(POL) Official Super Tuesday Thread
 

Monday predictions:

Obama does much better than expected on the Democratic side. Clinton wins NY and NJ by small margins. She also wins Arkansas and Oklahoma by decent margins. Obama wins all the other states, some by large margins, others by razor thin margins. A flood of endorsements follows (Gore, Edwards, Richardson), and he ends up getting the nomination by the end of the month.

Romney does much better than expected on the GOP side. Huck's supporters end up flocking to him as the "not McCain." He ends up winning a few states very closely (including California). Because of the winner take all rules for the GOP, this puts him in a pretty good position afterwards. It ends up becoming a two man race for the GOP instead of the McCain walkover that was expected.

Odds of me being right on both predictions: ~25% or less.

It's looking like Romney is surging in the most important state of the day, California. McCain's lead has shrunk ever since Schwartzeneger endorsed him. Romney just wanted a split there, but winning the state would be huge. Also keep in mind that not all GOP states are winner take all, including California. McCain is going to win N.Y., N.J., Arizona, probably Missouri and Connecticut which are all winner take all though. The only winner take all states Romney will likely win are Utah and Montana. He needs to take a majority of the states to keep it close, and I don't think that'll happen.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ate_count.html

The Democrat race will likely not be settled after tomorrow. Unless one candidate is able to sweep all of the close states like California, Connecticut, Alabama, Missouri, and the majority of the states that haven't been polled yet. Many states are closed primaries that benefit Hillary. I think it'll basically be a wash and noone will come out that far ahead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ate_count.html

I think Obama absolutely dominates tomorrow. This race feels like a referendum on an incumbent(Hillary) much, much more than it should. In races involving incumbents, undecideds typically break for the challenger by a margin of around 4:1. Since Hillary's not a true incumbent I don't think Obama will see that big of a bump, but I do think he's the big winner tomorrow.

http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

I'm very heavy on Obama to become President at 7:2 so take that for what it's worth.

"Yes, we can" vs. "Yes, she can." There you have the key difference between the two campaigns.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...doubt-pla.html

No clue on the R side. It's a train wreck in slow motion and even if McCain ends up as nominee Republican numbers as a whole are so far in the toilet it's hard to envision him winning the Presidency.

My guess is both are actually very close, and nothing is settled.

Is it strange that on both sides, the current favorite is commonly regarded to have a worse chance in the general election than the main challenger? I can't say I've been around long enough to follow many Presidential elections in depth.

I don't that's true on the Republican side. McCain right now is the favorite, and he's considered to be their strongest GE candidate by most people.

You must not follow any of the head-to-head polls.

I'd like to go on record as saying I don't know what the fuck will happen in California tomorrow.

Buc: You've told me that polls don't mean anything!

As for tomorrow I expect Obama will roughly tie Clinton for delegates, but I still think he needs to win CA to garner enough positive media coverage. If Hillary wins NY, MA, NJ, and CA he'll face a very tough media environment even if the delegate count is very close.

On the Republican side I think Romney will win CA, but it will be close and they'll roughly split the delegates. McCain will clean up in winner take all states and while he won't win it all tomorrow, he'll be far enough in front that Romney will concede sometime this week.

Ah, but those would be for exit polls. I do have the RCP site linked since they have been pretty good.

I still haven't decided who i'm voting for

It would be cool if you post after you vote to let us know what went through your head and how you ended up finally making your decision.

I wish that my state voted tomorrow; it would be neat to have a voice during an election about which people are actually excited.

Hillary tears up again. This time at Yale.

Obama's campaign is saying they'll consider tomorrow a win if he comes within 100 delegates. So that seems to indicate he expects to lose, but keep it close.

talking it through, i've decided to vote hillary

So the crocodile tears did it for you, huh? :) We will go from fake sincerity in biting ones lower lips to shedding a tear when you want people to believe you?

Maybe I'm giving too much credence to the whole "superconservative Republicans and their talk radio shows hate McCain" thing, I guess they'll still support him in the general election.

Olberman just asked a pundit if the Super Bowl result could affect voter turnout in NY, NJ, and MA. :D

Esp. advocated by self-centered blowhards? The neo-cons are one type of conservatives and may or may not have anything to do with other types of conservatives, ranging from social to fiscal to isolationists. From what I have followed over the past 30 years, one doesn't presume to speak for the others.

I think they'll come around in the general, but what I don't get is why there's all this dislike for McCain and all of this love for Romney being the only conservative left. Hasn't Romney held as many "liberal" positions as McCain in the past? He was elected the Governor of Massachussetts for God's sake.

But whoever is the nominee is going to have a tough time running away from Bush which I think was Foo Figher's point. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, it could be a landslide. Hillary would make it interesting, but I still think she'd win. It'll probably come down to the same swing states it does every year and does anyone really see the Democrats losing any states that Kerry got? I live in Iowa and I think they'll pick this state up easily. Our democrat governor was elected by a decent margin and the democrats picked up two house seats here in 06. Also, the state legislature became democratically controlled. Then they've just gotta win a state like Ohio or Florida and it's game over.

Maple: I'd bet they think they'll come out ahead in delegates, but now they'll beat expectations. 100 delegates is too close if they really think they're behind.

actually what did it for me was this:

hillary and barak are basically (more or less) a wash domestically (and that's giving a lot of credit that maybe isn't due to how much effect a president can have on large-scale domestic policy issues).

what wins out for me is the image of "Barak Obama traveling to Palestine to meet with Arab leaders with his wife" versus "Hillary Clinton traveling to Palestine to meet with Arab leaders along with Bill Clinton."

So essentially what tips it for me is the fact that I feel that the Clintons (combined) have a better shot at restoring our international standing than the Obama's.

That's one hell of a Harvard v. Yale game. But I'd take Harvard in that one, easily.

Thanks for sharing your rationale, though. Voting is a personal choice and at least you've made a decision. I can't say I have.

lol meaning what (harvard vs. yale?)


I don't know...i think domestically either one is going to be forced to adapt what they want anyway and it's going to go through so many committee's and iterations that by the end it will not even resemble their original plan, so saying "well obama wants healthcare done this way versus hillary's plan done this way" seems kind of...i don't know...a hollow rationale for choosing one over the other.

then again, I could change my mind between now and tommorrow night.

Barack and his wife are both Harvard Law alums. Bill and Hill both went to Yale Law. That's all.

aaah. I knew that about barak, but not about his wife, so I didn't put the pieces together.

gotcha.

Obama has been polling ~4% under his turnout so far, probably because those polling places only call established voters, not the young and apathetic that Obama is inspiring to get out.

At least I hope that's the case. He needs the undecideds tomorrow.

I decided on my drive home today (i) to vote and (ii) to vote for Obama. I am a registered Democrat, and California has a modified closed primary, meaning if you have registered with a party affiliation, you are locked into voting in that primary. I've been considering a general election vote for McCain, so I had been considering passing on the Super Tuesday primary.

Driving home, I was listening to an Obama speech from the Meadowlands rally along with clips from Shriver's speech yesterday. It motivated (moved is probably too strong a word) to want to vote, and it does come down to the whole "how listening to Obama makes me feel" kind of thing. Hillary, Obama and McCain are close enough together on my hot button issues that this "feel factor" is able to carry some weight for me. I also like the idea of not having a Bush or Clinton on the ticket. And I'm somewhat optimistic (though some may call it naive) that Obama could generally make a broad portion of the population like him.

So, call me an Obama girl (for tomorrow, anyway).

Interesting that Hillary gets a spot on the Letterman show tonight. Nice bit of free advertising on the eve before super Tuesday. I'm sure CBS will even it out by having Obama on Monday, May 26. One day before the huge Idaho primary ;)

I thought there were some federal laws about this or did the Clintons file an exemption for this as well?

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/...qualtimeru.htm

Does anyone know what Hillary's stance is on 1984? I've searched through her website but haven't been able to find anything. On Obama's site it is plain as day that he wants to completely get rid of Guantanamo, restore Habeus Corpus and will not tolerate torture of any kind. I could see Hillary getting into office and leaving things the way they are now. (or worse)

She wants to close Guantanamo:

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/....cfm?id=273211

As for torture, she is against it, but will make an exception for a "ticking time bomb" scenario (but has recently backed away from that a bit). She's also against rendition.

Not in February, no.

There's a slight chance for McCain if Hillary is the nominee; any other matchup will result in a huge Dem win.

As Bucc said, follow the head to head polls.

McCain knows how to play the game (look at how he ran Romney around ragged about the timetable issue). I fear Obama won't be able to keep up with the political tricks McCain has (who, btw, also has a tendancy to attract independants).

I think if McCain wins, it'll be close regardless of who the Dems put up. Hell, they could put up the clone of FDR and it'd be close. Romney would get run over by Michael Dukakis.

This seems to sew up what we know this election season:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...211/473/450068

Two polls of California done by two respected polling outfits. One shows a huge Obama win. One shows a huge Clinton win. Other than that, they agree completely.

*Note--reading Daily Kos can be harmful to your mental health. The fact that I was on there shows just how tooseriously I am taking these primaries. Please try not to hold it against me.

LOL. Well, I guess we'll just have to wait until they count the votes :D.

We heard this all in 2004. Dubya doesn't have a prayer.

For all the handwringing over McCain's leaning to the center, when election day comes in November, the conservative base will still vote for him. The conspiracy theories of mass defections at the party core when push comes to shove in the general election are highly exaggerated.

I think Obama will likely end up the Dem candidate. His performance when he has to start giving specific policies rather than the general political 'uniting' talk that he's used thus far will show whether he can win the election.

A little morning polling information, pulled from the National Journal:

The latest tracking polls from Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby show Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 49-36% in CA, Obama-HRC 45-42% in MO, and HRC-Obama 46-41% in NJ among Dem LVs. Among GOP LVs, it's Mitt Romney-John McCain-Mike Huckabee 40-33-12% in CA, McCain-Huckabee-Romney 34-27-25% in MO, and McCain-Romney 53-24% in NJ.

Reuters/Zogby is so freaking wierd. Everyone else has slight lead for McCain in California, and Zogby has 7 point lead for Romney!

Who are they polling?!

The conservative base now only consists of the 25% who still give Bush a positive job approval.

In 2004 there were more people who voted in the republican primary than the democratic one. This year it's close to 2:1 Dem. Combine this with the high negatives for anyone with an 'R' next to their name and the fact that Republicans did not pick up a single seat in the mid term elections. In addition, the economy will probably be in the toilet by November. Bush had none of those factors against him, and there was NO ONE who said he "doesn't have a prayer," so drop that ridiculous strawman argument right now.

Now explain to me how McCain or any of the other Republican candidates are supposed to be competitive, much less win.

1. The approval rating of Dubya has little to do with whether the Republican core voters will support the next Republican candidate.
2. Show me a correlation with turnout in primaries vs. turnout in the general election. It simply isn't there.
3. The economy is in its current state with a Republican president with low ratings and a Democratic Congress with even lower ratings. As Barack says, we did it together.
4. McCain is a much different candidate than Dubya. Whether he wins or not is up in the air, but it's certainly not a Democratic steamroll in the general election as you are trying to imply.

I strongly suggest you look at the head to head polling. Sure, if the candidate was Romney or Guiliani, you'd be right. Republican candidates would lose badly. But McCain is considerably different, with mass independant and liberal appeal, especially for his willingness to buck the party line and work with people like Sen. Clinton and Sen. Kennedy.

1. My point is that there aren't very many republican core voters left

2. "We find that voting in primaries has a positive and significant effect on voting in general elections and significantly increase the vote share of the party holding the primary, suggesting that the arguments that primaries by their existence decrease voter turnout and hurt parties holding them have no support." http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p62407_index.html

3. "For the past several months, Congress' approval ratings have been as low as, and often lower than, George Bush's unprecedentedly low ratings. Various media pundits and right-wing advocates use this fact constantly to insinuate that Bush is not uniquely unpopular and Americans have not really turned against Republicans, but rather, there is just a generic dissatisfaction with our political institutions, or more misleadingly still, that Americans are actually angry at Congress for not "doing enough" (by which it is meant that they are excessively investigating and obstructing and not "cooperating" enough).
But the reason for these low approval ratings is as clear as it is meaningful -- the overall ratings for Congress are so low because Democrats disapprove of the Democratic Congress almost as much as Republicans do. There is nothing unusual about how Republicans or independents rate the Democratic Congress; the only aspect of any of this that is unusual is that Democrats rate the Congress so low even though it is controlled by their own party. Virtually every poll demonstrates this."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...8/21/congress/

4. This is the same John McCain who wants to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years even though the majority of Americans think the war was a mistake and is currently bankrupting our country? Riiiiiiiiiiight.

The head to head polls are meaningless 9 months from election day. Hell, primary polling more than a week old is meaningless. The meta factors I list above are infinitely more important than a head to head poll of prospective nominees in February.

That's kind of a ridiculous statement to make after making comments about a matchup and then saying things like any other Dem than Clinton will wipe up the floor with McCain.

Seems to me to be ignoring the facts to pump up your boy, Obama.

Of course things could happen to shift the public perception between now and then, but then you can't make blanket statements as to who will beat who in November, IMO.

Yes, they've all just vacated the party. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well I gamble heavily on this stuff, so yeah I can. :)

Hillary has high negatives. She's a polarizing figure. What do you want me to tell you? If she didn't, she'd wipe the floor with any Republican too.

There's a lot fewer of them now than 4 years ago. You can track the number by following Bush's approval rating. That equals the core republican base +/- a few percentage points.

I think this shows that you haven't really seen the appeal of McCain, every after his comments about Iraq. If its McCain as the nominee, NO Dem is wiping the floor with him.

Um... there is PLENTY of core Republican base which doesn't like Bush. I personally know a few.

I don't know where this logic comes from. I voted for Bush both times and am extremely disappointed in his performance for the past two years. I guess that I am no longer a republican, right?

Just because you don't approve of a sitting republican president doesn't mean you won't vote for Romney or McCain.

I'm not making this stuff up.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=312

"Even more striking than the changes in some core political and social values is the dramatic shift in party identification that has occurred during the past five years. In 2002, the country was equally divided along partisan lines: 43% identified with the Republican Party or leaned to the GOP, while an identical proportion said they were Democrats. Today, half of the public (50%) either identifies as a Democrat or says they lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 35% who align with the GOP.

Yet the Democrats' growing advantage in party identification is tempered by the fact that the Democratic Party's overall standing with the public is no better than it was when President Bush was first inaugurated in 2001. Instead, it is the Republican Party that has rapidly lost public support, particularly among political independents. Faced with an unpopular president who is waging an increasingly unpopular war, the proportion of Americans who hold a favorable view of the Republican Party stands at 41%, down 15 points since January 2001. But during that same period, the proportion expressing a positive view of Democrats has declined by six points, to 54%."

And, of course, a McCain nomination wouldn't bring back in the indeps? Like McCain always has? I know, a lot of Republicans have started to call themselves Libertarians (an annoying habit) because of this President. But there is no doubt that they'll run back in a flash when McCain or Romney is the nominee.

Where did I write that? How did you get there? This is why I hate talking politics.

I'll grant you this. You're really good at linking a lot of articles that support your bias leanings. Quote all the polls you want. Just because there's a lot of Republicans who don't like what Dubya was as a president doesn't mean that they are any more happy with what the Democrats are as a party or as a congressional governing body.

Oh I agree. It's just that this year anyone with an R next to their name is starting on average 7-8 points behind anyone with a D. That's a big disadvantage.

Like I said, not if you read the head to head polls. And this time you can't use the "It's February" thing, because you said "STARTING on average". :cool:

Because I only gamble on what will happen and I don't vote, I'm probably the least biased person here. If I am biased, I lose $$$.

If you'd like to add something else to the discussion please do, but take your bias bullshit someplace else.

:rolleyes:

Congrats on being a gambler.

All that means is that 7-8% of the "rank and file" GOP from 2002 now wish to be considered "independents" because of their frustration with Bush. I don't see how that relates to them voting for Hillary or Obama. The best case would be that they just sit out, but I'm guessing all the hub-ub leading up to November will have them voting (even if it's just to keep Hillary/Obama from office). If Bush were on the ticket, I think that analysis may have some merit - but he's not.

Another point is that data you list was from 2002, which was probably the high point in republican unity. If you look at 2004, the advantage was 47 Dem - 41 Rep and Bush still won. So, if Bush (who helped create the negative trend) can win with a mid-level deficit, I'd guess a new candidate could also win with a slightly larger deficit.

Also, t for those of you valueing head-to-head, check out this poll by CNN back in Feb, 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...oll/index.html


According to Polls, either Edwards or Kerry would have walked over Bush back in early 2004. Once the candidates are chosen and the real campaign begins, these polls have a tendency to do some pretty big shifting. Right now, no one knows much about the policies of these guys (esp Romney and Obama) and we are in the "platitude courting phase" in each party.

I'm confused. You start with whoever self-identifies with your party (i.e. registered republicans). That's your base. As a candidate, you then try to do 2 things:

1) get your base to turnout
2) win over indys

If your base is high enough, 2) doesn't matter. We already know what the base numbers are nationally for each party. I posted it above. That's the start. The head to head polls at this point are essentially only measuring indy support, which can't accurately be measured until a week or two after both conventions finish.

You gamble on elections?

I know more than a few of these people and consider myself among them. I don't think that the GOP nominee is going to get many of them to convert in November. I think people will sit on their hands come election day, vote third party or not bother at all.

Where I live now and where I'm moving are both places where my vote won't have a demonstrable impact on the final results, making me more likely to vote as I would normally (for the third party candidate that best represents my viewpoints) since neither of the presumptive major party candidates will come close.

I do know that younger people who have tended towards the GOP either because of family commitments, legacy or other such reasons are more and more considering Obama. Which is just downright strange on paper, but one good example of a difference between Hillary and Obama are their healthcare plans.

Obama is smart enough to realize that independents and fence-sitters who would vote for him are not going to want mandatory health care plans enacted, where Hillary's plan has mandates. Doubtful they'd get passed to begin with, but it does leave her progressive base happy with her for that reason.

But that's just one clear example where he's already angling for people in the centre and on the right of centre to vote for him and the fact that he's positioning himself that way in the primaries signals that he'll either live or die by the whole "unity" candidacy deal.

So while in the past, I doubt it'd do much for him. I think this year that the unique turn of events of the past eight years have really made a guy like him palatable to a voting populace that would normally dismiss him on face.

But we'll have evidence to weigh whether any of it means anything later tonight and beyond.

Start here:
http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/

This is for larger amounts of $$$:
https://www.intrade.com


Bodog always puts up really soft lines for all Presidential and Senate races. In 2006 they had a line up for someone running unopposed. Max $50 though :(

Pinnacle often has lines up too, but you need to be "Canadian" or non-US to bet there.

I'd actually vote for Bush over Hillary if that were the current election. It has little to do with whether I like Bush and a whole lot to do with how much I don't like Hillary. I'm willing to consider Obama once I hear what his actual policies are. I don't know much of anything about him at this point. I like McCain as a moderate change for the Republicans.

nothing better than cnn.com for exit-polling, is there?

That's not true and you realize that. They don't just ask indeps, but people across the board, which include the Rep and Dem core voters as well. It's a good starting point as any, especially when the Rep we are talking about has more appeal to moderates and indeps than he does to hard core conservatives.

I'm not buying the McCain=independents thing this time around. I think he burnt a lot of bridges with independents with his flat out courting of the right wingers over the past year or so. If Obama can grab the nomination, I think the independents break his way much more so than towards McCain.

Just curious. Does anyone else have a state that has a lot of 'sabotage' votes cast? I live in Missouri and you can request a ballot for either party, regardless of any party affiliation. I know quite a few republicans who requested Democratic ballots simply to vote for Clinton in the hopes that she can secure the nomination, which would seem to favor the Republicans in a general election.

I know some states don't allow this kind of voting. Does anyone know how many states do allow it?

Head to head polls show McCain as the Republicans best show to win in November. Romney would lose in a landslide. But other than that, those polls are meaningless until we get down to two. Arles posted a poll that had Kerry up by 10% in February and look what happened. I'm one of the people Foo is talking about and I won't be voting for John McCain. It's obvious there's a shift from Republican to Democrat. Republicans were wiped out in 2006. There seems to be a lot more turnout for Democrats in the primaries. McCain will get independents, but so will Obama. Who do you think those guys will side with, the guy who wants to leave Iraq or the guy who wants to stay there for 100 years?

I am an independant/moderate voter, and I can not participate in today's primary because Massachusetts has closed primaries. For me, I'm not as fond of Mccain as I was a few years ago, but he is the only Republican candidate that i would consider voting for. It is more of a statement of how much I don't want Clinton in the White House than what I think of Mccain.

Right now, I am leaning heavily towards Obama if he gets the nomination. I'm also trying to convince my in-laws who live in California to vote Obama today, but I think they're leaning towards Clinton for who knows what reason!

This is what I was discussing earlier when I said I'd be willing to consider Obama once I know some of the specifics behind his policies. It's easy to say that he'll just take the troops out of Iraq and be done with it. It's another thing to present his foreign policy and let everyone know how he will deal with terrorists in foreign lands once we have pulled all of those troops out of those countries. I'm not saying that there isn't an alternative solution.......it's just that he hasn't presented it yet in any specific form.

I'll sum this up for everyone:

Clinton wins the Dem. nomination = Republican win in November
Obama wins the Dem. nomination = Democrat landslide in November

The primaries so far have shown that McCain is doing very well with independant voters. They've given him victories in the open primaries that have been held. When it is a closed primary, he does much worse.

And I'll sum up my response: Bullshit

:D

But the turnout for open primaries has been 2-1 Democratic vs Republican. I don't doubt that McCain is getting the lions share of independent votes in the Republican primaries. But Obama is getting the lions share of indep votes in the Democratic primaries, and I believe that he would get a far larger share than McCain if the general came down to the two of them.

I see Obama and has superior debating/speaking skills crushing McCain in debates.

So, I guess lying and cheating isn't just a republican value and not just isolated to your presidents, huh?:D

And that may very well be the case. I think McCain/Obama debates would actually be very entertaining. As I said, I'm willing to consider Obama, but I want to hear him actually talk about specific policies. Also, I could see McCain pulling a Bob Dole (i.e. trying to look so presidential that he doesn't let his personality come through). IMO, it does seem as though McCain is a bit looser this time than in his previous presidential runs. Obama does a great job of keeping an even keel, even under attack from Hillary.

If I had to guess, I would start out with all matchups being close. With the 24-hour news cycle and cable TV, politics is much more of a "team sport" than it was when Reagan won back in the 80s. Both side will pretty much start out with 40% of the popular vote regardless of the candidate. If you discount the 1-3% of the 3rd party (maybe Bloomberg?), that leaves a 20% window up for grabs. Here's how I see that 20% going:

Hillary-McCain = 9-11
Hillary-Romney= 8-12
Obama-McCain=12-8
Obama-Romney=11-9

From an electoral standpoint, I'd say the republican wins all the red states that Bush won in 04 but AZ, CO, NM, FL, IA and OH regardess. For the Dems, they win all but PA, WI, MI, NH and maybe MN. So, it comes down to which democrat has a better shot at the West and which republican can hold OH, FL and make a run at PA. IMO, the democrat is Obama and the republican is Romney. Still, if Romney ran against Obama, I think it would be extremely close and one of those 278-260 type finishes. Even if Hillary ran against McCain or Romney, it still would be close as there just isn't much wiggle room in likely voters. In February, everyone's excited about the new blood (heck, Dole was favored over Clinton in 96). But things tend to get back to an equilibrium point by October and that's where the final margin is usually decided.

Maybe, maybe not. I think a lot of people voting for Obama don't necessarily know his views on things, just bold pronouncements for unity and change. I think if it comes down to McCain and Obama, McCain may start pulling up stuff like Obama being the most liberal Senator based on his votes, even more liberal than Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and some independants may say, wait a sec...

Obama hasn't really had to face someone hammering him for being too liberal, because, well... Clinton isn't going to do that and get on the good side of Dem voters. McCain, OTOH, will... and we'll have to see which way the indeps go, left or right (and somehow McCain has a perception of being a moderate).

My whole premise is that the one person that can save the Republican party is Hillary Clinton. That said, I think a Republican loss in 2008 is going to be healthy for the country. The Republican Party needs to do some soul searching right now. If they win, there won't be any soul searching.

Mc Cain will win the vote of the independents in a race against Clinton. Look at how Hillary has looked against Obama. She should crush him easily, but the more that people look at the two of them, the more they prefer Obama to her.

That said, I don't think a Hillary or McCain presidency is going to be any different. I would see more scandals with Hillary in office than McCain.

Obama crushes McCain because he has a rosy vision for the future. He really is a throwback to Reagan in that regard. Reagan was in turn a throwback to Kennedy. Sure, their policies are different, but they all believed that the USA was the greatest nation on this Earth and that we have the ability to improve the world.

If Steve from the Dupage County Ron Paul Office calls me one more time and tells me to make sure I vote for the right delegates, I'm going to stab him.

I found it quite interesting that in 2004 Kerry just happened to have the most liberal record and in 2008 Obama just happens to also. Makes me wonder about the group putting that list together -- after all, who decides which positions/votes are "liberal"? I also think that Obama's campaign premise of coming together is far more centrist than the campaign that Hillary is running for example.

I see where you're coming from and you could well be right that an Obama/McCain matchup would be closer than I see it from the deep blue Northwest, but I just can't help but feel that a) voters are taking this election very seriously very early, b) there is a deep distrust generated by the past eight years of this administration and c) an unwillingness to just go along with media pronouncements and generalizations. All of those factors point to a big shift election this time around. I think it's close if Hillary is the Dem nominee, I don't think it's nearly as close if Obama is.......and I don't think it really matters who the Republican nominee is.

I think that's an incredibly rose glasses view of things. McCain is optimistic about America's future as well and he's also a savvy politician. He'll find ways to point to the fact that Obama is liberal on X, Y, Z position and some indeps may realize that while Obama was talking about unity and change, they didn't realize he meant that much change.

There are few folks running today who don't look at the country with optimism. I think the problem is, is that folks that just run on optimism are going to have a difficult time when their policies are become center stage instead.

Reagan was lucky in that Carter was running for re-election. But McCain is seen as been a bit more distant from this administration while being in the same party. I do think that Democrats who back either Clinton or Obama are underestimating the appeal of John McCain to moderates and independants.

West Virginia convention is going on now. The winner gets all of the 18/30 WV delegates.

1st round results...

MIKE HUCKABEE - 375 votes (33%)
JOHN McCAIN - 176 votes (16%)
RON PAUL - 118 votes (10%)
MITT ROMNEY - 464 votes (41%)

Ron Paul is now eliminated and his and the rest of the delegates will re-vote in the 2nd round for the other 3. I wonder if Paul's votes will go to Huckabee.

Yep, Mike Huckabee is the winner of WV and 18/30 delegates there. What happened was McCain voters saw voting for him as a lost cause and went for Huckabee over Romney.

This is astoundingly accurate.

Aw, shucks. :cool:

Et Tu, Brutus? you're lecturing someone on bias?

The Pew Research center notes that party identification has given Dems their biggest advantage in a long, long time. McCain is perhaps the only GOP candidate who may be able to bite into that and win this election for them.

I've crosseed party lines a few times. I'm certainly not a straight ticket voter. Not sure where you see my opinion as being bias. I've already stated that I'd consider Obama as long as I understood his policies.

I don't want either of those guys.

Just one reason why:

I'm really kind of horrified at the idea that both of them want a national sexual predator registry. Either lock sexual predators up for life, or treat them as you would any other criminal who's paid their debt to society. The idea that we have this special class that needs to be tracked for the rest of their lives and impeded from living a normal life is, to me, in direct contradiction with the 14th Amendment.

If recidivism is so high in that group that they cannot be considered to be rehabilitated, why are we releasing them?

I just don't get how you can have two guys claim that they want judicial strict constructionists on the bench, and then support something like this.

Can't format poll

I think that he's been out there speaking on the issues. But because he's a good speaker, the media only covers the speaking events where he "inspires" or whatever by making good sound bytes.

Andrew Sullivan had to say this last year about him (he's a supporter of Obama, though, I'm not sure he was at that time of this story)

Earlier this fall, I attended an Obama speech in Washington on tax policy that underwhelmed on delivery; his address was wooden, stilted, even tedious. It was only after I left the hotel that it occurred to me that I’d just been bored on tax policy by a national black leader. That I should have been struck by this was born in my own racial stereotypes, of course. But it won me over.

...And the persistence of race as a divisive, even explosive factor in American life was unmissable the week of Obama’s tax speech. While he was detailing middle-class tax breaks, thousands of activists were preparing to march in Jena, Louisiana, after a series of crude racial incidents had blown up into a polarizing conflict.

I think the myth of him not being strong on policy just isn't true. I just think it's a matter of way he's covered and the natural of the beast at this time of year.

It sucks being a registered Lib. since I don't get to participate in the top battles. Heck I don't even know who these guys are on my ballot!

That's why I am a registered democrat. The only way I can participate in meaningful elections (those would be the democratic primary) is to register as a democrat. It will be a cold day in hell the next time a Republic is chosen by the District of Columbia.

I vote Statehood-Green. :)

Let me try to clarify: Obama voted for the PS3 before he voted against it.

Then why would you be a registered libertarion?

And why would anyone be a registered independent?

Wouldn't it make sense to register as one of the two major parties so that you could vote in the primary? And then once the general election comes around, you can vote for whomever you want?

What am I missing?

Avoid election spam in the mailboxes would be my guess.