I keep hearing about how Obama did poorly because the independents went to McCain

so umm... how does he expect to win in states where independents aren't allowed to vote in the dem primary?

CA is an open election. We shall see.

had he won NH then the Dem establishment would have probably came out for him since he would have been the front runner. SC and Nevada would have easily fallen to him. The independent support would have been a good sign for the general.

Obviously he still needs to work on winning Dems over. But California is an open primary, and I'm sure there are others too. I didn't make the laws.

in sheer numbers. Am searching for the actual numbers of IND votes for each
(this just addresses the original misunderstanding, not your question)

Clinton maintained her support from before the Iowa caucus. I think the media pissed off NH by pretty much saying the race was over before it was over.

It is just in terms of the relative positions within the Democrats that it was perceived.

It was more than Obama. So if we go by your assumption, Obama would do worse than Hillary in the GE.

It was more than Obama. So if we go by your assumption, Obama would do worse than Hillary in the GE.

the Concord Monitor polling totals and the CNN exit polls:
(with some votes still to count)
About 280,000 total voters participated in the DEM primary, 44% were INDs (about 123,000)
About 235,000 total voters on the GOP side, about 87,000 were INDs (37%)

In raw numbers, about 50,000 INDs voted for Obama on the DEM side and 35,000 for McCain on the GOP side

Hillary got about 38,000 INDs and Edwards about 22,000

Good to bear in mind that 45% of NH voters are INDs, a much higher percentage than many other states.

Hillary won among Dems 45-34.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM

So Obama has proven better than Hillary that he can get those that she can't get. Possibly during the GE, McCain gets a larger share of Obama's Indie voters, and then where are we? With a President McCain? Great! You win.

I think the fundamental flaw in that assertion is assuming that McCain would get a larger share of "Obama's" Independent votes than Hillary. What basis do you have for that assertion?

Frankly, that makes no sense. Obama and Hillary are a lot closer ideologically than Hillary and McCain or Obama and McCain, so Independents "leaving" Obama aren't going to jump parties and hop on the McCain bandwagon. They're more likely than not going to vote for Hillary.

That shows that the democrats attracted more independents away from McCain this time around.

win because of the Mass carry-over voters. (the blurring of our boundary to the south).

McCain won in 2000 over * bush -

I have talked to others this morning who said that the predicted landslide for Obama DID influence their choice to opt to vote McCain in order to deflate Romney- these are people who would not consider voting for McCain in the general election. Romney spent megabucks here. He expected to win. I'm glad he didn't-

But I wish that hadn't skewed the real wishes of those who would otherwise have voted Dem.

My oldest son was tempted to vote his heart and choose Kucinich (my ideal candidate as well) - the media had everyone convinced it was going to be a landslide for Obama- but we both stuck with Obama, and I'm doubly glad after seeing the outcome.

:hi:

People should just vote for who they like in the primary without making such calculations, but I've been telling people a lot of "blue" states are up for grabs depending on who the two parties' candidates are. My state, Michigan, may very well go McCain, should be be the nominee, but probably would stay Democratic, if any other Republican (apart from Paul, who is a long-shot, but still a contender) is on the ticket.

after Feb 5?

I grew up in Michigan and my mom still lives there. She doesn't know whether to vote in the primary or not. Hillary isn't her candidate, and she wants a chance to register her preference.

I'm a registered Michigan voter, but I live in England now (still registered as Michigan, because I'm over on a student visa), so I don't keep as close track of these things as I would otherwise, but I do listen to michigan public radio over the internet at least a few times a week, and haven't heard it mentioned. I think they're hoping that people will still come out for the primary and they'll some how win over the national party and get some delegates, but I doubt it. They're pushing for people whose candidates aren't on the ballot to vote "uncommitted", which should award uncommitted delegates - maybe your mom could do that. I should ask what my parents and brother are planning to do. I didn't get an absentee ballot, because, even if delegates are eventually awarded, it wouldn't mean much without all of the names on the ballot. What worries me is that the republicans are still having their primary, and this could be a flip of what we saw regarded turnout for the two parties in Iowa. This may just make otherwise independent or Democratic voters vote in the republican primary, and then feel committed to that candidate, should they become the nominee.

7% vs Hillary 72% (something like that). Also many independant republicans voted for McCain because they dislike Romney. It could be a combo. Never thought that the causus was truly representative. Iowa should really have a primary

I hadn't really thought of this, but how uniform is the system for awarding delegates? If it's not uniform, it ought to be. Either way, there should be some sort of instant run off process (perhaps moving through choices only if your chosen candidate doesn't have enough votes for a delegate, if delegates are divided up).

Looked to me like he almost beat Hillary in her firewall state.

Maybe he should have cried first.