Super Tuesday Scoreboard

[CDeb]

Even higher than John McCain amongst conservative Republicans?

Well, don't you think Hillary! would rate even lower amongst that group?

Besides, I was talking about the overall negative rating. I did a brief search, and the most recent article I could find was from October.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Even higher than John McCain amongst conservative Republicans? The way they have been trashing him has been pretty vicious. Didn't Ronald Reagan say something about bad-mouthing other Republicans? Guess conservatives are somewhat selective about listening to what Reagan had to say. Anyway, the GOP seems somewhat demoralized. I don't think they will turn out regardless of who the Dems run. It's pretty sad when a party pins their hopes on who the other guy is running as opposed to backing their own candidate.

I really don't see it as so much the Candidates trashing one another as much as it's the media trashing them, based on some BS survey numbers. Has anyone here actually seen how these number crunchers actually run these surveys? They'll structure a survey one way, and if they don't get the numbers the want to release, they'll structure it differently, until they get what they want to hear and release it. What a crock of crap. And then the media runs with whatever load of crap is dropped in them, amplified beyond all recognition, and beat it into the ground. One Candidate can voice his opposition to someone else's views on a subject to a reporter, next thing you know you have it reported that they are ready to kill each other.

On the other hand McCain has proven he will say anything to win this election. This most recent tirade of his, trying to belittle Romney, saying he disrespected him is typical McCain bullshit. I in no way saw it as a disrespect to Dole personally, he did speak the truth about the concept he was trying to explain. Judge for yourself:

When asked by a reporter what he thought of Dole writing a letter to Limbaugh (which in my opinion gives that idiot (Limbaugh) more to talk about), to tell him to lay off McCain? Romeny's response was:

Romney: "Well, it's probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me. I think there are a lot of folks that tend to think that maybe John McCain's race is a bit like Bob Dole's race. That it's the guy next who's next in line, he's the inevitable choice and we'll give it to him and that it won't work. I think the right course for a winning campaign against someone like Barack Obama is going to be somebody who can speak with energy and passion about the future of America -- not another senator who can say here's what I did on bill H1, 2, 3, 4, here's what I did on my committee assignment. The American people are so tired of listening to Senators talk about their bills and their committees."

Sounds to me like he is just stating the truth, people including myself are tired of the same old crap and the same old cronyism. Just because he's been wasting our time and money in the House or Senate for umpteen years doesn't make him the best thing for our country, if not the worst thing to keep giving these antique stiffs another lease on life. Some of these stiffs keep getting re-elected, 80 something years old, having to wear a bib all the time to catch the perpetual drool running down their chins, and they are propped up in session, with some young intern telling them how to vote, because they can't stay on point long enough to remember the bill they are turning into law. Scary stuff.

[west20th]

I really don't see it as so much the Candidates trashing one another as much as it's the media trashing them, based on some BS survey numbers. Has anyone here actually seen how these number crunchers actually run these surveys? They'll structure a survey one way, and if they don't get the numbers the want to release, they'll structure it differently, until they get what they want to hear and release it. What a crock of crap. And then the media runs with whatever load of crap is dropped in them, amplified beyond all recognition, and beat it into the ground. One Candidate can voice his opposition to someone else's views on a subject to a reporter, next thing you know you have it reported that they are ready to kill each other.

On the other hand McCain has proven he will say anything to win this election. This most recent tirade of his, trying to belittle Romney, saying he disrespected him is typical McCain bullshit. I in no way saw it as a disrespect to Dole personally, he did speak the truth about the concept he was trying to explain. Judge for yourself:

When asked by a reporter what he thought of Dole writing a letter to Limbaugh (which in my opinion gives that idiot (Limbaugh) more to talk about), to tell him to lay off McCain? Romeny's response was:

Sounds to me like he is just stating the truth, people including myself are tired of the same old crap and the same old cronyism. Just because he's been wasting our time and money in the House or Senate for umpteen years doesn't make him the best thing for our country, if not the worst thing to keep giving these antique stiffs another lease on life. Some of these stiffs keep getting re-elected, 80 something years old, having to wear a bib all the time to catch the perpetual drool running down their chins, and they are propped up in session, with some young intern telling them how to vote, because they can't stay on point long enough to remember the bill they are turning into law. Scary stuff.

My point was not so much to support McCain as it was to show none of the GOP candidates will inspire a turnout in November, whether Hillary is on the ticket or not. McCain is hated by conservative talking heads and religious leaders. Romney's support is lukewarm, at best, based pretty much on he is not McCain. And, like it or not, a lot of evangelicals will not vote for him. Notice when Dobson said he will not vote for McCain he would not endorse Romney, the next viable alternative? Huckabee's support is too limited to be a serious candidate in November.

It will take more than having the Hillary boogeyman to rally the GOP to vote in November. It will also take a candidate that will inspire them to get out and vote. It doesn't look like the GOP will have such a candidate this year.

[TheNiche]

Well, it is a debate, not a campaign speech, so no, she won't be pimping Houston. The exposure will be by the fact that the network covering the debate will be talking about Houston, not the two candidates.

We're the last of the populous states to go, so the focus of their attention is going to be relatively more narrow (think Guiliani talking about insurance rates while debating in FL), and they really can't afford not to kiss Texan ass.

Mark is right on this one.

[memebag]

I realize that conservatives love to throw that angle out there, and I am sure a few people may vote who otherwise would not have, but the bigger problem is not the ultra-conservative fringe...who already votes...but, the moderate middle of the GOP, who may not have the energy to go vote.

My gut feeling is that Hillary will energize a big chunk of those lazy, moderate Republicans, and even lazy independents, to get up and vote against her. I don't have any hard numbers, but I think she stirs up a blind, ugly rage in a lot of people.

This is the Democrats' race to lose. Bush has done so much damage that all they have to do is play it cool and offer some glimmer of hope for restoring America's reputation in the world and they can have the White House and Congress. My fear is that Hillary will screw it up. My hope is that McCain can't possibly be as bad as Bush.

[RedScare]

Keith Oldberman just reported that out of nearly 15,000,000 votes cast in the Democratic primaries last night, the difference between Clinton and Obama was less than 50,000...about 0.4%. Out of nearly 1,700 delegates at stake, the current difference is 11.

[Trae]

I think Clinton will do better in Dallas-Fort Worth and areas near the Panhandle. I think Obama will do better in Central Texas (Austin) and down here in Houston/Southeast Texas.

[TheNiche]

Keith Oldberman just reported that out of nearly 15,000,000 votes cast in the Democratic primaries last night, the difference between Clinton and Obama was less than 50,000...about 0.4%. Out of nearly 1,700 delegates at stake, the current difference is 11.

Anderson Cooper reported earlier that 11 states had the highest ever Republican turnout, which kind of goes counter to what makes intuitive sense. That's interesting because it means that Democrat turnout is abnormally high, not that Republicans are necessarily demotivated.

Considering this, and also just the nature of the difference in how delegates are assigned, I wonder whether the higher Democrat turnout might be linked more to that it is a closer race, and the people actually think that their vote could make more of a difference.

[crunchtastic]

Is this the point we remind ourselves that the primary/caucus 'voting,' and the electoral system in general, is not much more than a measure of the prevailing winds (with a statistical margin of error, of course)?

I still think a lot of people will hesitate to vote for a black man, when it comes down to just them in the voting booth. I hope that's not true.

Many people actively despise Hillary. (I think more people should actively despise McCain, FWIW). The dem congressional wins have amounted to a big fat nothing, policywise. I think many fear (I am one) that they will do the same big fat nothing for the presidency.

[TheNiche]

The dem congressional wins have amounted to a big fat nothing, policywise. I think many fear (I am one) that they will do the same big fat nothing for the presidency.

If any one party controls the house, senate, and presidency, things happen. Invariably bad things.

[BryanS]

If any one party controls the house, senate, and presidency, things happen. Invariably bad things.

Yes and no... Having one party controlling the legislative, and another in the executive, provides a check on power; however, that also results in gridlock (where nothing can get done). So you almost need one-party control across the legislative and executive, for a while (until the public gets scared out of its mind at what its done after 'the agenda' is executed), stack the Supreme Court with those sympathetic to your party position (there's no such thing as an unbiased judge).... and then vote out the controlling party in the legislative and executive, whereby you are left with a supreme court to provide some check on power, on the new party that is in control (in the legislative and executive)... repeat the cycle. So the most efficient approach, in my view, is to have the legislative and executive under one-party control, with the judicial branch providing the check on power. Personally, since the Supreme Court can affect your life 50 years at a time, it is vital to have a balanced court vs. balanced party power between the executive and legislative branches of this country.

[TheNiche]

Yes and no... Having one party controlling the legislative, and another in the executive, provides a check on power; however, that also results in gridlock (where nothing can get done). So you almost need one-party control across the legislative and executive, for a while (until the public gets scared out of its mind at what its done after 'the agenda' is executed), stack the Supreme Court with those sympathetic to your party position (there's no such thing as an unbiased judge).... and then vote out the controlling party in the legislative and executive, whereby you are left with a supreme court to provide some check on power, on the new party that is in control (in the legislative and executive)... repeat the cycle. So the most efficient approach, in my view, is to have the legislative and executive under one-party control, with the judicial branch providing the check on power. Personally, since the Supreme Court can affect your life 50 years at a time, it is vital to have a balanced court vs. balanced party power between the executive and legislative branches of this country.

In a dynamic world without a silent dictator that lurks in the shadows, ensuring every posture that would be timed perfectly by puppets acting like politicians at his every whim, your cycle is a hypothesis without a great deal of practical merit.

Besides, a judicial branch standing alone as a check on party power will fail. There's only so much that they can do.

[RedScare]

Is this the point we remind ourselves that the primary/caucus 'voting,' and the electoral system in general, is not much more than a measure of the prevailing winds (with a statistical margin of error, of course)?

I still think a lot of people will hesitate to vote for a black man, when it comes down to just them in the voting booth. I hope that's not true.

Many people actively despise Hillary. (I think more people should actively despise McCain, FWIW). The dem congressional wins have amounted to a big fat nothing, policywise. I think many fear (I am one) that they will do the same big fat nothing for the presidency.

I think that the Dems, aside from the fact that they do not have the numbers to override Republican opposition, were so fixated on regaining the presidency that they backed away from protracted fights to keep the larger goal attainable. While this infuriated the extreme wings of the Democratic Party, it gave the GOP little amunition to use against them. Besides, on the big issue, the war, there is no easy solution. Pulling out the troops will cause an escalation of violence in the power vacuum. Knowing this, many of the pragmatic Dems preferred to let Bush have his way, and attack HIS approach instead.

Frankly, it worked. Opposition to the war remains at 70%, and Dems can point out that Republicans had the numbers to block anything they tried. Bush even helped out with a veto or two.

As for hatred for Hillary driving the GOP voters, not so fast. The holy trinity of neo-conservative voters, Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity, have been so vocal against McCain that they are literally advocating a vote for Hillary if McCain is the GOP nominee. While one may speculate as to their motives, this type of non-stop attack on McCain will not mobilize any GOP voters. At best, some will hold their nose and pull the McCain lever. At worst, some Republican voters will actually follow their advice and vote for Hillary. Many will be so depressed that they do not vote at all.

[Jeebus]

As for hatred for Hillary driving the GOP voters, not so fast. The holy trinity of neo-conservative voters, Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity, have been so vocal against McCain that they are literally advocating a vote for Hillary if McCain is the GOP nominee. While one may speculate as to their motives, this type of non-stop attack on McCain will not mobilize any GOP voters. At best, some will hold their nose and pull the McCain lever. At worst, some Republican voters will actually follow their advice and vote for Hillary. Many will be so depressed that they do not vote at all.

I see this happening as well. I've also heard Savage bash McCain as well. These neo-cons are digging a hole too deep to crawl out of, although I really think they want a dem as president. If not, then what will they have to talk about on their shows? No hot-topic "told-you-so's" mean no ratings, mean no advertisers, meaning show cancellations.

[wakester]

One surprise that I have seen is that it is not the "whites" that seen to not support Obama (with Edwards out the vote seems to be split between Obama and Hillary) but other minority groups (Latino, Asians, ...) Which is a surprise since you would figure that if Obama can break through the "All White Male" barrier, it would make it easier for other minority groups.

As a Democrat you hope that the Latinos are voting "for" Hillary and not against Obama. Otherwise if Obama gets the nomination and loses their vote he will be toast.

[BryanS]

I think that the Dems, aside from the fact that they do not have the numbers to override Republican opposition, were so fixated on regaining the presidency that they backed away from protracted fights to keep the larger goal attainable. While this infuriated the extreme wings of the Democratic Party, it gave the GOP little amunition to use against them. Besides, on the big issue, the war, there is no easy solution. Pulling out the troops will cause an escalation of violence in the power vacuum. Knowing this, many of the pragmatic Dems preferred to let Bush have his way, and attack HIS approach instead.

Frankly, it worked. Opposition to the war remains at 70%, and Dems can point out that Republicans had the numbers to block anything they tried. Bush even helped out with a veto or two.

As for hatred for Hillary driving the GOP voters, not so fast. The holy trinity of neo-conservative voters, Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity, have been so vocal against McCain that they are literally advocating a vote for Hillary if McCain is the GOP nominee. While one may speculate as to their motives, this type of non-stop attack on McCain will not mobilize any GOP voters. At best, some will hold their nose and pull the McCain lever. At worst, some Republican voters will actually follow their advice and vote for Hillary. Many will be so depressed that they do not vote at all.

I think that the neo-con beating of McCain is their attempt to force him into their corner, at any cost. It certainly is de-motivational for the avg GOP voter. With Hillary now out of money... and Obama in the lead (just barely)... what would the neo-con position be on an Obama vs. McCain match up? Coutler said that, "I would vote for the devil (i.e. Hillary) over John McCain"... can she, and those like her, take that same position with Obama? I think their anti-McCain positions will erode if Obama makes it, because he's less polarizing than Hillary, and suddenly, their gonna find themselves needing to support their party's nominee (begrudgingly) because Obama just might win this thing...

[satriela]

As a Democrat you hope that the Latinos are voting "for" Hillary and not against Obama. Otherwise if Obama gets the nomination and loses their vote he will be toast.

So do you think latinos will sit out or defect to McCain should Obama get the nomination?

[musicman]

i think the reps are against hilary because if she does ultimately get the nomination, she will feel the pressure to put barack on the ticket. this combo won't be beat. but if barack gets the nomination, there won't be the same pressure on him.

[satriela]

i think the reps are against hilary because if she does ultimately get the nomination, she will feel the pressure to put barack on the ticket. this combo won't be beat. but if barack gets the nomination, there won't be the same pressure on him.

And he'd be dumb to put Hillary on the ticket when he can just as easily win with Edwards without having to deal with Bill...

[CDeb]

And then there were three (with a shot, at least).....

Feb. 7, 2008, 11:59AM

Romney suspending GOP presidential bid

By LIZ SIDOTI

Associated Press

WASHINGTON

[musicman]

mccain huckabee ticket anyone?

[west20th]

mccain huckabee ticket anyone?

Naw, no fun. He should pick Ted Kennedy so we can watch Rush's and Ann Coulter's head explode.

[TheNiche]

Naw, no fun. He should pick Ted Kennedy so we can watch Rush's and Ann Coulter's head explode.

No, what'd be really funny is if he picked Leiberman. The screaming heads like Leiberman, remember, because of his stance on the war...never mind his stance on just about anything else.

EDIT: In all truthfulness, a McCain/Leiberman ticket would probably be pretty hard to beat. Nobody's talking about disaffected Democrat voters, but a lot of them don't like their choices either. Obama lacks experience and runs on undefined 'change,' Clinton's key qualifications are her marriage and ability to dodge any number of scandals, and neither is credible. Give them a couple of ballsey straight-talking bi-partisans, and watch the fireworks.

[houstonmacbro]

I would hope people vote FOR someone based on ability to lead this country than AGAINST someone because of their gender or race.

[musicman]

I would hope people vote FOR someone based on ability to lead this country than AGAINST someone because of their gender or race.

go work the polls sometime. it would surprise you how people vote. it wouldnt' surprise me if a good number didn't know what gender or race was.

[houstonmacbro]

go work the polls sometime. it would surprise you how people vote. it wouldnt' surprise me if a good number didn't know what gender or race was.

I'm like that a lot with local elections. I tend to not know who people are.

[westguy]

No, what'd be really funny is if he picked Leiberman. The screaming heads like Leiberman, remember, because of his stance on the war...never mind his stance on just about anything else.

EDIT: In all truthfulness, a McCain/Leiberman ticket would probably be pretty hard to beat. Nobody's talking about disaffected Democrat voters, but a lot of them don't like their choices either. Obama lacks experience and runs on undefined 'change,' Clinton's key qualifications are her marriage and ability to dodge any number of scandals, and neither is credible. Give them a couple of ballsey straight-talking bi-partisans, and watch the fireworks.

McCain and Lieberman only have the balls to stand up for the status quo. Does anyone actually like either one?

[BryanS]

The Democrats may have just screwed themselves. Since there is no winner-take-all rule... and the race is near 50-50... and you cannot capitalize on lop-sided victories in either Michigan or FL (they've been stripped of their delegates)... Seems like the perfect storm has emerged that has the real promise of guaranteeing an upheaval in the democratic field on a level never seen before. Basically, the "regular voters" aren't going to decide this thing...

...ran across this at americablog...

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/wash-po...or-hillary.html

The Washington Post's Paul Kane: "We've done a bad job of explaining this, but it is now basically mathematically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win the nomination through the regular voting process (meaning the super-delegates decide this one, baby!).

"Here's the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination. To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obamb roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece. That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

"So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

"Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and bothing finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates. And then the super delegates decide this thing. That's the math."

[memebag]

The Democrats may have just screwed themselves. Since there is no winner-take-all rule... and the race is near 50-50... and you cannot capitalize on lop-sided victories in either Michigan or FL (they've been stripped of their delegates)... Seems like the perfect storm has emerged that has the real promise of guaranteeing an upheaval in the democratic field on a level never seen before. Basically, the "regular voters" aren't going to decide this thing...

Doesn't matter. Democrats aren't threatening to vote Republican (or stay home) if their boy (or girl) doesn't get the nomination.

[musicman]

McCain and Lieberman only have the balls to stand up for the status quo.

not sure any of the candidates have balls to change the status quo for real.