(POL) Official Super Tuesday Thread

[Jas_lov]

John McCain has won California. Mitt Romney is mulling suicide.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOL, I do like that. It seems to indicate that the crowd really don't care about his policy positions. They just like his style and want to change "Yes we can".

It is quite a break from the past though. Perhaps that criticism has finally gotten to him. Though I'm sure the Republican operatives are writing down all the programs and promises he has spoken of and calculating the cost so that the number can be used in the 1st general election debate if need be.

Oh, they already know that he's a liberal. And that he's more liberal than Hillary. They've got plenty they can do against him. But I just think the real issue won't be the GOP operatives, it'll be who they run against him. They'll surely go negative. But he's a tidal wave and he's not bulletproof, but it's still difficult to campaign against him in the way you would a "normal" candidate, simply because of the backlash of sore feelings that are bound to occur if they go "too hard".

If it's Hillary, it'll be open season I think. But they'll still lose on the backlash of people who think Republicans want women in the kitchen and on the bed barefoot and pregnant.

So either one of them will basically be able to deal with the "Republican attack machine" as it were.

[Jas_lov]

John McCain has won Missouri and all of its delegates.

[sterlingice]

Oh well, it's tv and then bed time. Tomorrow will be interesting after all the dissection.

SI

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Hillary Clinton has won California.

It probably won't be very close in California, as there are about 2,000,000 absentee ballots, and presumably most of them were cast before Obama began his late surge.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You a GIS hack?

SI

I have been since 1981 and in my present job, since 1989. Remember that famous study of geographical illiteracy among college freshmen in the 1980s? That was me (or me being a key contributor).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I'm only aware of NPR calling it, but I could have missed something.

I would swear (although that wouldn't guarantee I'm right) that one of the last things I heard on the radio before coming into the house was AP calling Missouri for Clinton. Maybe I was just hallucinating after several hours in the car.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Mitt Romney is mulling suicide.

Losing a GOP primary to John f'n McCain would pretty much be grounds for hari kari.

(or Harry Caray, in which case you get shitfaced on beer that tastes like piss and then speak in public)

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I'm only aware of NPR calling it, but I could have missed something. St. Louis ALWAYS comes in late in Missouri. I'm guessing it and Kansas City are in now, but there's only 2% left to count.

Yeah, only NPR called it. CNN and FOX never called Missouri. They know the game. It's too close to call because St. Louis is always late, sometimes leaving the damn polls open too late because people are lined up outside.

That's a hell of a turnaround for him and a huge victory, as it doesn't seem that if he made up that ground that he's gonna lose to her now. Wow. Looks like Claire McCaskill's stock as a VP just went up on the basis of that, because without her support I don't know that the presumptive black votes in KC and STL would've mattered in the end.

Given his dominance of the midwest, I think he's effectively ended the "black candidate" talk, which is what was the big problem going forward from South Carolina. (Even if it was just bluster to being with...)

[Vegas Vic]

Obama has been very strong in a lot of the "red" states that Democrats have no chance to win in the general election (like Utah, Idaho, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc). I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I would swear (although that wouldn't guarantee I'm right) that one of the last things I heard on the radio before coming into the house was AP calling Missouri for Clinton. Maybe I was just hallucinating after several hours in the car.

AP makes sense, which why NPR might have done it since the AP did. None of the TV networks did, though. We didn't hear AP on TV or at least, CNN didn't cover it.

[cuervo72]

I have to say - the CNN graphics on their HD feed are *fantastic* in my opinion. Very cleanly laid out, up all the time (even in commercials)...just really, really sharp.

[Vegas Vic]

Fox News calls Missouri for Obama.

[Warhammer]

Does anyone else think that Huckabee may have cut a deal with McCain for the VP nod?

[Jas_lov]

New Mexico, Alaska, and Missouri still haven't been called yet for the Democrats.

Alaska is left on the Republican side.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

New Mexico, Alaska, and Missouri still haven't been called yet for the Democrats.

Alaska is left on the Republican side.

Bill Richardson very pointedly did not endorse a candidate (he was widely expected to endorse Clinton), and, living in the Democratic part of the state, for the last two weeks I have not been able to turn around without seeing an Obama button/bumper sticker/sign. He's way ahead in the "button" poll, and he's getting all the media - he was on the cover of both the big papers yesterday.

Clinton was expected to win New Mexico, but I don't believe she will.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Obama has been very strong in a lot of the "red" states that Democrats have no chance to win in the general election (like Utah, Idaho, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc). I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

My fiscal conservative, former top aide to a state cabinet member boss says that she "really likes" Obama and is thinking of voting for him.

The guy is convincing people who'd never vote for a Dem to vote for him, because he "inspires" them. It's a really transcendent race. Will it have an impact? If he manages to beat the Clinton machine. And we know they're not gonna go down without guns blazing.

I do think CNN earns their "Clinton News Network" reputation well having Ari Fleischer and Paul Begala on there.

Fleischer isn't ever going to answer a question definitively (Do you think Huckabee would be the frontrunner for VP? "It's too early to say" he says...that's not a freakin' answer)

And Begala is a Clintonista and naturally wants to declare tonight a "victory for Hillary Clinton" and of course, the Clinton biographer guy doesn't seem to like them much, but...their coverage is annoying in the sense that the bizarrely assorted people they have all have their own dogs in the hunt, none are journalists and all seemed biased for or against a candidate and so..it's not really insight, it's just smoke and telling us stuff we already can figure out on our own.

[Warhammer]

I don't care what any of the pundits say. Today was a HUGE win for Obama. I didn't believe that he was going to carry near the number of states that he did. Additionally, did Hiliary win any states that she wasn't expected to win? She basically won the coasts and the states near her home state. That's it.

Who expected Obama to win Conn., or some of these other states with the margins that he did?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Does anyone else think that Huckabee may have cut a deal with McCain for the VP nod?

I think it depends on who they run against. I can't see how they can beat the Democrats running two white guys. It'll be too status quo. I think it'd be a smart move, because they can win the states GOPers are supposed to win, but in my mind, I don't see how Huckabee puts "purple states" in play that the GOP would need to hold onto the White House.

Obama would seriously muck up the map for them unless they can effectively sully him with a litany of negative ads from the time McCain wins the nomination until the general. And well, Hillary it's the same deal but for more substantive reasons I believe.

We know the Clinton record and what they're good on and what they're not so good on. They'll galvanize the base that's already been energized in an election year and so, against Clinton, I say Huckabee mitigates the Arkansas advantage and keeps the south in play.

But against Obama? Gotta go the token route.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I don't care what any of the pundits say. Today was a HUGE win for Obama. I didn't believe that he was going to carry near the number of states that he did. Additionally, did Hiliary win any states that she wasn't expected to win? She basically won the coasts and the states near her home state. That's it.

Who expected Obama to win Conn., or some of these other states with the margins that he did?

You're right. He did very well tonight. The comeback in Missouri was big. If st. cronin is right, Obama will pick up another state in New Mexico that Hillary was supposed to win. He took Minnesota by 30%! And now he has won Alaska.

And upcoming states on February 9th and 12th look favorable to him- Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Obama can win 4/6 of those can't he?

[st.cronin]

Alaska for Obama, CNN.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

My fiscal conservative, former top aide to a state cabinet member boss says that she "really likes" Obama and is thinking of voting for him.

The guy is convincing people who'd never vote for a Dem to vote for him, because he "inspires" them.

I agree with that, but after the conventions and endless fall campaign, on election day, rest assured that 99% of those conservatives are going to vote for McCain, regardless of what they might be saying now.

Ultimately, the election will be decided by the 10% of the people who always decide the election, and McCain has a lot of appeal amongst those folks. I don't see how Obama's huge popularity among democrats in states that aren't even in play for the democrats is that much of a big deal. I'm not saying that Obama couldn't win, but putting together an electoral college to get to 270 is going to be very difficult for either him or Hillary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Given his dominance of the midwest, I think he's effectively ended the "black candidate" talk, which is what was the big problem going forward from South Carolina. (Even if it was just bluster to being with...)

I don't quite know what to make of it from looking at exit polling data like this.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/misso...tic-exit-poll/

On the one hand, you've got an 80% white vote with Clinton (allegedly) up 53-38, while Obama posts an uncharacteristically low 75% edge with black voters.

On the other hand you've got self-described "conservative" Dems giving Obama a 53-38 edge and "liberals" giving him a 54-39 edge while she wins the moderates 50-41. And one of his biggest margins was 71-21 with Republicans apparently voting in a Democratic primary, although they were just 6% of the total polled. He also wins the Independents while she wins with those calling themselves Democrats.

As I type this post, he's shown winning the state by just under 5,000 votes.

Just purely for hypothetical purposes (because I'm damned sure not banking on anybody's exit poll data at this point), just because the numbers are out there to play with for a minute ... the 6% of those exit polled who said they considered themselves Republicans works out to 47,834 voters. 71% of those for Obama works out to 33,962 votes for him, 10,045 to Clinton for her share.
That's a swing of almost 24,000 votes, more than enough to have swung the outcome of the election there.

Even if the exit numbers were off by half, there's still enough Republican crossover to have actually changed the outcome of the Democratic primary.

Again, I'm not saying even a little bit that this is what happened ... but it sure is an interesting quirk of the numbers at nearly 1am.

[Jas_lov]

MSNBC says that the delegate race will be basically split. With those superdelegates, whoever they are, Hillary may have a slight lead. So basically we haven't solved much. But I do think the upcoming states are favorable to Obama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Obama can win 4/6 of those can't he?

On that, I'd say absolutely. He might even go 6/6 in that batch.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

You're right. He did very well tonight. The comeback in Missouri was big. If st. cronin is right, Obama will pick up another state in New Mexico that Hillary was supposed to win. He took Minnesota by 30%! And now he has won Alaska.

And upcoming states on February 9th and 12th look favorable to him- Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Obama can win 4/6 of those can't he?

He's up by 22 in Washington I heard today. I'm going to caucus for him Saturday.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

MSNBC says that the delegate race will be basically split. With those superdelegates, whoever they are, Hillary may have a slight lead. So basically we haven't solved much. But I do think the upcoming states are favorable to Obama.

This is where Edwards' gambit to not endorse anyone seems to be absolutely brilliant. He can use those delegates as a carrot at the convention, pledging his delegates for a veep role if he wants it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

rest assured that 99% of those conservatives are going to vote for McCain

I sure hope you aren't putting any money on that prediction.

Against Obama, you might get 70%. Maybe even 75%.
Against Hillary at this point (having seen Obama as the alternative), anything more than 60% is utter foolishness to expect, and closer to half seems just as likely.

You're grossly underestimating how bad a lot of us fucking hate McCain.
And I do mean "grossly". And I do mean "hate".

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is where Edwards' gambit to not endorse anyone seems to be absolutely brilliant. He can use those delegates as a carrot at the convention, pledging his delegates for a veep role if he wants it.

I think he's overcooked his grits. He's not going to matter. He didn't really have anything to gain by endorsing anybody now, because he wants a gig in cabinet and if he goes with the loser, he might not get that. So he stays on the sidelines and probably pledges privately to campaign hard for the winner either way.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I sure hope you aren't putting any money on that prediction.

Against Obama, you might get 70%. Maybe even 75%.
Against Hillary at this point (having seen Obama as the alternative), anything more than 60% is utter foolishness to expect, and closer to half seems just as likely.

You're grossly underestimating how bad a lot of us fucking hate McCain.
And I do mean "grossly". And I do mean "hate".

+1

Glad you said it.

McCain has alienated pretty much everyone at this point. He might still get a few stray votes here and there, but whereas he might've gotten the base to come out for him before, he's alienated the core conservatives a long time ago and he's since alienated the people who supported him in the past for his willingness to alienate the core conservatives.

I think he's gonna have a lot of hell to pay as this coronation continues and he's got a lot of fences to mend...but I'm not sure that he won't have a lot of people sitting on their hands, much less come out for him in November.

[SackAttack]

I'd vote Obama over McCain, but probably not Hillary.

Not so much on politics but on not trusting her any further than I could throw her.

Of course, this doesn't mean I'd vote for McCain, either.

I'm thinking "Tarzan for President" has a nice ring in that eventuality.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think he's overcooked his grits. He's not going to matter. He didn't really have anything to gain by endorsing anybody now, because he wants a gig in cabinet and if he goes with the loser, he might not get that. So he stays on the sidelines and probably pledges privately to campaign hard for the winner either way.

Yeah Richardson and Edwards are both chicken shit pussy save asses and I won't vote for anyone who chooses them as their VP period!

[Vegas Vic]

You guys crack me up with your estimate of conservative support for Obama or Clinton.

I can already see the McCain commercials coming out this fall. "Do you want more Supreme Court justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Do you want a 'cut and run' policy in Iraq? Do you want socialized medicine?"

There's a lot of anger among conservatives, but not many will cross the line when they step into the voting booth in November.

[-apoc-]

I am not sure how well McCain will actually do with the Independants like myself. 8 years ago I would have voted for him vs Gore but ended up voting for Gore over Bush. His bouncing around on issues in the last 8 years has totally turned me off of him since then. Him vs Obama I would go for Obama and him vs Hillary I seriously just might stay home and cry.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I believe that's a case of people seriously trying to fuck with the exit pollers (which was an interesting topic of conversation on the Atlanta radio coverage tonight, by some of the more serious local analysts/straight news people, not the talkshow types).

I can't begin to imagine any Huckabee voter going with McCain over Romney for any reason other than the distrust of Mormon issue.

Because Romney is slimy. I don;t like Huckabee as a president at all, but at least he is mostly who he says he is, but Romney feels like a snake oil salesmen, and peopel who vote for character, rather than issues might well go McCain-Huckabee-Romney in that order.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

There's a lot of anger among conservatives, but not many will cross the line when they step into the voting booth in November.

Who said we would bother to step into the booth at all?

That's the point, not that any of us have suddenly developed any great love for Hillary Clinton or Barrack "damn I sound just like Dwayne Johnson" Obama.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I don;t like Huckabee as a president at all, but at least he is mostly who he says he is, but Romney feels like a snake oil salesmen, and peopel who vote for character, rather than issues might well go McCain-Huckabee-Romney in that order.

I'll say this about Huckabee. The guy seems like he speaks from the heart and has a genuine good nature about him. He even has a cordial relationship with the Clintons. It's too bad that more politicians can't exhibit that type of statesmanship anymore. Ronald Reagan was the same way. He didn't carry a grudge against anyone.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Barrack "damn I sound just like Dwayne Johnson" Obama.

Do you smell what Barrack is cookin'?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Obama has been very strong in a lot of the "red" states that Democrats have no chance to win in the general election (like Utah, Idaho, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc). I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

Yeah and McCain is strong in Blue states. You don't win the Republican nomination with a "Democrat' general election strategy - taking CA, NY, NJ, etc.

that's why the Poli Sci professor n me wants to see Mccain-Obama so badly.

[SirFozzie]

BTW, maybe Jon, Sack or someone can explain this.. in the national primary states (IE, both R and D voting), apparently two times as many votes were cast in D primaries as in D primaries..).. this is from an admittedly biased source (Karl Rove, via Real Clear Politics).. this seems to me that it has to do with A) The nomination on the R side being viewed as decided by many (which is understandable if true), B) a VERY close race on the D side (which is also understandable)..

but C) worries me if I'm the Republican Party: That's a nationwide group on the D side feeling much more energized this election season then the Republican side. How much will this energy/momentum carry over to the general election?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BTW, maybe Jon, Sack or someone can explain this.. in the national primary states (IE, both R and D voting), apparently two times as many votes were cast in D primaries as in D primaries..).. this is from an admittedly biased source (Karl Rove, via Real Clear Politics).. this seems to me that it has to do with A) The nomination on the R side being viewed as decided by many (which is understandable if true), B) a VERY close race on the D side (which is also understandable)..

but C) worries me if I'm the Republican Party: That's a nationwide group on the D side feeling much more energized this election season then the Republican side. How much will this energy/momentum carry over to the general election?

Also remember that most urban areas lean Democrat, and most rural areas Repub. Getting to your polling place the next block over in urban areas is easy to do, and you have bus drives and so forth to get out the vote, and campainging is easier. In a rural area, you might have to drive miles, there's been less cmapaigneing, etc. So there is a natural tendency in primaries nationally for Repubs to have less votes than Dems. That's not true for independant states, obv, where tendancies migth vary (such as WV, where it is the exact opposite)

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

You guys crack me up with your estimate of conservative support for Obama or Clinton.

I can already see the McCain commercials coming out this fall. "Do you want more Supreme Court justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Do you want a 'cut and run' policy in Iraq? Do you want socialized medicine?"

There's a lot of anger among conservatives, but not many will cross the line when they step into the voting booth in November.

It's not an overestimation. You're underestimating how many conservatives are freakin' pissed off with the way things have been run for the past eight years. The fact is, the partisan distinctions don't matter at all. Bush proved it. All of the shit that the Dems would do, the GOPers are gonna do the same way. At least with the Dems, you know what you're getting and you can just elected a GOP congress eventually to keep them in check.

By putting a GOPer in there, you just kick the ass of your own causes, because all you're doing is asking someone to constantly sell out or get brushed back by the eventual (and inevitable) demands of not just a Democratic-controlled Congress, but a host of nanny state independents who are "worried" about everything from Iraq to their houses being foreclosed on and want the government to "fix it" for them.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

You have no idea how many lifelong Republicans who were always moderate to begin with, but stick with the party because they believe in tax cuts and fiscal conservatism and don't care about the other stuff nearly as much as the religious right does, have been pushed out of the party. We've been silenced and I've seem time and time again how many of my conservative friends to the left and right of me who have spent the past near decade outright incensed about what the party has done and is doing...and the two guys that are the front runners (and that populist Huckabee) are all the same shade of what we've got, but lower octane versions of it.

Who the hell wants to vote for that shit? But don't believe us and just watch the stuff unfold in November. Maybe we're completely wrong and the Rush Limbaugh right will come out in droves and ensure that Hillary or Barack Hussein don't take America in the "wrong" direction.

If they manage to pull that off, it'll be the same hand sitters who are frustrated who are responsible for that happening, because assuredly these aren't the folks who are pulling the lever for the status quo. No way.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Yeah and McCain is strong in Blue states.

The big difference is that McCain actually has a chance to pick off a couple of blue states like California and Pennsylvania. I don't see any of the red states in play for the democrats this year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BTW, maybe Jon, Sack or someone can explain this.. in the national primary states (IE, both R and D voting), apparently two times as many votes were cast in D primaries as in D primaries..).. this is from an admittedly biased source (Karl Rove, via Real Clear Politics).. this seems to me that it has to do with A) The nomination on the R side being viewed as decided by many (which is understandable if true), B) a VERY close race on the D side (which is also understandable)..

but C) worries me if I'm the Republican Party: That's a nationwide group on the D side feeling much more energized this election season then the Republican side. How much will this energy/momentum carry over to the general election?

Not sure there's much to explain, as you seem to have summarized it pretty well.

I'd say (if I'm reading your post right) that Rove is spinning with some pretty rose-colored glasses though. This is a pretty uninspiring group of GOP candidates outside of the diehards for each, and there just aren't as many of those as they need to match the Dem numbers at this stage. Meanwhile you've got a clear two horse race on the other side, so your choices are either A or B (none of this "might as well wait to see what we get in November" temptation) both of which seem to have significantly more diehards in their camps.

And honestly, I'd guess that anywhere from 20% to up to one-third of all likely GOP voters have already concluded that November is lost no matter what we do/don't do today. Huckabee doesn't seem possible to win the nomination no matter what, Romney's hopes were obviously fading even before today's results (which were end result of that feeling) and McCain can't beat Hillary and might not even beat Obama and it really doesn't matter a hell of a lot (even to most of his supporters IMO) if he doesn't.

Tell me then: what exactly is there that would energize someone who has voted for GOP candidates over the past twenty years or so?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

+1 ... because you said it first, just for totally different reasons.

You have no idea how many lifelong Republicans who were always moderate to begin with, but stick with the party because they believe in tax cuts and fiscal conservatism and don't care about the other stuff nearly as much as the religious right does, have been pushed out of the party.

We seem to be somewhere around the opposite ends of the GOP voter spectrum based on that snippet but here's the problem we've both got:
Neither of us can win a Presidential election without the other.

And for us social conservatives, it's not particularly that we disagree with the (I dunno, you could pick the phrase here better than I could probably) fiscal conservatives, it's just that our top priorities aren't the same as yours. And a lot of the things that would drive you nuts in/from/by a candidate or eventual President are stuff we'll tolerate in order to get the things we really care about addressed. And if they aren't, then the fiscal things really just aren't motivating since if they're right but the other stuff is screwed up then we really don't see the point.

And I say that as someone who has very strong feelings about quite a few tax related issues, which add up to some amounts that get very personal & very important verydamnedquick.

Between us, we illustrate just how well & truly fucked the GOP is come November ... and why we better make damned sure we come up with a way to figure out something Congressionally that we can both live with.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

McCain can't beat Hillary

The most recent polling says otherwise.

Keep in mind, historically the democratic candidate usually has a lead over the republican candidate early in the election season. In 2004, Kerry was leading Bush in the polls until the republican convention. Heck, in 1988 Dukakis had a 17 point lead over GHWB until late August.

[Scoobz0202]

I must say. I really have enjoyed CNN's coverage of the voting tonight. Who did everybody else follow tonight?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

I must say. I really have enjoyed CNN's coverage of the voting tonight. Who did everybody else follow tonight?

FOFC

(and Foxnews.com, and cnn.com, and ajc.com)

[Abe Sargent]

My credentials for the following post:

I've been an adjunct political sceicne professor at EMU for svereal years (recently left to go to London, which didnt work out)

I worked in WV state politics for several years, including time spent with the top Republicans and Republican organization in the state.

In fact, if you look at the video of the people on the stage in WV with Huckabee, I know all of them, and I'm really good friends with one of them, a state senator who once tried to hook me up with his sister-in-law.




I know a lot of folks were predicting a Romney win in WV today, and frankly, those people either didn't know WV or were stupid. Like I said earlier, I feel Romney is a slimeball sort of character, who chameleons himself one way or the other. There's no way he wins in WV, the state that legitimized JFk's run for the white house.

Ever since then, WV has taken its role in politics very seriously, and the party elite weren't coming near Romney.


Here's what I would like to see polling on.

Republicans who voted Huckabee in the states in which he won today (or was close like Missouri)

A lot of pundits did polling and showed Romney ahead as the consensus choice in a lot of states where he did less well.

Were there conservatives who voted Huckabee later in the day, after it had been announced that he won WV? I can see a lot of conservative voters who were either going to skip the primary altogether or hold their nose and vote for Romney switch to Huckabee at the last minute (or decide to go out and vote after they saw him win)?

Was there a WV factor in today;s Repub primaries that was felt across the states?

I really want to see surveys and data on that, because I would find that fascinating. However, it is a theory that accounts for the results we saw tonight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anxiety -- interesting question, let's see what I can find just on the quick.

Huckabee looks to have won in:
AL, AR, GA, TN
Huckabee finished second in:
AK, MO, OK

Polls prior to today
AL -- 2nd in RCP average 38-33-18 on 2/4, led 2/4 Insider Advantage by 38-29-20
AR -- can't find at the moment
GA -- led Rasmussen 34-19-16 on 1/22, was third in Rasmussen on 2/2 (31-29-28), RCP average this morning had him down 3rd at 32-29-26
TN -- trailed 2nd in RCP average 29-26-23 on 2/2, led by 1% in WSMV on 1/29
AK -- can't find at the moment
MO -- trailed 2nd in RCP average 34-29-26 on 2/4, led Rasmussen by 1% back on 1/24
OK -- trailed 2nd in SurveyUSA 37-32-23 on 2/3, led same poll by 2% on 1/13

Let's go ahead and look at polls versus actuals for the ones I've found, see where the shifts were (Polled number/Number at the moment)
AL --
Huckabee:33/41 (+8)
McCain:38/37 (-1)
Romney: 18/18 (n/c)
GA --
Huckabee: 26/34 (+8)
McCain: 32/32 (n/c)
Romney: 29/30 (+1)
TN --
Huckabee: 26/34 (+8)
McCain: 29/32 (+3)
Romney: 23/24 (+1)
MO --
Huckabee: 29/33 (+4)
McCain: 34/32 (-2)
Romney: 26/29 (+3)
OK --
Huckabee: 32/33 (+1)
McCain: 37/37 (n/c)
Romney: 23/25 (+2)

Were there conservatives who voted Huckabee later in the day, after it had been announced that he won WV?

From these numbers, maybe.

I can see a lot of conservative voters who were either going to skip the primary altogether or hold their nose and vote for Romney switch to Huckabee at the last minute

Doesn't look like Romney really lost much, he just didn't gain anything.

(or decide to go out and vote after they saw him win)?

Back to maybe.