We didn't follow Super Tuesday on TV, prfererring to watch Bullets Over Broadway--heard bits--as I really want to see the conventions, and there is enough bluster going on without watching the primaries--the purpose of which I always have found rather odd and hideously expensive. Although I know the reason for them that is given to you, the conventions were( are) much more fun.
Did get the results from the paper. I was surprised that the Huckabee crazywagon did so well, and Romney winning the nut border states. Was very surprised that Clinton took California, and equally suprised that Obama took the crazy places like Utah and Idaho, where you would not expect either a black or a woman to win, and your prairie states.
Seems to be the general consensus on the radio today.
Following the rather bizarre news this morning that 15% of Canadians would want to vote in the US election, there was an all-morning phone-in show: "Who would you vote for if you could vote in the US?" Only one of dozens said Romney, none for McCain( and none, of course, for Huckabee), two Clinton and the rest for Obama. So only one Republican in the crowd. Maybe the right-wing listerers did not understand the question.(LOL)
Edited By cam on 1202344282
Our Primary/Caucus Votes
Mister Tee wrote:If I had to pick an overall winner last night, I'd probably say Obama,
The Nation agrees with you Mister Tee.
BLOG | Posted 02/06/2008 @ 11:49am
Obama Claims 9-Delegate Win for Super Tuesday
Ari Melber
Barack Obama's Campaign wants to make his Super Tuesday victory official.
Campaign Manager David Plouffe says that Obama won 9 more delegates than Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, based on a pledged delegate estimate conducted overnight by analysts in the campaign's Chicago "boiler room." Obama won 845 delegates to Clinton's 836, according to Obama's data team, which includes Democratic targeting buff Ken Strasma and delegate expert Jeff Berman, who caused the AP to reverse its Nevada delegate estimate a few weeks back.
"By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Senator Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary," Plouffe told reporters on Wednesday. Senior Clinton strategists depicted Clinton as an energized underdog in a media conference call on Wednesday, contending that voters are rejecting Obama's "establishment" campaign.
The Clinton Campaign has not released its own estimate, so Obama's spreadsheet may be all we have to go on for a while. These numbers refer to Super Tuesday only -- not to the total count of delegates from prior states or the party's mercurial, "elite contingent" of superdelegates.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=281018
THE SOUTH'S OBAMA EFFECT...
When Barack Obama came a-cropper in New Hampshire after looking sweet in the polls, suspicions were immediately stirred that the dreaded "Bradley effect" had kicked in. Named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who lost a big edge for California governor in 1982 on the final day, the "effect" is said to kick in for white voters who tell pollsters they plan to vote for black candidates--and then suffer a kind of racial panic when they're actually hoisting their ballot-punchers on Election Day. Nowhere was the "effect" more pronounced through the years than in Dixie--surprise!--where Virginia Governor Doug Wilder and US Senate candidates Harvey Gantt in North Carolina and Ron Kirk in Texas fell victim to the syndrome, and also to the tendency of white voting turnout to swell when black candidates are on the ballot, outnumbering the increases in black votes. Exit polls eventually quelled the "Bradley effect" rumors in New Hampshire; Obama ended up with more of the white working-class vote on primary day than he'd gotten in the polls. And in the Southern primaries on Tsunami Tuesday, the "effect" was even more emphatically absent. Adding to his landslide in South Carolina, Obama trounced Hillary Clinton in Georgia and Alabama, and appears to have very narrowly won the border state of Missouri, the ultimate "purple state," where Clinton led in recent weeks by healthy margins.
The Alabama victory was unexpected, particularly because the state's most powerful black political organization had endorsed Clinton months ago. But Artur Davis, the state's own rising "post-racial" member of Congress, bucked them and got behind Obama early, spurring a surge of enthusiasm among black voters similar to Obama's overtaking of Clinton in South Carolina. Clinton split the South on Tuesday, winning her semi-home state of Arkansas, along with Tennessee and Oklahoma. But in every case except Tennessee, where he lost by the expected 13 points, Obama's Southern vote was higher than his standing in the polls--inverting the Bradley effect. He scored 15 percent better than predicted in Alabama; seven percent higher than Missouri polls were showing; eleven points better than he'd polled in Georgia. In Georgia, Obama won 43 percent of white votes--almost double the share he captured in South Carolina. That certainly doesn't mean that white Southerners--or the rest of white Americans--have somehow gone colorblind overnight. (If only.) The ultimate test of white voters' ability to look past race might come next November, when Obama--if he's the nominee--is likely to make a run at states like Georgia, where Clinton would almost certainly not even attempt to campaign. But Obama's Southern support--coupled with his impressive white vote in red states in the Midwest and Interior West--does indicate that one longtime manifestation of racialized voting just might be disappearing. And it's one more reason to believe that, unlikely as it once would have seemed, Barack Obama is the Democrat with the best chance to break through in Middle America and win the White House with a genuine mandate. Maybe we'll someday call that the Obama Effect.
Posted by Bob Moser at 02/06/2008 @ 01:44am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=280859
CLINTON WINS THE COASTS BUT OBAMA EXCELS ACROSS THE MAP...
Super Tuesday was a tale of two stories. Hillary Clinton won the population centers on the coasts--California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts--along with Bill's home turf of Arkansas and two of its neighboring states, Tennessee and Oklahoma.
Barack Obama dominated pretty much everywhere else, raking in delegates in the South (Alabama, Georgia), midwest (Kansas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota), the West (Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Utah and likely New Mexico) and pockets of the Northeast (Connecticut and Delaware).
If this contest really hinges on that elusive prognostication of "electability," score Super Tuesday for Obama. He won in blue areas, red areas and purple areas. He competed in places where Democrats dare not normally roam, like Idaho, notched impressive victories in swing territories such as Colorado and Missouri, and exceeded even his own expectations in the South. "The breadth of wins last night speak to his strength as a general election candidate," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe this morning.
Clinton has big strengths of her own, particularly among women, the elderly and Hispanics. Yet Obama shrunk the gap among women, widened it among men and continued to get an overwhelming share of the African-American vote. His advantages among young voters and Independents remain undeniably large. That's what Obama means when he says that Clinton's supporters will vote for him in the general election but his supporters may not necessarily back Clinton. That could be especially true if the GOP nominates John McCain, as seems increasingly likely.
Obama is broadening the Democratic base while Clinton is holding onto it. Going forward, we'll see which candidate's coalition is built to withstand the test of time.
Posted by Ari Berman at 02/06/2008 @ 12:16pm |
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=281038
Edited By Akash on 1202320863
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
So, except for Magilla and FilmFan, most of us voted for the non-winning candidate in our states.
It ended up being a quite interesting evening, for those who could divorce themselves from emotional investment and just groove on the political nuts and bolts. I had the same thought, Damien, about this being potentially the first real nomination battle since '76. (That was just a fascinating year, especially the way the Ford/Reagan battle kicked into high gear at almost exactly the point -- late April/early May -- when Carter finally put the Dem contest away) In most election cycles since then, we've seen parties rally quickly (maybe too quickly) to early leaders; here, it seems we've got substantial competition or resistance in both parties.
This is not to suggest I don't consider McCain a strong front-runner now (and the prohibitive favorite for the nomination). But last night's results suggested he hasn't come close to making the sale with his party's base. Romney, thought to have had a ghastly night, actually won 7 states (even while getting screwed in WV); Huckabee won 5...and McCain only barely averted disaster in Missouri (California was a late high-spot for him). What makes McCain strong, in terms of getting the nomination, is that he won so many winner-take-all states, which exaggerates his support substantially in delegate terms. Compare this night, however, to the less-extensive Super Tuesdays in 2000 and 2004 -- in those, the parties essentially lay down and died for their front-runners. Here, many voters seemed to be resisting heavily.
As I say, I doubt this opposition can be harnessed into actually keeping McCain from the nomination -- "Anybody But" or "Stop (McGovern) (Carter) etc." movements have never been successful. But they can hobble candidates; make them less appealing figures for the general election. I believe Mike Nichols once said, when he'd finished shooting Catch 22 and was in the editing room with it, that he felt as if he were pregnant with a dead baby. I think that might be McCain's situation right now. He's only become the front-runner because the other prominent candidates are so irredeeemably lousy; being loathed by significant portions of his party is going to be a real problem for him in a year where circumstances (like a clear recession, and humongous voter turnout in Dem primaries) already suggests a tough year for the GOP.
On the Democratic side, it's interesting in a different way. As someone over at Daily Kos said, Republicans are voting None of the Above; Dems seem to want to vote All of the Above. Both remaining candidates showed significant strength last night, and appear to have emerged with an almost exactly-split number of delegates. The race will continue.
If I had to pick an overall winner last night, I'd probably say Obama, simply because, as of no more than 2-3 weeks ago, this was supposed to have been a wallop of a night for Clinton -- she was thought to have been ahead by landslide margins in most of the competing states. It's true that many in the ever-optimistic Obama cult set up expectations a bit high over the intervening weeks, and, from that point of view, Hillary holding MA, NJ and CA so easily was a disappointment to their side. On the other hand, Barack took the crucial swing states of MO and CT, and had a big lead in overall state wins.
More to the point, I think Obama having fought Hillary to a standoff at this point favors him, because this was her strongest turf: the whole metropolitan area and CA are now gone from the table. Put it this way: first NH, and then the Super Tuesday states, were said to be Hillary's firewall. And, okay, she's still standing, after them. But the idea of a firewall is, it's supposed to put an end to your opposition. That Obama has stepped past the firewall doesn't mean he's got the nomination, but it does mean it failed in its original goal of clinching things for Hillary.
By the way, the night could, with minor tweaks, have been far more decisive. If Hillary had held onto CT and MO, it would have been a deflating night for Obama. And if Obama had managed a late charge in any of the MA/NJ/CA cluster, Hillary would have been on the ropes. This was an almost perfect outcome for those wishing the contest to go on.
So, what's ahead? Obama seems to do well in caucus states (ME and WA just ahead) and Southern primaries (LA); liberal upstart WI also seems prime territory for him. On the other hand, Hillary will probably do well in TX (with Hispanic help), and should be favored in the more blue-collar areas of OH and PA. This isn't headed for resolution any time soon.
It ended up being a quite interesting evening, for those who could divorce themselves from emotional investment and just groove on the political nuts and bolts. I had the same thought, Damien, about this being potentially the first real nomination battle since '76. (That was just a fascinating year, especially the way the Ford/Reagan battle kicked into high gear at almost exactly the point -- late April/early May -- when Carter finally put the Dem contest away) In most election cycles since then, we've seen parties rally quickly (maybe too quickly) to early leaders; here, it seems we've got substantial competition or resistance in both parties.
This is not to suggest I don't consider McCain a strong front-runner now (and the prohibitive favorite for the nomination). But last night's results suggested he hasn't come close to making the sale with his party's base. Romney, thought to have had a ghastly night, actually won 7 states (even while getting screwed in WV); Huckabee won 5...and McCain only barely averted disaster in Missouri (California was a late high-spot for him). What makes McCain strong, in terms of getting the nomination, is that he won so many winner-take-all states, which exaggerates his support substantially in delegate terms. Compare this night, however, to the less-extensive Super Tuesdays in 2000 and 2004 -- in those, the parties essentially lay down and died for their front-runners. Here, many voters seemed to be resisting heavily.
As I say, I doubt this opposition can be harnessed into actually keeping McCain from the nomination -- "Anybody But" or "Stop (McGovern) (Carter) etc." movements have never been successful. But they can hobble candidates; make them less appealing figures for the general election. I believe Mike Nichols once said, when he'd finished shooting Catch 22 and was in the editing room with it, that he felt as if he were pregnant with a dead baby. I think that might be McCain's situation right now. He's only become the front-runner because the other prominent candidates are so irredeeemably lousy; being loathed by significant portions of his party is going to be a real problem for him in a year where circumstances (like a clear recession, and humongous voter turnout in Dem primaries) already suggests a tough year for the GOP.
On the Democratic side, it's interesting in a different way. As someone over at Daily Kos said, Republicans are voting None of the Above; Dems seem to want to vote All of the Above. Both remaining candidates showed significant strength last night, and appear to have emerged with an almost exactly-split number of delegates. The race will continue.
If I had to pick an overall winner last night, I'd probably say Obama, simply because, as of no more than 2-3 weeks ago, this was supposed to have been a wallop of a night for Clinton -- she was thought to have been ahead by landslide margins in most of the competing states. It's true that many in the ever-optimistic Obama cult set up expectations a bit high over the intervening weeks, and, from that point of view, Hillary holding MA, NJ and CA so easily was a disappointment to their side. On the other hand, Barack took the crucial swing states of MO and CT, and had a big lead in overall state wins.
More to the point, I think Obama having fought Hillary to a standoff at this point favors him, because this was her strongest turf: the whole metropolitan area and CA are now gone from the table. Put it this way: first NH, and then the Super Tuesday states, were said to be Hillary's firewall. And, okay, she's still standing, after them. But the idea of a firewall is, it's supposed to put an end to your opposition. That Obama has stepped past the firewall doesn't mean he's got the nomination, but it does mean it failed in its original goal of clinching things for Hillary.
By the way, the night could, with minor tweaks, have been far more decisive. If Hillary had held onto CT and MO, it would have been a deflating night for Obama. And if Obama had managed a late charge in any of the MA/NJ/CA cluster, Hillary would have been on the ropes. This was an almost perfect outcome for those wishing the contest to go on.
So, what's ahead? Obama seems to do well in caucus states (ME and WA just ahead) and Southern primaries (LA); liberal upstart WI also seems prime territory for him. On the other hand, Hillary will probably do well in TX (with Hispanic help), and should be favored in the more blue-collar areas of OH and PA. This isn't headed for resolution any time soon.
Sonic Youth wrote:sI live in one of the few states that didn't move the primary voting date back. Pennsylvania doesn't vote until late April. By then, it's probably done anyway. Plus, we'll likely have moved (again) before then, and into a state where the primary has already taken place. I know I could fill out an absentee, but it just seems pointless now.
Clearly Pennsylvania's not irrelevant. So definitely do an absentee, Sonic.
This is the most exciting year since '76 (Ford and Reagan going head to head at the convention) and '72 (when this idealistic 17-year-old worked for McGovern and watched his acceptance speech at 1 am in the morning on a work night with tears flowing down my face).
Edited By Damien on 1202277385
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
OscarGuy wrote:Democrats, no matter their hatred for the woman, will still recognize that if we don't vote for her, we're going to let another Republican into the white house to potentially continue down the same path as before.
I agree with the basis of what you meant here OG, and I think it's ridiculous when people come out in times like these and say such ludicrous things. Ann Coulter is lying straight to our faces, as is Rush Limbaugh when he says under no circumstance would he ever vote for John McCain. Lies...all lies.
In the lack of a third party candidate with some stature (Perot, Nader) I think people vote the line and it is totally about turnout. I think Hillary has just as good of a shot once it's a 1 on 1 deal as Obama, us in need of a change from Bushy would not do something crazy, and we'll get our asses out there in a time like this.
My dad always did say that nothing is easier than talking and talking and talking though when no one can ever know what box you punch in a private booth
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19363
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I can't remember an election where I was on the fence until the last minute, but when I sent my permanent absentee ballot in Saturday (the last possible day I could assure it got mailed in time to be counted) I decided to vote for Hillary because of her stance on health care. In the end she probably won't be any more effective in getting universal health care passed than she was in the early 90s, but at least she has the right idea. Obama's plan to insure just children makes no sense.
I'm still getting phone calls from the Obama camp urging me to vote for him. Stevie Wonder called me this morning. Someone else within the hour. Well, they were recorded messages, but still... I was kind of expecting Joan Baez or Buffy St. Marie to call on behalf of Hillary, but no such luck.
I'm still getting phone calls from the Obama camp urging me to vote for him. Stevie Wonder called me this morning. Someone else within the hour. Well, they were recorded messages, but still... I was kind of expecting Joan Baez or Buffy St. Marie to call on behalf of Hillary, but no such luck.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Sorry, I missed this earlier -- yes, Nadler's my rep. I think he might even live around me; I've seen him in the 72nd Street area (unless he was just sampling Grey's Papaya).Damien wrote:(Tee, is Jerry Nadler your congressperson as well?)
The wildest thing about the right-wing loathing of McCain, and their resultant support for Romney, is that, based on actual records, McCain has been FAR more conservative than Romney.
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
I'll never understand the emnity of the right-wing towards McCain. I din't have his voting record ratings in front of me, but throughout his career he's been a reliable advocate of evil (i.e. conservative 
) causes. The only thing I can assume is that they don't consider him one of them because he's civil and not a demagogue. And he might actually go for a drink with someone from across the aisle.
) causes. The only thing I can assume is that they don't consider him one of them because he's civil and not a demagogue. And he might actually go for a drink with someone from across the aisle."Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Ann Coulter said that if John McCain's the candidate, she's voting for Hillary.
I'm a little terrified by that, but what can you do? But it's the most sensible thing I think she's ever said...and that's saying a lot.
I don't think Obama's a healer. When he gets into office, I'm afraid his inexperience is going to throw the government into a tailspin and it's going to divide the nation far more than someone with at least a long history in politics (even if it is at her husband's side) would be preferable. And I don't think she's as right leaning as everyone seems to indicate she is.
how many of those 46% are republicans and how many Dems? If both are included, then I would say the poll is a bit misrepresentational. Where's the poll from? Who conducted it? As a history teacher in high school always said, see who conducts the poll as there may be bias inused in the questions. Always look at methodology as well.
I'm a little terrified by that, but what can you do? But it's the most sensible thing I think she's ever said...and that's saying a lot.
I don't think Obama's a healer. When he gets into office, I'm afraid his inexperience is going to throw the government into a tailspin and it's going to divide the nation far more than someone with at least a long history in politics (even if it is at her husband's side) would be preferable. And I don't think she's as right leaning as everyone seems to indicate she is.
how many of those 46% are republicans and how many Dems? If both are included, then I would say the poll is a bit misrepresentational. Where's the poll from? Who conducted it? As a history teacher in high school always said, see who conducts the poll as there may be bias inused in the questions. Always look at methodology as well.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I don't think Clinton is unelectable, just less electable. If she were a much better candidate than Obama, I might be willing to take that chance. But she's not. She's far too hawkish and pro-corporate. And, whether it's her fault or not, she's divisive. This country needs some serious healing right now.
Forget Romney and Huckabee. McCain's the candidate. He's proven that he can pull independents. Obama will pull more independents than Clinton. There are just too many people (46% in one poll) that state that they will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances.
If the religious right stays home in large numbers, that will help any Democrat. I LOVED Dobson's statement today stating that he will stay home rather than vote for McCain.
Forget Romney and Huckabee. McCain's the candidate. He's proven that he can pull independents. Obama will pull more independents than Clinton. There are just too many people (46% in one poll) that state that they will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances.
If the religious right stays home in large numbers, that will help any Democrat. I LOVED Dobson's statement today stating that he will stay home rather than vote for McCain.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I don't think Hillary's unelectable at all. I think she could easily win against the Republican candidate. Democrats, no matter their hatred for the woman, will still recognize that if we don't vote for her, we're going to let another Republican into the white house to potentially continue down the same path as before. And it's not republicans or democrats that we really have to worry about. It's the independents. They will sway the victory in one direction or another. A lot depends on who the nominees on both side are.
If it's Clinton vs. McCain, I think McCain may swing the independents, but with a loss of a good portion of the Religious wRong, the independents won't necessarily be enough.
In a Clinton vs. Romney ticket, I believe independents will shift to Clinton with Romney picking up a split portion of the Religious wRong. The RR is much more likely to abandon Romney as they are go for him. If there's one things the RR can't stand besides gays, dead fetuses and liberals, it's those who aren't Protestant. Some will side with Romeny, but a good portion, not wanting a Mormon in the white house will just sit home on election day.
In a Clinton vs. Huckabee, you've got all the RR nutsos flocking to Huckabee, the fair tax voters voting for Huckabee, but most of the independents picking up Clinton.
While I think the toughest race would be Clinton/McCain, I still think she can win regardless of how people feel about her personally...
Obama can also win regardless of pairing, though against McCain he might be able to retain more of the independents. But he's also going to send the KKK vote to whomever's running, even McCain. You may not think there are many of them out there, but they'll crawl out of the woodworks to oppose even a half-black president.
If it's Clinton vs. McCain, I think McCain may swing the independents, but with a loss of a good portion of the Religious wRong, the independents won't necessarily be enough.
In a Clinton vs. Romney ticket, I believe independents will shift to Clinton with Romney picking up a split portion of the Religious wRong. The RR is much more likely to abandon Romney as they are go for him. If there's one things the RR can't stand besides gays, dead fetuses and liberals, it's those who aren't Protestant. Some will side with Romeny, but a good portion, not wanting a Mormon in the white house will just sit home on election day.
In a Clinton vs. Huckabee, you've got all the RR nutsos flocking to Huckabee, the fair tax voters voting for Huckabee, but most of the independents picking up Clinton.
While I think the toughest race would be Clinton/McCain, I still think she can win regardless of how people feel about her personally...
Obama can also win regardless of pairing, though against McCain he might be able to retain more of the independents. But he's also going to send the KKK vote to whomever's running, even McCain. You may not think there are many of them out there, but they'll crawl out of the woodworks to oppose even a half-black president.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
An unapologetic vote for Obama here in California. Voting for him is a bit of a risk, because we don't really know him. His speeches may be "vacuous," to use OscarGuy's word, but I don't think Barack is vacuous at all. I think his strategy is to play it safe by not saying much, and it appears to be working. I think he is far more electable than Clinton and was glad to have an opportunity today to cast a strategic vote that really counts (I voted for Kucinich last time because it had already been decided for Kerry). Once he has the big prize and thus nothing to lose, he may end up being a pretty effective president.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
It was a caucus.Sonic Youth wrote:CNN just reported that Huckabee has already won West Virginia.
Err, when were these polls supposed to close?
And Romney led by a wide margin after the initial round, but the McCain folk threw all their votes to Huckabee. Which makes Romney's "A Vote for Huckabee is a Vote for McCain" pitch a bit easier to sell.