Not So Super Saturday Results Open Thread
Huck makes a move; Obama narrows the gap
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (154) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Huck wins KS caucus, 60-24. Huck and McCain are in a tight race in LA primary where exit polls show a Huck 44-42 win within the MoE. WA GOP caucus results are not coming in yet.
On the D side, Obama won the WA caucus and the NE primary by roughly 63-27. The LA exit polls show Obama winning 53-45 but it will take some returns to corroborate that.
[UPDATE] Obama wins LA. CNN calls that LA will not give 50% to Huck or McCain; thus, this primary does not affect the delegate count at all. It's a big beauty contest and Huck looks a tad bit prettier right now although the race hasn't been called. WA still not called but proving caucuses are silly, Paul has 21% currently.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Deadlock? — Comments (13) »
Not So Super Saturday Results Open Thread 154 Comments (0 topical, 154 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Its 100 percent expected.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I know, it's still just amazing to see. The party has essentially divided itself amongst race in this election.
This election is just making it plain. No matter who wins their primary they wind up with significant groups being put out.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Women
Latinos
Were ?
Its dividing out very predictably.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...that Obama would not be neck and neck with Clinton in the Dem primary if the racial element that is being inferred here were a truly significant factor among the Dem primary voters overall..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225994/
You have white women breaking overwhelmingly to hillary
Latino's breaking overwhelmingly against Obama
Blacks overwhelmingly break to Obama.
You want to say race and gender aren't whats driving the Dems ?
The only other really big trend is that Hillary has the Jewish vote locked up. If you can make something of that be my guest.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Latinos and blacks are not a large enough percentage of the primary electorate to put Obama in a virtual tie with Clinton without Obama getting a significant share of the white vote too. I don't have much information or comment on the male/female thing.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
There are two dynamics at work. Look at the internals for NV for an even more clear picture.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
What percentage of the white vote did Obama win in the (for example) Washington state caucuses?
-exits
Obama usually doesn't fall below the 30% mark among whites. I'm very surprised about that.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
... that Obama has yet to "close the deal" with white voters, especially southern white voters. That's why all this talk about Obama winning in the South is nonsense.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
of same in others. His problem is not whites, its that white women are wedded to Hillary. Hillary has a man problem.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
...unbelievable.
80%+ of blacks went for Obama.
70%+ of white went for Shrill.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
all of same to form my opinion. I also looked at other La. demographics re men and women.
I don't wake up everyday looking to reinvent the world as if yesterday never was.
It seems every week, or even every day, the shallow minded base all of rerality on what happened in the last 5 seconds, and even then with a thin analysis of same.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Not sure what exit poll you're looking at. The CNN exit poll for Louisiana has whites going for Clinton over Obama 58-30 and blacks going for Obama over Clinton 86-13.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I'm a McCain supporter, but Huckabee deserves to win the votes he got.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
Round 1: Caucus. Winner: McCain.
Round 2: Primary, if someone gets 50%, they win. Winner: None.
Round 3: More convention/caucus stuff. No idea the rules.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I just think Louisiana's vote system is terrible, all the way down to its jungle primary.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
... the most messed up, counterintuitive electoral system in the country. BTW, I suspect that at the convention Huckabee will end up splitting delegates with McCain. But at this point, a split is as good as a win for our guy because Huck needs to win 90% of whatever is left to win the nomination.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
CNN had Clinton up 101 before tonight including super delegates.
WA: 17-10 (+7)
NE: 17-7 (+10)
LA selects 56 which will probably go roughly 35-21 (+14). So he makes up about 31 of the deficit.
This is why this could be a long race. The PR system means no one can gain too quickly without a 1) decisive win in 2) a big state (OH, TX, PA).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
They're trying to be cautious, but almost every other outlet (AP, MSNBC, RCP, etc.) has given full estimated results from SDT. According to most outlets, Obama was down by about 60 delegates.
That's a margin he could make up as early as Tuesday. If that happens, expect superdelegates to start jumping on the bandwagon. They aren't going to sit on their hands until August.
Unless Obama does something incredibly stupid, expect this thing to be wrapped up by late March/early April.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Obama will run the table between now and TX and OH. That will start the flow of superdelegates into his pocket. Once he's ahead by 120 or more, it won't matter if FL and MI are seated, so they will be. In fact, he'll probably make a big deal about everyone's voice being heard, whether they voted for him or not, etc., etc.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Who would have thought that the group of voters with sexually transmitted diseases would be crucial in these elections.
:-P
since Time Magazine informed me this week that college students are going to be more active in 2008.
[threadjack]
I still can't get over the fact that my company's file extention for where we store our software settings and other data is "SDD". Do you know how often and around customers I ask "Did you check the SDDs?" "Do they have the latest SDDs?" etc. I'm seriously changing them all to something like .CONFIG when we do a version change.
[/threadjack]
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I know endorsements usually don't pan out to much more than a day's worth of positive spin, but would Al Gore endorsing Obama make as big a difference in terms of momentum for the Senator from Illinois?
And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill
I'm super serial...excelsior!!!!!
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Obama always seems to win red states that hold caucuses, not primaries. Caucuses have lower participation, which weighs in the Deaniacs/Obamaians favor.
Clinton wins large states with primaries. That augurs well for her come OH, Pa, and TX.
but Hillary is about to have a rough few weeks. There's a good chance she'll lose every state between now and then. If that's the case, she may learn the same lesson about waiting that Rudy did in Florida as she watches her lead shrink away in those three states.
I really don't get it, but the percentage of the electorate that votes based on whom they think will win rather than whom they really want to win is depressingly high.
"I really don't get it, but the percentage of the electorate that votes based on whom they think will win rather than whom they really want to win is depressingly high."
I'd say the that holds true for both parties.
I'm a Dem, and I'm no fan of Huckabee (and I certainly don't think he'll win), but I'm really impressed with GOP voters who are willing to turn out to support a lost cause, rather than just jumping on the winning bandwagon.
I know that neither McCain or Huckabee is popular around here, but you have to hand it to the voters tonight. They know what they want (or perhaps better, what they don't).
... if she can get the Hispanic vote out. It seems to me that Hispanics aren't all that enamored with Obama, and they have pushed Hillary over the edge in California, Arizona and Nevada. The Texas race will depend on (a) whether Hillary can get out the Hispanic vote in San Antonio and the border region, (b) whether Obama can get out the black vote in Dallas and Houston, and (c) whether the old-time Democrats - who are backing Hillary - can get their rank-and file behind her.
---
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.
--Jonah Goldberg
He is doing terrible in the red states: he lost Kansas badly and is losing in Louisiana. He is currently at 27% in Washington, a liberal state where he should be doing much better.
McCain had Sam Brownback's support and had 24% of the vote in Kansas. The delegate rules in Louisiana are complicated so Huckabee may not get them - so what?
Regardless of the fact that he is the presumptive nominee, the majority of the Republican party opposes McCain and people are not voting for him.
This also affirms polls that indicated that Mitt was takinh votes from Huck. Its a fact. And I was for Mitt.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
here of late. This is why I think Huck should stay in. McCain should know his seat is uneasy, it will either drive him right or tick him off, either of which will be helpful or enlightening.
My greatest wish for this year has been for competitiveness extending all the way to both conventions. I'm glad to see high participation and greater enthusiasm for every state to have their say.
campaign. I wrote many blogs against him and some for him. I am optimistic that Huck will refine his rhetoric and policy positions to our liking. In fact his policies have never been as bad as the class warfare rhetoric.
And his CPAC speech was the best speech of the campaign, bar none, and that includes VapidObama.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Romney voters second choice could be Huck AND Huck voters second choice be McCain.
We are learning that many Romney voters may have been anti-McCain. But I'll believe that more when it isn't a caucus with 1-3% turnout in a state. That doesn't tell me much in any direction.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Is it time involved or are the politically active anti social ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
People know how to go somewhere and make a simple vote. A lot of people don't know how caucuses work.
Add to that the fact that caucuses require more time from everyone involved makes people less likely to participate.
They tell you that GOP activists - the type who go to caucuses - are really upset and McCain has a big problem heading into the general election. Rationalizing this away, demanding that people fall in line, and McCain's insisting that he should get conservative support without offering anything specific is not McCain's road to victory this fall. He and his supporters have got to wake up to the problem they have this fall. The divided Dem race gives him an opportunity to consolidate the base, but it's not clear that he knows what to do with the opportunity.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
were cast for Huck. Even before tonight's results, I was pretty anti-caucus. And as much as it is impolite to say, yes, McCain can win KS without those 11,000 votes. That being said, I think McCain will win many of them in the Fall.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
you had caucuses which can last for an hour or two. If you know your guy is going to win the nomination then you are not going to commit the time to vote. In LA, Huck was a big help during Katrina and Northern LA has alot of former Arkanasas. residents.
McCain '08
The difference is important. Specifically turnout is usually 1-3% in a caucus instead of the 20-40% in a primary.
Let's see what happens in the MD, DC, and VA primaries on Tuesday.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
MD's pretty forgone, too. VA is going to be the one to watch, given that I believe that they have open primaries. Cross-party appeal is a factor, no?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I'm voting in DC. I want to count.
"Livin' the dream. I'm going to Disney World." Super Bowl XLII MVP, Elisha Nelson Manning
Huge difference between caucuses and primaries.
Pat Robertson won Iowa in 1988. 'nuff said.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Dole beat Robertson by 12 points, 37-25. That "Robertson won" meme has been around so long people forget it was something of a moral victory.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
the bribe that Boeing paid to the Air Force procurement officer to get the tanker contract. So these two states in particular we're going to be tough.
LA is prime evangelical territory (very high percentage of Born Agains). Huckabee will do well here (if he could win general elections in Arkansas, he will clean up in LA - in fact if they had an all open primary in LA he might have won).
The interesting thing is that McCain will go into the general in a come from behind position.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
Huck 45%
McCain 41%
Paul 5% That leaves 9% and Romney is still on the ballot.
Fox was showing his numbers early so I assume Mitt has stopped either from the magic 50%. I heard early this week that the LA party bosses will make sure McCain gets them if nobody gets 50%. The roles are flipped from WV. Justice will be done.
Huckabee may get nothing out of LA.
With Paul supporters again. Huck could have won delegates in exchange for giving Paul a few, like WV.
Although they seem to hate each other, Sat's results make you wonder whether Mitt & Huck should have struck a Faustian bargain with one another. Now that Mitt is out Huck should suck up to him, call him his veep, and ask Mitt to pledge his delegates to Huck. Had Mitt made the same offer to Huck last weekend it is possible we would be saying McPain who?
Who would have thunk that a backwoods preacher would be doing so well in Washington state?
Now lets see if Huck can do something a first term Reagan was famous for, making hard-nosed political deals with people with whom he might not agree. If he can pool that off he might be the nominee, if he can't he can go back to Hope.
Slightly off topic, how come Ron Reagan (Jr) is, for lack of a better term, such a tool. You would have thought he at least got a little of the old man's genes.
** Umm, I also note the huge typo in my last post pool = pull. The problem with spell checkers, if you blow the word and its another word....
The only district I saw reporting was in Eastern Washington- I have no doubt that Huckabee will pick up votes there.
King, Pierce, and Everett Counties will decide the state vote.
Besides, this is only a straw poll and has nothing to do with delegate selection. The party workers literally instructed the caucus goers to vote for delegates before they discussed issues or voted in the straw poll. (All the better to keep control over the grassroots).
Of course my mother say most people ignored the instructions, but nobody seemed to really care who the delegates were. In fact most of the debate was people trying to give reasons why they should not be delegates- as they didn't want the bother of attending the next convention.
I'd say Mitt looked at the odds and didn't like what he saw so he cut his losses. He didn't make all that money by being reckless.
------------
~ Beth ~
My parents went to the WA caucus. (In King County)
They said most people seemed to be Romney supporters who are vacillating between voting for McCain for unity's sake, voting for Romney anyways, or voting for Ron Paul as a protest of sorts (many WA people are Libertarians- about 1/5 of the people at the caucus my parents attended were open Libertarians- in fact the political divisions in WA tend to run along populist vs libertarian lines).
They also said that most people selected Delegates without reference to their Presidential preferences- not even the Huckabee people seemed to care.
Everyone was rather dispirited and confused about how the caucus system worked. Apparently what is being reported is just a straw poll that has nothing to do with the delegates selected.
I've attended several caucuses in WA and I have to say they have become a sad affair ever since 1996.
That was the year Ellen Craswell was selected as the Gov. candidate, she was a disaster, and the establishment was infuriated to the point of changing the caucus rules so as to give them more control. (While not friendly to the establishment cause I'm none too happy with the Craswells either as Bruce moved to my district just so he could run a 3rd party candidacy against our republican Congressman- we've been stuck with Jay Inslee ever since).
In 1996 there was alot of grassroot power. Nowadays it's like the professional party workers are trying to keep people ignorant so they can't change the party platform or select non-establishment candidates. I mean you really do get the sense of them ordering you about like set pieces at a pep rally instead of delegates with the actual voting power. At one convention I attended there was a bit of a rebellion when the party worker tried to tell people they were out of order (they were promoting a platform change at the wrong point in the convention- but the worker refused to tell us the appropriate time), with their suggested plank in the party platform opposing the new law that has ordered all property owners to keep 1/3 of their property in the "original" condition. It got heated enough that about 1/5 of the delegates refused to be seated until our Council member came out and assured us she would see that issue addressed in the platform. (Which it then was, but in political mealy-mouth form instead of a clear statement).
Ever since 1996 they have continually lost more and more local party volunteers- I don't think my precinct has had a captain since 1998.
So it was more of the same old thing tonight.
If anybody wondered why the WA Republican party is such a sad affair that is why. So basically people showed up and then had to figure things out for themselves, all with candidates on the ballot that they don't really care for.
So my guess is that most of the delegates are really Romney/Thompson supporters who will probably support McCain- regardless of what the straw poll says.
There is a somewhat thuggish control group in my state. It's demoralizing to the people who are altruistically motivated, versus power grabbers. The Republican Party needs to have a come-to-Jesus meeting about its treatment of the rank and file. Only time I get a call is when they want money.
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller
Huck 24%
McCain 26%
Paul 21%
Other 29% Did Mitt win WA? Sure looks like he would have.
Looks like Mitt is the spoiler. No 3fer for Huck. But it sure shows McCain is weaker than on Tuesday. Likely the low turnout were McCain people thought it was over.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
With Mitts ground game (MN) (ND) (ME) (MT) etc. he already had it set up to win. It goes to show how weak we are. We better come up with something by November or all our infighting is moot. The Dems are full of energy and we are flat.
I'm an independent supporting Obama this year, however, I saw Bobby Jindal speak for the first time on MSNBC tonight. I think Democrats should be wary of him, because to me he has the same appeal that Obama has cross-over wise. He seems has that same charisma and the "The Other Side Has Good Points Too" language. Definitely a rising star for the Republicans I think.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
First, note that no one will get 50% so this is all academic but the TV people will talk about it like it matters.
With that, I looked at what counties still need to come in as of 11:47 PM. Overall Huck has a 3,000 vote lead right now.
The big one is that half of East Baton Rouge has not reported. The first half was a 3,000 vote margin for McCain. Also 3% of Jefferson parish and 30% of Orleans parish have not reported. Those are most of New Orleans and are going heavily McCain. He should pick up a net 1,000 or 2,000 there.
The other counties ("parishes") that have not reported are mostly small and rural and in the North. That area is going for Huck but they probably won't number much in total.
My guess would be a 1,000 vote margin for Huck in the end, but I can see why the MSM isn't calling it yet.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Now 94% reporting, it's a 2,400 vote margin. Jefferson is in and 83% of East Baton Rouge. There isn't much left for McCain to gain (Orleans, East Baton Rouge) and he probably can't make up that gap. But the MSM waits for 99.5% confidence to call so it may take 98% of the ballots.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
:First, note that no one will get 50% so this is all academic but the TV people will talk about it like it matters."
I think you have it backwards. The actual allocation of delegates does not matter because McCain has such a large lead and is good in so many other states that Huckabee is not a genuine threat to take the nomination. Thus, since delegates really don't matter, it's all about PR and perception. As to that, losing to Huckabee is a black eye for McCain and sure to be the news story.
only Kansas matters.
Kansas (39) is a straight victory for Huckabee, it's a nice WTA for him. Not a surprise to anyone who looked at the similarity of KS to IA. Expectations for this could have been established better by McCain's campaign, ie should have been lowballed.
Louisiana (47) primary requires 50% for winner to take the 20 delegates, otherwise they are unpledged. So, a tight race means nobody gets these delegates (yet).Louisiana state convention on 2/16 will elect the other 27 delegates to RNC, delegates to state convention were elected during caucuses held 1/22. One might think that ex-gov Buddy Roemer has the convention wired, er, organized for McCain, but only time will tell.
Washington (40) like Louisiana has a caucus, a convention, and a primary, all on different dates. Today's precinct caucuses elect delegates to the county conventions which elect delegates to the state convention, held May 31, which elects delegates (18) to the RNC. These 18 delegates are supposed to be unpledged. The primary is Feb 19, where the remaining 22 delegates are elected as follows: 10 by statewide vote, proportionally, 9 by CD (1 per CD) and 3 at-large.
McCain is winning the Washington Caucuses (though behind Other) and I expect him to get the majority of the delegates in the primary.
Two points of interest:
1) It's hard to see where Romney, had he stayed in, would have had a win or even a good showing before the March 4 contests (maybe Wisconsin). After this weekend, which is good for Huckabee, the primaries on Tuesday in Maryland, DC and Virginia are good for McCain (and maybe Huckabee in VA). That's a long time for a high-maintenance candidate like Romney. Huckabee can go into a state on a smile and a shoeshine as they say, and have a terrific showing and throw a scare into the frontrunner. That's why he is still a candidate (and should be, in my opinion).
2) This weekend is a demonstration of McCain's weaknesses, which are dramatic -- especially the South, where he has won states by narrow margins, and the evangelical voters who dominate the Midwest, where he barely registers. In Louisiana, he is getting about 41%, and that's his top vote in the South (Huck is at 44%). Basically, McCain has to either win or replace those evangelical voters in the south & Midwest who were key to Bush's wins in 2000 and 2004.
On the bright side, maybe we'll be hearing less of the idea that Huck is in a conspiracy with McCain to, er, do something nefarious. It's pretty obvious Huck is out for Huck and doing very nicely.
It's hard to see where Romney, had he stayed in, would have had a win or even a good showing before the March 4 contests (maybe Wisconsin).
He would have probably won Washington. Not only is it a caucus, where he always did well, they have a pretty substantial Mormon population in Washington state.
This weekend is a demonstration of McCain's weaknesses, which are dramatic -- especially the South
He's not going to be running against Huck in November. He'll be running against Hillary or Obama. If either of those start taking states on the South, the rest of the map will already be blue anyway and it won't matter.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"He would have probably won Washington."
The only poll I saw on Washington (before Super Tuesday) had McCain well ahead. In general, Washington, along with california and Oregon, is pretty promising for McCain. Perhaps you have data showing a potential Romney win, if so, I'd like to see it. The pacific states are quite different from the Mountain states where Romney did well in caucuses.
"He's not going to be running against Huck in November. He'll be running against Hillary or Obama. If either of those start taking states on the South, the rest of the map will already be blue anyway and it won't matter."
Not necessarily. I think the map will be different from what it has been for the last few elections, and it's possible for McCain to lose some southern states and still win. It's assumed that McCain's strength in the northeast and california is worthless in the general but that remains to be seen.
BTW, yes, the Washington caucuses have ALWAYS been silly.
I'm a native Washingtonion, and here's the breakdown:
Sensible, right-of-center conservatives. 40%
Insane Ron Paul like Libertarians that vote R. They always show up to stuff and try to disrup what's going on. 20%
Insane Pat Robertson like evangelicals that vote R and run around trashing every Republican with a chance to win, and they ALWAYS show up to events in droves. 20%
Rockefeller/Evans Republicans that vote R because they don't really like D's and they are all rich and don't like smelly hippies, but are moderate-to-liberal on most things. They constantly accuse the sensible, right-of-center folks as being linked to the Ron Paul and Pat Robertson groups. 20%
As you can see, you've got a major problem here. Somehow an R has to get all these guys on board, and then somehow win enough I's and moderate D's to win.
Needless to say, it doesn't happen often unless you have a REALLY bad D (Debora Senn) or a really good R (Dino Rossi).
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
There has often been some anti-Mormon goings on in the Republican party in WA. Despite Mormons being an essential part of any WA Republican coalition.
Remember Pam Roach?
Actually, I didn't think Pam Roach was a good pick anyways, but the anti-Mormon whisper campaign did not endear the ultimate candidate to me.
Is Pam Roach Mormon?!?!
Geeze, I honestly didn't know that.
That said, I doubt any opposition to Roach comes from that if that's the case. It comes a lot more from the fact that she's nuts. Her temper-tantrums are legendary. She makes McCain's worst angry rant look like a girl-scout asking for a cookie from what I've heard.
But if she was trashed for being Mormon, it came from the Robertson crowd. They don't really like much of anybody. What's worse, the Robertson crowd and the Paul crowd basically hate the rest of the party so much they often join forces to try to screw things up.
It also doesn't help that a few very, very vocal GOP Mormons (Phil Spackman, if you know who he is) are also stone-cold nuts.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
What I find really interesting is the Washington caucus.
Here are the numbers
McCain 25%
Huckabee 24%
Paul 21%
OTHER 28%
Sounds like OTHER is gonna take it.....lol
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
I don't think Huckabee can catch up with him. It's very, very, very difficult.
Even Karl Rove thinks that Huckabee is trying to win the delegates needed to win on first ballot. He is not. He is trying to win enough delegates to force a second ballot. So with that in mind. Huckabee does not need to win 83% (Karl Rove figure) Even taking into account that there are about 115 delegates from locations that McCain should walk away with, McCain needs to win 47% of delegates other than these certain wins. Virginia is key. If McCain wins Viriginia, the percent McCain needs falls to just about 39%.
McCain has 714 delegates. He needs 1191. That means he needs 477 delegates. I believe he has the 115 delegates listed below as certainies. 769 delegates that are not certain wins for McCain. McCain has to win 47% of these delegates to lock up the nomination or 39% if he wins Virginia. Therefore McCain is only in real trouble if he losses Virgina.
McCain's Certain Delegates:
Location, Delegates:
Guam 9
Washington 19
U.S. Virgin Islands 9
Puerto Rico 23
Northern Mariana Islands 9
American Samoa 9
Rhode Island 20
Vermont 17
Up for Grabs:
Virginia 63
Wisconsin 40
Ohio 88
Texas 140
Mississippi 39
Pennsylvania 74
Indiana 57
North Carolina 69
Nebraska 33
Kentucky 45
Oregon 30
Idaho 32
South Dakota 27
New Mexico 32
LOL!!! If you think Huckabee is going to get ANY delegates out of DC, VT, RI, PR, G, VI, or AS, you're really not thinking straight.
If you think he can win Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Oregon, you're not thinking straight either.
I seriously, seriously doubt he'll even win Nebraska if it's a primary.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
there is a beauty contest, non-binding. The delegates to the national convention are chosen in a state convention.
But you are right, just look at the remaining WTAs, Virginia, DC and Vermont. Huckabee is not going to win any of them! and that's 100 delegates to McCain.
McCain will get the rest of what he needs in primaries on 3/4.
I'd be willing to put money on those states going to McCain, especially Pennsylvania. New Mexico too, for that matter. I can't see Huck winning Texas at all, and not even Virginia. There's a huge military population in Virginia, and he does get the military votes. McCain will own the Hispanic votes in Texas without question, too, just like Bush did.
I can see Huckabee getting MS (easily), NC (probably), and KY (better than even chance). The others, I just don't know.
Louisiana doesn't surprise me in the least, because there's a whole lot of evangelicals there.
------------
~ Beth ~
Huckabee will do alright in Virginia. Robertson and Falwell's constituencies are here. Lots of evangelicals everywhere except in NoVA. And the Mennonites in the Shenandoah, who knows how they'll go. But the military folks in the SE and the omnipresent "white folks who basically just don't like Democrats" will go for McCain.
The idea of Huckabee winning in Virginia is sort of unthinkable to me. If it ends up happening anyway Huckabee, paradoxically, should be pressured by Republicans to get out immediately because he'll have shown he possesses the capability to really embarrass McCain if he goes much further.
He won't win. He wouldn't have won Georgia or even Alabama in a two man race.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Please see the latest Survey USA poll on Virginia. Taken Thursday and Friday, it shows Huck at 25%.
That doesn't sound like the evangelicals are all on the Huck bandwagon. And I suspect it means that Huck's non-evangelical support in VA will be as anemic as it has been in many other states.
I'm figuring McCain to break 50% in all 3 contests on Tuesday and to follow it up with wins in WI and WA's primary a week later.
of the last day or so shows McCain with something like a 25-30 point lead over Huckabee. I'm pretty confident that he's going to get the 63 delegates there. He should also cruise to the 19 delegates in D.C.
Of course, forcing a second ballot will also require some calculations on Romney delegates. If the goal for Huckabee is not to win outright but just to keep McCain below 1,191 on that first ballot, then he needs to be concerned with how those 280 or so delegates that Romney had will vote on the first ballot. They will be uncommitted and some will probably be inclined to vote for McCain. Which means that McCain actually has to win even fewer delegates in the remaining primaries.
Noting the math earlier, after tonight, there are about 985 delegates left out there (this includes RNC delegates, most of whom remain officially unpledged). McCain will need just about 400 of those to guarantee it.
You give him 115 delegates in your count. If we give him 63 for Virginia, that's 178. Add on probably 30 of the delegates in MD for 208. Now, NC, SD, KY, NM and OR are proportional states. I believe that McCain will, across all of those states, get about 40% of the vote minimum. They total 203 delegates. Let's just say McCain manages to win only 35% of them - that's another 71. Total now 279. Sprinkle in say 25% of the Romney delegates and you get another 50-75. And then figure that McCain will win probably at least 40-50 delegates in TX even on a bad day and McCain is pretty much over the hump.
The simple reality is that Huckabee will have a hard time, now that it's a two-man race, denying McCain the outright win - there are too many places where McCain will do well in delegate terms for that to happen, especially since Huckbee hasn't done better than about 25% outside of the South.
"If you think Huckabee is going to get ANY delegates out of DC, VT, RI, PR, G, VI, or AS, you're really not thinking straight." - No I assume he would lose all of those worth 115 delegates. Oregon I'll grant you he probably loses there. But is it winner take all? Ohio has a large evangelical population (although I am not. I am a former Romney supporter) Wisconsin also has that population. I live in PA. Central PA is very conservative. The rest is moderate/liberal. PA will be very difficult, but again is PA winner take all? You didn't mention it, but I believe NM could also be problem for Huckabee. Huckabee does not have to win all the delegates. Huckabee only has to win 53% of the delegates in the potentially competitive state(assuming McCain gets the 115 mentioned above)
please use the "Reply To This" link below a comment so people can follow the progression of a conversation.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
The delegates that went to Romney and other now non-candidates, will go to the convention uncommitted - they will likely be released by their candidates.
Your math only seems to work if you assume that McCain will get NONE of these delegates. And I don't believe that is a good assumption. By convention time, I would anticipate Thompson and Romney both indicating that they prefer their delegates to vote McCain, Giuliani's already endorsed him. I just think that you have to provide some sort of "minimum" number of those delegates who will vote for McCain, thus increasing the number of delegates that Huckabee has to win in he remaining contests in order to prevent McCain from winding up at 1,191. And I suspect that if McCain goes to the convention with a significant delegate lead (which is almost assured) many of those uncommitted delegates from other candidates will be likely to back him and just move on.
Very good point so it depends on how strong Huckabee finishes. If Huckabee sweeps the say the final 8 states (Indiana until the end) McCain will be seen as a weak candidate and since Romney might not like Huckabee I could see some desire by some to vote for McCain. The rest may refuse to support either McCain or Huckabee. Then we have a mess!
In my mind it really comes down to VA on Tuesday. If he McCain wins there, Huckabee won't be able to have the momentum needed to win Texas and compete effectively in Ohio and PA. But if Huckabee wins Virgina, watch out. There will immediately be talk about "how weak McCain is" and also the talk will begin of a brokered convention and who might be the consenus candidate. Virgina is key. I think it will be an uphill battle for Huckabee because northern Virgina has grown tremendously and has become a DC suburb. But if enough conservatives are motivated to vote...
I'm a staunch conservative. I listen to Laura, Rush and Hannity almost daily. Most of my friends and work colleagues are as conservative as I am, if not more so.
As much as we dislike McCain, most of us have warmed or at least settled the fact that we will support and vote for him in the fall. There are plenty of reasons to -- his pro-life stance, his fights against pork, support for the war, lifetime conservative ratings, etc. NOBODY I know - whether they be an uber-right wing Republican, moderate GOPer, or liberal Democrat -- can fathom the support that Mike Huckabee is getting. Seriously. I know lots of people (I think), and I literally do not know one tongue-in-cheek Huckabee supporter, let alone a serious one. McCain is much more of a conservative than Huckabee is (especially in areas where presidential policy matters).
I hope I can chalk this up to some last-gasp frustration against Romney dropping out and a last hurrah of anti-McCainiacs before they come to terms with his candidacy. Let's be honest here - the overall national mood in this country favors the Democrats. The possibility of a brokered convention and a split Democratic party is a gift for us. It's time to close ranks. Get behind McCain. Keep an eye on him -- let's not let him go off the reservation -- but support him.
----
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.
--Jonah Goldberg
I can fathom it, he's like a non-nuts Pat Robertson, and Robertson did alright back in his day. Basically people from very isolated, homogeneous communities that just fit in with the guy from a personal standpoint.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but he's not Presidential material.
Anyhow, keep in mind, Kansas is right next door to Arkansas, and it's a caucus. What's more its a caucus when there is no real contest left.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
"What's more its a caucus when there is no real contest left."
That's exactly why I hope this is a last-gasp "oh, crap, we're stuck with McCain" statement, and we move on to the real task at hand -- keeping the White House out of the hands of Hillary or Obama.
---
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.
--Jonah Goldberg
"McCain is much more of a conservative than Huckabee" is up for debate. To some of us, it is "too close to call" still since they were our last choices (RP excluded). Some of us also have a character issue where we don't want to reward a conservative eye-poker with the presidency. Frankly I'm waiting to see how the general campaign rolls to decide if someone is "worthy" of my vote. If I hear "global warming" more than I hear "tax cuts", forget it.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
At least McCain hasn't tried to spin away his past. Huckabee has been trying to pretend his record in Arkansas was conservative when he basically dumped on conservative ideas for a decade. Nobody's faulting him for it - they're embracing him because he spent a few months selling them the snake oil and pandering to them.
McCain reaches out to conservatives, it's pandering. Huckabee changes every position he had as Governor in order to appease conservatives, it's fine.
I won't call it pandering when (if?) he does. I didn't care about Romney's pandering/flip-flops/conversion/whatever. I chose him over Huck in the Florida primary. I don't defend Huckabee's record, but he didn't hinder, hurt or take jabs at conservatives in Arkansas. I don't hold Huckabee's policy above McCain's, but I do hold a grudge against McCain.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Huckabee called the Club for Growth the "Club for Greed."
Another, unrelated point - McCain's list of endorsers, in my view, is ten times as conservative as Huckabee's (Coburn, Gramm, Brownback, Bolton, Thompson, and on and on).
Also just noticed that Thad Cochran just endorsed McCain -- just a week after saying the notion sent "chills up [his] spine!"
---
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.
--Jonah Goldberg
You can post your for or against arguments all up and down my comment, but my comment was "it is debateable which one is more conservative". I'm not picking sides. It is "too close to call". So everyone replying to my comments in this thread can misread me to be "for Huckabee" all you want, but I can't help but wonder if it isn't your "anti-huckabee" delusions that have blinded you from seeing I don't support him.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
it was aimed at everyone downstream of my "debateable" comment. So don't think I'm angry at you, cause I aint.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I repeat, was NOT AIMED just at you ssides. It's late. I should go to bed.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
After reading this, this, and this, though, I think it's clear that McCain is more dedicated to across-the-board conservative policies than Huckabee is.
Also, from the Club for Growth - no friend of McCain - we have this:
"Huckabee is proud of his tax hikes, his spending increases, and his regulatory expansions as governor, and he has not indicated that he would govern any differently as President. Nominating Mike Huckabee for president or vice-president, would constitute an abject rejection of the free-market, limited-government, economic conservatism that has been the unifying theme of the Republican Party for decades."
There is no doubt that we won't get everything we need or want in a McCain. But with Huckabee, other than some empty social rhetoric, I'm not sure that we'd get anything we want or need as conservatives.
---
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.
--Jonah Goldberg
---
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.
--Jonah Goldberg
Well you would get a better 1st amendment guy. You'd get a staunch 2nd amendment guy. You'd get a slightly more pro-life guy. You'd get a guy who wants to abolish the tax code (or so he says now)...
My point though is, we are debating it. This is not a Thompson is more conservative than Huckabee comparison. There would be no debate there. There is room for debate here. McCain may be the more conservative, but you can't claim that it is sooooo easy to see.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
but that is easy to do when you don't have much of a record to stand on. He wasn't really known for getting to the front of issues and showing much leadership and drive to get issues resolved. There is a reason why there were so many whispers about his work ethic. It's awfully hard to have a conservative record if you don't want to stick around and work on it.
Huckabee had to be in an executive position, he had to work with the Dems, or checks didn't get signed, state workers didn't get paid. Remember, Jefferson and Madison (and Hamilton to a lessor extent) set this thing up so that the executive was forced to work with Legislators in the minority party, and most states have modeled after that.
If the people in Arkansas wanted better education (among other things), and were willing to pay for it, are you saying he should have denied them? What is unconservative about being responsive and accountable to his constituency? It isn't like they asked him to do anything illegal or unethical.
As conservatives, the first principal is to understand that we are accountable to the people who vote. We are the party in favor of giving more power to the people. The Dems are the party of Machine politics (witness how they screwed themselves on the Lieberman issue)
And btw, I am supporting McCain.
As conservatives, the first principal is to understand that we are accountable to the people who vote. We are the party in favor of giving more power to the people. The Dems are the party of Machine politics (witness how they screwed themselves on the Lieberman issue)
I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to with "the Lieberman issue", but that makes no sense whatsoever to me.
If you're referring to Lieberman's ouster from the Democratic party, the way it went down was completely opposite of how you describe. Lamont's primary campaign was an almost entirely grassroots operation. It was the very definition of "giving more power to the people", and the majority of CT Democrats decided they'd rather have Lamont to represent them. It was the party that decided to seat Lieberman even after he ran against the Democratic nominee as an independent, and no small number of party leaders supported his independent candidacy.
To better understand the dynamics between Lieberman and Democrats, you have to think of him as the Democratic Party's McCain. He has considerable crossover appeal that he has gotten mainly by taking specific positions at odds with the party, and cultivates his media image at the expense of his party by being the go-to guy to bash other Democrats on TV. His actual voting record is very liberal overall, just as McCain's is very conservative, but it's the way he readily betrays his own party for media attention and fake bipartisanship that rightly makes him a pariah.
won the general. He was able to run a credible campaign in the primary due to the infusion of national cash from groups such as the Kossites. They (and others) had raised a ton of liberal money to punish Dem politicians who supported the war.
The end result was an electorate that was upset at the outside influence, and chose Lieberman anyway.
By the way, the Democrats didn't seat him, he's officially an independent (although he caucuses with the Dems).
My point is that national parties, and political organizations, have to be very careful in how they try to influence local races, and local values. The national Democratic groups very clearly spent a ton of money on a candidate that favored the national organizations, that a lot of CT Dems didn't want.
Lamont most certainly had a lot of grassroots support--it got him the Democratic nomination. And he didn't just scrape it by, it was something like a five-point win. Was it enough to win in the general? No. But you can't just wave it away dismissively; the fact is that Lamont tapped into many of the same themes that let the Democrats take back Congress, and he did so effectively enough to still take 40% of the vote in a 3-way general election. And when you put Lamont's showing in both the primary and the general into the context of him going up against Lieberman's incumbency, party backing and connections, what he did was nothing short of stunning. If Lieberman hadn't run as an independent, there's simply no question that Lamont would be the junior Senator of CT right now; Schlesinger had no chance and barely drew 10% of the total vote.
The point you're trying to make is a good one, and I completely agree with it. But you're picking one of the worst possible examples to illustrate it.
take back the Congress were corrupt Republicans, and fatigue of the ruling party in some evenly split districts (job hazard of being in a district where there are even numbers of either party, I guess).
But these shouldn't have affected Lieberman, he was an incumbent DEMOCRAT, after all.
And the fact is, he didn't get party leadership support in the primary. They were all scared of what the Kossites would do in their district if they showed support for Lieberman. And Lamont had a ton of antiwar money.
Would Lamont have won if Lieberman didn't run? Yeah, but Lieberman did run, and in fact as an Independent he had less resources than Lamont, and he still won.
This shows the danger of party factions trying to to pick their type of candidates from outside the electorate.
Joe is representative of the strong-defense (anti-Communist) + domestic liberal that was emblematic of the Democratic party in the 1950's & 1960's through the end of the Vietnam War. Other names that come to mind are Walter Reuther and Sam Nunn.
It's the party that has shifted, while Joe has largely maintained his positions - and in particular over the issue of defense-military issues (culminating in Iraq) and over partisanship (in that he has not joined the hyperpartisan hatreds that has intensified to new levels in the Democratic and Republican parties in the Clinton-Bush era).
For that reason, it is really most unfair to describe Joe as one who "readily betrays his own party for media attention and fake bipartisanship that rightly makes him a pariah". Certainly he is at loggerheads with the direction and location of the current Democratic party, but it's not because of betrayal but rather because the party has moved from where he still stands.
I really don't know enough history to know whether an analogy to McCain is valid, so I won't speak to that.
with Huck is certain defeat. He was going off tonight about a campaign sign of his surviving a tornado and the miracle of it withstanding the storm.
I believe in miracles but he sounded like this was proof that God Almighty has called him to serve. If He has then it is a done deal.
If He hasn't then Huck would be looking at these sound bites over and over again this fall.
change Huck to McCain, and you have another true statement...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
at least why I seriously support Huckabee. He is the only one whom many of us trust on social issues. All of the social issues. I've noticed a trend in the conservative media, that it tries to make abortion the only social issue that matters. It isn't. There's also homosexual rights (and not just marriage defense), it's religous symbols in public places, it's pornography, and primetime TV and much more.
For a large portion of this party, and maybe we all live in the south and midwest, not New York and DC, these are just as important as the war and the economy. For some, more important.
You can't dismiss us by calling us the far right wing, or the evangelicals, or brow beat us that the things you think are more important are what we should think are most important, too. Yes, I kinow how weak Huckabee is on those other things. This is not the the FinCon, MilCon party tolerating the SoCons, it's either all three or we all fail. The problem is, by the end of the race there was no one who chose to represent everybody.
It's probably also a suthern' thing, btw, combined with the fact that some of us just can't stand McCain at the same visceral level that we can't stand Slick Willie.
I gotta tell ya, Jonah, you sound a lot like Pauline Kael who didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon. Maybe you should get out more.
And as far as holding McCain accountable, good luck. Like the man said about the Jihadis. if someoine says they want to blow you up, you should believe him. If someone says they want 13 million illegals made legal and that Alito is too conservative, you should believe him, too.
There's also homosexual rights (and not just marriage defense)
What else, then? Just curious what you mean by this. Aside from the gay marriage issue, what's your beef here?
Huckabee's win in KS and LA aren't necessarily surprising, but his showing in Washington sure is.
-----------------------------------------------
"It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage; that is our song. We sing it still."
-RWR January 21, 1985
You have to break out of the mid 20's and beat the uncommited to call it "strong". Sheesh! McCain and Huck combined are at 50%. Strong smelling maybe.
Though conservatives Coburn, Cochran, etc endorse McCain, Today's results show that the people (an often forgotten aspect of politics) vote for their choice of conservative, not a Washington insider's.
-----------------------------------------------
"It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage; that is our song. We sing it still."
-RWR January 21, 1985
It usually advances their careers ya know... The poeple could care less.
When less than 50% of the voters support a candidate, you have to worry about the eventual outcome. Maybe something is wrong with their flag bearer.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Huck gave us McCain. His presence is the reason Fred and Mitt had to drop out.
If Huckabee had not taken off, then we would be looking at a Thompson or Romney candidacy. And the sad thing to me is that Huckabee is getting some conservative vote, yet he is the least conservative of all of them. His record is liberal all the way. As for life issues, why would anyone trust someone who is 95 percent liberal to appoint conservative judges? As governor, he was pro-illegal immigration, soft on crime (against three strikes, you're out... pardoned gobs of criminals, even murderers and rapists), a tax raiser, an identitity politics guy (who pits the rich against the poor and pits social cons against fiscal cons and defense cons -- even though the only way for us to win is to come together and support all three legs of conservatism). The man is not conservative on anything really. Why would be appoint conservative justices that go against the majority of his beliefs? He loves social programs and bigger govt. He would not appoint Scalias and Alitos.
if they couldn't beat Huck, they couldn't beat Obama either
In the primaries, the conservative vote was divided between the three of them (as well as Hunter, Tancredo, etc). Huck used churches to get where he got. I doubt if the majority of his voters know the first thing about his actual record.
In the general, the conservative vote would not have been divided among several candidates. And someone like Fred who adhered to all three pillars of conservatism would have appealed to almost all republicans (and some moderate/conservative dems). He may not have been everyone's first choice, but he was almost everyone's second choice (if he wasn't their first choice). There wouldn't have been many staying at home in protest of Fred being the republican candidate. And he would have certainly looked like the wise, reasoned, experienced one next to Obama or Hillary.
Mitt appealed to all three aspects of conservatism as well, and he might have had a chance too. His biggest problems were that some of his positions were too recent and some folks hold onto a bigotry against his religion. But, I can tell you that I am a southern baptist Tennessean who would have been thrilled to vote for Romney over Huckabee or McCain. Heck, I actually did do that in the primary because Fred was already out by the time I voted. I only wish that it could have been Fred or Mitt that I will be voting for in the general, instead of McCain (or God forbid, Huckabee... though there is only a .01 percent chance of that happening).
Regardless of whether McCain is my kind of candidate though, I will still vote for him over the dems. He would give me some things of which to be proud, and the dems would give me nothing but torment. The damage that they could do with the WOT, judges, socialized medicine, etc. is more than enough to overcome my grudges against the republican candidate. Yes, he will let me down on several things, but the dems would be just as bad or even worse on those same issues.
If you think that conservatism is going to win the general election, you're sorely mistaken. Mitt would have been a disaster for everyone for a multitude of reasons, but, sadly, even Fred wouldn't have been able to pull it thorough.
It's just foolish to ignore all of the signs. Baring some freak event, every Republican candidate besides McCain would have been at a serious disadvantage in the general, and most everyone knows it. Fred, Mitt, Huckabee and Rudy were landslides waiting to happen. It's unfortunate that it has to be this way, but that's what you get with an immensely unpopular President, a drawn out war, and a serious economic downturn. Independents will win November, not base support.
I saw a poll on potential VP candidates, and Sarah Palin was ranked very high (right there with Sanford).
Any ideas on her?
and a good hunter. She would be a good VP, but untested and rather new to politics.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
... a different type of candidate on the ticket.
I think we need to be dynamic with that choice. Sanford is dynamic, but he is considered independent (maybe too dynamic for a VP choice).
It also needs to be someone who is really good at explaining why a candidacy and issues are relevent to people (this is on attribute that Huckabee has in spades) He can go to a union hall and explain why conservative policies mean greater opportunities for them, or into a black church and talk how faith based initiatives have been instrumental in fighting AIDS in Africa.
It would also be nice if it was someone from a state we don't normally win, or could be a tossup (LA, OH, MI, MO, PA) - lets be honest, if we don't win SC with or without Sanford, we're screwed.
She did look awfully good bagging that deer in her photos. They could do much worse. I just don't know if her limited experience would stand up under the spotlight. She does look to have a bright future in the party though - no time like the present.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I'd rather see if she can get re-elected Governor once, after governing as an effective conservative and maintaining that initial popularity, before we set her up to be a frontrunner next time, personally.
Same goes for Jindal. And in his case, if he's as good as we think he is, we may want him to stay where he is for at least two terms to keep the work going.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I think we need some fresh conservatives in the pool and throw out all of these long time pandering politicians.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
She was only recently elected Governor and before that she was mayor of some small town. If she gets a second term then maybe we can take another look at her.
You might not like his policies but if you watch his performance in the debates and on Colbert you have to admit that this guy has enormous natural political talent. He also wins a lot of votes, and he wins them without spending a lot of money.
Reagan had enormous political talent too and was also viewed as somebody who wasn't Presidential material. I wouldn't push the analogy too far but there are some real similarities there.
Don't underestimate this guy and don't ignore his supporters. Conservatism needs to evolve and Huck is offering one possibility for where it could go.
... he's a great political talent. To achieve what he has achieved with almost no money and little campaign organization is just incredible. But he's just not going to win the nomination this time. His time may yet come, in 2012 or 2016, but not now.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
... Huck's win in Louisiana, even though it was something of a beauty contest, just astounded me. Louisiana is a big Catholic state, and I didn't see it going for Huck in a million years. Congrats to his supporters, even though I remain convinced that this contest is effectively over and McCain is definitely the nominee.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
show 62% protestant, 32% catholic.
Protestants:
Huck 52
McCain 35
Catholics:
Huck 28
McCain 55
Huck won 27% of non-evangelicals which is higher than in the past but probably not enough to win primaries in most states. Caucuses, however, he may continue doing well in.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
...but she typically does very well in primaries.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
LA Exit Polls for the Dems show:
White (46%):
Clinton 72
Obama 26
Black (49%):
Clinton 18
Obama 82
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard