02/06/2008
Super Tuesday Paints Unclear Picture for Dems, Big Win for McCain
Super Tuesday returns are still coming in, but what is becoming abundantly clear is that, as predicted by many, the Democratic race will go on. On the Republican side, results show John McCain as the clear frontrunner.
UPDATE: Obama claims delegate lead though Dem candidates are virtually tied.
Here are the state-by-state results of voting, which don't necessarily provide the most accurate picture of what happened, as Obama won more states, but Clinton took states with a larger delegate count.
CLINTON: AR, AZ, CA, MA, NY, NJ, OK, TN
OBAMA: AK, AL, CT, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, MO, ND, UT
HUCKABEE: AL, AR, GA, TN, WV
MCCAIN: AZ, CA, CT, DE, IL, MO, NJ, NY, OK
ROMNEY: CO, MA, MN, MT, ND, UT
As of 7:30 EST, according to CNN, the delegate count for the Democrats stood at Clinton 825, Obama 732, with 2,025 needed to win the nomination.
For the Republicans, John McCain further increased the lead over his rivals, with 615 delegates to Romney's 268, and Huckabee's 169. 1,191 are need to win that nomination.
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo writes: "If you look at this from the vantage point of two weeks ago, it's a huge win for Obama, since he was trailing in states across the country by a very big margin. From the vantage point of the last couple days, however, it's much less clear. The hype of his momentum just got a bit out ahead of what he was able to pull off. And in that sense there's very mild echo of New Hampshire, though the Clinton campaign is silly to claim some sort of comeback. There were a handful of states which, had he won two or more of them, would have taken him from a delegate tie to a decisive win that would have been Clinton seriously on the defensive. But it didn't happen. Not in New Jersey or Massachusetts and most importantly not in California, which Clinton won decisively. But I think all these competing scenarios make one point clear. The only arguments for one side or the other being a winner here come down to airy and finally meaningless arguments about expectations. And the result tells a different tale. It's about delegates. It's dead even. You've got two well-funded candidates who've demonstrated an ability to power back from defeats. And neither is going anywhere."
Above, Obama and Clinton speak to their supporters. Below, McCain's speech.
Posted 7:45 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'll be voting for Obama come March 4, but I congratulate both campaigns for fighting for every last vote... Thus ensuring that everyone's voice is heard.
Posted by: Rick | Feb 6, 2008 8:41:55 AM
Go Hillary!!
Posted by: Shane | Feb 6, 2008 8:59:02 AM
"Conneticutt, Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota, Indiana, N.Dakota, Utah & Kansas"
Hey, Johnny Lane! what's wrong with those white men giving those states to Obama, or what you call him (which I just don't feel like repeating this early in the morning). But when the network anchors said that Obama won a majority of the white male vote in most of the states yesterday--YOU were the first person I thought about. Those white guys out west may have alterior motives for voting for Obama (in states, most of which Democrats will never win in November), but they made sure this Democratic primary contest will go on. How many black people live in Utah--hell, even the players on the Utah Jazz don't live there, do they?
I'm liking them both more each week: Hillary & Barack...and they're both such fine young Americans.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 6, 2008 9:24:00 AM
Looks like it might come down to who those unpledged Super Delegates end up voting for. I would guess the majority (as already have) will go for Hillary because they're predominantly elected "establishment" officials who have more allegiance to her and her husband.
What a stunning night for Obama though. Before Iowa he was, what, 27 points BEHIND Clinton nationally. He certainly has something that is appealing to the average American. I'm happy it seems that he can motivate young people and African Americans to vote.
In November I'll vote for whichever person's name has the big D beside it, but it's nice, for now, to feel inspired by a politician. That hasn't happened for me since Harvey Gant ran for the NC Senate against Jesse Helms in the early 90s.
Posted by: JOHN | Feb 6, 2008 9:25:34 AM
Looks like it might come down to who those unpledged Super Delegates end up voting for. I would guess the majority (as already have) will go for Hillary because they're predominantly elected "establishment" officials who have more allegiance to her and her husband.
What a stunning night for Obama though. Before Iowa he was, what, 27 points BEHIND Clinton nationally. He certainly has something that is appealing to the average American. I'm happy it seems that he can motivate young people and African Americans to vote.
In November I'll vote for whichever person's name has the big D beside it, but it's nice, for now, to feel inspired by a politician. That hasn't happened for me since Harvey Gant ran for the NC Senate against Jesse Helms in the early 90s.
Posted by: JOHN | Feb 6, 2008 9:26:55 AM
"...ulterior..."
Cain't always spell words the same way I pronounce them with mah new Utah accent.
Hillary & Barack! I'm proud to be a Democrat in UTAH this morning.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 6, 2008 9:30:16 AM
Andy your statement that "Clinton took states with a larger delegate count" is very misleading, if not down right wrong. You are saying this in the context of last nights election, which had nothing to do with the superdelegate votes. Obama won 603 delegates compared to Clinton's 590 delegates last night. That's a win for Obama no matter how you try and hide it!
Posted by: Rob | Feb 6, 2008 9:48:48 AM
One thing - all reports I have heard say that Obama has around 2.5 times as much campaign money left, and if that has anything to do with the primaries and caucases as we approach the official nomination, he's well equipped to keep up the fight.
Posted by: Brian in Philly | Feb 6, 2008 9:49:59 AM
the media loves obama. it doesn't matter how good hillary does, they always seem all to happy to cover obama. he'll win based on that factor.
Posted by: J | Feb 6, 2008 10:31:34 AM
well, so much for the much lauded kennedy and kerry endorsements in MA and the kennedy/shriver/oprah campaigning in CA...
still and all, superior candidates the both of them. i can't imagine either losing to the geezer.
Posted by: nic | Feb 6, 2008 10:43:15 AM
Its clear to me, HRC is not going to win the WH in 2008, too much baggage, too divisive, too negative, and real people see right through her fakeness, and she offers nothing but the same old stuff that DC has had for the past 8 years.
And, McCain is no shoo in either, so, who knows, with Nader wanting to enter the race, he could be the spoiler again to decide who wins.
Posted by: Juan Pablo | Feb 6, 2008 10:43:46 AM
You can TRY to dismiss what I'm about to say simply because I have fully disclosed my preference for Sen. Clinton, but, if you missed the TV network blab fests last night, just check out the print media this morning [I don't have time to give the TV talking heads a second chance]:
Josh Marshall speaks well to the objective end result, but the subjective facts are that we SHOULD be seeing huge headlines this morning essentially asking, "What the Fuck Happened to Obama in California???!!!!"
On Sunday, everyone, including most Obamamaniacs were, were shitting themselves over the latest Field poll that showed Obama only 2% points behind Sen. Clinton:
“San Francisco Chronicle” two days before election:
State poll shows huge gains by Obama, McCain
A startling surge of support for Barack Obama has catapulted the Illinois senator into a virtual tie with Hillary Rodham Clinton in California's Democratic presidential primary, a Field Poll released Saturday shows.
But the Democratic numbers are the shocker. Clinton, a longtime California favorite, saw her once-commanding lead slip to two percentage points, 36 to 34 percent, in the new survey. That's down from the New York senator's 12 percentage point lead in mid-January and a 25 percentage point margin over Obama in October."
Latest numbers I've seen this morning says she beat him by TEN percentage points! Their margin of error of "plus or minus 4.5 percentage points doesn't even explain that. So WHERE are the mea maxima culpa headlines?
Worse still is that, after saying over and over, before, during and after—"California is what means the most"—when it looked like she was TWENTY points ahead, the talking heads virtually yawned. Instead of going, "What the fuck happened to the Obama surge in California."
WHERE were those appropriate responses? Where are those missing headlines this morning even with only a 10 per cent spread?
UP BARACK OBAMA'S ASS—ALONG WITH THE MAINSTREAM [AND MOST GAY] MEDIA'S HEADS!!!!
The final closeness of the total votes nationwide, and the relative closeness in delegate count are beside my point of media bias when, again, the "big story" was supposed to be California and Obama's surge there and Marie Shriver and Barack's mom Oprah and Ms. Latino Vote and Caroline and Stevie Wonder and David Geffen and those 20 gazillio young voters that had papered the entire state with Obama signs blah blah blah.
And let us not forget Massachusetts where the Kennedy mystique, parts of it anyway, proved a mirage.
And did anyone note how often the pinheads, er, pundits trumpeted, "Obama has proved tonight that he can win some Red States for the Democrats!" Excuuuuuuse me? The only way one could conclude that last night if those states were holding 100% "open" primaries meaning that not just independents but REPUBLICANS could vote for him yesterday. WERE there any such states? And the few honest observors are saying that his winning Georgia is meaningless re the general election because then the state will go Republican no matter what [meaning, to be fair, Hillary wouldn't have made it any better either].
So, kids, now's your chance to get even with the media for lying to you. Get even with Sen. Obama for lying to us about being the Most Valuable Player in the Illinois Gay Superbowl when he'd actually abandoned the team, ceaselessly misrepresenting his real position on states' rights, helping Donnie McClurkin sell more gospel CDs and homohate, and those shameless McClurkin-inspired "STAND for Change" signs, and endlessly smilefucking us with the G-word all the way to the bank. And you can do both by contacting any friends or family you have in Texas and Virginia and Maryland and Pennsylvania and Ohio and DC and a few other places and tell them, "Just say No to our being played stupid and vote for Sen. Clinton."
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 6, 2008 11:16:33 AM
Rob, you still can't read or comprehend so quit posting crap to this site! As of this posting, the delegate count for the Democrats is as follows:
Democrats Needed to Win = 2,025
Candidate Clinton
Pledged 590
Superdels. 193
=====
Total 783
Candidate Obama
Pledged 603
Superdels 106
=====
Total 709
Source: CNN.com
Now, I don't want to hear any diatribe about the status of the Super Delegates. This race has a long way to go. And the Democratic Party will throw its weight to the candidate which it thinks can win in November. And that candidate is Hillary Clinton, not Obama. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, people will turn out in record numbers to make sure he is not elected.
Also, Obama has yet to commit to Clinton's debate a week challenge. If he declines or participates he is in trouble.
Hillary has plenty of time to give this bag of hot air a KO punch.
Posted by: Bobby | Feb 6, 2008 11:17:56 AM
What happened to Obama in California? The Clinton race card and the mistrust between blacks and Hispanics, they have played the card quite well, and, its going to blow up as the public is fed with with race baiting and gay bashing, and, want a leader who can heal, not continue to divide as she has shown she is. They have run one of the sleaziest race baiting campaigns since Nixon with his Southern Strategy, something so many of her supporters seem to be blind to in the rush to banish, and insult Obama and his supporters. But, that's how HRC works, so, its really no suprise that her loud, shirl over the top supporters here do the same thing.
Posted by: Juan Pablo | Feb 6, 2008 11:25:19 AM
Oh hi Leland--oops, I mean Michael Bedwell
Posted by: NancyClue | Feb 6, 2008 11:31:06 AM
A few months ago, Obama was far behind Clinton in all these states. His showing yesterday was quite an achievement.
Some people seem determined to turn this race ugly again. I hope they don't succeed. Democrats who want to hate each other aren't worth listnening to.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 6, 2008 11:38:32 AM
What happened to Obama in California? Obviously people there have some sense. This race is not going to be won or lost on gay issues. There are too many other pressing agendas, namely the war, health care, veterans benefits, education and keeping this country from going into bankruptcy. Few people realize how close we are to the brink of disaster. If any one of our major creditors dumps our debt to raise foreign currency, the dollar is going to be virtually worthless. It is at an all time low right now. Many oil producing nations will only accept Euros or Yen as payment for crude oil shipments. How about the latest report on the readiness of the national guard? Its resources are depleted and it is unable to adequately respond to a homeland disaster. And money won't fix it. The guard personnel are depleted and worn out due to the war.
The people of this country are so complacent and uneducated on the true state of nation it is incomprehensible. Bush should have been impeached long ago. And things are going to deteriorate for more than a year before anything can be done to reverse the tide. That is another $400 billion plus down the drain and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs to to the current recession.
And any of you who think that Obama has a clue has to how to fix all of this are so far out of touch with reality there is no way to bring you back.
Wake up!
Posted by: Bobby | Feb 6, 2008 11:56:12 AM
Hispanics went out in record numbers in CA to vote against Obama. 30% of the vote was hispanic, and they overwhelmingly went to Obama by 77%. THAT is what happened in CA. Obama won among whites and blacks, but hispanics, asians, and gays went for Hillary.
And Bobby-- you are the one who can't comprehend the numbers. I agree that Hillary had far more Superdelegates prior to last nights election, but to say that Hillary won more delegates last night is clearly WRONG. Last night Obama won more delegates than Hillary... even your numbers show that. Nice try, but sorry, the numbers speak for themselves.
Posted by: Rob | Feb 6, 2008 12:00:15 PM
Is there a way to turn off the Michael Bedwell comments?
Posted by: crispy | Feb 6, 2008 12:06:56 PM
Ugh, Bobby again you just don't have a clue what you're talking about. Its the uneducated voters that Hillary is winning. Obama is winning in those voters who have a higher level of education. And it is Hillary's record, not Obama's, that has consistently more aligned with this disastrous president than his.
Posted by: Rob | Feb 6, 2008 12:16:59 PM
Rob, you are smoking the same crack that Obama and his "followers" are using. God, I would hate to be this stupid.
Posted by: Bobby | Feb 6, 2008 12:28:46 PM
Yeah, I guess when you lose the argument based on facts, you're forced to fall back on silly name calling.
Posted by: Rob | Feb 6, 2008 12:32:47 PM
Hillary is asking for week by week debates because she no longer has the money to compete with Obama across the country.
In the California exit polls, gays went 2-1 for Hillary. It's amazing to me that we vote for someone who only mentions our issues when she's talking to us (Barack talks about us all the time, including in front of religious audiences), and who campaigns on her husband's record of signing DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Posted by: T-Rock | Feb 6, 2008 12:38:09 PM
Thanks Rob, the more I read of the Hillary brigade, the more likely it will make me vote for McCain just to make sure she isn't the winner as she is not qualified, and, her dirty deeds so far in the race shows she has no moral stand to be anything other than another GW Bush, since her tactics so far are just like his in the 2000 race.
Derrick, the only ones making this race "ugly" is Clinton, her man and her followers, they aren't capable of a civil debate, just name calling and other juvenile, petty GOP like tendencies of spewing insults and never being able to address an issue.
Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 6, 2008 1:14:24 PM
Latest data from the “San Francisco Chronicle” which, by the way, endorsed Obama:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/06/BA3IUT6L8.DTL
“Clinton won WITH ALL AGE GROUPS in California, but racked up her biggest margins among voters age 60 or older, winning 53 percent to 30 percent. She even won narrowly with voters ages 18-24 - 52 to 46 percent - a SETBACK FOR THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, which had counted on turning out young voters in droves.
Obama proved once again his popularity among African-Americans, willing almost 4 out of 5 black votes in California. But Clinton more than compensated by winning among Latinos by a 2-to-1 margin and among Asian-Americans by a 3-to-1 margin.
While THEY RAN JUST ABOUT EVEN AMONG MEN - with Obama holding an 18-point edge among white men - exit polls showed Clinton with a huge 59 percent to 34 percent advantage with women.
Clinton also won among union voters, 54 to 37 percent.
She had a narrow edge, 49 percent to 46 percent, with those who made up their minds in the last three days, but held a 17-point advantage among voters who had decided earlier.
The vote in California also split along class lines. Voters from families making less than $100,000 tilted heavily toward Clinton - 54 percent to 37 percent - while Obama held a narrow edge with those making more than $100,000, 49 percent to 47 percent.
Clinton won overwhelmingly with voters who did not complete high school (82 percent to 15 percent) and had a 2-to-1 edge among those who had graduated from high school. She also won among college graduates, although Obama narrowly outpolled her among those who had pursued post-graduate work, 48 percent to 46 percent.
GAYS AND LESBIANS ALSO BROKE SHARPLY FOR CLINTON, BACKING HER 60 PERCENT TO 25 PERCENT” end quote
The shorthand: despite the slander and lies of Juan and T-Rock, despite the astigmatic misunderstanding of exit poll by Rob, despite all those working Obama's Psychic Hotline—for the second time, Sen. Clinton proved pollsters’ obituaries premature. Blacks and the rich and sexist men voted for the black, rich man. Women voted for a woman but many men, people of all ages, Latinos, Asians, union members, gays, the poor, and less educated AND well-educated also voted for a 60 yr. old, non-Latino, non-Asian, non-union member, non-lesbian [unless you believe Ann Coulter], rich, woman with a law degree.
But, according to Juan, none of those are “real people.”
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 6, 2008 1:19:30 PM