(POL) Official Super Tuesday Thread

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by 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)


From these numbers, maybe.


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


Back to maybe.

While I was in the shower I realized I should have also have submitted the "Undecided" question too. Were there many undecideds in previous polls who moved to Huckabee because he proved to be viable earlier in the day?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

While I was in the shower I realized I should have also have submitted the "Undecided" question too. Were there many undecideds in previous polls who moved to Huckabee because he proved to be viable earlier in the day?

Just from adding the poll totals of the three, in most cases the Undecideds were fairly small, in the 8%-13% range. In the case of Tennessee though, there were 22% unaccounted for by the top three, mostly due to the Thompson factor I would imagine.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just from adding the poll totals of the three, in most cases the Undecideds were fairly small, in the 8%-13% range. In the case of Tennessee though, there were 22% unaccounted for by the top three, mostly due to the Thompson factor I would imagine.

True, but in a tight race, it doesn;t have to be many. take a look at your Alabama above:

AL --
Huckabee:33/41 (+8)
McCain:38/37 (-1)
Romney: 18/18 (n/c)


Romney stayed the same, McCain dropped one, and Huckabee pulled in eight. The poll has (based on arithmetic) 11% of those polled chose other or don;t know or whatever. On the day of the vote, only 4% voted someone else.

Huckabee pulled virtually all undecideds or others in Alabama, and it got him the election. Why or how? Especially since you;d have thought that at least some conservatives would have coalesced behind the more viable (at the time) candidate of Romney), especially after the hammering McCain got in the media and the bump Romney was getting from Limbaugh and others.

Did WV play a part in that? I have to think it may very well have had.



Here's GA:

GA --
Huckabee: 26/34 (+8)
McCain: 32/32 (n/c)
Romney: 29/30 (+1)


Again, Huckabee pulled heavily from the undecided/other category, and did so enough to win the state.

The same is true elsewhere. Why did Huckabee get such big bumps on the day of election? I have to think WV may have played a part.

-Abe

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Huckabee pulled virtually all undecideds or others in Alabama, and it got him the election.

Or did he? I mean, we've got to account for margin of error in the polls (or in the case of the RCP numbers I used where available, the average of the most recent polls).

Take a look at the exit poll numbers (granted, they're as prone to error as anything on earth but still, we work with what we've got).
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/alaba...can-exit-poll/
Decided today: Advantage McCain 37-36
Decided last three days: Advantage McCain 43-40

And those combined to allegedly account for 25% of all voters ... and yet
McCain loses a point while Huckabee gains eight. Obviously either somebody is lying or else the original polls were off for some reason(s).
OR ...
Decided in the past week: Advantage Huckabee 44-31

GA --
Huckabee: 26/34 (+8)
McCain: 32/32 (n/c)
Romney: 29/30 (+1)
Again, Huckabee pulled heavily from the undecided/other category, and did so enough to win the state.

We start with 13% unaccounted for, of which 4% went to other candidates.
17% say they decided today: Advantage Huckabee, 36-34 over McCain, 28% to Romney
16% in the past 3 days: Advantage Romney, 40-31 over Huck, 28 for McCain

And yet Romney's numbers barely moved while Huckabee jumped (although I swear the numbers I saw last week showed him winning here all along)

The same is true elsewhere. Why did Huckabee get such big bumps on the day of election? I have to think WV may have played a part.

To be honest, I'd say you're seriously overestimating how much attention 99% of the voters pay to anything that happens in another state on same day.
And even more so when you consider the significant number who voted early and couldn't have had WV (or anything else) as a factor.

Then again, read this and tell me anything in the polls - exit, early, or otherwise -- makes much sense in Georgia GOP primary.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...lysis0206.html

McCain, who perhaps more than the others is tied to President Bush, did best among those most disapproving of the Bush administration. ...
Romney, the candidate who most emphasized his credentials on the economy, failed to persuade Georgians concerned about the economy to deliver for him. While almost 60 percent of Republicans said the economy was not doing well, Romney led the others only among voters who felt the economy is doing well.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or did he? I mean, we've got to account for margin of error in the polls (or in the case of the RCP numbers I used where available, the average of the most recent polls).

Take a look at the exit poll numbers (granted, they're as prone to error as anything on earth but still, we work with what we've got).
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/alaba...can-exit-poll/
Decided today: Advantage McCain 37-36
Decided last three days: Advantage McCain 43-40

And those combined to allegedly account for 25% of all voters ... and yet
McCain loses a point while Huckabee gains eight. Obviously either somebody is lying or else the original polls were off for some reason(s).
OR ...
Decided in the past week: Advantage Huckabee 44-31





We start with 13% unaccounted for, of which 4% went to other candidates.
17% say they decided today: Advantage Huckabee, 36-34 over McCain, 28% to Romney
16% in the past 3 days: Advantage Romney, 40-31 over Huck, 28 for McCain

And yet Romney's numbers barely moved while Huckabee jumped (although I swear the numbers I saw last week showed him winning here all along)



To be honest, I'd say you're seriously overestimating how much attention 99% of the voters pay to anything that happens in another state on same day.
And even more so when you consider the significant number who voted early and couldn't have had WV (or anything else) as a factor.

Then again, read this and tell me anything in the polls - exit, early, or otherwise -- makes much sense in Georgia GOP primary.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...lysis0206.html

You are certainly right that in one state, a Margin of Error could apply to the numbers. However, a consistent theme throughout the day in numoerus states with different polls and polling people is a trend we have to consider. Soemthing accounted for most undecideds in these keys states to break Huckabee

Now, like any social phoenomenon there are likely multiple factors, but I suspect WV may have been a strong one.

Know what we need? Polling data showing when Huckabee voters voted, which would be retrievable from the Exit Polls if they were sorted by hour or such. If there was a heavier contingent of Huckabee voters later in the day than earlier, my thesis has some serious support.

I agree with you are GA is an odd state in that sometimes it trends along with other southern states and sometimes it has its own trends. I certainly would not classify it exactly the same as Alabama or Mississippi or Tennessee.

[Abe Sargent]

Oh, and I think if WV had gone McCain or Rmney, you'd be right, no one would notice. But WV was only the second state to go Huckabee if I recall correctly and the first was an awfully long time ago. It showed he was still pertinent.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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



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.

I don't think there's a solution that exists. Bush has been a wet dream for your wing of the GOP but he's been a complete clusterfuck in terms of being fiscally responsible or cutting government. Worse than any Democrat.

The only way to be fiscally conservative is to a) scale back the military and then b) have a divided presidency & congress. The fiscal conservatives and leave me the fuck alone coalition all moved toward Paul in the hope that maybe, possibly, he could affect GOP party policy. Since obviously that's not happening, Obama is probably the best (still slim) hope of anything resembling progress.

[sterlingice]

Did anyone predict a split anything like this?

Obama: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah
Clinton: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee

Coming it, it was pretty much "if Obama does well in (not necessarily win) California, he has a shot, otherwise, he's probably done". He doesn't even have that good of a showing there but then goes out and dominates in states like Idaho and Kansas, which would have just left you scratching your head coming in. This race just keeps getting more interesting.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Bush has been a wet dream for your wing of the GOP

Obviously several of those words don't mean what you think they mean.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The only way to be fiscally conservative is to a) scale back the military and then b) have a divided presidency & congress. The fiscal conservatives and leave me the fuck alone coalition all moved toward Paul in the hope that maybe, possibly, he could affect GOP party policy. Since obviously that's not happening, Obama is probably the best (still slim) hope of anything resembling progress.

No. No he is not. Beneath all his glitz and charisma, he's a Democrat, and is still going to gleefully throw money at various nanny state programs, and tax the holy hell out of us to do it.

McCain preaches fiscal conservatism, but will likely bend over multiple times to please Congress (assuming it stays in Democrat control - are there even enough seats open for congress to realistically move back to a GOP majority?). Of course, he's also the one preaching about national ID's and apparently has no problems with Big Brotherizing the country, so he's got plenty of things to throw money at just from his own agenda. The only thing he probably won't do is make the people pay for it - he'll just drive us into further debt.

I'll admit, Huckleberry carried himself very well in the last debate, and I actually gained a little bit of respect for him. Not that I'd ever want him in power.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

*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.

Oh, I don't know - there are some good nuggets on Daily Kos. Some of the polling analysis is pretty good, for example. You have to take that site for what it is.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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...

The thing is, you can say the same thing for McCain. I'd suspect a lot of the "moderates" who are voting for McCain don't really understand how solid he is on some issues that might otherwise matter for him. For instance, abortion. For another instance: Iraq. McCain's on record as planning to stay there for 50 or 100 years, whereas a majority of the country wants to get out. And so on and so on.

McCain's record on the issues is pretty clouded, and has become less clear over the past 8 years. Once the press starts looking at him as the GOP Nominee, I think a lot of people are going to start finding things not to like.

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).

The thing is, I think your McCain argument works better for Obama and your Obama argument for McCain. Obama's inspiring, McCain is not. Obama's got a pretty consistent record, McCain's is pretty cloudy.

I think we might see a trend (we see anecdotal evidence already in this thread) of people finding a reason to vote for Obama even if they don't agree on all the issues, and people finding a reason not to vote for McCain and staying home (the people JiMGA is talking about).

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

God, I hate the thought of this again. Might as well put a picture of Bush/Cheney, it would have the same effect.

How about this one:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

Exactly. If Obama's the nominee, McCain is going to need to spend more of his energy convincing people to vote for him than dissuading everyone who's been starstruck by Obama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Exactly. If Obama's the nominee, McCain is going to need to spend more of his energy convincing people to vote for him than dissuading everyone who's been starstruck by Obama.

Wow, we totally disagree on this one.

I'm even hearing Dems around here routinely talking about voting (R) if Obama is the nominee. He pretty much scares the hell out of most people who actually listen to him and the key to beating him will be simply to hammer home everything he actually says/has said instead of letting people just look at him and hear Charlie Brown's school teacher.

I don't believe there's any hope for the GOP (the party, not McCain) to beat Hillary at this point, after seeing the alternative she simply isn't all that scary any more. But Obama? Definitely beatable if things are handled properly & with a little luck (which his inexperience should provide along the way).
Whether he's beatable by the lackluster McCain becomes a different question, and it's one that I'm not sure the GOP will figure out in time to do it.

edit: What I'm getting at here is that Obama has to be revealed as a much worse prospect than Hillary ever was (and oh God is he ever). I'm getting the feeling that at least some people have figured that out already (look at the crossover voting thing in Missouri in one of the threads from last night).

[Buccaneer]

DC, without reading further (got to go to work), you have been all over the place the past few weeks. I really don't know where you are coming from. Saying that McCain has alienated everyone is not right. We want a leader to make smart decisions, regardless if they perceive to make everyone happy. (Being smart also means not being arrogant.) McCain bucked the status quo in questioning the war's aftermath, and decided to forge some alliances on immigration, which no one seemed to do. Very few is going match up well against anyone (thus, the rise of the anti-votes) but you look for things that are positive and McCain certainly has some, esp. if the Dems keep Congress.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

No. No he is not. Beneath all his glitz and charisma, he's a Democrat, and is still going to gleefully throw money at various nanny state programs, and tax the holy hell out of us to do it.

My point is that Bush, led by the Christianist wing, has been worse than any Democrat since LBJ in terms of throwing money around/away. I find it hard to imagine Obama/Hillary being much worse.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

My point is that Bush, led by the Christianist wing, has been worse than any Democrat since LBJ in terms of throwing money around/away. I find it hard to imagine Obama/Hillary being much worse.

I dunno. I can easily see either of them (Hillary in particular, with her health care madness) just shifting all that spending directly to something else.

Honestly, of the Big 3 at this point (McCain, Hillary, Obama), McCain is the one who is least likely to go batshit insane with spending. And that's not exactly saying much.

[ISiddiqui]

The thing is, you can say the same thing for McCain. I'd suspect a lot of the "moderates" who are voting for McCain don't really understand how solid he is on some issues that might otherwise matter for him. For instance, abortion. For another instance: Iraq. McCain's on record as planning to stay there for 50 or 100 years, whereas a majority of the country wants to get out. And so on and so on.

McCain's record on the issues is pretty clouded, and has become less clear over the past 8 years. Once the press starts looking at him as the GOP Nominee, I think a lot of people are going to start finding things not to like.

On the other hand, McCain DOES have a history of bucking the party orthodoxy on votes. People may disagree with McCain on things like abortion and the Iraq war (I think people know his position on Iraq... it's been big time news), but they also know that he's pissed off conservatives for his views on campaign finance, Bush tax cuts, etc.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

No. No he is not. Beneath all his glitz and charisma, he's a Democrat, and is still going to gleefully throw money at various nanny state programs, and tax the holy hell out of us to do it.

So, I can go ahead and discount your opinion on this topic? kthx

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

So, I can go ahead and discount your opinion on this topic? kthx

Huh? Because he's right you want to discount his opinion?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Honestly, of the Big 3 at this point (McCain, Hillary, Obama), McCain is the one who is least likely to go batshit insane with spending. And that's not exactly saying much.

Clinton & Obama may spend on a greater number of programs, but as McCain's in favor of a pretty aggressive foreign policy, and given what we know now about the cost of operations in Afghanistan & Iraq, I'd imagine he'd end up spending much more overall during his term(s). We spend what, a billion a day in Iraq?

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wow, we totally disagree on this one.

Well, I'm in Illinois, so my view might be skewed.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Clinton & Obama may spend on a greater number of programs, but as McCain's in favor of a pretty aggressive foreign policy, and given what we know now about the cost of operations in Afghanistan & Iraq, I'd imagine he'd end up spending much more overall during his term(s). We spend what, a billion a day in Iraq?

Oh, it's entirely possible. Which killed me during the last debate when he went on about fiscal responsibility, and in the next breath talked about keeping up operations in the Middle East. And THEN proceeded to talk about one of my other hot points, national ID's w/ biometric data. Just shoot me now.

[mrsimperless]

Saw something on another site aboutPaul's supporters mostly switching over to Huckabee in WV in exchange for 3 of the delegates there. There were a couple of stories they sourced it with, but I"m on my crackberry at the moment so no link.

[Jas_lov]

Most of McCain's 160 or so delegates switched to Huckabee to defeat Romney in WV. I think about 30 of Paul's went to Huckabee, 60 to Romney, and the rest just left.

I still don't know who won New Mexico. Looks like Obama, but it's very close.

Anyway, Hillary still has a 76 delegate lead with those superdelegates added in. She really cleaned up in California as did John McCain who is up by 360 delegates and is more than halfway to the win. Obama has a favorable schedule coming up, but maybe Hillary can hit the big states like Ohio and Texas and still come out ok.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wow, we totally disagree on this one.

I'm even hearing Dems around here routinely talking about voting (R) if Obama is the nominee. He pretty much scares the hell out of most people who actually listen to him and the key to beating him will be simply to hammer home everything he actually says/has said instead of letting people just look at him and hear Charlie Brown's school teacher.

I don't believe there's any hope for the GOP (the party, not McCain) to beat Hillary at this point, after seeing the alternative she simply isn't all that scary any more. But Obama? Definitely beatable if things are handled properly & with a little luck (which his inexperience should provide along the way).
Whether he's beatable by the lackluster McCain becomes a different question, and it's one that I'm not sure the GOP will figure out in time to do it.

edit: What I'm getting at here is that Obama has to be revealed as a much worse prospect than Hillary ever was (and oh God is he ever). I'm getting the feeling that at least some people have figured that out already (look at the crossover voting thing in Missouri in one of the threads from last night).

I'd be interested to hear what you have heard that is so bad about Obama. I am an Obama supporter, and even from around here I have not heard anybody say anything bad about him. The only thing I have heard from Dem's is that they are conflicted between Clinton and him and when I ask why they are unsure... Clinton and Obama share similar policies, the only major difference is their public persona..

[Oilers9911]

Ok, so someone inform this Canadian please. I am still trying to wrap my head around your primary/caucus system although I think I have the idea. What is behind the dislike of McCain among many conservatives? Is it one thing in particular or is there a laundry list of issues? Also, as an outsider, I can say that I just don't like the look of Romney. It has nothing to do with the Mormon issue, but he just looks and acts....I don't know....greasy.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Ok, so someone inform this Canadian please. I am still trying to wrap my head around your primary/caucus system although I think I have the idea. What is behind the dislike of McCain among many conservatives? Is it one thing in particular or is there a laundry list of issues? Also, as an outsider, I can say that I just don't like the look of Romney. It has nothing to do with the Mormon issue, but he just looks and acts....I don't know....greasy.

McCain is too liberal for true conservatives and well Romney is greasy, his a flip flopper that changes his mind on a whim.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Ok, so someone inform this Canadian please. I am still trying to wrap my head around your primary/caucus system although I think I have the idea. What is behind the dislike of McCain among many conservatives? Is it one thing in particular or is there a laundry list of issues? Also, as an outsider, I can say that I just don't like the look of Romney. It has nothing to do with the Mormon issue, but he just looks and acts....I don't know....greasy.

Think this may sum it up pretty well.

Religious Conservatives don't like him because he's not religiously conservative.

Fiscal Conservatives don't like him because the fiscal policies he has been shown to support are not fiscally conservative, contrary to his stated positions.

[Jas_lov]

Conservatives don't like McCain because of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, he was part of the Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, his closeness with democrat Joe Liebermann including the McCain-Liebermann global warming bill, his position on the Bush tax cuts. He called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agents of intolerance. I think I covered it all, but I may have forgot some.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Honestly, of the Big 3 at this point (McCain, Hillary, Obama), McCain is the one likely to go batshit insane.

Fixed.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by dangarion

McCain is too liberal for true conservatives and well Romney is greasy, his a flip flopper that changes his mind on a whim.

By true conservatives do you mean the folks who favor lower taxes and less government or the pro-torture right wingers?

EDIT: thinking about this it doesn't really matter.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Conservatives don't like McCain because of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, he was part of the Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, his closeness with democrat Joe Liebermann including the McCain-Liebermann global warming bill, his position on the Bush tax cuts. He called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agents of intolerance. I think I covered it all, but I may have forgot some.

But....Falwell and Robertson ARE agents of intolerance...or am i missing something?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

But....Falwell and Robertson ARE agents of intolerance...or am i missing something?

TRUE conservatives DO NOT speak the truth! Ron Paul IS NOT a true conservative.

Couldn't help myself...

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

But....Falwell and Robertson ARE agents of intolerance...or am i missing something?

I don't disagree, but I think one part of the Republican party probably took that the wrong way. Especially when he said they had an evil influence on the party. I think he's right on that, but it probably wasn't a necessary thing to say. I think Falwell has since mended fences with McCain though.

[chesapeake]

It was a better day for Hillary than for Obama. The perception was that Obama had all the momentum going into the day, but Clinton wins in MA, despite the Kennedy endorsement, NJ and CA were big. Obama may have won more states, but with all due respect to our fellow Americans in Idaho and North Dakota, only the narrow wins in MO and CT matter at all.

The only thing saving Obama right now is that Democratic primaries/caucuses are not winner-take-all like those of the GOP. If they were, Obama would be done today.

But he lives for another day, and the primary schedule plays to his strength. He'll be able to spend more time in each of the remaining states, and that appears to work very much to his advantage.

On the Republican side, assuming Romney and Huckabee both remain in the race, McCain appears to be the nominee. JiMGA becomes a very interesting case study in campaign effectiveness.

Traditionally, Republican candidates run to the right in the primary and to the center in the fall. The way this has developed, McCain has been able to run more from the right of center position. He hasn't been able to devote all his attention to galvanizing the base to be there for him in the fall. He'll have to make up that ground at some point.

My sense is that about 60% of McCain's campaign in the fall will be devoted to making sure JiMGA goes to his polling place in November and pushes the button for McCain. If he (or the various JiMFLs or JiMOHs out there who reside in swing states) sticks to his statement made in February -- that he could never vote for McCain -- it becomes very difficult for McCain to win in the fall.

[Alan T]

I heard someone say it on CNN last night as well (Don't remember whom), but it seemed like the wins in NJ, MA and CA seemed to show to them that Clinton had a great night and "won" super tuesday.

Did anyone actually think Obama was going to win NJ or MA? I thought both of those were forgone conclusions for months (even with Kennedy and Kerry supporting Obama, no one around here really cares too much about that anyways). The only win of the night that seemed big to me for Clinton wasn't her winning California, but that she won it by a pretty good margin. It seemed likely that Clinton would win CA all along, but for a while it seemed Obama could keep it close which he really didn't.

Is this all just spin? To me as an independant who is highly interested in seeing who ends up winning the nomination, super tuesday was a big win for Mccain on the Republican side, and was a push for both democrats (Obama getting Missouri and Connecticut was big, but Hillary in California was big too)..

Maybe I am just out of touch..

[Alan T]

One question I have is what do all of the ultra conservative right voters who say they won't even bother going to vote for Mccain feel about the possibility of it being a Mccain - Huckabee ticket? It was tossed around alot last night that Huckabee could be a potential VP candidate to try to bring back some of the right that Mccain alienated..

I'm not a fan of Huckabee, and the only way I'll vote Mccain is if Clinton gets the Democrat nomination, but just curious how that would "mend fences"

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Alan T

One question I have is what do all of the ultra conservative right voters who say they won't even bother going to vote for Mccain feel about the possibility of it being a Mccain - Huckabee ticket? It was tossed around alot last night that Huckabee could be a potential VP candidate to try to bring back some of the right that Mccain alienated..

I'm not a fan of Huckabee, and the only way I'll vote Mccain is if Clinton gets the Democrat nomination, but just curious how that would "mend fences"

Huckabee would turn me off to that ticket quicker than McCain would. Much, much quicker.

[SirFozzie]

Obama had momentum in MA, but simply ran out of time to counteract Clinton's huge lead.

[chesapeake]

Alan T: The 24 hour news media needs something to talk about, so presidental primary elections are a battle of expectations -- kind of like college football. It has become, not so much whether or not you won, but whether you covered the spread.

The GOP results show this perfectly. I heard a number of folks say on TV last night that they thought Huckabee was the real winner last night. By any empirical measure, he came in third, in both states won and in delegates earned. But you won't find one person out there that would say that Romney had a better night. Huckabee crushed his expectations, Romney did not reach his. It is all about where the bar is set.

With the Obama-Clinton race, the polls were showing, and the media was talking about, how much Obama was closing the gap on Hillary in many states, notably NJ, MA and CA. When all 3 resulted in pretty decisive victories for Clinton, the media was surprised. Again, Hillary jumped over her bar, Obama came up short.

[Butter]

But Obama is still within 100 delegates of Hillary with a long way to go. It is very possible that both candidates will go to the convention without a majority if the election continues in this direction.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Alan T: The 24 hour news media needs something to talk about, so presidental primary elections are a battle of expectations -- kind of like college football. It has become, not so much whether or not you won, but whether you covered the spread.

The GOP results show this perfectly. I heard a number of folks say on TV last night that they thought Huckabee was the real winner last night. By any empirical measure, he came in third, in both states won and in delegates earned. But you won't find one person out there that would say that Romney had a better night. Huckabee crushed his expectations, Romney did not reach his. It is all about where the bar is set.

With the Obama-Clinton race, the polls were showing, and the media was talking about, how much Obama was closing the gap on Hillary in many states, notably NJ, MA and CA. When all 3 resulted in pretty decisive victories for Clinton, the media was surprised. Again, Hillary jumped over her bar, Obama came up short.

Hmm, guess then the media should be dissapointed in their performance then. I don't think NJ or MA went much different than I expected. I think for the two, Clinton should be able to hang her hat on California, and Obama can hang his on Missouri and Connecticut. I personally think the day was a push, and it just feels like anyone who says otherwise has an agenda they are trying to push.. (ie: someone favoring Clinton saying she won, or someone favoring Obama saying he won).

I think if anything, yesterday just cemented the idea that it is going to be a two person race up to the convention on the Democratic side.

[SirFozzie]

A lot depends on public perception. A lot of folks are projecting Obama to sweep the next six states on offer (mostly caucuses), and that Hilary will need to win both TX and OH to counter that momentum

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

his closeness with democrat Joe Liebermann including the McCain-Liebermann global warming bill

I don't think that conservatives hate McCain because of his closeness with Liebermann. I think it is actually a strength. However, the global warming bill is a big reason why we don't like him.

Also, as someone mentioned previously, cutting military spending is not the only way to be fiscally conservative. I would argue that we need to increase our military spending. Our military spending as a percentage of GDP is something like 4.9%. That is close to historic lows. If our military spending was in the 7.5% range we'd be much better off right now.

That said, the only way to be really fiscally conservative is to balance the budget through government cuts, not tax increases. Unfortunately, no one on Capitol Hill has the intestinal fortitude to do it. We spend so much money on crap it isn't even funny. We put in programs that have growth of 5-10% per year. How can we continue to do that when we only have growth of 2.5% per year in GDP? We have a spending deficit. We borrow more and more. The problem isn't the military spending, it is the amount we pay on debt service and entitlements. That is where the cuts need to be made.

[SirFozzie]

Here's an interesting thing from a CNN.com column why a good percentage of the base PROBABLY will still vote for McCain in a general election:

Let's be clear -- conservatives don't like McCain. But with conservatives one seat away from having a majority on the Supreme Court and the next president having the power to name up to three justices, do you actually think the folks who've fought two generations to re-take the Court actually want to see three Clinton jurists?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

That said, the only way to be really fiscally conservative is to balance the budget through government cuts, not tax increases. Unfortunately, no one on Capitol Hill has the intestinal fortitude to do it. We spend so much money on crap it isn't even funny. We put in programs that have growth of 5-10% per year. How can we continue to do that when we only have growth of 2.5% per year in GDP? We have a spending deficit. We borrow more and more. The problem isn't the military spending, it is the amount we pay on debt service and entitlements. That is where the cuts need to be made.

You're right that there need to be cuts in many programs, but HALF of our tax dollars go toward military spending. You don't see a problem there?

[Warhammer]

Where the heck are you getting that info?

Regardless, read up on how much other countries are spending upon their military... We're spending a small fraction of our wealth on our military.

The 2008 budget has $583 billion for the military. 2007 spending was $529 billion.

Compare that with the Department of Human Services Budget alone: 2007 spending: $670 billion 2008 budget: $707 billion 2009 budget: $736 billion

So I think you need to review your facts. I haven't gone into any more depth on this, but I think it is telling.

This info was pulled from:

http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbu...budget/hhs.pdf

http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbu...et/defense.pdf

[Warhammer]

After looking at the other departments of the government, it appears they add up to around the total of the defense budget. So we are probably looking at military spending being approximately 30% of the overall government budget.

Now, if you think that is too high fine, but keep in mind, national defense is specified in the Constitution as one of the roles of the Federal Government. The other programs are not, most especially those of the entitlement programs.

[Fighter of Foo]

I found it the same place I found the percent of military spending as a % of GDP. http://www.truthandpolitics.org/mili...ative-size.php

If I'm wrong on the percentages then please forgive me. And I agree with you on the entitlement programs. I just can't fathom how anyone could feel that there's waste everywhere in the government except for the military.

[Swaggs]

I'm interested to see how much more mileage McCain is going to get from promoting his support of "the Surge" in Iraq.

Did anyone not think that throwing significantly more money and resources would not be helpful? I mean, if we are just going to write blank checks for things and then celebrate when it works, why don't we have a "Surge" for education, poverty, the environment, dilapadated roads/bridges, etc.? Almost any problem improves with unlimited money/manpower/resources -- it isn't exactly a genius strategy to be plugging.

I think hanging his hat on "the Surge" working is a bunch of BS and would like to see someone call him on it.

[Fighter of Foo]

This article is slanted, but brings up my point in much better detail:

"...As I have noted before (and, I'm sure, will again), the budget has been divvied up this way, plus or minus 2 percent, each and every year since the 1960s. Is it remotely conceivable that our national-security needs coincide so precisely—and so consistently over the span of nearly a half-century—with the bureaucratic imperatives of giving the Army, Air Force, and Navy an even share of the money? Again, the question answers itself. As the Army's budget goes up to meet the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force's and Navy's budgets have to go up by roughly the same share, as well. It would be a miracle if this didn't sire a lot of waste and extravagance.


Congress exposes this budget to virtually no scrutiny, fearing that any major cuts—any serious questions—will incite charges of being "soft on terror" and "soft on defense." But $536 billion of this budget—the Pentagon's base line plus the discretionary items for the Department of Energy and other agencies—has nothing to do with the war on terror. And it's safe to assume that a fair amount has little to do with defense. How much it does and doesn't is a matter of debate. Right now, nobody's even debating.


Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said recently that, quite apart from the wars, the nation should get used to spending 4 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. This isn't an unreasonable sum in terms of what the nation can afford. But the same could be said of many other functions of government. It has very little to do with what the nation needs. The $515.4 billion in the base line Defense Department budget amounts to 3.4 percent of GNP. Is that not enough? Should we throw in another $85 billion to boost it to 4 percent? The relevant question, in any case, should be not how much we spend, but what we buy."

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I just can't fathom how anyone could feel that there's waste everywhere in the government except for the military.

I'm not saying that there isn't waste there. There's waste all over the government.

My contention is that if there is going to be waste, it should be in an area where the government is supposed to be sticking its nose rather than other areas.

I believe that military spending is also much more valuable to the country than other types of spending. Education, transportation, and commerce are all investments into our future. Military is more of a here and now form of spending and it results in money going into the private sector. Its not just a redistribution of wealth like we have in the entitlement programs.

I have contended before and continue to do so, that if we eliminated social security and medicare/medicaid that things would actually be much better for this country. Families would be forced to support each other, and you better not piss off your kids because they might not be willing to support you when you need help. It would also take a lot of power out of the hands of the politicians because that would not be a stick that they threaten us with. You could easily support the additional family members from the fewer dollars that you would be giving to Uncle Sam.

I mean let's look at national health care. How in the world are we going to pay for that? I don't care what the initial cost is, once Washington gets done with it, it will be 3 times the size it needs to be, plus it will increase at a rate of 15-20% per year as mandated in the bill that eventually gets signed, etc., etc. It doesn't solve the problem, it just moves the problem from that of the companies and people of this country to the government.