Super Tuesday

Standard
republicans-for-voldemort.jpg

24 states. 52% of the Democratic Party and 41% of the Republican delegates at stake. Which respective candidate do you think will win the largest number of votes? Who are you rooting for? Are you voting? Do you care?

Online betmaker Unibet has these odds.

Democrat candidate
Clinton, Hillary, 1.45
Obama, Barack, 2.50

Republican candidate
McCain, John, 1.15
Romney, Mitt, 5.00
Huckabee, Mike, 30.00
Paul, Ron, 100.00

Will the next elected president be a man or a woman?
Man, 1.65
Woman, 2.00

Winning party
Democrats, 1.45
Republicans, 2.50

Who will win the presidential election?
Clinton, Hillary, 2.00
McCain, John, 3.00
Obama, Barack, 4.00
Romney, Mitt, 12.00
Bloomberg, Michael, 25.00
Huckabee, Mike, 50.00
Paul, Ron, 150.00

About these ads

84 responses »

  1. Connecticut’s primary is today as well, and I’m also voting for Obama. He’s neck-and-neck with Hillary here and both have barraged the state with appearances by themselves and their surrogates over the past few days.

    Obama’s rally in Hartford yesterday attracted 17,000.

    Hillary was here Monday as well, including a tear-filled appearance up the road at Yale.

  2. The Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, is supporting Obama, as well. In general most people here appear to support Clinton, though.

  3. Suzanne Pleshette?

    Unfortunately, no ScarJo calls on this end. I’ve received a few calls in the past few days, but all copy read by nameless voices.

  4. I haven’t gotten any calls. Could be because my phone is unlisted and I’m on the do-not-call list for solicitors (not sure that applies to political campaigns, I know it doesn’t apply to charities).

  5. California has a lot of early absentee voters who may have voted already during a Hillary surge, but if he can win the state, it will be a tremendous lift for him.

  6. I’d imagine that’s it. My home line is unlisted, whereas my business line is not.

    I also registered with the Obama campaign, which would probably be the most likely reason I’ve received calls.

  7. Agreed, the absentees are scaring me. Tim Russert was stressing their importance last night and how they are (likely) more in favor of Hill.

  8. According to George Stephanopoulis on GMA, if Obama can win Massachusetts, Missouri and California, he “will be tough to stop,” despite losing NJ, NY and CT.

  9. Limbaugh is having on-air meltdowns about how he hates McCain. It’s going to be interesting to see what the super-far-right does when they realize it’s either McCain or Clinton/Obama.

  10. Missed the registration deadline after the move, so can’t vote, but would be voting for Obama.

    based on this image from FoxNews’ site – who do the Neocons want you to vote for?

    Hitler?

    It’s going to be interesting to see what the super-far-right does when they realize it’s either McCain or Clinton/Obama.

    Rant and rave about how evil Clinton/Obama is, of course. No big mystery there. “Yes, I know McCain is a bad Republican, but do we really want to see Billary/Barack Hussein Obama in the White House? At least with McCain you get (insert random conservative trait).”

  11. Obama is in a pitch black suit (one hand obscured, other in full view).

    McCain’s next (right hand mostly hidden, hanging to his side in shame, liberal left hand proudly showing)

    Ultra-religious Huckabee is raising his left hand to the heavens (but obscured).

    Hillary is in black and so devious that only several fingers on her right hand are showing, left is completely out of frame. The only candidate without one hand fully in view.

    Romney is in the center, in pure white, and the only candidate with both hands showing.

  12. Romney is in the center, in pure white, and the only candidate with both hands showing.

    Oh. I was referring to the unfortunately placed shadow from his raised thumb.

  13. I like that Bloomberg has a better chance of winning than two people that are actually running…

    My main concern is all the propositions on the CA ballot…I succumb to ennui during the presidential primary

  14. I like Bloomberg (more than any other current or potential candidate) but he doesn’t stand a shot. Too liberal for the Right and too conservative for the left.

    There’s just not a market for him right now. Maybe in 2012.

  15. Too liberal for the Right and too conservative for the left.

    This seems more like a bug than a feature to me. Which is to say, I don’t see what political space he occupies on a national stage. People that have issues that are more important to them than others, and right now, whatever is most important to you, there’s probably another, more viable candidate that has a better chance of a) getting elected in the first place, and b) getting whatever that is enacted once elected.

    Put another way, I don’t see what Bloomberg stands for in particular that isn’t already out there. At least Nader had an issue (electoral reform) that the other candidates weren’t talking about. Bloomberg’s big pitch seems to be “hey, I’m an independent.” Well, good for him.

  16. In general most people here appear to support Clinton, though.

    I meant to ask, Nick, why this is. Do you get the sense that it’s simply a case of the Clinton name being held in high regard? Something more specific to Hillary and/or Obama? Maybe Hillary has a secret pro-Sweden (or anti-Norway, maybe) plank in her platform that hasn’t got media play here?

  17. I think it’s a combination of several factors.

    The name is one thing; Bill Clinton is still seen somewhat favorably all round (for an American president, at least).

    That she’s a woman is a major factor. Partly because America tends to be seen as a pretty conservative Western country and partly because currently the issue of female leadership is something of a hot button topic here. (Also one of the reasons I think we will probably have a female prime minister in a few years time.)

    Plus some trends tend to travel pretty slow over to this corner of the earth. The name Barack Obama wasn’t known here a few months ago. A guy like that needs airplay and endorsements to convince people to vote for him, something he (naturally) has not had here. He hasn’t grown on us, basically.

    There’s also the fact that he does not endorse the free trade agreement, putting something of a damper on the international community’s enthusiasm for him. The main reason our prime minister is behind him is that they have very similar policies regarding unemployment (and which many regard as the reason our prime minister was elected). Otherwise he’d most likely be rooting for McCain.

  18. People that have issues that are more important to them than others, and right now, whatever is most important to you, there’s probably another, more viable candidate that has a better chance of a) getting elected in the first place, and b) getting whatever that is enacted once elected.

    Put another way, I don’t see what Bloomberg stands for in particular that isn’t already out there. At least Nader had an issue (electoral reform) that the other candidates weren’t talking about. Bloomberg’s big pitch seems to be “hey, I’m an independent.” Well, good for him.

    Bloomberg is a moderate whose beliefs probably mirror a far greater number of Americans that either the Democratic or Republican frontrunners. Unfortunately, “middle-of-the-road” is a tough sell in the hyper-partisan age of politics we live in.

    Bloomberg does need a hook, a pitch that he can toss around other than: “I’m a billionaire who isn’t on the special interest’s payroll and I ride the subway to work every day”.

    Yes, he’s an excellent leader who has managed unprecedented bi-partisan support in NYC, but that’s not necessarily a reason he should be President.

    My gut: Bloomberg sits out this election and spends the next four years planning an appropriate strategy/message for 2012.

  19. Bloomberg is a moderate whose beliefs probably mirror a far greater number of Americans that either the Democratic or Republican frontrunners.

    I have my doubts, especially when talking about *voting* Americans. And to some extent, it’s unknowable anyway. What kind of foreign policy views does he have? That’s a president’s greatest area of influence, and it obviously has nothing to do with whether or not he rides the subway, and I’ve not seen anything from him other than generalities (not pretending to know everything, so if I missed something, let me know).

    Even assuming that’s true – what then? Let’s suppose he wins, what does he do? I think I’ve made this point before, but he’d have no constituency in Congress running as an independent, so he’d likely be completely unable to get any kind of legislation passed. How does he plan to overcome the hurdle of not having a party behind him?

    My advice to him: join a party and then run. If he’s so sure he can win, and why shouldn’t he if the people really do think more like him than the other candidates, then that will have a huge effect on the party he chooses. He’ll be able to make the party in his image, like Bill Clinton largely did.

    I just don’t get the whole independent/third party thing. It’s just not the world we live in.

  20. So, it’s late, but it looks like Clinton and Obama have dueled to a draw, more or less. This probably is good news for Obama, who was hugely behind in polls a couple weeks ago, but has made up most of the difference.

    Of course, California has yet to be counted as I write this, but the strange proportional delegate system that the Democrats have designed means that neither candidate is going to end up with much of an edge there, besides some headlines for a few days. And it means that either way, it could be tomorrow or Thursday before we know who’s ahead in actual delegates.

    All in all, as an Obama supporter I’m pleased with how things went. It would have been nice to see a more obvious swing in his direction, but oh well. Still time.

  21. I voted for Obama this morning. I vote in a rather lovely setting: the “warming room” at a local park…it overlooks a small pond, and it’s very peaceful.

    We had candidate visits nearby yesterday. McCain appeared at the Colonial Firehouse, which is about 15 minutes from my place. Obama played the Meadowlands (which today hosted a celebration for the Giants). Craig Romney, son of Mitt, cancelled an appearance that was scheduled for a diner that is within walking distance. Of course, if he knew how good the complimentary cheese bread is, he wouldn’t have cancelled.

  22. Looks like McCain was the big winner last night, while the Democratic nomination is still up in the air. Maybe March 4 will be more crucial for them.

  23. Obama should do well in Maryland, Virginia and DC. This may be decided by Ohio and Texas on March 4th, as Nick states. It will be interesting to see what happens if neither gets the desired number, and the Edwards delegates become important.

    As for the Republicans, Huckabee may have the pull to become McCain’s running mate, but since Republican states are winner take all McCain may not need his delegates.

  24. One of the crucial actions right now seems to be who they choose as running mates. But isn’t having Edwards inviting omens of ill luck, considering how it went last time?

    And isn’t it possible that Bloomberg is gunning for a vice-presidential spot? Taking himself out of the Republican party might just be a way to leave his options open.

  25. Edwards may ask for something else, such as Attorney General or a Supreme Court appointment. I would think he woudn’t want to go through a VP run again, nor would either Clinton or Obama wish to invite comparisons to four years ago.

    I see it as unlikely that Bloomberg would be a VP pick for the Republican party. McCain is being pilloried by the conservative wing of the party and picking someone left of him will do him no good with the hard right. If social conservatives aren’t placated, they could just stay home on election day in November.

    Clinton can not take Bloomberg as a VP pick. If she does, she will not win the electoral votes in New York, as the constitution states that if a president and vice-presidential candidate come from the same state, they can not win that states’ electoral vote (Bush-Cheney got around this because Cheney’s official address of residence was in Wyoming, despite him living most of the time in Texas at the time of the first election).

    I would think Bloomberg would offer nothing demographically to Obama, as he is already popular in big cities and would win New York City in the general election without breaking a sweat. Obama would need a candidate of some experience and and a more rural appeal.

  26. So no Bloomberg this season. Will be interesting to see how they pick. Sure hope for McCain’s sake he doesn’t pick Huckabee. The combination would be comical.

    Interesting with the VP not being from the same state as the president. Funny how many things Bush-Cheney got away with that would have sunk most candidates.

  27. If Bill Richardson were a little more charismatic, he would be a great VP pick for Obama, as he has a lot of experience and Obama could use more Latino support. But Richardson is so dull.

  28. Wow!

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

    In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.

    The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 845 to 836.

    NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party’s complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.

  29. I’m of the mindset it’s unclear how much people vote for president based on the running mate – probably very little – so you might as well go with someone who reinforces your message, instead of trying to shore yourself up electorally.

    For this reason, I think Clinton would do best to choose Richardson. No, he’s not charismatic, but no one who wants to vote for Clinton is going to vote against her because he’s dull. But her message is about experience and competence, with a secondary emphasis on making history, and Richardson is well suited on both counts. When she says, “I know what I’m doing, I can fix things,” being able to point to Richardson in the wings only helps reinforce that message.

    Likewise, McCain may well appoint Huckabee, but this is a bad idea in my mind. Not only do a lot of the same people who hate McCain also hate Huckabee, Huckabee undermines a lot of what McCain has to say (especially economically) . I can’t believe McCain would be so dumb, but he might well be. It may not hurt him much in the general election, but it will doom his administration because it will ensure a lot of GOP infighting for the next four years, because different factions of the party will be able to claim credit for the win. McCain needs to ignore what the dittoheads are saying and pick someone who’s a better fit ideologically. Not sure who.

    Not sure who Obama should go with, either, but it would definitely be someone who fits his “change and unity” message. It would probably have to be someone who opposed the Iraq War. Jim Webb has been a name floated around – that might work, but I’d want to go with someone outside of Congress. It’ll be interesting to see, if he can get the nomination.

    Oh wait, I know – Al Gore! It’d be perfect!

  30. For almost two hundred years, the conventional wisdom was to “balance” a ticket, mostly geographically shoring up areas of weakness. But I think Clinton choosing Gore disproved that theory, and Brian is right, mostly. What we haven’t seen in over a generation is a candidate heading into a convention without enough committed delegates, which we may see this year, and in that instance a candidate’s power to select who they want may be limited.

  31. So…Romney’s out? He should throw his delegates behind Huckabee just to make McCain sweat it out. A hard fought victory is more relished and cherished than one handed to you at the halfway point….

  32. Doubt it would make much of a difference. McCain seems to have things pretty well in the bag. If the GOP allotted delegates proportionally in more states, like the Dems do, things might be different. Or maybe not, since a lot of Republicans also hate Huckabee as much as or more than McCain.

    He just finished his speech, and quasi-endorsed McCain. Not officially, but the intent was clear.

    As a side note, Romney just referred to Democrats as “opponents of American culture.” You know, I suppose I’m OK with that. Fuck American culture!

  33. I was joking.

    Although to the extent that Republicans like to define “culture” as outlawing abortion and gay marriage and responding hysterically to illegal immigration, I see no reason to be on board with it.

  34. It’s not fantastical, it’s how Romney just layed it out.

    Doesn’t mean I think ALL Republicans think that way. But don’t pretend that GOP candidates don’t often mean exactly that when they talk about “culture”.

    And besides, what the hell is “American culture” anyway?

  35. “I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror”

    Easily the most loathsome candidate in the race.

  36. But don’t pretend that GOP candidates don’t often mean exactly that when they talk about “culture”.

    ‘GOP Candidates’ does not equal the whole of the Republican party or even the ideal.
    There has been much dissension and hand-wringing from the vast majority of Repubs trying to find out who to vote for. Now, more than ever, it seems we do not have someone who represents us. The lesser of two evils is worse than it has been before.
    The presidency is up for grabs still to me. I have no idea who to vote for. I basically chose someone in the middle of the ballot on Tuesday. It’s ridiculous

    And besides, what the hell is “American culture” anyway?

    That was my question as well… ;-)

  37. As you can see, I’m definitely frustrated with the sendups “my” party offered this time around. Last time I projected too much of myself onto the President and could not see the forest for the trees.

    This time around I’m trying to stick to my ideals and see if anyone comes close. That’s not working either. James and I have closer movie interests than I politically have in common with a candidate running for office (from either side).

    I hate politics. (but I love America[n culture])

  38. I got 14, too. I just guessed Barack Obama on all the change ones. Guessed on a lot of ones, actually. Haven’t been able to follow the elections that closely.

  39. As you can see, I’m definitely frustrated with the sendups “my” party offered this time around.

    All good and well, but I’m not talking about you personally when I disparage your party. You want to disassociate yourself from that definition of “culture,” then I have no beef with you. But please don’t pretend like it’s something that I’m making up (“fantastical”). A lot of Republicans do think that – enough to constantly elect leaders who say it.

    And of course, in the not-to-distant past, talks of preserving the culture were overt appeals for segregation. It’s an ugly phrase even as the Mittster meant it, with an even uglier history.

    Got 19 on the quiz.

  40. I haven’t even heard Romney’s speech and don’t care to. If he defined “American Culture” in the words you used, he was wrong. But just going by what you said…

    It is something fantastical because I hear the comment only from the left about the right. It’s as fantastical as saying that if the Democrats win then the terrorists have won, which is something you hear coming from the right about the left. It’s not based in reality. Your sweeping generalizations are in this case fantastical.

    If you say “a lot of Republicans do think that” how can I counter? By saying a lot of Republicans don’t? It’s un-quantifiable and an unprovable statement.

    YOu say it’s inferred by “electing leaders who say it.” How many are campaigning to outlaw abortion? How many respond “hysterically” to illegal immigration? “A lot”?

    I do not take personal offense, but I stand by my statement.

  41. I think you’re just reading more into this than what I’m saying. I am not saying that all Republicans think this way. I’m not theorizing a percentage that do.

    BUT, you know as well as I do that one of the main arguments from the right against both gay marriage and (illegal) immigration is that it undermines American culture. Romney didn’t pull this out of thin air! His exact words (from the speech):

    Soon the face of liberalism in America will have a new name. Whether it’s Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to be able to…

    (BOOING)

    … if they were to be able to win the presidency. The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the Constitution.

    Mitt didn’t even have to explain precisely what he meant – “judges [departing] from the Constitution” is a well worn euphemism for judges that rule in favor of abortion and gay rights. Or perhaps you’ve heard the “activist judges” euphemism, a favorite of Bush’s.

    How many are campaigning to outlaw abortion?

    As far as I can tell, the answer to this is “somewhere between most and all.” Seriously, this is a weird question to ask. It’s in the Republican Party platform (pdf)! From page 84:

    That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.

    Furthermore…

    How many respond “hysterically” to illegal immigration?

    Obviously this is a matter of contention, as one man’s hysteria is another (crazy) man’s reason. But I think you’ll have to agree that McCain is having a lot of trouble with conservatives over the immigration issue. Yes, I realize that not everyone out there in GOP land is Ann Coulter, but this strikes me as a case where the candidates are actually more reasonable than the voters.

    For example, let’s turn to the CNN exit polls from Tuesday. In Missouri, 55% of GOP voters answered “deport them” (a hysterical response, if you ask me, given the sheer impractibility and inhumanity of such an undertaking) when asked how to handle illegal immigrants. In Oklahoma, that number dropped to 41% (but 78% said that abortion should be illegal!). In Arizona, the number was 44%. So there’s clearly a major constituency for this in the party.

  42. Why did you leave out the portion of page 84 that states:

    Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of
    support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be
    punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose
    abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who
    have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption
    services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to
    adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.

    This sounds like working within the law to reduce abortion as much as possible, not outlaw.
    Gay Marriage is already illegal/unrecognized in most states, so no one is campaigning to outlaw what is not a law. Just keep the law the way it is.

    And once you start quoting exit polls, the jig is up. Exit polls of all kinds, whether they support an argument or not, are specious at best. They are voluntary and hardly scientific.

    You are arguing from your experience and I from mine. I take your word on things to the left, but I trust my own when it comes to the right.

    I disagree, and will leave it at that.

  43. This sounds like working within the law to reduce abortion as much as possible, not outlaw.

    Dude, it says in plain English that the goal is a Constitutional amendment protecting the life of the child. That’s called “oulawing abortion”.

    Gay Marriage is already illegal/unrecognized in most states, so no one is campaigning to outlaw what is not a law.

    Outlaw it … keep it outlawed. Big difference. The end result is that it is outlawed.

    And you’re wrong anyway:

    We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage

    This doesn’t sound like “keeping it the way it is.” It sounds like amending the Constitution.

    And once you start quoting exit polls, the jig is up. Exit polls of all kinds, whether they support an argument or not, are specious at best. They are voluntary and hardly scientific.

    Obviously true to some extent, but I think it’s “specious” to take quantifiable evidence (not *proof*) and pretend like they just don’t exist. Especially when events unfolding right in front of our eyes during this primary seems to confirm what the exit polls show – that a significant block of Republican voters have reactionary views on illegal immigration.

    If you disagree, then come up with evidence to the contrary stronger than just *saying* so.

    I take your word on things to the left, but I trust my own when it comes to the right.

    Says the man who supported Bush for two terms and now says, whoops, I blew it, didn’t see the forest for the trees.

    OK, sorry, that’s mean. But with due respect, I think you still continue to “project too much of yourself” on your fellow party members. I know what I’ve seen, and I’ve lived in very heavily Republican areas, and I’ve seen who Republicans elect to office. And judging by what you’ve said, I pay a lot more attention to what they’re actually saying than you do.

  44. Ok…i guess i can’t just leave it at that. Looks like we’re in for a quote-fest…

    Topic: abortion and the Republican party platform. Reread the last sentence you originally quoted and read the next sentence

    Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.

    If the previous sentences lead to outlawing a practice, why is the next paragraph (the one I mentioned above) even in place? Either they are in contradiction or corollation. I’m sure some learned people wrote this, so either they are schizo and want to outlaw it while at the same time not prosecuting and then providing help to the women to have the procedure done, or there is a grey area. The whole section looks grey to me.

    Topic: gay marriage. You’re right in that a Constitutional amendment is something of a change as far as state judges and legislators are concerned. It’s amending the constitution to keep things the way they have been.

    Topic: reactionary views on illegal immigration. I confess I needed to look up reactionary to make sure I am working from the same defintion….extreme conservatism. Ok, there are Republicans with extremely conservative views on something labelled illegal. I absolutely agree with that. “Deport them” is an extremely conservative view and I don’t think the numbers are nearly as high as the polls show, but even if it was some double-digit percentage of actual Republican voters it would be a some sort of bloc. I’ve lost the plot on this one. What are we arguing about?

    I know what I’ve seen, and I’ve lived in very heavily Republican areas, and I’ve seen who Republicans elect to office. And judging by what you’ve said, I pay a lot more attention to what they’re actually saying than you do.

    I feel the same way. We are at an impasse

  45. I’m sure some learned people wrote this, so either they are schizo and want to outlaw it while at the same time not prosecuting and then providing help to the women to have the procedure done, or there is a grey area. The whole section looks grey to me.

    Really? To me it’s actually quite clear. What’s the grey area? They want to ban abortion. They don’t want to prosecute women for having them (doctors presumably would be prosecuted). We can debate the intellectual consistency of such a stance, but it’s quite clearly laid out, and not necessarily contradictory at all.

    (As an aside: in fact, it’s based on the idea that pregnant women aren’t smart enough to know what they’re doing, so they’re not accountable for their actions in this case. This is the reason for things 24-hour waiting periods and parental consent and the like – the idea that women need to be “educated” about the ill effects of abortion.)

    It’s amending the constitution to keep things the way they have been.

    A pointless distinction that I have no idea why you’re emphasizing. They want gay marriage outlawed. Whether it’s always been that way or not is immaterial, unless change for the sake of change is somehow a bad thing in this case.

    I’ve lost the plot on this one. What are we arguing about?

    I forget, too. Quite sure we arrived there via a perfectly logical chain of argumentation, though.

  46. I’m sure we’ll do this all over again closer to presidential elections, but

    As an aside: in fact, it’s based on the idea that pregnant women aren’t smart enough to know what they’re doing, so they’re not accountable for their actions in this case.

    Come on. This is an opinion. I’ve only heard this argument put forth by the left.

    People do need to be educated about a MEDICAL procedure. How does this mean they’re stupid? I had to watch a video before having a vascectomy and sign something saying I understood what was happening. No problem.

    I also had to watch some video and have a consult before having my wisdom teeth pulled. Because I was dumb? No. They wanted me to fully understand the procedure because I’m not an oral surgeon.

    By the same token, why shouldn’t you explain to a woman what is going to happen? Should you just say “You walk in and then magically your baby disappears”? No…educate.
    And parental consent is required for a freaking field trip in school, yet it’s a bad thing for an abortion? Don’t be ridiculous.

    And since when is a one day waiting period for a life-changing decision bad? Waiting periods for guns = good, yes?

    None of this says women aren’t smart enough to know what they are doing. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

  47. Great night! Obama won Nebraska, Louisiana and Washington. He also scored a few additional delegates from the Virgin Islands.

  48. More success for Obama tonight, crushing Clinton in Wisconsin.

    CNN has just pointed out that McCain’s campaign feels that Obama fits the narrative that McCain wants to tell in the general election: that McCain is the candidate of experience, while Obama is the candidate of empty promises.

    If this is true … it’s hard to know what to say, really. I guess I can only hope that McCain has the same success with that line of attack that Clinton has had.

  49. Geez, Hillary is like Dracula, she’s tough to kill. Obama will win Mississippi and North Carolina, but Clinton may win Pennsylvania. This is going to very ugly if it comes down to superdelegates or the disputed Michigan/Florida results.

  50. Well, of course it’s already going to come down to superdelegates. No candidate can win a majority with only elected delegates at this point unless the other completely craters. And when I say “completely,” I mean something along the lines of losing every remaining primary/caucus by something along the lines of a 4-to-1 ratio.

    The question is whether the superdelegates break for the winner of the most elected delegates, which will almost certainly be Obama even with the MI/FL results factored in as is, or if Clinton can convince them to go for her regardless of her (most probable) elected delegate deficit.

    Personally, I think Hillary is not in any better shape today than she was yesterday. True, she avoided the death blow, but she barely made a dent in Obama’s pledged delegate lead. And regardless of what the morons on CNN say about “momentum”, the name of the game is delegates, and Obama still has a commanding lead on that score, and Clinton needs a miracle for that to change before the convention.

  51. Heading out the door, but just saw this flash up on Drudge re: Pennsylvania:

    EXIT POLL DRAMA 5 PM ET: CLINTON 52, OBAMA 48

    If those numbers are even remotely close to being accurate, that’s pretty astounding. Some outlets were predicting a 15-20 point blowout.

  52. We’ll see. As I recall, the exit polls have been consistently more friendly to Obama than the final results have been. Now would be a super awesome time to reverse that trend, but I’m not going to get excited about it.

  53. Agreed, and it looks like things are shaking out that way this evening. However, the margin of victory still appears like it will be under projections.

  54. I’m trying to avoid all news coverage of the election today. It’s too depressing.

  55. Looks like it may have ended last night, with Obama winning NC comfortably and losing IN only narrowly.

    It’s about time. I guess Clinton will soldier on, but pressure on her to drop out will likely increase by orders of magnitude now.

  56. Unfortunately, it’s likely she will get a big win in West Virginia next week that will continue to fuel her fantasy. But I agree, it’s all over but the shouting (and what shouting that will be).

  57. West Virginia won’t matter at all, though. It’s unlikely anyone but her will even pretend it does.

    The media already has dropped the charade that she still can win. At this point, she’s going to see her supporters start to bail on her, her donations dry up (she’s already lent her campaign $11 million, with more to come), and the remaining superdelegates line up for Obama.

    The shouting won’t be that bad. She’ll have nothing to shout about.

  58. I really like her campaign attempting to move the goal post and say that there is a new delegate total that must be reached (which would count the phantom delegates from Florida and Michigan). She’s really disgraced herself, as far as I’m concerned, with her craven attempts to rewrite rules and throw everything but the kitchen sink at Obama.

  59. They’ve been saying that for months, though. I think they started that shit after the March 4 (OH/TX) contests. Maybe even sooner. It’s not new, and the campaign has been progressing under the alleged “new target” since that time. No one really believed it then, and everyone believes it much less now.

    I seriously doubt it will come to that, anyway. If the uncommitted supers do indeed start breaking for Obama, it will likely make the MI/FL issue moot. His lead is simply much larger than most people in the media realize.

    And, to strike a conciliatory posture here, if Hillary’s made the Wright issue less of an issue in the general by making sure it’s aired out now, her campaign will have served a useful purpose.

  60. So now that Obama looks like a likely presidential candidate, you think Hillary will settle for vice-president?

  61. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling Obama wants no part of Hillary for VP. Because with Hillary comes Bill, and he might be outshone by the circus that comes with that. I think he’ll take someone far less-known (maybe a white southerner with lots of foreign policy experience, like Sam Nunn or David Boren) who won’t grab all the attention away from him.

    And I don’t think she’d want it, anyway.

  62. Some folks are talking about Wesley Clark, who would be a fantastic choice. Unfortunately, I think he’s too connected to the Clintons to get the gig.

  63. I doubt there’s any chance Clinton would be a VP pick. Totally agreed with Jackrabbit Slim on this one.

    Besides the personality clash (likely not as big a deal as everyone believes anyway), having Clinton on the ticket sort of undermines Obama’s entire campaign message, i.e., needing to break away from the entrenched power in Washington.

    Clark might work. I’m honestly not familiar with his stance on the Iraq war thoughout the years. If he was too gung-ho on the idea then he’s probably not going to be the guy.

    At any rate, I doubt his ties to the Clintons will be a factor against him. If anything, it might actually help him out; party unity and all that.

  64. I was just thinking that Obama having Lincoln as his inspiration would have him make the offer to Hillary, “Team of Rivals”-style. But probably not. Shame, though. She’d be quite a vice-president.

  65. I think he may toss her a bone with a cabinet position, but she may want to stay in the Senate, with an eye to being majority leader. Remember, Lincoln’s Team of Rivals style was to name his opponents to cabinet positions. The VP went to Hannibal Hamlin, who was a purely political choice (granted, the VP was far less meaningful then as now).

    The Fix in the Washington Post has these names as favorites for Obama’s VP:

    1. Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas Governor)
    2. Ted Strickland (Ohio governor)
    3. Hillary Clinton
    4. Tim Kaine (Virginia governor)
    5. Sam Nunn (former Georgia senator)

  66. Except for Hillary, never heard of any of those. Of course, I’m across the pond and I’m guessing most vice-presidential potentials aren’t that well-known before the elections.

  67. At any rate, I doubt his ties to the Clintons will be a factor against (Clark). If anything, it might actually help him out; party unity and all that.

    Not a bad plan, it’s a nice olive branch. It doesn’t hurt that Clark (allegedly) called Hillary on Tuesday night and asked her to consider dropping out.

    By the way, here’s a good OP ED Clark wrote re: Iraq for Washington Monthly.

  68. The olive branch factor works with Strickland, who is a Hillary supporter and also is governor of a swing state (and is a former minister).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s