, theoretically more important states like Florida and New York. This could pay off bit time since they obviously reflect the greater population better or, since he has yet to win anything it could be too little to late.

MeDeFe wrote:

nagerous wrote:Damn Obama lost

He didn't "lose", he finished 2nd by two measly percentage points. Unless your candidates are chosen based on in how many states they ended up getting the most votes in the primaries, but you can't possibly be that stupid, despite all the YouTube evidence...

Excuse me? Don't call me stupid. I wonder how much you know about the FPTP system used in Britain. Anyway second place is a loss.

Fieryo wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I think this is death to Edwards and Giuliani. Especially Giuliani. Yeah, it may be early in the game, but he just got royally owned three times in a row.

Giuliani's whole plant revolves around ignoring the first couple states (Iowa, New Hampshire and even South Carolina) and focusing on the bigger, theoretically more important states like Florida and New York. This could pay off bit time since they obviously reflect the greater population better or, since he has yet to win anything it could be too little to late.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Giuliani skipped Iowa to campaign in New Hampshire didn't he?

rebelman wrote:the bit of a emotion the other night and her response to the "go home and make my tea" are clearly the reasons why hillary won. Obama is going to be in trouble now in the primaries that don't have an open vote.

"Iron my shirt!"

Obama will be fine. He won't get NY but he will get Mass. and probably California.

Fieryo wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I think this is death to Edwards and Giuliani. Especially Giuliani. Yeah, it may be early in the game, but he just got royally owned three times in a row.

Giuliani's whole plant revolves around ignoring the first couple states (Iowa, New Hampshire and even South Carolina) and focusing on the bigger, theoretically more important states like Florida and New York. This could pay off bit time since they obviously reflect the greater population better or, since he has yet to win anything it could be too little to late.

It's a long shot strategy that has little chance of paying off. But if it does...it's like when you gamble you can just knock someone out and take their cards early in an escalating game.