[US 2008] Primaries #11 - Super Tuesday - de uitslagen

quote:

Op woensdag 6 februari 2008 20:06 schreef Klopkoek het volgende:

[..]

Verbitterd en bekrompen? BEKROMPEN? Ik verbaas me er juist over hoe dit forum af wijkt van de rest van Nederland. Hier lijkt het politieke centrum wel 2 kilometer verderop te liggen.

quote:

Op woensdag 6 februari 2008 20:15 schreef Morendo het volgende:

[..]

Als gouverneur was hij voor Republikeinse begrippen toch 'links'? Hoe denk je anders te kunnen winnen in wellicht wel de meest 'liberal' staat van de VS. Ik weet dat links-extremisten niet bekend staan om hun inlevingsvermogen, maar probeer het tenminste.

quote:

Hillary Clinton survived a Super Tuesday scare. But there are five big reasons the former first lady should be spooked by the current trajectory of the campaign.

Longtime Clinton friends say she recognizes the peril in careening between near-death primary night experiences and small-bore victories.

Although the friends did not have details, they believe she may go ahead with the campaign shake-up she had been planning just before her surprise victory in New Hampshire.

Her team is girding for trench warfare, telling reporters that the nomination will not be decided until at least the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, if then.

Clinton aides told reporters on a conference call today that the Democratic Party’s complex delegate allocation rules mean that neither candidate is likely to take a sizable lead in the foreseeable future.

While Clinton’s campaign gloated about having the most total delegates for the cycle so far, her staff nevertheless recognizes that Super Tuesday was no triumph. Here’s why:

1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention.

And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more delegates in the 22 states.

Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates.

With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw.

Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly.

2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago.

At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone.

One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him.

This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown.

All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.

3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region.

His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters.

4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing.

He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward.

5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests.

In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine.

Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters.

Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son.

The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win.

So it couldn’t be any clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning.

quote:

Op woensdag 6 februari 2008 20:32 schreef Evil_Jur het volgende:

[..]

Niet wellicht, Massachusetts is zonder twijfel de meest liberale (Amerikaans liberaal) staat van de VS, en Romney's aanpak van healthcare daar was duidelijk links voor Amerikaanse en zeker Republikeinse begrippen. Het is moeilijk te zeggen hoe links of rechts hij nou precies is gezien zijn geflip-flop, maar als hij zegt dat hij rechts-conservatief is neem ik dat ook met een korreltje zout...

quote:

Op woensdag 6 februari 2008 20:06 schreef Klopkoek het volgende:

[..]

Verbitterd en bekrompen? BEKROMPEN? Ik verbaas me er juist over hoe dit forum af wijkt van de rest van Nederland. Hier lijkt het politieke centrum wel 2 kilometer verderop te liggen.

Nog even en alles wat collectivistischer van Ron Paul ligt wordt als links bestempeld

quote:

Op woensdag 6 februari 2008 23:12 schreef Hertog_Martin het volgende:
Ja, alleen jammer dat clinton juist in de staten met veel delegates weer favoriet is.

Maar obama heeft nog alle kans idd

Worden lange 9 maanden, als een zwangerschap

quote:

Op woensdag 6 februari 2008 20:32 schreef Evil_Jur het volgende:

[..]

Niet wellicht, Massachusetts is zonder twijfel de meest liberale (Amerikaans liberaal) staat van de VS, en Romney's aanpak van healthcare daar was duidelijk links voor Amerikaanse en zeker Republikeinse begrippen. Het is moeilijk te zeggen hoe links of rechts hij nou precies is gezien zijn geflip-flop, maar als hij zegt dat hij rechts-conservatief is neem ik dat ook met een korreltje zout...

quote:

The John McCain Conspiracy?

Feb. 5, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Weekly Standard) This column was written by Noemie Emery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a left-wing conspiracy at loose in the world, dedicated to undoing conservative governance, only the people who see it aren't sure what it is. John McCain is in it, of course, in fact he is the cause of it, as making him president is the ultimate goal. He is blamed for running, (and perhaps, for breathing), but beyond him the face of the threat is less clear. In fact, the faces are those of other conservative stalwarts, who were their heroes and brethren until - until, say, just after the Florida primary, when McCain emerged as a serious threat. These include Mike Huckabee, the once well-thought-of former Arkansas governor (and hero of the social conservative part of the movement), who unaccountably refuses to withdraw from the race on their orders; Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback, perhaps the most conservative members of the United States Senate; Jack Kemp, the supply-side Reagan enthusiast; Phil Gramm, the most conservative Republican to run in the 1996 contest; and Ted Olson, the hero of the Federalist Society, who argued and won the case of Bush vs. Gore. (They may also include the late President Reagan's widow, who, according to the Drudge Report, hearts John McCain.)

Mysteriously, these past heroes of the Heritage Foundation, CPAC gatherings, movement conservatives, and, of course, talk radio, have become the prime targets of - movement conservatives and talk radio, who in their boundless and unbridled fury seem now to have sensed in them aspects of deception and wussiness they never detected before. They are discovered in retrospect to have committed grave sins of co-and-omission that were not before evident. They are on the payroll of Moveon.org, if not of George Soros. They will never be trusted again.

Actually, they have not done a thing beyond endorsing a four-term Republican senator with a lifetime 82 percent ACU rating, but this isn't the point. The point is that the ideological right is filled with a vast, free-floating fury that can't find a target upon which to dump all this ire. At least, not one that either makes logical sense, or provides a psychologically satisfying object on which to unload all this feeling. Is it McCain himself, who refused to stay dead when they thought he was done with? Is it Mike Huckabee, who stopped Mitt Romney in Iowa, and so, as they think, drains votes from their hero? Is it Rudy Giuliani, who refused to stay in and drain votes from McCain, but had the bad taste to drop out after Florida? Is it Mitt himself, who is a bit of stiff, and whose frontrunner strategy bombed early on in the contest? Is it Fred Thompson, who refused to catch fire? Is it George Allen, who had the bad sense in 2006 to utter the damned word 'macaca,' and thus lose his once safe seat in the Senate, with which he would have been the front-runner? Is it Jeb Bush, who didn't a) endorse Romney, or b) change his name to Jeb Jones, in which case he would have been the front runner and stopped John McCain?

All this emotion, and no easy target, unless it's a 'what,' not a 'who.' Is it the calendar, that depraved little rascal, that gave McCain the gift early on of his favorite state of New Hampshire, and then tossed him Florida before the glow of his win in South Carolina wore off? (But this is the year of no-mentum.) Is it the press, which loves liberals, setting up their favorite apostate Republican, to push their agenda? (But polls show - and Democrats say - that he would be the strongest candidate against the real liberals - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - when the big race comes up in the fall.) This doesn't make sense, so it must be . . . the voters, the Republican voters, the ones on their side, they ones they court and appeal to, the ones of whom they spoke so glowingly in 2002 and 2004, some of whom were voting in the glory years of l980-l988. But blaming the voters is really too painful to mention, so it must the 'establishment' that betrayed them, the 'country club Republicans' as opposed to the genuine voice of the people, the people who always detested the great Ronald Reagan, and backed Gerald Ford - William Scranton - Nelson Rockefeller! - back in the day. And who are these nefarious 'establishment' figures who are fooling the voters by backing this sinister liberal?

Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, Phil Gramm, Ted Olson, Jack Kemp, and perhaps Richard Land, the evangelical stalwart, who turned thumbs down earlier upon Giuliani.

And so it goes on.

And so Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Ted Olson, Richard Land, and perhaps Nancy Reagan are now the worst foes of the modern conservative movement. With enemies such as these, who needs friends?

quote:

Op donderdag 7 februari 2008 08:54 schreef Klopkoek het volgende:

[..]

gaat beginnen

quote:

Op donderdag 7 februari 2008 09:39 schreef NJ het volgende:

[..]

!
Ze zijn al weken bezig, man.

quote:

Op donderdag 7 februari 2008 09:45 schreef Klopkoek het volgende:
Ze zeggen het steeds openlijker. Terwijl McCain helemaal niet links is (althans, wat ik links noem). Hij heeft bijv. tegen de verhoging van het minimumloon gestemd.

quote:

Op woensdag 6 februari 2008 12:25 schreef Monidique het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat dat mee gaat vallen.
[..]

Zeer zeker niet. Er is niemand die zegt 'oeh, Clinton of Obama is wel erg gemeen geweest, laat ik dan maar op McCain stemmen'. Wel, er zullen er ongetwijfeld wat zijn, maar het zal verwaarloosbaar zijn. Hij zal daarom dus geen lachende derde worden: het zal niet bloederig worden en als dat wel gebeurt, dan maakt het niet uit (50% -van de Democraten- stemt nu bijvoorbeeld op een kandidaat, maar 80% vindt de andere vrijwel net zo goed). Ja, je hebt het dan over onafhankelijken, maar het wordt niet bloederig.

quote:

Op donderdag 7 februari 2008 10:29 schreef Qomolangma het volgende:
Het verschil tussen Obama en Clinton lijkt nu vooral te zitten in het aantal super-gedelegeerden. Hoe gebonden is deze partij-elite eigenlijk? Ik krijg de indruk dat sommigen nu al hun voorkeur duidelijk maken om een statement te maken, maar dat niets ze verplicht ook zo te stemmen tijdens de Nationale Conventie later dit jaar.