Super Tuesday open thread

Since the blog updates -- some from me, some from CNN -- will be coming fast and furious this evening, and rapidly scrolling off the homepage to make way for new updates, I'm setting this post to stay on top of the blog, in order to more easily facilitate uninterrupted discussion. Feel free to comment on the other posts too, of course. But this one will be here all night. All new posts will appear below.

Comments

[becky]

First! :)

[Brendan Loy]

LOL

[Marty West]

Thanks for posting the pickem sheet!

[Mad Max, Esquire]

It sounds like the Democrats have made every primary proportional (no "winner take all."). If that is the case, Florida may have to count. What a friggin' mess. I think the Democratic Party should just stay the hell away from Florida.

[yea]

this could be a PR fiasco for the democrats if Obama and Clinton are so close that it comes down to superdelgates and whether mich/fl gets seated.

[CD]

In a protracted primary race that sheds light on the process, both parties, but especially the Democrats, are destined to come out looking, well, not so democratic.

In WA, where the people voted for an initiative that established a primary, intended to replace the caucuses, the Republicans decided to honor the vote by apportioning half of their delegates based on the primary and half based on the caucuses. The Democrats are ignoring the primary and apportioning all of their delegates based on this Saturday's primary. This is not playing well in the press and overall in this pretty independantly minded state.

[CD]

Meant to say that Democrats are apportioning all of their delegates based on this Saturday's *caucuses*, and not based on the primary on 2/19.

[B. Minich]

As I said in the Obama may win big if you believe the exit polls (you know, the same ones that told us that Kerry was going to win big) . . .

Booo Clintons!

Hope that helps!

[yea]

obama has surged on intrade from 47%ish at the beginning of the day to 60% now to win the nomination. exciting stuff. must not get irrationally exhuberant but cant help myself.

[Gardner]

It's a race. My vote may count next week. I'm just not sure what race I'm voting it yet.

[Alec]

Starting to look like 80.4% of us might have been wrong about New Jersey!

[yea]

lol now theres a massive obama sell off... hes down to 52% now. what new info came out in the past hour?

[Brendan Loy]

See my "Bradley Effect" post below. I assume they're reacting to the same thing I am.

[Jay Johnson]

What, no snarky comments about Karl Rove's analysis on FoxNews yet?

[yea]

yea its like nh where the real numbers just dont seem to be supporting the polls. i dont understand how the bradley effect actually happens in this day and age.

[Becky]

Arkansas smells like poo.

[Alec]

Yea - you are quite right that the results in NH were not consistent with the polls. But they were consistent with the exit polls.

[Alec]

Yea - you are quite right that the results in NH were not consistent with the polls. But the results were consistent with the exits.

[Alec]

Apologies all round for the double post.

[Melissa]

Brendan - I think that you may have already explained this, so feel free to point me to another post of yours, but can you please explain the significance and role of superdelegates versus delegates? Is it significant that Obama has more pledged delegates than Clinton but far fewer superdelegates? Thanks!

[yea]

obama from over 60% to under 37% on intrade in about an hour or so. this is bigger movement than on new hampshire night. disapointing stuff. what a selloff.

[Marty West]

Obama/Corzine '16!!!!

[Joe Loy]

9:45 PM, Newington CT: with all ABs counted (centrally) and 2 of 7 precincts reporting their in-person vote tallies, Clinton leads Obama 769 to 561, total 58 for all others, and McCain leads Romney 188 to 141, total 53 for all others.

[Joe Loy]

PS ~ the Newington ABs were total Hillary 111, Barack 46; so Obama is doing much better in (but still losing) the in-person vote.

[Andrew Leyden]

Watch out for the tornados

[B. Minich]

Yo - Brendan - you got severe weather your way? There's a tornado in Nashville, and Memphis also.

[B. Minich]

Go figure - instead of talking about the election, Brendan moves to Tennessee, and tornadoes overshadow Super Tuesday for the first time ever.

[yea]

i wonder if the tornados supressed the memphis vote which would likely have trended heavily toward to obama.

[Becky]

Hillary sounds like my dog. Get that mustard-frocked hag some tea!

[Brendan Loy]

From the reports on CNN, yea, it sounds like they almost certainly did. They said something about polling places being closed and even being damaged. I hope no voters were injured or killed!!

The bigger issue, given the closeness of the respective races, may be that the tornadoes suppressed the Huckabee vote.

[Alec]

Clinton is ahead in Missouri by 9 points, with 69% of the vote in. But perhaps crucially, only 30% of the city of St Louis has been reported so far - and Obama is currently winning there by 47 points!

[Alec]

.... and more to the point, Obama leads in St Louis County by 14 points, with only 46% of the vote in.

[JD]

Missouri's a winner take all for the GOP and McCain's up - by a thousand votes.

[Andrew]

If Drudge's projections are correct, McCain can thank Huckabee for helping eliminate Romney.

[yea]

missouri is going to be reallllllly close.

[Alec]

On the basis of CNN's exit poll in California, it looks like Clinton has won by 6 points.

[Alec]

.... and the GOP race in California is very, very close. Again, on the basis of
CNN's exit poll, it looks like McCain might have won by a point or so. But I suspect that one's going to keep us up all night.

[Condor]

Cluck Finton!

[B. Minich]

Well, McCain cut off for Obama's speech. Not surprising, but I wondered when they were going to do it.

[Jim Hu]

Hmm...CNN hasn't called the Montana caucuses even though they're showing 100% reporting

[B. Minich]

Barak Obama is very black preacheresque in his delivery. I like that. :D

[Alec]

Missouri is a thriller!

By my very rough calculations, there are still about 72,000 votes to come in from the St Louis area - where Obama is winning handily. Clinton is currently leading in Missouri by about 9,000 votes.
So, surely Obama is going to win Missouri - isn't he?

[B. Minich]

Obama's slogan "Yes We Can" is excellent - gives his supporters something inspiring to cheer, and is easier to say "O-Ba-Ma" (which they do anyway).

[B. Minich]

Obama goes long . . . not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it is something he does.

[B. Minich]

Nice swipe at Clinton "Its a choice between a candidate that goes into an election with the other party united against them, but a candidate who can and has united Americans of all parties."

[B. Minich]

Hrmmmm . . . where's this 100 year war line coming from? Both Obama and Clinton used it. Weird.

where's this 100 year war line coming from? Both Obama and Clinton used it. Weird.

It's related to McCain. He said something along the lines of he wouldn't mind if the U.S. stayed in Iraq for 100 years. Naturally, the Democrats interpret this to be 100 years of actual fighting.

Have we withdrawn from Germany yet?

[Brian Foster]

I was planning to comment on that, B. -- it's a reference to McCain saying that it would be "fine" with him if we still had troops in Iraq 100 years from now, comparing it to our permanent bases in Japan and South Korea.

Clip and transcript here.

On another front -- good lord, everybody else got cut off after 10-15 minutes, why are we still listening to the same tired old Barack call-and-response sermon 20 minutes after they cut away from McCain?

[B. Minich]

OK, thanks. I figured when both candidates mentioned it, it came from somewhere. They aren't exactly at the point to share campaign info yet.

Nice use of Super Duper Tuesday by Obama.

CNN is staying with Obama during the whole speech. They have cut from every other speech if it was long enough. He's good. Best political orator I've heard live. He's going to be hard to beat if the Dems don't shoot themselves in the foot by nominating Hillary. I'm impressed - won't vote for him, but impressed. I wish I could vote for him.

[Leanna Loomer]

McCain has a refreshing way of orating. It's almost conversational.

[B. Minich]

(When I say I wish I could vote for him, I mean I like him as a person.)

Like I said, Brian, the reason is that his speech was more interesting than the others, which was just "thanks, and here's some wonkish stuff". Huckabee came the closest to being an orator, but he was a lot shorter.

[B. Minich]

Last post . . .

When did Chelsea get so old, anyway? Man, that must mean that its been a while since I remember Bill in the White House. Chelsea is a bit older than me. Since when did I get so old? (Well, not old, just older than I think I should be. ;) )

[Derek]

...because this comment was lost...

Looks like they're pulling the call for MO-Clinton. Might take a while, but it's leaning Obama.

Meanwhile, some are calling CA for Clinton.

[Brian Foster]

And calling CA for McCain . . . CNN right now. (Clinton too)

[Brian Foster]

And CNN calls MO for McCain as well.

[Dave]

California for McCain! Yes! Yes! YESSS!!!

Romney is done - D-U-N done!

[Derek]

Derek - unless I'm missing something obvious, I really think Missouri is done. Obama is leading by 5,000 votes with 97% in - and almost all of the unreported votes are in St Louis County (where he is beating Clinton by 26 points).

I'm astonished that CNN have called California for McCain (with 85% in and an incredibly close exit poll) before calling Missouri for Obama (where I just don't see how Clinton can win from here).

I'm sure I must be missing something....
:)

[Wobbly H]

Becky,

Are those above your comments, or someone pretending to be you?

[Brian Foster]

Roland Martin just discussed running mates for McCain, acknowledging Crist as a good choice, but advocating Huckabee as better. I have to admit I'm warming to the idea of a McCain-Huckabee ticket. The obvious danger of course is that they were earlier castigated as the two most liberal RINOs in the GOP field. Then again, tonight's results, esp. in the South, clearly establish that not Romney, but Huckabee, is the conservative alternative. He's getting the support McCain desperately needs in the general. He's genuinely likeable. He's a governor. He's young(ish). He's eloquent. It makes sense.

Hmmm.....

[Alec]

Sorry, that last comment (12:35:03) was me, not Derek. Not sure how that happened. I'll do better next time.

[Condor]

I love how the Coulter/Ingraham/Limbaugh wing of the party claim that McCain signals the end of the Republican Party. What McCain really signals is the end of the Coulter/Ingraham/Limbaugh influence in the party.

[Brian Foster]

Condor,

I agree with you 100%. :)

[Bea]

Urgh, I would HATE a McCain-Huckabee ticket! I wouldn't vote for Huckabee if he was the nominee (I wouldn't vote for the Dem, I just wouldn't vote period). If he was McCain's running mate then I would still vote for McCain, but hate it. Not sure what Andrew would do. He doesn't like either, and wouldn't vote for Huckabee.

If I am the demographic that likes McCain (fiscal conservative/anti pork, perceived as "moderate" because I am not a winger, not socially conservative, etc), and Huckabee really turns me off, why would McCain go for him? Sure, it might help with the conservative vote, but, uhm, like those people are going to vote for Obama or Hillary. They will stay home or vote for McCain. If McCain's strenght is going to come from appleaing to the middle, he cannot have Huckabee hanging on his back.

[Bea]

Condor, let's hope that you're right on what a McCain win means for the party.

[Andrew]

again, tonight's results, esp. in the South, clearly establish that not Romney, but Huckabee, is the conservative alternative.

I think that is inaccurate. From the exit polls I've seen, Huckabee dominates the social conservative vote, but he is not the "conservative candidate". Adding Huckabee to the McCain ticket would be interesting. It'd shore up McCain's base, but McCain isn't weak among social conservatives so much as he isn't the strongest among them. If the choice is McCain vs. Obama/HRC, McCain will have no problem getting the evangelical vote -- it's Romney who struggled with social conservatives, due to his Mormonism and wishy-washiness on abortion. However, Huckabee is a natural ally to McCain -- they are compatible on social and economic issues, and mainline Republicans can't stand them. What makes the marriage curious, however, is the fact that it brings together two pillars of support that are diametrically opposed to each other: GOP moderates and independents love McCain and have a strong distaste for evangelicals and the manner in which Huckabee panders to them; evangelicals can live with McCain but prefer Huckabee, and they are wildly suspicious about moderates and independents influencing McCain on social issues. It's a coalition that can get a president elected, but it reeks of cynical triangulation.

McCain's real weakness is the mainline conservative part of the GOP -- the Wall Street-watching, National Review, Dittoheads. This is the wing of the GOP I am probably nearest to, and while we aren't the largest part of the party in numbers, we are the most consistent, loyal, and powerful part of the party (hence why McCain couldn't overcome Bush in 2000 and why Romney would probably be beating McCain today were it not for Huckabee's continued presence in the race). McCain would win an election vs. HRC despite lukewarm support from this group, but he certainly can't govern successfully without their support (think Bush 1992, Dubya 2006).

love how the Coulter/Ingraham/Limbaugh wing of the party claim that McCain signals the end of the Republican Party. What McCain really signals is the end of the Coulter/Ingraham/Limbaugh influence in the party.

Both POVs overstate their case by a couple orders of magnitude. Coulter holds no sway in the party, and Ingraham is way down the ladder in order of GOP influence. Rush is a kingmaker, but he's nearing the end of his season (his retirement from radio will probably come before the end of a McCain/HRC/Obama first term). But Rush is not powerful because he is a talk radio god; Rush is powerful because he taps into a broad and deep pool of conservatism that is already out there. And just because Rush or Ingraham goes away doesn't mean that group of people go away. The mods and the evangelicals wax and wane, but the straightline conservatives will always be the backbone of the GOP. Likewise, the paradox will always be that a GOP presidential candidate needs a wider base of support than just the straightline conservative Republicans to get over the hump (the Dems have a similar but even more daunting electoral challenge getting to 50% + 1). The bottom line is, typical conservative Republicans are the backbone of the party and are vital to any Republican president who hopes to get an agenda passed through Congress.

The reality is, if you want to see the Republican Party collapse, your best bet is to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[Sandy Underpants]

I'm pretty sure the Republican party died tonite, actually. McCain is the most reviled of all the primary candidates (save Ron Paul) and he has the nomination, for all intents and purposes. If Democrats could only choose a president from the Republican primary they would overwhelmingly choose McCain over anyone else, and that doesn't speak well for a party that re-elected Bush jr. That being said, McCain's campaign is basically Dole/Kemp '08, he's gonna get creamed in November if rigimortis hasn't set in by then.

And not to distract from what's actually important, but comparing troops in Iraq to troops in Germany/Korea is pretty insulting. We lost 44 American soldiers in Iraq since 2008 began. The last time we lost a soldier in Germany or Korea to live fire from a native of either of those countries was more than 40 years ago, and none after either war was ended, whereas the Iraq war was won nearly 5 years ago.

[Andrew]

If Democrats could only choose a president from the Republican primary they would overwhelmingly choose McCain over anyone else....

That might very well be true, but it's awful logic on the part of Dems. McCain irks many Republicans for a variety of reasons, but in a general election, he'll get evangelical and independent votes that HRC and Obama cannot get and will be a huge crossover threat for moderate Dems.

Comparing McCain to Dole is so monumentally dumb, it smacks of moronic ageism more than anything else. Dole was an unwise candidate for a variety of reasons, but the most important difference is Dole was the establishment GOP candidate and McCain most certainly is the opposite of that. Dole had zero appeal to independents and Dems (and, oh by the way, the wildly popular Bill Clinton still couldn't break 50% against Dole), whereas McCain does. McCain would kill HRC and would likely win a tight race vs. Obama.

[Andrew]

The last time we lost a soldier in Germany or Korea to live fire from a native of either of those countries was more than 40 years ago, and none after either war was ended, whereas the Iraq war was won nearly 5 years ago.

So you're saying Germany and Korea didn't have problems with Islamic fundamentalists who use suicidal terrorism as their primary means of undermining law and order? Wow, what a novel observation!

[Alec]

By my reckoning, CNN's exit poll in New Mexico suggests that Obama will win by around 6 poins.

Clinton currently leads 49-47 with 38% of the vote in, but:

* Clinton is benefiting from early declarations in the south (and least populous) portion of the state, where 77% of the vote is already in.

* Obama is leading by 10 points in the north (including Santa Fe), which is much more populous, and where only around half of the votes have been reported so far.

But possibly the largest number of votes will come from the centre of the state (which includes Albuquerque), where a mere 4% of the vote is in.

[Sandy Underpants]

McCain will have a poorer showing than Dole/Kemp. McCain can't even get the support of his own party and as for cross-over appeal-- what does McCain offer that would make him more appealing to Democrats than Obama or Clinton? The most vocal Republicans, who command a following in the tens of millions (Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc.) say they will vote Democrat before they vote McCain. That's something Dole didn't have to overcome. The choice is pretty simple to most americans-- A crusty 72 year old geezer that wants to continue the failed policies of the worst president in history including contininuing a war more than 70% of Americans want us out of, or a candidate who represents change? Get real.

You are right, our soldiers stationed in Germany and Korea don't have to deal with Islamic extremists, and that was part of my point. Staying another 100 years isn't anything like staying in Korea or Germany, as a previous poster tried to imply.

[Andrew]

Sandy, I've never thought much of any of your opinions or analytical ability, and this last comment is a perfect example of why. McCain's appeal to independents and moderate Republicans and Democrats is so well documented, it's not even worth defending the point. Obama might challenge strongly for those votes, but you're on crack if you think HRC is popular with anyone outside the Democratic Party -- she carries the highest negative rating I've ever seen of a viable presidential candidate. I gladly cede the point that McCain will lose some votes with conservatives who stay home rather than vote for him or Obama/HRC, but that lukewarm support from conservatives will not be enough to seriously damage McCain in the national election. Where it will harm him is in his ability to pass an agenda through Congress, because the bully pulpit only goes so far -- at some point you have to be able to twist legislators' arms to get what you want done.