Voting has begun in today’s Florida primaries, the last to be held before Super Tuesday apart from Republican caucuses in Maine on Saturday. For refusing to play by the rules of the parties’ national committees, Florida has been stripped of the 210 delegates it would normally send to the Democratic national convention, along with half of its 114 Republican delegates. All 57 of the Republican delegates will be pledged to the winning candidate, whereas the Democratic primary amounts to nothing more than an opinion poll. Polls show John McCain and Mitt Romney neck-and-neck in the Republican race, with Rudy Giuliani looking very unlikely to pull off his Florida-first strategy.
Martin B – as long as that deal involved giving the Presidency to Team Clinton, I am sure they would accept.
Sorry, my numbers at 47 are wrong – they are from here: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/, and assume superdelegate votes as well for the 4 states. But they are thereabouts.
All hail President McCain.
Stark,
If you are looking at the CNN site, they include both ‘plegded delegates’ and ‘super delegates’. Pledged delegates are the ones that have been elected through the primary process – they have to vote for whichever candidate they were elected for. Super delegates are party officials, govenors, members of congress, past presidents, etc. – they can vote for whoever they want. Obama has won more pledged delegates while Hilary has the support of more of the party machine, the super delegates.
About a quarter of the dems convention are super delegates. CNN explains it well here http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html
We should also all remember when we are critisizing this process that primary elections are not a formal part of the US electoral system. They are internal preselections for the parties. That is why there are different rules in each state – caucuses, open primaries, closed, etc. Its also why some delegates ‘wont be seated’ – internal rules. Just like the ALP and Libs have some crazy internal processes for their preselections, so too in the US. Its all internal Dem and GOP stuff.
Goodbye Rudy, but after Florida he has more delegates than Kucinic.
Now here’s an interesting thing. The results at
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#FL
tally to 98%.
The figures of Obama, Edwards and Kucinich all calculate out to the % shown (when rounded). But Clinton’s votes when held against the total votes displayed come out at 52%, not the 50% shown. What gives?
Diogenes – From your Time link. Hope he’s right – all the way to Tuesday:
“HALPERIN’S TAKE: Seven Reasons Why the Kennedy Endorsement is a Big Deal. While endorsements don’t usually matter much, Edward Kennedy’s does because:
1. He has a huge following with Hispanics, a big deal in California and other Super Tuesday states, and one of Obama’s weaknesses.
2. The symbolic Kennedy family thing — the ultimate message of change, viability, Democratic legitimacy, and youthful excitement.
3. The national press will be obsessed with the story for days and days to come, with no downside for Obama; the local press coverage when Kennedy travels for Obama will be ginormous.
4. It sends a message to other senators and superdelegates that it is OK to be for Obama — they don’t have to be afraid of the Clintons.
5. He has a huge following among working-class, traditional Democrats, one of Obama’s weaknesses.
6. He has a huge following among union households, another of Obama’s weaknesses.
7. He has a huge following among older Democrats, yet another of Obama’s weaknesses.”
Geez JV, thats quite a list of Obama weaknesses. Does he have any strengths apart from brilliant rhetoric?? And does anyone really listen to Kennedy anymore?
Yes FG, there are a few soft spots, but he’s very strong among black middle-class male academics between the ages of 46 and 52.
It doesn’t matter what a Kennedy says, it’s more just the fact that they exist, hopefully in one’s proximity if one is a candidate.
#54 – No: 8 – He was a coward and left a girl behind to drown at Chappaquiddick.
As well as the ones displayed on the website, Joseph Biden Jr., Christopher J. Dodd, Mike Gravel and Bill’ Richardson III are actually on the ballot paper despite all except Gravel having pulled out.
These candidates must be getting ~2% of the vote in total.
Dade (Miami): Clinton 53, Obama 38 (Cubans and Blacks)
Broward (Fort Lauderdale): Clinton 58, Obama 31 (Retirees, Gays and Jews)
Palm Beach (Palm Beach): Clinton 60, Obama 28 (Retirees, Jews)
Duval (Jacksonville): Clinton 35, Obama 47 (Blacks)
Orange: Clinton 48, Obama 39 (rich Whites)
Escambia (Pensacola): Clinton 35, Obama 35 (Blacks, poor Whites)
Same pattern – all the Democrat voting blocks are for Clinton except the blacks.
(By the way Ted Kennedy got 23% in the Florida primary in 1980.)
McCain looks like a dead man walking and his oratory skill makes watching paint dry an exciting sport. I pray the GOP elects him.
Orange Co = Orlando
Well Steve, it appears my predicition of yesterday was spot on, though I did expect the battle between Grandpa and Mitt to be even closer than it was. Still, the outcome isn’t close – 57 delegates to Grandpa and zip to Mitt.
Yes, Biden and Richardson are getting about 0.9% each and Gravel and Dodd are each getting about 0.3%.
Note to Gravel and Kucinich: two candidates who are not running are doing better than you. Perhaps you should reconsider your strategy 🙂
Rudy has always said he’d make an announcement tomorrow if he lost, and he’s not bad. I believe he’ll pull out tomorrow and endorse his friend McCain (there are lots of good jobs he could get in a McCain Admin). Romney’s only hope then would be for Huck to pull out and endorse him which he will not do. Huck will go with McCain leaving Romney dead in the water. Unless the hardhead neocons can pull off an enormous coup, we have a definite Republican nomination for POTUS in Senator McCain. If Romney is persuaded against going up against McCain/Huck/Giuliani, with the carrot of being the preferred candidate for 2012 (remember Macca has said only one term), the Repugs will have a united front against a divided Dem campaign in Obama survives Super Tues.
Whoops! First line should be “lost bad” rather than “not bad”. What was I thinking!!
Compare the latest polling (here: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/florida.html) to the actual result. It was right on the money for Clinton at 50% but the undecideds appear to have broken overwhelmingly for Obama. This continues the pattern from South Carolina of understating Obama’s vote albeit by only about 6% here instead of by the double figures seen in SC. But then he campaigned in SC. Hillary campaigned in Florida and only trod water.
Whilst Hillary won convincingly in Florida, one statistic of note is that there was significantly more older people voting then younger people.
One could hypothesise that more younger people would vote for Obama, but felt that their vote would not mean anything in a situation where no delegates will be seated.
Although I’m sure the demographics in Florida have substantially more retirees then most other states which would also explain the discrepancy.
Adam, Tq
@ 70 – That analysis is in line with the steady trend back to Obama overall on the polls. If there is an alignment later of the magnetic forces of: Edwards’ delegates, Kennedy endorsement, independent/undecided delegates, great speeches, luck, no stuff-ups, more Clinton errors and unpleasantness, continuing upward poll trend, effective lobbying, great Dem convention etc, then Obama’s still in with a chance.
Sorry I mean @ 70
Try again @ 69 Bollard
Rolling poll average vote for Clinton/Obama/Edwards in the major Super Tuesday states:
AL 43/28/16 (very good for HRC in a black state)
AZ 37/27/15
CA 44/32/11
CO 32/34/17 (surprisingly good for BHO)
CT 41/27/9
GA 35/41/13
IL 22/51/15
MA 59/22/11
MN 47/22/16
MO 43/24/28
NJ 46/28/10
NY 50/27/10
TN 34/20/16
The last poll in FL was 52/28/13. The actual result is 50/33/14. So the late-deciders were worth maybe 5% to Obama. Even if they break the same way on Super T, that won’t be enough for him to win anywhere except CO, GA and IL. Only CO would be any kind of surprise.
Diogenes,
Where has McCain said ‘only one term’ ?
He’s said once or twice he is only taking ‘one term at a time’ but that’s about it – should he say from the get go that he is only going for 4 years he will achieve very little in his Administration – a Democratic caucus isn’t going to try too hard to cooperate with a guy who they only need to worry about for a few years before there is a new election, as opposed to one who can make their life hell for nearly eight years.
That’s assuming, of course, they keep their majority (it seems to be the conventional wisdom anyway).
@74 Try what again? You imply that I’m trying desperately to spin for Obama. That’s unlikely seeing as I don’t even like him (or any of the candidates for that matter except perhaps Kuchinic – and I’m not even sure how to spell his name!). I just think he has a chance of winning. Opinion polling in a politics free beauty contest (which is what US primaries generally are) are less reliable than in Australian elections. They have fewer “rusted on” voters and voluntary voting.
If McCain is elected he will run again in 2012 (when he will be 75) unless he is actually on a slab. Power is a wonderful rejuvenator (and an aphrodisiac too).
The peculiar congressional arithmetic makes it almost certain that even if a Repub candidate is elected President, the Dems will retain control of Congress, and will probably increase their majority in the Senate, where individual contests count for much more.
The Clinton/Obama P/VP team is looking a pretty good bet at this stage. Are Sportingbet etc offering odds on that?
Of course the McCain VP will be interesting? Will he try to assuage the conservatives? Maybe Brownback from Kansas?
Adam #75. There’s no doubt that Clinton should win Super Tuesday hands down according to the polls and this has to be the most likely result. I was only pointing to an intriguing possibility. It’s true also that a 5% turnaround (I was basing it on the poll average which makes it a 7% but that’s a quibble) would not be sufficient to turn the gap in California et al around. But if Obama’s vote is understated by anything like the extent it was in North Carolina (where the polls were out by double digits) then he has more than a decent chance.
Romney would be a much weaker candidate than McCain, but part of me just wants to see the hard right squirm, see them on McCain here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com
and the loveable Ann Coulter here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24635&s=rcmp
Primary polling is like measuring a cloud. How much of Hillary’s support is for her specifically and how much for her as the best-known Democrat among less engaged Democrat voters? The later will erode.
HISTORY should warn us all that geat orators like Obama can be dangerous as they can more easily avoid policy scrutiny & substance
(compared to an uninspiring speaker like McCain or Hilary)
I’ve yet to hear a pro Obama bloger here advance policys Obama stands for
(as opposed to negative Hilary reasons)
Finnegans@60, I’d stay away from those FOX ‘fact’ sheets. Nasty stuff.
ESJ #80,
McCain has a problem with his VP candidate. Given that he’s already an ‘outsider’ within the GOP’s power structure, they will be pushing him to take on a GOP apparatchik. However, such a VP candidate is very likely to turn off the voters. If McCain goes for a VP candidate who is more likely to appeal to the voters, he’ll pi$$-off the party, and will receive their half-hearted (at best) support in the actual election campaign. And even there, he’s got issues. Being as he appeals to neither the “liberal” (too hawkish) nor the “conservative” (too socially progressive)segments of the US population, he’d need to (somehow) find a VP-candidate who appeals to both at once. Not easy.
My comment on McCain only going one term was admittedly too black and white. This is what he actually said and the commentary. He says the problems of the US need a quick fix and it is an advantage to look at them from a four year rather than eight year POV.
McCain May Seek Only One Term
When 71 year-old John McCain was asked whether he had the stamina to serve as president for eight years, he responded by suggesting that, if he is elected, he might not seek reelection:
“If I said I was running for eight years, I’m not sure that would be a vote-getter,” McCain said.
Asked later to elaborate, McCain said that every president evaluates his progress after two or three years:
“My health is good, my campaign schedule is heavier than anybody else’s, and I’ve said many times I can out-campaign anybody,” McCain said. “I think the decision as to whether to run for reelection has to do with the circumstances at the time. I really do. You shouldn’t run for eight years, because then you think you’ve got eight years to get these things done.”
McCain’s single term gambit is a better approach to the age issue than Ronald Reagan’s 1980 promise to undergo testing for senility.
About Hillary and Alabama. Remember blacks arn’t allowed to vote in Alabama 😛
From the JMart blog.
“Rudy Giuliani is “very likely” to get behind John McCain tomorrow at the Reagan library in California, accoring to a source close to Giuliani’s campaign.
But, this source cautions, it’s not yet a done deal.
The conversation between the two camps is still ongoing.”
I wonder what position Rudy is asking for in return. Please don’t let it be Secretary of State or Secretary of War (oops should be Defence).
Also I reckon Obama is a good chance for Kansas. Though i haven’t seen any polls for there, his family roots and the extremely popular governors assistance should be very helpful.
Ron @83. Obama stands for much the same thing as Hilary. He is (on paper) marginaly to the right of her on Healthcare and marginally to the left of her on Iraq. Both want to rattle the sabres at Iran. Both will do as they’re told once in power.
The last two Democrat presidents presided over reversals of the reforms that has been brought in by FDR and LBJ. Clinton’s demolition of social welfare was the starkest example. And yet Bill Clinton probably stood on a more left-wing platform in ’92 than either Hilary or Obama today.
The only real significance of this contest is then symbolic: first female pres v first black pres. Take your pick. The only thing that exercises my opinion either way is disgust at the Clinton’s strategy of getting Bill to do some coded race baiting, thereby writing off the black demographic and guaranteeing the loss of North Carolina but painting Obama into the corner as the “black candidate” in the process and (they hope) winning the main game.
I wouldn’t mind seeing that strategy unravel – not because of what it means regarding the occupancy of the White House but because it would be a positive thing for racial politics in the US.
Ron- Obama’s health policy is excellent. I will include the link to Atul Gawande’s review of it in the NYT (Gawande is the leading medical writer in the world at the moment IMO).
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31gawande.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
#84 – Pancho – FOX ‘fact’ sheets? Please explain.
Goodbye Rudy you insufferable creep! And whoever McCain picks as VP is a more important choice than it usually is, as they may very well have to take over if he kicks the bucket
This is also an interesting read on the economy issue http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202614_pf.html
asanque @ 11 said:
Given that U.S. politicians can have a direct say in who can and cannot vote (Florida state Secretary of State/Repub state campaign co-chair Katherine Harris removal of thousands of black voters from the rolls before the 2000 election), the hanging chad nonsense, the doubts about the Iowa voting machines in 2004, that the electors pledged to presidential candidates don’t actually have to vote for them in the electoral college, and other ‘interesting’ electoral idiosyncracies you’d have to conclude that any similarity between the U.S. presidential voting system and democracy is purely coincidental.
Diogenes @ 67 said:
FBI director or maybe A-G? 😉
So 83 – Reasons to support Obama over HIllary include a superior economic stimulus package, a more consistant foreign policy especially regarding Iraq, a more realistically implementable health care policy, and a greater ability for attracting bipartisan support for his proposals as demonstrated in Illinois.
The reasons NOT to support Hillary should be supplemental to that, not the entirety of the reason. (Eg her campaigns ‘he won south carolina JUST LIKE JESSE JACKSON DID’)
Those Kennedys !
Obama is now tied with Clinton for Connecticut. Wonder what changed 🙂
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/connecticut/election_2008_connecticut_democratic_presidential_primary
An interesting bit about the superdelegate battle here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012903570.html?hpid=topnews
This bit from Richardson, would indicate a leaning to Obama:
‘Richardson said: “If I do endorse, it’s going to be a gut feeling. It’s not going to be about statistics, about past ties. I’ve been on the campaign trail with both of them. I feel that I know them. I feel I know the issues. I feel I know what makes them both tick.”‘
That would be a coup.
And Scotty, from your link, this about a ‘soft vote’ for Hills in California: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_robert_d_novak/hillary_s_brown_firewall
#83
Ron:
Have you tried the following link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
For more detailed info – go to the Obama site and read the issues covering civil liberties, disabilities, economy, education, energy and environment, ethics, faith, family, fiscal and foreign policy, healthcare, homeland security, immigration, Iraq, rural communities, principals of active citizenship, seniors and social security, technology, and polices concerning veterans.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/