Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Super Tuesday Results

I hope everybody who was eligible went out and voted today for their candidate of choice.

As of 11:57 PM, it appears that McCain is the big winner on the Republican side, by winning at least 7 primaries, and garnering the majority of delegates. Huckabee has had a decent showing, especially in the southern states. It is a very disappointing night for Willard (Mitt) Romney.

On the Democratic side, Obama has won 11 states, and Hillary has won 8, and is leading in California (55-32%) and overall in the delegate count (170-126). Hopefully, this race will come down to the convention, and deals will need to be brokered at the convention.

My predictions:
McCain wins the nomination and selects Mike Huckabee as his VP (to help him carry the Evangelical South).

Hillary and Obama battle it out over the next several weeks in the remaining primaries. Neither gains the required number of delegates to win outright by the time of the convention, and the House of Representatives has to select a nominee. Clinton probably wins the nomination and selects either Gov. Bill Richarson or Sen. Evan Baye as her running mate. If Obama can keep up the momentum (he has gained in the polls over the past few weeks and did win a significant amount of states tonight), he may sneak out a victory, and he selects someone "out of the box" for his running mate...like Chuck Hagel (a Repub), Bloomberg (Independent), or Wesley Clark (Dem).


dmm said...

I thought it was particularly interesting that Clinton won my home state of Massachusetts - considering all the big names up here (John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Deval Patrick) endorsed Obama. Who knows what will happen, but it's not a good sign if the three most prominent politicians in the state endorse you and you still lose by, what, 10 points?

Bob said...

Each time I see that lady, I think she is flipping the bird!

Cocameister said...

Yes, it is troubling that Obama lost Massachusetts despite getting so much support.

On the other hand, what is up with Mass voters anyway? For example, why does such a liberal state usually elect a Republican Governor? Why did Romney win the primary when he has TOTALLY flip-flopped on all of the important issues that won him the governorship???!?!?!?! Are people in Mass paying attention to the issues? They must not be, because his stance on everything is totally different than it was a few years ago. He is such a pandering jerk. I'm glad he has wasted so much money on getting so few delegates.

Elizabeth said...

Apparently, Clinton winning Massachusetts was attributed to the female voters with 6 out of 10 voting both Democratic and for Clinton. I honestly don't think the endorsement of Ted Kennedy means much or at least it wouldn't have swayed my vote and John Kerry is a big flip-flopper as well. Who knows why Romney won or why the very liberal MA keeps electing a Republican governor. I read something where one Republican woman said she voted for Good Ol' Mitt b/c she didn't like any of them, yet he was the "least unlikeable." Yeah, that's how I vote for president.

dmm said...

Well, Democrats in Massachusetts LOATHE Romney (myself included), but let's face it, most people with ties to the community get support. Republicans who live in Mass. like that he was our governor (god knows why). Think about it though - his views when he was running for governor (very socially liberal) were somewhat appealing to democrats here, which is part of why he won - he was able to get some support from the vast multitude of Dems here. But now that he's towing the socially conservative line, Republicans like him. It's really not that surprising an outcome, I think.

And I agree with Elizabeth - Ted Kennedy's endorsement means crap to me. Same with John Kerry - I voted for him in '04, but simply because I couldn't bear another term with Bush. If it had been McCain v. Kerry, I probably would have voted McCain - that's how little respect I have for Kerry, and I think a lot of people here feel the same way.

By the way, liberal states electing a republican governor is not limited to MA either, it's actually pretty common.

dmm said...

Oh, and I should comment on Deval Patrick's endorsement - I was seriously pulling for him in the race for governor, and I don't think he's done a BAD job per se, I just don't think he's done much at all. Which is part of my concern with Obama - no doubt he's charismatic, interesting, inspirational. But does he really have the ability to actually get things done? People hate on Clinton a lot (I'm not a super huge fan myself), but someone I know recently commented that we NEED a ball-buster in the White House, and I kinda agree with that.

Will said...

I've gotta hand it to McCain. I really didn't think he could get the nomination. In retrospect, I'm not sure who I thought would...Rudy?!? his candidacy was a mirage apparently.

yes, ball-buster in the White House. Smooth visionaries in the cabinet/VP slot

Elizabeth said...

Actually, upon second thought, maybe it makes sense that Clinton won MA...she's been polling to white, educated women especially in her own backyard of Southern New England. Perhaps the question we should be asking instead is why she lost Connecticut?

On a side note, Connecticut also has a Republican Governor despite being a "democratic" state. Most Republicans in Connecticut are more the fiscally conservative/socially liberal version of Republicans, not the same as what is traditionally though of as Republicanism elsewhere in the country. This points to an issue in US Politics as raised by Will in another blog comment...perhaps our current 2 party system is not enough to encompass variations in ideologies throughout the country and provides a cycle of centrism which has up to this point played out in Bush-Clinton turn taking in power.

julie said...

Those glasses she's wearing are very Nicole Richie.