Irish Trojan in Tennessee

The future, Conan? Looking past Feb. 5

By Brendan Loy

With all the talk about the Democratic race stretching on beyond Super Tuesday, I think it's instructive to actually look at the calendar to see what lies ahead after February 5.

On February 9, Louisiana (56 delegates) and the mighty U.S. Virgin Islands (3 delegates) have primaries, and Nebraska (24) and Washington (78) have caucuses. The next day, February 10, Maine (24) has its caucuses. Then comes the "Beltway Primary" two days later, as D.C. (15), Maryland (70) and Virginia (83) all vote on February 12. So that's 353 delegates at stake in eight primaries and caucuses over the course of a week.

After that, things get a bit more chronologically sparse. One week after Beltway Tuesday, Wisconsin (74) has a primary and Hawaii (20) has caucuses, both on February 19. Then we get two weeks off before the potentially decisive primaries on March 4 -- the original Super Tuesday -- in Texas (193), Ohio (141), Rhode Island (21) and Vermont (15).

It seems pretty likely that the race will effectively be decided either on Beltway Tuesday or on Old Super Tuesday (a.k.a. Longhorn/Buckeye Tuesday). But if it still remains competitve, the calendar then starts to get really weird.

The great Democratic state of Wyoming (12) is all by itself with caucuses on March 8. Only a dozen delegates, but oh, the momentum! (Just ask Mitt Romney! Oh wait...) That will be followed by the Mississippi primary (33) on March 11.

And then.. nothing! For over a month!

The next vote is on April 22, when Pennsylvania (158) holds a primary. If the race is still going at that point, residents of the Keystone State will get to find out what it's like to be Iowa and New Hampshire: they will become the center of the political world from March 11 until April 22. Who'd have thunk it?

Leaving aside the primary in Guam (3) on May 3, there will effectively be another two-week break before voters in Indiana (72) and North Carolina (115) go to the polls on May 6. If they're still battling by then, I imagine Hillary and Barack would both visit South Bend, causing me to become extremely jealous. Next comes West Virginia (28) on May 13, then Kentucky (51) and Oregon (52) on May 20. Wrapping things up are Puerto Rico (55) on June 1, and South Dakota (15) and Montana (16) on June 3. (All of the May and June races are primaries, not caucuses.)

In my judgment (which, I remind you, is always, always, always, always, always wrong), Super Tuesday is likely to produce one of two scenarios in the overarching campaign storyline. Either: 1) Hillary wins enough states -- close delegate counts notwithstanding -- that she re-emerges as a "near-inevitable" candidate, and the Beltway Primary a week later comes to be seen as "Obama's last stand." Or: 2) Obama wins enough states that the commentariat continues to regard the race as legitimately close, and conventional wisdom will rapidly coalesce around the idea that March 4 is the new Big Important Day When Everything Will Be Decided. In other words, Old Super Tuesday is the new Super Tuesday!

But what if the race is still in flux when all the March 4 votes are counted? Some math is necessary here: according to the Green Papers, there are a total of 4,049 delegates (not counting Florida and Michigan), of which 3,253 are "pledged" and 796 are unpledged superdelegates. A total of 2,208 delegates are needed to secure the nomination. By my count, 2,643 pledged delegates will have been awarded through March 5, while 610 will still be outstanding. So, to secure the nomination with pledged delegates alone, a candidate would need to have won roughly 84% of the pledged delegates awarded between January 3 and March 4. Obviously, with a proportional-allocation system, that's not going to happen.

However, let's say the pledged delegate count when March 5 dawns looks something like Clinton 1,600, Obama 1,000. Hillary would still be a good 600+ short of clinching the nomination with her pledged delegates alone, but the fickle superdelegates would have begun flocking to her in droves (she's already got 186 of 'em) and the pressure on Obama to drop out would become enormous. Game over -- maybe not mathematically, but for all practical intents and purposes. Same deal, methinks, if it's around 1,500 to 1,100.

On the other hand, what if it's more like Clinton 1,400, Obama 1,200? That's a bit more interesting. Or how about Clinton 1,350, Obama 1,250? Now we're talking. Nobody's going to hound Barack out of the race with numbers like that. Hillary will get some more superdelegate commitments, but so will he, and suddenly, everyone will start focusing on the all-important April and May primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky and Oregon. Imagine.

Of course, if we get to that point, it will already have become impossible for either candidate to clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone. And proportional delegate allocation means that those April, May and June states will only be able to nudge the delegate race a little bit in one direction or the other, not dramatically alter it, let alone end it. Basically, it'll be a battle to get as many delegates firmly in your corner as you can, while also starting the pre-convention posturing and politicking, lobbying the undeclared superdelegates and fighting over those Michigan and Florida delegate slates.

In the unlikely event that the race remains undecided to the bitter end, it'll be three very long months between the South Dakota and Montana primaries on June 3 and the first day of the convention in Denver on August 25.

(Information via NPR and Wikipedia.)

Mano-a-womano

By Brendan Loy

The great debate is underway on CNN. I may not be able to do much liveblogging because I'm trying to calm a fussing baby while I watch, so consider this an open thread.

UPDATE: Hillary says that, with regard to our Iraq policy, we need to "send several messages at once." Well, if there's anyone I trust to do that, it's the Clintons! ;)

UPDATE 2: Oooooh, she played the "gravitas" card!!

UPDATE 3: Obama's response a few minutes later to Hillary's "day one" rhetoric was excellent, though: "it's important to be right from day one." Notwithstanding our differences on Iraq specifically, I think that's exactly what Obama needs to do. When Hillary says she'll be "ready to lead from day one," Obama needs to invite to voters to ask, "But where will you lead?" This actually feeds into the broader Clinton character issue as well, because in actuality, the Clintons don't really "lead" so much as follow public opinion and poll numbers. Obama needs to make the case that whereas Clinton may be the so-called "experience" candidate, Obama is not just the "change" candidate but also the "leadership" candidate.

UPDATE 4: Clinton has an unfortunate habit of sounding like the Wicked Witch of the West when she laughs.

Loyette is one month old!

By Brendan Loy

I almost forgot to mention: today is Loyette's one-month birthday! In some ways, it's hard to believe it's been that long, and in other ways, it's hard to believe it's only been a month. It already feels like the little one has been a part of our family forever.

As I write this, Becky is sitting on the other side of the couch with Loyette in her lap, reading aloud the epilogue of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment -- which Becky checked out from the library as part of her quest to read the 100 greatest novels of all-time. (UPDATE: Becky points out that Crime and Punishment isn't actually on that list. She is planning to try to get through the list, though.)

Loyette seems to be enjoying hearing about Raskolnikov's adventures more than she enjoyed herself the one time I tried to read her the Balrog scene from Lord of the Rings... though I maintain that she was just coincidentally fussy at that particular moment. :)

Rove to join Fox News

By Brendan Loy

Drudge: "FLASH: Karl Rove will join FOXNEWS as contributor; likely used throughout Super Tuesday coverage..." Heh. I would say this will make liberals hate Fox even more, but I'm not sure that's actually possible.

Rove, incidentally, has an article in today's WSJ about the "new rules" (and some old rules) of presidential politics.

Super Tuesday held on Fat Wednesday in coastal Alabama

By Joe Loy

Yes, not wanting their annual Good Times Role :> to get Stuck Inside of Mobile due to some damn ol' Primary date changed by those idiots up in Montgomery, south Alabamians said to hell with That and voted yesterday :) ~

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) Feb 25 — Don't mess with Mardi Gras in Alabama.

Voters in two coastal counties — Baldwin and Mobile — will vote Wednesday even though the state primary is six days later on Feb. 5. The reason: Feb. 5 also is Fat Tuesday when throngs of people celebrate Mardi Gras on the Gulf Coast. The frenzied end to Carnival is an official holiday in the two counties in Alabama.

When the state legislature moved up the presidential primary from June 3 to Super Tuesday, it discovered belatedly that it fell on Mardi Gras. In Baldwin and Mobile counties, government shuts down and crowds by the tens of thousands jam the port city's streets for parades.

The legislature's solution was to let voters in those two counties go to the precincts six days early. The votes cast will be sealed and counted with the others on Super Tuesday.

...Mobile County, which has the most parades and balls, will have all its regular polling places open Wednesday and one place open in Mobile on Feb. 5. Baldwin County will have one polling place open on Wednesday and then all its regular polling places open on Feb. 5.

Yesterday's Mobile County turnout was reportedly strong, perhaps in response to Tuesday's wise editorial advice from The Press-Register:

If Mobile County residents want a say in who will be the party nominees for president of the United States, they need to say so tomorrow.

...On Tuesday, Feb. 5, the day of Republican and Democratic presidential primaries in Alabama, a large number of voters are going to be celebrating Mardi Gras. As the Press-Register's legendary Masked Observer reminds us, "Revelry mixed with democracy can only lead to unbridled insanity."

Only one polling place will be open on Feb. 5, at the Revenue Commissioner's Office at Michael Boulevard and Azalea Road, well away from the packed streets of downtown. If everyone waits until then, lines are likely to be long.

So avoid the Super Tuesday rush; if you live in Mobile County, you should vote on Wednesday.

:)

Poll shows Hillary landslide in Tennessee; Obama gaining ground nationally

By Brendan Loy

Some more new polls today, and the news is mixed on the Democratic side. In Georgia, which is supposed to be solid Obama country, InsiderAdvantage shows the Illinois senator with a big lead, 52-36. Obama gets 73% of blacks, 54% of Hispanics, and 33% of whites.

But here in neighboring Tennessee, which is supposed to be a hotly contested tossup/lean-Hillary state, the same firm's polling shows Clinton with a huge lead, 59-26. The poll was taken yesterday, and thus may reflect a shift of Edwards voters into the Clinton camp (though 7% still prefer "other"). But what's really surprising is that Clinton isn't just winning the white vote, 64-19; she's also winning the black vote, 46-43!

Moreover, Clinton has almost identical margins among men and women; she wins big in all age groups (with her biggest margin of all, 81-14, among 18-to-29-year-olds!!); and she is favored by self-identified Democrats, Republicans and Independents. So either this is a screwy poll, or Obama-mania really just hasn't caught on at all here in the Volunteer State. If Obama's internal numbers are showing a similar trend, maybe that explains his conspicuous absence -- this supposed battleground state may be, for whatever reason, a lost cause for him.

InsiderAdvantage also released a poll on the Republican race here in Tennessee, and it's much tighter, with McCain leading Huckabee and Romney 33 to 25 to 18. Thirteen percent are undecided.

UPDATE: On the bright side for Obama, he's setting fundraising records, and is already buying ads in post-Super Tuesday states. Barring an enormous Hillary sweep on Tuesday that re-establishes her "inevitability" and thus causes a paradigm shift in the media storyline, this race will go on for a while. As this chart shows (context here), there are a ton of delegates at stake on Tuesday, but a ton more after Tuesday, too.

Meanwhile, the very early returns from Rasmussen Reports suggest that Edwards's departure is helping Obama nationally:

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s now Hillary Clinton 42% and Barack Obama 35% [in the three-day average]. Last night was the first night of interviews without John Edwards in the race. For last night’s data alone, Clinton and Obama were essentially even. Samples for individual nights are very small and results should be interpreted with caution.

The daily history shows that it was 41%-32% Clinton (a 9-point lead) from January 28-30; now it's 42%-35% (a 7-point lead) from January 29-31. The big question is what happens tomorrow and the next day, when we'll see a three-day average that is entirely after Edwards's withdrawal. Gallup's tracking poll will also be worth watching closely; they had the race slightly closer (6 points) even before Edwards bowed out.

UPDATE: Gallup's new data is out. It shows the Clinton-Obama race narrowing further, from 42-36 in yesterday's three-day average to 43-39 in today's three-day average -- just a 4-point lead for Hillary!! However, Gallup's write-up says that "Wednesday night's numbers (the first with Edwards excluded from the ballot) show no clear indication that either candidate is benefiting disproportionately." I guess that means Obama's 2-point gain between Jan. 27-29 and Jan. 28-30 is an indication that Jan. 27 was a good day for Hillary, rather than an indication that Obama cleaned up among former Edwards voters on Jan. 30.

Kansas falls; USC-Arizona tonight

By Brendan Loy

#1 Memphis -- a winner at Houston last night -- is the only unbeaten left in college basketball, after #2 Kansas lost at #22 Kansas State, the Wildcats' first home win over the Jayhawks since the first Reagan Administration. (See, I can inject presidential politics into any post!)

You know what this means: North Carolina is in line to ascend to #2, and Duke to #3. We're getting closer and closer to that 1-vs.-2 matchup for Dukie V's big return. Duke just needs to win at home against N.C. State and Miami, UNC just needs to win vs. BC and at Florida State... and, oh yes, Memphis needs to lose at home against UTEP on Saturday. That last part is the major obstacle to this scenario. :)

Speaking of unbeatens, Drake is 10-0 in the Missouri Valley, and 19-1 overall. Unreal.

On tap tonight, a whole bunch of intriguing games, including a nationally televised USC-Arizona game at 10:30 PM on FSN. ESPN's Bubble Watch has the Trojans in the "work left to do" category (though that was before their win at Oregon) and the Wildcats in the "should be in" category. Joe Lunardi gives USC a #8 seed and UA a #5 seed at the moment. Both teams are 4-3 in the Pac-10, in a three-way tie with ASU (who USC also plays this weekend) for fourth place. Anyway... Fight on Trojans, Beat the Wildcats!

And now for something completely different

By Brendan Loy

Every single post on the homepage right now is about presidential politics. Ick. Overkill. As Obama might say, time for a change!

Let's see... how about a pretty picture of an Iridium flare?

I took that from a random roadside spot in Loudon last Monday. My parents were in town, and I wanted to show them what an Iridium flare is, so we drove out and watched it. We also dragged Jay and Ashley out to watch, so they got to meet my parents. The flare itself was somewhat less impressive than I expected, given its predicted negative-7 magnitude, but it made for a very nice photo, especially with the thin, wispy clouds all around. Here's the wider view.

Previous Iridium flare posts can be found here, here, here and here. Explanations of the flares can be found here and here.

Unless you're a serious dork like me, Iridium flares probably aren't worth a drive out to some random spot -- but if one happens to take place where you are, it's well worth a look up to the sky in the proper spot at the proper time. Heavens-Above can tell you when flares will happen near you. (It also has predictions for lots of other stuff, including when and where you can see that decaying spy satellite pass overhead, though you'll need a darkish sky for that.)

More O-mentum!

By Brendan Loy

Following on the heels of that tied Connecticut poll, a new Massachusetts poll -- conducted on the night Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama -- shows Hillary's lead at just 6% -- down from 37% a week earlier (in a poll by a different polling firm, but still).

Also, Hillary is only up by 12% in her home (er, "home") state of New York. Obama could pick up a pretty big chunk of delegates in the Empire State.

UPDATE: Obama's within 3% in California!

This is sounding more and more like a trend. But Obama needs something to put him over the top. Like, say, a strong performance in tonight's debate, followed by a John Edwards endorsement tomorrow morning.

Obama is the electable Democrat

By Brendan Loy

A lot of John Edwards supporters are doing some soul-searching right now, trying to decide which of the remaining Democratic contenders to get behind. People had various different reasons for backing ol' Johnny Boy, but one thing that the vast majority have in common, presumably, is that they desperately want a Democrat to win in November. Assuming they do indeed feel that way, Edwards supporters (and, for that matter, those currently backing Hillary Clinton) ought to seriously consider jumping on the Barack Obama bandwagon, because as best as I can tell, Hillary Clinton is quite possibly the only person in the known universe who is capable of uniting the Republican base behind John McCain.

McCain, of course, is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee for president. He's got Rudy and Ahnold on his side now, with more endorsements to come, no doubt, and his momentum appears unstoppable -- the GOP establishment is already getting into "rally around the winner" mode. And perhaps not unrelatedly, it appears that the Mitt Romney is pretty much giving up the ghost, at least in terms of TV ads.

So it'll be McCain for the Republicans. This is an extremely significant fact because a substantial chunk of the Republican base hates John McCain. I mean, really despises the man. They respect his foreign policy chops, but not much else; on domestic policy, they don't consider him a true conservative or a real Republican. On the contrary, they view him as an apostate on several core issues (immigration, taxes, campaign finance, interrogation, etc.) and a disloyal, MSM-loving sellout who cannot be trusted to uphold their principles. As such, they have no interest whatsoever in voting for him. Thus, on November 4, many of them will stay home.

Unless Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

Needless to say, pretty much the entire Republican base hates Hillary Clinton with the heat of a thousand suns. By contrast, the anti-McCain segment of the base only hates McCain with the heat of, oh, perhaps five or six hundred suns. So if he's running against her, many of the McCain Derangement Syndome folks will do something they wouldn't do in virtually any other potential matchup: they'll hold their noses and vote for McCain. Whatever it takes to stop Hillary.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

Rudy Giuliani says he is ending his bid for GOP presidential nomination, endorsing Sen. John McCain.

O-mentum?

By Brendan Loy

More good polling news for Barack Obama:

Barack Obama has now cut the gap with Hillary Clinton to 6 percentage points among Democrats nationally in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking three-day average, and interviewing conducted Tuesday night shows the gap between the two candidates is within a few points. Obama's position has been strengthening on a day-by-day basis. As recently as Jan. 18-20, Clinton led Obama by 20 points. Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking is based on interviews conducted Jan. 27-29, all after Obama's overwhelming victory in South Carolina on Saturday. Two out of the three nights interviewing were conducted after the high-visibility endorsement of Obama by Sen. Edward Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy.

Clinton's lead in the three-day average is now 42% to Obama's 36%. John Edwards, who dropped out of the race Wednesday after Gallup conducted these interviews, ended his quest for the presidency with 12% support. Wednesday night's interviewing will reflect the distribution of the vote choice of former Edwards' supporters as well as the impact, if any, of Hillary Clinton's popular vote win in Florida on Tuesday.

TNR's Ben Wasserstein -- responding not to this poll, but to the general feeling of Obama momentum in the media and such -- is wary: "There are too many echoes of the post-Iowa period for me to be confident in the media narrative of Obama's ascent. ... [I]t's all starting to look like New Hampshire Redux to me."

Meanwhile, Edwards adviser Joe Trippi says the Clinton and Obama campaigns are "banging down the doors" for an endorsement:

"I don't expect him to do anything today," Trippi said. "His will be a very coveted endorsement. He's got a fairly large following in the party, both on line and off, and I can't think of anybody else who would be bigger or more coveted."

Asked if an endorsement was possible before Feb. 5, something that could have a huge impact, Trippi declined to rule out the possibility. "I'll let him speak to that himself," Trippi said. ...

Asked about the sudden timing of Edwards' decision to leave the race, Trippi declined to elaborate on what precipitated it.

Hmm. As for the question of who Edwards's supporters will naturally gravitate towards, John Judis writes, "I think it's very inconclusive. Clinton will pick up votes from Obama in some Southern states like Georgia that Obama should win anyway—and Obama will pick up a few votes in middle Atlantic or Midwestern states that Clinton will probably win anyway." Fair enough, but remember, none of the Democratic primaries are winner-take-all, so picking off votes here or there actually does matter.

2 out of 2 Democratic candidates agree...

By Brendan Loy

...that John Edwards is awesome!

Man, oh man, there is going to be some serious John Edwards butt-kissing at tomorrow night's Barack vs. Hillary debate in Los Angeles.

Hillary opens up shop in Knoxville

By Brendan Loy

One day after the Obama campaign opened a Knoxville headquarters, the Clinton campaign is doing the same this evening.

If you missed them, here are my photos from yesterday's Obama grand opening.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

Former Sen. John Edwards is quitting the presidential race, CNN has learned.

UPDATE BY BRENDAN: Edwards "will not immediately endorse either candidate," according to the AP. Good lord, what's the holdup? He needs to endorse Obama before Super Tuesday! Boyz 4 Change!! Boyz 4 Change!!

P.S. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the timing of this announcement seems odd. That's right -- I question the timing!! :)

Why is Edwards doing this now? Surely he wasn't depending on a strong showing in Florida's delegate-less "beauty contest" to rejuvenate his candidacy? And if he based this decision on South Carolina, well, what took him so long? That primary was four days ago, which is a political eon. When he didn't announce anything on Sunday or Monday, you had to think he was staying in the race through Super Tuesday. Instead he bows out now. Why?

Isn't it possible that he's already cut a deal with the Obama campaign? Yeah, I know, he "will not immediately endorse." But that could be an elaborate smokescreen to make it seem like they didn't cut a deal. It all depends on what the definition of "immediately" is! (Right, Bill?) It seems entirely possible that Edwards and Obama have already agreed to terms (vice president, attorney general, whatever), but part of Johnny Boy's end of the deal is that he must drop out today (to distract media attention from Hillary's Florida "win," thus decreasing any momentum boost) but wait until, say, Friday to endorse Obama -- thus maximizing the impact of the big "Boyz 4 Change" announcement (and decreasing Hillary's window to recover from the blow) by placing it closer to Super Tuesday, while also spacing out the two developments (i.e., Edwards's withdrawal and his endorsement of Obama) far enough apart to prevent people from suspecting a shady back-room deal (which doesn't exactly fit the image the "politics of change").

Like I said, call me a conspiracy theorist! But it's at least plausible, yes?

P.P.S. One thing's for sure: Edwards's departure makes tomorrow night's Democratic debate a lot more interesting. (I even added it to my sidebar!) Finally, it'll be Clinton vs. Obama one-on-one, mano-a-womano! Hillary against Barack for all the marbles! May the best senator win! 

But, now, hmm... Obama is generally better in stump speeches than he is in debates. He's not terrible in debates, but they're not his strength. I daresay they are Hillary's strength, at least sometimes. What if Obama "loses" the debate? Hillary's momentum coming out of a clear "win" could be killer, potentially dominating the news cycle for 24-48 hours...

...unless, of course, Obama has some sort of a shock-and-awe-inducing, momentum-stopping "firewall" up his sleeve... like, say, a Friday morning endorsement announcement by a certain former opponent? Just saying!

If Hillary wins the debate, Obama could stop her momentum cold with a Boyz 4 Change announcement. And if Obama wins the debate, he'd multiply his own momentum heading into the weekend. It's a win-win!

UPDATE: Just when I thought CNN's Suzanne Malveaux was throwing cold water on my endorsement speculation (reporting that Edwards "hasn't any plans to endorse" -- no modifiers like "immediate"), I read this from TPM:

An Edwards adviser confirms to me that John Edwards won't be making any endorsement "for the moment."

However, this source refused to rule out the possibility of an endorsement before Feb. 5th, which is six days away.

The board is set, the pieces are moving...

There's also this non-denial-denial from Obama yesterday.

If Edwards endorses Obama on Friday, it will more than make up for all of my previous incorrect predictions this election season.

P.P.P.S. On second thought, maybe Saturday would be better -- unless Obama really does tank in that debate -- because Saturday is the day before the Super Bowl. Nobody will be paying any attention to politics on Sunday! So Edwards endorses Obama, the media laps it up, then everyone stops paying attention so Hillary has no chance to respond. The next thing you know, it's Super Tuesday Eve, and Obama's an unstoppable freight train again.

Michigan & Florida "delegate" counts

By Brendan Loy

According to the Green Papers, Florida's pledged delegates -- if they are seated at the convention -- would break down like this: Clinton 108, Obama 77. Clinton also has 5 (hypothetical) superdelegates from Florida; Obama has 2. Eighteen Florida superdelegates have yet to declare an allegiance. (This raises an existential question: if you're an unpledged, undeclared, unallied "delegate" from a state that has no delegates, aren't you basically a nonexistent nonentity?) So the total Florida delegate (or rather, "delegate") tally is Clinton 113, Obama 79, undeclared superdelegates 18.

Combine that with Michigan (73 pledged to Hillary, 55 for Uncommitted, 6 superdelegates for Hillary, 1 superdelegate for Obama, 1 superdelegate for Edwards, and 20 undeclared superdelegates), and you've got the following combined breakdown of the two disputed delegate slates, including the declared supers: Clinton 192, Obama 79, Edwards 1, Uncommitted 55, undeclared superdelegates 38.

A big question that I don't know the answer to -- but maybe someone out there does -- is whether Michigan's 55 "Uncommitted" delegates will be Obama delegates by any other name. Certainly, most of the voters who cast their ballots for Uncommitted on Yooper Tuesday were Obama supporters, but does that necessarily mean that the Uncommitted delegates will be Obama loyalists? It depends on Michigan's delegate selection process (i.e., not the process of allocating the numerical delegates, but the process of choosing the individual humans who fill the allocations), and I don't know how that works.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Uncommitted delegates favor Obama, and further assuming that Edwards eventually throws his delegates (or rather, in this case, his delegate) to Obama, the breakdown would be Clinton 192, Obama 136, undeclared superdelegates 38. That's Obama's best-case scenario, and it's still a substantial edge for Hillary. Heck, even if every single undeclared superdelegate eventually backs Obama, which seems highly unlikely, we're still looking at a 20-delegate Clinton edge.

Like I said, if the Democratic nomination comes down to a knock-down, drag-out fight over whether these delegates get seated, it's going to be a big stinkin' mess.

P.S. Another important question that I don't know the answer to, at least not for sure: if the delegates from Michigan and Florida aren't seated, does that change the total number of delegates needed to win the nomination?

Normally, the Democratic nominee needs 2,208 delegates (50.01% of the delegate total, 4,415) to win the nomination. With Michigan and Florida excluded, the total number of delegates needed is reduced to 4,049. Presumably, that reduces the nomination-winning "magic number" to 50.01% of 4,049, which is 2,025. Or does it? The Green Papers assumes (or perhaps actually knows) that it does, but is this actually a settled issue, I wonder? It can't have come up too often before!

Suppose the expected breakdown coming into the convention is something like Clinton 2,100, Obama 1,949. Clinton's total would be 52% of 4,409, but only 48% of 4,415. Could Obama try to insist that the winner needs to get a majority of the pre-sanction delegate total -- in other words, that Hillary needs 2,208 delegates after all (the original "magic number"), which would amount to 54.5% of the delegates actually seated? It seems like a battle Obama would probably lose in that scenario, but it's just another example of how this thing could be a huge mess.

UPDATE: As noted in the post above, John Edwards has dropped out of the race. Politico's Ben Smith writes that Edwards's departure "makes a long race, and a brokered convention, far, far less likely. ... If it's one-on-one, the road to an absolute majority is a lot clearer."

Clearer, yes, but still not totally clear. If the "winner" gets less than ~65% of the pledged delegates, he or she will be dependent on superdelegates to secure a majority at the convention. The superdelegates are notoriously fickle, and will want to "back the winner." If Hillary beats Obama in the pledged delegate count (or, less likely, vice versa) by something like 60% to 40%, this won't be much of an issue, because the superdelegates will back the presumed winner. But if it's 51% to 49%, it will still be a brokered convention, because it'll be up to the unpleged superdelegates to decide who wins.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

Two GOP sources tell CNN that Rudy Giuliani will drop out, endorse Sen. John McCain for GOP presidential bid.

Hillary Clinton doesn't get it

By Brendan Loy

Hillary Clinton, on CNN, just said, "I will do whatever I can, if I'm the nominee, to get the Florida delegates seated." Wolf Blitzer responded by sensibly noting something that so many in the media seem not to understand: "if this is a very close contest in Denver at the Democratic Convention, a brokered convention, those Florida and Michigan delegates could be decisive." He then asked Hillary, "Would you go to court to get them seated?"

Hillary's ridiculous response: "Oh, Wolf, this is all pretty premature. We don't even know who the nominee's going to be yet."

Did she honestly not understand the question? Of course we don't know who the nominee's going to be yet -- and in Blitzer's scenario, when the time comes to decide whether or not to seat those delegates, we still won't know! And the very matter at issue -- whether the delegates get seated -- could itself play a potentially huge role in determining "who the nominee's going to be"!

Hillary, along with most of the media, has it completely backwards. The prevailing theory -- that the nominee presumptive will insist on the delegates being seated -- only works if there's a nominee presumptive. The far more interesting scenario is the one Blitzer astutely raised, and Hillary flatly ignored. And it's getting to be a very realistic scenario.

It's going to be a huge stinkin' mess if that happens.

Obama, Clinton tied in Connecticut

By Brendan Loy

So says the latest Rasmussen poll, taken on Sunday -- the day after South Carolina, the day before Ted Kennedy. Obama 40%, Clinton 40%, Edwards 11%, Other 3%, Undecided 6%.

This is great news for Obama, as it's the first empirical evidence that Obama's recent momentum is actually translating into increased support in a Super Tuesday state. Previous polls, including a Hartford Courant poll 10 days ago, had Clinton leading by double digits.

The big question is whether this will start a trend. RCP's Latest Polls page will be worth watching in the coming days, to see whether other post-S.C. (and post-Teddy) polls in Super Tuesday states also show Obama gains.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

CNN is projecting Sen. John McCain as the winner of the GOP primary in Florida.

McCain wins; Rudy to endorse him?

By Brendan Loy

With 54 percent of the precincts reporting, McCain leads Romney 36% to 32% in Florida. In comments, Ed writes, "Barone reported that the strongest county (Orange), in theory, for Romney already reported and Romney won it by less than 100 votes."

Giuliani is a very weak third with 15%, and has apparently come to the end of his road. He will reportedly endorse McCain as early as tomorrow. So much for me winning that dinner bet.

UPDATE, 9:18 PM: The networks are calling it for McCain.

P.S. Watching (and blogging) primary returns is fun. It's even more fun when you've got an adorable baby sleeping on your shoulder throughout. :)

Barock the Vote

By Brendan Loy

I went down to the grand opening of Obama's new Knoxville headquarters after work this afternoon to take some pictures:

And I met Rebecca Loy!

Becky's namesake seemed very nice. :) I also met Kevin Barry, vice chairman of the Knox County Democratic Party. (He's the guy in the blue shirt here, here and here.) Kevin walked up to me and asked if I'm Brendan Loy -- he's read my blog before, via InstaPundit. Heh.

Full gallery here.

McCain, Romney very close; Rudy toast

By Brendan Loy

The polls are closed in most of Florida. According to NRO and Drudge, the first wave of exit polls shows a razor-close race with McCain barely ahead: McCain 34.3%, Romney 32.6%, Giuliani 15.3%, Huckabee 12%. That's way too close between John and Mitt to draw any conclusions from the exit poll alone. I think it's safe to conclude, however, that Rudy is done for. But hey, at least he's on track to beat Ron Paul this time! :)

Those numbers supposedly (somehow) include early/absentee votes -- which reportedly favored Romney, proving once again that every single thing I predict this election season is wrong. :)

P.S. Hey, wait a minute, this has potential! I predict Hillary will win the nomination! Heh. There. You can thank me in your inaugural address, Barack.

Obama to open Knoxville HQ

By Brendan Loy

Barack Obama is opening a Knoxville headquarters at 5:00 PM today. It may open with a bang; severe thunderstorms are expected this afternoon.

Up until now, Obama's only Tennessee HQs were in Nashville and Memphis. Hillary Clinton's only TN headquarters at the moment is in Nashville. The only candidate to visit East Tennessee so far is John Edwards, who was in Chattanooga yesterday.

Meanwhile, one of Obama's main organizers in the Knoxville area is named Rebecca Loy. Not my Rebecca Loy (though she likes Obama too), but someone else by the same name. Weird!

Early voting could create a Rudy surprise

By Brendan Loy

The polls are open in Florida, where Mitt Romney and John McCain are in a knock-down, drag-out fight for Republican front-runner status. Even Rudy Giuliani says the winner of the Sunshine State's primary is likely to win the nomination -- a statement that has many folks speculating that Rudy will drop out if he loses, which polls suggest is extremely likely; he's in a battle for a distant third place with Mike Huckabee.

A word of caution about those polls, though. The polls are snapshots; the Florida primary is not. Floridians have actually been voting for weeks already. Absentee voting began in late December, and "early voting" started on January 14. As of last Friday, a whopping 400,000 Republicans had already voted. [UPDATE: Make that 474,000 through Sunday.] To give you an idea of how significant a number that is, a total of 699,500 voters cast ballots in Florida's 2000 GOP primary. Now, turnout will probably be much higher in 2008, since this year's primary is much more significant and hotly contested. (The 2000 primary was held a week after Super Tuesday; McCain had already conceded.) But even if the raw turnout total doubles, we're still talking about something on the order of one-third of the electorate having voted before election day. (Florida has 3.8 million registered Republicans. If 1.4 million of them vote, that'd be a 37% turnout -- which would be quite high for a primary.)

Giuliani's campaign has specifically tried to get their candidate's supporters in Florida to vote early (though hopefully not often), in hopes of "locking them in" before the inevitable decline in Rudy's momentum and poll numbers as the early-state results took their toll. As far as I know, the other candidates -- who, unlike Giuliani, actually focused their resources on competing in those early states -- have not focused on early and absentee voting nearly as much. So if Rudy does much better tonight than the current polls indicate, the reason is probably early voting.

[UPDATE: In comments, Derek suggests that I'm overstating the impact of early voting, as many of the pollsters have taken it into account. I didn't realize that.]

The state of the baby is strong!

By Brendan Loy

In honor of President Bush's final State of the Union address (which is now underway; liveblogging below), Loyette wore a very Republican-looking outfit today:

I'm not sure she likes President Bush, though:

Don't worry, darlin', most Americans feel pretty much the same way. :)

P.S. Loyette is four weeks old today!

State of the Union liveblogging

By Brendan Loy

powered by Hipcast.com

UPDATE: Above, you can listen to a live audioblogged clip of President Bush being introduced.

In case you're wondering, CNN reported that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is the odd man out of the State of the Union tonight, preserving the line of succession in case the unthinkable happens.

I wonder if Kempthorne was as momentarily alarmed as I was when the TV signal, on CNN at least, appeared to cut out for a split-second. It came right back on, but my heart skipped a beat there. If somebody blew up the Congress, that's how it might look on TV, no? Everything's normal, and then -- [no signal].

Anyway... President Bush just said if we don't pass new trade agreements, it will "embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere." You mean like Mike Huckabee and John Edwards? :)

UPDATE 2: Heh. Great minds think alike. Or something.

UPDATE 3: Did I just hear some guy loudly yelling something at the tail end of the round of applause for the success of the surge?

UPDATE 4: Hopefully next year at this time, we'll have a president who can say "nuclear."

UPDATE 5: "Our message to the Iranian people is clear: When Iran gets her freedom, boy, you'll get your motor car!"

UPDATE 6: "America opposes genocide in Sudan"?!? Well that's a relief! Here I thought we supported it! Seriously, what kind of weak-ass language is that... ridiculous!

UPDATE 7: A-ha... it sounded dumb because he flubbed the line, plus there was an inappropriate applause break. He was supposed to say, "America is opposing genocide in Sudan and supporting freedom in countries from Cuba and Zimbabwe to Belarus and Burma."

UPDATE 8: BOB DOLE!!!

UPDATE 9: Mark it down: he said "he State of Union will remain strong" ... at 10:02 PM. It was the second-to-the-last sentence of the speech.

Lame.

UPDATE 10: Who are these dorky congresspeople kissing Bush's ass on his way out? "You make me proud to be an American"? Gag me. Methinks the audio feed is a bad idea for the maintenance of these people's dignity...

UPDATE 11: I agree with Fox's Fred Barnes -- the best line of the speech was: "Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the I.R.S. accepts both checks and money orders." Heh. I laughed out loud.

UPDATE 12: Bush just almost shared a Lieberman-like kiss with Barney Frank! Teehee.

UPDATE 13: Charles Krauthammer is the creepiest-looking person on earth.

UPDATE 14: OMG! Nancy Pelosi was "mouthing"!

Looks more like she was chewing gum or something.

UPDATE 15: Good opening to Sebelius's speech. All about bipartisanship, etc. Very Obama-esque!

UPDATE 16: Here's the text:

I'm a Democrat, but tonight, it really doesn't matter whether you think of yourself as a Democrat...or a Republican...or an Independent. Or...none-of-the-above.

Instead, the fact you're tuning in this evening tells me each of you is, above all...

...an American, first.

You are mothers, and fathers. Grandparents, and grandchildren. Working people, and business-owners. Americans, all.

And the American people - folks like you, and me - are not nearly as divided as our rancorous politics might suggest.

In fact, right now, tonight, as political pundits discuss the President's speech - chances are, they'll obsess over the reactions of Members of Congress.

"How many times was the President interrupted by applause? Did Republicans stand? Did Democrats sit?"

And the rest of us will roll our eyes and think, "What in the world does any of that have to do with me?"

And, so, I want to take a slight detour from tradition on this State of the Union night.

In this time, normally reserved for the partisan response, I hope to offer you something more:

An American Response.

A national call to action on behalf of the struggling families in the heartland, and across this great country. A wakeup call to Washington, on behalf of a new American majority, that time is running out on our opportunities to meet our challenges and solve our problems.

UPDATE 17: A possible reason to vote against McCain: we'd be replacing a guy who pronounces "nuclear" "nukular" with a guy pronounces "Washington" "Warshington."

Rats deserting the Clintons' ship

By Brendan Loy

Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton was the "establishment candidate" in the Democratic presidential race. But Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama today is only the latest crack in that foundation, writes ABC's The Note:

It's not just the Kennedys who are falling into line for Obama, as the non-Clinton Democratic establishment...coalesces (along with with scattered red-staters -- and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, D-Kan., is next, after she delivers the Democratic response to the State of the Union) to try to steer a party into a new direction.

Obama spoke both for them and to them, in an interview on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday. "There is no doubt that I think that in the '90s, we got caught up in a slash-and-burn politics that the American people are weary of," Obama said. "And we still see it in Washington today."

It's been a long time coming, The New Republic's Noam Scheiber reports in the magazine's new issue. "For people like [John] Kerry and [Tom] Daschle and especially their former advisers, the Clintons' continued presence at the center of Democratic politics has sometimes chafed over the last eight years," Scheiber writes.

"It may not be apparent beyond the Beltway, but the Clintons kept their grip on Democratic Washington long after leaving the White House. . . . If you've looked for a job in the Democrats' government-in-exile lately, chances are you've hit up a Clintonite."

How did the Clintons burn so much goodwill so quickly? Why is the establishment candidate facing a revolt from inside the establishment?

Start with persistent concerns that Sen. Clinton's candidacy would guarantee a revival of the pitched partisan battles of the past two decades. Sprinkle in Bill's performance of the last few weeks, which persisted right up through the primary in South Carolina with his comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson.

Add to it a broader sense of how Hillary was running her campaign -- another factor that hurt her with voters in South Carolina every bit as much as it hurt her with party regulars in Washington, Bloomberg's Al Hunt writes.

"Hyperbole is a staple of American political campaigns. Senator Hillary Clinton has crossed the line into distortion," writes Hunt (hardly a Clinton basher). "She has flagrantly misrepresented her own and her opponents' positions or statements. The general tone, more than any specifics, of the Clinton effort contributed to Barack Obama's stunning 2-to-1 victory over her in the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary this past weekend."

Hunt's article is worth reading in its own right. It does a good job distinguishing between run-of-the-mill exaggeration, which all candidates are guilty of, and the Clintons' routine practice of out-and-out lying. He concludes: "Privately, some Clintonites agree that while the campaign is ugly, it's only a prelude to what Republicans will do in the general election. Perhaps, but Hillary Clinton is paying a price. There is so much to admire in her public life. Her whatever-it-takes campaign is debasing that value."

Meanwhile, echoing my "P.S." below, TNR's Michael Crowley writes, "If he wanted to, Al Gore could deliver something close to a death blow right now by endorsing Obama." I don't know about "death blow," but right now -- or, better yet, tomorrow evening, just in time to completely steal the thunder from Hillary's "win" in the beauty-contest Florida primary whose significance she is now trying to resurrect, in flagrant violation of (at least) the spirit of the party rules that she and everyone else agreed to -- would certainly be a great time for him to jump on the bandwagon.

Why Teddy matters

By Brendan Loy

Mark Halperin explains why Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama is a big deal.

Somewhat less of a big deal, but still interesting and potentially helpful: Kathleen Sebelius will endorse Obama later in the week. Sebelius is the governor of Kansas (a Super Tuesday state) and a rising political star who will be giving tomorrow night's Democratic response to the State of the Union address. Hmm... Obama-Sebelius '08? (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)

P.S. As long as we're talking about Obama endorsements... what about Al Gore?

Disabled satellite tumbles toward Earth

By Brendan Loy

Somebody call Bruce Willis:

A 10-ton American spy satellite has lost power and could hit the Earth in the next few weeks, government officials said today.

The satellite, which no longer can be controlled, could contain hazardous materials, and it is unknown where on the planet it might come down, they said. ...

[Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said,] "Numerous satellites over the years have come out of orbit and fallen harmlessly. We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage this satellite may cause."

He would not comment on whether it is possible for the satellite to perhaps be shot down by a missile. He said it would be inappropriate to discuss any specifics at this time.

A senior government official said that lawmakers and other nations are being kept apprised of the situation. ...

[John] Pike, director of the defense research group GlobalSecurity.org, estimated that the spacecraft weighs about 10 tons and was the size of a small bus.

See also here.

USB voltage woes

By Brendan Loy

Can any of my techie readers suggest a bus-powered USB 2.0 external hard drive that will actually work with my PowerBook and its 500 mA bus?

(Yes, I realize I could get a special cord that would allow me to plug a drive that isn't getting enough power into both USB ports simultaneously. But that's not a good option, because my computer only has two USB ports, so such a setup would make it impossible for me to, say, transfer files between a bus-powered drive and a second external USB drive.)

Alternatively, are there any bus-powered FireWire hard drives out there that aren't obscenely expensive? (To give you an idea of my price and gigabyte range, I bought the Western Digital 250GB Passport for $139.99 at Best Buy tonight, only to discover that it doesn't get enough power from my computer's USB bus.)

9 days and counting

By Brendan Loy

With Obama's 25 to 12 to 8 South Carolina win in the rear-view mirror, MSNBC's Mark Murray handicaps Pooper Scooper Tuesday:

With Clinton and Obama splitting the first four contests, we head into Tsunami Tuesday in a Democratic nominating race that seems entirely up for grabs. From our vantage point, these are Clinton’s base states: CA, NY, NJ, AR, MA, and OK. Obama’s are: AK, ID, KS, MN, ND, GA, AL, and IL. The toss-ups appear to be: AZ, CT, CO, DE, MO, NM, TN, and UT. Among those toss-ups, AZ and CT might lean towards Clinton, since they’re closed to independents, and TN -- where Clinton is today -- probably leans her way, too. Of course, Obama will make plays in CA, MA, and NJ, and sources tell us that he is going up with ads in Philly (NJ) and New York City (NY, NJ, CT). Also, Edwards will go heavily after OK and TN.

[UPDATE: The Associated Press says "both campaigns consider Missouri and Tennessee major battlegrounds." Sweet! Maybe one or both of them will actually campaign in East Tennessee!]

Well I, for one, will be voting for Obama in TN. As I explained in a rambling comment last night, I'm at the point of being completely fed up with the Clintons and absolutely ready for something different. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily support Obama in the general election -- I'd be undecided between him and McCain -- but for heaven's sake, get the Clintons off the stage. Enough already. Or, as Mike's brother Matt put it:

Hilary and Obama are about equally likely to screw things up. But, at least in Obama's case, he'll be trying to do the right thing in the process. If he puts into place programs that turn out to be wrong, well, at least his heart was in the right place. Whereas Hillary's a coniving, self-aggrandizing carpetbagger who cares nothing whatsoever about the damage she does, as long as she makes herself look good in the process. So, even if we take the worst case, at least in Obama's case I won't be disgusted as things go wrong. I also think the potential upside of Obama's vastly higher. If things go well with him, and he receives good advise to help with his inexperience, he could help heal much of the divisions in this nation. On the other hand, Hillary has no such outcome. With her, we're certain to continue the pathological hatred both parties have for each other. As best as I can tell, there was actually a time when the elder statesmen types were widely respected, both in Congress and amongst the general public, regardless of party affiliation. Whereas now we have maybe Jimmy Carter in that position, and he gets it primarily by having done so little as President it's hard for Republicans to truly hate him. So, overall I'm pulling for Obama to be the Dem's candidate, even if I'm not sure I'd vote for him in November. At least I feel I could vote for him without hating myself for it.

Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy will endorse Obama tomorrow. That'll make him the second Kennedy to do so; Caroline Kennedy jumped on the Obama train with a New York Times op-ed today, saying he would be "A President Like My Father."

And more good news: Obama is taking the high road in response to Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment. This is exactly what Obama -- and his surrogates -- need to do: let the Clintons' prevarication, triangulation and race-card-playing speak for itself. It does so loud and clear. Obama needs to rise above it and focus on the positive rationale for his candidacy, rather than fighting the Clintons on their turf. See also here:

“Do you think President Clinton was engaging in racial politics there?” George Stephanopoulos asked Obama on ABC’s “This Week.”

The Illinois senator, who won almost four out of five votes from African-Americans, didn’t rise to the bait. Instead, he talked about health care, college costs, the credit crunch and the subprime-mortgage mess. “As long as we were focused on those issues, we thought those would transcend the sort of racial divisions that we’ve seen in the past,” Obama said.

Trojans top Ducks in OT

By Brendan Loy

USC 95, Oregon 86 in overtime. Sweet! That's a huge road win for 'SC, which is now 4-3 in the Pac-10 after starting 0-3.

'Twas a good day on the road for both the Irish and the Trojans.

Obama's money quote

By Brendan Loy

"It's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

UPDATE: Here's the full speech.

UPDATE 2: Here's the video:

Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Cohn say it may have been Obama's best speech yet.

P.S. When Bill Clinton called Barack Obama's position on Iraq "a fairy tale," he wasn't playing the race card. On the other hand, when Bill Clinton said this...

Huh? Who said anything about Jesse Jackson? Why would his mind happen to wander there, pray tell?

Ugh. It's pretty obvious what the Clintons are up to here. Obama's people played right into their hands by making race an issue when it wasn't -- re: the "fairy tale" and MLK comments -- but that doesn't diminish the disgustingly cynical nature of what the Clintons are now plainly trying to do. The underlying strategy of their campaign has evolved into making the public perceive Obama as the "black candidate," thus creating a white backlash. Will it work? God, I hope not. But I fear it may be enough to tip the scales in Hillary's favor.*

Obama's victory speech tonight shows that he's doing exactly what he needs to be doing: rising above it all, or at least positioning himself so it seems like he's rising above it all. Put another way, it now behooves Obama to look more "presidential" than the ex-president -- and the way Bill's been acting, that shouldn't be too hard. Obama's shots at the Clintons need to be veiled but effective, something he pulled off effortlessly tonight. As Eric Scheie puts it, "I'm very impressed at his ability to go for the jugular in a respectful manner." (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

For me personally, the Clintons' recent behavior has caused a major tipping point my personal outlook on this race and my plans for how I'll vote on February 5. I've gone from tentatively favoring Obama over Clinton, but leaning toward voting in the GOP primary (probably for McCain), to a solidly committed Obama supporter and voter. I will proudly cast my vote on Super Tuesday for the senator from Illinois -- end of discussion. Obama is far more liberal than I am, and I do still have concerns about his inexperience; I'd enter a McCain-Obama general election thoroughly undecided. But I desperately want the Clintons to move off the damn stage. Good grief: Enough! I've always been anti-dynasty in principle, but now I feel it much more deeply than that. They need to go. They're bad for the party, bad for the country, and bad for my stress levels. It's time to get rid of them. We can salute them for their service at the convention... and then let's nominate and elect somebody else, for the love of God.

*I suspect that only a minimal amount of "tipping" is needed, if any. The Super Tuesday format favors Hillary anyway. Obama does better when voters get to see a lot of him, and of his opponent. Hillary does better campaigning from afar; the more voters see of her, the less they like her. But voters in California won't be seeing nearly as much of her (or of the uber-charismatic Obama) as voters in, say, Iowa and South Carolina did. This bodes well for Hillary.

P.S. On a more optimistic (for Obama) note, Noam Scheiber's analysis is worth reading.

And then there's the NRO reader who writes, "I would argue that a black man winning 25% of the white vote in good ol' SC is HUGE." There's something to that. South Carolina is not representative of the rest of America when it comes to race relations; racial issues are, it seems to me, much more highly charged there than in all but maybe two or three other states in the whole Union. So let's not assume that South Carolina's racially polarized tallies (though not as badly polarized as some thought they might be) will be repeated to the same extent across the country on February 5. This is not the United States of South Carolina.

CNN Breaking News

By CNN

Sen. Barack Obama will win the South Carolina Democratic primary, CNN projects.

Obama wins big in South Carolina; Clinton second, Edwards third

By Brendan Loy

So says ABC News:

7 pm ET: ABC IS CALLING THE RACE RIGHT AT POLL CLOSING TIME. From our decision desk: "Based on exit poll data, ABC News projects that Obama will win the South Carolina Democratic primary. We do not yet have enough information to project who will be second or third, but based on the exit polls Clinton is leading over Edwards in a race for second."

This would SUGGEST a large margin -- networks don't call races based only on exit polls unless it's pretty convincing.

CNN has called it too. And their exit polls show Edwards narrowly winning the white vote, with Obama getting a "healthy" 25%.

Among black men: Obama 80%, Clinton 17%. Among black women: Obama 82%, Clinton 17%.

Edwards got almost zero black support, which is why Clinton will probably beat him overall despite narrowly losing the white vote to him.

The full CNN exit poll results will eventually be here, but they're not yet.

As the actual votes come in, you'll be able to see them at CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the South Carolina Democratic Party.

UPDATE: CNN's exit poll still isn't online, but MSNBC's is, and extrapolating from the gender numbers, it looks like a huge win for Obama, to the tune of Obama 55%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 18%. Which raises the question: would a 25-to-30-point margin of victory be enough to offset the potential P.R. damage from the bloc voting issue? Especially given that Obama got a quarter of the white vote?

UPDATE, 7:39 PM: CNN now projects that Clinton will beat Edwards for second.

If Edwards does end up below 20% in the state of his birth, which he won in 2004 with 45% of the vote -- beating ascendant front-runner Kerry by 15 points -- does he still keep his repeatedly promises to stay in the race all the way to the convention? I get the "kingmaker" thing, but where will the money come from? And won't this charade become humiliating exercise at some point soon? And isn't the media soon going to start totally ignoring him -- leaving him out of debates, etc.? It's completely obvious now (if it wasn't after Nevada) that this is a two-way race. With the probable exception of North Carolina, I bet this is the last time Edwards polls in double digits.

UPDATE, 9:06 PM: CNN estimates the delegate count from South Carolina as Obama 8, Clinton 4, Edwards 2. All this for a four-delegate edge? Heh.