U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
A lot of establishment Democrats up there.
U2democrat said:We don't know NM yet, still about 8% to report in and the margin is very close and Obama has the edge.
I have a feeling it'll stay with Obama because he's done VERY well with the caucuses, but we'll see.
U2democrat said:If you look at the map, Hillary won most of the typical blue states.
Obama won the red and battleground states.
This is important when looking toward the General.
Irvine511 said:what's interesting is McCain. he's all reach, no base. what propelled him to victory was the anti-war GOP vote.
[q]
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-mccain-the-favorite-of-anti-war-republicans/
[/q]
fascinating.
Strongbow said:
Given that the number of people in the GOP who are "anti-war" is less than 20% of the party, no one, in the GOP primaries, is being propelled to victory from their votes, even if one assumes this exit poll(which are notorious for being inaccurate) is accurate.
But if it is accurate, it is an indication that the opposition to the war in Iraq is soft which means you could see many anti-war Dems and Independents voting for McCain in November.
anitram said:McCain will have enormous problems in the general. Nobody has a better GOTV than the evangelicals. If they stay home, he's toast. If he panders to them, he'll lose the independents.
Irvine511 said:
i'm sorry your boy didn't do better.
anitram said:Sting should be more worried about the fact that the Democratic turnout has been enormous, as have their fundraising efforts.
Irvine511 said:
in 1992.
Strongbow said:
Plus, now we allegedly have people who are against the war in Iraq supporting McCain.
Strongbow said:McCain essentially has no money when compared to Romney.
Strongbow said:
The only reason Bush Sr. lost in 1992 was because of Ross Perot. If the evangelicals had stayed home, Bush would have received much less than 38% of the popular vote.
Irvine511 said:
compare the 1992 evangelical turnout to the 2000 and 2004 elections. it's not even close. and Ross Perot isn't the "only" reason. it's quick and easy to say that, but that doesn't make it true.
Bush 2 mobilized them to eek out two victories in ways that his father never could.
Strongbow said:
I think they have had more open primaries than the Republicans. Its also more of an indication that the base of the Democratic party is currently fired up. The general election will involve a massive number of people who never bother to vote in the primaries.
MrsSpringsteen said:boston.com
CHICAGO -- Now that the dust has (almost) settled, Barack Obama has won more Super Tuesday delegates than Hillary Clinton, his campaign said this morning. Of the 22 states up for grabs, Obama won 13 states to Clinton's 8. They're still counting votes in New Mexico, where Obama holds a narrow lead.
The delegate victory yesterday, assuming it holds, would represent a significant coup for Obama. Clinton had long been seen as the dominant candidate in the Feb. 5 contests, and she was expected to emerge with more delegates.
But while Clinton captured big wins in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, it wasn't enough to overcome Obama's strength around the country, including in pivotal states like Missouri and Connnecticut. He also did better in Clinton's home state of New York than she did in his home state of Illinois.
"Last night was an outstanding night for the Obama campaign," campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters in a conference call this morning.
According to Plouffe's tally, Obama won 847 pledged delegates yesterday to Clinton's 834, bringing his pledged delegate total to 910. Clinton's overall total, Plouffe said, is 882. But there's a long way to go: It takes more than 2,000 delegates to win the nomination.
UPDATE: Obama, addressing reporters at a Chicago-area hotel this morning, argued that despite feeling victorious after last night, he was still the "underdog," because of Clinton's institutional advantages and broader name recognition. "We are less of an underdog than we were two weeks ago," Obama said, which prompted a chuckle from assembled reporters. "I think that's fair. I think that two weeks ago we were a big underdog. Now we're a slight underdog."
On a conference call with the media this morning, Clinton's campaign aides said they expect neither candidate will have won five or 10 more delegates than the other on Super Tuesday when everything is counted, and they said their current count has them up by one. Clinton aides also touted her success yesterday among late-breaking voters, rural voters, and young voters. And they noted her lead among superdelegates -- the Democratic Party leaders who get a voice in the nomination.
U2isthebest said:
That's an interesting article! I'm with the camp that believes we might not know our nominee until the convention. I would hope it comes before that, but it doesn't look like it at this point. I'm glad Obama is still humble enough to admit he's got a long way to go if he hopes to get the nomination. The biggest mistake he could make at this point, that has been made by countless other politicians before him, would be to believe his own press. As long as he realizes he still has a lot of people to prove himself too, he has a good shot of getting the nomination. The more he lays out his positions, policies, and visions, the more people who may not have committed to a candidate (or committed to another candidate earlier) could begin to get on board with him.
MaxFisher said:tomorrow...
McCain and Hillary by a nose.
MaxFisher said:
TOTAL VOTES CAST
Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)