Super Tuesday, McCain Leads Reps, Dems Undecided

Following the so called Super Tuesday primary mega bash yesterday, McCain has solidified a strong lead in the primary race over his rival Republicans. Things aren't so clear for the Democrats: while Clinton leads, the race is still too close to call.

Comments

SuperDelegates

[Dr. Eggman]

I know it's up to the party to decide how to run their own primaries and it doesn't even have to be democratic, but doesn't the concept of superdelegates irk anyone else? The idea that you should get special treatment and privileged voting rights just for who you are seems... well, unamerican.

Clinton versus Obama

[Henry V .009]

I know that Clinton hate is big on the internet, but she may actually be the best democratic candidate. Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama (see Krugman) and she won both California and New York yesterday, which matters a lot for the general election. My own opinion about Obama is that Bill was right, he is a fairy tale. People don't seem to support him because of issues or anything like that, they support him because he's the magical black guy candidate. It's almost straight out of Shawshank Redemption or the Shining. Sure, he distinguishes himself by being out front on the Iraq War, but Clinton has a pretty good record on Iraq for the past several years, which does matter.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[SatanicPuppy]

Screw that. Their heath plans are practically identical, and neither one of them has a chance in hell of being passed "as is" by even a Dem congress.

As for Hillary being the "best" candidate, she wouldn't even be in the running if her last name wasn't Clinton, and I for one am sick to death of nothing but goddamn clintons and bushes. She represents nothing but special interests and a half-assed political status quo.

What Obama has, above and beyond his "magical blackness" (which is some nice racism there, since he's got nothing more or less than Bill Clinton had on the way into office, but that wasn't a big deal apparently) is the ability to actually undo some of the goddamn partisan hackery that has dominated our political process for the last 30 years or more. Another Clinton can only make that worse, if that's even possible.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[RedK]

No, he's accusing you of racism because you made a racist remark. Obama is more than just "that black guy running". If you'd bothered to actually listen to him and read up on his campaign plan, you'd know that.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[Steve525]

People don't seem to support him because of issues or anything like that, they support him because he's the magical black guy candidate.

I don't think race is a big reason why white people are voting for or against Obama. (Race might be important for other groups, but I don't know enough to speak intelligently about that). I think people like Obama because, well, he's likable. He comes across as very personable and very intelligent (and not in that "I know more than you" way that other Democratics can sometimes come across). I think he comes across as too idealistic (and often says little of substance), but I still think he's a good candidate.

With these two candidates, there has been a stong preference depending on age. The young like Obama and the old like Clinton. I fall somewhere in the middle, and I'm somewhat torn. I'd be happy with either, so my biggest concern is who can win against McCain. (Honestly, I wouldn't be too unhappy with McCain as long as he doesn't begin to pander to the religous right - which may happen by taking Huckabee as a VP on his ticket).

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[SuiteSisterMary]

But the election *IS* about race. And gender, for that matter.

All the coverage I've seen and heard points out that Hillary gets the woman vote, Obama gets the Black vote, Hillary gets the Latino vote, Obama gets the 'educated' vote (which, according to all the news outlets, is separate from the Black vote) and that it's a big surprise in Mass, because people rejected Ted Kennedy's endorsement.

In other words, according to American news coverage, it's expected to vote along racial and gender lines, and a suprise when people don't vote for who they're told to vote for.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[bwalling]

I'm sorry, but the significant hate against Clinton is exactly the reason not to vote for her. She will get absolutely zero done because the Republicans will fight every breath she takes. It will be the nastiest four years anyone will be able to remember. You cannot be a good leader if you are extremely divisive. How can you effectively lead when half the people you are trying to lead truly hate you?

They may have some policy differences, but they really aren't that different, and people actually like Obama and he inspires people. That's a really important point. Positive is better than negative in more ways than just feel good BS. One of Reagan's biggest benefits was his positive, likable personality. Same with the previous Clinton.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[SatanicPuppy]

Please, a black man running for president and it has nothing to do with race? Don't be naive. Of course it's an issue. But saying that the only reason he's anything is because he's black? That's pretty racist; I'm from the South, I know racist when I hear it. I think the way it is in this country, especially on a national level, a black candidate still has to be "better" than an equivalent white candidate to be elected to national office.

I voted for him because I think his experience is interesting, I think he's a smart guy, and I find his message compelling. I think he's a uniter not a divider, and I think he has good intentions and good ideas. I sure as hell didn't vote for him because of his race, because that doesn't mean anything to me. This'll be the 4th presidential election for me, and the first time I've ever had the opportunity to vote (even if only in a primary) for someone I honestly believed would do a good job, and not just a slightly less bad job.

Clinton? I used to live in New York. Do you know what it takes to get elected as a New York politician? They play the game with the best up there. I am damn tired of the game. Her whole campaign has been about the game. Screw that.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Actually, since it now appears that NM may go to Obama, along with a few other delegate gains, the Obama camp is now claiming that they won more delegates (along with more states). Clinton has to be reeling from this. Obama is also positioned to do well in next Tuesday's primaries - Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia. A sweep of all 3, in addition to Louisiana this weekend could push him further towards front-runner status.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[CubeNudger]

I totally agree. The smart money was that Clinton had to build at least a 100 delegate (not counting super delegates) lead to have a good shot at the nomination. She came up far short of this. Obama has a very favorable schedule until two toss ups (Texas and Ohio) on March 4, and unlike Clinton, many of his contributors have yet to give the maximum amount. If I were a betting man, my money'd be on Obama right now.

Delegate counts still short

[Egdiroh]

Looking at CNN, a lot of the delegate counts are still short for the democrats, based on the total number of delegates they've assigned for a lot of the super tuesday states and a the number of delegates tha they say the state has tied to yesterdays elections and caucuses. So the balance could still shift some.

Generally I've been disappointed with the reporting on the elections so far. Before super tuesday, Obama had gotten the most pledged delegates or tied with clinton in all the contests, but there were a few were they called Clinton the winner. It would be like declaring the the super bowl winner based on the number completed passes and not the score, which according to espn would make the Patriots the winner, which we all understand they are not.

Beyond my general dismay at the misrepresentation of the democratic primary results, I am frustrated with the confusion that this type of reporting causes. The outlets glaze over the actual electoral mechanics and come as close as they can to portraying each contest as a statewide popular vote. Then when the presidential election comes around they will do their best to portray it as a national popular election. First in the US not all votes are equal, electoral votes are based on # of members of both houses of congress from the state so because of each state getting two senators, the ratio of electoral votes to population, means that they people in low populace states have votes that are worth more of an electoral vote each. After that because most states are winner take all when it come to electoral votes if a candidate wins 100% of the vote in states that make up 40% of the electoral college and loses the other 60% of the electoral vote worth of states in a 48%/52% split then he would lose the election but would have won the make believe nationwide popular election by a pretty good margin, and people would be pissed, and feel cheated. And most of the time they would blame it on the disparity of the states in the electoral college.

The worst part about all this electoral confusion is that blaming the electoral college is how you make sure the system never changes. The electoral college is based on squarely in the constitution and would be a major undertaking to change. However the constitution has nothing at all to do with how each state allocates there votes. That can be addressed on a state by state level. Currently most states are winner take all. Which means that a thousand or so voters (or the fraud perpetrated on a thousand or so voters) can decide millions of peoples worth of vote. If all the states switched to proportional voting then the margins for how much the popular vote can differ from the results would decrease. It would also severely reduce the rewards for disenfranchising voters, and candidates would have to do a better job of appealing to the majority. If you don't like the elections don't bitch about the electoral college, work for change at the state level. Once we have the state elections behaving more inline with our expectations and at this point our desired system, we can see if we really need to tinker with the much harder to tinker with constitution.

Re:It's turning intom "Who can Win" in November

[R2.0]

I guess you missed where I said "The conservative right, while bloviating at the top"

The "celebrities" of the right harbor a dirty secret - the NEED Hillary to win. Their shows and blogs do best when there is someone to rail against. And what do they lose if Hillary or Obama is elected? Nothing.

They aren't afraid of socialized medicine - they can afford paying cash out of pocket for the best private care.

They aren't afraid of losing 2nd amendment rights - they have bodyguards who carry guns for them, or already have their concealed weapons permits (I'm looking at YOU, Feinstein - OK, not a conservative, but the principle applies).

So it's in their best interests to try to damage McCain, as he has the best chance of winning. But the rank and file, who ARE worried about these things, see the Dems as an unmitigated disaster, where McCain is merely tolerable.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[dopplex]

The big flaw in this argument - which you are not the only one making - is that CA, NY, NJ, MA et al. are NOT contested states in a general election. Therefore, Hillary's strength in them is largely irrelevant, as either she or Obama would easily carry them in the General.

More relevant - and a good sign for the Democratic party as a whole, really - is the strength that Obama (and to a lesser extent Hillary) have shown in some battleground states. Obama got 300,000 votes in Alabama - a VERY red state. Huckabee - the winner on the GOP side, got 225,000. Both of them easily outpolled the nearest Republican in Missouri.

It's these states which have to be the bread and butter of any electability argument. Obama could put Alabama and Georgia in play in a general election - a laughable idea in a 2000 or 2004 frame.

Lastly, you say there's not much that can change in the month prior to Texas and Ohio. That's manifestly incorrect. Just look at the shift in national polls that has occured since Jan 5th: at that time, Clinton had a roughly 15 point lead nationally, and is now in a statistical dead heat with Obama as of the latest CNN poll.

The next month of primaries and caucuses is very favorable to Obama - he is polling at a 13 point lead in Washington, the biggest of the weekend's caucuses (via SurveyUSA, which was by far the most accurate of the Super Tuesday pollsters). What is more, he now has a significant cash advantage. A month of momentum building smaller wins can certainly change the situation on the ground in Texas and Ohio when combined with the media advantage Obama will have due to his cash advantage. It may or may not happen - but Obama's track record when he's had time to actively campaign in a state is quite solid, and he has excellent ground operations.

There's plenty of reason to believe the situation will change. Predicting how it will change is difficult, but expecting things to remain as they are is doomed to failure.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[mrxak]

Yeah, if it wasn't for Hillary's superdelegates, she'd be losing right now, 590 to 603. And he's won 15 states to Hillary's 12 (10 not including MI and FL). I think it's definitely looking good for Obama.

Paul is irrelevant at this point.

[Valdrax]

Both of whom didn't manage to pick up a single state.

If the Republican Party had proportional voting, then maybe Ron Paul would have a chance of being relevant with some of his 2nd & 3rd place wins last night, but with 16 delegates and the gap between the 1st & 2nd place candidates at nearly 300 delegates, he doesn't even have a chance of influencing the convention at all.

Paul is irrelevant at this point.