Super Tuesday Live Blog by Rick Klein
Email12:50 am ET: I’m going to call it a night (or a morning) on the blog. McCain is the night’s big winner, YET he may have a reinvigorated Mike Huckabee to contend with. Clintons take the clear edge BUT may not come out tonight with the most delegates, the most votes, or the most states.
Again — this is why they vote. And we’re still watching this wide open race…
Check back tomorrow for The Note’s full wrap, analysis, and look ahead…
12:34 am ET: Missouri is bouncing back and forth all night. Obama could really use another big win, in addition to Connecticut, now that California is lost.
12:28 am ET: The astute Karen Travers notes — With more than 11 million votes cast in the Democratic contests nationwide, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in the national popular vote by only 46,000 votes — less than 1% difference.
12:26 am ET: ROMNEY GETS COLORADO’S CAUCUSES.
12:19 am ET: It’s Super Wednesday now, as our Sam Donaldson pointed out on ABC News Now. And MCCAIN TAKES CALIFORNIA — a very, very nice night for him just got the biggest cherry possible on top.
12:15 am ET: ABC calls California for Clinton — this is THE BIGGEST ONE OF THE NIGHT, BAR NONE. At bottom, her strengths held. Obama will win more states, but Clinton will win a big edge in the popular vote, and a decisive edge in the number of delegates.
From our polling unit:
"Hillary Clinton won overwhelming support among Hispanic voters in California, while Obama narrowly led among whites (49% to 43 %) and claimed about eight in 10 black voters. About three in 10 primary voters were Hispanic (29 percent), a record share of Latinos in a California Democratic primary electorate (they’ve never before exceeded 17 percent in CA)."
California Democratic primary
Hispanic voters
Clinton 66 %
Obama 33
"Obama ran particularly strong among white men, beating Clinton 60% to 33% while losing to Clinton among white women 53% to 40% ."
"Clinton did particularly well among older Latinos, beating Obama 78 % to 21 % among Hispanics 60 or older. And she cut into one of Obama’s strongest groups -younger voters – claiming 47 % of those 18-29 to his 51%."
"About eight in 10 California Democratic primary voters were rank-and-file Democrats, and they went solidly for Clinton (55% to 41 %). Half were liberals, dividing their votes equally between Obama and Clinton."
12:08 am ET: CLINTON TAKES ARIZONA — a mild blow to Obama, who would have liked this one. And further complicating a wacky evening. And MCCAIN TAKES MISSOURI.
12:02 am ET: Obama still speaking past midnight, and it’s another one of his good ones. But words will be subsumed by Missouri and California still tonight.
11:57 pm ET: HUCKABEE TAKES TENNESSEE. Dizzy yet? What a whirlwind.
11:56 pm ET: Yet another red state for OBAMA: UTAH, ABC News reports.
11:53 pm ET: In keeping with his practice, lots of little shots at Clinton in Obama’s speech — the war, lobbyist money, looking back or looking forward, Iran.
11:48 pm ET: This may be the best we’re going to get out of California for a while: "In California, at this point ABC News does not have enough information yet to project a winner in either race. But we can say that our analysis of the vote in so far indicates that Clinton and McCain are both leading."
The margin matters, but this remains the big prize of the night — or of tomorrow morning.
11:43 pm ET: And here comes Obama . . . His money line comes early: "There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know: Our time has come. Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America."
It is real, but we don’t know whether his time has come yet. It sure looks like it’s coming. It did not arrive tonight.
11:40 pm ET: As McCain speaks, ABC calls GEORGIA FOR HUCKABEE. Hello, sir. Welcome back. We’ve missed you.
11:38 pm ET: McCain declares himself the frontrunner — a bold move on a good (but hardly great) night for McCain. That’s a lot coming from a superstitious candidate. But he wanted to end this tonight — yet he may have twice as many serious challengers as he did yesterday. After helping Huckabee win West Virginia, be careful what you wish for.
11:35 pm ET: California awards its delegates proportionally on both the Democratic and Republican sides. And still — don’t expect it to be called any time in the next few hours. It’s going to almost certainly drive the day-after coverage
11:33 pm ET: And add MINNESOTA to ROMNEY’S collection too. Almost enough wins tonight for a press release declaring victory. Almost.
11:27 pm ET: More good Western news from ROMNEY: He takes MONTANA, not a huge cache, but he gets all 25 delegates.
11:23 pm ET: Two more OBAMA caucus wins: IDAHO and COLORADO. These sort of quiet wins may be enough for him to grab the delegate advantage tonight.
11:20 pm ET: STILL a tight race in Missouri:
11:18 pm ET: The last of the major candidates should be speaking soon — McCain and Obama. I’m very curious about whether we get a "victory" speech from Obama — I’m fairly confident we’ll get one from McCain.
11:08 pm ET: We’re nowhere near calling a winner in California, where polls just closed, BUT consider this from the exit polls:
Hillary Clinton won overwhelming support among Hispanic voters in California, while Obama narrowly led among whites (49% to 44%) and claimed about three-quarters of all black voters. Preliminary exit poll results found that about three in 10 primary voters were Hispanic (29 percent), a record share of Latinos in a California Democratic primary electorate (they’ve never before exceeded 17 percent in CA).
They went 2-1 for Obama.
Clinton did particularly well among older Latinos, beating Obama 76% to 23% among Hispanics 60 or older. And she cut into one of Obama’s strongest groups -younger voters – claiming 46% of those 18-29 to his 54%.
More than eight in 10 California Democratic primary voters were rank-and-file Democrats, and they went solidly for Clinton (55% to 40%). Half were liberals, dividing their votes between Obama (48%) and Clinton (47%).
11:05 pm ET: Mitt Romney gets a win in a state he hasn’t lived in! NORTH DAKOTA’S REPUBLICANS ARE GOING FOR ROMNEY, a winner-take-all state with 23 RNC delegates.
11:03 pm ET: Is this the power of immigration? Gary Langer, on why it took so long to call Arizona: "McCain’s challenge in Arizona was that again he lost conservatives there – 47 percent for Romney, 36 percent for McCain – and conservatives accounted for 66 percent of the AZ GOP voters."
11 pm ET: ABC calls ARIZONA FOR MCCAIN. It took a bit longer than he would have preferred to lock down his home state, surely, but that’s another winner-take-all state (53 delegates) for McCain.
10:52 pm ET: As Clinton speaks, the crowd at Obama HQ in Chicago booed, per ABC’s David Wright. She delivers her basic stump to a national television audience — including a shout-out to the website — trying to build an e-mail list, are we?
10:50 pm ET: Indeed, the Obama spin is focusing on Connecticut — first line from a memo just put out: "Surprisingly strong performances in Senator Clinton’s backyard has Senator Obama in a strong position on Super Tuesday." Also — they point out he’s won five of eight "red states" to have winners so far.
10:49 pm ET: Anyone else catch Bill Richardson on ABC just now? Did he stop shaving since he left the race?
10:46 pm ET: We’re told to expect Clinton to speak momentarily — interesting that the campaign would decide to go before Obama speaks, ceding him what will probably be primo position.
10:44 pm ET: Another caucus pickup for Obama: MINNESOTA WILL GO TO OBAMA, ABC reports.
10:43 pm ET: Some more details on Connecticut, from our polling unit: "Women divided more narrowly in Connecticut than in states where Clinton performed better – she won them by a fairly narrow 52-45 percent, while Obama won men by a much broader 56-38 percent. Again there were many more women voting – 59 percent, but that 18-point Obama lead among men made the difference for Obama."
"Additionally, the two ran very closely among white voters – 49-47 percent. Blacks accounted for 8 percent of voters in the Connecticut Democratic primary – a far smaller share than in some other states – but Obama won 72 percent of them. And unlike Clinton’s sizable lead among Hispanics in many other states, in Connecticut Hispanics, 6 percent of voters, favored Obama by a 10-point margin."
So not only is it in Clinton’s backyard, it’s a state where Obama actually did break through beyond the demographics that reside in his wheelhouse.
10:37 pm ET: Probably Obama’s biggest win of the night so far: ABC is calling CONNECTICUT FOR OBAMA. Clinton had the edge in the polls right up to election day, and this borders the state Clinton represents in the Senate. This will be on the list of states the Obama campaign will try to drill into our collective skulls over the next few days.
10:33 pm ET: Romney has lots of friends behind them — but could have used them elsewhere in the country. "One thing that’s clear is that this campaign’s going on," he said. Yes — but you may not be part of it.
Now, to be fair, he can stay in this thing as long as he wants (or as long as Ann allows him to keep writing checks).
10:28 pm ET: The home states (and adopted home states) continue to come through: OBAMA WILL TAKE KANSAS, ABC News projects. He had Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ support, and he visited his grandfather’s hometown last week to highlight lesser-known aspects of his biography.
This is one of the red states with caucuses where Obama is expecting to win — with Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota also on that list tonight.
10:16 pm ET: The Clinton campaign is first out of box turning Super Tuesday into a fundraising appeal: "From Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Arkansas, to New Jersey, Massachusetts, and my home state of New York, the good news just keeps coming in. We’re off to a great start tonight, and I know it would not have been possible without you."
10:12 pm ET: NORTH DAKOTA GOES TO OBAMA, per ABC News. There’s the race, right there in Fargo.
10:09 pm ET: Huckabee is calling it a "two-man race." Classic line. Now — will he start swinging at McCain? Or will he continue to play it safe and friendly? It’s gotten him this far . . . but it’s not likely to take him all the way.
10:03 pm ET: Early returns are encouraging for Clinton in Missouri and New Jersey. Those would be huge wins for her — those plus California would make her the big winner tonight, by far.
10 pm ET: At poll closing time in Utah, ABC is calling OKLAHOMA FOR MCCAIN and UTAH FOR ROMNEY. So Romney gets his long-awaited second victory of the evening, a total non-surprise. He has to win at least a state or two where he hasn’t lived — he already won his native Michigan, and lost New Hampshire (where he has a vacation home), so he’s running out of states where he say he lives or has lived.
As Romney’s rough night continues, consider this Romney quote from earlier in the day (before any returns came in), courtesy of ABC’s John Berman: "I will look at the results on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning along with my team as well as advisers who care very deeply about the future of the country and will assess, ‘What does this tell us?’ And there are so many possible different scenarios, there are so many different things that could happen from a very strong finish to a not-so-strong finish to strong in some states to weaker in other states to strength in one region to not strength overall – these permutations are so significant in their very ability, that I’d think you’d have to wait and see the numbers to make any kind of assessment as to where itâs going to lead you."
You can hear the management consultant in him — and if he approaches his campaign with appropriate detachment, he’s going to have to make some touch choices pretty shortly now.
9:43 pm ET: DopeyDwarf — Florida awarded no delegates, much to the Clinton campaign’s consternation. The state will send delegates to the convention — and the smart money says they’ll end up being seated as delegates, since in all likelihood the nomination will be wrapped up by then. If it isn’t — get ready for a big summer intra-party fight in Denver.
9:40 pm ET: From ABC’s Jake Tapper: Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman says, given the returns coming in, "Romney keeps talking about how this is a two-man race. We agree with him. And the two men are John McCain and Mike Huckabee." What we’ll hear fom Huckabee tonight – about winning with message, not money, and about how he can consolidate and unite conservatives.
9:34 pm ET: Huckabee is making a strong claim to being taken seriously again. He could win more states and more delegates than Romney tonight. I don’t know that that leaves him well-positioned to challenge McCain, but it could boost him and set up a big choice — does he take on his friend as directly as, say, Romney has?
9:29 pm ET: Our polling folks see New Jersey playing out like much of the country, with gender and racial gaps: "Women made the difference for Clinton in New Jersey, she won them by 54-44 percent, losing men by about the same margin – but women were the bigger group, accounting for 58 percent of voters. She also won Hispanic as well as white voters, while Obama prevailed among blacks. . . . There was a massive generation gap in New Jersey, with Obama winning young voters by 30 points, Clinton winning seniors by the same margin."
9:26 pm ET: Another ABC projection: OBAMA WILL WIN ALABAMA. Another decent-sized Southern state in his column. And another indication that this evening is providing a split decision from Democrats.
9:24 pm ET: ABC projects MCCAIN WILL WIN NEW YORK. Put another winner-take-all state — the biggest on the map today — in McCain’s column. He can thank Rudy and George Pataki. And he is seeing his delegate lead swell.
9:23 pm ET: Louise — I think it’s too early to call it a good night or a bad night for either Democrat. Surely they both have enough to point to (and spin) victory regardless of what else happens.
9:20 pm ET: One of the few storylines that appear safe to discern at this hour: This is a difficult night for Mitt Romney. He has only one victory to show for the evening so far — his home state. He’ll sure take Utah as well. BUT if he takes California later tonight, much will be forgiven and forgotten. If not — time to decide how many more checks you can write, Mitt.
9:18 pm ET: ABC calls NEW JERSEY FOR CLINTON. Can you hear those sighs of relief over at Camp Clinton? A big one to pull out — she is definitely holding her own, despite a rough 10-day stretch for her campaign.
9:05 pm ET: ABC calling DELAWARE FOR OBAMA. What a night so far — states are falling into both columns. No clear winner tonight yet.
9:03 pm ET: ABC calling ALABAMA FOR HUCKABEE. Get out a scorecard — voters are again sending all sort of messages. It’s not looking like a McCain sweep, not at all, though he’s still having a pretty good night.
9 pm ET: At poll closing time, ABC is projecting NEW YORK FOR CLINTON. Not a surprise at all — but we’ll be watching the margin closely as the evening progresses.
Clinton "ate into Obama’s strongest voter group, claiming 39% of all votes cast by black voters in New York," per Gary Langer. "That’s his smallest share of African-Americans, and Clinton’s highest, in any state voting today."
8:57 pm ET: ABC calls MASSACHUSETTS FOR CLINTON. Big, big win for her — Kerry plus Kennedy plus Deval Patrick = a Clinton victory. That’s intimidating. (And props to Mayor Tom Menino, who I used to cover up in Boston — big win for his machine over basically everyone else’s.)
The Clinton campaign is labeling it the "upset of the night." It’s not that, but it’s a huge boost to Clinton — something to point to even if the rest of the night goes sour.
8:53 pm ET: To the Paul followers — thanks, as always, for clicking. But until or unless Ron Paul starts registering in the voting, I can’t imagine me or anyone else really focusing on him too much.
8:50 pm ET: We have a squeaker in Missouri — fast becoming (if it wasn’t already) one of the handful of states that will dictate the evening’s winners and losers. On the GOP side, Gary Langer, writes, "Huckabee is doing best among evangelicals, who account half of Missouri Republicans, and among voters who want a candidate who shares their values. Romney holds second place in these groups. McCain, however, won among the fifth of voters who want a candidate who has the right experience, as well as among the quarter of voters looking mainly for a straight-talker. Romney ran runs a close second on experience."
"The Missouri Democratic race also is close. Change is the primary attribute voters are looking for in a candidate, as has been the case in earlier states, with just over half saying so, and Obama beat Clinton 2-1 among them. ‘Change’ has long been Obama’s strong suit. But about two in 10 say they’re looking mainly for experience, and Clinton dominates here as in earlier states, taking just over nine in 10 of these voters, her strongest showing among ‘experience’ voters so far this season."
8:40 pm: Connecticut and New Jersey are still pending on the Democratic side — this is more than the Clinton campaign wanted to sweat the tri-state area.
8:35 pm: ABC is calling DELAWARE FOR MCCAIN. With it comes all of the state’s 18 delegates — and another Northeastern state in the McCain column.
8:31 pm: Well — what we said about race earlier, we can throw that out in Tennessee. From ABC’s Gary Langer: "In the Tennessee Democratic race, race proved the dramatic difference. Whites in Tennessee went strongly for Clinton – 65-24 percent over Obama. And while Obama won 77 percent of blacks, they were a smaller group than in other southern states – 29 percent of voters were blacks, vs. half in Georgia and Alabama."
8:30 pm ET: Polls just closed in Arkansas, and ABC is projecting ARKANSAS FOR HUCKABEE AND CLINTON. It was basically a home game for both of them, and Arkansas voters are loyal — 61 percent of GOP voters had a favorable opinion of Huckabee, and 85 percent of Democratic voters had a favorable opinion of Clinton, who was the state’s first lady before she was the nation’s first lady.
This is a big state for evangelicals, and Huckabee needed this win rather badly. (Wonder if he’s winning enough today, regardless of what happens from here, to stay in the race — and he’s shown that he’s a threat for as long as he’s in the race.)
And we’re hearing Romney is about 30 minutes away from addressing his crowd in Boston. Sounds like someone has an early bedtime (or doesn’t want to wait up for California).
8:23 pm ET: Final Illinois exit polls are in, and Obama won white women in his home state 61-38. Like in Iowa, white voters seem more inclined to support him in places where they know Obama better.
8:17 pm ET: ABC calling Tennessee for Clinton — a big-ish win for her, in a state where she had the edge but Obama was showing some strength. Some Clinton spin: "For months, the Obama campaign has been spinning that they have a monopoly on red states; tonight we showed that they don’t."
8:05 pm: Bad omen at Huckabee HQ: Power went out, per ABC’s Jake Tapper. Tornados in the state could impact turnout — polls don’t close there until 8:30 pm ET.
8 pm ET: BIG hour for poll closings. Based on exit poll data, in the Democratic primary ABC News projects: OKLAHOMA FOR CLINTON, ILLINOIS FOR OBAMA.
On the Republican side, MASSACHUSETTS FOR ROMNEY, NEW JERSEY, CONNECTICUT, AND ILLINOIS FOR MCCAIN.
So Romney can breathe a little easier — he wins his home state. But that’s a proportional state (as is Illinois) McCain just won two big winner-take-all states: New Jersey (52 delegates) and Connecticut (27). Remember tonight: Not all wins are created equal. Northeastern Republicans aren’t showing Romney much love — except in his home state.
ABC’s polling unit on McCain’s win in Connecticut: "John McCain did well enough with conservatives in Connecticut to win the state on the basis of his overwhelming support among moderate voters." This was pretty much a head-to-head win for McCain; Huckabee wasn’t much of a factor in the Nutmeg State.
Obama is cruising to a huge win in his home state of Illinois, as expected. He’s got a big edge among white women in the state, 61-38. Latino voters split just about evently between the two — not a great sign for Obama tonight.
On the Republican side in Illinois, McCain won across the board, "including mainline Republicans and evangelicals as well as his more customary core support groups, moderates and independents," per ABC’s Gary Langer. "According to preliminary exit poll results, Rudy Giulianiâs endorsement played well here; almost half of GOP voters said it was important in their decision, and this group went heavily to McCain."
7:58 pm ET: Lou — I’d just mention that we at ABC DO NOT make projections until after a state’s polls are closed. We make calls only after the calls can’t impact voters’ choices, since these elections are state-by-state ballots.
7:50 pm ET: We now know why Hillary Clinton never talked about Super Tuesday without mentioning American Samoa — ABC is projecting her as the winner in the territory. She’ll probably pick up two of American Samoa’s 3 pledged delgates.
7:36 pm ET: A valid point, HuckabeeRocks. Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Magazine’s blog raises the intriguing possibility: "If Mike Huckabee, as yours truly suggested might happen, beats all the odds and gets more delegates than Romney tonight will the talk radio anti-McCain voices holler for Romney to drop out and get out of Huckabeeâs way?"
7:32 pm: This just in from the Clinton campaign, labeled as "Surrogate alert: Super Tuesday talking points" (and you tell me whether this is actually reacting to today’s events, or whether they were prepared in advance: "Weâre excited by what weâre seeing. We have 21 states that are still outstanding where we expect to pick up a significant number of new delegates. To be sure, both campaigns have a long night ahead of them â but we feel very good about the numbers that weâre seeing."
The memo then goes on to argue that the Obama campaign put far more effort into Georgia than Clinton has. "Polls have consistently showed Sen. Obama with wide lead over Sen Clinton. That lead has only widened over time."
And an update with the final wave of exit polls in Georgia: Obama actually lost among white men and white women, but it was close among white men, 49-46. Among black voters, Obama won 88-11. Wow. It wasn’t that long ago that we were all writing stories about how the Clintons would split the black vote with Obama.
7:25 pm: The Obama campaign is talking up the Georgia win, particularly the racial breakdown. It looks like he got 43 percent of white voters — compared to 24 percent in South Carolina a week and a half ago. The big concern out of South Carolina was, Is Barack Obama now the "black" candidate? Georgia has delivered its answer: No.
7:01 pm ET: I’ll be on ABC News Now for much of the night, in between blogging. Check us out here.
7 pm ET: Georgia’s polls have closed, and ABC IS PROJECTING OBAMA AS THE WINNER IN GEORGIA. This gives Obama an edge in the biggest delegate prize in the South — 87 pledged delegates are at stake in Georgia.
This is not a huge surprise — polls suggested a double-digit victory was likely — and Obama appears to have received a huge share of black votes, with 86-13 edge that mirrors the advantage he’s had in other states. But ABC’s polling director, Gary Langer, says that Obama may also have narrowly beaten Clinton among white men in Georgia (50-45 percent in preliminary exit poll results) — picking up voters that had supported John Edwards in the past.
(It also gives Obama the first hour of media coverage — with nothing else to talk about yet, this win will get outsized coverage.)
On the Republican side, the race can’t be called yet. Get this — it’s a THREE-WAY race according to exit polls. You’ve gotta think that, without Huckabee in the mix, Romney would be winning the state going away. This could be a major theme of the eveving, the Huckster hurting the Mittster.
6:05 pm ET: A quick read on the preliminary exit polls, taken together across all the states — interpret as you will. First, change is swamping experience as the top quality on Democrats’ minds, by a 52-23 margin. Hispanics are showing up in almost equal numbers to African-Americans — I truly don’t know how to read that one. Early exit polls (which may be way off because of who votes early) show decent but not spectacular turnout among younger voters.
On the Republican side, higher-than-expected turnout among conservatives and evangelicals. And "shares my values" is substantially more important than "experience" as a quality they want in a candidate.
5:12 pm ET: The buzz early in the day was Mitt Romney seeming to slam Bob Dole. I do understand his point — Dole was the next in line candidate, from the Senate, and that didn’t work out too well for the GOP. But how will the slight play in Kansas, where the Republican caucuses will be held on Saturday? Here’s guessing that party loyalists in Kansas sort of think Bob Dole is a deity. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., is pretty sure of how it’s going to play…
4:58 pm ET: Our first major marking point of the evening will come at 7 pm ET, when Georgia’s polls close. The biggest prize of the south… But the main events will come at 8 pm ET (10 states close polls), and then some time (probably well) after 11 pm ET, when the California polls close.
There are lots of ways to judge winners and losers — overall popular vote, number of states won, number of delegates won. In determining who did well and who didn’t, I’d recommend using some combination of those three measurements. All have their own roles in tonight’s coverage.
4:45 pm ET: Because there’s so little else to do on election days themselves (witness the candidates themselves voting and then going essentially dark today) . . .
Coming into the evening, Barack Obama has reason to ooze confidence, while Hillary Clinton’s folks seem worried. Consider this: Has Clinton "won" a single news cycle since Obama’s landslide victory 10 days ago, in South Carolina? Since then, we’ve had the Kennedy endorsement(s), news that Obama roughly tripled Clinton’s fundraising in January, and polls that have consistently shown Obama surging, both nationally and in the Feb. 5 states.
Then, today came news that Sen. Clinton has accepted three debate invitations — including one on Fox News, which is sure to enrage the liberal base. A convenient time to accept such invites — leading candidates almost never want MORE opportunities to stumble. Sen. Obama has no incentive to agree to any of the forums quickly.
I just spoke to a smart Democratic operative who offered a quick way to look at tonight on the Democratic side. Three key contests could tell the tales we care about — New Jersey, Missouri, and California. Whoever wins two could be tonight’s winner, particularly if one of those two is California. And considering Clinton’s long-held edge in NJ and CA, Obama wins there would be huge. There would then be one frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, and it wouldn’t be Clinton.
3:55 pm ET: Happy Super Tuesday everyone — Rick Klein here from ABC’s The Note. I’ll be live-blogging the election results all night tonight, in a running conversation about what this unprecedented day in American politics means.
We already have our first results in — the West Virginia state Republican convention, a caucus-style event that took place this afternoon. Don’t read too much into this — only 18 delegates were awarded to the winner, Mike Huckabee — but this is a semi-significant blow to Mitt Romney. First, Romney needs all the wins he can get today, and he was really counting on this one to power himself into the evening’s news coverage. They were so confident that a top adviser told ABC’s John Berman yesterday: "You are going to want to be there. We are going to win there."
Then there’s the manner of the loss. Whether or not there was an explicit deal, it’s very clear from the vote allocation that John McCain’s supporters went with Mike Huckabee on the second ballot. This can’t be replicated in most states (there’s no re-voting until someone gets to 50 percent in primary states) but this is a prime example of why Huckabee’s candidacy is a threat to Romney. Huckabee is almost certainly taking social conservative votes away from Romney today. And McCain supporters in West Virginia used Huckabee to play a strategic game, using the system to deny Romney a batch of delegates.
Romney campaign manager Beth Myers is trying to make the loss part of Romney’s anti-Washington message: "Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."
But as the CEO of the West Virginia Republican Presidential Convention, Bob Fish, told ABC News’ Teddy Davis, "Welcome to politics."
And, just maybe, welcome to a long night for Mitt Romney.
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
I am really disappointed with the news media. It seems to me that all stations are pushing Senator Obama. The news reflect all of Senator Obama’s good points and Senator Clinton’s unfavorable points. Why not be fair and balanced with all candidates. Mrs. Obama can say anything she please without any outrage while at the same time former President Clinton can make a trueful statement and get jumped on and an apology demanded. I am truly disappointed in the media. This race should be called “THE MAKING OF A PRESIDENT.”
Posted by: charles matthews | February 5, 2008, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
Rick – when will GA start to come in?
Posted by: Kevin | February 5, 2008, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
This is proof that religious intolerance reigns true in politics. The media is wrong about conservative voters. For many of them it isn’t about the issues. It’s about stopping the “mormon” from winning. America is no longer America.
Posted by: Toru | February 5, 2008, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
What about what the Ron Paul website is saying: that some of the WV delegates are going to Paul because of the Paul delegates agreeing to put Huckabee over the top to be declared the winner there?
Posted by: lamb | February 5, 2008, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
Charles– a “trueful statement”? Good grief.
Mrs. Obama is not a former President of the United States. Nor is she, as far as I know, a proven liar.
That’s the difference, Charles.
Posted by: Colfax | February 5, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
McCain is shamefully at it again! The, “I’m a war hero” wasn’t working and the lies about Romney weren’t working so he resorted to more dirty tricks. Huckabee and he deserve each other, but neither of them deserve the white house.
Romney is amazing! He has been lied about, dragged through the mud of religious bigotry, labeled as a flip-flopper even though he only flipped for the better and has truly had to deal with a lot of dirty tricks (this latest one in WV included) and he still sees the positive side of things.
Romney is the most qualified for the presidency based on his education, experience, wisdom and integrity alone, but he also has something the other Republican candidates lack… Romney has decorum!
Consider McCain’s horrible temperament and manipulative ways and Huckabee’s goofiness and self-righteousness… How can any Republican vote against Romney? He would make such a great president!
Posted by: Go Romney! | February 5, 2008, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
Super Tuesday is a failure for the Stock market and America’s economy. Many have been saying around the country that we are already in a recession. However, President Bush, the Republicans, and wall street are all avoiding the term recession. There is one thing I have to ask, with all the knowledge about economics the Republicans claim to have, why is it they do not understand the one simple rule for a working economy? ‘A working economy only works when the people in that economy are working.’ Strange how none of the Republican experts know this simple rule. Because if they did then in 2002 they would have never given GOVERNMENT financial incentives to corporations to take American high tech and other jobs overseas. If they knew the simple rule of a working economy, they would have never changed the rules of engagement in the foreign trade agreement that slowly took jobs away from Americans during the Nixon years. Take a look during each time. 1970s while slowly through those years of Nixon taking jobs away from the American workers, producing less products with less exports out of the country, having more imports of foreign products competing with American products, closing production all together with some companies who opened production in foreign countries by late 1970s the ugly monster of recession showed itself. During the 1980′s slowly through those 8 years of sending more jobs overseas, closing more plants, less production in American products being sent overseas with more Foreign imports coming in competing with the few products produced in America gave way to an even more frightening horrid creature of a depression. This time beginning when GW Bush took office in the White House, the recession monster has sprung out from hiding, with the 2002 Government financial incentives for companies to send American high tech and other jobs overseas. Bush said:”We are no longer a High Tech America We are a service America.” What a joke!
Posted by: Angel | February 5, 2008, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm
I wish John Edwards had provided me with guidance – like an endorsement! About 6 months ago I decided that John Edwards was absolutely my candidate, and didn’t research the others’ positions on issues. Today, I felt lost, but voted with my heart, not my head. I feel left in the lurch by the Edwards campaign.
Posted by: Judith | February 5, 2008, 6:19 pm 6:19 pm
It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation, Yes We Can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed it’s trails toward freedom, Yes We Can…. It was sung by Immigrants as they trudged out deadly shores, Pioneers pushed westward against unforgiving moments, Yes We Can. It is the Call for workers Organized, Women who reached for the ballots, a president who chose to move us to a new frontier and King who led us to the mountain top pointing to the promise land, Yes We Can. Yes we can to justice and equality, Yes We Can…, Yes We can to opportunity and prosperity, Yes We Can to opportunity and prosperity, Yes we can Heal this nation, Yes We can prepare this world, Yes we can. Yes We Can. Yes We Can, We know the battle ahead will call. Always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way nothing can stand in the way the power of millions of voices calling for change, We Want Change…, We have been told we cannot do this by a force of census, it’ll only grow louder and more distant, And asked to paused for a reality check, we’ve been warned against offering people of this nation false hope. But in this unlikely story of America there is NOTHING false about hope. We want change…, And the hopes of the little girl who goes to Public school in Dillon are the same as the hopes of a little boy who learns in the streets of L.A. – We will remember that there is something happening in America that we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We are one People, We are one Nation, and together we will begin the next GREAT Chapter in the American story, with three words that will ring out from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN… Obama Speech Yes We Can!
Posted by: Angel | February 5, 2008, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm
I am from Arizona and would like say that McCain has done nothing for us here. He has flipped on gun registration, the Liberman, McCain gas tax, the Kennedy,McCain amnesty bill, besides the lies he has told. It is all about what is best for him and not what is best for the our state or the country. He admits that he knows nothing about econmics, just about being a war hero. Audie Murphy was a war hero.
Romney saved the Olympics from financial disaster as well as Massachutes as governor. He also has changed and saved many businesses in financial trouble. He is well educated, treats people fairly, gracious, and has many abilities to lead our country down a postive road, instead of destruction.
Posted by: Val Hausmann | February 5, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
An interesting aside: According to a Bloomberg piece yesterday, John McCain has 26 registered lobbyists working for him as campaign advisers or fund raisers, compared with 11 for Clinton, and *NONE* for Obama.
Posted by: Mark | February 5, 2008, 6:31 pm 6:31 pm
The Mittster? I like the Huckster, but can we come up with something better than the Mittster?
I vote for The Huckster and Mittens.
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
You’ve gotta think that, without Romney in the mix, Huckabee would be winning the state going away. This could be a major theme of the eveving, the Mittster hurting the Huckster.
Posted by: HuckabeeRocks | February 5, 2008, 7:34 pm 7:34 pm
Clinton all the way boo Obama
Posted by: kyle | February 5, 2008, 7:48 pm 7:48 pm
It’s just the same in every election – the media starts proclaiming the winner even before the West Coast polls close (not to mention how many days before the WestCoast votes are actually counted) and tries to push their favorite candidate forward. I am so sick and tired of the media and its hype. It’s all tabloid journalism – watch – if Brittney Spears comes out of rehab how fast their attention will focus on her – right in the middle of the election.
They can’t wait to start their hype. I wish we could find a few good journalists and a few good news channels without all the hype.
Posted by: Lou | February 5, 2008, 7:56 pm 7:56 pm
Senator Clinton would make the best Commander-in-Chief…..that is if working for the safety of America and the best interests of our soldiers are essential elements to being a good Commander-in-Chief…..
Posted by: chris | February 5, 2008, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm
when was it appropriate for the volunteers at the voting booth to ask you your political status Republican or Democrat? and tell you … you had to vote your party line. That what happen to my duaghter a first time voter, who went to the polls .. after work today. I was there about 30min before and NO one asked me any such question. I am wondering if her vote really counted!!!
Posted by: J | February 5, 2008, 8:21 pm 8:21 pm
I will make my vote next month …and if OBAMA wins which might be the most unfortunate circumstance …these are possible the same people that went with Bush in last election, thought the war was a good idea and now believe OBAMA is their savior …the Country is doomed I might not vote simply because I really think OBAMA is a bbbbbbaaaaddddd choice…you will be sorry you went with your feeling rather then actual facts…
Posted by: DLE | February 5, 2008, 8:32 pm 8:32 pm
Why are so many of the “talking heads” so focused on whether or not John McCain can garner the support of the conservatives within the Republican party that question his trueness to Republican traditions? In fact, he is more representative of the party prior to it being invaded by the conservative southern democrats when their party abadoned them. The party of Abraham Lincoln would never have embraced the ideology of Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell, or the establishment abuse of Dick Cheney. It would have embraced the military strength, fiscal conservatism and social progressiveness that John McCain represents. If the conservative right is disenfrachised by John McCain, perhaps it is time for them to return to their southern democratic roots.
If John McCain is selected by our party as its presidential candidate, he will be the first true republican to be nominated in 30 years.
Posted by: Lance Hoboy | February 5, 2008, 8:43 pm 8:43 pm
I’m sorry – but is it too much to ask that you put information about Ron Paul on this site. As a CITIZEN of this Country I think I have a right to see his results. I didn’t go and vote for him and send him money so that he can be shunned time and time again by you cowards. You even put up Edwards 3% and he isn’t even in the race. You should be ashamed. Men and women are dying in Iraq and you honor them by suppression. Sick !
Posted by: Amy Daniels | February 5, 2008, 8:46 pm 8:46 pm
3M – The Manchurian Candidate, the Minister, and the Mormon … now things will start getting sticky…
At leat Ron Paul talks about upholding the Constitution , promoting liberty
just don’t cut and run out of Iraq…there are plenty of Democrats to do that.
Any chance the Los Angeles polling fiasco might be due to voting machine rigging?
Posted by: Solid Citizen | February 5, 2008, 8:48 pm 8:48 pm
So far…and I know it’s early…but the results so far surely have to be seen as positive for Hillary?
Posted by: Louise | February 5, 2008, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm
For those of you saying Romney is the most qualified to be president consider the following. What kind of experience does he have, running the Olympics, please!
Second, everyone in America is tired of having right wing conservatives in office, that much is clear. McCain is the best shot Republicans have because he will bring in the independent voters who will be the determining factor in this race. This is why I’m voting for McCain.
Posted by: Joe | February 5, 2008, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm
That “early bead time” comment was unnecessary and shows the writer’s biased, snobby attitude. Just the facts, please.
Posted by: P.C. | February 5, 2008, 9:10 pm 9:10 pm
I can’t believe what I just heard on ABC news. They just said that all of the candidates have each won somewhere in the country. Is that to say that Ron Paul is not a candidate? Or did he win somewhere they aren’t talking about? It’s shameful how the press is so biased and is only covering candidates they feel worthy. . It’s too bad main stream media is no longer trustable or truthful.
Posted by: Schmeff | February 5, 2008, 9:12 pm 9:12 pm
Here is some interesting, and factual, information that the press doesn’t seem to want anyone to see. Has anyone else ever heard of how all the straw polls went? Look at how well Ron Paul has done in them.
Posted by: Schmeff | February 5, 2008, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm
Mike Huckabee should be eternally ashamed of himself for what he has done to the Republican party tonight, what a scumbag!!!. John McAmnesty NEVER EVER gets my vote, I have never voted Democratic in my life, I may if McCain is the nominee.
Posted by: Liam | February 5, 2008, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
After reviewing the comments above, I can see why America is on the path it is.
I am going to go to bed early so that I can wake up, work hard, and pay more taxes for government that doesn’t work for me.
I am a Public High School Dropout who is currently earning in the top 5 percentile, work for myself, paying for my own healthcare(so that I have a choice), and trying to raise a family while paying more than my FAIR SHARE of taxes.
Posted by: Bob | February 5, 2008, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm
I’m a moderate voter and have voted for both sides in the past (Kerry last presidential election, my first… although I would have voted for Bush when he first ran had I been old enough)… and I think it’s funny how the attacks on candidates in the primaries make candidates only look more attractive to me. I love that McCain has reached across the aisle repeatedly and I appreciated that Clinton has been a hawk on the war. Right now I’m rooting for a McCain-Huckabee ticket!! Btw, moderates should give Huckabee another chance… in general, he seems like a clear thinker and willing to do more than become an empty vessel for the party line.
Posted by: Maya | February 5, 2008, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm
This isi a fascinating political day. I have been reading about the recent rallies held by Obama, tens of thousands showing up in Hartford, Minneapolis, Boise – all young, men and woman, ethnically and racially diverse. Tolerant and believing in the American electoral system. They don’t seems to hold any prejudices for or against someone based on race, religion or his stance on immigration. No wonder the rest of the world is watching this process and much of it envying us. Louise (retired Foreign Service Officer)
Posted by: Louise | February 5, 2008, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm
Hi Rick (and thanks for the blog)..
Yeah..it’s too early to call it a good night for either Democratic candidate…but camp Clinton must be happy with Tennessee, and the showing in NJ and Massachusetts…and possibly looking good for Missouri??
I’m following this from Ireland and I have to say…you guys really know how to ‘do’ elections. Really enjoying it here!
Posted by: Louise | February 5, 2008, 9:33 pm 9:33 pm
Can anyone tell me what happened to the Florida’s delegates ? who get them?
Posted by: dopeydwarf71 | February 5, 2008, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm
The question of why young voters have not showed up in greater numbers is easy. There should never be such an important vote like this years held on FAT TUESDAY! I know that the the youth vote is very educated but you weigh it long lines in Caucuses of short skirts at college bars, with cheap drinks and sex beads.
Posted by: Smitty | February 5, 2008, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm
How is it that they can project a vote when only 3% of precincts are reported? Thats like saying that the river is going to flood with only an inch of rain. I am a young voter but I sometimes wonder what the point in voting is because what the people vote for isnt whats counted its the delegate votes that make the decision. Why is that
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm
Well, Diane Sawyer is definitely gleeful that Mitt Romney is losing. Several times in mentioning his name she has laughed out loud! Great unbiased reporting (NOT)~ Its also funny that the only RELIGION mentioned by name is MORMON. funny they can talk about “evangelical christians” without defining denomination.
Posted by: sunnyless south | February 5, 2008, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm
The under 30 vote has not been strong historically, because they are either college students that go to school all day and work in the evenings or they are parents of young children that have to get to daycare after work so they can’t make it to the polls / caucuses before they close – Not because they are lazy or unattentive. Perhaps the next leader of this country will bring the power back to families so time away from the daily grind to do things like having time to vote can be a reality.
Posted by: M | February 5, 2008, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm
Although John Edwards was the weaker of the three Democratic candidates, he was certainly the more honest looking of the bunch. I wish he hadn’t bowed out. Having said that, I have no choice but to go to the dark side…Republican!
Posted by: Gina | February 5, 2008, 9:47 pm 9:47 pm
Interesting results in Missouri. Clinton’s lead includes 0% of St. Louis City and St. Louis County. Look for Obama to come storming back in the Show-Me State. The question is, will it be enough?
MObama? We’ll see…
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 9:47 pm 9:47 pm
The whining is getting a little old. Clinton is trying to hold on against an Obama surge, so naturally the ‘news’ is the surge. That’s what’s changing (aka, news).
And Clinton does seem to be holding, though nothing more. The surge the pollsters saw is real, and is leading to what looks like a bit of parity tonight between Clinton and Obama.
As an Obama supporter, I’ll take it. I think he has an advantage in an extended nomination race. Just a gut feeling based on momentum, but also supported by the reporting of Obama’s now superior financial strength.
Though all this news will be second tier stories is either candidate does better than expected in California. A close race there, and its more of the same. A strong win in votes and delegates by either, and the other states’ results will start to seem a little like old news.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
I don’t trust Obama. He is a smooth talker and his past was quite shady. I believe Clinton is sincere and passionate and she can do so much more for the American people. Don’t look at her as a woman, see her as a strongly commited, experienced, competent leader who can make things work for us.
Go Clinton!
Posted by: Phan | February 5, 2008, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
Hillary is for Insurance Reform and
bringing our troops home…Listen to
a woman for a change…She has proven
over the last 30 years her Interest is
for the American people…
I hope she shows all of them something.
This Country isn’t ready for Obama
and Oprah.
Posted by: bettynorth | February 5, 2008, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
The reason young people aren’t coming out to vote is they are registered independants – most college age kids are – and thus can’t vote in the primaries unless they switch beforehand. Most of us older folks are registered one or the other just so we can vote in a primary. Whether we vote that way at election time is another matter!
Posted by: Loretta | February 5, 2008, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm
Youth vote too low because it’s too difficult for them to vote while away at college We need to make it more convenient for students.
Posted by: joan | February 5, 2008, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm
OUR POLITICAL MELTDOWN SEEMS TO MIRRIOR OUR MORTGAGE MELTDOWN, ALL OF THE CANADATES ARE TOO CAUGHT UP IN THE KILL OF THE WIN THEY LOOSE SIGHT OF THEIR MISSION AND WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO THIS COUNTRY. ANY ONE PERSON WILL NEVER B3E ABLE TO PLEASE ALL! THEREFORE VOTERS ARE CONFUSED!
Posted by: KELLY | February 5, 2008, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm
And to put all this in a larger perspective, it certainly seems like Obama will still be in the race on February 6. What Obama supporter wouldn’t be thrilled to know that for sure six weeks ago, around Christmas time?
How many Clinton supporters thought that was possible six weeks ago?
Obama is running a great campaign against one of the true power players inside the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 9:53 pm 9:53 pm
Oh C’mon Paul…earlier talk on pretty much all the networks were talking about Massachusetts and possibly NJ as moving towards Obama…she did very well to overcome those huge endorsements and still move on…It shows her strength. I reckon that Bill Richardson’s endorsement will be coming soon.
Posted by: Louise | February 5, 2008, 9:54 pm 9:54 pm
Louise, Clinton was up by more than 20 points in each just a couple weeks ago.
I don’t know which networks you watch, but MSNBC was saying if MA and NJ were too close to call for Clinton immediately after the polls close, that could signal a long night for Clinton.
There’s a lot of spin going on, from all campaigns, playing the expectations game. But look at the larger picture. Its been a great run for Obama over the past six weeks.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
WHY IN THIS DAY OF SUPER TECHNOLOGY ARE WE STILL FOOLING AROUND WITH VOTING MACHING & HAND WRITTEN BALLOTS. WILL SOMEONE PLASE BRING US INTO A CENTURY OF VOTING TECHNOLOGY SO WHEN WE VOTE, WE KNOW OUR VOTE COUNTS AND THE WIN IS ACCURATE.
Posted by: KELLY | February 5, 2008, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
You wanted to know if more young people would vote if they “got” something from voting. Voting is, in itself, a privilege. What they get is the freedom to chose, to express themselves, and to participate in their government in a way that no one else in the world is able. I have 15 nieces and nephews. My oldest niece was so proud of the first time she voted, she called me from out of state. Her brother, my 23 year old nephew just returned from 4 years in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Iraq, proudly fighting for what the young people (or any of their citizens) in those nations do not have – the privilege to be a full participant in one’s government. I ask all parents to stress to their children, as mine did, their children’s responsibility, as well as their right, to vote.
Posted by: Kathy (age 43) | February 5, 2008, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
The war in Iraq and this election coverage has made my decision to look elsewhere, for my news….It isn’t a wonder that the internet news is taking over….
The news pundits have decided they are going make the decision as to who will be our next democratic nominee….They are against Hillary Clinton and show, their disdain time and time again….
Where was the news media when George Bush lied to us about weapons of mass destruction….
Where are the hard hitting comments and questions about Obama?….I wonder if it is because Obama is black….Is that why no hard questions?….Or is it because Hillary is a woman that she is being attacked ….
Either way you have lost me as a viewer….
Thank you
Posted by: Mary Ann | February 5, 2008, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
Whether she is ahead or behind of Obama, Clinton has more votes than the Republicans combined in all of the eight states on the main page. What does this portend for November?
Posted by: Ken | February 5, 2008, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
What ABC is failing to realize about the youth vote is the fact that they only have a percentage of precincts reporting. Of course the early results are going to show a weak youth voter turnout, because the youth are WORKING! In order to provide for ourselves in this lackluster economy, we are all working full-time until at least 5pm and then we end up being the latest/last to vote. Another possible reason for the lack of youthful voter turnout could be a result of the poor campaigning by all candidates so none of us, with our shorter attention spans, get a clear picture of candidate’s positions quickly.
Posted by: Terrence | February 5, 2008, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
Obama just picked up North Dakota and Utah.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
You wanted to know why young voters are not voting.
Let college students vote at home during Christmas Break. Many are not at their home state when it is time to vote.
Posted by: anita | February 5, 2008, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
Here’s a mystery. Why is MSNBC showing Obama states in Carolina Blue and Clinton states in Duke Blue?
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:06 pm 10:06 pm
The reason for alot of young voter are not voting is because of the voting window: 1hours and half, 1:30.
When my kids ( 20M/ and 23F) wanted to vote, but because of the long lines, when the cut off time came they was not able to vote.
Maybe the next time they will change the voting time to commendate this new motivated group.
Posted by: HRSLTD | February 5, 2008, 10:06 pm 10:06 pm
Big win for Hillary if she wins Missouri, NJ and California? Have you been looking at the polls other than the last three days??? She’s been up for months in these states, a few polls showing momentum does not a frontrunner make.
Posted by: Paul in MD | February 5, 2008, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm
I new this was going to happen, but the HILLARY HATERS wouldn’t listen. Everyone just hopped on board the OBAMA CHANGE train. Obama is not ready to lead this country and the country is beginning to speak. I couldn’t be more happier that Hillary is ahead! Hillary is exactly what America needs right now. She has the intellect, strength and expeirence to lead this country. GO HILLARY!! HILLARY 08!!!
Posted by: Eric | February 5, 2008, 10:08 pm 10:08 pm
Some media seems to be favoring a candidate (esp CNN). Charles Gibson, George Stephanopolus, and Diane Sawyer, are doing a great job with factual and not personal reporting. a great analysis of popular and deligate vote etc.
Why aren’t young people voting? Do young people have the background knowledge to make a good decision. Obama has his heart in the right place, but is he too “goodie…goodie”. What are his concrete plans?
Senator Clinton’s ability and depth of knowledge to “on the spot” answer questions with concrete answers is phenomenal. She has certainly demonstrated the strength, knowledge, endurance and ability to work on internal and foreign affairs, objectively and in the best interests of the United States.
Posted by: Alice | February 5, 2008, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm
Paul,
I do agree that it has been a fantastic few weeks for Obama, particularly the last 10 days. BUT…I have been following this on the web through all the US news websites (I am in Ireland) and to me they have been pushing the Obama surge big time in the last few days to the extent that we almost felt that Hillary would be doing well to hang on to New York!! I am not saying that Hillary is doing Brilliantly BUT I think she is doing better than people expected 24 hours ago? Granted her massive lead in the polls has gone but I think if you asked camp Clinton if this time last night they would take these results…the answer would be a resounding YES!!
Posted by: Louise | February 5, 2008, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
Fairness will continue to elude the election process until at least two changes occur, 1) elimination of the Electoral College, (very, very few citizens have a clue about how it really works,) and 2) no results divulged until the last voter in the last state casts his/her ballot. Add genuine campaign finance reform and we would have a system that truly reflects the will of the people. Who would resist these changes fiercely? Follow the money trail.
Posted by: rdpruitt1 | February 5, 2008, 10:13 pm 10:13 pm
Louise – appreciate your comments, but the results across the board are pretty much what both campaigns were predicting yesterday. Looks like we’re headed toward a one-day difference of less than a hundred delegates either way, and most inside the campaigns and the news outlets felt that Clinton would get a few more today than Obama. I don’t think either campaign is surprised.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:13 pm 10:13 pm
Paul in MD (and Rick),
Look at Missouri more closely. All of the Democrats in the state are concentrated in KC and St. Louis, and they’re not reporting too much.
Jackson County (KC) – 12% reporting, but going for Obama
St. Louis City – 0% reporting, expected to go at least 2:1 for Obama
St. Louis County – 3% reporting, breaking 60/40-ish for Obama.
St. Louis City essentially has NO REPUBLICANS. Don’t judge results by the central counties. Don’t prognosticate- SHOW ME!
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm
Interesting Jake, but Obama has a lot of votes to make up in Missouri. Hopefully these Democrat-intensive areas can help him do that.
Here’s a question, though. Do they proportion by congressional district? If so, sounds like Clinton already has the state, even if Obama edges her in popular vote. But the delegate edge won’t be more than a couple, I’d guess.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm
Young voters arent voting because they feel its pointless. Stop and think about it. What you vote isnt what determines who wins the state it comes down to how the delegates vote!! It seems as if people just vote because you are suppose to, but does it really count???
I am a voter under 30 and I find time to vote. Maybe its because I live in a small town in Florida but there are ways to make time. There is early voting and absentee ballots so there should be no excuse for not voting
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm
Kansas was just called for Obama.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
I agree Paul, I don’t think that either campaign will be partcularly surprised…but I do think that the Clinton Campaign will be a little relieved…and the Obama campaign maybe a tiny bit disappointed…(although this would never be admitted in public!).
Although that disappointment (be it imagined or actual) could well be dissipated by a win in California!!
Your elections are SO much more exciting than ours!
Posted by: Louise | February 5, 2008, 10:19 pm 10:19 pm
Huckabee’s support of the Fair Tax should be considered in his results tonight. I was on the fence between McCain vs Huckabee. In the end it came down to Huckabee’s support of the Fair Tax. I am not alone. Many votes for Huckabee have been votes for the Fair Tax.
Posted by: Fair Tax Supporter | February 5, 2008, 10:21 pm 10:21 pm
Obama still holding a two-point lead in Connecticut with more than 70 percent counted. That would be a nice pick-up – breaking into Clinton’s lock on the northeastern blue states.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:21 pm 10:21 pm
This is in response to ge`~pa about republicans being losers. Have anyone ever took time to look at the symbols that represent their party? A republican is shown with an elephant; strong, good memory. What is it that represents the democrats? A donkey, hmm you figure it out.
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm
Why does the person who said, “Obama would be the worst possible choice?” or something like that… feel that way? As a woman I think it would set an important historical precedent to have a woman precedent but not Hillary. Bill Clinton will be off having one of his scandals and she’ll be distracted . What do others think of that?
Leiba in Seattle
Posted by: Leiba | February 5, 2008, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm
I am a 26 year old white heterosexual male previously from Florida and now living in California who works for a Defense Contractor and am voting for Hilary Clinton. Defying the odds you ask? I am so sick of hearing that the only people who will vote for Hillary in the election will be women. Hillary is getting my vote not because she’s a woman, or I’m a woman, or that I am loyal to the Democratic party; rather she is getting my vote because I believe she is a good honest person and has always tried to do good for the people of the United States and will spend the next 4 years doing just that.
My reasoning for choosing Hillary this election is also strategy. I believe that voting for Hillary, you not only get a strong person for president, but you get the sage and wisdom of a past president (Bill) to give advice during complicated decisions (it’ll be the first Presidential Team since the Kennedy’s). Additionally, I feel that the Clintons, should they lose this race, will end their political ambitions and enjoy a nice retirement for good never to return to politics. On the other hand, Obama is still relatively young and still has enough years left in him to try another campaign in 4 or 8 years. Should he run after Hillary’s term, he’ll probably get my vote then (depending on his competition of course). The best of both worlds would be Hillary as president and Obama as Vice President!!!
A final note, it should be noted that my reasoning for choosing a Democrat is not because I hate Republicans or love Democrats. On the contrary, I have always liked McCain since the election he ran as an independent. I feel that he would make a great president too, but I think that he has had to lobby so hard as a Republican, that his ties and allegiances will influence the way he decides to lead. Unfortunately, I feel that the focus on the next 4 years should be rebuilding our own country instead of rebuilding other ones and need to bring our troops back home……3 tours are enough for our soldiers, didn’t we learn from Vietnam? The war in the Middle East will never be won by outsiders; they have been dying for millenniums for their cause, why would it change now? (I did mention that I work for a Defense Contractor right? Well, I’m tired of investing in “Offense” that is wasted on other countries that don’t even like us; we need to actually invest in “Defense” again). Get out of other nations, let them manage their own affairs, and rebuild what was once a great nation with loyal citizens.
Good luck candidates and let the best “PERSON” win!
Posted by: Blair Flinn | February 5, 2008, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm
I believe diversed people will benefit the most from Clinton than any other candidates. We pay tax, make adequate contributions to America and the economy, we need somebody who will treat us fairly and support us.
I will vote for Clinton! Go Clinton!
Posted by: Mellisa | February 5, 2008, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
I’m not sure, Louise. I hate to sound argumentative (on a website no less), but I’m guessing there’s more joy in the Obama camp tonight.
Remember New Hampshire was a late surge for Obama, and it didn’t pan out. I think this one might had people there worried that it wasn’t real.
And I do think Obama is more than happy to go on to new dates, where I think Clinton was really hoping to avoid that. MSNBC just reported that Obama is outraising her by three dollars to one in recent weeks.
But, like everything else, we’ll see.
I’m sure politics where you are isn’t boring, though maybe not the same horse race atmosphere we have.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
Connecticut was just called for Obama.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm
I voted for Huckabee today and am hoping for a great turnout for him. Having said that, if he does not carry the GOP nomination, I fully intend on not voting in the presidential electial. They way I see it , we could chose between a Democrat or a wanna be Democrat… McCain.
Posted by: J Nibblett | February 5, 2008, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm
I am simply a Canadian watching with a keen peaked interest. I am very pro Barack Obama and see the label of inexperience simply meaning NO baggage.
He is passionate with integrity and has run a wonderful campaign. Eight years in the White House with the Clinton’s is a lot of baggage or have those many fiascoes been forgotten?
Posted by: Barbara | February 5, 2008, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm
One more question is how can these candidates make such big promises? Alot of what they have promised to do is impossible for one reasin, congress. Members in senate and house are the ones to pass the bills and laws and such so unless the candidate can persuade them then all that campaigning talk is just that its good talk.
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm
How many MILLIONS has Mitt Romney poured into a campaign to get this far? How many stalwarts of the Republican party have strongly supported him? 4000+ ads by Romney vs. 400+ by McCain in Florida and he still loses. WHY? He cannot win.
If Mike Huckabee had a few million more instead of 100′s of Millions and a little more Conservative establishment support, he’d already be the GOP candidate.
Conservatives, wake up!! McCain is a fickle candidate that could turn against the GOP at the drop of a hat. Romney will not win, he’s proven it.. no one else is to blame.
Support Huckabee!!
Posted by: Jonathan | February 5, 2008, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
That’s true, Linda. Besides, its Congress that has to formally propose anything via legislation. But its also true that most presidents get a “honeymoon” with regard to their initial priorities, and usually have no problem finding a few senators and congressman to propose something close to some of the “plans” they proposed as a candidate.
But essentially, what you said is correct – and if its not a candidate who wins with anything that can be spun as a “mandate,” the honeymoon may prove to be a short one.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm
Paul,
Don’t know about proportional by congressional district in Missouri. But if so, the margins are close enough outstate that they’ll be split evenly. Obama is not KILLING IT in St. Louis City & County.
St. Louis City is now over 70/30 for Obama (30% reporting), 55/40 in St. Louis County (15%). KC continues to break Obama. Starting to count STL cut Clinton’s lead from 21% to 14% very quickly.
SHOW ME some more results!
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm
Yeah, Jake, just saw the overall proportions there tightening. Good call.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm
Re: Young people at college: Ever hear of absentee ballots?? I voted that way for four years.
Re: Young people working: And middle-aged single people work, too. Get up early, and vote, many states have the polls opens very early and very late; (NY is open 6am – 9pm)
Any more excuses??
Posted by: Kate | February 5, 2008, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm
Hey Paul…I think we will just have to agree to disagree!!…I really do think that If Clinton manages to take Missouri and having held on to the states that she did then she will be happy enough (although winning or staying very close in California is crucial).
Posted by: Louise | February 5, 2008, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm
Shouldnt that then be labeled as false advertisement?? How can they make all these promises and not follow through. History has shown that just because a candidate made big promises nothing really changed when HE got into office. I am not an Obama fan but if he really wants CHANGE that would mean to go in and clean house with all the congressman and senators. Start fresh with all new people. Half the people there have been there since before I was born. They are set in there ways and dont want to change.
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 10:42 pm 10:42 pm
A point to note though is that Obama’s win in Connecticut seemed to be slim.
Posted by: Louise | February 5, 2008, 10:43 pm 10:43 pm
Eh, dunno – on second thought 9 points is a lot to make up in Missouri with only a little more than a third of the precincts to go. Basically Obama would have to win the remaining precincts by 27 points. That’s tough. Still, its not being called yet, so maybe.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm
In response to the young people not voting. If you dont vote dont whine and complain about who is picked. There is time to vote people just need to learn how to prioritize and juggle and find a way to vote. There are absentees and early voting and polls are open late and here in Florida they are open on Saturdays for early voting. Just vote!!
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm
hahahahahaha………….you all made me laugh out loud.
I voted for Hillary.
Words I never thought I would utter.
I was hoping against hope that Edwards would hang in there but it was not to be.
So based on watching all of the debates, she won me over. Not because she is a woman seeing as how I don’t actually care for her. She knew topics inside and out. She answered the questions. I kept waiting for Obama to answer a question in a manner that convinced me that we could trust him, that he knew what this country needs, that he knows how to lead. ANY question would have sufficed. I wanted him to convince me. CONVINCE ME! Unlike Gina however I will NOT go over to the dark side.
Posted by: PB | February 5, 2008, 10:49 pm 10:49 pm
Linda – I’m guessing Obama would win a bigger, more profound “honeymoon” than Clinton could. Therefore he’d have a better shot at getting his agenda enacted.
You know the Republicans would love to obstruct anything a new President Clinton wanted.
The other related thing to consider is how Clinton as the nominee would energize the Republican base. She would probably cause Democrats to lose the House of Reps, even if she happened to win the general election.
Obama on the other hand as the nominee probably keeps the energy advantage with the Democrats. Just something to think about.
The other aspect of that – Clinton’s standing with the Republicans as well as her inability to attract independents probably means she couldn’t win the general election. But that’s another argument.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:49 pm 10:49 pm
If Hillary is speaking now, her campaign must think she’s not going to win California.
Posted by: Steve | February 5, 2008, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm
I am definiatly not for Hillary either. I am republican. I want to see someone who has better moral standards. I want someone that wont push for the things she wants. And I dont think America is ready for a woman. I dont think that the oval office is place for a woman.
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 10:53 pm 10:53 pm
I had the same thought Steve – unless they were going to try a running, “I just got word from California…” in mid-speech.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
But the fact that I am from the south could have a lot to do with that
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
Paul, the big thing to watch is St. Louis City. 71/25 with 31% reporting. Yes, there are only 33% of the precincts left, but they’re in Obama strongholds. If Hillary wins (and she might), it will be narrow. Less than 9% for sure, I think within 3% regardless of the winner.
KC and St. Louis County continue to be strong Obama, but St. Louis City could win it.
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
Obama just got Minnesota.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm
Barbara from Canada,
Thanks for posting a reminder to what I like to call “Clintonites” who are posting on this thread. Have people forgotten what happened under her husband’s term in office? Yes, some good came out of it, but the biggest story brought shame on the office of the president. Also, I feel the last thing we need is someone who will fall into the same political nightmare we are in right now?
I do support Obama because of his fresh perspective on the political process in this country and hope we can once again get a young mind on the highest office of our country to bring some new perspective to the economy, foreign policy, the environment, and other matters that our current administration has ignored unless the media points out the problems.
Thanks again for your outsider input.
Posted by: Terrence | February 5, 2008, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
And Idaho.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
NPR just said that Cali Men went 2:1 for Obama. 2:1!!! Clinton picked up women by approx. 13%, again according to NPR. Very preliminary exit poll data, but WOW…
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 11:03 pm 11:03 pm
I am DEFINIATEY for HILLARY–she will be in the white house.
Posted by: shay w. | February 5, 2008, 11:04 pm 11:04 pm
Holy #### can’t say that as we’re an hour from Ash Wednesday. Are you serious? That can’t be right, Jake.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm
KATE:
One big difference in the working world between middle-aged single people and young people in the working world: SENIORITY
Our middle aged folks you use for comparison have been in the work-force for many years compared to us young people who may feel we have to prove ourselves to senior managers.
Don’t get me wrong, there is no excuse for not voting. All I was saying is that ABCs statistics on young voters were based on early numbers from precincts reporting and if they were to do the same analysis later, they may see a larger impact as a result of young voters.
Posted by: Terrence | February 5, 2008, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm
Let’s see. Obama has 10 states to Clinton’s six. Arizona looks like Clinton. Colorado looks like Obama. Missouri will be close but I’m thinking Clinton. Alaska is supposed to go Obama.
A lot of Obama’s wins, especially in the caucus states, are big. I’m thinking he could afford to lose California by 10 points and still has a shot to win the most delegates today.
If he wins California, that’s huge.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 11:08 pm 11:08 pm
Yeah, Paul. Robert Sigel was taken aback on air. He was like, “Did I just hear you say 2:1?” Again, VERY preliminary, and no word on the Female/Male voting percentages. But that could be huge.
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 11:10 pm 11:10 pm
How come everyone is counting Huckabee out?? Never underestimate the underdog! There is still hope
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm
NPR – Colorado for Obama.
Missouri down to Clinton +4
Now we have CObama. Will we see MObama?
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 11:13 pm 11:13 pm
Isn’t it interesting that the Democrats apportion their delegates by congressional district, but screamed like stuck pigs when Republicans suggested doing so in California for the general election?
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 11:16 pm 11:16 pm
Great news, Jake.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 11:20 pm 11:20 pm
NPR -Idaho for Obama.
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm
Chuck Todd just said the delegates race was close so far – Obama up by about 50, but obviously without California and a couple others counted.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm
Thank Goodness for Diane Sawyer, mentioning we should cast our votes over the internet. Shame on you George, for saying “it couldn’t be done.”
It’s about time everyone voted,& was able to vote, not just the ones who felt like going over to the grade school for an hour.
Posted by: Julie | February 5, 2008, 11:24 pm 11:24 pm
Quiet win??
I was at the Idaho caucus tonight, was there 90 minutes early and still didn’t get in the doors (they took ballots outside). It was snowing on and off, the lines went all the way around city blocks and I can tell you there was nothing QUIET about the OVERWHELMING Obama win in Idaho!
More people voted in the main county than voted in the ENTIRE state last primary!
Posted by: korey | February 5, 2008, 11:27 pm 11:27 pm
Missouri – Almost all of the outstate vote is in.
Hillary leaning counties still outstanding (Franklin & Benton).
Almost certainly Clinton, but no reports (Johnson & Douglas)
Obama oustanding (St. Louis City, St. Louis County, Jackson County, Boone County)
NPR just called Missouri for Clinton, but I think it’s going to be tight. Outstanding counties clearly favor Obama, just maybe too little too late.
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 11:29 pm 11:29 pm
MSNBC hasn’t called Missouri yet that I’ve seen.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 11:33 pm 11:33 pm
Is Californaia gone for Obama? How are the delegates split there – proportionally?
I’m watching all of this unfold from Melbourne, Australia. This is fascinating (and kinda crazy)!!!
Cheers
Richard
Posted by: Richard | February 5, 2008, 11:33 pm 11:33 pm
Important: way too much is being said of the importance of voting. They are talking about incentives to get people to vote. One actress thinks it should be a law. I DISAGREE. I think people should not vote if they don’t know who or what they are voting for. Don’t vote just because it is a woman or a black person or republican etc. I think there should be a short test before a person can vote. Like can they spell their own name, can they name the president of the U. S. etc.
Thank you.
Posted by: Vince Romberg | February 5, 2008, 11:35 pm 11:35 pm
Three points with 88 percent in. Still too close to call, but again, that’s a boat load to make up. My basic liberal arts math tells me Obama has to win those remaining precincts by an average of 24 points. Interesting to note that earlier I was saying he had to win by 27 points – so he’s on pace.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 11:36 pm 11:36 pm
Ouch, Clinton has a solid lead in California with 10 percent reporting.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 11:40 pm 11:40 pm
Missouri is down to a 1-point Clinton lead with 9 percent of precincts still out.
Posted by: Paul | February 5, 2008, 11:42 pm 11:42 pm
How much of Romney’s bump in the west do you think is due to Mormon voters? Obviously they gave him Utah, but there are a ton of Mormons throughout that region, and Romney seems to be winning those states…
Posted by: Maya | February 5, 2008, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
I have been watching the candidates.my vote is for obama.He is the american dream. I think he will help our nation get back on track. He has great integity. I think we need someone young and fresh ideas. obama can unite all racise together.darielle mackins omaha NE
Posted by: Darielle Mackins | February 5, 2008, 11:44 pm 11:44 pm
watching the votes come in is kind of sad. It looks like when it comes time for election in Novemebr its going to come down to picking the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 11:47 pm 11:47 pm
I find it hard to support anyone (McCain) who needs to lie and manipulate the voters to win and who admitted to having multiple affairs when married to his first wife, someone that has WEAK views on the economy and immigration. And I also find it hard to support someone (Huckabee) who stays in the race just to take away votes from another candidate. That is NOT American, nor is it respectable or honorable. ***MITT ROMNEY for president. The ONLY one that is a strong conservative, the ONLY one with strong family values, the ONLY one that has the best qualifications/experience to lead this county, and the ONLY one to tell the truth.
Posted by: support mit | February 5, 2008, 11:49 pm 11:49 pm
What did I tell you, Paul? Let’s hear it for the STL.
Posted by: Jake | February 5, 2008, 11:49 pm 11:49 pm
Linda, election is always about the choice between two evils…. we just choose the lesser one.
Posted by: Nico | February 5, 2008, 11:50 pm 11:50 pm
Linda, I couldn’t agree with you more. The way things are looking is depressing. The general election will completely be about picking the lesser of two evils. I am a republican, but if it came down to it, I may vote democrat. John McCain is a disgrace to the the republican party.
Posted by: marie | February 5, 2008, 11:52 pm 11:52 pm
Its sad though that it has to be a choice of two evils. It should be about picking someone with morals and that wants to help the nation. Someone that believes in what America was founded on. We need someone who will stand up for the little people not just play to the hands of those with money but I guess that would go back to getting rid of old senators and congessmen in order to have a real change
Posted by: Linda | February 5, 2008, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm
Obama down one half of one percent in Missouri with 96% reporting!
Posted by: Jake | February 6, 2008, 12:08 am 12:08 am
interesting about the comments regarding Mormons voting for Romney. My Mormon relatives voted for Obama, I voted for Romney, being a non mormon & historically a democrat.
go figure.
Posted by: Julie | February 6, 2008, 12:09 am 12:09 am
OBAMA UP IN MISSOURI
Posted by: Jake | February 6, 2008, 12:14 am 12:14 am
Clinton landslide in California..
Any comments Obamaniacs????
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 6, 2008, 12:23 am 12:23 am
by the way, am i the only one who feels that foxnews is just an inch short of endorsing obama?!
Posted by: mae | February 6, 2008, 12:31 am 12:31 am
You’re calling California “a landslide” with a mere 16% of precincts reporting? A bit premature — or naive.
Posted by: Mark | February 6, 2008, 12:33 am 12:33 am
So Clinton’s only “winning” *nationally* against Obama by a minuscule 46k votes? Big deal.
Posted by: Mark | February 6, 2008, 12:36 am 12:36 am
btw, cnn has now projected hillary’s win in calif too..
Posted by: mae | February 6, 2008, 12:40 am 12:40 am
Obama is not a uniter. He claims that he will bring changes, but what kind of changes? Will it be good changes or changes that will benefit himself? The kind of changes like he displayed when he did not respect the flag, or when he did not have his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem? What good has he done for the country?
Posted by: Justin | February 6, 2008, 12:41 am 12:41 am
Obama will win MO, few votes left are in his strong areas: Boone, college town where he’s leading has only 60% votes counted. Still a handful of votes out in St. Louis County. MO goes for Obama.
Posted by: Julie S | February 6, 2008, 12:41 am 12:41 am
Did anyone notice that the US flag in the animation “Dissecting Party Primaries” was backwards through the entire clip! Stars always to the left people. I guess quality control was again asleep at the wheel…
Posted by: Mark | February 6, 2008, 12:44 am 12:44 am
NBC calls MO for Obama
Posted by: Julie S | February 6, 2008, 12:49 am 12:49 am
Hey Mark, with 17% in she leads by 22%. I would say she beat him pretty bad so far…
On a positive note for Obama, he just won in Alaska…
Even if he wins by 1% in MO. Clinton will get the same amount of delegates, and as all Obama supporters know, it’s all about the delegates right? Or is it about what states he won now? You guys keep changing your tune…lol
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 6, 2008, 12:49 am 12:49 am
With 99% of the precincts counted in MO, Obama leads by 4,500 votes….
Posted by: Mark | February 6, 2008, 12:49 am 12:49 am
We’ll see, Jordan. We’ll see….
And no one around here is changing his tune; we just keep plowing through for the win. Clintonites suffer form acute smugness. Beware the underdog, my friend. He bites when you least expect it.
Posted by: Mark | February 6, 2008, 12:53 am 12:53 am
After leaning somewhat towards Obama and after a more serious look, I have concluded that Hillary is the best choice. Not an easy decision as Obama is an outstanding individual. But at the end of the day, there is just not enough substance and serious political experience with Obama. This is crucial if there is any meaningful change to occur. “Change” and “hope”, the two buzzwords of Obama’s campaign which sound very nice and comforting but leadership needs to be based on more than such fine idealistic notions alone, it needs in addition, to be honed by a greater understanding and participation in the real arena of politics. It is easier to criticize those who had to make real decisions in real time as opposed to those that have the luxury of saying I could have done it better because they were never there. Hillary not only has change and hope in her heart and mind, but also has the capability to concretely bring it about in the harsh and unforgiving environment that is politics.
Posted by: Johnny D. | February 6, 2008, 12:56 am 12:56 am
Go Obama! I am so glad he did so well. Its a shame that they are calling CA for Clinton with only 18% of the vote in. Can’t they wait till its at least 85% in. I don’t understand the appeal for Clinton. She is so obnoxious.
Posted by: KRG | February 6, 2008, 1:00 am 1:00 am
Could not disagree with you more profoundly, Johnny D. McCain will crush Hillary in November, should your view prevail. And even if she should eke out a win, congressional Repubs will make certain from day one that she never knows a moment’s peace, and never gets any legislation passed. Where will her alleged “experience” leave her — and us — then? Nowhere, as in right where we are today.
Posted by: Mark | February 6, 2008, 1:02 am 1:02 am
Hillary Clinton will be our next President.
If he is lucky, Mrs. Clinton will ask Obama to be VP on her ticket.
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | February 6, 2008, 1:06 am 1:06 am
I beleave that Ohbma should be are next president, please people stop voting for Clinton
Posted by: Luke R. | February 6, 2008, 1:09 am 1:09 am
Once again, Clintonite smugness rears its smug, condescending little head.
Posted by: Mark | February 6, 2008, 1:10 am 1:10 am
If young voters want to vote there is Absentee voting …as far as working…age has nothing to do with that …I work like a great majority of people and still take the time to vote before or after work….if you really want to vote there are several ways to vote …you do not have to vote on the day..
Posted by: dellee | February 6, 2008, 1:11 am 1:11 am
McCain is too pro war…admits to knowing little about economics …that is exactly what we need…a strong war stance and weak on economics …I can see him winning..oh he is also Republican …he does not go along with the change …however a Hillary – VP Obama would be a win even a Hillary President along would win…
Posted by: dellee | February 6, 2008, 1:15 am 1:15 am
Clinton should not be are next President
yes I voted for Bill, because I beleave he did an out standing job. And I beleave that Ohbama will do the same out standing job and maybe even better. I also beleave that if you would all sit back and look at the canidates in full you would see why I am writting what I am writting. Because Ohbama is the only person that is giving us the hard earned truth, Clinton is just feeding us what we whant to here. But ohbama is telling us all the truth.
Vote Ohbama in 08 and this country will be a better off place with him in office. I voted for him.
Posted by: Luke R. | February 6, 2008, 1:18 am 1:18 am
My only question is this… how can you call California when the lead is only roughly 50-30 Clinton and only 20% of precincts are reporting, but you haven’t called Alaska, where 70% of votes are in, and it is 75-25 Obama? This makes no sense!
Posted by: Stephanie | February 6, 2008, 1:20 am 1:20 am
I noticed the LA Times endorsed two Democrats, one from the Democratic Party, and one from the Republican Party. It seems the final 5 boil down to 1 Radical, 2 Liberals, 1 Republican, and 1 Federalist. Better hold on tight, it’s going to be a very bumpy ride.
Posted by: Tucano Fulano | February 6, 2008, 2:07 am 2:07 am
This is a media fake. All media institutions are singing only for Obama. This is rediculuous. This is not fair. You guys trying to life only Obama. Why not Hilary? This is a shame. Please be fair even now. U guys all the time showing Obama and hitting hard on Hilary. Do not do these kind of ugly-old politics.
Posted by: Jack | February 6, 2008, 2:43 am 2:43 am
The media has picked up Obama because the Owners of the media want to see Obama as the Democrat. Hillary is not perfect but she is the only candidate not able to be be totally controlled. I even heard a Hillary slur on a recent(new) episode of Law and Order. This media barrage is not limited to the news.
Posted by: jane | February 6, 2008, 2:55 am 2:55 am
With respect to California,is there any way to distinguish between the people who voted yesterday and the people who voted earlier?
Posted by: Nancy | February 6, 2008, 3:38 am 3:38 am
If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination (by way of the Super Delegates), many Obama supporters will be so disgusted that we will just not bother to vote in the National election.
The Republicans will vote in record numbers AGAINST the Clintons, and all the Independents and Republicans that would have voted for Obama will either not vote at all, or vote Republican.
Many people have asked how the Democrats could possibly blow this election… and that is how.
But Clinton supporters seem oblivious to that fact. I guess it will take another 4 to 8 years of Republican rule to get the Democratic party to understand that many of us are tired of dynasties and the same old crap.
Sad, but true.
Posted by: Chelle | February 6, 2008, 4:53 am 4:53 am
Well, it certainly looks like McCain will be the Repub nominee, and Huckabee is making a strong case for the VP slot. Fusing the Independent appeal of McCain in the top spot with a nod to conservatives (and the South) in Huckabee makes a very strong Repub ticket.
It’s time for the Dems to firm up the ticket. If things continue as they have Clinton will have enough votes to get the nomination, but she is such a divisive figure, I don’t see her winning the General. I’m not sure the party elders can force a Clinton/Obama ticket, and not sure that is even a “dream ticket”. Double prejudices may torpedo that dream. If it is Clinton, where does she reach for VP to broaden her appeal?
As a final thought, I urge Dems to look at the exit poll/demographics for all primaries to date. Obama strengths come in the rural areas, college-educated voters and the youth vote. If these strengths were combined with the traditional blue-collar and minority Dem votes, it might be enough to counter the Repub/Indy vote that’s likely to go to McCain. Given the demos, I don’t see Clinton winning any red states in the General and most of the purple states tilting to McCain. Yes, this is only my opinion, but I urge voters to look at the demos now that we know the competition. Everyone hates polls, I know, but they currently show Clinton losing a hypothetical to McCain by 8 points. Most pundits see a victory by either party as likely to spawn a two-term President. McCain is already 72, so who’s looking forward to President Huckabee?
Posted by: Kevin | February 6, 2008, 6:24 am 6:24 am
How can Paul compete with the other candidates when the media ignores him and refuses to include him?
It’s not a matter of if he would do better, than the media would cover him, the media would not cover Ron Paul if he came in first place. Have they ever thought that he would do better in the polls had the media been fair to him?
It almost looks like the media is picking their own candidate and discriminating against others that the people may want. They wouldn’t do that though, would they? I mean, the people would boycott the station and their products, and the media doesn’t want that, or do they?
Posted by: TFS | February 6, 2008, 8:37 am 8:37 am
This presidential race has touch on numerous taboo American Cultural issues, Race in Regards to Obama, Gender in regards to Hillary, Religion concerning, Romeny and Huckabee, and Age when it comes to McCain. On a nation built upon supposed equality, lets get down to business, in the words of Former President Clinton, “Wake-up America” Let us not choose a candidate based upon race, gender, religion or age, lets choose a person who can get the job done ! Obama, as a liberal and a young male, I believe you need to take some time and learn how to run a country, making speeches of brimstone and fire, does not make you a statesman, therefore, you want my vote talk about some experience and be accountable, only “young” minded people make excuses and scapegoat responsibility. Hillary, I’m a fan, and not because your white or a women, but because I believe you have run and honest campaign and have admitted mistake and regrouped and decided to bring about a difference, and that is real change!
Posted by: Ryan | February 6, 2008, 9:33 am 9:33 am
I heard Chuck Todd saying he ran the calculus on all states, and has Obama edging Clinton by a net 4 delegates in yesterdays primaries and caucuses.
How much closer can you get?
Posted by: Paul | February 6, 2008, 9:40 am 9:40 am
Of course that’s just his numbers, which aren’t official. I guess most of the states are still figuring up their delegates.
Posted by: Paul | February 6, 2008, 9:41 am 9:41 am
Dobson said he cannot vote for McCain because of his weak stand for the sanctity of life. Mitt Romney has recently started to defend the unborn. Everyone knows where Obama and Clinton stand on these issues. There is only one candidate in the race that is consistent in his stand for the unborn and that is Huckabee. There is a world of people like Dobson that simply cannot pull the lever for anyone that thinks it is alright to murder an innocent child. Are there enough of us? Did Dobson’s comment yesterday have anything to do with the surprise success of Huckabee last night? I don’t know but I believe so. On the issues Huckabee is right, no pun intended. Evidently after being a governor for over ten years in Arkansas they still love and respect him overwhelmingly. Maybe there will be another Huckaboom!!
Posted by: Ron Miller | February 6, 2008, 9:53 am 9:53 am
OK I am going to say it ..i am sure many are thinking it… and then we will see if you post it. it is not about race …right ? Obama supporters include the N.A.A.C.P. America do you think if he wins,they will go to the white house also ? if i was the leader of a group called the N.A.A.C.P and the letters stood for National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People. Would i be considered a racist?? wake up america …. before its to late . by the way i am a Greek-Jewish-American
It is fine for someone to want change from the mess we are in ….. But what kind of change is he really talking about.
Posted by: Earl Scheff | February 6, 2008, 10:03 am 10:03 am
Ron – I have to say, I think that’s bull. Dobson was all for Bush, with a wink and nod about his supposed pro-life views.
Sorry, but seeing all these pro-lifers knowingly back Bush just invalidates that purity you want to claim they have. They pick and choose their evils, like everyone else.
Posted by: Paul | February 6, 2008, 10:26 am 10:26 am
Obama’s team claims to have won more delegates last night and it might turn out to be that way but what if it does not. Will the Obama camp get as harsh of a treatment in the blogosphere as HRC’s team did last night when talking about a Missouri win?
Posted by: Eric | February 6, 2008, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
Eric – I think everyone is acknowledging that Obama won last night. MSNBC is saying its between a 2 to 21 delegate win. And Chuck Todd last night was saying it was 4, while acknowledging that was based on a very positive estimate for Clinton in California.
The more important aspect is whether Clinton is running low on cash. If so, she’s got a tough path to travel the next six weeks.
Posted by: Paul | February 6, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
The man has a plan, problem is no one is looking for it. Change is a great word and at the end of the day people are saying. What is this change?
Posted by: Ed | February 6, 2008, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm
Ed – there’s a lot of different aspects to Obama’s change theme. I’ve picked up on a major one being an end to the stupid partisan trench wars.
Sure, partisan differences will and should exist. But addressing those differences in a more adult way would be a change many independents are incredibly anxious to see realized.
One of the things that draws indepedents to Obama is his ability to voice opinions without throwing in the gratuitous shots across the aisle.
But there’s other things. The foreign policy aspects, the diminished influence of federal lobbyists, continued emphasis on ethics reform in Washington and of course health care.
Posted by: Paul | February 6, 2008, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
And that’s all stuff he talks about in his stump speech, or in the 400 debates we’ve had… so I’m always amused by the Clinton supporters who post that Obama is always talking about change, but never tells us what that means.
Posted by: Paul | February 6, 2008, 1:44 pm 1:44 pm
Can you get something off one’s chest me who did your layout? I’ve been looking for anybody type of like yours. Through you.
By.
Posted by: federicoselero | April 30, 2009, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm