Super Tuesday Thread

[jerseyhoya34]

We're now two days away from McCain basically becoming the nominee for the Republicans, and, on the other side, the race is becoming very, very close.

Gallup is basically showing it as a tie in its tracking poll and national poll, and it is within the margin of error in others. On top of that, there are state results that are encouraging to Obama, particularly in CA.

Should Obama get the nomination (on Tuesday or down the road), it might be the biggest electoral upset in a generation. The idea that it is even competitive would have been mind-boggling two months ago and is a testament to the strength of Obama's campaign.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Hillary cried, again. Its all up for grabs: wonkette.com/352283/hillary-pre+election-day-cry-for-points-check

Interesting timing though. Poll movements must make her emotional.

[Bando]

I think it's pretty clear that Super Tuesday's not going to decide anything on the Dem side, and that barring a miracle, McCain will cement his position as the GOP nominee. I'm just psyched that the DC, MD, and VA primaries are actually going to mean something this year.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

A super-delegate battle is shaping up ... the Clintons may help Michigan and Florida may try to get their delegates seated as well if things are really close.

[rosslynhoya]

Feb 4, 2008 11:46:22 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

Hillary cried, again. Its all up for grabs: wonkette.com/352283/hillary-pre+election-day-cry-for-points-check

Interesting timing though. Poll movements must make her emotional.

If she doesn't get to be president then the sham marriage she endured for three decades was largely worthless after all. I feel a tear coming on myself... nope, false alarm.

[jerseyhoya34]

Here are the results as to 10:00:

Republicans
McCain: CT, NJ, NY, DE, IL, OK
Romney: MA, UT
Huckabee: AR, WV

Democrats
Clinton: MA, NY, NJ, OK, TN, AR
Obama: GA, AL, IL, DE, ND, UT, KS

[Jack]

Huckabee's evangelicals are murdering Mitt.

Obama really wants to pick up CT, but it is so hard to tell what is happening with the Dems until we actually see the delegate counts.

[jerseyhoya34]

Obama picked up CT and appears to be running strong elsewhere. The delegate split will probably be relatively neutral in CT, but that is better than what was anticipated a couple of weeks ago and is just one less big state that Obama has to offset with smaller states in the midwest.

So, very much a mixed result thus far for the Democrats.

Here is an updated state tracker (with the caveat that statewide results are fairly meaningless for the Democrats in real terms but more valuable symbolically):

Republicans
McCain: CT, NJ, NY, DE, IL, OK, AZ, MO, CA
Romney: MA, UT, ND, MN, MT
Huckabee: AR, WV, GA, TN

Democrats
Clinton: MA, NY, NJ, OK, TN, AR, AZ, CA
Obama: GA, AL, IL, DE, ND, UT, KS, CT, MN, ID, CO

My math is telling me Obama is going to win MO if the current proportions hold up. Only 66% of St. Louis is in, and, if the current numbers hold, Obama will have a 40,000 vote margin in what remains, which is enough to close the gap.

[The Stig]

With the Democrats' proportional process Super Tuesday was pretty much a draw. Obama did end up winning Missouri, but the delegates were evenly split. As The Ambassador said, winning a state can be important symbolically because of the bandwagon effect.

Here's the delegate breakdown from each state: www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/#20080205

McCain had a quiet win on the Republican side, but the big news was that neither Romney nor Huckabee were knocked out. Huckabee is positioning himself pretty well for a VP run.

I'm not sure if it's an advantage or a disadvantage to have your candidate selected before the other party picks theirs. On one hand it allows you to have a united front while the other party is still squabbling amongst itself. On the other hand the media always pays a lot more attention to the undecided race, so your eventual opponent will be getting a lot more media attention than you're getting.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Rep side: does anyone think Romney or Huckabee have a chance to take down McCain? What if one drops out and gives his delegates to the other?

Dem side: Will Edwards' delegates matter come crunch time? Will a significant number of Super Delegates wait until the convention and then change their choice? Who will emerge as the most viable VP candidate for Obama? For Hilliary?

Also, props to Bando for his prescient post above. Agree that it's nice to have meaningful primaries this time around for Metro-land as well as my homestate (for once!).

[theexorcist]

Caucusing in WV had McCain winning one percent of the vote. For a front-runner, that's really suspiciously low. It's been alleged by Romney that McCain cut a deal with Huckabee.

Personally, I think that Huckabee has no shot. The last primaries, save Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, are all in states that are not in the deep South. The big thing last night was that Huckabee "shares my values". Bible-based conservatives are not strong in Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maryland, or Ohio.

Romney still has a lot of money. He can stay around as long as he wants. But unless McCain makes a big error, Romney is gone. I consider myself a conservative, but I really want to beat Hillary. McCain has the momentum. Neither McCain nor Romney seems that much different in their policies. So, default to McCain.

[rosslynhoya]

Feb 6, 2008 12:09:27 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I'm not sure if it's an advantage or a disadvantage to have your candidate selected before the other party picks theirs.

It could be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how the candidates play out the remaining contests. For example, the longer that Huckabee stays in the running, the more McCain looks like a sane and dignified member of the Republican Party. However, the longer the Dem battle continues, the greater the likelihood that the frontrunners burn all the bridges between their respective factions.

Feb 6, 2008 12:09:27 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Huckabee is positioning himself pretty well for a VP run.

I for one am sick of the "whoever comes in 2nd is the VP" meme. I mean, it worked just fine for us from 3rd grade on, but as a means of selecting our nation's leaders, I just don't buy it. You can't allege that your opponent was a coke dealer and then choose him as your running mate a couple months later.

It would be in the country's best interest if both nominees choose someone who either didn't enter the race at all (a Warner or Rice) or someone who entered for show and failed out early (a Richardson or Thompson).

[Boz]

I just don't see any way that Hillary picks Obama for VP if she wins out. It may be politically advantageous, but I can't see her doing it.

I could see Obama picking Hillary, but she would never, ever serve under him, so he won't ask.

Huckabee does McCain few favors with the conservative pundits like Rush, but wow, I think it's pretty safe to say that he could help deliver the South, huh? I don't like him much, but barring disaster, a veep doesn't really need to do anything, unless his name is Dick Cheney.

Dems are getting big turnouts, so it may be a moot point no matter what. As usual though, the youth vote doesn't appear to have been anywhere near what the Dems and the media hyped it to be. Young voters went big to Obama, but as always, they were in single digits as a percentage of the overall vote (with a couple of exceptions).

You stupid kids!

[AustinHoya03]

Feb 6, 2008 12:33:55 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

The last primaries, save Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, are all in states that are not in the deep South.

Texas is not in the deep South.

We do have open primaries here, so I'm currently trying to decide which Democrat to vote for on March 4th (I'm 95% sure I'll Barack the Vote). Barring a weird Romney or Huckabee surge over the next couple of weeks, it's not worth voting in the Republican primary.

FWIW, I think Obama will win Texas. A lot of the Democratic base here is in cities along the I-35 corridor, and Obama's been doing very well in urban areas. If Hillary wants to win, her best bet is to cater to Hispanic voters in the Rio Grande Valley. Also, I wouldn't count out Republican voters who will vote for Hill in an open primary for the sole reason that they think she's less electable in November. The level of Clinton-hate in this state is pretty high.

[Cambridge]

Feb 6, 2008 13:49:23 GMT -5 Boz said:

I just don't see any way that Hillary picks Obama for VP if she wins out. It may be politically advantageous, but I can't see her doing it.

I could see Obama picking Hillary, but she would never, ever serve under him, so he won't ask.

Huckabee does McCain few favors with the conservative pundits like Rush, but wow, I think it's pretty safe to say that he could help deliver the South, huh? I don't like him much, but barring disaster, a veep doesn't really need to do anything, unless his name is Dick Cheney.

Dems are getting big turnouts, so it may be a moot point no matter what. As usual though, the youth vote doesn't appear to have been anywhere near what the Dems and the media hyped it to be. Young voters went big to Obama, but as always, they were in single digits as a percentage of the overall vote (with a couple of exceptions).

You stupid kids!

I could see Obama going with an elder statesman/stateswoman for a running mate to settle the "experience" issue. Although unlikely to happen, perhaps a Bill Bradley type.

[The Stig]

rosslynhoya - I was thinking more of Huckabee building his name and generating enthusiasm versus his actual position in the polls. A couple months ago Huckabee would have been a complete non-factor in the race. Now he's certainly a viable option for VP. He has a positive image and is genuinely popular in a lot of places. He generates the sort of enthusiasm that you just don't see around McCain.

Boz - You really can't see Hillary doing something that would be politically advantageous? I think she'll have to pick Obama as her running mate just because people like him. The enthusiasm and grassroots support surrounding Obama is just too much for her to pass up. They're very close in terms of policy, so I don't think you'd see much clash there.

[theexorcist]

I don't think Hillary would pick Obama because he had the temerity to challenge what she thought was hers. And having that whippersnapper show up in meetings, CHALLENGING her, would make for a very weird four years.

Sidebar - I came home from the game, turned on my TV, and Hillary was speaking. Took all the air out of the room. She has none of Obama's speaking ability. And she seems so mean.

Sorry, Austin - by "deep South", I meant "Bible belt stronghold". I know that Texas has Austin, but it seems to have enough people that are religious enough to vote for Huck.

Rosslyn - totally unrelated, but your comment reminds me of one of my favorite Simpsons scenes of all time. An attack ad is mocking Marge for her opposition to an anti-kid bill with an actor who says he's Marge. The last line is "and now let me snort some coke off the blade of a knife!"

Cracks me up. Every time.

[AustinHoya03]

Feb 6, 2008 14:17:33 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Sorry, Austin - by "deep South", I meant "Bible belt stronghold". I know that Texas has Austin, but it seems to have enough people that are religious enough to vote for Huck.

That is definitely true. Heck, if Joel Osteen's congregation alone turns out for Huck he'll be doing pretty well in the state.

I wouldn't be surprised if the map in Texas ends up looking somewhat like Missouri last night -- Huck will win a ton of counties in rural East Texas and rural West Texas, but it won't be enough to counteract votes for McCain in Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. I don't think anyone likes Romney down here -- he'll get creamed. Personally, I still can't figure out why he's popular anywhere.

[jerseyhoya34]

Feb 6, 2008 14:00:31 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Feb 6, 2008 13:49:23 GMT -5 Boz said:

I just don't see any way that Hillary picks Obama for VP if she wins out. It may be politically advantageous, but I can't see her doing it.

I could see Obama picking Hillary, but she would never, ever serve under him, so he won't ask.

Huckabee does McCain few favors with the conservative pundits like Rush, but wow, I think it's pretty safe to say that he could help deliver the South, huh? I don't like him much, but barring disaster, a veep doesn't really need to do anything, unless his name is Dick Cheney.

Dems are getting big turnouts, so it may be a moot point no matter what. As usual though, the youth vote doesn't appear to have been anywhere near what the Dems and the media hyped it to be. Young voters went big to Obama, but as always, they were in single digits as a percentage of the overall vote (with a couple of exceptions).

You stupid kids!

I could see Obama going with an elder statesman/stateswoman for a running mate to settle the "experience" issue. Although unlikely to happen, perhaps a Bill Bradley type.

I think that's right, Bridge, and I see him likely making a play for a state in doing so, with the intent of picking off a red state. Unfortunately for him, many of Clinton's supporters are the experienced elder statesmen who would be unlikely selections if Obama wins the nomination.

Nonetheless, a few names come to mind:

1. Gov. Phil Bredesen (TN) - He does not have that party elder feel to him in substance, but he is 64 and has years of experience in the private sector and politics. A quick look at his bio indicates that he would be a compromise play to reach out to Hillary's healthcare voters.

2. Sen. Chris Dodd (CT) - He has a good bio for the party faithful and the "elder statesman" quality but cuts against the "change" message of Obama in ways that Bredesen does not. The same arguments could be made for/against Joe Biden.

3. Fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn (GA) - Nunn would reinforce Obama's experience on proliferation issues and is an elder statesman with some executive experience after leaving office. But, he is not going to help out Obama with the party faithful and is highly unlikely to deliver GA.

Anyway, my $.02.

On edit: You probably can consider Richardson an option as #4.

[DFW HOYA]

Feb 6, 2008 13:58:45 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Texas is not in the deep South.

We do have open primaries here, so I'm currently trying to decide which Democrat to vote for on March 4th (I'm 95% sure I'll Barack the Vote). Barring a weird Romney or Huckabee surge over the next couple of weeks, it's not worth voting in the Republican primary.

FWIW, I think Obama will win Texas. A lot of the Democratic base here is in cities along the I-35 corridor, and Obama's been doing very well in urban areas. If Hillary wants to win, her best bet is to cater to Hispanic voters in the Rio Grande Valley. Also, I wouldn't count out Republican voters who will vote for Hill in an open primary for the sole reason that they think she's less electable in November. The level of Clinton-hate in this state is pretty high.

Agree on all points (and I'm likely to follow the same open primary strategy), but Republicans aren't voting for HRC under any circumstances and would rather see her out early rather than later. (Put another way, you want Duke to lose in the second round, not to make it to the Final Four.)

I agree that the Valley represents her best vote base, but don't be surprised if Obama really works the TV down there. He's got money and she does not. The candidates will also focus on Houston, Dallas, and the Democratic enclave known as Austin, where the money is for such things. I can't see much effort placed by either ofthem on the Panhandle, the Pecos, or the Piney Woods.

Huckabee may win a plurality but it doesn't change the trends towards the convention. He has little visibility in the state, though, and being from Arkansas may be as much a negative as anything else.

I don't recall many candidates ever visiting Texas in primary season before, so this is certainly something new. It must cause the Blue Staters some indigestion that a Republican-heavy state is now the crossroads for the Democratic nomination, but that's politics for you.