Super Tuesday, McCain Leads Reps, Dems Undecided

Following the so called Super Tuesday primary mega bash yesterday, McCain has solidified a strong lead in the primary race over his rival Republicans. Things aren't so clear for the Democrats: while Clinton leads, the race is still too close to call.

Obama truely the big winner.

[arkham6]

While Clinton won California, New york, new Jersey and Mass, Obama really comes out as the winner here. Why? because not a month ago he was hugely behind, and now he's only narrowly been defeated. Clinton also has won all her states, there is not much left for her. While Obama however has plenty of states left to go where he typically is a winner. If you look at the pledged delegate count, he's tied with her, AFTER she won all those large states.

Also, in money, Clinton is getting tapped out, while Obama is gaining speed. 35 Million last month? In SMALL party donation? Thats amazing.

So while they will go on for a few more months.

It's turning intom "Who can Win" in November

[R2.0]

At least for the Repubs. The conservative right, while bloviating at the top, is more practical at the bottom. so here is how the equation is going:

McCain>Hillary
McCain=Obama
Romney=Hillary
RomneyObama

In this equation, McCain has the best chance of winning, and conservatives would rather get half a loaf than none at all.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[FuzzyDaddy]

The interesting thing about CA is that they have a lot of absentee voters who voted more than a week ago, before it was clear how well Obama was going to do. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it's interesting.

I also heard my first political radio ad in the Washington DC area for Obama. The primaries for DC, VA and MD are next Tuesday. There has been no advertising and very few roadside signs so far.

I'm voting for Obama, not that I'd mind Clinton so much. But I REALLY hope they can battle it out without damaging the eventual winner in the general election.

Re:So.....

[SatanicPuppy]

Honestly? I think Clinton already cut a deal with Edwards in the hopes that she can win outright, and bring him in as VP...With Edwards splitting up the EC votes, that would have been impossible; she'd never have managed to score a majority. If she manages to score one now, then she can choose whoever she wants.

I think the only way they'll be a team is if its really too close to call, and it gets brokered.

Re:Obama truely the big winner.

[div_2n]

Obama narrowly defeated? Apparently you haven't examined the numbers.

1) He won the majority of states with 13 to 8 and New Mexico looks like he might win that too.

2) He won the majority of delegates if only by a slim margin.

3) He won 40% of the vote in Clinton's home state. He was polling as low as 15% there just a couple of months ago.

4) He won 8 states with over 60% of the vote (AK, CO, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND). She did that with only one state--Arkansas (not even NY).

5) He won 3 states with over 70% of the vote (AK, ID, KS). She didn't manage that feat.

Given these facts, I just don't see how anyone calls this a win for her. I am not convinced you can call this a tie either.

Re:SuperDelegates

[roystgnr]

Party activists at the lower ranks of the party would tend to select the most extreme candidate, who would ultimately lose to a more mainstream candidate.

Ah, so if it turned out that one candidate beat John McCain in six out of nine of this year's opinion polls [wikipedia.org], whereas the other candidate lost to John McCain in seven out of ten polls this year, the one who was more likely to win would be chosen by the superdelegates, even if the one who was more likely to lose had better party connections?

That sounds like a wonderful system, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that it will actually work that way.

Re:Clinton versus Obama

[timster]

Well, there is another possible way that's been suggested, though the details haven't been ironed out. Suppose you don't have coverage and go to the hospital with appendicitis. They treat you and present a bill for $5000, which you can't pay.

These days they just write it off and throw a debt collector at you, which makes other people pay for your care as you say. Under Hillary's plan there would presumably be less of this, though it's hard to eliminate entirely (illegal immigrants? foreigners? the homeless?)

The other way is to give you the option of joining the government system to get the bill paid, but with a penalty. Maybe you'll pay double premiums for five years or something, or lose the option to leave the program, or heck, the government could take it out of your social security later on. There are a lot of options in between sticking the hospitals with the costs and forcing people to buy coverage from the government.

Re:Texas on March 4th...

[techno-vampire]

emphasis on a critical and objective analysis of the inconsistencies in Hillary's campaign statements - on one hand she's the experience candidate but on the other hand she got tricked into supporting the war. WTF?

Here in California, I heard a lot of Romny ads asking a very pertinent question: just what experience does Hillary really have? Except for Senator, what public office has she held, and what experience does she have running anything? And you know what? I think that's a very good question. I'd like to know just what this experience is that she claims to have, because from where I sit, it doesn't look like it exists.